HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2/9/1998 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 9, 1998
CITY OF MCHENRY
�►
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-445
ARMOND MUSCAT FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT ) Armond Muscat
AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ) McHenry City Center BP
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ) Lots 5,6,9,10 in Block 3
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, ) Amend Text - Conditional Use
MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on February 2, 1998, and recessed to
today's date. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following
persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Paula Ekstrom, John Howell (arrived at
7:40 p.m.), Chuck Lovett, Harry Semrow. Absent: George Cadotte, Jon Meyer.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: Melissa Cooney.
�
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer.
4. City Planner: Phillip Maggio.
5. Petitioners: Armond Muscat, P.O. Box 251, Algonquin, Illinois 60102; Mark Towne,
McHenry Land & Development, 7208 Hillside Drive, Spring Grove, Illinois 60081.
6. Attorney for Petitioner: None.
7. City Council Members: City Administrator Lobaito.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Registered Observers/Objectors:
1. Arthur Hecht, 4010 Orleans Street, McHenry IL 60050
2. Megan Leighton, 305 Ridge Avenue, Crystal Lake IL 60014.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on January 16, 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-Musc:at
2/9/98
LOCATION
� The subject property is located in McHenry City Center Business Park encompassing Lots
5,6,9,10 in Block 3.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting the following:
1 . Text Amendment-Adding Mini-Warehouses to Table 9, Group U, Conditional Uses in
the I-1 Industrial District;
2. Conditiona) Use Permit- to allow the construction and operation of a Mini-Warehouse
on the subject property.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioner:
1 . Arrnond Muscat, P.O. Box 251, Algonquin, Illinois 60102
2. Mark Towne, McHenry Land & Development, 7208 Hillside Drive, Spring Grove, IL
60O81.
Petitioner Muscat provided copies of the front (south) elevation of the proposed rental building
for the facility. He indicated the style of the buildings would be Cape Cod. The office
building would be constructed of textured block. A total of 400 self-storage rental units are
being proposed. These units would not be very visible from the street. Muscat said the self-
storage mini warehouse business is a quiet operation. There is a projected rental of 20 units
per month. The average rental is 3-4 months. Most of his clients mail in their monthly rental
� payments. Muscat has previous experience in this type of operation in Carpentersville and
Elgin. Muscat said there would only be storage allowed in the units. Clients would not be
permitted to work on vehicles in the facility.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Ekstrom asked where the railroad crossing is located in relation to this property. Muscat said
the railroad crossing is along the eastern boundary of this property. Ekstrom asked the location
of the proposed bike path in this area - would it be on the east side of the tracks or west of
the tracks. Maggio stated the Bike Path would be put in west of the tracks south of Orleans
and East of the tracks north of Orleans.
Christensen asked if the entire structure would be constructed of cement block. Muscat said
the storage buildings would be constructed of inetal. The office building which would also
include some climate controlled storage, would be constructed of cement block and metal.
Christensen asked the Petitioner to describe the lighting plan. Muscat noted each building
would have external lighting fixtures which would light the building adjacent to it. The lights
would be left on all the time for security purposes. Christensen asked what is being proposed
for the open area to the west of the buildings. Muscat said he would ultimately like to put in
outdoor RV storage in this area; however, that is not a part of this request at this time.
Christensen asked what type of screening is being proposed. Muscat said bushes will be
planted along the sides of the buildings. In addition, a 6 foot fence will be installed along the
eastern property boundary. Christensen asked if there would be key pad entry. Muscat said
� there would be key pad entry and key pad exit. Christensen asked if there would be any
storage in the aisles between buildings. Muscat said there would be no storage in the aisles.
Page 3
ZBA-Muscat
2/9/98
Semrow asked the intent of the Petitioner with regard to the large amount of open space on
� portions ��f Lots 5 and 6. Muscat said he ultimately may resubdivide and build an
office/warehouse facility on the vacant portion of those lots. The current open space is
approxim:�tely 100,000 square feet in area. Semrow asked if the Petitioner is planning to have
any outside storage in the open space adjacent to Oak Street. Muscat said he might ultimately
put outside storage in that location, however, he was aware that would require additional
hearings before this Board and the City Council. Semrow said a berm would be required along
the east property line, adjacent to the existing residential use. After discussion, it was the
consensus of the Board that screening should be implemented to protect the residents from
view of the storage garages.
Christensen asked why the area along the east property line is shown with a gravel surface.
Muscat said it is to accommodate drainage from the site according to the approved engineering
for the subdivision.
