Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 11/29/1993 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NOVEMBER 29, 1993 CITY OF MCHENRY � IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION ) OF DAVID A. K�UK FOR A RECLASSIFI- ) Z-373 CATION FROM C�UNTY A-1 TO C-3 ) DAVID A. KRUK COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL WITH A ) 5603 W. BULL VALLEY ROAD CONDITIONAL USE PURSUANT TO THF ) HAYSTACKS MANOR ZONING ORDINANCE FOR 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 November 29, 1993. 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, Wayne Dixon. 2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle. 3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer. 4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito. 5. Petitioner: David A. Kruk, 12826 S. Orchard, Alsip, Illinois 60658. � 6. Attorney for the Petitioner: Diamond, LeSueur, Roth and Associates, represented by Samuel Diamond, 3431 West Elm Street, McHenry Illinois 60050. 7. City Council Members: Alderman Baird, Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger. 8. Court Reporter: Cheryl Barone. 9. Objectors: 1. Robert Fry, 513 Brookwood Trail , McHenry 2. Kevin Harrington, 505 Brookwood Trail , McHenry. NOTICE OF PUBLICATION ----------------- Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 12, 1993. The Publisher' s Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file in the City Clerk' s Office. Notices were mailed to all abutting landowners and certified mailing receipts are on file in the office of the City Clerk. The subject property was posted. An affidavit of compliance with all notice requirements has been filed with the City Clerk with regard to this Petition. SUMMARY The Petitioner is requesting that: a) the subject property be reclassified from A-1 county Agricultural to C-3 Community Commercial upon annexation to the City of MrHenry; b) that a C��nditional Use be granted to permit the construction and operation of � a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages. Page2 ZBA-Kruk 11/28/93 L' LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY The property which is the subject of this petition is located at 5603 West Bull Valley Road and is comprised of approximately 4 acres. TESTIMONY Attorney Diamond provided the Board with an overvipw of the Petitions �vhirh are being presented at this hearing. The zoning classification and actual uses of all abutting properties wa� indicated on an aerial photo for the Boards clarification of the properties surrounding the subject property. Diamond said that it was the consensus of the Plan Commission that this proposal basically conforms to the Comprehensive Plan. If there needs to be a map amendment, that is a sPparate issue which will be addressed by the Plan Commission. The only reason there is a request fnr a conditional use is because there would be consumption of alcohol on the �remises in conjunction with the restaurant use. Diamond said the Petitioner purchased the property in September without any guarantees. Water and sewer are available to the site. It was determined that the Petitioner can not cross connect to Brookwood Trail . He will connect to the east from the Amoco site. The Petitioner will meet all code requirements. He is not asking for any variations. Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioner: 1) David A. Kruk, 12826 S. Orchard, Alsip, Illinois 60658. Kruk said he purchased the subject property on September 10, 1993. He plans to � convert the existing residence to a restaurant. This was the setting he was looking for. That is why he purchased it without any guarantee of its use as a restaurant. Kruk said that with regard to his experience and training in this field, he has been going to culinary art school and restaurant management training classes. He has hired an architect and an engineer for the project. The existing structure is approximately 3,000 square feet in size. Kruk said he wants to preserve the existing structure type when the addition to the facility is added. The site is approximately 4 acres in size. Kruk said it is a heavily wooded, fairly level site. He wants to keep as many of the existing trees and landscape as possible during the remodeling process. He would like to leave the front of the site (which abuts Bull Valley Road) intact, if possible. The only thing which may disturb it would be the installation of the water or sewer mains. The addition to the structure would be to the south elevation. Kruk said he plans to use the existing driveway for entrance to the site. Kruk said the current zoning for the parcel is A-1 County Agricultural . He said he is requesting C-3 Community Commercial as recommended by City staff. Kruk described the uses for all abutting properties. UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Chairman Semrow asked how many square feet the restaurant will be when the addition has been added to the existing structure. Kruk said the square footage will be 6,000. Semrow asked if there would be adequate parking as required by ordinance. Diamond said the Petitioner would comply with all parking and landscaping requirements of the ordinance. Retention facilities would be addressed as well , when ,� the final engireering has been completed. Semrow said that if