HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-2-28 PZB Meeting MinutesCase 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
February 28, 2023
DRAFT MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on
Tuesday, February 28, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
Chair Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and roll call was established.
PRESENT: Weaver, Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Veremis, Szabo
ABSENT: Fowler (arrived at 7:05)
ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Stytz, Senior Planner
Samantha Redman, Associate Planner
Margie Mosele, CED Executive Assistant
A quorum was present.
Call to Order and Roll Call
Approval of Minutes: January 24 ,2023
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Veremis to
approve the meeting minutes of January 24, 2023
AYES: Weaver, Veremis, Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Szabo
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM
Janella Curtis from Clear Channel – introducing themselves to the board. Clear Channel has lots
of inventory in Des Plaines and Ms. Curtis manages the community messaging on the boards.
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
2
Applications
1. Address: Citywide Case Number: 23-002-TA
The petitioner is requesting text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance related to definitions and
regulations for fencing, screening, trellises, and other similar yard features; permitting
requirements for obstructions in required yards; and any other amendments or relief as may be
necessary.
PIN: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: #23-002-TA
Project Summary: The City of Des Plaines is applying for zoning text amendments to
create definitions and clarify regulations for fences, arbors,
trellises, and yard features.
Update: Staff has revised the proposed amendments per guidance from the PZB on January 10,
2023, as well as based on research on the dimensions of arbors and trellises available at home
goods and improvement stores such as Menards and Home Depot (see Attachments). The original
amendments required trellises to be separated by a minimum of one foot from all structures,
including fences, arbors, and other trellises. However, the PZB discussed issues with the
practicality of this requirement for the maintenance and vitality of landscaping and gardens. Staff
proposes revised amendments that allow trellises to abut fences and other structures – in other
words, trellises could be directly next to other structures - but must remain freestanding, meaning
they cannot be attached to any other structures or rely on them for support.
Further, a minimum six-foot separation is proposed between trellises to prevent potential conflict
with the existing rule that prohibits abutting fences on the same property; the setback would
prevent a continuous line of trellises that could function as a fence placed against an existi ng
fence. In addition, the PZB suggested regulating trellis width to provide control over the amount
and size, which has been incorporated into the proposed amendments. The proposed maximum
width is 8 feet.
Finally, while the proposed amendments would still limit the height of trellises in the required
front or corner side yards to 4 feet and in the required interior side or rear yards to 6 feet, it is now
proposed that within the buildable area – or the portion of a lot not in a required yard, generally
in the center of the lot – the maximum trellis height would be 8 feet, as it is in existing rules. It is
worth highlighting that where a latticework is not freestanding but leaning against or attached to
another structure, such as a house, the proposed amendments intend not to define the latticework
as a trellis. In those instances, its height, width, and all other limitations would be the same as the
structure upon which it relies for support.
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
3
Issue: Consider the following Zoning Ordinance amendments: (i) add the terms “Fence”,
“Trellis” and “Arbor” and revise the term “Yard Features” in Section 12-13-3; (ii) amend yard
feature regulations in Section 12-7-1.C to create separate regulations for trellis, arbor and yard
features; (iii) add Section 12-8-14: Arbors and Trellises to create regulations for arbors and
trellises.
Background
In 2022 City staff encountered multiple instances where property owners erected structures
attached or close to fences that were challenging to define and extended above the allowable fence
height. Ambiguity ensued on how to define the structures by the fence: Are they part of the fence?
Separate? How tall are they allowed to be? Can they be solid or do they need to be partially
open? Complicating the decision is the fact there is no term definition for fence in the Zoning
Ordinance.
In lieu of clear, specific definitions for fences, trellises and similar structures, staff relied on the
normal dictionary definition, as instructed by Section 12-13-1.A. Section 12-7-1.C allows trellises
to be a maximum of eight feet tall and minimum one foot from the property line. However, staff
seeks to resolve issues with the fence, arbor, trellis, and yard feature regulations to ensure the
intent of the requirements are met and structures that have been recently confused are henceforth
accurately defined.
