A G E N D A. Chairperson Paul Kucera. Commission Members

Transcription

1 Residents and visitors are welcome to all meetings of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Public comments are welcome on any topic at Regular Meetings, while at Special Meetings, public comments must be limited to issues listed on the agenda. Comments may be made at any time. Individuals who wish to comment must be recognized by the Chairperson and then speak at the podium, beginning by identifying themselves by name and address. Any individual with a disability requiring a reasonable accommodation in order to participate in the meeting should contact Village Manager Jessica Frances at least five working days in advance of the next scheduled meeting at (708) ext VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING Wednesday, April 26, :00 PM Riverside Township Hall, Room 4, 27 Riverside Rd., Riverside, IL Call to Order 2. Roll Call A G E N D A Chairperson Paul Kucera Commission Members David Lesniak Theresa Pelletier Jill Mateo Adrian Mendoza Alyson Scanlon Joel Marhoul 3. Approval of Minutes: A. Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing minutes of March 22, Visitors, Petitions, Citizen Requests, and Communications: 5. Liaison Report: A. Village Board Update 6. Public Hearings and Recommendations: A. PZ17-01 Text Amendment Clarifications and Revisions to Various Sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 1. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request for Text Amendments to the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance for the following sections: (Applicability), (Building Permits), (Use and Bulk Requirement Tables/Table 4: Business District Permitted Uses), (Use Standards), (Accessory Structures and Uses), (Required Off Street Parking Spaces/Table 8), (Nonconforming Lot of Record), (Other Terms Defined), and such other conforming changes to other sections of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance as may be necessary. Petitioner: Village of Riverside. 2. DISCUSSION, MOTION AND RECOMMENDATION by Planning and Zoning Commission to the Village Board regarding the request for text amendments set forth in 6.A.1 above. 7. Old Business: 8. New Business: 9. Information: 10. Adjournment: cc: Jessica Frances, Village Manager, Doug Pollock, Village Trustee, website, Landmark, Suburban Life

2 1. Call to Order: 7:02 p.m. VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, March 22, :00 pm Riverside Township Hall, Room 4 2. Roll Call Present: Absent: Chairman Kucera Commissioner Lesniak Commissioner Scanlon Commissioner Marhoul Commissioner Mateo Commissioner Pelletier Commissioner Mendoza (arrived at 7:05) Also in attendance: CD Director Abt, Village Attorney Marrs Dr. Milad Nourahmadi, Petitioner Doug Pollock, Village Trustee 3. Approval of Minutes: A. Planning & Zoning Commission Regular Meeting minutes of January 25, 2017 A motion to approve the minutes was made by Commissioner Scanlon, second by Commissioner Marhoul. Voice vote. 4 Ayes. 2 Abstentions. Motion passed. 4. Visitors, Petitions, Citizen Requests, and Communication: A. Anthony McElligott, owner of S. Harlem Avenue and Ethel Rodriguez of the Greater Chicago Ferret Association spoke to the Commission. Mr. McElligott has a vacant unit at 3242 S. Harlem and the Greater Chicago Ferret Association is interested in leasing the space for their organization, however the zoning does not permit their use. Ms. Rodriguez stated the organization is currently located in Lyons, she stated they have been around for 30 years, they rescue ferrets that have been abandoned or abused. She stated they also provide educational programming about ferrets. She provided the commissioners with photographs of their current facility and explained that they have cages/housing for the ferrets and play areas. She stated they sleep for almost 20 hours a day, however when they are up they are very active, very curious and need human interaction/contact. She said they are all neutered and de-scented and that they non-vocal, they squeak and cluck but noise is not an issue. The organization is staffed by volunteers and their adoption hours are by appointment only typically on Thursdays, Saturdays and Sundays. Surrenders are also only done by appointment. Ms. Rodriguez stated they are submitting this information to determine the acceptability of their needs by the Village. Both Mr. McElligott and Ms. Rodriguez stated that timing is crucial. The Commissioners asked what the issue was. Director Abt explained that animal shelters