the restaurant is to be 6,000 square feet, there should be 120 parking spaces shown on the plan. It would appear that the plan is deficient in that respect. Diamond said the Petitioner would have the requi �ed number of parki ng s paces on the s i te. The s i te pl an woul d be revised again if necessary. Page3 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 �" Christensen asked if the Petitioner was planning to reside in the structure. Diamond said there is no provision in the Zoning Ordinance for living beneath a commercial business in the City of McHenry. This is being proposed to be considered as a condition within the confines of the annexation agreement with regard to the subject property. Diamond stated that the Petitioner would meet all building and zoning codes with regarding to a residence within a commercial structure. Christensen asked if there would be an entrance from the restaurant to the residence. Kruk said there would be. Semrow asked if the building in question is built into the side of a hill . Kruk said that is correct. Semrow said that the living quarters then would be on the first level and not actually in a basement. Swierk asked if the Petitioner would reside in the living quarters. Kruk said that is correct. Diamond said the living quarters would be about 1,400-1,500 square feet in size. Semrow asked what percentage of the original structure would be used for the restaurant. Kruk said about 50% of the existing building would be used for the restaurant. Kruk said he is planning to add approximately 3,000 square feet to the restaurant. Tobeck asked what kind of restaurant was being planned, family? catering to a certain age group? Kruk said he is planning an upscale restaurant with fine dining. Tobeck asked the proposed hours of operation. Kruk said Monday through Thursday, 4:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. ; Friday through Sunday, 4:30 - midnight. Tobeck asked the proposed number of employees. Kruk said he anticipated 15 employees. � Semrow asked if the Petitioner was planning to offer a dinner menu only; there would be no lunches served on the premises? Kruk said that is correct. Semrow asked the Petitioner if he foresaw any likelihood of extending the hours of operation to include lunch. Kruk that would be a possibility at some point; as of this time, he was not planning on being open for lunch. Swierk referred to the building plans which were presented by the Petitioner at this hearing. Swierk said the bar area appeared to be quite large in relationship to the dining area. Kruk said these plans were drawn up by his architect. It was irrelevant to him how large the bar area would be. Swierk asked McArdle if there was some point when this would become a bar serving food rather than a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages. Is there a formula for percentage of seating whereby this would tell us if this is in fact a bar or a restaurant? McArdle said thPre are no restrictions with regard to the liquor license and the amount of seating in the bar area of a restaurant. McArdle asked if there was an objection on the part of the Board with someone coming into the establishment, having a drink and leaving without having eaten dinner. Diamond said this would be an upscale restaurant; it would be similar to the Dobyn's House. Semrow asked if the Petitioner planned on using the existing driveway as a means of ingress/egress for the subject property. Kruk said that would be correct. Semrow said to the bes+ of his recollection, the driveway accesses Bull Valley Road at the bottom of a hill and just west of a curve in the road. Semrow asked the Petitioner how there could be no adverse impact upon local traffic. There would be a potential � of 120 vehicles accessing or leaving this site at a location where there is a curve and a decline in the roadway. There would be a traffic hazard during peak traffic times, such as the evening dinner hour. Kruk said he does not think there will be a problem with traffic at the location. Semrow asked the Petitioner if he thought there was a potE�ntial for a safety problem. Diamond said he did not think there was a safety issue ,�s far as traffic is concerned. Page 4 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 � Semrow said the City will require the lot to be bermed along the front property line in order to �,creen the parking from the road. Diamond said the Petitioner will comply with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, unless the City chooses to waive any of the requirements for one reason or another. Christensen said there would be a berm along the front property line, but what about the property line to the east. Christensen said he was concerned regarding this 3- acre parcel being presently zoned A-1 in the county. In the event this property is brought into the City, it will not be properly screened from the adjacent restaurant commercial property to the west. McArdle said this issue could be addressed in the annexation agreement. Christensen asked if all abutting property owners had been notifi�d. Diamond said that the property owners as shown on the amended list of abutting taxpayers had been notified. Semrow said that all green cards had been returned and had been made a part of the record of these