The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes - 2/21/2000 - Zoning Board of Appeals , ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 20�0 CITY OF MCHENRY L. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLiCATION OF ) Z-495 JEROME J. BUCH JR LIVING TRUST, ) Walter Truszkowski PROPERTY OWNER, AND WALTER ) Map Amendment/Cond Use TRUSZKOWSKI, CONTRACT PURCHASER, ) Variance FOR A MAP AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE ) 801 N Mill Street PERMIT ,AND VARIANCE, PURSUANT TO ) THE CIT� OF MCHENRY ZONING ORD{NANCE, ) MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ) REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on February 21, 2000. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Steve Doherty, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Darick Franzen. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. L. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. 5. Petitioner: Walter Truszkowski, 213 North Front Street, Suite 100, McHenry, IL 60050. 6. Attorney for Petitioner: Diamond and LeSueur represented by Mary Spiegel, 3431 West Elm Street, McHenry, IL 60050. 7. City Council Members/Staff: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: Lena Dowell, 4101 W. Crestwood, McHenry IL 60050 Russell Johnson, 4115 Crestwood, McHenry IL 60050 Robert Ratner, 3911 W. Oak Avenue, McHenry lL 60050 Donald Allen, 1608 Lincoln Road, McHenry IL 60050 Yon� Chang, 5400 W. Elm Street, McHenry IL 60050 Bob Zerbicki, 4222 Crestwood, McHenry IL 60050 Gerald Kollenkark, 708 Logan Street, McHenry IL 60050 L, Dale Koss, 4105 W, Crestwood, McHenry IL 60050 Joe and Jenny Gilmore, 3908 W. Kane Avenue, McHenry !L 60050 Peggy Bennett, 4111 Crestwood, McHenry IL 60050. Wayne Warner, 721 N. Mill St #2b, McHenry IL 60050. Page 2 ZBA•Truszkowski 2/21/00 ``.. N TICE Of PUBLICATION Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on February 4, 2000. Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's Office. Notices were mailed to abutting property owners. An affidavit of service via certified mailing is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. L ATION The location of the subject property is 801 North Mill Street, McHenry, which is comprised of 2.75 acres. SUMMARY The Petitioner is requesting the following: ■ a zoning map amendment from RS•4 to RM-2; ■ a conditional use permit to allow the minimum lot area per dwelling unit as permitted for the RM-2 High Density Multi-Family Zoning District; ■ a variance to allow more than one principal buildin� per zoned lot. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioner: 1. Walter Truszkowski, 213 North Front Street, McHenry, I L 60050. �. 2. Tom Zarnek, Realtor/Broker; 3. John Eggersdorfer, Architect, 24W713 Lake Street, Roselle, Illinois 60172. Mr. Truszkowski stated he is purchasing the subject property provided the zoning relief requested is granted. He intends to demolish the single family residence and accessory structures on the site. He would construct three two-story condominium dwelling buildings on the premises. Each building would contain 12 condo units for a total of 36 units on the 2.75 acres. In order to accommodate this plan a map amendment from RS•4 High Density Single Family Zoning District to RM•2 High Density Multi-Famity Zoning District. Additionally, a conditional use to allow the smaller lot size for the number of projected units and/or density. A variance is required to permit the construction of the three buildings on one zoned lot. Mr. Truszkowski stated there would be 30 two•bedroom units and 6 three-bedroom units. There would be no one-bedroom or efficiency units. Attorney Spiegel went over the Approval Criteria for Zoning Map Amendments, Conditional Use Permits and Variances as stated in the Petition. Ms. Spiegel noted all units would be owner•occupied and not leased out. There would be protective covenants recorded to provide for repair, upkeep, and maintenance of the development once it is completed. Mr. Truszkowski stated he anticipates completion of the project within the next two years. It will be constructed in two phases. The second phase will not begin until the first is completed and all units sold. `.. Mr. Tom Zarnek, a Realtor representing the purchaser, stated he has been working with the Petitioner on this project for approximately ten months. The expected market price for the condo units would be in the $120,000 to $140,000 range. He noted there is a Page 3 ZBA-Truszkowski 2/21/00 �. need for this range of condominium units in the City, citing the current condominium unit availability: Chesapeake Hills Condominiums $200,000 + Kresswood Trails Townhomes $130,000 • $140,000 Timber Trails Townhomes $130,000 - $140,000 Creekside Trail Townhomes $100,000. Citing a desired transition from one-bedroom rental units to high•density single family houses, Mr. Zarnek stated the developer is choosing to build only two- and three- bedroom units. A total of 36 units on this parcel appears to be a good transition between the single famify district and adjacent multi-family rental units. He noted if the property was developed according to RM-1 standards, 33 one-bedroom units would be permitted on the site. This woutd not be feasible or practical. The proposed plan fits into the City's land use plan. If this plan