Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 3/2/2001 - Zoning Board of Appeals A REPORT THE CITY OF MCHENRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 2,20111 � IN THE MATTER OF T'HE APPLICATION OF ) LARRY AND GAIL HOLUB, FOR A ) Z-522 VARIANCE, PURSUANT TO TI� ) 3808 Millstream Dr ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Variance MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS ) A Public Hearing before the City of McHenry Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 2, 2001. Chairman Semrow called the Public Hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. with the following persons in attendance: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals Members: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Absent: Franzen.. 2. City Arorney: Kelly Cahill. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. 4. City Planner: Absent.. 5. Director of Community Development: Joseph Napolitano. � 6. Applicant: Larry and Gail Holub, 3808 Millstream Drive, McHenry IL 60050. 7. City CounciUStaff: Alderman Andy Glab. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None. PUBLICATION Notice of this Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on March 7, 2001. A Certificate of Publication is on file in the Office of the City Clerk with regazd to this matter. Notices were hand-delivered to a11 abutting property owners and the subject property was posted as required by City ordinance. An affidavit of service is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. LOCATION The subject property is located at 3808 Millstream Drive, McHenry, Illinois in Millstream Subdivision. SUMMARY The Petitioners are requesting a variance to permit two dwelling units on a single lot in the RS-4 Zoning District. TESTIMONY �' Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioners: Page 2 ZBA-Holub 4/2/O 1 �.- ■ Lan-y Holub, 3808 W. Millstream Drive, McHenry IL 60050 ■ Gaia Holub, 3808 W. Millstream Drive, McHenry IL 60050 ■ Da�id Lindquist, Architect. Mr. Holub stat�;d the Petitioners would like to construct an addition and convert the house on the subject property into a two-unit dwelling to be utilized as an in-law arrangement. QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Ekstrom inquired if any external modifications to the structure would be made other than the second floor addition. Mrs. Holub stated no other e�cternal changes would be made. Chairman Semrow inquired if two independent living quarters would result from the construction of the addition. He also inquired if the upper living quarters would have two entrances. Mrs. Holub respond��d there would be two independent dwelling units with two entrances for each, one through the garage, and one at the front of the building. Chairman Semrow expressed concern that each of the approval criteria were not addressed in the petition, specifically #5, #8, and #9. He stated he was especially concerned that #5 was not addressed as it referred to preserving the rights conferred by the district. He said constructing a two-flat in the RS-4 District would not be preserving the rights of this district. Howell asked the Petitioners if they were willing to accept a lesser conversion of the existing structure, such as a second story without a kitchen. Mrs. Holub unhesitatingly said that she � would not be interested in such an addition. The Petitioners' position was clearly all or nothing. Howell concurred that the requested conversion would constitute the creation of two separate a.nd independent living units. Director Napolitano commented, consistent with his department's recommended denial of the request, the proposed project is much greater in scope than a typical in-law arrangement, which, in his experience, might include a kitchenette, sitting area and bedroom. Staff recommended the Petitioner seek a variance, while at the same time recommending dezual to the Zoning Board of Appeals. The Holubs were unwilling to compromise their plans as presented to Stai�' and the Zoning Board of Appeals. Director Napolitano clearly concurs that the addition proposed is extensive for the specific purpose indicated by the Petitioners. Howell inquired if the property were subsequently sold following the conversion to an in-law arrangement, would new owners be able to use the property as a"for-profit" enterprise. Attorney Cahill responded the City could place restrictions within the text of the ordina.nce granting the variance including: ■ the requirement the ordinance be recorded against the property; ■ that the kitchen be removed from the second story prior to sale; ■ that the premises not be used as an income producing property. Attorney Cahill stated the ordinance could cover any eventuality. Chairman Semrow noted it would be difficult for the Petitioners to sell such an oversized structure in a single-family district, if it could only be used as a single family home. Mr. Holub `'' stated the Petiti<�ners do not intend to make the property into a two-flat. Chairman Semrow noted Page 3 ZBA-Holub 4/2/O l �. each dwelling unit proposed for the subject property would be independent. The property would be a two-flat. Meyer inquireci if the Petitioner