McHenry Times

City of Woodstock Plan Commission met July 21.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

A regular meeting of the Woodstock Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Cody Sheriff at 7:00PM, in the Council Chambers at Woodstock City Hall.

A roll call was taken.

PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Arturo Flores, Rick Bellairs, Doreen Paluch, Richard Ryan, Jackie Speciale, and Chairman Cody Sheriff.

PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Gavers

STAFF PRESENT: Building and Zoning Director Joe Napolitano, City Planner Darrell Moore, City Attorney TJ Clifton, and City Clerk Cindy Smiley.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA

Motion by Paluch, second by Bellairs, to approve the Agenda as presented.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: Flores, Bellairs, Paluch, Ryan, Speciale, and Chairman Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: Gavers. Motion carried.

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES

Motion by Paluch, second by Bellairs, to accept the minutes of the June 16, 2022 Plan Commission meeting as presented.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: Flores, Bellairs, Paluch, Ryan, Speciale, and Chairman Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: Gavers. Motion carried.

1. PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no comments forthcoming from the Public.

2. NEW BUSINESS

a) Public Hearing – Zoning Map Amendment to B3 Service and Retail District, upon annexations, and variations to allow the continued use of existing buildings and structures. Petitioner: City of Woodstock

Chairman Sheriff stated this is a Public Hearing to consider recommending approval of a zoning map amendment to B3 and Retail District, upon annexation, to allow the continued use of existing buildings and structures for property located at 2020 S. Eastwood Drive.

A roll call was taken.

PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Arturo Flores, Rick Bellairs, Doreen Paluch, Richard Ryan, Jackie Speciale, and Chairman Cody Sheriff.

PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Gavers

Chairman Sheriff noted the presence of a quorum.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, Mr. Napolitano confirmed the Public Hearing was properly noticed.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:03PM.

Mr. Napolitano noted the City is the Petitioner and that the property owner is present to answer questions.

Mr. Napolitano stated the City has been looking at unincorporated properties surrounded by the City noting this is the last such property on Rt. 47 north of Rt. 14. He stated Staff has been working with the owners on a preliminary annexation agreement. He stated the first step in the annexation process is to approve the rezoning noting the intent is to have as little impact on the business as possible. Mr. Napolitano stated B3 is the most appropriate district and accommodates this business.

Mr. Napolitano stated within the B3 District there are certain variations that will be necessary to accommodate existing buildings and structures, including setback variations, parking variations, and screening. He noted many businesses in this area do not meet the parking requirements and the parking and buildings at this business have been existing for many years. Mr. Napolitano stated there are a few items being stored at the rear of the site and it is difficult to see them from the street, but a screening variation is being requested. He stated the requested variations will have little impact on neighboring businesses and Staff is recommending approval to allow the site to remain as is.

Chairman Sheriff opened the floor to comments and questions from the Commission.

In response to questions from Commissioner Bellairs, the property owner confirmed the widening of Rt. 47 will likely change the setback. Mr. Napolitano stated the requested setback variation will accommodate things now but there may be things in the future that are beyond the City’s control. He opined there is adequate area on the property to accommodate additional parking.

There were no comments or questions from Commissioners Ryan or Flores.

In response to a question from Commissioner Paluch, Mr. Napolitano stated there will be no neighbor in the area behind the property.

In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale, Mr. Napolitano stated the requested actions will help the property owner should he wish to sell the property, explaining nonconformities in more detail.

Chairman Sheriff stated this is a unique situation related to the rezoning and these are existing structures with a hardship not created by the property owner.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, there was no public comment.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, there was no further discussion from the Commission. Motion by Paluch, second by Speciale, to recommend that a Zoning Map Amendment to B3 Service and Retail District be approved upon annexation of property located at 2020 S. Eastwood Drive, noting the request meets the approval criteria listed in Section 4.3.6 of the Unified Development Ordinance in accordance with the findings included in the Staff Report.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: Flores, Bellairs, Paluch, Ryan, Speciale, and Chairman Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: Gavers. Motion carried.

