HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 12/5/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 5, 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
�'' IN THE MAT�_ER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF MCHENRY STATE BANK, AS TRUSTEE ) Z-386
UNDER TRUST NO 12311. FOR ) MCHENRY STATE BANK TRUST 12311
RECLASSIFICATION AND A VARIATION ) GERSTAD
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ) S ROUTE 31
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) RECLASSIFY O-2 W/VARIATION
COUNTY, ILL-INOIS. )
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 December 5, 1994. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at $:04 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett, Frank McClatchey, Harry
Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Emil Kleemann, John Swierk.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petidoner: MSB Trust 12311, represented by Donald Gerstad, 4318-L Crystal Lake Road
McHenry Illinois 60050.
L
6. Attorney for the Petitioner: Diamond LeSueur Roth and Assoc, represented by John Roth,
3431 West Elm Street McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. City Council Members: Mayor Steve Cuda, Alderman Greg Bates.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Observers/Objectors: None.
NOTIFICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 17, 1994. The
Publisher's Certificate of Publicarion is on file in the office of the City Clerk with regard to this
matter. All abutting property owners were notified of these proceedings. An affidavit assuring
compliance with all notification requirements is on file in the o�ce of the City Clerk.
LOCATION
The subject property is located approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of High Street and
Route 31 on the east side of Route 31. It is comprised of approximately 4.U9 acres. It is
currendy improved with a 2-story brick building and has approximately 227 feet of road frontage
along Route 31.
SUMMARY
The Petitianers are requesting that the subject property be reclassified from it present zoning of
RS-3 to O-2 Office Park and, further, that a vanance be granted to permit the construcrion of two
� principal buildings on this property.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioners:
1) Donald �3erstad, 4318-L Crystal Lake Rod, McHenry Illinois 60050.
Page 2
ZBA-MSB 123; 1/Gerstad
12/5/94
`' Gerstad presented architectural renderings which depicted the proposed office park. On the plan
were two principal buildings and one accessory structure. Gerstad said that he is proposing to
erect two office buildings on this site in addition to putting up an accessory structure which would
house maintenance equipment for this property. He said that there are four residences which abut
this property to the east. There are residences which abut to the north as well. Gerstad stated
that also abutting this property to the north is Hult Chiropracdc Clinic which is zoned C-3. Other
zoning to the north, east and south is RS-3. Across Route 31 is Warsaw Inn which is zoned C-5.
Gerstad said that the total square footage of the two buildings would be 28,000 square feet. The
buildings would be two story on the north elevadon and one story on the soath elevadon. He
explained that due to the topography of the land, this type of floor plan would be best suited to
this site. Parking lots would be located on both sides of each building. Gerstad explained that
it has proved to be better for the layout of the land to erect two buildings, rather than one large
building on this site.
Gerstad said the buildings would be brick veneer, with aluminum siding and fascia. It is quality
architectural design. The buildings would be separated out into leased or condominium units as
required by tenants or owners. At this time, he is not certain how many units there could possibly
be. The auxiliary building would be an accessory structure and not a principal building on this
lot.
This proposal has been presented to staff for input. Gerstad said that more than adequate parking
is shown on the plan as presented. He said he would comply with all requirements of the
ordinance as to landscaping, screening and parking. Whatever the engineering deems is necessary
regarding surface water runoff and drainage will also be complied with as well. Gerstad said that
� there is dense vegetadon on the site, particularly to the northern and eastern property line which
should help with screening the subject property from the adjacent residential dwellings. The dense
foliage will be left in its natural state so that a natural bnffer is in place.
The parking which is depicted in the rear of the easternmost building would be recessed so that
cars would not be visible to the residents to the east of this project. Gerstad said that at this time,
he would prefer not to screen from the residential property to the south inasmuch as it is not
developed at this dme. However, as this property is developed, Gerstad said that he would
provide the screening as required by ordinance.
Attorney Roth went over the Office Park Development guidelines as found in the Comprehensive
Plan for the City. He then went over the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments and the
Approval Critena for Variances with Petidoner Gerstad as stated in the Petidon.
Gerstad said that he has met with or spoken to most of the neighbors in the area. All were
nodfied of these proceedings. Since none are present for this hearing, it would appear that there
are no objections to the project from the residents who live in this area.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
McClatchey said that the site plan shows a lot of parking spaces and asphatt. Has the Petitioner
considered drainage detention. Gerstad said there is ample room for detention on this site. The
engineering for the project would address this issue. Lobaito said that all projects in excess of 2.5
acres are required to submit engineering and this would be one of the items considered.
McClatchey asked what type of signs would be proposed. Gerstad said there would be office park
signs at the entry from Route 31. There would also be identification signs for each of the two
� pnncipal buildings.
Christensen said with regard to the permitted uses in the O-2 District, does the Pedtioner know
the namber of units which will be located on this project. Gerstad said there would be
approximately 28,U00 square feet between the two buildings. The number of units is dependent
Page 3
ZBA-MSB 123 l 1/Gerstad
12/5/94
L' upon the needs of tenants. Christensen said, looking at the list af permitted uses in this district,
restaurants and donut shops are permitted. Does the Petitioner ant�cipate having this type of use
at this site. What types of uses would the Petitioner anticipate would be rendng at this facility.
Gerstad said he would set the tone of the overall project such that there would probably not be
a restawant in this complex. A variety of uses are needed to make the project work.
Semrow asked if the PedNoner would be leasing to commercial tenants whose uses would be
permitted in the O-2 District. Gerstad said probably not. There may be some, but most
commercial users would require a higher traffic area to be compedtive. This project is not located
along the highway and would not be conducive to the success of commercial enterprise.
Semrow said with regard to the topography of the site and the slope toward the highway, how
would the Petitioner prevent surface water run-off onto Route 31. Gerstad said the �ngineering
would address this issue. Lobaito said that it is a required part of the permitting process for
projects in excess of 2.5 acres to submit engineering, including detention for surface water run-off.
Lobaito said that whether the run-off is piped or an open drainage ditch is used, the drainage will
be taken care of so that it is not released from this srte at a rate higher than it currendy is heing
released.
Semrow asked if the land to the south of this project is developed as residential. Gerstad said it
is vacant at this time. Semrow asked if the Petitioner was planning to lease or sell as
condominiums the units of these two buildings. Gerstad said he is not certain at this time.
Lovett asked if the Petitioner would landscape and screen as required by ordinance. Lovett was
especially concerned about the west property line. The parking lot closest to Route 31 should be
� screened with a berm and plantings. Lobaito said that the Petitioner has not asked for a variance
as to the screening, parking and/or landscaping requirements of the ordinance. He wi11 have to
comply with what is required, including the berm on the west property line.
Tobeck asked what the accessory building would be used for. Gerstad said it would be used to
store maintenance equipment for this project. Tobeck said she is concerned regarding traffic
turning south on Route 31 from this site at 5 p.m. Gerstad said they would have to wait for a
break in the traffic to be able to exit to the south. There is a suicide lane in the center of 31 at
this location. Christensen asked if the landscaping would be maintained by the Petidoner or by
the state along Route 31. Lobaito said the landscaping located on private property would be
maintained by the property owner.
Semrow asked if there would be an illuminated parking lot. Would the lights be on a11 night?
Gerstad said the parking lot would be lit all night for security reasons. Semrow said he was
concerned abont the lighting being a disturbance to adjacent residents. Gerstad said that the
topography is such that the neighbors to the east would be at a higher elevation than the parking
lot and there should be no problem with the lights shining on their homes. The lights nearest to
the neighbors to the north would be directed away from the residents so as not to cause a problem
with light pollution for them.
Christensen asked if storm water would be managed. He said he believed there were some
wetlands adjacent to the south. Lobaito said all storm water management must be handled on-site.
The Pedtioner could not intensify or increase the rate of flow of drainage to the wedands. The
run-off must be detained and released at the same or a reduced rate of flow from the site to all
abutting properties, including wedands.
� Attorney Roth submitted Pedtioners E�ibits "F", "G", and "H", renderings of the proposed
buildi�gs and site. These exhibits will be used to assist with the presentation of this Petition
before the City (:ouncil.
Page 4
ZBA-MSB 123' 1/Gerstad
12/5/94
`'' CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
Attomey Roth said the timing is appropriate for this project. The Petitioner has owned this land
for several years. This proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which
indicates this area east of Route 31 as office park. It would be in the City's best interest to zone
this parcel O-2 rather than permit additional growth with 9,000 square foot single family lots as
currendy permitted by the existing RS-3 zoning on this property. The PetiNoner has provided
evidence which supports the reclassificadon of this properiy. The Petitioner has provided good
reasons and evidence to grant the variance which would permit the consbruction of two principal
buildings on this property due to the topogaphy of the land.
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 motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to
the Peddon."
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Christensen
to recommend to the City Council that
the Petidoner's request to reclassify the subject property from 1tS-3 Medium High Density
Single Family to O-2 Office Park be granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Zoning
Amendments, Table 33, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met; and further
to recommend to the City Council that
the Pedtioner's request to construct two principal buildings on the subject property be
granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Vanances, Table 32, pages 377-378, of the
� Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Christensen, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Modon carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Christensen, seconded by McClatchey to adjourn this hearing
Vodng Aye: Christensen, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Vodng: Nc�ne.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Motion c�rried 5-0. This hearing was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S ow, Chairman
Zoning oard of Appea.ls
c: Agenda, 'I,oning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director
of Building & Zoning, Public Works Administration, City Attomey, City Engineers,
`' Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner's Attorney, Building & Zoning Zoning File,
I,andmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-386
. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 5, 1994
CITY nF MCHENRY
`' IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF MCHENRY STATE BANK, AS TRUSTEE ) Z-386
tJNDER TRUST NO 12311. FOR ) MCHENRY STATE BANK TRUST 12311
RECLASSIFICATION AND A VARIATION ) GERSTAD
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ) S ROUTE 31
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) RECLASSIFY O-2 W/VARIATION
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 December 5, 1994. Chairrnan Semrow
called the hearing to order at 8:04 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett, Frank McClatchey, Harry
Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Emil Kleemann, John Swierk.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioner: MSB Trust 12311, represented by Donald Gerstad, 43l 8-L Crystal Lake Road
McHenry Illinois 60050.
�
6. Attorney for the Petitioner: Diamond LeSueur Roth and Assoc, represented by John Roth,
3431 West Elm Street McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. City Council Members: Mayor Steve Cuda, Alderman Greg Bates.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Observers/Objectors: None.
NOTIFiCATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 17, 1994. The
Publisher's Certificate of Publicat�on is on file in the office of the City Clerk with regard to this
matter. All abutting property owners were notified of these proceedings. An affidavit assuring
compliance with ali notification requirements is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
L(3CATION
The subject property is located approximately 300 feet south of the intersection of High Sireet and
Route 31 on the east side of Route 31. It is comprised of approximately 4.09 acres. tt is
currently improved with a 2-story brick building and has approximately 227 feet of road frontage
along Route 31.
SUMMARY
The Pedtioners are requesting that the subject property be reclassified from it present zoning �f
RS-3 to �-2 Office Park and, further, that a vanance be granted to permit the construction of two
principal buildings on this property.
�
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioners:
1) Donald Gerstad, 4318-L Crystal Lake Rad, McHenry Illinois 60050.
• Page 2
ZBA-MSB l 231 (/Gerstad
12/5/94
�" Gerstad presented architectural renderings which depicted the proposed office park. C?n the plan
were two principal buildings and one accessory structure. Gerstad said that he is proposing to
erect two office buildings on this site in addition to putting up an accessory structure which would
house maintenance equipment for this property. He said that there are four residences which abut
this property to the east. There are residences which abut to the north as well. Gerstad stated
that also abutting this property to the north is Hult Chiropractic Clinic which is zoned C-3. Other
zoning to the north, east and south is RS-3. Across Route 3l is Warsaw Inn which is zoned C-S.
Gerstad said that the total square fiootage of the two buildings would be 28,000 square feet. The
buildings would be two story on the north elevation and one story on the south elevation. He
explained that due to the topography of the land, this type of floor plan would be best suited to
this site. Parking lots would be located on both sides of each building. Gerstad exPlained that
it has proved to be better for the layout of the land to erect two buildings, rather than one large
building on this site.
Gerstad said the buildings would be brick veneer, with aluminum siding and fascia. It is quality
architectural design. The buildings would be separated out into leased or condominium units as
required by tenants or owners. At this time, he is not certain how many units there could possibly
be. The auxiliary building would be an accessory structure and not a principal building on th�s
lot.
This proposal has been presented to staff for input. Gerstad said that more than adeyuate parking
is shown on the plan as presented. He said he wouid comply with all reyuirements of the
ordinance as to landscaping, screening and parking. Whatever the engineering deems is necessary
regarding surface water runoff and drainage will also be complied with as well. Gerstad said that
�, there is dense vegetation on the site, particularly to the northern and eastern property line which
should help with screening the subject Property from the adjacent residential dwellings. The dense
foliage will be left in its natural state so that a natural buffer is in place.
The parking which is depicted in the rear of the easternmost building would be recessed so that
cars would not be visible to the residents to the east of this project. Gerstad said that at this time,
he would prefer not to screen from the residential property to the south inasmuch as it is not
developed at this time. However, as this property �s developed, Gerstad said that he would
provide the screening as required by ordinance.
Attorney Roth went over the Office Park Development guidelines as found in the Comprehensive
Plan for the City. He then went over the ApProval Cnteria for Zoning Amendments and the
Approval Criteria for Variances with Petitioner Gerstad as stated in the Pet�t�on.
Gerstad said that he has met with or spoken to most of the neighbors in the area. All were
notified of these proceedings. Since none are present for this hearmg, it would appear that there
are na objections to the project from the residents who live in this area.
QiJESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MF_MBERS OF THE BOARD
McClatchey said that the site plan shows a lot of parking spaces and asphalt. Has the Petitioner
considered drainage detention. Gerstad said there �s ample room for detention on this site. The
engineering for the project would address this issue. Loba�to said that all projects in excess of 2.5
acres are reyuired to submit engineering and this would be one of the items considered.
McClatchey asked what type of signs would be proposed. Gerstad said there would be office park
signs at the entry from Route 31. There would also be identification signs for each of the two
principal buildings.
�
Christensen said with regard to the permitted uses in the O-2 District, does the Petitioner know
the number of units which will be located on this project. Gerstad said there would be
approximately ?8,000 square feet between the two buildings. The number of units is dependent
- Page 3
ZBA-MSB 1231 l/Gerstad
12/5/94
� upon the needs of tenants. Christensen said, looking at the list of permitted uses in this district,
restaurants and donut shops are permitted. Does the Petitioner anticipate having this type of use
at this site. What types of uses would the Petitioner anticipate would be renting at this facility.
Gerstad said he would set the tone of the overall project such that there would probably not be
a restaurant in this complex. A variety of uses are needed to make the project work.
Semrow asked if the Petitioner would be leasing to commercial tenants whose uses would be
permitted in the O-2 District. Gerstad said probably not. There may be some, but most
commercial users would require a higher traffic area to be competitive. This project is not located
along the highway and would not be conducive to the success of commercial enterprise.
Semrow said with regard to the topography of the site and the slope toward the highway, how
would the Petitioner prevent surface water run-off onto Route 31. Gerstad said the engineering
would address this issue. Lobaito said that it is a required part of the permitting process for
projects in excess of 2.5 acres to submit engineering, including detention for surface water run-off.
Lobaito said that whether the run-off is piped or an open drainage ditch is used, the drainage will
be taken care of so that it is not released from this site at a rate higher than it currenUy is being
released.
Semrow asked if the land to the south of this project is developed as residential. Gerstad said it
is vacant at this time. Semrow asked if the Petitioner was planning to lease or sell as
condominiums the units of these two buildings, Gerstad said he is not certain at this time.
Lovett asked if the Petitioner would landscape and screen as required by ordinance. Lovett was
especially concerned about the west property line. The parking lot closest to Route 3] should be
� screened with a herm and plantings. Lobaito said that the Petitioner has not asked for a variance
as to the screening, parking and/or landscaping requirements of the ordinance. He will have to
comply with what is required, including the berm on the west property line.
Tobeck asked what the accessory building would be used for. Gerstad said it would be used to
store maintenance equipment for this project. Tobeck said she is concerned regarding traffic
turning south on Route 31 from this site at 5 p.m. Gerstad said they would have to wait for a
break in the traffic to be abie to exit to the south. There is a suicide lane in the center of 31 at
this location. Christensen asked if the landscaping would be maintained by the Petitioner or by
the state along Route 31. Lobaito said the landscaping located on private �roperty would be
maintained by the property owner.
Semrow asked if there would be an illuminated parking lot. Would the lights be on all night?
Gerstad said the parking lot would be lit all night for security reasons. Semrow said he was
concerned about the lighting being a disturbance to adjacent residents. Gerstad said that the
topography is such that the neighbors to the east would be at a higher etevation than the parking
lot and there should be no problem with the lights shining on their homes. The lights nearest to
the neighbors to the north would be directed away from the residents so as not to cause a problem
with light pollution for them.
Christensen asked if storm water wc�uld be managed. He said he believed there were some
wetlands adjacent to the south. Lobaito said all storm water management must be handled on-site.
The Petitioner could not intensify or increase the rate of flow of drainage to the wetlands. The
run-off must be detained and released at the same or a reduced rate of flow from the site to all
abutting properties, including wetlands.
�- Attorney Roth submitted Petitioners Exhibits "F", "G", and "H", renderings of the pro�osed
buildings and site. These exhibits will be used to assist with the presentation of this Pet�tion
before the City Council.
Page 4
ZBA-MSB 1231 l/Gerstad
12/5/94
�' CLOSTNG STATEMENT BY PETITIONER
Attorney Roth said the timing is appropriate for this project. The Petitioner has owned this land
for several years. This proposal is in keeping with the intent of the Comprehensive Plan which
indicates this area east of Route 31 as office park. 1t would be in the City's best interest to zone
this parcel O-2 rather than permit additional growth with 9,000 square foot single family lots as
cunently permitted by the existing RS-3 zomng on this property. The Petitioner has provided
evidence which supports the reclassification of this property. The Petitioner has provided good
reasons and evidence to grant the variance which would permit the construction of two principal
buildings on this property due to the topography of the land.
Chairman Semrow said, "there being nothing further 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."
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Christensen
to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioner's request to reclassify the subject property from RS-3 Medium High Density
Single Family to O-2 Office Park be granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Zoning
Amendments, Table 33, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met; and further
to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioner's request to construct two principal buildings on the subject property be
granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Variances, Table 32, pages 377-378, of the
`, Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Christensen, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Modon carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Christensen, seconded by McClatchey to adjourn this hearing
Voting Aye: Christensen, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Tobeck.
Vodng Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Motion carried 5-0. This hearing was adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Harry S mrow, 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, Petitioner's Attorney, Building & Zoning Zoning File,
Landmark: Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-386
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 5, 1994
� CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, AN ) Z-389
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, ) CITY OF MCHENRY
FOR A TEXT AMENDMENT, PURSUANT ) TEXT AMENDMENT
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ) C-4 ZONING DISTRICT
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 petition was held on November 28, 1994, and was recessed to
this date. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:03 p.m. The following persons were
in attendance:
l. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett, Frank McClatchey, Ha.rry
Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Emil Kleemann, John Swierk.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
�,, 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
S. Petitioner: City of McHenry represented by Director of Building & Zoning Lobaito.
6. Attomey for the Petitioner: Zukowski Rogers Flood & McArdle represented by David
McArdle, 50 North Virginia St Crystal Lake Illinois 60014.
7. City Council Members: Mayor Steve Cuda, Alderman Greg Bates.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Observers/Objectors: None.
NOTIFICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 12, 1994. T'he
Publisher's Certificate of Publicadon is on file in the office of the City Clerk with regard to this
matter.
�UMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting that the Text of the Zoning Ordinance be amended to restore the
C-4 Zoning District, with its permitted and conditional uses, as it was prior to December 1993.
The Petidoners are requesting that the Text of the Zoning Ordinance be amended as follows:
A) Amend Table 6 of the Zoni.ng Ordinance for the City of McHenry with regard to the C-4
Zoning District so that it will read as follows:
`- PERMIT7'ED Use Groups (c) F,H,J,L
CONDITIONAL Use Crroups (d) G,I,K,M
Page 2
ZBA-City of McHenry
12/5/94
� B) Repeal Group L of Table 7 of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance and replace as
follows:
GROUP L: ADDITIONAL PE MITTED SES IN C-4 AND HIGHER-NUMBERED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS �
l. Off-street parking lots, public garages, or storage garages as Principal Uses.
2. Dwelling units above the ground floor in buildings with a ground floor in non-
residential use.
3. Plazas and public spaces.
4. Radio and television stations and studios.
5. Recording studios.
6. Tourist information and hospitality center.
C) Repeal Group M of Table 7 of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance and replace as
follows:
GROUP M- CONDITION I USES IN C-4 AND HIGHER-NUMBERED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
1. Convention halls.
2. Exhibit halls.
D) Delete the phrase EXCEPT C-4 from the heading for each of the following Groups in
Table 7 of the Zoning Ordinance so that they will read as follows:
�
SROUP F- PERMITTED SES IN ALL COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
�ROUP G- CONDITIONAL U�ES IN L COMMER IAL DISTRI�TS
�ROUP H- ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USES IN C-2 AND HIGHER-
NUMBERED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
GROUP I• ADDITIONAI CONDITION USES IN -2 �ND HIGHER-
NUMBERED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
�rROUP J• ADDITION PE ITTED USES IN G3 AND HIGHER-
NUMBERED COMMERCIAL DISTRI T�
GROUP K• ADDITIONAI CONDITIONAL USES IN -3 AND HIGHER-
NUMBERED COMMERCIAL DIST i TS
TESTIMONY
Attomey McArdle provided a summary of the history regarding the amendments to the zoning
ordinance regarding the C-4 Zoning District within the past year. The City Council recognizes
that certain specific uses which are currendy in existence m the downtown area are not pernutted
uses according to the zoning ordinance in rts present form. In an effort to restore the zoning
ordinance to its pre-December 1993 form, the City Council has asked the Zoning Board to consider
the Petition before them this evening.
Lobaito said that if the Petition is approved, the Zoning Ordinance would be exacdy as it was
prior to December 1993, with regard to the C-4 Zoning District. Semrow asked why the City
Council changed the list of peimitted uses in the C-4 district? Were uses added to this group?
Lobaito said that no uses were added; there were, however, certain uses which were excluded.
One of the uses which was excluded was a dry cleaner pick up/drop off site, where all processing
is done off-site. Recently, a businessman wanted to open such an establishment in the C-4
�- District. This use was no longer allowed as a permitted use, as it had been prior to December
1993. This was the circumstance that brought to the attention of the Council that perhaps there
were other uses wluch were now prohibited in the C-4 District which had previously been allowed.
The Council would like to restore all those uses which were inadvertently disallowed by ordinance
Page 3
ZBA-City of McHenry
12/5/94
`- amendment in December 1993. It is the goal of the Council to re-evalaate the C-4 District in the
near future and take a look at limiting the boundaries of this district. There was discussion at the
Council level about creating two different C-4 Zoning Districts. The Council thought that the
district requirements should be more restrictive when properties abut residential property. Although
this discussion occuned, this did not happen. Instead the Council voted to limit the uses that
would be permitted in the C-4 district. They eliminated certain uses in which they felt there was
a higher intensity, and certainly more traffic volume created. This new list of permitted uses
which was adopted in December 1993, applied to C-4 everywhere in town and not just adjacent
ta residential neighborhoods.
Lobaito said the Council now finds these permitted uses in the C-4 District to be too restrictive.
In the near future the Council will modify and spend time re-evaluating what should be permitted
in this district.
Christensen said it would be less complicated to add another group of uses which are permitted
only in the C-4 District. Lobaito said that is what the Council did the last time this came up in
December 1993. Group L and Cxroup M list all permitted and conditional uses, respectively in
the C-4 District as it stands at this moment. Christensen asked if the dry cleaning establishment
was permitted in the old C-4 District (prior to December 1993). McArdle said that it was a
permitted use prior to the change last year.
Semrow asked if the City Council has defined the downtown district? Have they set parameters
as far as permitted expansion of that district? Lobaito said they have not. Christensen said that
the purpose of the C-4 District as explained in the Comprehensive Plan appears to be ambiguous.
Is the C-4 District meant to be expanded or is it to protect and preserve the existing hxstarical
`, downtown district? Christensen said that last year the Council changed the list of permitted uses
to accommodate a particular business and now rt appears they are doing the same thing. Is it the
plan of the Council to amend the C-4 District uses each time a businessman comes before them
with a request?
Semrow said that a use being included or excluded in a particular zoning district should be
determined by how that district is defined and what boundaries it is given. Lobaito said this Board
should take a look at defining the downtown district and take a good laak at which uses are listed
as permitted and condidonal uses for this district. The Board should look at what uses presentty
exist in this area and what uses are or would be appropriate in the downtown district.
Tobeck said the downtown district is not a defined area and the Board dces not know exactly
where it is located, particularly if it is or can be expanded at any given dme. The Comprehensive
Plan is more general in its definition and boundaries. The Zoning District Map is very clear in
its delineation of this district. This is what causes so much confusion to this Board. The Zoning
Ordinance clearly states that the purpose of the C-4 I?istrict is to preserve and protect the existing
dQwntown business district. This does not mean that the existing downtown district can or should
be expanded. Lobaito said there is confusion regarding the zoning ordinance and zoning district
map, and the parameters of this disbrict as stated m the Comprehensive Plan. Semrow said one
is an ordinance and one is a plan and it is his belief that the ordinance should be followed if there
is a conflict.
Lovett said that the Council would like the Board to recommend the approval of this text
amendment, and yet they are talking about another text change soon with regard to the C-4
District. Why make this change if they are considering altering the ordinance again in the near
future? Lobaito said there is the possibility of a workshop session to iron out the problems with
`- the ordinance and the C-4 District. Semrow suggested a joint workshop session between the
Council and the Board. Semrow said he does not have a problem restoring the uses which were
prohibited by Council action last year. But to exacdy what dismict are they being restared? What
is the C-4 District? Is this an expandable area? Should this district be permitted to expand? Or,
Page 4
ZBA-City of Mc Henry
12/5/94
� is it meant for existing downtown area whose boundaries should not be expanded?
Tobeck said that the C-4 District requires no setbacks in any yard, no minimum lot size or width
and the Floor Area Ratio is 3.0 Tobeck said this is used by businesses to take advantage of the
City. When the McHenry State Bank recently expanded their facility, they were not required to
provide adequate parking for the facility. Now, they are coming before the city looking to expand
the C-4 District so that they can provide addidonal parking for this very same facility. Tobeck
said that she doesn't believe that it is the intent of the ordinance that the C-4 district should be
expanded. She said that she did not believe that the uses allowed as permitted or conditional uses
in this District should be amended each time a businessman comes to the city with a problem.
The city should decide which uses they wauld like in this district and then sdck with it.
Tobeck said that she would have no problem with expanding the C-4 District if there were setback
and parking requirements for those new uses coming in to that district as there are for all other
zoning districts in the city. Semrow said there needs to be some controls; perhaps there could be
expansion of the C-4 District as a Condidonal Use only, so that there could be some control
regarding setbacks, parking, etc. McArdle said that the 0 lot lines, no setbacks and lack of
parking requirements is appropriate for existing downtown areas; but this does not make sense for
new commercial growth in the city. Tobeck said she is against expansion of the C-4 Zoning
District. Lobaito said that is one of the things the Council will look at. Is the City going to
permit expansion of the C-4 District or not? Lobaito said he would prefer that pedtioners seek
commercial zoning (C-1,C-2 or C-3) other than C-4 for new development, rather than having two
separate sets of requirements for the C-4 District. The city should work with the districts that it
currendy has, rather than creating a new district. Tobeck said the City should protect those
businesses that are alread� located in the C-4 District; that is the purpose of the C-4 District.
`, Tobeck said she will conhnne to vote against any expansion of the C-4 District.
McArdle said that the Board may want to include in its motion that a joint meeting with the City
Council regarding the parameters of the C-4 District be considered. Semrow said the joint meeting
should help to define what the C-4 District is going to be, before deciding the uses which would
be permitted within it. It is impossible to determine the uses that should be permitted if the
district itself has not been clearly defined.
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 motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a modon with regard to
the Petition."
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by McClatchey to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioner's request to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to restore the C-4
District as it was prior to December 1993 as stated in the summary of this report be
granted; and that the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments, Table 33, page 401 of the
Zoning Qrdinance has been met.
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Modon by McClatchey, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
�
Page 5
ZBA-City of McHenry
12/5/94
`-' the Petitioner's request to amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance to restore the C-4
District as it was prior to December 1993 be granted as follows:
A) Amend Table 6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of McHenry with regard to
the C-4 Zoning District so that it will read as foliows:
PERMITTED Use Groups (c) F,H,J,L
CONDITIONAL Use Groups (d) G,I,K,M
B) Repeal Group L of Table 7 of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance and replace
as follows:
GROUP L• ADDITIONAL PFRMITTED USES IN C-4 AND HIGHER
�1UMBERED COMMERCIAL DISTRI TS
1. Off-street parking lots, public garages, or storage garages as Principal Uses.
2. Dwelling units above the ground floor in buildings with a ground floor in non-
residential use.
3. Plazas and public spaces.
4. Radio and television stations and studios.
5. Recording studios.
6. Tourist information and hospitality center.
C) Repeal Crroup M of Table 7 of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance and replace
as follows:
�
GROUP M- CONDITIONAL U ES IN C-4 AND HIGHER-NUMBERED
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
1. Convention halls.
2. Exhibit halls.
D) Delete the phrase EXCEPT C-4 from the heading for each of the following Groups
in Table 7 of the Zoning Ordinance so that they will read as follows:
GROUP F• PERMITTED USES IN ALL OMMERCIAL DI TRICTS
GROUP G- CONDITIONAL USES IN L OMMERCIAL DI T i(`TS
GROUP H- A�DITIONAI PER1yIITTED USES IN C-2 AND HI HER-
NUMBERED COMMERCIAL DI TRICTS
�iROUP I• ADDITION i CONDITIONAL ES IN C-2 ND HI HER-
NUMBERED COMMER IAL DISTRi_CTS
GROUP J- ADDITIONAI PERMITTED USES IN C-3 AND HI HER
NUMBERED COMMERCI DI TRICT
GrROUP K- ADDITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE IN C-3 AND HI iHER
NUMBERED COMMERC AL DISTRICTS;
that the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments, Table 33, page 401, of the Zoning
Ordinance has been met; and that the City Council consider hosting a joint meeting with
the Zoning Board in the future for the purpose of discussing the C-4 Zoning District.
Voting Aye: Christensen, McClatchey, Semrow.
'�-- Voting Nay: Lovett, Tobeck.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: Nane.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Page 6
ZBA-Ciry of McHenry
12//5/94
�— Motion failed 3-2.
There will be no recommendation to the City Council as there was not a majority of the members
of the Board voting in favor of the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this matter, this hearing was
adjourned at 7:32 p.m.
Respectfully sub itted,
�
Harry e •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, Petitioner's Attomey, Building & Zoning Zoning File,
Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-389
�
�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
DECEMBER 5, 1994
`' CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF THE MCHENRY ELEMENTARY ) Z-390
SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 AND MCHENRY ) MCHENRY SCHOOL DISTRICT 15 AND
PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT FOR A ) MCHENRY PUBLIC LIBRARY DISTRICT
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, )
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ) 1011 NORTH GREEN ST
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
COUNTY, ILLINOIS. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-capdoned petition was held on December 5, 1994. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at 7:41 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Chuck Lovett, Frank McClatchey, Harry
Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Emil Kleemann, John Swierk.
2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
�„ 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioners: McHenry School District 15, represented by Supt. William Dodds and Board
Member Chris Cardamone, 3926 West Main Street, McHenry Illinois 60050; and McHenry
Public Library District, represented by Judith Moore, President of Board of Trustees, 1011
North Green Street, McHenry Illinois 60050.
6. Attomey for the Petitioner: None.
7. City Council Members: Mayor Steve Cuda, Alderman Greg Bates.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Observers/Objectors: None.
NOTIFICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 18, 1994. The
Publisher's Certificate of Publicadon is on file in the office of the City Clerk with regard to this
matter. All abutting property owners of record have been notified of these proceedings as stated
in an affidavit which has been executed and is on file in the office of the City Clerk. For the
record, there is on file in the office of the City Clerk a letter authorizing the school district to seek
the Conditional Use permit for the subject property which is owned at this time by the McHenry
Public Library.
LOCATION
The property which is the subject of this petition is located at 1011 North Crreen Street McHenry
`-- Illinois 60050.
Page 2
ZBA-District 15�Library
12/5/94
�' �UMMARY
The Petidoners are requesting that the subject property be granted a conditional use permit to a11ow
the operation of an educational insdtution use as an admuiistrative office for McHenry School
District 15.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioners:
1) William Dodds, 3926 West Main Street McHenry Illinois 60050
2) Judith Moore, 1011 North Green Street McHenry Illinois 60050.
Dodds said District 15 intends to purchase the subject property if the requested conditional use
permit is ganted. The building currendy houses the McHenry Publie Library which is moving
to another location on Route 31. District 15 offices are presendy located at 3926 West Main
Street in conjunction with offices for District 156. The conditions at that site are very crowded
both inside and outside. There is very little parking available. Dodds indicated that there are
presendy 11 fulltime and 4 parttime employees of District 15 who would work out of this facility.
Dodds estimated that there would be an average of 10 individuals per day coming or going from
this particular facility. There would be some meetings held on site, but overall there would be
less vehicular and pedestrian traffic on the site than there is at the present time using the library.
Dodds said he believes the move of District 15 into this site would have a posidve impact on the
area. No doubt, it will alleviate some of the parking problems on Main Street because District
15 employees will no longer be parking there.
�
QUESTIONS OF THE WITNE BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
McClatchey said that this would be a great move out of the congested area of Main Street. This
move will serve the public well.
Lovett asked if there are any plans for exterior remodeling of this building. Dodds said the
building would be trimmed up and the shutters would be replaced. No other exterior renovations
are planned.
Lobaito asked Dodds the hours of operadon. Dodds said the offices would be open from 7:30
a.m. - 4 p.m., although there may be some evening meetings. The Board meets twice monthly.
One of those meetings each month would be held at this facility. These meetings would end at
approlcimately midnight. Occasionally, there may be other smaller meetings (less than 10 persons
in attendance) being held, but they would be over by approximately 9 p.m.
Semrow asked the number of existing parking spaces on this site. Dodds said there are 18 spaces;
this should be adequate for staff and visrtors. Christensen asked if the new parking ban on streets
abutting East Campus would affect the required parking for this building. Dodds said that for the
most part the 1 S spaces should be adequate. There would still be some parking on the north side
of Main Street although the time may be limited.
CLOSING STATEMFNT BY PETITION�R
Dodds said that District 15 is hoping to close on this transaction with the Library by the end of
the month, before the new year begins. The School District is asking for the City's approval of
the requested conditional use permit.
`— Chairman Semrow said, "there being nothing further before this Board with regard to this matter,
the Board will a�nsider the Petition 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-District 15/Library
12/5/94
�"' DELIBERATION AND R�COMMENDATION
Motion by Christensen, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioners' request for a conditional use permit to allow the operation of an educational
institudon use as an administrative office be granted; and that the Approval Criteria for
Condidonal Uses, Table 31, pages 357-358 of the Zoning Ordinance, have been met.
Voting Aye: Christensen, L.ovett, McClatchey, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Motion carried S-0.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Semrow said there being nothing further before this Board with regard to this matter,
this hearing is adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully su mitted,
Harry e ow, Chauman
\.. Zon' Board of Appeals
c: Agenda, 7oning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director
of Building & 2oning, Public Works Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers,
Aldermen Reference Copy, Pedtioner's Attomey, Building & Zoning Zoning File,
Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-390
�.