Lovett asked the proposed hours of operation. Muscat said the office hours would be 6:00
a.m. until 9:00 p.m. seven days per week. Muscat noted there would be surveillance
cameras. Lovett asked if there would be a definition for a mini warehouse as there is currently
none in the Zoning Ordinance. Lovett questioned why this could not be considered
warehouse and be a permitted use in this industrial district. Maggio pointed out the mini
warehouse is a conditional use in the C-5 Highway Commercial District. The ordinance states
when a particular use is listed as a conditional use in one district, it shall be construed as a
conditional use in another district as well.
�
Semrow asked the size of the individual rental units. Muscat said they would range from 5'
X 10' (50 square feet) to 10' X 30' (300 square feet). Semrow asked the height of the
proposed units. Muscat said the height for all garages would be 8'6" except for the front
building which would house the rental office and climate control section. This building would
have a height of 9'6". Semrow stated the mini warehouse should be defined in the ordinance.
Lovett asked if the Petitioner would lease space to industrial users. Muscat said he would, but
there would be no storage of flammable or toxic materials. Muscat said he might to
commercial businesses as well. Lovett asked if the Petitioner would be able to control people
bringing in vehicles for storage and not draining the gas or removing the battery. Muscat said
it is covered in the lease.
Ekstrom asked if there would be surveillance cameras at the entrance to the site as well as in
the climate controlled building. Muscat said that is correct.
Howell asked if the Petitioner would be monitoring the video tape which would be used in
the surveillance process. Muscat said he could monitor it from time to time. Howell asked
if the Petitioner had made a practice of monitoring the tapes. Muscat said he never has.
Howell asked if the Petitioner would make periodic check for conformance to the lease in
order to regulate any violations. Muscat said there are no routine checks for conformance to
the lease. Howell asked if the Petitioner would be open to possible restrictions concerning
� limiting commercial users or prohibiting them from using the facility. Muscat indicated he
would not be open to such restrictions.
Page 4
ZBA-Muscat
2/9/98
Christensen asked what type of dividers are used to separate the rental units. Muscat said
� galvanizec� sheet metal would be used. Christensen asked about the multiple buildings on a
single lot ,�nd how is this being permitted. Is there a request for a variance? Maggio said his
interpretation of the language of Chapter III, Section G, of the Zoning Ordinance, was that only
one "princ:ipal" building was permitted on a lot. In this instance, the mini warehouse, by its
very nature, in comprised of multiple buildings. Each of the multiple storage buildings should
not be considered as a "principal" building. Semrow said precedence has been set regarding
multiple buildings on a lot. Mr. Bykowski sought a variance before this Board to allow a
second building for additional retail use in Mill Pond shopping Center. Mr. Gerstad sought
a variance to permit the construction of two identical office buildings on property he owns on
Route 31. In each instance, the variance was granted. Semrow asked how this proposal is
d ifferent.
A lengthy discussion regarding multiple buildings versus multiple uses on a single zoned lot
ensued.
Maggio suggested the Board consider defining mini warehouse such that it is a multi-tenant
storage use having multiple buildings. Howell asked if it would be out of order to construct
such a definition allowing multiple buildings on a single lot. Christensen noted this has not
been done before. Semrow opined that if a definition for mini warehouse were drafted, it
should not be overly restrictive nor should it be too broad. It should not be specific to this
Petitioner.
� Observer Megan Leighton asked if only 20 units would be leased each month why is there a
need for 400 units. Muscat said there would be a net gain of 20 units per month. He
anticipated full rental within one year.
Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 8:37 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 8:50 p.m. with
all members still in attendance.
Mr. Towne asked the Board to consider the following definition for mini warehouse:
A mini warehouse: A facility containing multiple buildings on one or more lots
with multiple rental units of various sizes, for lease of stored goods and non-
hazardous, non-toxic materials only.
Semrow noted that except in a PUD or a Hospital Care District, no more than one building
is permitted on a single lot. Previous Petitioners have been required to secure a variance in
order to place more than one building on a lot. Semrow said it would not be wise to create
a term which grants a variance by definition. Attorney Cooney concurred. She stated in order
to seek a variance, the Petitioners would be required to republish. Semrow said the Board
cannot make a recommendation when the Petitioner is asking for something which is not
contained in the Petition (i.e., a variance).
A lengthy discussion followed regarding the need for a variance for this proposal. It was noted
the Conditional Use Permit is required by the nature of the use being proposed. The Variance
� is required because of the intended placement of multiple buildings on the single lot.
Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 9:16 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 9:22 p.m. with
all members still in attendance.
Page 5
ZBA-Muscat
2/9/98
� The disc�ssion continued regarding the need for a variance.
CLOSINC� STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
There was no closing statement.
