Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 5/22/2002 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday,May 22,2002 Aldermen Conference Roam 3:30 p.m. �. In Attenda�cc�: Alderman Glab, Alderman Low, Alderman Wimmer, Mayor Althoff, Director of Co mmuruty Development Napolitano, City Clerk Jones, Assistant City Administrator Lockerby. Residents in Attendance: Diane Kinder Mary Crow Gordon Hall John T'hornton The meeting w�as called to order by Chairman Alderman Wimmer at 3:41 p.m, Vehicle Sticker Ordinance Alderman Wimmer iterated at the February 11, 2002 Council meeting Staff was directed to review the existing vehicle sticker ordinance. The review was initiated subseguent to complaints from some residents ha.ving vehicles registered to a McHenry address, but housed out of state and never used in the City limits, objecting to having to pay for a City sticker. Director of Community Development Napolitano explained the City most recently looked into this issue in July 2000 and the langua.ge was revised at that time to simplify the enforcement process for the Police Department. Director Napolitano noted information was accumulated &om the surrounding communities of Crystal Lake, Cary and Island Lake and the current language was developed. He opined the current language is the most fair and easiest to enforce � as it is difficult to draft language to address every situation. Alderman Glab expressed his concerns regarding enforceability if the language in the Ordinance was altered, expressing reluctance to change the current Ordinance prior to establishing better language for the Ordinance. A lengthy discussio�. ensued regazding the benefit of vehicle stieker revenue to the City and the issues of enforcement, It was the consensus of the Committee to request Police Chief O'Meara explore alternative language in an effort to simplify the Vehicle Sticker Ordinance and not impact enforceability. Alderman Glab suggested the information be accumulated and provided to Council prior to the June 3, 2002 meeting. Building Permit Fee� Director of Cummunity Development Napolitano stated last summer the Council directed the Community Development Committee to review the current building permit fee structure. The Building Pernut fees were last evaluated in 1494. Director Napolitano noted given inflation and the cost of personnel to review and perform inspections, it is appropriate to comprehensively evaluate fees. Residential Fees Director Napolitano noted McHenry's fees when compared to nine other nearby communities are nearly the lowest charged for the majority of projects. As an overali policy, Staff would suggest keeping the fees for cammon projects done by homeowners, such a� decks and sheds, �. at a reasonabte rate. However, some adjustments are necessary, and this is based on the average amount charged by the nine other communities for various proje�ts, as follows: Community Development Committee Meeting May 22, 2002 Page 2 � Residential Fses-Comparison McHenry McHenry TYqe Current Fee Avs� fee Prouosed Fee New Construction 0.18/sf. 0.37/SF 0.25/SF AdditioNRemodel 0.18/sf. 0.33/SF 0.25/SF Deck $22.50 $30.10 $25.00 Fence $10.00 $21.50 $20.00 Shed 0.10/SF$10 min. 0.27/SF $20.00 Driveway $10.00 $29.90 $20.U0 Garage-Att./Det. 0.15/SF 0.06✓SF 0.151SF(no change) Pools-In-Ground $75.00 $81.88 $75.00(no change) Pools-Above-Ground $15.00 $39.90 $30.00 Antenna/Sat. Dish $15.00 $37.50 $30.00 Central Air $22.50 $34.61 $25.00 Furnace $22.50 $46.50 $25.00 Fireplace $22.50 $63.50 $50.00 Electricallnstall/Upgrade $22.50 $67.94 $50.00 Windaw/Door Replac. $22.50 $35.42 $25.b0 Siding $10.00 $21.11 $20.00 Re-Roof $22.50 $30.20 $25.p0 Lawn Sprinkler $22.50 $63.04 $30.00 SeweNWater Repair $22.50 $32.30 $25.00 Demolition $100.00 $112.78 $100.00(no change) Raising/Shoring $15.00 $127.14 $50.Q0 Commercial Fees Director Napolitano stated McHenry's commercial building permit fees when cornpared to nine � other communities aze neaz the middle for the majority of projects.Staff would suggest keeping the fees reasonable so tha.t economic development and business retention/expansion are not hindered. Again, some adjustments are necessary, and this is based on the average amount charged for vazious projects, as follows: CommereiAl Fe�.c-Comusrison McHenry McHenry Type Currerrt Fee Ava Fee Proaosed Fee New ConstruCtion $225 first 200 SF 0.34/SF $250 first 200 5F 0.06/SF,201to20,000 SF 0.08/SF,201 to 20,000 0.03/SF 20,001 SF/over 0.05fSF 20,0001 SF/over Addition/Remodel 0.18/sf. ($45 min.) 0.17/SF 0.18�ISF($50 min., $10,000 max.) Site Development $37.5U $293.70 $50.00 Gazebo/Deck $45.00 $67.00 $50.00 Fence $10.00 $37.22 $25.00 Sign-Non-Illuminatet! $25.00 $37.50 $37.50 Sign-Itluminated $50.00 $46.88 $50.00(no change) Sign-Temporary $30.00 $31.88 $30.00(no change) AwninglCanopy $45.00 $42.75 $45.00(no change) Driveway $45.00 $40.62 $45.00(no change) Elevator $110.00 $77.80 $110.00(no change) Antenna/Sat. Dish $37.50 $54.12 $50.00 Central Air $45.00 $52.50 $50.00 Furnace $45.00 $54.17 $50.00 Electricallnstall/Upgrade $45.00 $108.33 $75.00 Window/Door Replac. $45.00 $35.00 $45.Q0(no change) Siding $45.00 $43.00 $45.00(no change) Re-Roof $45.00 $51.67 $50.00 Lawn Sprinkler $45.00 $79.00 $50.00 �.- SewerlWater Repair $45.00 $44.00 $45.00(no change) Demolition $200.00 $158.25 $200.00(no change) Raising/Shoring $15.00 $144.33 $50.00 Fire ProtectioNSprinkler $110.00 $139.17 $125.00 Community Development Committee Meeting May 22, 2002 Page 3 � Plumbing Inspection Fees Presently, the City contracts out with a State-licensed plumber to perform plan reviews and plumbing inspe�ctions. Fees are passed on to pernut applicants and aze as follows: NEW CONSTRUCTION: Sin 1�e Familv Dwellin,.g: $8p TwaFamilv or Mulfinle Familv Dwelling: $60 per unit, plus$20 per building Non-Residential Building: $175 plus $1.50 for each plumbing fixture ADDITIONS/REMODELING: Residential: $40 plus $1.50 for each plumbing fixture Non-�esidential: $70 plus $1.50 for each plumbing fixture RE-INSPECTION FEE: $20 for each Residential re-inspection $35 for each Nai-Residential re-inspection Due to increases in overhead and staff, our plumbing consultant will be raising his fees by � approximately$5 per inspection, resulting in a change as follows: NEW CONSTRUCTION: Single Familv Dwelling: �100 Two-Family or Multiple Familv Dwellin�: $75 per unit, plus$25 per building Non-Residential BuildinQ: $200 plus $1.50 for each plumbing fixture ADDITIONS/REMODELING: Residential: $50 plus $1.50 for each plumbing fixture Non-Residential: $80 plus $1.50 for each plumbing fixture RE-INSPECITON FEE: $25 for each Residential r�inspection $40 for each Nan-Residential re-inspectian In conclusion, Director Napolitano informed the Committee in order to change these fees an amendment to the Municipal Code is required. Chairman Alderma.n Wimmer opined the fees were reasona.ble, complimenting Director Napolitano on the concise information provided to the Committee. Director Napolitano � informed the Committee Inspector I Jason Lee's participation was crucial to the compilation and preparation of t he fee schedule. Alderman Low and Alderman Glab concwrred with Chairman Alderman Wimmer. Community Development Committee Meeting May 22, 2002 Page 4 � Motion by Glab, seconded by Low, recommending Council approve the adjustment of Building Permit Fees as presented. All ayes. Motion carried. Parking for Restaurants Director of Community Development Napolitano noted for several yeazs developers have contended the c�ity's parking requirements for restaurants aze excessive. The desire to reduce the amount of impervious surface on developed sites has prompted Staff to evaluate the City's current parking requirements to determine if a change is needed. Director Napolitano stated 20 spaces per 1,000 squaze feet of floor area in a restaurant is currently required. Staff conducted a survey of existing parking use at various restaurants in the City. The survey revealed in ma.ny instances, over 50% of available parking spaces, at existing restaurants, are unused during the busiest times. Staff researched parking requirements at 17 nearby communities. Only twa of the 17 municipalities have requirements as high as McHenry: Lakemoor and McHenry County. Three have requirements that are half of McHenry's, 10 per 1,000 sf. The remainder of the municipalities base their parking on a combination of square footage and employees, or on the number of seats in the restaurant. Staff is recommending a