a g e n d a planning, building, and development committee

A G E N D A

Planning, Building, and Development CommitteeThursday, April 1, 20217:00 PM - Russ Parker Hall

The public is encouraged to remotely "attend" its Planning, Building, andDevelopment Committee meeting by tuning into the live stream via the Zoom videoconferencing platform. Attendees can participate in a variety of ways including: 1. Submit comments or questions using the Chat feature. Comments will be monitoredduring the meeting and read into the record by village staff at the appropriate time. 2. Make public comments during the "Comments from the Audience" section as noted onthe agenda. 3. Submit comments or questions in advance of the meeting byemailing [email protected] Please use the email subject line: April 1stPBD Meeting Comment/Question. Viewers who wish to join the meeting live can do so using the link and meeting informationbelow. Please note: The meeting is password protected; participants must enter thepassword listed below. Be advised all telephone numbers and participant names will bevisible to the public. +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) https://zoom.us/j/94722184019?pwd=YUhqZW52bVZROU9QQ3ZYSmR6TTZLdz09 Meeting ID: 947 2218 4019Password: 375766

CALL TO ORDER

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

1. March 4, 2021

NEW BUSINESS

1. Cable TV Report - Informational

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

mailto:[email protected]

https://zoom.us/j/94722184019?pwd=YUhqZW52bVZROU9QQ3ZYSmR6TTZLdz09

CONTINUING ITEMS

1. Discussion Regarding Temporal Displays in Public Right-of-Way2. Administrative Amendment and Exception Update November, December 2020,

January and February 2021 - Informational

DEFERRALS

COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE

ADJOURNMENT

NEXT VILLAGE BOARD MEETING

April 13, 2021

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and other applicableFederal and State laws, the meeting will be accessible to individuals withdisabilities. Persons requiring auxiliary aids and/or services should contact theVillage Manager's Office at 847.923.4705, preferably no later than five daysbefore the meeting.

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

Informational4/1/2021

Planning, Building, and Development Committee

Presenter: Lead Department: General Government

Executive Summary: The public is encouraged to remotely "attend" its Planning, Building, andDevelopment Committee meeting by tuning into the live stream via the Zoom video conferencingplatform. Attendees can participate in a variety of ways including: 1. Submit comments or questions using the Chat feature. Comments will be monitored during themeeting and read into the record by village staff at the appropriate time. 2. Make public comments during the "Comments from the Audience" section as noted on the agenda. 3. Submit comments or questions in advance of the meeting byemailing [email protected] Please use the email subject line: April 1st PBD MeetingComment/Question. Viewers who wish to join the meeting live can do so using the link and meeting information below.Please note: The meeting is password protected; participants must enter the password listed below. Be advised all telephone numbers and participant names will be visible to the public. +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) https://zoom.us/j/94722184019?pwd=YUhqZW52bVZROU9QQ3ZYSmR6TTZLdz09 Meeting ID: 947 2218 4019Password: 375766

Recommended Action:

mailto:[email protected]

https://zoom.us/j/94722184019?pwd=YUhqZW52bVZROU9QQ3ZYSmR6TTZLdz09

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

March 4, 20214/1/2021


Presenter: Lead Department: Community Development

Executive Summary:

Recommended Action:

ATTACHMENTS:

Description TypeMarch 4,2021 Minutes

I have reviewed the Minutes and they correctly represent the action taken by the

Committee.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG

MUNICIPAL CENTER – RUSS PARKER HALL/ZOOM

THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2021

Members Present: Jack Sullivan, Chairman Frank Kozak, Trustee George Dunham, Trustee

Others Present: Brian Townsend, Village Manager Julie Fitzgerald, Director, Community Development Scott Flanagan, Building Official Michael Rons, Fire Marshal (Remote)

Jayal Amin, (Remote) Parthiv Patel, Comfort Inn Ketan Patel, Comfort Inn Vishan Patel, Comfort Inn Meeting was delayed due to technical issues. The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. and read Zoom meeting instructions for public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A motion was made by Trustee George Dunham and seconded by Trustee Frank

Kozak to approve the minutes of the February 4, 2021 meeting of the Planning,

Building & Development Committee.

All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED

CONSENT AGENDA:

NEW BUSINESS:

1. Recommendation to Amend the Village Code for Chapter 129 Valet Parking to Reflect Current Terms and Practices Ms. Fitzgerald said we have had requirements regarding valet parking in place for approximately 20 years. This past year, the Village Manager asked staff to review all of the administrative protocols to ensure they were up to date and reflected current practices. As part of that the Police Department and the Community Development Department reviewed the protocol for valet parking. Staff found that the administrative protocols did not reflect current practices. Staff then pulled the Code for valet parking and found that also needed updating. There are no substantive changes to anything we are requiring for valet parking both in terms of how initial plans are approved or requirements. No requirements are being relaxed and we are still requiring licenses for valet operators.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 4, 2021 Page 2 of 9

Generally this clarifies the extent of the Ordinance and it changes some of the old things that no longer apply to our current practices. In summary, staff changed the definition of a ‘Sponsor’ to ‘Building Location’. Instead of references to ‘permit’, we now reference the approved valet parking plan. It was confusing prior as we never did issue permits for these. Staff also eliminated confusion about the number of licenses that each valet business is required to get. This means that every location has an approved valet plan detailing operations. That runs with the property. The business owner will hire a company to run their valet parking operation. That company may change over time. Additionally that company may provide valet parking operations for several different restaurants within the Village of Schaumburg. That company needs the license to operate in the Village of Schaumburg. Trustee Dunham asked if they would only pay one license fee. Ms. Fitzgerald indicated they do pay one license fee and must provide proof of insurance. The Community Development department has a process in place that we check for insurance annually. Trustee Sullivan asked if they had to submit plans for each location. Ms. Fitzgerald said the operators do not. The plans run with the property. A business would apply for a valet operation plan which shows where the parking would be, how many spaces, what the hours of operation are, what types of cones will be used to mark spaces etc. Whatever operator that business hires would need to follow that plan. Trustee Kozak asked about repeat offenders at the Streets of Woodfield and said they park in the fire lanes in the front of the building. Ms. Fitzgerald said there is an older hearing process that we used to use. Staff is recommending changing it to state that we will issue tickets through the local adjudication process. We could revoke a license through that process also. How we treat repeat offenders would be covered in an administrative protocol. The Code is what allows us to issue a ticket. One of the changes being proposed tonight would allow staff to issue a local adjudication ticket for those offenses. Trustee Kozak asked if they were allowed to take the front spaces. Ms. Fitzgerald indicated it depended upon the specific plan. Some places that do not have a drop off are allowed to short-term park (holding spaces). Over the years the Village Board has approved the holding spaces. Rather than having cars queue in front, they quickly move to the holding spaces, and then move to a remote area in the lot. Ms. Fitzgerald said the Ordinance would be enforced by the Police Department, Community Development and the Finance Department. The Planning Division of Community Development first reviews the plans for the business, the plan goes to Village Board, Finance issues the license, and the insurance is checked by Community Development.


Kozak to recommend the Village Board approve municipal code amendments to

Chapter 129 Valet Parking to reflect current terms and practices.


2. Status of the Single-Family Rental Inspection Program – Informational

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 4, 2021 Page 3 of 9 Ms. Fitzgerald said we provided an update to this committee in August, 2020. The single-

family residential rental inspection program is part of the licensing for single-family detached rentals. This program was started in 2015. We inspect each of the single-family rental properties on a 3-year rotation. This year with the impact to the budget in reaction to COVID19, the annual budget of $36,000 was eliminated. We do not do these inspections in-house. When we created the rental inspection program, we have always utilized a consultant. We switched the contractor over the past few years however it has never been done in-house.

We put together an item for this committee outlining what our strategy was going to be to

address the inspections this year and presented that to PBD several months ago. There is a four stage priority. The first was to complete follow-up inspections on outstanding cases with documented violations. Second was to complete inspection on all new license locations. Third was to respond to complaints for single-family and multi-family properties, and to prioritize those complaints based on whether it was a life safety issue or otherwise. Fourth was to get to any of the periodic inspections we could get to.

Since May, 2020 we have closed 99 rental related customer service requests but we are

taking a step back and re-evaluating that order of priority. Staff found that we needed to always respond to complaints because until we respond we don’t really know if the issue is priority or not.

