HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 06/11/1980 - City CouncilPUBLIC HEARING
THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 1980 8 P.M.
Mayor Stanek called to order the Public Hearing on Thursday, June 11, 1980
at 8:04 P.M. on the recessed hearing regarding the proposed Annexation Agreement
for Valleybrook Subdivision located at the southwest corner of Bull Valley and
Crystal Lake Roads. This Public Hearing was recessed from Monday, April 14, 1980.
At roll call the following aldermen were present: Pepping, Nolan, Wieser,
Harker, Schooley. Albsent: Datz, Adams, Meurer.
Also in attendance were: Attorney Bernard Narusis, Supt. of Public Works
Fred J. Meyer, Deputy Clerk Anne M. Kranz, City Engineer Hjalmar S. Sundin of
Baxter & Woodman; Petitioners David Faestel and Ray Schmitt; Petitioner's
Attorney Richard Zukowski and three unidentified members of the audience.
Mayor Stanek asked Faestel to summarize points which were raised at the
last hearing. Faestel said they are now prepared to dedicate the entire right-
of-way for the bypass road. They would: (1) Dedicate that ROW within one
year of the date of the Annexation Agreement or when the first plat is executed,
whichever came first. The developers felt it would be too premature to dedicate
that ROW area at this date without doing some final platting. However, they
wanted to retain the right to use the ROW land for their continued grain
operations on their farm today until the land is improved. (2) They propose
that the bypass road would be a 24 foot paved area with a 10 inch base with
6 foot shoulders. The shoulders would have a 10 inch base to allow for future
widening of the roadway and would have an A-3 sealcoat. The could not guarantee
a time frame as to when the road would be completed but would do the work in phases
as they plat out the subdivision. Faestel felt it would'take 8 to 10 years to
sell out all the lots in the subdivision. (3) They maintain the same position
they presented at the last hearing regarding where they would stop development
of the roadway in the parkland area. They would donate $75,000 toward construc-
tion of a bridge in the open space area and would halt road construction where
their lots abutted that park land area. They requested that they by given 6
months advance notice before payment of the $75,000 donation is required. (4)
They agreed to adhere to their previous commitment made to the Zoning Board
of Appeals and Plan Commission as per those Boards' requests. (5) They would
pay the $50,000 annexation fee on the basis of $12,500 upon signing of the
execution of the Annexation Agreement with $12,500 for four years thereafter
until fee is paid in full. (6) They would donate the entire park area without
any credit by the city. They estimate the value of the park land is $88,000.
This land would be deeded within 5 years of the date of the Annexation Agree-
ment or upon the date that they become contiguous to the parkland area with one
of their plattings. They asked that the city inform them of its plans for develop-
ment of the park area so they can use it for marketing purposes.
(7) They would dedicate 5 feet of shoreline above the high water
line around the pond to make sure it is in the open space area.
(8) They would assume no sidewalks in the entire development due
to the shoulder width of the roads.
Faestel pointed out that it was their contention that the
bridge was not necessary for their development of the subdivision.
In fact, he felt the bypass road and bridge detracted from the sub-
division because it eliminated privacy and dissected the property.
He didn't feel their subdivision should bear the brunt of develop-
ment of the entire bridge area since it would benefit -the whole
south and southeastern portion of the city.
Faestel said in summarizing, that they are at the economical
point of laying their total cards on the table and this is about
as far as they can go in this particular development considering
the size and number of lots involved in the subdivision.
Faestel said the developers realized that their position
may also say that they may not be able to annex to the City of
McHenry and they are prepared to sit back with the property. They
would then sell off some as farm land and retain some for eventual
development in the future.
Mayor Stanek reviewed the project and said this was the third
meeting held on the annexation proposal for the 209 acre development.
The city originally asked for the standard requirements along
Crystal Lake and Bull Valley Road to make sure there were 50 foot
June 11, 1980 Page 2
ROW from the centerlines. The Plan Commission and Zoning Board
made some recommendations at their hearings on the subdivision.
The mayor insisted on a bypass route because he felt it has been
a mistake in the past to allow 40 acre parcels which had dead
end streets and no connector streets. Originally, a 48 foot by-
pass road was requested which developers subsequently said was not
economically feasible.
The second meeting got into some questions as to time frames,
dedication of right-of-ways and dedication of park land. Now the
developers have come back with this proposal which the mayor felt
was "no proposal".
Stanek felt bypass road and bridge costs were the things to
be determined at this hearing. He compared a collector road to
the one existing in Woodcreek today which is a 32 foot blacktop
road, double -layered, 12inch of binder, 1 inch of surface and a 10
inch base. The developers of Valleybrook are proposing a 24 foot
road with 6 foot shoulders of sealcoat. Stanek felt the city
shouldn't accept anything under a 36 foot road which would provide
for a turning lane when needed. Until that time, the shoulders
could serve as an alternative to sidewalks .
Regarding bridge costs, Dr. Hal Sundin reported that the soil
boring report indicated there was reasonable foundation material
at the proposed bridge location but there was a high ground water
table. There are two methods of construction that would be
appropriate according to Sundin. They are conventional abutment
type or pile foundations. He would prefer the pile foundation
with a pile cap which would not necessarily be more expensive but
would be better suited. Costs would be contingent upon the width
of the road. For a 50-foot bridge width to accomodate a 48 foot
roadway with 1 foot on each side plus a 5 foot sidewalk, the
estimated cost was $175,000. A 45-foot bridge for a 36 foot roadway
with 1 foot on each side plus a 5 foot sidewalk would cost $150,000.
A 31-foot bridge for a 24 foot roadway with 1 foot on each side
plus a 5 foot sidewalk would cost $110,000. These cost figures
are for a bridge on piles with abutment caps and prestress concrete
deck members along with sidewalks, guard rails and the road surface.
It would match the bridge under Bull Valley road and would have
a 256 square foot bridge opening with a depth of 5 feet which would
be slightly deeper in the middle. Sundin pointed out that soil in
the area of the proposed bridge construction was not as bad as
might be expected. Adjacent to the creek there was only about
4-5 feet of overburden that would have to be removed and then re-
placed with something more suitable. Sundin didn't feel it repre-
sented any enormous problems.
On the question of road costs, Sundin quoted an estimate for
a 24-foot road with 8 foot paved shoulders at $254,000 for the
entire roadway from Bull Valley to Crystal Lake Road or a total
of 3300 feet which is approximately $80 per running foot. It was
estimated there would be a 400 foot gap from where the developers
would terminate the road in the open space area. That gap would
encompass the bridge and the approaches.
Wieser and Pepping expressed concern over the developer's
donation of $75,000 toward construction of the bridge and roadway.
The developer would be willing to contribute $75,000 today toward
the bridge which is one-half the estimated cost of the $150,000
bridge today., But as those construction costs go up in future
years and considering the cost of inflation, they felt the donation
toward the bridge should be figured on a strictly percentage
basis. Wieser and Pepping felt this donation could be justified
by reason that land costs would esculate comparably with bridge
costs. They felt that some type of appropriate esculator that
would work in relationship to the percentage of the asking price
of the lots or sale price of the property would have to be considered
in the Annexation Agreement negottiations.
Thursday, June 11, 1980 Page 3
Attorney Narusis mentioned that consideration should be given
to requiring some assurance that money will be available in the
future when discussing future contributions such as a letter of
credit or some security. Faestel said they understood and would
be willing to provide such assurance.
Nolan asked what the developers thought about putting the
$75,000 up front and then relinquishing all responsibility for
bridge construction. Also, if the bridge was never built or the
subdivision never developed, would they want their money back.
Faestel replied that if they put the money up today, it: would be
with strings attached that the bridge would go in at some future
time. If the Bridge was not put in within a certain period of
time, they would ask for a full refund. Faestel also said they
would consider putting that money up front.
Stanek felt that by getting the $75,000 up front, it would
clean up the whole proposal by having that money actually set
aside with interest accruing to the city and with no worries about
the developers selling, dying or defauling.He anticipated that a
bridge wouldn't be built for from 5 to 8 years. By then he felt
Curran road would probably all be in the city and would need major
construction.
Faestel mentioned that he would also expect the city to tap
people adjoining the property when the time came to participate
in the costs of building the bridge because it would be serving
developments to the north, south and southwest. He felt costs could
be recaptured from them also.
A poll was taken on developers participation toward bridge
and road costs as follows: Pepping - 50% of bridge costs, 50%
of 36 foot roadway costs, willing to give up some parkland.
Nolan - agreed with Pepping on the bridge and road costs but
wanted to retain 22 acres of park land as shown. Harker - 50%
of bridge when built, 50% of roadway, keep park land as shown.
Wieser - 50% of bridge costs, developer pay for entire 340 feet
of roadway, keep about 15 acres of park land and allow developer
to develop additional lots from parkland area. Schooley - 50%
of bridge costs, city participation in roadway, keep parkland as
shown. Stanek - 50% of bridge and roadway costs, keep park land
as shown. He also noted that an arterial road is needed in that
area for future needs of possibly a fire station or rescue squad
building.
Regarding parkland, Wieser suggested that small neighborhood
parks should be considered instead of the proposed 22 acre park.
It was his opinion that there is enough parkland in the city now.
If the park was cut to 21 instead of 22 acres, it would give the
developer two additional 2 acre lots to sell and if the price per
lot is $20,000 each, that would give the developer $40,000 which
would more than pay for the 340 feet of roadway which at $80 per
foot would come to $27,200. Thereby, no extra burden would be put
on the current city taxpayers, Wieser said.
Since there were only five aldermen in attendance and the
developer wanted to consider some proposals put forth of this
hearing, it was decided to recess to another date.
Motion by Wieser, seconded by Schooley, to recess this
Public Hearing to Thursday, July 10, 1980 at 8 P.M.
Voting Aye: Pepping, Harker, Nolan, Schooley, Wieser, Stanek.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: Datz, Adams, Meurer.
Motion carried.
Meeting was recessed at 9:49 P.M.
MA yo R
C� I,ER k