Village of Northbrook Plan Commission Joint Plan Commission and ACC met Feb. 16.
Here is the minutes provided by the commission:
I. Call to Order
| Attendee Name | Title | Status | Arrived |
| Steven Elisco | Commissioner | Present | |
| Jeff Sandler | Commissioner | Present | |
| Jeremy Melnick | Commissioner | Present | |
| Mark DeBartolo | Commissioner | Present | |
| Ihab Riad | Commissioner | Present | |
| Allen Morgen | Commissioner | Present | |
| Amy Torf | Commissioner | Present | |
| Laura Collins | Commissioner | Absent | |
| Marcia Franklin | Chairman | Present | |
| Michaela Kohlstedt | Director | Remote | |
| Chan Yu | Deputy Director | Present | |
| Swati Pandey | Planner | Remote |
Commissioner DeBartolo moved to approve the January 19 minutes as presented. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Riad. On voice vote, all were in favor.
III. Community Planning Report
Michaela Kohlstedt, Director reported Commissioner Collins has resigned from the Plan Commission and submitted a resignation letter. The Village Board will appoint a new Plan Commission Member at the next Board of Trustees meeting. The Climate Action Plan Team is reviewing action items for adoption into the final plan. The action items were rated by the following: community support, financial feasibility and cost benefits. Two meetings have been scheduled to discuss the action items (March 1, 2021 and March 8, 2021). During the March 8, 2021 meeting, action items will be assigned to Village departments or other agencies.
Commissioner Elisco commented he anticipates the action items will be accepted by the community. The action items will require lots of education and incentives for acceptability. Currently, they are working on creating a plan to move the action items forward.
Commissioner Sandler requested an update on the 7-11 gas station at Shermer & Techny. Ms. Kohlstedt responded the project was approved by the Board of Trustees and the applicant applied for a demo permit. Furthermore, the same applicant requested relief for a 7-11 gas station & car wash on Shermer & Waukegan. The Board requested modifications to the applicants’ request, which the applicant then withdrew the request. In addition, the applicant discontinued the project on Shermer & Techny. The Village reached out to the applicant regarding the Techny and Shermer site, at which point the applicant stated they will no longer be pursuing the 7-11 at that location either and they will complete demolition in the spring.
Commissioner Sandler requested an update on the bus depot project. Ms. Kohlstedt responded the project was approved and the permits were issued. The applicant is resolving engineering and site work issues. She will follow-up with the applicant to determine why they are not operating. The Village is waiting to receive recording documents from Cook County.
IV. Hear from the Audience
V. New Business
1. Zoning Code Text Amendment Proposal for Floor Area Ratio Calculation
Michaela Kohlstedt, Director discussed the Zoning Code text amendment proposal for floor area ratio (FAR) calculation. The topic was previously discussed by the Architectural Control Commission (ACC) during its regular meetings in November and December of 2020, and January 2021. Following those discussions, their recommendations were presented to the Board of Trustees as a preliminary review on January 26, 2021. The Zoning Code defines what is and is not included in FAR.
The following are excluded:
1. cellar floors;
2. attic floors, regardless of the clear ceiling height;
3. decks and patios;
4. open, unenclosed porches, not exceeding eight feet in depth;
5. chimneys projecting not more than two feet from an exterior wall;
6. bay windows projecting not more than three feet from an exterior wall for a distance not more than 1/3 of the length of such wall provided that such projections shall come entirely within planes drawn from the main corners of the building at an interior angle of 45 degrees with the wall in question; and
7. the first 200 square feet of accessory storage structures other than garages, when authorized pursuant to Paragraph 9-101 D1 of this Code.
The term "attic" is not defined in the Zoning Code and the intent was to exclude "unfinished" attic space from FAR. Overtime, two different Zoning Code interpretations were issued to try and clarify what constitutes an "unfinished attic". Currently, homes are being built to the maximum FAR (40%) and areas are set aside as "unfinished attic space". Since homes are often at the maximum FAR, these spaces cannot be legally converted to finished areas. In 2015, the Zoning Code was amended to allow the staff to approve increases in the maximum floor area ratio by up to five percent (5%) or 300 square feet of floor area, whichever is less, for a residence that has been constructed and occupied for at least five (5) years.
This was approved in an effort to allow modest-sized expansions of FAR for existing homes. The Architectural Control Commission (ACC) has been studying how to address the longstanding problem of homes being built with an unfinished attic and due to the FAR limits, homeowners have been unable to legally finish the space to make it habitable. The Village staff compiled a summary of how other communities in the area have addressed "bulk" restrictions. On January 14, 2021, staff presented the following additional information to the ACC specific to single family home construction in Northbrook and the resulting FAR level of those homes. Following a review of all new homes built between 2017-2020, it was noted that of the 121 homes, 56 of them were above 39% in FAR.
Of those 56 homes, all of them were in the R-4 and R-5 districts, but only six (6) of those were on lots over 12,000 square feet. The analysis of FAR data showed that new homes with smaller lot sizes had a high percentage of homes built very close to the maximum 40% FAR limit. The data showed that once lot sizes exceeded 12,000 to 15,000 square feet, the FAR limit becomes less of an issue in the size of homes permitted. The R-4 district has a minimum lot area requirement of 12,000 square feet per lot (13,000 square feet per corner lot), while the R-5 district has a minimum lot area of 7,500 square feet (9,000 square feet per corner lot). Furthermore, of the 56 homes, only 6 were on lots in excess of 12,000 square feet, which means that while the 56 homes were a mix of R-4 and R-5 lots, almost all of the R-4 lots were non conforming in terms of minimum lot area.
When contemplating future Zoning Code amendments pertaining to calculating FAR, or the consideration of a “bonus” FAR, it should be noted whether or not to tie the amendment to specific zoning districts, or to lot area given the results of the homes studied between 2017- 2020. On January 14, 2021, the Architectural Control Commission reviewed the following data: a series of typical floor plans, elevations of homes that contained unfinished attic spaces and information on how other communities handled similar FAR situations.
After discussing regulatory options, the ACC endorsed the following concept for amending the Northbrook Zoning Code to address the issue of unfinished attic space and FAR:
1. Add a new definition of the term “Attic” to the Zoning Code.
2. Eliminate the exclusion of unfinished attic space in the calculation of residential floor area, but not attic space above habitable floor are unless it is accessible by a fixed staircase. This is intended to exclude the third level attic space of a two-story home and second level attic space on a single-story home.
3. To be counted as floor area, the attic space would have to have a clear ceiling height of at least seven (7) feet in height.
4. To avoid counting very narrow unusable spaces, the ACC recommended that only attic space that is seven (7) feet tall and having a width of seven (7) feet be counted in floor area. 5. For smaller lots (the ACC suggested 15,000 square feet as a threshold), an “attic space FAR bonus” should be codified. The bonus would stipulate that homes on these smaller (15,000 square feet or less) lots would be allowed a maximum 40% FAR plus up to 400 square feet of attic space (with a height of seven feet and width of seven feet). It should be noted that one member of the ACC thought that smaller lots should have a reduced bonus area less than 400 square feet.
On January 26, 2021, the Board of Trustees at its Committee of the Whole meeting, conducted a preliminary review on the ACC recommendation. The Board found the proposed amendments to be acceptable as presented but requested that the Plan Commission and ACC consider a smaller bonus area for smaller lots. The Board also asked that the Plan Commission consider reviewing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) at the same time as the FAR amendments.
Village staff has proposed the following questions for the Commissioners to discuss while conducting a joint workshop on the matter:
1. Do both Commissions agree with the suggestion to add a definition for “attic” to the Zoning Code, and to eliminate the exclusion of unfinished attic space in the calculation of FAR (excluding attic space above habitable floors that are located by a fixed stair)?
2. Is it appropriate to count attic space in FAR when it has a clear ceiling height of at least seven (7) feet, or is it more appropriate to begin including in FAR at a height below 7 feet similar to other communities that have used 6 feet, and some as low as including knee-wall height (3-4 feet)?
3. Should the restrictions be drafted to avoid counting narrow unusable spaces requiring spaces to be a minimum of seven (7) feet by seven (7) feet to be counted in the FAR? This would result in the ability for spaces with a clear ceiling height below 7 feet to NOT be counted in the FAR following the proposed amendments.
4. Should an additional square foot bonus be offered to homes on smaller lots in excess of the maximum FAR?
5. If so, should that bonus be offered to all homes in the R-4 and R-5 lots, or should the bonus solely be offered to homes on lots under 12,000 square feet (based upon the above data from 2017-2020)? Or should the bonus be considered for homes on lots up to 15,000 square feet in area?
6. Should the bonus area offered be 400 square feet to everyone, or should the bonus area be correlated to the lot size, resulting in smaller lots receiving a smaller square foot area bonus?
Commissioner Sandler asked what is the purpose of FAR. Ms. Kohlstedt responded FAR further restricts the size of a home, such as mass and height.
Commissioner Sandler asked if accessory dwelling units are not counted. Ms. Kohlstedt responded they are not allowed. However, if they were permitted then they would be included in the FAR.
Commissioner Sandler commented he agrees with the ACC proposal. He questioned if the goal is to give a bonus for more space and add more mass to accessory dwelling units.
Commissioner Elisco commented when adding the accessory structure, you must add a limiting factor to improve the surface of the lot, which will help control the property.
Commissioner Sandler commented there are many factors to take into consideration.
Commissioner Elisco suggested the Commission resolve the attic issue first. He noted he agrees with the ACC proposal. The ACC is taking control by counting the space above the garage in the total space allowed, which will shrink the home size. The long-term complaints from existing residents is regarding the overpowering of new homes compared to existing homes. The new proposal will make it fair for the neighborhood by including the extra square footage in the FAR.
Commissioner Sandler commented the shape of the house will not change. Furthermore, this proposal opens up an opportunity for the Village to evaluate life safety issues and bonus space.
Commissioner Elisco commented the bulk space will remain the same (counted or not). He noted including the attic space in the maximum FAR will result in a smaller home.
Commissioner Sandler asked how a 400 square foot bonus will be allowed. Commissioner Elisco responded the matter is regarding smaller homes.
Commissioner Sandler commented the issue is regarding older and smaller lots in Northbrook.
Chairman Franklin commented for new large homes being built, the attic space will not change the size of the house. She questioned if using a different formula will result in a smaller house. She asked if the proposal will discourage people from continuing to do what they are doing now. Furthermore, she requested clarification on the 7x7 measurement. Ms. Kohlstedt responded 7 feet tall and 7 feet wide (the length can be increased in size). The ACC proposed counting area that is 7x7 only.
Commissioner Town commented their goal is not to diminish size but enable people who already have the space in their attic, to legally finish the space. The ACC is not wanting to change the appearance of homes, but to allow residences to utilize space in their home. The built space will be considered a bonus for the homeowner to utilize legally. For larger lots, the need for extra space decreases. Commissioner Elisco responded allowing a bonus at a lower level is a different issue compared to bigger homes in a marginal lot, where the builders want to finish the space later. He noted allowing the existing homeowner to improve their home greatly benefits the Village. Furthermore, counting the attic space in the FAR will prevent people from trying to beat the system.
Commissioner Elisco commented habitable space, per the building code, starts at 7-foot height and the width must meet square footage requirements.
Commissioner Riad asked what the benefit is of offering 40% FAR compared to 45% FAR. Ms. Kohlstedt responded the Village could end up with the same issues. The intent of the bonus area is to increase the space. Furthermore, the 7-foot width is only used as a measurement tool, which does not mean the finished space is 7x7.
Chairman Franklin commented they are being disingenuous in terms of deciding based on the circumstances, if acceptable or not acceptable. She noted she agrees with most of the ACC proposal. The goal is not to allow people to violate the Zoning Code and the Village is making great improvements to protect the public. If the mass of the house on the outside does not change, from the standpoint of accomplishing the zoning goals, it will not make much of a difference. She requested the Commission acknowledge the space is a part of the inside of the house.
Commissioner Elisco asked if the entire floor area of a space should be counted. Chairman Franklin responded the interior FAR of a house can be used for multiple purposes, such as a home office or play area. The goal is to define the habitability of a space. The homeowners should be allowed to do whatever they want with the space in their home.
Commissioner Morgen commented builders misrepresent floor plans to the public.
Chairman Franklin commented the size of the house from the outside will remain the same no matter how the unfinished space is used. Commissioner DeBartolo responded it will not remain the same if you include unused attic space in the FAR calculation, which will reduce the foot print of the house. Currently, the Village does not include the bulk space above the garage in the FAR calculation.
Commissioner Elisco concurs with Commissioner DeBartolo. He stated including the unfinished attic space will reduce the foot print of the house.
Chairman Franklin questioned if the purpose of FAR is to measure the mass of the house against the rest of the lot. She asked if it matters what the interior space is used for. Commissioner Elisco respond the public is taking advantage of the system. However, including the square footage will decrease the primary part of the residence.
Chairman Franklin commented everything in the home should be counted, not just the built part of the home. She asked why the interior square footage of the home is not counted. Commissioner Elisco respond they are counting the habitable space by code and to be considered habitable it must have a 7-foot-tall ceiling.
Chairman Franklin suggested amending the code to measure the entire space in a house. She asked why they are concerned with the space being habitable. Commissioner Riad responded taxes are applied to habitable space.
Ms. Kohlstedt suggested defining attic in the Zoning Code. She noted unfinished attic space is not counted in FAR calculations. She asked if the Commission would like to include finished and unfinished space in the FAR calculations. The ACC recommended to eliminate the exclusions to no longer exclude unfinished attic space in the calculation of FAR. Furthermore, the area above the garage (habitable area) could only be accessed by a pull-down staircase. The homeowner can install a fix staircase to have the space count in the unfinished attic space area, but a third floor attic space without a fixed staircase will be excluded.
Commissioner Sandler requested clarification on the criteria to add an additional 400 square feet to a house. Ms. Kohlstedt responded they will evaluate the square footage size to determine eligibility.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented for smaller lots in the R-5 District or under 12,000 square feet, they are mostly maxed out in terms of their footprint. In addition, the setbacks help determine how large a house can be built. There are many restrictions an architect must take into consideration when designing homes.
Commissioner Sandler commented more people are adding habitable spaces in their garage.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented basements that are considered below grade, but do not count in the FAR. However, a walkout garage that is 50% above grade would count in the FAR.
Chairman Franklin asked if the current regulation or proposal will change the size of the houses. Commissioner Town responded no, the size of the house will not change. He discussed a housing scenario with the Commission. The goal is not to change the external appearance of the home, but to allow people to legally finish the attic space. He asked the Commission if they would like to legally allow people to finish the area above the garage.
Commissioner Elisco commented the finished space above the garage must be added to the FAR. Ms. Kohlstedt responded the area will be considered bonus area.
Commissioner Elisco asked how this would work for large houses. Commissioner Town responded they have not evaluated this method for large houses. People who purchase large lots usually design the space to their liking, without having to use the space above the garage.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented homes located in the R-5 District are maxed out at the 40% FAR. The bonus area is considered 400 square feet, which is equivalent to the floor space of a typical garage. Furthermore, a house can stay at its current size and the Village can count the entire area at 400 square feet as a bonus. She noted the house square footage would not be smaller and the goal is to allow the homeowners to utilize an additional 400 square feet.
Commissioner Town responded the intention is to build under the existing roof line and they are referring to the slope roof of a garage. He noted the homeowner will not be able to take full advantage of the space due to the design.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented the 7x7 is used to calculate the usable area.
Commissioner Elisco asked why they are proposing to allow this for smaller homes only. Commissioner Sandler responded to perform home inspections.
Commissioner Elisco noted the builder can leave it unfinished when they finish building the home and finish the area without a permit later on. He questioned how the Village will enforce the proposed regulations. However, the Village can require that the builder finish the space when building the home. Ms. Kohlstedt responded the Village can’t require builders to finish the space. If an inspector notices remodeling taking place at a residence without a permit they will issue a Stop Work Order. The Village will not issue permits to builders if they are over the FAR.
Commissioner Town commented it is less expensive to finish the space when building the home.
Commissioner Elisco commented many homes are not in compliance and owners are performing remodeling without a permit.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented this proposal will greatly benefit the people building smaller homes on R-5 lots.
Commissioner Sandler commented the public should do it the right way from the very beginning and not go outside the rules. Furthermore, the ACC proposal will help resolve the issues in the community.
Commissioner Elisco commented the major concern is people are remodeling without a permit. He questioned if adopting the new rules will help resolve these issues and believes the new rules are a legal out for people who were caught remodeling without a permit.
Commissioner Sandler questioned if the homeowner will pull a permit or hire a contractor. Cliff responded many homeowners hire contractors to pull permits for remodeling projects.
Commissioner Elisco commented the bonus should be based on the lot size, not the zoning district. Furthermore, they should start with 400 square feet for larger homes (15,000 square feet) and it should trickle down for the smaller lots.
Commissioner Riad suggested using 10% instead of 400.
Commissioner Elisco concurs with Commissioner Riad.
Ms. Kohlstedt asked if they would like to start at 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Elisco responded yes.
Commissioner Town commented the square footage will amount to 6,600 square feet of a 15,000 square foot limit.
Commissioner Morgen commented he prefers using 400 square feet.
Commissioner Town concurs with Commissioner Morgen. He noted a smaller two car garage will not reach 400.
Commissioner Elisco commented the 7x7 is going to be used as the limiting factor. Ms. Kohlstedt asked if the Commission agrees with the 7x7. Commissioner Elisco responded yes. Ms. Kohlstedt commented they will start at 15,000 square feet, with a 400 square foot bonus.
Commissioner DeBartolo asked if the attic definition is mentioned in the 2006 code. Ms. Kohlstedt stated they will report back to the Commission with the actual language or they might see if other communities have something similar.
Commissioner Elisco asked if the definition will cover not habitable space and unfinished habitable space. Commissioner DeBartolo responded that is correct.
Commissioner Elisco asked if the space could be 10 feet wide. Ms. Kohlstedt responded the height minimum is 7 feet and width minimum is 7 feet. Furthermore, anything below 7 feet will not be counted.
Chairman Franklin commented at a future meeting the Commission will review a Zoning Code text amendment. Ms. Kohlstedt responded they will issue a notice for a public hearing. Furthermore, the intent of the joint workshop is to have the members of the ACC assist in explaining the proposal and answer any questions the Commission may have.
Chairman Franklin thanked the ACC for attending the joint workshop.
2. Accessory Dwelling Unit Discussion
Michaela Kohlstedt, Director discussed accessory dwelling units. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are separate living units on a property with their own kitchen, sleeping area and bathroom facilities. They are smaller in size than the principal dwelling, which differentiates them from a traditional “duplex” configuration.
The regulations for authorizing ADUs tend to fall into three general categories:
1. “Granny Flats”, are ADUs solely for the purpose of allowing a family member to live in separate quarters from other family members. Typically, they are for seniors or those with disabilities. Wilmette allows this arrangement by special permit so long as the ADU is not in a separate detached structure. A copy of the Wilmette regulations is attached to this report.
2. “Coach Houses” or garage apartments allow detached garages to be converted into separate living quarters. These regulations work best in communities with alleys where it is common to have large detached garages. Coach house regulations allow a secondary dwelling unit to be constructed in the detached structure. This approach is particularly helpful in allowing homeowners to have a secondary means of income. They also provide a unique (and typically less expensive) housing option. The City of Evanston just recently amended its ADU regulations on September 29, 2020 to allow accessory units in more structures than simply in coach houses. A copy of the recent set of Evanston code amendments is attached.
3. A third category of Accessory Dwelling Units have emerged (particularly on the West Coast) that are intended to help address the issue of housing affordability. The third category of ADUs are those that are intended to broadly allow secondary housing units on single family lots, whether they be:
o Detached
o Attached by means of an addition, or
o Conversion of an existing basement or other area of the home to be a separate living area.
o Typically, this category of ADU is allowed “by right”, provide specific design and parking standards are satisfied.
Secondary dwelling units are currently not allowed in Northbrook and are considered a duplex. They do allow single family homes to have a second kitchen within the home so long as there are internal doors connecting the spaces. For instance, a separate living area would be allowed in a wing of a home so long as it is connected by an interior hallway and door. Similarly, a separate kitchen, bath and sleeping area is allowed in a basement if it is connected by interior stairs; and meets life safety requirements of the building code. Northbrook was developed after World War II, with only a few alleys. Many of the older homes have detached garages and in the older subdivisions wide homes have attached garages.
