Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2/15/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FEBRUARY 15, 1994 CITY OF MCHENRY IN THE MATTEF OF THE APPLICATION ) �— OF TERRANCE F. 0'NEILL, BARBARA A. ) Z-377 0'NEILL AND NIRBAT KAHN FOR A ) 0'NEILL & KAHN (CarX) CONDITIONAL �SE PERMIT PURSUANT TO ) 4705 WEST ELM STREET THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 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 February 15, 1994. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. The following persons were in attendance: 1. Zoning Board Members: Randy Christensen, Emil Kleemann, Harry Semrow, John Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Richard Adamson. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: Michael Chmiel . 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer. 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. 5. Petitioner: Mirbat Kahn, contract purchaser, 311 South Milwaukee, �, Libertyville, Illinois 60048. 6. Attorney for the Petitioner: Truckenbrod & Cowlin, represented by Donald Truckenbrod and Thomas Cowlin, 4108 West Crystal Lake Road McHenry Illinois 60050. 7. City Council Members: Mayor Cuda. 8. Court Reporter: None. 9. Objectors: 1. Dennis N. Dalby, 4710 West Bonner Drive McHenry. 2. Lois Dalby, 4710 West Bonner Drive McHenry. 3. John Knoll , 4714 West Bonner Drive McHenry. 4. Sandy Knoll , 4714 West Bonner Drive McHenry. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION ----------------- Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on January 29, 1994. The Publisher' s Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Notices were mailed to owner's of record of all property abutting the subject property. An affidavit of proof of service of written notification to abutting owners and an affidavit of posting of the subject property are on file in the office of the City Clerk. � Page2 ZBA-CarX 2/15/94 SUNONARY The Petitione�•s are requesting that the subject property be granted a Conditional Use �-- Permit to all+�w the construction and operation of a muffler shop. LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY The property which is the subject of this petition is located at 4705 West Elm Street McHenry Illinois 60050. TESTIMONY Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the Petitioners: 1) Mirbat Kahn, (franchisee) , 311 S. Milwaukee, Libertyville, Illinois 60048. 2) John Fries, (general manager) , 1112 Howard Lane, Buffalo Grove, Illinois. 3) Marion Repeta,(architect) , 693 Lake Avenue, Woodstock Illinois 60098. Attorney Truckenbrod called his first witness to come forward, Mirbat Kahn. Kahn stated that he has had experience with muffler shops for twenty years. He currently owns 5 shops in the northwest suburbs. Kahn said that it is his intent if the Conditional Use Permit is granted to demolish most of the present building on the site and erect a new one. It would be a franchise of the Car-X Muffler Shop chain. There were no questions of this witness at this time. The next witness for the Petitioners was John Fries. Fries is a Vice President and General Manager for Mr. Kahn. Fries said that he has been involved with muffler shops for 22 years and has worked with Mr. Kahn for 5 years. Fries said the shops specialize in under-car repair such as brakes, exhaust system, front end, and drive line components. He stated that he is not aware of any complaints from neighbors of the other five sites of Mr. Kahn's muffler shops. �- The hours of operation would be: During Daylight Savings Time: 7:30 a.m. - 7:00 p.m. Monday and Thursday 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Saturday Closed on Sunday. During Central Standard Time: 7:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. Saturday Closed on Sunday. Fries said the refuse disposal would be handled through a scrap dealer from the City of Chicago. Scrap would be stored in a fully enclosed container to prevent scavengers from removing the scraps from the site. Cardboard, paper, etc. would be stored in an enclosed dumpster. The rear of the property (the south property line) would be fenced with a 6' stockade fence. There would be no traffic flow into or out of the site from the adjacent alley to the south. Mr. Truckenbrod went over the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Fries affirmed all statements pertaining to the Approval Criteria as stated in the Petition. �... Page3 ZBA-CarX 2/15/94 QUESTIONS OF THE WITNESS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Christensen a� ked if the Petitioner would do oil changes on the site. Fries said in `— a very limited number but only at the customer's request. Christensen asked how the used oil woulci be removed from the site. Fries said there is a Valvoline program; Valvoline would provide the storage container for both the new oil and the used oil . Christensen asked if there were any buried tanks on the site. Repeta said there are no buried tank:s. The site has passed a Phase I testing by the E.P.A. Christensen asked how the scrap would be stored on the site. Fries said it would be stored in a closed container. The refuse disposal area would be located on the southeast corner of the site and it would be fenced so that it would be screened from view. Christensen asked if there would be vehicles stored outside of the building. Fries said there would be no outside storage of vehicles. There would be no open sales lot. Employees would not be able to park vehicles in the lot with "For Sale" signs posted on them. If the repair of a given vehicle is not completed at the end of the day, the vehicle would be moved inside of the building. Liability is too great to store vehicles outside. Semrow asked Fries to explain the Valvoline program. Fries said they would havP a contract with Valvoline to deliver oil to the site and to remove used oil from the site. Semrow asked what quantity of oil would be stored on the site. Fries said there are two different sized containers which could be used: 120 gallon or 170 gallon. Semrow asked the frequency of replenishing the supply. Fries said every two to three months. Oil changes would be performed only at the customer's request; that would not be the main part of their business. Customers would be able to stop in for an oil change; however, the Petitioner would not be soliciting customers for oil changes. Fries said he anticipates approximately 10-12 oil changes per week. Semrow `, asked if