Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 08/24/1992 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING Monday, August 24, 1992 A Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order by Mayor Busse on Monday, August 24, 1992 at 7:35 p.m. in the Municipal Center Council Chambers. At roll call the following Aldermen were present: Bolger, Donahue, Lieder, Locke, Smith, Serritella, Patterson. Absent: Adams. City Staff in attendance: Assistant to City Clerk Marth, City Administrator Peterson, City Attorney Narusis, Director of Building and Zoning Labaito. Absent: City Clerk Gilpin, Director of Public Works Batt, Park Director Merkel and Police Chief Joyce. Also in attendance was Erika Ryl, Court Reporter. KNOX-BUSCH CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor announced that this meeting was a continuation of the Public Hearing deliberations on the Knox -Busch Annexation Petition, which was recessed June 3, 1992 to July 20, 1992 and again to this date. Attorney Thomas Rupp who represented the Petitioners was present along with Ted Johnson of Thompson Dyke & Assoc., LTD, Planning Consultants. The petition before the City Council concerned the annexation and zoning of sixty-nine acres of land located on the northeast and northwest corners of Bull Valley Road and South Green Street. The Mayor reported that at the June 3 hearing, reports from the Plan Commission and Zoning Board of Appeals were presented with no favorable recommendation being given by either. The Mayor asked if anyone in the audience wanted to speak on the Annexation Petition before the Council. There was no response. The Petitioners' Concept Plan has been amended several times as follows: CONCEPT PLAN SITE DATA PRESENTED AT JUNE 3 MEETING: LAND USE TOTAL UNITS TOTAL ACRES % LAND USE Single Fam. (RS-2) 11 5.7 8% Multi-Fam. 266 19.0 28% Commercial 166,617 GSF 15.3 22% Office 188,774 GSF 8.3 12% Open Space 20.6 30% 68.9 100% REVISED CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTED AT JULY 20 MEETING: LAND USE TOTAL UNITS TOTAL ACRES % LAND USE Single Fam. (RS-2) 20 6.2 9% Cluster Condominium (RM-1) 214 15.3 22% Office/Commercial (C-3) 48,000 GSF 4.4 6% Office (0-1) 287,500 GSF 13.2 20% Existing Road R-O-W 2.4 3% Bull Valley R-O-W Corridor 10.9 16% Open Space (2.5 Ac. Park & 14 Ac. Wetlands) 16.5 24% 68.9 100% SECOND REVISED CONCEPT PLAN PRESENTED AT THIS MEETING LAND USE Single Fam. (RS-2) Cluster Condo. (RM-1) Office/Commercial (C-3) Office (0-1) Open Space (park) Bull Valley Corridor DWELLING UN. PER ACRE TOTAL ACRES % LAND USE 2.0 12.5 18% 14.0 10.6 15% .25 FAR 1.9 3% .50 FAR 13.9 20% 19.0 16% 11.0 28% 68.9 100% This second revised concept plan increased the single family and office areas and decreased the multi -family and commercial areas. August 24, 1992 Page 2 On August 4, 1992, the City received correspondence from Michael P. Magnuson, Assistant McHenry County Highway Department Engineer regarding the Busch -Knox Concept Plan as it relates to the dedication of right-of-way for the proposed Bull Valley Road corridor. In that letter, Mr. Magnuson made the following comments: 1. Only two points of access would be allowed to the new roadway; one located approximately 475 feet west of Green St. and one located approximately 550-600 feet west of the east property line (east of Green St). 2. It was their understanding that all of the property between the proposed north right-of-way line and the south right-of-way line of the existing Bull Valley Road would be dedicated. The proposed .8 acre "single family residential (RS-2)" portion falls within that proposed dedication and it was the County's intention to use that area as detention/wetland mitigation. 3. It is also the County's understanding that once the right-of-way is obtained and dedicated over to the County, the County Highway Department would assume maintenance jurisdiction over the right-of-way of the proposed roadway. The existing Bull Valley Road and associated connector roadways would be the responsibility of the City of McHenry and Nunda Township where applicable. 4. The City still needs to acquire right-of-way through other properties and the County still has to complete engineering and obtain funding. The County cannot therefore, commit to a construction date. Access will not be allowed until after it is constructed. Both right -turn lanes and left -turn lanes will be required at both access locations and will be developer's responsibility for cost and construction. 5. The County believes that in order to mitigate any intrusions into the wetland area, the remaining high quality wetlands would have to be placed under public/government control, such as a park district or the City. They would hope that this was the intention of both the developer and the City. During further lenghty discussion and review of this latest concept plan, the following comments were made by the City Council: - For clarification purposes, any "curb cuts" or "access points" referred to in a proposed Annexation Agreement would mean the same for definition purposes. - Alderman Smith said that it looked like if Valley Road (in Green Valley Subdivision) is not extended southerly, two single family lots would be land -locked and the access road off the proposed Bull Valley Road would dead end. Ted Johnson said they would then reduce the number of single family lots and cul-de-sac the access road, but he believed the extension of Valley Road would occur. Smith said he would like to see