Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 10/28/2008 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING L.- Tuesday, October 28, 2008 Aldermen's Conference Room, 7:00 p.m. In AttendancE�: Committee Members: Chairman Alderman Condon, Alderman Santi and Alderman Glab (arrived at 7:17 p.m.). Absent: Alderman Wimmer. Staff: Deputy City Administrator Martin, City Planner Kolner, Superintendent of Forestry and Park Planning Schmidt and Deputy City Clerk Kunzer. Also in Attendance: Resident Mark Rapata Liberty Tax Service Master Franchisee Tim Oman. Noting a lack cf a quorurn, Chairman Alderman Condon called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. Public Input No one spoke ciuring the time set aside for public input. Discussion: Moving Signs Chairman Condon invited Tim Oman to address the Committee regarding his request that the City revisit its current ban on moving signs. Mr. Oman stated Liberty T� Service is currently the fastest growing franchise in the country. � McHenry was one of the first franchises opened by the business in the entire country. The company's ma��keting style is to utilize gorilla marketing, similar to that practiced by Jiffy Lube and Mattress F actory among others in the community. Mr. Oman recognized that some cities throughout the country restrict the use of gorilla marketing, but noted that it is against the constitution to prevent its use. The right to advertise a business is inherent in the Freedom of Speech. Mr. Oman noted while he concurs that the use of persons dressed as Lady Liberty waving to passing vehicles might be a nuisance to traffic flow, the use of gorilla marketing, as it is commonly called, is necessary to the growth of the local business. Noting since the City modified its sign code in August 2006, which ultimately prohibited the use of moving/waving signs, the local Liberty Tax Service business dropped off 50%. The purpose of having Lady Liberty waving is to generate business. The t� season is very short and the use of the "wavers" is to increase c;lient base during the short season. He requested the Committee reconsider its current ban on�;he use of"wavers" to generate business. Responding to Chairman Condon's inquiry, Mr. Oman stated the prime time for "wavers" would be from the last week of January (when W-2 forms are received)until April 15th Alderman Glab arrived at 7:17 p.m. Chairman Condon noted a quorum of the Committee was now present. � , Community Development Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 2 Mr. Oman sta�:ed during the initial and final portions of the tax season, the waver would be present througliout the day. During mid tax season, the waver would be in place during morning and evening peak times as well as during the lunch hour. Chairman Cor�don inquired if the company had completed any research to back up their statement that business had dropped off more than 50% as a result of the moving sign ban. Chairman Cordon suggested there might be another avenue the company could pursue to reinforce the company branding exhibited by the"wavers". Alderman Santi inquired as to the amount of business due to walk-ins versus appointments. Mr. Oman respond�d 10% of the business is related to appointments; 90% are walk-ins. Mr. Oman further noted that there are typically three types of tax return customers: 1) Blue collar workers—those with simple returns, filing short form, insecure in preparing their own returns but desiring an immediate tax refund; 2) Professional workers — those with more complex returns, not comfortable filing their own returns; 3) Business Owners who typically have an accountant (these customers are not typically found in the Liberty Tax Service client base). Mr. Oman noted the company's customers are generally spur-of-the-moment customers who have their W-2 form in hand and decide to stop in and file their returns. � Alderman Con�ion opined moving signs ("wavers") are a distraction to motorists. Although she recognized the company has rights pursuant to the Freedom of Speech, she expressed her concerns regarding public safety. Mr. Oman responded he empathizes with the safety concerns, but inquired haw the "wavers" would differ from a business that modifies its changeable sign board copy daily, which would also provide a distraction to motorists. Alderman Glab noted he has witnessed "wavers" in several communities during daily commutes and noted they provide a distraction wherever they are present. He stated he does not see the "wavers" as a positive promotional quality for the business. He opined a business utilizing this method of advertising does not show business integrity or quality. Planner Kolner suggested the Committee, rather than reversing the current prohibition of moving signs, investigate creating a temporary use which would allow and restrict moving signs. Mr. Oman noted to his knowledge McHenry is the only community in northern Illinois which currently prohibits "wavers". Deputy City Administrator Martin noted from Staff's perspective, the original ban on moving signs was instir,uted as a result of the Committee's concerns regarding