Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/14/2004 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, January 14,2004 Aldermen's Conference Room at 7:30 p.m. L In Attendance: Committee Members Chairman Alderman Wimmer, Alderman Condon, Alderman Glab. Absent: None. Also in attendance: Director of Community Development Napolitano, City Administrator Maxeiner, City Planner Martin, City Clerk Jones, Alderman Peterson. Also in attendance: Bill Buhrman, Planning and Zoning Commission George Cadotte, Planning and Zoning Commission John Howell, Planning and Zoning Commission Roger Gerstad, Gerstad Builders Attorney Sam Diamond Roger Dupler, Welch Hanson Associates Robert Shannon, Gerstad Builders The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alderman Wimmer at 7:31 p.m. Discussion Regarding Adams Farm Develoament Director of Community Development Napolitano stated development of the 304-acre Adams Farm Property, located on the north side of Bull Valley Road at the north and west sides of Cunan Road, was originally proposed to the Committee of the Whole in September 2002. At that time the Applicant proposed to build a total of 803 units consisting of 444 single-family homes and 359 townhomes comprised of approximately 75% 3-bedroom homes and 25 % 4- � bedroom homes. Director Napolitano noted conceptually the plan offered a mix of units and lot sizes with a feathering effect from east to west. The Committee of the Whole expressed the following issues and concerns: • Density too high • Protection of the environmental corridor along Boone Creek • Commercial development size and proposed uses • Drainage concerns • Continuation of the bike path • Investigation of curb cut locations onto arterial roadways • Access onto Curran Road at commercial hub • West McHenry Bypass. Director Napolitano stated that based upon the comments elicited at the Committee of the Whole meeting, the developer revised the plans for development of the site and made formal application to the City. The Plan presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission showed 723 units: 393 single-family units, 330 townhome units, 25-acres proposed for commercial development. Director Napolitano informed the Committee that the Planning and Zoning Commission, at their May 15, 2003 meeting, unanimously recommended denial of the Applicant's request. Concerns and issues addressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission included: • Protection of the Boone Creek Corridor `-- • Reduction in the proposed number of multi-family units • Timeline of the build-out of the project • �oad irnprovements and traffic impact Community Development Committee Meeting January 14, 2004 Page 2 `-- � Open space preservation and usability • Creation of an Architectural Standards Manual • Aesthetics of the project • Side/rear load garages • Contribirtions to ta�cing entities. On June 16, 2003 the Applicant appeared before the City Council to discuss the development. The following issues were discussed and raised as concerns by Council: • Density � Size of��roposed commercial area • Appropriateness of townhomes west of Curran Road • Storm c��ater runoff • Issues a�idressed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Council directed the Applicant to continue working with Sta.ffto address the issues raised by the Committee of the Whole and the Planning and Zoning Commission and to work with Staff to further reduce the density. On October 22, 2003 the Applicant met with the Community Development Committee seeking direction on how to proceed with the development. The density of the Plan proposed at that time had been reduced to 702 units. The Committee indicated thax a density closer to 550 � would be more palatable. Additionally, the following issues were identified: • Remove Boone Creek Corridor acreage from the density calculation; • Park space should be consolidated in larger more useable site(s); • Ratio of townhomes to single-family residences was a concern; The revised Concept Plan presented by the Applicant at tonight's meeting indicates the following: • 550 units, 494 single-family homes with RS-2 zoning and 56 townhome units; • An 800-foot corridor along Boone Creek would be preserved; • Townhomes located in Neighborhood 3 to the south, at the northeast corner of Curran Road and Bull Valley Roads; • On the west side of Curran Road, 19-acres of commercial; • Larger park sites on the east side of Cunan Road along the creek and near the center of the proposed development on the west side of Cunan Road. Director Napolitano noted overall the revised Plan appears to address the concerns identified by the Committee. Applicant Roger Gerstad introduced Roger Dupler of Welch Hanson Associates. Mr. Dupler stated important elements incorporated into this most recent plan, as suggested by the Community Development Committee, include: • Bike path; � • Larger park sites; • Preservation of 800-foot corridor along Boone Creek; • Landscape buffering; Community Development Committee Meeting January 14, 2004 Page 3 `-- • Relocation of commercial area; and • Incorporation