Title/Name/Summary
2011 Land Development Code Amendments II
History
This petition considers Land Development Code amendments to the following sections:
Section 2-102 Definitions
Section 5-106 Appearance and Related Plan Review
Section 6-204 R-3 Residential District
Section 6-204.5 R-3A Residential District
Section 6-205 R-4 Residential District
Section 6-206 RSB Residential Supporting Business District
Section 6-207 BIZ General Business District
Section 6-208 MFG Manufacturing District
Section 6-210 COR Core Mixed Use District
Section 6-211 ORI Mixed Use District
Section 6-212 VC Village Center District
Section 6-307 Signs
Summary of Noteworthy Amendments
Some of the more noteworthy amendments that Plan Commission reviewed and approved included the following:
- Increasing the Floor Area Ratio for the Village Center District from 0.6 for non mixed use and 1.0 for mixed use to 1.0 for all uses and 3.0 for properties within 1,000 feet of the 142nd Street Train Station.
- Providing appropriate setback and lot coverage requirements for single family and multi family residential uses in the R4 zoning district.
- Increasing the allowable signage for large commercial centers in the Village, with provisions for additional architectural features and landscaping. Specifically allowing taller multi tenant signs and larger directional signs for commercial buildings over 500,000 g.s.f.
- Updating the RSB zoning district to be consistent with other zoning districts.
- Permitting Motor Vehicle Services within 200' of residential properties (currently prohibited in MFG) with specific performance standards including only allowing doors facing residential properties to be open when transporting vehicles, conducting all work inside and limiting the time vehicles can be parked outside via outdoor storage regulations.
Village Center District: FAR and Updates
In the Village Center district, density is measured according to floor area ratio (FAR). Currently the FAR regulations allow a 1.0 FAR for mixed-use developments and 0.6 for single use developments. The existing regulations were drafted to incentivize or promote mixed-use development with a higher FAR over single use development with a lower FAR. The area around the 142nd Street Train Station has been previously designated as the downtown of Orland Park, which is proposed to have more urban style, pedestrian oriented buildings. A FAR of 1.0, does not permit that type of development. As a comparison, the COR district allows a FAR up to 2.0 depending on the proposal.
The proposed amendments update the FAR to be consistent in the Village Center District while providing for more density around the 142nd Train Station. Rather than differentiate between mixed use development and single use development, the amendments differentiate development based on geography. For sites within 1,000 feet of the 142nd Street Metra Train Station, the FAR is increased to allow 3.0. For sites that are outside of 1,000 feet of a mass transit facility, the FAR is increased to 1.0. By doing this, the denser buildings will be located in the Orland Park downtown area, near the Metra Station. The remainder of the Village Center district, regardless of land use, will be limited to a 1.0 FAR.
It is important to note that FAR is not the only factor influencing the intensity of a building in the Village Center District. Both lot coverage and building height also regulate what can be built on a property. FAR alone could result in very tall buildings, but when combined with lot coverage (80% maximum) as well as building height, FAR works to promote development that fits contextually into the Village Center District.
The increase to 3.0 FAR within 1,000 feet of a mass transit facility is based on research conducted by the American Planning Association. The 'Model Town Center Zoning Ordinance' was drafted to address the zoning needs of downtowns. APA recommends three different FAR standards: 2.0-3.0, 3.0-5.0 and 5.0-7.0. At 3.0, Orland Park will be on the lower end of the recommended FAR, but still able to provide for a downtown environment near the train station.
R-4 Setbacks and Lot Coverage Updates
The current regulations for the R-4 district are modeled following the R-1, R-2 and R-3 district regulations, which are exclusive to single family detached (SFD) developments. As a result, the R-4 code does not appropriately address requirements for single family attached (SFA) and multi-family (MF) uses (e.g. townhomes and condominium buildings) especially as related to setbacks and lot coverage.
