The meeting was called to order at 7:30 P.M.
Plan Commission Members Present: Stephen Park, David Nordentoft, Sharon Salmons
Plan Commission Members Absent: James Sula, Richard McFarlane, Gwen Broughton,
Zoning Board of Appeals Members Present: Chairman Tom Hood, Edwin Paff, Denise Smith, Jerry Kolar
Zoning Board of Appeals Members Absent: John Spadaro, Don Wilson, Mike Deimler
Other Officials Present: David Ziegler, Community Development Director; Molly Bacon, Associate Planner; Ryan Mentkowski, Associate Planner
Mr. Nordentoft made a motion, seconded by Ms. Salmons, to appoint Mr. Park as Plan Commission Chairman Pro-tem for tonight’s meeting in Mr. Sula’s absence.
1. a. Approval of Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Workshop Meeting Minutes for May 27, 2009. (ZBA only)
Mr. Paff made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kolar, to approve the Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Workshop Meeting Minutes for May 27, 2009.
Ayes: Hood, Paff, Smith, Kolar
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
1. b. Approval of Joint Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Meeting Minutes for June 24, 2009. (ZBA only)
Mr. Kolar noted a correction to be made on page 12, second sentence the street is Florida, not Glen Flora.
Mr. Paff made a motion, seconded by Mr. Kolar, to approve the Joint Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting Minutes as corrected for June 24, 2009.
Ayes: Hood, Paff, Smith, Kolar
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
1. c. Approval of Plan Commission Meeting Minutes for August 5, 2009. (PC only)
Mr. Park requested approval of minutes be by-passed at tonight’s meeting due to lake of a quorum and held over until the next scheduled Plan Commission meeting.
2. a. Approval of the Plan Commission’s 2010 meeting schedule
Mr. Park requested this be by-passed at tonight’s meeting due to lake of a quorum and held over until the next scheduled Plan Commission meeting.
2. b. Approval of the Zoning Board of Appeal’s 2010 meeting schedule
Mr. Kolar made a motion, seconded by Mr. Paff, to approve the 2010 Zoning Board of Appeal’s meeting schedule.
Ayes: Hood, Paff, Smith, Kolar
Motion Carried: 4-0-0
3. Informal Discussion: Discussion of possible regulatory standards for incorporation into the Zoning Ordinance for the parking/storage of Recreational Vehicles and Haul Trailers on residentially zoned or used properties
Chairman Hood stated tonight’s workshop meeting would be an Informal Discussion of the Recreational Vehicle Survey Results and Draft Regulations for the outside parking/storage of Recreational Vehicles and Haul Trailers on residentially zoned or used properties.
Chairman Hood stated this is the third meeting on this issue. He stated there would be an opportunity after the presentation for the public to make comments. He stated this workshop is for informational purposes only and the Commissions (Plan Commission & Zoning Board of Appeals) take information from the Public. He stated the Commissions are a recommending body to the Village Board and that the final decisions are made by the Village Board. He then stated that no final decisions would be made this evening. He stated the Commissions go through the workshop process to gather information and from this the Village Board is able to see the minutes and ultimately go onto a hearing. He stated at a hearing the public can provide testimony and the Commissions then make separate recommendations to the Village Board as to what they think is appropriate. He stated the Village Board can either choose to follow the recommendations or they can choose to do something entirely separate. He noted the Commissions this evening are truly a recommending body.
Chairman Hood stated this evening would start with the Village Staff who will make a presentation that all will be able to see. He stated then the public would be asked to make statements and then would be a discussion among the Commissions. He stated at that point no decision would be made and this would be continued either for another workshop if enough progress was made to put together an Ordinance to present to the public for a decision or scheduling an actual Public Hearing with a notice being provided in the paper and on the Village of Gurnee’s website.
Mr. Mentkowski stated the survey was requested at the second meeting on June 24, 2009 by these Commissions’. He stated the survey ran from Monday, July 19, 2009 to August 17, 2009 and that the survey primarily was available online through the Village of Gurnee’s website at surveymonkey.com and via hardcopies of the survey which were available at the Village Hall. He stated 9-10 hardcopies were handed out and 7 copies were completed and returned.
Mr. Mentkowski stated after the survey was closed in order for the surveys to be counted they had to be from Village of Gurnee residents, only one survey per household was allowed, and the survey had to be fully completed. He stated there was a total of 234 surveys tabulated after taking into account the household criteria, which is approximately 2% of households in the Village of Gurnee.
Mr. Mentkowski explained the survey provided “answer tracks” which resulted in answers going in a certain direction. He stated most people answered the same exact questions but the “surveymonkey.com” program was set-up to allow all perspectives via different tracks to show any potential compromises within the different views. He also stated the survey provided comment sections within the survey and at the end of the survey, of which 112 comments were received.
Mr. Mentkowski noted the survey is not statistically perfect and this survey was another tool that Staff utilized as an attempt to obtain all of the Village of Gurnee residents’ opinions as well as their concerns.
Mr. Mentkowski presented the results from the online survey via a PowerPoint presentation and illustrated the following information:
· Total number of residents who took the survey that own and RV:
o 63% of the people that took the survey did not own an RV.
o 37% of the people that took the survey did own an RV.
o He stated Staff did not verify if persons actually own and RV – and that it was done on the “honor” code.
· Question #3: Do RVs negatively affect the health safety and general welfare of the neighborhood?
o 53% of all respondents disagreed with the statement.
o 39% of all respondents agree with the statement.
o 8% neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
· Question #4: Do RVs negatively affect the value and/or beauty of the neighborhood?
o 47% of all respondents disagree with the statement.
o 49% of all respondents agree with the statement.
o 4% neither agree nor disagree with the statement.
· Question 5: Do residents believe the Village’s current regulations regarding parking and/or storage of RVs should be less restrictive, more restrictive, no change or other?
When looking at all of the Responses received:
o 48% of respondents replied No change.
o 42% of respondents replied more restrictive.
When only looking only at residents who do not own an RV:
o 57% of respondents replied more restrictive.
o 37% of respondents replied No change
When only looking at residents who own an RV:
o A majority of the respondents replied No Change.
Mr. Mentkowski stated in summary, question #5 illustrated that for those who do not own an RV they replied they wanted the current regulations to be more restrictive and for those who do own an RV they wanted no change to the current regulations.
· Question # 6: Did residents support a ban on RVs on residential properties?
When looking at All of the Responses received:
o 57% of respondents replied No.
When only looking only at residents who do not own an RV:
o 45% of respondents replied Yes.
o 44% of respondents replied No.
When only looking only at residents who do own an RV
o 82% of respondents replied No.
