Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 05/19/2021 - Planning and Zoning CommissionPlanning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 1 City of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes May 19, 2021 Call to Order Chairwoman Rockweiler called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held remotely via Zoom due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting was in compliance with the Open Meetings Act per guidelines by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office. Roll Call Deputy Clerk Johnson called the roll. Roll call: Members present: Dawn Bremer, Emily Smale, Stacy Rockweiler, Mike Lehman, Michael Sobotta, James Walsh. Members Absent: Andy Davis. Others present: City Planner Cody Sheriff, Community Development Director Ross Polerecky Public Comment There was no comment from the public in attendance. Approval of Meeting Minutes from April 7, 2021 A motion was made by Commissioner Lehman and seconded by Commissioner Walsh to approve the minutes of the meeting from April 7, 2021. Voting Aye: Bremer, Smale, Rockweiler, Lehman, Sobotta, Walsh Voting Nay: None Absent: Davis Motion carried 6-0. Public Hearing: Continental File No. Z-982 A Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Map Amendment for a 288-unit multifamily Integrated Design District development; Zoning Variations including, but not limited to: Off Street Parking and Loading, and Integrated Design District Review Procedures; A variation from the Subdivision Control and Development Ordinance to allow for simultaneous review of Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision; and approval of a Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision of Authentix at McHenry. City Planner Sheriff explained that all posting and notification requirements for the hearing have been met. Chairman Rockweiler swore in petitioner Ben Lang and Joe Gottelmoller, the attorney for the petitioner. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 2 Mr. Lang shared his screen for his presentation and gave an overview of the company. They own and manage all of the apartments that they develop. A map showed their developments in the Chicago area, and McHenry would be their 10th community around the suburbs. There would be a 24-hour maintenance staff on site with full time leasing agents and property managers. Their specific request is for a Zoning Variance for the concurrent preliminary and final approval, an Integrated Design District, and the preliminary and final plat. They also seek amendments to the staff’s recommended conditions of approval. First, staff has recommended that a 6-foot fence be installed along the eastern property line. Continental requests to revise the recommendation to provide staff with the ability to approve potential alternative screening options including, but not limited to evergreen, shrub, or other landscape alternatives to provide a more aesthetically pleasing screening strategy. Second, staff has recommended the Special Service Area encompass the entire subdivision. Continental requests to revise this to allow staff and Continental to define which specific improvements will be subject to the Special Service Area. Third, staff has recommended an emergency access drive be provided south of the clubhouse on the adjacent property. Continental requests to remove this condition based on the following: the current condition is a temporary condition, there is no ordinance that requires the secondary emergency access, V3 Companies has verified all drives on side are traversable, there is a previous precedent of residential communities with permanent singular access points, and the construction of the temporary access road will result in a significant hardship for future Lot 2 development. Mr. Lang explained their proposed location in regards to the proximity to retail and commercial amenities. A study by Tracy Cross and Associates showed that the McHenry area indicated a low supply and high demand of multifamily units. The existing land is zoned C-5 Highway Commercial, and has been vacant since its annexation in 1995. The City’s comprehensive plan splits the site as commercial and residential, and Continental’s proposal matches the comprehensive plan. The proposal is for 288 homes across studios and 1, 2, and 3 bedroom apartments. The site is 20.61 acres. A clubhouse sits off the south of Blake Boulevard with a pet park nearby. On the east of the site is an extensive landscaping plan on the property line, as well as a proposed pedestrian walking path towards the regional pond. Buffering and screening to the east were discussed with permitted and proposed setbacks shown. The current permitted setback is 30 feet from the loading dock but Continental is proposing a 60-foot wide minimum buffer for any permanent structures put into place. Within the 60-foot buffer is an extensive plan for landscaping, which was shown on the shared screen. Landscaping renderings were shared to show what the development could look like from the existing neighborhood. The secondary access points were discussed with examples of other apartment complexes in McHenry with only one access point. A slide also showed issues with creating a secondary access point and how that could impact future development of Lot 2. Pictures of elevations and floor plans were shown. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 3 Joe Gottelmoller explained in detail the zoning variance approval criteria. He stated that this is a special circumstance given that a typical zoning map amendment does not require two separate hearings in front of both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council. Due to the physical constraints of the specific property, the IDD was selected as the preferred zoning to accommodate multiple principal buildings on one lot and to reduce the total development footprint. Continental’s request does not change the form or character of the IDD ordinance, and it does not impede on the rights of staff, the Planning & Zoning Commission, and/or the City Council to conduct a fair and legal review and hearing on the rezoning request. There are ten approval criteria that should be met for the approval of an Integrated Design District, and Mr. Lang explained how Continental meets each of those requirements. Mr. Gottelmoller gave detailed explanations of how they met the conditional use approval criteria as well as meeting the LaSalle Factors. Chairwoman Rockweiler asked if any Commissioners had questions for the petitioners. Commissioner Sobotta asked about the dividing line between the two parcels. Mr. Lang shared his screen and drew a line to show where the two properties would be divided. Parcel 2 would have ownership kept with the current owner, and there are currently no plans to develop the second lot. Commissioner Sobotta asked for clarification on the stormwater improvements. Mr. Lang showed a picture with the retention basin and the trunks that run down to Lot 2 for possible future development. Commissioner Sobotta asked about the plans for the emergency second access. Mr. Lang stated that there is no proposed emergency access to Almond Lane, and they are proposing one entrance to the apartment complex. There are 546 planned parking spaces and an easement currently exists behind the commercial developments to the north. There are also no plans to expand Blake Boulevard to be larger than two lanes. Chairwoman Rockweiler asked about their request to remove emergency access. Mr. Lang stated that they did not have an emergency access route on their proposal but staff has requested a second access. This would have to be placed on Lot 2 because of grading issues. City Planner Sheriff shared and explained his staff report in detail. He described the current zoning, the future land use map, requirements from the City due to ordinances, the requirements for an Integrated Design District, and a staff analysis. He explained that staff believes the proposed development is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies. He stated that the development appears to meet the approval standards for conditional uses, zoning map amendment, and zoning variations. Staff does not object to the petitioner’s request and recommends approval subject to appropriate conditions. Commissioner Sobotta asked about the traffic study and believes that the COVID pandemic may have impacted the numbers. Mr. Sheriff explained that the engineers took into account those factors for the traffic counts. Chairwoman Rockweiler asked how staff feels about the petitioner’s request for a 6-foot fence. Mr. Sheriff stated that the petitioner did not propose the fence, but that staff included it in their recommendations based on feedback from the residents to the east. Chief Birk explained that from a safety standpoint he believes that there needs to be more than Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 4 one entrance and egress. He does not believe the examples given by the petitioner of one access point are relevant to this proposal. Chairwoman Rockweiler opened up the opportunity for the public to ask questions for the staff or the petitioner. Jason Klasek stated that the impact study on housing values were all from out of state and he wondered what type of crime studies had been done for the City of McHenry. Chief Birk stated that crime rates are tracked in McHenry. Our crime rate is well below the national average and has steadily declined over the last 14 years. He referenced and gave examples from his memo that was submitted regarding apartments and crime. He gave specific examples and data from apartment complexes in McHenry. Mr. Klasek stated that he has concerns about gang activity in apartment complexes in McHenry. Chief Birk explained that the City of McHenry has the lowest gang activity in the county. Mr. Klasek stated that residents wanted a 6-foot privacy fence to keep people from walking through their neighborhood to go to the nearby park. Mr. Klasek asked for clarification on the drainage with the swale on the east. It was explained that none of the water from the developed site runs to that swale. The only water that swale receives is from the greenspace east of the garages to the property line. The swale then carries that water to the detention pond to the north. Stormwater improvements on Lot 2 are not done until that lot is developed. It is not legal to impede the natural flow of water on that undeveloped lot. Alan Mader stated that on February 28th he sent a video to Jeff Schaefer and Mayor Jett that shows flooding through his yard last May. He is concerned that they are correcting flooding problems on the north and they aren’t doing anything to the south. He would like engineering work done to show how this would be addressed. Engineer Chad Peiper shared his screen and explained how the stormwater system will handle the water. He showed that none of the water goes to the residents to the east and it all flows north through the system to the detention pond. The water falling on Lot 2 would follow its existing pattern and would not be affected by the development. No stormwater issues will be addressed on Lot 2 until a proposal is brought forward to develop Lot 2. The proposed development does meet all stormwater ordinances. Krisine Reinhard stated