The proposed setback regulations are divided into two parts. The first part maintains the existing R-4 setback regulations but limits them to single family detached residential buildings. The organization of these regulations has been improved for reader friendliness and to clean up grammar. Plan Commission included a change to reduce the minimum side setback are for single family detached buildings from 15 feet to 7.5 feet, to be consistent with SFD side setback regulations for buildings in the R-3 zoning district.
The second part of the setback regulations are new to the R-4 district and are intended specifically for single family attached and multi-family residential buildings. The intent of the regulations is to establish appropriate setbacks from the street for front yard setbacks and setbacks between buildings for side yard and rear yard setbacks. SFA and MF developments are often denser and situated on smaller lots and surrounded by common areas. Side yard and rear yard setbacks from property lines do not make sense. In these scenarios minimum setbacks between buildings achieve a more appropriate and less complicated spacing arrangement.
The main difference with the proposed regulations is the new separation requirements between buildings for rear and side setbacks. Thirty (30) foot building separations are proposed for rear yards and 25 foot separations between buildings for side yards. Before, side yards were calculated at 15% of the width of the lot, which did not make sense in the SFA and MF contexts. Such side yard regulations usually ended up with either very tightly spaced buildings (Collette Highlands townhomes) or very loosely spaced buildings (Crystal Tree townhomes) depending on the prevailing interpretations of how to measure lot width (e.g. small lot width versus block width) and where to draw the line between buildings and lots that do not abut each other.
The proposed regulations streamline spacing of the buildings to a standardized distance rather than a percentage. While each site is different and a percent may enable closer construction of buildings for higher development, the separation requirement will provide a consistent standard and method by which to measure rear and side yards for buildings on non-abutting lots no bigger than the building footprint. This will reduce large modifications and variances that are often requested with these types of development.
Lot Coverage
Under R-4 lot coverage, the amendments seek to increase the total amount of coverage for SFA and MF development from 45% to 60%. Lot coverage for SFD development would remain at the current level of 45%. SFA and MF development typically builds out similar to non-residential development in that building placement occurs within the context of a larger site. Conversely, SFD building placement occurs in a zoning defined building envelope per lot. Because of this difference SFA and MF development lot coverage cannot be calculated per lot. Rather, it must be calculated like non-residential development measuring coverage impacts to the entire site.
It is difficult to achieve 45% lot coverage for a whole site when considering street layout, sidewalks, bikeways, detention ponds and other impervious surfaces associated with SFA and MF development. As a result, multi-family subdivisions have routinely exceeded R-4 lot coverage requirements because 45% was unattainable. The Orland Crossing townhomes, for example, began as an R-4 district and were rezoned to VCD, where lot coverage was 75%, because the total development is at 65%. Even as recently as Sheffield Square, 45% lot coverage was difficult to attain and the development ended up with 51%. Sixty percent (60%) is more appropriate and was selected based on the lot coverage range of recent multi-family developments (Orland Crossing, Cooper’s Square, Sheffield Square, Georgetown, Southmoor and Collette Highlands). Sixty percent (60%) is considered a middle number, 15% below non-residential lot coverage limits (75%) and 15% above current R-4 lot coverage. Sixty percent (60%) is also more conservative than the RSB district’s lot coverage, which is 65%.
Signs: New Regulations for Sites over 500,000 Square Feet
Section 6-307.P.1 of the Land Development Code is amended to include new regulations for sites that are over 500,000 square feet. The amendments are summarized below:
- The maximum sign face area allowed is 125 square feet;
- 25% of the sign face area must be used for the center’s name;
- 75% may be used for tenant listings (up to a maximum of 6 tenant names in matching font color and background);
- The name of the center must be at the top;
- Maximum sign height is 18 feet;
- The freestanding sign must include a minimum design to sign face ratio of 1:1;
- 50% landscaping at the base of the sign is required;
- Directional signs may be 9 feet tall, 70 square feet in sign face area, follow the same design to sign face ratio and landscaping requirements;
Although the proposed amendments allow for taller and larger signs, the architectural and landscaping requirements will help balance the signage with the rest of the development.
