HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/30/2002 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, January 30,2002
Aldermen Conference Room 3:30 p.m.
� In Attendance: Alderman Glab, Alderman Low, Alderman Wimmer, Alderman Bolger,
Mayor Althoff, Director of Community Development Napolitano, City Clerk Jones, City
Administrator Lobaito,Andrew Weiland (Northwest Herald).
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alderman Wimmer at 3:30 p.m.
Unincorporated Tracts of Land within the City
Mayor Althoff noted there are numerous pockets of property located within the City of
McHenry. She noted the current City policy has been to not forcibly annex these properties. She
noted Director Napolitano has identified several of these parcels on a chart distributed with the
meetings Agenda Packets. She suggested the City reconsider its policy regarding forced
annexations. The properties in question receive the benefits of the City such as snowplowing,
refuse collecticro services, etc. without having to pay municipal taxes. In addition, these property
owners do not: have to comply with City ordinances, such as burning. Discussion occurred
regarding the difficulties policing these properties when they are not subject to City ordinances.
Mayor Althoff noted Parcels A,B,D,M and R should be eliminated from consideration as they
are greater than 60 acres in size, and thus eliminated from potential forced annexation. City
Administrator Lobaito stated the City may wish to postpone discussions regarding
unincorporated, vacant areas as the City may have more leverage when the parcel developer
comes before the City for development. Director Community Development Napolitano
concurred with City Administrator Lobaito. Lengthy discussion occurred regarding the larger
� parcels and the advisability of contacting property owners even though forcible anne�tion was
not a possibility.
It was the consensus of the Committee that each property owner should be offered an
opportunity to annex of their own accord prior to the City forcibly annexing the properties.
Director Napolitano provided input regarding the potential annexation of each of the listed
pazcels:
A 80 acres No
B 60 acres No
C 50.1 acres ?—vacant; existing environmental concerns
D 111.9 acres No
E 1 acre Yes
F 14.5 acres Yes
G 56.8 acres Yes
H 23.1 acres ?—vacant; currently agricultural
I 30.7 acres Yes—although sunounded by McHenry, McCullom Lake&Johnsburg
J 37.3 acres No—
K 4 acres No—
L 1.1 acres Yes
M 136.7 acres No
N 2.7 acres Yes
O 4.5 acres No—potential for re-development is great
P 2.1 acres ?—may be subject to terms of Busch-Knox Annexation Agreement
� Q 4 acres ?—may be subject to terms of Busch-Knox Annexation Agreement
R 142.3 acres No
S 10 acres No—good potential for re-development
Community Development Committee
January 30, 20Q2
Page 2
�
City Administrator noted the inherent problems and concerns that go hand in hand with annexing
existing residential subdivisions, i.e. drainage, infrastructure, substandard roadways, etc. In
response to Alderman Gla.b's inquiry, City Administrator Lobaito stated the City would have
more control in bringing in newly annexed parcels through the terms of annexation agreement, as
opposed to for<<ibly annexing vacant gazcels at this time.
It was the consensus of the Committee Staff send out letters inviting the owners of Parcels
E,F,G,I,L and N to annex to the City grior to formal proceedings to forcibly annex these
properties. Additionally, letters should be sent to the owners of Parcels P and Q, if not prohibited
due to the terms of an existing Annexation Agreement. The property owners would be grantea a
90-day window to respond at which time Staff would report the results to the Committee.
Discussion foltowed regazding the possibility of variances being granted by the County in
properties not currently within the corporate limits but situated within 1.5 miles of the City
boundary. Staff noted if Public Hearings are held, the City would be notified in advance, and
would then send a representative to monitor the proceedings and report back to Council.
Zoning Ordinance Teact Amendments
Directar Napolitano summarized each of the following items that a.re classified as general
Zoning Ordinance cleanup:
1) P�65_Article III A., Establishment of Districts: This referenced the creatian of the RS 1-A
� District which was previously adopted. The Ordinance should be amended to include this
District. Committee recommended te�change as described.
2) P�_66 Article III, Section E Regulation of Floodplain La.nds• This Section should
reference Chapter 8 of the Municipal Code, last revised by MC-92-579.Committee
recommended text change as described.
3) Pg 67, Article III. Section 1, Spacing of Service Stations• 'Fhe Zoning Ordinance
currently specifies no service station may be placed within 600' of a.n existing station.