Fences are currently regulated in height, opacity, and location for both residential and
nonresidential properties. Broad dictionary definitions for terms like “fences” are often too
general to be applied to the variety of scenarios planners and zoning administrators face. For
example, Merriam Webster dictionary defines fence as, “a barrier intended to prevent escape or
intrusion or to mark a boundary.” However, fences can have a variety of purposes within a city,
including delineating boundaries, creating enclosures on property for people, animals and
equipment, and providing screening to support an aesthetically pleasing environment for residents
and businesses.
Nonetheless, the fence regulations have remained relatively consistent since adopted in the
original 1998 Zoning Ordinance, even without an expressed definition. Amendments over the
years have included permitting eight-foot-tall fences on properties abutting railroad rights of way
and adding regulations for dog runs. The most substantial amendments occurred in 2019 and
included placing restrictions on abutting fences, as well as adding the “corner side” yard definition
and attendant rules.
Section 12-8-2 regulates height, setbacks, location, and appearance of fencing. Staff most
commonly receives questions about the height and opacity of fencing for properties from residents
seeking to alter an existing fence or erect a new fence. Generally side and rear yards are permitted
to have a six-foot-tall fence, if located outside of the 10-foot sight triangle of an alley, driveway,
or street. Fencing in the front yards can be a maximum of four-foot-tall and cannot be less than
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
4
50 percent open. For corner lots, the corner side yard (along the longest side fronting a street)
cannot be taller than four feet and can be open or solid. The intent of the shorter fencing in areas
visible from the street is to create a more cohesive, inviting neighborhood, allowing for the display
of landscaping and preventing the appearance of a walled community.
Examples from Other Municipalities and Existing Trends
Examples from other municipalities were used to shape the suggested amendments. Fence, trellis,
and arbor definitions from twenty-two (22) municipalities of the Northwest Municipal
Conference (NWMC) were collected and compared (refer to attached Fence Definitions of Other
Communities). In particular, definitions from Barrington, Lincolnwood, Mount Prospect, Niles,
and Northfield were used to shape the definitions. The majority of other zoning ordinances include
a definition of fence and regulate the location, height, and/or materials (18 out of 22). Several
communities (eight out of 22) also define trellises and arbors and/or regulate the location, height,
and materials.
Proposed dimensions of trellises and arbors were selected by evaluating existing products
available at various hardware stores. Refer to Analysis of Average Dimensions of Arbors and
Trellises attachment for details.
Proposed Amendments
The full proposed amendments are attached and are summarized below:
• Section 12-13-3, Definition of Terms
o Added or revised definitions for:
▪ Fence
▪ Trellis
▪ Arbor
▪ Yard Feature
• Section 12-7-1.C – Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards
o Arbors and trellises added to table with applicable setbacks from lot lines
and other structures:
▪ Arbors permitted at lot line of front and corner side yards and one
foot away from the lot line at side and rear lot lines.
▪ Trellises permitted in front and corner side yards if they do not
exceed 4 feet in height and do not encroach more than 5 feet into
the front and corner side yards; may be 6 feet tall in side and rear
yards.
▪ Footnote 3 removed regarding when a permit is required for
recreational equipment and yard features. A separate amendment to
the Local Amendments to the adopted Building Code (Section 10-
1-2 of City Code) will be submitted to clarify work exempt from
permit; the Zoning Ordinance is not the correct location to regulate
what construction requires a permit.
• Section 12-8-14 – Arbor and Trellis Regulations
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
5
o New section added to regulate arbors and trellises on zoning lots generally,
not just in required yards. This new section includes restrictions on:
▪ Size (height and width)
▪ Material
▪ Quantity (arbors only)
▪ Minimum separation
Standards for Text Amendments:
The following is a discussion of standards for zoning amendments from Section 12-3-7.E of the
Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposed amendments would satisfy the standards is
provided. The PZB may use the statements below as its rationale or adopt its own.
1. Whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the City
Council.
The Comprehensive Plan calls for the preservation and enhancement of residential and non -
residential properties. The proposed amendments serve to clarify fencing and yard feature
regulations, encouraging cohesive, aesthetically pleasing and welcoming neighborhoods and
corridors.
PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________
2. Whether the proposed amendments are compatible with current conditions and the
overall character of existing development;
The amendments clarify fence and other yard feature regulations to ensure the intent of the
existing fence rules are met, provide clearer direction on the height, materials, and location of
yard features. The proposed definitions match current trends in the size and materials of trellises
and arbors per staff’s research with several hardware and landscaping stores. The additions to
the encroachment table in Section 12-7-1.C and adding Section 12-8-14 regarding arbors and
trellises support the fence regulations in Section 12-8-2 by removing ambiguity about the
ability to use other yard features to serve as an extension of a fence. Overall, the proposed
amendments provide clarity to other sections of the Zoning Ordinance, which are the agreed
upon regulations used to control the character and development patterns of properties in the
city.
PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________
3. Whether the proposed amendments are appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available;
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
6
The proposed amendments will not have an impact on public facilities or services. The
amendments refine existing regulations for fences and yard features and will not result in
development necessitating additional services.
PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________
4. Whether the proposed amendments will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction; and
The proposed amendments remove ambiguity regarding the location, height, and materials of
fence and other yard features, creating certainty about appearance and scale of yard features
and providing a cohesive appearance for residents, business owners and visitors. Regulating
the allowable materials serves to ensure fences, arbors and trellises would be constructed of
high quality, durable components, and the additions to Section 12-7-1.C and new Section 12-
8-14 provide assurance that the scale of any yard features will not create a nuisance to
neighborhoods, allowing for sufficient natural light and encouraging an inviting and
aesthetically pleasing appearance of properties.
PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________
5. Whether the proposed amendments reflect responsible standards for development and
growth.
The proposed amendments provide clarity and reduce ambiguity regarding allowable height,
materials and location of fence and yard features of properties, supporting the intent of the
existing Zoning Ordinance to create responsible and harmonious development and growth
within the city. There is no anticipated negative effect on development or growth with the
proposed amendments.
PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________
Samantha Redman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report which includes the revised
proposed amendments using the guidance of the PZB on January 10, 2023. The revised
proposed amendments allow a trellis to be adjacent to other structures, except other trellises.
Trellises are proposed to be required to be free-standing. To avoid creating a fence, trellises are
proposed to be at least 6 feet from other trellises. Trellis heights vary depending on location on
the property.
Samantha explained that the proposed amendments included added or revised definitions for 12-
13-3, for Fence, Yard Feature, Arbor and. Trellis.
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
7
Proposed Fence definition- A structure used as a barrier or boundary to enclose, divide,
or screen a piece of land. This term shall include fences, walls, and other structural or
artificial barriers that function as a wall or a fence. For the purposes of this Title, a
"fence" shall not include arbors, trellises, or naturally growing shrubs, bushes, and other
foliage. Fences shall be made of wood, vinyl, metal, masonry, or combination thereof.
Height shall be measured from the immediately adjacent finished grade to the highest
point of the fence.
Proposed Yard Feature definition. - Objects and features, including gazing balls, bird
baths, statues, wishing wells, ornamental lights, and other similar features, intended to
be used for aesthetic purposes.
Proposed Arbor definition - A freestanding, doorway-type structure comprised of two
sides attached by an arched or flat top, intended for aesthetic purposes, and typically
located adjacent to gardens, landscaping, walkways, or entryways. Height shall be
measured from the immediately adjacent finished grade to the highest point of the arbor.
Proposed Trellis definition - A freestanding structure with latticework intended
primarily to support vines or climbing plants. Height shall be measured from the
immediately adjacent finished grade to the highest point of the trellis.
Ms. Redman discussed diagrams showing yards with the proposed trellis, arbor, yard feature
and fence regulations. Examples from other municipalities were used to arrive at the definitions
and regulations, many of which were stricter than what is currently proposed.
Member Weaver asked if the regulations would be for the whole property or just the yards. Ms.
Redman and Jonathan Stytz, Senior Planner, explained that we are looking to update two
sections of the code. The first is 12-7-3-C which talks about permitted obstructions in the
required yard which includes, front, rear, side and corner side yards. The other is 12-8-14 –
regulations for Trellis and Arbors located anywhere on the property.
Member Fowler asked about grape arbors and showed a picture. Mr. Stytz stated, for the
purposes of the amendments, an arbor would be considered an accessory structure. The structure
Member Fowler showed looks more like a pergola rather than a trellis. One of the reasons
amendments are proposed is so we can have a specific definition for arbors, trellises, and
fences.
