LICENSE, PERMITS & FRANCHISE COMMITTEE
JANUARY 13, 2009
A meeting of the License, Permits & Franchise Committee of the City of Palos
Heights was held on January 13, 2008 at City Hall, 7607 W. College Drive, Palos
Heights, Il. Present were Aldermen McGrogan, Fulkerson, Kramarski and Building
Commissioner Dougherty. Ald. Basso was absent. There being a quorum, the meeting
was called to order at 7 p.m. by Chairman McGrogan.
Approval of Minutes Ald. Kramarski moved to approve the minutes of the December 9,
2008 meeting, seconded by Ald. Fulkerson and the motion carried.
Permit Summary Report
The report was submitted for review. Residents are
continuing to do things to improve their homes.
Elevator Inspection Program This is a clean-up item in order to comply with the OSFM
(Office of the State Fire Marshall) Elevator Safety
Program. It will be brought to the city council for formal approval of the agreement and
adoption of the appropriate codes. Ald. Fulkerson so moved, seconded by Ald.
Kramarski and the motion carried. (Council agenda)
Escrow Accounts
Information is needed from Morris Eng. on escrow
accounts regarding engineering fees. There would be a
change whereby exact amounts would be billed and subsequent escrows eliminated.
There would be a flat fee for residential projects and a percentage based on improvements
for commercial. Morris is suggesting $950 for residential and 2% or 2 ½% percent of the
cost of improvements for commercial. This would reduce paperwork and be efficient.
Real Estate Signage
Reference was made to Ordinance 93.40 (A) (2) which
allows for a 9 sq ft “for sale” or “for rent” sign on a tract of
real estate containing less than one acre. The recommendation is to amend the ordinance
to allow real estate signage for commercial properties to be 32 sq ft (approximately 4 X 8
ft). There have been several such requests. Hopefully this amendment could be adopted
at the next council meeting. This would be for signs on posts outside the building and not
in windows.
Motion: Ald. Kramarski moved to amend the sign ordinance accordingly, seconded by
Ald. Fulkerson and the motion carried. (Council agenda to draft, waive the
rules and adopt.)
Damage/Nuisance and Landscape Bonds
There are currently two separate bonds and
it would be easier to incorporate both into one. Mr. Dougherty suggests one bond be
required which would cover all aspects of landscaping, including repair of any damage
within the ROW; and the amount of the bond be as set forth in the existing code for
Landscape Performance Bond, with an amendment for a lesser amount of $100-$1,000,
as determined by the Building Commissioner, for projects of lesser scope than a home-
1
construction project. Ald. Fulkerson asked why the amount shouldn’t continue to be
$5,000. Mr. Dougherty stated Damage/Nuisance is $100 to $5,000 and Landscape is
$1,000 for individual lots and $5,000 for commercial. The reason is because neither
bond has ever had a claim against it. It’s redundant to collect two separate cash bonds.
He’s looking to delete 150.46 BOND AMOUNT and roll it into 150.126 (B) Performance
bond under landscaping—call it a landscape bond—and that will also cover the ROW. It
would be $1,000 for individual lots and $5,000 for commercial. If we have that premise,
he can work with the attorney in drafting the ordinance. Ald. McGrogan suggested
simply deleting 150.46 and go with the other.
Motion:
Ald. Fulkerson moved to delete 150.46 and leave everything else written
as is, seconded by Ald. Kramarski and the motion carried. (Council
agenda)
Building/Zoning Code Amendments As of 7/1/02 all municipalities are required to
forward to the Illinois Building Commission
a description of any proposed change to our Building and/or Zoning Codes, which
regulate any construction related activities with 30-days notice required prior to adoption.
This is “housecleaning” information. Less than half of Illinois municipalities have
complied. This information is for research info only and the Public Act is not currently
being enforced.
Contractor’s Packet
An extensive handout packet prepared to answer contractors’
questions regarding the permitting process was presented for
committee review.
Business License Report
Total amount invoiced for 2009 is $75,420. Total amount
paid as of 1/8/09 is $61,612.50.
Vehicle Sticker Report
Through 1/12/09, the city has collected $201,535 which
represents 9558 stickers.
There’s a moratorium on these signs and currently
there are no active applications. Opinions are
mixed as to whether any new ones should be allowed, or whether we should address
what should be required. Ald. Basso would want to be part of this process. Information
provided by the building commissioner, including a draft ordinance, was reviewed and
deferred to the next meeting.
Electronic Message Board Signs
Ord. #150.60 Exterior Walls Regarding Subsection #501.2.2 Exterior Walls, Mr.
Dougherty stated our existing building code calls for solid
masonry construction or steel column and beam construction…. Some commercial
buildings in town, such as the offices on Ridgeland near 127th, are stick frame
construction. They were built in such a manner that they comply with the structural
requirements of the IBC. It has nothing to do with the exterior façade of the building.
Technically those building were built outside of our local code. They are structurally
2
sound and safe. They meet the IBC minimum structural requirements. It’s before the
committee because we have the IBC in place and it spells out the minimum structural
requirements of a building. It may not necessarily be solid masonry or steel beams and
columns depending on structural load. That’s why architects must put their seal on the
plans. The one-story office buildings are safe and compliant, but in violation of our local
code. Therefore, he’s asking to have the ordinance deleted from the code that requires
full masonry or steel beam and column construction and let the IBC determine the
structural requirements.
Ald. McGrogan stated other nearby communities go with the IBC. We could
keep our existing ordinance which is the stricter one, but if we go with the IBC as Orland
does because they require a sprinkler system in the building, then the developer has a
choice. The building has to be engineered. We aren’t lessening the structural integrity of
the building. Mr. Dougherty stated the NFPA Life Safety Code requires fire alarms and
sprinkler systems and they took them out in 2009 and it hasn’t been adopted yet by
municipalities, but that new code does call for all commercial buildings to be fully
alarmed and sprinkled. He would suggest fire alarms also be included and it will be
discussed at the next meeting.
Ald. Kramarski asked whether that means Toby’s would be in compliance with
the IBC Code regarding plastics. Mr. Dougherty replied we are talking about structural
and its aluminum steel that’s holding it up. It has nothing to do with the outside material
which is this other code. The actual structure will be aluminum framing. It was designed
and sealed by a structural engineer saying the structure can withhold external wind and
weight loads. We have a local ordinance for tents. The IBC has an ordinance for
temporary structures. He will bring the NFPA Code, which is fire alarms and sprinklers,
to this committee next month. One of his recommendations would be that all new
commercial buildings be alarmed and sprinkled. It’s a different issue than the IBC. The
IBC tells you how to make a structure minimally sound. We don’t need a local ordinance
that supersedes it. Architects will do that if they need to. Fire alarms and sprinklers are
safety issues and that’s the Life Safety Code which will be brought up next month.
Ald. Kramarski asked what’s in the current code pertaining to fire and sprinkler
systems. Does it go before the fire department for approval before coming to the building
department or vice versa? Mr. Dougherty stated the city council adopted the NFPA 2006
because that’s the code the Palos Heights Fire District adopted. Palos Park Fire District
has NFPA 2000 and will be adopting the 2006 code shortly. We have both on our books
and then both districts will be the same. Ald. Kramarski asked what commercial
buildings currently are required to have sprinkling systems. Mr. Dougherty replied fire
alarms are required for 12,000 sq ft or more and sprinkler systems are required for over
20,000 sq ft. Smaller buildings would not be required to have a fire alarm or sprinkler
system under NFPA 2006. It could be amended to include “any new commercial
buildings”.
Ald. Kramarski asked what safety requirements our code includes for a restaurant
that’s in the center of a shopping center. Mr. Dougherty replied NFPA 2006 is currently
3
the applicable code. Ald. Kramarski asked about someone opening a restaurant in the
center of an existing building. Mr. Dougherty assumes it’s the same as many codes
which is that the only time you must install something that’s not already there is if there
will be remodeling and the cost is 50% of the value of the building. Then you are
required to use all codes.