3 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 2 of 9 are not currently addressed by the zoning code and therefore the use is considered prohibited. She explained that she had spoken to both Mr. McElligott and Ms. Rodriguez and explained that a text amendment would be necessary in order to approve occupancy and a business license. This would require a public hearing by the Commissioner and ultimately adoption of the text amendment by the Village Board. Chairman Kucera explained that they should work with Staff and they would be guided through the process. Director Abt stated it would probably be helpful if any of the Commissioners have immediate concerns or reservations to bring them up so the GCFA and the property owner know if there is not a lot of support for this type of use. That way they can gage whether it is worth their while to pursue. Commissioner Lesniak noted that he was generally ok with an animal shelter in the B1 Zoning District but did not feel it was appropriate for the Central Business District. Commissioner Mendoza asked if there were any state regulations on shelters that would need to be consulted. Director Abt stated that typically any state regulations or licenses would be referenced in the use standards. For example daycares are required to be licensed by DCFS. 5. Liaison Report: A. Village Board Update Director Abt stated that the front porches text amendment was approved by the Village Board last month, and there is already a permit application in for a front porch. Upcoming items include site plan review for the new brewery, they were unable to turn plan revisions around in time to make it onto this agenda. 6. Public Hearings and Recommendations: A. PZ S. Harlem Ave. (Shining Smiles Dentistry) Sign Variation to erect a second internally illuminated wall sign that would cause the signage to exceed the maximum wall sign area permitted for the business. The proposed sign would be located on the south elevation of the multi-tenant building at S. Harlem Ave., where the Petitioner does not have business frontage. 1. PUBLIC HEARING to consider a request for a sign variation from Section (B) (Sign Controls in the B1 District: Wall Signs) of the Riverside Village Code, and from Table 2 (B1 Zoning District Sign Standards) of that same section, which state that the maximum allowed area of a wall sign is 1 square foot per lineal foot of lot frontage (or business frontage for multi-tenant buildings) with a minimum of 25 square feet and a maximum of 100 square feet. Petitioner is authorized to have 48.9 square feet of wall signage under the Code, and is proposing two (2) wall signs, each of which will be square feet in area, for a combined total of square feet. In addition, the sign proposed for the south wall of the Property is not on a wall that is part of Petitioner s business frontage in the multi-tenant building. Petitioner: Dr. Milad Nourahmadi, Shining Smiles Dentistry. Chairman Kucera called the hearing to order. Chairman Kucera read the public notice and entered into the record as Exhibit A. Director Abt gave some background. Pictures of the proposed sign and a location map were provided in the packet. The property is located at the corner of Harlem and

4 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Longcommon. The Petitioner, Shining Smiles Dentistry, is locating in2720 unit which is the northern half of the center. They are requesting a variation to allow an internally illuminated channel letter sign on the south wall of the shopping center which is not a part of their tenant space. This is in addition to the sign they are placing above their unit facing Harlem Ave. They are allowed a maximum of 48.9 sq.ft. of wall signage. The proposed signs are sq.ft. each which brings the total wall signage to sq.ft. which exceeds their maximum allotment. The table in the sign regulations states that they are allotted one sq.ft. of signage per lineal foot of business frontage for multi-tenant buildings. The south wall is not part of the petitioner s business frontage, therefore they are not permitted to install a sign on that wall. Therefore there are two parts to the variance, the one is for exceeding the maximum wall sign area allotment and the second is to install a sign on a wall that is not part of the business frontage. Director Abt noted that the standards for a sign variation are outlined in the Staff Report. She briefly read through them for the Commission and the Petitioner. Director Abt swore in the petitioner. Dr. Milad Nourahmadi introduced himself and explained that he recently purchased the property and is in the process of rehabbing it. His dentistry office is the largest unit in the building. He explained that the building is oddly shaped. The building has sort of an L shape, so this unit is set back from the street. He also explained that the former dry cleaning establishment building to the north blocks the view of their unit. He is requesting the additional signage to increase visibility for the unit that is in an odd-shaped building, is set back from the street, and is blocked by the other units in the building and the building to the north. Commissioner Mateo asked about whether the petitioner was proposing a new pole sign to increase visibility. Commissioner Scanlon asked about the existing pole sign. The Petitioner stated that they had removed the existing pole sign and were replacing the ground sign by the sidewalk with a new tenant panel monument sign for which no variation was required. He also noted that the restaurant is also being required to update their signage. The Petitioner stated he wants all the signage to have a uniform look with channel letters of similar sizes. Chairman Kucera asked how many tenants are int eh building. The petitioner stated there were 4 units total however his office and the Chinese restaurant are the only current tenants. Commissioner Mendoaza asked if there had previously been signage on the south elevation. The Petitioner stated the restaurant had previously had a sign on that wall. No one in the audience wished to comment. Commissioner Lesniak motioned to close the public hearing. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Mateo. Voice vote. All Ayes. The public hearing was closed. 2. DISCUSSION, MOTION AND RECOMMENDATION by Planning and Zoning Commission to the Village Board regarding the request for text amendments set forth in 6.A.1 above.

5 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 4 of 9 Chairman Kucera asked the Commissioners to go through the standards for sign variations and note where they make those findings. Commissioner Marhoul asked whether a sign would be allowed on that corner if this were a single tenant building. Staff stated that was correct. Commissioner Mateo questioned whether any additional signage for the other tenants would be permitted on the south elevation. The Petitioner said he would not be permitting any other signage on that wall. Staff noted that the code would allow for 50 square feet of signage on the wall so technically there was 15 square feet of available signage remaining if the owner did allow the restaurant to have a sign on that wall. Some Commissioners were not in favor of restricting the other units from having signage on that wall. Attorney Marrs was consulted if there would be issues with restricting other tenants from using that wall for signage; however it was ultimately clarified that the property owner determines where signage is permitted for the tenants and the owner must be a party to the sign permit application. The owner has stated he would not be allowing any additional signage on that wall. Commissioner Mateo noted, and many of the other Commissioners agreed, that the building is oddly shaped, and the lot was unique as the other buildings on Harlem completely face the street. Several Commissioners also agreed that the view of the unit was blocked on both sides. Commissioner Lesniak expressed concern about setting precedent and was inclined to say the monument signage on Harlem provided the additional visibility desired from Harlem and the variation was not necessary. He noted that things change and the building to the north may be torn down. Commissioner Mendoza stated that they have to deal with the present condition and currently it is being blocked by the building to the north and the southern half of the building to the south. The majority of the Commission did not see this as altering the essential character of the area since signage is permitted on that wall and felt it would not impair visibility or be detrimental to the public welfare. Commissioner Mateo motioned to recommend approval of the Petitioner s application for a variation from Section (B) of the Village Code (Sign Regulations) to install a second wall sign on the south elevation that exceeds the business s total wall sign allotment and is located on a wall that is not part of their business frontage with the condition that it be the only sign allowed on that wall. The Motion was seconded by Commissioner Marhoul. AYES: Mateo, Marhoul, Pelletier, Scanlon, Mendoza, Kucera NAYS: Lesniak Motion Passes. Chairman Kucera thanked Dr. Nourahmadi for his investment in the Village and directed him to stay in contact with Staff on when this would be on a Village Board agenda. 7. Old Business: None. 8. New Business:

6 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 5 of 9 A. Discussion on and direction to Staff regarding possible text amendments to the Zoning Code, including potential revisions to Sections (Applicability), (Building Permit), (Accessory Structures and Uses), (Permitted Encroachments), (Required Off Street Parking Spaces)/Table 8 (Required Off Street Parking), (Nonconforming Lot of Record) and (Other Terms Defined). The possible amendments include addressing inconsistencies, and making clarifications, additions, deletions and changes to the foregoing sections regarding prohibitions on the creation of additional nonconformities, the dollar amounts of work necessary to trigger building permit requirement, the applicability of accessory structure/accessory building regulations, parking requirements in the B1-TC Zoning District, revisions to the Code regarding nonconforming lots of record, including the use, transfer, conveyance, or division of lots of record held in common ownership, and additions or changes to the definitions of Lot, Zoning Lot, and Accessory Structure and Structure. Director Abt stated that over the past few years Staff and the Village Attorney have identified some areas of the Zoning Ordinance that have some inconsistencies with other ordinances that need to be clarified. Additionally as zoning cases have come before the Village, Staff has identified areas where the Zoning Ordinance could be clearer. Therefore Staff is recommending some changes to the Zoning Ordinance for the Commissions discussion. Once the Commission is comfortable with the language, the Village can prepare a notice for a public hearing on the text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Director Abt stated if the Commission is comfortable with the proposed language is able to make some very clear changes to the proposal, there is enough time to prepare a public notice for the May meeting. Chairman Kucera asked for clarification if further changes can be made at the hearing. Director Abt concurred that there is opportunity for further discussion at the hearing and the Commission can recommend approval with changes to the text. The first area that needs to be amended for clarification is the section on building permits. The Building Code states that a permit will be required when the cost of the construction, alteration, repair is more than $500, however the Zoning Ordinance states they are required when the cost of the work is more than $100. Historically the Village has followed the Building Code requirement of $500 and therefore Staff is recommending revising the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent. This amendment is to Section of the Zoning Ordinance. Director Abt noted the other option was to specifically cite the Building code section. The Commissioners recommended referencing the Building Code for when permits are required rather than having the requirement listed in multiple places allowing for inconsistencies in the future. Director Abt stated she would make that change. The second area that Staff is recommending amendments to is Accessory Structures. Section (A) refers to Accessory Structures however it specifies that it is referring to detached garages, sheds, playhouses, greenhouses, etc. These structures are actually accessory buildings. The remaining sections in reference specific requirements for various structures, the ones in subsection A are specifically for accessory buildings. Therefore Staff recommends replacing the word structure with building throughout subsection A. This will clarify that these requirements do not apply to other accessory structures such as decks, patios, etc. Staff also recommends revising the reference to Accessory Structures in Table 7 of Permitted Encroachments to Accessory

