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
