I. CALL TO ORDER

I.A Pledge of Allegiance

I.B Verify Quorum

I.C Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2020 Meeting

II. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS

III. PUBLIC HEARINGS

III.A Case 2020-08: 13389 McCarthy Road Sewer Connection Variation

III.B Case 2020-09: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments

IV. ACTION ITEMS

V. GENERAL DISCUSSION

VI. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION

VII. ADJOURNMENT

Village of Lemont

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONJune 3, 2020 – 6:30 PM

Village Hall - Village Board Room418 Main Street, Lemont, IL 60439

AGENDA

Please view the Agenda for this meeting under "Upcoming Events" for directions for publiccomment, registering for the meeting, and how to view the meeting.

1

418 Main Street | Lemont, IL 60439

TO: Planning and Zoning CommissionFROM: Mark Herman, Community DevelopmentTHROUGH:SUBJECT: Approval of Minutes: May 6, 2020 Meeting DATE: June 3, 2020 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

Consistency with Village Policy

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONApprove minutes as presented.

BOARD ACTION REQUESTEDApprove minutes as presented.

ATTACHMENTSMay 2020 Lemot Meeting.pdf

2

1

Village of Lemont Planning and Zoning Commission

Regular Meeting of May 6, 2020 A regular meeting of the Plan Commission for the Village of Lemont was held at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 6, 2020 via teleconference and was livestreamed for the public.

I. CALL TO ORDER A. Pledge of Allegiance Chairman Studebaker called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. He then led the Pledge of Allegiance.

B. Verify Quorum Upon roll call the following were: Present: Carmody, Cunningham, O’Connor, Pawlak, McGleam, Zolecki, Studebaker Absent: None

Community Development Manager Mark Herman, Consulting Planner Jamie Tate, and Village Trustee Ron Stapleton were also present. C. Approval of Minutes – April 1, 2020 Commissioner McGleam apologized to staff. At the last meeting he had commented to staff on making sure that if a road is not dedicated it should be included in staff’s packet and it was included in the packet. Commissioner O’Connor made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cunningham to approve the minutes from the April 1, 2020 regular meeting with no changes. A voice vote was taken: Ayes: All Nays: None Motion passed

II. CHAIRMAN’S COMMENTS

Mrs. Tate explained how tonight’s meeting will work and how the public can submit comments in regards to the cases this evening. Chairman Studebaker greeted everyone and asked those who are planning on speaking this evening to raise his/her right hand. He then administered the oath.

III. PUBLIC HEARINGS

3

2

A. CASE 2020-07 – 13691 KETTERING PARKWAY FENCE VARIATION Chairman Studebaker called for a motion to open the public hearing for Case 2020-07.

Commissioner McGleam made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Zolecki to open the public hearing for Case 2020-07. A voice vote was taken: Ayes: All Nays: None Motion passed Staff Presentation Jamie Tate, Consulting Planner, said the request is for a variance for a five foot fence in a corner side yard. The maximum height in corner side yard is four feet. The location of the property is 13691 Kettering Parkway. The zoning is R-4 and the lot size 0.4 acres. Fences in residential districts are further regulated when located in a corner side yard or front yard. The subject property is a corner lot with another corner lot abutting the rear property line. This area of Kettering Estates has a less common curvilinear street pattern with irregular lots and more corner lots. The proposed fence is a black aluminum open style fence and it will maintain the 20 foot setback from the edge of the street. It will be approximately 13 feet from the corner side yard. The purpose of the fence is to better maintain their large dog and possible future installation of a swimming pool. Mrs. Tate stated the Comprehensive Plan does not address fences. There is a part in the “Our Homes” section that talks about maintaining high standards for residential design. Fences in corner yards are supposed to be decorative with the open style. This will allow for good visibility and transparency. While researching this proposal, staff uncovered a document published in the 1950’s on fences that is still just as relevant today as it was back then. The fence height varies between a maximum of 2.5 feet to up to 5 to 6 feet in height for decorative fences in a corner side yard. The underlying purpose to regulate height in corner side yards then was safety just as it is today. She further explained the different types of corner lots. The Lemont UDO does not differentiate between the different types of corner lots, rather it just states that up 4 feet in height decorative fences can be located in the front or corner side yard. She showed why these regulations are in place and how they can cause safety issues. She then showed on the overhead where the applicant wants to place the proposed fence and how it compares to what is allowed. Staff did look at the standards for variations. The first standard is that the variation is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the UDO which it generally does.

4

3

The decorative fence will blend in seamlessly amongst the adjacent homes. The open-style provides visibility and the public safety and vision from the corner should be maintained and protected. The second is the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances. The Kettering Parkway circle does create some awkward corner lots. There are similar lots along the Parkway that could file a petition for a similar fence variation. The hardship is being created by the applicant since they are requesting the variation. The variation was not found to be detrimental to the public welfare and would have very minimal impact. The HOA does promote this type of fence. The last standard is that the fence will not alter the essential character or be a substantial detriment. A similar style fence, but at 4 feet in height, has been installed on a corner lot within the subdivision and it does not appear to have altered the essential character. In conclusion, staff feels the fence will not be a detriment to the adjacent properties or alter the character. The fence will not impair visibility or create a hazard. Staff is recommending approval with conditions listed in staff’s packet. Chairman Studebaker asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions. Commissioner Zolecki said a few months ago there was discussion on how the height of the fence is measured. He asked if those amendments were approved. He understands that there is not really a topographical issue with this lot. Mrs. Tate stated it was discussed but did not go any further. Mr. Herman, Community Development Manager, said he did go out to the sight and he said he did not see any topographical issues. Chairman Studebaker stated if there are not any further questions for staff he will then ask if the applicant would like to make a presentation. Applicant Presentation Chris Booth, applicant, said staff did a great job summarizing his application. The reason why he is asking for the variation is because his dog is able to clear a four foot fence. If he plans to put a pool in down the road there is a requirement to have a five foot fence. Commissioner Cunningham asked if the applicant had any issues with the conditions that staff is recommending. Mr. Booth stated he did not. Chairman Studebaker asked if there were any further questions for the applicant. None responded. He then asked if staff received any emails or phone calls from the public in regards to this public hearing.

5

4

Public Comment Mr. Herman said he has not received any comment from the public. Chairman Studebaker asked if there were any further questions or comments. None responded. He then called for a motion to close the public hearing. Commissioner McGleam made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pawlak to close the public hearing for Case 2020-07. A voice vote was taken: Ayes: All Nays: None Motion passed Plan Commission Discussion Commissioner Carmody stated he was going abstain from voting because he is a neighbor of the applicant and is a resident in the Kettering Subdivision. Chairman Studebaker then called for a motion for recommendation. Plan Commission Recommendation Commissioner Zolecki made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pawlak to recommend to the Mayor and Board of Trustees approval of Case 2020-07 – 13691 Kettering Fence Variation with the following conditions: 1. The fence must be an open style black aluminum fence. 2. The maximum height is 5 feet within any portion of the corner side yard. 3. The fence must meet all other requirements of the UDO including the 20 feet

from the adjacent right-of-way. A roll call vote was taken: Ayes: Zolecki, Pawlak, O’Connor, McGleam, Cunningham, Studebaker Nays: None Abstain: Carmody Findings of Fact Commissioner Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGleam to authorize the Chairman to approve the Findings of Fact for Case 2020-07 as prepared by staff. A voice vote was taken: Ayes: All Nays: None Motion passed

IV. ACTION ITEMS

6

5

A. CASE 19-08 – COVINGTON KNOLLS UNIT 8 FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT

Staff Presentation Mrs. Tate said Gallagher and Henry filed an application requesting a Final Plat of Subdivision and Final PUD (Planned Unit Development). It is located at the northeast corner of 127th Street and Covington Drive. The zoning is R-4 Single Family Detached Residential District and the property is 7.7 acres. It is entitled for 26 units detached single-family homes. The preliminary PUD and Plat was approved on August 12, 2019. Since the preliminary proposal public hearing that was seen by the Planning and Zoning Commission in June 2019, the two parking lots have been removed from Lots 439 and 465. These were parking lots for the park across the street. They have worked out an amendment with the Park District to remove the parking so people would not have to walk across the street. Mrs. Tate stated the Final Plan shall be in substantial compliance with the Preliminary PUD. Conformance would be making sure the number of dwelling units have not increased, materials are the same, height of the buildings have not increased and no changes in the Final Engineering. The applicant has submitted the final engineering plans, tree preservation plan, landscape plan and subdivision plat/plans. They are finishing addressing outstanding comments from herself, Village Arborist, Village Engineer Village Ecologist and Fire Marshall. They have provided the signed agreement with the Park District and Gallagher and Henry which had to do with the parking lots being moved. There were some specific lots called out as garage left and right which they have been specified. There are no access easements for lots 439 and 465 which was implemented so no access was allowed off of Covington Drive. These lots are now outlots which will be maintained by the Village. The plat was found to be in conformance with the preliminary. There are a few engineering comments that had to do with maintenance that have been worked out. The Village Arborist was looking for a few more trees in one of the lots and some detention pond minor comments as well. Lastly, nothing has changed with the residential design. Mrs. Tate said in conclusion, staff found it in substantial conformance to the Preliminary Plat and PUD. The only recommendation left would be to address the outstanding comments. Chairman Studebaker asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions for staff. Commissioner McGleam asked if staff could explain the outlots.

7

6

Mrs. Tate said right next to the Lots 439 and 465 they placed outlots there. It was left over from the home lot so it is basically parkway. It will now no longer offer access off of Covington. Chairman Studebaker asked if the applicant wanted to make a presentation. Applicant Presentation John Gallagher, applicant, said staff did a great job. The two outlots are very small detention basin to meet the new stormwater requirements. Chairman Studebaker asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions for the applicant. None responded. He then asked Mr. Herman if there was any public comment submitted. Public Comment Mr. Herman stated there is no public comment. Plan Commission Discussion Chairman Studebaker asked if there were any further questions or comments from the Commission. None responded. Plan Commission Recommendation Chairman Studebaker called for a motion for recommendation. Commissioner O’Connor made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to recommend to the Mayor and Board of Trustees approval of Case 19-08 Final Plat and Planned Unit Development for Covington Knolls Unit 8 with the following condition: 1. Address any additional outstanding issues as noted in the comment letters by the

Fire Marshal, Village Arborist and Village Engineer. The remaining comments must be addressed prior to the issuance of a permit.

A roll call vote was taken: Ayes: O’Connor, Carmody, Cunningham, McGleam, Pawlak, Zolecki, Studebaker Nays: None Motion passed B. CASE 2006-26 – NOTTING HILL FINAL PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT Staff Presentation

