LICENSE, PERMITS & FRANCHISE COMMITTEE
December 9, 2008
A meeting of the License, Permits & Franchise Committee of the City of Palos
Heights was held at City Hall, 7607 W. College Drive, Palos Heights, Il. Present were
Aldermen McGrogan, Fulkerson, Kramarski and Basso. Also present were City
Administrator Nisavic, Building Commissioner Dougherty and Recording Assistant
Sheppard. 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
October 14, 2008 meeting, seconded by Ald. Fulkerson and
the motion carried.
Permit Summary Report
The report was reviewed.
Elevator Inspection Fees
The memo regarding Chapter 110.11 (B) defining the fee
structure for elevator inspections was reviewed. Our fee
has been $150 annually which covers two elevator inspections per year. Inasmuch as the
Elevator Inspection Service used by the city charges $80 per inspection, the intent is to
cover city costs which would also necessitate a 20% service charge increasing the fee to
$192. The ordinance was last amended on 9/05/06.
Motion:
Ald. Fulkerson moved to amend the ordinance to increase the inspection
and administrative fee to a total of $192 annually, seconded by Ald.
Kramarski and the motion carried unanimously. (Agenda)
Upon adoption by the city council, Ald. McGrogan requested Dan change the city fee
structure on the master list.
Conflicting Language Sections 10.08 and 153.10 (B) of the ordinance are in conflict.
Section 10.08 states “the provision bearing the latest passage
date shall prevail”. Section 153.10 (B) states “the regulations which are more restrictive,
or which impose higher standards or requirements, shall govern”. The Building
Commissioner’s recommendation is that the most recently passed ordinance should
prevail which is Section 10.08 General Provisions. We obviously want to follow the
most recently adopted ordinance; otherwise, why pass it?
Motion:
Ald. Fulkerson so moved to amend Section 153.10 (B) by putting a period
after the word “kind”, seconded by Ald. Kramarski.
Mr. Dougherty noted that section 153.10 (B) is part of the zoning code and any change
requires a public hearing before the Zoning Commission, a vote by the P&Z Committee
1
and the City Council. Therefore, there can be no council vote on the above motion until
the process is complete. He will have Beverly schedule a public hearing.
Commercial Buildings Exterior Walls
There is also conflicting language regarding
exterior walls. The city has followed the
International Building Code, Section 1404.3 thru 1404.10 for years. Pictures were
presented of buildings in the city constructed at varying times such as Bakers Square,
Noral and others with different exterior faces. Mr. Dougherty’s recommendation is to
continue to follow IBC Sections 1404.3 thru 1404.10 in issuing permits which has been
standard operating procedure for a number of years. Therefore, recommendation is to
delete the following from the local ordinance:
“501.2.2 EXTERIOR WALLS ALL OTHER USES: All exterior walls shall be
solid masonry construction or steel column and beam construction with a veneer
of masonry, decorative architectural concrete panels or similar materials. The
same materials shall be used for all exterior walls of a building.”
That’s what exists in the city ordinance which is not in practice on many commercial
buildings.
A copy of the IBC, Section 1404.1 thru 1404.10 MATERIALS was presented
and is the ordinance Mr. Dougherty wants to adopt. Ald. Fulkerson asked what happens
if we delete 501.2.2? Mr. Dougherty is attempting to update the local code and comply
with the IBC.
Motion:
Ald. Fulkerson moved to accept the recommendation to delete Ord.
#501.2.2, seconded by Ald. McGrogan.
Ald. Basso suggested some of the pictures presented are of remodeled buildings. Mr.
Dougherty replied the two new office buildings at Ridgeland are stick-framed exterior
wall which is not permitted per our ordinance. It should have been concrete or cinder
block with steel frame. The exterior surface is brick veneer and has nothing to do
with this ordinance. We are talking about the actual construction of the structural
members of the exterior wall. Ald. McGrogan stated the local ordinance required the
exterior wall to be brick and steel beams with a fascia board in front. We have
followed the International Building Code for years which does not require all brick and
steel beams for new commercial construction. It’s not a compromise because you still
need a certified architectural plan that the building is sound. Ald. Basso isn’t concerned
about it falling down, but he thought a requirement for brick or masonry in a
commercial building was because it’s safer. Mr. Dougherty stated obviously a
completely concrete, not cinder block, building will be stronger than a wood frame
building, but architects and structural engineers design then to hold up to localities, wind
loads, structural supports and weights. Basically, the IBC considers geographic location
and the ability to withstand snow loads, wind thrusts, etc.