Mr. Mentkowski then discussed the “Locational Regulations” which examined whether residents would support RVs in the front yard, side yard, corner side yard, rear yard. It also examined whether residents would support restrictions related to the size, screening, surface, and number of RVs on a property.
· Question # 7 & 9 (Track A & B) which is the combined responses of all residents who took the survey regarding their support of regulations of RVs in the front yard, side yard, corner side yard, rear yard:
o 60% replied No to a RV on a driveway in the front yard of the home
o 50% replied No to a RV on a driveway in the corner side yard of the home
o 60% replied No to a RV on a side yard of a residential property
o 55% replied No to a RV on a rear yard of a residential property
· Question # 7 responses only (Track A) and illustrates the type of regulations supported by residents who previously answered No ban or Undecided to a RV ban.
o 50% supported a RV on a driveway in the front yard of a home
o 62% supported a RV on a driveway in the corner side yard of the home
o 45% supported a RV on a side yard of a residential property
o 40% supported a RV on a rear yard of a residential property
· Question # 6 responses only (Track B) and illustrates the type of regulations supported by residents who previously answered Yes to an RV ban.
o 99% supported regulations for parking a RV on a driveway in the front yard of a home
o 93% supported regulations for parking a RV on a driveway in the corner side yard of the home
o 92% supported regulations for parking a RV on a side yard of a residential property
o 79% supported regulations for parking a RV on a rear yard of a residential property
· Question # 8 & 10 which is the combined responses of all residents who took the survey regarding their support of RV restrictions related to the size, screening, surface, and number of RVs on a property.
o 48% supported establishing a maximum RV size
o 58% supported establishing regulations that tie the size of the RV to allowable location
o 45% supported requiring RV’s to be screened from view
o 49% supported prohibiting the use of gravel as a hard surface
o 75% supported establishing a maximum number of RVs on a residential property at one time
· Question # 8 responses only (Track A) and illustrates the type of regulations supported by residents who previously answered No ban or Undecided to a RV ban)
o 53% supported establishing a maximum RV size
o 51% supported establishing regulations that tie the size of the RV to allowable location
o 58% supported requiring RV’s to be screened from view
o 65% supported prohibiting the use of gravel as a hard surface
o 74% supported establishing a maximum number of RVs on a residential property at one time
· Question # 10 responses only (Track B) and illustrates the type of regulations supported by residents who previously answered Yes to a RV ban.
o 59% supported establishing a maximum RV size
o 26% supported establishing regulations that tie the size of the RV to allowable location
o 80% supported requiring RV’s to be screened from view
o 78% supported prohibiting the use of gravel as a hard surface
o 78% supported establishing a maximum number of RVs on a residential property at one time
· Question # 11 responses (Track C) and illustrates the type of regulations supported by residents who previously answered Less Restrictive to the current regulations and was a total of 18 people. Mr. Mentkowski stated this question was asked to this group of people even though the answers may seem obvious to ensure we are examining any potential compromise.
o 72% supported eliminating the requirement that RV’s must be parked on a hard surface pad
o 61% supported extending the period of time that visiting guests are permitted to occupy an RV on the property
o 56% supported eliminating the prohibition regarding the removal of wheels or other transportation devices
Mr. Mentkowski stated staff examined seasonal restrictions for RVs which asked residents about allowing RVs seasonally on the driveway in front or corner side yard, in the interior side yard, in the rear yard, or a combination of restrictions.
· Question # 12: Responses from all residents regarding their support for creating seasonal restrictions for RV’s. Mr. Mentkowski stated that there was a lot of red on the graph and this means that there was not support from the residents related to seasonal restrictions. More specifically:
o 65% did not support seasonal only on driveways
o 68% did not support seasonal only in the side yard
o 65% did not support seasonal only in the rear yard
o 67% did not support seasonal only in the side & rear yards
o 59% did not support seasonal only on the driveways, however only in the side or rear yards at other times of the year
· Question # 12: Broken down responses regarding support of the type of seasonal regulations supported by residents who previously answered No or Undecided to RV ban.
o 57% did not support seasonal only on driveways
o 58% did not support seasonal only in the side yard
o 63% did not support seasonal only in the rear yard
o 57% did not support seasonal only in the side & rear yards
o 45% did not support seasonal only on the driveways, however only in the side or rear yards at other times of the year
· Question # 12: Broken down responses regarding support of the type of seasonal regulations supported by residents who previously answered Yes to RV ban
o 85% did not support seasonal only on driveways
o 92% did not support seasonal only in the side yard
o 73% did not support seasonal only in the rear yard
o 91% did not support seasonal only in the side & rear yards
o 92% did not support seasonal only on the driveways, however only in the side or rear yards at other times of the year
Mr. Mentkowski stated that the last question staff asked was regarding restrictions for temporary parking of RVs by visitors on residential property which included keeping it at 30 days, increasing or decreasing the 30 days, or eliminating the requirement.
· Question # 13: Includes responses from all 234 residents to this question and the residents had the following opinion as to the temporary parking restriction.
o 3% supported to increased (greater than 30 days)
o 18% supported to decrease (less than 30 days)
o 56% supported no change (keep at 30 days)
o 16% supported to eliminate (no longer allowed)
o 7% supported other suggested option(s)
Mr. Mentkowski next stated the summary of the results from the survey questions which were as follows:
- Overall a majority of the respondents believe that the RV regulations should remain unchanged. However, when broken down by whether the respondent owned or did not own an RV, the survey revealed that those that own RVs support no change to the ordinance, while those that do not own RVs support greater restrictions.
- Respondents who own RVs overwhelmingly do not support a ban, while those who do own RVs were split on whether they supported or opposed a ban.
- Overall there was no support for regulations that would restrict RVs to the driveway in either in the front or corner side yard, interior side yard (60%), or rear yard.
- There was strong support for restricting the maximum number of RVs on a property at any one time. However, the question was never asked regarding what the maximum number of RVs should be.
- There was no support for establishing regulations that tie the size of an RV to its location.
- There was no clear support for establishing a maximum RV size, requiring RVs to be screened from view, or prohibiting the use of gravel as a hard surface.
- There was no support for any of the proposed seasonal restrictions; whether on the driveways in front or corner side yard, in the interior side and rear yards, or on the driveway during the RVs season and in the side or rear yard during the rest of the year.
- There was no support for changing the number of days that guests of residents may occupy an RV during a calendar year.
Mr. Mentkowski stated many of the results were down the middle but Staff did obtain some direction from the survey.
Chairman Hood opened the floor to the public and requested that questions/comments be specifically directed toward the survey.
Mr. Kirk Morris, 3435 Harper, asked how it was differentiated between RVs, boats, campers, & slide-ins and if definitions were given on each for persons taking the survey.