Member Weaver said that he found four statements that discuss why these amendments are
proposed, including:
1. The proposed amendments serve to clarify fencing and yard feature regulations,
encouraging cohesive, aesthetically pleasing and welcoming neighborhoods and
corridors.
2. The proposed amendments provide clarity to other sections of the Zoning Ordinance,
which are the agreed upon regulations used to control the character and development
patterns of properties in the city.
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
8
3. Regulating the allowable materials serves to ensure fences, arbors and trellises would be
constructed of high quality, durable components, and the additions to Section 12-7-1.C
and new Section 12-8-14 provide assurance that the scale of any yard features will not
create a nuisance to neighborhoods, allowing for sufficient natural light and encouraging
an inviting and aesthetically pleasing appearance of properties.
4. The proposed amendments provide clarity and reduce ambiguity regarding allowable
height, materials and location of fence and yard features of properties, supporting the
intent of the existing Zoning Ordinance to create responsible and harmonious
development and growth within the city.
Member Weaver asked at what point does the fence violate a community standard or
community concern- sometimes a fence height can be a safety issue, as communicated by
police. This is a security reason to limit the fence height. Mr.Stytz stated that yes safety is one
of the reasons for fence height.
Chair Szabo stated that a six-foot fence seems like its universal and it gives some people a sense
of privacy in their yards. He asked if people are trying to circumvent the 6-foot height
regulation. Staff communicated that yes, people are trying to circumvent the rules with the
existing regulations. Ms. Redman stated that the proposed regulations and definitions would not
allow a trellis to be placed on top of fences to increase the height of the fence. In terms of have
community standards, it is in the interest of the urban design of the community to not have a
walled off city.
Ms. Redman stated that the board would be making a motion to approve, approve with
modifications or deny the proposed amendments:
1. Create definitions for Fence, Arbor, Trellis and Yard Features in Section 12-13-3.
2. Provide regulations for arbors, trellises and yard features in Section 12-7-1.C – Permitted
Obstructions in Required Yards.
3. Add Section 12-8-14 – Arbor and Trellis Regulation
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano seconded by Board Member Fowler to
recommend that the City Council approves the amendments as presented.
AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Veremis, Weaver, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
9
2. Address: 1378 Margret Street Case Number: 22-055-APPEAL
The subject of the appeal is a Zoning Administrator determination that a structure erected in 2022
at 1378 Margret Street is a trellis and subject to the rules of the Zoning Ordinance regarding
trellises.
PIN: 09-20-314-012-0000
Petitioner: Jennifer Toner, 1368 Margret Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner: Patrick and Val Howe, 1378 Margret Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Because the PZB on Tuesday, February 28, 2023, began consideration of zoning text
amendments related to fences, trellises, and arbors, staff has requested and the attorney for the
petitioner (appellant) has agreed to continue the appeal hearing to the Board’s regular meeting
of Tuesday, April 11, 2023. The PZB’s Rules of Procedure (Section 6.06) states that
continuances in these circumstances “…shall be granted…,” so I recommend the Board grant
this request, which is attached.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Petitioner’s Email Agreeing to Continue Hearing
Attachment 2: Excerpt from PZB Rules of Procedure
Attachment 3: Public Comment Received January 18, 2023
Mr. Howe from 1378 Margret asked when the appeal will be continued until since he is the
owner of the property and believes it has been continued a number of times. He said he has
cleared his schedule and it keeps getting continued.
Samantha Redman, Associate Planner said that the Petitioner along with the City Attorney have
been consulted to get the case continued.
Member Vermis asked if the reason the case is continued is based on the change in the text
amendments.
Ms. Redman stated the appeal case is interested in final outcome of the text amendment to
decide how to proceed with the appeal.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano to
continue Case 22-055-APPEAL to April 11, 2023.
AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Fowler, Weaver, Veremis, Hofherr, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
Case 23-002-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-055-Appeal 1378 Margret Appeal
10
ADJOURNMENT
The next scheduled Planning & Zoning Board meeting is Tuesday March 14, 2023.
Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 7:48 p.m.
Sincerely,
Margie Mosele, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners