Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 05/09/1985 - Committee of the WholeCOMMITTEE MEETING OF THE WHOLE THURSDAY, MAY 9, 1985 A Committee Meeting of the Whole was called to order by Mayor Busse on Thursday, May 9, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in city hall. The following Aldermen were in attendance: Nolan, Teta, Smith, Snell, Serritella, McClatchey. Absent: Bolger, Lieder. City staff in attendance were Supt. of Public Works Halvensleben, Building & Zoning Officer Rosing, City Clerk Gilpin. Zoning Board Members in attendance were Jim Fouse, Annie Mae Cuda, Robert Jessup, Fred Kupstis, Harry Semrow, Gary Schaefer, Donna Tobeck. Absent: None. Plan Commission Members in attendance were Bill Buhrman, Lynne Donarski, Earl Osmon, Don Toole, Joan Schwegel, Tom Uttich, Don Wedekind and Bill Wilson. Absent: Sandy Eckstein and Dick Hoover. Mayor Busse announced that the purpose of the meeting was to introduce the various boards to each other, have everyone get to know who the participants are and increase communications so that all City Boards are on the same wave length and have the same objectives in mind. He reported that the pay structure for Zoning Board and Plan Commission Members had been increased effective May 1, 1985. The Zoning Board Chairman would receive $25 and board members $20 per meeting, the Plan Commission Chairman would receive $20 and board members $15 per meeting. After everyone introduced themselves, Mayor Busse asked that all participate by voicing their concerns regarding their respective boards. Some of the Mayor's concerns about the Plan Commission were: What does the Commission feel its role is; Is it been used effectively; Should the Commission be used for long rang planning; Is the Compre- hensivE: Plan still current and valid and if so, how do we implement it and measure our performance against those goals and objectives; If the goals aren't current, should they be reviewed and acted upon; Is the Comprehensive Plan utilized to the best of its objectives; How often is it used by the Plan Commission; How could future planning be implemented; Are we giving fair consideration to future planning; Should just indi- vidual plats be considered as they come before the Plan Commission or should future planning be incorporated into the Plan Commission's role; Should an annual report be made as to the progress of the goals and objectives ? Regarding the Zoning Ordinance, the Mayor was concerned about what could be done to improve it; Should commercial setbacks and off-street parking be changed; If too many variations are being request- ed, does it indicate that the Zoning Ordinance should be changed; By putting amendments on top of amendments and with two or three different administrations suggesting amendments, is the flavor of the whole ordi- nance still in tact; should the whole Zoning Ordinance be professionally reviewed and suggested revisions brought before the Zoning Board? Another matter the Mayor felt should be discussed was: Where is the City going on growth; Are we looking at a pro -growth situation, and if so„ should some constraints be suggested in various situations and areas. He felt the boards should come up with suggestions as to, where the City should be in five and ten years. Mayor Busse said the bottom line is that all boards should be working together towards the same objectives and by keeping the lines of communication open, hopefully these objectives can be realized. Joan Schwegel, Chairman of the Plan Commission, mentioned that the Plan Commission must work within the rules and regulations of the ordinances. She felt it would help to have the City Attorney present at its ft etings. The Plan Commission enjoyed working with Bob Grossman when the update of the City's Comprehensive Plan was done, she said. They would have liked him to be present for some of the previous planning meetings on large subdivisions which came to them for consideration. The Plan Commission received many ideas from Bob Grossman which were not coverE!d in the ordinances and which related to what cities would have to do to consider building homes in the future. For instance, in the future maybe all homes should not be restricted to the same setback line but placed so that homes could take advantage of solar energy. It was her opinion that the Plan Commission would like to consider using the ser- vices of a professional planner for present and future planning. Thursday, May 9, 1985 page 2 Plan Commission Member Bill Wilson felt that the day to day changes and challenges could be handled as they arise. However, long range planning has not been addressed by the Plan Commission mainly because they don't know how. Some of the members have attended seminars at Elgin Community College and McHenry Community College. They mentioned problems which could arise in the future with overlapping taxing districts concerning shopping centers as well as overlapping mile and half boundary jurisdictions. At the present time, Prairie Grove, Wonder Lake, Bull Valley and Sunnyside have overlapping mile and half boundary jurisdictions with the City of McHenry. Wilson felt some planning should be done in the future considering these matters as well as traffic flows. It was his opinion that setbacks along highways should be given special consideration since in t;ie future if these highways are widened it could effect the setbacks of businesses along those routes. He also felt that the 2000 Year Plan should be reviewed annually and updated every two years. He mentioned that when the 2000 Year Plan was origin- ally done, the Plan Commission requested that a Light Commercial District be established. However, when it got to the City Council, they hit a brick wall and were told that it was not necessary. Plan Commission Member Don Wedekind said that several yE!ars ago he asked if the Plan Commission was to have the total planning function responsibilities for the City. He never received an answer. If the City Council wants the Plan Commission to have total planning responsibility, the Plan Commission can move out in several different directions. He mentioned that not one of the City projects had come to the Plan Com- mission for review --expansion of the Public Works Garage, Knox Park development, and location of various Wells had never been brought to their attention. He felt that it was up to the Council to decidE! if the Plan Commission should act as planners or just review plats as they come in. Mayor Busse felt the City Council should either give the Plan Com- mission the tools to do its job effectively or be content with the way it is operating now. Wedekind stressed that the Commission was willing to do whatever the Council wanted, but it wanted specific instructions as to exactly what its role should be. Wedekind pointed out that they are not a Planning Commission but are a Plan Commission responsible for the City plan. However, he felt they show d be a Planning Commission. Plan Commission Member Lynne Donarski said the authority the Plan Commission thought it had was disputed on several occasions when it got to the City Council. Also, several times the Plan Commission was called to hear a proposal being presented to the City Council and was told it was a mere formality going before the Plan Commission because this was what the City Council was going to accept. She resented her time being wasted on matters such as this. Mayor Busse said that a new administration was now in effect. The new Council might make some mistakes but they are all willing to learn and work together. Plan Commission Member Donald Toole stated the Commission tries to do what is best for the City of McHenry. They look at aesthetics, safety, future traffic conditions and encourage the establishment of businesses to create some tax money for the City. Wedekind commented that the City Council should redefine the Plan Commission duties and out- line exactly what the Council expected from the Plan Commission. Plan Commission Member Tom Uttich said he had only been on the Board one year and at every meeting he attended it was just to direct themselves to an immediate problem, to approve plats as presented. It seemed to him that this was approving not planning. He felt that the Commission should do more future planning. Mayor Busse said the City Council was trying to solicit input from the Plan Commission, Zoning Board and local citizens to formulate a future growth plan for the City. That was the purpose of meeting tonight, to stimulate interest and have a brain storming session. He felt the Plan Commission's idea for a Light Commercial classification was well taken since it is very effectively used in other communities. Possibly the Plan Commission could be involved in developing some sort of a common theme in the downtown areas to help merchants enhance their properties, Busse said. He thought the goal of the Plan Commission should be a planning function, to put some practical ideas on paper that people could use when they sit down with their architects when they want to improve their stores. Thursday, May 9, 1985 page 3 Lynne Donarski commented that she felt when the petitioner had their Attorney present at the Plan Commission Meetings, the City Attorney should also be present to assist the Plan Commission. The other Plan Commission Members concurred with her statement. Mayor Busse asked if it bothered the Plan Commission or Zoning Board when Aldermen were in attendance at their meetings. Plan Com- mission Members said it did not bother them. The only time any Aldermen showed up at its meetings was when the Light Commercial District was discussed. Zoning Board Member Harry Semrow said he felt it was important that the Aldermen come to the Zoning Board Meetings so that they would hear and see the testimony and evidence upon which the Zoning Board made its recommendations. Many times when the petition was up before the City Council for decision, the Petitioners' Attorneys will bring additional witnesses and put on different testimony than what the Zoning Board heard. Therefore, the Zoning Board's recommendation was either questioned or overturned. Zoning Board Member Anna Mae Cuda said she felt not everyone was on the same wave length. The Plan Commission has a year 2000 plan which they are to abide by but if something more expedient comes up, the City Council disregards that plan. The Plan Commission then feels frustrated and used. She said the Zoning Board Members feel the same way. They make their decisions on the testimony that is brought before them, which is what they have to work with, and then when it goes to the City Council for final approval there is either a complete reversal or additional testimony is brought before the Council that the Zoning Board has not heard. She felt that the Zoning Board, the Plan Commission and the City Council were not all operating on the same wave length as to what the specific needs of the City are. If you want people to work for the good of the City and to work on City Commissions and City Boards, they should be mad'le to feel their input is valuable to the Council. If they feel that all they do is window dressing, you won't get capable people to serve, she said. Zoning Board Member Cuda said maybe our ordinances are not tight enough so that other attorneys find holes in our ordinances and then try to wiggle through. Part of the reason we get snowed so often is because maybe those Attorneys know they can get away with something, she said. Since retained personnel money pays for Attorney and Engineers fees, she felt the various boards should be able to use them more readily. Chairman Jim Fouse of the Zoning Board mentioned that many times the Zoning Board has made recommendations to the City Council and then the petitioner brought additional evidence before the City Council which he did not feel was right because everything the Zoning Board takes as testirriony or evidence is under oath. That is not required when they appear before the City Council. Zoning Board Member Semrow felt that there should be some rule that no witnesses should come before the City Council who have not come previously to the Zoning Board because then the City Council is basing their opinion on things that the Zoning Board has not hE!ard. Chairman Fouse mentioned several zoning items he felt should be changE!d. 1) Automobile service stations should be removed from the 6-1 classiification. 2) Indoor theatres should be removed from the B-1 clas- sification and put into B-2 recreation district. 3) There is cummulative zoning in B-3 which allows all B-1 and B-2 uses. He felt the cummulative zoning should be eliminated and each district should stand on its own. 4) Eliminate the B-4 classification because Fouse has been on the Board for 10 years and has never had anyone request a B-4 classification. Since all the uses in B-4 are also in 3-3, he didn't feel it was neces- sary. 5) The Mayor should appoint a Vice -Chairman as well as a Chairman of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 6) If the Board gives an affirmative recommendation, the rules do not say what vote of the City Council is needed to approve it. Usually it is just a simple majority but Fouse felt it should be mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance does say that if the City Council overrides the Zoning Board recommendation it takes a two-thirds vote of the Council. However, it does not stipulate what vote is needed to concur with the Zoning Board recommendation. Fouse stressed that it was very important that the City Attorney be at all Zoning Board Hearings. Zoning Board Member Fred Kupstis recalled that two years ago, a meeting similar to this combined session was held. All of the concerns Mr. (Fouse mentioned tonight were brought up at that meeting. The Thursday, May 9, 1985 pagE! 4 matters were thoroughly discussed and the Zoning Board was given to understand that meetings would be held with the Plan Commission and the City Council on all of these concerns. However, the only action that resulted from that meeting two years ago was that an Ordinance was passed governing portable signs. He hoped it would not take another two years before action was taken on these concerns of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Busse agreed that two years was a long time to wait for action but he did comment that many of the suggestions made at that meeting two years ago were incorporated into the city's zoning petition for off-street parking that was coming before the Zoning Board shortly for amendment of the Zoning Ordinance. In November of 1984, the City did adopt a BOCA Code Ordinance which was also recommended at the meeting two years ago. Kupstis commented possibly the Chairman of each Board should present what they would like to see changed and present it to the Coun- cil. Then in a reasonable amount of time the Council could get back to the Boards with what they wanted done. If another meeting is then necessary for an update, another combined meeting could be held. He did not want to see another two years pass without any action being taken. Semrow agreed and said a timeframe or deadline should be set to encourage quicker action. Alderman Serritella commented that she did not feel it was right that the petitioner should appear before the City Council with testimony other than what the Zoning Board heard. It was her opinion the City Council should base its decision on what was presented to the Zoning Board of Appeals and nothing else. The other Aldermen agreed. Alderman McClatchey commented he felt the Plan Commission was a wasted body as it is now and should be given some authority to be a total planning body instead of just a plat review board. Alderman Smith felt that the Plan Commission may be to concerned about what happens after they handle a project. Once the Plan Com- mission approves a project, it has done its job and should no longer be concerned with how that project is handled even though they might not like it. He felt that Aldermen should not be on Plan Commission or Zoning Boards. The reason for having different advisory boards is so more people can have input into a project before the Council makes a deci- sion. He agreed with Serritella that no other information should be presented at the City Council Meetings after the Zoning Board Hearing is finished. He also felt the City Attorney should be present at meetings of the Plan Commission and Zoning Board but not at the meetings where just general discussion is held. Alderman Teta suggested that the Chairman of each Board set out what they feel they should be doing. Put the recommendations in writing and get them before the Council for action. Specifically mention the immediate concerns that they would like the Council to act on before we meet again, he said. Fouse commented that most of the Zoning Boards' immediate con- cerns were expressed at this meeting tonight. He would like to have the City Attorney submit a petition to the Zoning Board for final action to amend the ordinance on those aforementioned concerns. Chairman Schwegel said she felt a planner should be on staff who could consult with the Plan Commission on an "as needed" basis. However, she stressed that the planner should be someone that the City Council could accept and work with because the last time the Council hired a planner who worked well with the Plan Commission, the City Council would not accept his recommendations. Busse asked that the Chairmen of the Boards set some goals and reduce their ideas to immediate concerns so the Council can act on them as soon as possible. Concerns that might take more time should also be itemized and submitted. The Council could then look at the situation and redefine the duties of the various boards. He stressed the need to keep the lines of communication open so everyone can work toward the same goals for the future good of the City. He asked the Chairmen to get back to him within 60 days with their recommendations. Mayor Busse adjourned the meeting at 9:28 P.M.