Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 4/19/2006 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING � Tuesday,April 19, 2006 Aldermen's Conference Room, 7:00 p.m. In Attendance: Committee Members: Chairman Alderman Condon, Alderman Santi, Alderman Wimmer. Absent: Alderman Glab. Also in Attendance: Assistant City Administrator Martin, Direct��r of Community Development Napolitano, City Attorney McArdle and City Clerk Jones. Also in Attendance: Greg Lofgren, Shelly Trost and Gretchen Thomas, members of the Landmark Commission. Chairman Alderman Condon called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. Discussion Regardin�the Continued Viabilitv of Back-uq Special Service Areas (SSA's) Assistant Administrator Martin informed the Committee that since approximately the year 2000, the City has included language in every Annexation Agreement, providing for the establishment of a back-up Special Service Area("SSA"). He explained that a back-up SSA provides the City with a tool to ensure continued maintenance of private subdivision improvements, including open space, landscaping and other amenities. In the event the homeowners' association fails to perform the required maintenance, the City can activate the back-up SSA, which enables the City to collect the funds necessary from the property owners of the subdivision to pay for the required maintenance. �'' Mr. Martin noted that there currently e�st four(4) SSA's: • Riverside Hollow; • Shamrock Farm; • Evergreen Park; and • Morgan Hill Six others still need to be established: • Patriot Estates; • Foxcroft Ridge; • Preserves at Boone Creek; • Oaks at Irish Prairie; • Lincoln Hills; and • Prairie Lakes. The City Attorney has recently informed Staff that the City may want to discontinue the practice of establishing SSA's, due to lack of justification for the intense recordkeeping required and the fact that back-i�p SSA's are difficult to enforce. Responding to an inquiry from Chairman Condon regarding the possibility of enacting an ordinance to acidress maintenance issues, City Attorney McArdle indicated it would be difficult to find the corr�ct party to sue if there was a violation of the ordinance. L Community Development Committee Meeting April 19, 2006 Page 2 �-- Alderman Wimmer opined that neighborhoods currently tend to be more homeowner association ("HOA") oriented and the likelihood of having to utilize a back-up SSA is unlikely. Director of Community Development Napolitano stated that no SSA's, to date, have been activated. The SSA's have been established, but no levy has been undertaken. Director Napolitano stated he does not support elimination of SSA's; however, if the Committee suggested mavmg in that direction he concurred with Chairman Condon regarding enacting a public area property maintenance ordinance. He opined an ordinance would at least provide some leverage if a HOA was not maintaining the public areas in a subdivision. He noted City Attorney McArdle's statement with regard to the HOA having the money if it were to be sued by the City for viotation of the ordinance. Following an iiiquiry from Alderman Wimmer regarding the necessity for change if there is no current issue, a lengthy discussion ensued regarding the necessity of the SSA's. It was the consensus of the Committee to leave the SSA's in place and to make no changes to the current language regarding back-up SSA's in future Annexation Agreements. City Attorney McArdle departed at 7:27 p.m. Chairman Condon announced, as a courtesy to the members of the Landmark Commission in � attendance, and considering the length of tonight's Agenda, Item No. 5 Historic vs. Thematic Districts, a presentation by the Landmark Commission, would be discussed. Discussion Regardin�Landmark Commission Historic vs. Thematic District Greg Lofgren, Chairman of the Landmazk Commission, stated he had intended going before the Council during the 10-Minute Public Input Session, to obtain direction regarding establishing a Historic District in the City of McHenry. However, City Planner Zeller suggested seeking direction from the Community Development Committee. Mr. Lofgren informed the Committee the Landmark Commission (the "Commission") has researched two types of districts. The first is the Historic District, which the Commission has been pursuing for the past several years. A Historic District would establish a boundary within the City limits and protect everything within that boundary through Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines would be similar to the guidelines adopted by Staff for the Downtown Overlay Distric;t. Mr. Lofgren indicated the concern with establishing a Historic District is all praperty owners within the boundaries must be included in the District. Several property owners have indicated they did not want to be included in a Historic District and have opposed establishment ��f such a District, making it difficult for the Commission to move forward in establishing a District. Therefore, the Commission began to rethink the boundaries of the District. The t�oundaries envisioned by the Commission are from Green Street to Crystal Lake Road, and Mai n Street Station to the end of Waukegan Road, including two houses past East Campus and the Landmark School. � Community Development Committee Meeting April 19, 2006 Page 3 `— Ms. Trost infi�rmed the Committee that members of the Commission attended a presentation in Joliet, Illinois, where the idea of a Thematic District was presented. A Thematic District would allow the preservation of individually selected properties. The Commission would select a specific prop�rty theme, such as Victorian Houses, and all Victorian homeowners would be contacted to see if they were interested in placing their property into the Thematic District. There would be no District boundaries and participation would be voluntary. The Thematic District would allow the protection of some properties and at the same time show the City, and other property owners, that historic preservation is viable. Should the Commission receive a lot of support from a specific area, then the potential for establishing a Historic District with specific boundaries could be realized. The potential downside of the Thematic District is it would not provide prote��tion for entire neighborhoods of the City, such as the