motorist and pedestrian safety. Additicnally, costumed people oftentimes encouraged drivers to honk their horns, creating furthe�� distractions and nuisances. He noted there is current case law addressing the issue of movin�; signs/"wavers". Deputy City Administrator Martin stated Staff has suggested a � compromise w lich would allow the "wavers" but restrict the use to private property and to Community Development Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 3 continue to pr��hibit the use on public property (right-of-way). If the "wavers" overstepped the property line and advertised on public property, they could be charged with creating a public nuisance. Chairman Condon inquired if Staff had considered requiring a sign permit for the moving signs. Mr. Oman noted one city had chosen that route, but soon reversed itself when it realized it could create liability issues as a result of requiring a permit for"wavers". Chairman Condon stated she would prefer the "wavers" not be allowed. She inquired if Staff could suggest a specific distance the"wavers" be permitted from the public right-of-way. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded at least 5-10 feet from the property line would be appropriate. He noted if the City chooses to remove the ban on "wavers", it cannot be more restrictive than it is on similar signs (such as real estate signs) in the district. Some discussion also occurred among Staff about classifying"wavers" as portable signs. Alderman Glab suggested if the "wavers" were required to move further away from the road, the potential for safety hazard could increase. If the prohibition on the"wavers" were lifted/reversed, he opined any business in town could decide to implement them. The City could end up with "wavers" in front of pizza places, oil change facilities, etc. with a proliferation of them throughout town. Alderman Glab also noted the City has investigated hazards caused by flashing `.- signs. He noted he cannot condone reversing the City's current policy regarding moving signs. He opined if the prohibition were reversed, the ordinance would be unenforceable. Alderman Santi concurred with Alderman Glab. If the moving signs were permitted on private property, there would remain a great safety concern. He noted he does not want to restrict the company from doing business and making a profit in the community. However, he is not comfortable with"wavers" being permitted. Mr. Oman requested Staff investigate police reports to determine if any crashes could have occurred as a result of the "wavers" being used in the past. Alderman Santi reiterated a statement made by Chairman Condon that it only takes one crash to occur as a result of the moving signs. It would be one too many. Mr. Oman noted the prohibition on"wavers" impedes the constitutional rights and Freedom of Speech of the company. He opined the City should not concern itself regarding a potential horde of "wavers". He stated it would not happen. He encouraged the Committee to read case law regarding the Freedom of Speech. Deputy City Aciministrator Martin inquired if the company had ever considered using a statue as opposed to a pf�rson dressed as Lady Liberty waving to motorists. Mr. Oman responded there are banners and fl�igs which could be used. There are many different ways to go about drawing interest to the company. However, the company has found by far the best method is to utilize the afore-mentione�3 gorilla marketing. He further stated the novelty of the"wavers" wears off rather quickly and the� safety/hazard would therefore be reduced as the public becomes accustomed to � seeing the"wa��ers" on the roadside. Community Deve lopment Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 4 Alderrnan Glab recalled there were instances in the past when "wavers"/walking sign boards were prevalent in the community. He suggested if the City's prohibition were reversed, the amount of"wavers" would blossom, particularly in light of the current economy. Alderman San:i stated there are other means of marketing the business, such as feather banners or blow-up fi�,ures. He suggested the company look into an alternative method of marketing. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted these types of signs (blow-up figures, banners, etc.) would be allc+wed with a temporary use. Planner Kolner noted temporary uses/signs are permitted for a maximum of 30 days, followed by a 30 day moratorium after which another 30- day temporary use permit could be granted. Perhaps this would satisfy the needs of the company. Mr. Oman res��onded the company would likely utilize the temporary use signs again this year. However, the t�tilization of the costumed "waver" is needed as well. Chairman Condon suggested City Attorney McArdle be consulted as to the City's liability regarding the :Freedom of Speech, particularly as it pertains to case law resulting from other municipality's restrictions and/or prohibitions on moving/costumed "waver" signs. If necessary, he could be invited to attend the next meeting of the Committee{November 25, 2008). Mr. Oman sug�;ested City Attorney McArdle could be in contact with the corporate attorneys for Liberty Tax Service prior to the ne� meeting as well. � Tree Preservation Ordinance Amendments Deputy City A3ministrator Martin stated Superintendent of Forestry and Park Planning Schmidt has completed a review of the City's Tree Preservation Ordinance. The Tree Preservation Ordinance was adopted more than ten years ago and was due to be updated. Superintendent Schmidt suggested the following amendments: 1. Section 24-42 Tree Removal Permit Required. Staff questioned if the 10" minimum diameter is still acceptable and suggested it be reduced to 6" in diameter. 