of central postal delivery zone on the east side of Curran Road. Alderman Glab expressed concerns with: • Traffic congestion; • Drainage; • The pro�imity of the wetlands to the residences in the development. Responding to Alderman Glab's inquiry, Mr. Gerstad stated a traffic study has been conducted. Staff indicated no traffic problem was anticipated with a line-up of the intersection at Cunan Road. A discussion ensued regarding possible vehicular tr�c issues. Alderman Condon expressed support for the Concept Plan, but noted she had some reservations regarding the affect of the development on the Boone Creek Corridor. Director of Community DFvelopment Napolitano indicated environmental conservation design techniques could be incorporated into the Annexation Agreement. Responding to Alderman Glab's inquiry, City Planner Martin stated it was premature to designate land use as the Concept Plan has not been thoroughly reviewed or platted. Chairman Alderman Wimmer indicated he supports the commercial element of the Concept Plan. Alderman Condon concurred. � Alderman Glab stated he does not support 19-acres of commercial development, but would consider 10-acres of commercial. He does not like the designs along the creek and would prefer development of a maximum of 511 units. George Cadotte of the Planning and Zoning Commission suggested the developer donate property in the development to the City for public parking. A brief discussion ensued regarding the feasibility of such a donation. Responding to suggestions, Mr. Gerstad stated he would consider incorporating perpendicular parking in the commercial area. Additionally, he noted he has no objection to eliminating the fences along the Boone Creek Corridor and having wording to that effect incorporated into the Annexation Agreement. Motion by Glab, seconded by Condon, to recommend a revised Adams Farms Property Concept Plan be submitted to a Committee of the Whole, incorporating Community Development Committee suggestions, prior to submission to the Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation to Council. Voting Aye: Glab, Condon, Wimmer. Voting Nay: None. Absent: None. �, Motion carried. Community Development Committee Meeting January 14, 2004 Page 4 �- Discussion Regardin�Aesthetics Director of Community Development Napolitano stated in 2003 the Community Development Committee and Council both endorsed an initiative presented by the Planning and Zoning Commission to review existing City Ordinances from the perspective of improving the aesthetics of thc�community. John Hc�well, Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission, indicated the changes suggested by the Commission focus on aesthetics. He stated it is the intention of the Commission to review all ordinances relevant to aesthetics in and effort to propose revisions and additions to enhance the aesthetics of the community. The Planning and Zoning Commission suggested changes affecting the Zoning Ordinance, relating to a residence, would only apply to individuals purchasing property from the date the Ordinance is approved. Prior to the enacting the Ordinance properties would be grandfathered in until the time the property was sold. Director• Napolitano indicated as an initial step in the process the Commission has completed review of the existing vehicle management regulations and is proposing the following changes. Munici�al Code, Chapter 27, Inoperable or Abandoned Vehicles. The proposed change would add a timeline in Section 27.2, clarify if written or oral permission is required in Section 27.3, and put a 3-day limit for permission to park an inoperable vehicle. �. • Staff is concerned that further clarification is required to determine the intent of these changes. Section 27-4 addresses the disposition of an inoperable vehicle, giving an owner 7-days to remove an inoperable vehicle. This time frame could be shortened, but 7-days would seem adequate to allow an owner to make arrangements to dispose of a vehicle. - It was the consensus of the Committee to support this proposed change, subject to limiting to 7-working days the time allowed for permission to park an inoperable vehicle. Zoning Ordinance. Chapter VII, Surface of Parking Area. The proposed change would require that any existing crushed gravel driveway proposed for expansion must be paved in its entirety. - It was the consensus of the Committee to support this proposed change. Zoning Ordinance, Chapter VII, Wheel Guards. The proposed cha.nge would require that wheel guards be permanently secured in place. - It was the consensus of the Committee to support this proposed change. Zoning; Ordinance, Chapter VII. Parking of Recreational Vehicles. The proposed changes would prohibit boats f'rom being parked outside from October 1 to April 1. All recreational vehicles would be permitted outside only for a 24-hour loading or unloading period. � • Staff noted concern regarding this major policy change. It was stated that McHenry is a recreational community and many residents are boat or recreational vehicle owners. Implementation of such a drastic