HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 4/24/1995 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 24, 1995
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTN;R OF THE APPLICATION )
� OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, AN ) Z-395
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ) CITY OF MCHENRY
FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, PURSUANT ) PUD
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE )
CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY )
COUNTY, ILLINOIS. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petidon was held on March 27, 1995, recessed to April 10, and
recessed to this date. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following persons
were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Chuck Lovett, Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow,
John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer.
�.- 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioner: None.
6. Attomey for the Petitioner: None.
7. City Council Members: None.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting a comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the
Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements for the City of McHenry.
Lobaito said that the recommended changes which were discussed at the hearing on March 27, 1995
have been incorporated into the Amended Petition which has a revision date of March 29, 1995. The
Amended Petition is the document which is before this Board for discussion this evening. Lobaito said
there is a flow chart attached to the Petition which gives a concise overview of the PUD Process. The
flow chart is an attempt to clarify the procedure for staff, the Council, the Zoning Board, as well as
' potendal Pedtioners before this Board. The proposed changes to the existing PUD ordinance comprise
�-- an effort to streamline the PUD Frocess before the City. The existing PUD ordinance offers no
direcdon or procedural policy to developers. The proposed PUD ordinance would clarify and define
the steps which are necessary to move forward on the part of potential developers/petitioners.
Page 2
ZBA-City Text/PUD
4/24/95
S�UESTIONS BY_MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
� Swierk said there is currently a PUD Review Committee. Why is there no longer such a body for
reviewing potential PUDs? Lobaito said there would be a Technical Review Committee as defined in
the proposed PUD ordinance. Swierk said the City Administrator would determine the composition of
the Technical Review Committee, whereas the PUD Review Committee was a standing committee
represented by the Plan Commission, the Zoning Board, the various taxing districts, city engineers, etc.
Swierk said he is concemed regarding the City Administrator making so many of the decisions without
input from the Zoning Board or Plan Commission or the City Council. McArdle said the purpose for
putting the burden on the City Administrator was to remove it as a bwden of the Council. This would
take the form of a recommendadon on the part of the City Administrator as opposed to the Council
being involved in all the preliminary matters of the PUD. Lobaito said the presentation of the Concept
Plan before the City Council would not be a burden to the Petitioner. The submittal requirements of
the Concept Plan application are minimal so that the Petitioner is able to get a reading on whether or
not to proceed with a project before he would spend a lot of time and money on a project that is not in
accordance with the overall city plan. The Concept Plan presentation would simply be an agenda item
at a regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Swierk said if a landowner or developer makes a Concept Plan presentadon before the Ciry Council, the
landowner or developer could then come before the ZBA and state that all city concems have been
addressed before the Council and that they are simply looking toward the ZBA to rubber-stamp the
proposed plan. Swierk said he is not comfortable with that idea. Semrow said that it would be foolish
to sit on a PUD Review Committee to whom a developer asserted that all or most of the matters
conceming the proposed development had previously been applauded or approved by the City Council.
� Semrow said that subsequent hearings would be, or have the appearance of being, specious. Semrow
said that the proposed PUD ordinance provides only for a presentation of the Concept Plan before the
City Council in order that the developer might seek direcdon in a general sense, with no input
concerning all of the specifics of the proposed development.
McArdle said that the presentation of the Concept Plan before the City Council would provide a forum
from an equitable standpoint in order to provide guidance to the developer at a very early stage in the
development of the project. Swierk said he would prefer that the ZBA make the decision regarding the
direction the proposed plan might take and not the Council. McArdle said the Council is comprised of
the elected officials and it would perhaps best be up to them to direct a developer to proceed with a
particular development and in what manner the developer is encouraged to proceed. Kleemann asked
if the ZBA could be provided with the basic review of the professionals who are a part of the Technical
Review Committee, McArdle asked if this Board could recommend a way to present the Concept Plan
early on without somehow giving the impression that acceptance in part of the Concept Plan by member
or members of the Council would be all-encompassing
Lovett said that the Concept Plan is very preliminary. Tt would not contain enough information to
permit making actual zoning changes or recommendations. Lovett said that the Concept Plan should
be presented before the City Council so that the Council can give the developer direction with regard
to proceeding with the development. McClatchey said he agrees with that statement. Lobaito stated that
in most cases, the Concept Plan would not contain specific information regarding the development. The
City would not be requesting specific information up front. There would be no financial obligation on
the part of the developer at this point. The PUD Filing Fee would not be required until the Preliminary
�. Plan Application is filed.
Page 3
ZBA-City Text/P1JD
4/24/95
Swierk asked if there was any limit to the number of times that a developer could make changes to his
� Concept Plan and bring it back before the City Council. McArdle said there is no limit stated in the
proposed ordinance. Swierk voiced concern that a developer would not come to ZBA following
presentation of Concept Plan before the City Council if he thought he was being given a non-favorable
recommendation from the Council regarding his plan. At the same dme, if he received a favorable
recommendadon from the City Council, he may try to force approval by the ZBA by stating that the
Council has already approved it.
Lobaito said the City Council does not want to undermine the ZBA's purpose at its hearings. Semrow
asked that the ZBA be provided with a transcript of the proceedings before the City Council with regard
to the Concept Plan presentadon. It would be fair and appropriate to have all Council comments
forwarded to the ZBA at least thirty days prior to the ZBA hearing. McArdle said it is within the
purview of the ZBA to request that a court reporter be present to record all proceedings before the City
Council for transmittal to the ZBA. Tobeck said this would give the ZBA a true sense of where the
Council is at regarding the entire proposal. It would provide a Council perspective for consideration
by the ZBA.
Swierk said that the proposed PUD ordinance provides for phasing of the Master Site Plan. Is there any
way in which the city can force a developer to proceed with 2 or more phases of a given project, rather
than just the initial phase. Lobaito said the Master Site Plan would not be binding to allow for change
in market requirements or needs. Lobaito noted that in his memo he recommended that a definidon for
a Master Site Plan be found and its requirements delineated. McArdle said the Master Site Plan should
address such issues as drainage, topography, public improvements, such as streets, water, sanitary and
� storm sewers. Lovett said that if the City concedes that a Master Site Plan is not binding, how could
the City encourage installation of the infrastructure for the entire project, if the developer can change
his plan at any moment in time? Lobaito said the ordinance should be changed to read "The Master Site
Plan binds the applicant" (Page 4, paragraph [e]). Lobaito said there should be a definition regarding
the requirements to be addressed on the Master Site Plan, such as infrastructure, roadways, drainage,
topography, etc. The Master Site Plan would not be necessary to be presented to the City until the
Preliminary Plan has been formally approved.
Swierk asked what would happen if the Plan Commission is against the proposed development and the
Preliminary Plan and the Master Site Plan have already been approved. Semrow asked why the
ordinance has been set up so as to bypass the Plan Commission. Lobaito said the Plan Commission has
historically not been involved in the PUD process except for the Chairman of the Plan Commission who
served on the PUD Committee. Other than the PUD Committee, the ZBA had control of the PUD
process. The function of subdivision control ordinance review is being done by staff. Swierk asked
when an issue comes up regarding compliance to the Comprehensive Plan, who would review the
proposal if the Plan Commission will not be involved. Lobaito pointed out that the staff would review
this item. There is a provision in the ordinance, that if the developer chooses to plat his development,
both preliminary and final plat would be reviewed as usual by the Plan Commission. McArdle said that
the developer could choose to do both processes concurrendy (PUD review by the ZBA and Plat review
before the Plan Commission). Semrow asked if there could be some stronger language inserted to let
the developer know that platting requirements will be followed as dictated by the Subdivision Control
Ordinance. It was suggested that the heading for paragraph (i), page 5, be changed to Review of
�- Preliminary and Final� Plan Commission.
Page 4
ZBa-City TextlPi JD
4/24/95
After considerablc; discussion, it was agreed to strike Master Site Plan from the proposed ordinance
� and replace it with Preliminary Plan. There was general agreement that the Master Site Plan was a
duplicadon of the Preliminary Plan. There would therefore be three documents which would be required
during the PUD process: Concept Plan, Preliminary Plan, Final Plan. The requirements for each
document are specified in Tables A and B of this ordinance.
Swierk asked that Page 2, paragraph B, be amended to read that "In particular, however, the planned
unit development technique is intended to provide for modifications of the substantive requirements...".
Swierk asked that Council comments be provided at least thirty days prior to the ZBA hearing regarding
the Final Plan. It was the consensus of those present that a court reporter be present and a transcript
be forwarded to each member of the Board 30 days prior to the Public Hearing.
Lovett asked that the flow chart incorporate the need for a court reporter and transcripts being sent to
the Board before the Public Hearing. He also requested that arrows be used on the flow chart.
Swierk asked if it would be possible to require a vote of 2/3 majority of City Council in order to over
ride a negative recommendation on the part of the ZBA. McArdle will check on this possibility with
regard to the Illinois Statutes.
Swierk expressed concerns regarding minor adjustments to an approved PUD (Page 11, paragraph H
(1)(d). Specifically, 10% appeared to be a great percentage allowance with regard to the final grade.
It was the consensus of those present that this be changed to one foot. Swierk also recommended that
the Board delete "or type" from the same subsection of the ordinance (Page 11, paragraph H (1)(e).
�
Swierk asked if there was a definite need to have a minimum lot size for which a PUD could be
considered. He suggested that the 2 acre minimum be stricken and that no minimum lot size be given.
Lobaito will research how this could potentially impact the City with possible pras and cons reference
this issue.
Lobaito said that signs had been inadvertendy overlooked within the text of the ordinance. He would
like to see more restrictions as to the signage in PUDs. One suggestion could be to add presentadon
of a proposed sign package as one of the requirements of the filing procedure. Approval of the sign
package could be integral in approval of the overall plan. Lobaito agreed to com� up with a list of
requirements necessary to be incorporated into the sign package submittal. This submittal will be
included in the requirements found in Table A. Semrow asked that some type of criteria for signage
be incorporated into the ordinance.
It was the consensus of those present to require that all taxing districts be nodfied of each presentation
of the PUD before the City Council and the ZBA rather than only just prior to presentation of Concept
Plan.
Lovett asked that Page 4, paragraph (b) be changed to state "applications for approval of a Preliminary
Plan shall be filed no later than 6 months after Concept Plan Presentation" as opposed to approval.
Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this matter,
`— the Board will consider the Petition at this time, unless there is a motion to recess by a member of the
Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition".
Page 5
ZBA-City Text/PUD
4/24/95
DELIBERATIOIY_AND RECOMMENDATION
`.. Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Lovett to recommend to the City Council that
the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance be amended as described in the amended
application revised 3/29/95; and that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Text Amendments,page
401 of the Zoning Ordinance, have been met; and that a vote of 2/3 majority of the Council be
required to approve a PUD development.
Discussion on the Motion:
Swierk asked that the Board be provided with a redline copy of the Amended Petition for approval as
to the suggested changes resuldng from this meedng date prior to the recommendation being forwarded
to the City Council for action. Lobaito agreed to provide all members of the Board with a newly
revised copy of the Amended Pedtion. A final response date will be included with this mailing so as
to give the Board adequate time to assure that they are in agreement with all incorporated changes.
Voting on the Motion:
Voting Aye: Kleemann, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Christensen.
Motibn carried 6-0.
�
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Lovett, seconded by Tobeck that the hearing be adjoumed at 9:35 p.m.
Voting Aye: Kleemann, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Christensen.
Modon carried 6-0.
Respectfully submitted
Harry S ow, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
c: Agenda, Zuning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director of
Building & Zoning, Public Works, Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers, Aldermen
Reference Copy, Building&Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest
�-- Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-395