is developed, it would increase property values in this part of town. Mr. Zarnek stated there would be a relatively small impact on the school system with regard to this development. The units would be targeting couples such as empty nesters, newly married, or families with only one child. The development of this project would be phased slowly so that integration into the school system would be gradual. Mr. Zarnek stated the density of the Cunat apartment project on Mill Street is 19.2 �, units/acre; the density of the Logan Street apartments is 18.2 units/acre. The proposed density of this project is 13.1 units/acre. Every unit would have two bathrooms. Architect Eggersdorfer, project designer, provided renderings of the proposed development. He noted if all units had two-bedrooms there would be 33 units permitted if the RM-1 bulk area requirements were met. The conditional use permit would allow the developer to utilize the RM-2 District requirements which would allow 36 units as shown on the site plan. He noted all 36 units would have enclosed garages. The buildings would be comprised of 75�Jo or more brick or masonry on the exterior.. Fencing and/or landscaping would be utilized on the perimeter of the project to screen the development from adjacent more restrictive zoning districts. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated the Petitioner has met with officials of the McHenry Township Fire Protection District and the Community Development Department to address safety and building construction concerns. The Petitioner has agreed to install a sprinkler system. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated due to the tremendous grade differential of 25 Jo on the property, onsite detention would be provided. Detention area would be located on the northeast corner of the property. There is currently no drainage plan or detention pond in the area. Additionalty, it would assist in buffering development from properties to the north. He stated the storm sewer line that bisects the property from north to south would be relocated to the east property line. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated the � building exteriors would blend in harmoniously with surrounding residential structures. Page 4 ZBA•Truszkowski 2/21/00 � UESTI4NS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Doherty �sked if the units would be owner-occupied, and, if so, how would that be enforced. Attorney Spiegel responded there would be covenants that would specify the units would be owner-occupied. The units would not be available as investment property. Cadotte asked if the management company would enforce the restrictive covenants. Attorney Spiegel responded in the affirmative. Cadotte questioned why three-bedroom units were incorporated into the plan. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated the building design lends itself to 6 three-bedroom units. Meyer asked if walls would separate out individual garage spaces and would each unit be heated. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated there would be walls constructed between each garage space. Chairman Semrow expressed concern regarding the density of the project as delineated on page 93 of the Zoning Ordinance. He noted there would be 78 bedrooms. Page 93 specifies a maximum of 85 persons/2.75 acres. He noted RM-1 is even more restrictive than RM-2. He stated the project would probably be in violation of maximum densities allowed for this site. Meyer asked if the buildings would face Mill Street. Mr. Eggersdorfer responded the �, rear of the northernmost building would face Mill Street. Meyer asked if the detention area would be dry and would it be landscaped. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated it would be basically a dry detention pond, seeded with �rass as well as other landscaping as designated by Staff. He noted the landscape plan has not been developed yet. Meyer asked if the perimeter of the property would be fenced, or what type of buffering would be utilized, particularly adjacent to single family residential units along the south and west property lines. Mr. Eg�ersdorfer responded he would comply with Staff recommendations. Chairman Semrow inquired as to the maximum height of the buildings. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated the height would not exceed 35'. The windows on the second floor will be approximately 15' above grade. In response to Chairman Semrow's inquiry, Mr. Eggersdorfer stated there is a grade deferential of 25' between the north property line and the south property line. Due to a terracing of the property, this grade difference can be accommodated. Meyer asked if the Petitioner would remove trees from the site. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated a few trees would have to be removed, but will be replaced elsewhere on the premises as directed by the Tree Preservation Ordinance. Chairman Semrow asked if the proposed site plan has been reviewed as far as emergency in�ress/egress and safety concerns. Mr. Eggersdorfer responded the � McHenry Township Fire Protection District has reviewed the plan and has not expressed as safety concerns. Pa�e 5 ZBA-Truszkowski 2/21/00 �, Ekstrom inquired as to the approximate age of the existing structures on the premises. Maggio noted the residence was built in the late 1800's. All structures on the site are likely to be demolished. The McHenry Landmark Commission has been notified. Ekstrom asked is this neighborhood has curb and gutters. Staff responded in the negative. Howell noted points 1-6 on the Staff Report should be addressed. Attorney Spiegel stated the Petitioner would comply with each of the six points contained in the Staff Report. Howell indicated these points should be incorporated into the motion far recommendation. Chairman Semrow asked how the Petitioner could assure the units would be used as owner-occupied condominiums. Mr. Truszkowski responded there would be covenants, which would res#rict the units to being owner•occupied and not leased to tenants. In response to Ekstrom's inquiry regarding the enforceability of the covenants, Attorney McArdle stated restrictive covenants could be enforced as long a both parties agree to them. No practical enforcement procedure was suggested by the Petitioner in response to this line of questioning. QUESTIONS BY OBSERVERS/OB.lECTORS Bob Zerbicki: Mr. Zerbicki inquired if anyone had done a traffic study of the area in question. He asked if traffic counts would go up as a result of the development of this � property. Attorney Spiegel stated no traffic study was done. Mr. Zerbicki asked how this development would benefit the adjacent single family residents. Mr. Zarnek stated the project is in conformance with the City's land use plan. He noted Mr. Truszkowski is proposing a high quality development of this land. Jerry Kollenkark: Mr. Kollenkark asked how #he three buildings would be laid out on the property. Mr. Eggersdorfer indicated the buildings would be situated on the property in a terraced configuration, with all three buildings being constructed parallel to Mill Street: one building in front, two buildings side by side in the rear parallel to the south property line. Mr. Kollenkark then asked how the drainage from this development would affect his property, which is adjacent to the west. Mr. Eggersdorfer stated the onsite detention would prevent additional drainage from the site. Mr. Kollenkark inquired as to the capability of the existing sanitary sewer to handle waste from 36 additional units. He also asked the percentage of open space that would be included in this site plan. Staff responded the minimum required is 45 Jo open space. The proposed site plan shows 56 Jo of open space. CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER Attorney Spiegel thanked the Board for hearing all of the testimony. She stated Petitioner Truszkowski intends to make a positive contribution to the City as evidenced by his previous projects in the City: the delicatessen and office buildings located on South Route 31. Mr. Truszkowski is seeking a map amendment from RS-4 to RM-2 � alang with a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of the project pursuant to the RM-2 Bulk Area Requirements, and a variance to permit the construction of three principal buildings on one ioned lot. Attorney Spiegel asked the Board to make a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Page 6 ZBA-Truszkowski 2/21/00 � LOSING STATEMENTS BY OBJECTORS Chairman Semrow swore in the following Objectors prior to their making statements before the Board: 1. Lois Koss, 4145 W. Crestwood Drive, McHenry IL 60050 2. Dale Koss, 4105 W. Crestwood Drive, McHenry IL 60050. Lois Koss; "The first issue I'm concerned about is traffic. I have lived in this area for over 40 years. There is already a problem on Crestwood and Mil{ Street as far as traffic is concerned. I have even had cars driving across our front yard. The second issue is the proximity of the new bikepath to this project. The amount of traffic generated by this development could endanger the children using the bikepath. This causes a major sa#ety concern. Has anyone thought about the number of trips which would be generated by these 36 units? A typical 12 traffic trips per day for each of the 36 units amounts to more than 400 total trips per day. This could escalate up to 1,000 trips per day. I am also concerned regarding the screening of this property from adjacent residential properties. Having the garages face the front of the property, I am concerned about noise and more people in the area. I do not believe a fence would properly shield my property, including my front porch, from automobile lots in the parking lot of this development. Will these buildings cut off sunli�ht to my garden to prevent my plants from growing. How much will the construction of these units decrease property values in the area? We do not want a multi-family dwelling next door � to our home. We do not want another apartment complex with its inherent problems. I am concerned that an apartment building in this area would increase crime in our neighborhood. I ask the Board to deny this request." Dale Koss: "Who of the Board lives in McHenry? 