Ord. 150.74 Exterior Surfaces
This section addresses 60% masonry materials.
Recommendations were presented. Ald. McGrogan agrees that as long as the 60%
masonry requirement is in the ordinance, you must come to the city for approval and that
costs time and money. Ald. Kramarski suggested the ordinance be clarified because she
understood it applied only to new home construction and not renovation or remodeling.
Ald. McGrogan was told it is for residential only. Ald. Kramarski thought commercial
was even more stringent. Mr. Dougherty stated it’s all a matter of clarity. Are additions
and replacements required to meet the requirement? Garages are an example. If
someone builds a two-car garage and his house is 60% brick, must the garage be 60%
brick. The aldermen all had different answers. He doesn’t know the answer and the
ordinance should give us the answer. Ald. Kramarski agrees it needs to be clarified. She
has always assumed that a garage can be built of any material. Mr. Dougherty stated
maybe that’s the way it should be, but this ordinance needs to be clear. If you want 100%
face brick on a commercial building, that’s what this ordinance should say.
Ald. McGrogan agrees. If it’s perceived that the aldermen are trying to cheapen
things or take chances with safety, that’s not their intention. The reason for making these
changes is to simplify and correct conflicting or outdated ordinances. Some things have
been identified and corrected, but there are more. Mr. Dougherty stated with commercial
exterior surfaces, the code reads masonry and brick, and we may want to make our choice
of materials more explicit. Technically, you could have a cement commercial building,
but that may not be what the aldermen want to see along Harlem Avenue. If you want
face brick, that’s what the ordinance should say. Ald. McGrogan suggested the
committee think through this further. There are nuances that need to be addressed. The
guidelines should at least be modified regarding building exteriors.
Comments from Residents
Mr. Pasquinelli, 12210 Cheyenne Drive referred to the 4 X
8 ft “for rent or lease” signs discussed earlier. Would they
be single or double-faced and is the intent to elevate it above the window sign? Where
will it go? Ald. McGrogan stated the property owner will identify the best place for the
sign, but it can’t obscure traffic. Mr. Dougherty stated if it’s along Harlem, it would have
to be put on the window.
Mr. Pasquinelli stated the ordinance regarding the percentage of brick is very
clear. It says every structure. How unclear is that? The discussion has been to ease up
on it. Let’s talk about additions and detached buildings, but currently our ordinance is
very clear and certain in its terms. He was at the meeting when the 60% was adopted.
Ald. McGrogan stated the ordinance isn’t current.
4
Regarding exterior walls, we are opening a Pandora’s Box with going to the IBC.
What precipitated this anyway? Somebody came up with a tent addition with a
fraudulent permit and now are we trying to change the ordinance so he complies? Why is
it necessary now to talk about exterior walls? Ald. McGrogan stated times change and
there are new products and regulations. Mr. Pasquinelli stated we have standards in our
community. We don’t want that plastic material in our town. Ald. McGrogan stated no
vote has been taken. There are many commercial properties and this is not an exteriorappearance issue or structural that anyone sees. Mr. Pasquinelli stated it’s structurally
sound by the IBC, but this plastic material is not. Mr. Dougherty stated Mr. Pasquinelli is
referred to the appearance of the building from the outside and that’s a separate issue.
Mr. Pasquinelli stated there ordinances that control. The problem with adopting the IBC
is that you open the door to what’s acceptable, and possibly engineering-wise it is, but
this is Palos Heights. Ald. McGrogan stated the committee isn’t acting quickly and is
trying to think of every possible situation. Brick on the exterior walls was just mentioned
and that’s why they didn’t call for a recommendation for council. They want to do it
right. Mr. Pasquinelli agrees ordinances should be brought up for change if the aldermen
don’t like them, but what would we change to?
Tom Stuchly, 6721 Golfview stated the ordinance for 60% outside masonry on
home construction doesn’t need to be changed. It’s been in effect since 1989 and many
homes have been built since then. He agrees with having full fire protection systems—
alarms, sprinkling and fire walls in every commercial building regardless of its size. That
should be done as quickly as possible.
