Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout2006-04-25 ZC.PC MinutesVillage of Plainfield Zoning Commission /Planning Commission Joint Meeting Record of Minutes Date: April 2 5 , 2006 Location: Village Hall Chairman Sobkoviak called the meeting to order at 7:0 0 . Roll Call for Zoning Commission Present: Commissioners Co llins , Lamb , Henry , Sobkoviak , Stalzer, Dontz, Krause Absent: Commissioners Linden, Vaupel Roll Call for Zoning Commission Present: Commissioners Renzi, McKay, Fazio, Henry, Sobkoviak, Ed O’Rourke Absent: Commissioners Kachel, Lucenko, David Murawski This meeting was a public hearing to review the updated zoning ordinance. The history of the updated ordinance was read by Mike Hoffman with TESKA and Associates. He explained who the Zoning Commission was. Mr. Hoffman explained why the zoning ordina nce needed to be updated. The Village wanted to improve consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance was the legal way to enforce the plan. He said that the Village also wanted to make the ordinance easier to use (by adding illustrations , definitions, tables and reorganizing). The commission’s goal was to review the major changes, answer any questions, and identify any areas that still need to be changed. At some point, the Commission would then make a recommendation to the Village Boar d on the text amendment. Starting with the organization, he explained the changes to the ordinance. One of the major changes was with the definitions which were previously throughout the ordinance, and now appear at the back of the ordinance. Any words in the ordinance that we re later defined were italicize d. The 21 articles were reduce d to 14 or 15 by combining them – like combining some of the residential land uses by tables. He also mentioned the use tables for zoning categories in the beginning of the document. He also mentioned new residential districts: residential estate district, traditional neighborhood district, and conservation district. He briefly elaborated each district’s guidelines and standards. He ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 2 said that they had also added some a rchitectural standards, which would be in addition to the current design guidelines. He went through some of these standards. Mr. Hoffman said that one of the things a zoning ordinance is bulk and density. He showed an illustration of this and said that provisions for impervious coverage of a site were added. He said that this covered for a lot of the smaller sites. Mr. Hoffman went through the R1 Overlay district, and he explained where this was originally created. He said that the draft ordinance removed the Village’s overlays and changed them to legal non -conforming uses. The non -conforming uses were changed so that rebuilding can occur in the event of a natural disaster. He went through how the new plan for this was developed , and the differing square footage in this area. He said that duplexes could remain and would be treated as legal non -conforming uses. He compared the different lot sizes in the zoning codes and how these compared. He said that the Traditional Neighborhood district was th e most difficult. The Planned Unit Development process was also reviewed, but no major changes were made. The changes addressed were administrative adjustment clarifications and Planned Development review committee would be formed for complex projects. Mr. Hoffman then went through the Business district changes. There were six business districts currently, and there were two categories not used much – B -2 and B -4. There were a lot of similarities to other zoning categories, so B -2 and B -4 were removed and merged. He said that map amendments would be submitted for the appropriate areas. The BTD district would be maintained with no major policy changes as is the B -5 (Traditional Business) district. He then went over the parking regulations, and there w ere a number of updates on off -street parking regulations. He said that this was standardized and put into a table for readability. Parking downtown was looked at extensively, and he went over the proposed downtown parking zone. The Zoning Commission de cided to maintain the same boundaries for the downtown parking zone, and buildings less than 5,000 square feet would be exempt from parking requirements. The Village was encouraging shared parking, and one of the ideas was to allow an option to contribute to a parking fund instead of meeting the parking requirement. This was a possibility but was not currently a requirement. The commission also went over loading requirements. Mr. Hoffman then went over fencing; the ordinance just clarified how fencing s hould be handling with berming or buffering. He also went over how signs were addressed in the ordinance. The provisions were the same, but the organization changed. The draft ordinance also added some illustrations to help clarify the requirements. Th e commission wanted to limit the amount of neon signs but did not want to ban them completely. ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 3 Regarding landscaping, the ordinance consolidated the requirements into one article and added provisions regarding new Planned Development requirements, like boulevards and through/key lots. Regarding nonconformities, he reiterated that the commission wanted to allow the nonconforming buildings to be repaired, but the nonconforming use could not be changed to another nonconforming use. Mr. Hoffman finally wen t over some additional minor text changes to the draft of the ordinance (like reference to design guidelines, Village Board consent to create Planned Development Review Committee, landscaping and parking decks, garage placement, etc.). Some additional cha nges were to add a map showing the downtown parking zone, add historic preservation ordinance as a – Article XVII – no change, and some minor sign code changes. Regarding attached garages, the zoning ordinance would clarify that garages on a new house sho uld not protrude more than five feet from a dominant house element. He said that the attached garages must meet setback requirements as well. Regarding the zoning map changes, there were some category name changes (like OR and OCI to I -1). The zoning reclassifications would be consolidation of business classifications of which separate public hearings would be planned. He said that future rezoning would be based on the Comprehensive Plan, but no changes were currently recommended. The commission also wanted to add some map clarifications, like Commercial Portions of R -1 Planned Developments as well as school sites. He showed the proposed color coding on the new maps and went over this. He said that the downtown area was complicated , but a separate h earing would be held on that. To summarize, Mr. Hoffman said that he was hoping for a recommendation to go before the Village Board. Once approved, the map amendments would go forward. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the meeting for commissioner questions. Commissioner Henry said that there was a five -day notice period fo r neighboring property owners, and Mr. Hoffman said that this should be 15 days. Chairman Sobkoviak went over the current policies. Commissioner Henry asked about enforcement language. Mr. Hoffman said that there was a line to maintain the landscaping as it was approved on the plan. However, he did note that the Village would have to send someone out there to monitor this. Commissioner Henry asked about penalties, and a brief discussio n ensued regarding this. Mr. Hoffman said that it was common for ordinances to include enforcement for tree preservation. Chairman Sobkoviak asked for the commission’s feelings on this. Commissioner Stalzer asked if there were other means in the zonin g ordinance for other penalties. Commissioner Lamb asked if enforcement could be better addressed in a separate document. Commissioner Stalzer asked what Staff’s feelings on this were, and Mr. Garrigan said thought that this would be better addressed in a different ordinance. After ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 4 some discussions regarding site plan review, Chairman Sobkoviak noted that a separate enforcement ordinance might be the best way to handle this. Commissioner Renzi said that 9 -135 should be added to reference enforcements. He also thought that pre -site plan and post -site plan enforcement should be clarified for protection. Commissioner Henry asked about nonconforming properties and confirmed that this carries over with change in ownership. Mr. O’Rourke asked if there w as consistency regarding notification for rezoning and special uses for PUD. Mr. Hoffman said that a Planned Development is treated the same as rezoning. Mr. O’Rourke thought there were limitations for changes in subdivision versus a PUD. Mr. Garrigan s aid that when there was a minor amendment to the PUD, the same notification was not required. Mr. O’Rourke asked if there should be consistency, and Mr. Garrigan said that there was a provision for minor amendments to special use. He felt that there was some justification to allow minor detail changes, but if a major change would be issued, the standard notification would be required. Commissioner Lamb said that it was a substantial procedure for a minor change that had to go before the Planning Commissi on and Village Board. If either group felt that it should go to a public hearing, it could be moved to that. He felt it was a judgment call, but Mr. O’Rourke said that there was some confusion regarding the type of notification. Mr. Garrigan said that t he standard notification should be required. Commissioner Dontz asked how the amount of five feet was agreed upon for the attached garages not protruding five feet from the dominant porch or living space. He wanted to know what constituted a dominant por ch as there was no definition for this. Mr. Hoffman said that the five feet came from discussions from the zoning commission over the past few years on setback distances. After some research, Mr. Hoffman read the definition for dominant porch as a porch having a size greater than three feet by eight feet. The commission corrected the part of the document that read this as three feet by five feet. Commissioner Stalzer asked about the display drawings. Mr. Hoffman said that he did not have them for the p resentation but noted that the drawings were in the ordinance. Commissioner Krause asked if the restriction pertained to these exact dimensions or the total square footage. Commissioner Dontz brought up some architecture that he had presented that had pr otruded more than five feet, and the Village seemed to be in support of this. He felt that this was an arbitrary number and not the architectural design of the house. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this point was discussed over many nights, and it had come down to square footage and defining a “significant” porch. The consensus was to do this by a “significant” porch , so if the architecture required the garage to stick out that far, a bigger porch would need to be built. Commissioner Henry said that this was part of the Planned Development process, and Chairman Sobkoviak agreed that this could be negotiated in this process. Mr. Hoffman said that a good point was brought up, and perhaps the ordinance should be changed to reflect the total square footage. He also said ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 5 that there were sketches in the ordinance. There was some discussion regarding the Planned Development process. Commissioner Dontz said that there was a lot of negotiating in the Planned Development process, but noted that there were homes h e showed that exceeded the five foot limitation. Commissioner Henry said that the drawings he had shown had architectural elements that far exceeded the requirements. Commissioner Dontz was frustrated that this was now a negotiating point, because the or dinance is set so low that he has to spend a “chip” to get what is acceptable. Commissioner Lamb said that there was nothing that would preclude the renderings from being acceptable, but this would be part of the discussion. Commissioner McKay asked what square footage of garage the commission was trying to avoid , and Commissioner Dontz said that this was a good point in trying to determine what exactly a “snout -nosed” garage was. He wanted further discussion on this issue. Commissioner Renzi thought th at certain variations of the 24 square feet might not look good, so a minimum length or width mig ht be better attributed to this with a clause that the extra extension can be added if additional architectural enhancements are included. Chairman Sobkovia k asked if Mr. Hoffman could suggest some text for these suggestions. Mr. Hoffman thought that this could be left pretty close to what it is now, and Commissioner Renzi reiterated his suggestions on changing the square footage requirements on the porch. Commissioner Dontz said, regarding other architectural detail, many porches of “sound architectural integrity” are larger than what is defined. Chairman Sobkoviak asked if a square footage would be a better suggestion for this clause, but Commissioner Don tz felt that the porch issue was the five foot projection from the house. He was not in favor of snout -nose garages, but he felt that the way to get rid of this was with architectural features. Commissioner Lamb said that if the clause was not put in the re, a builder may not but in these architectural features. Commissioner Dontz said that as long as it was noted that there was some negotiation, it would be okay. Commissioner Stalzer said that a minimum size was set, and developments not meeting this co uld come in under a PUD. He felt that the example Commissioner Dontz would meet this. Commissioner Henry said that the give -and -take process was mentioned. Commissioner Renzi asked about subdivision signage, and – based on his reading – he did not think excessive signage was prohibited. He asked if there would be any intention to limit placement of the landmark signs. Commissioner Henry also mentioned sight lines, and Mr. Hoffman said that this was typically handled during site plan review. He said th at there was no limitation on the number of signs. Commissioner Renzi thought that if entry was allowed off of a major street, and Mr. Hoffman said that this could be defined as this. Chairman Sobkoviak opened up the floor for public comment. ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 6 Carl Buck addressed the commission and said that he had brought many zoning cases before the Village. Regarding the RE residential district, this was stated as being consistent with “countrywide zoning”, and Mr. Hoffman confirmed that this was the lowest residentia l density. Mr. Buck asked the purpose of this district, and Mr. Hoffman said that properties on the far periphery of the Village that would be appropriate to keep. Mr. Buck asked if some type of buffer requirement should be placed between an RE district and other uses. Mr. Hoffman said that it depended on what was placed there, but it could be appropriate. Regarding the BTD district, Mr. Buck said that the draft requests that this be limited to streets that experience high traffic on a daily basis. Mr. Buck knew that this had been discussed in the past and wanted to know where this was. When it was stated that this was not clearly defined, Mr. Buck said he thought that it should be to prevent BTD zoning on a minor side street. Mr. Hoffman said that th e Comprehensive Plan suggested where these districts should be. Mr. Buck said that people get frustrated when it is not clear what properties were subject to this. Commissioner Henry said that this would be part of the map process, and Mr. Hoffman said t hat the property owners could petition this. Mr. Buck just wanted them to clearly define what could or could not be zoned this way, so there were no surprises for people buying property in this area. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the Village had been very restrictive on this in the past. Mr. Buck also asked about the Traditional Neighborhood district and its purpose and intent. He wanted to caution the commission on inconsistencies regarding accessory structures, and he felt that the Historic Preservati on Commission should review requests in the downtown core area. He wanted to separate the downtown area requests from newer developments. Mr. Hoffman said that the Traditional Neighborhood district was designed for newer developments. A discussion ensue d regarding the role of the Historic Preservation Commission in reviewing applications for variances and design guidelines. There was also some further discussion regarding accessory structures. Commissioner Stalzer suggested that the Historic Preservati on Commission suggest better wording if there was a problem. Heath Wright addressed the commission regarding the 15 -foot accessory structures. He showed pictures of his old garage and other detached accessory structures. He was concerned regarding struc tures that used to be in the overlay district that would not be acceptable in the R1 district. He said th at there were a lot of nonconforming small homes in the core area. Mr. Hoffman said that the creation of the R1 overlay district was concentrating on the two -unit structures and was not meant to affect accessory structures. There was some further discussion regarding accessory structures. Noelle Vaughn addressed the commission (725 N. Bartlett) and going off of Mr. Wright’s comments, she said that wh en she and her husband moved in last year, they had looked at the character of the area. She also said that they wanted to build accessory structures and build to the character of the neighborhood. ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 7 Tom Ruane addressed the commission and said that he appr eciated the efforts of the commissions and Boards. He said that the downtown rezoning was a big deal and wanted to lessen some of the confusion through 21 st Century Zoning Laws. However, this was a 19 th Century town, and he wanted to make sure that resid ents were not jumping through hoops at the Board’s discretion. He noted that a lot of the homes in this area did not have basements, so the “accessory structures” were used a lot. He felt that the downtown area needed more flexibility. He briefly mentio ned fencing and reiterated that he wanted everyone’s concerns taken into account. Michelle Kelly (803 Bartlett) addressed the commission regarding the garages. She said that anyone could still build a two -story garage in the downtown area – as long as it was attached to the house. She said that the plans she had tried to draw up for this did not look right, so new plans were being drawn up for a detached garage. She wanted people in this same area to have the same opportunity for the detached garage. R egarding the requirement for hanging laundry, she felt that this should be handled by association covenants as this did not fit for her property. Regarding landscaping, she asked if the landscape ordinance was being reviewed. Ms. Kelly asked if irrigatio n was always required, and Mr. Garrigan said that the proposed revisions for the landscape ordinance were taken from surrounding areas. There was some discussion regarding the landscape ordinance. Ms. Kelly said that one of the requirements was to stake trees over three inches, and she suggested this be eliminated. Also regarding t he requirement for using berms , she felt that this should be reconsidered for anything outside of residential and other use. A discussion ensued regarding where berms were req uired. There was a requirement regarding irrigation for front and side yards, and she suggested that more native plants be encoura ged. Finally, regarding sod, she did not know if sod was required or if it was seeding as well. She requested that seeding be added to this, and Chairman