Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 01/18/2001 - Planning and Zoning Commission CITY OF MCHENRY PLAN COMMISSION JANUARY 18, 2001 McHenry Commerce Center – Preliminary Plat Rubloff Towne Center – Final Plat Variance A meeting of the City of McHenry Plan Commission was held on Thursday, January 18, 2001. Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. with the following persons in attendance: 1. Plan Commissioners: Buhrman, Lundberg, Meyer, Nadeau, Osmon. Absent: Thacker. 2. City Attorney: Kelly Cahill. 3. Recording Secretary: Absent. 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. 5. Director of Community Development: Absent: 6. Applicant: a. Rubloff Development Group, Rubloff Towne Center, 2000 West Higgins Road Suite 205, Hoffman Estates IL 60195; b. Pacini Real Estate, McHenry Commerce Center, 1278 W. Lake Street, Roselle, IL 60172. 7. City Council/Staff: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None. Rubloff Development Group – Rubloff Towne Center Final Plat Variance In attendance was Jim Loarie of Rubloff Development Group, the firm which is developing commercial sites both east and west of Route 31 north of WalMart and Burger King facilities. Mr. Loarie stated the Petitioners are requesting Blake Boulevard on the east side of Route 31, south of Kohl’s, Circuit City, Michaels, etc., be reduced in width from a 60-foot width to a 50- foot width. Originally, the Petitioners planned to maintain Blake Boulevard as a private road. Following discussions with Staff, it was agreed to make this roadway a public right-of-way.The request is to permit a variance from the Subdivision Control Ordinance to allow a 50-foot right- of-way. He noted the 10-foot reduction, if approved, would be utilized for sidewalk. Actual roadway construction would not be altered from the original plan shown on the Final Plat. The area of dedication as road right-of-way would only be reduced. Mr. Loarie noted the building square footage requirements of each of the proposed tenants for this project would not allow for a shifting of the building footprint to the north to allow for the complete 60-foot right-of-way. Page 2 PC 1/18/01 Questions by Members of the Commission In response to Commission inquiry, Mr. Loarie stated Rubloff Development Group has not been able to purchase the additional property from the Blake Family as discussed at the November 1, 2000 Plan Commission Meeting. Planner Maggio noted the paved roadway and utilities would be located within the 50-foot right-of-way. Only the sidewalk would be located outside of the right- of-way. Maggio also noted the right-of-way has been increased from 30-feet to 50-feet, since the potential for this variance was originally discussed at the November 1st meeting. Buhrman asked the purpose of the sidewalk along Blake Boulevard to the east. Planner Maggio responded it is in preparation for future development to the south and possibly to the east. However, Blake Boulevard most likely would not be further developed to the east. A right-of- way for the construction of a cul-de-sac may be obtained. Meyer noted that the currently proposed layout of the shopping center may be adequate, and a turn around area unnecessary. In response to Buhrman’s inquiry, Planner Maggio stated the sidewalk would be constructed in an easement dedicated for this purpose. Nadeau inquired if the sidewalk could be utilized as an extension of the City’s bike path. Mr. Loarie responded the sidewalk would not conceivably connect to the City’s bike path unless additional right-of-way was secured from the Blake Family Property to the immediate south of the subject property. At the time of annexation of the Blake Family Property, perhaps the City could request donation of right-of-way for use in extending the bike path. Staff has not considered extending the bike path in this commercial area. Osmon asked if the utilities would be constructed beneath the sidewalk or solely in the sidewalk easement. Planner Maggio noted the utilities would actually be installed south of the road in the right-of-way. Lundberg asked if the Blake Boulevard entrance/exit would be the most utilized access point to the east side commercial development. Mr. Loarie responded in the affirmative, noting the northern access point is right-in right-out. It is anticipated there would be a traffic signal at Blake Boulevard/Route 31 intersection. Lundberg inquired if the reason for proposing a cul-de-sac on the east end of Blake Boulevard would be that the property to the east would most likely be developed as residential. Planner Maggio responded in the affirmative, noting the property to the south of this development is zoned commercial and would most likely be developed as retail/commercial. Discussion followed regarding the potential development of the Blake Family Property. Some discussion occurred regarding the proposed landscaping on the perimeter of the property. Lundberg expressed concern that the proposed landscaping would not adequately buffer/screen the commercial property from the adjacent property which could ultimately be developed as residential. He noted there should be more intense landscaping/screening especially on the east property line. Chairman Meyer noted the adjacent properties to the east and south are all zoned commercial. The applicant is only required to provide screening/buffering as befits commercial adjacent to commercial development. Page 3 PC 1/18/01 Recommendation Motion by Buhrman, seconded by Nadeau, to recommend to the City Council that Rubloff Development Group be granted a variance to the Rubloff Towne Center Final Plat, as prepared by Gentile & Associates, last revised 1/2/01, to permit a 50-foot right-of-way for Blake Boulevard from the required 60-foot right-of-way as stated in the City of McHenry Subdivision Control Ordinance. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Meyer, Nadeau, Osmon. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstained: Lundberg. Absent: Thacker. Motion carried. 5-0. Pacini Real Estate – McHenry Commerce Center Preliminary Plat In attendance were Gregg Gabel from Gabel & Associates, Peter Huinker from Smith Engineering and Attorney Daniel Curran from Campion, Curran, Rausch, Gummerson and Dunlop. Attorney Curran reminded the Commission the Concept Plan of the McHenry Commerce Center, a 240 acre property owned by the Pacini Family, was presented to the Plan Commission November 4, 1999. The developer is in the process of going through the annexation and zoning process at this time. The Preliminary Plat reflects 175 acres of BP Business Park Zoning; 22 acres of C5 Highway Commercial; and 43 acres of E Estate Zoning. He noted the E Estate property would currently have no access until public road access is made available. Attorney Curran noted the proposed Preliminary Plat is in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. A Public Hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled for February 19, 2001. Attorney Curran noted the Developers have not received final approval from the City’s engineering firm Baxter & Woodman with regard to their suggested changes/amendments. He requested input from the Commission at this evening’s meeting, in light of the fact no clean report from the engineers has been received as of this date. Mr. Huinker stated that on January 12, 2001, Smith Engineering responded to Baxter and Woodman’s December 27, 2000 and City correspondence of January 9, 2001. The response was on a line by line basis. Mr. Huinker noted the lots and dimensions will mirror the lot type and size found in the McHenry Corporate Center. Each lot will be 100’ wide; however a minimum of 200’ lot frontage is required to make a buildable lot according to the Business Park requirements. This affords more flexibility for future developers of the lots. The required number of lots can be combined to create the needed sized lot. Mr. Huinker noted Miller Parkway extends through the Business Park. A projected right-of-way for the West McHenry Bypass is shown on the Preliminary Plat. Page 4 PC 1/18/01 Questions by Members of the Commission Lundberg asked if there were any items in Baxter & Woodman correspondence which have not been addressed by Smith Engineering. Lundberg noted Lot 72 would have to be reconfigured if and when the Bypass is constructed. Lundberg asked if the south end of Cato Drive, adjacent to Lot 104 contains a 60’ right-of-way which will be deeded to the City. Will there be public access to Lot 104? Lundberg noted Lot 102, commercial, would have to be subdivided at a future date when exact uses are known. Lundberg opined, for aesthetic purposes, he would not like to see the rear of commercial buildings facing Route 31. In response to Lundberg’s inquiry, Planner Maggio stated the latest plans for the Krumholtz Deer Park property could connect from Route 31 to Barreville Road. Some discussion followed regarding the potential for aligning roadways in this area of Route 31. Lundberg asked where the wetlands would be set aside. In response, Mr. Huinker stated Lot 103, west of the railroad tracks, would be utilized for this purpose. Osmon asked if there are any plans to tie in to Terra Cotta. Mr. Curran responded in the negative. Only one full access to the bypass would be proposed, and this should be continued to the south. Nadeau asked if Tarquin Road would connect into Phase VI. Attorney Curran responded it would depend on the exact location of the West McHenry Bypass. Planner Maggio noted the phasing sequence indicated on the Preliminary Plat is the proposed chronological plan for development of the subdivision. It would therefore not be necessary to construct Tarquin Road early on in the development. It would be constructed during Phase VI of the subdivision development. Mr. Gabel noted Tarquin would be constructed to connect to the Bypass or to provide access to the southern portion of the development if the Bypass is not in place. Nadeau asked if lots 41 through 46 would be sold as one buildable lot. He noted there is a problem with access for lots 45 and 46 due to the boulevard entrance to the business park. It could be worked out that access could be gained through lot 44. Buhrman asked if Lucca Boulevard would be constructed in Phase I. If not, would all traffic entering/leaving the business park use Prime Parkway? Curran said that is correct. Buhrman asked if there was a connection between the detention areas east and west of the railroad tracks. Mr. Gabel responded that the wetlands are identified in Phase I. In response to Meyer’s inquiry, Mr. Gabel stated there would be right-in right-out access to the commercial portion of the development. There would however be full access to the bypass. Regarding access to Lot 103, Mr. Gabel noted the bypass would at some point curve to the north, and the developer would have to acquire access to the bypass at some point after the curve through to the Frisch Property. In response to further inquiry, Mr. Gabel stated the most restrictive residential zoning was selected for the inaccessible portion off the property west of the railroad tracks. The exact use of that portion of the property will determined at a later time when access to it is a reality. Chairman Meyer summarized the points outstanding with regard to the Pacini McHenry Commerce Center Preliminary Plat including: • Variances required for the length of the Pliny Court cul-de-sac; • Combining Lots 45 and 46 into one lot; Page 5 PC 1/18/01 • Possible elimination of Tarquin Road access to Route 31 or allowed as only a right-in/right- out. If the bypass is constructed in a location where it would conflict with this access (i.e. 200 feet to the south of the location proposed on the Plat). Recommendation Motion by Lundberg, seconded by Nadeau, to recommend to the City Council to approve the Pacini Development Group Preliminary Plat of McHenry Commerce Center Subdivision as prepared by Smith Engineering, subject to the compliance with the following: • All 29 conditions as stated in Baxter and Woodman correspondence of December 27, 2000; • All 6 conditions as stated in Public Works Memorandum dated December 29, 2000; • All 30 conditions as stated in Planner Maggio’s correspondence of January 9, 2001. • Approval of a variance for the length of the Pliny Court cul-de-sac; • Combining Lots 45 and 46 into one lot; • Either elimination of Tarquin Road access to Route 31 or allowed only as a right-in/right- out, as necessary. Voting Aye: Burhman, Lundberg, Meyer, Nadeau, Osmon. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Thacker. Motion carried 5-0. Adjournment Motion by Osmon, seconded by Nadeau, to adjourn at 8:45 p.m. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Lundberg, Meyer, Nadeau, Osmon. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: Thacker. Motion carried. Respectfully submitted, Kathleen M. Kunzer, Deputy Clerk Recording Secretary McHenry Plan Commission C: Mayor, Aldermen, City Administrator, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Planner, City Engineers, Petitioners, Zoning Board of Appeals (7), Landmark Commission Chairman Chicago Tribune, Northwest Herald, Aldermen Conference Room, File Copy.