96 units plus 36 units is a total of 132 units. Let's assume there are two cars per unit which equals 264 cars. These 264 cars would be passing by my home each day. I am not in favor of this development." REBUTTAL BY PETITIONER Attorney Spiegel stated growth will occur in the City of McHenry. The proposed plan is in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan. It is essential we keep in mind the goals of the comprehensive plan which indicates 9+ units/acre in this area. The proposEd site plan shows a density of 13.1 units/acre. Attorney Spiegel stated it is rather unfair to bring up existing problems with apartment eomplexes in town. Mr. Truszkowski is not building an apartment building. He is proposing an upscale condominium development which would have restrictive covenants. This particular development would fit in this residential neighborhood. The petitioner's request is appropriate and the petitioner respectfully requests the Zoning Board make a recommendation for approval to the City Council. Chairman Semrow said, 'there being no further testimony before the Board with regard to this matter, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition, unless � there is a motion to recess by a member of the Board. There being no motion to r�cess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to this Petition." Page 7 ZBA-Truszkowski 2/2I/00 � Attorney McArdie stated the Petitioner couid amend the Petition to include concurrence to record restrictive covenants to assure that all 36 units would be owner- occupied. DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION Motion by Howell, seconded by Meyer, to recommend to the City Council that the Petitioner's request for a map amendment from RS-4 High Density Single Family to RM-2 High Density Multi•Family Zoning District be granted; that the request for a conditional use permit to allow construction on the subject property pursuant to the RM-2 Zoning District Bulk Area Requirements be granted; that a variance to permit three principal buildings on one zoned lot in substantial conformance to the Site Plan prepared by Eggersdorfer Architects & Associates Inc, dated 02/03/00 be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed site plan shoufd be modified to provide adequate maneuvering area for garbage hauling and access for fire protection purposes. Z. A six-foot high solid wood fence and generous landscaping should be provided along the property lines adjacent to single-family homes, � which is along the entire west property line and the western portion of the south property. 3. A copy of protective covenants should be submitted for approval by the City Attorney to ensure the continued maintenance of the landscaping, fencing and stormwater detention areas within the development. 4. Speed bumps should be installed in the driveway along the west property line. 5. The detached garages should be finished with 75 Ja brick or masonry exterior. 6. There should be no exterior lighting on the detached garages near the west property line. 7. Restrictive covenants approved by City Attorney must be recorded to impose an owner-occupied restriction on all units within this development. that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance has been met; and that Table 31, the Approval Criteria for Conditional Uses, pages 357•358 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377- 378, has been met. � MAR-14-�Q 04 :49 PM H S�mrow, Jr . .Atty.mt Law 615 3B5 7693 p.�� __,.,. ....,,j rrt�+�� 4u�klf�tT`i'' DEV/PW � �9ST.S9� R.BS r � . • . � ��uSx�ibWBkt , ZI�I�/Qp . ; �. i . , Y�tingAYe. C�dott�►► �r'�1, Howel�. : � • �'otir�t+�y; E'k�trom, Mynar, Semrow. � , �la#YQtinq: None. � �►�t�ln�ag: IVonf. i l�baer�t: Rr�1nr$n. ; Motion lafbd 3��. Tl�ra witf tk no �tcamm�r+dation tc tha dty t�r�cl1'wiRh ' rd#� 'this P�ttttan. , , � � ��1� �tr�ratn Sstnrq�r�pi�. 'tl�rr b�ing no�r#her ta�tfmo brbr*ttM 8b�ird with rd to thi�rn�ttar' thi�h��rin� ts�faumed at�,1�p.rr� ' � , i tlr�lty sci ,Itt�l,;' � H�rry 5e w. CF�a�rrn� �^ , Zonlr� rd oF ARDMri� ' a: �oni Board �of A � �B ppe�� M�mb�rs �. Pien Camml�sion M�rnbe� [7 � �if�r AdmtnGstratar, pl�nnbr� I'1N Admini�tn�tion� Gity�nRtnl�. �#dsi�ln �ar�ce �opY, Petitlansr. pb�3erversrt3b�sctors (11), 8 & Z �or�iri� �il�� La. 'mlrrk Commtsglon Ctairman� tVar#l�w�t Herai�.Tl�s�un� gfl�Copy, : �.,�+�g � � � ; . � � . . � , � � : . � t i � ' i � : � , ; � 1 � ; . � � . � . , � : � i . 1 ' f ?G1tF� P,05 � I`�R-14-2000 15�55 p.�� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS fEBRUARY 21, 2000 CITY OF MCHENRY � IN THE MATT�R OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-488 DANNY CHANG AND AMERICAN NATIONAL ) CHANG BANK AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST #427 ) FOR A MAP AMENDMENT AND VARIANCE ) TO THE Z.ONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Map Amendment MCHENR'Y, MCHENRY COUNTY, I L ) Variance REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD Of APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY 0� MCHENRY, ILLINOIS A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on January 17, 2000 and was recessed to this date. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 9:27 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Steve Doherty, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Darick Franzen. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. � 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. 5. Petitioner: Danny Chang, 873 East Fox Chase Drive, Round Lake Beach, I L 60073. 6. Attorney for Petitioner: Roth and Feetterer represented by Mike Coppedge, 607 N. Front Street, McHenry, IL 60050. 