Staff is suggesting this be eliminated as a service station would require the granting of a
conditional use which would require Council approval. Discussion ensued regarding the
advisability of eliminating this Section of the Ordinance. Committee consensus to teave
AS 13.
4) Pg 118. Article V, Group I, Additional Conditional Uses in G2 and Hi�her Numbered
Commercial Districts: The Zoning Ordinance currently requires a conditional use for any
type of drive-through facility. The question being raised is should a conditional use
permit be required if the proposed location is surrounded by nan-residential uses.
Director Napolitano noted there is leverage such as stacking requirements, landscape
screening requirements, etc. which would still be met. Committee eonsensus to teave as
is.
5) .P�153. Article VI, Group U Conditional Uses in I-1 Industrial Districts• It is Staff s
recommendation to remove several uses from the Conditional Use list itemized in Group
LJ as they are inappropriate for the City even with the gr�nting of a conditional t�se, Staff
suggested removal of the following from Group U:
Ahatt�ir� �r Sl�i�ghterhni�Ce�; acici mar�tifact»re; arsen�aa�ls; cren�te
�`�' manufac#ure; dumping or reduction of garbage, dead animals, offal, or
refi�re, inclt�c�Lr�g r�cycling �ent�rs; fat r�nc�erir�g:, feec�; flot�r at�cl grain
stor�ge; fertilizer manufacture; foundries; manufacture af clay, coal coke
' Community Dcvelopment Committee
January 30, 2002
Page 3
� and tar products; ore reduction; petroleum or coal ail processing or
refining; rubber, natural or synthetic, manufacture or manufacture of
cao utchoud or gutta percha; salt works; sauerkraut manufacture; smelters;
soap manufacture; stock yards or slaughterhouses; tallow, grease or lard
manufacture; tanning, curing or storage of rawhides or skins; tar
distillation; transfer stations, solid waste; utilization or storage of over 5
pounds of detonable materials; wrecking yards.
Discussion followed regazding the advisability of eliminating these uses from Group U.
Committee recommendation to remove these uses subject to Staff confirmation they
are carrentiy not being done in the City and verification of what is meant by "ore
reduction".
6) Pg 16g., Article VII, Section 4, Surfacin�of Parkin�Areas• The City's Municipal Code
requires that a11 parking surfaces be paved. The City's Zoning Ordinance is in conflict
with the Municipal Code in that it currently permits crushed gravel. Discussion ensued
regarding the City's current limitations or lack thereof for paved surfaces permitted in
various zoning districts. Staff will investigate potential limiting of paved surfaces and
ways in which this could be administratively accomplished. Committee
recommendation to remove crus6ed gravel as permitted parking surface.
7) Pg 250-251, Article X Section y Decks Patios and Porches• Director Napolitano stated
there is currently no clear definition of decks, patios and porches, nor are the restrictions
clarified as to the perniitted loca.tion, size, setback, etc. of these accessory uses. It is
Staff's intent to clarify the allowable parameters, setbacks, definitions of these uses and
� incorporate this language into the Zoning Ordinance. Committee recommendation to
direct Staff to clarify the Accessory Use Section of the Ordinance.
8) Pg 254, Article X, Table 19, Pennitted Obstructions of Required Yazds• Director
Napolitano noted in Table 19 a garage could currently be located in the front yard. He
opined this was a typographical enor and suggested the "X" should be remaved from the
column"All Yards" in Table 19. Committee recommendation to remove the garage as
permitted accessory use in front yard.
Motion by Low, seconded by Wimmer, to recommend to the City Council to direct Staff that all
dociunentation be prepared and that a Public Hearing before the Zoning Boazd of Appeals be
held to review the proposed amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance as stated.
Voting Aye: Glab, Low, Wimmer.
Voting �iay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Building Permit Plan Reviews by Outside Consultant
Director Napolitano reported in 2001 the City contracted with B & F Technical Service to assist
with plan reviews due to the large volume of building permits received, in conjunction with Staff
turnover at that time. The City bore the cost of this expense.
In an effort to be proactive in the event tbere is once again a large volume of building permits
submitted, Uirector Napolitano suggested offering the building permit applicants the option of
�' having City Staff review the plans, or paying the cost for pernut review and having the plans
reviewed by an outside source. B &F Technical Service guarantees a two-week tumaround time.
City Staf� on the other hand, would review the plans on a f�rst-come first-served basis. Director
�
• Community Development Committee
Januaiy 3Q, 2002
Page 4
� Napolitano stated it would most likely be applicants with commercial building plans who would
utilize this typ�;Qf service.
Alderman Low expressed concern if the review is not turned around within the stated two-week
time frame. Director Napolitano stated the City would contract with the service. The City would
ultimately be responsible for the permit and glan review process.
In response to Alderman Glab's inquiry, Director Napolitano suggested the City require the
establishment of a retained personnel account when an applicant chooses to utilize an out-
sourcing service for plan review process. In this way the City would be paid directly for these
services. The applicant would be required to maintain a certain minimal amount on accaunt.
Motion by Glab, seconded by Low, to recommend the implementation of an optional Pay for
Review Building Permit Application Process, to include the deposit of retained personnel monies
to assure the City's reimbursement for fees paid for such services, and that the applicants be
permitted to choose to have the City review the plans at no cost (in the typical f�rst-come first-
served manner) or having the plans reviewed by an outside source at a predetermined fee payable
by the applicant (to pmvide for a ma�mum two-week turnaround process).
Voting Aye: Glab, Low, Wimmer.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
�
Dartmoor Bridge Aesthetics
Director Napalitano stated he has identified six possible solutions to provide aesthetic
improvements to the Dartmoor Drive Bridge:
1) Cut down the existing structure
2) Create a covered bridge (least feasible option)
3) Install a faux stone covering (guestimate cost of$100,000)
4) Install brick columns at each end
5) Paint a design on the structure(could present maintenance problems)
6) Install anodized aluminum rails/tubing.
Director Napolitano noted he cannot deternune the actual cost for each one of the proposed
options. Discussion followed regazding renderings provided by Director Napolitano as suggested
by the six possible options. The consensus of the Committee was the installation of brick
columns at each end of the bridge structure was the best option, both aesthetically and
financially. Director Napolitano stated he would seek cost estimates andlor proposals for options
#4 and#6.
Staff was directed to seek the estimates and/or proposals and report back to the Committee.
Additionally, at Mayar Aithoi�s suggestion, the Committee could discuss the implementation of
a.n Aesthetics Committee at that time.
New Business
� Alderman Glab expressed his displeasure with vazious signs in the rights-of-way. Director
Napolitano voiced the policing problems with enforcing the removal and prohibition of signs
erected in the right-of-way. Discussion followed regazding ways to notify the residents of the
.
� Community Development Committee
Ja�uary 3Q, 20Q2
Page 5
� prohibition of signs in the public right-of-way. City Administrator Lobaito stated this matter
should go before Council for specific direction if there is to be any ordinance change
contemplated. Currently, the Community Development Department polices these roadside signs
and removes them during regular office hours, Monday through Friday. If additiona.l policing is
required after hours and/or on weekends, this direction should come from Council, as there
would be an added expense due to the overtime involved.
I# was suggest�.d a press release be prepared regarding the installation of illegal signs. Reference
should also be included in the City's Newsletter advising the illegality of the erection of these
signs.
Chairman Wimmer noted enforcement and second notices mailed regarding the Vehicle Sticker
Ordinance are causing some problems. He opined the ordinance should be amended as it
currently requires licensing of vehicles registered to a City address whether or not the vehicles
are being housed within the City. Chairman Wimmer urged the City to revisit this ordinance
prior to the new vehicle sticker year which commences May ls`.
Mayor Althoff noted the vehicle sticker ordinance was amended in May 2000 when it was
changed to cover all vehicles re istered to an address within the City as opposed to vehicles
housed in the City. In response to an inquiry, City Administrator Lobaita noted the revenues
realized from the vehicle sticker ordinance are statutorily limited as to the manner in which they
can be spent.
�...
It was the consensus of the Committee to suggest to Council the vehicle sticker ordinance be re-
examined.
Motion by Glab, seconded by Low,to adjourn the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
Voting Aye: Glab, Low, Wimmer.
Vating Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
Resgectfuiiy submitted, ,,
:, ,
�-�����'�U
Ric azd W. Wi mmer, C u�man
