HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 6/20/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 20, 1994
`- CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF WALMART PROPERTIES, INCORPORATED) Z-380
RECORD TITLE HOLDER, AND JOHN T. ) WALMART/COLOMER
COLOMER, CONTRACT PURCHASER, ) USE VARIANCE
FOR A USE VARIANCE, PURSUANT TO )
THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING )
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, )
MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEAI�S TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on June 20, 1994.
Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:35 p.m. The following
persons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Richard Adamson, Randy Christensen, Emil
Kleemann, Harry Semrow, John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent:
Frank McClatchey.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
�- 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioners: John T. Colomer, 4122 Miller Oaks Drive, McHenry
Illinois 60050.
6. Attorney for the Petitioner: Militello, Zanck & Coen,
represented by Mark Saladin, 40 Brink Street Crystal Lake
Illinois 60014.
7. City Council Members: Alderman Locke, City Clerk Althoff.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Observers/Objectors: Ed & Ethel Blake, interested observers.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on
June 2, 1994. The Publisher's Certificate of Publication regarding
this matter is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Abutting property
owners were notified by certified mail of these proceedings. Subject
property was posted as required by the Zoning Ordinance. An Affidavit
ascertaining all of the above is on file in the office of the City
Clerk.
� LOCATION
The subject property is located west of the intersection of McCullom
Lake Road ��nd Richmond Road, McHenry Illinois 60050 and is comprised
Page 2
ZBA-Walmart/Colomer
6/20/94
of .98 acres. The subject property is the proposed Lot 1 of the
`- Walmart Subdivision which is currently going through the subdivision
process in the City of McHenry. The zoning for the subject property
is C-3 Community Commercial.
SIJ�II�ARY
The Petitioners are requesting that the subject property be granted a
Use Variance to allow the construction and operation of an automobile
tire and auto service center.
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioners:
1) Scott Dixon, (representing Prime Commercial) , 3819 N. Blitsch
Place, McHenry Illinois 60050.
2) Larry Farrenkopf, (representing Architects 127) , 631 S. Jefferson
Street, Woodstock Illinois 60098.
3) John T. Colomer, (contract purchaser) , 4122 Miller Oaks Drive,
McHenry Illinois 60050.
Attorney Saladin asked Scott Dixon to testify first on behalf of the
Petitioners. Dixon provided an overview of the surrounding zoning
classifications as well as the current use of abutting properties in
the vicinity of the subject property. Dixon said that the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of McHenry designates that the planned
use for the subject property is commercial . Dixon said that the
intersection of Route 31 and McCullom Lake Road is designated as a
`. commercial corridor.
There were no questions of this witness by members of the Board at this
time.
Attorney Saladin presented John Colomer as the next witness for the
Petitioners. Colomer ratified the contents of the Petition. Colomer
said the subject property is shown as Lot 1 on the Walmart Subdivision
which is presently undergoing the subdivision process in the City of
McHenry. Colomer said he is proposing to build a high tech auto tire
and service facility, similar to a Good Year or Sears service center.
The proposed hours of operation would be 7:30 a.m. until 6:30 p.m. on
Monday through Friday; 7: 30 until 2:30 p.m. on Saturday. There would
be no outside storage of any kind other than the refuse disposal area
which would be screened as required by ordinance. During business
hours, automobiles may be stored outside as they await their turn for
service. However, these vehicles, if not picked up by the owners or
repairs have not been completed, would be brought inside for storaqe
at the close of business. The auto tech center being proposed is an
upscale facility.
Colomer said that the use variance is being requested because it was
the opinion of the Petitioners that the City would find the use
variance more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, rather than
a reclassification and request for a conditional use, which was the
� alternative means of achieving the permit to construct this facility
in this location. It was the opinion of the Petitioners, that the use
variance would be more in keeping with the environs of the
neighborhood. Colomer said the current zoning of the subject property
Page 3
ZBA-Walmart/Colomer
6/20/94
is C-3 Community Commercial which does not permit this type of use.
`- The Petitioners believe that the proposed use for this property would
be beneficial to the area. It would create jobs and increase revenue
for the City.
QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS BY MEI�iBERS OF THE BO D
Tobeck asked if this would be a franchise or independent operation.
Colomer said it is privately owned and not a franchise. Tobeck asked
if Colomer owns service facilities in McHenry at this time. Colomer
said he owns two in McHenry (Adams Brothers and Lincoln Road Auto) as
well as others in the suburbs and in Milwaukee. All are in operation
at this time.
Kleemann asked if there would be outside storage of vehicles. If the
customers fail to pick up their vehicle by the end of the day, this
could be a messy operation. Colomer said this would be a 14-bay
facility. It would be a high priority to assure that all vehicles will
be stored inside of the building.
Swierk asked what would happen with vehicles that are waiting for parts
- would they be stored inside. Colomer said there would be a bay which
would be used for the storage of vehicles awaiting service ar parts.
Semrow asked if there would be any hazardous waste generated by the
operation. Colomer said there wold be special waste such as used oil
and antifreeze and tires. Semrow asked where this waste would be
�. stored. Colomer said there would be a separate area inside of the
building devoted to special waste storage. This waste would be picked
up by a carrier contracted for that purpose.
�'ESTI1rIONY
Attorney Saladin asked Larry Farrenkopf to testify at this time.
Farrenkopf gave an overview of the site plan. He noted that the
parking is evenly distributed around the perimeter of the building.
Farrenkopf said the type of structure would be a longitudinal building
with 14 service bays. The front of the building, which would include
the showroom and sales area, would face south.
otr�gmrONS OF THE WITNESS BY Zffi�RRS OF THE BOARD
Kleemann asked if the Petitioners planned to increase the minimum
landscaping required by ordinance. Farrenkopf said that the plan would
exceed the minimum requirements of 10�. He projects approximately 18%
of the parking area would be landscaped.
Kleemann said the plan refers to a qround sign. Saladin said this
issue would be brought before the City Council. Semrow asked the
Petitioners to address this issue at this time, inasmuch as the sign
is indicated on the site plan. Farrenkopf said the Petitioners would
prefer a ground sign rather than a pole sign. They would prefer to
keep the signage in line with existing signs in this area which are all
ground signs. Colomer said he would like a ground sign just as other
� developments in the area have installed. Colomer said it is his hope
to have the most attractive building and site in McHenry, including the
sign and the landscaping. Swierk said perhaps the Board could
recommend a :Limit as to the size of the ground sign. Semrow said there
Page 4
ZBA-Walmart/Colomer
6/20/94
should be parameters for the sign, especially in light of the fact that
`- this is a use variance, and this use would not be permitted on this
site under normal circumstances. Saladin said the Petitioners would
abide by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance if the ground sign is
permitted by City Council. Lobaito said that by definition, ground
signs can be no higher than 8 feet. The area would be limited to 50%
of the lot frontage, with a maximum of 200 square feet. This corner
(including the Mobil site and Walmart as well as the subject property)
is treated as a shopping center as far as signs are concerned. Lobaito
said that the granting of a free-standing sign would be a matter which
would come before the City Council for a variance because there are
already three free-standing signs on this corner; however, the Council
would appreciate input and a recommendation from this Board. Saladin
said the Petitioners do not intend to have a wall sign on this
building. Swierk asked if the Petitioner would agree to not having a
wall sign if the ground sign permit is granted. Colomer said that he
would.
Christensen asked why there was a 3 foot setback around the perimeter
of the parking area. It should be 5 feet. Lobaito clarified that the
5 foot minimum is required for parking screeninq strip only. The
parking screening strip would be required along the southern property
line which fronts on McCullom Lake Road. Christensen asked if the
cross-easements are being negotiated with Walmart at this time.
Farrenkopf said that is correct. Christensen asked the height of the
building.
�
Farrenkopf said the building height is 22 feet; there is also a
decorative roof which would add an additional 9 feet for a total height
of 31 feet. Farrenkopf said that the design of the building is more
like a high profile office building rather than an automobile service
center facility. This is a premium facility being proposed for this
site.
Chairman Semrow called for a recess at 8:25 p.m. The hearing
reconvened at 8: 38 p.m. with all still present.
Farrenkopf provided the board with miscellaneous views of the property
and building perspectives. Semrow asked why the doors at the north end
of the structure are proposed to be 12 feet high and why is there a
drive-through bay of 62 feet in length. Farrenkopf said that all bays
could potentially be drive-through. Colomer said that there is always
a need for one bay where the vehicles could be double stacked. There
is also the possibility of maintenance work on a longer vehicle such
as a limousine or a recreational vehicle. There must be a place in the
building to handle such a vehicle.
Semrow said he had a question regarding what type of commercial
enterprise would take place in the facility in addition to the
automobile service (reference to paragraph 6 of the Petition) . Colomer
said that he would not service commercial vehicles such as semi-tractor
� trailers. This facility would be for neighborhood commercial service
only. Saladin said that in paragraph 6 the reference to the proposed
use of "eommercial, automobile tire and auto service center" is
strictly in keeping with the format of the present "vacant, unimproved"
Page 5
ZBA-Walmart/Colomer
6/20/94
use. Semrow asked if there would be welding on the premises and would
�- the facility service semi-tractors. Colomer said he would not have
welding. He would not service semi-tractors. The largest vehicle he
would be able to service would be a one and one half ton truck.
Semrow asked about the 12 by 14 foot door on the north end of the
facility with the 62 foot stacking bay. Colomer said this would not
be for semi-tractors.
Semrow asked if the Petitioner had looked elsewhere in the City of
McHenry for available C-5 property which might suit his needs. Colomer
said he has been looking for a suitable site for 2 and 1/2 years.
Semrow asked if Colomer does not receive the use variance, would he
still have to purchase the property. Colomer said the contract would
be null and void if the use variance is not granted. He is the
contract purchaser and the contract is contingent upon the variance
being granted.
Semrow asked if the use variance is not granted, is it true that no one
could make any financial gain from this property. Colomer said that
statement is not correct. However, with the cost of the property,
there is a need to recoup his expense. A retail facility on this site
would not do that. Colomer said that he wants to put a facility on
this site where there is a need for it and not put up a building that
might remain vacant, such as other retail sites in the immediate
vicinity of this property (at Omni, KMart, and McHenry Plaza) . Semrow
�. asked if the proposed use should have similar constraints as uses
permitted generally in the C-3 District. Colomer said he would agree
with that statement. Semrow asked Saladin to review the Approval
Criteria for Use Variance to assure that all criteria have been met.
Swierk asked if there would be curbing on the parking lot perimeter.
Colomer said that is correct.
Christensen asked how many tires would be stored on the premises.
Colomer said there would be tires for sale so there would be an
inventory of tires. Christensen asked if tires are considered
hazardous materials as far as storage is concerned. Farrenkopf said
that there would need to be a large number of tires being stored before
they would be considered hazardous and the building would then require
sprinkling, etc. Christensen said that with reqard to paragraph 9 of
the Petition, where are there similar uses in the immediate vicinity.
Saladin said that service oriented businesses such as the Mobil Oil
facility on the corner and the auto tech center at Route 31 and 120
would be similar in nature. There is no auto tech facility within 100
feet of the project.
Semrow went over the Approval Criteria for Use Variances, Table 32A of
the Zoning Ordinance. He said he was not satisfied regarding
satisfying the criteria regarding practical difficulties or particular
hardship and reasonable return. Semrow said that "the property can not
yield a reasonable return" is a particularly difficult criteria to
� satisfy. Saladin said that the Petitioner cannot put up a retail
establishment on this site and expect to yield a reasonable return in
light of the fact that there are several vacant retail establishments
in this area. Saladin addressed each of the Approval Criteria for Use
Page 6
ZBA-Walmart/Colomer
6/20/94
Variance as requested by the Chairman.
�
Swierk said that if this is a contract purchase, there is in effect no
hardship. The Petitioner does not own this property yet. Therefore,
there can be no hardship for him. Swierk said the Petitioner could
have asked for a reclassification to C-5 with a conditional use permit
rather than the proposed use variance. Swierk said he would prefer to
keep the classification of this property at C-3 so that when properties
which abut to the west are annexed into the City they would not
automatically want C-5 zoning. The Use Variance works better than
rezoning to C-5.
Semrow said he is trying to establish enough testimony with regard to
the five approval criteria set forth for a use variance in the zoning
ordinance. It is a worthwhile project. But the Board needs to
consider the criteria first; everything else is window dressing. Any
motion regarding this matter by a member of the Board must include
finding of fact that these criteria have been met. Saladin said that
when the City of McHenry applied for a text amendment to create the use
variance, part of the testimony within the Petition stated that the
proposed use variance would serve as an alternate means of granting a
use in a district where it would not otherwise be permitted. Saladin
said there are unique circumstances and unique conditions relevant to
this project. The Board has the authority to recommend that special
requirements and/or restrictions be placed upon the Petitioner if this
use variance is granted. The Board can recommend approval of the use
� variance and tie it to the specific landscape plan and site plan
presented here this evening. Specific restrictions can also be placed
upon the allowable sign.
Lobaito said that the Use Variance is an alternate means of allowing
a use in a district where it would not normally be permitted. Over a
period of time, uses change. Automobile service facility is one of
those uses that has changed over the years. Today, such a facility is
not like the old repair shops which were typical at the time this
zoning ordinance was adopted. Additionally, hardship is not always
economic - sometimes it is that the use will not make money at a
particular site because there is not enough traffic going by the site,
etc.
Semrow said that because of a particular difficulty with a specific
parcel of land, it may be necessary to provide studies to substantiate
the claim regarding difficulty.
McArdle said the Board needs to deal with the hardship as it would with
a standards variance, such as setback, lot size, etc. These approval
criteria must be dealt with as with any variation from the zoning
ordinance.
CL�SING STATffi�:NT BY PETITIONERS
Saladin said the Use Variance is a new concept. The Petitioners did
,� consider making application for a reclassification and a conditional
use. Some uses are not listed in the C-3 District but would be
compatible in this district. The proposed automobile tire and auto
service center is one such use. The Use Variance should be granted.
Page 7
ZBA-Walmart/Colomer
6/20/94
The project insofar as the scope, the building and the operation is
� compatible in the area and can be compared to other services in the
area. It would be a convenience for the citizens in the area to have
the proposed auto tech center in their neighborhood.
Circumstances have brought the buyer and seller of this property
together. The Petitioner has searched for two and one half years for
suitable property. All of the testimony has presented the practical
difficulties regarding this particular property. The Petitioner has
stated that he is willing to purchase this property no matter the
outcome of this hearing. It has been difficult for the Petitioner to
find this type of a parcel of vacant land. There is no property
camparable to the subject property which already has the C-5 zoning in
place. Each parcel has it own problems.
With regard to the ground sign, the Petitioner will abide by the
recommendation and approval of the City. If the ground sign is not
permitted, however, the Petitioner would like to erect a wall sign on
his building.
Chairman Semrow said, "there being no further testimony before this
Board with regard to this matter, the Board will consider the Petition
at this time, unless there is a motion to recess by a member of the
Board. There being no motion to recess, the Chair will entertain a
motion with regard to the Petition. "
�- DELIBERATION AND RECOMIKENDATION
McArdle reminded the Board that when the Use Variance was adopted, it
was a part of that ordinance that the Board could recommend that the
City impose restrictions and conditions upon the Petitioner when the
Use Variance is granted. McArdle encouraged the Board to make the
restrictions and conditions as specific as possible.
Motion by Swierk, seconded by Christensen to recommend to the City
Council that
the Petitioners request for a Use Variance for the subject
property to allow the construction and operation of an automobile
tire and automobile service center be granted; but that the
following conditions/restrictions apply to said Use Variance:
1) There shall be no outside storage other than refuse disposal
container;
2) There shall be no overnight parking of vehicles allowed;
3) The maximum height of a ground sign if variance for same is
granted by City Council shall be 6 feet, and that the area
of the sign shall conform to the zoning ordinance;
4) If the ground sign variance is granted, there shall be no
sign mounted on the building;
5) The building and site design comply with the plan dated
4/19/94 and the perspectives dated 5/12/94;
6) The Use Variance be granted subject to approval of the Final
� Plat of Walmart Subdivision by the City Council;
and that the Approval Criteria for Use Variance, Table 32A, page
379 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Page 8
ZBA-Walmart/Colomer
6/2/0/94
�' Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: McClatchey.
Motion carried 6-0.
�TOURNME�T
Chairman Semrow said that there being nothing further before this Board
at this time, this hearing is adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i
r.
�_
; �_ � �t C�K C Z;�,,
Harry Sem� ow, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7) , Plan Commission (7) , City
Administrator, Director of Building & Zoninq, 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.
�
Doc/ZBAMIN. 380
