HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 05/30/2001 - Committee of the Whole COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
MAY 30, 2001
A Committee of the Whole Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order
by Mayor Althoff at 6:30 P.M. on Wednesday, May 30, 2001 in the Council Chambers of
the Municipal Center. At roll call the following Aldermen were present: Bolger, Glab, Low,
Murgatroyd, Wimmer. Alderman Low arrived at 6:40 p.m. Absent: None. City Staff in
attendance were: City Administrator Lobaito, Assistant Administrator Maxeiner, Police
Chief Kostecki, Director of Public Works Batt, Assistant Director of Public Works Marcinko,
Director of Parks and Recreation Merkel, Director of Community Development Napolitano
and City Clerk Jones.
Mayor Althoff stated that this Committee of the Whole Meeting is a
continuation of the meeting held on May 21, 2001, and will resume with review and
consideration of the issues of Density and RS-2 Zoning versus Smaller Lots/Clustering.
c) and d) Density and RS-2 Zoning versus Smaller Lots Clustering
Staff iterated the density of a development is calculated in two ways, gross and net.
Gross density is the total number of dwelling units divided by the total acreage of the
development. Net density is the total number of dwelling units divided by the net acreage.
Net acreage is total acreage minus areas dedicated to the public such as streets.
The City's Comprehensive Plan includes guidelines for land designated as low-
density residential. These guidelines give the City flexibility, on a case-by-case basis,
when negotiating with developers. In summary, the guidelines state that the allowable
density range for a parcel designated as low-density residential is between 1 and 4 units,
based on net density. Net density according to the Plan is total acreage, minus 30% for
open space, minus 15% of the remainder for roads
The majority of new subdivisions approved and developed over the last several
years have had RS-2 zoning, 1/4 acre lots. More recent planning trends have encouraged
the preservation of open space and natural areas by clustering units on smaller lots over a
smaller area of a parcel. This approach can lead to not only lower infrastructure costs for
the developer with less maintenance costs for the City and less impervious surface with
more undisturbed land.
Discussion followed. Council stated that if the City does decide at some point to
lean toward cluster housing the remaining land should have a meaningful purpose.
Clustering should be used as a tool rather than a developmental policy. It was the
consensus that everyone prefers open land and clustering is an option, but with limitations
and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.
e) Building Permit Limitations
The concept of limiting the number of single-family home permits issued each year
for a development was discussed. Staff explained the primary reason for such limitation is
to better manage growth. There are two approaches to this concept.
1. Assign a fixed number,
2. Assign a percentage.
Page 2
05/30/01
The City has not used such a limitation in the past. As the number of permits issued
for single-family homes has been fairly consistent over the last 6 years. Based upon past
single-family home permits issued, Staff projected out the number of permits expected to
be issued in each subdivision through 2010 for Council.
It was stated that some of the Council and Staff believe that a policy should be in
place. Inquiry was made as to whether this issue should be a negotiated item dealt with on
a case-by-case basis.
It was noted by Staff that currently no policy is in place and it is difficult to constrain
a subdivision that is not controlled by an Annexation Agreement.
Staff opined that typically the highest requests for permits are made during the 2"d,
3'd and 4tn years of development.
Q Developer Donations
Staff distributed printed information which reflected the standard developer
donations charged for a new residential development, including school, park, library and
fire fees, as well as capital development fees for water and sewer connections. Staff
stated that these fees are due at the time of building permit issuance. Council has
negotiated higher fees for schools in recently approved annexation agreements. Council
has also typically charged a per unit fee (currently $530 per unit, due at the time the
building permit is issued) and an operations fee (currently $1,733, due at occupancy
permit issuance). Fees are automatically adjusted each May 1st by the percentage
increase in the CPI-U for the Chicago area.
Discussion followed centering on whether or not these fees are still valid, whether
each fee should be increased or decreased and/or whether any new fees should be
charged. It was noted by Staff that cash donations for parks has been preferred, in the
past, over land donations. Staff inquired whether the City should require a developer to
build a park, to City standards, and receive a credit for such improvements?
Mayor Althoff opined that the City's ordinances permit the donation of land in lieu of
fees.
Director of Parks and Recreation Merkel stated that if the City does not get the
developer donation initially the City ends up requiring a referendum, as with the recreation
center.
It was the consensus of Council that Staffs direction is to continue with developer
fees unless there are mitigating circumstances.
g) Off-Site Improvements
In the past the City has allowed developers to construct oversized water and sewer
lines to serve future development. The developers are then permitted to recapture some
of the cost associated with over sizing the lines when future development becomes a
reality and makes use of the excess capacity.
Page 3
05/30/01
`.- Discussion followed regarding whether the City should require contributions from
developers for impacts their development will have off-site, such as traffic signals or road
improvements, and what type of impacts should be considered.
Staff noted that historically the City has permitted developers to make off-site
improvements, and then recapture fees, so it has been less expensive for a developer to
build on the outskirts of the community.
Alderman Bolger stated that he believes it is only fair to continue the practice of
recapture agreement. Alderman Glab inquired about how much the City makes on
recapture and was informed by Staff that the amount is 2%.
h) Covenants, Architectural Standards, Landscaping Plans, Other
As the City has matured, minimum design standards for each new development
have been raised. Covenants have been incorporated to place greater restrictions on the
uses of property (i.e., decks, fences and sheds). Architectural standards have been
incorporated to enhance aesthetics and reduce monotony, and additional landscaping has
been required to define entrances and provide buffering.
Staff informed Council that typically the City requires covenants in a subdivision.
Staff inquired whether the City wants to continue this control mechanism for new
development and, if so, what standards the council feels are appropriate? Staff inquired
about Council's views concerning the developer's responsibility for enhanced entry
treatment and greater landscaping along the perimeter and within the development, and
whether the responsibility for the review of landscaping plans for a new development
should be the responsibility of Staff or go before the Council.
Alderman Glab stated he would like to review all covenants, prior to the approval of
an annexation agreement, as opposed to the current practice of the covenants being
drawn up at a later date. Staff inquired of Alderman Glab as to whether he felt that the
covenants would be more enforceable if they were part of the annexation agreement.
Alderman Murgatroyd opined that he would like to see both the covenants and the - L
architectural standards in the annexation agreement.
A general discussion took place concerning covenants in general. The consensus
was that the review of landscaping plans for new developments should continue to be
reviewed by Staff. No further consensus was reached.
Motion by Bolger, seconded by Glab, to adjourn the meeting at 7:27 p.m.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Glab, Low, Murgatroyd, Wimmer
Voting Nay: None
Absent: None
Motion carried.
Page 4
05/30/01
The meeting was adjourned at 7.27 p.m.
c.
ayor City rk