Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 7/19/2005 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CUMMITTEE MEE'ITNG Tuesday,July 19,2005 Aldermen's Conference Room,7:00 p.m. �- In Attendance: Committee Members: Chairman Alderman Condon, Aldermar� Santi, Alderman Wimmer, Alderm<�.n Glab. Absent: None. Also in Attendance: Assistarrt to the City Administrator Martiq D'uectar of Community Development Napolitano, City Planner Zeller and City Clerk Jones. Also in Attendance: Pat Schafer(Landmark Commission) 4014 Pitzen Craig Bjorkman(Ace Hardware) 4520 Crystal Lake Road Steve Bjorkman(Ace Hardware) 452Q Crystal Lake Road Kris and Donna Butler 4711 W. Crystal Lake Road Roger and Linda Freund 4513 W. Ponca Street Chairman Alderman Condon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. She stated the discussion regarding Item 2; the Crystal Lake Road Sub-Area Plan would precede the first item indicated on the Agenda. Discussion• Crvstal Lake Road Sub-Area Plan Director of Community Development Napolitano reiterated at the iast Community Development Committee meeting several items relating to the Crystal Lake Road Sub-Area Plan were discussed. Director Napolitano noted the overall goal of the Crystal Lake Road Sub-Area is to create a unified development, which is compatible with the surrounding land uses. Additionally, the Sub-Area Plan should: • Take advanta$e of the natural setting of Cold Sprin�s Park; • Limit access points to Crystal Lake Road; • Provide an internal access road pazallel to Crystal Lake Road which would serve multiple properties; `-- • Provide proper bufferin�adjacent to Cold Springs Park. The following policies and objectives were discussed: • Annexation of unincorporated parcels • Limit access onto Crystal Lake Road; provide internal cross-access between parcels • Plan for single-family land use or uses that are compatible with residential land uses • Vacate Maryetta Boulevard, if feasible • Preserve integrity of Cold Springs Park; provide pedestrian access to Park • Preserve integrity of adjacent residential neighborhoods, including Park Ridge Estates and Cooney Heights • Require new development to preserve existing trees. Staff was directed by the Committee to prepaze different alternatives to address road layouts and land uses in the sub-area. Five roadway alternatives have been proposed. T'he different roadway alternatives would impact the proposed land uses that aze ultimately deternuned appropriate for the sub-area. Director Napolitano outlined the pros and cons for each of the five Roadway and Land Use options. PTI N 1 ROADWAY Egtend I�ensington East,Turn Northeast Eatend to LiUian,with West Eatension to Royal �`�' Pros ■ Ability to move majority of access from CLR ■ Would eliminate the most curb cuts Community Development Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Page 2 `— ■ Provides a 2"�Access from Lillian ■ Allows for split of long parcels multiple land uses ■ Si�nalized iirtersection at Front Royal ■ Would have little impact on Park Cons ■ Requires acquiring ROW ■ Problem for proposed Living Springs development ■ No additional access to Park ■ Would divide properties in half and may limit land use options ■ Crestwood 4-way too close to Lillian at CLR and can cause stacking problems LAND USE Option A Commercial along Crystal Lake Road, single-family residences along Park Pros ■ Possible closer to Frorn Royal Street intersection ■ Economic benefits ■ Commercial to buffer along CLR ■ Off peak traffic and parking Cons ■ Very lar�e area for mid-block commercial ■ Possible opposition from neighbors of existing residences � ■ More traffic congestion on CLR ■ Not compatible with residential uses Option B Multi-Family alang Crystal Lake Road and west side of proposed road,then single-family alang Park Pros ■ Multi-Family io buffer alon�CLR ■ Multi-Famity has grouped entrances oi�middle section street. ■ Single-Family residential protects park ■ Residential uses adjacent to other CLR residential uses. ■ Another type of housing alternative Cons � Existing residential uses along CLR alrea.dy turning office or commercial ■ Noise, odor impact from CLR on residents Option C Of�ice along Crystal Lake Road to middle section street,then single-family along Park Pros ■ Office, low intensity adjacent to existing residences � Office to buffer along CLR ■ Economic benefits � Single-Family buffer protects Park � ons ■ Of�ice adjacent to existing single-family residences, neighbors may be opposed ■ Traffic compe#ition with residences, everyone leaving residences and everyone coming to office area at same peak times Community Development Committee