2
Ald. McGrogan stated it’s difficult to explain. If we continue with Ordinance
#501.2.2, buildings would have to be masonry and steel, but there are newer buildings all
over the city that are not masonry and steel but comply with the IBC which the city
subsequently adopted. Ald. Basso stated the problem then would be how these buildings
got built and not in the ordinance we were supposed to be following. Ald. McGrogan
stated other communities follow IBC which doesn’t require masonry steel.
Mr. Dougherty stated it has nothing to do with the exterior appearance of the
building. Prime examples are these one-story office buildings with little weight load.
The cost of construction using stick-built wood frame versus masonry is probably 400%.
Their use is just offices that don’t need to be built any stronger than a house. Ald. Basso
asked whether the same rule would apply to a three-story building. Mr. Dougherty isn’t a
structural engineer, but using Trinity’s art building for example, the size of the building
and the span of the floors warrant stronger materials such as steel beams. That’s what the
architect and structural engineer determined. There are criteria that determine what a
building is made of. Ald. McGrogan suggested language could be added if that needs to
be addressed. Basically we are talking about aesthetics when they don’t have to use
concrete and steel to support the exterior walls. There are codes covering what can be
used along the perimeter versus a masonry product. If they build several levels, he
assumes an architect or engineer wouldn’t approve it because they have to follow the
code which dictates the structural requirement of that building. Mr. Dougherty stated if
it’s a commercial product, it’s unlikely it could be built that tall out of a wood exterior
wall. Ald. McGrogan believes the newer buildings that didn’t meet the masonry/steel
code are all one-story. He suggested retaining Ord. #501.2.2 to apply to any structure
greater than one-story and follow the IBC for one-story buildings. Mr. Dougherty stated
we would then need to amend the IBC. Ald. McGrogan thinks our biggest concern
would be with a two-story building. It would have to be structurally sound on the
perimeter or it wouldn’t be built. That’s covered under the IBC.
Ald. Kramarski asked about the problems with the Starbuck’s building. Mr.
Dougherty relied they weren’t following the architect’s design and got caught after a
portion of the building was poured. Ald. Fulkerson stated they didn’t put the rebar in.
They were stacking brick on top of masonry. Ald. Kramarski asked then what might
happen if the building code is relaxed. Ald. Fulkeson replied the code isn’t being
relaxed. We are following the IBC. Ald. Basso agrees we should remove any conflicts
in the ordinance, but it sounds like “if we go with masonry it will cost them more
money”. He would like our ordinances to be more restrictive than other communities.
Ald. McGrogan stated our ordinances are conflicting and the IBC is the acceptable code
in most communities. Mr. Dougherty stated the IBC lists the minimum requirements and
architects tend to beef up those specifications. It’s all about building a safe structure.
Ald. Fulkerson stated a building commissioner was hired because he understands
these things better than we do; and when he makes a recommendation we shouldn’t reject
it unless there’s an overwhelming reason to do so. The recommendation is to make this
change and he accepts it. Ald. McGrogan agrees with the motion because there are
3
conflicting ordinance. Mr. Dougherty referred to the Trinity arts building which is
constructed like Fort Knox because that’s what the engineer and architect wanted.
Ald. McGrogan called the question, seconded by Ald. Fulkerson. On roll call, the
vote was 2 affirmative (Aldermen McGrogan and Fulkerson) and 2 negative (Aldermen
Kramarski and Basso). (Agenda)
Residential Exterior Surfaces
The recommendation from staff is as follows:
It has been accepted practice that builders install the masonry product primarily
on the front side of the structure and wrap around the sides. If budgetary reason
conflict with a complete masonry structure, the builder will normally install a
complimentary building product (i.e., siding, etc);
Several years ago the City Attorney issued an opinion that “HardiBoard” is a
cement product and therefore a product which conforms to this ordinance;
Past practice has been to permit the homeowner to replace weathered exterior
product with similar product and not require conformity to this ordinance. (The
key issue is that people want to replace with like product.)