8

7

Mrs. Tate said Teton Development LLC filed an application on March 31, 2020 requesting a Final Plat of Subdivision and Final PUD for Notting Hill. The subject property is 10.1 acres and located at 15411 W. 129th Street. The zoning is R-5 Single-Family Attached Residential District. It will be a 43 unit attached single-family residential subdivision. There was a major modification to the Preliminary PUD for Notting Hill which was approved on February 10, 2020. The original Notting Hill Subdivision was approved in 2007 which had a similar layout. They did go through the amendment process and updated the elevations and reduced the number of units. That has been extended every year since 2007 until the approved amendment in February. Mrs. Tate stated the modified preliminary plans changed from the version reviewed by the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) at the public hearing in December 2019 as Notting Hill Drive no longer connects to 129th Street. The applicant is going to create a hammerhead in that area. This was the recommendation from the PZC. The scope of the review is to verify conformance with the preliminary plans and plat. The conditions for the preliminary PUD are included in staff’s report. These conditions are setup a little different then the last case that was heard. That is because a lot of the language transferred from 2007. The Landscape Plan and Engineer Plan have been submitted and are under review and comments have been provided to the applicant. The Plat of Annexation shall be recorded and was about to happen until the Cook County Recorder’s office closed due to the Covid-19 Stay at Home order. Impact fees shall be paid and the covenants have been provided since the positing of staff’s report. Lastly, a sidewalk on the north side of 129th Street has to be put on the plans and installed by the applicant. Mrs. Tate said the final plat has been found to be consistent with the approved preliminary plat. She has done review on the landscape plan and has provided comments to the applicant. The sidewalk has to be updated. The Engineering Plan is under review and shall be approved prior to the Final Plat approval. It has also been requested that 128th Street either be stubbed at the property line or provide an easement in that area if the land to the west were ever to be developed and 128th Street were to go through. The Village Engineer is questioning Lot 15 and if it can be graded to be more functional and that an easement may be needed near Lot 22 in order to handle the 100 year overflow. The Fire Marshal took a look at the plans and is requesting a fire wall separation between the single-family townhomes or sprinklers in the buildings. There are comments about hydrant spacing and providing clear space around hydrants. Lastly, the Marshal is requesting a hammerhead detail for the dead end at 129th Street to verify emergency vehicles can maneuver in this area. The Arborist and Ecologist have made comments about street trees and pruning. Nothing is changing to the residential design.

9

8

Mrs. Tate stated staff is recommending approval of the Final PUD/Plat with the following conditions listed in staff’s report. She then read through those conditions. The only thing different is the applicant has submitted the HOA declarations so that has been removed. Chairman Studebaker asked if any of the Commissioners had any questions for staff. None responded. He then asked the applicant if he wanted to make a presentation or provide any comments. Applicant presentation Pete Coules, representing Ed Mansell, said Mr. Mansell is selling the property. The people that submitted this latest drawing are the contract purchasers. If they do not buy the property then Mr. Mansell plans on building exactly what is shown here. They do not have any issues with the conditions. There is a dedication for any future 129th Street. They plan on recording the Plat as soon as the Recorder’s Office is back open. Chairman Studebaker asked if there were any questions for the applicant from the Commission. None responded. Public Comment Chairman Studebaker asked if there was any public comment submitted to staff. Mr. Herman stated there was not. Plan Commission Discussion Chairman Studebaker asked if there were any further comments or questions from the Commission. None responded. Plan Commission Recommendation Chairman Studebaker called for a motion for recommendation. Commissioner Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Zolecki to recommend to the Mayor and Board of Trustees approval of Case 2006-26 – Final Plat and Planned Unit Development for Notting Hill with the following conditions: 1. Address any additional outstanding issues as noted in the comment letter by the

Consulting Planner, Village Ecologist, Fire Marshal, Village Arborist, and Village Engineer. The remaining comments must be addressed prior to the issuance of a permit.

2. Provide the sidewalk along the north side of 129th Street as stated in the Amendment to the Preliminary PUD.

10

9

3. Verify the recording of the Plat of Annexation once the Recorder’s office reopens and the Stay at Home Order is lifted.

A roll call vote was taken: Ayes: Cunningham, Zolecki, Carmody, McGleam, O’Connor, Pawlak, Studebaker Nays: None Motion passed

V. GENERAL DISCUSSION None

VI. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION None

VII. ADJOURNMMENT Chairman Studebaker called for a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner McGleam made a motion, seconded by Commissioner O’Connor to adjourn the meeting. A voice vote was taken: Ayes: All Nays: None Motion passed Minutes prepared by Peggy Halper

11

418 Main Street | Lemont, IL 60439

TO: Planning and Zoning CommissionFROM: Jamie Tate, Community DevelopmentTHROUGH: Mark Herman, MPA, AICPSUBJECT: Case 2020-08: 13389 McCarthy Road Sewer Connection Variation DATE: June 3, 2020 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

Consistency with Village Policy

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSee attached staff report with attachments.

BOARD ACTION REQUESTEDSee attached staff report with attachments.

ATTACHMENTSStaff Report for PZC 2020-08 13691 13389 McCarthy Sewer Connection Variation.pdfStaff Analysis Attachment 1 - 13389 McCarthy Road.pdfVariation Application and Criteria Worksheet.pdfLetter to Village_04272020.pdfApplicant aerial.pdf

12

STAFF REPORT TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jamie Tate, AICP, Consulting Planner THRU: Mark Herman, MPA, AICP, Community Development Manager

CASE NUMBER & NAME 2020-08 13389 McCarthy Road Sewer Connection Variation

APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER Krystian Ustupski

DATE June 3, 2020

PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION 13389 McCarthy Road PIN: 22-26-102-003-0000

BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant and property owner, Krystian Ustupski, is requesting variation approval related to Section 17.28.020 in order to allow a detached single-family home to be built on a 2.0-acre lot within the R-4 zoning district without connecting to Village sewer and instead utilizing an onsite septic system. The Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) states that ‘all developments shall include provisions for the construction of sanitary sewers’, which requires all new home construction to connect to Village sewer. In order to extend the sanitary sewer to the subject property, it would need to travel approximately 160 feet through neighboring properties to the east (Kensington Estates) in order to serve the proposed single-family home. Additionally, due to previous agreements, permission from Cook Golf Properties (Cog Hill) is also required. The applicant feels that variance to allow an onsite septic system will mitigate any disturbance to the properties to the east and allow for only on-site disturbance therefore allowing the least invasive approach with the surrounding properties.

