HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/24/1994 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 24, 1994
CITY OF MCHENRY
�,, IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION )
OF JAY KOELLEF; AND JUDY KOELLER ) Z-376
FOR A VARIANCE: FROM THE PROVISIONS ) JAY AND JUDY KOELLER
OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY) NORTH OF MAPLE AVENUE
OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, ) VARIATION
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 January 24, 1994. Chairman
Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m. The following persons were in
attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Richard Adamson, Randy Christensen, Wayne Dixon, Harry
Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Emil Kleemann, John Swierk.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director af Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioner: Jay and Judy Koeller, 4511 Wilmot Road, McHenry Illinois 60050.
`— 6. Attorney for the Petitioner: Diamond LeSueur Roth and Associates, represented
by John Roth, 3431 West Elm Street, McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. City Council Members: Mayor Cuda, Alderman Bates.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Objectors: None.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on January 3,
1994. The Publisher' s Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on fi1P
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 sPrvice 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.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting that the subject property be granted a Variation as
to the definition of "Lot" as set forth in the Zoning Ordinanc� to allow the
construction �f a duplex on the subject property.
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
The property �vhich is the subject of this petition is located approximately 85 feet
north of the intersection of Maple Avenue and an unnamed roadway.
�
Page2
ZBA-Koeller
1/24/94
TESTIMONY
�. Chairma�i Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioners:
1) J�y Koeller, 4511 Wilmot Road McHenry Illinois 60050
2) Jady Koeller, 4511 Wilmot Road McHenry Illinois 60050.
Jay Koeller said that they had purchased the subject property from the City of
McHenry in 1988. The property was zoned RA-1 Attached Residential , and was appraised
at the time of purchase. The Koeller's paid a fair market price of $17,000 based
upon the assumption that the property could be built upon as dictated by the RA-1
Zoning District requirements. Mr. Koeller stated that he was assured by someone, at
this point he did not remember exactly who, at City Hall that the subject property
was buildable.
Attorney Roth went over the Approval Criteria for Variances with the Petitioners, as
stated in paragraph 9(a) through 9(i ) of the Petition.
It was noted that the existing right-of-way for the unnamed roadway discussed within
the Petition is actually 30 feet wide and not 20 feet wide as indicated on the Plat
of Survey which is attached to the Petition.
The Petitioners went over the proposed site plan for the subject property which
depicts a duplex on the site. Mr. Koeller indicated that the one bedroom unit would
be approximately 760 square feet and the two bedroom unit would be 880 square feet.
Sufficient off-street parking would be available. Provisions would be made for a
refuse disposal area, which would be screened from view.
� UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
�------------ — --------
Tobeck asked if the Petitioners were planning to live on the premises or would the
units be rental property. Mr. Koeller said this is investment property and that the
units would be rented out. Tobeck asked who maintains the right-of-way at this time;
who plows it in the winter? Lobaito said the City plows and maintains the right-of-
way.
Dixon asked if there was any possibility that this would be a paved dedicated street
in the future. Lobaito said there is not enough width to put in a standard street
according to today's specifications. Dixon said the way it is now, then, is the way
this alley would remain. Lobaito said that is correct, with the possible exception
of the alley being paved. It is currently gravel . It is not wide enough to be
brought up to city standards as a street.
Christensen asked how the City obtained this property. Residents use this right-of-
way to access their garages to the east of the subject property. Lobaito said this
was always platt�d as an alley. The history is sketchy because accurate records were
not kept so long ago. This is an alley; it is a public right-of-way. This lot
fronts on an alley and not on a public street.
Semrow asked what would be the address of the proposed building on this property?
Mr. Koeller said the post office would provide an address. Semrow said it is an
unnamed street. How would emergency vehicles find a building on an unnamed street.
Would emergency vehicles be able to access this building, since the existing alley
or riqht-of-way is so narrow? To what address would they be dispatchPd? Roth said
this c:ould be worked out with the Fire District and the Post Office.
�.
Semrow asked the Petitioner to define what he means by "buildable" . Mr. Kaeller said
it would mean that a building could be erected on a lot. Semrow said that his
interpretation of the word "buildable" is that the land would support a structure.
