Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 5/19/2003 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Monday,May 19, 2003 Aldermen Conference Room at 6:30 p.m. � In Attendance: Chairman Alderman Wimmer, Alderman Glab (arrived at 6:38 p.m.), Alderman Peterson, Alderman Condon. Absent: None. Also in attendance: Director of Community Development Napolitano, City Administrator M�einer, Assistant City Administrator Lockerby, City Planner Martin and City Clerk Jones. Also in attendance: Alderrnan Bolger, Alderman Low, City Engineers Scott Smith of SEC, Inc, John Smith of SEC, Inc., Carl Moon of Baxter& Woodman Members of the Public in attendance: John Howell, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission arrived at 7:05 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alderman Wimmer at 6:35 p.m. Chairman Wimmer informed those in attendance the discussion regarding formation of an Aesthetics Cc�mmittee would be postponed pending the arrival of Mr. Howell, who was unavoidably detained. Alderman Glab arrived at 6:38 p.m. Comurehensive Transnortation Studv Director of Community Development Napolitano informed the Committee that in November �„ 2002 the City of McHenry received word it was awarded an Illinois Tomorrow Grant for the preparation of a Comprehensive Traffic Study. He stated the Illinois Tomorrow Grant Program provides money to local governments for the preparation of transportation studies incorporating elements to reduce traffic congestion, incorporating transportation issues into land use decisions and fostering intergovernmental cooperation. Funding is a 90/10 local match, meaning the grant provides 90% of the funds and the City must provide the balance of 10%. The Study has been budgeted at $125,000 and the City would receive $112,500. Director Napolitano informed the Committee the Illinois Department of Transportation ("IDOT") held a meeting in January 2003 at which time they introduced the grant recipients to the program and explained the grant process and procedures as follows: • The grant is not a lump sum grant. The City will not receive a check in the amount of $112,500. Instead, the City will be reimbursed for eligible costs associated with the project, up to the grant amount. • Prior to reimbursement for any work on the project, the City of McHenry and IDOT must enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement. IDOT has provided the City with their standard form. The form must be executed by the City and IDOT. • The Intergovernmental Agreement requires a scope of services. While the City could develop the Scope internally, IDOT suggested a consultant be selected since the consultant would be more knowledgeable on the items to be included in the project. • Use of a consultant requires approval from IDOT. IDOT has provided a sample letter � and indicated they have almost never denied a City's choice of consultant. Cornmunity Development Committee Meeting May 19, 2003 Page 2 `-- • IDOT indicated the Agreement between the City of McHenry and IDOT could be complf�ted in three months or less. However, no reimbursable work could occur until an Agreernent is signed. Director Napalitano informed the Committee the first step in proceeding with the project is the selection of a qualified Transportation Engineering firm to perform the study. Staff has prepared a Request for Qualifications ("RFQ") to enable interested candidates an opportunity to submit their qualifications. Director Napolitano indicated the RFQ provides a description of the project, identifies some of the transportation issues facing the City and specifies what the City expects to receive as a result of the project. If the language in the RFQ is acceptable to the Committee it would be presented to Council for permission to send it out to various firms. Upon receipt of the RFQ's from interested firms the City would conduct interviews and select a final candidate. The choice of a final candidate would be brought to Council for approval and work could begin. Director Napolitano noted the deadline on the Grant is July 2004, but an e�rtension process is available. He informed the Committee the funds are currently available from the State of Illinois and cannot be allocated to another project. Responding to Alderman Condon's inquiry Director Napolitano stated the process for collecting data would take from six to nine months. Chairman Alderman Wimmer opined with two City Engineering firms available he doesn't believe the services of a consultant are necessary. Director Napolitano stated the matter was � brought to the Committee to encourage comments and a decision regarding which option to utilize. Alderman Glab opined the Comprehensive Transportation Study should be performed by a qualified local firm, which is familiar with the traffic issues in the community. Additionally, he stated a decision should be made tonight regarding formation of a Committee. A discussion ensued regarding formation of a Committee and who should be invited to sit on the Committee. It was suggested, should a Committee be formed, representatives from both the Public Works Department and Community Development Department should be included. Responding to Alderman Peterson's inquiry, City Administrator Maxeiner stated Transportation Studies have been conducted at the request of the City by large developers, at their expense, but no Comprehensive Traffic Study has