HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2/21/2006 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMElYT CONIlVIITTEE MEETIl�TG
�. Tuesday,February 21, 2006
Aldermen's Conference Room, 7:00 p.m.
In Attendance: Committee Members: Chairman Alderman Condon, Alderman Santi,
Alderman Wimmer, Alderman Glab. Absent: None. Also in Attendance: Assistant City
Administrator Martin, Director of Community Development Napolitano, City Planner Zeller and
City Clerk Jones.
Chairman Alderman Condon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Discussion Resarding Comurehensive Plan IIpdate
Planner Zeller informed the Committee that Staff continues to work on the update of the
Comprehensive Plan. The neart step is for Staff to develop a survey to gather information from
the communit3�. Planner Zeller presented the drafts of two surveys, one for residents of the City
of McHenry and the other for parties who do not live in the C'rty, but work in the City of
McHenry.
Planner Zeller explained the Citizen Survey questions were formulated t� gauge how
much the residents know about the City and to learn some of their concerns. The Employee
Survey is geared to determine what factors cause people to worl� but not live, in the City of
McHenry.
� It is Staffs' intention to distribute the survey at City Hall, providing paper copies to
parties encountered. With regard to the Citizen Survey it is StafFs' intention to mail the survey
randomly to 50-100 persons in each of the seven Wards in the City.
Chairman Condon suggested that No. 7 in the Citiz�n Survey include a column entitled
"do not know." Additionally, she opined "single-family, affordable housing" requires better
definition in Question No. 12.
Responding to an inquiry from Alderman Santi, Director of Community Development
Napolitano indicated to his knowledge a survey of this type has never been conducted in the City
of McHenry. The anticipated rate of return is 16-20%.
Alderman Santi suggested the current Question No. 3 on the Citizen Survey be moved to
the end of the survey, providing the person taking the survey with more time to consider the
question regarding what is most important to them as a resident.
Alderman Glab opined Question No. 2 should include a line for retirees. He concurred
with Chairman Condon regarding a more detailed definition of affordable housing in Question
No. 12. Additionally, Alderman Glab opined Question No. 16{d) should be eliminated. He
stated the library is a separate taxing district over which the City ha.s no control.
A disc��ssion ensued regarding the appropriate definition af affordable housing.
�
Community Development Committee Meeting
February 21, 2006
Page 2
�
Alderman Wimmer suggested Question No. 14 be restructured removing the word
"redevelopment" following Riverwalk. He opined to date the Riverwalk has not yet begun
construction so the word redevelopment is misleading.
It was the consensus of the Committee to revise the surveys pursuant to suggestions
presented by the Committee and move forward with the proposed Citizen Survey and Employee
Survey and continuation of the update of the Comprehensive Plan.
Discussion Regardin�Design 5tandards/Aesthetics
Director Napolitano presented a slide program with suggestions regarding new aesthetic
controls for both residential and non-residential properties. Recommended aesthetic controls for
properties incli�de:
Residential
♦ Anti-monotony. No single-family dwelling with the exterior design, or appearance, or
with identical front elevations shall be built on either side of the dwelling or across the
street facing it. This includes dwellings directly across the street and each adjacent lot.
♦ Minimum brick/stone requirements; and
♦ Screening of trash receptacles.
Non-Residential
`- ♦ Design standards for the rear of buildings;
♦ Screening of roof-top and ground-mounted mechanicals; and
♦ Screening of trash receptacles.
Alderman Glab opined that 7-19(a) regarding the minimum of non-wood e}rterior walls of
buildings, the percentage should stay at 75% and not be reduced to 50%. Director Napolitano
noted that regardless of the percentage indicated the developer must still come before Council for
approval of the design. A discussion ensued regarding a reasonable percentage of an e�erior
wall that shall be faced with brick, brick or masonry veneers, natural or cast stone veneer or
other masonry material. Chairman Condon, Alderman Santi and Alderman Wimmer all agreed
that 50%was adequate. It was the consensus of the Committee to agree on 60%.
Director Napolitano informed the Committee he would take photographs of buildings
with 75%vene�rs and 50%veneers to provide the Committee with comparisons.
Alderman Glab opined a maximum height should be approved for mechanical equipment
installed on a r��oftop.
Chairm;in Condon complimented Staff on their efforts regarding Building Aesthetics.
It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Staff to address the items discussed and
bring the topi�� of Building Aesthetics back to the Committee for discussion at a future
`.. Community Development Committee meeting.
Community Development Committee Meeting
February 21, 2006
Page 3
�
Discussion Regarding Drive-Thru Bvpass Lanes
Director Napolitano reiterated to the Committee that Chairman Condon requested Staff
bring this matter to the Committee for discussion.
Chairman Condon advocated that a bypass lane be provided at the Taco BelULong John
Silver's site during Council's evaluation of the redevelopment plan. Given the recent vehicular
traffic backups at the site, she wondered if the City should make a bypass lane a requirement for
all new drive-t}uu's.
Staff reviewed the Zoning Ordinances of several surrounding municipalities regarding
this issue. Most allow drive-thru's, but require a Special or Conditional Use Permit. None of the
municipalities' codes contained language indicating that a bypass lane was required. Based on
Staff's assessment of existing drive-thru's in the area, it appears most drive-thru tenants have
provided a bypass lane. Director Napolitano outlined the benefits and drawbacks to requiring a
bypass lane for drive-thru's.
Benefits
♦ Improved site circulation
♦ Safety
♦ Additional maneuverability
� Drawbacks
♦ Additional pavement
♦ Tr�c conflicts
Staff stated it was likely the loss of the second access drive to Route 120 contributed to
the traffic issues at the Taco BelllLong John Silver's site following reconstruction, rather than
the lack of a bypass lane. Director Napolitano noted that for nearly all new development Staff
has consistently required a bypass or escape lane. He opined that as long as drive-thru's require
a Conditional Use Permit, Staff is comfortable reviewing each case on a site-by-site basis to
determine if a bypass lane is needed. Should the Committee determine specific language is
required in the ordinance regarding a bypass, Staff will draft it for the ne� Community
Development C'ommittee meeting.
Chairman Condon opined she would like to see language in the ordinance making a
bypass lane mandatory. Alderman Santi, Alderman Wimmer and Alderman Glab concurred.
It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Staff to prepare a Zoning Ordinance
Amendment re�uiring a mandatory bypass lane for all drive-thru establishments, to be brought to
Council for act.on.
Discussion Regarding Inflatable Pools
Director Napolitano informed the Committee that one of the goals identified by the
� Committee was to address the issue of inflatable pools. He stated that inflatable pools are
Community Dcvelopment Committee Meeting
February 21, 2006
Page 4
L
typically 24", or greater, in height and are set up on a temporary basis during the summer.
Inflatable pools are widely available at most discount stores. Due to the temporary nature of the
inflatable pool. homeowners seldom obtain a permit because they don't believe they need one.
However, the same issues regarding barriers, access and safety apply to inflatable pools, as they
do to an in-ground or permanent above-ground pool.
Staff has researched other communities and ascertained that temporary pools are
regulated in thr ee ways:
♦ Not permitted;
♦ Treated the same as all other swimming pools; or
♦ Considered as temporary uses and/or not regulated-no permit required.
Some ofthe concerns expressed by Staffwere:
♦ Not permitting inflatable pools is not viable because of the potential outcry from
residents;
♦ Treating inflatable pools the same as a permanent pool is not viable, because of the
stringent requirements for barriers, etc.
♦ Not requiring a permit could be considered as just avoiding the problem.
The approach recommended by Staff is to treat inflatable pools as temporary uses. A
building permit would not be required; however, Staff would develop a safety handout for
L- posting on the City's website, in the newsletter and at City Hall, reminding owners of potential
hazards of inflatable pools and their responsibilities for these types of pools. This approach
would be educational, rather than avoiding the issue. Additionally, the City would not be
assuming liability as it would if this type of pool were regulated.
Alderman Santi suggested the safety handout also be provided to retailers selling
inflatable pools.
Alderman Wimmer concurred with Stai�s recommendations.
Responding to an inquiry Director Napolitano assured the Committee he would check the
McHenry County Pool Barrier Ordinance prior to preparation of ordinance language for the City.
It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Staff to tweak the language for an
ordinance addressing inflatable pools and to direct Staff to construct a Safety Guide handout to
be included in the Friday Report and shared with Council.
Other Business
Alderm.�n Glab inquired about and expressed concern regarding truss flooring deflection
rates. Director of Community Development Napolitano assured Alderman Glab that Ryan
Schwalenberg��ould call him to discuss the matter.
�
Community Development Committee Meeting
February 21, 2006
Page 5
L
Chairman Condon informed the Committee that the next meeting of the Community
Development Committee is scheduled on Tuesday, April 18, 2006. She briefly outlined some of
the proposed topics, which might appear on the Agenda.
Adiournment
Motion by Glab, seconded by Santi, to adjourn the meeting at 8:31 p.m.
Aye: Condon, Glab, Santi, Wimmer.
Nay: None.
Absent None.
Motion carried
Respectfully sL:bmitted,
Geri A. Condon, Chairman
�
L