Me�ting July 19, 2005 Page 3 � Option D Commercial adjacent to Front Royal 4-way intersection, office adjacent to commercial on both sides, then further away mult�-family Pros ■ Commercial buffered from single-family residential by less intense land uses ■ Economic benefits ■ Small area to attract small commercial uses, no big boxes ■ Commercial to buffer along CLR ■ Off-peak traffic and parking of commercial and office ■ 4-way inter�ection, possible signal ■ Good blend of uses ons ■ Possible opposition from neighbors of existing residences ■ More tr�c on CLR ■ Bi-secting road limits site plan design • OP ON 2 ROADWAY Kelter ROW from HS East to Park,North to Marietta ROW,west to CL Road Pros ■ Provides access to rear half of lots � ■ Could utilize e�ting ROW � Provides access to Park Cons • Doesn't provide access to all lots ■ Puts a road adjacent to the Park, large impact on Park ■ Still requires multiple access onto CLR for other lots ■ Conflict with proposed Living Springs ■ Acquire partion of ROVV along Park ■ Too close to Front Royal intersection ■ No access to signal ■ Conflict with HS access ■ Significantly limit development opportunities due to location of Road LAND USE Option A Single-Family south of this and office development inside and to the north of Front Royal connection Pros ■ Qffice to buffer alon�CLR ■ Qffice area reduces driveways in this area Cons ■ Sin�le-Family adjacent to CLR, still numerous driveways ■ Noise, odor impact from CLR on residents � • Office impact on park ■ Possible neighbors opposed to large scale office develapment ■ Limited arca inside new ROW to a11ow for new development ■ Glut of off�ce space available in City Community Development Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Pa�e 4 � Uptioa B Multi-Family along CLR Pros ■ Reduces number of driveways � MF is a buffer along CLR Cons * Limited access off this roadway for new residential development • Noise, odor impact from CLR on residents ■ Latger impact on park * Possible neighbors opposed to higher density development Option C Multi-Family on either side of#2 and office inside Pros ■ Reduces number of driv�ways * MF and office buffer noise from CLR Cons � Limited access off this roadway for new residential development ■ Limited office access from this roadway � Noise, odor impact from CLR on residents ■ Larger impact on park � Option D Commercial adjacent to Maryetta ROW,then of�ice further north, office or multi-family on south Pro ■ Commercial and office buffer along CLR ■ Economic benefits ■ Hi�her intensity of uses across the street to help blend these proposed uses �OS ■ Maryetta off-set from Front Royal ■ No future signa.l or 4-way intersection ■ Difficult to get adequate access ■ Lar�er impact on park OPTION 3 ROADWAY Marietta ROW to Ponca Pros ■ Relieves some Lillian Traffic ■ � Access from CLR to Park ■ Reduce northbound traffic on CLR C� ■ Doesn't connect parcels to the South � ■ Conflict with Living Springs ■ Cut thru tr�c for people going east on Lillian ■ Ponca/Lillian off-set intersection ■ Maryetta t��o close to Front Royal Community Development Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Page 5 `-- � Won't eliminate curb cuts south of this ■ Extra tr�c for Ponca residents ■ Extra impac�.on Park ■ No access to a signal. ■ Provides mare cut thru traffic to Cooney Heights LAND USE Option A If this is the only��ption selected, it doesn't create a need for any new land use for the area. The area should probab�y remain single-family residential, OPTION 4 ROADWAY Curve Lillian to Hay Street, South aud west to Royal signal PTpS * Additional access to Park ■ Relieves some traffic from Lillian � Access to signal ■ Provides an alternative thru access from 31 to CLR Cons ■ Puts roadway adjacent to open space ■ Doesn't reduce driveways on CLR � ■ Big impact on Park ■ Have to work with Com Ed ■ Big impact on residents on Hay Ave. LAND USE If this is the only option selected, it doesn't creaxe a need for any new land use for the area. The area should probably remain sin�le-family residential. OPTION 5 ROADWAY � Egtend Lillian to Garden Quarter Fros ■ Second access to CLR for residents ■ Brings traflic to a 4-way intersection ■ Office traffic 2°d access at 4-way ■ Would give Garden Quarter residents access to signal ■ Reduce traffic on Hanley ■ Potential access to signal for Whispering Oaks Office Park. Cons ■ Poor placement ■ Disrupts parking of Garden Quarter ■ Business traffic from bank and offices would mix with residential tr�c � ■ Would end in a parking lot Director Napolitano was quick to note these aze not the only options available. He indicated Staff would like better definition regarding how the roadways are used. Community Development Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Fage 6 � Alderman Glab pointed out that none of the options address all of the issues. He suggested a combination of some of the aspects of each of the options, noting �ption 1 was the most favorable. Alderman Glab indicated he was not in support of taking traffic off of Lillian and routing it through another subdivision. Responding to Alderman Santi's inquiry regarding the most feasible traffic flow heading south, Director Napolitano indicated Option No. 4 would be most appropriate. However, he noted using Option 4 would require negotiations with ComEd, which might prove difficult. Alderman Santi, concurring with Alderman Glab, stated the most viable option is a combination of some of the various options, such as a combination of elements of Options 1, 2 and 4. Alderman Wimmer indicated he concurred with Alderman Santi. He stated somewhere in the future he could see Hay Street being used as a connector raad. Alderman Wimmer noted he would like to keep Kelter as a connector. Chairman Condon supported Option No. 1 as the most viable option. Director Napolitano noted a11 of the options were predicated on properties turning over and developers coming in. He indicated Option No. 4 has less of an impact on Cooney Heights Subdivision than Option No. 1. Alderman Wimmer stated he daes not see the Sub-Area Plan as an immediate mission, but as a potential plan, should the properties became available, as indicated by Director Napolitano. � Alderman Santi opined he would like to see tr�c on Crystai Lake Road alleviated from time to time. A lengthy discussion ensued. Chairman Condon opened the floor to members of the public in attendance. Linda Freund stated the most favorable option would be Option No. 4. She indicated the Pioneer Center Group Home is in the vicinity suggested in Option No. 1 and there are a number of pedestrians and wheelchairs in the area, creating a safety concern. Kris Butler stated the su$gestions created by Option No. Z would create a busy roadway along their backyard while Option No. 1 would bisect everyone's property. He opined Option No. 4 might be the rnost viable of those suggested. Roger Freund stated any of the options could create displeasure to someone. He suggested gathering information and input from the public. He indicated he would dislike additional traffic in the area created by Option No. 1 because of small children in the area and the location of the Pioneer Center Group Home. Director Napolitano stated he hopes to refine the options further. Alderman Glab expressed concerns re$arding the land use. He stated that light use was envisioned for that azea, which is why he was unable to support the assisted living proposed to the Committee of the ,� Whole on July 1 l, 2005. Alderman Santi stated he envisions a combination of business and commercial use for the area. Community Development Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Page 7 `-- Alderman Wimmer indicated his support of business and commercial use along the Crystal Lake Road Corridor anci residential use closer to the Park. Chairman Condon concurred with Alderman Glab, supporting light use along the Crystal Lake Road Corridor. Chairman Condon concurred with Alderman VVimmer regarding Kelter Street. She opined she prefers Option No. 1, with Kelter Street's access to Royal. Additionally, she indicated she sees som� benefit in Option'�To. 4. Director Pdapolitano sug�ested a joint meeting be scheduled with Staff and business owners and residents. It was the consensus of the Committee that a combination of specific elements from different options to refine tk�e roacway altematives is the most viable option. Further discussion was defened to a future Community Developer Committee meeting. �i�cussion: Teardowns Director Napolitano reiterated that at the April and May meetin�s the Committee discussed different aptions regarding teardowns. The Committee determined that a combination of performance-based, zoning- based and administration-based requirements would be the best approach and provide the City with the most control. Staff was directed to refine the proposed language and draft a proposed teardown ordinance for `,, tonight's meeting. Director l�tapalitano summarized the proposed Teardown Ordinance, indicating the ordinance includes: • Definitions • Lot coverage requirements for teardown and infill sites. • Increased front yard setback for garages, when facing a street. • Increased side yard setback required for wider lots • Details for building plans and specifications as indicated • Requirements for storm water management • Standards for construction includin�accessibility, material storage, dust, noise and fencing • Si�y day waiting period before a demolition can occur • Notification of adjoining properties and postin�of a sign on a teardown or infill site • Any tree larger than 10-inch caliper that is removed from the teardown or infill site would require a payment of$20 per inch caliper. Director '�Tapolitano stated if the Committee is in accordance with the proposed langua�e of the ardinance, Staff recommends the Committee forward the Ordinance to full Council for consideration. Alderman Glab opined the City seems to impose more restrictions on teardowns and rehabilitations of property than on developers of vacant property. He indicated he is comfortable with the language in the ordinance. � Alderman Santi stated he is eomfortable with the overall document as a starting point; however, he feels it requires some fine-tuning prior to presentation to Council. Community Development Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Page 8 � Alderman Wimmer opined the ordinance should be more restrictive as it deals with the integrity of the existing neighborhood and surrounding structures. Pat Scha.fer, representative of the Landmark Commission, addressed the Committee. Ms. Sehafer indicated the Landmazk Commission were pleased in general with the ordinance, but wouId like verbiage included stating that if the home to be torn down has historic si�nificance, the Landmark Commission be permitted to salvage anything of historic value prior to demolition. Responding to Chairman Condon's inquiry regarding ordinance administration, Director Napoiitano indicated the structure would be reviewed for historic significance first by staff and then by a Review Commission. Alderman Glab opined he would support implementation of a Review Commission, subject to the petitioner being able to appeal Review Commission denial before the City Council. Chairman Condon suggested the Review Commission be comprised of five persons as follows: • Member of the Landmark Commission • Member oi'the Planning and Zoning Commission • An Alderman • A StaffMember from the Community Development Department • A qualified member of the public Alderman Santi sug�ested a member of the Landmark Commissioq an Alderman and a Staff �-- member from the Community Development Department would be adequate. Alderman Wimmer suggested the following: • A member of the Landmazk Commission � A Staff member from the Community Development Department • .An Alderman from the applicable ward where the teardown is proposed; and • A qualified member of the public. Following a discussion regazding the possible composition of th� Review Commission it was the consensus of the Gommittee to instruct Staff to move forwazd with a final draft of the proposed ordinance for Teardowns. Discussion: Restaur�nt Parking Reauirements Director Napolitano reiterated thax during a recent Council meeting discussion occuned regarding a Conditional Use Permit for a proposed restaurant/tavern. At that time Alderrnan Glab expressed concern regarding the adec{uacy of the City's current parking requirements for restaurants. Council refened the matter to the Community Development Committee for consideration. Staff opined the current requiremerrts do not adequately match restaurant parking usage. Smaller restaurants, with cirive-thru facilities, have too many required spaces while sit down restaurants lack sufficient parking. � Community Development Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Page 9 �-- Director Napolitano indicated the following current requirements and illustrated on-site data compiled by Staff, using current parking requirements at existing city-wide restaurants, noting Option A and Option B suggested by Staff. Use and Square Footage Maximum#of Current Option A Option B ��) Cars between Pazking New Parking Ratio IVew Parking Ratio 1 lam-1 m Re uirements Re uired S aces er use Re uired S aces r use Steak n Shalce 21 20/1000sf 10/1000sf 15/1000sf 3690sf 74 37 55 Burger King 26 20/1000sf 10/1000sf 1S/1000sf 4110sf g2 41 62 McDonalds 14 20/1000sf 10l1000sf 14/1000sf 4200sf 84 42 63 Burger King 26 20/1000sf 10/1000sf 15/1000sf 4115sf 82 41 62 KFC 13 20/1000sf 10/1000sf 15/1000sf 2800sf 5( 2g 42 Applebee's 40 20/1000sf 30/1000sf 25,1000sf SOOOsf 100 150 125 Chili's NA 20/1000sf 30/1000sf 25,1000sf 4721sf 94 141 118 Director Napolitano informed the Committee the new parking ratios were determined using several � methods. Eat�in and drive-in restaurant parking were determined ta be adequate at 10 spaces per 1,000 sf. of flour area as indicated in Option A. These restaurants generate some inside sit down patrons but about half of the business is comprised of drive-thru customers only. Ten spaces per 1,000 sf. more closely matches the data collected by Staff at these establishments. Sit down restaurants, with less than 4,250 sf. will usually have fewer customer seating spaces and also less staff. Parking spaces for these establishments was determined to be sufficient at the current 20 spaces per 1,000 sf. Staff deternuned that larger restaurants would amact more patrons from further away and have a larger sta.ff. Staff recommends thirty spaces per 1,000 sf. as determined by how the Building Code calculates occupancy. Alderman Glab opined he supports increasing the parking space requirement at sit down restaurants, agreeing the parking spaces for fast-food restaurants appears adequate and could remain as is. He stated Council could continue to review variance requests for exceptians. Alderman Wimmer suggested allowing a sit down restaurant to under-develop their parking lot, with the understanding that the additional space would be set aside as green space, unless and until the additional parking is needed. A brief discussion ensued regarding who would determine when the additional parking was needed. Director Napolitano sugg�sted lan�uage be included in the ordinance requirin� additional parking, should the City ascertain additional parking is required. �" Alderman Wimmer opined he likes Option B, including the green space banking requirement, and Option A, should banking space not be required. Alderman Glab suggested seating should be taken into Community Develapment Committee Meeting July 19, 2005 Pa�e 10 `— consideration in addition to square footage. Chairman Condon opined that seating would be more difficult to monitor than the square footage of an establishment. Alderman Santi indicated he prefers Option A, with the required spaces for sit down restaurants reduced from 30 spaces/1,000 sf. to 25 spaces/1,000 sf. Alderman Wimmer concurred with Alderman Santi. Motion by Wimmer, seconded by Santi, to recommend to Council the following amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Chapter VII Table 13, as follows: • Drive-in 10 spaces/1,000 sf., with land banking for an additional5 spaces/1,000 sf. � Sit-down only 25 spaces/1,000 sf., without land banking • Carryout 10 spaces/1,000 sf., without land banking Aye: Condoq Glab, Santi, Wimmer. Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion can-ied. Discussion: Sisn Code Up�ate Director Napolitano summarized the proposed revisions to the Si�n Code. He indicated that signage is important to every deveioper. Over the years many requests to Council have been presented for sign variances. Director Napolitano opined at times the requests may be due to the limited size and number signs allowed in the Code, and at other times the developer rnay have misread the definitions in the Code. In � order to better represent the cument needs of the City, Staff feels an amendment to Chapter IX, Signs is necessary. Staff recommends the Committee consider and discuss the following: Sign Definitions: There are currently 29 different types of signs defined in the Ordinance. Staff recommends reducing the number of definitions and clarifying the remaining definitions. Number of Wall Sig�ns�or Sho�ping Center Uses: Currently any building that is part of a shopping center is considered a shopping center tenant and allowed only one wall si�n. Additionally, corner spaces are allowed only one wall sign. Staff suggests an additional wall sign for out lot users and the Committee's consideration of an additional wall sign for corner tenants. Freestanding Si�ns for Out Lots in Sho„_pving Centers: Shopping centers are allowed only one freestanding si�n, sometimes placing out lot users at an advertising disadvantage. By variance, the City has allowed monument style freestanding signs for out lots in the shopping center on North Richmond Road. Staff suggests the Cammittee eonsider allowing a freestanding sign for any aut lot user. Chan�in�q (Electronic Message) Si ns: This type of sign is currently defined, however nothing else in the regulations addresses how the signs are to be used. Due to changin�g technology these signs have been reduced in cost an� more businesses are using them. Staff suggests additional language is needed to address Electronic Message Signs. ``.