HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/25/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 25 , 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
� IN THE MAT7ER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF THE CI7Y OF MCHENRY , AN ) ZT 379
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORA7ION ) CITY OF MCHENRY
FOR A 7EXT AMENDMENT CREATING A ) TEXT AMENDMENT
USE VARIANCE PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ) CREATE USE VARIANCE
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY , )
MCHENRY COUN7Y , ILLINOIS . )
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL , CITY OF MCHENRY , ILLINOIS
Hearings on the above-captioned F�etition were held on March 28 , 1a94 , April
4 , 1994 , and was recessed to this date . Chairman Semrow called the hearing
to order at 7 �38 p .m . The follo�:ing persons were in attendance�
1 . Zoning Boar� Members= Ran�y Christensen , Emil Kleemann , Frank
McClatchey , Harry Semrow , John 5wierk , Donna Tobeck . A�sent: Richard
Adamson .
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: Dave McArdle .
3 . Recording 5ecretal-y � Katlileen Kunzer .
4 . Director of Building & Zonin�� John A . Lobaito .
�
5 . Petitionor = City of McHenry , represented by David McArdle and John
Lobaito .
6. Attorney for Petitioner : Zukowski , Rogers , Fload & h1cArdle ,
rept-esent�d by David McArdle , 50 North Vil-ginia 5t1-eet , Crystal Lake ,
Illinois 60014 .
7 . City Council Members : None .
8. Court Reporter = Cheryl Barcne .
9 . Objectors: None . •
NOT�CE OF PUBL,ICATIOK
IVotification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Heralcl on March
8 , 1994 . Publislier 's Ce�-tificai:E of Publication is on file in the office
of the City Clerk .
SUMMARY
The Petitioner is requesting thnt a text amendment bd granted which would
create a Use Variance as follows :
A . Chapter II , Table 1 , Requirecl Cantents of Application Filings shall
be amended as follows:
1 . Column 3 , Variance , Line 1a , Site Plan , delete "R" , replace
� with the letter "X" .
2 . Column 3 , Variance , Line 22 , Architectural Renderings , add the
letter "R" .
Page 2
ZE3A-City of McHenry
4/25/94
� 3 . Column 3 , Variance , l._ine 26 , Traffiic Analysis , add the letter
��R�� .
�. Chapter VII( A )6 , add "g . tJse Variance" .
C . Chapter VI II( D ) , add "7 , tJse Var iance" .
D. Chapter XV , add Paragr�phs:
E Conditions or Restrictions .
The Board may recommend , and the City Council , in granting any
variance , may impose such conditions or restrictions as appear
necessary to minimize possible detrimental effects of such
variance upon other propel-ties in tfie neigl�borhood .
F . Revocation of Variance
A Variance may be ravok�d by the City Council :
1 . if any conditions or restrictions are not compliecl with
within the time limit specified on the Variance ;
2 . if after they are initially complied a�ith , compliance
with such conditions oT- T-estt-ictions is not maintained at
any time;
3. if the Varia�ce is not established , or a required
Building Permit i:� not obtained and the building started ,
within one year of the date the Variance is issued;
4 . if the Variance sl�all cease for rnol-e tl�an one year .
E . Chapter XV , add Table 32� A ) Approval Criteria for Use Variances ,
as follows :
In recommending approval of a use variance , the Board of Appeals
shall transmit to the City Council written fiincfin�s ofi fact that
all of the conditions below apply to the application . The City
`- Council shall not be bound by the recommendation of tl�e Board of
Appeals . However , in granting approval , th� City Council shall
similarly find that all ofi the following conditions apply=
1 Practical [?ifificulties or Particular Hardshiw_
For reasons fully set forth in the written findings , the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance relating to the
us� of the buildings ar structures , or the use of the� land , woulci
result in unnecessary and undue hard�hip upon tli� applicant , as
distinguished from mere inconvenience .