proceedings. McArdle asked if this restaurant serving alcoholic beverages would be without live entertainm�ent. Diamond said that with regard to the conditional use permit, the Petitioner is requesting that alcoholic beverages be served on the premises in conjunction with the restaurant use. Semrow said that in the C-3 District it is permitted to have as a conditional use a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages and having live entertainment. Semrow said that the C-2 District restricts the restaurant to having no live entertainment. Semrow asked why the Petitioner sought C-3 rather than C-2 zoning. Was he intending to have live entertainment on the premises? The Petitioner indicated that the staff recommended C-3 zoning in order to conform to the C-3 zoning on the northwest corner of the intersection of Bull Valley and Crystal Lake Roads. Diamond said the Petitioner would have no problem if � C-2 zoning were granted rather than the proposed C-3. It would be more restrictive and if that is what the Board wants, that would be satisfactory with the Petitioner. UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE OBJECTORS ----------------------------------- Robert_F�•. Is it your intention to have live entertainment at this restaurant? Kruk said it is not. Would the Petitioner manage the facility himself or hire a manager? Kruk said he would manage it himself. Has the Petitioner worked in a restaurant before? Kruk said he has worked in a restaurant, but that he has never managed one. Is the Petitioner a member of the Illinois Restaurant Association? Kruk said he is not, although he is familiar with the organization. Is the Petitioner aware that there are approximately 6,000 new food licenses issued each year in the state of Illinois? Kruk said he was aware of that fact. Is the Petitioner aware that of those 6,000 restaurants, about 4,000 fail in their first year? Kruk said he is aware of that. Is the Petitioner aware that of the 6,000 licenses issued each year, approximately 1,000 fail in the second year? Kruk said yes, he is aware of that. Is the Petitioner aware of the 97 us�s which would be permitted in the C-3 Zoning District if it were granted to this property, especially in the event that this restaurant failed within its first two years. Kruk said he is not planning for the restaurant to fail . If the C-3 zoning were granted but the conditional use permit was not granted to allow alcoholic beverages, would the Petitioner still open the restaurant. Kruk said he would not. Will the Petitioner have room on the proposed site plan for the � required 120 parking spaces? Kruk said he would conform to the City code. Is there any parking on this site now? Kruk said only as required for the existing single family residence. Would the parking lot be created within an area that is currently highly wooded and grassed at this time? Page5 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 � Kruk said yes , that is true, although the parking area to the east of the building is not as heavily wooded as the perimeter of the site. Would the Petitioner have to remove some oj' the existing trees? Kruk said that is correct. Is it not true that the environmer�t would be changed when the proposed project is completed? Kruk said the environment will not change. He hopes to maintain the setting as much as possible. Is it not true that the number of trees on the site would be drastically reduced due to the installation of the proposed parking lot? Kruk said that the area where the parking lot would be located is not as heavily wooded and that the trees on that part of the site are not as mature as in other locations on this property. Is it true that half of the existing building would be used for the restaurant? Kruk said that is correct. If the Petitioner purchased the property because of the great setting, why is he proposing to change it so drastically? Kruk said that he hopes to maintain as much of the countrified character as possible. Would there be traffic congestion at the access point to the site on Bull Valley Road? Kruk said that he does not think there would be any traffic congestion. Would the Petitioner widen the access driveway? Kruk said that if the City requires the drive to be expanded, he would widen it. Would the Petitioner lose trees due to the installation of water and sewer mains on this property? Kruk said he would. Does the Petitioner have a site plan which documents the existing trees on this site? Kruk said he does not. Would the Petitioner live on the premises alone? Kruk said that is correct. How many bedrooms would be contained in the apartment if this request is granted? Kruk said there are four bedrooms in the Pxisting residence. At the completion of the project, there would be two bedrooms. � Fry gave an overview of the zoning and uses in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project. He asked, is the Petitioner asking the City to overlook the buffers which have been set up to protect the existing residential neighborhood? Kruk said that this is not the case. Is the Petitioner aware that the location of the access drive to this site would cause auto headlights to shine on his patio door? Is the Petitioner aware that the location of the access drive to the site is 50 feet from Fry's property