Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 09/28/1992 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 1992 A Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order by Mayor Busse on Monday, September 28, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Room of the Municipal Center. At roll call the following Aldermen were present: Bolger, Smith, Adams, Serritella. Locke arrived at 7:40 P.M. Lieder arrived at 8:15 P.M. Patterson arrived at 8:45 P.M. Donahue arrived at 8:50 P.M. Absent: None. City Staff in attendance: City Clerk Gilpin, City Administrator Peterson, City Attorney Narusis, Building and Zoning Director Lobaito. Absent: Director of Public Works Batt, Chief of Police Joyce, Park Director Merkel. Also in attendance was Cheryl Barone, Court Reporter BUSCH/KNOX CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor announced this meeting was a continuation of Public Hearing deliberations on the Busch/Knox Annexation Petition which was recessed from June 3, 1992 to July 20, 1992, recessed to August 24, 1992, and again recessed to this date. Attorney Thomas Rupp was present to represent the petitioners along with Ted Johnson of Thompson Dyke and Associates, Planning Consultants. Mayor Busse said the purpose of the meeting tonight was to again consider the revised sight plan in connection with the annexation of this property, and to consider the various land uses in the zoning districts that would be conducive to the use of the properties, as requested by the Petitioner. The petition before the City Council concerned the Annexation and Zoning of 69 acres of land located on the northeast and northwest corners of Bull Valley Road and South Green Street. Land Planner Johnson addressed the Council and presented a revised concept plan from what was presented at the August 24, 1992 meeting as follows: 3RD REVISED CONCEPT PLAN DATA PRESENTED AT SEPTEMBER 28 MEETING LAND USE D.U./ACRE TOTAL ACRES UNITS/S.F. % LAND USE Single Family (RS-2) 2.0 12.5 25 18% Cluster Condominium (RM-1) 14.0 10.6 148 15% Commercial .25 FAR 3.2 34,848 s.f. 5% Office .50 FAR 12.1 263,538 s.f. 18% Open Space 19.5 ---- 28% Bull Valley Corridor 11.0 7" ---- 16% - raur 2ND REVISED CONCEPT PLAN DATA PRESENTED AT AUGUST 24 MEETING LAND USE D.U./ACRE TOTAL ACRES UNITS/S.F. % LAND USE Single Family (RS-2) 2.0 12.5 25 18.0% Cluster Condominium (RM-1) 14.0 10.6 148 15.0% Office/Commercial (C-3) .25 FAR 1.9 20,700 s.f. 3.0% Office (0-1) .50 FAR 13.9 302,700 s.f. 20.0% Open Space - 19.0 28.0% Bull Valley Road Corridor - 11.0 16.0% Johnson explained that at the last Council meeting, discussion was held on creating a viewing corridor for the new Municipal Center. They therefore created an area that would remain open so there would be a visual area along Bull Valley Road to the Municipal Center. On the northwest and northeast corners of Green Street and Bull Valley Road, they proposed open space. They wanted to use those open spaces for stormwater management purposes for the adjacent land uses. Another area they suggested should be left as open, or non -developed with buildings, was an area on the east side of Green Street directly across from the entrance road to the Municipal Building. They felt that area could be utilized for parking, open space, or landscaping for the remainder of the office area. That would also keep a view corridor open from Bull Valley Road up to the Municipal Building. September 28, 1992 Page 2 Another matter which came up at the last meeting was the elevation of the Municipal Center, compared to the elevation of the property in question. Smith Engineering informed the petitioners that the first floor elevation of the Municipal Building is at 81 feet. The only part of the Knox property which is at 815 feet is the upper northwest corner of the property. The remainder of that property slopes down, so the only part of the property that would be on a level with the first floor of the Municipal Building is the upper northwest corner of the property. Johnson said the other plan uses have remained the same as was presented at the last meeting. Another change at the last meeting was a 9 acre parcel which was called Office/Commercial Space. That has also been changed and replaced with strictly Office use. Since there were people in the audience who were not at the last meeting, Mayor Busse asked Johnson to give an overview of the entire Concept Plan for their information. Mrs. Marion Reinwald Holt questioned what the land use would be next to her property which was on Bull Valley Road, across from the Alliance Bible Church. Johnson replied that Cluster Condominium (RM-1) is the use designated for that area. John Warner, who plans to purchase a home on Loch Glen Lane, asked whether Turnberry, Loch Glen Lane, and Valley Road would eventually be a drive-thru area through Green Valley subdivision to Bull Valley Road. He asked whether Valley Road would continue south to Bull Valley Road. Johnson replied that the extension of Valley was not a part of the Knox/Busch plan. It would not be a part of this annexation. Mayor Busse said it could be some day, when property next to the Knox/Busch parcel would be annexed into the City. Dennis Drake of Loch Glen Lane was concerned about the wetland mitigation area which would back up to his property on Loch Glen Lane. He was seriously concerned about drainage onto his property. He asked what had been proposed to solve that. Johnson replied that no detailed plans for stormwater drainage had been made at this time. When the next stage of the plan would be implemented, that is when the engineering would take place to handle the problem. Engineering is done as part of the planning process, and right now the Knox/Busch property was in the process of deciding land uses. The Subdivision Control Ordinance does address water drainage onto adjoining properties. When Drake asked about the lot sizes of the proposed annexation, Johnson replied that the petitioners have proposed the same zoning district and lot sizes as the Brittany Heights/Green Valley Subdivision now have. Johnson also felt the home values would be about the same as in those subdivisions. A concern was raised by Alderman Lieder of the height of the buildings that might be constructed across from the Municipal Center. It was felt that the height of the buildings could be regulated by an architectural review committee, a floor area ratio and height restrictions which would all come to the Council before a building permit was issued. This would ensure a high quality developement across from the Municipal Building. The Mayor mentioned that at a prior meeting, the RS-2 Single Family lot located on the south side of the Bull Valley Road corridor was questioned. Since it was the only residential lot south of the Bull Valley Road right-of-way, a question arose as whether that lot should be omitted. Attorney Rupp replied that the lot will be needed as temporary access to the multi -family and residential area. Since it is not known when or if the Bull Valley Road will be built, that is the access point needed for the subdivision. A question was raised on where the County was on development of this Bull Valley Road extension. Peterson replied that the County had done Phase I, which was preliminary engineering and identification of the wetlands. The County is nearing completion of Phase II, which is construction drawings. They have a number of projects in the County, and what they have told the City is that first ready will be first to go when funds are available. At this point, the City is only competing with one other project that is this far along in the County. September 28, 1992 Page 3 Alderman Smith commented that several years ago the City committed itself to assist the County in acquiring the land, but not that the City would acquire the right-of-way at the City's cost for the County. The Mayor asked each Alderman to comment on what they thought of the land use plan, as presented tonight. Bolger felt that the petitioners had done everything that the City asked. The City could get most of the right-of-way with the plan as presented tonight. Since the City asked the County to change the development of its phases so that Phase III, which was originally the extension of Bull Valley Road through the Knox property, would be revised to Phase II, the City should pursue this annexation. Locke felt that this would impact tremendously on the neighborhood area. He felt there were too many unknowns since there was no developer; it was not known whether or not Loch Glen will go through to Bull Valley Road; and it was uncertain whether Bull Valley Road would be built. Lieder asked if Bull Valley Road does not go through, what happens to the residential, commercial, and office uses. He questioned whether present roadways could support that kind of developments if Bull Valley Road did not go through. If Bull Valley Road did not go through, how would this development accomodate the traffic from those land uses? City Administrator Peterson remarked that the County has said that if the gas tax is not available, the project could be moved back one or two years, but they have never said that the Bull Valley Road extension would not be constructed. A lot hinges on the Busch/Knox Trust annexation, because 95% of the road right-of-way that is needed for this extension. Peterson pointed out that it was brought up at past meetings that there will have to be a temporary roadway easement from the existing Bull Valley Road to get into the development if any of this development takes place before the Bull Valley Road extension is in place. Serritella said she felt very comfortable with the new concept plan. She felt all of the concerns had been answered by the petitioner, and possibly language should be put into the Annexation Agreement about what should be done if the Bull Valley Road was not built. Patterson felt the petitioners had gone a long way in lessening the burden on the community concerning the number of units and everything else. He said he would probably vote "no" for it for the same reason he did for many others, because it will have a severe impact on the school system. He also had concerns about allowing this development if the County does not get the funds to build the roadway. He felt there should be a check valve somewhere that would say only so much of the development can be built if there was a delay on construction of the road. Adams felt the proposed zoning was more than acceptable considering that over 44% of the property is going to open space or the proposed road, and that the densities are at an acceptable level. He felt that annexing the property would serve as an opportunity to have the City do its part to enhance the transportation system in the area. Smith said he had expressed concern about the single and multi -family number of units, but received no support from the other Aldermen. He therefore felt the plan was acceptable. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USE IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS The Council was provided with pages 117, 118, 119, 120, 146, 147, and 148 from the City's Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner was asking for C-3 on the northwest corner of Bull Valley Road and Green Street. They also were asking for 0-1 on the 3.5 parcel immediately south of the Municipal Center, as well as for an 8 acre parcel on the east side of Green Street. September 28, 1992 Page 4 The Council reviewed all of the uses in the various Commercial Districts and eliminated them as they were reviewed page by page. Page 117, Group F. Permitted Uses in All Commercial Districts: Number 8 was re, e oca a 1-ConaltionalUses to All-7-ommercial Districts (Group G); Page 117, Group G: Conditional Uses in All Commercial Districts: Eliminated were: 1. Air Rights development, 2. Automobile service stations, 3. Cemeteries, 6. Golf Courses and Country Clubs, private, and, 7. Elminate hospitals, nursing homes, group homes, and mental health centers, but allow Clinics. Page 118, Group H: Additional Permitted Uses in C-2 and Higher -Numbered ommercia s ric s: Eliminate: 10. Newspaper distribution agencies for home delivery and retail trade. 17. Supermarkets. Page 188 Group I: Additional Conditional Uses in C-2 and Higher -Numbered Commercial is r c s: Eliminate: 3. Game rooms, as defined herein, 8. Taverns and bars without live entertainment or dancing, and, S. Eliminate the words "storage garages as a principal use". Hi Page 118 Group J: Additional tiiminate: 18. Department stores, junior department stores, 21. Frozen food stores, includin 24. Garden supply, tool, and se blower, and snomobile sales and 25. Gunsmith Shops see Permitted Uses in C-3 and department stores, and discount g locker rental, stores, including lawnmower, snow service. 29. Hotels and motels - Relocate to Group K, 31. Kernels, but allow pet grooming and veterinary offices, 32. Laboratories, medical, dental, research, and testing, 41. Pawn shops, 47. Produce markets, 49. Second hand stores and rummage shops - Relocate to Group H, Page 120, Group K: Additional Conditional Uses in C-3 and Higher -Numbered Commercial Districts: imina e: 3. Printing and publishing plants, 4. Radio and television towers, 6. Taverns and bars with live entertainment or dancing Page 146, under OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL, AND BUSINESS PARK DISTRICTS, Group P: Permitted Uses in All Office Districts: o e e ions. Page 146, Group Q: Conditional Uses in All Office Districts: Eliminate: 1. Air rights development, 2. Cemeteries, 7. Golf Courses and country clubs, private, 8. Eliminate hospitals, nursing homes, group homes, and mental health centers, but allow clinics. Page 147, Group R: Additional Permitted Uses in 0-2 District: Eliminate: 2. Automobile and truck rental establishments, 14. Hotels and motels - relocate to Group S. 8. Donut Shops - relocate to Group S, #8-F. Page 147, Group S: Additional Conditional Uses in 0-2 District: 1. In addition to airports, include heliports, No Deletions. September 28, 1992 Page 5 DRAFT OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENT Attorney Rupp and City Attorney Narusis were instructed to review the language and prepare an annexation agreement which would be pesented at the next annexation meeting. RECESS Motion by Smith, seconded by Adams, to recess this meeting to Monday, October 26, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. for the purpose of considering the text of the annexation agreement. Voting Aye: Bolger, Donahue, Lieder, Locke, Smith, Adams, Patterson, Serritella. Voting Nay: None. Absent: None. Motion carried. The meeting recessed at 9:30 P.M.