2 Rgasonable Return
The property cannot yield a reasonable return if permitted to be
used only under the conditions allowed by the 1-egulations in this
Orclinance -For the pertinent zoning district . .
3 Unique Circumstances
�pecial circumstances , fully described in the written finclings ,
exist tl�at are peculiar to the property for whicl� tl�e use
variance is sought and that they do not apply generally to other
properties in the sam� zoning district .
4 Not Alter Local Character
Th� use variance , if grantecl , would not unreasonably alter the
essential chat-actet- of the locality .
5 Consis�ent with ComGrehensive Plan
The granting of a use variance will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of this Ordinance and of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City .
�
Pa�e 3
ZBA-City of McHenry
4/25/94
F . Chapte�- XIX , Definitions � Variance , sl�all be de].etec� and �-eplaced
`' as follow.�:
A modification of the provisions of this Ordinance in accordance with
the provisions herein concerning variances i�� cases where strict
enforcement would cause unclue hardship as a result of special
circumstances afifecting an individual pt'operty that cJo not generally
affect other properties in the same zoning district . This
modif ication may 1-elate to ti�e use of the land .
TESTIMONY
Lobaito gave the back�round information concerning the clrafting of this
Petition before the Board . The Petition was drafted by Stafif at the
direction of the City Council . �obaito said the Approval Criteria �or Use
Variances should be examined closely . �
The proposed amendments were then examined and questioned paragraph by
paragraph by members of the Boat-d .
Para�raph A 5ub-Paragraphs A( 1 ) A( 2 ) , A( 3 )�
Lobaito said these paragraphs would add Use Variance as a category ta 7able
1 in the Filing Application checklist .
Paraaraph B_�_
Lobaito said this amendment would add Use Variance to the list af those
filings which would require the submittal of a site plan .
`.. Paraaraph C:
Lobaito said this amendment would add Use Variance to the list of those
filings whicli would require the subm,ittal of a landscap� plan .
Paraqyraph D�
7his amendment would add two �aragraphs to the Variance chapter of the
Ordinance . 71ie fiirst pa1-agraph would pe1-mit the City Council to impose
restrictions or conditions on Variances . The secand para�raph would
provide a vehicle for the City Council to 1-evoke a Variance if any one of.
the four points contained within that parayraph� is valicl .
Discussion ensued regarding Chapter XV , Paragraph E . Conditions or
Restrictions . Swie�-k said that being able to impose conditions or
restrictions is good . This paragraph should someclay be included in the
Conditional Use chapter of this Ordinance as well . ChT-istensen asked
Lobaito to clarify "appear necessary to minimize possible detrimental
effects . . " . Lo(�aito said an example might be requiring additional
landscaping to minimize the detrimental impact of a praposed use in a
district . McArdle said that a use variance will moY-e tl�an likely be
detrimental to an area by its very nature . It would not normally be a
permitted or conditional use for a given zoning distt-ict ancl that would be
the reason for it being requested as a use variance . Semrow asked why the
word "use" was not included as a modifier in this proposed paragrapl� nol- in
paragraph F . McArdle said that the staffi is proposing that the Condztions
or Restrictions paragraph and the Revocation of VaT-ianc� paragraph both be
� applicable to al]. variances , not only use variances . It wa5 sUggested that
the word neighborhood in the Conditions or f2estrictions para�raph be
changed to subject zoning district . It was the consensus of all present to
make this change .
Page 4
ZBA-City ofi McHenry
4/25/94
� 5wie1-k said tliat the Board shou.�d not allow any advei-s� impact . 71�e1-e
shauld be no d«�triment to the zon�.�ny district causecf Uy the grant of a use
variance . l.ob:�ito said it would be vi1-tually impossible to pt-ove by the
Petitioner if there were no detrymental impact whatsoever . It would then
be impossible fo�- the boa�-d to g1-�nt a use var iance . Semrow said tl�e Boa�-d
would look at the detrimental impact on a case by case basis .Discussion
ensued regarding the phrase detrimental effects ancl tl�e pu�-pose of
providing ti�e Board and City Council with tha powel- to put conditions
and/or restrictions on the granting of a use variance .
Revocation of Variance: Item #1 a;id Item #2 and Item #3 would be applicable
to area variances and use variances . Item #4 would be applicable to only
use variances . It was suggested that item #4 be changecl to read: "with
respect to the use variance , if the use granted by the vari�ance shall stop
for more than one year or 365 day:�" .
Swierk asked if the use variance would be yrantecl to the petitioner or the
land . McArdle said that special uses only can b� assigned to tl�e persons
making application for them .
P�r ,aara� E �
Each of the proposed Approval Criteria for Use Variances were discussed as
follows:
1 . Practical Difficulties or Particular Hardship�
Christensen asked what is meant by "mere inconvenience" . Lobaito said that
`- would be up to the Boat-d to decid�� .
2. Reasonable Return=
Swierk said that this should not even be difficult for an applicant to
prove . He questioned the need for- this c1-iteria . McAT-dle pointed out that
in the Variance criteria , the applicant is prevented from making
application such that tl�e sole PUT"�05E would be economic 1�eturn .
3. Unique Circumstances=
Christensen askecl if a use variance could be granted that would allow �he
sale of packaged liquor at a gas station? Lobaito said a ��se variance
could be applied for when a use is not permitted or a conditional use is
not permitted within t1�e subject zoning district . .
�o�iaito explained when use variances waulcl be appropriat�ly applied far ancl
when they would npt . Lobaito explained that for exampla wlien a C-5 use is
not permitted in a C-3 District , the Petitioner could apply for a use
variance . This would be undeT-standable . It would be more difficult to
approve when tl-�e use would jump between zoning districts , such as an
industrial use in a residential clist�-ict . Perliaps this Board would address
this issue so that the Council would know the position o� the BoarcJ with
regard to uses jumping from one zoning district to another .
4 . Not Alter Local Character =
� Christensen asked what is mear�t by "unreasonably alter the essential
� chal-acter . . " . Lobaito said that would mean what the applicant is proposing
would fit into the local character . An example might be an office buildiny
in a residential district . McAI-dle said this would be a judgement call by
the Board . :t was the consensus of those present to incorpora�e paragraph
7 , Table 32 , F�age 377 of the Zoning 0�-dinance , in its entirety in place of
this paragrapti as stated in the Fetition .
Page 5
ZBA-City of McHem�y
4/25/94
� 5 . Consistent with Comprehensive Plan=
Christensen sa�wd he had a problern with "harmony with the general purpose
and intent of the Ordinance . . " . Semrow said that once again it waulcl be a
judgement call on a case by case I�asis .
Paragraph F =
McArdle stated that the definiti �n for Variances is basically the same as
the existing one in the ordinanc� except for the fact that the last
sentence has been added . This s�ntence is tl�e one which actually creates
th� use variance . The rest of the Petition before you at this hearing
implements it once it has been cT�t.ated .
pF� IBERAT�ON BY TH� BOARD
Discussion ensued regarding the A�proval Criteria far Variances ( Table 32 )
and the propos�d Approval Criteria for Use Variances ( 7able 32( A ) ) . It was
pointed out by McArdle that not all of the Criteria for Variances were
applicable to the Use Val-iance and tl�at was the T-eason fot- establishing a
separate set of Approval Criteria for Use Variances .
The Board then addressed the Appr-oval Criteria fo�- tlie Text Amendment as
stated in Paragraph 3 of the Petition . It was the consensus of the Board
that the Petitionar satisfactorily addT-essed tl�e Criteria as required by
Ordinance .
Swierk saicl that he is not opposed to the creation af the use va.riance , but
that it should not be used foT- nea�ly annexed parc�ls into tl�e City . In
`- those instances , tho applicant should seek the actual zaning requirecl �'or
the use being proposed .