been conducted by the City of McHenry. Responding to Alderman Condon's inquiry, John Smith, principal of SEC, stated SEC is a local engineering firm and is experienced having performed numerous traffic studies. Motion by Glab, seconded by Condon, to recommend to Council the utilization of a local transportation engineering firm for the Comprehensive Traffic Study. All ayes. Motion carried. Discussion Regardin�Formation of an Aesthetics Committee Director Napolitano iterated that at the March 31, 2003 City Council meeting Council directed � Staff to obtain information on the creation of an Aesthetics Committee for consideration by the Community Development Committee. The suggestion for an Aesthetics Committee originated with the Planning and Zoning Commission in an effort to improve the overall appearance of the City and obtain greater aesthetic control over new development. Community Development Committee Meeting May 19, 2003 Page 3 �- Director Napolitano noted Staff researched how other communities address aesthetics, including: • How many communities have adopted aesthetic controls • What �esign aspects are regulated • What steps are involved in the design review process • The pr��s and cons of aesthetics regulation Director Napolitano informed the Committee the information obtained by Staff is in accordance with a survey done by a professor at the University of Cincinnati, conducted in 1992, which was provided to 7()0 planning departments across the United States. The return rate on the survey was 52%. The survey in�iicates from 1980 through 1989 almost 50% of communities had some type of design review process or regulations in place. Since 1990 onlyl2% had regulations in place. However 22% of the communities surveyed were in the process of adopting regulations. It was noted aesthetics controls were originally targeted for historic areas but expanded to other areas of communities. Historic area aesthetic controls have been upheld in the Courts, however, other areas of aesthetic regulation have been challenged. The Courts have generally indicated acceptance of aesthetic controls in two areas: 1. Areas where the local ordinances require compatibility of new projects with existing development; and 2. Ordinances that require distinctiveness, targeted towards preventing monotonous `.. development. In outlining the positive aspects of an Aesthetic Committee Director Napolitano stated it would include additional input in the appearance of the Community, as well as the ability to provide design assistance to those lacking resources. Currently, Staff has attempted to provide assistance with every conditional use permit, variance or annexation that the City reviews. Due to the necessity of Council's approval of these types of matters the City has leverage and is in a better position to require enhanced aesthetics. Director Napolitano opined possible negative aspects to consider might be: • The increased time burden placed on applicants for issues that currently do not require any special review; • The Planning and Zoning Commission, which has expressed a desire to review aesthetic issues has cases scheduled through July 10, 2003. Their workload may increase significantly resulting in more frequent and longer meetings; and • Lega1 issues resulting from too drastic a pursuit in regulating aesthetics. Staff suggested the refinement of existing ordinances to make cunent regulations more design- oriented be considered. John Howell arrived at 7:05 p.m. � Mr. Howell, ('hairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, stated he envisions the Aesthetics Committee as an entity which enhances and expands the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission. He opined McHenry would benefit by management of the appearance of Community Development Committee Meeting May 19, 2003 Page 4 `— the overall cornmunity. Mr. Howell informed the Committee some of the functions provided by the Aesthetics Committee might be in new projects evaluation and acting in an advocacy role dealing with existing businesses in the community. Mr. Howell stated Committee status would provide legitimacy in any efforts regarding the role of aesthetics in the community. Alderman Bolger complimented the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission and expressed his concerns regarding additional burden on the staff of the Community Development Department should the Aesthetics Committee be formed. Alderman Glab opined an additional Committee would delay the process, overburden Staff and defeat the purpose of combining the Planning and Zoning Commissions enacted last year. Alderman Glab suggested the Planning and Zoning Commission work with Staff in the Community Development Department in an effort to refine the current regulations. Alderman Condon concurred. It was the consensus of the Committee that the Planning and Zoning Commission work with Staff in the Community Development Department to review the applicable ordinances, providing recommendations for refinement of regulations to the Community Development Committee at a future meeting. Other Business There was no other business for the Committee to consider. � Adjournment Motion by Glab, seconded by Peterson, to adjourn the meeting at 7:23 p.m. Voting Aye: Glab, Wimmer, Peterson, Condon. Voting iVay: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, �, J uy G(,�,`L.✓,�..�---+ Richard W. Wimmer, Chairman �