HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 09/16/1985 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING
SEPTEMBER 26, 1985 7:30 P.M.
The Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to
order by Mayor Busse on Thursday, September 26, 1985 at 7:30 P.M. in city Council Mtgs-
hall. At roll call the following Aldermen were present: Bolger, Lieder, Attendance
Smith, Snell, Serritella, Teta. Absent: Nolan, McClatchey. City staff
in attendance were Supt. Halvensleben, Attorney Narusis, Clerk Gilpin.
Plan Commission members in attendance were Joan Schwegel, Sandy
Eckstein, Lynn Donarski, Earl Osmon, George Spyrnal. Zoning Board
Members in attendance were Jim Fouse, Anna Mae Cuda, Robert Jessup, Donna
Tobeck and Gary Schaefer. Also in attendance were Building & Zoning
Officer Richard Rosing, Planning Consultant John Gann of Gann &
Associates, Economic Development Commission members Kit Carstens, Fran
Olsen, Kathy Marinangel, and interested citizens Jerome Buch and Mike
Wieser.
Mayor Busse announced that this meeting was a continuation of a Special
Committee of the Whole Meeting which was held May 4, 1985. Preliminary p
discussion at that initial meeting was to consider what avenues the City Meetings
should take and to also introduce the Plan Commission, Zoning Board and
City Council members so that the City would be working together on the
same wavelength to achieve the same results. Following that meeting,
some immediate changes were made to the Zoning Ordinance and some guide-
lines and parameters were suggested for the Plan Commission to work on
for the next several months.'
The reason for the meeting tonight was to meet with John Gann of Zoning
Gann & Associates who has been retained by the City to do a land use
assessment and to review and assess the Zoning Ordinance. Ordinance
Mayor Busse stated that the assessment of our Zoning Ordinance
and the resultant amendments are some of the most important things the
Council, Zoning Board and Plan Commission would do to determine future
development of our City over the next 20 years. In 1962 the Zoning
Ordinance was initially conceived and since then piecemeal amendments had
been made but a complete review of the Zoning Ordinance had never been
done. Assessing the Zoning Ordinance and reviewing its compatibility
with the Comprehensive Plan was a very important factor that would impact
on future development and growth of the City, Busse said.
The main purpose of the meeting tonight was to identify pro-
blems. Plan Commission and Zoning Board Members were asked to state
specific problems so that John Gann could study their concerns and return
at a future meeting with possible solutions.
John Gann introduced himself as president of Gann & Associates,
a consulting firm in Roselle, Illinois. They are engaged in such things
as community development, planning, and zoning ordinances. He said that
he was at the meeting tonight to listen to the concerns of the boards and
commissions as to how the Zoning Ordinance could be improved, what has
been a problem in the Zoning Ordinance in the past, what type of diffi-
culties the Zoning Board has had in administering the zoning regulations,
what kind of new provisions and features they would like to see added to
the zoning regulations. His role over the next few weeks would be a
technical consultant. He would report on what other towns have done in
the areas of zoning and report on what's the best way to solve a parti-
cular problem that the City might have. He can relate how the City of
Mc Henry's Zoning Ordinance compares to that of other towns and he could
present some new ideas that maybe the boards have not heard before.
What he could not tell the board is what kind of City McHenry
should be or what the zoning policy of the City should be. That infor-
mation has to come from the local boards in order to give Gann assistance
and guidelines to revise the ordinance in order to develop the City the
way the people want it developed.
Mayor Busse read from a memo he had submitted to the Zoning
Board, Plan Commission and City Council concerning his thoughts on the
purpose of the review of the Zoning Ordinance as follows: (1) assess the
general conformance of the ordinance with the City Comprehensive Plan (2)
review the zoning district map to identify any districting problems (3)
review the texg of the ordinance to identify such things as
Thursday, September 26, 1985 page 2
inconsistencies, legally questionable provisions, outdated development
standards, poor organization, ambiguous or confusing language, un-
necessary provisions, missing provisions and other problems (4) review
current petition filing fees (5) review the community goals and
objectives as stated in the current comprehensive plan of the City of
McHenry.