Motion by Paluch, second by Speciale to recommend approval of the following Variations from the Unified Development Ordinance, noting the request meets the approval criteria listed in Section 4.5.7 of the Unified Development Ordinance, in accordance with the findings included in the Staff Report:

a) South Side Yard Building Setback from 10’ to 9.1’

b) Number of Parking Spaces from 24 to 15

c) Parking Setback, Front Yard from 30’ to 2’ and Side Yard (north) from 10’ to 3.5’

d) Parking Surface to allow gravel over a portion of the parking lot

e) Screening Requirements for Outside Storage

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: Flores, Bellairs, Paluch, Ryan, Speciale, and Chairman Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: Gavers. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing was closed at 7:14PM.

b) Public Hearing: Zoning Text Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance.

Petitioner: City of Woodstock

Chairman Sheriff stated this is a Public Hearing to consider recommending approval of zoning text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance.

A roll call was taken.

PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Arturo Flores, Rick Bellairs, Doreen Paluch, Richard Ryan, Jackie Speciale, and Chairman Cody Sheriff.

PLAN COMMISSION MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Gavers

Chairman Sheriff noted the presence of a quorum.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, Mr. Napolitano confirmed the Public Hearing was properly noticed.

The Public Hearing was opened at 7:15PM.

Mr. Napolitano reviewed potential changes to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), starting this presentation is to start the discussion and solicit feedback from the Commission. He stated the areas to be reviewed involve signage and Special Use Permits.

Electronic Message Dwell Time

Mr. Napolitano stated the City has received some comments and complaints regarding the length of time messages appear on electronic message boards. He reminded the Commission that this was looked at a couple of years ago at which time it was reduced to 10 seconds between messages, noting now Staff is hearing people feel this is too long. Providing information on the past research done on this subject, he stated the most common times are 6 to 18 seconds with a low of 3 seconds and a high of 15. Mr. Napolitano stated Staff is recommending lowering the dwell time to 6 seconds. He stated research done to determine if this causes a hazard found that it does not.

In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale regarding the amount of information on a sign, Mr. Napolitano stated the issue becomes readability noting he has not found anything related to this. Commissioner Speciale stated she does not think there is an importance between 6 and 8 seconds.

In response to a question from Commissioner Paluch, Mr. Napolitano stated the complaints have come from consumers. Commissioner Paluch stated if the businesses are content with the number and sequence, she does not think it matters. She opined there are people who are content with the current time stating she wonders if this calls for a change. Commissioner Paluch opined this should be driven by what the sign owners think, suggesting a survey of the owners.

Mr. Napolitano stated there are 8 such signs in Woodstock.

Chairman Sheriff stated he does not have an issue with 6 seconds opining another option would be to allow the business owners to decide.

Noting there does not seem to be much research on the subject, Commission Ryan stated he would support the Commission’s decision.

Commissioner Flores concurred it does not make much difference.

Commissioner Bellairs opined if there are only 8 such signs whether the timing is 6 or 8 seconds would not matter. He noted the City sign has more information including phone numbers and web sites and is more off the road than most businesses. He stated he does not feel 6 or 10 seconds matter.

Stating there is no action required this evening, Mr. Napolitano suggested the Commission members look at these signs in town and in other communities also.

Commissioner Speciale supported getting the reaction of the business owners, which was supported by other Commission members. Chairman Sheriff agreed this matter can wait until input can be solicited from the business owners.

Temporary Signs

Mr. Napolitano stated other proposed changes relate to temporary signs. He stated the City gets a lot of questions about what is allowed, and the current regulations are confusing to administer. He then made a PowerPoint presentation on temporary signs noting that the focus of the discussion will be on temporary signs on non-residential private property that currently requires a permit. He noted the presentation would provide information and depictions on the four temporary sign types of signs currently allowed, and information regarding location, duration, size, height and illumination. Staff’s issues and concerns with the current language for each type of sign will be identified and proposed changes would be discussed.

Establishment Location Signs

Mr. Napolitano first discussed Establishment Location Signs. There are two types: Future Location and Temporary Identification signs.

Future Location Signs.

Regarding duration, he stated Staff is proposing keeping the language as is for the six-month period with possibility of renewal with the sign taken down when the Certificate of Occupancy issued. Regarding size and height, he showed depictions of various types of signs highlighting the difference between 32 sq.ft. and 64 sq.ft. signs. Regarding illumination, he noted no other communities allow illumination.

Chairman Sheriff, Commissioner Paluch, and Commissioner Flores were supportive of Mr. Napolitano’s recommendations. Commissioner Ryan opined 32 ft. size is more than adequate with Commissioner Speciale opining either 32 or 64 ft. makes sense, depending on size of the property. Mr. Napolitano confirmed Staff could look at the size of the property and decide between 32 and 64 ft. Commissioner Bellairs suggested using road frontage to determine the size between 32 and 64 ft.

