|
The Planning and Zoning
Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on September 27, 2006 at 7:00 p.m.
in the Conference Room East located in the DeKalb County Administration
Building. In attendance were Committee Members Roger Steimel, Marlene Allen,
Vince Faivre, Steve Slack, Howard Lyle, Eileen Dubin and staff members Paul
Miller and Derek Hiland. Audience members included the Director of the
Forest Preserve Terry Hannan, Michael Larson, Peter Smith, Steve Larson,
John Larson, Judy Baumgartner, Tammie Ring, Paul Bafia, Ken Anderson, John
Glugla, Greg Millburg and County Board Member Julia Fauci.
Mr. Steimel, Planning and
Zoning Committee Chairman, called the meeting to order, and noted that all
members from the Committee were present except for Pat Vary.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Mr. Lyle moved to
approve the agenda, seconded by Mrs. Dubin, and the motion carried
unanimously.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mrs. Dubin moved to
approve the minutes of the August 23, 2006 meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Committee, seconded by Mrs. Allen, and the motion carried
unanimously.
SPECIAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT --
Request of MSJ Larson, Inc. for an amendment to a Special Use Permit for a
gravel operation located on the south side of Bethany Road and the east side
of Airport Road in Cortland Township, Petition CO-06-12
Mr. Miller stated that
MSJ Larson, Inc., owner of the Larson Quarry,
filed a petition for an Amendment to a Special Use Permit
to include the property
located at 21490 Airport Road in Cortland Township as part of its operation.
The site is located on the east side of Airport Road, approximately 2,400
feet south of Barber Greene Road, and is zoned A-1, Agricultural District.
MSJ Larson, Inc. is proposing to add the 3.43-acre property to the Special
Use Permit granted by the DeKalb County Board by County Board Ordinance 76-6
for the gravel pit. The Ordinance established the legal description of the
property covered by the quarry and now proposes to modify the boundary of
the Special Use Permit to include the 3.43-acre parcel which includes the
former "Pearson
House".
Although the size of the additional parcel and the buildings thereon will
not exceed the ten percent (10%) threshold for expansion of Special Uses,
the gravel pit is subject to conditions set forth in the original Special
Use Permit granted by the DeKalb County Board. In order to add the
3.43-acre parcel to the Special Use, the terms under which the gravel pit
operates must be changed to allow mining to occur with 500 feet of the house
at 21490 Airport Road, and to allow the driveway on the property to be used
by vehicles associated with the gravel pit.
Mr. Miller stated that
the required public hearing was conducted on August 31, 2006 by DeKalb
County Hearing Officer Ron Klein. At the hearing, the petitioner explained
that the subject property is surrounded by the gravel pit on the north,
south and east sides. The property will eventually be used as a quarry, and
the existing berm located along Airport Road will be extended across the
parcel. The house may be used for limited office space, and the garage may
provide some storage. The Hearing Officer submitted his Findings and
recommended approval of the Special Use Permit, with conditions. The
conditions include restricting the access on the subject property to
vehicles associated with that property only and not to trucks used in
quarrying activities, and requiring the capping of one well and the removal
of the heating oil tank.
Peter Smith, attorney
for the petitioner, submitted a letter indicating that the aforementioned
conditions have been met.
Mr. Faivre asked if the
Hearing Officers approval limited access to the former Pearson House. Mr.
Miller noted that one of the proposed conditions of approval would restrict
use of the access to the 3.43-acre property by vehicles making deliveries to
or removing materials from the quarry.
Mr. Faivre moved to
approve the Special Use Permit Amendment related to the MSJ Larson Quarry
with conditions, seconded by Mr. Slack, and the motion carried
unanimously.