Mr. Mentkowski replied the definition of a RV, which was on the front page of the survey, include
s campers, boats, haul trailers, jet skis, snowmobiles, and other similar equipment that are used for recreational purposes.
Mr. Morris asked if all these were classified as RVs as opposed to big Class A or Class C type campers.
Mr. Mentkowski replied yes.
Mr. Morris asked if it was correct that 73 of the 234 respondents favored the complete ban and asked for the number of all surveys turned in, tabulated and not tabulated.
Mr. Mentkowski replied 33 surveys were not tabulated and those were from people who did not live in Gurnee, did not complete the survey, or took the survey multiple times.
Mr. Jody Colburn, 3408 Grove Avenue, stated he reads the newsletters and is on the mailing list but never heard about the survey. He is a contractor who has a 5th wheel trailer and has done exactly what the ordinance requires regarding his trailer which is next to his garage. He has lived in Gurnee for 22 years and has almost an acre of property. He asked why the Board is trying to get this “under the radar” by putting the survey on the internet. He stated he is not currently receiving emails from the Village.
Chairman Hood stated there are people who feel strongly on both sides of this issue and the Board is trying to find a way to regulate this to please as many people as they can. He stated this is the second workshop meeting to try to find a way to make it better for the Village of Gurnee. They Board is just responding to what they see as an issue that has not been addressed within the Village since the early 80’s. The Board is going through the ordinances one by one trying to clean them up and get them up to date. The Board is researching the issue, including surveying residents to get their opinions. So the last thing the Village is doing is addressing this issue under the radar.
Mr. Colburn stated none of his neighbors think his 5th wheel trailer is an eyesore.
Chairman Hood stated if all residents were like Mr. Colburn who takes care of his property/RV there wouldn’t be an issue. He stated but there are people who do not view their RV as Mr. Colburn does and who perhaps have a much smaller lot. He stated the Board is trying to address this for those who are in a smaller sub-division on a smaller lot with a huge RV that may be overshadowing their neighbor’s house as it may create an issue. He stated they understand when rules are changed it may make it difficult for those who operated under the old rules. The Board is sensitive to this and it is why a survey was done. He noted that this is a long process and Board wants to hear public comments and that no decisions would be made this evening. He also stated the survey was on the Village’s website and apologizes that Mr. Colbert missed the survey.
Mr. Park stated this is actually the 3rd meeting on this subject. He stated at the 1st meeting there were 8-10 RV owners present. The discussion broadened because issues were raised about haul trailers, jet skis, and classic cars that would one day be restored. He stated the Board is trying to get their arms around this and the survey was an attempt to obtain the opinions of people in a broader context. He stated this was not only on the website but there were 5-6 local newspaper articles as well. He stated the survey is not statistically sound and was to capture what people really thought. He stated the survey generated ideas to see how big the problem is. He stated what is being discussed this evening is that it may not be as big a deal as some have led it to believe.
Mr. Ziegler stated the announcement for the RV survey was in the Keeping Posted Newsletter which is mailed and published quarterly. He stated the Village took every effort they could as to the announcement of the survey. He stated it was covered in newspaper articles, was available on the Village website, and was included in the e-mail blasts that are sent out by the Village of Gurnee. He stated the Village wanted to receive as many completed surveys as possible.
Mr. Pat Edwards, 4528 Old Grand Avenue, stated he does not live in Gurnee but owns property in Gurnee. He stated he did not receive the Keeping Posted Newsletter. He stated he saw the information about the survey on an email he received. He stated a lot of people he spoke with are unaware of the emails that are sent out by the Village.
Mr. Ziegler stated anyone can sign up on the Village of Gurnee website to receive the Village’s emails. He stated whenever anyone has questions about meeting dates the Village strongly suggests those people sign up for the Village’s list serve on the website. People on the Village’s list serve will receive Village emails and announcements regularly.
Mr. Edwards stated that there is a feeling among residents that the Village is trying to pass new RV regulations under the radar. He stated that he knows this is not true. He asked why the Village doesn’t want to mail the survey to residents.
Mr. Ziegler responded basically due to the cost.
Mr. Edwards asked how many addresses there are in Gurnee.
Mr. Ziegler responded there are about 11,000 households in the Village.
Mr. Nick Simopoulos, 3405 Grove Avenue, stated he is Mr. Colbert’s neighbor. He asked how it was determined o how many surveys would be taken out and those that would be used as an opinion poll. He also asked what area the surveys were sent to. He stated he lives in the old area of Gurnee, west of Green bay Road and north of Grand Avenue, where homes and lots are a lot different then in the new sections of Gurnee by Gurnee Mills. He wants to know if people from the areas by Gurnee Mills were given this survey. He stated he knows those homes/property do not have much room to park anything. He asked if the area he lives in is affected by the areas located close to Gurnee Mills.
Mr. Ziegler stated the Village did not hand out or send out the surveys. The Village invited everybody through the Keeping Posted Newsletter, which is sent out to every residential home in Gurnee, through newspaper articles, through the Village Website, and through the Village’s list serve email system to take the survey via the internet or to stop by the Village Hall to pick up a copy of the survey.
Mr. Simopoulos asked out of the 234 surveys that were done what area the surveys were from.
Mr. Ziegler responded Village did not do a geographical split between east side and west side.
Mr. Simopoulos asked if he knew what area the completed surveys actually came from.
Mr. Ziegler responded no.
Mr. Simopoulos stated the RVs and trailers, being recreational campers and trailers used for work are things that affect people’s lives. He asked when a person states, “I don’t like the way that looks”, then how does that really affect “their” life and why does something like this need to be regulated? He stated these are life situations. He stated people with RVs, boats, campers, jet skis and work trailers have these because they are used and/or needed in life to survive as well as using them for recreation. He stated people are trying to enjoy their lives and to things with their families. He asked why this has to be regulated because it affects their lives. He stated for himself and others who use their trailers for work, people are thankful for the work they do have. He stated if he had to pay for another location to store his trailer it would place a big burden on him as well as others. He stated he doesn’t think it is fair because a person next door doesn’t like the way it looks to have a trailer parked on someone’s property. He stated it affects someone’s life when another person comes in and says I don’t want this, and I don’t want that. He stated this is talking about things that are used for ones living or enjoyment with their families and doesn’t understand why this should be regulated. He asked how far this was going to be taken. He stated he understands to have things in an orderly fashion and do things the right way but to start telling people they can’t have this here is not what he believes to be fair. He asked if he was told he couldn’t have his trailer parked on his property, would the Village pay for him to have his trailer in storage. He stated basically what he is saying is how far is this going to go?
Mr. Ziegler responded the Village is seeking balance for reasonable standards for resident’s rights as homeowners and the neighbor’s rights as well. He said the Village’s goal is to come up with some reasonable standards that everyone should be able to live with and that will help the trailer owners and RV owners in being more conscientious in where they store these vehicles.