something meaningful and not dependent on whether a road was built. Johnson stated that two concept plans could be made - one that would show development if the extension was not put in and a second plan with that road extended. Smith also commented on the fact that one of those single family land -locked lots was located in the eastern portion of the wetland mitigation area and he preferred that an adjustment be made so that if residential units had to be eliminated, it would be multi -family and not single family units. - Alderman Patterson expressed his concerns over what the height of the office buildings would be and that line -of -sight would be obstructed from the new Municipal Center if these buildings were multiple -storied. He asked if staff had studied the question. Peterson said that certainly height would be one aspect of the plan. The office/commercial areas shown encompass something over 302,000 square feet and in mass, compared to the Municipal Center's 41,000 square feet, would be approximately seven 2-story buildings. Peterson said that if the Council felt height was a concern, height restrictions could be put into the Annexation Agreement. Peterson also said that there is a trade August 24, 1992 Page 3 off in permitting higher buildings. Consideration should be given to the fact that the higher the building, the more open space you would have. Patterson said that buildings taller than the Municipal would detract from the Center and asked that modifications be made to the plan which would not allow more than single story buildings on certain elevations. Busse reminded the Alderman that the Council could have architectural review for the non-residential properties. - Alderman Bolger again expressed his concerns over the proposed office/commercial area still shown on the northeast corner of Green and Bull Valley. He felt that was not a place for commercial development because of the possible danger in the traffic flow at that corner and hoped that some change could be made. Busse also expressed the same concern and pointed out that the Council could restrict the commercial uses to those that are ancillary to office use thus limiting traffic coming off Green St. into the office complex. Peterson said these concerns had been pointed out to the Petitioners with some thought of moving the commercial area to the west side of the street (shown as a 2.2 acre park and lake), with the proposed lake being kept in private ownership rather then in public ownership. Then the northeast corner could be open space. - Patterson said he did not want to see office/commercial on the northwest corner, but wanted the park/lake area to remain. Smith also felt it was a bad trade-off. Smith said we should not trade off something that all the Aldermen felt was a good idea - the park/lake on the northwest corner of Green and Bull Valley Road. It was the east side that was the problem, not the west side. Lieder also wanted the northwest corner to stay as shown. - Lieder mentioned that with the development of more commercial areas on Route 31 - Bull Valley Road and the increase of traffic, he thought it would make more sense to have the office/commercial in closer proximity to that traffic area and move the multi -family back where the office/commercial is shown (west of Green St.). Busse felt that would pose a problem with only one access point which would then be in the residential section with people driving through to get to the office/commercial. He believed that a frontage road would have to be constructed along the north end or along Bull Valley Road either way. Lieder said that visually, looking at it from the Municipal Center, it would be more attractive to look at a well developed multi -family area as opposed to the backs of commercial buildings. This would also make the residential closer to the proposed park area on Green Street allowing the residents to take advantage of it. Ted Johnson said that office/commercial must have direct access where residential does not. - Serritella said she felt there was a problem in not being able to get another access road from Bull Valley Road, west of Green. In mixing different zoning uses as is suggested, without direct access to each, she believed residents would not want to pull off onto a frontage road and then through the office area to get to their homes. She questioned whether something couldn't be done to get another access road. - Donahue, referring to the property east of Green, commented that she wanted to see the current concept plan retained as she was happy with the cluster -condominiums now shown fronting on Bull Valley Road, transcending to the single family homes to the north. - Referring back to the office/commercial proposed for the northeast corner of Green Street, Smith felt that because of the retention/detention lake located there, much of the 1.8 acre parcel would be taken up with landscaping and the lake, which would somewhat restrict the number and size of the commercial use. He believed that the City should decide on what side of Green Street the bigger of the two lakes would be located. Narusis asked if it was the intention of the owners to construct August 24, 1992 Page 4 two bodies of water. Johnson answered that currently, the Annexation Agreement does call for a permanent pond/lake on the northwest park parcel if engineeringly feasible. The concept plan showing two are conceptual only. Busse reminded the Aldermen of the recent discussions on the