Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 7/24/2007 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMIT'TEE MEETING Tuesday,July 24, 2007 L-- Aldermen's Conference Room, 7:00 p.m. In Attendance: Committee Members: Chairman Alderman Condon, Alderman Santi and Alderman Wimmer. Absent: None. Also in Attendance: Mayor Low, Alderman Murgatroyd, Deputy City Administrator Martin, Director of Community Development Napolitano, City Planner 3urs, Gerhard Rosenberg of the Landmark Commission and City Clerk Jones. Chairman Alderman Condon called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. Historic District—Landmark Commission Chairman Condon stated she is pleased to see the Historic District Guidelines moving forward. Director of Community Development Napolitano informed the Committee that in 2006, representatives from the Landmark Commission initiated discussions regarding the establishment of an Historic District with the then seated Community Development Committee. The Committee decided to pursue a Historic District in the vicinity of Waukegan Road and Main Street, recammending a boundary which included only residential properties. The Committee, at that time, also reviewed Design Guidelines created by the Landmark Commission, and requested additional information to improve the proposed standards. Director Napolitano stated that Staff has been working closely with the Commission over the past few months to refine the Design Cruidelines and has developed an attractive presentation, �, which is believed will serve as a good tool. The proposed guidelines include language from the City's existing Teardown Regulations and Downtown Design Guidelines. Additionally, language from The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings has been incorporated into the document. Director Napolitano noted that City Planner Jurs is currently working on a question and answer type brochure for distribution, following Council's approval of the guidelines. Director Napolitano briefly outlined the criteria for establishing an historic district: • The Landmark Commission must nominate the area and prepare a nomination form; • Within 30 days, the Commission must prepare a report stating whether the district meets the criteria for designation; • Within 30 days after the report is prepared, a public hearing should be held by the Landmaxk Commission; • Notice of the meeting must be provided to all affected property owners and testimony shall be taken; • Within 30 days following the hearing, the Commission must make a recommendation to the E'ity Council; • The City Council then reviews the report and determines whether or not to officially desi�;nate the district. Director Napolitano noted that approval of the District and the guidelines would mean that all affected prcperty owners in the District must obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness before a � Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 2 `— building permit for exterior remodeling can be issued. The Certificate of Appropriateness is issued by the Landmark Commission. Should a dispute arise between the property owner and the Landmark Commission regarding the Commission's recommendation, the property owner would then have the option to appeal before the City Council. Chairman Condon opined she believes the document incorporates all the elements necessary to assist the property owner and the Landmark Commission. She recommended the following modifications: • Page 4, 4�'paragraph, last sentence, requires a period at the end of the sentence; • Page 5, add the word "City" before the word "Staf�' in the last paragraph, 4�' line; for clarification purposes; • For clarification purposes, under "General Construction," if there is new construction on a vacant lot would the builder still have to comply with the guidelines? o City Planner Jurs responded, stating when the City receives such a request a meeting would be scheduled and the applicant would be presented with the criteria at that initial meeting. • Chairman Condon requested the sentence, "Doors and panels with windows are highly encouraged." be re-phrased or removed. Alderman Santi opined the document appears to be a good beginning and he is comfortable with it. He requested clarification regarding the set back examples. `• City Planner Jurs informed the Committee that the document is first targeting residential properties only before determining if there is any interest expressed by the commercial sector in being incorporated into the district. Alderman W�mmer stated he was pleased to see the document come to fruition. Landmark Commission Chairman Rosenberg opined he believes the document was not successful in:tially due to resistance from the business community. Since that sector is no longer being includE;d in the district the issue no longer exists. He indicated most of the members of the Landmark Commission are pleased with the document. Mayor Low stated she is pleased with the document and glad to see it moving forward with the initial direction being focused on residential properties. She opined that area commercial property owners might be willing to participate in the future. Chairman Condon expressed appreciation for Alderman Murgatroyd's participation as mediator between the Community Development Committee and the Landmark Commission during the process. Alderman Murgatroyd thanked Chairman Condon for the recognition stating that it was the Landmark Commission and Director Napolitano who did the work and they deserved the credit. Motion by Santi, seconded by Wimmer, to endorse the establishment of the proposed Waukegan � Road-Main Street Historic District, and to recommend to Council that action be taken permitting Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 3 �- the Landmark Commission to notify all affected property owners, and to begin the nomination process which would establish the Historic District. Aye: Condon, Santi, Wimmer. Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. Mayor Low, Alderman Murgatroyd and Landmark Commission Chairman Rosenberg departed at 7:20 p.m. Comprehensive Plan Uudate Director Napolitano reiterated to the Committee that in 2005, Staff and the Committee began reviewing and updating the Comprehensive Plan. From the beginning it was recognized that significant time and effort would be required to complete the update, and chapters were updated as time permitted. Director Napolitano noted that several chapters were re-drafted and reviewed by the Committee; however, when the former City Planner severed employment with the City, the files were lost. This situation has caused Staff to re-evaluate how to proceed with the update. Director Napolitano suggested that, instead of the thorough re-write, Staff is proposing to scale down the update. He explained that by scaling back, Staff believes the update could be completed in a more timely manner, which would consist of edits and minor updates to the existing text. Staff is hoping to have the updated Plan ready for adoption in early 2008, with a � more thorough and detailed update of the Plan occurring in 2011. It is believed that by that time, the 2010 Census would be completed and Staff would have access to updated demographic and employment information, which would be helpful in preparing revisions to the Plan. Director Napolitano stated he provided the information to City Planner Jurs, who revised the first four chapters which are now ready for Committee review and comment. Director Napolitano provided the new outline for the Updated Plan to the Committee. Chairman Cundon opined she likes the reference to Character Counts and its impact on our community. Chairman Condon suggested the following revisions and/or corrections to the te�: • Page 4, 2°a paragraph, suggested the reference to "2" wastewater treatment plants be removed.' • Page 18, under Public Transportation, last sentence, suggested that grammatically the sentence needs to be changed to". . . As the station is occupied . . .". • Page 19, 3rd paxagraph, change the word"the"to "their." • Page 19, 22nd sentence, verify the spelling of the word cyclist. Responding to Alderman Santi's inquiry regarding whether the section addressing Pedestrian Movement �:orrelates with the bike paths outlined by the Parks and Recreation Department, Director Na��olitano stated Staff is looking into the connectivity. � Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 4 �- Alderman Santi opined it is a good judgment call by Staff to edit and make minor updates pending completion of the Census. Conditional and Permitted Uses Director Napalitano stated at the Committee's May meeting a review of the list of conditional uses in the Zoning Ordinance and the te� in Article XIV, Conditional Uses occurred. The Committee determined a need to update terms and make the ordinance language more user- friendly. At that time, the Committee deleted several uses and recommended changes to others. Additionally, the Committee discussed changes to the language relating to how conditional use permits can be revoked. It was also suggested that the list of permitted uses be reviewed and modifiedlrevised, as necessary. Director Napolitano stated that the proposed changes to Article XIV are minor. Staff recommends that Section F, Revocation of Permit be changed so that items (a) and (b) would remain as is, while item (c) would include automatic revocation which would not require Council action. Director Napolitano informed the Committee that Staff has reviewed the permitted uses in each zoning district. Director Napolitano provided the Committee with a list of those uses which Staff believes are no longer appropriate or need editing, along with Staff's recommendations for correction. � Director Napolitano stated that in order to change the language in the Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing must be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Upon receiving a recommendation from the Commission, an Ordinance would be brought before Council for consideration. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the definitions of permitted uses in a business district. It was suggested that limited retail should be clarified. Staff suggested changing limited retail to retail ancillary to a principal use (i.e., a printer that sells paper or art supplies in addition to providing printing services). Motion by Wimmer, seconded by Santi, to direct Staff to prepare documents providing for modifications to the list of permitted uses and language providing for revocation of conditional use permits to be presented to Council for direction preparatory to implementation. Aye: Condon, Santi, Wimmer. Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. Signage—Grand Openins and Real Estate Si�ns Director Napolitano reiterated that, at the May meeting of the Community Development Committee, the Committee discussed grand opening signs and real estate signs in shopping centers. At that time it was the consensus of the Committee that the existing language relating to � real estate si:;ns in shopping centers should be strictly enforced and not changed. However, the Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 5 �— Committee dict have some suggestions regarding the improvement of language permitting temporary and grand opening signs. Director Napolitano informed the Committee that grand opening signage currently falls under Temporary Signs. One sign is allowed with a maximum area of 32 squaxe feet for a maximum of 30 consecutive days per occasion. Temporary signs are allowed for up to four occasions per year. The permit fee is $30 with a$30 refundable deposit. Director Napolitano stated that the following suggestions were provided by the Committee regarding Grand Opening signage: • Single-sided banners are the preferred type of sign, either securely affixed to a building or affixed to poles securely mounted in the ground; • One banner should be allowed per building or tenant space, two if the building or tenant space abuts a road or public parking area on two or more sides; • Only one grand opening banner will be allowed on a site at a time. Two businesses sharing the same site could not have a grand opening sign at the same time. • Size must be proportional to the site. Staff suggested that the same proportion used for permanent wall signs be used for grand opening signs (1.5 sf. per foot of building frontage), but a minimum of 32 sf. be allowed; • Duration should not exceed 30 days; • The suggested fee for a grand opening sign is $250 ($50 for the permit and $200 deposit); and '`- • Regulations should apply to Grand Re-Opening and stores Under New Management. If the Committee agrees with the proposed language modifications, Staff recommends the item be forwarded to full Council for further direction. Responding to Alderman Santi's inquiry, Director Napolitano explained that a site is defined by its zoning lot. Director Napolitano, responding to an inquiry from the Committee, stated that Staff intends to prepare a letter informing property owners of shopping centers that moving forward the signage code will be rigorously enforced by City Staff. A brief discussion ensued. Motion by Wimmer, seconded by Santi, to recommend Council consider the proposed modifications to the sign ordinance regarding Grand Openings and Real Estate Signs for further direction. Aye: Condon, Santi, Wimmer. Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion carri ed. � Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 6 �. Discussion Regardins Engineering Review and Insuection Fees Deputy City Administrator Martin informed the Committee that penodically Staff has contemplated charging flat engineering review and/or inspection fees for land development. The matter has also been discussed with the City Engineer who suggested the idea. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated that development reviews include anything from single- lot site plans to large subdivisions. A flat engineering review fee is a fixed percentage of the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost (EOPC). The EOPC is the dollar amount estimated to construct the public improvements within the development, which includes all improvements that the City would eventually accept or do perpetual maintenance on (i.e., storm water, water, sewer and road improvements). In addition to the total cost of the public improvements, a 25% contingency is typically added. Currently, engineering review charges by the City Engineer are based on an hourly dollar figure related to the position classification responsible for doing the review (i.e., civil engineer, principal ofthe firm, etc.). Some of the advantages and disadvantages associated with charging a flat engineering fee are as follow: Advantages: The major benefit to the City is less administrative time and dollars expended associated with a flat fee. The administration time directly related to managing retained personnel accounts and tracking down developers to replenish their account is considerable. Regarding retained � personnel accounts, the Finance Department spends time working with the Community Development Department finding out developers and owners of property in addition to writing letters and invoicing, often multiple times. With a flat engineering fee, the City would not be required to have a role as the fee would be paid directly to the engineer prior to any reviews being done. The City would realize a savings with reduced administrative time, but also with the amount of time spent in follow-up. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted the City would still have retained personnel accounts for existing developments, Planning and Zoning cases and other special circumstances. Mr. Martin stated that with a flat fee the developer knows the review and inspection costs upfront, and is not surprised by engineering bills, thereby reducing the number of questions and complaints from developers about the review fees associated with a project. Disadvanta�es: The primary disadvantage associated with utilizing the flat engineering fee is that the developers may use this as an opportunity to have the City Engineer do more of the design than review; however, with its revised development review team and process in place, Staff is confident that this will not happen as incomplete plans will not be reviewed. It could be stated that the engineer would have less of an incentive to do a thorough review if a flat fee is cr arged. This could potentially impact how the improvements are installed and the � Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 7 �— quality of work being done. While this is a possibility, Staff is not overly concerned due to the positive and open communication Staff has with the City Engineer. Deputy City .�dministrator Martin provided the Committee with a chart showing how engineering fees are charged in other communities in and around the region. He noted that during information gathering useful suggestions were received by a City Administrator from another municipality. He indicated that communities need to be cognizant of the fact that developers may use the flat fee as an opportunity for the City Engineer to do all of the engineering design and inspection work. Staff suggested that for a community the size of McHenry, with a current population of approximately 25,000, a descending scale of 3-1.5% is appropriate, including all engineering reviews and an additional 3-1.5% for inspections, all based on a total value of the public improvement. Staff is proposing the flat review and inspection fees for development review only, as it would not make sense for all engineering projects to be reviewed in this particular manner. Deputy City Administrator Martin assured the Committee that Staffwould work closely with the City Attorney and City Engineer in wording the proposed amendment, as well as how it would be structured. � Deputy City Administrator Martin indicated some of the suggested items to include in the Ordinance are: • Flat engineering and public works (if applicable) review fees on a descending scale, based on EOPC, 3-2%; • Additional time and material charge for any plan which exceeds three total reviews: • Flat engineering and public works (if applicable) inspection fees on a descending scale, based on EOPC, 3-2%; • Applicant should be allowed two re-inspections after the first inspection, after which they would be chaxged time and material; • Any subdivision of land which is developed into more than one lot, pod, phase, neighborhood or division of any other type or manner, but is preliminary platted as one development, prior to the final plat, shall be charged an engineering review fee based on the total acreage of the preliminary plat. This will be a descending scale with a higher acreage charged a lower fee; • Any subdivision of land which is developed in more than one lot, pod, phase, neighburhood or division of any other type or manner and includes separate final engineering for each said division will be charged separate review and inspection fees on the sarie descending scale 3-2% based on the value of the public improvement for the final lot, pod, phase, neighborhood or other division. Deputy City �.dministrator Martin noted that engineering review and inspection is a major part of a develop�r ent and is also very costly. With a quality engineer and quality City inspectors, � Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 8 L-- consistent review and inspection, utilization of flat engineering review and inspection fees is a great option and a win-win situation for the municipality and the City Engineer. Chairman Condon opined she hesitantly supports the flat fee, noting the advantages, but also, the disadvantages. Responding to Alderman Santi's inquiry regarding this method serving as a possible deterrent to future developers because of the rigid guidelines, Deputy City Administrator Martin stated some developers will embrace this mechanism and others not. City Planner Jurs opined the mechanism will serve to attract quality developers and encourage developers to comply. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated this mechanism would not work unless the City had a good working relationship with the City Engineer, which the City of McHenry has. He stressed this is an opportunity to make the development process more efficient. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Staff to draft an amendment to the Subdivision Control and Development Ordinance referencing flat engineering and review fees, for develapment reviews only, noting that of the 5% total 1/Z% would be directed toward GIS and development-related projects. It was noted that the amendment would be considered by the Committee at its August meeting. Director's Report � Director Napolitano provided the Committee with a copy of the Development Plan. He informed the Cornmittee that updates/revisions to the Subdivision Control and Development Ordinance would be coming forward, as they have been unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director Napolitano informed the Committee that consideration of a doggy day care center on the former Adams Power Equipment site is scheduled for the Planning and Zoning Commission. Director Napolitano informed the Committee that he met with a gentleman representing the owners of acreage near the Patriot Estates development. The owners of the property have expressed interest in development of the property and preliminary discussions have taken place regarding possible uses. Director Napolitano informed the Committee that the application has been submitted for a Special Census. Chairman Condon stated the next Community Development Committee meeting would take place on Tuesday, August 28, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermen's Conference Room. She indicated the following possible topics on the agenda: • Review of additional chapters to the Comprehensive Plan Update; • Review of the amendment concerning Engineering Review and Inspection Fees; • Review of the Non-conforming section of the Zoning Ordinance; and � • Discuss:on regarding vendors on the Riverwalk Community Development Committee Meeting July 24, 2007 Page 9 � New Business Chairman Condon stated that on a number of occasions, the issue has come before Council for a request for a variance from an owner of property who wishes to build a fence on property which has double frontage. She suggested the Committee might consider the possibility of a criteria being established to eliminate the need for this type of request coming before Council. Adiournment Motion by Santi, seconded by Wimmer, to adjourn the meeting at 8:29 p.m. Aye: Condon, Santi, Wimmer. Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, .��� �� Geri Condon, C'hairman � `�.