Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 6/1/1998 - Zoning Board of Appeals • � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 1, 1998 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE :'v1ATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-450 � GERSTAD BUILDERS INC. AND FIRST MIDWEST ) Gerstad/Diedrich BANK AS TRUSTEE FOR TRUST NO. 13255, FOR ) MAP Ati1ENDMENT, PURSUANT TO THE ) Diedrich Farm Property ZONINC; ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) Rezoning MCHENRY, 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 June 1, 1998. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:37 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Z�ning Board Members: George Cadotte, Randy Christensen, Paula Ekstrom, Harry Sc�mrow. Absent: John Howell, Chuck Lovett, Jon Meyer. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer 4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio. � 5. Director of Community Development: Joseph Napolitano. 6. P��titioner: Gerstad Builders, Inc. represented by Roger Gerstad, 4310-G West Crystal Lake Road, McHenry, Illinois 60050. 7. Attorney for Petitioner: Diamond & LeSueur represented by Samuel Diamond, 3431 West Elm Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050. 8. City Council Members: None. 9. Court Reporter: None. 10. Registered Observers: William and Doris Hunt, 2218 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 Tim Molloy, 1912 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 Maria Swiatek, 1910 N. Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 Sherell Wadsworth, 2015 N. Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 Stanley Archacki III, 2604 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry, IL 60050 Swiatek Bramistowe, 1920 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 William Dippe, 2001 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 Russell Frank, 1820 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 Mike Oliver, 1717 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 �. Stanley Archacki Jr., 2604 W. Lincoln Road, McHenry, IL 60050 Debra Werner, 1908 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 Setty Cullotta, 1906 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 John and Jackie Holt, 1818 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 � ' Page 2 Z BA-G e�stad/D i ed ri ch 6/1/98 Jf�rry and Nancy Jones, 2210 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050 � h1aureen Pazier, 2220 Woodlawn Park, McHenry, IL 60050. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION Notice cf this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on May 14, 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. LOCATION The subject property is located at 2028 North Woodlawn Park, McHenry, Illinois 60050, and is comprised of approximately 118 acres. SUMMARY The Petitioner is requesting the subject property be rezoned to RS-2 Medium Density Single Family Residential District upon Annexation to the City of McHenry. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioner: 1 . Roger Gerstad, 5522 West Lake Shore Drive, Wonder Lake, Illinois 60097. Petitioner Gerstad stated for the past 12 years, his business typically has constructed between 60 and 80 homes each year in the McHenry area. An effort is made to use McHenry suppliers �, and services whenever possible. He stated the property in question is currently being used as agricultural, and includes areas of trees and rolling topography. Gerstad noted he is proposing medium density single family residential zoning for the property with a projected number of approximately 322 homes on the property. The property has no structures on it currently. The proposed residential use would fit in harmoniously with existing surrounding uses. Gerstad noted the City's current Comprehensive Plan indicates this property should be Business Park. However, the McHenry Plan Commission at its May 7, 1998 meeting recommended residential use for this property. Gerstad indicated the current zoning on the property is R1 and E1 pursuant to the McHenry County Zoning Ordinance. Attorney Diamond noted the property would have to become contiguous to the City before it could be annexed. The property would have to be serviced by City water and sewer and all capital development and connection fees would have to be paid. In addition, the developer would be required to submit a Preliminary and Final Plat for City approval. QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Semrow asked if park lands would be donated. Gerstad responded the City may choose to accept a cash donation instead of land at the present time. Christensen noted the Plan Commission viewed a Concept Plan when they reviewed the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan on May 7th. Discussion ensued as to the value and `., relevance of the Board being able to view the Concept Plan. The Concept Plan was presented for Board edification. � � Page 3 Z BA-G e rstad/D i ed ri ch 6/1/98 Semrow asked the impact of the proposed FAP420 on the proposed subdivision. Gerstad � responded if IDOT takes the land for right-of-way, he stands to lose approximately 50-70 units. If IDOT signs off on the Final Plat, it would indicate they would not be moving forward in the near fut�are on FAP420. Ekstrom asked if potential home owners would be advised of the existing centerline of FAP420 on this property. Gerstad said it would show up in the Title process for the lots in the Subdivision. Semrow noted the zoning along Route 31 north of town is all C5 Commercial due to the existence of the FAP420 right-of-way which has already been acc�uired by the State. Christensen noted his concern regarding the existing County zoning of the property which would impact the surrounding environs a lot less than the proposed RS-2 which would double the potential density of the housing units on this land. General discussion followed regarding the City sanitary sewer system capacity and the increase in use by the increased density on this land. It was pointed out the developer would bear the cost to ir�crease service capacity should it become necessary. QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY OBIECTORS/OBSERVERS Patrick White: He noted many of the abutting properties are one acre or more in size. He asked how the proposed development would be compatible if the lots were not at least one acre in size. Gerstad responded the proposed use is residential which is compatible with surrounding uses. He noted the size of the lot does not necessarily determine the size or value of a proposed dwelling unit on it. He stated he believed the proposed development to be � compatible with existing development. Additionally, he is willing to bring city sanitary services to the property as well as work with the City to bring public water to the development, which may benefit nearby property. Christensen expressed concern regarding buffering issues between existing estate zoned parcels and the proposed RS-2 development. He stated the Petitioner should be required to provide a buffer on his property rather than make it the burden and responsibility of abutting property owners at the property line. Allen Hunt: Hunt noted abutting properties are all a minimum of one acre except along the river. Why isn't the Petitioner required to have one acre lots? Semrow stated by being compatible, it does not necessarily mean the size of the lot - it means the uses are compatible. In this instance all surrounding uses are residential. Therefore, the proposed residential use is compatible. Michael Guv: Guy asked the Petitioner to identify the property recently purchased by School District 15 for development of a new school facility. Gerstad pointed out the property located northwest of the intersection of Chapel Hill Road and Lincoln Road comprised of 38 acres belongs to School District 15. Guy asked if the Petitioner has an alternative plan should the proposed development be denied by the City. Gerstad said he would not like to divulge his alternative plans at this time. \.. Ekstrom asked how water would be brought to the site. Gerstad indicated the City is investi�ating the possibility of purchasing the private water company in Eastwood Manor, and he could obtain water in that way. Another possibility is the construction of a new well and storage tank east of the river. Gerstad said he is willing to work with the City to get a proposal � Page 4 ZBA-G e rstad/D i ed ri ch 6/1/98 on the table in order to help get City water east of the river. He noted there would have to � be public water system and the project could not be serviced by individual wells at this density. Tim Mollov: Where would the surface water retention be located on the site? Gerstad responded the Concept Plan has not progressed to the point of engineering and the exact location of the retention areas is not known at this time. However, run-off will be detained so as not to cause any additional problems for abutting neighbors. Stanlev Archacki III: Archacki asked if the proposed development would be compatible with his abutting property which is zoned agricultural. What if he chose to bring horses to his property which is comprised of 3.6 acres? Would the development impede his use of his property? Gerstad responded the development would not interfere with the Archacki's use of their property. He noted any property owner is allowed to use their property for zoning uses permittec� on their property. lerry lones: Mr. Jones who lives in Golfview Estates noted all the newest lots are one acre or more in size. The smaller lots along the river and in Eastwood Manor are much older. In addition, many of the homes along the river are on two or more lots. How is the proposed development compatible with one acre lots. Gerstad pointed out the larger lots adjacent to this proposed development do not have water and sewer. Instead they have well and septic which require more land area in order to meet the restrictions of the County Health Department and EPA. � William Wadsworth: Wadsworth noted if the Petitioner was not planning to change the zoning, there would be no one objecting to the proposed development. The objection is due to the density of the project. The Petitioner is hoping to double the number of homes on this land. Wadsworth said he agreed the homes would certainly be better than having FAP420 going through this property. However, how does this development improve the quality of life for the surrounding neighborhood? Gerstad said the quality of the neighborhood will be enhanced. He will bring in water and sewer. Economics dictate that in order to bring water and sewer to this development, the density of the project must be greater than one unit per acre. He therefore requested that RS-2 zoning be granted in order to make this project economically sound. Mike Oliver: Oliver asked how the development would get water. Would there be a water tower on the Petitioner's property. Gerstad indicated if there were a water tower it would be located on the eastern portion of the property which is a much higher elevation than the property abutting Woodlawn Park. Christensen asked if any