7 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 6 of 9 Buildings. Staff is also recommending that some definitions in related to Accessory Structures be revised. Staff recommends revising the definition of Accessory Structure to include accessory building as well as adding a definition of structure. Commissioner Lesniak stated that it was originally listed as Accessory Structures for a reason, because some of the structures listed were not buildings such as a gazebo, therefore he was not in favor of changing the text to accessory buildings. Director Abt stated this should help clarify that the other structures listed in B through P are not subject to the same restrictions. The Commissioners discussed further and Commissioner Lesniak felt that if something came up in the future, the Commission can address that specific item at that time rather than changing the ordinance not having any current issues. The commission was in agreement Director Abt brought up the new/revised definitions for accessory building or structure and structure. The Commission had no issues with the proposed definitions however suggested that building be removed from the definition title for accessory structure. The next area Staff is recommending revisions to are the parking regulations for the B1-TC Zoning District ( Table 8: Required Off Street Parking). The B1-C and B2 parking regulations reference a parking regulation for nonresidential however the B1-TC parking regulations reference both a nonresidential parking requirement, but also list various nonresidential uses and the parking ratios required for each of those uses. This makes it confusing as to what the parking requirements for commercial uses in the B1-TC actually are. Therefore Staff is recommending the Code be revised so the parking regulations are consistent between all the commercial districts and eliminate the specific use parking requirements (i.e. retail, restaurant, bowling alley, professional office, etc.) and leave the general nonresidential parking requirement of Nonresidential use of 3,000 square feet of gross floor area: none required. Nonresidential use above 3,000 square feet of gross floor area: 1/400 square feet of gross floor area above initial 3,000 square feet. Some Commissioners asked for clarification. Director Abt explained that the other business districts all have only one parking standard for non-residential uses, however the B1-TC district has that regulation plus parking requirements for restaurants, places of assembly, schools, professional offices, retail sales, etc. She explained that this makes it unclear which standard should be used. Staff s recommendation was to make the commercial parking consistent across all districts and therefore recommended that the additional parking standards for the different commercial/business uses be eliminated. Commissioner Marhoul asked where the B1-TC district was located. Director Abt stated it is primarily on Burlington heading west towards Delaplaine. There is also a small area on Burlington by Cowley. The Commissioners were in favor of this change. Commissioner Scanlon and Chairman Kucera asked that it be verified that this change would not inadvertently create a lot of nonconformities or negatively impact the new brewery. Director Abt stated she did not believe it would, but would verify. The fourth area Staff believes needs some clarification is to the General Applicability of the Zoning Ordinance to make it clear that a property owner cannot create nonconformity by making changes to their property or the structures on their property. Currently it states that no building or structure shall be used or occupied, erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved, enlarged or structurally altered unless it conforms to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance governing the zoning district in which it is located. Staff believes the section should be revised to explicitly prohibit any activity that would cause any existing structure not to

8 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 7 of 9 comply with the Zoning Code or that would create any parcel of land that could not be developed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. For example if someone wanted to build an addition onto their home, however the addition would be closer than 10 ft. to the detached garage, this would be a violation of the separation requirements for accessory buildings to principal buildings, however since the permit is for the principal structure, and the separation regulation applies to accessory buildings one could argue that this would not be a violation. Staff is looking to close this type of loop hole by adding the above verbiage. Staff is also looking to further clarify that divisions of land cannot create nonconformities for existing structures not just the proposed parcels of land. Commissioner Lesniak stated this is addressed in the building code, there is a requirement for a firewall. Director Abt agreed, however the zoning ordinance states that there must be a 10 ft. separation. If someone wants to build a garage closer than 10 ft. they don t have the option to just provide the fire-rated wall, they must obtain a variance, because the Zoning Ordinance is the more stringent code. However the way the applicability section is written the reverse is not the same. An addition could be proposed that is closer than 10 feet to a detached garage and provided they meet the fire-rated wall requirements, they could do that. Staff does not believe that is correct. You should not be able to create any new nonconformities on your property as a whole without obtaining a variation. Additionally you should not be able to divide your property and create non-conformities on the remaining property. The point of the amendment is to make it clear that you cannot make changes to your property that makes new non-conformities on any other part of the property. Director Abt read the proposed revision to the text and the new language regarding the division of lots. The Commissioners had no further concerns with the proposed language. Additionally, Staff believes needs clarification is in regards to Zoning Lots and Lots of Record. The current definition of a Zoning Lot is a single tract of land located within a single block, which (at the time of filing for a building permit or site plan review) is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed or built upon as a unit, under single ownership or control. Therefore, a zoning lot may or may not coincide with a lot of record. This definition puts the designation of a zoning lot in the hands of the owner or developer rather than the actual use of the property or the zoning ordinance establishing when a lot or lots become a zoning lot. Staff proposes changing the definition for zoning lot to: A single tract of land in common ownership located within a single block, which is used or occupied for any principal use, whether permitted, special or nonconforming. A "zoning lot" may or may not coincide with a "lot of record", and may consist of: (A) A single lot of record; (B) A portion of a lot of record; (C) A combination of complete lots of record; of complete lots of record and portions of lots of record; or portions of lots of record; or (D) A piece of property described by metes and bounds. Additionally Staff recommends adding a definition for lot for reference. The definition would be a parcel or tract of land. The Commissioners had no changes to recommend. Staff has also found that due to our new subdivision regulations there are a few areas in the Zoning Ordinance that need to be addressed or clarified. These include adding language about the division of lots in the General Applicability section of the Zoning Ordinance which she stated they had discussed with the general prohibitions sub section of the General Applicability and clarifying the division of Lots of Record Held In Common Ownership

9 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 8 of 9 which is located in the nonconforming section of the Zoning Ordinance. Lots of Record Held in Common Ownership. In the Nonconformities chapter of the Zoning Code there is a section on nonconforming lots of record. This section regulates existing lots of record that do not meet the lot area or lot width requirements of the zoning district they are located in and states that no nonconforming lot of record may be improved except in compliance with the section. It further states that where two or more lots of record with continuous frontage in single ownership and one or more of the lots having contiguous frontage does not meet the requirements for lot width or lot area as established by this zoning ordinance, the land so involved shall be considered to be a single undivided parcel for the purposes of this zoning ordinance. No portion of said parcel shall be used, transferred or conveyed which does not meet the lot width and lot area requirements established by this zoning ordinance. No division of the parcel shall be made which leaves the remaining lot(s) with lot width or lot area below the requirements of this zoning ordinance. No building permit shall be issued for the use of any lot, or portion of a lot transferred or conveyed in violation of this section. Staff is proposing to include the revised language from the general prohibitions in the General Applicability section of the Zoning Ordinance to this section to clarify that not only can you not sell an existing lot of record and leave a remaining lot that does not meet the lot width or lot area you also cannot create a nonconformity on the remaining lot or existing structure on the remaining lot. The new language would read: If on the effective date hereof, in situations where there are two (2) or more lots of record with continuous frontage in single ownership, and one or more of the lots having contiguous frontage does not meet the requirements for lot width or lot area as established by this zoning ordinance, the land so involved shall be considered to be a single undivided parcel for the purposes of this zoning ordinance. No portion of said parcel shall be used, transferred or conveyed which does not meet the lot width, lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, maximum building coverage or maximum impervious surfaces coverage requirements established by this zoning ordinance. No division of the parcel shall be made which leaves the remaining lot(s) with lot width, lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, maximum building coverage or maximum impervious surfaces coverage below the requirements of this zoning ordinance. Nor shall any division of the parcel be made that would cause any existing structure not to comply with the setbacks, maximum building coverage or maximum impervious surfaces coverage requirements of this zoning ordinance. No building permit shall be issued for the use of any lot, or portion of a lot, transferred or conveyed in violation of this section. Chairman Kucera asked if we are putting language in two separate areas to address the same thing with (F) and Director Abt stated there was some overlap because there is a difference between a zoning lot and a lot of record held in common ownership. Attorney Marrs stated he understands the desire to address it in one space however in this instance dealing with existing language absent major tinkering with to the entire code, this is the cleanest way to accomplish this. The Chairman deferred to what the attorney felt was prudent. Commissioner Mendoza asked if there was a difference between continuous and contiguous. Director Abt stated there is not much difference. Commissioner Mendoza asked that the language be consistent then unless there is a specific reason to use the term contiguous. Director Abt stated she would review that and make sure it was consistent in the text. The Commissioners had no further comments. Chairman Kucera stated their comments and changes were pretty clear cut. He stated this was close enough to move forward with a

10 Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes March 22, 2017 Page 9 of 9 public hearing. The Commissioners concurred. 9. Information: Director Abt stated that an issue had arose that caused Staff to realize that adult uses were not addressed by the Village s Zoning Ordinance and that some uses could just be classified as retail sales and would be permitted by right. Director Abt stated at an upcoming meeting, they will probably be discussing whether adult use regulations need to be addressed in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Marhoul asked if there are examples from other similarly small, landlocked communities without industrial areas. Director Abt stated Staff will be looking at other similar communities and how they regulate (or don t) adult uses. 10. Adjournment: Commissioner Marhoul motioned to adjourn, Commissioner Lesniak seconded. Voice vote. All ayes. Meeting adjourned at 9:02 p.m.

11 MEMORANDUM VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE Community Development To: From: CC: Re: Petitioner Chairman Kucera & Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission Sonya Abt, AICP, Community Development Director Jessica Frances, Village Manager PZ Text Amendments to Clarify Various Sections of the Zoning Ordinance Village of Riverside Request Proposed Text Amendments are to the Following Village Code Sections: (Applicability), (Building Permits), (Use and Bulk Requirement Tables/Table 4: Business District Permitted Uses), (Use Standards), (Accessory Structures and Uses), (Required Off Street Parking Spaces/Table 8), (Nonconforming Lot of Record), (Other Terms Defined), and such other conforming changes to other sections of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance as may be necessary. Specific proposed changes include, but are not limited to: Section (Applicability) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently outlines how the zoning ordinance applies within the Village and its other ordinances. The Village proposes to modify these regulations relative to the application of the Zoning Ordinance and its general prohibitions. Section (Building Permit) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently states when a building permit is required. The Village proposes to modify this section to align it with the Building Code regulations on when a permit is required. Section (Use and Bulk Requirement Tables/Table 4: Business Districts Permitted Uses) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently lists all the permitted and special uses and any related use standards for the Business Districts. The Village proposes to add references to the Drive-Through Facility Use Standards to Retail Sales Establishments: with drive-through facilities and Restaurant: with drive-through facilities, in the table. Section (C) (Use Standards/Financial Institutions With Drive-Through Facilities) provides regulations for drive-through facilities for Financial Institutions. Staff proposes amendments to this section and to make it applicable to all drive-through facilities, not just Financial Institutions. Section (A) (Accessory Structures and Uses/Accessory Structures) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently regulates Accessory Structures. The Village proposes to modify/clarify the applicability of these regulations, to add gazebos which are listed in the permitted encroachments for accessory structures, and to clarify the reference to the preservation ordinance.

12 CD Memo April 20, 2017 Page 2 of 7 Section (Required Off-Street Parking Spaces/Table 8: Required Off-Street Parking) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently lists the required off-street parking requirements for various uses. The Village proposes to remove the parking requirement for specific listed nonresidential uses in the B1-TC Zoning District and to keep just the existing general requirement for non-residential uses in order to clarify which parking requirements apply to non-residential uses in this zoning district. Section (B) (Nonconforming Lot of Record/Lots of Record Held in Common Ownership) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently regulates nonconforming lots of record. The Village proposes to modify these regulations to prevent the creation of additional nonconformities, and to otherwise align these regulations with Section and other village ordinances. Section (Other Terms Defined) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance defines other terms. The Village proposes to modify certain definitions to clarify or align with other village ordinances as well as create new definitions to clarify existing regulations related to accessory buildings and structures. Background Over the past few years Staff and the Village Attorney have identified some areas of the Zoning Ordinance that have some inconsistencies with other ordinances that need to be clarified. Additionally as zoning cases have come before the Village, Staff has identified areas where the Zoning Ordinance could be clearer. Therefore Staff is recommended some changes to the Zoning Ordinance for the Commission s discussion. At the March Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting the commission discussed the proposed changes. The Commission was generally supportive of the proposed changes however requested that accessory structures not be modified and that any changes to the parking requirements not inadvertently cause any nonconformities. Discussion The proposed text amendments are intended to clarify various areas of the code where there are inconsistencies or the lack of references. These include the following areas Building permits: The Building Code states that a permit will be required when the cost of the construction, alteration, repair is more than $500, however the Zoning Ordinance states they are required when the cost of the work is more than $100. Historically the Village has followed the Building Code requirement of $500 and therefore Staff is recommending revising the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent. This amendment is to Section of the Zoning Ordinance. The text amendment includes referencing the Building Code section where the requirements for building permits are outlined. Accessory Structures: Section (A) regulates accessory structures such as garages,

13 CD Memo April 20, 2017 Page 3 of 7 playhouses, sheds, etc. The list of structures in this section does not match the list of structures listed in the Permitted Encroachments Table, therefore Staff is recommending adding gazebos to the list in (A) to match the list in Table 7 of (Permitted Encroachments). Additionally Staff would like to clarify where the list of landmark homes can be found when it is referenced in the section. Therefore Staff is proposing to add the reference to Appendix D of Title 11 Chapter 1.-Staff is also recommending that some definitions in related to Accessory Structures be revised. Staff recommends revising the definition of Accessory Structure to remove the reference to detached structures since some accessory structures listed in are in fact attached to the building, including porches. Staff is also proposing a definition for structure since there is a definition for accessory structure as well as attached structure and detached structure. The proposed definitions: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A subordinate structure that is located on the same lot or parcel as the principal building. The use of an accessory structure shall be incidental to that of the principal building thereon. STRUCTURE: An improvement upon land, other than the land itself, the use of which requires more or less permanent location on the ground or attached to something having a permanent location on the ground, including but not limited to, buildings, fences, freestanding signs, patios and parking areas. Parking regulations for the B1-TC Zoning District ( Table 8: Required Off Street Parking): The B1-C and B2 parking regulations reference a parking regulation for nonresidential however the B1-TC parking regulations reference both a nonresidential parking requirement, but also list various nonresidential uses and the parking ratios required for each of those uses. This makes it confusing as to what the parking requirements for commercial uses in the B1-TC actually are. Therefore Staff is recommending the Code be revised so the parking regulations are consistent between all the commercial districts and eliminate the specific use parking requirements (i.e. retail, restaurant, bowling alley, professional office, etc.) and leave the general nonresidential parking requirement of Nonresidential use of 3,000 square feet of gross floor area: none required. Nonresidential use above 3,000 square feet of gross floor area: 1/400 square feet of gross floor area above initial 3,000 square feet. The Zoning Code makes exceptions for existing buildings. If they do not meet the minimum parking requirements, they are not required to come into conformance unless they are changing land uses or changing the intensity of the use. Additionally if they do not meet the parking requirements, they are not permitted to further reduce parking. The proposed clarification and switch to the general non-residential use requirement, should not have a negative impact on the existing properties in the B1-TC District.

14 CD Memo April 20, 2017 Page 4 of 7 General Applicability of the Zoning Ordinance: Staff believes needs this section requires some clarification to make it clear that a property owner cannot create nonconformities by making changes to their property or the structures on their property. Currently it states that no building or structure shall be used or occupied, erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved, enlarged or structurally altered unless it conforms with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance governing the zoning district in which it is located. Staff believes Section Applicability should be revised to explicitly prohibit any activity that would cause any existing structure not to comply with the Zoning Code or that would create any parcel of land that could not be developed in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. For example if someone wanted to build an addition onto their home, however the addition would be closer than 10 ft. to the detached garage, this would be a violation of the separation requirements for accessory buildings to principal buildings, however since the permit is for the principal structure, and the separation regulation applies to accessory buildings one could argue that this would not be a violation. Staff is looking to close this type of loop hole by adding the above verbiage. Staff is also looking to further clarify that divisions of land cannot create nonconformities for existing structures not just the proposed parcels of land. Staff is recommending that division of lots be included in the prohibition section to ensure that if lots are divided they cannot create any nonconformities either with the lots or with any existing structures. Additionally Staff proposes adding language about dividing zoning lots to the general applicability section (10-1-3) to clarify that any division of land must meet all of the bulk regulations. This will also references the Subdivision Regulations in Title 4. (F) Division of Lots: No portion of any zoning lot, whether improved or unimproved, shall be sold, granted or otherwise divided if such division will cause the lot width, lot frontage, lot area, setbacks, maximum building coverage, or maximum impervious surfaces coverage of any of the resulting parcels to be less than the minimum requirements set forth in this title for the particular zoning district in which the property is located. Any subdivision must follow the subdivision regulations of the Village of Riverside found in title 4 chapter 8 of the Municipal Code. Lots of Record Held in Common Ownership: Staff has also found that due to our new subdivision regulations there are a few areas in the Zoning Ordinance that need to be addressed or clarified. These include adding language about the division of lots in the General Applicability section of the Zoning Ordinance (addressed above) and clarifying the division of Lots of Record Held In Common Ownership. In the Nonconformities chapter of the Zoning Code there is a section on nonconforming lots of record. This section regulates existing lots of record that do not meet the lot area or lot width requirements of the zoning district they are located in and states that no nonconforming lot of record may be improved except in compliance with the section. It

15 CD Memo April 20, 2017 Page 5 of 7 further states that where two or more lots of record with continuous frontage in single ownership and one or more of the lots having contiguous frontage does not meet the requirements for lot width or lot area as established by this zoning ordinance, the land so involved shall be considered to be a single undivided parcel for the purposes of this zoning ordinance. No portion of said parcel shall be used, transferred or conveyed which does not meet the lot width and lot area requirements established by this zoning ordinance. No division of the parcel shall be made which leaves the remaining lot(s) with lot width or lot area below the requirements of this zoning ordinance. No building permit shall be issued for the use of any lot, or portion of a lot transferred or conveyed in violation of this section. Staff is proposing to include the revised language from the general prohibitions in the General Applicability section of the Zoning Ordinance to this section to clarify that not only can you not sell an existing lot of record and leave a remaining lot that does not meet the lot width or lot area you also cannot create a nonconformity on the remaining lot or existing structure on the remaining lot. The new language would read: (B) Lots Of Record Held In Common Ownership: If on the effective date hereof, in situations where there are two (2) or more lots of record with continuous frontage in single ownership, and one or more of the lots having continuous frontage does not meet the requirements for lot width or lot area as established by this zoning ordinance, the land so involved shall be considered to be a single undivided parcel for the purposes of this zoning ordinance. No portion of said parcel shall be used, transferred or conveyed which does not meet the lot width, lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, maximum building coverage or maximum impervious surfaces coverage requirements established by this zoning ordinance. No division of the parcel shall be made which leaves the remaining lot(s) with lot width, lot area, lot frontage, setbacks, maximum building coverage or maximum impervious surfaces coverage that are not in conformance with the requirements of this zoning ordinance. Nor shall any division of the parcel be made that would cause any existing structure not to comply with the setbacks, maximum building coverage or maximum impervious surfaces coverage requirements of this zoning ordinance. No building permit shall be issued for the use of any lot, or portion of a lot, transferred or conveyed in violation of this section. Staff is also proposing text amendments to the use standards for Financial Institutions with drivethrough facilities in Section (C). Currently there are no standards for restaurants or retail establishments with drive-through facilities. All drive-through facilities are either special uses or not permitted in the business zoning districts. Staff is proposing to amend the standards for financial institutions with drive-through facilities to apply to all drive-through facilities. The use standards will be changed to Drive-Through Facilities The amendment will still require banks in the B-2 district to locate their drive-throughs behind the building, however that same standard would not apply to restaurants and retail establishments outside of the B-2 Zoning District (they are prohibited uses in the B-2 Zoning District). Staff is proposing to keep the stacking requirement to 3 spaces per drive-through window or facility. Other communities have higher stacking requirements for restaurants (typically 8 stacking spaces +2 per additional window),

16 CD Memo April 20, 2017 Page 6 of 7 however based on research of industry standards, the recommended stacking varies by business model and brand. Dual lanes require less stacking per lane than a single lane. Dunkin Donuts typically requires 6 stacking spaces, while Starbucks requires a minimum of 10. Staff is also proposing to add screening, noise and lighting requirements for drive-through facilities to minimize the impact on any adjacent residences. The screening requirements would reference the landscape ordinance regulations on perimeter parking lot screening and buffer yard screening. The Business Districts Permitted Use Table (Table 4 in Section ) would also be updated to reference the use standards in (C)) for all uses with drive-through facilities. Staff also believes that clarification and changes are needed in regards to Zoning Lots and Lots of Record. The current definition of a Zoning Lot is a single tract of land located within a single block, which (at the time of filing for a building permit or site plan review) is designated by its owner or developer as a tract to be used, developed or built upon as a unit, under single ownership or control. Therefore, a zoning lot may or may not coincide with a lot of record. This definition puts the designation of a zoning lot in the hands of the owner or developer rather than the actual use of the property or the zoning ordinance establishing when a lot or lots become a zoning lot. Staff proposes changing the definition for zoning lot to: LOT, ZONING: A single tract of land in common ownership located within a single block, which is used or occupied for any principal use, whether permitted, special or nonconforming. A "zoning lot" may or may not coincide with a "lot of record", and may consist of: (A) A single lot of record; (B) A portion of a lot of record; (C) A combination of complete lots of record; of complete lots of record and portions of lots of record; or portions of lots of record; or (D) A piece of property described by metes and bounds. Additionally Staff recommends adding a definition for lot for reference. The definition would be a parcel or tract of land. Recommendation According to the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommendation and Village Board decision on any zoning amendment, is a matter of legislative discretion that is not controlled by any one standard. However, in making their recommendation and decision, the Planning & Zoning Commission and Village Board shall consider the following standards for text amendments: A. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, comfort, convenience and general welfare of the village. B. The relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant. C. The consistency of the proposed amendment with village plans.