Mr. Simopoulos stated it is probably one person who is affecting these code changes and all RV owners and should not be affected by one person.
Mr. Ziegler responded historically over the last 5-6 years there are 15-20 complaints on an annual basis and it is actually more than one person.
Mr. Simopoulos responded he can appreciate this, but there are about 11,000 residences in the Village and it actually narrows it down to 1% or 2%.
Mr. Tim Herzberg, 2083 Westfield Drive, asked if any members of the Board owned an RV or camper.
Chairman Hood responded there is a mix.
Mr. Pat Edwards, 4528 Old Grand Avenue, asked how many of the 11,000 residents live in subdivisions that have Homeowner Associations.
Mr. Ziegler responded the Village does not have record of all Homeowner Associations and their by-laws. He stated the Village does know that several of them have requirements prohibiting outside storage of recreational vehicles and trailers. He knows that Providence Oaks and Providence Village are a couple of the subdivisions that do not allow exterior parking/storage of RVs. He stated most of the subdivisions that have come into Gurnee since the early 1990’s have conveyances and by-laws that govern properties in their subdivisions. He stated he does not have information regarding how many have trailer restrictions.
Mr. Edwards asked if 30% would be a good estimate for those who have trailer restrictions because of their conveyance. He then asked if everything located west of I94 would be correct.
Mr. Ziegler responded most everything west of I-94 has conveyance by-laws within their subdivisions. He stated whether they have trailer restrictions within those, he does not know. He stated it is a sizable number that have Homeowner Associations that have the opportunity to regulate these if they wish.
Mr. Edwards asked when the survey was put onto the website, did the Village have an anticipated number of responses that they might receive.
Mr. Ziegler responded the Village was hoping to get about 500 responses to the survey which would be approximately 5% of the Gurnee residents making it closer to being statistically accurate.
Mr. Jim Vielbig, 2008 Madison Avenue, stated he has heard people at these meetings that they have very large lots and their RV’s or campers are pretty hard to notice on a 1 or 2 acre lot as it gives those people a better opportunity to put an RV or camper where their neighbors cannot see it. He stated he didn’t think this was covered in the survey. He stated if the Board would consider this as part of the decision making process, since a lot of people present this evening have stated they have larger pieces of property.
Chairman Hood asked if there was a reference to the size of the property to the restriction on the survey.
Mr. Mentkowski responded there were questions on the survey regarding the size of the RV, but not the size of the property. However, the Village is aware of this point, as well as it being in some of the comments on the survey.
Ms. Sandra Zagnoli, 1100 Kilbourn Road, asked if the people that are complaining are on properties that have Homeowners Associations with rules against the outside storage of RVs. She asked why the Village of Gurnee isn’t enforcing these regulations that are already in place.
Chairman Hood stated, according to what Mr. Ziegler said earlier, the Village does not have knowledge of the regulations of the Homeowners Associations in terms of their by-laws and what they allow or don’t allow. He also stated the Village of Gurnee does not and cannot enforce the regulations of individual Associations, which is a private requirement of the Association itself.
Chairman Hood stated there is no information as to where the complaints have come from, other than they are all over the community.
Mr. Jody Colburn, 3408 Grove Avenue, asked if the survey can be brought out again and a mailing be done and not be so one-sided.
Mr. Ziegler responded he didn’t believe the survey was one-sided and noted again that it was announced in several newspaper publications, was in Keeping Posted Newsletter, on the Village’s list serve e-mail, and on the Village of Gurnee’s website. He stated tonight is the 3rd meeting and the Village is trying to come to resolution. He stated the Village wants to keep moving forward on this issue.
Chairman Hood addressed the importance of the survey. He noted that the Boards recognize that there were a small number of people who responded to the survey. He state that he does not think that the results of the survey will guide the Board’s decision in some significant way. As the survey was described, the Board was hopeful that it would be one of the tools used to help guide the Board. He also noted that one of the major tools for the Board is Public comments, which means a lot more to him than the survey results. He indicated that every survey has its imperfections and there is nothing to indicate that the Board will follow what the survey says. He reiterated that the survey is just one of the pieces that the Board will look at when recommending any amendments to the RV regulations.
Mr. Jim Bentley, 3517 Florida Avenue, stated if the survey was as widely disseminated as it was, with 234 responses out of 11,000 homes the vast majority of people in this Village don’t care.
Mr. Brian Kramer, who stated that he owns homes on Meadowlark and Carol Lane in Gurnee, as well as in Ivanhoe, Libertyville, and Green Oaks, asked if these regulations on RVS are the same in all towns where he owns property. He answered “no, they are not”. He asked if you own a house, will the Village lower taxes because of these regulations. He again replied “no, that a person still has to pay their full amount of taxes that are owed for their property and it is the property owner that owns the property, not the Village”.
Chairman Hood stated there will be a presentation this evening on RV regulations in other communities.
Mr. Ziegler stated at the last meeting in June, Staff was requested to obtain regulations from other communities that are basically located to the north of Gurnee. He stated they previously did the analysis of other communities’ ordinances which included Mundelein, Libertyville, and some communities to the south.
Mr. Ziegler presented the following information for these communities:
Area Community Ordinances
Round Lake Beach
Ø All vehicles must be parked outside of required setbacks
Ø This would prohibit it in the front of the house, in the side yard or in rear yard setbacks.
Ø Max RV’s Outside = 2
Ø Must be parked on a dustless surface
Ø May not encroach on ROW or create other unsafe condition
Ø Off Street Parking is an Accessory Use
Ø Maximum weight of 8,000 pounds for all trailers, trucks or buses
Ø Guests may park and use RV for less than 21 days/year, $25 permit
Ø RV’s only allowed when owned by resident
Ø Parked RV’s must comply with all building setbacks
Antioch and Winthrop Harbor
Ø No mention of RV restrictions in their ordinances
Ø Mentioned they were interested in what the Village of Gurnee was doing with their ordinance and would be following up with the Village of Gurnee once they completed and may very well investigate further restrictions in the future.)
Mr. Ziegler also stated that, per the direction of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board at the last meeting, staff has provided draft ordinance language for review. He stated a menu board of items was provided that may or not be utilized as part of the eventual Ordinance.