RSB Zoning Updates
In recent years the RSB zoning district has not been updated because the goal is to integrate these properties into other zoning districts. Since the district will remain for now, it must be updated to follow the same amendments that have occurred in the other districts. The attached RSB amendments propose to eliminate Minor Special Uses as was done in the other districts and move those uses into either the permitted uses list or the special uses list. The division of these uses into the two lists is modeled after how the other zoning districts have the same or similar uses organized. If the use is similar to a R-3 or R-4 use, then it is listed in permitted or special uses based on those districts. If the use is similar to a BIZ or COR use, then it is listed according to those districts. The proposed amendments bring the district in line with all previous amendments to the other districts, including the drive-through regulations currently present in BIZ and COR (some properties zoned RSB have drive-throughs or can have drive-throughs).
Additional Amendments
Additional amendments are proposed regarding the clarification of definitions for motor vehicle services, animal services, office, medical office and personal service establishment in the Code. For motor vehicle services and animal services, performance criteria were added to the definition to eliminate inconsistent provisions in the zoning code sections and to make the regulation of those uses more uniform across zoning districts.
Also, outdoor seating fence heights were clarified (3.5 feet), only Village of Orland Park public signs are permitted in public rights-of-way, the zoning districts’ references to congregate elderly housing were cleaned up (per the last round of amendments), and the Village Center district’s reference to funeral parlors was clarified (per the last round of amendments).
PLAN COMMISSION
At Plan Commission, some discussion circulated around the restaurant requirements to allow new restaurants in the spaces of former restaurants without appearance reviews. Also, there was a discussion regarding the revision of the R-4 single family detached (SFD) minimum side setback regulations, in which the minimum side setback was reduced from 15 feet to 7.5 feet. This was done to be consistent with the way R-3 regulations work for SFD development. A condition was added to accommodate this revision. The condition remains in the Committee motion until there is time to correct the draft language.
On July 12, 2011, the Plan Commission moved 7-0 to recommend to the Village Board of Trustees to approve the Land Development Code amendments titled “Part Three: Attachments”, prepared by the Development Services Department, dated 6/27/11, and the attached Land Development Code amendments to Part Three, titled “Section 6-205 R-4 Residential District” and “Section 6-206 RSB Residential Supporting Business District”, prepared by the same, subject to the following condition:
1. That the side setback regulations outlined for single family detached buildings in the R-4 zoning district be revised from having a 15 foot minimum side setback to having a minimum 7.5 foot side setback, which is consistent with the side setback regulations for single family detached buildings in the R-3 zoning district.
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND PLANNING COMMITTEE
On July 18, 2011 the Development Services and Planning Committee moved 3-0 to recommend to the Village Board of Trustees to approve the Land Development Code amendments titled “Part Three: Attachments”, prepared by the Development Services Department, dated 6/27/11, and the attached Land Development Code amendments to Part Three, titled “Section 6-205 R-4 Residential District” and “Section 6-206 RSB Residential Supporting Business District”, prepared by the same, subject to the following condition:
1. That the side setback regulations outlined for single family detached buildings in the R-4 zoning district be revised from having a 15 foot minimum side setback to having a minimum 7.5 foot side setback, which is consistent with the side setback regulations for single family detached buildings in the R-3 zoning district.
Since the Committee meeting, the amendment was made in the draft language of the attachments. This condition has been met.
Financial Impact
There are no immediate financial impacts to the Village.
This case is now before the Board of Trustees for final review/approval.
Recommended Action/Motion
I move to approve the Land Development Code amendments as indicated in the attached fully referenced motion.
THIS SECTION FOR REFERENCE ONLY (NOT NECESSARY TO BE READ)
I move to approve the Land Development Code amendments titled “Part Three: Attachments”, prepared by the Development Services Department, dated 6/27/11, and the attached Land Development Code amendments to Part Three, titled “Section 6-205 R-4 Residential District” and “Section 6-206 RSB Residential Supporting Business District”, prepared by the same.