HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 3/4/1996 - Zoning Board of Appeals ' � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
: MARCH 4, 1996
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MAT7'ER OF THE APPLICATION )
� OF HERITAGIi INVESTMENT SERVICES ) Z-405
FOR ZONING VARIANCES PURSUANT ) HERITAGE INVESTMENT SVC
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE ) MILL POND C4URT
CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) 3714-26 W ELM ST
COUNTY, ILLINOIS. ) VARIANCE
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petidon was held on March 4, 1996. Chairman Semrow called the
hearing to arder at 7:34 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Tom Burr, Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett, Frank McClatchey,
Harry Semrow. Absent: John Swierk, Donna Tobeck.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
� 5. Petitioner: Heritage Investment Services represented by:
Ron Bykowski, Century 21 Care R.E., 3717 West Elm Street McHenry IL 60050.
John Swierk, Direct Design Architects, 3422 W Main Street McHenry IL 60050.
6. Attomey for the Petitioner: None.
7. City Council Members: None.
8. Court Repurter: None.
9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None.
NOTIFICATION
Nodfication of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on February 14, 1996. The
Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk with regard to this matter.
Notices were sent to all abutting properties via certified mailing. Return receipt cards have been
submitted to the Office of the City Clerk and are on file with regard to this matter. The subject property
was posted as required by ordinance. An Affidavit of Service as required by Ordinance is on file in the
office of the City Clerk.
LOCATIOIy
The subject property is located at 3714-3726 West Elm Street McHenry IL 60050.
�
� �age 2
ZBA-Mill Pond Ct
• 3/4/96
�UMMARY
� The subject property is cunently zoned CS Highway Commercial District. The Pe�itioners are
requesdng that the subject property be granted a Variance to permit the following:
a] To allow an interior side yard of 10 feet in lieu of the ordinance requirement of 25 feet (table 6, page
116);
b] To a11ow two buildings on a single lot (III.G, page 66).
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioners:
1.] Ron Bykowski, Century 21 Care R.E., 3717 West Elm Street, McHenry IL 60050.
2.] John Swierk, Direct Design Architects, 3922 West Main Street, McHenry IL 60050.
Bykowski stated that the subject property is the location of the former Jewel-Osco in town. when Jewel-
Osco moved to their present location the property became available. In 1983 it was purchased with the
stipulation that a portion of it be sold off for the purpose of erecting a White Hen Pantry. The portion
of the property which was sold off is approximately 100 feet X 110 feet and fronts on Route 120. The
portion of the subject properiy located to the north of the White Hen Pantry, which is the subject of this
petidon, was left pretty much unusable due to the lack of frontage on Elm Street.
Chairman Semrow asked for clarification as to why the Petitioner is before this Board. He asked for
clarificadon as to the need for variance with regard to two buildings on one Iot. It would appear that
there are several lots contained within this parcel. Lobaito explained that for zoning pwposes there is
one lot which contains the Mill Pond Court complex. The White Hen Pantry is located on a separate
� lot. Lobaito explained that once a building is constructed on a site and the remainder of the parcel is
being used for required parking, the individual lots contained within the parcel cannot be considered as
buildable zoned lots. They have become an integral part of the whole. The portion of this parcel on
which the Petitioner would like to locate a second principal structure is a part of the entire zoned lot for
this complex. Therefore, he has come before this Board to seek a variance to allow a second principal
structure on the site. Additionally, he is seeking a variance as to the side yard setback requirement of
25 feet.
Bykowski said that the proposed building site is currently not being used for anything of significance.
It is basically useless. Occasionally, semi truck drivers will park and rest. It is also a collection site
for blowing papers, wrappers, etc.
Bykowski stated that all but two of his tenants in Mill Pond Court are original tenants from when this
property was first improved in 1983. Part of the reason for seeking a variance to construct the proposed
building is a need on the part of one of these tenants to expand. There is no room for expansion in the
existing building.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Chnstensen asked if one of the tenants in the existing building is Baskin Robbins. Bykowski said that
is conect. Christensen asked if the utility trench shown on the plat of survey was located in a utility
easement. Bykowski said he is not sure; there is none shown on the plat. Lobaito said the City would
not permit a privat:e service for one building to be located beneath another building. Lobaito said the
� city would prefer to have a dedicated easement in which the utility trench would be located.
Christensen asked which direction the storm inlet in the area of the proposed structure drains. Bykowski
� �age 3
ZBA-Mill Pond �t
3/4/96
said that inlet drains to the north. Bykowski said that there had been a problem with drainage from the
�, site. However, it was engineered and improved within the last 6 years.
Christensen asked if the area of cross-easement agreement would be expanded. Bykowski said it would
not be necessary. If it's not necessary, he sees no reason to do it. Christensen expressed concern about
the White Hen owners being able to access their dumpster once the proposed structure is built.
Bykowski said it is possible that W1ute Hen would have to make other arrangements for the locadon of
their dumpster, change the size of their dumpster or the frequency of pick-up.
Semrow said he was concerned about Fire Department access to this proposed building. Bykowski said
there is access to the site both from Elm Street and Millstream Drive. In addition, there is access to
the rear of the building from the First National Bank parking lot immediately to the west of this site.
Semrow asked the Pedtioner to address the Approval Criteria in paragraph 9b. Bykowski said that
erecting the second building would help businesses in the Mill Pond Court complex and be an asset to
the business community, as well. The portion of the property under discussion is useless if not
developed as described within the Pedtion. Bykowski said he intends to build the new structure using
the same architectural style as the e�usting complex. Bykowski said this would be a good project for
the community in the heart of town. Semrow said that he was of the opinion that the Petitioner did not
satisfy paragraph 9b of the Approval Criteria. It is clear that the property in question was not
considered useless undl very recendy.
Lovett asked where the rear lot line is located. Lobaito said the rear lot line abuts Millstream Drive to
the north. The frant property line abuts Elm Street to the south. The entire east and west property lines
`, are interior side lot lines. Lovett asked the height of the proposed building. Swierk said it would be
14 feet. Lovett asked what type of signage would be proposed. Bykowski said a second free-standing
sign would not be permitted on the site. There would be wall signs on the building. Lobaito said the
new tenants could be included on the existing pylon sign; there could be a sign copy change.
Lovett asked the Petitioner to explain how the Approval Criteria in paragraph 9e is satisfied. Lovett
asked the Petitioner to provide examples to the Board of other CS properties which have been granted
a variance to permit two principal buildings on one lot. Have other property owners in the CS District
been permitted to place a commercial structure within 11 feet of a residential property line? Bykowski
said this must have occuned at some point in time, although he could not think of an example at the
moment.
Chairman Semrow called for a brief recess at 8:37 p,m. The hearing reconvened at 8:40 p.m. with all
members sdll in attendance.
CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
Bykowski said he understands what criteria the Board must review prior to making a recommendation
to the City Council. Bykowski said he does not believe that it would be possible to address each of the
Approval Criteria adequately. The subject property has many unique properties about it. it is a viable
commercial entity. The addition of a second building on this lot would not have a negative impact on
the City. In fact, it would enhance and improve the downtown area.
� Chairman Semrow said, "there being no fiirther testimony before this Board with regard to this Pedtion,
the Board will consider this matter at this time, unless there is a motion to recess by a member of the
Board. There being no modon to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition."
:Page 4
' ZBA-Mill Pond Ct
3/4/96
DELIBERATIO►N AND RF�OMMENDATION
� Modon by Christensen, seconded by McClatchey to recommend to the City Council that
the Petidc�ners' request that a Variance to allow the following be granted:
a] To allow an interior side yard of 10 feet in lieu of the ordinanee
requirement of 25 feet (table 6, page 116);
b] To allow two buildings on a single lot (III.G, page 66);
and that the Approval Criteria for Variances, Table 32, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance,
have been met.
DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION
Lovett asked if there would be sufficient parking on this property to accommodate the second building.
Lobaito said considering the evidence presented tonight, addidonal calculations would have to be
provided by the Petitioner in order to make a final determination. However, the Petitioner has not asked
for a variance with regard to the parking requirements on this property. Therefore, the Petidoner is
obligated to comply with the City's parking requirements.
VOTING ON THE MOTION
Voting Aye: Burr, Christensen, McClatchey.
Voting Nay: Lovett, Semrow.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Swierk, Tobeck.
�
Motion failed to carry 3-2. There will be no recommendation to the City Council with regard to this
matter.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Lovett to adjourn this hearing.
Voting Aye: Burr, Christensen, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Swierk, Tobeck.
Motion carried 5-0. This hearing was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
�
Harry e ow, Chairman
Zoning oard of Appeals
�� e. Agenda,Zoning Hoard of Appeals('n>Plan Commission('n.City AdministraWr,public worlcs pdminisaaaon (4),Petitloners,Aldermen Reference CopY,
Building c$Zoning File,Landmark Commission Cha'vman,Northwest Heraid,McHemy Star News,City Clerk File.
Z�{OS