Christensen a.sked if the sole purpose of the use variance is to permit uses
that would otheT-wise not be p�1-mitted on a specific property . McArdle said
that when the proposed use of the land differs from those which are allowed
as a permitted or conditional use on a particular property within a zonin�
district , then application for a use variance would_ be appropriate .
Several examples of a use val�ian�es whicl� have been gi-antzd on tl�e advice
of the farmer corporate attorney were discussecl: yranting of multi-family
use in RA-1 District , grantirg of farnily counsel9.ng center in RS-3
District; upstairs/downstairs apartments in RA-1 District .
McClatchey said that these types of uses could be granted in annexation
agreements when properties were being brought into the City . discussion
ensued regarding� annexation agreements as an alte�-nate means of
implementing a use variance rather than the procedure which is befare this
Board at tl�is heaT-ing .
Christensen said he had concerrs regarding each time a use variance is
granted , in effect , the Comprel�ensive Plan and Zoning District Map are
being altered . McArdle said that he checked wa.th five municipalities who
have implemented a use va�-iance . He found that it is not b�ing a�idely used
or abused . Lobaito said that the City Council would direct staff regarda.ng
when they would like someone to rnake application for a use variance .
�, Lobaito asked the Board to recommend to the CitY Council that zoning
district jumpin� not be allowed oi- strongly discouT-aged . SemY'u�•► said tl�at
the tool of tl-�e use variance could be very beneficial to the City and its
residents . Howevet- , it could be f�a1-mful if not used pt'op�t'ly .
Paye 6
ZBA-City of McHenry
4/25/94
`.. 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 rece:�s by a rnember of tlie BoaT-d . 71�ere being
no motion to recess , the Chair will entertain a motion a�ith regard ta this
Petition" .
DELIBERATION _AND RECOMMENQATION
McArdle said that any motion by a member of this Board shoulci include the
previously addressed amendments t�:� the Petition .
Motion by Mc�latchey , seconded by Kleemann to recommend to the City Council
that
The Petitioner 's request for a text amendment to create a U�e Variance
�e g�-anted �s follows:
A . Chapter II , Table 1 , Required Contents of Applica.tion Filings shall
be amended as follows:
1 . Column 3 , Variance , Line 19 , Site Plan , delete "R" , replace
witli the letter "X" .
2. Column 3 , Variance , �ine 22 , Architectural Renderings , add the
letter "R" .
3. Column 3 , Variance , �ine 26 , Traffic Analysis , add the letter
��R�� .
B . Chapter VII( A )6 , add "g . Use Variance" .
C . Chaptel- VI II( D ) , add "7 , Us� Var iance" .
D . Chapter XV , add Paragraphs=
`' E . Conditions or Restrictions .
Th� Baard may recommend , and the City Council , in �rantiny any
variance , may impose such conditions or restrictions as appear
necessary to minimize possible detrimental effects of such
variance upon other properties in the subject zoning di�trict .
F . Revocation of Var.iance
A Variance rnay be revok�d by tl�e City Council =
1 . if any conditions or restrictions are _ not complied with
within the time limit specified on the Va1-ian�e;
2. if after they are initially� complied with , compliance
wzth such conditions OT� T-AJI.T�IC��.O�1J is not maintained at
any time;
3 . if the Variance is not established , or a :required
Building Perrnit is not obtained and the building started ,
��ithin one year of the date the Variance is issued;
4 ;, witl� regard to tl�e Use Variance , if tl�e us� granted by
th� Variance shall stop for more than one year ( 365 days ) .
E . Chapter XV , add Table 3�( A ) Approval Criteria for Us� VarianGes ,
as follow�:
In recommending approval of a use variance , the Board of Appeals
shall transmit to the City Council written findings of fact that
all of the conditions below apply to the application . The City
Council shall not be bound by the recommendation ofi the Board of
Appeals . However , in granting approval , the City Council shall
sirnilarly find that all of the followinc� conditions �pply�
�..