Ald. Fulkerson understands staff’s recommendation, but they don’t say what they
want this committee to do with Section 150.74 Exterior Surfaces. Do they want it
deleted? Ald. Kramarski believes the intent is to delete the highlighted section which is
“shall consist of not less than 60% masonry materials, including brick, block or
cement”. Ald. Fulkerson stated then it doesn’t make any sense. Mr. Dougherty
highlighted those words because at the last meeting which he didn’t attend there was
discussion about HardiBoard not being a masonry product. Ald. Fulkerson doesn’t think
there should be a 60% masonry requirement. He, therefore, moved to delete Section
150.74, seconded by Ald. McGrogan. It would apply to the entire city. Ald. Basso stated
there are subdivisions it wouldn’t apply to. Ald. Fulkerson stated subdivisions have
covenants that require it and it's a different issue. It shouldn’t be a requirement of the
city. Ald. Kramarski disagrees with eliminating the 60% requirement. Discussion
ensued regarding HardiBoard.
Ald. McGrogan stated the third point of the recommendation is puts the city and
people who want to remodel their older homes with like material in a bad spot. Mr.
Dougherty stated the ordinance doesn’t say what a resident does if he wants to replace a
non-masonry product. Ald. Basso suggested changing the ordinance so it’s clear for new
construction. The prior building commissioner interpreted the ordinance as being for
new construction. He put an aluminum addition on his frame house. It makes sense that
this ordinance is for new construction. Let’s change it and not eliminate the whole
concept. Discussion continued.
Ald. Fulkerson asked if he could replace the cedar siding on his house with
HardiBoard. Mr. Nisavic stated he could because that product is allowed per the
4
ordinance. Ald. Fulkerson stated there’s nothing in that ordinance about grandfathering.
Mr. Nisavic stated you can replace the siding because everybody agrees. That’s why we
are here and to get clarification from the council. Ald. Basso stated if you want to
remove cedar and put up aluminum siding or HardiBoard you could do it. You don’t
have to go to 60% brick with an older existing home. Ald. Fulkerson stated that’s the
way it has been interpreted in the past and this building commissioner is telling us that
it’s not the way the ordinance reads. Is there a grandfather clause? If so where is it? It
arises from the way people have administered this section in the past and that’s not
necessarily law. Ald. Kramarski stated nobody has ever asked for a variance on materials
on an existing home or an addition. They have asked for variances on new construction.
Ald. Fulkerson disagreed. Ald. McGrogan stated the intention was not to wipe out 60%
brick. There was a motion and second, but not voted on yet. It’s a staff recommendation,
but it was clarified that you can replace the existing materials even though it doesn’t meet
the standards in Section 150.74. The 60% masonry is not a problem on rehab, but only
on new construction.
Ald. Fulkerson stated the above motion, which was seconded by Ald. McGrogan
is to repeal Section 150.74. On roll call, the vote was: 2 affirmative (Aldermen
McGrogan & Fulkerson) and 2 negative (Aldermen Kramarski and Basso). (Agenda)
Ald. Fulkerson suggested having the council vote prior to our January 13th
meeting to see whether or not we need to “grandfather” it in January. He thinks the 60%
masonry requirement should be repealed. Hinsdale doesn’t have that requirement and
they have multi-million dollar houses. Ald. Kramarski stated other communities tell
builders that if they aren’t happy with our building codes, they should build somewhere
else, and we fail to do that. Ald. Fulkerson replied he’s inviting innovation and change.
Ald. Basso agrees with doing innovative things, but we can do them and still have this
ordinance. Ald. McGrogan agrees, but we all question all the variances granted, and the
reason for granting them is because of our archaic codes.
Building Trades Licenses
Changes to Chapter 115 were presented in draft ordinance
form. Instead of listing a number of building trades, we are
saying any building trade that wants to do business here must obtain a city contractor’s
license, proof of insurance and a $20,000 bond to cover their work. The amount of
insurance is $500,000 each occurrence with the City named as the additional insured with
a 10-day term notice. In the revised ordinance, Section 115.05 will be renumbered as
115.03 and amended for the “Mayor and Building Commissioner” to cause inspection,
Enforcement. The building trades are all inclusive with the exception of plumbers
because they are licensed by the state and we cannot require proof of insurance or bond.