Currently there are 213 active single-family locations. The rental inspections we have

right now are broken down as following:

� 31 rental complaints pending compliance and enforcement � 26 new license locations that have come in this year that we have not done

the initial inspection � 156 pending periodic inspections (this number will jump to 250 after May

1, 2021) The number jumps to 260 due to the lack of funding this fiscal year. So we will have this fiscal year and all of next fiscal year which is basically about 2/3 of our licenses. Trustee Kozak asked how many were behind in the periodic inspection. Ms. Fitzgerald said there are currently 156 but after May 1, 2021 we will have over 250 that need the proactive inspections. Staff anticipates getting to those after we reinstate the funding for the rental inspector. The Village Manager is prepared to and is planning to recommend that as part of the fiscal year 2021-2022 budget. We anticipate once the budget is approved and we can get an outsourced firm on board that we would begin those inspections likely early summer 2021. We do not think we will get through all of them in one year. The funding we have requested puts us behind one year. We think we will be able to get caught up on the 31 properties and the 26 properties. Ms. Fitzgerald said anything with a life safety issue would be prioritized over something that is not a life safety issue. Staff wanted to bring this item back to committee particularly to provide status of where we are now and how we intend to address it for next fiscal year.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 4, 2021 Page 4 of 9 A motion was made by Trustee Frank Kozak and seconded by Trustee George

Dunham to accept as informational.


3. Update on Implementation of the Strategic Plan for the Community Development

Department – Informational Ms. Fitzgerald said she brought an update on this item to the committee in September and

explained this was being brought back for a 2nd update. All 4 of our department goals for Community Development have direct ties during the fiscal year 2021 to the Strategic Plan. We are in the midst of working on those goals now and are close to wrapping them up.

The Strategic Plan had 4 strategic areas of focus. Those areas of focus include consistent

expectations and policies, embracing technology, community image and customer relationships and a culture of collaboration and respect. The last one is the theory that we are better as a team together. Community Development has a very highly trained professional staff. We have the resources to rely on each other and to leverage those resources to solve problems to better serve the public.

The first strategic theme is consistent expectations and policies. We crafted a goal for this

fiscal year to get feedback from the community and make adjustments based on that feedback. This also includes drafting a Standard Operating Procedures manual. In order to get feedback from the community, we developed a survey which was emailed to anyone who participated in the permitting process during the last calendar year. The survey includes about a dozen questions to try to get feedback about all aspects of the permitting process. We mailed approximately 1,500 surveys out this fall to anyone who had a permit closed out from January, 2020 to October, 2020. Of those 1,500 we received less than 100 responses. Overall the response was very positive however we did see some themes. Going forward we will be sending these surveys out quarterly. We just sent out the last quarter of 2020. We sent a couple hundred surveys out and will be sending out a reminder email this week to see if we can get additional responses. We will compile information and make adjustments as needed to our processes.

Trustee Kozak asked who the surveys were sent to. Ms. Fitzgerald said it is an emailed

survey sent out to anybody who participated in the permit process if we have their email on file. The survey went to anyone involved with the project as long as we had the email addresses including homeowners, contractors, and design professionals.

Ms. Fitzgerald said the second thing we have made progress on is development of our

department SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) manual. It is called a manual, but it is all on line using SharePoint software. To date we have created and finalized 15 SOP’s. Every 2 weeks the management team meets and reviews additional SOP’s. As of the end of February we had 15 that have been posted. We are planning on rolling this out in late April or early May to the whole department.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 4, 2021 Page 5 of 9 The real advantage here is that it is not a physical manual in a binder in which you have to

be in the office to refer to. The SharePoint site is accessible from mobile devices – both phones and iPads. Inspectors in the field can refer to the SOPs if needed.

Lastly we have leveraged technology called PowerBI to create a dashboard for the new

single-family inspection program. Last month the diagram included in the packets was created by the PowerBi software. Management can look at this tool every day to determine if there is an issue or if resources should be diverted. This also gives us a good way to communicate with the Village Manager and committees about resource allocation and how we are doing as far as priorities. Trustee Kozak asked if we would be using summer help for the single-family inspection program. Ms. Fitzgerald indicated we are not using summer help for that program because the summer help are not quite fully trained on all the things we have been looking for. We typically use them for the more straightforward violations such as address numbers or garbage storage. We have started supplementing our staff with some outsourcing for the single-family inspection program. The reason we are doing that is because we have taken one of our code enforcement inspectors and shifted them over to environmental health on an ‘acting’ basis to fill a need we have there. She is a licensed health practitioner so 3 days a week she is working in environmental health. So to backfill, we have an outsourced contractor from TPI handling some of her single-family inspections so we don’t fall behind on that.

Ms. Fitzgerald said in the next steps what she anticipates reporting to committee is

additional dashboards. We have a goal for this coming fiscal year to add 3 additional dashboards. She indicated she anticipated those programs for the rental licensing, possibly landscape and one environmental health program to see how we are doing on keeping up with those inspections.

The next strategic area of focus is embracing technology. Two months ago we

demonstrated the Seamless Doc for the business licensing and Certificate of Occupancy. We are leveraging that Seamless Doc technology for a lot of other processes both internally and externally in the village. Community Development is using it to put some additional structure in online permitting. March 1st we went live with our over-the-counter permits which are permits that do not need plan review. We use Seamless Doc technology to gather information for those. We have a residential and a commercial permit Seamless Doc. The combination business license and Certificate of Occupancy application was presented in January, and is one of the initiatives Ms. Fitzgerald wanted to highlight. Over the next period Ms. Fitzgerald will be giving updates on the Seamless Docs for plan reviews. We anticipate this being a new process that we will probably have to make some adjustment. As of March 1st we have already had 1 meeting with IT to make some adjustments.

Strategic Area of Focus #3 is community image and customer relationships. There are 3

things under progress and status. Some we have already gone over because there is some overlap. We are again using the Seamless Docs technologies on forms that can be filled out by a building inspector or engineering inspector while they are performing the inspection. It is emailed directly to the contractor or the homeowner. The form looks very nice and is a lot more professional than the stickers we have been using for years. The technology that we have been using we started last year in environmental health and


we are now working this year to roll it out to the other divisions. We went over the customer survey to obtain feedback, this is one way we are trying to engage the community.

For the next steps we have begun development of some video content to supplement our

customer resource guides. Customer resource guides include informational guides and pamphlets which we hand out in paper form and direct people to the website. Some of these guides are overwhelming to some homeowners so we had a meeting with the Communications and Outreach Department and we will eventually be working with the Cultural Services Department to develop video content. This can be shared on village social media platforms and other ways we use to provide outreach to residents and businesses but we can also put it on our website. Trustee Kozak had concerns that some residents may prefer more 1:1 communication. Ms. Fitzgerald said anyone is always still welcome to speak with staff; Village Hall is open, we can schedule a Zoom call, we make property visits. This was just providing additional information in a friendlier manner. Instead of reading about pool requirements someone can watch a video which may be easier to understand.

Lastly is the culture of collaboration and respect. Ms. Fitzgerald said this was reported in

September and we hadn’t made much progress with it then. Since then, we have had division team building sessions. This was originally planned for March, 2020 right before the shutdown and we ended up having to cancel them. The training sessions are hosted by the Employee Assistance Program team. The session focuses on different personality types and what preferred communications styles are and how to leverage that information to work together better. We have also had 3 department-wide staff meetings in order to help to make the employees feel more connected to the work the department as a whole is doing.


Kozak to accept as informational.


UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

CONTINUING ITEMS:

1. Update on Comfort Inn Fire Alarm Project - Informational Mr. Flanagan said hotel ownership failed to appear in the January and February

adjudication hearings. Mr. Flanagan said we still do not have compliance today. We never received the resubmittal. As of last week, we had the resubmittal for the fire alarm permit. It was reviewed and returned to the applicant today so they now have our comments. They have to revise and resubmit again as portions were not all included in the drawing. We are waiting for another submittal.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 4, 2021 Page 7 of 9 We did have an inspection by Fire Marshal Rons back in January, 2021. Mr. Rons

confirmed that at that point there were 47 local smoke alarms installed at that time. They were not the type that were approved for the installation. They are not the addressable type of alarms that communicate back to the front desk. The Code requires if an alarm goes off in a guest room that the front desk is notified versus a full building evacuation. The monitors that were installed are stand-alone monitors. Mr. Flanagan said he looked up the cut sheet for the alarms installed which indicates they are for single-family and two-family dwellings.

Mr. Flanagan explained there is an enunciator panel at the lobby entrance for the whole

building for alarms. Typically they are in public areas. It can be two separate systems, they don’t have to be integrated but if an alarm goes off in a guest room, hotel staff must be notified. We still do not have a permit, and all work done to date has been done without a permit.

Mr. Patel said by January they were asked to replace/upgrade all of the alarms in every

single room. He said that was the original discussion going back and forth from July of last year. The original notes were that in every single room the alarms expire after 10 years. Mr. Patel said we need to go in and replace every single alarm over 10 years because the sensors go bad. Mr. Patel said we went in and we had specs pulled on the existing alarms we had, called the contractor and upgraded every single room. As of today all 114 rooms the alarms are upgraded. They are 2015 Code specs. Mr. Patel said he could send the spec sheets. He said when Michael Rons sent an email he did not say that the specs don’t meet Code, he didn’t say they were residential alarms, he didn’t say the alarms are wrong.

