O-06-24 Amending Title 17 of the Lemont Municipal Code, The Lemont Unified Development Ordinance of 2008418 Main Street I Lemont, IL 60439
TO: Village Board Meeting
FROM: Jamie Tate, Community Development
THROUGH: Jason Berry, CEcD, AICP, Economic & Community Development Director
SUBJECT: An Ordinance Amending Title 17 of the Lemont Municipal Code, The
Lemont Unified Development Ordinance of 2008
DATE: February 12, 2024
SUMMARY/BACKGROUND
The attached ordinance will update the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to allow for
pool houses associated with inground pools on larger residential lots and the update will allow
for decorative 5-foot fences in certain corner side yards.
ANALYSIS
Comprehensive Plan
The Lemont 2030 Comprehensive Plan encourages reviews and updates of the UDO at least
once a year. The proposed updates are in line with the goals and objectives of the plan.
Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC)
The PZC held a public hearing on December 6, 2023 and voted (7-0) to recommend approval
of the proposed amendments included in the attached ordinance with modifications that have
been incorporated.
Committee of the Whole (COW)
The COW discussed the proposed amendments included in the ordinance at the meeting held
on January 22, 2024.
Consistency with Village Policy
Lemont 2030 Comprehensive Plan
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff is recommending approval of the attached ordinance.
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED
A motion to approve the attached ordinance.
ATTACHMENTS
An Ordinance Amending Title 17 of the Lemont Municipal Code, The Lemont Unified
Development Ordinance of 2008
VILLAGE OF LEMONT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE LEMONT MUNICIPAL CODE,
THE LEMONT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF 2008
(Definitions, Pool Houses and Fences)
ADOPTED BY THE
PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF LEMONT
THIS 121h DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
Published in pamphlet form by
Authority of the President and
Board of Trustees of the Village of
Lemont, Counties of Cook, Will and
DuPage, Illinois, this 12th day of February, 2024.
ORDINANCE NO. 0"b"�
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE LEMONT MUNICIPAL CODE, THE
LEMONT UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE OF 2008
(Definitions, Pool Houses and Fences)
WHEREAS, the Village of Lemont approved Ordinance 0-07-08 adopting the Lemont
Unified Development Ordinance of 2008 (hereinafter "the Unified Development Ordinance") with
an effective date of March 15, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2023, the Lemont Planning & Zoning Commission, in
accordance with the requirements of the Illinois Combined Statutes and the Unified Development
Ordinance, conducted a public hearing for the proposed amendment to the zoning and land use
regulations of the Unified Development Ordinance and the minutes are provided as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, notice of the aforesaid public hearing was made in the manner provided by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Lemont Planning & Zoning Commission found that the proposed
amendments are consistent with the purposes of the Unified Development Ordinance and voted
(7-0) to recommend their approval with modifications incorporated into the language.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Village President and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Lemont, Cook, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois, as follows:
SECTION ONE: The foregoing findings and recitals are hereby adopted as Section 1
of this Ordinance and are incorporated by reference as if set forth verbatim herein.
SECTION TWO: Section 17.02 ("Definitions") of Article II ("Zoning") of Title 17
("Unified Development Ordinance") of the Village Zoning Code is hereby amended by adding the
underlined language in alphabetical order to provide as follows:
Pool House: An accessory structure associated with an in rg ound pool only meant for the storage of
equipment, pool floats and pool toys, a location for lockers or cubbies, and a space to change
clothing with or without a bathroom with containing only a toilet, sink and shower. The pool house
is the enclosed and roofed portion of the accessory structure but may have an attached outdoor
space.
SECTION THREE: The Lemont, Illinois Municipal Code ("Village Code"), as
amended, is further amended in Title 17, Unified Development Ordinance Chapter, with additions
shown in underlined text, to be placed in alphabetical order, and deletions shown in str4kethr-ough
to Chapter 17.06 of the Village Code as follows:
17.06.030. — Accessory Uses.
J. Pool House. A pool house is allowed on a detached single-family residential zoning lot
with an existing home if the following is met:
1. The zoning lot is at least 15,000 square feet in area; and
2. There is an in rog and pool on the property or an in rog and pool under
construction with an active building permit. If the in r�pool is removed at
any time the pool house must be removed prior in conjunction with; and
3. The enclosed area of the pool house cannot be greater than 350 square -feet;
and
4. A kitchen within the enclosed pool house space with indoor plumbingis not
allowed but an outdoor kitchen can be located under an attached pavilion or
pergola; and
5. A bathroom is allowed with a toilet, sink and shower with outdoor access only;
and
6. The enclosed area of the pool house cannot be heated; and
7. The pool house shall not be greater than 15-feet in height when measured to
the highest peak but may be up to 20-feet in height when matching the roof
pitch of the principal structure; and
8. A minimum of 10-feet from any property line, located in the rear lot only, and
9. The pool house shall be constructed of complementary materials to the
principal structure; and
10. Vinyl siding is prohibited.
SECTION THREE: The Lemont, Illinois Municipal Code ("Village Code"), as
amended, is further amended in Title 17, Unified Development Ordinance Chapter, with additions
shown in underlined text, to be placed in alphabetical order, and deletions shown in stri .e*h,.,,ugh
to Chapter 17.12.010 of the Village Code as follows:
A. Construction.
1. All fences in all zoning districts shall be erected or installed so that the finished side
faces outward, i.e., the construction supports face the interior of the lot on which
the fence is installed.
2. All fences in all zoning districts shall be of rigid material.
3. The combination of fencing materials (i.e., retaining wall with a rail/fence on top)
must meet the height and all other requirements of this section. Total height of the
total barrier (wall with rail/fence) may be an aggregate average height of the total
assembly from one side of the wall and from the top of the wall.
SECTION FOUR: The Lemont, Illinois Municipal Code ("Village Code"), as
amended, is further amended in Title 17, Unified Development Ordinance Chapter, with additions
shown in underlined text, to be placed in alphabetical order, and deletions shown in stfik
to Chapter 17.12.030 of the Village Code as follows:
B. Decorative Fences and Walls. Decorative fences and walls are permitted in the front
and corner side yards in an R district providing that:
1. Fence or wall height does not exceed four feet;, except up to five feet in height is
allowed in corner side yards that abut another corner side yard, also referred to as
back-to-back corner yards; and
2. The fence is at least 20 feet from the edge of any public street; and
The fence is open in design.
C. Fence Height. Fences in R districts shall not exceed six feet except:
1. Decorative fences as provided for in paragraph B of this section shall not ^�^^^'
f6ur are less than six feet in height adhering to # I of paragraph B;
2. On through lots where a rear yard would be adjacent to a front yard, the fence in
the rear yard shall not exceed four feet.
SECTION FIVE: That the Village Clerk of the Village of Lemont be and is directed
hereby to publish this Ordinance in pamphlet form, pursuant to the Statutes of the State of Illinois,
made and provided.
SECTION SIX: Should any Section or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a Court
of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the Ordinance
as a whole or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
SECTION SEVEN: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication as provided by law.
ADOPTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF LEMONT, COUNTIES OF COOK, WILL, AND DUPAGE, ILLINOIS, on
this 121h day of February, 2024.
PRESIDENT AND VILLAGE BOARD MEMBERS:
AYES: NAYS
Janelle Kittridge
Dave Maher
Ken McClafferty
Kevin Shaughnessy
Rick Sniegowski
Ron Stapleton
ABSENT: ABSTAIN
-V
Attest:
President
\._
Village Clerk
OF
� F
Q �o
v Z
7
/tLIN��S
Exhibit A
PZC Minutes from December 6, 2023 PZC Meeting
Village of Lemont
Planning and Zoning Commission
Regular Meeting of December 6, 2023
A regular meeting of the Plan Commission for the Village of Lemont was held at 6:30 p.m. on
Wednesday, December 6, 2023, in the second floor Board Room of the Village Hall, 418 Main
Street, Lemont, Illinois.
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: Cunningham, Carmody, McGleam, O'Connor, Pawlak, Zolecki, Studebaker
Absent: None
Consulting Planner Jamie Tate and Village Trustee Ron Stapleton were also present.
C. Approval of Minutes
Commissioner O'Connor made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to
approve the minutes from the August 2, 2023 meeting with no changes. A roll call vote
was taken:
Ayes: O'Connor, Carmody, Cunningham, Pawlak, Studebaker
Nays: None
Abstain: McGleam and Zolecki
Motion passed
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Zolecki to
approve the minutes from the October 4, 2023 meeting with no changes. A roll call vote
was taken:
Ayes: Cunningham, O'Connor, Pawlak, Zolecki, Studebaker
Nays: None
Abstain: Carmodv and McGleam
Motion passed
11. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS
il
Chairman Studebaker greeted the audience and asked anyone in the audience who was
planning on speaking to stand and raise his/her right hand. He then administered the
oath.
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. CASE 2023-13 — UDO AMENDMENTS
Chairman Studebaker called for a motion to open the public hearing.
Commissioner Cunningham made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to
open the public hearing for Case #2023-13. A roll call vote was taken:
Ayes: Cunningham, Carmody, McGleam, O'Connor, Pawlak, Zolecki, Studebaker
Nays: None
Motion passed
Staff Presentation
Jamie Tate, Consulting Planner, said once a year staff prepares UDO amendments for the
code. The amendments that they will cover this evening would be to allow for pool
houses on certain size lots as accessory structures, creating a State Street Overlay,
modifying the fence section, and took at residential driveway construction materials.
Back in November of 2022 pool houses were brought to the Commission as to whether it
was something that needed to be explored since there has been several inquiries. Two
permits are currently on hold because she knew this would be brought before the
Commission with some proposed language. She showed on the overhead the plans to one
of the permits on hold. This permit was going to be approvable because it was
combining an outdoor cover patio with a cabana that did not have a bathroom. The only
thing that was stopping it was the height. It could not be taller than 15 feet. When she
talked with the architect, they had stated it was nearly impossible for what they wanted to
get that height.
Mrs. Tate stated staff is proposing language to the definition section for a pool house.
She then read the definition. Staff did look at a lot of different definitions and took
certain parts to create this definition. There would be a new section under Accessory
Uses for pool house with all the restrictions. Some of the restrictions are that the lots
would have to be at least 15,000 square feet, cannot be greater than 350 square feet,
indoor kitchen facilities are not allowed, bathrooms are allowed with outdoor access only,
indoor areas of a pool house cannot be heated, and it cannot be greater than 20 feet in
height. She asked if any of the Commissioners had any feedback.
Chairman Studebaker asked how the 15-foot height was decided on.
Mrs. Tate said that is the height for other accessory structures.
Commissioner Zolecki stated this would allow pool houses to have a height of 20 feet but
the code does not allow a detached garage to be no higher than 15 feet.
Trustee Stapleton asked if an attic was allowed in the pool house for storage. The ceiling
height is only eight feet and then it would allow another 12 feet at the peals.
Commissioner McGleam said it could encourage people to put in lofts.
Commissioner Zolecki stated he is not sure if he has an objection in regard to the height
increase but he does see it being problematic to be stricter for a garage.
Commissioner McGleam said from a design standpoint the only way it would need to be
more than 15 feet is if you have a 12/12 roof pitch. The architect could be trying to
match the house. The other concern he has is the 350 square feet. If you are only
allowing interior uses as described in the definition, then that could fit in 150 square feet.
Mrs. Tate stated a lot of it was based on submittals.
Commissioner McGleam said you will have more space than what is described in the
definition which could encourage living space.
Mrs. Tate stated that is why they have all the other restrictions to prevent someone from
living there. She showed plans for a pool house that is 306 square feet. It has storage,
mechanical, and a changing room. They will most likely add a bathroom if it is allowed.
