HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2/9/2005 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 20, 1995
CITY OF MCHENRY
� IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK AND ) Z-392
TRUST COMPANY OF CHICAGO, A ) AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
NATIONAL BANKING ASSOCIATION ) & TRUST; TRUST N� 117509-08
AS TRUSTEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS ) AND
OF A TRUST AGREEMENT DATED THE ) INLAND LAND MGMT
27TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993, AND )
KNOWN AS TRUST NO 117509-08, FOR ) MAP AMENDMENT
A MAP AMENDMENT OF THE ZONING ) gp
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF )
MCHENRY, MCHENRY 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 20, 1995. Chairman Semrow called
the hearing to order at 7:38 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
l. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, John
Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Emil Kleemann, Chuck Lovett.
2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen M. Kunzer.
`-- 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
S. Petitioner: American National Bank & Trust and Inland Land Management represented by
James Pokin, 2901 Butte�eld Road, Oak Brook Illinois 60521.
6. Attomey for the Petitioner: Militello, Zanck and Coen represented by Thomas Zanck, 40
Brink Street Crystal Lake Illinois 60014.
7. City Council Members: Mayor Steve Cuda, Alderman Bill Bolger, Alderman Terry Locke,
City Clerk Pamela Althoff.
8. Court Reporter: Susan Bloom.
9. Registered Observers/Objectors:
l. Margaret Gewecke, 4316 W Shamrock Lane #1D,McHenry.
2. Evelyn Ponchione, 4302 Shamrock Lane #1B, McHenry.
3. Edith Winkler, 4308 Shamrock Lane #lA, McHenry.
4. Hilda Austin, 4308 Shamrock Lane #1D, McHenry.
5. Linda Moore, Pres. IPHA, 4406 W Shamrock Lane #2A, McHenry.
6. R. Martin, 1214 Crystal Road, McHenry.
7. Debbie Shaffer, 3920 Wyndwood Crystal Lake IL 60014.
8. James E Zeinz, 111 Creekside Trail McHenry.
9. John J. Shay, 1608 N Riverside Drive McHenry.
10. Christian R. Newkirk, 5211 W Bull Valley Road McHenry.
11. Pat I►unn, 4620 Shore Drive McHenry.
�,, 12. Doro�hy Becker, 5200 W Home Ave McHenry.
13. Jim ��effelfinger, 1805 N Donovan St, McHenry.
I4. Jim Finch, 1712 S Crystal Lake Road McHenry.
15. Bill (iilger, 6210 Mason Hill Road McHenry.
Page 2
ZBA-Inland BP
3//20/95
�, 16. Bill Buhrman, 4708 W Shore Drive McHenry.
17. Mary Ann Cahill, 7111 Trey Rd McHenry.
18. Louise Walker, 4408 W Shamrock Lane #1C, McHenry.
19. Colleen Francice, 3220 Lorient McHenry.
20. Wally Wolff, 218 W Main St Dundee IL 60118.
21. Sharon Ellicson, 5911 W Radcliff Ct McHenry.
22. Donald Gattone, 3603 W Young St, McHenry.
23. Don Hammer, 1017 Chesterfield Ct McHenry.
24. Steven Myers, 3019 W Miller Dr McHenry.
25. Bridget L Myers, 3019 W Miller Dr McHenry.
26. Robert L. Smith, 155 Glenbrook Tr McHenry.
27. John Cottingham, 1000 Skokie Blvd, Ste 358, Wilmette IL 60091.
28. Judy Gertz, 1718 Leonard Ave McHenry.
29. John L. Kaminski, 7405 E Northwood Dr Wonder La.ke IL 60097.
30. Rev. Robert Sherry, 5006 Oakwood Drive McHenry.
NOTIFICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on February 25, 1995. The
Publisher's Certificate of Publication is on file in the office of the City Clerk with regard to this
matter. All abutting property owners were notified of these proceedings. The subject property
was posted as required by ordinance. An affidavit of compliance with all notifications required
by the zoning ordinance is on file with regard to this matter.
�.00ATION
The subject property is located at the southeast comer of the intersection of Bull Valley Road and
Crystal Lake Road and is comprised of 200 acres. The subject property is currently located
`-- outside of the corporate boundaries of the City of McHenry.
�UMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting that the subject property be classified BP Business Park Zoning
District upon annexation to the City of McHenry.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following wimesses for the Pedtioners:
1) James Pokin, VP Inland Real Estate Investment Corporation, 2901 Butte�eld Road, Oak
Brook Illinois 60521.
2) Michael Mueller, 1 N 131 County Farm Road, Winfield Illinois 60190.
3) Gregg Gable, 1693 Revere Court, Montgomery Illinois 60538.
4) Thomas Zanck, Attorney for Petitioners, 40 Brink Street, Crystal Lake Illinois 60014.
Attomey Zanck began the presentation by stating that the subject property is comprised of
approximately 200 acres and is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Bull Valley
Road and Crystal Lake Road. The Petidoner has appeared before the City of McHenry Plan
Commission regarding a proposed map amendment and has received a favorable recommendation.
The first witness for the Petitioner was James Pokin who is Vice President of Inland Real Estate
Investment Corporation. Pokin stated that Inland Capital Fund is the beneficial owner of the trust
on whose behalf this Petition is being filed.
Attorney Zanck :�sked the second witness to come forward. Gregg Gable is a land planner with
GBL Associates with offices in Montgomery Illinois. Gable has been a land use consultant for 18
� years. Gable stated that he is familiar with the subject property. He noted the surrounding uses
and surrounding zoning classifications as stated in the Pedtion. The topography of the property
is such that there: is 25 feet of fall from the western portion to the most northeastern portion.
Page 3
ZBA-Inland BP
3/20/95
�, Gable said that the City's Comprehensive Plan indicates that the use for this property would be
business park for the portion east of the Chicago Northwestern tracks and a combination of office
(north portion) and urban residendal (south portion) for the part of the property located west of
the tracks. Gable said that uses permitted in a business park are similar to those found in the
McHenry Corporate Center. This project would be developed similar to the McHenry Corporate
Center. The Preliminary Plat for this project was prepared on January $, 1995 and revised on
February 28, 1995. The Preliminary Plat has been recommended for approval by the Plan
Comrrussion.
Gable said there are basically two parts to the plan for this project. The first part would be that
which is located east of the tracks. The mam road in this porkion (Ridgeview Drive) would
connect to the Motorola site in the McHenry Corporate Center. This portion would include one
retention area. The second part of the pro�ect would have the same design criteria and would also
include a retention area. This part of the project would ultimately connect Bull Va11ey Road and
Crystal Lake Road, provided the property owner to the north opts to make the connecdon. Zanck
asked if the proposed uses for the business park would be compatible with exisdng zoning and uses
in the area. Gable said that it would. The trend of development is that McHenry cunently
supports a business park and this is not an easy thing to market; McHenry has been successful in
marketing it. The McHenry Corporate Center has filled rather quickly. Gable said that the first
part of the development of the subject property would be complete in 3-5 years. Then the second
part would be developed west of the tracks.
Gable said the proposed business park development would meet the objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan. The business park zoning district would be compatible with the general trend
of development in the area. �anck went over the Approval Criteria for Zoning Map Amendments
with the witness, as stated in the Petition.
�
OUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOA�D
McClatchey asked if the business park would be compatible with the McHenry Corporate Center.
McClatchey asked how many lots were included in the McHenry Corporate Center. Gable said
he did not know t�e answer to that question. McClatchey said that with regard to access to this
business park, would the Petitioner do something to alleviate traffic concems which would be
caused by the development of this property? McClatchey asked if there was thought of putting
in a railroad crossing to connect the east and west portion of this development. Gable said it
would not be in the best interest of the City to install a crossing at this location.
Christensen asked what consideration has been given to the traffic that backs up on Crystal Lake
Road and Bull Valley Road, especially around 5 p.m. Gable said that the county approved two
separate access points to Crystal Lake Road from this development. The first access point would
be approximately 600 feet from the traffic light. Left hand turn lanes will be installed.
Christensen asked if there would be a minimum building size. Gable said there would not. There
would, however, be a minimum lot frontage at the building line of 200 feet.
Semrow asked if the subdivision covenants would be similar to those of the McHenry Corporate
Center. Gable said that the plans call for this development to be of even higher quality than the
Corporate Center. Semrow asked the Petitioner to explain the proposed phasing for this project
as mdicated on the Preliminary Plat which accompamed this Petidon. Gable said the phasing
would be as follows:
Phase I Ridgeview Drive
Phase II Capital Drive
� Phase III Inland Parkway
Phase IV Sentry Street and Fortune Way.
Page 4
ZBA-Inland BP
3/20/95
�, Gable said that there could be a problem with Phase III if the property owner to the north does
not opt to connect to this development. In that event, Inland Parkway would have to be looped
with Fortune Way because of the requirements of the Subdivision Control Ordinance and length
of cul-de-sacs. Semrow said if the Petitioner obtains the requested business park zoning, would
Ridgeview Drive be shared with the neighbor to the south? Gable said that is correct. One of
the main reasons for going forward with this project is to provide access for Motorola who is the
neighbor to the south on Ridgeview Drive.
Swierk asked if the Petitioner would be looking for variances in the subdivision covenants or in
the annexation agreement. Zanck said the only variances being sought are:
1) Down street lights at 25� foot intervals so as not to cause light polludon problems as has
been experienced in the Corporate Center.
2) Main collector streets 31 feet back to back rather than the 34 feet back to back required
by Subdivision Control Ordinance.
3) No request for variance as to the minimum front yard setback as originally proposed.
4) No installation of sidewalks as required by Subdivision Control Ordinance.
Zanck said that the original Petition submitted for staff review indicated a request for use variance
to seek a hast of permitted uses in the business park. It was pointed out by staff that the list of
permitted uses Listed in the back of the ordinance is quite extensive. The Peddoner was
comfortable with those uses specified in the back of the ordinance for business park districts. (See
schedule I of the Pedtion.)
McArdle said that the Preliminary Plat review by the Plan Commission was dated 1/31/95 and the
Plat submitted as a site plan for purposes of this hearing has a revision date of 2/28/95. What
`- specifically are the differences between the two documents? Mueller said that the two differences
are:
1) Dedication of public right of way indicated on Plat.
2) Notation of mmimum 200' lot width.
Swierk asked if Phase I and Phase II are in zone A flood plain. Gable said there are portions
which are in zone B but they would be addressed through engineering and storm water
management.
OUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS BY OBJECTORS/OBSERVER
Margaret Gewecke: Gewecke asked how many people would occupy this business park. How
many factories would there be? Semrow said there could be no more than 100 facilides located
'vn the park due to bulk requirements of the ordinance. Gable said that he perceived that there
would be no more than 50 users; there might be somewhere between 40-60 tenants/owners in the
business park. Gewecke asked if the business park would look like Tonyan Industrial Park or
would it be more like the McHenry Corporate Center. Gable said it would be like the Corporate
Center only better,
Linda Moore: Would lots in the business park back up to the Irish Prairie development? Gable
said they would. Moore asked if there would be berming or some means of landscaping to
provide a buffer between the business park and the Irish Prairie complex. Gab1e said that the
ordinance provides for screening when a business park abuts a less intense use such as multi
faraily. Screening will be provided as required by ordinance.
Christensen aske�i why developers of such projects usually seek a variance as to the requirements
� for sidewalks. (�able said they are not needed; there is not usually pedestrian traffic in this type
of development. Installation and maintenance of sidewalks becomes a needless expense for the
developers. Swierk said consideration should be given to providing an access easement for the
proposed bike path which will intersect this area.
Page 5
ZBA-Inland BP
3/20/95
� St�v�ers: Myers asked if the Petitioners could explain how the proposed development of this
property will provide a lack of burden on the schools. Gable said there would be no children
generated by the business park. There would be tax revenue generated, however. Myers said
there is currently a low unemployment rate and he does not see the need for more employment
opportunity in the City. No residendal needs will be satisfied by the development of this property
as a business park.
Robert Smith: Smith asked if the proposed business park is in conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City. Zanck said the property east of the tracks is designated for
business park. West of the tracks on the southern portion is indicated urban residential, and on
the northern portion is indicated office.
Rev. Robert Sherry: Fr. Sherty asked the maximum height of any building in the business park.
Lobaito said it would be 35 feet unless additional setback requirements were met as dictated by
the zoning ordinance. For each foot of height in excess of 35 feet, two additional feet of setback
in all yards would be required. Fr. Sherry said there was no malcimum building height and the
rear yard setback would remain at 20 feet even when the property abuts residentially zoned
property. Lobaito said the maximum floor area ratio of .50 would help to limit the actual building
size and height.
John Cottin am: Cottingham said he represents the property owner immediately to the south of
the subject property. He said there is concern for de-m between the subject property and the
properiy to the south if that becomes a business park as well. There should be some consideration
given to connecting the two developments. Perhaps the Petitioner could put in a street stub so that
the two developments could someday be connected. Gable said there is a possible bypass which
could intersect the subject property on the southwest corner. If the bypass becomes a reality, there
� would be natural access for the property to the south. Gable said that he agrees that if the bypass
does not go through, consideration should be given to providing a stub for the landowner to the
sonth.
Rev. Robert Sherr�. Fr. Sherry asked if residentially zoned property included all residendal
districts. Semrow said that is correct.
Swierk said he had concerns regarding the list of permitted uses attached as schedule I to the
zoning peddon. These uses may change from time to time and he would not want to see the City
locked into granting all of these uses even in the event that the ordinance changed and the list of
permitted uses changed accordingly. Zanck said the Petition is not asking for any variance with
regard to the permitted and/or conditional uses in a business park. Schedule I was submitted
merely to idendfy those uses which are currendy permitted in the business park district.
Christensen said at the Plan Commission meeting were the annexation fees waived. McArdle said
that would not be up to the Plan Commission to waive any fees.
Jim Zeinz: Are there any people currendy interested in purchasing property west of the tracks?
Zanck said there is an interested party/entity who has expressed interest in property iocated west
of the tracks. Zeinz asked if this mterested party would have to wait until Phase I and Phase II
have been completed before being able to go forward with property located in Phase III or Phase
IV. Pokin said public improvements would be completed for Phase III and Phase IV only when
Phase I and Phase II are sold and completed.
Rev. Robert She� Are there any architectural requirements for the rear or sides of buildings?
� Gable read from the covenants which duplicates the architectural requirements of the business park
as found in the zoning ordinance. Gable noted that there would be an architectural review
committee as well.
Page 6
ZBA-Inland BP
3/20/95
� STATEMENTS BY OBJECTOR
Chairman Semrow swore in the following objectors prior to statements being made:
Christian R Newk_i_rk (1519 N Ridge Road. McHenry Illinois 600501• Newkirk stated that
he is a trustee for Holy Aposdes Church and is speaking in that capacity. Newkirk provided an
overview of the history of the land upon which Holy Apostles Church is built. In the late 1980's
three men purchased this property. In May 1990, the Comprehensive Plan was adopted by the
City of McHenry. In early 1991, the three men who owned the property where the church is now
located attempted to obtain rezoning for business use on two different occasions. Both times their
petition was denied due largely to objections by the City of McHenry who did not want this
property zoned business. In mid-1991, Holy Apostles presented a plan to the City to purchase this
property for the purpose of putting up a church. In June 1991, this plan was approved by the
City. In Mid-July, the City approved the annexadon agreement to annex this property to the City.
Holy Aposdes closed on the sale of this land in August 1991.
Newkirk said that it has been stated that the proposed business park would not adversely affect the
schools in the area. The setback requirements would affect the possibility of Holy Apostles
building a school on their property. The possibility of our not building a private school would
have an adverse impact not just on us and our school, but also on the public school system. If
we do not go forward and build this school, there would be no relief for the public school system.
The building of a private school could help to lessen the burden on the public school system. This
then would have a negadve impact on the public school system.
A twenty foot setback is not enough when a business park is adjacent to residential property. We
are not willing to put a school on our property if it would be so close to this type of intense use.
It will be five or more years before tax benefits will be reaped from this development. That is
`-- a long time for the city to wait for these benefits.
Holy Aposdes Church moved to this location because the land immediately to the south of us was
indicated as residential use on the Comprehensive Plan. We don't see how the land use as a
business park will serve the needs of the neighborhood. If this were a residential district, with
parks and other amenities found in a residential neighborhood, children could walk to school at
Holy Aposdes.
Newkirk said he had spoken to representatives of Inland and they had no real objection to down
zoning to residential zoning if that is what the City wanted. It is the City that wants this business
park district in this location, not Inland.
We were assured that the use to the immediate south of Holy Aposdes would be residential, and
less than 3 '/z years later, there is a proposal for a business park. We are opposed to this request
and we ask the Board to recommend denial of this Petidon.
Pokin said that Inland is willing to do whatever the City wants for this property. Currently, the
City wants a business park in this location. We are eager to be annexed and zoned.
Patricia Dunn (4620 West Shore Drive, McHenry Illinois 600501- Dunn stated that she is
a parishioner of Holy Aposdes Church. Dunn is a land planner and is presenting her concems
from a planning pomt of view. She stated that the request for business park zoning is not
consistent with the approved Comprehensive Plan as far as the porkion west of the tracks is
concemed. The southern part of the portion west of the tracks is designated as residential use.
Members of Hol.� Apostles support that use. There are two portions to the Comprehensive Plan:
� the Plan Map and the Plan Text. The text suggests using both the map and text together when
determining the best possible use for a property.
Page 7
ZBA-Inland BP
3/20/95
�, Churches and schools are recommended to be located according to the text of the plan in urban
residential areas and not in business parks. In the text guidelines, new schools should be built
along arterial or collector streets and close to a neighborhood park. There has been a lot of
verbiage regarding the business park being located in this area. If you look at the Comprehensive
Plan Map, you can see the locations which are designated to be busmess park and these are to the
north of the city near the proposed FAP420 and not in the vicinity of this site.
Dunn listed the surrounding uses of all property with relation to the subject property. She noted
that there is a proposed bikeway easement along the Chicago Northwestem right of way. It has
been stated that the proposed business park would be compatible with surrounding uses, but Dunn
has found that the business park is not compatible with surrounding zoning.
Dunn said that in addition to looking at the City's Comprehensive Plan, she also looked at the
McHenry County Comprehensive Plan, even though the city is not bound by it. The county plan
indicates that the land west of the tracks should be agricultural/rural. The trend of development
happened after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan.
There is concern regarding the excessive amount of residential uses in the city. There is still room
for expansion of business park east of the tracks. There would still be 81 lots east of the tracks.
We object to the traffic, design and aesthetics. The church property will face the rear of all of
these lots west of the tracks. When you put a church and a school in a residential area you can
try to de it all together. When it is m the midst of a business park you can not do this. Traffic
congestion would increase along Crystal Lake Road. Some of the permitted business park uses
the church finds objectionable. We are especially concerned regarding warehousing and medium
to light industrial which are not defined by ordinance.
�
There is the possibility of a shared access drive between lot 198 which is located on the corner
of Bull Valley Road and Crystal Lake Road and the church property. This would be more
acceptable to have a shared access if this property were office as shown on the Comprehensive
Plan rather than the business park being proposed. Putting a business park at this site is premature
for this area. A precedent could be set regarding allowmg rezoning which is nonconforming to
surrounding uses, surrounding zoning, etc. Dunn said she believed there is some need for
residential development in the City. The City could serve a need for lh acre lots in this area.
There are currendy no 'h acre lots.
Dunn read the fow approval criteria for zoning amendments as stated in the zoning ordinance and
stated that in each case she did not believe the Petitioner had proven that the criteria had been met.
Dunn asked the Board to please consider the input of the objectors and ta deny this request before
them this evening.
Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 9:35 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 9:49 p.m. with all
still in attendance.
(?UESTIONS OF THE OBJECTORS
Zanck asked when the development plan had been apgroved. Dunn responded that it was approved
in May 1990. Zanck asked if the Motorola plant impacted upon the development plan. Dunn said
there was no impact on the plan. Zanck asked if Dunn was aware of the number of lots sdll
available in McHenry Corporate Center. Dunn said she was not. Zanck asked Dunn if she knew
the total number of lots platted in the McHenry Corporate Center. Dunn said she did not.
� William Gilger: Gilger said he owns the property immediately north of the subject property west
of the tracks. Jet Concrete abuts his property to the west. He states that his property is currently
zoned A-1 Count y Agricultural; Jet Concrete is zoned I-1 County Industrial. Gilger said there is
an enor on the 4ite plan provided with regard to the zoning of the Jet Concrete property.
Page 8
ZBA-Inland BP
3/20/95
� CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONERS
Zanck said that the Comprehensive Plan is for guideline purposes only. Significant changes have
occurred regarding school crowding and the development of the McHenry Corporate Center in
McHenry. Motorola is in need of a second access point to their site in the Corporate Center.
There is available from the State of Illinois funds to assist in putting in this road for Motorola.
Motorola is the driving force behind the Pedtioner's need to be here this evening. The Petitioner
is unable to piecemeal this development and diversify the zoning. Motorola is a very significant
employer for the City. As stated earlier, Jet Concrete is zoned I-1. Precedence for Industrial or
business park zoning west of the tracks has already been set.
Business park zoning is adaptable to this area. It is in harmony with the current uses in this area.
all of these uses are permitted: health facilities, playgrounds, schools, philanthropic institutions.
There is beautiful architecture to the south in the Corporate Center. The covenants that Inland
would impose would benefit the community and enhance all properties in the area. If a school
is built on the Holy Apostles property, Inland would screen their site. There is really only one
objector here and there are numerous abutting property owners who have been served notice of this
hearing. We urge the Board to vote in favor of the Inland business park zoning request.
Chairman Semrow said, "there being nothing further 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 Peddon."
DELIBERATION AND REGOMMENDATION
Motion by Swierk, seconded by McClatchey to recommend to the City Council that
�..
the Petitioner's request that the subject property be zoned BP Business Park District upon
annexation to the City be granted; and that The Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments,
Table 33, page 401 have been met.
McClatchey said that the Council should give consideration to the additional traffic which would
be generated along Crystal Lake Road by this development. Special consideration should be given
to berming and screenmg the business park from abutting residendally zoned property.
Voting Aye: Christensen, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: Nane.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: Nc�ne.
Absent: Kleemann, Lovett.
Motion carried 5-0.
�
Page 9
ZBA-Inland BP
3/20/95
� ADJQURNMENT
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Tobeck to adjourn the hearing at 10:15 p.m.
Voting Aye: Christensen, McClatchey, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Vodng: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Lovett.
Motion carried S-0. This hearing was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
���
arry Se , 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, Objectors/Observers (29), Petitioner's Attomey, Building &
Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
`... Z-392