Mayor Busse said the City is very pro -growth, pro -business, and
wants to improve and diversify its economic development by encouraging
development of industry, manufacturing and office services. His areas of
concern for improvements of the Zoning Ordinance were as follows: revi-
sions of the sign ordinance; cataloging and listing of modern expanded
uses in commercial/industrial zoning districts; establish new zoning
classifications such as light industrial, shopping center district for
retail, and office service business district; redefine and restructure
zoning fees based on land size rather than one flat fee for every zoning
board hearing; redefinition of height restriction for all industrial and
commercial districts; review density for multi -family with possible bonus
density for the provision of certain amenities; define the type, size and
number of accessory buildings for all zoning classifications; make buffer
areas more specific particularly in commercial/industrial areas versus
residential areas; require occupancy permits to ensure compliance
especially when no construction is involved; redefinition of discon-
tinuance in non -conforming uses; possible zoning exclusions for central
business districts existing prior to 1951; establish architectural or
site review commission for building location, landscaping, building
design and miscellaneous structures; establish some sort of conditional
or temporary use for such things as open air markets, flower sales on
corners and so forth; review problem with off-street parking where larger
trucks are parking in commercial/business classes; establish noise ordi-
nance standards for traffic problems in other industrial noise
generations; possibility of requiring restroom availability for certain
business uses.
Gary Schaefer of the Zoning Board of Appeals suggested looking
at the pattern of variances requested over the past five to 10 years.
Possibly this would indicate that reoccurring problems should be handled
through the Zoning Ordinance rather than through the variation process.
Schaefer also questioned the advisibility of having a storm water deten-
tion ordinance and a site or soil erosion control ordinance. He also
felt a storm water drainage assessment should be done. Gann felt that
these would be more subdivision control problems and he had not been
requested to review the Subdivision Control Ordinance at this time.
Jim Fouse felt one of the important items that needed to be
changed was the listing of additional uses which are not in the present
ordinance such as congregate care facilities, mini warehouses, car
washes, temporary seasonal use of lots for flower sales and other outdoor
sale uses.
Another area of major concern which occupied lengthy discussion
was the density of 10 units per acre for multi -family districts. Kit
Carstens, Chairman of the Economic Development Commission, felt that the
density of 10 per acre was too restrictive and not economically
feasible. Aldermen Bolger and Serritella also felt 10 units per acre was
too restrictive. Alderman Bolger suggested setting a goal on evaluation
of the density within 30 days of this meeting. Mayor Busse asked for
input from the Zoning Board and Plan Commission on this matter.
Joan Schwegel mentioned
planning jurisdiction boundaries.
with the growth of cities in the
blems.
the problem of overlapping
To date there has been no
area, this could present
1 1/2 mile
problem but
future pro -
The Plan Commission also has a problem with variations on
parking lots that are brought to them. One specific area she mentioned
was the parking variation granted to the Jewel/Osco and Wags complex.
Alderman Snell felt there should be some consideration given to
people in the older part of town who are restoring, redeveloping or
remodeling their properties but can not meet the current Zoning Ordinance
gnd still (seep their propert upd�ted and maintained. Alderman
erritella also mentioned that some o the subdivisions in town were
built under County Zoning Ordinances and then annexed at a later time.
Maybe consideration should also be given to those areas.
- I Thursday, September 26, 1985 page 3
Gann suggested that when you have a subdivision that has been
substantially developed and where a lot of new building is not antici-
pated in that subdivision or area, the logical thing to do would be to
reflect what is there on the ground presently because you are not going
to change its character since it is already established, so why not have
your Zoning Ordinance reflect that and at least not make these people's
property non -conforming and not force them to come in for a lot of
variances.
Another problem Alderman Smith brought up was the setback on
garages and accessories buildings and requested a specific definition on
exactly what is an accessory building and what is a garage.
Building and Zoning Officer Rosing mentioned other ideas such as
categorizing the uses specifically in B-1, B-2 and B-3 zoning classi-
fications. Another problem was the Home Occupation category. There
should be a method of controlling these occupations after the use is
granted. There may not be a problem when the home occupation is getting
started, but after the business becomes successful and more traffic is
generated there should be some sort of controlling factor before it gets
out of line and creates a neighborhood nuisance. We also need a more
specific definition of what are Home Occupation uses.
One of the problems Gann pointed out was that it was a matter of
interpretation for the Building & Zoning Officer when a request for a car
wash would be submitted and it was not specifically listed in any of the
commercial uses. It would be up to the Zoning Officer to interpret what
classification that would fit into. You can avoid many of these inter-
pretations by updating the uses in your Zoning Ordinance. Video stores
are another new use that would be added to the Zoning Ordinances.
Another possible way to handle these interpretive problems is to have a
statement of intent or purpose for every zoning district. This would
present a general guide so that if a specific use is not listed under a
particular category, you could look at the statement of intent or purpose
and determine what is the general character and nature of the business
district, what are the kinds of uses that it seems designed to accom-
modate and what sort of designs does it seem to want to exclude. From
that evaluation you can make some sort of reasonable judgement.
Attorney Narusis mentioned that it was a concern of the City
Council and the administrative staff that an occupancy use permit should
be included in the Zoning Ordinance so that every non-residential use in
the community is, in fact, specifically cataloged and as uses change from
an existing use to another use, then an occupancy or a use permit must be
obtained from the City. Right now when one business moves out and
another moves in, the City has no handle on whether or not that new use
is, in fact, a permitted use in that zoning district. Gann said that he
had seen ordinances where this was incorporated into the ordinance
requirements. Even if you are not building anything, if the use changes,
you have to have that certificate of occupancy which keeps the City's
records up-to-date. It will also allow you to keep track of
non -conforming uses, Gann said.
Attorney Narusis brought up the fact that the ordinance could be
modernized by adding the additional uses as discussed tonight and some of
the procedures could be streamlined. He mentioned that it has always
been city policy to make the procedures as simple and as economical as
possible. He also felt, as Alderman Lieder did, that there should be a
special group that would work with the consultant and identify what we
would like to see for the quality of life in McHenry. He suggested
having a smaller representative group work on this on an on -going basis.
Changes should be made on a consensus type basis rather than on indi-
vidual requests, he suggested.
Gann commented that in Glendale Heights, the City Council
established a newly created zoning commission which was comprised of
equal numbers from the Zoning Board of Appeals and Plan Commission.
However, he noted that in Glendale Heights the Plan Commission had much
more of a role in zoning matters than does the City of McHenry Plan
Commission. That Zoning Commission met with the consulting firm on the
basis
tt��of two meetings a month for over a year. However, Glendale He
eights
o�wrt�ctfenry it Xi these me�t�ngsnace consultant not throughf for honing
Ordinance section by section with the Zoning Commission. Every
. Thursday, September 26, 1985 page 4
time they met with the commission they presented a draft of a section of
the new ordinance. Those sections would be reviewed at the meetings.
Gann would explain what they were proposing, why they were proposing it
and how it differed from their present ordinance. The commission would
then decide what to accept. Occasionally other Plan Commission and
Zoning Board members would submit input to this commission. When a final
draft was prepared, it was presented to the City Council for approval.
Council made some minor revisions and then a public hearing was held
prior to final adoption by the City Council. Gann noted that there was a
liaison member of the City Council in attendance at all of the meetings.
He had no formal role but he was there to listen and contribute his
thoughts to the commission. There were a total of seven or eight people
on that Zoning Commission.
Alderman Lieder thought that some systematic method should be
developed that would let us know when we start, what is our goal, how
long it would take to get there, who would be responsible for drafting
the initial proposed revisions and so forth. Mayor Busse explained that
all we have committed to so far is an assessment which is limited in
scope. .
Upon the receipt of a report from Gann, it would be up to the
Council to decide whether or not to proceed and which amendments to
consider adopting. Within 30 to 35 days we would have the assessment
from Gann and at that point the Council would have to decide what type of
review process and how to proceed from there.
Gann said the following procedure would take place. He would
present the Council with a "laundry list" and a report that would go
through each section of the Zoning Ordinance which deals with the issues
that were raised tonight. It will also deal with some things that the
Council has not thought of or were of less importance to the Council
which Gann had discovered in reviewing the ordinance. Gann will submit a
catalog of possible areas which you may want to consider for some sort of
amendment. That will be a sort of "laundry list". That is all that Gann
has been hired to do so far. He has not been hired to do any amendments
at this point. It will be up to the Council and the Commission to go
through this laundry list or catalog and decide which items should be
done immediately, which should not be done at all, which should be done
at a later time, set priorities as to which things are more important and
as to which things are right for McHenry. This would give the City a
blueprint for deciding how to go about amending the ordinance.
Gann said that it would be up to the Council to decide what sort
of approach to regulation they want to use. Innovative, traditional,
very restrictive, minimally restrictive, or somewhere in between. The
Council will have to decided what philosophy to use.
Mayor Busse called for a recess at 9:23 P.M. The meeting
reconvened at 9:45 P.M. with everyone still in attendance.
Gann asked that all agenda notices for Plan Commission and
Zoning Board Meetings be sent to him so that he can get a feeling for the
sort of things that are of concern to the City and the sort of requests
that the city is facing.
Motion by Smith, seconded by Snell, to adjourn.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Lieder, Teta, Serritella, Smith, Snell.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: McClatchey, Nolan.
Motion carried.
Meeting adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
CITY CLERK MAYO