reduction to 15 spaces per 1,000 sf., which is a 25% reduction � from current lev�ls. Director Napolitano noted to change the language in the Zoning Ordinanee, a Public Hearing must be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. If approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission an Ordinance would be brought before Council for approval. Responding to Alderman Glab's inquiry Director Napolitano stated 5 to 6 stacking spaces would be typical, and assured Alderman Glab the stacking requirements would be reviewed by Staff. Mayor Althoff concurred with a proposed reduction in required pa.rking spaces. A lengthy discussion ensued regazding seating capacity versus square footage as the criteria for determining the number of required parking spaces. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Staff to accumulate daia and present examples of seating capacity versus square footage at the next Community Development Committee meeting. Lot Coverage Director Napolitano stated at the January 30, 2002 Commuruty Development Committee Meeting, Alderman Glab requested Staff research the existing Zoning Ordinance to determine if a lot coverage requirement is necessary. Alderman Gla.b's concern is that a property owner could pave over their entire front yard and the City has no regulation to prevent this from happening. �-' Directoi• Napolitano informed the Committee currently the only requirements in the City's Zoning Ordinance relating to lot coverage are in the RM-1 and RM-2 Residential Districts, and ir.Article X, Accessory Uses and Structures: Community Development Committee Meeting May 22, 2002 Page 5 `-- • RM-1 and RM-2 have a requirement that the minimum percent of the net site area that can be�zncovered(not covered by buildings) is 73%. • Article X, Accessory Structures, states the maximum coverage of all accessory structures in the re;ar yards is 35%. Staffreviewed the Zoning Ordinances of nine other McHenry County communities. Five of the nine have a maximum lot coverage requirement, In all cases the maximum amount of lat coverage allowed varied, based on the size of the lot. Director Napolitano advised the five communities that have a maximum lot coverage requirement a11 define it as "the area of a lot covered by the principal building and accessory buildings." There is no mention of other impervious surfaces such as driveways, patios or sidewalks. Director Napolitano stated if it is the City's desire to limit the amount of impervious swface on a residential lot, a more encompassing definition will be needed. Director Napolitano noted there are disadvantages to implementing a maximum lot coverage requirement: ■ Additional Staff review time necessary to calculate lot coverage on permit applications. ■ Residents would be required to have an up-to-date survey indicating all improvements on the property to enable Staff to perform the review. Cost of preparation of a new survey would be borne by the homeowner. � A discussion followed regarding aesthetics and staf�`tng requirements to monitor lot coverage. It was the consensus of the Committee to direct Staff to develop appropriate language and definition which would limit lot coverage in each zoning district. Director Napolitano assured Alderman Glab he would also explore set back issues. New Business Residents of Silbury Court informed the committee of concems regazding the likel�ood of overcrowding in some single-family residences in the neighborhood. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the process the City must follow to ascertain if a violation exists and the legalities involved in rectifying the ma.tter, including violations of zoning orciinances, fire laws and the impact of overcrowding in neighborhoods. Mayor Althoff departed at 5:05 p.m. Alderman Low departed at 5:20 p.m. It was the consensus of the committee to discuss the issues of overcrowding at a future Community Development Committee meeting. � Community Development Committee Meeting May 22, 2002 Page 6 �. Adjournment Motion by Gla1�, seconded by Wimmer, to adjourn the meeting at 5:25 p.m, Voting Aye: Glab, Wimmer. Voting LVay: None. Absent: Low. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, i� � 7 ,/ Richazd W. Wimmer, Cha' � '`..