2. Section 24-45 Tree Removal Staff suggested a modification to the policy regarding Section 24-45(a)(4), the list of trees which may be removed and are not subject to the Tree Replacement Schedule in Section 24-48. It is suggested the trees could be replaced on a one for one basis instead of requiring compensarion. Some properties only have these types of tree on them and to lose that amount of biomass would impact the community in a negative manner. Air quality,noise reduction, storm water detention and carbon sequestration are a few of the ways the community can be adversely affected. 3. Section 2 4-47 Tree Protection Rights Staff sug,;ested deleting 24-47(� which currendy allows for the temporary suspension of Tree Protection Measure�. Any temporary suspension would pern�anendy and adversely impact the affected trees. 4. Section 24-4$ Tree Replacement Schedule Staff suggested with regard to letter 24-48(c) to replace the current text with the Subdivision Control and � Development Ordinance(technical section)list of trees approved for residential use. Community Devf:loprnent Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 5 5. Section.?4-48 Tree Replacement Schedule Regardvig Section 24-48(e), Staff suggested that the current fee of $100 does not cover the tree replacen ient cost to the City. The new cost should be determined using the regional cost per square inch of trunk arc:a (cross section)to determine actual tree value. This information is found in the Ninth Edition of the Gui�e for Plant Appraisal or most recent edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture which is updated from time to time. 6. Section:'.4-49 Fees The current fee for a tree removal pemrit is $45. Staff suggested an increase to $75 in order to cover staff review a nd field inspection time. 7. Section::4-50 Administration and Enforcement Violatio�is currently pertain to any tree with a minimum diameter at breast height (DBI� of 10". Staff suggeste�i this be amended to pertain to trees of six inches or more. Responding ta an inquiry from Alderman Santi, Superintendent Schmidt noted the current standard for tree replacement using the formula published in the International Society of Arboriculture would result in more accurate replacement costs as opposed to the current rate of $100 per tree being replaced. A 2" caliper tree being replaced as per the ISA standards would be $270, a much more realistic and actual cost. � Chairman Condon invited Mr. Rapata to comment on the proposed amendments to the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Mr. Rapata sta:ed he has been promoting a more restrictive tree ordinance for the past ten years. He is happy to see the City is finally moving forward with updates. Mr. Rapata suggested the current minimum fine of$25 should be increased. He also stated any violators should also be required to pay for a tree removal permit in addition to payment of appropriate fines. Mr. Rapata inquired if the Committee would consider reducing the 2-acre minimum lot size which requires adherence to the ordinance. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted the 2-acre minimum applies to single-family residential property. For property other than single-family residential, the minimum lot size to which the ordinance is applied is 1-acre. Alderman Glab stated the ordinance is meant to restrict arbitrary tree removal by developers. The ordinance is not meant to burden single-family residents who may choose to cut down or prune trees on their property. Alderman Glab further stated the City needs to protect its trees but not over-regulate t�� the disadvantage of individual home owners. He concurred that any violators should be requi red to pay the fine but also pay for the tree removal permit. �.. Community Devc;lopment Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 6 Motion by Sa�rti, seconded by Glab, to recommend to the McHenry City Council that the Tree Preservation C►rdinance be updated as presented this evening, including an increase in violation fines and the requirement that violators be required to pay for a tree removal permit in addition to paying appr�priate fines. Voting Aye: Santi, Glab, Condon. Voting Nay: None. Absent: Wimmer. Motion carried. Alderman Glat� suggested the City look at the Emerald Ash Borer and devise a plan to protect its trees from infe station. Superintendent Schmidt noted that matter is being discussed at the Parks and Recreation Committee. Chairman Condon requested the minutes reflect