� Community Develapment Committee Meeting Juiy 19, 2005 Page 1 I `- Display Boards: �urrent language permits nearly every use, with the exception of residential azeas, to have a display board with manually changed letters. Staff suggests tightening the regulations on these display boards. Tem orar�SiRns: Temporary signs are frequently a problem for Staff. The definitions currently allow for up to eight (8) ocuas�ons each calendar yea.r, with a maximum display period of 30-days and a total display period of 60-days each calendar year. Additionally, the regulations distinguish between a temporary si�n and a portable sign although they are both of a temporary nature. Staff suggests clarification and simplification of the language regarding temporary signs. Miscellaneous Sign T,y ►�es: Staff suggests balloons and other inflatables, sandwieh boards, characters, etc. are not adequately addressed and language should be added to better define this type of tempar�.ry sign, as they can frequently be a safety c.oncern. Alderman Glab opined that he had an issue with help-wanted signs displayed in windows. He stated his concern was not necessarily with the small signs displayed; however what prevented a business from utiiizing an oversized sign for the purpose of advertising for help-wanted in a window. He suggested Staff research the matter further. Alderman Glab e�ressed continuing concerns with any si$ns in the right-of-way. He suggested any revisian to the Ordinance address specific signs pernutted in the right-of-way. �. Additionally, Alderman Glab expressed concern regarding the percentage of the total sign embellishments might take up on the sign when considering the size of a sign. Director Napolitano assured Alderman Glab that Staff would look into his concems. Alderman Santi su�gested Staff research whether the City could generate any income from billboard signs. Atderman Wimmer opined that when considering the number of wall signs on shopping centers, the follawing should apply: • Any additional signs should be smaller; • The sign should anly be displayed on the applicable store; and • No electronic message board should be displayed as an additional sign. Additionally, Alderman Wimmer suggested some signs could be combined for clarification purposes, such.as temporary signs and portable signs. He opined that he likes monument si�ns and freestanding signs; however he preferred they be low to the ground rather than tall. Alderman Wimmer stated he had issues with delivery trucks being used for advertising purposes while parked outside of business establishments. Chairman Condon stated that she concurs with the issues raised by Alderman Wimmer. Additionally, she v��ould like to see advertising signs more uniform throughout the City. �... Regardin� electronic signs all present agreed that the confi,guration of the si�ns and changingJflashing information could be a safety concern. Chairman Condon indicated she has no problem Community Development Committee Meeting July l9, 2005 Page 12 `-- with the schools using tk�em, opining that the signs provide useful information. However, she indicated that with regard to the use of electronic signs by business owners throughout the City she would like to see severe limitation to their use. It was the consensus of the Committee that there was no occasion that would necessitate requiring a temporary sign eight (8) times a year. The Committee suggested the number be reduced to four (4) times per year. Other Business Chairman Condon acknowledged it was late, but stated she would like to briefly discuss the matter of the Corrimunity Development Department Staff issuance of permits while not in possession of authorization from a homeowners' association (HOA). She indicated that her biggest concern is that the burden not be on Staff to track down officers of the homeowners' association for required authorization. Chairman Condon suggested a compromise might be reached by providing the HOA with a 5-day period to respond to the request for authorization. $hould authorization regarding an application not be acknowledged by the HOA within that time period, Staff should be allowed to issue the permit. Alderman Wimmer opined certification should be required from the homeowner that the homeowner has notified the HOA within a reasonable period of time. Alderman Wimmer suggested the homeowner be required to notify� the HOA, via a certified letter with return receipt requested, evidencing proof of notification. � Alderman Santi concurred with Alderman Wimmer, opining it is the homeowners' responsibility to prove due diligence. Adiournment Motion by Wimmer, seconded by Glab, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Aye: Condon, Glab, Santi, Wimmer. Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion cazried. Respectfully submitted, ����= � Geri A. Condon, Chairman L..