Page 7
ZBA-City ofi McHenr�/
4/25/94
� � . Practic�J. Difficulties or Particular Hardship
For reasons fully set f�rtl� in the written findin�s , the strict
application of the provisions of this Ordinance relating to tl-�e
use of the builcJin�s or structures , or the use of the land , woulcJ
result in unnecessa.ry and undue hardship upon the applicant , as
distinguished fr-orn rne�-� inconven.ience .
2 . Reasonable Feturn
Th�s property cannot yiE�ld a reasonable return if permitted to be
used on1Y under the concJitions allowed by the rec�ulations in this
Ordinance for the pertinent zoning district .
3 . Uniwue Circumstances
Sp�cial circumstances , fully describecJ in the written findings ,
exist tl�at are peculiar to tiie property for wl�icli tl�e use
variance is sought and that they do no�t apply gen�rally to ather
properties in the samL zoning district .
4 . Not Alter L,ocal Character
The granting of the �ise variance will not alter the essential
character of the locality nor substantially irnpair environrnental
quality , property valu.es , or public safety or w�lfare in the
vicinity .
5 . Consistent with ComGrehensive Plan
The grantiny of a use variance will be in harmony with the
general purpose and intent of tfiis Ordinance and of the
Comprehensive Plan of the City .
F . Chapter XIX , Definitions : Variance , sl�all be delat�d and replaced
as follows=
`- A modi-Ficatian of the provi�ions of this Ordinance in accarda.nce with
the provisions herein concernin� variances in cases wlierd strict
enforc�ment would cause undue hardship as a result of special
cil-cumstances affecting an individual propel-ty tl��t do not �enerally
affect other properties in the same zoniny clistrict . This
modif ication may T-elate to tli� u�e of the land .
and that the Approval Criteria for Zoniny Amendments , Table 33 , page
401 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met .
Voting Aye: Kleemann , I�cClatchey , Semrow , Tobeck .
Voting Nay: Ch1-istensen , Swie1- k .
Not Voting= None .
Abstaining: None .
Absent: Adamson . .
Motion carried 4-2 .
Christensen stated that he is in favor of the creation of a use variance ,
but that it should not be used with 1-egal-d to anne.cation of property to the
City . '
eDJOURNMENT
This hearing was adjourned at �: �5 p .m .
Res ec fully s rnitte ,
Harry 5e ow , Cliairman
Zoniny Board of Appeals
� c= Agend� , Zoning Board of Appeals ( 7 ) , Plan Cornmission ( 7 ) , City
Administrator , Director of Building & Zaniny , Pul�lic Glarks
Administration , City Attol�ney , City Engineers , Alderrnen Reference
Copy , Building & Zoning Zoning File , Landmark Commission Chairman ,
Northwest. Herald , City Clerk File .
Doc/ZBAMIN .37��
� ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APRIL 25, 1994
CITY OF MCt�INItY
�
IN TI�MATIER OF 7�APPLICATION )
OF DAVID A KRUK F'OR A USE ) ..�_ _�7
VARIANCE PIItM�f IN ACCORDANCE W1TH ) DAVID A KRUK
THE PROVISIONS OF TI�ZONIIVG ) HAYSTACK MANOR
ORDINANCE OF TT-�C1TY OF MCHINRY, ) USE VA.RIANCE
MCHENRY COUNTY, ILLINOIS. )
RE�ORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
C1TY COUNCIL,CiTY Or MCHENRY,ILLINOIS
Hearings on the above�captioned petition wer�e held on March 28, 1994, Apri14, 1994, and was recessed bo this date. Chairman
Sanmw called the hearing to order at 924 p.m. The following petsons were in attendance:
1. Zoning Board Membecs: Randy Christensen,Fmil Kleemann,Frank McClatchey,I��ury Semrow,John Swie►]c,Donna
Tobeck Absent Richard Adamson.