that tree concerns are not always parks issues. It was suggested the matter might be better suited to the Community Development Committee. Code Enforcement Undate Deputy City Administrator Martin reported the Code Enforcement Division of Construction and Neighborhood Services completed 677 site visits between January l, 2008 and August 6, 2008. L— Staff is in the process of developing a logging/tracking system for compliance of complaints. There are currf�ntly more than 116 open complaints. While the report is a work in progress, Staff is making strides in developing an accurate report system for the process. Suggestion was made to provide Status Reports of the Code Enforcement Division on a quarterly basis to Council. The information could be disseminated via the Friday Report. Neon Signs Amendments Deputy City Administrator Martin reported the Committee at its August 26, 2008 regularly scheduled meeting discussed the regulation of neon signs. Staff was directed to write a proposed sign ordinance amendment which would regulate the amount of neon signage allowed based on building frontage, similar to how wall signage is currently regulated. Staff is recommending the following amendments to the sign ordinance regarding neon signs: 1. Amend Section IX Signs, Subsection(B)(2)by replacing it with the following: p. Window Signs(ezcept interior neon window signs; see IX(B)(9)and Table 18 2. Amend Section IX Signs,subsection(B)(9)by adding the following: Neon SiQns Neon Signs are only permitted in nonresidential zoning districts on interior window in accordance with the following provisions: a. Onl� one neon sign is permitted per window pane; b. Expc►sed neon tubing and light bulbs are prohi6ited; c. Neon signs shall not be used to outline windows and doors, accentuate or trim architectural features or outline borders of signs or buildings; �. d. Neor�signs shall not cover more than 50%of any window pane. Community Devc;lopment Comxnittee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 7 Deputy City ,�dministrator Martin stated the Committee also needs to consider how best to amortize the current neon signs which do not conform to the proposed amendments. Staff has determined the�re are two ways to handle this issue: 1. Grandfather all existing interior neon window signs until 2013 and/or when a new businE�ss obtains occupancy/sign permit they would be obligated to comply with the regulations; or 2. Requir� all existing businesses with interior neon window signs to comply with the ordinance within a specified time period. Alderman Glal� opined to allow the neon signs in place until 2013 seemed too lengthy a period to require compliance. He suggested three years, 2011, would be more appropriate. Chairman Condon agreed with the first method of amortization, noting 2013 would be satisfactory as all free-standing signs would have to be brought into conformance by that date as well. Motion by Santi, seconded by Glab, to recommend to the McHenry City Council the consideration of amendments to the sign ordinance relating to neon signs as presented, for direction to the Planning and Zoning Commission for presentation at a public hearing. �. Voting Aye: Santi, Glab, Condon. Voting Nay: None. Absent: Wimmer. Motion carried Core Downtown Sub-Area Plan Uudate Deputy City Administrator Martin stated Staff held two community design workshops for the Core Downtov�m Sub-Area Plan. A total of 40 people attended the workshops. Property owners of the land contained within the proposed Sub-Area were invited to participate. A Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) Analysis was conducted at each workshop. The workshop participants were also invited to provide their ideas as to what should be included in the vision statement for the Sub-Area Plan. The Committee was provided with a summary of the comments received relating to the SWOT Analysis and the creation of the vision statement. Deputy City Administrator Martin showed the Committee a map which included a compilation of the various suggestions for land use in the Sub-Area. He stated the Committee at its next meeting could start out with a blank map and indicate its ideas for the area, taking into consideration some of the comments provided from the workshops. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted the Committee could also begin the creation of the vision statement for the Sub- Area. Staff envisions a late spring or summer 2009 draft plan being presented to the community at an open house. � Community Devclopment Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 8 Alderman Glab opined the City needs the private sector to draw up a game plan for what they would like to see in the area. He stated it should not be up to the City to draft an idea for how property owners should develop their property. He noted the City should help in the implementation of ideas set forth by the private sector. Alderman Santi stated Staff should meet with the property owners and should be visionary in guiding the developers. Planner Kolner stated as an example, there has been a lot of interest in the vacant pr�perty at the