HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 3/16/1998 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 16, 1998
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE h1ATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-446
� MCHENRY STATE BANK TRUST NO 13049, ) McHenry State Bank Trust 13049
EDWARD DONAHUE AS BENEFICIARY OF THE ) Donahue
TRUST, AND LOUISA DRAPER, FOR A MAP )
AMENDI�1ENT AND VARIANCES PURSUANT TO ) Map Amendment
THE CITY' OF MCHENRY ZONING ORDINANCE, ) Variances
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 March 16, 1998. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at 7:33 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1 . Zoning Board Members: George Cadotte, Randy Christensen, Paula Ekstrom, John
Howell, Chuck Lovett, Harry Semrow. Absent: 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. Petitioners: McHenry State Bank Trust No. 13049, Edward Donahue, Beneficiary, 814
North Mill Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
7. Attorney for Petitioner: Andrew Szocka, 550 Woodstock Street, Crystal lake, Illinois
60014.
8. City Council Members: None.
9. Court Reporter: None.
10. Registered Observers:
1 . Roger Lance, c/o First Baptist Church, 509 North Front Street, McHenry, Illinois
60050.
2. William and Elizabeth Kirk, 417 North Front Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
3. Lillian Hettermann, 505 North Front Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on February 24, 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 and the subject
property was posted as required by City ordinance. An Affidavit of Service is on file with the
City Clerk.
Page 2
ZBA-Donahue
3/16/98
LOCATION
� The subject property is located at 503 North Front Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting the following:
1 . Reclassification from RS-3 Medium High Density Residential to C-5 Highway
Commercial Zoning District;
2. Variance to permit a side yard setback of 9.57 feet to the north and 9.42 feet to the
south (as shown on the Plat of Survey), as opposed to the ordinance requirement of 25
feet minimum adjacent to a residential district;
3. Variance to permit a lot width of 67 feet along an arterial street as opposed to the
ordinance requirement of 200 feet.
Attorney Szocka pointed out it is his belief the Petitioners are not required to secure a variance
as to the minimum lot width of 200 feet as this parcel would be exempt under the provisions
of page 69, paragraph L(1) of the Zoning Ordinance. This paragraph exempts lots from this
requirement which have been platted as an existing lot of record prior to December 22, 1986.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioner:
1 . Edward Donahue, 814 North Mill Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
2. Jayne Bockman, Advantage Better Home and Garden Real Estate, 803 North Front
Street, McHenry, Illinois 60050.
�
Mr. Donahue stated he is the sole beneficiary of McHenry State Bank Trust No. 13049. He
intends to operate his law office on the subject property. Currently the property is being
utilized as a single family dwelling. It is approximately 1,600 square feet in size. There would
be two employees at the present time: Mr. Donahue and his secretary. Donahue said client
hours would be 4-6 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. until noon on Saturday. He
noted that most days he is in court until 4 p.m.
Donahue noted the outside of the building would remain unchanged with the exception of the
additional paving required to accommodate the parking requirements for this use. The north
property line and the south property line would be screened from view with a 4 foot hedge.
The installation of the parking area would required minimal excavation to level the area in
front of the house. There would be five parking spaces, including one which would be
handicapped accessible.
Attorney Szocka introduced Petitioner's Exhibit 1, a Plat of Survey of the subject property dated
March 9, 1953, noting the lot has been platted since prior to that date. In keeping with the
intent of the Zoning Ordinance, he believes it is not necessary for the Petitioner to secure a
variance as to the minimum lot width, as cited on page 69, paragraph L(1) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Szocka indicated Staff suggested the appropriate zoning for this parcel would be C-5. There
� is C-5 zoning to the north and south of the subject property.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Semrow asked if five parking spaces would be adequate for the law practice. Donahue said
Page 3
ZBA-Don��hue
3/16/98
five spaces should be sufficient. Semrow asked if the entire front yard would be paved.
� Donahue responded he would only pave the area which would hold the five spaces required
by ordinance.