Subject Property shaded blue. Map Source: Cook County GIS

EXISTING ZONING

R-4, Single-Family Detached

Residential District

EXISTING LAND USE Vacant Residential Lot

SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE North: Palos Park R-1-A, One-Family Dwelling Dist./ Golf Course South: Palos Park R-1-A, One-Family Dwelling Dist. / Golf Course East: Palos Park R-1-A, One-Family Dwelling Dist./ Golf Course West: R-5 Single Family Attached / Kensington Estates PUD / Single-Family homes

REQUESTED ACTIONS Variation to allow a septic system associated with the construction of

a new single-family home

SIZE OF PROPERTY 2.0 acres

PROPERTY HISTORY

The subject property was annexed into the Village of Lemont in 2008 and entitled for a four-lot detached single family home subdivision named Isla Bella Estates. The subject property was rezoned to R-4 at that time and received preliminary plat and PUD approval but it never proceeded to achieve final PUD or Plat approvals. Development on this property is bound by the approved Annexation Agreement from 2008 which the Applicant wishes to rescind along with the variation request. The proposal to construct one single-family home on the property contradicts most of the agreement as it speaks to “Required Improvements, Zoning and Land Use Restrictions, Contributions and Dedication and Construction of Streets”, items typically necessary for a residential subdivision. An owner-occupied single-family home on the lot would not be allowed under the current AA that is in effect until 2028.

COMPATIBILITY with the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The subject property is within the Infill Residential (INF) future land use designation.

COMPATIBILITY with the UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

The proposed detached single-family will be designed to be compatible with the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) except for the request to not connect to Village of Lemont sewer and utilize a septic system instead.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS DENY

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Analysis 2. Site Photographs 3. Variation Application, Criteria Worksheet

4. Letter to Village from Applicant dated 4/27/20 5. Aerial with approximate home location and septic

13

Page | 1  

Attachment 1 – Staff Analysis – 13389 McCarthy Road Sewer Connection Variation

Comprehensive Plan. The Lemont 2030 Comprehensive Plan identifies the subject site as Infill Residential (INF). The Comprehensive Plan describes this area as:

Properties within this district are existing residential neighborhoods, typically in platted subdivisions. New development in this district is expected to be minimal and generally limited to new construction on the few vacant lots in the area. Some redevelopment of older home sites may also occur over time, but would likely not increase the total number of dwelling units on the redevelopment parcels. Any new development or red elopement will be consistent with the established character of these neighborhoods.

The surrounding land use to the north and west is labeled as Open Space and Recreation (likely due to the golf course) and the future land use for the adjacent Kensington Estates is Infill Residential. At the time the 2030 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2014, the subject property had a history of a 4-lot detached single-family home subdivision receiving preliminary entitlements. It is likely this previous proposal assisted in the future land use designation of Infill Residential as a single-family home or homes was expected to occupy the land. Since it is a vacant lot adjacent to a subdivision in the Village, Kensington Estates, it is appropriate and likely it is to develop into residential. The construction of one single-family home on the subject property will create the least amount of impact on neighboring properties, especially if the home is as set back as the applicant has demonstrated on the image included in his submittal. It should maintain the rural and open space feel of the surrounding properties.

General Analysis.

The following variation from the UDO with subsequent analysis is proposed for the construction of a new residential detached single-family home to utilize an onsite septic system rather than connect to Village sewer on a 2.0 acre lot in the R-4 zoning district:

Code Section  UDO Requirement  Proposal  

§17.28.020 Sanitary Sewers   All developments shall include provisions for the construction of sanitary sewers and designed according to this section. 

The proposed detached single‐family home is to be designed utilizing an on‐site septic system rather than connecting to the Village sewer system. The 2.0‐acre subject property is large enough to allow for an onsite septic system and it is located at the edge of the Village of Lemont, therefore a Village sewer extension would not 

14

Page | 2  

extend any further than the subject property. As the applicant stated in the Criteria worksheet for a Variation, allowing an on‐site septic system for one lot to construct a single‐family home would cause less disturbance to neighboring properties than extending sewer line for one single‐family home.  

Due to the location of the 2.0-acre subject property, surrounded on 3 sides by the Village of Palos Park and at the edge of the Village of Lemont, it should be appropriate to allow the construction of an on-site septic system rather than extend public infrastructure to one-lot at the end of the line. The development of a single-family home in the R-4 district will have to follow all other regulations of the UDO such as the installation of parkway trees, residential design guidelines, providing a sidewalk along McCarthy Road, utilizing curb and gutter, etc. This will all be verified and reviewed during the building permit process.

Along with the variation, the applicant is requesting to rescind the Annexation Agreement for this property approved in 2008 as O-51-08. The Annexation Agreement was in conjunction with the approval of a 4-lot detached single-family home subdivision named Isla Bella Estates. The Agreement obligates the current property owner to construct the four homes and he wishes to instead construct an owner-occupied detached single-family home on the property. Rather than amend the Agreement, the request is to rescind the Agreement as the applicant feels amending would be cumbersome and unnecessary as so much of the document is no longer applicable. A part of the Annexation Agreement that should likely remain is to dedicate the right-of-way (ROW) along 127th Street in order to maintain and continue the appropriate ROW width from the east (as done with Kensington Estates). Other portions of the Annexation Agreement should be discussed at the Village Board level to ensure rescinding is the most opportune direction for the Village rather than amending.

