Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 3/27/1995 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 27, 1995 CITY OF MCHENRY � IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, AN ) Z-395 ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ) CITY OF MCHENRY FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, PURSUANT ) TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE ) PUD 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-capdoned pedtion was held on March 27, 1995. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Emil Kleemann, Chuck Lovett, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Frank McClatchey, John Swierk. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: Michael Chmiel. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. 5. Petidoner: City of McHenry represented by Gerald R. Peterson, 333 South Green Street McHenry Illinois 60050. � 6. Attorney for the Petitioner: None. 7. City Council Members: Alderman Greg Bates, Ciry Clerk Pamela Althoff. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: 1. Greg Gable, representing the Pacini Group, c/o GBL, 1693 Revere Court, Montgomery Illinois 60538. NOTIFICATION Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on March 2, 1995. The Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk with regard to this matter. SUMMARY The Petitioners are requesting a comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the Planned Unit Development requirements for the City of McHenry. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioners: 1) Allen Kracower, 100 Lexington Drive, Suite 150, Buffalo Grove Illinois 60089. Peterson gave an overview of the background which precipitated this proposed amendment before �„ the Board with regard to the Planned Unit Development (PUD). The City Council is looking at the Pacini propeT�ty and concerns have been expressed with regard to that development. The PUD Review Process has begun and the Council has found that it is very cumbersome. It has been Page 2 ZBA-City Text/PUD 3/27/95 � determined that there is a need for significant amounts of informadon as early on as possible in the process. The Council began to look seriously at the PUD Process as it exists today. It was the consensus that the process needed to be revised and amended to require more information up front on the part of the developer. Peterson stated that there were two primary goals which the Council hoped to achieve as a result of amending the PUD ordinance: 1) The process must be clearly defined; 2) Fairly specific and significant information be required from the Pedtioner early in the process, as opposed to everything being submitted later ( as currendy is the case). Peterson said that staff has heard from all three boards (City Council, Plan Commission and Zoning Board) that they do no want the Petidoners to tell them how good the proposed development will be; the boards would prefer the Petitioners show them how good the developments will be. The boards would like as many details as possible. There are significant financial benefits for the developer as a result of going through a PUD process, but there are also significant needs which would be met by the City as well. Kracower said that after extensive staff review on the part of the City Administrator, Director of Public Works, Director of Building & Zoning, City Clerk, and City Attomey, this document is being submitted for review by this Board. Kracower said that the bulk of this document was pulled from the PUD ordinance of Northbrook. But there are many parts of it which have been changed to accommodate the desired standards of the City of McHenry. Kracower noted that the ZBA will be the primary reviewing body for the PUD developments. It was determined that the issues which are part of the PUD process relate more to zoning than the Subdivision Control `-- Ordinance, which would be in the realm of the Plan Commission. Kracower said that a Zoning Ordinance provides for various zoning districts (called organic districts) within the city. Each of those districts has very specific standards and bulk requirements which must be met or a variance sought and granted. Many sophisdcated developments, usually having more than one land use, could not malcimize the use of their property. That is how PUD Process began to develop. When a PUD is approved the following usually happens: 1) There is excellence of design; 2) There are more benefits to the community than would otherwise be obtained if this process were not followed (i.e., more open space, public transportation, better engineering, more landscaping, etc.); 3) The City is able to vary for the developer the rigid constraints of the bulk requirements and standards of the zomng district(s) in which the PUD is found. Kracower said that PUDs are authorized as a special use in all districts of the zoning ordinance. Kracower said that the proposed amendment would result in three phases to the PUD process in the City of McHenry: 1) Concept Plan 2) Preliminary Plan 3) Final Plan. The applicant tries to get what they can from the process and, at the same time, the city obtains what the community needs. The Process meets the concems of the Petitioner and the concerns of the local municipality as well. There are a variety of different intensities and characters of land use. This revisi�m to the PUD process would provide a vehicle to address these different issues �, of development. Kracower said that the process that is being incorporated as a part of the proposed revisior� is substantially different from the existing process. It was determined by the City that it is better to have the developer come in with more detailed plan early in the process so that more det�iils are evident in the beginning, There is a need for a path of logic so that Page 3 ZBA-City Text/PUD 3/27/95 � everyone (the City and the Developer) knows what the City will be looking for as the process continues. Kleemann asked what would happen in the event that a PUD is a large parcel of land and the developer chooses to develop Parcel A first, because it is the most lucrative financially. Parcel B and Parcel C may be less profitable. Would the City prevent the developer from developing Parcel A first or would we allow them to move forward in the way they choose? Kracower said that the development schedule is set by the developer in the beginning. The timing and phasing of the development needs to be followed as closely as possible. Kracower gave an overview of the proposed PUD Process as set forth in the Petition before the Board. The steps would be as follows: 1) Petitioner comes in and meets with the Ciry Administrator. 2) Pedtioner files an application with the City Administrator. 3) Staff is given 30 days to review application. 4) Staff review comments provided to City Council. 5) Pe�itioner appears before the City Council with a Concept Plan. 6) Council directs Pedtioner to: a) go on to ZB� b) revise plan which is not in conformance with Comprehensive Plan of City. 7) Pedtioner files Preliminary Plan Pedtion for Public Hearing before ZBA. 8) ZBA recommends: a) Preliminary Plan Approval b) Preliminary Plan Dervial c) Preliminary Plan Approval subject to changes as noted to City Council. �.- 9) Preliminary Plan presented to City Council for approval or denial. 10) If Preliminary Plan is approved by Council, Petitioner files Final Plan Petidon for Public Hearing before ZBA. 11) ZBA recommends: a) Final Plan conforms to previously approved Preliminary Plan b) Final Plan does not conform to previously approved Preliminary Plan. 12) All changes/amendments to previously approved Fina1 Plan are reviewed and approved as follows: a) Minor changes as defined subject to approval of City Administrator b) Major changes as defined subject to approval of City Council who many ultimately direct the project back to ZBA. Kracower noted that with regard to Preliminary Plan approval, the City could approve a partial plan but could put conditions upon that approval which could affect the overall development of the project. The developer would submit a Master Site Plan which would give the overview of the entire project, even though he may be seeking Preliminary Plan approval of only a small portion of the whole. Kracower said that although the Master Site Plan is submitted for the entire project, no one is bound by it. It would however, be entered as an exhibit at the Preliminary Plan Public Hearing. Peterson said that the process allows for adequate review times throughout the process. At each step of the way there is at least a 30 day review process so that each portion of the plan can be studied prior to approval. Peterson noted that the ZBA will be provided with written staff reports with regard to all relevant issues of a development. If the ZBA finds that additional information is needed, they will have the right to request additional information prior to a decision being made � regarding a parti�ular Preliminary Plan or Final Plan of a PUD Development. Staff will review infrastructure issues and the staff review would be provided in writing to the ZBA. The ZBA would be given thirty days to review a plan prior to the hearing date. Likewise, the Council would have thirtv days to review a ZBA recommendation regarding a Plan before taking action Page 4 ZBA-City Text/PUD 3/27/95 � on the request f'or Plan approval. Kleemann asked what assurances the City would have that the developer would actually complete a given development. Peterson said that each phase of a PUD would have to be able to stand alone on its merit. That is why if a road would be required to be put in, in a later phase, and it is cridcal to portions of the first phase, it should be put in in the first phase of the development. Each phase of the development should be independent from the rest of the development. It should be able to stand alone. Semrow said the Concept Plan would be presented to the City Council. When the Preliminary Plan is presented before the ZBA, will all of the technical reports accompany the plan when it is presented to the ZBA for review prior to that hearing? Peterson said that all relevant staff and professional reviews regarding the plan would accompany the Preliminary Plan when it comes to the ZBA thirty days prior to the hearing. Semrow sa�d on page 4(d) of the Peddon, Pr i ' i Plan Submittal Modification , what types of modifications aze being addressed in this paragraph? Kracower said that, for instance, if there is not flood plain in the project, then a report as to the relevant flood plains would not be necessary. These are the types of filing requirement modifications this paragraph is addressing. However, if there are no flood plains, the staff report would indicate that this report has not been filed because it was not needed. No flood plain was found on the site of the proposed project. Kleemann asked if the City pays for specialized reports such as traffic studies being done for a project. Peterson said the developer pays for all studies and reports. Lovett asked if studies would be done on the Master Site Plan (the overall project) or just the Preliminary Plan (the portion being specifically reviewed at that dme). Kracower said a study would be done on both. There would be a detailed study regarding the Preliminary Plan area and a broader study done of �- the Master Site Plan area. Lovett asked if the City would be asking that all public improvements be installed up front in the first phase of a project. Kracower said the City would usually ask for those which are needed in the first phase only. Semrow said that the purpose of the ZBA hearing is a public forum. Many issues could come up to which the ZBA would not have answers. Peterson said that the City has never had a very specific definitive process for finding out information and getting material from developers. This process would provide for more information and materials and reports being provided so that the Board can more easily and clearly make decisions regarding plans which come before it. The Board would have all reports and studies before coming to the public hearing. If the Board chooses, professionals and consultants could be present at the hearing. The ZBA is the key to sorting out all of the issues with regard to a proposed plan. Semrow asked if issues come up to which the Board does not have answers, would the Board be able to seek answers from an appropriate consultant. Kracower said the Board can decide not to vote on the first night of the hearing. The Board can choose to wait until additional information is provided and reviewed prior to a recessed hearing date. Lobaito said the Board would have in writing the professional technical staff reviews so that most of the questions which would be posed to the $oard in the Public Hearing process could be answered for the public. If there are questions either by a member of the Board or by observers which could not be answered, the Board would have the right as always to defer a decision until such time as those questions are answered to the satisfaction of the Board. Peterson noted that very few surprises come up at a public hearing. Most quesdons would be answerable by dc�cuments provided to the Board along with the Petition for the Plan approval. Discussion ensue� regarding soil suitability, wedands, flood plains, etc. All of these issues could be addressed ear�y on in the PUD process. � Christensen aske�� if the land uses for an entire Master Site Plan would be approved with the Preliminary Plan approvai. Kracower said that the only portion which is receiving actual approval would be the Preliminary Plan. The Master Site Plan could be subject to change. The Petitioner Page 5 ZBA-City Text/PUD 3/27/95 � would not be granted approval for an entire development based upon the Master Site Plan alone. Semrow said that by the time the Petitioner comes before the ZBA, much of the review has been done. He expressed concem regarding the appearance of rubber stamping the Plan at the Public Hearing. Peterson said that the Concept Plan has been brought to the City Council. Staff is listening to the Council and the Community. The Public Heanng before the ZBA is the process whereby public input is desired and heard by not only the ZBA, but the Council and staff as well. Semrow asked if there is a flow of how this process would work. Peterson said there is a flow chart in the back of the Petition. Peterson noted that a PUD would go before the Plan Commission only if there is a subdivision of the land involved. Peterson noted that a PUD results in a higher quality of development than would otherwise be found if following typical zoning and platting procedures. Lovett asked why the city is pursuing the amendment to the PUD ordinance if it has been used so little in the past. Kracower said that with the implementation of the proposed revisions, the City would encourage developers to use the PUD process. In its revised state, it would be less cumbersome and more easily followed than the existing process. Discussion ensued regarding why and how developers would be encouraged to use the PUD process. Peterson said the PUD process is a very different deliberative process to get as much information as possible before decisions are being made regarding approval of a proposed development. Christensen asked if the developer comes into the city with a PUD would they come back later to request conditional use or variances for this development. Peterson said they would not. Kracower said there could be limitations as to how much the requirements of the zoning ordinance could be modified within the confines of a PUD. This is something which should be reviewed `- by the City Attorney. Tobeck asked if Northbrook has had any problems with PUD's since they have adopted the PUD ordinance. Kracower said not to his knowledge. Attomey Chmiel said the City needs to have a detailed Master Site Plan for each PUD. The City should be careful not to give the impression that once the Master Site Plan is approved, the developer can just begin the final development of the project. Kracower said that in most large developments, there will be a lot of changes before the project is finally complete. Very seldom will a developer follow a Master Site Plan in its entirety. Christensen asked if there would be an increase in the time allotted for the ZBA to review the documents. Lobaito said the Board would have thirty days to review documents relating to PUDs prior to each hearing. Discussion ensued regarding the reference to special use within the PUD ordinance. At the direcdon of the City Attomey, all references to special use should be changed to state conditional use in order to be consistent with the rest of the zoning ordinance. Lobaito asked how a PUD is applied to the zoning district map. Kracower said a PUD is not a zoning district. It is a special use area within an underlying zoning district (s). Kracower said that the phraseology PUD Special Use Area could be indicated on the map with a bold outline showing the boundaries of the PUD area. Chmiel indicated that his office had specific concerns/changes regarding the Petition. These were � itemized in a memo to the Board. A copy of the memo is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A. It was the consensus of those present to recess this hearing until such time as the Board is able to review a revised petition which contains all of the corrections/changes as discussed at this hearing. Page 6 �BA-City Text/PUD 3/27/95 �,. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Lovett, seconded by Tobeck to recess the hearing at 9:50 p.m. Voting Aye: Christensen, Kleemann, Lovett, Semrow, Tobeck. Vodng Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: McClatchey, Swierk. Motion carried 5-0. This hearing was recessed at 9:50 p.m. to: MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1995, 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MUNICIPAL CENTER 333 SOUTH GREEN STREET MCHENRY ILLINOIS 60050. Respectfully submitted, i � Hariy Se ow, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals � c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), Ciry Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Pubhc Works Administration, City Attomey, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Objectors/Observers (1), Building & Zoning Zoning File, I.andmark Commission Chauman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File. Z-395 �. � � r--- X �._� � �J� � .� LAW OFFICES ZUHOWSHI, ROGERS, FLOOD �C MCARDLE 50 VIRGINIA STREET � CRYSTAL LAHE,ILLI:�TOIS 60014 CHICAGO OFFICE (BIS)459-2050 SUITE 1502 FAX IBI5)459-9057 100 SOUTM WACKER DRIVE CHiCAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 l312)407-7700 MICHAEI J. CHMIEL FAX:(312)332-1901 March 27, 1995 Mr. John Lobaito Building & Zoning Director City of McHenry 333 S. Green Street McHenry, Illinois 60050 RE: City of McHenry Text Amendment / Comprehensive revision of Zoning Ordinance with regard to the PUD Dear Mr. Lobaito: We have reviewed the Application for a Text Amendment for the March 27th hearing. We offer the following notes relative to the � language which is scheduled for insertion in the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance regarding the Planned Unit Development: Substantive 1. We discussed the first sentence in Section B of Chapter XI. The same appears correctly stated as a planned development creates an overlay district which "overlays" other districts with special or conditional uses. 2. On page 3, in the last line of Section C, insert the phrase "or beneficial: between the words "contractual" and "interest" to accommodate ownership by a land trust. 3 . On page 3, under Section D. l.b. , is a 30 days a sufficient "minimum. " 4. On page 4, under Section D.2.e. , replace the fourth sentence with "The master site plan is a flexible document which binds the applicant. " 5. On page 10, under Section E. 8.d. (vii) . , add the phrase "without any obligation" in the first line, after the ", " and before the "after" . � 6. On page 10, under Section F, at the end of the third - line, add the phrase ��on surrounding uses and ZUHOWSHI, ROGERS, FLOOD EC MCARDLE development" . �' 7 . On page 11, under Section G.2 . , in the third line, add "and/or member" after the word "Administrator" and add a " ; the City Administrator" after the word "fact" . 8. On page 11, under Section G.3. , replace "Within 60 days gollowing" with "Upon", and in the second line, add "or member under subsection 2 above" after "Administrator" . 9. On page 11, under Section H, City Council approval is not needed for minor adjustments to a Final Plan. 10. On page 15, under Item 6, is a total of $5, 000 being paid? 11. On page 15, Items 9 and 10 should apply at the PUD Concept Plan stage. Grammatical A. For consistency under the Code, "special" should be replaced with "conditional" throughout. B. On page 2, under Section A of Chapter XI, replace the word "deistrict" with the word "district" . � C. On page 2, in the sentence preceding the numbered list of objectives, capitalize the "T" in "through" . D. On page 3, under Section D. l.b. , in the second line, replace the second "permit" with "provide for" . E. On page 3, under Section D. 1.b. , replace "Any/all" with "Al1" . F. On page 3, under Sections D. i.c. , incorporate the "one" subsection into the paragraph or break the same into more subsections. G. On page 3, under Section D. 1.d. , replace the " . " at the end of the first sentence, then form the following subsections: (i) All information required in Table A entitled "Required Contents of Application Filings for PUD. " (ii) All information required in Table B entitled "Required Contents of Site Plans for PUD. " (iii) A descriptive and graphic . . . . �' .H. On page 4, in line 7 of Section D.2.a. , capitalize the ZUHOWSHI, RpGERS, FLOOD SC MCARDLE "A" in "although". `- I. On page 4, under Section D.2.e. , combine the three paragraphs into one; replace the last sentence in the third paragraph and the first line on the next page with: "In addition, the following data and information is required in a written statement: " . J. On pages 5 and 6, move the language in the footnote into the text in a paren�hetical replacing the asterisk as follows: " (composed of City Staff and Consultants, as designated by the City Administrator, as well as the Plan Commission Chairman as an Ex-Officio member, with the City Council notified of ineetings and welcome to attend) " . K. On page 5, under Section D.2. f. , combine the three paragraphs into one. � L. On page 6, under Section D. 3 .d. , strike "In addition, the following data and information is required: (i) . Phasing of Final Plan Approval" and combine the paragraphs. M. On page 6, in the fourth line under Section D. 3 .e. , capitalize the "S" in "such" . � N. On page 8, under Section E.4. , combine the paragraphs. O. On page 10, under Section E.9. , capitalize the "T" in the first "the" in the third line. We look forward to reviewing any or all of these items should the need arise. Sincerely, : f• . Michael J. Chmiel �