consideration had been given to RS-1 zoning for this project. Gerstad stated the cost factors for providing water and sewer indicate he needs to go with RS-2 zoning in order for the project to be economically feasible. Semrow stated it is not in the purview of the ZBA to negotiate lot size with the Petitioner. It is the function of the ZBA to hear testimony of the Petition brought before them. In making a recommendation, the ZBA could �, suggest the Petitioner be required to buffer his development from the larger lots abutting his property. � ` Page 5 ZBA-G e�stad/D i ed ri ch 6/1/98 � Debbie '�/erner: Would there be a utility easement so she could gain access to her back yard to get tc her well should it need work. If there is no easement she would not be able to access her well for maintenance or drilling of a new well. Russell F rank: He noted his road, Woodlawn Park, is more like an alley. He expressed concern regarding having a house built right next to his house. It was noted that rear yard building setback in the RS-2 District is 30 feet. Patrick White: How will this subdivision be beneficial to this existing neighborhood? What neighbors did you survey? McArdle stated the Petitioner is not required to survey the neighborhood. CLOSING STATEMENT BY OBIECTORS Tim Moll� "We are all pretty negative about this project. We like our neighborhood the way it is. We don't want this area to become congested. It would be nice if you could take into account some of the feelings and suggestions we have given you. These are our homes. If you could buffer our homes from this development it would help a lot. Stop by and look at what vou are proposing to change. Keep your development compatible with existing development in our neighborhood." CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER Attorney Diamond stated the Gerstads have purchased the property. Obviously the property �, will be developed. If it is not annexed into the City of McHenry, it could still be developed, perhaps as part of Lakemoor. The Plan Commission looked at the overall picture of this development as it relates to the Comprehensive Plan. No one supports the use of this property as a Business Park. Residential use is appropriate for this property. Petitioner Gerstad noted this project would be in the best economic interests of the City. He stated he would assist the city in bringing water east of the river. RS-1 would increase the street frontage per lot by 20% which would reduce the capital development and developer donations received by the City. The City has a need for water east of the river. This project would seem to be a good way to do that. Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this Petition, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition, unless there is a motion to recess k�y 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 Cadotte, to recommend to the City Council that the Petitioner's request that the subject property be rezoned to RS-2 Medium Density Single Family Zoning District upon annexation to the City be granted; and that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, page 401 of the �, Zoning Ordinance, have been met; with the following conditions: 1. Lots at north end of Woodlawn Park be granted an easement to assure access to existing well and septic systems; ' ` Page 6 ZBA-G��stad/D i ed ri ch 6/1/98 2. Buffering or screening be implemented when lots from the subject property � al�ut adjacent properties of one acre or more in size. Motion c�ied for lack of a second. There w�is some discussion regarding whether it is appropriate to impose conditions as a part of the approval of a rezoning. It was noted the City Council could, however, impose conditior�s as part of the negotiations of an Annexation Agreement. Motion k�y Christensen, seconded by Cadotte to recommend to the City Council that the Petitioner's request that the subject property be rezoned to RS-2 Medium D��nsity Single Family zoning District upon annexation to the City be granted; ar d that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, have been met. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Semrow. Voting Nay: Christensen, Ekstrom. Not Votii�g: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Howell, Lovett, Meyer. Motion failed 2-2. �, A lengthy discussion ensued regarding how best to forward concerns expressed during this Hearing to the City Council. Christensen and Cadotte suggested that Staff and City Council consider the following issues when this matter comes before Council for action: 1. Lots at north end of Woodlawn Park be granted a utility easement to assure access to existing well and septic systems; 2. A transition zoning or screening be implemented when lots from the subject property abut adjacent properties of one acre or more in size. A suggestion was made to increase lot size when abutting estate zoned lots to create a feathering effect. � ' ' ' Page 7 Z B A-G e rstad/D i ed r i c h 6/1/98 � AD OURNMENT Motion l�y Ekstrom, seconded by Cadotte to adjourn. Voting A.ye: Cadotte, Christensen, Ekstrom, Semrow. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstainirig: None. Absent: Howell, Lovett, Meyer. Motion c arried 4-0. This hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals was adjourned at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully sub 'tted, Harry S row, Chairman Zoning oard of Appeals c: Zoning Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy � Petitioner, Objectors/Observers (15), B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, Star Newspaper, File Copy. Z-450 