Mr. Koeller agreed with this interpretation.
Page3
ZBA-Koeller
1/24/94
Christensen as<ed if the residents to the east of the subject property use the alley.
`- Koeller said that is correct. Christensen said all of those residences face Route
31; they have �=rontage on Route 31. The subject property is the only one which does
not have front�ge on a street (Route 31) and which would make use of the alley as a
means of egress/ingress to their property. Mr. Koeller said that is correct.
Adamson asked if the Petitioners own the property immediately to the south of the
subject property. Mr. Koeller said he does not. Adamson asked the addresses of the
duplex units immediately to the south of the subject property. Semrow said the
addresses of those units are 3612 and 3614 Maple Avenue.
Christensen asked for a brief recess. The Chairman recessed the hearing at 8:00 p.m.
The hearing reconvened at 8:10 p.m. with all participants still present.
Semrow said the Petitioners are requesting a variance with regard to the definition
of "Lot" as found in the Zoning Ordinance. Semrow asked what relief the Petitioners
are asking the Board to recommend to the City Council . He said he was unclear as to
the actual request. Attorney Roth said the subject property does not front on a
dedicated street as required by the definition of "Lot" in the Ordinance. Roth said
the Petitioners are seeking a recommendation to vary from that definition so that the
subject property would be buildable. Semrow said that the word "buildable" does not
infer that a residence could be put up on the property. If the lot is "buildable" ,
it does not necessarily mean that a duplex could be erected on this property. Roth
said that an appraisal was done prior to purchase form the City by the Petitioners.
The property was appraised as RA-1 which would permit a duplex.
� Semrow asked what the address of the building would be should it be erected on the
property. Roth said he would personally talk to the fire protection district and the
post office and obtain their advice with regard to addressing this property for
expediency in arrival of emergency vehicles to the site, should that be necessary.
Semrow asked what exactly the Petitioners desired that the Board recommend to the
City Council . Roth said the Petitioners are requesting a variance with regard to the
definition of "Lot" .
Dixon said if this property does not front on a street, how can you determine where
the front yard, rear yard, and side yards would be located to determine setbacks
which would be required by Ordinance. Lobaito said the property would front on the
unnamed alley, so that would be the front yard. That is where access would be gained
to the site. Dixon said there is no other property which fronts on this alley.
Therefore, paragraph 9(e) is not necessarily true. Roth said that it was difficult
to substantiate the approval criteria, especially with regard to this paragraph.
Roth said that many of the residents in this neighborhood use this right-of-way for
egress/ingress to their property, even if they do not front on the alley.
Tobeck asked if there was a fire and a fatality resulted from the fire, who would be
at fault; would the city sustain liability by permitting a duplex to be built on an
unnamed roadway, to which emergency vehicles had difficulty in locating and/or
gaining access"' McArdle said that everything that is done at the City could have a
potential for a lawsuit. Allowing this property to be built upon could have the
potential for a lawsuit, as could any other action taken by a city body at any other
� time.
Page 4
ZBA-Koeller
1/24/94
Tobeck asked who would have the authority to name this alley and who would be
�, responsible for providing an address for this parcel . Lobaito said the Building
Department addresses lots in the city. McArdle asked, wouldn't the city have to
amend the oric�inal Plat of Subdivision for this property? It would be necessary to
run a search of the platting of this property. Discussion ensued regarding the
procedure necessary for naming of the alley and addressing the subject property.
Semrow asked - f the alley were named, would the name carry on to the alley which goes
south of this site between Grand and Maple Avenues. Lobaito said that would be up
to the City.
Christensen asked if the definition of "Lot" had changed since this property was
purchased in 1988. Lobaito said it had not. Semrow said the definition of "Lot"
could include the subject property by striking the word "street" and inserting the
word "way" .
Lobaito said that historically the City does not maintain secondary accessways
(alleys) in the same manner as streets. The City would have to maintain this alley
in the same manner as they maintain streets if this building were erected. With
regard to utilities being available for this site: water is not available at this
time. The Petitioners would have to bring it to the site. Lobaito said that he was
presented with a Declaration of Easement (attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A)
by the Petitioners prior to the hearing which will provide access to allow water to
be brought to the site. This Declaration of Easement has been provided by the
property owner immediately to the south of the subject property. With regard to
sanitary sewer, Lobaito said the sewer line runs along the northern property line.
There is a 15 foot easement at this location. There is, in fact, a stub on this
� property.
Christensen asked if there are other alleys in town. Labaito said that is correct.
Christensen asked if all alleys are paved. Lobaito said that not in every instance
are they paved.
CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONERS
----- ------ -------------
Attorney Roth said in closing that the Petitioners purchased the subject property
from the City in 1988. Perhaps they did not do everything they should have with
regard to what they were told about this property from representatives of the City.
At the time, the City believed this lot to be worth $17,000. All evidence supparts
what the Petitioners have stated with regard to the zoning of the property and the
fact that they were told that they could put a duplex on this property.
The Petitioners have met the legal requirements as far as seeking relief from the
Zoning Ordinance is concerned. They have met the provisions of the Ordinance with
regard to the Approval Criteria for Variances.
Roth said that it would seem reasonable to permit the Petitioners to construct a
duplex as they were told they could at the time of purchase of this property from the
City. Roth said that he is asking for the Board's consideration and that they
recommend to the City Council that the Petitioners' request for a variance be
granted.
Attorney McArdle said that the relief being requested by the Petitioners is found in
paragraph #8 of the Petition.
\..
Page5
ZBA-Koeller
1/24/94
Chairman Semrow said, "there being nothing further before this Board with regard to
� this matter, tl�e Board will consider the Petition at this time, unless there is a
motion to rece��s by a member of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the
Chair will entf�rtain a motion with regard to the Petition. "
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by Tobeck, seconded by Dixon to recommend to the City Council that
The Petitioners ' request for a variation from the definition of "Lot" as set
forth in the Zoning Ordinance, to allow the construction of a duplex in
accordance with the RA-1 Attached Residential District requirements on the
subject property be granted; and that Table 32, the Appraval Criteria for
Variances, pages 376-377 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Motion carried 5-0.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Christensen asked when the City owned this property, who applied the term "buildable"
to this parcel . Semrow said the term "buildable" means different things to different
people. It does not necessarily mean that one can build a specific structure on it.
Christensen asked the usual procedures for annexation to the City. Lobaito explained
the three steps which are usually necessary and stated that there is no specific
� order in which these steps must be taken. Developers who seek annexation must go
before the Plan Commission, the City Council and the Zoning Board of Appeals (if they
seek zoning other than the automatic Estate Zoning provided for by City ordinance) .
Discussion followed regarding possible signalization of the intersections of Prime
Parkway and Route 31, Shamrock Lane and Route 31, and Crystal Lake Road and Winding
Creek Drive. Christensen asked the status of the Dartmoor Bridge on the Backhaus
property. Mayor Cuda said that there is a Public Works Committee Meeting scheduled
for Wednesday, January 26, 1994, which is open to the public. The bridge will be
discussed at that time.
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Dixon, seconded by Christensen to adjourn.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Kleemann, Swierk.