that engineers rejected the proposal and it needed to be updated. She believes there should be a two part process to the approval and asked why this is not being followed. Mr. Sheriff explained that for a multimillion dollar project it is common to have minor revisions throughout the process. There is only one hearing because this proposal is only for a two lot subdivision. Ms. Reinhard asked why we aren’t doing a two step process if details still needed to be worked out. Director Polerecky stated that recommendations have been made by Staff during the process, and it is common for staff to make comments on the plans and to ask for revisions by the developer. Ms. Reinhard asked why the City would consider only 1.9 parking spots for the development. It was explained that many of the older apartment complexes only have 1.5 spots per apartment, and there have been no issues. Mr. Lang stated that their average is 1.75 spaces per unit on their other properties, and there haven’t been issues with those parking lots. Ms. Reinhard questioned the plans for the pass-throughs. Mr. Lang explained that if Lot 2 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 5 were ever to develop it would need adequate access. Those are not intended to go to Pine and Birch. Ms. Reinhard disagreed with how the traffic study was done and believes that the standard is to do a 7 day study. Mr. Peiper stated that his traffic engineers take into account averages in the area, that they have been looking at Route 31 in McHenry for a long time, and that the traffic count on that road does not change in any great volume from day to day. This intersection has been looked at thoroughly and his licensed engineers are confident in the numbers that were provided. Danny Thomas asked what would attract people to McHenry, where the people would come from, and where they would work once here. Mr. Sheriff referred to the apartment study showing that there is big demand present. Mr. Lang stated that the median age of renters for their complex would be 31 years with a $75,000 income. He gave a summary of their portfolio and stated within a 30-minute drive there would be 10,000 jobs fall within those sectors. Sheila Thomas stated her concern for the access off Blake Boulevard and there could be a bottleneck and safety issues. Director Polerecky explained that staff recommends a second access from the south property line. Chief Birk explained that the second access would be on Blake Boulevard and not through Almond Lane. In an emergency he prefers that access to be at a controlled intersection and there are multiple ways to get to Blake Boulevard. Keith Varkalis questioned the statement that having multifamily between their current neighborhood and the commercial district is a standard. He said that west of Pine is commercial and they don’t have a multifamily area separating them from commercial. Mr. Varkalis asked what the developers meant when they talk about the public benefits. Mr. Lang said that this means they have their own facilities so there is less demand for the rest of the City. Mr. Varkalis agreed with Ms. Reinhard’s statement that the City should not skip the process of having two hearings. Mr. Sheriff stated that during the approval of a final plan, the job of the commission is to make sure they preliminary plat matches the final plat. Because this was only a two lot subdivision there was not a need for an additional review. Mr. Varkalis asked why the City would consider allowing smaller apartments when other builders have to adhere to different standards. Director Polerecky explained that some of those apartments were built in the 70s and the ordinance was put in place in 1986. As Mr. Lang stated, they are planning for open floor plans and the market analysis shows that smaller apartments will rent out. Staff has no concerns on this matter. Keith Reinhard questioned the rainwater mitigation plan and what would happen if it didn’t work as expected. Mr. Peiper explained that engineering reviews the plans to ensure that it works in a certain manner. The ordinances dictating this have been updated to handle the recent trends in weather and that all engineering standards have been followed to make it work correctly. Mr. Reinhard asked about the 10-foot grade difference to the east and what would happen to the tree line. Ryan Wagner stated that the swale would have the grading stop to allow those existing trees to remain. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 6 Chris Bassi asked what the salary range was for the targeted renters. Mr. Lang said the residents are approved for three times the proposed rent. The median income in the area is $85,000 and their portfolio shows $70,000. The project is in the affordable range for this area. Ms. Bassi asked how many school children would be in the rented apartments. Director Polerecky stated that with 288 apartments, it is expected that there would be 17 elementary students, 8.5 middle school students, and 9 high school students. Ms. Bassi asked which retailers the study was targeting in regards to spending in the local economy, as many retailers have moved to Johnsburg. Mr. Lange explained that the numbers they provide show how much money could be spent in the overall area and not just in the City of McHenry. Ms. Bassi questioned the math in regards to the amount of money that the complex would provide to the local economy. If they are estimating $18 million a year, that equals about $62,000 per complex. She explained that somebody with an income of $70,000 can’t possibly spend $62,000 after taxes and rent. Clerk’s note: It was difficult to make out the name of the next member