Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 9/28/1998 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE ti1ATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-456 � DANIEL l.. ADAMS, OWNER, FOR MAP ) AMENDh1ENT AND VARIANCE UPON ) Daniel Adams ANNEXA��ION, PURSUANT TO THE ZONING 1014 N. River Road ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, ) Map amendment MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ) Variance REPORT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, I�LINOIS A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on September 28, 1998. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 8:44 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zo�iing Board Members: George Cadotte, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Chuck Lovett, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Randy Christensen. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Absent. 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. � 5. Petitioner: Daniel Adams, 7614 Swarthmore Road, Woodstock, Illinois 60098. 6. Attorney for Petitioner: Gilman Johnson, 74 East Grand Avenue, P.O. box 86, Fox Lake, Illinois 60020. 7. City Council Members: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: 1 . Bruce Rotz, 1018 N. River Road, McHenry, IL 60050 2. Mike and Pam )ohnson, 1003 N. Plymouth Lane, McHenry, IL 60050 3. Laurie Hoffstetter, 1021 Plymouth Lane, McHenry, IL 60050 4. Jeffrey Kleinhans, P O Box 355, McHenry IL 60051. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on September 2, 1998. Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's Office. Notices were mailed to all owners of record of abutting properties. The subject property was posted as required by the Zoning Ordinance. An Affidavit of Service is on file with the City Clerk. � LOCAT I O N The subject property is located at 1014 North River Road, McHenry, Illinois 60050, and is comprised of 1 .39 acres. Page 2 ZBA-Dan Adams 9-28-98 SUMMARY � The Petitioners are requesting the following upon annexation to the City of McHenry: 1. Subject property be granted I-1 Industrial Zoning; 2. A portion of North Avenue and Plymouth Lane be vacated as shown on the Plat of Vacation attached as Exhibit D to the Annexation Agreement; 3. Existing buildings be granted the requested setback variances as they do not now conform to the current setback requirements of the City Code; 4. The accessory storage building be allowed to remain in its present condition. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioners: 1. Mr. Daniel Adams, 7614 Swarthmore Road, Woodstock, Illinois 60098. Chairman Semrow asked Attorney)ohnson for clarification of the ownership of the portion of North Avenue and Plymouth Lane for which the applicant is seeking vacation. Attorney Johnson responded at this point ownership of these rights-of-way is not clear. No one wants to claim ownership for these roads. There exists a 1927 Plat of Subdivision. If the property is annexed into the City, the City of McHenry would then have jurisdiction over the portion of the streets in question, and the City could order the streets vacated. Thus far the applicant is maintaining these streets as far as snowplowing, etc. Mr. )ohnson pointed out if the portion of the streets is vacated as requested, the property would be contained on one lot by zoning definition, and the variance for the accessory �, building would then become a necessity. If the street is not vacated, this variance would not be required. In any event, it is within the jurisdiction of the City Council to authorize the vacation of the street. Mr. Johnson noted the I-1 zoning pursuant to the County Zoning Ordinance which is currently in place is very similar to the requested City of McHenry I-1 Industrial Zoning. The Petitioner is requesting to maintain current zoning on this property upon annexation. Mr. Johnson stated the Petitioner is requesting that he be permitted to keep the existing accessory structure on the premises. This accessory structure does not conform to the City's setback requirements and a variance is being sought. This building is currently being used as a warehouse. Attorney McArdle requested clarification regarding if the building was brought into the city, had it reclassified to City of McHenry I-1 Zoning, and the street was vacated, would the Petitioner still seek a variance to avoid existing non-conformity building setbacks in an effort to create "legal" setbacks. Mr. Johnson responded there can never be "legal"setbacks. There would be variances so this building could conform to the code in that sense. McArdle asked if the Petitioner were to level this property, would the Petitioner be bound in the future by the setbacks as varied or by the existing setbacks as governed by the Code at the time of construction. Mr. Johnson replied the intent is that the Petitioner would require the variance only for the existing building and not for any future new construction. QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD � Lovett asked for clarification with regard to the granting of the