Brian Howe, 12213 Harold is here to find out who is responsible for enforcing the
minimum property maintenance code and what the guidelines are in determining the
amount of time to make the repairs? The property at 12233 Harold has been in disrepair
for some time. He first contacted the code enforcement officer on October 23, 2008. He
took pictures and said there were problems there he needed to address. There has been
no follow up. It went on until December and the building commissioner was then
involved. Apparently the absentee property owner is dictating when he will make these
repairs. Why isn’t there a minimum amount of time to comply? If the owner dictates
when the repairs will be made, there’s a hole in the ordinance. Ald. McGrogan replied
when the city attorney goes to court with these nuisance violations, the property owner
appears with his attorney more than once. He spoke with the building commissioner and
code enforcement officer about a remedy.
Mr. Howe stated the code doesn’t have a time frame and that needs to be
addressed. Secondly, the city needs to follow that code. The code enforcement officer
verbally contacted these people and the code says the first contact should be in writing.
This owner has had various violations. The court would probably address it differently
with an absentee owner as opposed to the actual owner who is attempting to make repairs
and needs additional time. There were pictures taken of rotting railing on the front porch.
The ordinance may need to be refined.
5
Mr. Dougherty met the homeowner and code enforcement officer on site. The
homeowner was not dictating the repair time-frame. There were some rotting poles and
perhaps some rodent infestation and they were repaired immediately. As far as scraping
and painting, there was snow on the ground. He was given some deadlines. Mr. Howe
referred to a note from the property owner to Mr. Dougherty dated 12/16/08 discussing
the site. Was there any inspection of this property at the end of the year. Mr. Dougherty
would have to check with the books in the office. Ald. McGrogan stated the code
enforcement officer doesn’t work for the building commissioner and he deals with other
things as well. He answers to the city administrator.
Steve Derkacy sent the committee an e-mail commending the committee for
taking the building slowdown as an opportunity to review the ordinances in general and
he appreciates their review. Since the house was built at 120th & Oak Park Avenue,
which is behind his property, he addressed the council about the rear-yard setback on that
house. The ordinance calls for a 25-ft rear-yard setback which was ignored on that plan.
It doesn’t have a rear yard per se. If it does, it’s to the north which is on the side of the
house. There was confusion as to what the ordinance calls for on corner lots. Our
ordinance says there are two front yards which is confusing language. He would like the
committee to review that portion of the zoning code and change the wording to
something more like a “front yard with a corner side yard”. When that ordinance was
written many years ago, he thinks it was done to prevent people from storing things in
their front yard and to keep a certain appearance on the corner lots. Basically they were
saying your corner-side yard would be treated as a front yard. He would like to see the
ordinance clarified or rewritten where every house on a corner would have a front, rear,
side and corner-side yard.
Mr. Derkacy’s point with the e-mail is that Tom Brown responded to Mayor Straz
that with two front yards, obviously you have two side yards. Mr. Derkacy then told
Tom that behind every front yard there are obviously two rear yards. Mr. Dougherty
stated everyone will agree that there should be a revision, but it belongs with the P&Z
committee. Ald. McGrogan agreed. Since that’s the official interpretation from the city
attorney, Mr. Derkacy wonders whether it would be honored if he asked for two side-yard
setbacks to build on a corner lot. He also stated in most surrounding communities new
commercial buildings are required to have fire alarm and sprinklers if over approximately
1200 sq ft. It’s not as great as 20,000 sq ft. Ald. McGrogan agreed it might be smart to
require it in any commercial property. Mr. Derkacy expounded further on fire alarm
requirements and the involvement of the fire department and building department.
Due to time restraints, Ald. McGrogan suggested setting up a meeting to further
discuss those issues.
Adjourn:
Ald. Kramarski moved to adjourn at 8:18 p.m., seconded by Ald.
McGrogan and the motion carried.
Beverly A. Larson
6