had requested a permit to finish a basement area with kitchen, bathroom, etc., would he have been required to obtain a variance. Director of Community Development Napolitano responded Staff deternuned with the extensive addition proposed, in addition to the independent entrances, the premises could very easily be converted to an income producing two-flat. It was Sta.f�s recommendation the Petitioners seek a variance from the City to construct the addition and in-law arrangement. The proposed project is much greater than a typical in-law arrangement, which would include a kitchenette, bedroom and sitting area. Chairman Semrow noted anyone purchasing the property could make the property into an income producing two-flat with minimal structural changes. This could be trend-setting for this single family neighborhood. Lovett asked if there would be an outside staircase. Mrs. Holub responded there were proposed stairs to the second floor located in the garage and in the front entryway. Lovett expressed concern the Petitioners or future owners would be able to rent out one or both units. Chairman Semrow reiterated his contention the Petition was to create a multi-family dwelling in a single- family zoning district. Architect David Lindquist, noting he is the architect for this project, stated the Petitioners were � proposing an intergenerational family structure, which is not necessarily a multi-family building. He stated it would be essentially two generations of the same family residing on the premises. However, each unit requires its own privacy. Cadotte inquired if the Holub's would be charging any rental fee. Mr. Holub indicated the utility billing payments will be split between the two units;however no rental fee would change hands.. Chairman Semraw, referencing Approval Criteria#5, opined the variance being requested is not the minimum which could accommodate the needs of the Petitioners. He noted the request is not consistent with the remainder of the RS-4 Zoning District. He stated the Petitioners aze requesting a variance which would be above and beyond the privileges realized by others in this district. The request is not consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance or in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The request is essentially for multi-family dwellings in a single- family district. Director Napolitano stated the request may actually be a use variance which would be required to meet only five approval criteria. Chairman Semrow stated the request is for a variance. The structure would be substantially changed, in addition to modifications to accommodate a two- family dwellin�;. The proposed building addition is in excess of 2,100 square feet, which is a substantial expansion of the existing structure. Since the Petitioners could not satisfactorily meet all Approval Griteria for Variances, it is therefore understood why Staff would recommend denial of the request. �'' Howell opined the subject property and its location is not suitable for a two-family dwelling. He expressed conc�rns about the granting of the variance causing a new trend of multi-family Page 4 ZBA-Holub 4/2/O 1 � dwelling convE�rsions in the neighborhood. Howell stated it is the responsibility of the Zoning Boazd to review each request as it relates to the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Board must protect the rights of the neighborhood and preserve property rights in the area. Meyer stated it is the Boazd responsibility to make sure the Zoning Ordinance is followed. If the variance being requested is not appropriate, how can the City effectively assist the Petitioner in trying to accommodate the request for a substantial in-law arrangement. Perhaps this matter should have been addressed at the Staff level. Director Napolitano responded the e�ent of the building addition combined with the request for two independent dwellings caused the matter to be brought forward for Zoning Board input and formal action by Council. Chairman Semrow opined the e�ent of the proposed project exceeds a typical in-law arrangement. He stated the Petitioners are attempting to make a two-unit building out of a single-family dwelling. He also noted from a practical standpoint, the structure could never be sold as a single-family dweiling once it is modified. A lengthy discussion occurred regazding the proposed entrances and ways in which the Petitioner's request could be accommodated other than making a two-flat with two independent units. Lovett stated following the proposed modifications, the building would give the appearance of a two-flat, even if the internal structure were restored to its single-family use. He opined if the variance were granted,this property would cause policing problems for the City. � Chairman Semrow stated he did not believe the Petitioners have satisfied the Approval Criteria. CLOSING STATEMENT Mr. and Mrs. Holub, in closing, suggested the City determine what criteria would be acceptable to create in-law arrangements in the City. Architect Mr. Lindquist stated: ■ The request does not follow the requirements of the City's Zoning Ordinance; therefore, a variance is required. ■ With regard to the common entrances, the Petitioners will remove one of the entrances so that there would be a common area in the front of the building. ■ Proposing to create an in-law arrangement is not a crime. The City should look intv this issue as it will become more prevalent in the future. Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this matter, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to this Petition, unless there is a motion to recess by a member of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to this Petition". DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION Lovett stated the Petitioners did not meet the Approval Criteria for Variances. There was no response to Criteria #5, #8 or #9. These Criteria should have been addressed. These Criteria are directly related to issues before the Board. If the variance were granted, there would be extensive `' policing difficulties faced by the City. Page 5 ZBA-Holub 4/2/O 1 `. Howell noted the need of the individual should not come before the needs of the community as a whole. The Petitioners have not adequately addressed the Approval Criteria. He noted he is not satisfied with the two-unit building addition. Both Howell and Meyer concurred the request is too extensive for this property. Ekstrom stated because of concerns not answered relative to the Approval Criteria. she would ha.ve to vote against the proposed variance. Both Lovett and Cadotte concurred. Chairman Semrow noted the Petitioners completed the Petition to the best of their ability. It is not possible for them to respond to Appmval Criteria #5 as there is no similar right granted to other residents of the RS-4 District. Semrow opined the requested vaziance is not the minimum required to facilitate the needs of the Petitioners. The Zoning Board of Appeals is not in a position to grant a multi-family request within a single-family district. It was noted the suggestion the Petitioners consider some interdependence within the structure and in their proposed living arrangements fell on deaf ears. It was also noted that increased dependence upon the younger generation may be physically required, or that institutional care may eventually be needed, which strongly argues the fact the in-la.w arrangement should not be constructed as separate independent units. Motion by Lovett, seconded by Meyer, to recommend to the City Council that ■ The Petitioners request that the subject property be granted a variance to permit � modifications of the existing structure to accommodate a two-flat with two independent units be permitted; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: None. Voting Nay: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: Franzen. Motion failed 0-6.. �. Page 6 ZBA-Holub 4/2/O1 � ADJOURNMENT Motion by Howell, seconded by Meyer, to adjourn the Public Hearing at 8:37 p.m Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: I�Tone. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: Franzen. Motion carried. 5-0. Respectfully submitted, Hany Se �ow, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals C: Mayor, Aldermen, City Administrator, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Planner, City Engineers, Petitioners, Plan Commission (7), Landmark Commission Chairman Chicago Tribune, Northwest Herald, Aldermen Conference Room, File Copy. Z-522 � � A REPORT THE CITY OF MCHENRY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 16,2001 � IN THE MAT'CER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) V3 REALTY COMPANY, FOR A MAP ) AMENDMENT UPON ANNEXATION ) Z-524 PURSUANT 3'O THE ZONING ORDINANCE ) V3 Realty OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) Map Amendment COUNTY, ILI.INOIS ) Riverside Hollow A Public Hearing before the City of McHenry Zoning Board of Appeals was held on Monday, April 16, 2001. Chauman Semrow called the Public Heazing to order at 8:08 p.m with the following persc►ns in attendance: 1. Zoning Board of Appeals Members: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Absent: Franzen. 2. City At�orney: Kelly Cahill. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. 4. City Planner: Absent. 5. Director of Community Development: Joseph Napolitano. 6. Applicant: Absent. 7. City CounciUStaff: Alderma.n Andy Glab. 8. Court Reporter:None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None. � LOCATION The subject property is located east of Riverside Drive, north of Orchard Beach Road. SUMMARY The Petitioners are requesting reclassification to RS2 Medium High Density Residential Zoning District upon annexation to the City of McHenry. The subject property is currently vacant. RECESS Motion by Lovett, seconded by Howell, to recess the Public Heazing at 8:09 p.m. until Monda.y, May 7, 2001 at 7:30 p.m. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: F'ranzen. Motion carried 6-0. Re tfu submi d, Harry Semr , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals C: Mayor, ,Aldermen, City Administrator, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Planner, City `'' Engineers, Petitioners, Plan Commission (7), Landmazk Commission Chairman Chicago Tribune, Northwest Herald, Aldermen Conference Room, File Copy. Z-524