Items for the Commissions to consider as they review the idea of ADUs include:
1. Since they have few alleys in the Village, most new ADUs will have some sort of access by having the residents of the accessory unit’s maneuver through a side yard. This makes the design and orientation of any new ADU particularly important. Will the amendments include design controls to prevent (or discourage) entrances to ADUs from being on the front of the home? (Note: the recently adopted Evanston amendments include modest design standards to restrict the location of entrances and exterior stairs to the interior side or rear elevations).
2. Consideration of how parking will be addressed is also critical. Will the ADU have its own on site parking space? If the ADU is located near the train station, is a parking space necessary? 3. The Village already has strict limits on lot coverage (50%) and the heights (15’) of detached garages. Should these standards be made more flexible if an ADU is proposed? 4. Currently, the Village allows the following reduced rear and side setbacks for accessory structures in single-family residential districts (including garages):
o detached accessory structures and uses located in whole or in part within the rear twenty percent (20%) of the lot shall not be required to maintain an interior side or rear yard in excess of five (5) feet; provided, however, that this special regulation shall not apply to residential recreational facilities and provided, further, that no accessory structure or use, or combination of such structures or uses, located in whole or in part within an otherwise required side or rear yard pursuant to this Paragraph shall occupy more than thirty percent (30%) of such required yard. Is it appropriate to allow the above criteria to apply to ADUs?
Commissioner Sandler asked what the demand is for accessory dwelling units in Northbrook. Ms. Kohlstedt responded there is some interest for accessory dwelling units in the community and the demand has grown during the pandemic in the country based on the articles included in the packet distributed for review.
Commissioner Sandler asked if accessory dwelling units can be used for non-family members. Ms. Kohlstedt responded yes, the Board did not want the accessory dwelling units to be restricted to family members only. Furthermore, an attached accessory dwelling unit might be acceptable under the review of the Architectural Control Commission (ACC) to prevent a special permit or significant relief. The goal is to have the ACC review the design. However, detached accessory dwelling units should go through the public hearing process and require a special permit. Furthermore, an attached accessory dwelling unit will need to meet the districts standards, such as setbacks, FAR and height.
Commissioner Sandler asked if attached ADUs will be found in the R-1, R-2 and R-3 lots. Ms. Kohlstedt responded yes, and the detached ADU will also count in the FAR.
Commissioner Sandler asked if a detached ADU within the setbacks counts. Ms. Kohlstedt responded accessory storage structures should not exceed 200 square feet. She noted the detached ADU will also count in the FAR, regardless of placement on the property.
Commissioner Sandler asked if the ADU must be located within the setback lines to be greater than 15 feet tall. Ms. Kohlstedt responded yes.
Chairman Franklin commented this does not address the parking issue.
Commissioner Sandler commented there are a lot of variables to consider.
Commissioner Elisco commented the Commission must take the easements, electrical and water services into consideration. He questioned if plumbing services are need for the accessory dwelling unit.
Commissioner Sandler asked what the purpose is of considering ADUs in the community. Ms. Kohlstedt responded it provides more affordable housing options.
Chairman Franklin commented she does not see a good reason to consider a detached unit compared to an attached unit. She expressed concern that detached units will create more zoning challenges.
Commissioner Sandler asked if there are any limitation on the number of occupants allowed in ADUs. Ms. Kohlstedt responded no, but there are limitations on life safety building restrictions.
Commissioner Elisco commented the Village can use the Maintenance Code to determine occupancy.
Commissioner Morgen commented Northbrook has many subdivisions, which are not designed for detached ADUs. He asked if there is a high demand for ADUs.
Chairman Franklin commented it is not inappropriate to consider ADUs on a special permit basis. The Commission can create parameters for consideration, which will allow the Commission to evaluate each request individually.
Commissioner Town commented ADUs should be acceptable in R-1 lots, but not in smaller crowded communities.
Commissioner Torf commented the Village will be unable to monitor who is living in ADUs, which can cause rental issues.
Commissioner Elisco commented the Village ordinance states full civil engineering is required for every project, which is very expensive. He asked if the ADUs will need to be sprinkled. Ms. Kohlstedt responded ADUs must be in compliance with all applicable building codes and conditions. However, she is unsure if detached ADUs will need to be sprinkled.
Commissioner Sandler asked if there is not a great demand for ADUs. He questioned if the Commission should invest their time on other important matters.
Commissioner Elisco commented there are many different conditions and he anticipates a special permit will have to be issued for every ADU.
Chairman Franklin asked if the Commission would like to enable this use or keep on the list.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented the Village receives a couple of permit requests a year for in-law suites.
Chairman Franklin asked if the Commission would like to consider ADUs. She questioned if ADUs are prohibited in the Zoning Code. Ms. Kohlstedt responded ADUs are prohibited in the Zoning Code. The single-family residential districts allow one unit on a lot by right.
Commissioner Elisco commented the public is allowed to have an accessory structure.
Commissioner Elisco commented the property must be interconnected. He anticipates neighbors in the community will file a complaint for not being in compliance with zoning.
Commissioner Morgen asked if a notification will be sent to neighbors. He anticipates neighbors will file complaints.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented this idea creates opportunities for attached or detached ADUs. She noted the if the majority of the Commission have stated they would like to require a special permit for attached and detached ADUs then applicants that apply for a special permit, a public notice and public hearing would be required. The process will allow the Commission to take into consideration the publics concerns.
Chairman Franklin commented the Commission is concerned about the impact of ADUs on residents in the community.
Commissioner Elisco discussed how establishing an ADU on his property can affect his neighbors.
Chairman Franklin commented the Commission is concerned about the impact of ADUs on residents in the community. Furthermore, they should create an opportunity for the public to provide feedback on ADUs. She discussed a previous development project as an example. She noted the Village should not prohibit ADUs but they should be permitted by special permit.
Commissioner Sandler concurs with Chairman Franklin. He noted the Commission might be more sympathetic to approve a permit for ADUs if the applicant is using the space for their elderly parents. He suggested the Commission create key factors for the applicants to meet when applying for a special permit.
Chairman Franklin expressed concern establishing strict requirements and discussed a Zoning Board issue as an example. She noted this is an opportunity to address that additional building will occur and impact the value of homes in the community.
Commissioner Elisco commented the Commission will need to establish the criteria to allow ADUs by special permit.
Chairman Franklin commented they will be using zoning standards in the special permit criteria.
Commissioner Elisco commented the Village should educate the public on the special permit requirements.
Chairman Franklin asked if they will evaluate the engineering in the special permit process. Commissioner Elisco commented they will evaluate the simple engineering, but not the building engineering.
Ms. Kohlstedt commented if the Village chooses to amend the Zoning Code to allow ADUs, they will use the special permit process. The Village does not recommend requiring full engineering in the approval process, because it will be a significant investment for the applicant.
Commissioner Elisco asked if any engineering is involved in the special permit process.
Commissioner Elisco commented many properties have requested leniency to accommodate the detention. He noted many properties have issues with elevations or proximity.
Chairman Franklin agrees with the idea of creating a detailed packet for applicants. Ms. Kohlstedt commented the applicant is taking a great risk and investing a lot of money.
Commissioner DeBartolo stated he is not in favor of approving ADUs. He expressed concern ADUs will cause issues in the community.
Commissioner Sandler stated he is not in favor of approving ADUs.
Commissioner Torf concurs with Commissioner Sandler. She noted she does not see the benefit of allowing ADUs.
Commissioner Melnick concurs with Commissioner Sandler.
Commissioner Elisco concurs with Commissioner Sandler.
Commissioner Morgen concurs with Commissioner Sandler.
Chairman Franklin commented she is undecided on whether to allow ADUs or not. She noted the Commission is not in favor of creating this opportunity. However, the Village Board can direct the Plan Commission to prepare a resolution on their motion.
Commissioner Elisco asked if the public can build out space above an accessory structure, if it is not for living. Ms. Kohlstedt responded that is correct.
VI.Old Business
Chairman Franklin asked if they will have a new Commissioner at the next meeting. Ms. Kohlstedt responded yes, there is an opportunity for the Village Board to act on it next week.
Chairman Franklin requested the Commission Members be notified when the Village Board takes action.
VII. Adjourn
Commissioner DeBartolo made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Morgen to adjourn. On voice vote, a motion to adjourn passed unanimously. Adjourned at 10:09 p.m.
http://northbrookil.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=15&ID=1555&Inline=True
Alerts Sign-up