HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 11/22/1993 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 22, 1993
� CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTER CF THE APPLICATION )
OF KEITH AND MIRIAM SCHMITT/STRONG ) Z-372
FOR AN APPLICAIION FOR A MINOR ) KEITH & MIRIAM SCHMITT/STRONG
VARIATION OF TFE ZONING ORDINANCE ) 5200 SHORE DRIVE
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY ) MINOR VARIATION
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 22, 1993. Chairman
Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:32 p.m. The following persons were in
attendance:
1. Zoning Bcard Members: Richard Adamson, Randy Christensen, Harry Semrow, John
Swierk, [lonna Tobeck. Absent: Wayne Dixon, Emil Kleemann.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle (arrived at 7:50 p.m. ) .
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
� 5. Petitioner: Miriam Schmitt/Strong, 14319 Westwood Trail , Woodstock Illinois
60098.
6. Attorney for the Petitioner: None.
7. City Council Members: Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Objectors: None.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 4,
1993. The Publisher' s Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file
in the City Clerk' s Office.
SUMMARY
The Petitioner is requesting that the subject property be granted a Minor Variation
to permit the construction of an 896 square foot garage.
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
The property wnich is the subject of this petition is located at 5200 Shore Drive,
McHenry.
�
Page 2
ZBA-Schmitt/Strong
11/22/93
`' TESTIMONY
Chairman Semror� swore in the following witness for the Petitioners:
1) Miriam Sc:hmitt/Strong, 14319 Westwood Trail , Woodstock, Illinois 60098.
The Petitioner said the subject property is improved with a two-story raised ranch.
There had been a two-car garage on the site. It has been demolished due to the
deteriorated state that it was in. In addition, there were three storage sheds on
the site which have also been removed. The Petitioner noted that there is no storage
available within the residence. There is no basement beneath the structure which
could be used for storage. The entire residence has been finished inside. The
residence is a four-bedroom dwelling. The needs of the tenant require that a three-
car garage be erected on the site in order to accommodate recreational equipment,
snow blowers, lawn mowers, etc. The Petitioner noted that she had provided to the
Board letters of support for the proposed garage from abutting property owners.
�UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
------ ------ — — ---------
Chairman Semrow asked if the Petitioners owned Lots 10 and 11 of block 17, Lakeland
Park Unit 3. The Petitioner said that is correct. The residence is located on lot
11 as would be the proposed garage.
Christensen asked where the demolished garage was located on the property. The
Petitioner said the site for the proposed three-car garage was approximately 15 feet
further to the north than the old garage. Christensen asked about the fence shown
on the plat of survey. The Petitioner said the fence belonged to the property owner
to the west.
�
Swierk asked if the property was on city utilities or well and septic. The
Petitioner said the property is served by city utilities.
Tobeck asked how long the Petitioners have owned the property. Mr. Strong has owned
the property since approximately 1975. Tobeck asked how many three-car garages are
located in this neighborhood. The Petitioner said there is only one that she is
aware of; it is located approximately 1 1/2 blocks away on Shore Drive. Tobeck asked
if all of the recreational equipment, snow blockers, etc. which would be stored on-
site would be owned by the tenant. The Petitioner said that is correct. Tobeck
asked if Lot 10 is currently vacant. The Petitioner said that is correct.
Adamson asked what type of vehicles would be parked on this property; would there be
commercial vehicles being parked on the premises. The Petitioner said there would
be no storage of commercial vehicles.
Director Lobaito said that with regard to the accessory structures permitted in a
residential neighborhood, the maximum area for all accessory structures is 900 square
feet. If this variance is granted, the Petitioners would be unable to erect a shed
or any other accessory structure because the maximum square footage allowed would
already be attained with the 896 square foot garage.
Christensen asked if the driveway must be paved with concrete to meet the
requirements of city code. Lobaito said either asphalt or concrete would satisfy the
requirements of the ordinance.
�'' 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 recess by a member of the Board. There being no motion to recess, the
Chair will entertain a motion with regard to the Petition."
Page 3
ZBA-Schmitt/Strong
11/22/93
`" DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
Motion by SwiE�.rk, seconded by Christensen to recommend to the City Council that
The Pet- tioners ' request that a variation be granted as to the maximum size
for a detached garage to allow an 896 square foot garage on the subject
premise�;; but that the Petitioners be required to install overhead doors on
said gar•age with a maximum height of 7 feet; and that Table 32, the Approval
Criteri�i for Variances, pages 376-377 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Dixon, Kleemann.
Motion carried 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT
There being nothing further before this Board with regard to this matter, this
hearing was adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
� Harry emrow, 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, Petitioner, Building & Zoning Zoning
File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Doc/ZBAMIN.372
�
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
NOVEMBER 22, 1993
CITY OF MCHENRY
� IN THE MATTER )F THE APPLICATION )
OF THE CITY OF MCHENRY, AN ) Z-374
ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ) CITY OF MCHENRY
FOR A TEXT AMEVDMENT TO THE ) TEXT AMENDMENT
ZONING ORDINANvE 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 November 22, 1993. Chairman
Semrow called the hearing to order at 8:00 p.m. The following persons were in
attendance:
1. Zoning Board Members: Richard Adamson, Randy Christensen, Harry Semrow, John
Swierk, Donna Tobeck. Absent: Wayne Dixon, Emil Kleemann.
2. Attorney for Zoning Board: David McArdle.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioners: City of McHenry represented by David McArdle, Zukowski , Rogers,
�..- Flood and McArdle, 50 North Virginia Street, Crystal Lake Illinois 60014.
6. Attorney for the Petitioner: None.
7. City Council Members: Alderman Bates, Alderman Bolger.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Objectors: None.
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notification of this hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on November 4,
1993. The Publisher's Certificate of Publication regarding this matter is on file
in the City Clerk's Office.
SUMMARY
The Petitioners are requesting that Table 6 and Table 7 of the text of the Zoning
Ordinance for the City of McHenry be amended with regard to the C-4 Zoning District.
The amendments would be as follows:
a) Amend Table 6 of the Zoning Ordinance for the City of McHenry with regard to
the C-4 Zoning District as follows:
PE:RMITTED USE GROUPS (c) L
CONDITIONAL USE GROUPS (d) M;
�
Page 2
ZBA-City of McHenry
11/22/93
�, b) Repeal G^oup L of Table 7 of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance and replace
as follo�s:
GROUP L: PERMITTED USES IN C-4 AND HIGHER-NUMBERED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
------------------------------------------------------------
1. Ac�essory uses, buildings and structures to all permitted uses in the
di�trict, including off-street parking and loading and signs, as
provided herein
2. Antique shops
3. Art shops or galleries, but not including auction rooms
4. Automatic teller machines
5. Automobile part and accessory stores
6. Beauty shops, barber shops and hair styling salons
7. Bicycle sales, rental and repair shops
8. Blueprinting and photostating establishments
9. Bookstores or book and stationery stores
10. Business machine sales, rental and service
11. Camera and photographic supply stores
12. Candy, ice cream, popcorn, nut and yogurt stores
13. Card and gift stores
14. Carpet and rug stores (retail sales)
15. China and glassware stores
16. Clothing repair, hat repair and shoe repair stores and tailor shops
17. Clothing and shoe stores
18. Coin and philatelic stores
19. Computer sales and rental
`-- 20. Custom dressmaking establishments
21. Domestic appliance repair shops
22. Domestic appliance stores, including radio, television, stereo, video,
lighting, clock, and music stores
23. Dwelling units above the ground floor in buildings with a ground floor
in non-residential use which are in existence on November , 1993
24. Employment agencies -
25. Financial institutions, including banks, savings and loan associations,
and commercial loan officer
26. Florist shops
27. Furniture stores, including upholstery when conducted as part of the
retail operations and secondary thereto
28. Garden supply, tool and seed stores, including lawn mower, snow blower
and snowmobile sales and service
29. Health clubs, as defined herein
30. Hobby and craft shops
31. Insurance offices
32. Interior decorating shops, including upholstery and the making of
draperies, slip covers and other similar articles, when conducted as
part of the retail operations and secondary thereto
33. Jewelry and watch sales and repair stores
34. Lak�oratories, medical , dental , research and testing
35. Le�ther goods and luggage stores
36. Loc.ksmith shops
�
Page 3
ZBA-City of McHenry
11/22/93
� 37. Me�jical , dental and optometry offices
38. Me�ting and banquet halls
39. Millinery shops
40. Mu�ical instrument sales and repairs
41. Ne��spaper, magazine and tobacco shops
42. Off-street parking lots, public garages or storage garages as principal
us�s
43. Offices, business and professional
44. Offices, governmental , political and institutional
45. Office, stationery, school , art and graphics supply stores
46. Optician sales, retail
47. Orthopedic and medical appliance stores (retail sales only)
48. Paint, tile and wallpaper stores
49. Parks, playgrounds, golf courses, forest preserves, wildlife
sanctuaries, and other publicly owned open spaces
50. Pawnshops
51. Permitted public uses, as defined herein
52. Phonograph record, tape and sheet music stores
53. Photography studios, including the development of film when conducted as
part of the retail business
54. Photo processing stores (except kiosks)
55. Picture framing shops
56. Plazas and public spaces
57. Print shops with six or fewer employees
58. Radio and television stations and studios
59. Real estate offices
�-- 60. Re�ording studios
61. Schools, commercial , for music, dance, business or trade
62. Second hand stores and rummage shops
63. Sewing machine sales and service
64. Sporting goods stores
65. Streets and alleys
66. Tanning salons
67. Taxidermists
68. Tax preparation offices
69. Telegraph offices
70. Ticket offices , theater and amusement
71. Ticket offices, transportation
72. Tourist information and hospitality centers
73. Toy stores
74. Trading stamp redemption centers
75. Travel bureaus
76. Union halls
77. Variety stores
78. Video cassette sales or rental
79. Yard goods stores.
c) Repeal Group M of Table 7 of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance and replace
as follo�s:
�
Page 4
ZBA-City of McHenry
11/22/93
� GROUP M: CONDITIONAL USES IN C-4 AND HIGHER-NUMBERED COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS
-------------------------------------------------------------
1. Acc:essory uses, buildings, and structures to all conditional uses in the
di�,trict, including off-street parking and loading and signs, as
provided herein
2. Animal hospitals
3. Catering establishments
4. Conditional public uses, as defined herein
5. Educational institutions, as defined herein
6. Exhibit halls
7. Exterminating services
8. Hotels and motels
9. Kennels, pet grooming and veterinary offices
10. Newspaper distribution agencies for home delivery and retail trade
11. Pet shops
12. Recreational institutions, as defined herein
13. Supermarkets
14. Theaters, indoor.
TESTIMONY
Attorney McArdle said that the members of the Zoning Board could address their
questions with regard to the Petition to either himself or Director Lobaito.
Christensen asked if those businessmen in town who are currently located within the
C-4 Zoning District had been notified of this hearing. Lobaito said the ordinance
requires only that notification of this hearing be published in the newspaper and
� posted at City Hall . Both were done.
McArdle said this matter originally came before this Board when a previous petitioner
requested that C-4 zoning be granted. It was the contention of this Board that the
C-4 Zoning District not be expanded. When this matter was brought before the City
Council , the result of discussion at that level is the petition which is before the
zoning Board at this hearing. McArdle said there were three possible ways in which
to handle this issue:
a) Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to further limit the permitted and
conditional uses in the C-4 District, whether existing, or potentially zoned
C-4 parcels; or
b) Create a C-4A District which would have more stringent restrictions than the
existing C-4 District; or
c) Create a Use Variance so that specialized cases could be brought to the Board
on a case by case basis.
The City chose to try option (A) . Lobaito and McArdle agreed to answer questions
posed by members of the Board.
Semrow asked why the City wishes to amend the permitted and conditional uses of an
existing zoninc� district. The request by the Zoning Board to the City Council when
this matter first arose, was to prohibit the re-classification of any property to C-4
as of this timE�. Initially. a petitioner before this Board requested C-4 zoning so
that the subje�:t property could be used as a parking lot. The petitioner was not
satisfied with a limited C-4 zoning with only the parking lot use. Attorney McArdle
�
Page 5
ZBA-City of McHenry
11/22/93
�, pointed out at the time, that when a property is granted zoning, any/all uses
permitted in t�at district are granted at that time. Limiting the petitioner to use
only as a parking lot would not be possible. Semrow said that the C-4 zoning
district was c��eated at the time of adoption of the present Zoning Ordinance in 1986,
in order to accommodate the downtown districts. In these areas of town, there are
no front, side or rear yard setbacks. In addition, there are no parking
requirements. In these specific areas of the downtown, there are certain problems
inherent to this area. Semrow said it does not make sense to change the permittPd
uses in a particular district without addressing the problem of how not to permit
this district to be expanded any further. Changing the permitted uses in this
district would be creating more problems by allowing the C-4 district to be enlarged.
Semrow said that when we allow the C-4 district to be expanded or enlarged, we are
expanding the problems inherent to this type of zoning district, such as creating
more lots with inadequate parking. This in turn creates a larger burden upon the
city to find more regional parking to meet the needs of this expanded district.
Changing the uses permitted in this district will not alleviate the parking problems
which would be created.
Tobeck said the purpose for creating the C-4 District was to save the existing
downtown area. It was not the intent to grant additional properties this zoning
classification. Semrow said C-4 District was not created to be expanded upon.
Swierk said changing the use group permitted in thP C-4 District is not going to
solve the problem. What would solve the problem is prohibiting any additional
� properties being zoned C-4 with its inherent problems regarding setbacks and parking
requirements.
McArdle read aloud the ordinance which he drafted in August following the direction
of the Zoning Board. The adoption of this ordinance would have prohibited the
classification of any additional properties within the City to the C-4 Zoning
District. McArdle said that he was not sure if this ordinance had been presented to
the City Council . The uses indicated on the petition which is before the Board at
this time are more restrictive than those currently allowed in the C-4 District.
This is the vehicle which the Council has chosen to use to restrir.t the further
development of the C-4 District. Swierk said he would prefer to limit the expansion
of the C-4 District rather than restrict the uses of existing and any future C-4
parcels. McArdle said the Council could have chosen one of the other two options:
create a C-4A District or a Use Variance. Semrow asked Aldermen Bates and Bolger if
they had seen the ordinance which McArdle had read to the Board which would have
prohibited the classification of any additional properties to C-4. Neither Bolger
nor Bates could recall having seen this ordinance.
Lobaito provided background information on the development of the subject petition
which is before the Board at this hearing. He said that certain property which is
adjacent to the C-4 District downtown should be rezoned to C-4. It is important to
keep the inteqrity of the downtown area intact, historically and developmentally.
That is why the exception was made to recommend that lots adjacent to C-4 should be
zoned commercial . Lobaito provided an example which shows what happens when
different stardards are applied to a newer structure and how it does not
�
Page 6
ZBA-City of McHenry
11/22/93
`.. fit into the character of the area. He cited Dr. Mark' s building, just north of
Green Street Mall , on Green Street. Current building and zoning standards were
applied, and t.he result is a building that is out of character with the surrounding
structures. lhere are some properties in town which would better serve the community
by being zoner: C-4. After researching the matter thoroughly, the Council decided to
modify the uses which would be permitted in the C-4 District rather than prohibit any
expansion of that district. Some of the current permitted uses were proposed to be
conditional uses. Larger traffic uses would now be conditional uses in this
district.
Discussion ensued regarding when C-4 district classification should be granted. It
was the consensus of the Board that the intent of the Zoning Ordinance was to save
the existing downtown C-4 area, but not to expand it. It was agreed that anyone who
wanted a C-4 classification, could request C-1,C-2,or C-3 and request a variance as
to the setbacks if they wanted to conform to abutting setbacks in their area. In
this way parking problems in the downtown area would not be exacerbated. It was the
consensus of those present that a definite date should be given for the expansion of
the C-4 District.
Tobeck said that the C-4 District was only granted to one petitioner in the seven
years since the adoption of this Zoning Ordinance.
Swierk said the City is creating additional parking needs by allowing more C-4
zoning. The City would just have to provide more regional parking for those lots
which are deficient in parking.
`-' Chairman Semrow asked Aldermen Bates and Bolger if they could shed any light on this
discussion.
Alderman Bolger said the consensus of the City Council was that certain uses should
be eliminated from the permitted use category in the C-4 District because they were
not compatible with the adjacent residential district. Bolger said that if the C-4
District is confined to the center of town, he saw no reason why it could not be
expanded. However, the C-4 Zoning should not be permitted in new areas of
development on the outer perimeter of town. The C-4 District should be compatible
with adjacent reside�tial homes. C-4 Zoning should not be expanded beyond the
downtown area. Bolger said the reason we are here with this petition to amend the
permitted uses, is because the C-4 District abuts residential properties.
Semrow said the problem is, if C-4 zoning is granted, anyone could put up a building
with a 0 lot line setback; any of the permitted uses listed in the zoning ordinance
would be permitted. They would not be required to come before this Board to obtain
our approval before occupying their building. C-4 should not be designated for
vacant parcels of land. Semrow said that in almost every instance, C-4 propert��
abuts residential property.
Swierk pointed out that the Board would like to see a phrase contained in the text
of the Zoning Ordinance similar to that which prohibits RS-3 zoning designation for
any lots created after September 1, 1990.
�
Page 7
ZBA-City of McHenry
�
11/22/93
Alderman Bate� said the City Council looked at ways in which the C-4 District could
be tightened so that an owner could not put anything he wanted on a C-4 parcel of
land. SemroN pointed out that the previous petitioner did not want his uses
restricted; h� simply wanted C-4 Zoning and all uses permitted in that district.
Discussion ensued regarding the uses indicated in the Petition to be included in the
permitted catPgory and the conditional use category for the C-4 District. Tt was the
consensus of those members of the Board present that the uses are not the problem.
The expansion of the C-4 District is the problem.
There was a suggestion made that the Zoning Board present to the City Council their
request that an ordinance be adopted prohibiting the expansion of the C-4 Zoning
District. The Zoning Board would be willing to invite the City Council to a hearing
with regard to this issue; conversely, the Board would be willing to attend a Special
Meeting of the City Council for the purpose of discussing and resolving this issue.
It was the recommendation of the Zoning Board that Attorney McArdle provide th� City
Council with the ordinance prohibiting the expansion of the C-4 District. Chairman
Semrow thanked Aldermen Bolger and Bates for their attendance and input at this
hearing.
Swierk made the recommendation that the City Council be advised to listen to the tape
of these proceedings so that they fully understand how the Zoning Board feels
regarding this issue.
�
Chairman Semrow said, "there being nothing further before this Board with regard to
this matter, the Board will consider this 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 Swierk, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioners' request for a Text Amendment to Table 6 and Table 7 of the
City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the C-4 Zoning District as
stated herein in the summary of this Petition be approved and that Table 33,
the Approval Criteria for Text Amendments, has been met.
Uoting Aye: None.
Voting Nay: Adamson, Christensen, Swierk.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: Semrow, Tobeck.
Absent: Dixon, Kleemann.
Motion failed 0-5.
�
Page 8
ZBA-City of McHenry
11/22/93
�-- ADJOURNMENT
Motion by T�beck, seconded by Swierk to adjourn this hearing at 9:09 p.m.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Semrow, Swierk, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Dixon, Kleemann.
Motion carried 5-0.
Respectfully bmitted, '
Harry row, