HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 6/11/2013 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday,June 11, 2013
Aldermen's Conference Room, 7:00 p.m.
�
In Attenda�ice: Committee Members: Chairman Alderman Condon, Alderman
Peterson aYid Alderman Santi. Absent: None. Also in Attendance: Deputy City
Administrator Martin and City Clerk Jones.
Also in atte�idance: Gary Lang, Gary Lang Auto Group, 1107 S. Illinois Route 31,
McHenry, IL
Chairman�.lderman Condon called the meeting to order at 7:04 pm.
Mayor Low arrived at 7:40 pm.
Chairman Alderman Condon suggested changing the order of the agenda items and
addressing the matter of"Parking Vehicles on the Grass for Automobile Dealerships" first so
Mr. Lang v�ould not have to sit through the entire meeting.
Public Input Session
No one sig�ied in for Public Input Session.
Discussion Re�arding Parking Vehicles on the Grass for Automobile Dealerships
Deputy City Administrator Martin informed the Committee that Mr. Lang has requested the
City consider allowing vehicles to be displayed on grass (private property). The City's
�- Zoning Ordinance currently prohibits parking vehicles on grass, considered an "unapproved
surface," and requires vehicles to be parked on an "approved" surface. Deputy City
Administrator Martin provided the Committee with a copy of the language currently in the
Ordinance at No. 4. "Surfacing of Parking Areas."
Currently, the City hosts several vehicle dealerships including:
• Gary Lang Auto Group;
• Buss Ford;
• Sunnyside Dodge, Chrysler and Ram;
• A used car dealership, on the former Adams Steel property (adjacent to the Fox River
Flea Market);
• A used car vehicle lot located at the southwest corner of Northside Avenue and Illinois
Route 120;
• B&B Auto Plus; and
• A vehicle sales lot located at the northeast corner of Elm Street and Meadow Lane.
Additionally, Harley Davidson has a motorcycle dealership located at the southwest corner of
Illinois Route 120 and Chapel Hill Road.
Deputy City Administrator Martin informed the Committee that Harley Davidson has already
obtained a Conditional Use Permit to allow the outside display of motorcycles to the north of
their existing building on the grass. The other dealerships are not permitted to display
`-' vehicles on the grass or in City/State right-of-way. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted
Community Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 2
�
the older dealerships, including Sunnyside Dodge, and all of the other used vehicle
dealerships ��n Elm Street/State Route 120, are situated on lots which do not have a large grass
area for util;zation as a display area for vehicles. However, all of the dealerships are able to
display veh cles adjacent to the roadway because the lots are generally paved up to the
property/rig)it-of-way line. Mr. Martin stated that Gary Lang Auto Group and Buss Ford are
the only dealerships with large grass setbacks adjacent to State right-of-way.
Deputy Citv Administrator Martin stated that with the exception of the concrete vehicle
display pad�, Gary Lang's paved parking lot display area setback varies between 25'-30' from
the front property line along Route 31. The frontage of the property along Route 31 is
approximately 1,170 feet, which does not include the two undeveloped lots. Buss Ford has a
similar property layout; however, they do not have concrete display pads. Additionally, Buss
Ford is situated on a corner lot and a sidewalk runs along Route 31 and a bike path along
Dartmoor Drive lie on the property. The frontage of the Buss Ford lot is approximately 717
feet along I'ront Street (Route 31) and 685 feet along Dartmoor Drive. The paved display
area setback varies between 25'-30' from the front and corner side property lines.
Staff has determined that due to the larger green setbacks, Buss Ford and Gary Lang maintain
they do not have the same opportunity to display vehicles close to the road right-of way. Staff
believes this does present a hardship and unfair advantage the older used car dealerships hold
over the newly constructed sites. Further, the City receives substantial sales tax revenue from
� the sale of vehicles and allowing additional display area benefits the City. It is common to
see vehicles displayed on the grass at automobile dealerships in other communities. Staff
believes allowing the display of vehicles on the grass at automobile dealership would be
acceptable with certain restrictions. Staff has determined the most equitable way to do this is
to allow one vehicle per 100' of property frontage to be displayed on the grass with the
restrictions suggested below:
• Grass under vehicles must be maintained in accordance with City Ordinances;
• Vehicles cannot create any vision or line-of-sight problems;
• Vehicle lights shall remain off and doors and hoods must remain closed;
• Vehicles must be evenly spaced and cannot be clumped together;
• No signage shall be displayed on any vehicle parked on the grass; and
• Vehicles cannot be located in road right-of-way
Staff has ascertained that if a standard of one vehicle per 100 feet of frontage were utilized,
Gary Lang would be permitted to display 11 vehicles. Buss Ford would be allowed to display
7 vehicles along Front Street and 6 vehicles along Dartmoor Drive. An amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance would be required to effect the proposed change.
Mr. Lang addressed the Committee. He stated he has a need to display because his business is
an auto dealership. He noted that the 30-foot setback was stipulated by the City. The cars
rotate frequently and do not stay on the grass long. The grass is always maintained and kept
in good sh��pe, sprinklers have been installed. The cars would only be displayed on the grass
� seasonally and if the weather is bad the cars would not be displayed. Mr. Lang expressed
concern that the City is requiring that no signage could be displayed on the vehicles, as
Community Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 3
�
normally the make of car; year, price and mileage are displayed either on the windshield or on
the side of the vehicle.
Responding to an inquiry from Alderman Santi regarding whether the dealership could have
been built closer to Route 31, Mr. Lang indicated the City did not want a car dealership to be
built on the property at all initially. He reiterated that the City required the 30-foot setback.
Chairman Alderman Condon opined she does not see the necessity of displaying vehicles on
the grass. She stated concern with setting a precedent and would prefer that the current
ordinance not be changed. Mr. Lang cited the impulse purchase of someone seeing a vehicle,
stopping and making a purchase. Chairman Alderman Condon opined that an impulse
purchase is less frequent these days due to the internet.
Alderman Santi stated that he understands Mr. Lang's need to sell cars. He suggested he
could support the change if there was a hard surface for the vehicle's presentation. Mr. Lang
stated he already has 4 or 5 hard surface installations and the expense involved would be
prohibitive, particularly for a seasonal display.
Alderman Peterson opined he has no problem supporting Mr. Lang's request.
Responding to an inquiry from the Committee regarding the number of vehicles that traverse
� Route 31 daily, Mr. Lang stated that he believes the last count he received is approximately
20,000 to 25,000 vehicles daily.
Mayor Low arrived at 7:40 pm.
Responding to Chairman Alderman Condon's inquiry regarding how cars would theoretically
be displayed and whether cars on the grass would block the view of cars displayed along the
front row at the dealership. Mr. Lang explained the configuration of the vehicles to the
Committee.
Mayor Low stated she feels it is the Council's responsibility to assist local businesses. Mr.
Lang's business has always been well displayed and attractively maintained. She sees no
reason why displaying vehicles on the grass would run contrary to this practice. Mr. Lang's
request is not unreasonable and the City relies heavily on the revenue generated by car
dealerships.
Motion by Condon, seconded by Peterson recommending that proposal regarding amending
the Zoning Ordinance proceed to the Planning and Zoning Commission for Public Hearing.
Aye: Peterson.
Nay: Condon, Santi
Absent: None.
�
Motion denied
Community Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 4
�
Motion by F eterson, seconded by Santi recommending the proposal regarding amending the
Zoning Ordi lance proceed to full Council for consideration.
Aye: Condon, Santi, Peterson
Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Mayor Low 3eparted at 8:00 pm. Gary Lang departed at 8:00 pm.
Discussion Regarding Snow and Ice Removal
Deputy City Administrator Martin reiterated to the Committee that on January 22, 2013 the
topic of snow and ice removal was discussed at the Community Development Committee
meeting. The Committee, at that time, directed Staff to forward a recommendation to delete
the provision for snow and ice removal from the Municipal Code and to present the
recommendation to full Council for consideration. Since the meeting in January, a local
business owner, Dave Miller, brought to the attention of Staff a court case he believed was
pertinent to the topic.
Deputy City Administrator Martin informed the Committee that the court case involves a
plaintiff who files a negligence lawsuit following a fall in the parking lot at a local gas station.
� Initially, the trial court found the gas station 75% negligent and the plaintiff 25% negligent.
The case subsequently went to the Fourth District Appellate Court. The defendants argued
that the snow and ice were a natural accumulation, for which it had no duty to remove, warn
or protect against. The Appellate Court agreed and stated: "To prove a claim of negligence, a
`plaintiff must establish the existence of a duty, a breach of duty, and an injury to the plaintiff
was proximately caused by the breach."' The Court went on to state: "Although a property
owner has no duty to remove natural accumulations, he `may be subject to liability if his
voluntary undertaking to remove snow and ice is performed in a negligent manner."'
A case referenced in the Court's brief stated: "'it is unrealistic to expect property owners to
keep all areas where people may walk cleax from ice and snow at all times during the winter
months."' Finally, the Court stated: "While defendant's removal and remediation of the
snow may now have been perfect, the natural accumulation rule does not require perfection.
Otherwise, property owners would be held to an onerous burden and would most likely find it
more advantageous to forego snow removal operations altogether. Because plaintiff's
evidence failed to show an unnatural accumulation here, defendant could not be held liable."
The trial court's judgment was reversed.
Staff has spoken with the City Attorney, David McArdle, regarding the case. He believes, in
addition to its applicability on private property, this ruling could potentially affect public
property. Deputy City Administrator Martin provided the Committee with the current City
ordinance and also provided the Snow and Ice Removal Act, 745 ILCS 75. The verbiage in
the court case and the Snow and Ice Removal Act use similar language stating: negligence can
`' be found only if"the alleged misconduct was willful or wanton."
Community Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 5
�
Staff is seeking direction from the Committee regarding whether to pursue the original
recommend.�tion from January 22, 2013 from the Community Development Committee or,
alternativel}, maintain the snow and ice removal Ordinan�e as written in the Municipal Code.
Chairman �hlderman Condon opined there is more strength in following a state mandate.
Following � brief discussion, it was the consensus of the Committee to proceed with the
recommend�ition to delete the provision for snow and ice removal from the Municipal Code
and to subm it the recommendation to the full Council for consideration.
Discussion on Solicitors and Peddlers
Deputy City Administrator Martin reiterated to the Committee that amendments to the
Solicitors and Peddlers Ordinance were approved in 2007 in anticipation of the Riverwalk
construction, and people requesting to sell their wares along the Riverwalk.
The amendments address orders of preference with regard to transient merchant applications.
First preference is for applicants who own or operate a business within the City and second
preference is granted to out-of-town businesses. A maximum of two licenses per month was
established for citywide peddling and ten licenses are reserved for Riverwalk peddling
activity. Citywide peddlers' licenses are good for 30 days at a time and Riverwalk peddling
licenses are issued for up to one year.
�
Deputy Citv Administrator Martin informed the Committee that in the past the City
discouraged vendors from out of the City from coming into town and selling their goods on a
temporary basis on vacant lots (i.e., garden shops, carpet sellers) citing that this type of
activity takes business away from local establishments.
Staff has looked at regulations from other communities and learned that the City of
Woodstock does not permit peddling. During the past several months, Staff has experienced a
great deal of frustration and a number of problems with peddlers going from door-to-door in
the City limits.
Deputy City Administrator Martin stated the difference between a peddler and a solicitor is a
peddler words for a "for profit" company and a solicitor generally solicits on behalf of a "not
for profit" organization. The issue that Staff is having is primarily related to peddlers. He
noted, however, that other than Girl Scouts there have not been solicitors in the City who have
gone door to door.