Mr. Ziegler stated that the draft language begins with some standard definitions that are be necessary to define what is being regulated as well as defining basic regulations. He stated he would go through some basic components of a potential Ordinance, including some more complex optional restrictions which could also be put into place should be Boards support. Also proposed are some exemptions that might be needed. Below is an outline of the Draft Ordinance and Definitions.
a. Recreational Vehicles
b. Utility or Haul Trailers
2. Basic Regulations
a. Single-Family and Two Family
3. Optional Regulations
a. Seasonal Approach for Recreational Vehicles
b. Axle Approach for Haul Trailers
Mr. Ziegler presented the following definitions:
Recreational Vehicle: Any vehicle or boat designed for temporary living quarters, recreation, or temporary human inhabitation and not used as a commercial vehicle, including, but not limited to, the following: boat/watercraft, camper trailer, conversion vans, motorized trailer, off-the-road vehicle, racing car or cycle, travel trailer, truck camper, and vehicle trailer. Mobile homes, as defined elsewhere in this ordinance, are not included in the definition of recreational vehicle.
Boat / Watercraft: A vehicle for traveling in or on water, including all types of personal watercraft whether impelled by wind, oars, or mechanical devices. A boat mounted on a trailer or up to two personal watercraft mounted on a trailer shall be considered one vehicle.
Mr. Park asked if a canoe or kayak is included in the definition of a boat / watercraft.
Mr. Ziegler responded that according to the current definition of boat / watercraft, a canoe or kayak would be included.
Camper Trailer: A folding or collapsible vehicle without its own motive power designed and constructed as temporary living quarters for travel, camping, recreation or vacation use.
Conversion Van: A vehicle, falling into the definition of a van as that term is commonly used, which has no side windows or which has been outfitted for recreational use shall be considered a recreational vehicle.
Motor Home: A temporary dwelling designed and constructed for travel, camping, recreational or vacation uses as an integral part of a self-propelled vehicle.
Off-The-Road Vehicle: A vehicle intended principally for recreational use off of roads where state vehicle licenses are required, such as a dune buggy, go-cart, and all - terrain vehicle.
Racing Car or Cycle: A vehicle intended to be used in racing competition, such as a race car, stock car, or racing cycle.
Snowmobile: A self-propelled vehicle designed for travel on snow or ice, generally steered by skis or runners. Up to two snowmobiles mounted on a trailer shall be considered one vehicle.
Specially Constructed Vehicle: Any vehicle which was not originally constructed under a distinctive name, make, model or type, or which, if originally constructed has been materially altered by the removal of essential parts, or by the addition or substitution of essential parts, new or used, derived from other vehicles or makes of vehicles and used for temporary living quarters or recreation.
Travel Trailer: A rigid vehicular structure, without its own motive power, designed as a temporary living quarters for travel, camping, recreation or vacation use, and is required to be licensed or registered and insured for highway use.
Truck Camper/Slide In Pick-Up Camper: A structure designed primarily to be mounted on a pickup or truck chassis and designed to be used as a temporary dwelling for travel, camping, recreation or vacation use. When mounted on a truck, such structure and the truck shall together be considered one vehicle.
Utility or Haul Trailer: A vehicle, enclosed or non-enclosed, without its own motive power that is designed and constructed to transport another vehicle, such as a boat, motorcycle or snowmobile for recreational or vacation use, or to transport equipment and/or tools, such as lawn mowers, bobcats, etc., and that is eligible to be licensed or registered and insured for highway use. A utility or haul trailer with another vehicle(s) mounted on it shall be considered one vehicle.
Driveway: A paved or unpaved access strip of land providing a vehicular connector between the public street right-of-way or the private street easement and the required parking space or garage of private or public property
stated the Basic Regulations on the menu board to be discussed and considered this evening are below. He noted some had some strong support from the survey as well as some being current existing standards. He then noted that these regulations include the clarification and consolidation of existing regulations, as well as the addition of a few others that appear to have general support.
Mr. Ziegler explained the basic regulations are
proposed as follows:
1. Properties zoned or used for single-family or two-family residential purposes may have a maximum of one recreational vehicle or one utility/haul trailer parked or stored outside a fully enclosed structure
2. Properties zoned or used for multi-family residential purposes shall have no limit on the number of recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers that may be parked or stored outside a fully enclosed structure as long as these vehicles do not occupy required parking per the Zoning Ordinance.
3. All recreational vehicles and utility/haul trailers are also subject to the following:
a. Utility/haul trailers may not contain print or logos which advertise a business.
b. Utility/haul trailers may contain no more than a single axle.
c. Recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers shall have current and valid registration if required by state statute to be registered for operation on a public highway.
d. The area that recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers are parked or stored on shall be maintained in a clean, neat manner, and the equipment shall be in operable condition at all times.
e. The area that recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers are parked or stored on shall be surfaced with asphalt, concrete, or brick pavers free of noxious weeds or grass. Gravel shall not be allowed.
f. Recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers shall not have their wheels or other transportation devices removed.
g. Recreational vehicles or utility/haul trailers shall be owned by the resident or occupant. He stated that we do not want Gurnee to be a dumping ground for RVs from other communities who have a stricter RV ordinance. He stated that we are trying to ensure that the license plates of the RV match the resident of the home.
h. Recreational vehicles or haul trailers shall not be parked or stored so as to extend into or over any public sidewalk, street, or street right-of-way. He stated this is part of the Village of Gurnee’s existing ordinance.
i. Recreational vehicles or haul trailers are prohibited from being occupied or used for living, sleeping, or housekeeping purposes.
Mr. Ziegler stated that the remainder of the regulations discussed are optional and the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeal can choose to include them in the ordinance. He stated these restrictions are basically for locational or seasonal type uses. He stated these were added as potential regulations even though there was not a strong request in the RV survey because staff felt this would assist in achieving a “middle ground” which may be more restrictive than what is currently in place, but something that RV owners could live with as well.
Mr. Ziegler presented the following potential restrictions:
1. Seasonal Restriction on properties zoned or used for single-family or two-family residence purposes:
From April 1 to October 31, no more than one (1) boat/watercraft, camper trailer, motor home, off-the-road vehicle, racing car or cycle, travel trailer, truck camper, may be temporarily parked or stored on a driveway. This vehicle represents the one (1) RV that is allowed to be parked or stored outside on a residential property.
From November 1 to March 31, no more than one (1) snowmobile may be temporarily parked or stored on a driveway. This vehicle represents the one (1) RV that is allowed to be parked or stored outside on a residential property.
