McHenry Times

City of Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission met Jan. 5.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Greenman at 7:00 p.m.

Mr. Greenman called the meeting to order. On roll call, members Atkinson, Gronow, Jouron, Repholz, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman were present.

Michael Magnuson, Director of Public Works, Kathryn Cowlin, Director of Community Development, and Elizabeth Maxwell, City Planner were present from Staff.

Mr. Greenman said this meeting is being recorded for broadcast and future playback on the City’s cable channel. He led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

ALLOW REMOTE PARTICIPATION BY COMMISSION MEMBER TEETSOV

Mr. Greenman asked for a motion to allow Commission Member Teetsov to participate via phone.

Mr. Jouron made a motion to allow phone participation for Commission Member Teetsov. Mr. Gronow seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. Mr. Greenman confirmed that Commission Member Teetsov could hear the meeting.

APPROVE MINUTES OF THE DECEMBER 15, 2021 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Jouron moved to approve the minutes from the December 15, 2021 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented. Mr. Gronow seconded the motion. On roll call, members Gronow, Jouron, Teetsov, Repholz, Skluzacek and Greenman voted aye. Member Atkinson abstained. Motion passed.

2021-202 – 551 CONGRESS PARKWAY APARTMENTS – REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND VARIATION – PUBLIC HEARING

Rezoning from M Manufacturing to R-3B PUD Multi-Family Residential, a Preliminary Planned Unit Development for a 93-unit apartment development, and Variations for lot area, lot width, and density.

Tom Burney, attorney and Paul Swanson, petitioner were present to represent the petition. Mr. Swanson presented the information about the request. He stated that living in an apartment is a lifestyle choice not that people cannot afford a single-family home. They like the freedom from maintenance responsibility and the freedom to relocate. He went through the site plan and architecture and explained the details of the request.

Mr. Burney was happy that the City has the conceptual review process. This allowed the petitioner to come to the City and receive feedback and make changes so the preliminary approval was much better. This property has no identity on Congress Parkway even though it is addressed off that street. The frontage is very narrow on that street and the identity is off Exchange Drive. This is an excellent location for residential, it is close to retail shopping, medical offices, services and other residential uses. The rezoning should be looked at based on the uses in the area not necessarily the other zoning districts in the area. There are three other residential projects in close proximity to this proposal and those should be used as precedent. The site is very open and has larger than required setbacks and it is not being packed in. Mr. Burney also noted that he does not believe the UDO has a very practical density for multi-family developments as it is so low. He listed some other multi-family projects in the City and their densities, which ranged from 8 dwelling units per acre to 20 dwelling units per acre. The petitioner is requesting 14 dwelling units per acre, which is in line with these other densities.

Mr. Greenman asked the petitioner if he agreed with the conditions of approval. They stated that they could meet all the conditions.

Ms. Maxwell summarized the request and pointed out the other adjacent residential uses in the business park. She noted the variations that were requested and the findings of fact for the requests.

Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing. There was no one present that wished to comment on the request. Mr. Greenman closed the public hearing and turned the discussion over to the commission members.

Mr. Jouron stated he liked the project and asked the petitioner to describe the tenant mix. Mr. Swanson said mostly empty nesters and young professionals.

Mr. Gronow said the project looks good, though he was concerned with the variations requested. The density seems high, but it looks very nice and does not seem dense so he could support it. With the variety of tenants, he asked if garages would be provided for the tenants. Mr. Swanson said no, there are some charging station parking spaces.

Ms. Teetsov thanked the petitioner for the presentation. She echoed the statement that they should plan for garages for the tenants as an amenity. The site plan looks nice and not dense and she supports the requests.

Mr. Atkinson noted this plan has improved by leaps and bounds. He was concerned with the single access point off Exchange Drive. Mr. Magnuson stated that with the low traffic volume this is sufficient and the number of units was not high enough to warrant a second access for emergency services. Mr. Atkinson stated that the site does not act like spot zoning because of the other similar uses in the area. He stated the petitioner reduced the density and so he could support the requests.

Mr. Repholz was in favor of the project at the cursory review and is more in favor now with the revised site plan and architecture. There is a huge market for empty nesters though these rents may be a bit high. Residents want to live in a semi-urban area where they have the option to walk to amenities and she likes the green space on the site.

Mr. Skluzacek likes the look of the project, but it should be in a different location.

Mr. Greenman appreciated the petitioner’s willingness to work with staff and has made a great looking project. The density requested here will not put a hardship on City services and it does not look or feel dense. He noted that he can support the density and the other variations. He is pleased with the architecture and the color scheme. In reviewing the findings of fact he noted the petitioner has met them.