Common complaints Staff has received from residents and issues regarding peddlers include:
• Pressuring;
• Misrepresenting who they work for;
• Peddling without a license;
• Having more peddlers than was stated on the application and not returning licenses
� after the 30-day time period expires.
Communit} Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 6
�
Staff has �roposed the following amendments to the Solicitors and Transient Merchant
Ordinance. The amendments are an attempt to curb some of the issues Staff has been
experiencin.;.
• Deleting references to "transient merchant: and using the term "peddler" only;
• Req�xiring each person who peddles to complete their own application;
• Req�ziring contact information for company from which peddler receives
com�ensation or is representing, in the case of a solicitor
� Often, energy or other companies hire local marketing firms to find people to
peddle and if there is an issue Staff has a difficult time find the correct
company and/or person to contact. The peddlers list the parent company on
the application and not the marketing firm who directly employs them.
• Limiting the number of peddler/solicitors from any one company or organization to
five at any one time;
• Raising the license fee for peddling from $100 to $250;
� Raising the fee for each person peddling from $5.00 to $50;
• Requiring a $500 deposit for peddling, which is refunded upon receipt of all licenses
which were issued to peddlers;
• Reducing the hours which peddling can be conducted from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm on
weekdays and weekends to: 10:00 am to 6:00 pm on any weekday and prohibiting
peddling on weekends and federally recognized holidays (solicitors are also limited
to soliciting between the hours of 10:00 am and 6:00 pm, but can solicit on
�— weekends and holidays);
Staff is seeking a recommendation from the Committee to present the aforementioned
amendments to full Council for consideration.
Chairman Alderman Condon opined that she would like to see peddling in the City limits
done away with altogether. Alderman Peterson concurred.
A discussion ensued. Deputy City Administrator Martin suggested eliminating peddling
entirely and refining the definition of solicitor.
It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Staff amend the Ordinance to eliminate
peddling entirely, refine the definition of solicitor, and return to the Committee for further
consideration.
Discussions Regarding Carnorts, Temporary Storage Units and
Temnorary Refuse Containers
Deputy City Administrator Martin informed the Committee that while the discussion initially
was to focus on temporary storage units and carports, Staff added temporary refuse containers
in the residential area as a topic.
C orts
� Deputy City Administrator Martin noted that carports are not a prevalent issue in the City.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance has parking areas, garages and carports in the same category.
Communit��Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 7
�
Carports are permitted as accessory uses and are permitted to protrude only into the rear yard.
Staff ascertained the issue of regulation of carports is they must meet the requirements of
Table 19 "F'ermitted Obstructions of Required Yards" and Table 20 "Standards of Accessory
Structures." Tables 19 and 20 govern the permitted location and bulk standards.
Staff is recc�mmending that carports remain an accessory structure. If they are attached to a
house they l�ecome part of the house and have to meet the required setbacks for homes in the
district. Staff recommends the following definition for a"carport:"
"A covered structure used to offer limited protection to vehicles from the
elements. The structure either can be freestanding or attached to a wall. A
carport does not have four walls, usually one or two. They offer less protection
than garages, but allow for more ventilation."
Tem orary Stora e Units
Deputy City Administrator Martin explained that storage units a.re containers that come in
many different sizes, 16 feet in length being common for residential purposes. The containers
are typically used to store household or business items either on-site or in a warehouse. The
units are convenient, delivered to homes and can be transported anywhere in the country.
On occasion, containers are stored on driveways for long periods of time and may become an
� eyesore to neighbors. It is becoming more common see them in vaxious areas around the
City. Staff is recommending the following definition for"temporary storage containers:"
"All containers, crates, boxes or other similar enclosures utilized for temporary
on-site storage or transportation of goods and are not considered permanent or
accessory structures."
Temporary Refuse Container
Temporary refuse containers or roll-off dumpsters are commonly used in residential zoning
districts. Dumpsters are delivered and generally range in sizes from 10 to 40 yards. Staff is
recommending the following definition for"temporary refuse containers:"
"A container for storing refuse and waste for a limited time period."
Staff is proposing the following regulations for temporary storage units and refuse containers.
Should these standards be met, Staff is proposing that temporary storage units and refuse
containers not require a building permit. If the applicable standards cannot be met, Staff is
proposing the Applicant be required to obtain a temporary use permit and Council approval.
Staff is seeking the Committee's recommendation to present the following amendments to the
full City Council for direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission at a future Public
Hearing:
�
Communit��Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 8
�
A permit is not required for a temporary storage unit or temporary refuse container, in a
residential zoning district, as long as all applicable criteria established below are met:
1. No more than one temporary storage unit or one temporary refuse container is
permitted on any residential property;
2. ��ny temporary storage unit and/or temporary refuse container that is not
<<ssociated with a building permit can remain on a property for no more than
�0 consecutive days. A 30-day extension may be granted administratively by
the City Administrator or their designee, if no complaints have been received.
When requested as part of a building permit, temporary storage units and a
temporary refuse container are permitted for the duration of construction and
shall be removed from the site within 14 days of the end of construction or
upon expiration of the building permit, whichever is sooner;
3. 7'emporary refuse containers can be no larger than 23-feet long, 8-feet in
width and 7-feet in height;
4. Temporary storage units can be no larger than 20-feet long, 8 feet in height
and 10-feet in width;
5. Temporary refuse containers must control its contents at all times;
6. Temporary storage units and refuse containers must be set back a minimum of
5-feet from all property lines and at least 6-feet from any building or structure;
7. Temporary storage units and refuse containers must be placed on an approved
� paved surface;
8. Temporary storage units and refuse containers are not permitted on public
right-of-way and cannot obstruct sight lines of pedestrians or vehicles or
affect required parking;
9. Temporary storage units may be used for temporary storage of personal goods
and belongings. Units may not be used for occupancy, sleeping, housing of
animals, storage of firearms, storage of hazardous, toxic or flammable
materials or storage of materials which are otherwise unlawful to possess;
10. Temporary storage units shall be maintained in good condition, free from
evidence of deterioration, weathering, discoloration, graffiti, rust, ripping,
tearing or other holes or breaks, at all times; and
11. Any temporary storage unit or refuse container not meeting any of these
applicable requirements must request a temporary use permit and receive
approval from City Council.
Alderman Peterson opined that he likes all the recommendations.
Chairman Alderman Condon inquired about wording of recommendation no. 2. She
suggested adding that notification of neighbors be required if someone is requesting a 30-day
extension. Alderman Peterson stated that he saw no reason to obtain neighbors consent if no
complaints have been received by the City. Alderman Santi concurred with Alderman
Peterson, opining he is comfortable with the current wording.
�
Communit��Development Committee Meeting
June 11, 2013
Page 9
�
Deputy Citv Administrator Martin stated that Staff did not want any of the requirements to be
too onerous on residents.
Motion by Santi, seconded by Peterson, directing Staff to present the amendments directly to
the Planning and Zoning Commission for consideration.
Aye Condon, Santi, Peterson
Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Other Business
Deputy City Administrator Martin informed the Committee that Starbuck's is considering the
former Baci location.
Deputy City Administrator Martin informed the Committee that the insurance company has
settled with the owner of the property located at the corner of Green Street and Elm. The
owner has decided not to rebuild on the property following the fire. The property is scheduled
to be filled in and cleaned up.
Chairman Alderman Condon stated that the next regulaz Community Development
� Committee meeting currently is scheduled to take place on Tuesday, June 25, 2013 at 7:00 pm
in the Alderman Conference Room. The meeting is re-scheduled to July 9, 2013 at 7:00 pm
in the Alderman Conference Room. Topics tentatively on the agenda for discussion:
� Solicitor and Peddlers
• Building Code Updates
Adiournment
Motion by Peterson, seconded by Santi to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 p.m.
Aye: Condon, Santi, Peterson
Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
. �v�" � ���
Geri Condon, Chairman
