HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 7/20/2004 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Tuesday, July 20, 2004
Aldermen's Conference Room at 7:00 p.m.
�. In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Alderman Wimmer, Alderman Condon,
Alderman Glab. Absent: None. Also in attendance: Director of Community Development
Napolitano, City Planner Martin, Deputy Clerk Kunzer.
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alderman Wimmer at 7:00 p.m.
Discussion: Modifications to Egisting Planned Unit Develoament(PUD)Ordinance
Director of Community Development Napolitano reviewed the agenda supplement
which summarized the discussion which occurred regarding potential modifications to the PUD
Ordinance on February 11, 2004 at the Community Development Committee Meeting. He noted
it was the consensus of the committee that the following issues required further investigation and
consideration:
• Adequacy of guest parking;
• Increased noise from traffic because of reduced front yard setbacks;
• Reaction from the McHenry Township Fire Protection District one-way streets, street
widths, and alleys;
• Procedures, process and criteria for plan review and approval.
Director Napolitano stated Staff has done further investigation and research regarding
these concerns. He noted the issue of guest parking is satisfied as the width of one-way streets
would accommodate two traffic lanes and thereby provide room for parking along one side of the
street. Regarding the traffic noise concerns, the one-way streets would most likely have less
�. traffic than typical two-way streets. As a consequence, there would most likely not be a problem
with inordinate amounts of traffic noise affecting potential residents.
The McHenry Township Fire Protection District (MTFPD) responded with the following
concerns after review of the modified PUD Ordinance:
• The number of curb cuts and continuity of circulation or traffic movement are key issues
for subdivisions, especially those designed with one-way streets;
• On-street parking would be a concern with one-way streets;
• Narrow streets are generally discouraged, particularly if on-street parking is permitted;
• Wide alleys which do not dead-end are a benefit because they provide a second means of
access to homes;
• Fire hydrants are not typically located in alleys;
• Detached garages are preferred as fires can usually be contained and will not as easily
spread to the home.
In conclusion, the MTFPD stated neo-traditional developments need to be designed with the
resolution of these concerns in mind.
Director Napolitano stated Staff has created a list of proposed procedures for the
amended PUI) Ordinance:
1. Pre-Application with City Staff;
2. Staff review;
3. First (;ommittee of the Whole Meeting;
�.. 4. Staff review;
5. Second Committee of the Whole Meeting;
6. Submittal of Preliminary Plan and Engineering;
Community Development Committee Meeting
July 20, 2004
Page 2
� 7. Staff review;
8. Public Hearing before Planning and Zoning Commission — Preliminary Plan and/or Plat
recommendation(which may take multiple meetings);
9. Staff review;
10. Preparation of Ordinance/Annexation Agreement (if a positive recommendation is
received from Planning and Zoning Commission);
11. City Council Meeting (Public Hearing for Annexation Ageement) Preliminary Plan
and/or Plat Approval;
12. Second City Council Meeting—Preliminary Plan and/or Plat Approval;
13. Following City Council approval, Submittal of Final Plat and Final Engineering;
14. Staff review;
15. Planning and Zoning Commission—Final Plan and Final Plat;
16. Staff review;
17. Third City Council Meeting—Final Plan and/or Plat approval;
18. Fourth City Council Meeting—Final Plan and/or Plat approval.
In response to Alderman Condon's inquiry, Director Napolitano stated there is no
proposed minimum acreage requirement for an integrated use development. He noted Staff is
still trying to determine a name for this specialized type of development. It is not Staff's intent
that this type of development must be solely mixed use. It could, for example be entirely
residential, but be clustered, with one-way streets, reduced setbacks and alleys.
�,,, Director Napolitano stated Staff intends to create an application form for the specialized
development process, including an Approval Criteria for Development Review Form, and
Standards for Development which must be addressed by the applicant. As no minimum
development size is required, it would be up to the applicant to determine if the project is
financially feasible after Standards for Development and the Approval Criteria have been met.
Alderman Glab opined no variances should be granted regarding the PUD once Council
has granted final approval. He requested language be strengthened in the ordinance to prevent
variance requests once an overall development plan and/or plat has been approved by Council.