Roofers are licensed by the state also but they don’t post a bond or insurance with the
state. Ald. Kramarski believes they do. The last time Mr. Dougherty looked, they pay a
fee for their license. Ald. Kramarski stated they also must provide a bond to the state.
Mr. Dougherty will look that up.
Ald. McGrogan stated instead if itemizing each specific trade, we are saying
where applicable, all inclusive, anybody who does work in town is required to have bond
5
and insurance. If a trade isn’t listed in our ordinance, we fall in the cracks. With this
recommendation, everybody doing work in Palos Heights is required to have bond and
insurance except roofers and plumbers. He entertained a motion for approval of the
amendments to Chapter 115 as presented. Ald. Fulkerson so moved, seconded by Ald.
Basso--but he has a question. What about a chimney sweep? Mr. Dougherty stated that
would be considered “maintenance”, much like a window washer, and not a building
trade. Lawn services or seal coaters don’t normally pull permits, but they would be
required to get a contractor’s license. All that does is require proof of workers comp,
liability insurance and a bond to protect the homeowner. Chimney repair or rebuilding
would require a license, bond and workers comp. The above motion carried. (Agenda)
Building Height
The IBC and the IRC define the height of a building as follows:
“The vertical distance from grade plane to the average height of
the highest roof surface”. Ordinance 153.03 of the zoning code defines building height as
follows: “The vertical distance from grade to the highest point of the coping of a flat
roof, to the deck line of a mansard roof, or to the mean height level between eaves and
ridge of gable, hip and gambrel roofs”.
The recommendation is that all references to the height of a building be referred
to as follows: “The height of a building is determined by taking the average grade of the
property lot (the calculation as determined in the worksheet) to the highest ridge of the
building; and that the IBC and the IRC also be amended accordingly.
Ald. Kramarski asked whether this will be determined before demolition or
excavation take place. Ald. McGrogan believes it would be when they apply for the
permit. Mr. Dougherty stated the worksheet and the civil engineering drawings are
reviewed by the city engineer. Ald. Kramarski asked whether any grades are shot of
surrounding properties. Mr. Dougherty replied “no. That’s why it’s the average. There
are the setbacks and buildable areas and the average from the four corners that are used.”
Ald. Basso asked at what point the measurements are taken. Mr. Dougherty replied
before someone builds the structure, the proposed grades must be approved by the city
engineer. It would be unlawful for the grade to drop by design more than one foot for
every four feet of drop. It’s all reviewed and approved prior to issuance of the permit.
That’s part of the engineering review process. Ald. Fulkerson moved to approve,
seconded by Ald. Basso and the motion carried. (Amending the zoning code again
requires a public hearing.)
Power Mart Signage Additional signage is being requested. The recommendation is
that the signage on the car wash building be permitted, but the additional signage be
“cleaned-up and/or removed”. The flap signs in front and the garbage can should be
removed. The signs on the Ridgeland side of the building are up and they face a penalty
for installing them without a permit. The signs by the curb need to go. It looks like a lot
of clutter. Ald. Fulkerson moved to limit signage to what was previously approved, and
if it wasn’t approved before, take it down, seconded by Ald. McGrogan and the motion
carried unanimously.
6
Business License Report
Total amount collected as of 12/05/08 was $11,252.50.
Vehicle Sticker Report
Total collected for 2008 was $220,885. 9510 stickers were
sold.
Electronic Message Board A draft ordinance was presented. The recommendation is
to add #10 to the list which is to reiterate there be no
flashing red and/or orange signs allowed at any time. Ald. McGrogan would like a
motion, assuming this draft is acceptable to the four aldermen present, to recommend
approval at the next council meeting. If there are any changes or comments, bring them
to the city administrator. Ald. Fulkerson recommends doing so, but also that it occurs at
the first council meeting in January. Ald. Basso made notes on the last draft and
recommends spending time on it. #10 will be added and it will be passed on to Mayor
Straz.
Old Business An article was presented from Chicago Real Estate Daily which discusses
the problems with retail. Ald. McGrogan doesn’t expect any retail to be
built here or anywhere else for a long time.
Adjourn:
Ald. Fulkerson moved to adjourn at 8:10 p.m., seconded by Ald.
Kramarski and the motion carried.
Beverly A. Larson
7