Christensen asked if the Petitioner would be providing a turn-around area so that clients would
not have to back out onto Route 31. Donahue said he is hoping to center the parking in the
front yard. Cars would be able to back up toward the garage area and then pull out onto the
h ighway.
Lovett asked the planned hours of operation. Donahue said he would see clients until 6 p.m.
on Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. until noon on Saturday. He noted he could be
there as late as 10 or 10:30 p.m. some evenings depending on his case load. Lovett asked
what type of sign would be erected. Donahue said the sign would be made of redwood, 4
feet by 8 feet in size. It will be externally illuminated and will be located at least five feet
inside the front property line.
Cadotte asked if the plantings would run the entire length of the north and south property line.
Donahue responded he would stop at least 10 feet from the front property line so as not to
inhibit view of traffic leaving the premises.
Ekstrom asked the maximum number of vehicles which would be parked on the site at any one
time. Would five spaces be sufficient? Semrow noted that five spaces are required by
ordinance.
�
Howell noted the law offices east of the subject property and across Route 31 are located on
residentially zoned property. He asked how that came to be. Semrow noted there had been
a use variance granted to allow for the operation of the law office in the residential district.
Semrow stated he had some concern regarding the proposed C-5 zoning; so many uses are
permitted in this district, many which would not be appropriate on this small lot located in the
midst of residential uses. Attorney Szocka responded C-5 appeared to be the most appropriate
as there is C-5 zoning in the immediate vicinity, within 600 feet of the subject property.
Howell asked the Petitioner why he did not consider seeking a use variance to allow for the
operation of the law offices. Donahue replied the property would not be as marketable with
a use variance as it would be if the zoning reclassification were granted.
TESTIMONY
Additional testimony was provided by Jayne Bockman, a real estate broker with Advantage
Better Horne and Garden Real Estate Company. She noted she had no monetary interest in
the property; she was not involved either in the listing or sale of this property. Bockman stated
the subject property has been on the real estate market for more than two years. It was not
marketable as a residential dwelling because of its location on Route 31. She noted the trend
of development in the area of the subject property is commercial. The City of McHenry
Comprehensive Plan Map indicates this area to be commercial. There is no residential value
in this property. Bockman noted the proposed use as a law office would fit in harmoniously
with the surrounding residential uses.
`..
Lovett asked if there was sufficient room between the building and the north or south property
line to put in an access drive to the rear (west) of the building, in order to accommodate
parking. Maggio stated that it would not be permitted because a one-way access drive must
Page 4
ZBA-Don�ihue
3/16/98
be at least 12 feet in width.
�
Cadotte asked if the Petitioner would be willing to consider seeking C-3 Community
Commercial Zoning which would be considerably less intense than C-5 Highway Commercial.
Petitioner ponahue responded if the Board would prefer C-3 he would be amendable to that
suggestion.
Christensen asked the zoning of the Church property. Semrow responded the Church property
is zoned RS-3.
QUESTIONS BY OBSERVERS/OBIECTORS
William Kirk, 417 N. Front Street: Who is the present owner of the property? Donahue
responded he now owns the property. Kirk asked if the 4' by 8' sign would be placed
perpendicular or parallel to Route 31. Donahue replied it would be mounted perpendicular
to Route 31.
Roger Lance, First Baptist Church: What kind of use could go on this property if someone else
purchased it following the rezoning? Semrow responded there are more than 200 permitted
uses in the C-5 Zoning District.
Lovett asked if a future property owner of this parcel could conceivably come back before this
Board to seek a variance as to the minimum access drive width, and be permitted to add
parking to the west of the building. In this way, they could bring in one of the more intense
� uses in the C-5 district, because parking requirements could be satisfied with such a variance
as to the access drive width. Maggio responded it is possible such a request for variance could
be made before this Board. It should be noted the variance to the interior side yard setback
would only apply to the existing building. Any additions or a new building would not be
entitled to the reduced setback. Semrow suggested that if the property were zoned C-5, it may
be difficult to deny a variance that is required to make use of the property. Napolitano noted
if the property were to be redeveloped, the new building would have to comply with the 25
foot interior side yard setback required by ordinance at the north and south property lines.
