HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 11/23/1992 - City CouncilSPECIAL MEETING
NOVEMBER 23, 1992
A Special Meeting of the McHenry City Council was called to order by
Mayor Busse on Monday, November 23, 1992 at 7:30 P.M. in the Council Room
of the Municipal Center. At roll call the following Aldermen were
present: Bolger, Donahue, Liedgr, Locke, Smith, Adams, Patterson,
SerFitella. Absent: None. City Staff in attendance were City Clerk
Gilpin, City Attorney Narusis, City Administrator Peterson, Director of
Public Works Batt, Director of Parks and Recreation Merkel, and Director
of Building and Zoning Lobaito. Absent: Chief of Police Joyce.
Mayor Busse announced that the purpose of the meeting was to consider
the matter of the application of McHenry State Bank as trustee under a
Trust Agreement dated August 25, 1992, and known as Trust Agreement No.
12725 for annexation and entry into an annexation agreement with the City
of McHenry for property known as Hillside Subdivision.
The proposed subdivision is located on both the east and west sides
of Green Street, north of Biscayne Highlands subdivision. It is
comprised of 60.52 acres, and is proposed to be developed with 125 single
family, residential units in an RS-2 Zoning District. It is proposed
that the City receive 14 acres in park area in lieu of any park cash
contribution. The park land would be comprised of 13 acres on the east
side of Green Street and about a one acre playground area within the
subdivision itself.
Mayor Busse announced that the format for this evening's meeting
would be to first consider any public comments, have a brief presentation
by petitioner Roger Gerstad, and then the Council would deliberate by
reviewing the annexation agreement paragraph by paragraph.
TEN MINUTE PUBLIC INPUT
During the Ten Minute Public Input Session, Dr. William Dodds,
Superintendant of School District 15, addressed the Council on schools
and development. Dodds said the schools are in a precarious situation.
He said the developer donations as they stand are not providing the cost
for new or additional facilities in their entirety. The schools are not
sure what they need, but temporarily they believe they need a hold on
development until the schools and the City can work as a team to supply
the facilities necessary. He said the taxpayers have very clearly said
no to new taxes, yet the City wants to say yes to new developers, and the
schools believe they need the developers to pay the way for the
additional facilities needed.
Dodds said he met with developer Roger Gerstad and exchanged
information on the Hillside subdivision project. However no indication
was given to him that any further consideration for the schools would be
"a guaranteed forthcoming thing". He said the schools need the
assistance of the Council if they are to adequately provide for the
students that would come from any development in this community. He
asked the Council to require developers of all projects to provide
necessary financial support to enable school districts to erect the
buildings necessary to house the incoming students, and to deal with the
students that are already in the school system.
Mayor Busse asked if anyone else in the audience wished to address
the Council. No one replied. He asked the Clerk if any written
statements or comments had been received at the City Clerk's office for
this public hearing. She replied that none had been received.
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED HILLSIDE SUBDIVISION
Roger Gerstad of Gerstad Builders and his attorney Sam Diamond were
in attendance. Gerstad gave an overview of the proposed annexation and
said the project had already been through the Zoning process and was
recommended to receive an RS-2 zoning classification. The project has
been before the Council for almost one year now. All of the previous
meetings were handled with John Fuhler as the developer, and all initial
negotiations were with him. The property contains 60.52 acres and would
generate 125 single family homes. Approximately 14 acres of the property
would be for park and recreation use. The developer donations would
generate about $235,000 for the grade school, and $127,000 for the high
school. Seventy percent of the homes would be three bedroom, and thirty
percent would be four bedroom homes. The proposed assessed evaluation
would be about $155,000 on a per unit basis.