C. During the off-season, when the resident is not actively using their recreational vehicles, they may only be parked or stored in an interior side or rear yard, provided that no part of the vehicle may project beyond the plane(s), or front face, of the house that is closest to any street(s), is set back a minimum of 5 feet from any side yard or rear property line, and is screened from view of neighboring properties by a 6-foot tall, at installation, dense evergreen planting or a minimum 6-foot tall opaque fence. The height of fencing is limited to that allowed by the Section 8.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. Locational restriction for utility or haul trailers with more than a single-axle that do not contain print or logos advertising a business may only be parked or stored in an interior side or rear yard, provided that no part of the vehicle may project beyond the plane(s), or front face, of the house or garage that is closest to any street(s), is setback a minimum of 5 feet from any side yard or rear property line, and is screened from view of neighboring properties by a 6-foot tall, at installation, dense evergreen planting or a minimum 6-foot tall opaque fence. The height of fencing is limited to that allowed by the Section 8.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Ziegler utilized the PowerPoint presentation to provide examples of where a RV could be parked per the requirements described above under certain lot configurations such as a corner lot with a house that has an attached garage and a lot which has one street frontage but has a detached garage.
Mr. Ziegler then presented the exemptions that staff felt would be necessary.
Truck campers and conversion vans are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance because they are primarily passenger vehicles and would not pose a huge sight blemish.
- Recreational vehicles on a driveway during the off-season in either the front or corner side yard only for the purpose of loading and unloading
- Slide-in pick-up truck campers are allowed to be stored detached from a truck as long as they are stored in an interior side or rear yard, provided that no part of the vehicle may project beyond the plane(s) of the house that is closest to any street(s), are setback a minimum of 5 feet from any side yard or rear property line, and are screened from view of neighboring properties by a 6-foot tall, at installation, dense evergreen planting or a minimum 6-foot tall opaque fence. The height of fencing is limited to that allowed by the Section 8.7.2 of the Zoning Ordinance.
- Non-resident families or guests who have an established residence elsewhere and are visiting a resident may occupy an RV for no more than a total of 30 days in a calendar year. A permit from the Community Development Department may be required for tracking purposes.
Chairman Hood re-opened the floor to the public for comments and questions for the regulations that are being discussed and proposed and to be followed by comments and questions from the Staff.
Mr. Patrick Edwards, 4528 Old Grand Avenue, suggested that the survey be done over again and mailed to every resident and property owner in the Village of Gurnee. He suggested the geographical location of every survey response be located on a map as he believes this is a very important aspect of what is being discussed and who the residents are that are responding to the survey. He disagrees if there were 500 responses versus the 234 responses that it would be more scientific. He believes the only way to achieve a true scientific response is if everyone got a survey and obtain a statistical response from those. He stated for people just to access a survey due to motivation does not equal a statistically accurate way to get a survey. He said the way in which the survey was disseminated was not scientific and therefore not all that useful. He stated obviously, those that are most upset about the issue are those that are going to respond. He asked why there was nothing on the menu referencing the size of the lot.
Mr. Ziegler stated there are things built in, kind of hidden things within the restrictions. He stated when many of the smaller lots (10,000 sq. ft.) have side yard setbacks of 10 feet. He stated if the Village imposed a 5 foot setback on those interior side yards for the storage of campers that effectively eliminates the possibility of storing those inside side yards. He stated those would be pushed to the rear yard even more out of the public view. He stated in an indirect way, it is taking in consideration of the size of the lot. He stated the bigger lot you have the more building envelope you have, the more room you have to work with in your setbacks, the more room you have to store equipment within those setbacks.
Mr. Edwards asked if the Special Use area on Old Grand is included in this, or is this area excluded.
Mr. Ziegler responded you are zoned C-S3 Village Center Residence/Business District which is not a residential district.
Mr. Edwards stated his property is residential but is in an area that could be something else and asked if this area was envisioned in being exempt.
Mr. Ziegler responded this area is quasi-commercial/quasi-residential area and currently the ordinance is being drafted as this area being residentially zoned, but maybe this area could be exempted.
Mr. Edwards responded one of his proposals would be for this particular zone to be exempt from the regulations.
Mr. Edwards stated he understands it being indirect but also believes there is some merit to making it less indirect and believes for the properties over an acre it would be an excellent idea to exempt them outright. He states if it were they case of not wanting to exempt anything, that someone that has 2 or 3 acres shouldn’t be held to the same standards of only one trailer or RV because of enough space that allows no interruption to the neighborhood.
Mr. Edwards also suggest that if an Ordinance comes into being, that it only be applied to owners “after the date” that has been put into place. He stated one of the reasons for picking their current location to live was due there not being regulations in this way. He stated it would be only fair that this regulation and Ordinance be put into place only after there is a new resident in a current home. And for property owners putting their homes/properties into a trust that this be “grandfathered” in and politically this would be a brainstorm.
Mr. Edwards stated “residents” are always mentioned and he would like to have “property owners” included as they are the ones paying the taxes.
Mr. Eugene Feely, 1205 Fuller Road, stated he completed the survey and in the comment section invited the Village to look at his 42 foot motor home on his acre of property. He said the seasonal idea will not work for him as he has to live his motor home plugged in year round. He stated he pays more property taxes because he owns an acre of land and believes anyone who parks anything on their property should do it to compliment their neighborhood. He stated he doesn’t believe he should be put under the same restrictions as someone who has a small piece of property and not paying anywhere near the taxes that he pays. He believes that considerations and common sense should prevail.
Mr. Kolar asked how his motor coach lined up with the front plane of your house.
Mr. Feely stated his motor home is even with the front of his garage and his garage is setback about 24 feet from the house.
Mr. Kolar stated the object is to get some of the motor homes off the driveways. He stated he sees RVs, coaches and boats sitting in driveways without moving and there are a lot of people that have complained to the Village.
Mr. Nick Simopoulos, 3405 Grove Avenue, asked Mr. Kolar if the RV’s and coaches that he has seen have been sitting for the past two years.
Mr. Kolar responded yes.
Mr. Simopoulos stated a lot of people have lost their jobs and cannot afford to do anything. He stated this should be considered as well.
Mr. Tim Herzberg of 2083 Westfield states he road his bike 39 miles on Sunday, on Hunt Club Road all the way to Wisconsin boarder. He stated he saw about 60 campers all in driveways. He stated his 31-foot Holiday Rambler camper is parked on his driveway even with his garage on the side of his house and it is not an eye sore. He stated his house is the best looking home on the street. He stated he doesn’t have an acre of property but has a large lot in Westfield of which he pays a lot of taxes and has redone his driveway to accommodate his camper that he uses for family vacations. He stated if someone doesn’t like something they have a choice to move somewhere that doesn’t allow RV’s. He noted driving down the street you see the front of his camper which his neighbor does not like. He stated he keeps everything in order and people who do keep things in order should not have regulations. He said people who park their RV’s in grass and just leave it are the ones that give people like him a bad name. He stated he bought a farm in Pleasant Prairie to store his camper, but has it parked on his property to make a point. He stated he goes out of his way to have everything clean and to make his neighbor happy. He stated the people who complain are those who found out about the survey and completed the survey. He suggested sending information about the survey and RV issues with the water bill to advise residents what is going on within the Village.