2. Atborney for Zoning Boani: Dave McArdle.
3. Recording Secre�uy: ICat}ileen Kunzer.
�4. Direcb�r of Building&Zoning: John A Lobaito.
5. Petitioner: Absent
6. Atiomey for Petitioner: Diamond,LeSueur Roth a��d Associates,represented by Samuel J.Diamond,3431 West Eim Stree�
McHenry Dlinois 60050.
7. City Council Members: Mayor Cuda, Alderman Locke, Alderman Bates.
8. Court Reporter. Cheryl Barone.
9. Objacbocs: None. �
NOTICE OI'PUBLICATION
Notification of t�vs hearing was publishad in the Northwest Heca(d on Mar�h 5, 1994. Publishec's Cerbficate of Publication is on
file in the office of the City Clerk All abutting property ownecs were notified of these pcnceedings. The subject properly was posted
as required by Oniinance. Afiidavit of service is on file in the o�ce of the City Clerk
LOCEIT[ON
The subject pmperty is located at 5603 West Bull Valley Road,McHenry Illinois 60050, approximately 2/10 of a mile west of the
inbecsection of Bull Valley Road and Crystal Lake Road. the prope�ty is cumendy wned agric�ltural pu�u�int to the McHenry County
Zoning Ocdinance.
�
�iJMIVIARY
The Petitioner is r�uesting that the subject property be zoned E Estate Zoning Disirict and be gc�anted a Use Variance Permit bo allow
t�e conshuction and operation of a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages upon annexation to the City of McHenry.
Page 2
ZBA Kcuk
4/z5/'94
�Mayor C�da explained to the Board that it was at the request of the City Council that this Petitioner is before this Boar�i. the City
Council specifically requ�ted that this Petitioner present his case befoc�dvs Board on the same ni�,ht as fl�ey considec�d��e creation
of the Use Variance. It is undasbood that this Petitioner can only be grant,ed a Use Variance if tl�e City Council adopts the
recommendarion voted on in the first heaiing flvs evening.
TESTIMONY
Sam Diamond said that if the City Council adopts the Use Variance,the Petitioner is requesting that he be ganted a Use Variance
bo pennit the construction and opaation of a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages on the subjoct prope►ty.
Chaictnan Semrow said the Board will honor the Council's rEx�uest and her this Petition this evening. There is in actuality no Use
Variance procedure in place until the City Council acis upon the recommendation of tl�is Board. Diamond svd he wished to proceed
with this hearing at risk to his client
Semc�w said d�at given tlie present shtus of the text amendment for the Use Variance, any rocommendalion by ihe Board this
evenin�should be conditioned on upon the proposed Use Variance being adopted by the City Council,Mr.Kruk should be granted
his Use Variance according to the tams and conditions se�forth in the ordinance of adoption of the Use Variance.
Diamond said that the Petitioner has chasen not to appea�-personally before this Boazrl. Diamond is acting on his behalf. Diamond
int�duced inbo evidence the transcript of�e November 29, 1�3 hearing n�arding this property. In that Petitioc�,Mr.Ktuk sought
r�classification to C 3 Zoning Districk However,much of tlie testimony, questions of the Petitioner and pertinent informatioq was
addressed at that hearing. It would seem to be redundant b go over all of that testimony once again.
`,,Jiamond said ihat when the Peetitioner appearad before the Plan Commission on November 18, 1994, it was the recommendation
of that body tfiat the proposed use was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Diamond said il�e basis for the Use Variance request
is d�at the pmposed use with the specific plan which has been presented bo the City with modifications was in essence appr�ved by
the City Council. There was some disagree�nent as to how to�ant the use. The original plan of zoning the parcel C-3 did not meet
widl the appmval of the entire Council. It was then recommended to come before fl�is Board ro request a Use Variance. It was then
t�commended by d�e Council that the Zoning Board consider an appGcabon bo create a Use Variance.