Trustee Sullivan asked staff what year Code we were currently using. Mr. Flanagan

indicated we are currently on the 2015 ICC Code. Trustee Sullivan said if they put in 2016 the question is the type of alarm and how it hooks up to the system. Mr. Flanagan said the type of the alarm installed is what is considered a local alarm which will chime in the space but does not notify anyone else. It doesn’t alert the hotel staff. The spec sheet says it is for one and two family dwellings. Trustee Sullivan asked if hotels are required to have systems wired to a board which communicates with the Fire Department. Mr. Flanagan said it did not need to communicate with the Fire Department; it just needs to communicate with the front desk of the hotel. This gives the hotel staff an opportunity to decide if it is a false alarm or evacuate the entire hotel.

Mr. Flanagan said Michael Rons went to the site on January 7th. He sent Mr. Patel an

email letting him know he visited the site. On that date there were 52 alarms installed and Mr. Rons put in writing that the alarms that were installed do not meet Code.

Trustee Dunham asked if the spec sheet shows that the units meet village Code. Mr.

Flanagan said the spec sheet indicates the units are for single-family and dual-family dwellings. They do not meet codes for hotels. Mr. Patel indicated that a contractor did not do the work because replacing smoke alarms doesn’t require a permit or a contractor. Trustee Sullivan said there is a different Code for hotels for smoke alarms as opposed to a home. You need to be able to notify the front desk and the Fire Department if needed.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE March 4, 2021 Page 8 of 9 Mr. Flanagan said if it was maintenance it would not require a permit. However the whole

fire alarm system requires a permit. The devices are part of the system. There is currently no Code compliant notification to staff. Mr. Patel said they have about 9 items on their list they need to upgrade. Mr. Patel said we are ok with all items, we’ll upgrade it. If my permits are issued tomorrow, contractors are ready, they will do the work in 3-4 days. There is one item which we are going back and forth now is the rooms and the smoke alarms. Mr. Patel said initially when we came here 6 months ago the conversation was smoke alarm sensors go bad, and you need to replace them every 10 years. The village is saying not only replace them but I need to run wires from every single room to the front desk or the panel.

Trustee Sullivan said he recalled the conversation was this needed to meet code and all

had to be hard wired to a panel. Mr. Flanagan said Trustee Sullivan was correct. Phase 2 required him to provide the enunciator panel at the front desk for monitoring. He got an extension on the monitoring portion but he missed the compliance date of December 3rd for the alarms and the compliance date for March 1st. Trustee Dunham added that he recalled that he had asked Mr. Patel a direct question of how long it was going to take and Mr. Patel refused to answer him. Mr. Patel said he did not have an answer.

Mr. Flanagan said Mr. Patel presented his case to the judge in January at the adjudication

hearing. He told the judge he would have the work done by February. Mr. Flanagan said we did not even have shop drawings at that point. The judge said at that point that he wanted Mr. Patel to return in February for status. Mr. Patel did not appear at the hearing in February and the adjudication judge gave him a $10,000.00 fine. Mr. Patel was on the March docket to vacate the $10,000.00 fine. The judge did not vacate because there is still no compliance.

Trustee Kozak asked if the judge was aware that Mr. Patel’s staff was doing the work as

opposed to a licensed contractor doing the work. Mr. Flanagan said the judge did not know that and staff did not have that information at that time. Mr. Flanagan said now he is up for adjudication in April. Part of staff’s recommendation is to allow us to follow up and through adjudication rather than bringing this back to committee. We have already enforced the schedule; the fact that he missed it he got fined. Staff only wants compliance and the building to be safe. Trustee Kozak asked how many people stay there. Mr. Patel indicated he was renting approximately 30 guest rooms per night. Trustee Sullivan said if anything happens it would fall on us and asking how could we let this happen. Mr. Patel asked if he could add a comment and Trustee Sullivan said no we have had enough comments on this topic. Trustee Sullivan said we should let this process through adjudication and let the judge take care of it and take this off of this committee. It was taken through this committee as a courtesy and is not the normal process.

A motion was made by Trustee Frank Kozak and seconded by Trustee George

Dunham to accept as informational.

DEFERRALS:

COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE:


COMMENTS FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER:

ADJOURNMENT:


Kozak to adjourn the meeting at 8:01 p.m.


NEXT VILLAGE BOARD MEETING: March 23, 2021

Respectfully submitted, Vicki Bloomer Recording Secretary

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

Cable TV Report - Informational4/1/2021


Presenter: Clayton Black, Management Analyst- General GovernmentLead Department: General Government

Executive Summary: At the October 2020 Planning, Building, and Development Committee meeting, Trustee Sullivanexpressed an interest in discussing cable TV outages on a bi-annual basis given information that wasbeing shared on social media and to keep the committee apprised on cable issues and complaints inSchaumburg. The attached memo summarizes complaints that have been reported to the village andthe best way for individuals to ensure their cable issues are resolved.

Recommended Action: Informational.

ATTACHMENTS:

Description TypeCover Memo Cover Memo

1

VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG MEMORANDUM

Date: March 19, 2021 To: Village Manager From: Management Analyst- General Government

Subject: Cable Company Report- Informational

For: Planning, Building and Development Committee Discussion At the October 2020 Planning, Building, and Development Committee meeting, Trustee Sullivan expressed an interest in discussing cable TV outages on a bi-annual basis given information that was being shared on social media and to keep the committee apprised on cable issues and complaints in Schaumburg. This memo summarizes complaints that have been reported to the village and the best way for individuals to ensure their cable issues are resolved. Cable Complaint Data Several years ago, staff provided monthly reports to the PBD Committee detailing cable outages in Schaumburg. In 2007, the State of Illinois passed the Cable and Video Consumer Protection Law (220 ILCS 5/22-501) which allowed cable companies to establish franchise agreements through the State of Illinois instead of through local jurisdictions. Of the three carriers that currently provide cable services in Schaumburg, AT&T and WOW are franchised through the State while Comcast holds a local franchise agreement that was established in January 2014. The 2007 deregulation of the cable industry in Illinois significantly reduced the amount of reporting that cable companies are required to provide to local jurisdictions as well as the ability of local jurisdictions to enforce strict customer service standards. While the village retains control over permitting and construction in the right of way, issues regarding outages and billing concerns are handled on a case-by-case basis as they arise. Village staff regularly receive complaints from cable customers for various issues concerning service outages, restoration issues, and billing concerns. As the graph on the following page shows, there were 33 complaints in 2020 which is a 65% increase over the 20 that were received in 2019.

https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=022000050HArt%2E+XXII&ActID=1277&ChapterID=23&SeqStart=46800000&SeqEnd=47200000#:~:text=pursuant%20to%20the%20Cable%20and,unit%20of%20government%20buildings%2C%20public

2

Cable Complaint Data by Company (2016-2021)

The graph below shows the reasons for cable complaints. As it shows, the primary reason is restoration and exposed wires with 17 of these complaints in 2020 and three thus far in 2021. The village typically sees an increase in these complaints as weather improves in the spring and people begin to spend more time outside. The 11 service complaints the village received in 2020 was the highest total in several years and was likely a result of people spending more time at home and consuming bandwidth during the pandemic.

Cable Complaint Data by Issue Type (2016-2021)

Staff in the Village Manager’s Office has had success in working with Schaumburg residents to resolve their cable issues. Billing and service issues are generally resolved within 24 to 48 hours as liaisons for the cable companies relay the complaints on to customer care teams that reach out to customers. However, restoration work such as exposed wires and damaged pedestals can often take up to a month or longer to resolve depending on weather and repair work that may be taking place. While the village tracks these complaints on a case-by-case basis as they are received, cable companies are required to make an annual report to the Illinois Commerce Commission that identifies the number of complaints it received over the prior year in the State and specifying the number of complaints related to each of the following: (1) billing, charges, refunds, and credits; (2) installation or termination of service; (3) quality of service and repair; (4) programming; and (5) miscellaneous complaints that do not fall

128

58

12

1

13

5

2

8

12

3

2

3

4

9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 (YTD)Comcast WOW ATT

3 52

53

3

24

11

1

17

10 4

13

17

30

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 (YTD)

Billing Service Restoration/Exposed Wires

3

within these categories. While Comcast and WOW’s reports are specific to Schaumburg, AT&T compiles their report for the entire State, so they do not provide much information that is useful for analysis purposes. Annual reports for 2020 are due by the end of March so staff will review them as they are received for any pertinent information. Resolving Cable Complaints The best way for a customer to resolve outage issues is by contacting the company directly using the contact information that is provided on their billing statements. Should the customer not get a satisfactory response, customers can dial 311 within the village and a Customer Service Request (CSR) will be created and assigned to the appropriate village staff. CSRs for outages and billing issues are assigned to the Village Manager’s Office while CSRs for exposed wires and restoration needs are assigned to the Engineering and Public Works Department. Staff escalate the issue with the appropriate Government Affairs Liaison at each of the companies in order to ensure it is addressed. Since the October 2020 PBD Committee meeting, staff has included articles in the November 27, 2020, and March 5, 2021, Progress Reports (screenshot below) and updated the information in the “Residents” section of the website to ensure residents have the most accurate information possible to resolve cable issues and to encourage them to contact the village by dialing 311 if their issues persist.