variance requested. If the entire lot was levelled, would the Petitioner be required to conform to all setback requirements of the ordinance? Mr. Johnson stated that is correct. Maggio noted the approval of the variance should to tied to the existing building. Page 3 ZBA-Dan Adams 9-28-98 Meyer asked what happens if a portion of North Avenue and Plymouth are vacated as � requested, does that now give the Petitioner the option to add on to the existing building into the vacatE�d street area? McArdle agree that would be correct. Discussion ensued regarding the setbac�ks which would be required if such an addition were erected on the building. Mr. Johnson reminded the Board the portion of North Avenue for which the vacation is requested is only that portion which is limited to that portion for which Mr. Adams has a fee simple title. It does not spill over onto other right of way. Semrow asked if the portion of North Avenue as it runs into River Road would be vacated or would remain as it currently exists. Mr. )ohnson responded it will remain as it is at this time. Residential access to homes in this area will not be prohibited by the proposed vacation of North Avenue or Plymouth Lane. Meyer asked where the access is located for Lot 5, Block 2, of Edgewater Subdivision. McArdle responded the access would be onto North Avenue. This portion of North Avenue would not be vacated. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the layout of the Edgewater Subdivision and residential accessibility should the portions of the roadway be vacated as req uested. Howe�l asked if the Petitioner currently does the snow removal on Plymouth Lane. Mr. Johnson responded in the affirmative. If the Petitioner does not maintain this roadway, it will not be maintained. � Chairman Semrow stated if the street vacation were granted, all area residents would have street access to River Road either via Plymouth and Northside, or North Avenue. Meyer stated he was not sure how the Board could consider voting on the Petition because road ownership is undetermined at this time. McArdle stated that once the property is annexed into the City, the City will own the right-of-way, the City will have the right to vacate the right-of-way. So it does not matter whose right-of-way it is at the present time. Meyer asked for clarification as to the City's position with regard to vacation of this right-of-way. Maggio responded Staff is recommending vacation of this street. Attorney McArdle noted there is a requirement for a Public Hearing with regard to the vacation of the street. He anticipated it would be held the same evening as the Annexation Agreement Hearing. Howell asked if there is currently public maintenance of any portion of North Avenue. Mr. Adams replied he maintains all of North Avenue. General discussion followed regarding the existing vacation of North Avenue. QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY OBSERVERS/OBIECTORS Ingrid lordan, 1010 North River Road: If this Petition is granted, would North River, the River Road side, would it remain the same as it is now, or would there be a wall or some other barrier erected? � Michael lohnson, 1003 Plymouth Lane: Is the Petitioner planning to shut the street off completely? Mr. Adams said he is not asking to completely close off the road. He said he purchased this property approximately one year ago. Mr. Johnson said if there are going to Page 4 ZBA-Dan Adams 9-28-98 close off this entire corner off, he is concerned. Chairman Semrow opined fram a practical � standpoint no one will be denied access to their property. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding how Mr. Adams will access his property once the vacation has been granted. Mr. Johnson �isked if the Petitioner could fence off this road at the present time, prior to the vacation, if he wanted to. Attorney McArdle said he could. Laurie Hoffstetter, 1021 Plymouth Lane: She stated she has a question regarding the I-1 Industrial Zoning. She asked how the proposed I-1 Zoning in the City compares to I-1 in the County. Attorney McArdle stated the City would provide Ms. Hoffstetter with a list of permitted uses in the City I-1 Districts. leffrev Kleinhans, P O Box 355 McHeny• He stated he is not concerned with regard to the industrial zoning. His concern is with the entire roadway network in Edgewater Subdivision. Attorney Johnson noted when the property was purchased from the Hettermans, the portion of North Avenue for which the vacation is being requested was purchased as well. Following discussion, Chairman Semrow summarized the Petitioner is seeking variations predicated on the assumption the vacation of a portion of the North Avenue right-of-way will be granted. If the granting of the street vacation is not granted, Mr. Adams may need different variances for this property. Laurie Hoffstetter, 1021 Plvmouth Lane: Why are the variances needed? Attorney Johnson replied the current location of the building on the lot does not meet minimums required by � City Code. Ms. Hoffstetter asked why couldn't the property be annexed as is without the