Additional meetings were conducted with city staff and s1:ch thin� as realignment of the road, addibonal landscaping, buffering�
pmvisions wer�implemented as a part of the re,vised plan.
The City Council appears to like this projec�however,there is no consensus about how to approve flus partic�lar project Diamond
presented Petitionec's Fxhibit 1,David K�vk's Zoning Petirion for Use Variatioq attached hereto as a part of this report Diamond
said that t1�e restrictions which were addressed in Fxhibit 1 could be implemented by this Board and the Ciry Council as a means
of restricting�is property.
„
Diamond addressed the Approval Critexia for Use Variance as stated in the Pdihon.
Semrow asked if tl�e Plan Commission has racommended a�proval of this project and has stated d�at it is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Diamond said that is corr�ct Serru-ow read from a portion of the November 18, 1993 Plan Commission
minutes which stated tfiat the proposed use is inconsistent�vith the Comprehensive Plan.
Christensen said that this pmposal was presentod to the Plan Commission as a G3 Commercial pmperty and not as a Use Variance.
�
Page 3
ZBA-Kruk
4/25/94
�
Semc�w said that when thi.s property is annexed into the City, it would be wned E Estate, the most restric�ve wning classification
accocrling to the Zoning Ordinance. �he building will be enlarged. Should the business fail, the City would be left with a par�el
of land which is zoned Fstate and an oversized building on tlle site which would not lend itself to an Pstaze residence. Semrow asked
how a building of such a large size which has beeen converted into a restaurant could blend into an estate district Diamond said the
City's controls,restridions and conditions would regulate flvs property. This location is in a crossover area There would only be
two uses penni�ed on t3�is site: restau�ant and estate residential.
Diamond said�at if the City finds�at this is a good use which would be welcome into the City, d�en the City must find a way bo
make it fit The Use Variance appeais to be ti�e tool to do that The Use Variance bring flexibility to ihe Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion er�sued t�egarding the proposad aparlment which would be a part of the structure. The apartme��t issue and the alcoholic
bevetage issue (with or wit�out entertainment) would be inore specifically addressed in the annexation hearing before the City
Council.
QUE.SITONS OF THE PEITITONER BY MEMBEIZ� Or THE BOARD
Swierk asked if Mr. Kiuk was aware of the wning of the property prior bo his purchase. Diamond said that the Petitioner mali�ad
that he vwuld need�obtiin zoning and that there were no guarantees that he would get it The Peetitioner anticipater�no difficulty
in getting the zoning granted for�is property. Swierk ask�cl what the unique circumstances were that this use should be grantad.
He said that removing so many mces from the site would not help to maintain the uniqueness of ti�is site.
Christensa�said that he surveyed the site on foot and counted between 150 and 190 mees wlvch would have to be�xnovai if this
�cUposed pmject moves forward. Christensen said he would like to see a tree inventory of this site. Diamond said the tt�e invenbory
vwuld be done before cons�uction commenced on the pn?ject
McClatchey said he was surprised that�e Petitioner was not present for this hearing. He asked ihe size of the bar area;would there
be a pool table on site? Diamond said the bar area would be for those patrtins who are waitin�bo be seated at their tables. There
would be no pool table. Swierk said that if the bar area is for those waiting b� be seat,ed, why doesn't ihe Petitioner increase the
seatin�capacity of the dining room and reduce die seating ir;the bar area. At this point,both areas are nearly equal in size. Diamond
said it is not the intent of the Petitioner b�have a lounge, but a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages.
McA�lle asked for clarification regarding flie restaurant issue. Would this be a restaurarit serving alcoholic beverages wiihout live
entertainment or dancing? Diamond said there would be no live entertainment except as approved by City Council.
Swierk asked Lobaib�if the City is loolan�at a t�ur�ant or a lounge as far as the building use is concemed. Lobaito said ti�at any
place of business w(uch secves food, is consida�ci a restauruit Swierk said the ZBA should be aware of this flct Even some of
the bais in tiown, as lon�as they serve food, are considered a restaurant
Motion to mcess due bo the lateness of the hour by Jol�n S�vierk Motion failed for lack of a second.
Swierk said the Board should be pmvided with a landscape plan,ho�us of operation,etc. before a decision can be made wit�i rega�d
to a recommendation. Diamond said none of t�ase matte� are being negotiated this evening. Negotiations will take place before
the City Council.
`.5wierk said that an ach�al tree survey,enume�ating the mees which would be lost due tio the development should be provided. How
would the Petitioner�place the lost trees? Ttvs is a unique prope�ty which would no longer be unique if so many of the tr�es were
lost
Page 4
ZBA Kruk
4/25/94
`.
Chtistensen said d�at due� the layout of the proposed parking lot, most of the trees on ihe east side of the lot would be losk 1n
additioq the trees in�e public right of way would be lost when d�e sewers are installed. Diamond said the Petitioner would provide
a tr�e inventiory b�the City. This Board could make that a part of its recommendaation bo the City Council.
DELiBERAT[ON AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by McClatchey, seconded by Swierk to rocommend to il�e City Council thai
The Petitionet's request that the subject pmpeety be zoned E Fstate District and d�at a Use Variance be granted upon
anneacation to allow the construction and opecabon of a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages;that the Petitioner be restrictsd
as to �e Use Variance according to the conditionsirestrictions enumerated in Petitiona's Fxhibit 1; fl�at the Use Variance
is in conformance to the Site Plan submitted at this hearing and marked Petiboner's Fxhibit 2,heret�auached;and that the
Approval Criteria for Use Varianc,es,Table 32(A) of the Zoning Ordinance have been met �
DISCUSSION ON TFIE MOTION
Semrow said this p�perty would never under any circumstanc�es ever be used as an Fstate property once this Use Variance would
be granted. This is in essence a de facto reclassification b�cemmercial wning. This could no longer be sold as a residential p�operty.
Tobeck said that it was not that long ago that this Board wor�ced very ha�d regarding the Backhaus annexation prt�c,eedings bo
maintain a buffer between the residential district and the conunercial districts to the east in this area. Ri�it now flvs pcvpe�ty is very
unique. but we are trying to put a square peg into a mund hole. It will not woric. This would be spot zoning bo gant tilis Use
Variance for this pmpe�ty. We would be creating a white elephant and we,the citizen.c of McHenry,would be stuck paying for it
`,.iwierk said he ageod witli Tobeck's poinis.
VOTING ON THE MOTION
Voting Aye: Kleemann,McClatchey.
Voting Nay: Christensen, Semrnw, Swiedc,Tobeck
Not Voting: None. �
Abstaining: None.
Absent Adamson.
Motion failed 2�. 11�ere will be no recommendation from tl�is Board to ihe City Council with regard to this matter.
ADJOURN1vIENT .
Motion by Christa�se►�, seconded by Tobecic to adjoum at 10:25 p.m.
Voting Aye: Christensen,IClcemann,McClatchey, Sernrow, Swierk,Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None. �
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None. ,
Absent Adamson.
This hearing was adjoumed at 10:25 pm.
Respectfull sub i
�
�f�
Harry S w, Chairman
Zoning ard of Appeals
� Page 5
ZBA-Kruk
4/25/94
�
c: Agend�Zoning Boarri of Appeals ('�,Plan Commission (�, Ciry Adminishabor, Direcb�r of Building&Zoning,Public
Wocics Administration,City Atbmey,Petitioner's Atb�mey,City Enginaecs,Aldermen Reference Copy,Building&Zoning
Zoning File,Landmark Commission Chairman,I�orthwest Haald, City Clerk File.
Doc/'LBAMIN.373
�
�..