While liaisons at these companies typically ensure issues are handled promptly, the village’s ability to guarantee compliance is limited given the limited oversight authority the village has over the cable industry. Customers are encouraged to file a complaint with the Illinois Commerce Commission either online, by phone, or by mail using the information on their website at: https://www.icc.illinois.gov/complaints/public-utility. Recommendation

Informational only.

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

Discussion Regarding Temporal Displays in Public Right-of-Way4/1/2021


Presenter: Deborah Parran, CDD/Code Enforcement SupervisorLead Department: Community Development

Executive Summary: This item was discussed at the November 2020, Planning, Building, and Development (PBD)Committee Meeting. At that time, PBD recommended that the Village Board allow temporal displaysin the right-of-way without village intervention (except safety hazards) during the 2020 holidayseason. The committee asked staff to document through photographs the displays that take place sothat those can be discussed by the committee in April 2021. Furthermore, if there were anycomplaints or issues related to reported safety hazards they would be addressed by staff asnecessary. As requested, a list of temporal event display locations with photographs has been attached to thisreport. These displays were found to encroach the village right-of-way this past winter season.Information about safety hazards and complaints received is also noted in the attachment. There are three options for the committee's consideration:

1. Prohibit temporal event displays in the village right-of-way.2. Take no enforcement action on temporal event displays in the village right-of-way unless it

involves a perceived hazard.3. Approve municipal code amendments to Chapter 93 and Chapter 41 to allow for temporal event

displays in the village right-of-way. A copy of the previous report presented to PBD in November 2020, has been attached for reference.

Recommended Action: Informational

ATTACHMENTS:

Description TypeStatus Attachment ExhibitNov 2020 Agenda Item ExhibitOrdinance ExhibitPBD Minutes 2020-11-05 Exhibit

of 9

Temporal Event Displays 2020-21

This attachment provides information as to the locations found to have a temporal event display

in the village right-of-way, when that display was removed, and information about complaints

and safety hazards. Photographs of each location are included.

LOCATIONS WITH DISPLAYS

Combined Displays at these locations

1. 200 S Braintree Dr

2. 1204 Sharon Ln

3. 1210 Sharon Ln

of 9


4. 715 Duxbury Ln

of 9


5. 529 Hingham Ln

of 9


6. 44 Kingsport Dr

of 9


7. 514 Neal Ct

of 9


8. 616 S Walnut Ln

of 9


9. 1000 W Weathersfield Way

REMOVAL STATUS

The information below notes half the locations removed the temporal event display from the

village right-of-way in February. As of March 22, 2021, all displays have been removed.

2020-21 Temporal Event Display Removal from Village Right-of-Way Status

Locations Jan 11 Feb 1 March 1 March 22

1 200 S Braintree Dr No No No Yes

2 715 Duxbury Ln Yes Yes Yes Yes

3 529 Hingham Ln Yes Yes Yes Yes

4 44 Kingsport Dr No No No Yes

5 514 Neal Ct Yes Yes Yes Yes

6 1204 Sharon Ln No No No Yes

7 1210 Sharon Ln No No No Yes

8 616 S Walnut Ln No Yes Yes Yes

9 1000 W Weathersfield Way Yes Yes Yes Yes

Display Locations Prior to 2020 & Not in 2021

1 503 Dartmouth Ln

2 408 Jason Ln

3 428 W Weathersfield Way

of 9


SAFETY HAZARDS AND COMPLAINTS

During the winter season, the village responded to a few complaints about cords on and over the

sidewalk at three (3) locations. Each location with cords on the public sidewalk promptly

complied. Staff checked all of the displays and found no cords on the public sidewalks.

Photographs of each of the complaint locations are noted below.

1. 1012 Sharon Lane – Extension cord(s) run on public sidewalk to light up parkway trees were

promptly removed. Later the resident used illuminated hoops over the public sidewalk to run

cords to light up parkway trees.

2. 1214 Sharon Lane – Extension cord(s) run on public sidewalk to light up parkway trees were

promptly removed.

of 9


3. 514 Neal Court – Closed complaint after village staff observed the use of illuminated hoops

over the sidewalk and no cords were observed on the public sidewalk.

MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Deborah Parran, Code Enforcement Supervisor FOR: Planning, Building, and Development Committee DATE: October 22, 2020 SUBJECT: Recommendation to Amend the Village Code to Allow Temporal Displays in

Public Right-of-Way

Introduction

The Village Manager recently received feedback from the Village Board that there was support

to consider allowing holiday displays in the public right-of-way. This item is being presented to

allow for formal consideration of a process that would allow these displays. The Community

Development Department sought advice of legal counsel in evaluating how holiday displays

could be allowed. A memo from legal counsel offering two options is attached. The options

include amending the village code to allow for a license to be issued to residential property

owners or allowing staff discretion with regard to enforcement.

Staff recommends that that the village code be amended to create a more formal mechanism

to allow displays. This will provide for more consistency in terms of enforcement and

administration, as well as allowing the village to require a hold harmless agreement from the

homeowner.

Discussion

In general, the village does not regulate holiday displays, but staff has contacted homeowners

to encourage them to remove displays if they remain up past the holiday. This is generally

done on a complaint-basis. Most property owners limit holiday displays to their property, but

there is a small number of homeowners in the village that have installed holiday decorations in

village right-of-way. Until recently, the village allowed them to continue without any

enforcement unless a hazard was identified. Hazards were typically cords that could be trip

hazards over a sidewalk.

In the spring of 2019, staff required at least one homeowner to remove Christmas decorations

installed in the right-of-way. The homeowner was told that he could not install the decorations

in the right-of-way in the future, regardless of the duration. In the fall of 2019, staff contacted

other homeowners who had been given leeway over the years and made them aware that

of 5

FOR: Planning, Building, and Development Committee

SUBJECT: Recommendation to Amend the Village Code to Allow Temporal Displays in Public Right-of-

Way

decorations in the right-of-way would no longer be permitted. This was done to ensure

consistency in the administration of the code. The past approach to allow them in a

discretionary manner created a challenge when staff asked them to be removed after a certain

amount of time. In December 2019, staff wrote letters to two property owners who had

installed displays in the right-of-way allowing the displays to remain until January 2020, and

putting them on notice that the displays would not be allowed in the future. One of these

homeowners recently contacted the village asking for staff to reconsider.

While the village prohibits all obstructions in the right-of-way and public walk, property owners

have over the years expanded their displays over the sidewalk and onto the parkway by

constructed lighting displays involving arches and stringed lights over the walk and onto the

trees located in the parkway/right-of-way by using extension cords. Other displays have

involved signage and illuminated and/or inflated items placed in the right-of-way or involved

items hung from parkway trees. The displays have not been limited to the fall and winter

seasons. Some example items are noted below.

of 5



Way

Should the village desire to allow certain displays for temporal events over Village owned

sidewalks and parkways, an ordinance amendment that includes restrictions has been

prepared for consideration. The proposed code amendment to Title 9, Chapter 93, Section

93.02 of the Schaumburg Village Code Regarding Displays for Temporal Events over

Sidewalks and on Parkways states the following:

(E) Displays over Village sidewalks and on Village parkways relating solely to

temporal events shall be permitted pursuant to a license issued by the Village and

subject to the following:

(1) Such displays shall only be permitted in residential zoning districts by the

owner of the property directly adjacent to the Village sidewalk or Village

parkway.

of 5



Way

(2) A property owner shall be entitled to only two (2) temporal event display

permits per calendar year.

(3) Any temporal event display shall not be installed more than thirty (30) days

prior to the temporal event, and shall be removed no later than thirty (30)

days following the temporal event; however no temporal event display shall

be installed for a period of over forty-five (45) total days.

(4) At no time shall the temporal event display obstruct the passage of

pedestrians or other intended users of the Village sidewalks over which said

displays are installed, or cause any other threat to public health and safety.

(5) The property owner shall be required to indemnify and hold harmless the

Village from any and all liability related to the installation of the temporal event

display over Village sidewalks or on Village parkways.

(6) The property owner shall be required to obtain a license for any Temporal

Event Display pursuant to Chapter 110 of the Village Code, and pay the

applicable fee for each Temporal Event Display License as set forth in

Section 41.01 of the Village Code.”

This code amendment would provide a mechanism for homeowners to install holiday displays

in the right-of-way; however, it restricts the frequency, location, and hazards and requires an

agreement to indemnify and hold harmless the village from any and all liability related to the

installation of the temporal event display. The code language has been broadly written to allow

staff a certain amount of discretion in evaluating the displays for obvious obstructions to public

access to the sidewalk as well as, trip hazards, electrical hazards, and unstable or not securely

placed displays.

The village would issue a license and require the property owner to indemnify and hold

harmless the village from any and all liability related to the installation of the display over

village sidewalks or on parkways. It also places time limits on the displays to no more than

forty-five (45) days and limits the number of displays to 2 per year. The license would be

issued with payment of a $100 fee to offset the cost of staff time in inspecting the location and

processing the license.

It should be noted that although the current consideration is for holiday displays, that this code

will allow for installation of displays tied to any temporal event.

Recommendation

of 5



Way

The Village Manager recommends the Planning Building and Development Committee

recommends the Village Board approve municipal code amendments to Chapter 93 and

Chapter 41 to allow for temporal event displays in the village right-of-way.

20 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 1660 15010 S. Ravinia Avenue, Ste 10

Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903 Orland Park, Illinois 60462-5353

T 312 984 6400 F 312 984 6444 T 708 349 3888 F 708 349 1506

DD 312 984 6451

[email protected]

PUBLICATION OF:

ORDINANCE NO. 21-________

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 93, SECTION 93.02 AND TITLE 4, CHAPTER 41, SECTION 41.01 OF THE SCHAUMBURG VILLAGE CODE REGARDING

DISPLAYS FOR TEMPORAL EVENTS OVER SIDEWALKS AND ON PARKWAYS

ADOPTED:

PUBLISHED IN PAMPHLET FORM PURSUANT TO AUTHORIZATION AND DIRECTION OF THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF

SCHAUMBURG ON,

ORDINANCE NO. 21-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 93, SECTION 93.02 AND TITLE 4,

CHAPTER 41, SECTION 41.01 OF THE SCHAUMBURG VILLAGE CODE

REGARDING DISPLAYS FOR TEMPORAL EVENTS OVER SIDEWALKS AND ON

PARKWAYS

444447_1

WHEREAS, the Village of Schaumburg, as a home rule unit of local government as provided by Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, has the authority to exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government and affairs except as limited by Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970; and

WHEREAS, the Village desires to allow for certain displays for temporal events over Village owned sidewalks and on parkways; and WHERAS, amendments are necessary to the Village Code in order to implement the same; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Schaumburg have determined that amending the Village Code to reflect the same is in the best interest of the Village; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF

TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG:

SECTION ONE: The recitals above shall be and are hereby incorporated in this

Section 1 as if restated herein. SECTION TWO: Title 9, Chapter 93, Section 93.02 of the Schaumburg Village Code

is hereby amended to add a new subsection (E) to read in its entirety as follows: “(E) Displays over Village sidewalks and on Village parkways relating solely to

temporal events shall be permitted pursuant to a license issued by the Village and subject to the following:

(1) Such displays shall only be permitted in residential zoning districts by the

owner of the property directly adjacent to the Village sidewalk or Village

parkway.

(2) A property owner shall be entitled to only two (2) temporal event display

permits per calendar year.

(3) Any temporal event display shall not be installed more than thirty (30) days

prior to the temporal event, and shall be removed no later than thirty (30) days

following the temporal event; however no temporal event display shall be

installed for a period of over forty-five (45) total days.

(4) At no time shall the temporal event display obstruct the passage of pedestrians

or other intended users of the Village sidewalks over which said displays are

installed, or cause any other threat to public health and safety.

ORDINANCE NO. 21-

AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9, CHAPTER 93, SECTION 93.02 AND TITLE 4,

CHAPTER 41, SECTION 41.01 OF THE SCHAUMBURG VILLAGE CODE

REGARDING DISPLAYS FOR TEMPORAL EVENTS OVER SIDEWALKS AND ON

PARKWAYS

444447_1

(5) The property owner shall be required to indemnify and hold harmless the

Village from any and all liability related to the installation of the temporal

event display over Village sidewalks or on Village parkways.

(6) The property owner shall be required to obtain a license for any Temporal

Event Display pursuant to Chapter 110 of the Village Code, and pay the

applicable fee for each Temporal Event Display License as set forth in Section

41.01 of the Village Code.”

SECTION THREE: That Title 4, Chapter 41, Section 41.01(A)of the Schaumburg Village Code is hereby amended to add a new Miscellaneous License fee as follows:

Permit Type Current Fees

Miscellaneous Licenses

Temporal Event Display $100.00 (per display)

SECTION FOUR: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect after passage,

approval and publication as required by law. AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

PASSED AND APPROVED this ________day of ___________________, 2021. _____________________________________ Tom Dailly, Village President

ATTEST:

___________________________ Marilyn Karr, Village Clerk

I have reviewed the Minutes and they correctly represent the action taken by the Committee. PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG MUNICIPAL CENTER – RUSS PARKER HALL/ZOOM THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 2020 Members Present: Jack Sullivan, Chairman

Frank Kozak, Trustee George Dunham, Trustee

Others Present: Brian Townsend, Village Manager

Julie Fitzgerald, Director, Community Development Debbie Parran, Code Enforcement Supervisor Marisa Krawiec, Community Planner Harry Raimondi, ZBA Chair Kyle Popek, 616 S. Walnut (Remote) Bruce Beddard, 44 Kingsport (Remote) Joe Folisi, (Remote) Ben Barrett, 609 Fairview Michael Miller, (Remote) Jen Biancalana, (Remote) Brian Kohler, 529 Hingham Lauren (Remote) The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read Zoom meeting instructions for public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A motion was made by Trustee Frank Kozak and seconded by Trustee George Dunham to approve the minutes of the October 1, 2020 meeting of the Planning, Building & Development Committee.


CONSENT AGENDA: NEW BUSINESS: 1. Recommendation to Approve a Contract Extension with GovTemps for Building Plan

Review Services Ms. Fitzgerald said the Community Development Department has been using a contract

employee (a retired former village employee) through GovTemps on a part-time basis since May in order to continue to provide plan review services but keep the position open. In May when the contract was awarded, the purchase order was opened under the director’s spending authority and then increased up to the village manager’s spending authority which has extended the services through next week. However, we have the need

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 5, 2020 Page 2 of 12

to continue these services at least through the end of this fiscal year. This item is to increase the contract amount and have it run through the end of the fiscal year to April 30, 2021. The total amount of the contract is $70,000. The amount in question this evening on the extension is $34,000, but the overall contract is over the village manager’s spending authority which is why this committee is seeing the contract.

Staff has thus far held the position vacant and reallocated funds through our professional

services contract that we use for inspections and plan review services, but in order to keep service levels at the level we are at now, staff is recommending to FLAGG committee in November a budget amendment to reinstate some of the funds to cover this. The $34,000 that is being considered this evening will be included in the mid-year budget amendment presented to the FLAGG committee.

Trustee Sullivan asked if this had been a big help to staff. Ms. Fitzgerald indicated it

definitely was. She added that the next best option would be to send all of our commercial plan review to TPI (our outsourced contractor) or to contract with another similar company. The cost of this GovTemps would be much less than that option.


Kozak to recommend the Village Board approve a contract extension with GovTemps in an amount not to exceed $70,935 to continue to provide interim building plan review services for the Community Development Department through April 30, 2021.

All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED 2. Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to Municipal Code / Title 15, Chapter 154

(Zoning) Pertaining to Off-Street Parking & Loading (Referred from the October 13, 2020 Village Board Meeting)

Ms. Krawiec said staff has been proposing a Code Amendment to the Off Street Parking

and Loading for several months. The Code Amendment has been to this committee and Zoning Board and at the last Village Board meeting there was some discussion on specifically short-term parking as it relates to this Code Amendment.

Staff prepared a presentation to provide clarification between different types of short-term

parking. Examples were shared of pick-up spaces in where a party would park, leave the vehicle, enter the business, pick up their goods/services and return to their vehicle. Signs are generic in nature and not specific to any one business. Examples were shared of curbside parking which typically customers order in advance, the customer parks, and the business would come out to the vehicle to deliver the customers goods/services. Several of these curbside parking signs were included in the presentation.

With regard to short-term parking signage, the current Code does not restrict the number

or placement of signs. There is a limit of 1.5 square feet with generic language, so it is not specific to a business. The proposed Code would restrict 1 sign for every 2 adjacent spaces and still keep the 1.5 square feet with generic language.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 5, 2020 Page 3 of 12 There is an additional staff recommendation which would call out additional signage for

curbside pickup. This allows branding for spaces and signage to identify that specific business to allow customers to identify the pick-up point. These are parking spaces, so they aren’t blocking drive aisles or fire lanes.

Recently there has been discussion regarding Jewel on Wise and Roselle Roads. Jewel did

denote 8 pick-up parking spaces for curbside pick-up located on the north side of the property. Per Code under the Code requirement what is proposed is to allow short-term parking at 4% of the entire parking provided on the property or 15 spaces – whichever is less. Trustee Kozak said the spaces dedicated to this at Jewel are empty when he goes there. Trustee Kozak indicated he has only seen 1 car in the dedicated parking spaces.

Ms. Krawiec indicated that staff’s recommendation was to maintain the number of spaces

previously proposed with this Code Amendment. Staff does not believe it is wise to regulate the location, and would like to carve out additional language pertaining to curbside pick-up which would allow for branding and larger signage. Staff feels this is important to have in the Village because it gives our retailers the flexibility to change based on consumer trends and supports the sustainability of our retailers. We want to support our retailers and provide this type of Code based on the increasing need for curbside pick-up.

Trustee Kozak said Jewel put up signs, painted the parking lot and dedicated spaces and

questioned if they were required to come in for a permit for this type of activity. Ms. Krawiec indicated under the current Code requirements a permit is not required for short-term parking. They are supposed to provide a plan to the Village, but there is no formal approval process. With the proposed Code Amendment they would be required to apply for an Administrative Amendment to document and allow staff to track short-term parking. Trustee Kozak said Jewel should operate similar to Target or Walmart instead of dedicating premium parking spaces near the door. Trustee Dunham agreed.

Mr. Raimondi said when this came before the Zoning Board of Appeals, there were 2

members that were against the 4%, and he questioned location more than anything. Mr. Raimondi said 2 days later Jewel dedicated the premium parking spaces. He agreed with Trustee Kozak and felt they shouldn’t use premium parking spots. Mr. Raimondi said if Jewel could dedicate 15 spots, it would be too many spots. His feeling is that 4% is too high. Mr. Raimondi said 15 spots would be fine if it included the shopping center to the north, which it does not. Mr. Raimondi questioned if retailers are aware they are supposed to come to the Village to get approval or if they are just doing this on their own. The permit process wouldn’t be so bad – they wouldn’t have to appear before any Board or Committee if they go by the guidelines set in the Ordinance. Mr. Raimondi said it is the initial starting process that should be addressed – how do they know and how do we make them aware of what they can or can’t do.

Trustee Dunham said this is another example of a solution chasing a problem. The

concept is a good one in some form. In the case of the Target on Higgins you would not want curbside pick-up in that location. The drive aisle is too narrow and it would create traffic flow issues. Trustee Dunham said Target did it right by assigning spots in the


parking lot. Ms. Fitzgerald confirmed that Target had asked permission to do so. Trustee Dunham agreed with Mr. Raimondi in that Jewel dedicated a very large number of parking spaces and in reality what a lot of places need is additional disabled parking. He suggested we allow them to use those spaces for disabled parking when they are available. Trustee Dunham said he wasn’t sure if 4% was the way to do it, if we set a maximum then he didn’t think it should be more than 4-5 spaces.

Trustee Sullivan said we need to look at formalizing this so they are aware they need to

come in with plans. He added that this is the future of retail and for many retailers without large online presence; this was a way for them to utilize online services for their customers. Many are using this service due to the coronavirus to avoid contact. Retailers should have a good idea of an average number of cars in order to make a determination on the number of spaces needed. Trustee Sullivan agreed with Trustee Kozak and felt they needed to be more careful in choosing the location of the dedicated parking spaces. Trustee Sullivan asked if the Amendment would be enough. Trustee Kozak said it is a fine concept with online shopping and the spots should be moved further out since the employees are delivering the goods to the customers in the car. Mr. Raimondi agreed the concept was good but the location Jewel chose was terrible, and in addition they put signs all over the parking lot directing people to those spots. There is an excessive amount of signs including signs on the cart corrals. Trustee Kozak asked if they got a sign permit for the signs. Ms. Fitzgerald said the signs Jewel has on the cart corrals are not permitted. They would not be permitted under the proposed Ordinance as well. They are additional signage which is not allowed. Staff has not had them remove the signage until we decide what to do with the Code amendment. Target came in and got a permit for the overhead arches. Staff gets more complaints from a number of retailers on the current Ordinance (2% or 8 spaces; whichever is less). It may be big enough for Target, but if it is a multi-tenant shopping center such as Weathersway Plaza at Roselle and Weathersfield Way 8 would not be enough to cover every retailer. The Ordinance says they have to be generic signage. The majority of complaints staff received were from small local retailers that just want 1-2 spaces.

Trustee Kozak asked if any tenants north of Jewel had complained. Ms. Krawiec said

staff is working with enforcement on short-term parking now. There are 2 businesses that have installed signs, and there are existing generic 15-minute parking signs. Staff has reached out to them and informed them we are evaluating the short-term parking code and will hold off on enforcement until this is resolved. She confirmed that the shopping center to the north of Jewel has requested additional signage. Trustee Dunham asked if that was a separate center from Jewel, and Ms. Krawiec said it was a separate property. Trustee Kozak asked if Jewel’s 15 spots cover both properties. Ms. Krawiec said there was information included in the packets which show a breakdown of how the lots look for that center. There are 2 out lots; there is Jewel and the remaining multi-tenant north of Jewel. Under the proposed Code, Jewel would be allowed 15 spots, and the multi-tenant development would be allowed 11 spots based on 4%. Trustee Kozak said that 11 spots would take a significant portion of the lot compared to what Jewel has. Ms. Krawiec agreed and said there were multiple tenants spread throughout.

Trustee Sullivan mentioned part of the Jewel parking lot was an out lot. Ms. Krawiec said

it had been proposed at one time but that never moved forward past the discussion stage.


Trustee Dunham said he agreed with Trustee Sullivan and said this needs more work. Trustee Sullivan said it makes sense to have them come in and speak with staff so we can look at it and give them our opinion before there is an issue. Ms. Fitzgerald said that was included in the proposal. It carves out an Administrative section for parking approval. Ms. Fitzgerald said staff could advertise that better and list it as a permit type or an approval type on the website. Trustee Kozak asked if it would just be a communication and not a fee. Ms. Fitzgerald said there wasn’t a fee proposed but staff would track it similar to other Administrative approvals such as the Administrative Amendment updates. We do not charge those. Staff used to handle those separately but now we roll them into the Building Permit process so people don’t have to submit 2 applications. We did not plan on charging a fee for this as well but we were going to assign a case number and a mechanism to keep it in our records.

Ms. Fitzgerald said staff took the opportunity to see whether changes for curbside should

be proposed. The packet includes language providing clarification for curbside. Staff intended that curbside counted as part of whatever number is chosen for short-term parking but it was not clear. Staff clarified that intent. What is being presented this evening specifically says that curbside counts as the maximum for short-term but it does say for curbside that you could have 1 sign for every space. So what Jewel did is not allowed currently but would be allowed under what we are proposing. Ms. Krawiec agreed and said there is new language in the memo that promotes additional signage for curbside spaces to allow customers to better navigate to them and identify where the pick-up point is.

Trustee Dunham said if there must be a decision made tonight he would not support more

than 4-5 maximum and they should be moved to a more remote location as opposed to premier parking in the front. He added that he would ask if retailers all want it because they think it is going to be the wave of the future but how much actual use are the current spaces getting. Trustee Dunham agreed with Trustee Kozak and said he does not see the spots in use at Jewel or Target on Higgins. Ms. Krawiec said that staff did drive around to several locations and saw at least 3 cars at the Target on Higgins. She clarified that the current Code is 2% or 8 spaces – whichever is less.

Mr. Townsend indicated it was best to defer this item for a month to give us additional

time to look at the 4 issues raised this evening including the review process or potential permitting process, the location of spaces in terms of their proximity to the store, the number of spaces and signage. We will need to address single tenants with large parking lots and multi-tenant buildings with parking lots. If there are 6 tenants in a shopping center who want a space, if it is capped at 4-5 then not all are going to be permitted to have one so that needs to be addressed. Staff can also look at the signage again to ensure we have the right proposal. There is not any sense of urgency here and staff is trying to address or respond to a new trend that has picked up recently due to the pandemic. Staff can take another month to make sure we get it right the first time.

Trustee Kozak asked if the multiple tenant buildings could share spots. Ms. Fitzgerald

said that is the way the Code is written now. They are not allowed to put branding on the signs. The way the Code is written now is that it just includes very generic short-term parking verbiage and signs are not allowed branding or logos.