November 23, 1992 Page 2
Under other comments, Gerstad mentioned that Gerstad Builders is
housed in the community of McHenry and employs people from within the
community of McHenry. He noted that eighty to ninety percent of their
suppliers are from the City of McHenry, and therefore generate sales tax
for the City, as well as money for the school districts. He felt that
taking a stance to stop growth would have a negative impact on the
community because of the unemployment it would cause, which would also
effect sales tax revenue. He did not believe that by stopping
development it would solve the financial crisis of the school system. He
felt other action should be taken from the community as a whole to assist
the school districts in their time of need.
CITY CONCERNS
At the previous meeting on October 21, 1992 regarding the proposed
Hillside subdivision, six questions were raised about the project. They
were:
1) The impact of residential subdivisions upon City and school district
services and financing;
2) The extension of City water from the north or the south;
3) The concern for ongoing maintenance responsibility of a detention
pond on City owned property;
4) The subdivision intersection at Green Street and Trenton Drive;
5) The maintenance problems with the "eyebrow" design proposed at three
locations in the subdivision;
6) The fees to be assessed for traffic signalization and water extension
if the southern route is chosen.
Other issues raised at that meeting had been adequately addressed, or
will be addressed during final engineering or in the process of final
plat review, such as wetland identification and endangered species
certification.
City Administrator Peterson presented a financial summary of the
Hillside Development proposal. Projected revenues and expenses were
outlined in detail. Following his presentation, discussion took place on
the school crisis and what action the Council should take to assist the
schools.
Aldermen Patterson, Lieder, Serritella, Locke and Adams expressed
concern about the educational crisis in the community and felt the City
should seriously review the impact of new subdivisions on the schools.
Aldermen Bolger, Smith and Donahue also expressed concern but did not
feel stopping development would be a solution to the schools' problems.
All aldermen felt the State Legislature will have to become involved to
assist schools throughout the State.
MOTION ON APNERATIOA
Motion by Lieder, seconded by Locke, to decline this annexation at
this time.
Lieder then amended his motion to read that the annexation be denied,
as presented. Alderman Locke withdrew his second because it was his
feeling the matter should be postponed. Alderman Patterson then seconded
Lieder's motion to deny the annexation, as presented.
Discussion took place as to the consequences of denying or postponing
the annexation matter. It was pointed out by Attorney Narusis that
postponement would preserve the status quo of the petitioner's
presentation so that as far as the zoning and planning aspects which have
already been accomplished, those matters would not be taken away from
them. By denial, the net effect would be that the property would have to
start from the very beginning to come before the Council again.
Based on the City Attorney's interpretation, Lieder felt that the
matter should be postponed generally, until such time as the Council
brings it back to the table.
November 23, 1992 Page 3
Attorney Diamond asked that the Council continue discussion on the
project and look at other items for consideration besides the school
issue. If there is to be a moratorium on all residential developments,
in the meantime, the developer could address other issues of concern that
need to be solved, Diamond said. He wanted to address the whole
subdivision, and debate the issues without looking at the school issue.
Some Aldermen said that until the State Legislature address the
school problem, the school crisis could not be addressed locally since it
is a much larger problem. Lieder then restated his motion and the vote
was taken.
Motion by Lieder, seconded by Patterson, to postpone this Hillside
Subdivision annexation until such time as the school crisis in this
community has been addressed.
Voting Aye: Lieder, Locke, Adams, Patterson,
Serritella..
Voting Nay: Bolger, Donahue, Smith.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
SCHEDULE PLANNING MEETING
Motion by Adams, seconded by Patterson, to authorize the City
Administrator to contact the school boards and schedule a joint planning
meeting to discuss how the school and City should work together on the
school issue.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Donahue, Lieder, Locke,
Smith, Adams, Patterson, Serritella.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried.
It was decided to try and schedule the joint meeting for the December
9, 1992 regular City Council meeting.
Motion by Smith, seconded by Adams, to adjourn.
Voting Aye: Bolger, Donahue, Lieder, Locke,
Smith, Adams, Patterson, Serritella.
Voting Nay: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried
The Meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.
CITY CLERK R