Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board leans toward case‑by‑case code changes to allow pavers and low barrier wall for SE Gross Middle School
Summary
Trustees signaled support for amending Division 5 of the village code so school districts can apply for permitted encroachments in residential zones, specifically allowing brick pavers and adding a low barrier wall, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance for board consideration rather than a one‑off amendment for a single property.
Village staff asked the Committee of the Whole on Feb. 23 to consider amending Division 5 of the village code to permit certain encroachments in residentially zoned parkways by school districts. The request, prompted by District 95’s work at SE Gross Middle School, would allow brick pavers where families congregate for early‑childhood drop‑off and add a low barrier wall as a permissible encroachment to improve safety near the street.
Stevie, who authored the staff memo, described options presented to trustees: (A) amend Division 5 to permit school districts to install enumerated encroachments under a license agreement; (B) add low barrier walls to the list of permitted items; (C) amend code only for this specific request; or (D) take no action. Stevie said the changes would require amendments to multiple sections of Division 5 if approved.
Superintendent Ryan Evans told trustees the district repaved parkways during earlier renovations and the new early childhood wing has generated concentrated foot traffic that has turned parkway areas to mud. He said the low barrier wall would match the building aesthetic and provide an additional safety buffer for 3‑ and 4‑year‑old students, some with special needs.
Trustees generally favored allowing school districts to seek encroachment licenses on a case‑by‑case basis rather than opening the parkway language to unrestricted uses. Trustees asked staff to ensure license terms protect sightlines (several trustees suggested limiting wall height to approximately 24–36 inches or using see‑through fencing) and to work with public works on setback and plow considerations. Staff said license agreements would be administered by staff and would include indemnification and attached plans.
The board directed staff to prepare an ordinance combining options A and B (allowing school district encroachments by license and adding the low barrier wall as an enumerated permissible item) for consideration at the next board meeting; no vote on the ordinance occurred that night.
