Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 01/27/1992 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING JANUARY 27, 1992 A Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order by Mayor Busse on Monday, January 27, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Center Council Chambers. At roll call the following Aldermen were present: Bolger, Donahue, Locke, Lieder, Adams, Patterson, Serritella. Absent: Smith. City Staff in attendance were: City Clerk Gilpin, City Administrator Peterson, Attorney Narusis, Director of Parks and Recreation Merkel. Absent: Chief of Police Joyce, Director of Public Works Batt, Director of Buiding and Zoning Halik. Mayor Busse announced that the purpose of this Public Hearing was to consider the annexation of three parcels of land and the amendment of an annexation agreement dated July 16, 1979 for property in the southwestern part of town. In attendance at the meeting were petitioner David Backhaus, his attorney Richard Curran, and his land planner Ted Johnson. Cheryl Barone, Court Reporter, was also in attendance. During the Ten Minute Public Input Session, the following signed up to address the Council: Bill Landis, Assistant Superintendent of School District #15; Dr. Jim Mowery, President of District #156 School Board; James Zients of 111 Creekside Trail; and Richard A. Forster, attorney for the Winding Creek Concerned Citizens. First to address the Council was Attorney Forster, representing the Winding Creek Concerned Citizens (WCCC). He requested that public input be postponed until the end of the presentation since he had not received prior notice of the meeting. He noted that according to the zoning regulations, the ZBA's report is to be mailed to petitioners and representatives of objectors not less than five days prior to the City Council meeting at which time the matter will be acted upon. He said he had not received copies of that report or a notice of this hearing. He just received copies of the Zoning Board of Appeals' report tonight. For that reason, he did not have a chance to study the Zoning Board's opinion and felt he had an obligation to his clients to ask for time to study the report before making any comments to the Council tonight. Mayor Busse said his comments would be noted for the record. Bill Landis of School District #15 said he understood that the City had been talking about the possibility of entering into a joint venture on a 26 acre parcel of City land which could be used for a school site. He stated the schools were very enthusiastic about that sort of a joint venture and were hopeful something in that nature could be put in the public record tonight. Dr. Mowery of School District #156 asked that his public input statement be allowed after the developer's presentation. James Zeinz of 111 Creekside Trail asked whether installation of parkway trees is required for new subdivisions. He felt an ordinance should be drafted for this subdivision and for future subdivisions requiring the installation of parkway trees. Attorney Curran announced that the petitioners for this project were Fremont Backhaus, Irene Brackmann, David and Catherine Backhaus, and Donald and Joanne Backhaus. He said there were three parcels for annexation: 7.5 acres owned by David and Catherine Backhaus; 7.5 acres owned by Donald and Joanne Backhaus; 8.5 acres owned by Fremont Backhaus and Irene Brackmann. There is also a petition to amend the annexation agreement, which was part of a July 1979 annexation agreement which did not include the three parcels up for annexation tonight. Total acreage for the entire project is approximately 230 acres. The property is basically bounded by CrysLal Lake, Bull Valley, and Curran Roads. The original annexation agreement included commercial, residential, and multi -family developments. Winding Creek subdivision was the name given to the annexation agreement of 1979. The property was owned by Backhaus and Brackmann, and the developer was Residential Development Group (ROG). RDG ivad options to purchase some of the property, but it did not complete the entire project and so the project went back to the Backhaus/Brackmann family. Three years ago, Backhaus/Brackmann approached the City to rnur.ninto tho prniect and have since been working on it. The petitioner has been to Plan Commission, Zoning Board, staff, and Council meetings in that period of time. January 27, 1992 Page 2 Curran said that the concept plan presented tonight was a substantial improvement over the 1979 plan. There was a site for a new school, a substantial reduction in the density and a significant increase in the amount of open space. Under the new agreement, they are proposing 716 units. The original annexation agreement called for 1278 units, 353 of which have been built. The net result is a reduction of 209 units from the original annexation agreement. Proposed for parcel 1 are 31 RS-3 Single family residences, 40 RM-1 townhomes, and 130 RM-2 condominiums, and some C-3 Commercial. Proposed for parcel 2 are 263 RS-2 Single family homes, 144 RS-3 Single family homes, and 108 RM-1 townhomes. Time frame for the project would probably be a 15-20 year process based on the market, Backhaus said. Curran said as part of the public hearings held before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the petitioners met with the attorney for the objectors to work out a compromise in the density and the plan. The plan provides for a buffer of single family homes next to the existing homes, and a reduction in the density. In addition, the petitioners agreed that no more than 25% of condominium units would be three bedroom units. Ted Johnson of Thompson, Dyke and Associates then gave a detailed overview of the concept plan for parcels 1 and 2. He explained that parcel 1 contained 44 acres and was located on the northwest corner of Bull Valley and Crystal Lake Roads and has mixed uses. Parcel 2 had 180 acres with 407 detached single family units and 108 townhones. Dartmoor Road was shown as extended to Curran Road, with installation of a bridge crossing the creek. Johnson pointed out that these were all concept plans to give the Council an idea of what their development could look like. Preliminary plats would be brought back to the Council before any construction would begin. Baxter & Woodman did present a memo stating that there was sufficient capacity for water and sewer facilities for both parcels 1 and 2. Discussion was held on the proposed bridge and extension of Dartmoor and the necessity for limiting or eliminating driveway access onto Dartmoor, west of the Creek. After the developer's presentation, Dr. Mowery, President of District #156, reported that both districts had met with Backhaus at his invitation to discuss the school project. Both districts said that unfortunately, at the present time, they would not be able to educate any students generated by this subdivision, mainly due to funding cuts brought on by the tax cap. Dr. Mowery estimated that 330 elementary students and 100 high school students would be generated by this project over a period of time. They discussed the 26 acres of parkland which the City has. They also discussed the possibility of having the City lease part of that land to District #15 to put a building on with the rest of the open space to be shared between the City and the schools. This was a very attractive proposalto the schools. It would present some significant savings and allow them to compromise and conserve, rather than have a separate site for a school. At some future date, Mowery said maybe a similar arrangement could be made for District 156. The high school would not need the land immediately but it is looking 15-20 years down the line when a new building might be needed, Dr. Mowery said. Present plans propose adding on to West Campus before looking at a new building. For that reason, the high school Board would prefer to have money instead of land at the present time, so that it could be applied to remodeling expenses or for the purchase of land. Attorney Forster, representing Winding Creek Concerned Citizens, said that density was the main concern of the WCCC. They voiced their concerns to the Backhaus group, and it agreed to decrease density and agreed that the land dedicated to the City would be sufficient and suitable for a school site. The WCCC is opposed to completion of the bridge, but didn't want to take a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) position. He said the WCCC's agreement with Backhaus went a long way to meet their concerns compared to the original concept plan presented. On the basis of that agreement, WCCC withdrew it's objection at the Zoning Board of Appeals hearing. January 27, 1992 Page 3 Bolger said the City Council should go on record as actually entering into a joint venture with District 15 on the 26 acres of land to be donated to the City for park use. He felt it might go a long way to alleviate some of the school's problems. Busse agreed that since land costs are a large part of the cost of a new school, this would help the problem. Johnson said they had taken a survey of eighteen school and park joint ventures. All but one municipality had excellent working relationships and the projects were very successful. He distributed copies of the survey to the Aldermen. Mayor Busse called for a recess at 9:12 P.M. The Meeting reconvened at 9:30 P.M. with everyone still in attendance. Mayor Busse asked Attorney Forster if he was withdrawing his objection that he had received no notice of the hearing and might want to delay action. Attorney Forster said that he should have received a notice as is required by the Zoning Ordinance, but since he had a chance to listen to the presentation and write some notes this evening, he said WCCC was not presenting an objection. He was present here tonight to make a statement to the Council of the WCCC's views on the project. However, he did request that the agreement reached between WCCC and Backhaus be respected by the Council and implemented as a part of the annexation agreement. He agreed the proceedings should continue. Mayor Busse brought up six major issues for discussion: (1) Is the zoning appropriate, and for what areas? (2) Should the schools and City enter into some type of an intergovernmental agreement in principle for the purpose of locating a school site on some of the properties that will be donated to the City? (3) Should this property be connected to the South Wastewater Treatment Plant? (4) Instruct the City and schools to develop an economic impact analysis, so we can intelligently discuss the merits of tax revenues versus impacts on various services, such as police, fire, schools, etc.; (5) Discuss the status of a bridge across the creek to Curran Road; (6) Discuss the location of any utility sites such as water towers; Alderman Lieder asked if we currently have an annexation agreement, or do we have an annexation agreement that has expired. Narusis said this was a ten year annexation agreement which was signed in 1979 and it has been more than 10 years since that agreement was signed. That annexation agreement contained an express provision that in the event of any third party litigation, the 10-year term of the agreement would be tolled (suspended) for such period of time as the litigation was pending. There was litigation on this project and it was pending approximately six years. As far as the actual term of the agreement is concerned, it was Narusis opinion that it has not expired. In answer to another question concerning the non-performance of certain obligations under the terms and provisions of the annexation agreement, Narusis said it was a fact that there is non-performance. What legal characterization should be placed on that was a policy decision. No Council to this time has taken any position with respect to that non-performance, or directed Narusis to take any legal action with respect to it. _ieder ;dis since BaCKnaws ,gas here to Cnange Cnat annexation and reconsider it under different guidelines, what if the Council did not accept it. Would it then go back to the original 1979 agreement that is currently in place? Narusis said the Council would have the authority to decide if this was a breech position. If the Council did not amend the annexation agreement in some form, it would go back to the original annexation agreement. January 27, 1992 Page 4 Attorney Curran said the petitioners strongly believe that the annexation agreement was tolled (suspended) by the litigation. What they have come back to do is make some modifications, amend that annexation agreement and make basic changes in everyone's best interest, Curran said. They believe that the agreement is still in effect. It was pointed out that if litigation tolled the ten-year agreement and the original agreement was signed in 1979, the ten-year term would have been up in 1989. However, the litigation tolled the agreement and it is now in effect until 1995. According to provisions in the annexation agreement, the bridge was to be installed on Dartmoor to Curran Road by 1986. Serritella asked if that six -year extension would be added to that 1986 date. Attorney Narusis said that in his opinion, the tolling provision related to the term of the agreement, and not to the performance of the obligations. Alderman Serritella said she felt it should not be considered a breech, and we should proceed with the project. Alderman Donahue also agreed that we should proceed with the project. Alderman Locke disagreed and felt that the impact would be too strong on the neighborhood and the residents of the City right now. Bolger felt that the staff should work along with District 15 people to hammer out an intergovernmental agreement, whereby the 26 acres in Parcel 2 could be used by District 15 for a school site. Patterson stated developers should not build houses unless they can build schools also. Busse said up to this point, the Council felt it was better to negotiate than to "draw a line in the sand". Motion by Bolger, seconded by Donahue, to agree in principle, to have the City staff and the staff of School District 15 work out what terms and conditions might be appropriate for a permanent intergovernmental agreement for use of City land to construct a school, and to have that agreement brought back to the City Council for review. Voting Aye: Voting May Absent: Motion carried. Bolger, Donahue, Adams, Patterson, None. Smith. Lieder, Locke, Serritella. Busse noted that on the plan, RS-3 zoning was shown as opposed to RS-2 zoning. In 1991, the City eliminated the RS-3 zoning and he therefore asked that the petitioners consider changing those RS-3 lots to RS-2 classifications. Discussion continued on open space and school problems. Alderman Rieder asked that City Administrator Peterson discuss with the petitioners the possibility of paying the developer donation fees sooner than when the building permit is issued so as to alleviate the problems the schools are facing, to make sure they have facilities available when youngsters move into the community. Peterson felt that could be addressed in the annexation agreement. Bolger stressed that whatever is done should be done for everyone, and should not just be a part of this annexation agreement. Busse asked if there was interest in pursuing this development and if so, the meeting should be recessed. Motion by Serritella, seconded by Patterson, to recess this Public Voting Aye: Bolger, Donahue, Lieder, Adams, Patterson, Serritella. Voting Nay: Locke. Absent: Smith. Motion carried. The Meeting recessed at 10:27 P.M. ��.i�• - -R WOUNAU ,.