Mr. Kolar stated this is what they are trying to regulate. He stated 95% of the people in Gurnee take care of their property however, 3-5% do not take care of their property.
Mr. Harold Gottman, 5164 Portage Lane, in Pembrook stated he does have one of the smaller lots. He stated when buying his RV he contacted the Village of Gurnee for the rules and knew he could comply with those rules. Since then he purchased a larger 40-foot RV and expanded his concrete driveway along with a retaining wall and bushes without encroaching on any sidewalk line. He stated he cannot comply with the setback if it is changed because there is no way for him to do that. He stated as far “grandfathering” for someone who has done it right according to the rules now and may not be able to comply later, and that there may be some injustice if this is changed. He stated his RV is not kept on his driveway seasonally, but it may be sitting on the drive a week before/after he takes a trip.
He stated after spending $7-10,000.00 to do what he did and to have the rules change now stating he could not keep his RV there would upset him. . He stated he believes this is where the “grandfathering” would be a good idea for anyone who has complied with the rules at the time and then cannot really comply to the rules now.
Mr. Jody Colburn, 3408 Grove Avenue, stated what he hears is that the Board is trying to come up with something that is best for the Village of Gurnee. He stated he called the Village to find out exactly what he had to do concerning excavating his yard. He stated he owns a corner lot with his 30-foot RV which is slightly larger than his garage, sits next to the garage on the side yard. He stated he went to his neighbors for their opinions. He stated his yard is well kept and with the RV sitting back on his yard it is not an eye sore. He asked the Board to take in consideration for those residents who do comply with the current rules. He stated he did not like his 5-wheeler sitting on his driveway either.
Chairman Hood closed the floor to public comments.
Chairman Hood stated without a quorum, first the Plan Commission will hold a discussion among themselves to further the process along and then the Zoning Board of Appeals will hold a discussion among themselves. He stated from these discussions there will be a direction for having another workshop or for further information from Staff that may be needed or to actually have discussions to set a Public Hearing for decisions regarding the regulations.
Chairman Hood turned the floor over to acting Chairman Mr. Park for the Plan Commission comments.
Mr. Park asked Ms. Salmons for any comments or questions.
Ms. Salmons stated she can certainly understand everyone’s questions and comments for the Board. She stated she owns a RV which is currently in storage and she certainly understands the cost involved. She stated what the Board is looking at is not the people that are complying but those people who are not complying (i.e., the neighbor who has 2 RV’s sitting in the grass that has been parked there for years.) She stated for those people who are complying, they do not have a problem and she certainly understands the questions regarding this.
Mr. Nordentoft stated after listening to the public’s comments tonight it is apparent that a lot of residents have put the effort forth to do a lot of the things to accommodate those vehicles. He stated he sees the concerns and that the Board is not looking to take the nuclear route with this. He stated the Board is trying to figure out the best way to accommodate everyone. He stated the gentleman who mentioned the “grandfathering in” is something that he liked and believes there is some real merit to that. He stated he hopes the Board can integrate this into what they do.
Mr. Ziegler stated the “grandfathering” was discussed with the Village Attorney Bryan Winter early in this discussion and the Village cannot “grandfather” RVs because they are not permanent structures on the site. “Grandfather” status is only for permanent structures on a site. Grandfathering a “use” on the site, like a RV is not allowed and unfortunately, will not be able to be part of the discussion.
Mr. Park stated he had 3 RVs overtime, but not longer has one. He stated he has lived with this situation and is trying to put some practicality to the discussions over the last 6-7 months. He stated is first comment is on average of 15-20 complaints a year for 11,000 household is 2-tenths of 1%, providing no one is a repeat. He stated he does not see this as a huge issue that the Board has to try to over-haul the world. He stated the comments tonight for potential regulations are very clear and good as well as clarifying the current regulations. He stated he believes that clarification of the regulations is better. He stated the items he believes are valid are the definitions which assists the Village in enforcing things better and the basic regulations which are pretty much statements of common sense or existing regulations that are clarified better.
Mr. Park suggested that a couple of tweaks be made. He stated one, which was addressed this evening, is in the proposal under Item A that one RV trailer outside the structure is allowed and this is where a larger lot may come into play. He stated if someone has more than one acre of land and they happen to have a boat and a RV they probably have plenty of space for these two vehicles and this can be accommodated. He stated the other clarification is back to his practicality where utility haul trailers often end up with twin axels instead of single axels if it is going to be used for any heavy tools or towing a car. He stated he believes it is very important that the one item (# 8) that was added and states do not let the RV hang out onto the street or onto the sidewalk which is pure safety and very legitimate. He stated he is less concerned about ‘Optional Regulations’ going back to his first statement which he believes RVs are not a big deal. He stated as a practical matter 6 feet worth of screening isn’t going to do a lot for a large RV (37 foot in height) or something of this scale. He stated 6 feet of screening will screen a pop-up, jet ski or snowmobile but doesn’t know if the ‘Optional Regulations’ are really all that relevant, in his mind. He stated regarding the previous clarification that could be useful is defining how long guest RVs can be parked on property.
Mr. Park stated these are the clarifications he suggests that the Board thinks about rather than throwing all the Location Requirements out there and over-hauling the whole thing. He stated get the safety issues as they are very valid.
Chairman Hood asked for the Zoning Board of Appeals Comments.
Ms. Smith stated she was not present for the last meeting and didn’t know what was discussed. She stated she is hearing a lot about the lot sizes and agrees with this concern. She stated it’s almost as though two different things are being discussed between old Gurnee and new Gurnee and the lot sizes. She stated a lot of the people present this evening have large lots and they are complying with the rules. She stated it seems this should somehow be written into this with two different sets of regulations depending upon the lot size. She stated this seems to be the biggest issue this evening that she is hearing.
Mr. Kolar stated esthetics is very important. He stated he would like to see enforcement on the 5% that are not complying. He stated enforcement should be the job of the Village. He stated there are haul trailers in the northeast part of Gurnee used for auxiliary buildings with furniture and cars being stored in them that have not been moved in years. He stated in this same section of Gurnee there is a boat sitting in the front driveway which hasn’t been moved in 10-15 years. He stated no one has lived in the house on this property for the same amount of time. He stated there needs to be enforcement.
Chairman Hood asked Mr. Kolar for any comments for Mr. Ziegler.
Mr. Kolar responded he concurs with everything that has been said previously.