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 5, 2020 Page 6 of 12 A motion was made by Trustee George Dunham and seconded by Trustee Frank

Kozak to recommend the Village Board defer approval the proposed amendment to Chapter 154 – Zoning of the Municipal Code Pertaining to Off-Street Parking and Loading for further discussion.

All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED 3. Recommendation to Amend the Village Code to Allow Temporal Displays in Public

Right-of-Way Ms. Parran said the Village Manager recently received feedback from the Village Board

that support considering allowing holiday displays in the public right-of-way. These items are being presented tonight to allow for a formal consideration of the process that would allow these displays. The Community Development Department sought advice from legal counsel in evaluating holiday displays that could be allowed. A memo from legal counsel offering 2 options has been provided in the packets. The options include amending the Code to allow for a license to be issued to residential property owners or allowing staff discretion with regard to enforcement.

Most property owners have limited their holiday displays to their private property or they

are in small numbers and limited to the seasonal holiday. Until recently, the Village allowed them to continue without any enforcement unless a hazard was identified. Hazards are typically related to extension cords that were trip hazards over the sidewalk.

In 2019 several homeowners were notified that displays would no longer be allowed in the

right-of-way. Recently one of these homeowners contacted the Village asking staff to reconsider. While the Village prohibits obstructions in the right-of-way, property owners over the years have expanded these displays over the sidewalk and into the parkway by constructing lighting displays that involved arches and stringing lights over the sidewalk and onto trees located in the parkway using extension cords. Other displays have involved signage and illuminated or inflated items placed in the right-of-way or involved items hung from parkway trees. The displays have not been limited to the fall and winter seasons. Some examples were included in the report.

If the Village desires to allow certain displays for temporal events a Code amendment for

consideration has been prepared. The Code amendment would provide a mechanism for homeowners to install holiday displays in the right-of-way by issuing a license that would require property owners to indemnify and hold harmless the Village from any and all liability relating to the installation of the display over the Village sidewalks and parkway. It also places time limits on the displays to no more than 45 days and limits the number of displays to 2 per year. The license would be issued with a payment of a $100 fee to offset the cost of staff time in inspecting the location and processing the license. It should be noted that although the current consideration is for holiday decorations this Code would allow the installation of displays tied to any temporal event.

Trustee Kozak said the ‘indemnify and hold harmless the Village from any and all

liability’ would not hold up in court. The Village would be named secondary in a lawsuit in the event of an accident. Trustee Kozak asked if that was normal procedure. Mr.


Townsend said legal counsel would be best equipped to answer that but added that was typically what happens when there is an incident like this.

Trustee Sullivan asked if staff had researched how other municipalities deal with these

situations. Ms. Parran said the towns she had contacted in the past do not allow anything in the right-of-way. She said their Codes reference the right-of-way which does include the sidewalk and they indicated they require them to be on the private property side of the sidewalk.

Trustee Kozak said there is a lot of work, time and effort that goes into displays and said

they were very well done. He said this is something that we have never looked into before but now has become an issue. He agreed with staff with regards to displays going across the sidewalk, and said that we only have a couple of houses in town that do that. Trustee Kozak said he had a hard time turning his head on this issue. He understands that many people including many children look forward to this every year and indicated this was a tough issue.

Trustee Dunham referenced the pictures included in the packets which showed an

inflatable collapsed across the sidewalk and another with electrical cords looped everywhere. Trustee Dunham said careless people will mess it up for the people who are meticulous. Trustee Dunham agreed with Trustee Kozak in that we will be the ones who bear the brunt of liability and it is difficult to say no to someone who does this legitimately and correctly. Trustee Dunham said conversely, you can stay on private property between the sidewalk and the house and have a fantastic display. He said he would like to hear what the attorney has to say about whether or not we should allow this. Trustee Dunham said due to the weather that 45 days may not be adequate. Trustee Dunham indicated he was not quite ready to make a decision on this at this point.

Trustee Kozak said in most cases with people that go to this extent to do a display the

cords are not an issue. They use the proper electrical cords. Trustee Kozak said what concerns him is the lights going over the sidewalk, as anything can happen with the wind and weather. A bad string of lights could potentially injure someone. Trustee Kozak commended the people who have done displays meticulously in the past and have done a great job for many years, but added that he still had an issue with this.

Trustee Sullivan asked for comments from the audience. Mr. Brian Kohler of 529

Hingham came forward and said he had been doing this for over 20 years and has never had an issue or complaint. He said his stuff is secured tightly. He said he puts up 30,000-40,000 lights every year. He indicated he has been on Channel 7 and wins the contest every year. People come from all over to see his big feature which is the archway. This year he is contemplating not doing it if he can’t continue doing what he has been doing. He purposely purchased a house on a corner lot to do what he does. He said he gets a lot of compliments. Mr. Kohler indicated he usually has already begun putting up the display by this time in previous years, but he has not started this year because he is waiting to see what happens here. He said he may not do it anymore and said it was sad that it has come to this. Trustee Kozak said we were not here to take away Christmas spirit. Mr. Kohler said it feels like that to him because this is something he does every year. Trustee Dunham said if he chose to interpret it that way we could not stop his interpretation but he


needs to understand that we have to be concerned about things in a larger sense. Trustee Dunham said Mr. Kohler may do it right, but what about all the people that don’t do it right. Trustee Dunham asked Mr. Kohler how he would feel about an inspection fee and a license. Mr. Kohler said he was fine with that and indicated he had suggested that. He said he understood some people don’t do it properly and said he had no problem paying the fee and getting a license. Trustee Sullivan said the proposed fee is $100.

Mr. Townsend said the recommendation this evening is to allow these types of displays

with certain limits. He added that the time limit may need to be modified to address Mr. Folisi’s concerns but the permit fee was intended to just cover the cost associated with the review and an inspection to ensure the display is safe. That is up to the discretion of the committee whether they want that to be included in whatever is recommended to the Village Board.

Trustee Kozak said he understood Mr. Kohler was under the gun as this weekend’s

weather will be ideal. Mr. Kohler agreed and said he takes his displays down on New Year’s Day regardless of the weather because he does not want it to be vandalized. Trustee Dunham asked if his display has ever been vandalized and Mr. Kohler indicated one year one of his inflatables was damaged but said most of his neighbors are on watch.

Trustee Sullivan asked if anyone joining the meeting via Zoom would like to comment.

Mr. Townsend called Mr. Bruce Beddard of 44 Kingsport Drive. Mr. Beddard said he has been putting up a display since 1984 when he purchased his home. He indicated he has put things in the parkway in the past. Mr. Beddard said anyone can sue anyone else for anything but the question is could they win. He used an example of someone negligently driving and hitting a tree in the parkway. He said the person likely wouldn’t win in a court of law because what they are doing is negligent. Mr. Beddard said despite the Village owning the parkway, the homeowners are responsible for maintenance. He said that snow plows plow snow in the parkway and when it freezes it makes it very difficult to take down displays in January, sometimes he can’t take it down until March or April. He said due to past vandalism they spike everything down and have a fence around the yard. As soon as it is warm enough for the spikes to be removed they remove it so it doesn’t get damaged. Mr. Beddard said if we need someone to inspect the displays he thought that made sense. Trustee Kozak asked if he planned to put a display in the parkway this year. Mr. Beddard said he was told last year if he did he would be fined $100 per day so he would not put it up unless he had permission to do so. He said someone complained about his display to the Village 2 years ago about extension cords across the sidewalk, which he did not. Mr. Beddard said the Village came out to inspect it, took pictures and it wasn’t a trip hazard. Trustee Dunham said it costs money to defend a lawsuit, and that is one of the things we have to consider. If someone were to sue over something like this they may not win, but it still would cost money to defend it in court. Trustee Dunham asked Mr. Beddard if he would be willing to pay $100 license fee for the cost of inspection. Mr. Beddard said he did not know and said it seems like $100 is exorbitant for a 5 minute inspection. Mr. Beddard asked if there had been a significant number of lawsuits in the Village from people driving off the road and hitting Village property. Trustee Sullivan said there have been lawsuits against the Village for people tripping on the sidewalk, which is our concern. Trustee Sullivan said his concerns were people tripping over cords


or getting electrocuted because the cords were not properly maintained. Inspections would eliminate a lot of that.

Mr. Townsend called Ms. Jen and Nick Biancalana, friends of Mr. Kohler. Mr.

Biancalana said he has helped Mr. Kohler put up and take down these displays for quite a few years. Mr. Biancalana said the issues regarding these displays are the safety and integrity. He said that having an inspection makes a lot of sense to protect the public. Mr. Biancalana said pulling a permit and having a building inspector familiar with construction and safety would be the right thing to do. Trustee Kozak said an inspector would check that the lights are properly anchored, that archways are properly anchored to the ground so people are safe. Inspectors would not just be looking at a cord. Trustee Kozak said the Village is concerned with people’s safety. Mr. Bianacalana said people who are legitimately decorating like this would be willing to pull a permit for something like this to ensure it is safe.

