Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 7/15/2003 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Tuesday, July 15, 2003 Aldermen's Conference Room at 7:30 p.m. � In Attendance: Committee Members Alderman Wimmer, Alderman Glab, Alderman Peterson, Alderman Condon. Absent: None. Also in attendance: Director of Community Development Napolitano, City Administrator Maxeiner, City Planner Martin and City Clerk Jones. Also in attendance: George Cadotte, Planning and Zoning Commission The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alderman Wimmer at 7:30 p.m. Spot Survev Director of Community Development Napolitano informed the Committee Council has noted in recent past several residents have come forward seeking a setback variance due to errors occurring during the installation of home foundations. In order to reduce the likelihood of this type of error Staff is proposing implementation of a policy requiring a spot survey be submitted prior to allowing framing to begin. Director Napolitano stated Staff currently conducts an inspection on a foundation after the walls or slab are poured. At that time a general check of the setback occurs, however, the inspection staff is not equipped to conduct a precise measurement of setbacks and the encroachment is often undetected unless it is obvious a foundation is too close to a lot line. Construction continues until occupancy is requested at which time the Department requires a plat � of survey be provided. Director Napolitano noted this is when the setback errors are discovered. Director Napolitano stated requiring a spot survey prior to allowing framing of the building to occur would: • Shaw the foundation setbacks from each property line; • Show the various elevations of the foundation; • Should there be a setback error the ability would still e�st to correct the problem without significant effort; • Future drainage problems could be minimized because the elevations of the foundation could be checked with the approved engineering plans to ensure proper pitch is available to drain the lot; and • City Council would not be faced with approval of a variance. Director Napolitano noted implementation of this new policy might result in a two to three week delay, while the spot survey is being prepared, and an additional cost of$250 to $300 to the developer or buyer. Alderman Condon suggested Staff expIore the policy in surrounding communities. A brief discussion ensued. It was the consensus of the Committee to recommend Staff prepare the appropriate Ordinance for submission to Council. � Community Development Committee Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 2 `-' Discussion Regardin�Tezt Amendments to the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance Director of Community Development Napolitano informed the Committee that pursuant to Council direction he has reviewed the e�usting sign regulations as they relate to various matters. Outlot Signs Director Napolitano noted as development of the new retail areas on North Richmond Road nears buildout the City has received several requests for sign variances. Particularly affected are the stand alone building located on outlots within the retail center. Director Napolitano noted under the existing sign regulations stand-alone buildings on outlots in shopping centers are limited as to the number and amount of signs allowed. The current definition indicates businesses on outlots are considered part of the shopping center. The only sign allowed is a wa11 sign, with square footage not to exceed 1.5 sq. feet per foot of tenant or buitding frontage. This language is suitable for business tenants located in the in-line stores due to only a single building fa�ade. For those units located on outlots one sign is usually inadequate. Often a building on an outlot is sunounded by parking areas with all four building facades visible. Additionally, the outlot users tend to draw from shoppers using the main stores in the center. Staff is requesting the Committee reconsider the current sign regulations. Director Napolitano suggested the following options for consideration: �, • The regulations remain as they are. Continue to require a variance for any more than one sign and Council retains the ability to consider individual hardship on a site-by-site basis; or • Change the regulation to permit additional signs for outlots within the shopping center. Should the Committee recommend changes to the regulations, allowing for fewer variances for businesses positioned on outlots, Director Napolitano suggested the following: • For wa11 signs, treat outlots the same as any other commercial user, allowing two wa11 signs and a total cumulative square footage of 1.5 sq. feet per foot of tenant or building frontage; and • Consider allowing a freestanding sign for outlot users, not to exceed 30 square feet and 6' in height. A discussion ensued. Alderman Glab stated he continues to support stringent review of signage. Aldernian Condon opined support for changing the regulation to a11ow additional signs for outlots within the shopping center. Chairman Wimmer and Alderman Peterson concurred with Alderman Condon. Mation by Condon, seconded by Peterson, to direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration which would pernut commercial users in outlots two (2) wa11 signs, with a total cumulative square footage of 1.5 square feet per foot of tenant or building frontage. V oting aye: Condon, Peterson, Wimmer `. V oting nay: Glab Absent: None Motion carried. Community Development Committee Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 3 � It was the consensus of the Committee to continue to review matters involving free- standing signs on an individual site-by-site basis. Real Estate Signs Director Napolitano informed the Committee under the existing regulations real estate signs fall into two categories, exempt and non-exempt. Exempt real estate signs do not require a permit. They cannot exceed 5 square feet in size and may advertise 1-5 residential units, or no more than one vacant residential lot. They must be five feet from any lot line and be removed one week after the consumrnation of the sale or rental of the properry. One sign per street frontage is allowed. Non-exempt real estate signs require a permit. They cannot exceed 32 square feet in size and 10 feet in height. The must be five feet from a property line and must be removed one week following sale or rental of the property. One sign per street frontage is permitted. Director Napolitano noted a problem with the current language exists concerning non- exempt real estate signs in that a single-family home could have an exempt real estate sign, but also a non-exempt sign, provided a permit is obtained. Considering the size of a single-family lot that amount of signage would be excessive. � Director Napolitano offered the Committee the following options for consideration: • The regulations remain as they are. o He noted Staff has not observed any abuse of the current language although the potential e�sts; or • Revise the regulations to prevent excessive real estate signs on single-family lots. Director Napolitano noted Staff recommends changing the regulations to clarify what signs are pernutted for single-family lots as follows: • Do not allow a non-exempt real estate sign on a single-family lot. Only a11ow exempt real estate signs, which are the most common choice used by realtors. • Non-exempt real estate signs should be allowed for subdivisions of two, or more, single- family lots and for multi-family developments. Alderman VVimmer opined Staf�s time is valuable and too much time is being expended on enforcement of signage issues. A brief discussion ensued. Motion by Peterson, seconded by Condon, to direct Staf�to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration which would pernut only exempt real estate signs on single-family lots, not to exceed 5 square feet, advertising 1-5 residential units, or no more than one vacant residential lot, which must be five feet from any lot line and removed within one week after the consummation of the sale or rental of the property. Voting aye: Condon, Peterson, Wimmer � Voting nay: Glab Absent: None Motion carried. Community Development Committee Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 4 `-- Alderman Glab departed at 8:44 p.m. Motion by Condon, seconded by Petersen, to direct Staff to prepare an ordinance for Council consideration which would permit two exempt real estate signs on corner single- famity lots, with one sign on each frontage, not to exceed 5 square feet, advertising 1-5 residential units, or no more than one vacant residential lot, which must be five feet from any lot line and removed within one week after the consummation of the sale or rental of the property. Voting aye: Condon, Peterson, Wimmer. Voting nay: None. Absent: Glab. Motion carried. Fences Director Napolitano informed the Committee that recently Council has been forced to consider several variances for fences on residential lots having frontage on two streets, commonly referred to as double frontage lots. While used as a backyard by the homeowners, the e�sting language in the Municipal Code concerning fence regulations considers any yard abutting a street as a front yard for fence purposes. He stated this interpretation severely limits the amount of usable yard space that can be enclosed for security, safety and privacy. Director Napolitano offered two options for the Committee's consideration: • Leave the regulations as they are and continue to require a variance for fences on double � frontage lots, with consideration given to hardships on a site-by-site basis; or • Change the regulations to rel�the fence regulations for double frontage lots. Staff supports changing the regulation resulting in fewer variances requested by homeowners with double frontage lots. Staff suggests the Committee consider a portion of the property as a "back" yard on double frontage lots, if access is prohibited to one of the streets along a double frontage lot. Motion by Condon, seconded by Peterson, to direct Staff to draft an ordinance revising Section 7-114 (b) of the Municipal Code entitled Standards for Residential Fences to reflect that fences will be permitted on double frontage lots subject to the fence being constructed in the yard which is prohibited access to a street. Voting aye: Condon, Peterson, Wimmer. Voting nay: None. Absent: Glab. Motion carried. Zonin�/Municipal Code Updates Director of Community Development Napolitano reiterated to the Committee that in December 2002 Staff was directed to pursue various Zoning Ordinance amendments, amendments to the Comprehensive Plan land use maps, adoption of a Subdivision Control Ordinance, and Building Code amendments. He informed the Committee the Subdivision � Control Ordinance would be brought forth for formal adoption by Council at the July 21, 2003 Council meeting. Revisions to the Comprehensive Plan are nearly completed. Director Napolitano stated updates to the Municipal Code and Zoning Ordinance is an ongoing process. Community Development Committee Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 5 `-- Director Napolitano summarized the following amendments regarding Zoning: Proposed additions: a. Assisted/Independent Living b. Bed and Breakfast Establishments c. Cluster Development d. Conservation Easement/Area e. Development f. Fa�ade g. Findings of Fact h. Flag Lot i. Impervious Surface j. Marina k. Subdivision 1. Zero Lot Line Proposed clarifications: a. Buffer/Screening diagram b. Building Area/Yard w/diagram c. Double Frontage Lots/Reversed Frontage Lots w/diagram d. Family(Guest/Tenant) e. Floodplain, Flood Fringe, Floodway diagram � f. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)—reference mezzanines g. Light/Heavy Industrial Distinction h. RecreationaUCommercial Vehicles i. Townhome/Rowhouse w/diagram Signs (Zoning,� Proposed additions: a. Vacant tenant signs, must be filled in the middle with blank panel b. Grand Opening signs/Temporary Use signs, allowed for 45 days. Proposed clarifications: a. Political signs b. Ground signs, distinction between freestanding and pole sign c. Clear up language with regard to removing abandoned/vacant signs Miscellaneous.�mendments (Zoning) Proposed additions: a. Assisted Living/Independent Living Regulations b. Bed and Breakfast Regulations c. New Planned Unit Development Ordinance � d. Allow more than one building/lot for townhome developments e. Add driveway section from Municipal Code to parking and loading section f. Add section to Administration section of Zoning Ordinance with regard to Public Hearing procedure Community Development Committee Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 6 � Proposed clarification: a. Combine two use tables (permittedlconditional), use lists in each district and use table in appendix of Zoning Ordinance b. Business Park regulations/Business Park Design Guidelines (Guidelines were established at the time the McHenryCorporate Center was developed). Combine business park district. c. Clear up recreational commercial vehicle regulations d. Reduce number of approval criteria for variances Proposed deletions: a. Delete requirements for conditional use pernut for the service of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant—is regulated by Council through liquor licensing b. Delete requirement for conditional use permit for an above-ground storage tank — is regulated by State Fire Marshall and only permitted in Industrial District c. Delete requirement for conditional use permit for minimum lot area/dwelling unit in the RM-2 zoning district—is regulated through zoning district classification (RM-2) d. Planned Use Development Ordinance e. C-5, delete trailer parks, wrecking yards, bottled gas from use list f. Delete reference to handicapped parking provisions — reference current ILL Accessibility Code g. Delete Conservancy Overly District � Amendments to the Municipal Code a. Define minor permit (i.e., fence, shed, driveway, pool, etc.). Reference Table 19 in Zoning Ordinance b. Minor permit duration. Work must be started within ninety (90) days or a letter of extension is required. c. Move driveway regulations to off-street parking and loading section in Zoning Ordinance. (Technical specifications will be moved to the technical appendix of the new Subdivision Control Ordinance, cross references will be made to Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Control Ordinance for clarity). d. Cross reference double frontage lots regarding fences and pools (from Zoning Ordinance) e. Change fence to barrier with regard to installing pools f. Amend ordinance section on writing citations to allow inspectors to reference any section when writing citations g. Raise fines for violations Director af Community Development Napolitano stated Staff is seeking direction and suggested review by a Committee of the Whole might make the project more manageable. It was the consensus of the Committee to break the project down into four manageable sections and work with the Planning and Zoning Commission to update and revise the Zoning � Ordinance and 1�'Iunicipal Codes. Community Development Committee Meeting July 15, 2003 Page 7 `' Other Business A brief discussion ensued regarding allowing a wider apron for a 3-car garage than currently permitted. Adiournment Motion by Condon, seconded by Peterson, to adjourn the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Voting Aye: Wimmer, Peterson, Condon. Voting Nay: None. Absent: Glab. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, � r,,�' !C� `��� � Richard W. Wimmer, Chai an � �