variances. Attorney McArdle responded the property would come into the City with pre- existing non-conformities which requires another entire set of regulations which the Petitioner would have to meet. Andrew Hoffstetter, 1021 Plvmouth Lane: If the Petitioner's property is annexed into the City, would the City also annex the remainder of the Edgewater Subdivision? Chairman Semrow responded the City would not condemn the property and forcibly annex it. The only property being considered for annexation at this time is the property owned by the Petitioner. STATEMENTS BY THE OBIECTORS/OBSERVERS Laurie Hoffstetter: "My comments are that Mr. Adams that property. The beer distributor who formerly owned the property made an agreement some time ago to maintain it because of his trucks coming in and out of there. Even though that beer distributor building was never part of our suk�division. That beer distributor building was put up a very long time ago. Our subdivision is very old. North Avenue is part of our subdivision streets. We all maintain those roads. We also have beach property on the river. It's all part of our subdivision. Because of the subdivision being so old, there are no bylaws, it's just always been one of those things. Whoever has a snowplow, plows the snow. I know that my neighbors and I are concerned about what vacating that road, having that entire parcel be I-1 will do to our property values. right now that is a road, even though it looks like a parking lot. Mr. Adams did not maintain it at all this year. Nothing was done to it. He took out some blacktop, did something, and � put the blacktop back in. It was Jimmy Hetterman who maintained it so that he could use it for his own trucks. My neighbors and I are concerned about what's going to happen with this property if the building were to burn down, and the whole thing had to be rebuilt, with the entire parc:el being zoned I-1. The accessory building on the other side of the road is not just Page 5 ZBA-Dan Adams 9-28-98 used for storage. There is a business in there. So, all I can say is these subdivision roads have � always been a part of our subdivision. I know that you're not taking care of the vacation of the roads right now, but, I don't think we would have a problem with the Petitioner being annexed into the City if things were going to stay the way they are. But, there's a possibility they would not. He would have the option of changing whatever he wanted to. It would be an inconvenience to the neighbors to vacate that road because it is used frequently by people in the subdivision. Right now, I'm discussing things with Fred Batt at the City with regard to the City taking over part of Northside, maintaining it, and dumping extra traffic from 120 onto River Road, by people cutting through to avoid the traffic light. Thank you." CLOSING STATE BY PETITIONER Attorney)ohnson stated the Petitioner believes the granting of his Petition would be mutually � beneficial to the City as well as to Mr. Adams. Mr. Johnson noted the Petitioners request meets the Approval Criteria for map amendments as well as zoning variances. He ask that the Zoning Board make an affirmative recommendation with regard to the Petition to the McHenry City Council. Chairman Semrow stated, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this Petition, the Board will consider this Petition at this time, 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 the Petition." DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION � Motion by Lovett, seconded by Meyer, to recommend to the City Council that the Petitioner's request that the subject property upon annexation to the City of McHenry be granted a Map Amendment to I-1 Industrial Zoning District; that a variance to allow more than one principal building on a lot be granted; that a variance to allow the building setbacks for the existing building as show on the Plat of Survey submitted as part of the Petition; that Table 33, The Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments, on page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met; and that Table 32, The Approval Criteria for Variances, on pages 377-378, have been met. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Christensen. Motion carried 6-0. � Page 6 ZBA-Dan Adams 9-28-98 � ADIOURNMENT Motion by Lovett, seconded by Howell, to adjourn. Voting A�-e: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting N�iy: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Christensen. Motion carried 6-0. This hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Res ectfully subm' ted, ��Gr.r/�J Harry S row, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Observers/Objectors (4), Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, Star Newspaper, File Copy. Z-456 � � ZON I NG BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 28, 1998 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-453 � THE PACINI GROUP, L.L.C. AND PARKWAY ) The Pacini Group BANK AND TRUST AS TRUSTEE FOR TRUST ) NO. 10693, FOR MAP AMENDMENT AND ) Kresswood Trails VARIANCES UPON ANNEXATION, PURSUANT ) TO THE Z.ONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ) Map Amendment OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ) Variances 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 September 28, 1998. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1 . Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell, Chuck Lovett, Jon Meyer, Harry Semrow. Absent: Randy Christensen. 2. Att��rney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Absent. 4. Citv Planner: Phillip Maggio. � 5. Petitioner: The Pacini Group, 1278 West Lake Street, Roselle, Illinois. 6. Attorney for Petitioner: Mr. Daniel Curran, 8600 Route 14, Suite 201, Crystal Lake, Illinois 60012. 7. City Council Members: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: 1 . Christina Shelton, 4710 North Glenbrook Trail, McHenry. 2. Bob Murphy, 4757 Oregon Trail, McHenry. 3. Bonnie Appleyard, 4707 Glenbrook Trail, McHenry. 4. Ron Tessler, 4720 Glenbrook Trail, McHenry. 5. Kim Ribar, 4906 Glenbrook Trail, McHenry. 6. Greg Stein, 4719 Glenbrook Trail, McHenry. 7. Tim Magoon, 4803 Glenbrook Trail, McHenry. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on September 12, 1998. Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file with regard to this matter in the City Clerk's � Office. Notices were mailed to all owners of record of abutting properties. The subject property was posted as required by the Zoning Ordinance. An Affidavit of Service is on file with the City Clerk. Page 2 ZBA-Pacini Kresswood 9-28-98 LOCATION � The subject property is located along Bull Valley Road, adjacent to the west side ofthe railroad tracks, 1/�� mile east of the intersection of Bull Valley Road and Crystal Lake Road in Nunda Township. The property is comprised of approximately 20 acres and is currently unimproved. SUMMARY The Petitioners are requesting the following upon annexation to the City of McHenry: 1. Subject property be granted RA-1 Attached Residential Zoning District; 2. Subject property be granted a front yard set back variance on two buildings from 30 feet to 10 feet; 3. Subject property be granted a variance to allow more than one building on a lot. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioners: 1 . Mr. Gregg Gabel, GBL, 71 B lone Drive, South Elgin, Illinois, 60177. Attorney (;urran began his presentation by stating his client had met with residents of the Fox Ridge/Wir�ding Creek area on April 29, 1998. There were approximately 40 residents who attended this meeting. There was no objection to the type of building or the proposed use for the subject property. The sole objection was the connection of Cross Trail into their subdivision. Two plans were presented to the residents: one plan connects to the residential subdivision to the North; one plan does not connect to the subdivision to the North. Mr. Curran ad�ised those who attended the meeting it would be up to the city which plan would � be implemented. A Prelimir�ary Plat was required prior to the Zoning Hearing. The Petitioners have provided the Preliminary Plat to the City. This matter was presented to the Plan Commission on August 20, 1998 where a unanimous recommendation was made, however, it included a provision that Cross Trail would go straight through to Bull Valley Road, as opposed to the circular route as depicted on the Plat. Mr. Curran noted the Petitioners are seeking the following: • RA-1 Attached Residential Zoning District; • Approval of the Preliminary Plat which was previously approved by the Plan Commission; • Variances as to multiple buildings on a single lot; • Variances for units 21 and 22 to allow a 10 foot front yard setback from the required 30 foot. Mr. Curran advised the Board the Planner for this project, Mr. Gabel, has drawn an alternate plan which would not require the variance for Units 21 and 22. Mr. Gabel noted the subject property is comprised of 20 acres adjacent to Bull Valley Road and immediately west of the railroad right-of-way. The property in question is immediately south of Winding Creek Unit 5 and east of Crystal Lake Road. Mr. Gabel addressed the � original plan which includes the request for variances to Units 21 and 22. The variances were required to accommodate the Natural Gas Pipeline right-of-way. Mr. Gabel stated the property owners will own very little actual land. The majority of the open space land in this Page 3 ZBA-Pacini Kresswood 9-28-98 development will be owned by the Homeowners Association for maintenance purposes. � Mr. Gabel stated he has created a new plan which would not require the variances for Units 21 and 2:�. As far as the variance required for multiple buildings on a single lot, this would still be re��uired. Gabel stated he is proposing a divided entrance into the site. There would be 4-unit buildings around the perimeter, facing the road. There would only be one garage facing the road, with three garages facing the interior. From the roadway, the buildings would appear ta be single family homes. The perimeter of the site would be buffered with landscaping. There would be a berm along Bull Valley Road. There is an