Mr. Townsend called Mr. Joe Folisi of 408 Jason Lane. Mr. Folisi said he has lived here

for 24 years. Up until a few years ago when an inspector told him he wasn’t allowed to do it, he was unaware he wasn’t supposed to put lights in the parkway. He said he puts up lights on the 4 trees in his parkway. There is an extension cord running between the cracks in the sidewalk which is anchored on both sides. He said he could snowplow over it and nothing would happen. He has never had any problems with anyone tripping. Mr. Folisi said the Village was looking for a solution to a problem that doesn’t exist in great numbers. He said he didn’t think that having to come in for a permit and having to wait to get it to put up lights in a parkway is appropriate and didn’t feel the $100 fee was reasonable. He said he thought it sounded like a money grab. Mr. Folisi said he has not put the lights up since he was told he couldn’t do it. He said he thought the Village could allow it at their discretion. If there is a complaint then an inspector can come out and fine you for it. He thought that was a more reasonable approach than having to pay a $100 fee for a license. Trustee Kozak asked Mr. Folisi what determines whether the display is safe or not and who would make that determination. Mr. Folisi said he didn’t think that was a problem right now, inspectors should come out if a neighbor complains. Mr. Folisi said he has gotten compliments on his display and thinks we need more displays in the Village, not less.

Mr. Townsend called Mr. Kyle Popek of 616 S. Walnut Lane. Mr. Popek said they have

decorated their home for over 20 years and last year decided to put up arches over the sidewalk. He said they do everything within their power to make sure it is safe and do not want anyone to get hurt. He got a letter last year informing him he was no longer allowed to do it. He said they have never had a problem or had any issues. Mr. Popek said he takes care of it and monitors it every single day. He understands the Village wants to make sure it is safe and there is no liability on the Village. Mr. Popek said the time limit should be extended because sometimes the ground is frozen and they are unable to get the anchored items out of the ground. He added that the $100 license fee was very steep for an inspection. Mr. Townsend said the inspection would depend on the extent of the display and how much is there. The fee is based on not only the inspection but also the review that needs to take place in the office. If the committee decides to set the fee at a lower amount the Village would subsidize any costs associated with this. Ms. Fitzgerald said the fee is to cover any necessary inspection as well as office time. It is not a permit, it


is a license. We would create a license type, someone would apply for it and we would ask them what they would put into the parkway and how they were going to secure it, ask for the fee, and they would be required to sign an indemnification drafted by Code Enforcement and legal counsel. We used as a template the same form used when people want to put residential lawn sprinklers or decorative pavers in the right-of-way. Trustee Sullivan asked if the license would be for one year. Ms. Fitzgerald said no, it would be a license for the temporal display not for the year. If someone is doing a temporal display for Christmas it would cover the Christmas season but if you want to do another at Halloween you would need to get a license for each temporal display. Trustee Sullivan asked if I get a license this year do I need to get a license next year. Ms. Fitzgerald said yes, a license would be required for every display. The homeowner would contact the Village with what they wanted to do, submit general pictures or description, and the Village would collect the fee, get them to sign the indemnification form and then send an inspector out after the display is up to see if it complied with what they said they were going to do and if it’s stable. There is not a Code for installing temporary archways over sidewalks so this is not something a building inspector would be able to cite a specific Code section on in terms of installation, but we would look for electrical hazards, trip hazards, and the stability of the displays.

Trustee Dunham asked what would be the time frame from the first contact from the

resident to the time they received the OK. Ms. Fitzgerald said that hadn’t been discussed but estimated it to be a few days to a week. Residential permits we try to get done within 7-10 days, and these would typically come in during a slower time of year. Trustee Kozak asked what lead time was for the inspector coming out. Ms. Fitzgerald said the inspector would come out the day after the call just like any other permits that we issue. If it is the desire of the committee, staff can work out the details but it is important for the committee to understand that we have 2 different options in allowing displays in the right-of-way. One is to give staff discretion to allow them. The pro from a homeowner’s standpoint is that they don’t have to go through the formal process; the con is there is no way to ensure any consistency in terms of regulation. Another con is there is still the issue of giving one homeowner or one holiday preferential treatment over another. The pros of a license include you can put structure around what is allowed including limitations on the length of time and the number they are allowed per year. In working with legal counsel, if we want to formalize this, the way to do it would be to create a license for a temporary event – a temporal license – for an event in which you can limit the length and number of them. You can’t limit whether it’s Christmas or a different kind of sign or a different kind of holiday. Trustee Kozak suggested that if a resident takes out the license for a Christmas display the Village could give them some exposure such as putting something on the Village’s website. Mr. Barrett of 609 Fairview said why not just get a signed waiver.

Mr. Townsend said that the remaining 2 attendees via Zoom have indicated they do not

have anything further to add. Trustee Dunham said this is something we should have started talking about in July and at this point favors not taking any action on this and letting it go this Christmas. People have made good points. Trustee Dunham said he would rather do it right once instead of having to revisit again next year. Trustee Sullivan agreed and said we should look at it again in March or April which will give us time to look it over and come up with some ideas. Trustee Sullivan asked how we would handle


this Christmas. Trustee Dunham said he would say to go ahead and let them do it this Christmas and maybe designate an inspector to look at all of them to bring back specifics of what was done or what could have been done. Trustee Kozak agreed and said let them do it this year and we will come up with something on the off months. He didn’t want to ruin Christmas, but he wants it to be safe. Trustee Kozak added if we have an inspector come out to inspect and indicates certain things need to be done, you must make the change or we will shut you down. He asked if that seemed fair. Mr. Kohler indicated it did.

Mr. Townsend wanted to clarify what the committee is recommending as this is advancing

to the Village Board next Tuesday. His understanding is that the recommendation of this committee is to allow these displays to proceed without any interference or regulation from the Village for this year, but the committee does want staff to document through photos the displays that take place so that those can be discussed when this comes back before the committee in the spring. Furthermore, if there are complaints or issues related to reported safety hazards then we can address those as necessary.

Trustee Sullivan said this has been a really lousy year and it is important for people to

enjoy this Christmas season because we haven’t had a lot of joy in the world.

A motion was made by Trustee George Dunham and seconded by Trustee Frank Kozak to recommend the Village Board allow temporal displays in the village right-of-way without village intervention for 2020 (except for safety hazards), that staff document the displays with photos and reports, and that the matter be brought back to the Planning, Building, and Development Committee in April.

All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED UNFINISHED BUSINESS: CONTINUING ITEMS: 1. Administrative Amendment and Exception Update August, September and October 2020 -

Informational Ms. Fitzgerald said there was only one – Northgate at Veridian Rowhomes which was just

shifting a few windows around. They removed some windows from an elevation and added some others.


Kozak to accept as informational. All Ayes. MOTION CARRIED DEFERRALS:

PLANNING, BUILDING & DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE November 5, 2020 Page 12 of 12 COMMENTS FROM THE AUDIENCE: COMMENTS FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER: ADJOURNMENT:

A motion was made by Trustee George Dunham and seconded by Trustee Frank Kozak to adjourn the meeting at 8:20 p.m.


NEXT VILLAGE BOARD MEETING: December 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted, Vicki Bloomer Recording Secretary

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

Administrative Amendment and Exception Update November, December 2020, January andFebruary 2021 - Informational

4/1/2021Planning, Building, and Development Committee

Presenter: Ryan Franklin, AICP, Planning ManagerLead Department: Community Development

Executive Summary: The Community Development Department provides a monthly update on administrative amendmentsand exceptions that were approved the previous month. As stipulated in the Zoning Ordinance,administrative amendments are minor site, landscaping, or façade deviations from approved plans andare approved at the staff level. Similar to administrative amendments, administrative exceptions areapproved at the staff level, and allow for minor changes to sign locations (such as a wall signrelocation from one building façade to another) or allow for an additional wall sign in lieu of apermitted ground sign for properties with frontage on expressways. The following items were approved:

MA2102-01 / Farmgate Shopping Center / 568 S. Roselle Road / Facade Modifications -Construct a new storefront door for 566 S. Roselle Road. 568 Roselle Road is beingsubdivided into two tenant spaces.MA2103-01 / NAC 2, LLC (d/b/a - Enlightened Cannabis for People 2) 820 E. Golf Road /Facade Modifications - Provide an additional door on the north side of the building to be usedas the designated delivery door. The EFIS on the south elevation, the metal panel on the westelevation, and the doors, windows and mullions on the south elevation and west will be paintedlight gray.

Recommended Action:

Informational only.

a g e n d a planning, building, and development committee

Documents