the used oil would be hauled by a hazardous waste hauler. Fries said Valvoline would handle the hauling of the used oil as well as delivery of the fresh oil . Semrow asked if the parking lot would be resurfaced. Fries said that is correct. The lot would be resurfaced with approximately one inch of new blacktop. Semrow asked if there is an access easement arrangement with Phillips 66. Fries said that all traffic movement to and from the site would be from Elm Street and not from the alley in the back of the building. Semrow asked what would be the finished height of the building. Truckenbrod said the next witness would be better able to answer that question. Christensen asked if there would be a machine shop on the premises for rotors, etc. Fries said there would be. Swierk asked if the scrap metal would be enclosed in the fenced-in area. Fries said that is correct. Swierk asked if the Petitioners anticipated any drainage problems when the parking lot has been resurfaced. Truckenbrod said the architect could respond to that question. UESTIONS OF THE WITNESS BY THE OBJECTORS Dennis Dalb�: Dalby said that he found it difficult to believe that there would be no possible prc�blem with noise from the site. He asked if the bay doors to the south would be open �iuring business hours. He asked how many bays would face the rear of the property, which abuts his property. Fries said there would be three service bays on the south side of the building (facing the Dalby's property) and three service bays on the north side of the building (facing Elm Street) . Fries said noise from L. Page4 ZBA-CarX 2/15/94 the shop would not be heard beyond the property lines. Dalby said he had concerns regarding the lighting of the alley which runs between his property and the subject � property. Dalby asked if the parking lot for the muffler shop would be illuminated. Fries said tiiere would be incandescent lighting on the back and sides of the building. Re�eta said the parking lot would be illuminated but that the lighting would not interfere with residents in the neighborhood. Dalby expressed concern regarding the dark alley which would become even darker if the rear of the subject property is screened with a six foot fence. He expressed concern for the safety of his property at night due to the darkness of the alley. Swierk asked if the Objectors would like to have the alley illuminated. Dalby said that mercury vapor down lights would be fine. Truckenbrod said it is not the Petitioner's responsibility to light the alley. That would be the City's responsibility. Christensen asked if the Dalby's have a fence at their rear property line. Mr. Dalby said they have a chain link fence. Dalby said thE�re has been a drainage problem along the rear property lines of the residential lots abutting the subject property. Would the petitioner be willing to take care of it. Repeta said that the basic grade of the property would not change. The Petitioners anticipate putting in a one-inch top coat of asphalt only which would not change the drainage pattern in the area. Sand,y Knoll_ Knoll said she had a question regarding the surface water run-off from the subject property. Would the Petitioners alleviate any potential drainage problems in this area. Kahn said there would only be a one-inch increase in elevation due to resurfacing the lot. If the City would require that storm drains be installed on the property, the Petitioners would put them in. �.. Semrow asked if the Petitioners used acid or any kind of hazardous products in the servicing of vehicles. Fries said that any products which would be used would be removed from the site by certified haulers. Sand,y Knoll : Would the Petitioners only have the property illuminated to protect it at night or would they also have guard dogs? Fries said there would not be guard dogs. Tobeck asked if the Petitioners would begin work on a vehicle if the parts were not readily available. Fries said he would not. Truckenbrod asked the Petitioner if noise created by the servicing of vehicles would exceed the property line. Fries said it would not. Christensen said that if a vehicle was towed to the site for repair, where would the Petitioners store it until such time as it could be repaired. Fries said if the repair could not be made by the end of the workday, it would be stored inside at night. The liability is too great for outside storage of customer's vehicles. TESTIMONY Mark Repeta described the existing building on the site. He said that the majority of the building would be demolished, leaving only the high bay on the east side of the property. The proposed building would be half as wide as the existing structure, but it would be deeper on the property than the footprint of the current building. The petitioner is proposing to put in six bays: three in the front, three in the rear of the building. All traffic would come in and leave the site from Route 120. The alley to t.he south of the property would not be used for access to the site. � There would be a six-foot stockade fence would screen the back yard from all adjacent Page5 ZBA-CarX 2/15/94 properties. "-he partion of the existing building which would remain standing would be used for office, storage and bathroom facilities. The proposed height of the `' building is �0 feet, which is the approximate height of the highest bay of the existing buil��ing. The building front would be squared off; the peak of the roof for the remairiing portion would be removed. When completed, the building will look like an entir��ly new structure. Semrow asked the height of the new structure as compared to the service station which abuts this property. Repeta said the two buildings would be about the same height. Repeta said he was not aware until this hearing of any prior drainage problems on the site. The completion of the project should leave the elevation of the property basically unchanged. Repeta said that landscaping would include the area in front of the office and the rear yard by the fence which will screen the rear property line. The Petitioners would move the front parking area back five feet to allow for a parking screening strip in the front between the two curb cuts on the property. QUESTIONS OF TNE WITNESS BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Swierk asked where existing drainage on the site goes. Repeta said that typically the front of the building drains to the road and the rear of the building drains toward the alley at the rear of the property. Repeta said the Petitioners would look into draining to the state storm sewer in front of the building, if there is one available. Semrow said that the building can not increase the surface water drainage in the area if they are re-using the existing grade. Christensen said what if the City discovers that the initial paving of this property was not engineered properly. Would the Petitioners object if the City required that �.. a storm drain be installed on this property. Kahn said whatever the City required, they would comply with. Christensen asked Lobaito if the City had any recourse to control surface water drainage. Lobaito explained that individual properties must control their own storm water run-off. Release of storm water from private properties must be to approved drainage systems. Swierk asked if, technically, would the proposed structure be a new building or an addition. Lobaito said he was not sure. The building codes do not specifically address this issue. It would be a judgement call . In any case, the Petitioners would not be permitted to increase the amount of surface water run-off from their property onto other properties in this neighborhood. Swierk said the plans indicate blacktop curbing. He asked if the Petitioners would consider installing concrete curbing. Kahn said that if that is what the City would request, they would put in concrete curbing. Truckenbrod said that this is not a zoning issue. That would be a building issue and is not relevant to this Board. Kleemann asked what is located at the south property line where the stockade fencing is proposed. Repeta said there is nothing there at this time. The property opens onto the unim��roved alley to the rear. Semrow asked �he distance from the back of the proposed building to the proposed fence. Repeta said it would be 35 feet. There is the green-space alley and then the neighbor's prcperty line. So there would be approximately 55 feet between the rear of the buildirg and the neighbor's property line. � Page6 ZBA-CarX 2/15/94 Christensen asked the size of the overhead doors for the bays. Repeta said the rear � doors would be 12 feet high. The front doors would be 10 feet high. Swierk said that he felt curbing was an issue that could be addressed by the Board. Could not the Board require concrete curbing as one of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit being granted? Truckenbrod said that this Board can only decide if the Conditional Use Permit should be granted or not granted. The site plan was previously approved by Staff. All requirements of the Staff have been met. This Board should only concern itself with whether or not they should recommend approval of the Conditional Use which is being requested by the applicant. Semrow said the issue of curbing is a cosmetic one. He said he does not see a need to demand concrete curbs. Tobeck said Mr. Kahn is not averse to installing concrete curbing. The Petitioner does not consider this a big issue. UESTIONS OF THE WITNESS BY THE OBJECTORS Sand,y Knoll : Knoll asked when the Petitioners were planning to open the facility. Fries said they were hoping to begin operation by mid to late June. Denni s Dal by_ Dal by sai d he sti 11 has three areas of concern: 1 i ghti ng of the alley; surface water run-off; noise generated by the repairs when the service bay doors are open during non-inclement weather. Truckenbrod said the Petitioner should not have to light the alley to the rear of the subject property. That is City property and it is their concern. The Petitioner would not object to the alley being illuminated by the City. Semrow said if this is City property, the Objectors should address their concern regarding the illumination of the alley to the City Council when this matter comes before them for action. � Truckenbrod said the Petitioners have already testified that the noise generated by this facility would not exceed their property boundaries. Noise would be intermittent and not continuous. Lengthy discussion ensued regarding the outside storage of vehicles on the site and what if any recommendation could or should be made to the City Council . Truckenbrod contended that the Zoning Board could not make conditions upon their recommendation to the Council with regard to the subject petition. There were three areas of concern to the Board: concrete curbing, landscaping and outside storage. At the conclusion of the discussion, Chairman Semrow said "there being no further testimony before this Board with regard to the Petition, 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 RECOMMENDATION Motion by Swi?rk, seconded by Christensen to recommend to the City Council that The Pefiitioners ' request for a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the provisi �ns of the Zoning Ordinance be granted; that the Conditional Use Permit be restricted as follows: 1) the ��wner/operator of the property shall not permit any vehicles under his control to be stored outside of the building for more than five consecutive days; � Page7 ZBA-CarX 2/15/94 2) con�:rete curbing shall be used on the perimeter of the subject property on � the west and east property lines and on the south side of the proposed landsc,�ped area (at the north property line) ; 3) that the Petitioners work closely with the City to alleviate potential draina�ae problems as a result of the proposed facility; and th,�t Table 31, the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits, pages 357-358, have been met. Voting Aye: Christensen, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Adamson. Motion carried 5-0. Kleemann said that it would be his recommendation that the lighting of the alley which abuts the subject property to the south should be addressed by the City Council . ADJOURNMENT Motion by Christensen, seconded by Tobeck to adjourn. Voting Aye: Christensen, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Adamson. Motion carried 5-0. The hearing was adjourned at 9:20 p.m. �-- Re ec fully sub tted, �—. Harry Se w, Chairman Zoning B rd of Appeals c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7) , Plan Commission (7) , City Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Public Works Administration, City Attorney, City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioners ' Attorney, Objectors (2) , Building & Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File. Doc/ZBAMIN.377 