Planner Martin suggested the last paragraph on page 8 of the proposed Integrated Design District
(aka as modified PUD) could be modified to prohibit variance requests on these specialized
developments. A lengthy discussion followed regarding how a specialized development concept
could be utilized for downtown redevelopment.
Motion by Condon, seconded by Glab, to recommend to Council that Staff move forward
with preparation of an ordinance amending the existing PUD Ordinance, and that language be
included strengthening the ordinance with regard to prohibiting variance requests following final
plan approval.
Voting Aye: Condon, Glab, Wimmer.
Voting Nay: �ione.
Absent: '�Tone.
Motion carried.
�
Discussion: EnQine/Jake Braking
Director Napolitano stated following his review of the City's Municipal Code and Traffic
Code, he could find no provision regarding the prevention of engine (jake) braking within the
Community Development Committee Meeting
July 20, 2004
Page 3
�.- city. He noted he researched area municipalities and provided a copy of the Village of
Ringwood's ordinance which addresses this issue. He stated the definition for "jake braking" is
ambiguous and perhaps should be strengthened. Basically, jake braking is utilizing the engine
(down-shifting) as a means of slowing down and stopping as opposed to using the vehicle's
brakes. Director Napolitano suggested the prohibition of jake braking be incorporated into the
City's Traffic Code.
Director Napolitano stated several complaints have arisen as a result of trucks jake
braking on Bull Valley Road and Route 120. It was suggested once an ordinance prohibiting jake
braking is passed and approved by Council, signs could be posted alerting truck drivers that jake
braking is prohibited in town. It was the consensus of the committee sign posting will increase
compliance.
It was the opinion of the committee, Staff should further research a better definition for
"jake braking" and that the definition be incorporated into an ordinance prepared to prohibit jake
braking in McHenry. Staff was also directed to seek sample jake braking ordinances from other
municipalities.
Motion by Glab, seconded by Condon, to direct Staffto prepare an ordinance for Council
review and action prohibiting jake braking within the City of McHenry.
Voting Aye: Condon, Glab, Wimmer.
Voting Nay: None.
� Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Discussion: Lighting
Director Napolitano stated lighting is becoming a big issue in the city. It has been a
problem for a long time. The glare of lights spilling over onto the highway and the adjacent
properties is becoming more of an issue of concern. Director Napolitano noted the only portion
of the ordinance which covers this issue states "no operation shall produce direct or indirect
illumination greater than 0.5 footcandles in a Residential District. He noted this does not address
spillover from commercial to commercial property. It was pointed out the Buss Ford site, the
Valley View Commons building, and Gary Lang site have been the object of many complaints
due to the glare produced by overilluminating their premises.Director Napolitano noted there are
shields available which could be installed to limit lighting spillover on these properties, as well
as others which also provide spillover and glare.
It was the suggestion of the committee, if the ordinance is strengthened and more clearly
prohibits lighting spillover, that existing businesses be granted a specific timeframe during which
they would have to comply with the newer restrictions.
Alderman Glab suggested if businesses are no longer permitted to have lighting spillover
beyond their property line, the roadways will once again become dark as Council has reduced the
number of street lights along the arterials such as Route 120.
� Some discussion followed regarding the lighting on Jack Pease's building (Valley View
Commons). There was some concern that he is using building lighting for his parking lot (dual
purpose)which is causing much light pollution in the nearby residential neighborhoods.
Community Development Committee Meeting
July 20, 2004
Page 4
`- It was the suggestion of the committee that Staff continue research on lighting, create
more definiti��e language, bring forth examples of candle foot power, and suggested permitted
spillover at the property line to the committee at its next regularly scheduled meeting to be held
on Wednesdav, August 18, 2004 at 7 p.m. in the Aldermen's Conference Room.
Adjournment
Motiori by Glab, seconded by Condon, to adjourn the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
Voting Aye: Glab, Condon, Wimmer.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Respectfull s�bbmitted,
�
�
Richard W. Wimmer, Chai an
�
