Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 6/26/1995 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 26, 1995 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) � OF AETNA DEVELOPMENT CORPORA- ) Z-394 TION, FOR A V ARIANCE, PURSUANT ) AETNA DEVELOPMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE ) MCHENRY PLAZA II CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) VARIANCE COUNTY, ILLINUIS. ) 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 26, 1995. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:37 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett, Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: John Swierk. Emil Kleemann resigned effective 6/19/95. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. �'' S. Petitioner: Absent. 6. Attorney for the Pedtioner: Ash, Anos, Freedman & Logan represented by Attomey Joseph Ash, 7'7 West Washington Street, Chicago Illinois 60602. 7. City Council Members: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: 1. Pete Adams, 3520 W Washington St McHenry Illinois 60050. NOTIFICATION Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on June 3, 1995. 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 a11 abutting properties via certified mailing. The subject property was posted as reqaired by ordinance. An Affidavit of Service ascertaining that all notification requirements have been followed is on file in the office of the City Clerk. LQCATION � The subject property is located at the McHenry Plaza Shopping Center south of the intersection of McCullom Lake Road and Richmond Road in the City and is in the process of undergoing the re- subdivision process before the City of McHenry. Page 2 ZBA-AeMa 6/26/95 SUMMARY `— The Petitioners are requesting that a Variance be granted to permit the construction and use of three principal buildings on the newly subdivided vacant lot of McHenry Plaza II. The property is currendy zoned C-3 pursuant to the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance. TESTIMONY Attomey Ash asked that the following witness be swom in on behalf of the Petidoner: David Mangurten, Kaplan Mangurten Architects, 1141 Lake Cook Road, Deerfield Illinois 60015. Attorney Ash asked Mangurten to describe why the variance was being requested on the part of the Pedtioners. Mangurten described the tenain of the subject property and the extreme grade changes wluch are an integral part of the parcel in question. Mangurten noted that the subject property is comprised of the newly acquired Miller property as well as a portion of Lot 3 of McCullom Place Subdivision. Mangurten said that this property is cunently going through the re-subdivision process before the Plan Commission. The entire shopping center was previously comprised of 3 lots: Target, Arby's and the Sears strip mall complex. The addition of the Miller property will create a fourth lot in the shopping center. The Sears strip mall complex and the newly created fourth lot are owned by the same entity, Aema Development Corporadon. The fourth lot is the property in question with regard to this Petition. 'I'he Petitioner is requesting a variance in order to erect three retail buildings on this lot. Mangurten described the slope of the property from the southwest comer of the property to the northeast �'' comer as being a grade change of roughly 12 feet. This grade change would make it extremely difficulty to erect one large building without intemal steps to accommodate such a grade change. Therefore, the Petitioners are seeking a variance in order to erect three smaller buildings. The grade change could then be accommodated external from the buildings (within the parking lot). Mangurten explained that if a single L-shaped building were erected, there would be a dead corner of the building which would be very difficult if not impossible to market. The severe grade change makes connecting the buildings nearly impossible without internal steps. This then would become a public safety issue. Attomey Ash went over the Approval Criteria for Variances with the Witness as stated within the Petition. QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BO R� McClatchey asked if there would be surface water retendon on site. Mangurten said that he has provided the City with a copy of a letter which states that the subject property has been included in the watershed which dra.ins to the retention facility to the east of this property. Smith Engineering is currently studying the site to determine if the area retention faciIity is large enough or if the walls would have to be increased in height in order to accommodate surface water run-off from this site. McClatchey asked if the Petitioners would be seeking an additional cwb cut on Route 31. Mangurten said they would nc�t be seeking an additional curb cut. In fact, the existing cut would not be used; it would be eliminated. Access to this lot would be gained from the existing entry to the shopping center � immediately north of this lot. It is hoped that the City would meet warrants for a tra�c control device at that entry point {to the immediate north of the subject property). Page 3 ZBA-Aema 6/26/95 Christensen asked if the side walls would be built up on the retendon site, would it be possible that some � of the fill would be taken from this lot in order to accomplish that fact? Mangurten said that some fill could be removed from this site, but that would not alleviate the severe grade change from the subject property to the properties which abut this property to the south. Even if this site were level with the existing shopping center, there would be a drastic grade change at the property line for the properties which abut this property to the south. If this site were evened out, there would be a need for an 8-10 foot retaining wall all along the south properiy line. The Staff asked the Petitioners to look at a way of dealing with the grade change in a more natural way as opposed to such a high retaining wall. There is an existing contour change of the tenain from 771 feet at the southem property line to 760 feet by the Sears outdoor garden display area. Christensen asked the maximum degree of slope permitted in a parking lot as far as handicapped accessibility is concemed. Mangurten said the malcimum degree of slope permitted is 5%. The actual slope of the land on this site is 3%. Discussion ensued regarding the property elevation of the proposed new buildings and the possibility of erecting one building without internal grade changes. Christensen asked if any of the tenants were known at this time. Mangurten said that the Pedtioners have been speaking with several potential tenants. None have been verified at this time. Semrow said that he had reservations regarding the southeastem comer of ihe lot and the fact that a parking lot was being proposed in this area. He expressed concern for the safety of those using this parking area. Mangurten said that from a planning perspective it would be best to have this area for overflow parking during the busier shopping seasons and for staff parking during all times of the year. Mangurten said that it is typical that patrons of a shopping center prefer to park in a location where there is little distance for them to walk to the store to do their shopping. Discussion ensued regarding the �' public safety of patrons who may park in the secluded southeast corner of the lot. Mangurten was asked to explain why a single L-shaped building was less desirable on this site. Mangurten explained that the existing grade elevations made erecting a single structure on this lot very difficult if not impossible. In addition, there would be a large grade difference at the south property line between this property and the abutting property owners to the immediate south. If there was a parking are in between the building and this property line, the grade elevadon could gradually be changed to a point where there would only be a 2-4 foot retaining wall as opposed to the 10 foot retaining wall which would be necessary if the larger L-shaped building were erected. Mangurten also pointed out that if the easternmost building were to be moved further south, the elevation difference could not be alleviated between the two property lines and a higher retaining wall would be required to be installed. Discussion ensued regarding the ownership of the subject property as well as the ownership of the lot which contains the Sears strip mall complex. It was determined that both parcels are owned by the same entity, Aetna Development Corporation. Therefore, re-subdivision of those two lots is possible. Lovett asked if retail owners preferred parking lots be located in the front of their building as opposed to the rear (reference the easternmost building). Mangurten said most retailers prefer parking areas to be located in the front of their buildings. � Attomey Ash said that the Petitioners are requesting that a variance be granted to allow three principal buildings on the subject property. The exact location of the buildings to be situated on the one zoning lot could be determined at time of permit issuance. It is not the intent of the Petitioners to restrict the location to that shown on the proposed site plan. If staff fmds a more suitable locadon for one or more Page 4 ZBA-Aetna 6/26/95 of the proposed buildings, the Petidoners would be agreeable to moving the building sites. The severe �- grade variance on the subject property has caused a problem which requires the request for the variance on this property. If the Building& Zoning Department would like the buildings pushed back on the lot, the Petitioners would accommodate that request. Semrow said there is a 12 foot grade difference which only presents a 3% slope from the west property line to the ea.st pmperty line. A 3% slope does not appear that great. Mangurten said that the slope is not that great when found in a parking lot, but it does present more of a problem when trying to layout a store internally. It is difficult to address that much of a slope as far as sidewalks along a building are concemed, and intemal movement within the building itself. Mangurten was asked to delineate the difference in the height of the retaining wall if the single L-shaped building were erected versus three smaller buildings where the grade difference could be alleviated without such a high retaining wall. Mangurten said the retaining wall for the site if the L-shaped building were erected would be appro�cimately 10 feet. If the three smaller builders were erected, the retaining wall would be 2-4 feet with the exception of the area immediately south of the middle building, which would require a higher wall. Additionally, the property line south of the western-most building would have no wall, simply a cwb. Lovett asked how the Petitioners would screen the south and east property lines. Mangurten said there is an e�cisting fence along most of the south property line. If the city required additional screening, the Petitioners would comply. Landscaping would be added to this area. Lobaito said that no additional screening would be required on the east property line. There is an 8-12 foot grade change which would nullify a 5-7 foot fence or landscape screen which would be put up in that location. The green space `' and natural grade change provides the buffer that the ordinance requires when residential uses abut commercial uses. Lobaito said that if the variance is granted, the height of the retaining wa11 on the southem property line would definitely be minimized. Lobaito said that the Petitioners have agreed with the city's request to eliminate the existing entrance from Route 31 to the Miller property. The city is also requesting the installation of a deceleration lane for the existing southem-most entrance to the shopping center. Attorney Ash said the he could not speak on behalf of the Petidoners, but he is certain that the Petitioners would be willing to talk with staff regarding the deceleration lane. Christensen asked if there would be satisfactory area for off-street loading areas. Mangurten said the off-street loading spaces were addressed. Semrow asked if the subject property could be developed if the variance were not granted. Mangurten said the Miller property could have been developed as a separate entity, maintaining its separate entrance from Route 31. The City staff asked that the Route 31 entrance be eliminated. The Petitioners have complied with that request, and to that end, are in the process of re-subdivision. Tobeck asked Observer Pete Adams if his property which abuts the subject property to the immediate south has been adversely impacted by the development of the subject property to the north. Has there been any problem with lighting, etc. Have there been any nuisance complaints. Adams said he has had no problems with his neighbors to the north. Tobeck asked if there was a possibility that a restaurant would go into the westem-most building on the site. Mangurten said that was not a possibility because of the elimination uf the Route 31 curb cut to this property. It would not be desirable for a restaurant `' to locate on a site where there is not immediate access to a street or highway. Page 5 ZBA-Aetna 6/26/95 GLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER `— Attomey Ash said that the Petitioners have met the Approval Criteria for Variances as required by the City Zoning Ordinance. There is a severe grade problem with this site which requires the need for three principal buildings on this zoning lot rather than one larger building. This would warrant the grandng of the variance. Chauman Semrow said, "there being no fiuther testimony before this Board with regard to this matter, the Board will consider the Pedtion at this dme, unless there is a modon to recess by a member of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Pedtion." AELIBERATION AND RE OMMENDATION Modon by Christensen, seconded by McClatchey to recommend to the City Council that the Petitioners' request to grant a Variance on the subject property to permit the construction and use of three principal structures following re-subdivision pursuant to the Subdivision Control Ordinance be granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Variance, Table 32, page 37'7-378, of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. Voting Aye: Semrow. Voting Nay: Christensen, Lovett, McClatchey, Tobeck. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Swierk. � Motion failed to carry 1-4. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Christensen, Seconded by Lovett to adjourn. Vodng Aye: Christensen, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Tobeck. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None Absent: Swierk. Motion carried. 5-0. This hearing was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully submitted , � , Harry Semr , Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Public Works, Administration, City Attomey, City Engineers, Petitioner, �"" Observer (1), Aldermen Reference Copy, Building & Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File. Z-394