Committee of the Whole The proposal was reviewed and discussed at the Committee of the Whole (COW) meeting on Monday, May 18, 2020 due to the timing of the application, the continuation of virtual meetings and in order to facilitate the process for the Applicant. The Committee of the Whole did not appear to have concerns regarding the variance request to connect to utilize an on-site personal septic system rather than the Village sewer since the property is at the end of the line and the lot was an appropriate size to house a septic system.

15

Page | 3  

There was discussion surrounding the Annexation Agreement and the most suitable way to proceed in order to best protect the Village ensuring appropriate development measures, such as right-of-way dedication and the installation of parkway trees. The Village Attorney will review the Annexation Agreement (AA) and the Applicant was open to amending the AA rather than rescinding it, as the COW stated this was the direction they wished to explore. Further discussion was held regarding if the current zoning should be R-1 instead of R-4, as per the language in the Annexation Agreement. This matter is under further review; but it is not likely to impact the proposed house. The Annexation Agreement discussion matter is held at the Village Board or Committee of Whole meetings and not a part of the PZC review for the variation request. A neighbor spoke at the COW meeting in favor of the variation to allow an onsite septic system as running the sewer line through neighboring yards would be disruptive and costly, since there is mature landscaping located in the easements and in close proximity.

STANDARDS FOR VARIATIONS

The proposed detached single-family home on a 2.0-acre lot located at 13389 McCarthy Road requires a variation to the UDO in order to utilize an on-site septic system rather than connect to Village sewer. Section 17.04.150.D states that variation requests must be consistent with the following three standards to be approved:

1. The variation is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Unified Development Ordinance; The general purpose of the UDO is specified in UDO Section 17.01.050:

Promoting and protecting the public health, safety and general welfare; Ensuring adequate natural light, air, privacy, and access to property; Avoiding or mitigating the hazards to persons and property resulting from

accumulation of runoff or flood waters; Protecting the character of established residential neighborhoods; Maintaining and promoting economically vibrant and attractive commercial

areas; Establishing clear and efficient development review and approval procedures;

and Conserving the value of land and buildings throughout the Village; and Accommodating development and growth that is consistent with the preceding

stated purposes.

Analysis. The proposed variation is generally in harmony with the above stated purpose statements found in the UDO. The character of any adjacent neighborhood or property should not be affected by the utilization of an onsite septic system. The subject property is at the edge of the Village and the extension of a sewer conserves Village utilities as a sewer system would end at the location and not be utilized beyond the subject property.

16

Page | 4  

2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances, and thus strict enforcement

of the Unified Development Ordinance would result in practical difficulties or impose exceptional hardships due to the special and unique conditions that are not generally found on other properties in the same zoning district; Analysis. The UDO states that in making a determination whether there are unique circumstances, practical difficulties, or particular hardships in a variation petition, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall take into consideration the factors listed in UDO §17.04.150. D.2. Particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions

results in a particular hardship upon the owner as distinguished from a mere inconvenience.

o Analysis. The physical surroundings or topographical conditions do not appear to result in a particular hardship for the applicant,

The conditions upon which the petition for variation is based would not

be applicable generally to other property within the same zoning district. o Analysis. It is not likely the petition for variation would apply to other lots

in the same zoning district as this lot in R-4 is larger than most and it borders the Village’s eastern boundary with the Village of Palos Park.

The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person

presently having an interest in the property. o Analysis. The hardship has been created by the applicant as they desire

to construct a new detached single-family home utilizing a septic system rather than to connect to Village sewer.

The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare

or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the subject project is located.

Analysis. The variation should not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. As the applicant stated in the Variation Criteria Sheet, allowing an onsite septic system will have less impact on neighboring properties as they will not need to run a sewer line through or near any adjacent properties.

The variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties or substantially increase congestion in the public street or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.

17

Page | 5  

o Analysis. The proposed variation should not substantially increase congestion in the public street or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish property values within the neighborhood. The variation to allow an onsite septic system should not be noticeable to any neighboring properties.

3. The variation will not alter the essential character of the locality and will not be a

substantial detriment to adjacent property. Analysis. It does not appear the variation will alter the essential character of the locality or be a substantial detriment to adjacent property. The change to the subject property will be that a single-family home will be located onsite rather than a vacant lot. Whether or not a newly constructed home is utilizing an onsite septic system or connected to Village sewer should not change the essential character of the locality.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the subject property is on the eastern edge of the Village of Lemont and adjacent on three sides to the Village of Palos Park, allowing the applicant to utilize an onsite septic system rather than connect to Village sewer, should not be a detriment to adjacent properties or alter the essential character of the area. The extension of the sewer line would likely not go past the subject property to the east as the Village of Lemont ends, so whether or not the subject property extends the sewer through their property would not likely effect any development to the east. The 2.0-acre subject property is a large residential lot that is surrounded by mostly open space golf course property that should not be affected by the onsite septic system. Allowing the septic will cause less disturbance to the neighboring subdivision, Kensington Estates, as the sewer line will not need to run through any easements or near any existing homes. Staff is recommending approval of Case 2020-08 13389 McCarthy Road Sewer Connection Variation with the following conditions:

1. During the permit process, the applicant should dedicate the right-of-way along McCarthy Road.

2. Provide a watermain easement along 127th Street.

3. The development of the single-family home on the subject property must meet all other requirements of the UDO.

4. Verify with Village Attorney regarding rescinding of Annexation Agreement (AA) and if any applicable development standards should remain, therefore determining which approach to the AA is the best for the Village.

18

Page | 6  

19

Page | 7  

Attachment 2 - Site Photographs

Figure 1: Approximate location of subject property according to Cook County Aerials 4/2019 

 

Figure 2: View from McCarthy Road at current entrance to subject property.  

20

Page | 8  

  

Figure 3: Alternate view from McCarthy Road looking at subject property.  