line and 60 feet from his children' s swing set? How would the Petitioner screen the refuse and grease containers? Diamond said the Petitioner would comply with city codes. Kevin Harrin�ton_ Would there be left turn lanes or acceleration or deceleration lanes exiting the site? Diamond said that the Petitioner will follow City staff recommendations. If the engineering calls for left turn lanes and acceleration/deceleration lanes, they would be installed. Would there be only one access drive? Would the Petitioner make it into two lanes? Diamond said the Petitioner would do what is required by the City. UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE BOARD Christensen asked what type of lighting would be used in the parking lot and what is required by c�,ty ordinance. Lobaito said the parking lot is not required to be illuminated. The only restriction is that the lighting can not be directed toward adjacent properties. Chairman Semrow called for a brief recess at 9:08 p.m. The hearing reconvened at 9:23 with all members of the Board still in attendance. � Page6 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 `" Christensen said he would like to see a tree surve of the ro ert This Y p p y. project could change the character of this property and this area. Kruk said the majority of the trees which would be removed would be in the front when the water and sewer mai ns are i nsta�l 1 ed. Chri stensen asked i f the 1 ocati on for the water and sewer mai ns is known at this time. Kruk said it is not. Christensen asked if there are many large trees in the right-of-way where the mains would be installed. Lobaito said that is correct. Christensen said that if a tree survey were provided, the Board would know how the topography of the land would change and how the character of this site would be altered due to the construction of the parking lot for this facility. Kruk said that most of the trees, especially the larger pine trees, are on the perimeter of the property and would not be affected by the installation of the parking lot. Christensen asked if the drive would be required to be curbed at the entrance. Lobaito said he is not sure. Christensen asked if there were plans regarding the sign that would be proposed for this site. Kruk said he does not want a large neon sign. Semrow said he has concerns about the drive access to the site. Would the Petitioner be willing to relocate the drive to a point further west than where it is currently located? Semrow said he is concerned with the curve just east of the drive, and that anyone who has been drinking and is exiting the site, could have vision problems, and slowed-down reflexes. There could be a safety problem with the drive location. Kruk said that if that is what it takes, he would be willing to move the location of the drive further west; however, then he would lose even more trees, and that appears to be of concern to this Board. Diamond said that if the City engineers and the Building Department see this drive location as a safety hazard, the drive would be \., moved. If a second entrance is required and/or the existing entrance is recommended to be moved, this will be done. The Petitioner has indicated that he will do whatever is required by the City. Swierk asked if the Petitioner would bring the sewer to the west property line. Diamond said there would be a 15" forced main and the subject property and the parcel immediately to the west are basically the only parcels which would be serviced by the forced main. Swierk said that if the drive is pushed further to the west, would this be acceptable to Mr. Fry and alleviate his safety concerns regarding his family. Fry said there is a lot more to this issue than just the access drive and its location. Kleemann suggested that the hearing be recessed until such time as the Petitioner has prepared a new site plan with the drive location changes and showing that it has been widened. Diamond said that he would prefer to see the hearing carried out to its conclusion. If the Board would like to have the access drive moved to the west, the Petitioner has agreed to move it. Diamond asked the Petitioner if he reaffirmed the allegations made in the Petition for the Conditional Use. Kruk said that he did. Diamond asked the Petitioner if he would agree to having a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages without live entertainment. Kruk said that was correct. Diamond asked if at any time the bar portion of the establishment would be open without the dining room being open. Kruk said it would not. � Page7 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 `'' Christensen ask��d the seating capacity of the dining room. Kruk said it is 72 seats. Christensen ask�d the seating capacity of the bar area. Kruk said it is 62 seats. Swierk said that is a very high percentage of total seating. 46% of total seating is for the bar area. Kruk said that he would prefer patrons to be able to sit in the bar while waiting for the next available table for dining. Swierk asked what would be the anticipated time for a wait. Kruk said approximately 1-1 1/2 hours. Swierk said that since the Petitioner has never managed a restaurant before, is he being backed by a larger corporation. Kruk said this is his project and that he is not being backed by anyone. Semrow asked if the Petitioner was planning to sell packaged liquor. Kruk said he is not. Christensen asked the purpose of the dumbwaiter. Kruk said it would be used to bring food and supplies up from the lower level . UESTIONS OF PETITIONER BY OBJECTORS Robert_Fr,y_ Is there any intent to refer to liquor sales on the sign which would be posted on the property? Kruk said there would be no reference to alcohol . The sign would state "Haystacks Manor" . With regard to the bar area, would people be seated at bar stools or would they be seated at tables while waiting for a dining table? Kruk said there would be tables as well as stools at the bar. Would the Petitioner be willing to eliminate the bar and bar stools? Would he be willing to agree to having people sitting only at tables in the bar? Kruk said he would not be trying to create a bar atmosphere. Semrow said the Petitioner has asked for the conditional `.. use to serve alcohol in conjunction with his restaurant. Fry asked the Petitioner to define the difference between a lounge and a tavern. Kruk said that a tavern serves only liquor. A lounge serves liquor and food. Fry asked Lobaito the maximum size sign permitted in a C-3 District. Lobaito explained that the maximum size free- standing sign would be square footage equal to 1/2 of the lot frontage. What is the lot frontage? Kruk said the lot frontage is 431 feet. Lobaito said the maximum size for the free-standing sign would be approximately 215 square feet. Fry said there could conceivably be a sign with a 10' X 20' face in front of this site. Swierk asked if the Petitioner might not consider increasing the tables and seating , in the dining room so there would be less of a wait rather than have such a large percentage of seating in the bar area. Chairman Semrow swore in the following persons wishing to make a statement at these proceedings: 1) Elizabeth Ellmann, 5625 Chesapeake Drive, McHenry. (Former owner of subject property) . 2) Jeanine Pachel , 1550 Lake Shore Drive, Unit B, Chicago Illinois 60610. (Current owner of 3-acre parcelimmediately to the east of the subject property) . 3) Robert Fr,�, 513 Brookwood Trail , McHenry. (Current owner of residential property =mmediately to the north of the subject property) . STATEMENTS BY WI:TNESSES FOR THE PETITIONER � Elizabeth Ellmann: "When we originally bought this property, 14 years ago, we agreed to annex to the City, although it never happened. Four years ago, Amoco came into the City, and Mobil , as well , although that station has not been built yet. We wanted to maintain the virginity of the land in this area. We lost. After 2 1/2 years of trying to sell this property as a residence, we finally agreed to sell and Page8 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 � market this as a possible commercial site. We felt the potential use by Mr. Kruk as a restaurant would be the most acceptable in this area and that it would help the neighborhood to retain its charm. Most of the trees which we planted would be retained. Regarding the dangerous driveway, we had no problems with it and there has been a speed reduction in this area since Amoco went up on the corner. This entire area has become commercial ." Jeanine Pachel : "The property lends itself to commercial development. I have no objection to what is being proposed by the Petitioner to this Board. I am grateful for the safety and lighting concerns which have been expressed by the Board. " CLOSING STATEMENT BY OBJECTORS Robert_Fr�_ "The Ellmanns are friends of mine. There are a lot more facts than the Board is aware of with regard to this issue. The Board should be concerned with the future and not the past regarding this property. Ms. Pachel will benefit greatly if the zoning and conditional use are granted. During the Amoco proceedings, we were all on the same side of the fence. During the Backhaus proceedings, again we were on the same side of the fence. During these proceedings, the residents in the neighborhood thought that the city envisioned an end to commercial development at the boundary for the Amoco property. The city created buffers adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood. At this time, it seems inappropriate to jump the buffers which have been established and move the commercial boundaries further to the west. The boundary if extended to the west will continue to expand and grow to the west. Mr. Kruk has no experience in management of a restaurant. The probability that it could fail is great. If it fails, the residents in the area, and not those who have `.- moved away, would have to put up with C-3 Zoning and all of the 97 uses which would be permitted in this location. Mr. Kruk could move his drive access and it will not change the fact that there are still 97 uses which could be permitted on this site. . Mr. Kruk can put up a 10' X 20' sign and it will light up my yard every night until 11 p.m. or midnight. 