Temporary Identification Signs

Regarding Temporary Identification Signs, Mr. Napolitano explained these are temporary signs that are put up prior to the business getting its permanent sign. He provided information on the current regulations and the following suggested changes:

• Duration to remain the same.

• Prefer consistent size and height, but open to leaving as-is (same as allowed for permanent sign).

Commissioner discussion ensued. In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale, Mr. Napolitano confirmed this is a placeholder for a permanent sign. Commissioner Bellairs suggested the term be until the permanent sign is installed with Commissioner Paluch supporting an end date, as someone could not apply for a permanent sign. In response to a question regarding illumination, Mr. Napolitano stated there are specifications for illumination in another part of the code noting illumination is now allowed. Chairman Sheriff noted if it is a placeholder for the permanent sign which has illumination he has no issue with the temporary sign being illuminated as well. There was no objection to illumination from the Commission.

Grand Opening Signs

Mr. Napolitano provided information on current regulations for Ggrand Oopening signs. He stated Staff has a concern with excessive signage as currently, a flag is allowed on up to six (6) light poles, in addition to two (2) banners – eight (8) total signs. He suggested allowing only one banner and eliminating the language allowing flags on light poles. Mr. Moore noted businesses frequently come in requesting back to-back grand opening and promotional signs. He stated the problems may not come up very often, however, as a business only has one grand opening.

Discussion on number of signs and timeframe ensued. Commissioner Speciale stated she is not comfortable determining a timeframe for such signage as she is unaware of the industry standard for the amount of time needed to attract new customers. In response to her question, Mr. Napolitano stated the City has not gathered any feedback from businesses. Commissioner Bellairs noted some businesses might want to have a grand opening month. Chairman Sheriff stated he does not see an issue with any of these regulations, noting he has not encountered a situation where he sees signage up too long. Commissioner Paluch stated she does not have a problem with the current number of signs and would like to see a 30- day duration.

Sidewalk Signs

Mr. Napolitano provided information on the current regulations for sidewalk signs noting Staff is not recommending any changes.

Commission discussion ensued with Commissioner Paluch suggesting changing the regulation requiring a sidewalk sign to be in front of the building, noting a business located around the corner just off the Square places a sidewalk sing in front of her building to which she does not object. In response to her question about whether a building owner can state another business is welcome to put a sign in front of his/her building, Mr. Moore noted as this area is the public right of away. The City can execute whatever authority deemed appropriate. He opined the number of sidewalk signs per establishment should be limited to one.

Mr. Napolitano presented examples of the types of sidewalk signs that are allowed noting they are changeable copy. Commissioner Paluch noted one frequently sees chalkboard signs stating she has no problem with these, noting if the City limits changeable copy signs, these would be restricted. Mr. Napolitano stated Staff will investigate thise further.

Mr. Napolitano stated another issue is that businesses rarely apply for the required permit for sidewalk signs, asking the Commission if it feels one is needed for this type of sign. Commissioner Paluch noted a permit is one opportunity for the City to exercise control, with City Attorney Clifton opining this is the opportunity to regulate.

Extraordinary Promotional Signs

Mr. Napolitano explained these signs, providing visual examples. He noted the blade signs are common and considered to be part of the extraordinary promotional signs. He also talked about the current regulations noting two sign types are allowed per parcel and two banners are also allowed on parking lot light poles. He stated these signs are now allowed for 60 continuous days or can be up for 4 separate occasions for a total of 60 days each year. Noting that banners on light poles are not typically requested, Mr. Napolitano suggesting eliminating this language. He asked the Commission to consider the appropriate number of signs for these special types of events. He stated comments received from businesses about duration indicate they feel they should have more opportunities to advertise special sales.

In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale, Mr. Napolitano stated the City does occasionally receive comments from the community asking why a business has so many signs or even constant signs but opined it has not been much of an issue. Commissioner Speciale pondered on the science to help a business be viable while not being offensive.