existing hedgerow along the north property line which the applicant would like to preserve. Mr. Gabel noted the site is relatively flat and there is adequate space for storm water retention. He stated he has prepared both a plan connecting this development to Winding Creek Subdivision at Cross Trail as well as a plan which does not connect to Cross Trail. The applicant will follow the wishes of Staff with regard to the Cross Trail connection. The plan shows 120 units on 20 acres with a density of 6 units/acre. Mr. Gabel noted the City of McHer�ry requires more masonry on the building exteriors than many communities, however, the Petitioner will accommodate that requirement. All codes will be met. The lot area per �init is 5,900 square feet. The ordinance requires 4,850 square feet per unit. In addition, the plan shows more than the required parking spaces per unit. The building setback line from Bull Valley Road is approximately 75 feet. Mr. Curran noted townhomes at this location i� consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan which indicates Urban Residential. Mr. Gabe stated the proposed townhomes would be a good transition between the single � family hoines to the north, the arterial roadway to the south and the Business Park Zoning across Bull Valley Road. Mr. Gabel noted the McHenry Plan Commission recommended approval of the project with the exception of the design of the Cross Trail connection. There was not a unanimous decision with regard to the Cross Trail connection between Winding Creek Subdivision and Bull Valley Road. The recommendation from the Plan Commission ultimately was that Cross Trail would extend directly through the site to Bull Valley Road. This was a 4-2 vote. In response to an inquiry from Mr. Curran, Mr. Gabel stated the persons attending the April 29th meeting unanimously agreed they would prefer that Cross Trail not be connected to Bull Valley Road through the proposed townhome development. Attorney Curran went over the Approval Criteria for Variances as stated in the Petition. QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Cadotte stated the Petitioner is asking for a variance on Units 21 and 22, and tonight the Petitioner has presented an alternate drawing which does not require this variance. Which plan is the Petitioner proposing to use? Curran replied the Petitioner will abide by the wishes of the Zoning Board of Appeals. � Ekstrom noted the radius has been cut down on the roadway in order to get the buildings in without seeking a variance. Is the radius sufficient to accommodate emergency vehicles, school buses and moving vans? As far as parking is concerned, if someone has a party, is there an area for guest parking? Gabel responded at the end of each one of the driveways there is Page 4 ZBA-Pacini Kresswood 9-28-98 a designated guest parking area. In addition, this is a 28' wide street, so parking on one side � of the strf�et could be permitted. Curran stated the ordinance requires 2.33 spaces per unit. The Plan �ncludes 2.47 parking spaces per unit. This does not take into accoutn the additional parking th�at would be available on the street. Meyer stated he is concerned with the radius on the revised plan which would not require the variance for Units 21 and 22, and asked if the radius would be adequate for larger vehicles. Gabel resr�onded the radius has not been changed. A portion of the roadway has been cut, but the radius remains the same. No parking spaces have been cut from the plan. Semrow referred to the revised plan and stated Cross Trail and Kresswood Drive are more offset thar� presented in the original plan. How much of an offset is that? If the City wished to connect Cross Trail and Kresswood Drive, would that still be possible? Gabel responded the connection could still take place. Semrow noted initially the Plan Commission opposed the plan but later approved the plan. What was the criteria upon which the plan was finally approved? Gabel stated there was a mixed reaction to the plan by the Plan Commission. Some members of the Plan Commission wanted the connection to Cross Trail; another faction of the Cornmission did not want the connection. A third segment believed Cross Trail to be a collecto� street and connection to Bull Valley Road should be more direct. Lovett said the Plan Commission, according to the minutes of its meeting, actually approved the direct connection of Winding Creek Subdivision to Bull Valley Road via Cross Trail. Gabel noted the City after reviewing a concept plan of this development, encouraged a circuitous connectio� of Cross Trail to Bull Valley Road, in order to discourage cut-through traffic to � Crystal La�ce Road. A lengthy discussion followed regarding the connection of Cross Trail. Semrow asked if the entrance to the development would be right in, right out. Gabel responded it would be full access entryway. There will be both a left turn lane as well as a right turn transition lane. This section of Bull Valley Road belongs to the County. There will be no stacking problems caused by this development at the railroad tracks. The