7. City Council Members/Staff: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: a. Joe and Jennifer Gilmore, 3908 W. Kane Ave, McHenry, IL 60050. b. Robert Ratner, 3911 W. Oak Avenue, McHenry IL 60050. c. George Tourville, 3911 W. Kane Ave, McHenry IL 60050 NOTICE OF PUBLICATION Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on January 1, 2000. Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's Office. Notice was sent to all property owners whose property abuts the subject � property. Certified receipts are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. An affidavit of posting the subject property is also on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Page 2 ZBA-Chang 2/21/00 � OCATION The subject property is located at 712 North Front Street, the southeast corner of the intersection of Kane Avenue and Route 31, is unimproved, and comprised of approximately .32 acres. S MMAR� The Petitioner is requestin� a Map Amendment from RS-4 to C-3 Community Commercial Zoning District with a Variance to the rear yard setback from 15 feet to 10 feet. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioner: • Donald Allen, architect, 1601 Lincoln Road, McHenry IL 60050 ■ Dr. Danny Chang, 873 E. Fox Chase Drive, Round Lake Beach, IL 60073. Attorney Coppedge stated the Petitioner is seeking a map amendment from RS-4 to C-3 Community Commercial Zoning District in order to accommodate the construction and operation of a dental office on the subject property. Due to the configuration and limited size of the property, a variance to allow a rear yard setback of 10 feet as opposed to the required 15 feet is also bein� sought. Dr. Chang stated he currently operates his business at 5400 West Elm Street. He is hopin� to purchase the subject � property and to expand his business to include an additional dentist. Architect Allen stated he has been working on plans for the dental office for approximately six months. He noted the building height would be 20'. This would be a one-story building. The building exterior would be brick, drivit and cedar. The total area of the building would be 2,600 square feet. Mr. Allen stated he is unable to accommodate the building on the site without a variance as to the required 15' rear yard setback to allow a 10' setback. He noted all screening and landscape requirements would be met. The petitioner is willing a accede to Staff's direction with regard to the screening. If Staff indicates a fence should be installed, the Petitioner will comply. He pointed out a fence exists along the east property line constructed by the adjacent residential property owner. Egress to/from the site would be solely from Kane Avenue. There would be no direct access to Route 31. Attorney Coppedge state the proposed use of the property is in compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan which shows a commercial corridor alon� Route 31. QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESSES BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Chairman Semrow asked the total Staff of the proposed dental office. Dr. Chang responded there would be six employees including a second dentist and a dental hygienist. Semrow, noting only 15 parking spaces, asked if on-site parking would be adequate. Maggio said parking requirements were computed on net floor area, 85 Jo � of the gross area of the building. It was assumed all Staff would not be present at one time. Pa�e 3 ZBA-Chang 2/21/00 �. Howell asked if it is so difficult to fit the building on this lot, why build at this location. Dr. Chang responded it is a matter of economics. This property was within his affordable price range. Semrow noted there would be no room for expansion of the business at this location. The physical limitation of the property would not allow expansion. Ekstrom inquired as to a location for refuse receptacle. Allen responded it would be within a fenced•in area at the rear of the building so that it would not be visible from either street. Ekstrom expressed concern regarding the request for rear yard variance. The Variance assumes the property to the south is zoned commercial. It is currently zoned residential, as is the subject of a petition, which will be considered by the Board immediately following this petition, She questioned whether it is appropriate to consider a variance request for 15' (required if adjacent to commercial zoning) to 10 feet (actual); or if in fact the actual variance request should be 30' (required if adjacent to residential zoning) to 10 feet (actual). Some discussion followed. QUESTIONS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTOR� Robert Ratner. 3911 Oak Drive: Mr. Ratner asked if the property has been appraised. Mr. Coppedge responded it has not yet been appraised. � Joe. Gilmore, 3908 Kane Avenue� Mr. Gitmore asked how the parking lot would be illuminated. Mr. Coppedge stated there is no formal plan developed for the property as yet. This would be a daytime intensive use. Lights installed for parking lot illumination would be shielded. Low level intensity lighting would be utilized. Gilmore asked if there would be any freestanding signs on the property. Dr. Chang responded there would only be a wall sign on the building. �eorge Tourville. 