Opining extraordinary promotional signs are usually tied to holidays, Commissioner Paluch suggested retaining the 60 date total timeframe but not to limit it to a number of occasions allowing the business to focus on the timing of big events. She noted this will be the same number of days but will provide the businesses with more opportunity to use them for promotion. Mr. Moore opined some businesses would put out temporary signages 365 days per year noting the City wants to make sure this does not get out of hand. He further opined expanding the number of days probably would not be a problem. Mr. Napolitano stated perhaps a business could be issued a permit at the beginning of the year listing what they will do for the year.

In response to a question from Commissioner Ryan, Mr. Napolitano stated the City has enforced this regulation which prompted a discussion of enforcement of Commissioner Paluch’s suggestion. Commissioner Bellairs suggested getting feedback from the businesses. He opined signage becomes unsightly when it is up for months at a time. In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale, Mr. Napolitano noted there are separate regulations for civic events, noting this discussion is for businesses and private property.

The Commission agreed with Chairman Sheriff’s request that Staff come back with more options.

In response to Mr. Napolitano’s question regarding how the Commission feels about 60 days, Commissioner Speciale supported 30 days at a time but stated it would have to be determined how many 30-day time periods would be permitted. Commissioner Bellairs stated he has no problem with 90 days if other communities are allowing this.

Mr. Napolitano stated he will do more research and draft new language to bring back to the Commission at its next meeting.

Allowed and Special Use Table 7.A.4 Regarding Cannabis Businesses

Mr. Napolitano stated at this time all cannabis businesses require a Special Use Permit, asking if the Commission has any desire to allow cannabis dispensaries as permitted uses.

Chairman Sheriff supported allowing this noting there still would be standards including distance limits and where dispensaries are allowed. Noting there are other communities that allow them as permitted uses, he suggested B2, B4, and M1 Districts for dispensaries.

Commissioner Bellairs stated he has no issue with Staff’s direction.

Chairman Sheriff suggested allowing a maximum of one dispensary in the downtown because of the proximity of the train station. He stated he has no problem with allowing the other cannabis types in industrial zoning.

Commissioner Paluch asked if the discussion is to allow all cannabis businesses to be a permitted use or just dispensaries. Mr. Napolitano responded dispensaries but if the Commission wants to discuss craft growers, infusers or transporters, they can. Commissioner Paluch stated a Special Use Permit is appropriate or all but dispensaries opining a dispensary is no different than a liquor store. Commissioner Speciale agreed.

In response to a question from Chairman Sheriff, Mr. Napolitano stated he will provide the Commission with a map showing all zoning districts where this would be a permitted use.

In response to a question from Commissioner Speciale as to what would happen if the state requires something that is not permissible under other instances, Mr. Napolitano opined they would have to get a variation which would require consideration by the Commission and the City Council.

Short-Term Rentals

Mr. Napolitano stated that the City currently does not regulate short-term rentals (Air BnB’s). Recently, the owner of an existing Bed and Breakfast eEstablishment, which requires a Special Use Permit, indicated that a B&B is similar to a short-term rental and asked if the City would review the regulations. He stated he will be doing research on this and bring the issue back to the Commission for discussion.

Motion by Paluch, second by Bellairs, to continue the Public Hearing - Zoning Text Amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to the next regular Plan Commission meeting at 7:00PM on Thursday, August 18.

A roll call vote was taken. Ayes: Flores, Bellairs, Paluch, Ryan, Speciale, and Chairman Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: Gavers. Motion carried.

The Public Hearing was continued at 8:35PM.

3. OLD BUSINESS

There was no Old Business.

4. DISCUSSION

Mr. Napolitano stated there may be a storage facility on the next agenda.

He gave updates on the following:

• Cedarhurst is ready to open and will have the final inspection tomorrow.

• The Corned Beef Factory has opened.

• There are now four developers interested in the former Die Cast site.

• Staff had its kick-off meeting with the Comprehensive Plan consultant. He stated there will be a joint Plan Commission/City Council meeting with the consultant sometime in August.

5. ADJOURN

Motion by Speciale, second by Paluch, to adjourn this regular meeting of the Plan Commission to the next regular meeting at 7:00PM on Thursday, August 18, 2022 in the Council Chambers at City Hall.

Ayes: Flores, Bellairs, Paluch, Ryan, Speciale, and Chairman Sheriff. Nays: none. Abstentions: none. Absentees: Gavers. Motion carried.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:40PM.

https://www.woodstockil.gov/sites/default/files/fileattachments/plan_commission/meeting/45733/07-21-22_plan_commission_minutes.pdf