entrance is 1600 feet from the entrance to Holy Apostles. Lovett asked how many cars could stack in the eastbound traffic lane. Gabel responded there is 300' which would accommodate approximately 10 vehicles. General discussion followed regarding the amount of stacking space prior to the railroad tracks. Maggio noted the stacking lane might be increased if required by the County. Cadotte asked if there would be fencing along the east property line. Gabel said there would be trees and detention area. The bike trail would be located adjacent to the east property line. A connection to the bike trail is a possibility. Cadotte asked if there is a minimum age limit to property owners in this development. Gabel said there is no age restriction. Base price of units would be approximately $150,000. This is an upscale development, not entry level. There would be two and three bedroom units in the development. Ekstrom asked where the water and sewer connections would come from for this development. Gabel responded the water connection is both on Bull Valley and Winding Creek. The sewer connection is on the south side of Bull Valley Road and would have to be extended to the � project under Bull Valley Road. Lovett asked if the proposed right-of-way designation for the Natural Gas Pipeline had been changed with the revised plan. Gabel said the right-of-way designation had not changed. Page 5 ZBA-Pacini Kresswood 9-38-98 QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY OBSERVERS/OBIECTORS � Bonnie A��pleyard. 4707 Glenbrook Trail• Regarding the retention pond, where will that water be filterecl to? We have had problems with water retention. Mr. Gabel stated the Petitioner is willing to work with the Winding Creek Development to assist with water runoff from the existing pond. The petitioner is able to take care of his surface water runoff and is willing to assist with retention problems existing in Winding Creek to the extent they are able. Curran noted the development of this project would not exacerbate the existing drainage problem, but would make every attempt to assist in alleviating these drainage problems. Ron Tessler, 4720 Glenbrook Trail: Which plan is being submitted for approval at this time? Curran noted the plan being submitted includes a Cross Trail connection to Bull Valley Road. Tessler asked if larger buildings would be located on the interior of the development. Curran responded there would be 6-unit buildings on the interior and 4-unit buildings on the perimeter of the development. The road would be dedicated to the City of McHenry. Christa Shelton, 4710 W. Glenbrook Trail: Why is there a need by emergency services to connect Cross Trail to Bull Valley Road from Winding Creek Subdivision? Right now there is no connec:tion, why is it necessary to connect at this time? Semrow stated there has been no testimony covering this point. A response would only be speculation. Meyer noted the property immediately east of the proposed development is currently owned by the McHenry Township Fire Protection District. It is a possible future location for a Fire House. The Winding (;reek Subdivision would be better served by this Fire House if the connection were � made via Cross Trail to Bull Valley Road. Meyer stated there would be children living in this development and asked if there would be sidewalks. Gabel responded there would be sidewalks in the project and a connection to the Cross Trail sidewalk, whether or not the roadway connects to Cross Trail. Semrow expressed concern regarding the railroad right-of-way not being separated by fencing from this development. Ekstrom asked if it was in the purview of the Zoning Board to make a recommendation regarding the connection of Cross Trail to Bull Valley Road. Meyer stated the plan before the Board includes a circuitous Cross Trail connection. McArdle stated the question before the Board are the zoning classification and variances, but that any comments would be forwarded to the City Council. STATEMENTS BY THE OBIECTORS/OBSERVERS Ron Tessler, 4720 Glenbrook Trail: "I've been at the earlier meeting and reviewed the two different layouts for the townhouse complex. Are you concerned only with the variance to the setback? I am more concerned with the Cross Trail connection. I would like to make a statement regarding the Cross Trail connection to our subdivision. I am concerned with high traffic and people cutting through. The reason that we moved into the neighborhood of Winding Creek is that we have two small children who go to the school, and I have a concern with traffic coming through and their safety. If feel the street if it does connect would of � course add more traffic to our subdivision than is due, for people that are really not concerned with being in the subdivision of Winding Creek, with the school in there. They are really more concerned with saving time in getting from point A to point B in a timely fashion. I do like the layout of the townhouse complex. I've looked at the pictures and I see that the Page 6 ZBA-Pacirii Kresswood 9-28-98 buildings do look very nice. And i feel