Mr. Swanson stated that he will look into providing garages.

Mr. Gronow made a motion to approve the Comprehensive Land Use Amendment from Office to High Density Residential, Rezoning from M Manufacturing to R-3B PUD Multi-Family Residential, a Preliminary Planned Unit Development for a 93-unit apartment development, and Variations for lot area, lot width, and density with the following recommended conditions:

1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:

A. Application (Equity Trust Co., dated 11/06/2021, received 11/10/2021)

B. Revised Preliminary Site Plan (Paul Swanson, received 12/21/2021)

C. Floor Plans (Arthur Swanson & Associates, LTD, dated 11/08/2021, last revised 12/19/2021, received 11/10/2021)

D. Revised Colored Elevations (Paul Swanson, dated 12/19/2021, received 12/21/2021) E. Revised Front Colored Rendering (Paul Swanson, received 12/30/2021)

F. Revised Preliminary Engineering Plans (Haeger Engineering, dated 11/09/2021, last revised 12/16/2021, received 12/20/2021)

G. Executive Summary of Preliminary Engineering Report (Haeger Engineering, dated 11/09/2021, received 11/10/2021)

H. Existing Conditions Pond Trib. Area Coverage Exhibit (Haeger Engineering, dated 12/16/2021, received 12/20/2021)

I. Development Concept Memo (Paul Swanson, dated 11/09/2021, received 11/10/2021) J. Traffic Impact Study (Sam Schwartz Engineering, dated 12/06/2021, received 12/06/2021)

2. The internal drive aisles shall be posted with “NO PARKING – FIRE LANE” signs on one side of the road.

3. Final Engineering Plans must be submitted with Final Planned Unit Development in compliance with the City’s Code and Stormwater ordinance.

4. Landscape Plan/Tree Survey

A. A Final Landscape Plan must be submitted with Final Planned Unit Development that complies with the landscape requirements of the UDO of Section 4-400.

B. Provide a list of quantities and species for the final landscape plan that comply with the minimum sizing requirements of the UDO.

C. Provide quantities of trees on the Tree Survey. Based on the quantities of trees and the Tree Preservation Section of the UDO, additional trees may be required.

D. Parkway trees must be planted along the frontage of Exchange Drive and Congress Parkway that comply with the requirements of the UDO.

5. A Final Photometric and Lighting Plan must be submitted with Final Planned Unit Development that complies with the lighting requirements of the UDO.

6. Elevations:

A. Work with staff on ways to further enhance the side/end and rear elevations, including but not limited to, variation to the roof line and gable peaks.

B. Work with staff on ways to incorporate additional design elements, including but not limited to, brick on the bases of the balcony posts and entryway posts.

C. Work with staff to determine the final building and balcony colors and materials, which should include varying Hardi board colors.

7. Traffic Study:

A. Restripe the median on Exchange Drive between Station Drive and the proposed site driveway to provide a two-way left-turn lane, bookended by dedicated left-turn lanes into Station Drive and the proposed site access driveway, each with a 50-foot storage bay and 50-foot taper transition.

B. Relocate the existing curb ramps on Exchange Drive at the proposed site driveway south of the driveway. Stripe a high-visibility crosswalk between the ramps and post “Stop Here for Pedestrians” signage on both legs of Exchange Drive.

C. Provide a continuous sidewalk across the site driveway and stripe a stop bar behind the sidewalk. D. Construct sidewalks between the site parking lot and the existing sidewalk on Exchange Drive near the north and south ends of the site.

E. The petitioner must contribute their proportionate fair share of the construction costs for the improvements to Congress Parkway and Exchange Drive traffic circle (0.7% estimated at $4,480) based on the projected traffic volume increase for the proposed development as determined by the traffic impact study dated December 6, 2021 by Sam Schwartz.

8. The petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of the Community Development, Public Works, Police and Fire Rescue Departments, as well as the City’s traffic consultant, Sam Schwartz Engineering and stormwater consultant, Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd.

Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On roll call, members Atkinson, Gronow, Jouron, Repholz, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Member Skluzacek voted no. The motion passed 6-1.

REPORT FROM PLANNING

Ms. Maxwell summarized the items that were approved by City Council and noted the items scheduled for the next PZC meeting.

COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION

The Commission members wished everyone a Happy New Year.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Jouron made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Gronow seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.

https://ecode360.com/documents/CR2206/public/641447738.pdf