Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 8/28/2002 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday,August 28, 2002 Atdermen Conference Room 3:30 p.m. � In Attendance: Alderman Glab, Alderman Low, Alderma.n Wimmer, Mayor Althoff, Director of Community Development Napolitano, Mayor Althoff, Deputy Clerk Kunzer. Absent: City Clerk Jones City Clerk Jon�s arrived at 3:40 p.m., Deputy Clerk Kunzer departed at 3:40 p.m. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alderman Wimmer at 3:30 p.m. Municipal Code Amendments Director of Community Development Napolitano reported at the Community Development Committee meeting held on June 26, 2002 various inconsistencies in the Municipal Code were discussed. Because consensus could not be reached regarding the issues of Fencing and Burning, these items were deferred. (a) Fences Director of Community Development Napolitano addressed the Committee regarding fence variance issues. Director Napolitano stated based upon the number of variances granted by Council it was suggested by Alderman Murgatroyd tha.t the Committee discuss eliminating the need for a variance for certain residential fences located in corner side yards. Currently, a fence in a corner side yard must meet a setback of at least 15', limiting the amount of yard a resident ma.y enclose. It is Staffls recommendation to pernut construction of a fence up to 6' in height in a corner side yard, with a minimum set back of 5' from the lot line, but only on lots that have � abutting rear yards. Staf�observes no significant impact to vehicular or pedestrian sight lines if the amendment is approved. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding aesthetics. Chairman Wimmer opined Council is spending a lot of time looking at variances that could be addressed by Staff with the passage of an ordinance. Supporting Chairman Wimmer, Alderman Low stated her confidence in the professionalism of Staff and feels modification of the existing fence ordinance is constructive. Motion by Low, seconded by Wimmer, to recommend to Council the elimination of the requirement of a variance for the installation of fences up to 6' in height in corner side yards, with a minimum setback of 5' from the lot line, on lots that have abutting rear yards. Voting Aye: Low, Wimmer. Voting Nay: Glab. Absent: None Motion carried. (b) Burning—Bonfire Permits Director Napolitano noted currently all bonfires must meet specific criteria, according to the ordinance, and issuance of a special permit must be obtained from Council. Because the criteria is spec�c, oflen residents requesting a bonfire permit are unable to rneet deadlines for appearing on the City Council agenda. Staff suggests the requirement for Council review be reconsidered �' as Staff can easily process the requests over the counter eliminating review by City Council. Community Development Committee Meeting August 28, 2002 Page 2 �. Chairman Ald�rman Wimmer stated all information and guidelines are indicated on the application. Alderman Glar expressed concerns regarding enforcement. Alderman Low stated enforcement and approval of each application are separate issues; opining it is unnecessary for Council to review each application. Alderman Low requested City Clerk Jones assemble a list of bonfire applications, approved to date,and include the information in a Friday Report. City Clerk Jones agreed to do so. Motion by Low, seconded by Wimmer, to recommend to Council that Staff prepare an Ordinance eliminating the requirement that City Council approve all bonfire permits within the City limits, and instead have bonfire applications reviewed and approved by Stai� Voting Aye: Low, Wimmer. Voting Nay: Glab. Absent: None Motion carried. Parking Requirements for Restaurants Director of Community Development iterated at its June 26, 2002 Community Development Committee meeting the Committee was unable to reach consensus relating to restaurant pazking and drive-through stacking requirements. The item was therefore deferred. �. a) Parking Repuirement. Director Napolitano stated existing pazking requirements for a restaurant are 20 spaces per 1,000 square feet. It is Stai�s recommendation the requirement be reduced to 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet. Research of surrounding communities indicates the use of seating capacity to deternune required parking. At the June 26, 2002 meeting the Committee requested Staff provide additional information comparing existing restaurants in the City using seating capacity and square footage. Director Napolitano noted, as an exa.mple, the City of Crystal Lake uses 1 space per 3 seats, plus 1 space for every two employees on the largest shift. A compazison of existing restaurants was conducted in McHenry, and based upon the compazison; Staff recommends a requirement of 15 spaces per 1,000 square feet be implemented. Director Napolitano noted required parking using this calculation is similar to the required parking using seating capacity, with the exception of larger restaurants. A discussion ensued regarding conformity. Alderman Low expressed concern with reducing the number of parking spaces required noting none of the restaurants in the survey have an over abundance of parking available. It was the consensus of the Committee to recommend Staff bring a policy to Council, which includes issues related to large restaurants. `' b) Stackin•3 During the course of discussions on restaurant pa.rking the Committee requested requirements for drive-thru stacking spaces be reviewed. Director Napolitano noted currently the City requires 5 Community Development Committee Meeting August 28, 20�2 Page 3 `-- stacking spaces before a drive-thru window irrespective of the use. Staff contacted other communities and requirements varied as follows: Algonquin: No standard(reviewed on a case-by-case basis) C�'y: 6 spaces before a drive-thru window Crystal Lake: 5 spaces before a drive-thru window Lake in the Hills: 10 spaces before a drive-thru window McHenry: 5 spaces before a drive-thru window Director Napolitano stated a drive-thru requires a conditional use permit, giving Staf� the Planning and 7.oning Commission, and Council an opportunity to review the site plan. Staff recommends no cha.nges to the drive-thru requirements at this time. It was the cons�;nsus of the Committee that no changes are made to