Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLAN COMMISSION - 07/07/1999 - STORAGE SHEDS/SEXUALLY ORIENTED BUSINESS ELK GROVE VILLAGE Plan Commission Minutes July 7, 1999 Present: J. Glass, Chairman P. Ayers C.Henrici D.Paliganoff D. Sokolowski 9FCF T. Thompson E Absent: F. Geinosky A�6 I g/V199g K. Zizzo Vl[[AGE CLERK'S Off OE JPZ Members: N. Czarnik C.Procbno S. Lissner Staff: P.Vadopalas,Assistant to the Village Manager G.Knickerbocker,Village Attorney S. Trudan, Assistant Director of Community Development Chairman Glass called the meeting to order at 8:10 p.m. Item 1: Approval of Minutes Commissioner Meyers moved and Commissioner Ayers seconded a motion to approve the minutes from the May 21, 1999 Plan Commission meeting. Upon voting,the motion carried unanimously (Glass,Ayers,Henrici,Meyers,Paliganoff, Sokolowski,Thompson, AYES; Geinosky,Zizzo, ABSENT). Item 2: Storage Sheds Text Amendment Chairman Glass read the public notice into the record and stated the Plan Commission would be considering three text amendments to the Village Zoning Ordinance: 1. Amend Section 3-6:D.2 establishing a maximum height of 15 feet for all detached accessory structures; 2. Establish separate regulations for the location of storage sheds on properties; and 3. Establish regulations controlling the location of sexually oriented businesses in the village. S. Trudan explained the purpose of the proposed amendments to regulate the location of storage sheds on private property. Trudan explained the change in household storage needs and storage shed design over the years. While sheds have historically been considered portable structures,they have grown in size and permanence over time. Large,wooden sheds are in common use today, are not portable,and have created problems for utilities when located on easements. Trudan explained that to address this problem the Village developed regulations for all detached accessory structures,permitting them to be located a minimum of 60 feet from the front lot line, and a minimum of six feet from side and rear lot lines,unless otherwise prohibited by easements or covenants. The adoption of these regulations created an increasing number of variation requests, and the proposed text amendment is intended to provide more permissive regulations for storage sheds and allow residents better use of their yard space. Trudan stated the suggested revision creates a definition for storage sheds and limits their size, height,and location. In addition,the minimum allowable distance from the rear and side lot lines is decreased from six feet to two feet,which is sufficient for maintaining sheds and the ground around them. Chairman Glass questioned how the revised language would resolve the problem of people building sheds on utility easements. Trudan explained that locating sheds on easements would still be prohibited,and that property owners can still pursue permission from utilities to encroach onto easements in their yards. In those cases where utility easements are not located in the rear yard, a property owner would be able to locate a storage shed two feet from the rear or side lot line. Chairman Glass noted that the rear lot line is the most common location for utility easements. Trudan agreed and stated the biggest change in the proposed revision is to limit the allowable height of storage sheds. Commissioner Meyers stated the ordinance should be amended to resolve aesthetic problems with property owners locating storage sheds in side or front yards, and questioned whether flooding impact is considered when Village staff reviews applications for permits to construct sheds. Trudan stated that the two feet is a standard used by the Engineering Division in reviewing plans for driveways,and that two feet is generally an acceptable"rule of thumb"distance from property lines. Commissioner Meyers questioned what the maximum allowable square footage would be for storage shed size. Trudan stated 150 square feet is the allowable maximum. Commissioner Meyers questioned why 15 feet was chosen as a maximum allowable height. Trudan stated 15 feet is a typical height for a garage with a gable roof measured from grade to the peak. Commissioner Henrici suggested that the phrase"top of structure"in the last sentence of the proposed text should be revised to read"the highest point'to minimize disagreement about where the"top" of a structure ends. Commissioner Ayers suggested that rather than a 60-foot setback from the front lot line,storage sheds should be restricted to be located no closer to the front line than parallel with the rear foundation line of the home. Commissioner Sokolowski stated that 15 feet is too high for a storage shed and the maximum allowable height should be no more than 10 or 12 feet. Commissioner Paliganoff asked for examples of how other municipalities regulate the size and location of storage sheds. Trudan stated Hoffman Estates permits storage sheds within three feet of the rear and side lot lines,and that Schaumburg permits sheds to be built 12 or 15 feet in height. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned the number of variations requested for storage sheds each year. Trudan responded that one or two are received each year, and the text revisions are intended to prevent any future problems. Commissioner Meyers stated that for some lots in the village,the 60-foot setback from the front lot line would allow a storage shed to be located in front of or on the side of the house. The Village Attorney stated that the 60 foot setback is a stringent requirement for most residential lots in the village, and the text could be written to permit the location of a shed behind the rear foundation line or at least 60 feet from the front lot line,whichever is greater. Chairman Glass polled the Commission on the 15-foot height restriction(Glass,Henrici,Paliganoff, Thompson,AYES,Ayers,Meyers, Sokolowski,NAYES). The consensus of the Plan Commission was to maintain the 15 foot height restriction,direct staff to determine if the rear foundation line would provide a better guideline than the suggested 60 foot setback from the front lot line,and continue the discussion after staff has an opportunity to further look into the matter. Item 2—Sexually Oriented Businesses Ordinance G.Knickerbocker stated research had been done on zoning and constitutional issues regarding the regulation of sexually oriented businesses. Under the Village's existing zoning ordinance,such businesses could locate in the community,and the draft ordinance seeks to control their location. Knickerbocker stated a prohibition of such uses is unconstitutional. Knickerbocker stated the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota issued a report on the impact of sexually oriented businesses and the issues involved in creating regulations of them. The adverse impact of such businesses is discussed in the report and noted the adverse impact is important in justifying the suggested regulations. Commissioner Henrici stated the study done in Indianapolis does not prove that sexually oriented businesses cause neighboring property values to depreciate as convincingly as a similar study conducted in St.Paul,Minnesota. The St.Paul study should be referenced in the ordinance instead of the Indianapolis study. Knickerbocker stated that the ordinance also defines 11 types of sexually oriented businesses, anatomical areas,and activities to clearly present what issues are being addressed in the regulations. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned how showing an"R"rated film would be addressed in the proposed regulations. Knickerbocker responded that a theater showing an"R"rated film would not fall under the definition of sexually oriented business. He stated that regulations must be content neutral or else the Village would have to prosecute obscenity. Prosecution of a film showing would be content oriented. Knickerbocker re-iterated the proposed ordinance is regulation as opposed to prohibition,designed to minimize adverse impacts on the community. Commissioner Sokolowski asked for an explanation of why 25%of gross monthly revenues is used as part of the definition of sexually oriented business. Knickerbocker stated that from findings from case history, some measure of business activity is needed to provide a sound argument that a business is in fact sexually oriented. He noted that Elk Grove TV and Video defined their business as a wholesale use in court. Commissioner Meyers questioned why the JPZ chose to locate sexually oriented businesses east of Busse Road and south of Landmeier Road. Knickerbocker responded that this area is the most logical section to direct such uses. Sexually oriented businesses are a retail use and sufficient locations for retail activity exist in this area. In addition,this area places businesses as far from residential districts as possible. Commissioner Ayers stated that limiting any business to B-2 and B-3 zoned properties in this area realistically provides four or five locations,and of those locations,none would be large enough to accommodate a business the size of Heavenly Bodies. Knickerbocker stated that this area provides a reasonable opportunity to any sexually oriented business seeking a location in Elk Grove. In addition,other properties could be rezoned to accommodate a retail use,and denying a rezoning is defendable. Knickerbocker further noted that the Village does not have a responsibility to seek available locations so long as a potential exists for such use in the future. Commissioner Ayers stated that the report from the Minnesota Attorney General noted an increased impact when sexually oriented businesses are located near bars,and questioned whether bars should be addressed in the ordinance. Knickerbocker stated that no bars exist in Elk Grove since liquor licenses are only related to full service restaurants. Commissioner Thompson questioned why the ordinance restricted sexually oriented businesses to not locate within 500 feet of schools and parks,and whether 1000 feet would be too restrictive. Knickerbocker stated that 1000 feet had been defended in other cases,but the JPZ Committee felt that 500 feet was sufficient. An ordinance requiring 1000 feet would prohibit any locations on Busse Road altogether. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned whether the ordinance only prevents future movement into the village or whether it applies to existing businesses. Knickerbocker stated he has no knowledge of any viable sexually oriented business within the Village's jurisdiction today. Commissioner Paliganoff questioned whether this ordinance might be challenged in the future. Knickerbocker stated it may be challenged,but it would be easier to defend from future businesses than it would from existing businesses. Knickerbocker noted the regulation would be easier to enforce before any sexually oriented business locate in the village as opposed to taking retroactive action against existing businesses. While the Village cannot prohibit such uses altogether,the Village can address the negative impacts of such uses on neighboring property owners and make an effort to regulate their location. Chairman Glass noted that the congregation of such uses would become especially problematic. Commissioner Henrici motioned to recommend approval of the proposed ordinance with the following modifications: To replace the reference to the Indianapolis study with the St. Paul study; and • To explicitly state that the designated section of the village is the only permitted location for sexually oriented businesses. Commissioner Paliganoff seconded the motion. Upon voting,the motion carried unanimously (Glass, Ayers,Henrici,Meyers, Paliganoff, Sokolowski,Thompson,AYES, Geinosky,Zizzo ABSENT). Adjournment: Chairman Glass moved and Commissioner Henrici seconded the motion to adjourn. Chairman Glass adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Peel. Vad (fs Assistant to the Village Manager C: Chairman and Members of the Plan Commission,President and Board of Trustees,Village Clerk,Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager,Assistant to the Village Manager, Administrative lntem,Director of Engineering/Community Development,Director of Public Works,Fire Chief,Deputy Fire Chief(2),Assistant Fire Chief,Village Attorney.