Sobkoviak said that people buying homes want to see green. Regarding perennials and ground covers, Ms. Kelly said that no credit was given for this, and she felt that credits be added for this. Chairman Sobkoviak said that a benchmark was given for this to shift numbers around. Commissioner Henry said that there was an appendix on what type of plantings to plant where. Regarding irrigation, Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was mostly for large sites. Ms. Kelly did not wa nt to require it. Michael Lambert addressed the commission and said that his biggest concern was regarding the R1 overlay district being created to deal with duplexes. He said that when he was a trustee, this district was created to deal with this core a rea that does not fit into a nice category. Regarding the garage issue, the zoning ordinance gave a lot of architectural limitations – like garage door sizes (nine feet being more typical) or height limits for buildings (starting from the curb versus the first floor). A discussion ensued regarding the heights of the building. Regarding home occupation, he said that the ordinance states 25% can be used for home occupation (other communities limit this to 400 square feet or less). Commissioner Henry asked about limitations on the number of cards that could park there. Mr. Lambert also mentioned the design standards and that an architectural review committee should be formed before this is implemented. ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 8 Mr. Lambert said that he did not know if written comm ents would be accepted or if all points needed to be made verbally. Chairman Sobkoviak said that written comments would be accepted. Mr. Lambert said that the Traditional Neighborhood and R1 setbacks could use an average for setbacks to protect character . He felt that this language be pulled back into the ordinance. Commissioner Henry said that the commission had tried to apply something that would be acceptable across the board. Mr. Lambert reiterated that the core area did not fit into the ordinance as Traditional Neighborhood or R1. There was some discussion regarding what situations needed to come before the Village, and Commissioner Henry was concerned that this would be a problem without definitions. Mr. Lambert said that he could submit some su ggestions in writing. Commissioner Stalzer wondered if things were being looked at regarding teardowns, and a discussion ensued regarding what occurred after a teardown. Mr. Lambert was concerned about setting a law that would be referred to in cases as setting a precedent. Mr. Lambert also suggested that, regarding the maps of sign district and fencing, there were areas that were not addressed. He said that further comments would be submitted to Staff in writing. Debra Olsen addressed the commission a nd asked Staff about the Traditional Neighborhood being referred to for the older areas of town, but it was clarified that R1 is what the downtown area would be zoned. Ms. Olsen reiterated that the downtown area should be a different zoning to allow more leeway. She also asked about the central sign district east of Route 59 on Route 126. Commissioner Stalzer said that the commission did not want to define certain areas as business district. Chairman Sobkoviak clarified that it was just the one parcel a t Center and Route 126 , and Mr. Garrigan added that Staff is looking into developments along Route 126 and restrictions that might be appropriate. Ms. Olsen understood not wanting to put a blanket label on this area. Lastly, Ms. Olsen wanted to appeal to protecting the downtown pedestrian historic area. Kit Cassidy addressed the commission and showed a picture of her house on Dillman Street. It was built in 1842 and sat on its original flagstone foundation. She said that it was a recognizable house, an d she felt a strong attachment to this house as do other people in the Village. She felt the house was appealing in its classic styling as well as its location on the lot (set back from the Dillman Street). She was concerned that under the new zoning, sh e could not rebuild the home on its current foundation. Mr. Hoffman said that this was not true, and it could be rebuilt this way. She was also concerned that if a tornado destroyed her home, a developer could offer her money and build a multi -family str ucture on her property. Mr. Hoffman said that this was not true, and Ms. Cassidy said that the ordinance was confusing. She did not think that the ordinance addressed the emotional attachment that people felt to the Village as it sits today. Commissione r Lamb asked who the current homeowners felt should control this. Debbie Hernandez said that homeowners in this area were comfortable with what was there today. She thought that changing this was not the correct approach. She wanted to figure out how to maintain what they had. Commissioner Henry thought the purpose of the ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 9 Traditional Neighborhood district was to rename the overlay district and apply it, where necessary, to subdivisions coming into the Village. Mr. Hoffman said that the downtown area wa s looked at and used part of it to be used for new developments. There was some confusion regarding the intent, and Mr. Hoffman felt that some things should be changed to avoid negatively affecting the downtown area. Regarding flexibility, for instance o n setbacks, he felt that this could be addressed. Commissioner Stalzer said that the commission was not trying to change the downtown, but to extend this character into new developments. Mr. Hoffman agreed and said that the intent was to create a new p rocess for developments coming in to mimic the downtown area under certain restrictions. Jim Hugenin addressed the commission and clarified that this zoning tied into the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Hoffman said that this ordinance helped understand on the f uture land use map what zoning might be applicable. Mr. Hugenin asked if, once the ordinance was in affect, the future land use map would be changed. Mr. Hoffman said that the future land use map is a tool for how to develop an area, so the developer cou ld decide what to put there and decide if a variance was appropriate. He said that this could vary from the Comprehensive Plan, but it was used for a guide on zoning. Mr. Hugenin said that he was concerned that there was no “science” in developing the fu ture land use map. His concern was with the properties on the far west edges of the Village (or those that would be annexed into the Village) that were several acres and what was being proposed to be built adjacent – like a new Traditional Neighborhood di strict. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the hearing was for an ordinance on what was currently in the Village . A discussion ensued regarding how these areas are determined, and Mr. Hoffman clarified that Traditional Neighborhood districts were not created t o allow developers to increase density. He also said that a committee is formed with people throughout the community to create the future land use map. Mr. Hugenin asked if discussions ever occurred to address what amount of revenue would be brought into the Village at these densities. Commissioner Renzi clarified that he was worried about Grande Park South, but the only estate changes that would occur with this ordinance would be within the Village’s current boundaries. Mr. Hugenin asked if adopting th is ordinance would change the Comprehensive Plan, and Commissioner Henry said that the zoning maps and the zoning ordinances were two different matters. Commissioner Renzi understood that the concern was with changes, and it was reiterated that the maps w ere not being changed. Commissioner Stalzer clarified that it was anyone’s right to buy a property and request a zoning that could be approved or denied. The ordinance that was being addressed was to establish rules for parcels already approved for speci fic zoning. A further discussion ensued regarding this. Biff George addressed the commission and asked about the Planned Development Committee. Mr. Hoffman said that it was not defined who, but it was requested that this be composed of members of the Vi llage Board. Mr. George asked who requested that something be reviewed by this committee, and Commissioner Henry said that this would be determined by the Village administrator. ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 10 Melinda Jackson addressed the commission and asked about the possibility of four units being put on single -family lots. Mr. Hoffman said that this could not happen; the confusion came from the Traditional Neighborhood designation. Chairman Sobkoviak said that a multi -family home needed to be rezoned to R3, and the downtown area was R1. He noted that there could be justification for this, but a variance could be requested. A brief discussion ensued regarding the industrial area near Amboy, and the nearby single -family lots. Commissioner Henry said that this ordinance provided a process for someone requesting a zoning change. Commissioner Lamb said that currently the Village Board controlled this, so that this could not arbitrarily happen. Ms. Jackson confirmed that there was protection from multi -family coming in without justi fication. Dan Cassidy addressed the commission and asked about page 54 of the ordinance that referred to the maximum dwelling units per location. Mr. Hoffman clarified that the Traditional Neighborhood district did not refer to the downtown area. Mr. Ca ssidy asked if there was a direct outline for the downtown district. He said that the goal of the HPC was to establish a historic district to oversee the downtown historical buildings. He also said that he had trouble obtaining the draft ordinance to rev iew and make comments. The VPA and HPC were not contacted to make comments on the downtown area in particular. He said that the Village needed more cooperation to avoid