HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 02/24/1992 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 1992
A Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order by
Mayor Busse on Monday, February 24, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal
Center Council Chambers. At roll call the following Aldermen were
present: Bolger, Donahue, Locke, Smith, Adams, Patterson, Serritella.
Lieder arrived at 8:45 P.M. Absent: None. City Staff in attendance:
City Clerk Gilpin, City Administrator Peterson, City Attorney Narusis.
Absent: Director of Public Works Batt, Director of Parks and Recreation
Merkel, Chief Joyce.
Mayor Busse announced that this meeting was recessed from January 27,
1992. The purpose of ,the Public Hearing was to consider the annexation
of three parcels of land, and the amendment of an annexation agreement
dated July 16, 1979 for the Back hau s/Brackmann property located in the
southwestern part of town. In attendance at the meeting were petitioner
David Backhaus, his attorney Richard Curran, his landplanner Ted Johnson,
and Gary Schaefer of Hay and Associates, wetlands consultants. Cheryl
Barone, Court Reporter, was also in attendance.
ITEMS PREVIOUSLY AGREED UPON
At the January 27th meeting, the public input portion of the Public
Hearing was concluded. Mayor Busse presented a summary of the issues
discussed to date. The items which the City and the petitioner have
agreed upon are as follows:
1) The Backhaus family has agreed to take over as developer for the
property instead of Residential Development Group(RDG);
2) It is presumed that the existing annexation agreement is still in
force, although under the present annexation agreement some terms and
conditions have not been met. Therefore, it was concluded at the first
hearing that portions of the existing agreement are in default or breech;
3) The Council voted unanimously to agree in principle to have the
staff negotiate various terms and conditions of a future
intergovernmental agreement with School District #15, whereby School
District #15 would construct an elementary school building on City
property. The agreement would be brought back to the Council for final
approval. City Administrator Peterson reported that he had met with
Acting Superintendent Dan DeRoche and Assistant Superintendent Bill
Landis of School District #15 and discussed the form that an
intergovernmental agreement might take. He discussed the proposed
agreement with City Attorney Narusis and asked that he draft an agreement
which would be presented at a future meeting.
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION AT THIS HEARING
The following items were presented on the agenda for discussion this
evening:
1) Should zoning for all un-built, single family residential properties
be RS-2 (10,980 square foot minimum lot size)?
2) Concerning a bridge across Boone Creek and the extension of Dartmoor
Drive west to Curran Road, which was required under the existing
annexation agreement - should this developer be given a pass on this
improvement and not be required to build this facility? When? What
about curb cuts along Dartmoor Drive, west from Boone Creek.
3) Should the sewer collection system be installed according to City
Master Plan for water/sewer improvements adopted in 1989?
4) Should sites for any water storage production facilities be provided
on this property?
5) What should zoning be for the northwest corner of Crystal Lake and
Bull Valley Roads? Any restricted uses? Any architectural review of
any developments?
6) What should phasing and timing of any improvements be?
7) In conjunction with economic impact analysis, should any limitations
be put on the number of hones constructed each year? Should any
development fees be prepaid?
February 24, 1992
Page 2
During discussion on point #1 regarding zoning: the majority of
Aldermen felt RS-2 should be west of the creek, and it would be
permissible to allow RS-3 on the east side of the creek abutting existing
RS-3 lots near the commercial area. The Council also felt it was
permissible to allow multi -family on the west side of the creek.
On point #2 concerning a bridge across Boone Creek and the extension
of Dartmoor Drive: Serritella, Smith, Bolger, Donahue, Patterson, Busse
voted "yes" to require installation of a bridge and extend Dartmoor
Drive. Locke, Adams, and Lieder voted "no".
Point #3 concerning whether the property should be connected to the
South Wastewater Treatment Plant or the Central Wastewater Treatment
Plant: petitioner Backhaus requested that this item be deferred until he
completes his research on the matter.
Point #4 concerning whether a well or water tower should be placed on
this property: it was the consensus that no such facilities be placed on
this property but possible on the southwest corner of Bull Valley and
Crystal Lake Roads.
Mayor Busse called for a recess at 9:26 P.M. The meeting reconvened
at 9:40 P.M. with everyone still in attendance.
Point #5 concerning zoning for the northwest corner of Crystal Lake
and Bull Valley Roads: the petitioner agreed that he would not place a
gas station on that corner. He requested a list of allowable C-3 uses
for the property, and said he would review them and inform the Council as
to which uses he would agree not to place on that property. He had no
objection to presenting architectural review of the development, and to
maintaining an architectural theme throughout the commercial and office
areas.
Point #6 regarding the phasing and timing of the development:
petitioner Backhaus said he would probably start looking at both aspects
of beginning phasing in Parcels 1 and 2. The timeliness of installation
of the bridge was a major factor. Mayor Busse said that there is
parkland on the west side of the creek, which is inaccessible at this
time. Therefore, the City would prefer that the bridge be installed
sooner rather than later.
Petitioner Backhaus then introduced Gary Shaefer of Hay and
Associates, wetland consultants. Schaefer said he was retained to take a
look at the situation in the vicinity of where the bridge crossing would
be on the west side of the creek. He examined the area in terms of the
quality of the wetlands that are present, as well as what other water
permit issues might face the developer in terms of being able to cross at
that particular point. His survey revealed that the wetlands on the site
were of above average quality. Since the total impact for the bridge
crossing would be under one acre, he felt the bridge could probably be
constructed without any mitigation at all. However, the Corps of
Engineers would probably ask for mitigation. Shaefer said it could take
four to six months to get a permit and he did not foresee any problems
that would stop that bridge crossing in terms of getting a permit from
the Corps of Engineers.
Item #7, the last isswon the agenda, asked if there should be any
pre -payment of development fees.
Motion by Locke, seconded by Patterson, to table discussion on Item
#7.
Voting Aye: Locke, Donahue, Serritella, Patterson,
Adams, Smith.
Voting Nay: Lieder, Bolger.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
City Administrator Peterson presented an economic impact analysis for
parcels A and B of the Backhaus development. This financial summary
outlined estimated impact fees from the development for the library, fire
protection district, schools, water and sewer fees, annual real estate
tax revenue, annual sales tax revenue, motor fuel tax revenue, income tax
revenue, annual miscellaneous revenue, and City revenues from
recapitalization.
February 24, 1992 Page 3
The financial summaries were distributed to the Aldermen at this
meeting, and each was asked to review the report, and if there were
questions, to contact Peterson.
A question arose as to where the Fox Valley Freeway Corridor would
go in relation to this project. Mayor Busse reported that the time table
for this project was to start narrowing down the corridor by late
summer. Since there are two legs that go around the west side of the
City, (one goes up Curran to Ringwood Road, and the other goes further to
the west), if the City prefers one of the corridors, that information
should be given to the Freeway consultants now. However, Busse stressed
that this is just a study area, and at this point, they are merely
looking at possible routes for a proposed highway that at the present
time has no funding. He suggested that this matter be thoroughly
discussed at the City Council's April Planning meeting at which time
transportation issues will be discussed.
Motion by Smith, seconded by Adams, to recess this Public Hearing to
Monday, April 6, 1992 at 7:30 P.M.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Donahue, Lieder, Locke,
Smith, Adams, Patterson, Serritella.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 10:07 P.M.
•