3911 KangAvenue: Mr. Tourville asked what type of fencing would be constructed. Mr. Allen stated the screening has not been determined yet. It could consist of plantings or an actual fence. Meyer asked if the Petitioner would be willing to utilize plantings for screening due to the residential use of the adjacent property to the east. He suggested plantings woufd blend in with the residential nature of the neighborhood. STATEMENTS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTORS Chairman Semrow swore in the following prior to statements being made: ■ Robert Ratner, 3911 Oak Avenue, McHenry IL 60050 ■ John Roth, 607 North Front Street, McHenry IL 60050 ■ Joseph Gilmore, 3911 Kane Avenue, McHenry IL 60050 Robert Ratner: Mr. Ratner stated he used to be a licensed appraiser with the State of � Illinois. He opined if commercial were extended along the Route 31 corridor, then his home which is two lots removed from bein� along this corridor could ultimately be next to commercial development. He stated the subject property is not large enough to accommodate this commercial use as indicated by the requested variance. He Page 4 ZBA-Chang 2/2I/00 � opined tr�ere would be several residential homes which would be impacted by the commercialization of Route 31. John Rott� Mr. Roth who represents the adjacent property owner to the south of the subject property, stated there is not objection from this property owner regarding either the zoning reclassification or the variance being sought. He stated the Petitioner meets the parking requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. If there is concern regarding adequate parking on this site, the Board should look at the ordinance and amend the requirements. But, as long as a petitioner meets these requirements, this should not be an issue at this hearing. Joseph Gilmore: Mr. Gilmore stated he is not opposed to the dental building bein� constructed on the site. He asked the Board to restrict the lighting to the minimum needed on the site so as not to adversely impact his home across the street from this proposed development. He also suggested the Board encourage the Petitioner to maximize landscaping on this site. C40SING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER Attorney Coppedge stated the requested zoning is not at issue. The Comprehen5ive Plan calls for commercial use along the Route 31 corridor. The request is for a variance to allow this small parcel of land to be utilized as a commercial property in � this commercially designated area. He noted all other C•3 and C-4 parcels in the City are much larger in size and can accommodate suitable buildings without benefit of a variance. Dr. Chang's request is reasonable and minima! in nature. Chairman Semrow stated, "there being no further testimony before the Board with regard to this matter, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the 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". D�LIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION Motion by Meyer, seconded by Cadotte, to recommend to the City Council that The Petitioner's request to reclassify the subject property from RS-4 High Density Single Family Zoning District to C•3 Community Commercial Zoning District, be granted; the Petitioners request for a variance as to the required rear yard setback from 15' to 10' be granted subject to the following conditions: ■ That plantings be used to buffer the building and parking area from adjacent residential properties; ■ That lighting on the premises shine only on the subject property and not beyond the property I i ne; � that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance has been met; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance has been met. Page 5 ZBA-Char�g 2/21/00 � Voting Aye: Cadotte, Doherty, Ekstrom, Howell, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Franzen. Motion carried. 6-0. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further before the Board with regard to this matter, Chairman Semrow adjourned the Hearing at 10:17 p.m. Respectfutly su itted, Harry Se ow, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City � Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, Observers/Objectors (3), City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, The Sun, File Copy. Z-488 � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 21, 2000 CITY OF MCHENRY � IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z_4$9 OMEGA INVESTMENTS AND AMERICAN ) Omega Investments NATIONAL BANK AS TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST ) #427 FOR A MAP AMENDMENT ) TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Map Amendment MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, IL ) REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on January 17, 2000, and continued to February 21, 2000. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 10:18 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Steve Doherty, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Darick Franzen. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kath{een M. Kunzer. `.. 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. 5. Petitioner: Omega Investments, 105 North lst Avenue, #234, Sandpoint, ID 83684. 6. Attorney for Petitioner: Roth and Feetterer represented by John Roth, 607 N. Front Street, McHenry, IL 60050. 