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