Commissioner McGleam said he did look online at pool houses that were 350 square feet
that were shown with really nice furniture.
Commissioner O'Connor asked if they felt the indoor kitchen facilities were a little
vague. He asked if indoor plumbing was allowed on the interior.
Mrs. Tate stated you can add indoor plumbing but there is no reason for it.
Commissioner O'Connor said he could see a wet bar being added, an ice maker, and a
fridge. People will think that it is not a kitchen because there is no oven.
Mrs. Tate stated she feels a fridge would be fine.
Commissioner O'Connor said he feels these are fine structures. He just wants to make
sure they don't get someone coming back asking for a variance.
Commissioner Cunningham asked if for the height they have an exception in there that
would allow for over 15 feet if the reason was to match the pitch of the existing house
that is there.
Commissioner Zolecki stated then they should do the same for garages.
3
Commissioner Cunningham asked if they could just amend the garages also.
Mrs. Tate said it would apply to detached garages which are mostly found in R-4A. You
generally don't see them where you would have pool houses because the lots are bigger.
You mostly see detached garages on lots that are 5,000 square feet and above.
Commissioner Cunningham stated there was a recent variance on a garage because the
owner was trying to match the pitch on the house and they allowed for it. This is
something they can put on for the next UDO amendment review.
Commissioner Zolecki asked who would be reviewing the height if it was because they
were trying to match the aesthetic of the house.
Mrs. Tate said she would think it would be the building department.
Chairman Studebaker asked if they would have to have some type of foundation. He
would not want someone to bring in a prebuilt structure.
Mrs. Tate stated it would be through the building department and they would not allow a
prebuilt structure.
Commissioner Zolecki asked if they all agreed to limit it to 15 feet in height but can go
up to 20 feet if it matches the existing home and then also do the same thing for garages.
Mrs. Tate said she would have to check to see how the public hearing was noticed.
Otherwise, they would have to bring the garage height change forward for the next UDO
amendments.
Commissioner O'Connor asked if they were comfortable with the wording for the indoor
kitchen. He thinks there should be some type of definition as to what an indoor kitchen
facility is.
Commissioner Carmody stated he agrees with the current wording. Having it unheated
will prevent someone from living there.
Mrs. Tate said she did research several different municipalities as to their wording and
how to make sure it does not turn into a living space. A lot of these restrictions were
ones that she found. They can see how all of these restrictions go and they can always
come back and look at them.
Chairman Studebaker asked if there was any further discussion regarding this
amendment. None responded.
Mrs. Tate stated they are proposing to create an overlay district along State Street. It
would be separated into two different areas. The north portion starting at Cass to Weimer
4
mostly has an underlying zoning of R-4A with some R-6 and B-1. There has been some
interest in this area and some properties have been purchased. The inquiries have been
about what they can build there since there are single-family homes there currently. R-
4A only allows for single-family homes, but with the consolidated lots they want to know
if they can build townhomes or duplexes. Staff has explored allowing this with a special
use.
The south portion from Weimer to 1291h Street is mostly zoned B-3 Arterial Commercial
District. There are a few R-1 parcels there which are ones that were forced annexed and
not been developed at this time. The B-1 piece is the Lithuanian Research Center. The
purpose of this is to keep it retail tax generating focused. This comes from the
Comprehensive Plan for targeting these areas for growth and to create and grow the tax
base.
Mrs. Tate said the intention for the North Overlay District is to allow appropriate
desirable attached single-family development along State Street and this is proposed as a
special use. It is not something that will come through as allowed by right. If you are in
this overlay district then you can consolidate your lots and if the lot is large enough you
can propose a special use to allow either duplexes, townhouses, or attached housing. The
requirement is it would have to be front -facing State Street. No garages or driveways
with parking along State Street so there would have to be rear access or alleyways. This
was discussed at the Village Board level and they asked staff to explore it and come up
with some solutions.
The building at 801 State Street is for sale and has had several inquiries on it. It is zoned
residential so there are no business uses allowed. So being in that overlay district it
would put some appropriate uses that would be allowed on the first floor on a non-
residential use when there is off-street parking existing. For this site, there is parking that
you find next to this building. Also, to the south is the office building which is zoned B-
1. The uses that are listed are only uses that you would find in a B-1 District.
Chairman Studebaker asked if it would allow some of the bigger homes on State Street to
convert their first floors into office space.
Trustee Stapleton asked where you would have parking.
Mrs. Tate stated in order to have a non-residential use off-street parking would have to be
available. You would not be able to just take a house and make it into a business.
Commissioner Zolecki said he agrees with trying to create a better way for these unique
properties and promote a business opportunity, but he does not agree with the allowance
of consolidation to allow for duplexes, townhomes, and rowhomes. He feels the range is
going into the historic district.
Mrs. Tate stated everything would have to go through the Historic Preservation
Committee. She understands this is a lot for discussion purposes and she wants to get
feedback.
Commissioner Pawlak said he does not feel it is appropriate to have this on just a mile
and half stretch.
Trustee Stapleton stated he feels it makes them lose part of the small-town character.
Mrs. Tate said she has had about three people who are purchasing properties that have
come in wanting to do some sort of non -single family development. They have either
accumulated three lots in a row or they have a larger site with a home that they can tear
down. This is why it is here for discussion.
Chairman Studebaker stated he likes the idea of the home on State and Illinois Street. It
is a home but it has an attorney's office on the first floor. It has a wraparound porch and
it looks nice as you come over the bridge.
Mrs. Tate said the purpose of this was more focused on a mixed -use building for a
building like the one at 801 State Street. The problem with converting the homes is the
parking.
Discussion continued in regards to having multi -family on State Street.
Chairman Studebaker stated it seems like they are not in agreement with the townhomes,
duplexes, and rowhomes on State Street but are in favor of converting homes into mixed -
use.
Mrs. Tate said they have the building at 801 State and just to the south is the one property
that is B-1. This is the only building that this overlay is going to address. It is finding a
way for it to reach its maximum potential as it stands. She showed the proposed draft
language for the North District.
Commissioner Pawlak stated he feels they agreed to strike the first bullet.
Mrs. Tate said for the South District it would be removing uses that are allowed in B-3
Districts that are non -tax generating uses. They would be allowed in other B-3 Districts
but as redevelopment happens in this area they would not be allowed. What you are
trying to prevent is like the Wendy's that redeveloped into a dentist office.
All the Commissioners agree with the South Overlay District.
Mrs. Tate stated the next UDO amendment is related to fences and when they are on top
of a retaining wall. Recently they had some retaining walls that were close to the
property line and the way they were built they needed a guard rail/fence on top of them.
The guard rail/fence has to be a minimum of 36 inches and should not be more than six
0
feet. There should be language in there to clarify how the height is determined. The
question is what the height is from the neighbor who is the lowest point. The Building
Commissioner thinks it should be an average from both sides.
Commissioner Zolecki said he has seen a maximum for each side. It would be six feet on
the high side and then something higher on the other side. The problem is when it is a
fall protection. It is on the applicant to conform to code but when it becomes too much it
forces them to step it down so there could be two retaining walls.
Mrs. Tate asked how that would be written out.
Commissioner Zolecki stated it would be more of a graphic. If there is not a pedestrian
path next to it or where pedestrians would not be passing through it then it typically does
not require fall protection. There are gigantic retaining walls as you drive down the
highway with no fall protection because people don't go there.
Mrs. Tate said this is more for residential fences which is an unusual situation.
Commissioner Zolecki stated he could send some examples to staff.
Mrs. Tate said recently there have been some inquiries for five-foot fences in corner
yards. In Kettering, they do allow five-foot fences in corner yards for their HOA and
they have issued variances for out there. All of these situations are when the houses are
back-to-back yards. This would allow up to five feet but still be open in design as long as
the backyard faces another backyard. It would still have to meet all the other
requirements.
All Commissioners agreed.
Mrs. Tate stated the last amendment is on residential driveway construction. There have
been questions on the requirements for the thickness of pavement. Staff did go out and
talk with some engineers and looked at other communities to make sure they were in line.
A lot of the new residential properties want concrete driveways. Staff feels that the
Village is not excessive. In some of the other municipalities, they allow a wire mesh in
order to allow for a reduced pavement depth. Some utilities do not like the wire mesh
because if you have to do patch repairs it makes it difficult. Also, there currently is no
standard in the code for pavers. There is a policy that there has to be two inches of sand
right below the bricks and then four to six inches of a compacted aggregate base.
Chairman Studebaker said he has seen driveways by him go in and they all have had wire
mesh. He feels the wire mesh helps keep it from cracking.
Mrs. Tate stated this would conclude the text amendments.
Chairman Studebaker asked if there was anyone in the audience who wanted to speak in
regard to this public hearing.
Public Comment
None responded.
Chairman Studebaker called for a motion to close the public hearing.
Commissioner McGleam made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Zolecki to close the
public hearing. A roll call vote was taken:
Ayes: McGleam, Zolecki, Carmody, Cunningham, O'Connor, Pawlak, Studebaker
Nays: None
Motion passed
Plan Commission Discussion
Chairman Studebaker asked if there were any further comments from the Commission.
Commissioner Zolecki asked how they wanted to handle the wording on fences.
Mrs. Tate said it is something that she can work on.
Chairman Studebaker called for a motion for a recommendation.
Plan Commission Recommendation
Commissioner Zolecki made a motion, seconded by Commissioner McGleam to
recommend to the Mayor and Board of Trustees approval of Case #2023-13 UDO
Amendments as discussed this evening with the following recommendations:
1. Add height limitation clarification for accessory pool house structure that is beyond
15 feet to be no greater than 20 feet and can only be increased when matching the
roof pitch of the primary structure.
2. Approval of the South State Street Overlay District as presented.
3. Approval for the North State Street Overlay District for the non-residential uses on
the first floor only in mixed -use buildings and eliminating duplexes, two-family
detached dwelling, and townhouses uses.
4. For fences, approval of only the corner five-foot fence height as presented when the
back yards are back-to-back.
5. Approval of the driveway standards as they currently are in the UDO with the
addition of brick paver details as recommended by the Building Department.
A roll call vote was taken:
Ayes: Zolecki, McGleam, Carmody, Cunningham, O'Connor, PaVvIak, Studebaker
Nays: None
Motion passed
M
Commissioner McGleam made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Carmody to
authorize the Chairman to approve the Findings of Fact for Case #2023-13 as prepared by
staff. A roll call vote was taken:
Ayes: McGleam, Carmody, Cunningham, O'Connor, Pawlak, Zolecki, Studebaker
Nays: None
Motion passed
IV. ACTION ITEMS
None
V. GENERAL DISCUSSION
None
VI. AUDIENCE PARTICIPATION
Mario Mollo, Township Administrator, said as a volunteer with the Village for almost 20
years he can appreciate all the Commissions hard work. He has been the Township
Administrator for about eight months now and has been working together with Mr.
Schafer on some of the policies and procedures. An issue that has come up is the
notification process when a property owner of the Township wants to be annexed into the
Village. He understands how the process works, but he is asking when it does come
before this Commission or at the beginning of the process that the Township does get
notification. The reason is so that this Commission is aware of any issues that they might
know about.
Mrs. Tate stated she would talk with Mr. Schafer about how best to include the Township
in the notification process.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Chainnan Studebaker called for a motion to adjourn the meeting.
Commissioner McGleam made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Cunningham to
adjourn the meeting. A voice vote was taken:
Ayes: All
Nays: None
Motion passed
Minutes prepared by Peggy Billig
M