HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 10/26/1992 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING
OCTOBER 26, 1992
A Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order by
Mayor Busse on Monday, October 26, 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, Patterson, Serritella. Lieder arrived at
8:15 P.M. Absent: Locke, Donahue. City Staff in attendance were: City
Clerk Gilpin, City Administrator Peterson, City Attorney Narusis,
Director of Building and Zoning Lobaito. Absent: Chief Joyce, Director
of Public Works Batt, Director of Parks and Recreation Merkel. Also in
attendance was Cheryl Barone, Court Reporter.
BUSCH/KNOB CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING
The purpose of this meeting was to continue the Public Hearing on the
Busch/Knox annexation petition. The Hearing was recessed from June 3,
1992 to July 20, 1992, to August 24, 1992, to September 28, 1992, and
again to this date. Representing the petitioners were Attorney Thomas
Rupp and Land Planner Ted Johnson of Thompson Dyke and Associates. 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.
The Mayor announced that at the September 28th meeting, the Council
generally concurred with the petitioners' Land Use Plan, but various
specifics of that plan were yet to be ironed out before it could be put
into the final text of the annexation agreement. Attorney Rupp submitted
a proposed annexation agreement to the Council one year ago, but some of
the text in that agreement needed to be revised, particularly in
connection with the Bull Valley Road corridor.
Attorney Rupp said he had not revised the original annexation
agreement, because specific issues needed to be discussed before any
changes were made. He mentioned six sections in the proposed annexation
agreement he felt needed to be addressed:
Section 5 - Land Contribution
Section 6 - Fees
Section 7 - Multi -family (MF-2) parcel density
Section 9 - Sewer and Water easements and access points
Section 10 - Stormwater drainage, and if open spaces could be used for
detention
Section 17 - Wetland mitigation
The concerns that Mayor Busse wanted addressed were as follows:
1 - Develop an overall drainage plan for the whole 69 acres.
2 - Consider that if the Bull Valley Road was not built and was abandoned
by the County, what kind of road system should be developed for access to
this subdivision?
3 - How would this road system affect the Green Valley Subdivision and
adjoining properties to the east of the Knox property?
4 - Upon dedication of the open space, who would maintain it and who
would maintain the detention areas?
5 - What dollar contribution should be requested for future traffic
signals at the corner of Green Street and Bull Valley Road?
6 - Discuss Section 9 of the proposed annexation agreement which asks for
guarantees on water and sewer availability.
7 - Who will install sidewalks along Green Street and Bull Valley Road,
and when?
8 - Discuss setbacks along Bull Valley Road and Green Street, as well as
building height restrictions?
9 - How should this property be planned? Should preliminary and final
plats be requested on the entire parcel, and when should final plats be
requested?
October 26, 1992 Page 2
10 - Concerning the multi -family portion, is the petitioner requesting a
variation on the one principal building per lot? If so, it would
probably be better done through the annexation agreement, than going back
to the Zoning Board.
11 - If a developer comes forward, should the property be considered a
Planned Unit Development?
DISCUSSION ON SECTIONS IN THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
Discussion then took place on the issues. Attorney Rupp raised a
question on Section 9, page 7, regarding a guarantee that municpal water
and sanitary sewer will be available to the property when developed. It
was noted that it is the City's policy not to guarantee water and sewer
availability for any subdivision. Therefore Paragraph 1 of Section 9 was
deleted in its entirety. Language in the remaining paragraphs of Section
9 would be revised to meet the City's intent that it would cooperate with
the owners in obtaining all easements necessary, and would grant owners
access to all City owned rights -of -way to enable owners provision of
water service and sanitary sewer service to their property.
Section 5, page 6 - Land Contribution. The petitioners were asking
that in lieu of payment of all development fees (annexation fees,
developer donation/impact fees, capital development fees, water and sewer
tap on fees), that the owners would donate to the City approximately 20.6
acres of open space.
Mayor Busse pointed out that of that 20 acres, half is wetlands and
half is open space. The Mayor said that in the past the City has looked
at development fees for schools, library, parks, and fire district as
being payable when the building permits are issued. But the area of
annexation fees, capital development fees, and hook-up fees typically
have always been payable. He asked Rupp to explain his reason for asking
for a complete waiver of all these fees.
Attorney Rupp said that his thinking on Section 5 was that there
should be some waiver of fees for the ten acres of land to be donated for
the Bull Valley Road right-of-way. He didn't care which kind of fees but
some type of dollar value should be considered. At the present time, the
entire annexation agreement does not address the issue of a Bull Valley
Road dedication which is now in the concept plan.
He wanted to discuss what trade-offs there would be for donation of
the Bull Valley Road right-of-way. He pointed out that the City's
ordinance presently says that open space is worth $30,000 per acre. With
that evaluation, using $30,000 for good land and $10,000 for wetland, he
felt that was about $450,000 in total. He felt that should be considered
as part of the waiver of the fees. In figuring annexation fees for the
entire parcel including per unit as well as land, it comes up to about
$120,000. He felt there should be some relief when you considered that
the value of the property to be donated would be in excess of
$450,000.00. He felt there should also be some relief from the parks,
schools, library and fire district fees.
Rupp said the open space dedication could still be negotiable, but he
thought the City would rather have that area. If the City did not want
it, the owners could develop some sort of a plan where the open space
could be added to the Commercial or other land uses. If the City wanted
trails through there, that was doable. Maintaining that open space was
not a big problem to them.
Discussion was then held on the responsibility of obtaining the
right-of-way for the Bull Valley Road extension. It was again reiterated
that the City agreed to assist the County in the project by attempting
to acquire land for the road right-of-way through future annexations but
not to contribute any dollars. It was noted that this roadway would not
only benefit the McHenry area and County residents, but would also be a
valuable benefit for the Knox property. The new roadway would be a great
advantage to the subdivision because the only roads it would have to
build would be a few hundred feet of interior roads. The majority of
Aldermen agreed that fees should not be waived for this right-of-way
acquisition.
October 26, 1992 Page 3
The Mayor pointed out that at the present time, the Knox parcel is
zoned Agriculture in the County. By the City's upgrading the zoning to
residential, commercial and multi -family, the value of the property was
greatly increased. This is a big benefit for the owners.
Attorney Rupp said that the petitioners would have to weigh the
dollars to see if they felt they were getting enough from the zoning to
compensate for the ten acres they would be giving up for right-of-way.
He did not think the zoning considerations were adequate to do a dollar
for dollar trade-off for that donation. He asked for a six week
continuation so that he could discuss it with his experts.
Rupp said he felt the fees would be the biggest stumbling block in
the annexation procedure. He felt it was not a problem that the Bull
Valley Road would not be built if the right-of-way was obtained. He was
sure the road would go through. He also noted that they wanted to keep
the RS-2 parcel on the south side of the proposed Bull Valley Road
because that would give them access to the subdivision from the south.
Motion by Smith, seconded by Adams, to recess the meeting to
Thursday, December 17, 1992 at 7:30 P.M.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Lieder, Smith, Adams,
Patterson, Serritella.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: Locke, Donahue.
Motion carried.
Meeting recessed at 8:50 P.M.
��AALr-r1h.dL. ��
CITY CLERK
W _
MANOR