7. City Council Members/Staff: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: a. Joe and Jennifer Gitmore, 3908 W. Kane Ave, McHenry, IL 60050. b. Robert Ratner, 3911 W. Oak Avenue, McHenry IL 60050 c. George Tourville, 3911 W. Kane Ave., McHenry IL 60050 NOTICE 0�' PUBLICATION Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Heratd on January 1, 2000, Publisher's Certification of Publication is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Notice was sent to all property owners whose property abuts the subject property. Certified � receipts are on file in the Office of the City Clerk. An affidavit of posting the subject property is atso on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Page 2 ZBA-Omega 2/21/00 � L GATION The subject property is located at 700 North Front Street, the northeast corner of the intersection of Oak Avenue and Route 31, is unimproved, and comprised of approximately .27 acres. MMARY The Petitioners are requesting a Map Amendment from RS-4 to C-3 Community Commercial Zoning District. TESTIMONY Attorney Roth, representing the Petitioner, Omega Investments, stated this matter is before the Board to request reclassification from RS-4 to C-3 Community Commercial Zoning District. At this time, there is no specific use or purchaser proposed for this property. Attorney Roth stated C-3 zoning is compatible with adjacent zoning along Route 31 and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan which designates this area as a commercial corridor. Attorney Roth went over the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments as stated in the Petition. � QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Chairman Semrow noted the subject property is 15' narrower than the property immediately to the north which was the subject of Case No. Z-488, presented before the Board earlier this evening. Meyer stated he has a hard time granting "blanket" zoning for this parcel, without a specific use in mind. Anyone could purchase this property and bring in any of the commercial uses permitted in the C-3, C-2 or C-1 Zoning District without further consideration by the City or this Board. Howell noted this entire area of Route 31 will ultimately be commercially zoned. He stated the size of the lot will control what is built on this site. Semrow inquired as to why the petitioner is seeking C-3 zoning as opposed to C-1 zoning. Attorney Roth responded the parcel will be self-limiting due to the size of the lot. Concern was expressed by the Board as to the advisability of zonin� the property without a specific use being planned. Semrow suggested the Petition could be amended to request C-1 zoning, the most restrictive commercial classification. The property owner could then request more intense commercial zoning when the use is known for the property. Meyer stated he has a hard time granting blanket zoning, � especially since there is no propased use. He opined anyone could brin� in and operate any type of business which is permitted in the C•3 category with no further input or restrictions being placed by this Board. � Page 3 ZBA-Omega 2/21/00 � General discussion ensued regarding the appropriate commerciai zoning classification for this �roperty. Howell noted this entire are of Route 31 will ultimately be commercial. He stated it would be appropriate to zone the property C-1, in order to require a prospective user to come forward with their proposed use, if they should require a higher commercial zoning classification, variance or conditional use permit. Discussicn continued. Staff suggested the Board could take action on the Petition this evening as it is. Additionally, Attorney Roth could speak to his client about the possibility of reducing the requE�st for reclassification from C3 to C•1. If agreeable to the Petitioner, the Petition could then be amended to reflect the request for C-1 zoning. Howell pointed out the size of the lot will control what is built on the site. Semrow questioned why C-3 is more appropriate for this site than C•1. Attorney Roth stated the lot would be self-limiting. Chairman Semrow stated, "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 regarding the Petition", DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION � Motion by Ekstrom, seconded by Meyer, to recommend to the City Council that The Petitioner's request to reclassify the subject property fram RS•4 High Density Single Family District to C•3 Community Commercial Zoning District be granted and that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, Page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Doherty, Ekstrom, Howell. Voting Nay: Meyer, Semrow. Not Voti ng: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Franzen. Motion carried 4•2. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Howelt, seconded by Ekstrom, to adjourn the Hearing at 10:44 p.m. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Doherty, Ekstrom, Howell, Meyer, Semrow. Voti ng Nay: None. Not Voting: None. � Abstaining: None. Absent: �ranzen. Page 4 ZBA-Omega 2/21/00 � Motion c��rried 6-0. The Public Hearing was adjourned at 10:44 p,m. spectfully ubmitted, Harry mrow, Chairman Zonin Board of Appeals c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Observers/Objectors (3), Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, The Sun, File Copy. Z-4$9 � �