Mr. Paff stated he agrees with the larger lot size. He stated he believes this has already been taken into consideration with what Mr. Ziegler said about the setback regulations if you are on a larger lot. He stated the only thing that is not brought in by this is that a person could store more RVs on a larger lot. He stated he believes if a person has a larger lot they should have the ability to put more on their lot because they would have the room for it. He stated in the older neighborhood, in most cases, these vehicles cannot be seen and people who live in these areas should have the ability to store more. He stated as it was brought up earlier this evening, that some people would like to have the ability to have their vehicles on their property for a period of time to do work on the vehicle, load the vehicle, or just the ability to leave it on their property in the driveway for a week in between a person’s trips. He stated currently people have the right for when a person is coming form out of town to store a RV on their property for 30 days, and he stated he believes most people do not use this anyway. He suggested maybe there could be some allowance to have an RV parked on a property for a longer period of time perhaps a couple times per year. He stated he really didn’t understand the regulations of being allowed to have certain vehicles on your property during a certain time of the year. He stated if it is allowed to have a RV on the property all year long, why is it necessary to define what the vehicle is.
Mr. Ziegler responded an RV would only be allowed to park in the driveway during the useful portions of the year and it would be stored in the side yard or rear yard during the non-usable times of the year.
Mr. Paff stated he understood this. He stated if what the Board is trying to get at is esthetics what does it really matter what type of vehicle it is.
Ms. Smith asked if what was being referred to as a seasonal vehicle, i.e., is if it is winter it would have to be a snowmobile and if it is summer it would have to be a boat or a jet ski.
Mr. Ziegler responded the thinking is during the summer season boats and jet skis would go out, and be used, and then come back for the season and they would not be stored in the driveway. He stated during the off season these vehicles would be stored in the side yard or rear yard which would have less visual impact when traveling down the street. He stated this is trying to get the clutter out of the areas when they are not utilized and which are visible when driving down a street. He stated this was the concept behind these ‘Seasonal Regulations’.
Mr. Paff stated he brought a lot of people to a into meetings early on because he wanted to get their opinion He stated he has never had a RV parked next to him nor has he ever owned a RV. He stated he lives in the new part of Gurnee where the lots are small and the driveways are short. He stated if he had a RV parked in the driveways on both sides of him he wouldn’t be able to see down the street in either direction. He stated he probably would not be too happy with that scenario as his view would be completely blocked. He stated he believes there needs to be some kind of restrictions but does not want to see a lot of change to the regulations but just enough to take care of the major issues would be the best.
Chairman Hood stated he believes the Board is ready for a Public Hearing. He stated the language that Mr. Ziegler presented provides a lot of clarity which is very helpful for the Ordinance. He stated in any place that there has been some discussion or dispute could be handled by being retracted at the Public Hearing in terms of not being part of what is voted for as part of the Ordinance. He stated by having 3 or 4 more workshops the language probably would not be perfectly ironed out but as the Board has already met a number of times it is now the time to go forward with a Public Hearing.
Chairman Hood asked Staff if they feel they are close enough to put together an Ordinance which could be heard at a Public Hearing.
Mr. Ziegler responded he believes so. He stated to summarize as he sees it:
The first item in the Basic Regulation is the number of RVs or haul trailers on a site. He stated the Board has indicated they want relief for the larger size lots. He stated if Staff can come up with a threshold of a ½ acre or somewhere in this neighborhood whereby additional RVs would be allowed parked outside on the lot, does the board want to relax this to unlimited at this point or does the Board want a specific number (2,3,etc.) of RVs or haul trailers allowed?
Chairman Hood stated to pick a number that is consistent with the other areas to be legitimate.
Mr. Ziegler stated Staff would run a couple of scenarios to try and determine what lot size they feel could adequately accommodate 2 RVs and adequately accommodate 3 RVs and will add one or a couple thresholds into this where the Board can took a look at it.
Chairman Hood asked Mr. Ziegler if this includes the setback issues as well.
Mr. Ziegler responded since there are no locational or seasonal requirements being done there was nothing included for setbacks.
Chairman Hood stated what was brought up in part was the setbacks in part being put in on the lot line versus off the lot line, but this would affect people who have small lots.
Mr. Park stated from his perspective multiple can be a lot size issue but there is a threshold of this is the Village of Gurnee and RVs are okay and is the baseline statement the Village is trying to set, but let’s be reasonable. He stated his vote was keeping it without the location, but thinks it should be discussed. He stated Mr. Ziegler’s portrayal of options is a valid one.
Chairman Hood stated in the Draft Ordinance there would be no locational direction but this would be something that could be brought up and an amendment made at the time with motions.
Mr. Ziegler asked the Board if the multi-family concept was okay with everyone.
Mr. Park asked if that wasn’t covered elsewhere for single family and multi-family and that it had to be owner occupant.
Mr. Ziegler responded yes.
Mr. Park wanted clarification as the multi-family shouldn’t be a “dumping ground”.
Mr. Ziegler responded correct.
Mr. Ziegler verified with the Board the following Basic Regulations: C1 – no commercial print on utility haul trailers; single axel and dual axel haul trailers as allowed by right; valid registrations (which can be difficult for the code enforcement officers to enforce as trailers are “backed in” driveways and registrations are difficult see); clean and operable RVs; trailers shall be parked or stored and maintained in a clean neat manner and equipment shall be in operational condition at all times; hard surface - asphalt, concrete, brick pavers, and gravel being a weed free hard surface; RV haul trailers should not have their wheels or other transportation devices removed; RVs should be owned by the resident or occupant or property owner; RVs or haul trailers should not be parked so that they extend over sidewalks, streets, or public ROWs; RVs or haul trailers are prohibited from being occupied or used for living, sleeping or housekeeping purposes.
Mr. Ziegler stated Staff will work on drafting the new ordinance based upon those Basic Regulations as they were presented to the Board and as they were amended this evening. He stated if there is any further discussion on any of the potential ones that are to be prepared as menu items to add in, this will basically be the Draft Ordinance.
Chairman Hood asked for any other comments or questions.
Ms. Salmons asked as there was so much discussion on why people did not know of the survey taking place what will be the Board’s form of communication to the Village to let them know there will be a Public meeting.
Mr. Ziegler responded the State statue requirement is that the public hearing notice will be published in the newspaper of local circulation. He stated this is done in addition to doing press releases to the newspapers, and it will be on the Village website and be sent out on the Village’s list serve.
Mr. Park asked when the next newsletter is.
Mr. Ziegler responded the next newsletter is a ways out but believes it is the beginning of November coinciding with snow plow season. He stated he would also investigate the Connect CTY which is a system designed for more emergency and public health notifications more than it is for this type of announcement. He stated there are have been policies adopted for what this system can and should be used for and the Village doesn’t want to become a mass marketing where the residents become numb to it. He stated he would check to see if the use of this system would be an option.
Chairman Hood asked for a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Park made a motion, seconded by Mr. Nordentoft, to adjourn.
The Meeting was adjourned at 9:30P.M.
Plan Commission Secretary