residential neighborhood around Waukf:gan Road. Mr. Lofgren informed the Committee that the Commission has struggled to maintain focus with the difficulties encountered in efforts to adopt a Historic District. Concern was expressed regarding taking another new direction with the potential establishment of a Thematic District. The Commission is seeking input from the Committee regarding the two alternatives. Responding to an inquiry from Chairman Condon regarding seeking out individuals to be included in a Thematic District, Ms. Trost indicated the Landmark Commission already has criteria in place. Ms. Trost opined while a Thematic District is more palatable to some of the residents, it does not save historic neighborhoods. � Ms. Thomas stated that her residence is located on Main Street. She indicated many of the residents on Main Street have issues with the maintenance of some of the businesses on the west side of the City. She opined there would be a number of willing participants if the advantages of a Historic District were properly explained. Director Napolitano stated presentation is important. He opined the way residents perceive the Historic District is part of the problem. Assistant Administrator Martin concurred with Director Napolitano. He opined that preservation is important, however he does not support the boundaries imposed relative to a Historic District. He opined it could be difficult to sell commercial properry owners on the idea of a Historic District. Alderman Sam:i expressed support for a Thematic District. He opined once the Thematic District proved to be successful, support would be gained for participation in a Historic District. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the advantages of a Historic District vs. a Thematic District. Chairman Condon thanked the members of the Landmark Commission for their presentation and suggested the ciiscussion be continued at a future Community Development Committee meeting, which might ir�clude the addition of a map of the proposed Historic District and the compilation of additional iitformation. Staff agreed to work with the Landmark Commission to compile the � necessary info�mation. Community Development Committee Meeting April 19, 2006 Page 4 � It was the consensus of the Committee to continue the discussion regarding a Historic District vs. a Thematic District at a future Community Development Committee meeting. Responding to an inquiry from Mr. Lofgren, Chairman Condon stated the ne� meeting of the Community Development Committee was on May 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. Mr. Lofgren thanked the Committee members for their time. Mr. Lofgren, Ms. Trost and Ms. Thomas departed at 8:10 p.m. Discussion Re�ardin� Comarehensive Plan Uudate-Citizen/Emplovee Survevs Director Napolitano announced that pursuant to the suggestions brought forth by the Committee at the February 21, 2006 meeting, Staffrevised the Citizen and Employee Surveys. The Committee expressed support for the revised Citizen Survey. It was suggested a question be included on the Emplayee Survey regarding whether, or not, the employee resides within the City limits. Director Napolitano informed the Committee that upon direction from the Committee, Staff would distribute the survey at City offices by providing paper copies to all customers assisted at the counters. Additionally, a select mailing would be provided to approximately 50 — 100 households in each Ward within the City. Also, the surveys would be available on the City's website under a link provided on the Community Development Department's home page. `... It was the consensus of the Committee to instruct Staff to proceed with the distribution of the Citizen and Employee Surveys as outlined, with the addition of the question suggested on the Employee Survey regarding residence within the City limits. Discussions Re�arding Desi�n Standards/Aesthetics Director Napolitano informed the Committee that additional language was inserted pursuant to suggestions provided by the Committee at the last meeting of the Community Development Committee, regarding aesthetic controls on residential properties and non-residential properties. It was suggested at "K" SCREENING OF REFUSE CONTAINERS, the word "districts" be changed to"uses." Staffwas complimented on their efforts. Motion by Santi, seconded by Wimmer, to recommend the proposed language revisions to the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance, Building Aesthetics, be brought forward to full Council for further direction. Aye: Santi, Wimmer, Condon. Nay: None. Absent: Glab. Motion carried. Discussion Regardin� Temporary Inflatable Pools Director Napolitano reiterated that at the February 21, 2006 Community Development � Committee meeting a discussion took place regarding the upcoming summer season and Community Dcvelopment Committee Meeting April 19, 2006 Page 5 `-- inflatable pools. The consensus of the Committee was to treat inflatable pools as temporary uses. The City would not issue a permit, but would make available a handout reminding the owners of the potential hazards and their responsibilities for these types of pools. Staff suggests t wo areas in the cuirent regulations need to be updated: • The deiinition of a swimming pool; and • The permit requirements. Director Napolitano outlined Stat�s proposed amendments to Chapter 22-1 of the Municipal Code, defining a swimming pool and Section 22-3 of the Municipal Code, which addresses permit requirements. A brief discussion ensued. Motion by Wimmer, seconded by Santi, to recommend the proposed amendments to Chapter 22 of the Municipal Code to full Council for action. Aye: Sarrti, Wimmer, Condon. Nay: None. Absent: Glab. Motion carried. Other Business Chairman Condon informed the Committee the next meeting of the Community Development Committee is scheduled for May 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Aldermen's Conference Room, at L which time the following topics would be discussed: • Landmark Commission, Historic District vs. a Thematic District revisited; • Rental properties; and • Main St reet sub-area. Adjournment Motion by Santi, seconded by Wimmer, to adjourn the meeting at 8:28 p.m. Aye: Santi,Wimmer, Condon. Nay: None. Absent: Glab. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, ,��./ � Ge�i�i A. Condoii, C airman �