120 cars would be entering or leaving through the evening and night only 50' from my property line and 60' from my children's play equipment. The best interest of the City and the residents in this neighborhood will not be served by granting the Petitioners request, and I respectfully ask the Board to deny the request." CLOSING STATEMENT BY PETITIONER Diamond said that he understood the concerns of the Objectors and the Board. The key to the Petition is the uniqueness of the subject property. According to the Comprehensive Plan, this is a relevant zoning factor. The City Council can put whatever restrictions they want into the confines of the Conditional Use and in the Annexation Agreement for this property. The City Council can choose to restrict the sign. Look at the site plan, which leaves the entire front of the property as it faces Bull Valley Road intact, except where the installation of the water and sewer mains will be installed. This is a unique property which would lend itself to this type of a use. The proposed project would increase the tax base. This would be an upscale restaur�int. The property does not lend itself to many of the permitted C-2 and C-3 uses. 7his is a unique opportunity to develop this site and it should not be passed up. Swierk said he agreed with the layout of the project and agrees this is a good � location for a restaurant. This parcel is large enough for a Planned Unit Devel opment (PUI)) . Page9 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 `"� Diamond said tne Petitioner has no problem with the C-3 being restricted to the restaurant use unless it would come back to this Board as a PUD. The Petitioner agrees to be b��und to hi s pl an as presented at thi s heari ng by the terms of the annexation agrEement. McArdle said thp City could restrict the use of this property within the terms of the annexation agreement, but it would still be C-3 as shown on the zoning map forever - even after the expiration of the annexation agreement. Diamond said that the Petitioner would agree to Estate Zoning with the granting of use as a restaurant so that the zaning would revert back to the underlying Estate Zoning if there was no longer a viable restaurant on the premises. This too, could all be addressed in the annexation agreement. Chairman Semrow said, "there being nothing further before this Board with regard to this Petition, the 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 entertain a motion with regard to the Petition." DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION ------------------------- Motion by Tobeck, seconded by Swierk to recommend to the City Council that The Petitioner's request that the subject property be reclassified from A- County Agricultural to C-3 Community Commercial upon annexation to the City of McHenry; and that the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments , Table 33, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, have been met. � Voting Aye: None. Voting Nay: Christensen, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Adamson, Dixon. Motion denied 0-5. Motion by Swierk, seconded by Tobeck to recomm�nd to the City Council that The Petitioner's request that a Conditional Use Permit be granted to permit the construction and operation of a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages be granted; that there be no live entertainment permitted; and that the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use, Table 31, pages 357-358 of the Zoning Ordinance, have been met. Voting Aye: None. Voting Nay: Christensen, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Adamson, Dixon. Motion denied 0-5. � Page 10 ZBA-Kruk 11/29/93 � Swierk said, in his opinion, if this project were brought back to the ZBA as a PUD with an underlying residential classification and restrictions as to the sign, parking, land�caping, access drive, trees, etc. , he would be in favor of the proposal . Kleemann said that he agrees this should be restricted as to the restaurant use and not just be zoned C-3. All expressed concerns would have to be addressed or he would not be in favor of the proposal . Christensen said that although not much was said about the issue during the course of this hearing, he has strong concerns regarding the living quarters beneath the commercial business. This would be spot zoning, We would be putting restrictions on the property to east. These items should be addressed more fully and in more detail . Diamond said the project could take on the characteristics of a PUD or a conditional use classification. This could be classified as a conditional use. Additionally, the lower level living quarters and the other issues could be addressed through the conditional use. The property could then be left zoned residential . Chairman Semrow said that all Objectors would be notified as to when this matter will be presented to the City Council for action. ADJOURNMENT There being nothing further before this Board with regard to this matter, Chairman �-- Semrow called for a motion to adjourn. Motion by Christensen, seconded by Kleemann to adjourn at 10:35 p.m. Voting Aye: Christensen, Kleemann, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Adamson, Dixon. Motion carried 5-0. Respectfully s bmitted, � Harry S ow, Chairman Zoning Board of Appeals c: Agenda, 7.oning Board of Appeals (7) , Plan Commission (7) , City Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, Public Works Administration, City Attorney, City Eng�neers , Objectors (2) , Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, Building & Zoning Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk Fi� e. t Doc/ZBAMIN.373