confusion. Commissioner Lamb said that there had been tremendous amount of dialogue, and he did not feel that the document was “hiding” – it was available at the Village. He said that there was attention on new development as well as the downtown area; however, the development of Plainfield was the commission’s main concern. Mr. Cassidy said that he was not accusing the commission of anything; he just said that the process was confusing. Commissioner Henry said that the current zoning ordinance was more confusing, and Commissioner Lamb elaborated that there were a number of things that held up this process. Commissioner Stalzer said that every meeting was public, and the press was present at some of them. Mr. Cassidy said that no one he talked to was aware of the in -depth analysis, and Chairman Sobkoviak asked that specific issues be b rought to Staff for review. Mr. Garrigan said that nothing in the process precludes the creation of a historic district, and Mr. Cassidy agreed but wanted the core district to be defined. Commissioner McKay asked if there had been any consideration for a n R1 Core District to address some of the downtown concerns. Commissioner Henry said that this had been talked about, and the commission’s desire was to leave everything as it was. However, the commission was looking for the involvement of the HPC. Ther e was some discussion regarding designating something historic versus a downtown core area. Commissioner Henry said that some people want control and some want freedom; the commission was trying to determine how to do this. A homeowner had some concerns regarding the new rules for the downtown area. However, the commission clarified that the new rules she was talking about was for Traditional Neighborhood , and the downtown area would remain R1. She had some ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 11 concerns regarding fencing, setbacks, and fron t porches. A discussion ensued regarding the difficulty in variances. Ms. O’Donnell addressed the commission and said that the commission’s intentions were not writing and needed to be clarified for interpretation later. Robert Matthews addressed the co mmission and asked if his property was R1. It was confirmed as R1 on the map, and his concern was with a request to turn a house into a three -family unit. A previous decision had been made previous to deny this , and he wanted to know if, with the new ord inance, buildings could be torn down and multi -family unit s put up. Chairman Sobkoviak said that this was R1 and would be unlikely that the Village would approve a request for a multi -family. Commissioner Henry said that there was nothing that would stop someone from asking. Commissioner Stalzer said that with the pressure from the homeowners in this area, it is even more unlikely that this would get approved. Commissioner McKay said that it was important to note that adjacent homeowners would be notifi ed if a request for rezoning was submitted. Commissioner Renzi said that Sections 9 -120 and 9 -123 might have some linkage with Best Management Practices . He also said that some of the drainage language might not want to include grading. Commissioner Hen ry said that 9 -120 was written more for commercial. A discussion ensued regarding the linking of landscaping and drainage. Chairman Sobkoviak said that the commission could approve, approve with changes, continue, or deny the ordinance. His recommendati on was to continue the discussions. Mr. Hoffman suggested the Zoning Commission continue to May 4, and the commission discussed whether the public hearing needed to be continued. The commission determined that the public hearing should be continued after further commission discussion. Mr. Garrigan said that the public hearing should be re -scheduled to May 23. Commissioner Renzi suggested that people submitting written comments should be received by as well as a limitation of public comment time. Commis sioner Lamb said that most of the public in attendance had been confused about the downtown area being rezoned to TN. Commissioner McKay asked if there was a way to write in lang uage about multi -family homes, but it was determined that this could not be l imited. A further discussion ensued regarding this. Commissioner Dontz asked if the height of the carriage houses was changed, and Commissioner Collins said that this was changed with some discussion. At 10 :16 pm, Commissioner Henry moved that the commis sion hold a Zoning Commission meeting on Thursday, May 4, and continue the public hearing to Tuesday, May 23 . Commissioner Stalzer seconded the motion. Chairman Sobkoviak called for a vote by roll call. ZONING/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTE S APRIL 25, 2006 PAGE 12 Aye: Collins, Lamb , Henry, Stalzer, Dontz, Krause, Sobkoviak Nay: None The motion is carried 5:0:0. Chairman Sobkoviak adjourned the meeting at 10 :17 p .m. __________________ Respectfully submitted, Laura Griffith -Recording Secretary Karick & Associates, Inc.