This would leave a building envelope of only 17 feet wide. All requirements of the ordinance
would have to be met unless the new owner or developer was granted a variance to the bulk
or area requirements.
Semrow opined he would not be opposed to the granting of a use variance for this property;
he would be more comfortable with the use variance than with the reclassification to C-5 or
C-3. Hov+✓ell asked if the Petitioner would accept the use variance and retaining the RS-3
zoning; too many uses are permitted in C-5 which would not be compatible in this location.
Ekstrom stated she would prefer to see a use variance granted for this site. Donahue
responded he would prefer commercial zoning so that he could convey the property as a
commercially-zoned parcel at some point in the future. The commercial zoning is much more
marketable than the use variance which would retain the underlying residential zoning.
Attorney Szocka stated his client would like to amend the Petition to reflect the request for
� reclassific�ition to C-3 Community Commercial Zoning District. The Petition was amended on
its face.
Page 5
ZBA-Donahue
3/16/98
CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
� Attorney Szocka stated Mr. Donahue is requesting a map amendment to C-3 Community
Commercial Zoning District to allow the low intensity commercial uses listed in the C-3
District, including a law office. In addition, the Petitioner is seeking relief by requesting a
variance as to the minimum lot width of 200 feet. The subject property has a lot width of 67
feet. However, Mr. Szocka reminded the Board this variance might not be required due to the
exemption contained on page 69, paragraph L(1) of the zoning ordinance. Finally, the
Petitioner is seeking a variance as to the 25 foot minimum interior side yard setback . The
existing setback to the north is 9.57 feet; the existing setback to the south is 9.42 feet. Szocka
pointed out that many properties in this general area are zoned commercial. The proposed
zoning is in compliance with the McHenry Development Plan. The City Planner
recommended approval of the Petitioner's request. All parking and landscaping requirements
wi I I be met.
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 Lovett, seconded by Cadotte to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioner's request for the following be granted:
�
1. Reclassification of the property located at 503 North Front Street from RS-3
Medium High Density Residential to C-3 Community Commercial Zoning
District;
2. Variance to permit a side yard setback of 9.57 feet to the north and 9.42
feet to the south (as shown on the Plat of Survey), as opposed to the
ordinance requirement of 25 feet minimum adjacent to a residential
district;
3. Variance (if necessary) to permit a lot width of 67 feet along an arterial
street as opposed to the ordinance requirement of 200 feet.
that the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, Table 33 of the Zoning
Ordinance, page 401, have been met; and that the Approval Criteria for
Variances, Table 32 of the Zoning Ordinance, pages 377-378, have been met.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Semrow asked if there would be berming along the north and south property lines. Donahue
indicated he would put in a 4 foot hedge to screen the property form adjacent residential uses.
Elizabeth Kirk asked how close to the curb line the bushes would be planted. Donahue
replied they would not be planted closer to the east property line than 10 feet to allow for
sight visibility. William Kirk asked if the sign would impede view of the fire hydrant located
� in the front yard on the subject property. Napolitano responded fire hydrants are typically
located in the right of way. The sign would have to be mounted at least 5 feet inside of the
property line. There should be no problem with the sign hiding the fire hydrant from view.
Page 6
ZBA-Donahue
3/16/98
VOTING ON THE MOTION
� Chairman Semrow called for a vote on the question.
Voting Ave: Cadotte, Christensen, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Semrow.
Voting N,�y: None.
Not Votir�g: None.
Abstainin�: None.
Absent: Meyer.
Motion c��rried 6-0.
AD OURNMENT
Motion b�✓ Cadotte, seconded by Lovett to adjourn the hearing.
Voting A�•e: Cadotte, Christensen, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Semrow.
Voting N�iy: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstainin�;: None.
Absent: Meyer.
Motion c�irried 6-0. This hearing was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.
R ectf,�lly su itted,
f,Gt.�4
�
Harry Se row, Chairman
Zoning Board 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 (3), B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman,
Northwest Herald, Star Newspaper, File Copy.
Z-446
L