of the public who spoke. It is believed that it is John Zagone. The Clerk thought it was prudent to mention this as that speaker’s name was not verified in case the name is inaccurate. John Zagone asked what the lighting would be like and if there would be any concern for security lights shining into the existing neighborhood. Mr. Lang explained that they would abide by the City’s ordinances and they planned to have no additional light leave their property. A full photoelectric study will be done and glare guards would be used if necessary. John asked what would stop somebody from putting a drive through Almond Lane, and Director Polerecky stated that they would not be allowed to construct such a drive, and that a 6-foot fence would be constructed between the properties. John asked what the City would do to help entertain the people that move in. He stated that there could be small children moving in with not much for people to do. Keith Hoaglund asked where the 6-foot fence would go, and if it would be constructed on the property of the existing neighborhood. He also asked who would be responsible if their trees fell on homeowner lots. It was explained that the fence would not be built on existing home lots and that if the trees belonged to the developer, the developer would take care of the trees. Sam Catalano asked where the parking and trash facilities would be located. Mr. Lang shared his screen to show where the parking garages, parking spots, and the trash compactor would be located. A valet trash service would also be provided to carry resident trash to the dumpster. Mr. Catalano asked who paid for all of the studies. Director Polerecky explained that the apartment study was paid for by the City and that none of the studies presented by the City were paid for by Continental. Chairman Rockweiler opened the public hearing portion of the meeting at 9:36 p.m. to take comments from the public. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 7 Kristine Reinhard was sworn in and stated that they listened to many unanswered questions and a lot of opposition to the project, and questioned the placement of the project. Based on the questions and unknowns she believes that the board should either not approve the project or consider having a preliminary and final hearing. It would make taxpayers feel better to see a two- part process and see things that have been stated come to fruition with a final plat. Keith Varkalis was sworn in and agreed with Ms. Reinhard in regards to the two-step process. He watched the training video given by Attorney McArdle that was given to the Commission and hopes they all walked the property to make a fair judgement of the request made by Continental. Keith Hoaglund was sworn in and stated that this is a bad idea. Allison Thompson was sworn in and noted her appreciation for the effort put forth by her neighbors regarding this project. She stated that the Commission would have to live with this decision for one night but the neighbors would have to live with it for the entire time they owned their home. They have a quiet, cozy, close-knit community, and they feel like they are being exposed. Caitlyn Klasek was sworn in and stated that even though Mr. Sheriff and Director Polerecky have stated that there are people for this project, she has not heard from one of them. If people are for the project and are hiding they need to make their voices heard. Jason Klasek was sworn in and stated this whole case has been for a single lot without knowing the plans for a second lot. The Board should consider this when voting because they haven’t been presented with the whole picture. The people of McHenry are not against apartment buildings but they believe this is a strange place for high density living quarters with no green space for children. He does not feel that they have been given a voice and haven’t been represented for the greater good. There haven’t been any assurances or answers to their questions. This has not been presented to the people as it is, and it is disappointing and not the character of McHenry. Alan Mader was sworn in and stated that the City government is responsible for the protection and interest of its fellow citizens. The Almond Lane and area is stable but an influx of 288 apartments could change that. The size of the complex should be considered and should be reduced to give more green space. The developers have stated what they need to be profitable. Danny Thomas was sworn in and stated that his daughter lives in one of these facilities. They are not as nice as they claim. A dog park is being built instead of a playground because they can’t charge for a playground. They are charging people to pick up garbage and her daughter’s garbage isn’t picked up in a timely fashion. They don’t plow when needed, and she will move when her lease is up. Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 8 Sam Catalano was sworn in and stated that all of these taxpayers are lining up screaming against the project. Why should they rezone this for strangers to come in when they have already paid a ton of taxes. The existing neighborhood should not be hurt for strangers and it can cause safety issues. Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the public hearing at 9:54 p.m. Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission were given a chance to ask additional questions. Commissioner Bremer wanted to clarify that staff was requesting a 6-foot fence, and in favor of keeping a service entrance. She also asked for a repeat of the number of students expected to come from the development. Director Polerecky repeated that they are anticipating 17.3 elementary students, 8.75 middle school students, and 9 high school students living at the development. Commissioner Smale asked if the school districts were able to handle this increase in students, and Mr. Sheriff explained that they do have the capacity to handle this and there haven’t been any concerns raised by the school districts. Commissioner Sobotta asked if we knew that the owners of Lot 1 would also be the owners of Lot 2. Mr. Lang explained that Vantage McHenry LLC currently owns both parcels, and Continental would only purchase Lot 1 if the project were to move forward. Vantage McHenry would remain the owners of Lot 2. Commissioner Walsh wanted to confirm that there were no plans for Lot 2 at this moment. Mr. Sheriff explained that Lot 2 would still be zoned C-5 and the uses permitted for this project would not be allowed on Lot 2. If somebody wanted to develop Lot 2 for housing, they would have to go through this same hearing process. Chairwoman Rockweiler asked if the recommended emergency access would have to be on Lot 2. Director Polerecky explained that the access would need to be on Lot 2, and even though Continental would not own that lot, they could get an easement for that access. Commissioner Sobotta asked if this proposal were to pass, would anything other than residential be placed on Lot 2. Mr. Sheriff stated that it would be unlikely that a commercial development would go there. Mr. Lang stated that their company has done a second phase of the project in the past, but they have no current plans for that development in McHenry. Commissioner Sobotta stated that there is no room to expand for more lanes on Blake Boulevard if Lot 2 were to be developed. Director Polerecky reiterated that if Lot 2 were to be developed, the developer would be required to go through the entire process from the beginning with new traffic studies. A motion was made by Commissioner Walsh and seconded by Commissioner Lehman to approve the petitioners’ request for variation from the Subdivision and Control Ordinance and IDD Integrated Design District Review Procedures to allow for simultaneous review of the Preliminary Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 9 and Final Plat of Subdivision and Plan. AND By making said motion I agree with staff’s assessment that the approval criteria for zoning variances have been met as outlined in the staff report. Voting Aye: Bremer, Smale, Rockweiler, Lehman, Walsh Voting Nay: Sobotta Absent: Davis Motion carried 5-1. A motion was made by Commissioner Bremer and seconded by Commissioner Smale to approve the petitioner’s request for a Conditional Use Permit and Zoning Map Amendment to allow a planned multifamily Integrated Design District residential development, in accordance with the submitted building elevations, site plan, and landscaping plan subject to the following conditions: 1. The property owner(s) shall install a 6-foot privacy fence along the eastern property line. 2. The property owner(s) shall enact a backup Special Service Area encompassing the entire subdivision for the long term maintenance and care of stormwater facilities. 3. The property owner(s) shall replace all damaged or destroyed screening facilities such as privacy fencing and landscaping within 30 days of notification by the City of McHenry or other reasonable timeframe as determined by the Zoning Administrator. 4. All development on the subject property shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan, landscaping plan, and building elevations. 5. The property owner shall be required to install a secondary emergency access on the south side of the development connecting to the recreation center and parking area to the east. This emergency access shall be approved by McHenry Police Chief. 6. All other federal, state, and local laws shall be met. AND by making said motion, I agree with the staff’s assessment as outlined in the staff report that the approval criteria for Development Review, Conditional Use Permits, and Zoning Map Amendments has been met. Voting Aye: Bremer, Smale, Rockweiler, Lehman, Walsh Voting Nay: Sobotta Absent: Davis Motion carried 5-1. A motion was made by Commissioner Lehman and seconded by Commissioner Lehman to approve a Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision of Authentix at McHenry subject to the following conditions: 1. An access easement shall be granted to the City of McHenry, their successors and assigns, that allows the City to install, maintain, renew, and remove facilities used in connection with stormwater drainage, if such maintenance obligations are not met by the property owner(s). Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes May 19, 2021 Page 10 2. The City shall provide the property owner(s) at least thirty (30) days’ notice, or another mutually agreed upon timeframe, to address any maintenance obligations that have been unfulfilled. 3. All easement language shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 4. Any future development on Lot 2 that requires a residential landscape screening strip shall be substantially similar to the landscaping and screening on Lot 1. Voting Aye: Bremer, Smale, Rockweiler, Lehman, Walsh Voting Nay: Sobotta Absent: Davis Motion carried 5-1. Staff Report The next Planning & Zoning Commission meeting is scheduled for June 16, 2021. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Bremer and seconded by Commissioner Smale to adjourn the meeting at 10:09 p.m. Roll call: Vote: 6-ayes: Bremer, Smale, Rockweiler, Lehman, Sobotta, Walsh. 1-absent: Davis. Motion carried. __________________________ Stacy Rockweiler, Chairwoman City of McHenry Planning & Zoning Commission