the crowd that will be buying these townhouses will � be an upscale type of personnel. But again, there will be people who will be using that street to cut thrc�ugh in order to save time. The other layout with the sidewalk connecting the two subdivisions is reasonable and sufficient. My preference would be that layout." Lovett noted the Objector made several references of cutting through from Point A to Point B. Please be more specific. Mr. Tessler responded people might use this road as a cut through and this sl�ould not be the case for a subdivision road that is centered around a grade school. Mr Tessler asked when the next hearing regarding this matter would take place. Attorney Curran advised there will be a Public Hearing with regard to the Annexation of this property. At that time, the zoning, plat of subdivision and the disposition of the connection via Cross Trail between Winding Creek Subdivision and Bull Valley Road, will also be considered and discussed. Notification will be made in the newspaper. Maggio noted all who have signed in for this Public Hearing will also be advised of the Annexation Hearing. Gre� Stein, 4719 Glenbrook Trail: "I would like to reiterate what Mr. Tessler stated, and I believe the City would be better served if that road does not go through. I would also commend the plan. The townhouse development is a good transition from the residential neighborhood to what's coming up with the commercial areas currently expanding in the area. I would take it one step further, and I'd like to know what could be an alternative to the Cross Trail that �ilready exists there. That would be a disservice to everyone involved. It's already become a dumping ground. It's become an area where kids congregate. I think the City � should take the stub out and seed it. I would be glad to maintain it. I don't think you can just leave Cross Trail the way it is right now as a dead end area. I also can't imagine why the Council or Plan Commission would want this street to go all the way through to Bull Valley Road. That takes away from the aesthetics. It would only be a short cut through to Crystal Lake Road without having to go through the traffic lights. It would not really assist emergency vehicles to any great extent." Gabel asked if the testimony was that the existing Cross Trail stub be vacated and the land be landscaped. Mr. Stein said that is correct. Stein asked if the rear yard setback is 30 feet. Gabel responded that is correct; from the parking lot to the lot line there is a 20' setback. Gabel noted there will be a homeowners' association which will be responsible for landscape maintenance, exterior building maintenance, snowplowing, etc. CLOSING STATE BY PETITIONER Attorney Curran stated what is being proposed is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan. The type of use and buildings being suggested would provide a good transition to the single family development to the North. The requested zoning of RA-1 is appropriate for this area. The variance as to multiple buildings on a single zoned lot is required in order to implement such a townhome development. Chairman Semrow stated, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this Petition, the Board will consider this Petition at this time, 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 the Petition." Page 7 ZBA-Pacir�i Kresswood 9-28-98 DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION � Motion by Lovett, seconded by Howell, to recommend to the City Council that the Petitioner's request that the subject property upon annexation to the City of McHenry be granted a Map Amendment to RA-1 Attached Residential Zoning District; that a variance to allow more than one principal building on a lot be granted; that Tak�le 33, The Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments, on page 401 of the Zoning Orc�inance have been met; and that Table 32, The Approval Criteria for Variances, on pa�es 377-378, have been met. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION Lovett stated if safety is an issue, and if the City should decide to connect Cross Trail to Bull Valley Road, the connection should not be made straight through, as it would increase the traffic impact in the residential neighborhood. If Cross Trail is extended to Bull Valley Road a circuito�as route would be preferable. VOTING ON THE MOTION Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Christensen. � Motion carried 6-0. Chairman Semrow stated a copy of the sign-in sheet from the April 29, 1998 meeting with the residents f�as been accepted into the record. ADIOURNMENT Motion by Lovett, seconded by Howell, to adjourn. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Meyer, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Christensen. Motion carried 6-0. This hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully su itted, Harry S row, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals � c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Observers/Objectors (7), Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, Star Newspaper, File Copy. Z-453