the drive-thru requirements. Mayor Althoffdeparted at 4:30 p.m Dartmoor Bridge Aesthetics Director of Community Development Napolitano iterated in Januazy 2002 the Committee reviewed proposed sketches for enhancing the appeazance of the Dartmoor Drive bridge over Boone Creek and instructed Staff to obtain additional information regarding cost, feasibility and maintenance. Director Napolitano summarized three enhancement options. � l. Brick Column at each end, with decorative cap and brick design along the bridge faces. • Feasibitity. Due to the necessary foundation work to support the brick adding real brick is not a feasible option. Staff has identified a product called PermaCrete. PermaCrete is a material applied over the surface of concrete and can be colored and finished to resemble brick, tile or stone. • Maintenance. Lasts 10 years. Durable and can be repaired. • Cost. Approximately$7.00 per square foot($16,000 for both sides of the bridge). 2. Metal Railing on the top, metal design along bridge faces and plant hangers. • Feasibility. Installation would pose no unusual concerns. Projection of the design elements on the wall could pose a hazard to pedestrian or bicyclist. • Maintena.nce. Regular painting of the steel would be required to prevent rust. Regular cost would be incurred for plarns and maintenance of plant material. • Cost. $5,655 per side, $11,300 total per quote from Adams Steel. 3. Rough Stone finish along bridge faces. • Feasibility. Due to the necessary foundation work to support the stone and other installation concerns, it is not a feasible option. PermaCrete is a material option �vhich is also available for this type of finish. • Maintenance. Lasts 10 years. Durable and can be repaired. • (;ost. Approximately$7.00 per square foot($16,000 for both sides ofthe bridge). �.. Director Napolitano informed the Committee Staff has obtained quotes for cutting down the bridge, 2' on th�: north side and 1' on the south side. Excluding disposal of the concrete the cost would be approYimately$4,500. Community Development Comrnittee Meeting August 28, 20f►2 Page 4 � Director Napolitano noted no specific budget has been discussed for this particular project. He opined for the cost of$20,000 the bridge could be transformed. Firm quotes would be obtained once a spec�c option has been selected. Responding to Alderman Low's inquiry Director Napolitano stated PermaCrete has a history of durability and is laiown to be easy to clean. Chairman Aldernian Wimmer recommended the project be inserted in the ranking system for the CIP for 2003/2004. Motion by Glab, seconded by Low, to recommend Council consider Dartmoor Bridge enhancements, in an amount not to exceed $25,000, to be included in the Capital Improvement Plan for the fiscal yeaz 2003/2004. Voting.Aye: Glab, Low, Wimmer. Voting Nay: Nane. Absent: None Motion carried. Lot Coverage Director Napolitano stated the topic of lot coverage was first discussed at the May 22, 2002 Committee meeting. The Committee directed Staff to obtain some examples of lot coverage and � develop suggested percentages for consideration. Staff performed a survey and evaluated five random addresses, calculating the existing lot coverage in each single-family zoning district, with the exception of E or RS-la lots, as there are none develvped in the City. The survey included all impermeable surfaces on a lot, including driveways, patios, sidewalks, swimming pools and sheds. It should be noted the smaller the lot the larger the lot coverage. Based upon the results of the survey Staff provided suggestions for lot coverage should the Committee decide to move forwazd with a change. Director Napolitano noted a disadvantage to implementing maximum lot coverage is the additional Staff review time necessary to calculate lot coverage on permit applications. A,nother disadvantage would be residents would be required to submit an up to date survey, at their expense, indicating all improvements to the property for Staff to perform a review. Additionally, Director Napolitano stated the Department currently does not review or issue permits for a patio or sidewalk. Initia.tion of total lot coverage requirements would require review of these iterns. He noted the Community Development Department currently issues a permit for a driveway extension. Director Napolitano stated if the Committee's desire is to prevent a homeowner from paving their entire front yazd, the following rnight be more viable options: • Establis)i a limit on the number of outside parking spaces allowed on a residential lot • Do not permit recreationa.l vehicles to be pazked outside � • Establish a maximum size for driveway extensions. Current space size is 9' x 18'. • Establisli a lot coverage requirement for front yard only, such as 45% of the yard. Community Development Committee Meeting August 28, 20(12 Page 5 � Chairman Alderman Wimmer opined a Lot Coverage Ordinance would be a burden on Staff and he could not support a maximum lot coverage limit. He stated it is not right to dictate coverage requirements to a property owner. T'he only reasonable option would be to establish lot coverage requirements for the front yard only. Alderman Glab suggested a percentage of lot coverage per zoning district. Responding to Alderman Glab's concerns relative to drainage issues, Director Napolitano stated a co-efficient is used to determine drainage requirements for detention. It was the co nsensus of the Committee to direct Staff to research setbacks on driveway extensions as the impact would be considerably less than if a totallot coverage requirement were established. New Business Alderman Glab requested the Committee address concerns, at a future meeting, about signage rema.ining on commercial premises following closure of a business. Chairman Wimmer opined the landlord nught be required to display a blank panel on the sign following a tenant's displacement. Alderman Low noted on Route 31, past the roller rink, someone has laundry strung out across a clothesline across the front yard. � Alderman Glab inquired if Conditional Use can be passed on from business to business. Adjournment Motion by Glab, seconded by Low,to adjourn the meeting at 5:30 p.m. Voting Aye: Glab, Low, Wimmer. Voting Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. Respect lly submitted, �`��' ��/� �,�--.� Richazd W. Wimmer, Chairman �