 

21

22

23

24

25

April 27, 2020 Via Regular U.S. Mail and Electronic Mail The Village of Lemont Attn: The Planning and Zoning Commission 418 Main Street Lemont, Illinois 60439 To Whom It May Concern: Please be advised that we are now the legal owners of the 2.00-acre parcel located at 13389 McCarthy Road (the South 348.48 feet of the West 250.00’ of the Southeast ¼ of the Northwest ¼ of Section 26, Township 37 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County Illinois). This letter follows our prior communication with members of the Planning and Economic Development Division, including Jason Berry and Mark Herman, and the Village Engineer, James Cainkar. As previously discussed, development on this property is bound by the Annexation Agreement (“Agreement”) for a four-lot residential subdivision on this parcel (Isla Bella Estates) adopted on October 28, 2008 by Ordinance O-51-08. As background, a previous property owner annexed the subject property into the Village in 2008. The property was also granted a Rezoning and Preliminary PUD to allow construction of Isla Bella Estates. Though the previous property owner never applied for Final PUD within the time granted by the Village, the Agreement runs with the land and is still in effect until 2028. Please allow this correspondence to serve as our request to rescind the Agreement. Our intended use of this property (a single-family home) renders majority of the Agreement irrelevant and/or inapplicable. Merely amending the Agreement would require amending virtually every section of the Agreement. For example, Section III, Zoning and Land Use Restrictions, references the approved PUD preliminary Plan of Isla Bella Estates, which is no longer the plan for the property. Section IV, Required Improvements, involves the installation of detention basins, appurtenant structures, and other improvements, which would not be required under a single-family home development. Further, Section V, Dedication and Construction of Streets, references the design of streets within the parcel. Considering the parcel will no longer be a four-unit subdivision, but rather a single-family home, this provision is also irrelevant. Moreover, Sections VI-VIII contain provisions related to public improvements, which would be inapplicable with the revised intended use of the property. Finally, Section IX, Contributions, would also be inapplicable per Section 17.18.040 of the Lemont Unified Development Ordinance because the number of dwelling units on the property will not be increased. Please let us know if there is any other information you need from us related to this request. Thank you for your attention to this matter, and we look forward to hearing from you soon. Respectfully,

Krystian Ustupski and Olivia Czupta-Ustupski

26

27

418 Main Street | Lemont, IL 60439

TO: Planning and Zoning CommissionFROM: Jamie Tate, Community DevelopmentTHROUGH: Mark Herman, MPA, AICPSUBJECT: Case 2020-09: Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) Amendments DATE: June 3, 2020 SUMMARY/BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

Consistency with Village Policy

STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSee attached staff report with attachments.

BOARD ACTION REQUESTEDSee attached staff report with attachments.

ATTACHMENTSStaff Report for PZC 2020-09 UDO Amendments.pdfStaff Analysis Attachment 1 - UDO Amendments.pdf

28

STAFF REPORT TO: Planning & Zoning Commission FROM: Jamie Tate, AICP, Consulting Planner THRU: Mark Herman, MPA, AICP, Community Development Manager

CASE NUMBER & NAME 2020-09 UDO Amendments

APPLICANT Village of Lemont

DATE June 3, 2020

PROPERTY ADDRESS/LOCATION N/A

BRIEF SUMMARY OF REQUEST It is appropriate to review the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) from time to time due to modernization, trends in land development, a change in policy direction or to update any noted errors in text language. The Lemont 2030 Comprehensive Plan also designates the Community Development Department Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) to review the UDO for updates and changes at least once a year. The last time the PZC reviewed updates to the UDO was a year ago in June 2019. Below are the topics to be discussed during this round of proposed amendments to the UDO:

Remove “Duplex” as a permitted use in R-5A zoning district and change it to a Special Use in the R-5A district; and Allow a “banquet hall” as a special use in the D-D zoning district. Currently it’s listed as “- “; and Change the Technical Review Committee (TRC) Membership; and Remove an inspection requirement for non-conforming multi-family residential buildings; and Make various scrivener’s error corrections; and Modify §17.29 for Stormwater Management to update references to County Ordinances and implement compatibility

between wet and dry detention slopes.

EXISTING ZONING N/A

EXISTING LAND USE N/A

SURROUNDING ZONING & LAND USE

N/A

REQUESTED ACTIONS Discuss and Approve UDO

Amendments

SIZE OF PROPERTY N/A

COMPATIBILITY with the COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

The proposed amendments to the UDO are compatible with the Lemont 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan encourages staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission to review and propose amendments to the UDO at least one time a year.

COMPATIBILITY with the UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE

The proposal is compatible with all aspects of the UDO as proposed to be modified.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: APPROVE APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS DENY

ATTACHMENTS

1. Staff Analysis

29

Page | 1  

Attachment 1 – Staff Analysis – UDO Amendments

Words in red or specifically called out to be added are proposed additions to the text of the UDO and words stricken are proposed deletions. New UDO code sections are not shown in red rather stated prior to the text that the entire section is new to the UDO. The amendments are organized by topic, rather than by chapter, to facilitate discussion.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND – Change duplex to “S” in R-5A

There has been discussion to remove ‘duplexes’ or ‘two-family homes’ from the R-5A zoning district as a use by right and rather restrict duplexes to be special uses within the district. At the time the R-5A district was created, the Village had been receiving several inquiries to allow for duplex construction within residential subdivisions without the limiting setbacks so often modified in PUDs in the R-4 District. The Lemont 2030 Comprehensive Plan called for the Village to create a new residential zoning district that allowed for reduced lot sizes, reduced setbacks and reduced lot widths from typical R-4 requirements to allow detached single-family homes on smaller lots. During creation of this new district directed by the 2030 Plan, duplexes were added to be allowed in this district in part since the Village had received many requests for duplex-style subdivisions and construction.

Since the creation of the R-5A district, it has come up in meetings and there has been direction to staff to explore allowing duplexes in this district as a special use rather than by right, therefore requiring them to be reviewed with stricter scrutiny through the public hearing process and ensuring an approved detached single-family subdivision in R-5A cannot be changed to a duplex subdivision without a public hearing. See the proposed change to the chart below:

Use Category Zoning District

B-1 B-3

B-4

DD INT M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-4A

R-5

R-5A

R-6

RESIDENTIAL B-1 B-3

B-4

DD INT M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-4A

R-5

R-5A

R-6

Household Living

Single-family dwelling - - - P - - - - - P P P P P P P P

Duplex - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P P S P

Two-family detached dwelling - - - P - - - - - - - - - - P - P

Town house - - - P - - - - - - - - - - P - P

Multi-family dwelling - - - P - - - - - - - - - - - - P

30

Page | 2  

____________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND – Update DD Use Table

There has been an inquiry to the Village to renovate a shared space within the Downtown District (DD) for a possible banquet facility to host small to medium events. After internal discussions, staff is agreeable to amending the use table within the DD to allow a banquet facility as a special use, therefore still having the public hearing process in place to ensure an appropriate review of concerns that may go along with a banquet type of use, such as parking, noise, etc. The following change is proposed:

Use Category Zoning District

B-1

B-3

B-4

DD INT M-1

M-2

M-3

M-4

R-1

R-2

R-3

R-4

R-4A

R-5

R-5A

R-6

Retail Sales and Service (except as more specifically regulated)

Banquet hall - S - - S - - - - - - - - - - - - -

_____________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND – Change TRC Membership

Staff has recently discussed processes of development and the appropriate way to funnel proposals through elected officials, staff, neighboring taxing districts and others interested in development within the Village, especially in light of remote meetings happening over the past few months. The Technical Review Committee (TRC) meetings are typically in the beginning of the development process when a proposal is new to the Village and facilitates feedback from departments, consultants and others on a more general scale in order for the applicant or developer to better understand the codes and development process. While it is sometimes appropriate to have other taxing districts, such as the Lemont School District and Lemont Public Library District, at some Technical Review Committee meetings, it should not be a requirement of the UDO for these associated districts to be invited or in attendance of all TRC meetings and projects. The request to have them in attendance at a TRC meeting should be handled on a case by case basis under the request of Village Administration or staff. The following changes are proposed:

17.03.040 – The Technical Review Committee

A. Composition. The Technical Review Committee ("TRC") is comprised of the Planning and Economic Development Director or his or her designee, Building Commissioner or his or her designee, the Village Administrator or his or her designee, Public Works Director or his or her designee, Village Engineer or his or her designee, Village Attorney or his or her designee, and the Fire Marshal or his or her designee

31

Page | 3  

and one representative from Lemont Township, Lemont Public Library, Lemont School District, and the Lemont Park District.

B. Purpose. The TRC reviews concept plans or proposed plans for projects. The offers a pre-submittal design and code review intended to help developers better understand the requirements and issues a project would raise if formally submitted for land use approval. The TRC is advisory in nature; its recommendations are compiled by the Planning and Economic Development Department and, upon submission of the land use application, are communicated to the Planning and Zoning Commission.

As stated in the purpose (B.) “design and code review intended to help developers better understand the requirements and issues a project would raise if formally submitted for land use approval”, the entities proposed to be removed from the TRC Membership Requirement in the UDO are not involved in ‘design or code review’. It should be suggested or relayed to the developer or applicant to contact these separate taxing districts if they feel they want feedback on the proposal and contact information can be provided by the Village. There has been discussion between staff and administration to notify the supportive taxing districts (i.e. school, library, county, etc.) at the time of PZC application when the proposal is more official. Often a proposal or project will come forward to TRC without proceeding through the development course making it cumbersome to involve so many organizations and entities so early in the process.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND – Remove Inspection Requirement for Non-Conforming Multi-Family Residential Buildings

As stated in the UDO in Chapter 17.13 in the Non-Conformities section, if there is a legal non-conforming multi-family use in a single-family zoning district (such as R-4A), when the property sells, the Village is required to do an inspection. Staff has discussed this UDO requirement with other Community Development Department staff members and it appears these particular inspections have not been happening over the years as far as anyone remembers. Without a way to monitor and track these sales, it is quite possible that many have changed hands over time and the Village is not always aware. Even without an inspection process in place, the Village would receive calls from realtors regarding this requirement and there would be a lot of confusion regarding who is required to pay/perform the inspection (buyer versus seller?). Once the inspection was complete after a lot of confusion, the inspection did not really accomplish anything and the inspection requirement continued to confuse.

The following is proposed:

D. Multi-Family Buildings. For a building that exists in a single-family zoning district but is nonconforming because they it is used as multi-family residential building, transfer of ownership shall result in an inspection by Village building code officials for basic health

32

Page | 4  

and safety violations. Upon satisfactory review by code officials, the Village shall issue an occupancy permit for the continued use of the building for multi-family residential use. Failure to bring the building into compliance with noted basic health and safety violations may result in the loss of the building's nonconforming status, and the building may then be subject to all actions, fines and penalties as described in § 17.01.070 of this ordinance.

The entire section shall be removed and “E. Repairs and Maintenance” shall be shifted up to “D” and moved from “E”.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND – Stormwater Management Section Update

Per the Village Engineer, the following updates are proposed to the Stormwater Management section of the UDO. The updates include referencing the Will County Watershed Management Ordinance which the current UDO does not, and it brings the slope ratio of wet detention and dry detention basins into agreement, which is often a point of confusion and controversy during the development process. The Village Engineer has proposed and approves the following updates to this section.

Chapter 17.29 – Stormwater Management

Within the Standards for Stormwater Detention section (17.29.010 B), there should be a reference added to the Will County Watershed Management Ordinance. Add this reference to the section.

Add to this section:  

17.29.020 – DESIGN STANDARDS.

B. Modified Rational Formula. Storm water detention basin design shall utilize the Modified Rational Formula, based upon a storm event using Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) Bulletin 70, Sectional Frequency Distributions for Storm Periods of 5 Minutes to 10 Days and Recurrence Interval of 100 Years, Zone Code 2. The runoff coefficients shall reflect developed site conditions. Developed runoff coefficient (C) shall be as follows: B. Storm Water Detention. Storm water detention should be calculated in accordance with the Watershed Management Ordinance (WMO) in which the project is located. For developments located in the MWRDGC WMO, this shall apply to all development parcels in excess of 3-acres. In no case shall the allowable release rate exceed 0.15 cfs / acre. For development parcels 1-acre or more in area but less than 3-arces, the storm water detention design shall utilize the Modified Rational Formula, based upon a storm event using Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) Bulletin 70, Sectional Frequency Distributions for Storm Periods of 5 Minutes to 10 Days and Recurrence Interval of 100 Years, Zone Code 2. The runoff coefficients shall reflect developed site conditions. Developed runoff coefficient (C) shall be as follows:

C   =   1.00  For retention ponds and natural  

watercourses  

33

Page | 5  

C   =   0.95  For pavements, rooftops and other  

impervious surfaces  

C   =   0.40  For turf and other naturally vege‐  

tated surfaces  

The allowable release rate shall not exceed 0.15 cfs / acre.

C. Detention Volume. The required detention volume shall be equal to 125% of the peak volume calculated from the Modified Rational Formula.

E. Bypass Rate. The allowable bypass rate shall be determined in accordance with current MWRDGC, DEC or LUD standards for developments within Cook, DuPage and Will Counties, respectively. Bypass of off-site flows shall be piped around the detention facility whenever possible.

F. Dry Detention. When dry detention ponds are used, they shall conform to the following standards:

1. All dry detention ponds shall be provided with a low flow system. This includes, but is not limited to, a perforated under drain system. Perforated under drains shall:

a. Be a minimum of eight inches in diameter, with filter sock and backfilled in accordance with IDOT Standard Specifications; and

b. Have a maximum spacing of 100 feet; and

c. Have a cleanout provided at every dead-end terminus.

1. The maximum high-water depth for dry detention ponds shall be four six feet as measured from outfall structure invert elevation to basin overflow elevation.

2. Minimum slopes for grading of the bottom of dry detention ponds shall be 2.0%. Side slopes on ponds shall be maximum 4:1. Maximum vertical wall heights on dry detention ponds shall be three feet from the inside toe of the wall to the top of the wall with three feet of horizontal distance from face of wall to face of wall for stepped wall systems. Retaining walls greater than three feet in height require a professional design by a Licensed Structural Engineer in the State of Illinois. Plans shall include method of railing or fencing along the top of wall. Implementation is subject to review and approval by the Village Engineer.

3. As applicable, all dry detention ponds must be sodded and operational before any building permits are issued. Seeding of dry detention ponds is strictly prohibited.

4. At the request of the Public Works Director, a paved concrete channel shall be provided across the basin bottom for purposes of collection and channelization flow.

G. Wet Detention. A detention basin designed with the intention of holding water on a permanent or nearly permanent basis. Unlike naturalized detention basins, wet detention basins have generally steeper slopes, usually employ riprap for erosion control, and generally do not incorporate emergent vegetation at the edge of the basin, and do not incorporate a combination of vegetated and open waters in the basin area. Slopes of wet detention shall not exceed 45H:1V. Wet detention basins shall be provided with a continuous eight (8) foot wide safety ledge around the circumference of the basin, with a shelf depth of eighteen (18) inches below the design normal water level. The maximum water height shall be 6-feet, as measured from the outfall structure elevation invert to basin overflow detentions.

Add a section for volume control: 34

Page | 6  

M. Volume Control. Volume control shall be provided for all development parcels 30,000 square feet or more on area, in accordance with the applicable Watershed Management Ordinance (WMO) calculation method.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

BACKGROUND – Scrivener’s Errors

Appendix B. – Preliminary Plan/Plat Application Requirements

Under ‘B. Required Documents:’

10. Market Research Study. If a PUD including a shopping center is planned, adequate evidence to establish the need for and feasibility of such development shall be provided. The evidence shall be in the form of a market research report. The requirement for a market research study may be waived by the Community Development Director when he/she determines that the nature and scope of the development will be unlikely to have significant impacts on the surrounding area or Village. This waiver shall be obtained in writing, prior to submission of the submittal packet, and the written waiver approval shall be included as an exhibit in lieu of the traffic market research study. Note that this waiver does not preclude Village staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, or the Village Board from requesting a study once the PUD review is underway.

11. Economic Impact Study. For PUD applications only, the applicant shall submit a tax impact study detailing the impact which the PUD will have upon taxing bodies and the expected number of students that will be generated by any residential portion of the development. The requirement for an economic impact study may be waived by the Community Development Director when he/she determines that the nature and scope of the development will be unlikely to have significant economic impacts on the surrounding area or Village. This waiver shall be obtained in writing, prior to submission of the submittal packet, and the written waiver approval shall be included as an exhibit in lieu of the traffic economic impact study. Note that this waiver does not preclude Village staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, or the Village Board from requesting a study once the PUD review is underway.

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATION

The proposed Unified Development Ordinance Amendments are meant for discussion and can be recommended as proposed, modified or denied.

35

Page | 7  

36