Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/09/2002 COW minutesII. III. IV. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Mike Blue, Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels, Building Division Inspector Nick Licari, Fire Marshal Paul Valentine, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from March 26, 2002. Trustee Hoefert requested several revisions regarding the Minutes and the description of the Village Hall project and asked that the approval of the Minutes be deferred until the revision is provided. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS Community Development Director Bill Cooney summarized the staff research that he has obtained from other communities. This information was requested based on the frequency of requests for Variations that have come before the Village Board recently. He highlighted the fact that several towns approach shed regulations similar to Mount Prospect where the maximum square footage is used as the determining factor for administrative regulation. He also highlighted that several communities utilize a formula for maximum shed size computed on the property size and other accessory structures on the site. He also stated that a review of the market place has shown that there are sheds available within the parameters that Mount Prospect utilizes for shed regulations. He stated the formula for computing maximum size is more complex and would require additional staff explanation and generate larger sheds depending on the property size. He also suggested that if the formula were to be used, then there could be the opportunity to create a band of various property sizes (based on square footage) unique to various shed sizes. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was support expressed for considering an increase in the overall shed size compared to what is currently regulated. There was also discussion regarding the need to make the regulation easy to administer and maintain the required setback for larger sheds. There was a concern that with the larger shed sizes, there could be additional requests before the Board for Variations to allow such larger sheds on limited property that would necessitate encroachment in the setbacks. There were comments made regarding the need to keep the size of the shed below a typical garage size. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an increase in the size but gather input from the Planning and Zoning Commission with guidance from the Village Board considering the larger sizes based on property square footage and maintenance of the setbacks. Walter Feder, 808 Lancaster, spoke. He would suggest the Board consider reducing the setback based on the size of the shed. Doug Doughty, 1431 Blackhawk, spoke. He stated that he has a larger shed and would not want to take stock what was available in the market place as a basis for determination of what size is appropriate. He also wanted to point out that usage of sheds does change over time and the Village would not eliminate all Variation requests with a proposed change. V. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS Village Manager Janonis introduced the topic by stating this has been a three- year process and the goal was to make the Code much more understandable and user-friendly. He also hoped that the revisions would make the Code more equitable for application since the Code does touch on several Departments at all times. Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof provided a general overview to the Village Board regarding the revision process and what changes were made. He said many of the changes were necessitated through staff review of the process and some changes were made through additional staff. He stated one of the main goals for changes for the Code over time was to reduce the turn-around time and confusion by users of the Code. He stated that 90% of the changes could be categorized as organizational in nature and the Code has been separated into two sections; one for site improvements and the other for site construction standards for better application. He also stated that much of the content changes are reflective of new materials and standard practices and would like to complete the process prior to the construction season for this year. 2 VI. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was general support for the proposed changes, however, there were some concerns raised regarding the Permit process turn-around time. There was also a question regarding the lawn sprinkler regulations. Several Board members also asked what the process has been for these changes; whether input has been obtained from the developers into the Code changes. Chuck Lindelof stated that there were comments that were included from various developers. REVISIT SIDEWALK INSPECTOR PROGRAM Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the options for the Sidewalk Inspector were originally intended as a proactive process to supplement the self-initiated inspections currently undertaken by Inspectors along with the complaint investigation process. He stated that such a program would require additional staff and he felt that the program could be undertaken with less than a full-time staff person. He stated that the program would be used as an early warning inspection before larger problems are noticed. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: An issue was raised regarding the need to be proactive in inspections to protect the property value and neighborhood value. There was some concern regarding excessive governmental intervention in such a program. There were also concerns raised about what standards would be utilized and how such standards would be defined for application in the inspection process itself. There was a concern raised about this project reappearing after a previous discussion by the Village Board. It was noted that the housing stock is getting older and there could be some opportunity for addressing issues before they become much larger to resolve. Walter Feder, 808 Lancaster, spoke. He was concerned about postal delivery people cutting across yards and killing the grass instead of using the sidewalk. Dale Barbara Draznin, 220 South Hatlen, spoke. She stated that the Board should consider the necessary standards to be considered with the help and safety as the primary concern for the residents. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to continue to develop this concept and return to the Village Board with cost and development of inspection standards for review as part of the Mid-Year Budget discussion. 3 Vii. USE OF DRiViT FOR CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL IN MOUNT PROSPECT Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the use of this material has been problematic in some areas of the country due to water damage and durability. He stated the installation of the material has been determined as the root cause for the water infiltration. Improper installation causes the water to be trapped behind the material as the water eats away at the structural material of a building. He stated that there have been some improvements to the material where a drainage system has been developed to allow the water to filter out from underneath the material if it does penetrate the exterior. He stated the Village currently has no regulations on the application of the material. Building Division Inspector Nick Licari spoke. He stated there are two different types of systems currently available, which have been developed due to the litigation that has taken place due to the damage from water infiltration behind the material. He stated one opportunity that could be considered is a third party inspection to ensure the installation is properly done and paid for by the developer and the material would have to be applied in such a way for the water to get out if it, in fact, did get behind the material. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: Several members stated they do not have confidence in the product and felt it should be banned as a material for use in the Village. There was also concern raised that an Inspector would have to be on site the entire time of installation to ensure proper installation. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to consider possible liability exposure by the Village if banned as a building material based on research that would be undertaken by the Village Attorney. VIII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis reminded the Village Board of the upcoming Coffee with Council on April 13 and this meeting would be the last Floating Coffee with Council and would take place at Fire Station 12 from 10:30 a.m. until 12:00 noon, once the initial meeting was completed at the Village Hall from 9:00 a.m. until 10:15 a.m. He also wanted to remind everyone that April 20 was the Welcome New Resident event from 9:00 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. 4 X. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert suggested the Board consider a discussion regarding garage conversions to living space and consideration whether such conversion should be allowed with the likelihood that another garage would not be constructed on properties of a specific size. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider this as a future Committee of the Whole topic. Several members of the Village Board expressed regret at the recent resignation of Deputy Community Development Director Michael Blue since he recently accepted a new position at the City of Highland Park as the Director of Community Development. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 5