17 CD Memo April 20, 2017 Page 7 of 7 D. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the intent and general regulations of this zoning ordinance. E. Whether the proposed amendment corrects an error or omission, adds clarification to existing requirements, or reflects a change in policy. F. That the proposed amendment will benefit the residents of the village as a whole, and not just the applicant, property owner(s), neighbors of any property under consideration, or other special interest groups, and the extent to which the proposed use would be in the public interest and would not serve solely the interest of the applicant. G. Whether the proposed amendment provides a more workable way to achieve the intent and purposes of this zoning ordinance and the village plans. H. The extent to which the proposed amendment creates nonconformities. I. The extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the overall structure and organization of this zoning ordinance. A redline version of the proposed amendments along with background material is attached for your review and consideration.

18 VILLAGE OF RIVERSIDE, ILLINOIS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given to all interested persons that a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Riverside will be held on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the business of the Planning and Zoning Commission may permit, in Room 4 of the Riverside Township Hall, 27 Riverside Road, Riverside, Illinois, to consider proposed text amendments to the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance. Application No.: PZ Petitioner: Village of Riverside Proposed Text Amendments are to the Following Village Code Sections: (Applicability), (Building Permits), (Use and Bulk Requirement Tables/Table 4: Business District Permitted Uses), (Use Standards), (Accessory Structures and Uses), (Required Off Street Parking Spaces/Table 8), (Nonconforming Lot of Record), (Other Terms Defined), and such other conforming changes to other sections of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance as may be necessary. Specific proposed changes include, but are not limited to: Section (Applicability) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently outlines how the zoning ordinance applies within the Village and its other ordinances. The Village proposes to modify these regulations relative to the application of the Zoning Ordinance and its general prohibitions. Section (Building Permit) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently states when a building permit is required. The Village proposes to modify this section to align it with the Building Code regulations on when a permit is required. Section (Use and Bulk Requirement Tables/Table 4: Business Districts Permitted Uses) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently lists all the permitted and special uses and any related use standards for the Business Districts. The Village proposes to add references to the Drive-Through Facility Use Standards to Retail Sales Establishments: with drive-through facilities and Restaurant: with drive-through facilities, in the table. Section (C) (Use Standards/Financial Institutions With Drive-Through Facilities) provides regulations for drive-through facilities for Financial Institutions. Staff proposes amendments to this section and to make it applicable to all drive-through facilities, not just Financial Institutions. Section (A) (Accessory Structures and Uses/Accessory Structures) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently regulates Accessory Structures. The Village proposes to modify/clarify the applicability of these regulations, to add gazebos which are listed in the permitted encroachments for accessory structures, and to clarify the reference to the preservation ordinance _2

19 Section (Required Off-Street Parking Spaces/Table 8: Required Off-Street Parking) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently lists the required off-street parking requirements for various uses. The Village proposes to remove the parking requirement for specific listed non-residential uses in the B1-TC Zoning District and to keep just the existing general requirement for non-residential uses in order to clarify which parking requirements apply to non-residential uses in this zoning district. Section (B) (Nonconforming Lot of Record/Lots of Record Held in Common Ownership) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance currently regulates nonconforming lots of record. The Village proposes to modify these regulations to prevent the creation of additional nonconformities, and to otherwise align these regulations with Section and other village ordinances. Section (Other Terms Defined) of the Village of Riverside Zoning Ordinance defines other terms. The Village proposes to modify certain definitions to clarify or align with other village ordinances as well as create new definitions to clarify existing regulations related to accessory buildings and structures. The above application is available for inspection at the office of the Village Clerk, 27 Riverside Road, Riverside, Illinois During the Public Hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission will hear testimony from and consider any evidence presented by persons interested to speak on these matters. Persons wishing to appear at this hearing may do so in person or by attorney or other representative and may speak for or against the proposed text amendments. Communications in writing in relation thereto may be filed at such hearing or with the Planning & Zoning Commission in advance by submission to the Village s Building Department at 27 Riverside Road, Riverside, Illinois prior to 4:00 p.m. the day of the public hearing. The Public Hearing may be continued from time to time without further notice, except as otherwise required under the Illinois Open Meetings Act. Dated this 5th day of April, Paul Kucera, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission _2

20

21