change could be a hardship for some residents. Staff Community Development Committee Meeting January 14, 2004 Page 5 � suggested an approach to consider is that all recreational vehicles(RVs) be parked behind the front building line. This would achieve the strived for aesthetically pleasing streetsc��pe and would not place a burden on existing RV owners. o ��lderman Glab stated the proposed change regarding recreational vehicles has the � }�otential to be quite controversial. Additionally, he expressed concern regarding the burden placed on Staff regarding enforcement issues. A heated discussion ensued. - It was the consensus of the Committee to support the suggestion of Staff that all recreational vehicles be parked behind the front building line, to modify the dates a boat could be parked outside; and the amount of time a recreational vehicle would be permitted outside for loading or unloading. This proposed change will be further discussed and analyzed by the Community Development Committee prior to recommendation to Council. Zoning Ordinance, Chapter VII. Parking of Commercial Vehicles. The proposed changes would prohibit the outside parking of commercial vehicles in a residential district and would clarify the definition of a commercial vehicle to include any vehicle having graphics or any signage larger than the size of a bumper sticker. • Staff expressed concern regarding this major policy change. Director of Community Development Napolitano noted that McHenry has a large workforce in the trades and � many use their vehicles not only for commercial business but also for personal use. Prohibiting the outside parking of such vehicles would be a hardship on many residents. He suggested a better way to regulate commercial vehicles, without significant interpretation, is to utilize the State license plate classification system. - Mr. Howell noted the size of the graphics and signage is negotiable. - City Administrator Maxeiner suggested obtaining a legal opinion from the City Attorney prior to continued discussion of this topic. Following a brief discussion the Cornmittee concurred. Zoning Ordinance, New Re„g;ulations. The proposed changes would require that wherever there is garage space, vehicles must be stored in the garage. It would be illegal to use garage space for other types of storage. Essentially, all garage bays must be used to house vehicles belonging to the residents. After garage space is used to house vehicles, no more than two additional vehicles belonging to the occupants may be parked outside. • Staff expressed concern that while the intent of the change is understood, monitoring and enforcement of such language would be beyond the capabilities of current staff levels. Additionally, a family having four drivers, each owning a vehicle, and the subject property equipped only with a one-car garage, could not park one of its vehicles at the residence. While most families have two vehicles it is becoming more common for teens � to own vehicles. Staff opined implementing such regulations would seem to go beyond the scope of zoning, which addresses health, safety and welfare issues. Cornmunity Development Committee Meeting January 14, 2004 Page 6 �. - Alderman Condon stated while the intent is admirable the concept is impractical. Additio�lally, she concurred with Staff regarding the issues of monitoring and enforceinent. - Regarding the issue of monitoring and enforcement, Mr. Howell suggested perhaps the City cot�ld provide an incentive, perhaps in the form of a free vehicle sticker, if a resident reported a neighbor who was not in compliance with the ordinance. - City Planner Martin opined City personnel are prohibited, under any circumstances, from entering personal property without the consent of the owner of the property. - Alderman Glab expressed strong opposition to consideration of the proposed ordinance, objectin� to the entire content. He stated the ordinance is offensive, suggesting it might even be illegal for the City to attempt to interfere with how an individual chooses to use persona� property. A heated discussion ensued. - It was the consensus of the Committee that there was no support for this ordinance and proposed policy change. Discussion Regarding New Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance Chairman Alderman Wimmer suggested due to the lateness of the hour the discussion regarding the Planned Unit Development Ordinance be continued to Monday, January 19, 2004 �, at 6:30 p.m., in the Aldermen's Conference Room, prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting. Motion by Wimmer, seconded by Glab, to defer the discussion of Topic No. 3 regarding the New Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance to Monday, January 19, 2004 at 6:30 p.m., in the Aldermen's Conference Room, prior to the regular scheduled Council meeting. All ayes. Motion carried. Adiournment Motion by Glab, seconded by Condon, to adjourn the meeting at 10:10 p.m. Voting Aye: Glab, Condon, Wimmer. Voting Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, % ����/�.� Richard W. Wirnmer, Chairman �