Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 4/10/1995 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 10, 1995 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) � OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, AN ) Z-396 ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ) CITY OF MCHENRY AND THE MCHENRY PUBLIC LIBRARY ) DISTRICT, FOR A USE VARIANCE, ) USE VARIANCE PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ) 809 N FRONT ST ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, j ILLINOIS. ) 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 April 10, 1995. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 8:44 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett. 2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. � 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. 5. Pedtioner: City of McHenry represented by Fredric C. Batt, 333 S Green Street McHenry Illinois 60050. b. Attomey for the Petitioner; None. 7. City Council Members: Mayor Steve Cuda. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None. 1�QTIFICATION Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on March 24, 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 all abutting properties via certified mailing. The subject property was posted as required by ordinance. An Affidavit of Service ascertaining that all notification requirement have been followed is on file in the oftice of the City Clerk. LOCATION �" The subject property is located at 809 North Front Street and is currendy owned by the McHenry Public Library District which is a party to this Petition. Page 2 ZBA-City/Use Variance 4/10/95 �UMMARY �- The Pedtioners are requesting that a Use Variance be granted to permit the seasonal storage of equipment within the accessory structure located on the subject property by the City of McHenry. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrov�� swore in the following witness for the Petitioner: 1. Fredric C. Batt, Director of Public Works, 333 S Green Street McHenry Illinois 60050. Batt stated that the city hopes to enter into an intergovernmental agreement with the McHenry Public Library District if the proposed Use Variance is granted. It is the intention of the City to store off- season equipment in the accessory structure located on the library property. In retum, the City would provide street sweeping and snow plowing services for the library parking lot. The City would provide maintenance on the accessory building as needed. If the Use Variance is granted, it would delay the city's need for an additional Public Works garage. Batt said that there would be no fuel storage on site. The only fuel would be that which is contained in the vehicles. Batt noted that if there is any space left over, the school district has asked to use it for storage. It is unlikely that there would be any space available for this purpose, but in light of the fact that the request has been made, this matter is brought to the attention of the Zoning Board at this time. QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Semrow asked the Petitioner to address the Approval Criteria for Use Variance. Batt said that he `- attested to the statements within paragraph 9 of the Petition and that it was his belief that the Approval Criteria have been met with regard to this Petition. Semrow asked if the agreement would be mutually beneficial to the landlord and the tenant. Batt said that is conect. Tobeck asked how much traffic would be going into and out of this accessory building during peak traffic hours. Batt said that there would be no daily traffic into or out of the building. Essentially, winter equipment would be put in the building in the spring of the year and replaced with summer equipment in the fall each year. The traffic to and from the building would be extremely minimal. McClatchey asked who would insure the building. Batt said the Library would insure the building. The City would insure the building contents. CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER Batt asked that the Board consider the Petition before them with regard to this matter. He asked that the Board consider the advantages to both parties as the petition is being deliberated. Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further tesdmony before this Board with regard to this matter, the Board will consider the Petidon at this time, unless there is a motion to recess by a member of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition." � Page 3 ZBA-City/Use Variance 4//10/95 DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION `-- Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Swierk to recommend to the City Council that the Petidoners' request to grant a Use Variance on the subject property to permit the seasonal storage of equipment within the accessory structure be granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Use Variance, Table 32A, page 379, of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. Voting Aye: Kleemann, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. Voting Nay: None. Not Vodng: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Christensen, Lovett. Modon carried 5-0. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further business before this Board with regard to this matter, this hearing is adjourned at 8:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted � Harry Se ow, Chairman Zoning oard of Appeals c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Public Works, Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Building& Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File. Z-396 � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 10, 1995 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTF:R OF THE APPLICATION ) �- OF THE CITY UF MCHENRY, AN ) Z-395 ILLINOIS MUN[CIPAL CORPORATION, ) CITY OF MCHENRY FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, PURSUANT ) PUD TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE ) CITY OF 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 petidon was held on March 27, 1995 and recessed to this date. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 9:07 p.m. the following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett. 2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. � 5. Petitioner: None. 6. Attomey for the Petitioner: None. 7. City Council Members: None. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None. SUMMARY The Petitioner's are requesting a comprehensive amendment to the Zoning Ordinance with regard to the Planned Unit Development (PUD) requirements for the City of McHenry. �DJOURNMENT Motion by Swierk, seconded by Kleemann that due to the lateness of the hour, this hearing be recessed until: MONDAY, APRIL 24, 1995 7.•30 P.M. �„ MCHENRY MUNICIPAL CENTER CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Page 2 ZBA-City Text/P1JD 4/10/95 Voting Aye: Kleemann, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. `- Vodng Nay: None. Not voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Christensen, Lovett. Motion carried 5-0. This hearing was recessed until April 24, 1995. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted Harry Se w, Chairman Zoning Bo d of Appeals c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Public Works, Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Building&Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File. z-395 � � ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS APRIL 10, 1995 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTF,R OF THE APPLICATION ) �-- OF FRANK J. GRADISHAR AND C.L.R. ) Z-393 DEVELOPMENT GROUP, FOR A } GRADISHAR/C.L.R. VARIANCE, PURSUANT TO THE ) 620 S RT 31 ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) VARIANCE 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 April 10, 1995. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:36 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett. 2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer. 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. � 5. Petidoner: Frank J. Gradishar, Attorney at Law, 111 N. Cass Avenue,Westmont Illinois 60559. 6. Attomey for the Petidoner: None. 7. City Council Members: Mayor Steve Cuda. City Clerk Pamela Althoff. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Registered Observers/Objectors: None. NOTIFICATION Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on March 25, 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 all abutting properkies via certified mailing. The subject property was posted as required by ordinance. An Affidavit of Service ascertaining that all notification requirement have been followed is on file in the office of the City Clerk. LOCATION The subject property is located at 620 South Route 31, McHenry Illinois 60050 and is currendy improved with a medical office building. `' �UMMARY The Peddoners are requesting that a Variance be granted to permit the construction and use of a second principal building on Lot 2 of Gradishar Subdivision. Page 2 ZBA-Gradishar 4/10/95 TESTIMONY �-- Attomey Gradishar stated that there is an annexation agreement for this subdivision which would allow up to 60,000 square feet of office space on this two-lot development. The portion of Lot 2 (the Lot which is the subject of the Petition) is being abused by the public because it is not yet developed. Gradishar said that he would like to delete the southeast corner of the original L-shaped building. In doing so, he would be erecting a second principal building on this lot. That is the reason for seeking the variance before the Board this evening. Gradishar said he would prefer to put up a detached structure as opposed to an addition to the existing building on Lot 2. The proposed building would be a much smaller structure than an addition to the existing building. The smaller building would cause less impact on traffic flow in this area. Traffic congestion, especially after 3 p.m., is a major problem for those who use the facilities within this development. There is a desire to create more open space on the part of the developer rather than a long snaking building down the south property line. Gradishar said he hoped to have a better project with a smaller building rather than a large addition on the existing building. OUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Semrow asked the Petitioner to address the Approval Criteria for Variances as required by ordinance. Gradishar stated that all the Approval Criteria had been addressed within the context of the Petidon. Semrow said that he had a problem with the Petitioner being able to prove that the Criteria have been met, especially regarding "D". Gradishar said that with regard to the Approval Criteria, he would state as follows: A. The special circumstances found on this property and not found elsewhere would be the traffic congestions at the entrance to this development. The traffic affects the property and the right L-- of access to the property. The traffic congestion causes him to have two choices with regard to the property: [1] do not build any additional office space; [2] build on a small scale. B. The special circumstances reladng to this properiy only would be the ingress and egress to this property. The traffic congestion caused by the traffic signal at Bull Valley Road is not caused by any action of the Petitioner. E. Preserving the rights conferred by the district would be that what the Petitioner is asking is within his rights within this zoning district. Gradishar said that he is attempting to put in the best possible development. If the variance is granted, he believes that would be possible. Semrow asked why the Petitioner could not put on a smaller addition rather than building a 60,000 square foot office space within two buildings. Gradishar said that he would be helping the traffic congestion by putting in a small building. Tobeck asked if the Annexation Agreement referred to in the Petition was still in effect or if it had indeed expired. McArdle said the Agreement had expired. Tobeck said that all reference to the Agreement is really poindess inasmuch as it was not still in force. Gradish�r said that all zoning and uses granted within the context of the Agreement were still in place. McArdle said the zoning is still in place. The uses which were not instituted prior to the expiration of the Agreement are no longer grandfathered in. The Pedtioner is permitted to install uses granted within the O-1 regulations of the zoning ordinance. Tobeck said that the traffic congestion is intensified after 3 p.m. according to `` testimony provided by the Petitioner. She asked how any addidonal traffic created by this proposed expansion would help that traffic congestion. Gradishar said that the project would have a minimal impact upon the traffic situation on Route 31. Page 3 ZBA-Gradishar 4/10/95 Swierk asked if there is adequate parking being provided for the site. Lobaito said that preliminary staff �. review indicates that the ordinance requirements for both Lot 1 and Lot 2 would be satisfied. Swierk said that Lot 2 does not have a minimum 200 feet of frontage on a street. Lobaito said there is a cross easement access from Lot 1 which provides entry into Lot 2 from Route 31. This lot was already subdivided prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and would not be subject to the 200 foot minimum requirement for lot width along an arterial street. Kleemann said that if the Annexadon Agreement is expired, the Petitioner is not entitled to anything. The substance of the Petition makes the assumption that the Agreement is still in effect and the Petitioner is thereby granted authority to build 60,000 square feet of office space. McArdle said that the only matter before this Board is the request for variance as to two principal buildings on one lot. The allowable square footage is not at issue. Swierk asked how many existing parking spaces were located on the two lot subdivision. Gradishar said he is not sure. Kleemann asked why the Petitioner agreed to a single 60,000 square foot building 10 years ago and now finds it unsatisfactory. Gradishar said he was tired of dealing with doctors and petitioned the city for the right to erect a cocktail lounge on the rear of Lot 2 several years ago. This did not fmd a favorable recommendadon and he did not go forward with that plan. Grradishar said that he believes that he has a development plan which is acceptable to the City. He asked for Board assistance in making this a quality project. If he puts up two small buildings it would be much more pleasing to the city than one large building with a sea of cars in the parking lot, uninterrupted by open spaces. � Tobeck asked if the plan has been submitted to the Fire District for approval. Gradishar said it has not as of this time. Swierk asked if there was an access easement for the length of the entire access drive to Lot 2. Gradishar said there is an access easement. He owns both Lot 1 and Lot 2. Swierk asked if the Petitioner should not record an access easement agreement to protect future owners of Lot 1 and Lot 2. McArdle said the City could request it, but that it may not be necessary. If Lot 2 were sold, the buyer would want an agreement in writing to protect his interests. If Lot 1 were sold, the owner of Lot 2 would want an agreement in wridng as well. McClatchey asked if on-site water retention would be adequate. Gradishar said there is a retention area which was designed to accommodate the entire two lot subdivision. Kleemann said that the Petitioner made reference to the sea of cars which would be visible from Route 31. Kleemann asked how this could be possible. The building on Lot 1 blocks the entire view of Lot 2. Gradishar said that is conect. Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 8:10 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 8:20 p.m. with all members still in attendance. Semrow said that �uestions have arisen conceming the intent on the part of the Petitioner to lease the �-- proposed building. Semrow asked the Petitioner to describe the type of uses for this building. Gradishar said thar it would be a clinic, an orthopedist would be moving from the building on Lot 1 to the proposed new building. Two of the tenants cunently located in that building would expand their Fage 4 ZBA-Gradishar 4/10/95 space. NICL lab� located in the existing building on Lot 2 would also expand their space. Semrow `— said that it would be fair to assume that the space would be occupied by an orthopedic surgeon and other medical offices. 7'he Petitioner has indicated that these are the types of uses which would go into this site. They would be offering clinical services. Semrow said that a clinic requires a conditional use within the regulations of the zoning ordinance. The Annexation Agreement has lapsed. The uses which were specifically granted as a part of the Annexation Agreement are no longer permitted as new uses. If the Petitioner intends to put a clinic on this site, a conditional use would be required. Medical offices are permitted within the O-1 district. Clinics require that a Condidonal Use permit be granted. The Petitioner has not come before the Board seeking a Conditional Use Permit, so , therefore, a clinic would not presently be permitted on this site. Gradishar asked the difference between a clinic and a medical office. Semrow reiterated the definition of clinic as found in the Zoning Ordinance. McArdle said the Pedtioner needs to be aware that what he has described as the proposed use for the new building would be a medical clinic as described by ordinance. The matter which is before this Board at this time is the variance as to two principal buildings on the subject premises and not the proposed use of that building. If the Petitioner chooses to put a clinic in that building, he would have to come back before this Board to seek a Condidonal Use Permit for that purpose. CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER Petitioner Gradishar said that he is trying to do a good job in developing this project. He is trying to build the highest quality building. He said the Board should help him to make it look good. If he is restricted to following the ordinance, and putting an addition on the existing building, it will be a less `— desirable product. Gradishar said it is not his desire to antagonize the Board. He is making every attempt to do the job right. Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this matter, the Board will consider the Petition 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 Petidon." �ELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION Motion by Swierk, seconded by McClatchey to recommend to the City Council that the Peddoners' request to grant a Variance on the subject property to permit the construction and use of a second principal structure on Lot 2 of Gradishar Subdivision be granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Variance, Table 32, page 377-378, of the Zoning Ordinance have been met. Voting Aye: None. Voting Nay: Kleemann, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Christensen, Lovett. Motion failed to c�ury 0-5. � Page 5 ZBA-C'rradishar 4110/95 DISCUSSION R�'sGARDING CLINIC VS MEDICAL OFFICE �- Swierk noted that the main difference that he saw between a clinic and a medical office would be the parking requirements which are not the same for each. A medical office requires 3.5/1000 square feet of space and a clinic requires 6.5/1000 square feet of space. McArdle said that the Petidoner had allowed the Annexation Agreement to lapse and he is now seeking the uses which were permitted within the context of that Agreement. Semrow said that clinics require more parking than a medical office. Semrow asked for a definition of a physicians office and how that would differ from a clinic. A clinic requires a canditional use and a physicians medical office does not. Lobaito asked what the distinction would be between a clinic and a medical office. How would the ZBA define a clinic? Why would the original author of the zoning ordinance envision a clinic needing a conditional use, or special treatment, and have a medical office permissible in the same zoning district? Semrow asked where does a physicians office fit into the ordinance? Is it a clinic or a medical office? Would a physicians office be a commercial use and a clinic would fit into the office district? Swierk recommended that Lobaito draft a definition change to amend the zoning ordinance. He said that he would not have a problem with having a medical office as a permitted use in any office district but that the parking requirements should be looked at. He would encourage a change to that end, perhaps requiring 6.5/1000 for a medical office as is the requirement for clinics. That could be changed in the parking requirements Table 13. McArdle said that the ZBA can not move forward on this matter. Staff could bring a request to the Ciry L— Council to consider making the changes as recommended by this Board. The changes would then come back to this Board at the recommendation of the City Council. Lobaito said he would bring this matter to the City Council and seek their direction. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further business before this Board with regard to this matter, this hearing is adjaurned at 8:37 p.m. Respectfully submitted C"� Harry Se , Chauman Zoning Board of Appeals c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Public Works, Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers, Petitioner, Aldermen Reference Copy, Building & Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File. Z-393 