Loading...
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 