Motion carried 5-0. The hearing was adjourned at 8:50 p.m_
Respectfully s mitted,�
/ �
Harry Sem w, Chairman
Zoning Board 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, Building & Zoning Zoning
File, Lardmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Doc/ZBAMIN.376
�.Xh i h � � � �
�
�" GRANT AND DECL�TION
OF �ASEMENT
�
For and in consideration of the sum of Ten & no/100ths
($10 . 00 ) Dollars and other good and valuable consideration receipt
of which is hereby acknowledged SANDFtA FOLEY and FR1�NC�S HUGFi�S do
hereby grant, convey and assign a permanent easement to construct, �
reconstruct, replace, operate, maintain, inspect, alter or repair
a pipe for water service as may be necessary or convenient under,
along and across the following described parcel of land: •
A 5 foot easement for municipal water construction and
maintenance, and repair over the Eastern 5 feet of the
following parcel of land: �
Part of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of
Section 26, Township 45 North, Range 8 East of the Third
Principal Meridian, and being a part of Lot 1 of the
County Clerk's Plat of said Section, described as '
follows: Commencing at the Southeast Corner of Lot 17 of
"Mill Stream Addition to McHenry, Unit No. 1" according �
to the plat thereof recorded July 16, 1946, as Document
No. 193334, in Book 10 of Plats, page 33; thence East on �
the North line of Kent Avenue, 60 feet to a point for a
� place of beginning; thence North on a line parallel with
the East line of said Lot 17, a distance of 85 feet to a
point; thence �ast on a line parallel with the North line
of Kent Avenue aforesaid, 86 feet to a point; thence
South on a line parallel the East line ot Lot 17
aforesaid, 85 feet to the North line of Kent Avenue;
thence West 86 feet to the place of beginning, in McHenry
County, Illinois . ,
This Grant of Easement is given for the use and benefit
of the now and future title holders of record and their successors �
and assigns of the following described premises:
That part of the Northeast Quarter of the Southwest
Quarter of Section 26 and being a part of Lot 1 of the
County Clerk's Plat of said Section, described as
follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Lot 17 of
Mill Stream Addition to McHenry, Unit No. l, according to
the Plat thereof recorded July 16, 1946 as Document No.
193334 in Book 10 of Plats, page 33; thence East on the
North line of ICent Avenue 60 feet to a point; thence
North on a line parallel with the East line of Lot 17,
aforesaid a distance of 85 feet to a point for a place of '
beginning; thence North on a continuation of the last
described line 100 . 5 feet to the East and West Quarter `
� Section line; thence East on said Quarter Section line 86
feet to a point; thence South on a line parallel with the
East line of said Lot 17 a distance of 102 . 11 teet, more � .
,
�:::,
f ?
,
or less, to a point 85 feet North from the North line of
� Kent Avenue, aforesaid; thence West parallel with the
North line of said Kent Avenue 86 feet to the place of
beginning, all in Township 45 North, Range 8 East of the
Third Principal Meridian, in McHenry County, Illinois,
subject to the reservation of an easement for municipal
and public utility purposes on the Northwest 15 feet of
said premises.
Grantor, its successors and assigns retains all of its
rights to the use and occupation of said real estate not
inconsistent with the use by Grantee in accordance with the
provisions of this Grant of permanent easement.
Grantee, its successors and assigns agrees that Grantor's
property effected herein shall be restored to its reasonable
original condition and appearance, including the replacement of
grass, bushes and other vegetation or plantings that may be
effected by Grantees use of the easement.
This Grant of Easement shall be perpetual and shall run
with the land and inure to the benefit and use of the Grantees,
their successors and assigns.
The expense of the installation, maintenance and repair
of the water service as well as the restoration of Grantor's
property as set forth herein shall occur at the expense of Grantee
`- and at no expense whatsoever to Grantor. Prior to the exercise of
any right provided to Grantee herein, Grantee agrees to provide
Grantor reasonable notice of the exercise of his/her rights under
this Grant of Easement and Grantees � use of this Grant of Easement
shall take place in the shortest reasonable time necessary for �
Grantees to exercise their rights herein. .
�
;
�
i
L
' � �
�
;
, I:
�.
i:
l
t
� �.
�
�.
2 j
�
�
,
� IN WITNESS WHEREOF
instrument to be duly executed� thise Gr�tor has caused this
�-- 199�". �_ day of �Nu,
, �� > �� '
L--- ��-.
SANDRA FOLEY
�
� ,-�� ; L - �L�
FRANCES HUGHES -
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN O efore me
this �w�w� da _ N .
_, 199�.
, N tar Public
"OFFICIAL SEAI:'
�oHrr a Ron� .
NoUr�r PuWio.scerc.ot a��no�e
My Cwnmi�a+6q�rq 1/14/87
�
THIS DOCUMENT PREPARED BY:
JOHN ROTH
DIAMOND, LeSUEUR & ROTH, P. �,
3431 W. Elm St.
McHenry, IL 60050
Phone : 815 385� 6840 � ;
f:�sa n dybea kstUcoeller.eas
�
3