CLOSINC� STATEMENT BY OBIECTORS
Chairman Semrow swore in the following Objector prior to his statement being made:
Arthur Hecht, 4010 W. Orleans Street: "I object to the Conditional Use of the mini
warehouse. I believe it would devalue my property. My backyard faces this property and I
would have to look at all of these storage units. There is no proposed control of materials or
goods which would be stored on the premises. An industrial user would have controls placed
on them; no controls of types of materials being stored is proposed. I have concerns regarding
contamination of the creek which runs adjacent to this property. This is the same creek which
runs along my back property line. I don't agree that residents in the neighborhood would
appreciate the proposed lighting plan. This project would greatly impact the traffic flow in the
area."
Chairman Semrow stated, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to
this matter, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition, unless there is a
motion to recess by a Member of the Board."
� RECESS
Motion by Lovett, seconded by Christensen, to recess this Hearing, Case No. Z-445 until the
Petition for Variance has been submitted to the City and all publication requirements have
been met.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Howell stated he is torn between trying to do whatever is possible to assist the Petitioner, not
wanting to cause a hardship, and being asked to do something which goes against the
approved process. He stated he recognizes the time element is vitally important to the
Petitioner in that he must close on the property no later than March 1st. He would like to
advocate for the Petitioner, however, he must respect the established process and requirements
of the ordinance. In this instance, he believes a variance is required. It is the responsibility
of this Board to interpret and assure the requirements of the Ordinance have been met.
Howell said he feels compelled to help the Petitioner within the parameters of the authority
of the Board.
Semrow said he is not sure how the City Council would address this matter. It's likely they
would instruct the Petitioner to bring the entire proposal back to the Zoning Board and re-
initiate the process. He stated he believes the variance is necessary.
Mr. Towne asked the Board to consider making a motion with regard to the Conditional Use.
He noted the Petition has been acting in good faith and on the recommendation of Staff with
�, regard to this matter. The possible need for a Variance has not been brought to the Petitioner's
attention until this evening. If the Board would be willing to make a recommendation with
regard to the Conditional Use, the Petitioner could then republish immediately in order to
come back before this Board to seek a Variance. In the meantime, the Petition could proceed
Page 6
ZBA-Muscat
2/9/98
before th�� City Council with regard to the Conditional Use request. Inasmuch as there are
,� strict constructions with regard to time and the need to close on the property by March 1 st,
Mr. Towr�e asked the Board to consider making a recommendation with regard to the Text
AmendmE�nt and Conditional Use with the understanding that the Petitioner would come back
to this Board to seek the required Variance.
Semrow said he could see no reason to deny the Conditional Use. However, the Site Plan
presented indicated nine principal buildings. This Board cannot approve this Site Plan as it
is unless a Variance is requested and granted. Following discussion, the Petitioner agreed to
modify the Site Plan for purposes of this hearing, removing all but one building, the office
rental building which contains climate controlled storage. Mr. Towne indicated the Petitioner
will immediately republish for a Hearing before this Board requesting that a Variance to allow
9 principal buildings on the subject property be granted.
Christensen withdrew his second on the motion. Lovett withdrew his motion.
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Lovett, to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioner's request for a Text Amendment to added Mini Warehouse Facility to
Tak�le 9, Group U, Conditional Uses in the I-1 Industrial District be granted; that the
following definition be incorporated into the Definitions of the Zoning Ordinance:
A mini warehouse: A building or group of buildings in
�, a controlled access area that contain varying sizes of
individual, compartmentalized and controlled access
stalls or lockers for the storage of customer's non-
hazardous goods or wares.
that the Petitioner be granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction and
operation of a mini warehouse facility on the subject premises; that the Site Plan
accompanying this Petition indicates one building on the subject premises; that the
Conditional Use Permit be granted subject to the following condition:
1. Screening shall be required along the east property
line to screen this property from the abutting residential
property;
that Table 31, the Approval Criteria for Conditional Uses, pages 356-357 of the Zoning
Ordinance, have been met; and that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments,
Page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, have been met.
Voting Aye: Christensen, Ekstrom, Howell, Lovett, Semrow.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Cadotte, Meyer.
�
Page 7
ZBA-Muscat
2/9/98
� Motion carried 5-0. This hearing was adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitte ,,
,
, �L'z:�-1c�:�._
Harry Semro , Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
c: Zoiiing Board of Appeals Members (7), Plan Commission Members (7), City
Administrator, Planner, PW Administration, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy,
Petitioner, Objectors (2), B & Z Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman,
Northwest Herald, Star Newspaper, File Copy.
Z-445
�
