HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 10/14/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
�- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF THE BLAKE FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED ) BLAKE FAMILY LTD/LEISURE INKS
PARTNERSHIP, AND EDWARD AND ) 2107 N RICHMOND ROAD
ETHEL BLAKE, FOR A MAP AMENDMENT ) RECLASSIFICATION C-3 TO GS
PURSUANT 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 petition was held on November 14, 1994. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
l. Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Chuck Lovett (appointed to Board on November
2, 1994), Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen,
John Swierk.
2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle and Kelly A. Cahill.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
_ 4. Director of Building & Zoning: Absent.
`- 5. City Administrator: Gerald Peterson.
6. Petitioners: Blake Family Limited Partnership represented by Edward and Ethel Blake,
1408 North Millstream Dnve, McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. Attorney for the Petitioner: Rupp & Youman, represented by Guy Youman, 4302-C West
Crystal Lake Road, McHenry Illinois 60050.
8. City Council Members: Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger, Alderman Locke, City Clerk
Althoff.
9. Court Reporter: None.
10. Observers/Objectors:
l. Brad Kaplan, (Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell Ltd) One East Wacker Drive, Chicago
IL 60601.
2. Kelly Arcaro (MAAMCO), Second Mid-America Plaza, Suite 330, Oak brook Terrace
IL 60181.
3. Richard Blake, 3903 Oak Avenue McHenry IL 60050.
4. Dan Blake, 1125 Candlewood, Downer's Grove IL 60515.
5. Joan Chase, 128 Crest Avenue Elk Grove Village IL 60007.
fi. Mr & Mrs Mel Long, 3308 Chestnut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
7. Kelly Tarzian, 1910 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
8. Greg Lundberg, 200b Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
9. Thomas Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
�..
11. Objectors: None.
Page 2
ZBA-Blake/Leisure Links
11/14/94
�— I�OTIFICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on October 28, 1994. 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 the hearing via certified mailing and the
subject property was posted as required by ordinance. An affidavit of service as to all of the
above requirements is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
LOCATION
The subject property is located at 2107 North Richmond Road and is comprised of approximately
15 acres. The Leiswe Links Miniature Golf and Batting Cages are located on this site.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting that the subject property be reclassified from its current zoning of
C-3 Community Commercial District to C-5 Highway Commercial District.
TESTIMONY
Attomey Youman stated that the subject property is the site of an e�cisdng miniature golf and
batking cages which is an outdoor amusement establishment. This existing use fits into the C-5
Commercial zoning district as a conforming conditional use. It is not an appropriate use in the
C-3 district. The parcel is approximately 15 acres in size. There are no plans to change the use
or to fiu�ther develop this property at this dme.
There were no questions by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
S�UESTIONS BY OBSERVERS
� Kelly Arcaro: What is the acreage of both parcels owned by the Blake Family Limited
Partnership? Youman said the miniature golf is 15 acres; the parcel immediately to the north is
43 acres. Total acreage is 58 acres.
Thomas Loftus: Why is the Petidoner seeking GS zoning rather than C-3 or something less
expansive? Youman said the C-5 zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the
City of McHenry which designates this area as a commercial hub. Loftus asked if the Petitioners
have taken into consideration that this is a residential neighborhood and that they are asking for
a more intense commercial use than presendy e�sts along Route 31 in the immediate vicinity of
this property? Youman said that the C-5 designation is consistent with the Plan of the City.
Semrow said that the more objectionable uses permitted in the GS district are permitted as
conditional uses only and would require additional hearings and testimony before this Board as well
as the City Council before being granted. In addition, these condidonal uses may require that
certain conditions be met and adhered to before such uses would be granted by the City. That is
the nature of a conditional use.
STATEMENTS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTORS
Chaimlan Semrow swore in each of the following Observers/Objectors prior to their making the
following statements:
Thomas �,oftus: "We understand and appreciate the fact that this properly lends itself to
commercial zoning. We ask that plans be shown to us before this property is developed and this
zoning is grantecl. Why is the City willing to grant blanket commercial zoning upon annexation?
It is inappropriate to give the most permissive commercial zoning without a development plan of
this property and to give C-5 zoning with no controls in place."
�-- Chairman Semrow said, "there being no fi�rther testimony before this Board with regard to this
matter, the Board will consider this 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 this Petition."
Page 3
ZBA-Blake/Leisure Links
11/14/94
�— DELIBERATION AND COMMENDATION
Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioners' request that the subject property be reclassified from C-3 to C-5 be granted;
and that Table 33, The Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning
Ordinance, has been met.
Voting Aye: Kleemann, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow.
Voting Nay: Tobeck.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Christensen, Swierk.
Motion carried 4-1.
Tobeck stated that blanket zoning of C-5 Highway Commercial in this area is too broad and that
is the reason she voted no on the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing fiuther with regard to this matter before this Board, this hearing was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
espectfu ly ub 'tted,
Harry S ow, Chairman
�..
Zoning ard of Appeals
c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director
of Building & Zoning, Pubhc Works Administration, City Attomey, City Engineers,
Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner's Attomey, Observers (9), Building & Zoning Zoning
File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-388(0)
NOTE:
THIS MATTER WILL BE BR�UGHT
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON
WEDNESDAY
Nov 30, i994
7:30 P.M.
CITY +�OUNCIL CHAMBERS
�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
�-- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF THE BLAKE FAMILY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP, AN ILLINOIS LIMITED ) BLAKE FAMILY LTD
PARTNERSHIP, AND EDWARD AND ) PIN #09-23-300-017
ETHEL BLAKE, FOR A MAP AMENDMENT )
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ) RECLASSIFICATION TO C-5
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) UPON ANNEXATION
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 November 14, 1994. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Chuck Lovett (appointed to Board on November
2, 1994), Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen,
John Swierk.
2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle and Kelly A. Cahill.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: Absent.
�'' S. City Administrator: Gerald Peterson.
6. Petitioners: Blake Family Limited Partnership represented by Edward and Ethel Blake,
1408 North Millstream Dnve, McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. Attomey for the Petitioner: Rupp & Youman, represented by Guy Youman, 4302-C West
Crystal Lake Road, McHenry Illinois 60050.
8. City Council Members: Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger, Alderman Locke, City Clerk
Althoff.
9. Court Reporter: None.
10. Observers/Obj ectors:
1. Brad Kaplan, (Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell Ltd) One East Wacker Drive, Chicago
IL 60601.
2. Kelly Arcaro (MAAMCO), Second Mid-America Plaza, Suite 330, Oak brook Terrace
IL 60181.
3. Richard Blake, 3903 Oak Avenue McHenry IL 60050.
4. Dan Blake, 1125 Candlewood, Downer's Grove IL 60515.
5. Joan Chase, 128 Crest Avenue Elk Grove Village IL 60007.
6. Mr & Mrs Mel Long, 3308 Chestnut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
7. Kelly Tarzian, 1910 Birch Iane McHenry IL 60050.
8. Greg Lundberg, 2006 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
9. Thomas Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
�
11. Objectors: None.
Page 2
ZBA-Blake Family Ltd
11/14/94
`-' NOTIFYCATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on October 28, 1994. 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 the hearing via certified mailing and the
subject property was posted as required by ordinance. An affidavit of service as to all of the
above requuements is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
LOCATION
The subject property is located on the west side of Route 31, north of McCullom Lake Road and
is not presently contained within the corporate boundary of the City of McHenry. The Property
Index Number is 09-23300-017 and is comprised of approximately 43 acres.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting that the subject property be reclassified from its current zoning of
A-1 pursuant to the McHenry County Zoning Ordinance to GS Highway Commercial District
pwsuant to the City of McHenry Zonmg Ordmance, upon annexation to the City of McHenry.
TESTIMONY
Attorney Youman stated that the subject property is immediately north of the site of an existing
miniature golf and batting cages known as Leisure Links. The e�sting use of the subject property
is agriculture; the land is being farmed. The proposed zoning reclassification would fit in
harmoniously with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of McHenry which designates this area
as a commercial hub. There are no plans to change the use or to develop this property at this
time.
� There were no quesdons by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
QUESTIONS BY OBSERVERS
Kelly Arcaro: What is the acreage of both parcels owned by the Blake Family Limited
Partnershig? Youman said the miniature golf is 15 acres; the parcel immediately to the north is
43 acres. Total acreage is 58 acres.
Thomas Loftus: Why is the Petitioner seeking C-5 zoning rather than C-3 or something less
expansive? Youman said the GS zoning district is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the
City of McHenry� which designates this area as a commercial hub. Loftus asked if the Pedtioners
have taken into consideration that this is a residential neighborhood and that they are asking for
a more intense commercial use than presendy exists along Route 31 in the immediate vicinity of
this property? Youman said that the C-5 designation is consistent with the Plan of the City.
Semrow said that the more objectionable uses permitted in the GS district are permitted as
conditional uses only and would require additional hearings and testimony before this Board as well
as the City Council before being granted. In addition, these conditional uses may require that
certain conditions be met and adhered to before such uses would be granted by the City. That is
the nature of a conditional use.
�TATEMENTS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTORS
Chairman Semrow swore in each of the following Observers/Objectors prior to their making the
following statements:
�'homas, Loftus: "We understand and appreciate the fact that this properiy lends itself to
commercial zoning. We ask that plans be shown to us before this property is developed and this
zoning is granted. Why is the City willing to grant blanket commercial zoning upon annexation?
`-- It is mappropriate to give the most permissive commercial zoning without a development plan of
this property and to give GS zoning with no controls in place."
Page 3
ZBA-Blake Family Ltd
11/14/94
�— Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to this
matter, the Board will consider this Petition at this dme, 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 this Petition."
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Tobeck, seconded by McClatchey to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioners' request that the subject property be reclassified from A-1 pursuant to the
McHenry County Zoning Ordinance to C-5 Highway Commercial upon annexation to the
City of McHenry, be granted; and that Table 33, The Approval Criteria for Zoning
Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met.
Voting Aye: Kleemann, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow.
Voting Nay: Tobeck.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Christensen, Swierk.
Motion carried 4-1.
Tobeck stated that blanket zoning of C-5 Highway Commercial in this area is too broad and that
is the reason she voted no on the motion.
ADJOURNMENT
� There being nothing further with regard to this matter before this Board, this hearing was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respec Ily bmitted,
Harry e ow, Chairman
Zoni Board of Appeals
c: Agenda, 'Loning Board of Appeals (7), Plan Commission (7), City Administrator, Director
of Building & Zoning, Public Works Administration, Ciry Attorney, City Engineers,
Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner's Attorney, Observers (9), Building & Zonuig Zoning
File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-388(1)
NOTE:
THIS MATTER WILL BE BROUGHT
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON
WEDNESDAY
NOVEMBER 30, 1994
`" 7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
`— IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF MCHENRY STATE BANK, AS TRUSTEE ) Z-388(3)
UNDER A TRUST AGREEMENT DATED ) MSB TRUST Nb 1691
DECEMBER 9, 1981, AND KNOWN AS ) BERNIECE PETERSON
TRUST NO. 1691, FOR A MAP ) PIN #09-23-200-007 & 09-23-100-008
AMENDMENT, PURSUANT TO THE ) RECLASSIFICATION TO GS
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) UPON ANNEXATION
MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, )
ILLINUIS. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on November 14, 1994. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Chuck Lovett (appointed to Board on November
2, 1994), Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen,
John Swierk.
2. Attomey for Zoning Board: David McArdle and Kelly A. Cahill.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
� 4. Director of Building & Zoning: Absent.
5. City Administrator: Gerald Peterson.
6. Petitioners: McHenry State Bank Trust No. 1691 represented by Berniece Peterson and
other beneficial owners of said trust, 1639 Park Street, McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. Attorney for the Petitioner: Militello, Zanck and Coen, represented by Mark Saladin, 40
Brink Street, Crystal Lake Illinois 60014.
8. City Council Members: Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger, Alderman Locke, City Clerk
Althoff.
9. Court Reporter: None.
10. Observers/Objectors:
1. Brad Kaplan, (Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell Ltd) One East Wacker Drive, Chicago
IL 60601.
2. Kelly Arcaro (MAAMCO), Second Mid-America Plaza, Suite 330, Oak brook Terrace
IL 60181.
3. Richard Blake, 3903 Oak Avenue McHenry IL 60050.
4. Dan Blake, 1125 Candlewood, Downer's Grove IL 60515.
5. Joan Chase, 128 Crest Avenue Elk Grove Village IL 60007.
b. Mr & Mrs Mel Long, 3308 Chestnut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
7. Kelly Tarzian, 1910 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
8. Greg Lundberg, 2006 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
`-- 9. Thomas Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
Page 2
ZBA-MSB 1691/Peterson
11/14/94
�-- 11. Objectors:
l. Thomas Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
2. Lisa Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
3. Cynthia Knox, 2411 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
NOTIFICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on October 28, 1994. 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 nodfied of the hearing via certified mailing and the
subject property was posted as required by ordinance. An affidavit of service as to all of the
above requirements is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
LOCATION
The subject property is located both east and west of Route 31, north of McCullom Lake Road
and is not presently contained within the corporate boundary of the City of McHenry. The
Property Index Numbers are 09-23-200-007 and 09-23-100-008 is comprised of approximately 60
acres.
SUMMARY
The Petidoners are requesting that the subject property be reclassified from its current zoning of
A-1 pursuant to the McHenry County Zoning Ordinance to GS Highway Commercial District
pursuant to the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance, upon annexation to the City of McHenry.
TESTIMONY
Attomey Saladin stated that the subject property is being used for crops and that it is not improved
� with any shvctures at this time. This property is currendy under the jurisdiction af McHenry
County and is in the process of being annexed to the City of McHenry. Saladin pointed out that
the property immediately to the east of the eastemmost portion of the subject property has recendy
been annexed to the Village of Johnsburg. The proposed zoning reclassification is compatible with
the elcisting land uses and trend of development in this area along Route 31. Commercial zoning
along Route 31 and along the proposed FAP-420, located immediately to the south of this
property, makes good sense. Any other zoning would not be appropriate adjacent to the proposed
tollway (FAP-420).
There were no quesdons by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
QUESTIONS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTORS
Joe Perez: What consideradon has been given to the abutting residential properties and the less
expansive C-3 zoning which abuts this property. Saladin said the trend of development along the
tollway indicates this should be commercial hub. Perez asked if the trend of commercial
development in this area is C-3 rather than C-5. Saladin said the Comprehensive Plan designates
this area as commercial hub.
Greg Lundberg: Could you give us a list of permitted C-S uses and conditional uses which would
be permitted if this zoning is granted. Semrow said there would be numerous uses permitted
inasmuch as the uses permitted in each commercial district are cumulative. Semrow explained the
procedure for issuance of condidonal use permit for the benefit of the observers.
Joe Perez: If C-3 zoning were granted at this time, could the Pedtioners ultimately come back
and ask for C-5 zoning? Could C-3 zoning be granted at this time and give them C-5 later if they
should need it? Semrow said that the Board must consider only the Petition which is before them
`-- at this time. The Petition specifically asks for C-5 zoning.
Page 3
ZBA-MSB 1691/Peterson
11/14/94
�-�' Melvin Long: Where are these properties contiguous to existing City property? Administrator
Peterson explained that there are currently petitions on file to annex each of the subject properties.
However, each property will reach contiguity mdependendy. If a property is not condguous to
the City, it would not be possible to annex it. Condguity would be achieved at each stage so that
each parcel would be annexed independendy and be contiguous to the City.
Greg Lundberg: If this proposed zoning fails before the City, would this property be annexed as
GS to Johnsburg? Saladin said he is not aware of any potential negodations on the part of his
client with the Village of Johnsburg at this time.
Lisa Loftus: How is C-5 compadble when existing uses in the area are agricultural and C-3
Commercial? Saladin said this is a commercial hub as designated on the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
Greg Lundberg: My house is located in the midst of this commercial hub; how can this be
explained. Peterson said that the delineadon on the development map for the Comprehensive Plan
is not exact. The Lundberg house is located in the residential district.
Douglas Knox: With regard to the C-5 zoning, I understand commercial being located along Route
31, but not adjacent to Riverside Drive. Peterson said it will be up to the city to delineate the
boundary for how far east and how far west of Route 31 this proposed commercial hub should be
located. Semrow asked the distance between the west boundary of Mr. Knox's property and the
easternmost boundary of the subject property. Saladin said it appeared to be about '755 feet.
Knox said he is concerned regarding the depth of the commercial district along Route 31.
� Thomas Loftus: Is it right for the Petitioners to request C-5 zoning if this area is in fact shown
as commercial hub on the comprehensive plan? According to the plan, the related zoning districts
for commercial hub are C-3 and C-4. McArdle said that does not mean that only C-3 and C-4
zoning districts are found in the areas designated as commercial hub within the city. The
Comprehensive Plan is not exclusive in that area.
John Lykouretzos: We see the back of K Mart. We don't want to see the back of other buildings
adjacent to our property, in the back yard where we live. Why bring this commercial district
adjacent to our back yard?
Melvin Long: The south property line of this property borders on the Oaks of McHenry, a
residential district and the Oaks Park. Would there be any proposed buffer between the park and
this commercial property? Saladin said there are provisions in the zoning ordinance for commercial
property abutting a less mtense use such as residential or a park. The developers would have to
conform to the requirements of the ordinance. Long asked Saladin if his clients intended to
develop this property. Saladin said they are not the developers.
Douglas Knox: If the Petitioners were to request C-3 rather than C-5 zoning, would this fit into
the commercial hub designation as shown in the Comprehensive Plan? Knox said he is not
disputing that the Petitioners are seeking C-5 zoning, but why not go for C-3, if this would fit into
the commercial hub designation as well? Semrow said that unless the Board is petitioned to zone
the property C-3, the Board can not look at the C-3 zoning for this property. The Board must
make a recommendation on the Petition which is before them and that is for C-5 zoning.
Diane Hesch: Would it be possible to zone half of the property C-5 and half of it something else,
such as residential. Semrow said the Petitioner has asked for C-5 zoning for the entire parcel.
�— Hesch asked if the Board could recommend that half be zoned C-S and half be zoned less than C-
S. McArdle said that each recommendation would be for or against the Petition which has been
presented. The Petitioner does not seek half C-5 zoning and half something less; therefore this
could not be in the recommendation.
Page 4
ZBA-MSB 1691/Peterson
11/14/94
`- �TATEMENTS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTORS
Chairman Semrow swore in each of the following Observers/Objectors prior to their making the
following statements:
Gre,g�}ndberQ: "The Petitioners are trying to conform to the City's Plan. I would hope that
some property owners may consider a re-petition. We are more concerned about the property
adjacent to my property, not the property which is adjacent to Route 31. The zoning may benefit
some of the city, but it will not benefit me. My concems are:
1. Increased danger to my children due to the increased traffic flow in the area as a result of
commercial development.
2. Increase in crime in the area.
3. Decline in property values for homes in our subdivision.
4. Increase in noise pollution.
5. Increase in trash blowing onto my properiy.
6. Increased lighting in the area; light pollution in my neighborhood.
"I don't mind commercial development, but not right alongside my home. I would like to see
them re-Petition with not so extreme a commercial development."
rad lan: "I represent Signa Corporation which is in the process of foreclosing on vacant
properties m the Oaks of McHenry. Any adjacent land should be developed as per the existing
development scheme - residential. We will be vigorously seeking relief as to setbacks,
landscaping, etc. for anything but residential when developed adjacent to our property."
Joe Perez: "We are concerned regarding the GS commercial zoning. we would like to see this
� property annexed to the city. But, C-5 zoning is too broad. If commercial zoning is granted, we
would prefer C-3 zoning here. This would be consistent with the existing zoning already in
existence in this area."
Thomas Loftus: "We understand that the property along Route 31 will go commercial. We would
like to state that blanket C-5 zoning is too broad. We would like to see the Petitioners come back
before this board for any permitted or conditional uses in the C-5 district. We believe these
parcels should be brought into the city as a PUD. There could then be some C-5 uses, but the
PUD could assure that there would be buffers in place to protect the residential properties and less
intense uses from the granted C-5 uses. What is the intent of the commercial hub? Is C-5
permitted in the commercial hub; are just C-3 and C-4 zoning districts permitted in the commercial
hub? If this proposal came back to this Board as a PUD, we could all provide good input. There
are concerns regarding the wedands in these properties. I ask that you not grant this blanket
zoning request."
Douglas Knox: "The proposal is for C-5 blanket zoning. Parts of this proposal are in line with
the comprehensive plan and parts of it are not. If the Petitioners were to come back before this
Board and there was consideration given to the adjacent residential development, there would be
less objection to the project. We do no object to the commercial along Route 31. We object to
the fact that it will be adjacent to residential development along Riverside Drive and the Oaks of
McHenry. We would prefer McHenry to have control of this development. However, if McHenry
grants ttus C-5 commercial zoning, we would prefer to have the Village of Johnsbwg control this
property. We would prefer residential development adjacent to existing residential development
along Riverside Drive and that seems to be what Johnsbwg is promoting. We ask you to turn
down this request for rezoning."
�— CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONERS
Attomey Saladin said the Pedtioners are requesting that the subject property be granted GS zoning
upon annexation to the City of McHenry. If the annexation is approved by the City Council, then
C-5 zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of McHenry. This
Page 5 �
ZBA-MSB 1691,�Peterson
11/14/94
�-- property is adjacent to the designated right of way for FAP-420. This fact makes this property
unique. This would increase property values and increase sales tu� base if this property were used
for commercial enterprise. The city should take a hard look at those uses that are permitted in
the C-5 zoning district. There are not that many addidonal uses permitted in the C-5 district
which are not permitted in the C-3 district. Your Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
recommend approval of their request to reclassify the subject property to C-5 upon annexation to
the City of McHenry.
DELIBERATION �ND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
the Pedtioners' request that the subject property be reclassified from A-1 pursuant to the
McHenry County Zoning Ordinance to C-5 Highway Commercial upon annexation to the
City of McHenry, be granted; and that Table 33, The Approval Criteria for Zoning
Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met.
Vodng Aye: I�leemann, Lovett, McClatchey, Semrow.
Voting Nay: Tobeck.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Christensen, 5wierk.
Motion carried 4-1.
ADJOURNMENT
� There being nothing further with regard to this matter before this Board, this hearing was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Re ctfully itted,
Harry ow, Chairman
Zonin oard of Appeals
c: Agenda, 7oning 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, Observers/Objectors (10), Building &
Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chauman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-388(3)
NOTE:
THIS MATTER WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL ON
WEDNESDAY
NOVEMBER 30, 1994
�
7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 14, 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
`-- IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF MCHENRY STATE BANK, AS TRUSTEE ) Z-388(4)
UNDER A TRUST AGREEMENT DATED ) MSB TRUST NO 4714
JULY 17, 1989, AND KNOWN AS ) FLORENCE BLAKE
TRUST NO. 4714, FOR A MAP ) PIN #09-23-400-004 & 09-23-400-017
AMENDMENT, PURSUANT TO THE ) RECLASSIFICATION TO C-5
ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ) UPON ANNEXATION
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 14, 1994. Chairman Semrow
called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following persons were in attendance:
L Zoning Board Members: Emil Kleemann, Chuck Lovett (appointed to Board on November
2, 1994), Frank McClatchey, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Randy Christensen,
John Swierk.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle and Kelly A. Cahill.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
� 4. Director of Building & Zoning: Absent.
5. City Administrator: Gerald Peterson.
6. Petitioners: McHenry State Bank Trust No. 4714 represented by Florence Blake as
beneficial owner of said trust, 1307 North Richmond Road, Apartment E, McHenry Illinois
60050.
7. Attomey for the Petitioner: Militello, Zanck and Coen, represented by Mark Saladin, 40
Brink Street, Crystal Lake Illinois 60014.
8. City Council Members: Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger, Alderman Locke, City Clerk
Althoff.
9. Court Reporter: None.
10. Observers/Objectors:
l. Brad Kaplan, (Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell Ltd) One East Wacker Drive, Chicago
IL 60601.
2. Kelly Arcaro (MAAMCO), Second Mid-America Plaza, Suite 330, Oak brook Tenace
IL 60181.
3. Richard Blake, 3903 Oak Avenue McHenry IL 60050.
4. Dan Blake, 1125 Candlewood, Downer's Grove IL 60515.
5. Joan Chase, 128 Crest Avenue Elk Grove Village IL 60007.
6. Mr & Mrs Mel Long, 3308 Chestnut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
7. Kelly Tarzian, 1910 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
�-- 8. Greg I,undberg, 2006 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
9. Thomas Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
Page 2
ZBA-MSB 4714i Florence Blake
11/14/94
`- 11. Objectors:
1. Thomas Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
2. Lisa Loftus, 2501 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
3. Cynthia Knox, 2411 N Riverside Drive McHenry IL 60050.
4. Greg Lundberg, 2006 Birch L.ane McHenry IL 60050.
5. Kelly Tarzian, 1910 Birch L,ane McHenry IL 60050.
6. Mr & Mrs Melvin Long, 3308 Chesmut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
7. Brad Kaplan, (Masuda, Funai, Eifert & Mitchell Ltd) One East Wacker Drive, Chicago
IL 60601.
8. Ken Ohm, 1911 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
9. Charlie Schrei, 1906 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
10.Diane Schrei, 1906 Birch Lane McHenry IL 60050.
11.Joyce Craig, 1910 Pine Drive McHenry IL 60050.
12.Calvin Craig, 1910 Pine Drive McHenry IL 60050.
13.Jim Schneider, 1912 Redwood Drive McHenry IL 60050.
14.Joe Perez, 1915 Pine Drive McHeruy IL 60050.
15.Craig Chapa, 2002 Fine Drive McHenry IL 60050.
16.Lillie Chapa, 2002 Pine Drive McHenry IL 60050.
17.Debra Cudak, 3318 Chestnut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
18.Mark Cudak, 3318 Chestnut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
19.Gary Braaten, 1914 Redwood Drive McHenry IL 60050.
20.John Lykouretzos, 1915 Redwood Drive McHenry IL 60050.
21.Douglas Knox, 3316 Chestnut Drive McHenry IL 60050.
NOTIFICATION
� Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on October 28, 1994. 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 the hearing via certified mailing and the
subject property was posted as required by ordinance. An affidavit of service as to all of the
above requuements is on file in the office of the City Clerk.
LOCATION
The subject property is located east of Route 31, north of McCullom Lake Road and is not
presendy contained within the corporate boundary of the City of McHenry. The Property Index
Numbers are 09-23-400-004 and 09-23-400-017 is comprised of approximately 88 acres.
SUMMARY
The Petidoners are requesting that the subject property be reclassified from its current zoning of
A-1 pursuant to the McHenry County Zoning Ordinance to C-5 Highway Commercial District
pursuant to the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance, upon annexation to the City of McHenry.
TESTIMONY
Attorney Saladin stated that the subject property is being used for crops, a single family residence
and a vegetable retail business. This property is currendy under the jurisdiction of McHenry
County and is in the process of being annexed to the City of McHenry. Saladin pointed out that
the subject property is unique in that it is bisected by the proposed FAP-420, a state tollway. The
proposed zoning reclassification is compatible with the existing land uses and trend of development
m ttus area along Route 31. Commercial zoning along Route 31 and along the proposed FAP-420,
which bisects this property, makes good sense. Any other zoning would not be appropriate
adjacent to the proposed tollway (FAP-420). Saladin said the major feature of the subject property
is that it is bisected by the designated FAP-420 which is proposed to be a future state tollway.
�-- The tollway could have a major impact on the city and the commercial hub in this area.
There were no questions by members of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Page 3
MSB 4714/Florence Blake
11/14/94
`- �UESTIONS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTOR
Joe Perez: What consideration has been given to the abutting residential properties and the less
expansive C-3 zaning which abuts this property. Saladin said the trend of development along the
tollway indicates this should be commercial hub. Perez asked if the trend of commercial
development in this area is C-3 rather than C-5. Saladin said the Comprehensive Plan designates
this area as commercial hub.
Greg Lundberg: Could you give us a list of permitted C-5 uses and conditional uses which would
be permitted if this zoning is granted. Semrow said there would be numerous nses permitted
inasmuch as the uses pemutted in each commercial district are cumuladve. Semrow explained the
procedure for issuance of conditional use permit for the benefit of the observers.
Joe Perez: If C-3 zoning were gcanted at this time, could the Petidoners uldmately come back
and ask for GS zoning? Could C-3 zoning be granted at this dme and give them C-5 later if they
should need it? Semrow said that the Board must consider only the Petition which is before them
at this dme. The Petition specifically asks for C-5 zoning.
Melvin Long: Where are these properties contiguous to existing City property? Administrator
Peterson explained that there are currendy petitions on file to annex each of the subject properties.
However, each property will reach contiguity independendy. If a property is not contiguous to
the City, it would not be possible to annex it. Contiguity would be achieved at each stage so that
each parcel would be annexed independendy and be contiguous to the City.
Greg Lundberg: If this proposed zoning fails before the City, would this property be annexed as
C-5 to Johnsburg? Saladin said he is not aware of any potendal negotiations on the part of his
� client with the Village of Johnsburg at this time.
Lisa Loftus: How is C-5 compatible when elcisting uses in the area are agricultural and C-3
Commercial? Saladin said this is a commercial hub as designated on the City's Comprehensive
Plan.
Greg Lundberg: My house is located in the midst of this commercial hub; how can this be
explained. Peterson said that the delineation on the development map for the Comprehensive Plan
is not exact. The Lundberg house is located in the residential district.
Douglas Knox: With regard to the C-5 zoning, I understand commercial being located along Route
31, but not adjacent to Riverside Drive. Peterson said it will be up to the city to delineate the
boundary for how far east and how far west of Route 31 this proposed commercial hub should be
located. Semrow asked the distance between the west boundary of Mr. Knox's property and the
eastemmost boundary of the subject property. Saladin said it appeared to be about 755 feet.
Knox said he is concerned regarding the depth of the commercial district along Route 31.
Thomas Loftus: Is it right for the Petitioners to request C-5 zoning if this area is in fact shown
as commercial hub on the comprehensive plan? According to the plan, the related zoning districts
for commercial hub are C-3 and C-4. McArdle said that does not mean that only C-3 and C-4
zoning districts are found in the areas designated as commercial hub within the city. The
Comprehensive Plan is not exclusive in fihat area.
John Lykowetzos: We see the back of K Mart. We don't want to see the back of other buildings
adjacent to our properiy, in the back yard where we live. Why bring this commercial district
adjacent to our back yard?
�
Melvin Long: The south property line of this property borders on the Oaks of McHenry, a
residendal district and the Oaks Park. Would there be any proposed buffer between the park and
this commercial Froperty? Saladin said there are provisions m the zoning ordinance for commercial
Page 4
MSB 4714/Florence Blake
11/14/94
�-' property abutting a less intense use such as residendal or a park. The developers would have to
conform to the requirements of the ordinance. Long asked Saladin if his clients intended to
develop this property. Saladin said they are not the developers.
Douglas Knox: If the Petitioners were to request C-3 rather than C-5 zoning, would this fit into
the commercial hub designation as shown m the Comprehensive Plan? Knox said he is not
disputing that the Petitioners are seeking C-5 zoning, but why not go for C-3, if this would fit into
the commercial hub designation as well? Semrow said that unless the Board is petitioned to zone
the properiy C-3, the Board can not look at the C-3 zoning for this properiy. The Board must
make a recommendation on the Petition which is before them and that is for C-5 zoning.
Diane Hesch: R'oulc� it be possible to zone half of the property C-5 and half of it something else,
such as residential. Semrow said the Petitioner has asked for C-5 zoning for the entire parcel.
Hesch asked if the Board could recommend that half be zoned C-5 and half be zoned less than C-
5. McArdle said that each recommendation would be for or against the Petition which has been
presented. The Petitioner does not seek half C-5 zoning and half something less; therefore this
could not be in the recommendation.
STATEMENTS BY OBSERVERS/OBJECTORS
Chairman Semrow swore in each of the following Observers/Objectors prior to their making the
following statements:
Greg Lundber�: "The Petitioners are trying to conform to the City's Plan. I would hope that
some property owners may consider a re-petitron. We are more concemed about the property
adjacent to my property, not the property which is adjacent to Route 31. The zoning may benefit
� some of the city, but it will not benefit me. My concems are:
1. Increased danger to my children due to the increased traffic flow in the area as a result of
commercial development.
2. Increase in crime in the area.
3. Decline in property values for homes in our subdivision.
4. Increase in noise pollution.
5. Increase in trash blowing onto my property.
6. Increased lighting in the area; iight pollution in my neighborhood.
"I don't mind commercial development, but not right alongside my home. I would like to see
them re-Pedtion with not so extreme a commercial development."
Brad Kanlan: "I represent Signa Corporation which is in the process of foreclosing on vacant
properties in the Oaks of McHenry. Any adjacent land should be developed as per the exisdng
development scheme - residential. We will be vigorously seeking relief as to setbacks,
landscaping, etc. for anything but residential when developed adjacent to our property."
Joe Perez: We are concerned regarding the C-5 commercial zoning. we would like to see this
�
property annexed to the city. But, C-5 zoning is too broad. If commercial zoning is granted, we
would prefer C-3 zoning here. This would be consistent with the existing zoning already in
existence in this area."
Thomas Loftus: "We understand that the properiy along Route 31 will go commercial. We would
like to state that blanket C-5 zoning is too broad. We would like to s� the Petitioners come back
before this board for any permitted or conditional uses in the GS district. We believe these
parcels should be brought into the city as a PUD. There could then be some C-5 uses, but the
�-- PUD could assure that there would be buffers in place to protect the residential properties and less
intense uses from the granted C-5 uses. What is the intent of the commercial hub? Is C-5
permitted in the commercial hub; are just C-3 and C-4 zoning districts permitted in the commercial
hub? If this proF►osal came back to this Board as a PUD, we could all provide goad input. There
Page 5
MSB 4714/Florence Blake
11/14/94
�— are concerns regarding the wedands in these properties. I ask that you not grant this blanket
zoning request."
Doug,las Knox: "The proposal is for C-5 blanket zoning. Parts of this proposal are in line with
the comprehensive plan and parts of it are not. If the Petitioners were to come back before this
Board and there was consideration given to the adjacent residendal development, there would be
less objection to the project. We do no object to the commercial along Route 31. We object to
the fact that it will be adjacent to residential development along Riverside Drive and the Oaks of
McHenry. We would prefer McHenry to have control of this development. However, if McHenry
grants this C-5 commercial zoning, we would prefer to have the Village of Johnsburg control this
property. We would prefer residential development adjacent to e�sting residential development
along Riverside Drive and that seems to be what Johnsburg is promoting. We ask yon to tum
down this request for rezoning."
CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONERS
Attomey Saladin said the Pedtioners are requesting that the subject property be granted C-5 zoning
upon annexadon to the City of McHenry. If the annexadon is approved by the City Council, then
C-5 zoning would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City of McHenry. This
property is adjacent to the designated right of way for FAP-420. This fact makes this property
unique. This would increase property values and increase sales tax base if this property were used
for commercial enterprise. The city should take a hard look at those uses that are permitted in
the C-5 zoning district. There are not that many additional uses permitted in the C-5 district
which are not permitted in the C-3 district. Your Petitioners respectfully request that the Board
recommend approval of their request to reclassify the subject property to C-5 upon annexadon to
the City of McHenry.
`" DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Tobeck, seconded by Kleemann to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioners' request that the subject property be reclassified from A-1 pursuant to the
McHenry County Zoning Ordinance to GS Highway Commercial upon annexation to the
City of McHenry, be granted; and that Table 33, The Approval Criteria for Zoning
Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met.
Vodng Aye: Kleemann, Semrow.
Voting Nay: McClatchey, Tobeck.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: Lovett.
Absent: Christensen, Swierk.
Motion failed to carry 2-2 with one abstention. There will be no recommendation to the City
Council with regard to this Petition.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further with regard to this matter before this Board, this hearing was
adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
`..
Page 6
ZBA-MSB 4714�Florence Blake
11/14/94
�' Respectfully submitted,
C
�
Harry S 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 Attomey, City Engineers,
Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner's Attomey, Observers/Objectors (20), Building &
Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Z-388(4)
NOTE:
THIS MATTER WILL BE BROUGHT BEFORE THE
CITY COUNCIL ON
WEDNESDAY
NOVEMBER 30, 1994
7:30 P.M.
� CITY C�UNCIL CHAMBERS