corner of Richmond and Pearl Streets. Staff can tell potential developers that the City would like to see low intensity on the site, keep the building height down, locate parking in the rear of the building, etc. However, the City cannot tell the property owner what specific business would be desirable at a particular location. The City can guide the developers as to form so that the structure will blend into the area. Alderman Glab stated he would like to see the downtown developed so that it becomes a shopping venture instead of a one-stop shopping trip. It needs to become a destination location with various sites to draw interest. Chairman Condon noted the purpose of the Sub-Area Plan is to create a vision for how the City would like the area to develop moving forward. The private sector would then know what direction the City would like to take within the area of the Plan. � Planner Kolner noted Staff has taken a different approach regarding the development of the Core Downtown Sub-Area Plan. More research and input is being sought prior to laying out a proposed plan as opposed to the method in developing the Crystal Lake Sub-Area Plan and the Main Street Sub-Area Plan. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated at the ne� meeting, the Committee will have an opportunity to discuss the comments obtained from the SWOT Analysis. The Committee will also have a blank Sub-Area Map to begin working on a proposed plan as well as the vision statement for the area. Chairman Condon stated people will be more apt to support the plan and be more invested in it once they realize the City listened to them and took their comments into consideration during the planning process. Staff Renort Deputy City Administrator Martin reported the Special Census is in progress. Testing of potential enumerators is underway. An article will appear in the paper this week announcing the Special Census. Deputy City Administrator Martin also reported Tractor Supply continues to express an interest in the property located at the northwest corner of Ringwood Road and Elm Street. Staff also met �... Community Devclopment Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 9 with a developer who would like to present a concept plan before the Committee at its November meeting. Other Business Alderman Gla� inquired as to the status of the building currently under construction on the West Campus property. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded a solar powered concession stand is being constructed. The structure is classified as an accessory structure in a residential district. The district is allowed to have two accessory structures: a garage and the second building currently under construction. The principal use of the property is a school. In 1995 the district was granted a variance to a11ow a second principal building on the property. The second building houses the administrative offices of District 156. Alderman Glab stated when the district expanded the garage they came back to Council for approval. He inquired why the district is able to erect another accessory structure without coming before Council. Alderman Glab stated when the district passed the referendum to expand the school they should have come to Council for an expansion of the conditional use permit. He inquired why the district does not have to follow City codes and ordinances. He went on to summarize the drainage issues he has experienced due to district construction projects. Alderman Glab also noted the district's parking lot lighting appears to violate the City's lighting L, regulations. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated he would look into the lighting and determine if the illumination overflows the district property line. Alderman Glab requested Staff look into the issues as a whole and bring back an explanation to the Committee, particularly regarding the district's lack of conformance to City codes and ordinances. A determination needs to be made if the district is required to conform or if State Statute permits a disregard of local codes and ordinances. Chairman Condon stated the City needs to know if the State Statutes permit the district to be mutually exclusive or mutually enforceable from City codes. Are State Statutes regarding school districts meant to supersede local government rules and regulations? Alderman Glab also inquired if St Mary Church obtained a variance to a11ow an oversized sign in front of their church. Staff will investigate and advise Alderman Glab of the results. Chairman Concion announced the ne� Committee meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Novernber 25, 2008 with a projected agenda as follows: 1) Historic Preservation Ordinance 2) Moving Signs continued discussion 3) Developer��resentation 4) Core Downtown Sub-Area Plan 5) 2009 Schedule and Goals. � Community Development Committee Meeting � October 28,2008 Page 10 Adiournment Motion by Glab, seconded by Santi, to adjourn the meeting at 9:28 p.m. Aye: Santi, Glab, Condon. Nay: None. Absent: Wimmer. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, G n Condon, Chairman � �