Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning UDO topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts most UDO text amendments; pulls state parking exemption for longer review
Summary
Council voted to adopt proposed UDO text amendments covering ADU limits, cannabis dispensary window coverage, playing‑field lighting, a new mural approval process (with 200‑foot neighbor notification), an administrative garage‑removal variation, and removal of an outdated map; council removed the state parking exemption item for separate review.
The Crystal Lake City Council on Feb. 3 approved a set of text amendments to the city’s Unified Development Ordinance after a staff presentation and council discussion, but asked staff to remove one item related to a state parking exemption for further consideration.
City planner Katie presented the package, which the Planning & Zoning Commission and city staff prepared following joint workshops. Key changes adopted include allowing attached accessory dwelling units (ADUs) as a limited use subject to size and parking limits (one off‑street parking space per ADU, one ADU per zoning lot), a prohibition on using ADUs as short‑term rentals, clarified window‑coverage requirements for future cannabis dispensaries (opaque film or frosting), and a definition and streamlined review process for art murals so they are not treated as sign variations.
The proposed mural process will include an application reviewed by staff and a recommendation from the Public Arts Commission before final approval by the City Council. Council added a 200‑foot neighbor‑notification requirement for proposed murals so surrounding property owners can provide input.
Staff also proposed clarifications for playing‑field lighting to confirm that shielded fixtures can meet full‑cutoff “dark‑sky” standards and recommended adding the removal/replacement of small residential garages as an administrative variation in the UDO process. The city will remove an outdated thoroughfare classification map from the UDO appendix and manage street classifications through GIS instead.
On the parking exemption rooted in Public Act 104‑457 (which reduces on‑site parking requirements for developments near public‑transportation hubs), several council members said they preferred more time to study the state change before enacting a local amendment. Council voted to remove that section from the ordinance as presented and to return to the topic later.
Council approved the ordinance amendment by roll call. The vote incorporated the mural neighbor‑notification change and excluded the state parking exemption from the adopted text so staff can research comparative approaches used by other municipalities.