issue of the retention/detention pond east of Target, which had now become a regional detention facility. He said this same kind of thing ought to be addressed up front before the annexation for reasons that the RM-1, 0-1 and C-3 properties on the west side of Green Street and conversely on the east side, could all collect to one point which would be those ponds. The bigger issue is who would maintain them and will they be under private ownership with some restrictions on the development. Bolger said he was still not satisfied that the northeast corner issue of office/commercial use had been resolved. Bolger said he could not support an agreement if that is not removed. He said the best part of that area was given for the road right-of-way with the rest of it going right into the wetland. He said he represents the people of McHenry Shores who don't want commercial on that corner and leaving it commercial would create too many problems. For clarification, Busse asked Bolger if what he was saying was that any use of a commercial nature be omitted and the area be strictly office use all the way to the corner. Bolger said that was right. Busse asked if others agreed with Bolger. Patterson agreed stating that he would like to see the southern portion of the corner remain open space with at least a 150 foot setback from the proposed road. Donahue said she could support the office use in this area because Petitioners agreed to define in the Annexation Agreement the five or six intended ancillary office/commercial uses for this parcel. Serritella said she agreed with Patterson that there should be a rather large set -back so that there would be more green space at that corner. Lieder was afraid that limiting the northeast corner to five or six uses would result in buildings of a different nature being built then those being built in the northern portion, resulting in a strip mall, which he was sure the people of McHenry Shores would not appreciate. Lieder said if the Council approves of the architectual design and limits the uses, be believed that the concerns of the Council would be addressed. Locke agreed with Aldermen Patterson and Bolger. Alderman Smith asked for some clarification on what was meant by "no commercial." Busse stated that there were two positions being taken: Alderman Bolger's position is that there be no commercial on the east side of Green Street, only office; the second position being taken is that the property on the east side be zoned with an office use, however allow five or six (to be determined) office -type commercial uses with it being developed as an Office Park. Smith then said he agreed with Bolger - no commercial - as long as they could use the parcel for office purposes. Serritella said she could support office/commercial zoning with very limited commercial uses. Peterson read from the Zoning Ordinance the permitted uses in 0-1 and 0-2, which showed that there were some retail uses in the 0-2 zoning classification. Busse then asked the Council for some direction for the Petitioners to follow on the land use issue. Motion by Smith, seconded by Patterson, that the portions shown in orange (on the site plan), as they are situated, be "O-1" as stated in the Zoning Ordinance with no commercial uses. Voting Aye: Locke, Serritella, Patterson, Smith. Voting Nay: Lieder, Donahue, Bolger. Absent: Adams. Motion carried. Busse stated that this motion was directional only and that at the time of finalizing the annexation agreement, a vote of six would be required on a similar motion. August 24, 1992 Page 5 Mayor Busse called for a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 9:37 p.m. with everyone still in attendance. Rupp acknowledged the Council's stated concerns and additional discussion followed on variations of the site plan with the possibility of an "0-2" zoning proposed for the northern half of the parcel east of Green Street, but with very restricted "0-2" uses, and open spaces on both southermost sides of Green Street with the configuration to be determined based on line -of -sight and engineering. Rupp said he would have another site plan prepared for the next meeting with a typical commercial layout shown with open space set -backs labeled for further discussion. It was also suggested that he make a list of their acceptable 110-2" uses that can also be used for further discussion and what they propose for the "C-3" 1.9 acre office/commercial parcel on the west side of Green Street. Motion by Smith, seconded by Patterson, to recess the Knox -Busch hearing to Monday, September 28, 1992 at 7:30 p.m. Voting Aye: Lieder, Smith. Voting Nay: None. Absent: Adams. Motion carried. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Locke, Donahue, Bolger, Serritella, Patterson, The Mayor asked for approval of the August 12, 1992 City Council Minutes in order to provide a certified copy to Phil Grossman who had a scheduled closing before the next Council Meeting on the Target purchase of property south of McCullom Lake Road. Motion by Locke, seconded by Patterson, to approve the August 12, 1992 City Council Minutes as presented. Voting Aye: Lieder, Locke, Donahue, Bolger, Serritella, Patterson, Smith. Voting Nay: None. Absent: Adams. Motion carried. Motion by Smith, seconded by Patterson, to adjourn the meeting. Voting Aye: Lieder, Locke, Donahue, Bolger, Serritella, Patterson, Smith. Voting Nay: None. Absent: Adams. Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. ssistant to City Clerk a