GREENWAYS AND
TRAILS PLAN
-- Request of the DeKalb County Greenways and Trails Coalition for
approval of a DeKalb County Greenways and Trails Plan
Mr. Miller explained
that the DeKalb County Greenways and Trails Coalition, in concert with the
DeKalb County Forest Preserve District, has forwarded the DeKalb County
Greenways and Trails Plan for consideration and adoption by the County
Board. The Coalition is requesting that the County Board adopt the Plan
as a policy document that can be used to help guide growth and development
and identify areas within the County that are appropriate for
conservation, for open space, for the creation and preservation of
connected bicycle/pedestrian trails, and for active and passive
recreational uses. The Plan makes recommendations on types of paths,
locations of paths, and options for acquiring greenways and trail space.
Maps contained in the Plan graphically depict existing and proposed
trails, greenways, environmentally critical/sensitive areas, and public
and private parks/open space. It is anticipated that, when adopted by the
County Board, the Greenways and Trails Plan will help guide land use
decisions. It would be consulted when development projects are proposed
in the same way that the County Unified Comprehensive Plan is consulted.
It is also the hope of the Coalition that the Greenways and Trails Plan
will be adopted by the municipalities within the County. To that end, it
is believed adoption by the County Board is an important first step and
the Greenways and Trails Coalition requests that the Committee forward the
Plan to the full County Board for adoption.
Mr. Faivre requested
confirmation that the Plan is only a recommendation to developers, so if the
trails are proposed to cross a proposed subdivision, that development would
not be impeded. Mr. Miller stated that if adopted the Plan would become
policy, not law. The location of bike/hike trails would be negotiated. He
added, however, that the Plan will only be as good as the implementation
decisions.
Mrs. Allen asked if
Greenways and Trails Plan was another program funded by the taxpayers of the
DeKalb County? Terry Hannan responded that monies to be allocated for this
program would come from various avenues: private, public and civic funds.
Mr. Miller added that it is important that the County approve and support
this Plan first if it expects any municipality to do so.
Mr. Steimel inquired
whether there was a plan in place to approach the surrounding municipalities
regarding adoption of the
Greenways and Trails
Plan? Ms. Fauci
stated that the next step would be to contact the cities and towns for their
support after the County approves the Plan.
Mr. Slack moved to
approve the
DeKalb County Greenways
and Trails Plan,
seconded by Mr. Lyle, and the motion carried with five yes
(Lyle, Slack, Steimel, Dubin, Faivre) and one
no
vote (Allen).
USE VARIATION TEXT
AMENDMENT --
Petition to amend the Use Variation regulations to address properties
acquired prior to October of 1976, Petition DC-06-14
Mr. Miller stated that
the Planning, Zoning and Building Department staff, on behalf of the County
Board, has filed a petition for Amendments to Section 10.02 of the DeKalb
County Zoning Ordinance, regarding Use Variations. The proposed Amendment
would add a criteria that makes property owners who acquired parcels of less
than 40 acres in size prior to October 20, 1976, eligible for approval of a
Use Variation. The required public hearing for this Zoning Text Amendment
was conducted by Hearing Officer Kevin Buick on September 7, 2006. Staff
presented the petition and testified as to the rationale for adopting the
proposed amendments, explaining that the Planning and Zoning Committee had
determined that consideration should be given to expanding the conditions
under which a property owner can qualify for a Use Variation. Specifically,
the Committee wanted evaluation of a new criteria that would allow an owner
who had acquired property, by whatever means, prior to October of 1976, to
be eligible. This would be an alternative to the current regulations which
require a property owner to have purchased the property prior to December of
1993 and to demonstrate that a premium price was paid for the parcel because
it was buildable for a residence at the time it was purchased. Under the
proposed regulations, a property owner who can prove ownership before 1976
would not need to show that the property was purchased.
Mr. Steimel asked what
the significance of October 20, 1976 was regarding this proposed text
amendment? Mr. Miller stated that on October 20, 1976 the 40-acre rule
became overt.
Discussion briefly
followed regarding the background to this issue. Mr. Slack stated he
supported the Amendment, and Mr. Faivre indicated he did not.
Mr. Slack moved to
approve the amendment for Use Variation regulations to address properties
acquired prior to October of 1976, seconded by Mrs. Dubin, and the motion
carried with five yes (Lyle, Slack, Steimel, Dubin, Allen) and one novote
(Faivre).
SIGN REGULATIONS
AMENDMENT
-- Presentation by staff of a possible amendment to the Sign Regulations
of the Zoning Ordinance regarding temporary signs to address the need for
signs announcing approved development projects and signs associated with
seasonal uses
Mr. Miller stated that
at its last regularly-scheduled meeting, the Planning and Zoning Committee
considered the request of the owner of a
farm market
for an extension of the period of time that temporary signs associated
with the market may remain on site. Per the existing Sign Regulations of
the Zoning Ordinance,
temporary signs are limited to a total of
30 days, unless a longer period of time is granted by Committee action.
The owner of the market pointed out that such agricultural uses are
typically in place for months, from Spring until Fall of each year, and
traditionally have associated signs. Mr. Miller noted that roadside
stands are a permitted use in the A-1 District, but there are no sign
regulations to recognize these uses. At the same meeting, representatives
of a church that was soon to be under construction requested permission
for a temporary sign that would be on site for longer than 30 days,
announcing the
future home of the church. Mr. Miller
explained that there is no provision for temporary signs associated with
newly approved Special Uses that are under construction in the A-1
District. After granting the requests for an extended period of time for
the temporary signs, Zoning Committee members directed staff to consider
possible amendments to the Sign Regulations to address the issue of
temporary signs that may be appropriate for a period of more than one
month.
Staff presented some
possible changes to accommodate multiple on-site signs associated with
seasonal uses. These changes would require a Sign Permit, but only one
such permit would be needed per applicant per year. Another possible
change was presented that would accommodate the
coming soon type signs.
A final issue related
to off-premise signs. Staff noted that such signs, advertising a product,
service or use that does not take place on the property where the sign is
installed, are currently prohibited by the Sign Regulations. There are
some uses that have employed such signs for years, and staff has never
pursued these signs which are violations, but would be required to do so
if a complaint were received. Staff recommendation is that off-premise
signs continue to be prohibited.
Mr. Faivre stated that he
is uncomfortable with a policy that requires staff to look the other way
when an off-premise sign is installed. Mr. Miller noted that is the
unofficial policy now, unless such a sign is installed in a public
right-of-way or creates a public hazard/nuisance or if a complaint is
received. He stated that changing the regulations to allow off-premise
signs would actually add to the requirements that those who use such signs
currently face. Mr. Miller also noted that some types of off-premise signs
are typically considered a nuisance, such as the directional signs for
subdivisions that are installed over the weekends.
Mr. Steimel indicated
that he would like to see some provision to allow permitted seasonal uses to
install off-premise signs. Mr. Miller stated that such could be done, but
it involves some complications, including how far from the property where
the use is located should an off-premise sign be permitted?
Following further
discussion, it was agreed that staff should develop possible language to
accommodate off-premise signs for permitted seasonal uses. Staff was also
requested to contact other counties and jurisdictions to see what they
allow. The information should be presented at the next meeting of the
Planning and Zoning Committee for consideration.
As this item was
strictly informative, no action was taken.
PERSONNEL
-- Exempt Employee Evaluation
Ray Bockman, County
Administrator, forwarded a letter to the Committee regarding his evaluation
that the Planning Director had successfully completed his Standard Work
Program for the year. Mr. Miller explained that the Committee is requested
to agree, or not, with the County Administrator's decision as part of the
annual evaluation of the Planning Director. Committee members discussed Mr.
Miller's job performance for the previous year.
Mr. Faivre made a
motion endorsing the County Administrator's determination that the Planning
Director had satisfactorily completed his Standard Work Program for the
year, seconded by Mr. Lyle, and the motion carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
- Mrs. Allen moved to adjourn, seconded by Mr. Lyle, and the motion
carried unanimously.
Respectfully
submitted,
Roger Steimel
Planning and Zoning
Committee Chairman
|