HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 5/16/2001 - Community Development Committee COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Wednesday, May 16, 2001
Aldermen Conference Room 6:30 p.m.
`- In Attendance: Alderman Glab, Alderman Low, Alderma,n Wimmer, Alderman Bolger,
Alderman Mizrgatroyd, Mayor Althof�, Director of Community Development Napolitano, City
Clerk Jones, t�ity Attorney McArdle, City Administrator Loba.ito.
Members of the Commuaity in attendance:
Robert Bergland NW Management
Donald Butler 903 Wiltshire Dr#2
Jerry Erickson 921 Wiltshire Dr
Ruth Petersen 2002 Orchard Beach Dr
Jim Cavanaugh 2002 Orchard Beach Dr
Paul Dreiske 2316 N Orchard Beach Dr
Mike Ecksteir� 1810 N Orchard Beach Dr
Larry Guerzo�i 1920 N Orchard Beach Dr
Charles Majercik McHenry Township Hiway
Walter Wozniak 2216 Orchard Beach Dr
Merle Janssen 3215 Bay View
William�Patricia Schwolow 2214 N Orchard Beach Dr
Roger Goehrke 2004 Orchard Beach Dr
Carey Fenner 2104 N Orchard Beach Dr
Sue Althoff 2104 N Orchard Beach Dr
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Alderman VVimmer at 6:30 p.m.
�
Orchard Beach Subdivision Concerns regarding Riverside Hollow Subdivision
Chairman Alderman Wimmer inquired if there was a spokesperson present for the Orchazd
Beach Homeowners Association. Mr. Paul Dreiske, resident of 2316 N Orchard Beach Drive,
stated he is the spokesperson for the Association.
Mr. Dreiske noted the Association represents homeowners who reside in the orchard Beach
Subdivision. 13e stated the basic function of the Association is to provide for upkeep,
maintenance and improvement of Orchard Beach Drive, which is a private road. The funding is
done by Association dues paid annually, approximately $40/year for each homeowner. The
Association has three major concerns:
■ Safe�: particularly at the junction of Orchard Beach Drive and Riverside Drive. This
is a school bus stop, as well as the main access point to the Orchard Beach
Subdivision. The traffc on Riverside Drive is steadily increasing, causing safety
concerns at this intersection.
■ Water Infiltration: Orchard Beach Subdivision has e�erienced water infiltra.tion
coming across Orchard Beach Drive. Residents are fearful of flooding especially in
light of other development adjacent to their subdivision. The first was the
development of Aloha.Drive and Aloha Court, which subsequently caused flooding to
Orchard Beach Subdivision, as well as additional road and storm drain ma,intenance
costs. Secondly, at the extension of McCullom Lake Road eastbound to Riverside
Drive, and the advent of The Oaks of McHenry single-family homes, flooding
� problems were once again exacerbated. In light of these two occasions, when the
Association had been promised no flooding would occur following development of
these properties, the Association is once again fearful of further flooding problems
with the development of Riverside Hollow Subdivision.
Page 2
Community L►evelopment Committee
May 15, 2001
L
■ M.iintenance of Orchard Beach Drive• The Association does not have the funds or
resources other than provide maintenance of the status quo of the private roadway.
The roadway cannot be upgraded to be accepted by the Township for maintenance
dua to the narrow right-of-way. The Association has cooperated with McHenry
Township in doing necessary patching and grading of the roadway. The concern is for
future renovation and/or replacement of the roadway and the limited width, which
prevents its being accepted by the Township.
Mr. Dreiske tha.nked the City for the opportunity to dialogue regazding these issues.
Attorney McArdle inquired if the Association has a reaction to the proposed engineering plans of
Riverside Hollow, which should alleviate potentia.l flooding of the Orchard Beach Subdivision.
Mr. Dreiske noted the adverse reaction by members of the Association and the disbelief that
flooding prob�ems will be decreased. He noted the 21-inch drainpipe e�ending to the river
would not be adequate to accommodate surface water runoff from the Riverside Hollow
Subdivision.
City Administrator Lobaito confirmed the Riverside Hollow developers are not certain the exact
size of the drain pipe in question. The developers have indicated if the pipe is not adequa.te, or if
they aze unable to verify the pipe is at least 21 inches in diameter a11 the way to the river, they
will make certain adequate sized pipe is installed to cany the surface water runoff to the river.
� City Administrator noted the size or condition of the pipe should not be an issue as it will be
rectified by the developers.
City Administrator Lobaito inquired if Mr. Dreiske represents all members of the Homeowners
Association. Mr. Dreiske responded he represents the majority of the homeowners. City
Administrator inquired if there were other issues brought forward as well. Mr. Dreiske stated the
following issues were also mentioned:
• Actual physical limitations of Orchard Beach Drive roadway, including the east side
being bounded by buildings, gazages, etc. and the west side utility pole locations;
■ Could the roadway possibly be widened to accommodate annexation, including City
water and sewer utilities;
■ What would be the cost per property owner of annexation, installation of water sewer
lines, hookup fees;
■ What would be the options as far as time fiame for payment of all associated fees;
■ What would each individual homeowner's options be?
Staffadvised Mr. Dreiske annexation is a process unto itself. It would be best at this time to limit
discussion to the proposed development of Riverside Hollow. If in fact Orchard Beach
Subdivision chooses to annex at a later date, detailed discussion regarding the terms of
annexation would then begin.
City Administrator Lobaito noted the flooding concerns of the homeowners is b+eing addressed
� by the City. He referenced a similaz concern expressed by residents of Olde Mill Ponds in
McHenry. He stated the sump pumps no longer run; surface water runoff has effectively been
captured and piped to prevent flooding of Olde Mill Ponds a.nd Mill Creek Subdivisions.
Page 3
Community I►evelopment Committee
5/16/Ol
�.. Similarly, the developer of Riverside Hollow Subdivision will be required to handle surface
water runoffto prevent additional flooding in this area.
Alderman Glab noted the development of Riverside Hollow may not correct 100% of the
Orchard Beach Subdivision drainage problem. Drainage will be improved. Discussion followed
regarding existing drainage and the potential improvement due to the development of Riverside
Hollow Subdivision.
Referencing the safety concerns at the intersection of Orchard Beach Drive and Riverside Drive,
Alderman Glab asked if a consensus had been reached by the Association as to the vacatin� of
that intersection and/or interconnection to Riverside Hoilow. Mr. Dreiske responded there is a
consensus there is a safety issue, as far as the bus stop is concerned, walkers, joggers, etc.
Members of the Association concur this issue must be addressed at this time. Following further
discussion, it was suggested Staff be provided with input from residents of Orchard Beach
Subdivision, (.�s opposed to the residents speaking directly with the developer)to assure the City
is aware of all d'uection and issues expressed to the developers of Riverside Hollow.
Mr. Dreiske noted there are further concerns of the Homeowners Association with regard #o the
installation of FAP420 and division of Orchard Beach Subdivision between the north and south.
However, these concerns cannot be addressed at this time as there aze too many unknown
factors. Discussion continued regarding the annexation of individua.l parcels versus annexation of
the entire Orchard Beach Subdivision.
�.
McHenry Township Road Commissioner Majercik stated the township's position that the
intersection of Orchard Beach Drive and Riverside Drive be vacated in favor of a connection
through Riverside Hollow Subdivision to Orchard Beach Subdivision from Riverside Drive at its
intersection with McCullom Lake Road. He also stated his concerns regarding existing drainage
issues, which should be addressed at this point in development discussions with the Riverside
Hollow developers. Mr. Majercik suggested the Riverside Hollow developers be required to
provide 20-30' of additional right-of-way for the expansion of Orchard Beach Drive.
Mr. Art Eskeridge stated the Riverside Drive and Orchard Beach Drive intersection is 40-45'
lower in elevation and much of the pavement along Orchard Beach Drive was under water and/or
ice during the majority of the winter season. He also noted the density in this area is getting
progressively higher and e�cpressed concern regarding the costs of roadway improvements,
increased education facilities, etc. He opined surface water runoff would increase as a result of
the Riverside Hollow Subdivision development.
Mr. Mike Eckstein expressed his concern regarding being potentially landlocked if additional
right-of-way is not secured from the Riverside Hollow developers. Orchard Beacn Drive must be
widened in order to be acceptable to City of McHenry or McHenry Township standards. A
lengthy discussion followed regazding ways to accommodate the potential improvement of the
Orchard Beach Drive roadway.
Mr. Dreiske stated a consensus of the desires and concerns of the individual homeowners of the
�' Orchard Beach Homeowners Association will be compiled. Once a report of the consensus is
Page 4
Community Development Committee
S/16/O 1
�- created, the Associa.tion representatives would like to meet with City Staff in order to focus on
major concerns. Mr. Dreiske was directed to contact Director of Cammunity Development
Napolitano.
Alderman Bo lger stated the City is open to hearing the requests and concerns of the Orchard
Beach Drive Subdivision residents. These concerns will be taken into consideration during
Council's deliberation of the annexation and development of the Riverside Hollow Subdivision.
Discussion occurred regarding the proposed lot size of Riverside Hollow Subdivision. Staff
noted the developers aze requesting RS-2 Zoning which dictates a minimum 10,890 square feet
lot size. In response to an inquiry, Staf� responded the total number of single family lots
proposed for Riverside Hollow has not yet been finalized.
In response to an inquiry, Staff responded screening of the east property line along Orchard
Beach Drive niight not be required by ordinance. Discussion followed regarding the utilization of
the retention pond in such close proximity to the river and the e�stence of a high water table in
this area. In response to an inquiry, City Administrator Lobaito stated the density of the
Riverside Hollow Subdivision would have to be reduced if the City required the dedication of a
25' wide strip for right-of-way e�ansion of the Orchard Beach Drive.
Chairman Aldzrman Wimmer thanked Orchard Beach Subdivision residents for attending the
meeting and providing their input and concerns to the City.
�
Discussian regarding District 156 West Campus Ezpansion Project
Chairman Aldcrman Wimmer invited comments from those in attendance regarding the second
agenda item, the discussion of the District 156 West Campus Eacpansion Project.
Alderman Glab stated Council directed the questions of the District 156 West Campus
Expansion Project be sent to Community Development Committee for review and consideration.
He noted the expansion brings into question limitations placed on the property at the time the
West Campus property was platted as part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in 1965 by
City ordinance.
In response to Alderman Glab's inquiry, Attorney McArdle noted criteria A through H contained
in the 1965 ordinance pertained to the development of all portions of the PUD. Alderman Glab
noted such issues as pazking lot layout for West Campus, placement of entrance and exit drives
on the properiy, adequate parking be provided, screening from adjacent properties were included
in those criteria. Alderman Glab inquired if the proposed expansion of West Campus was subject
to the criteria and terms of the PUD ordinance passed in 1965. Attorney McArdle responded in
the affiumative. Referring to Criteria G, Peripheral Roadway, Alderma.n Glab noted the location
of any peripheral roadway should be approved by the City of McHenry.
Alderman Glab noted issues of concern are:
• Permitting a curb cut from the West Campus property onto Oakwood Drive;
■ Drainage;
`" ■ City review of District 156 plans for e�ansion of the West Campus facility;
■ Overflow from retention pond including riprap along drainage ditch;
Page 5
Community Development Committee
S/16/Ol
`�-- ■ Entrance and exit drives should prevent nuisances and safety hazards especially at
Crystal Lake Road;
■ Three access drives to the West Campus property as opposed to the existing two
acc:ess drives.
Attomey McArdle noted if Council as a whole determines a third access drive to/from the West
Campus property will create a nuisance or safety hazard,the City would then stop the installation
of the access drive. In response to Alderman Murgatroyd's inquiry, Attorney McArdle stated the
access drive could be removed if it was determined after-the-fact that it was causing a traffic
nuisance to residents of the City.
In response tc� an inquiry, Director of Community Development Napolitano stated the West
Campus Expansion Project Plans show a gated entrance onto Oakwood Drive. At this time, it is
not clear what will trigger the opening of the gate. Alderman Glab opined the gate should be
located at least 30' from the Oakwood Drive property line.
Motion by Glab, to refer the discussion regarding Paragraph G of the 1965 PUD ordinance which
governs the expansion of the West Campus facility, including the following issues/concerns to
the City Council for formal action: Permitting a curb cut from the West Campus property onto
Oakwood Drive; Drainage; City review of District 156 plans for e�ansion of the West Campus
facility; Overflow from detention pond including riprap along drainage ditch; Entrance and exit
drives should prevent nuisances and safety ha.zards especially at Crystal Lake Road; Three
� access drives to the West Campus property as opposed to the existing two access drives.Motion
died for lack of a second.
City Administrator stated the question before the Committee at this time is to determine if the
City Council has the latitude by the 1965 PUD ordinance to address the modifications to the
existing West Campus facility site plan. The City must deternune what is meant by "peripheral
road" in the 1965 PUD ordinance. Due to the ambiguity of the 1965 PUD ordinance, Attorney
McArdle stated the Community Development Committee and ultimately the City Council must
determine if they want to become involved in its enforcement.
Discussion occurred regarding the impact on the adjacent condos and the possibility of action to
address any complaints. City Administrator Lobaito, in response to an inquiry, noted Staff is
working with the School District regarding providing screening from adjacent pmperties for both
East and West Campus facilities in light of current building prajects and expansion of facilities.
Director of Community Development Napolitano noted even though Council may not become
involved in the review process of the plans for renovating and e�anding East and West Campus,
Staff will still review the plans to assure they comply with City ordinances, as far as water/sewer
connections etc.
Motion by Bolger, seconded by Low to adjourn the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
All Ayes. Motion carried.
�
Respe fully submitted,
1 �/
T�ichard . Wimmer Chairman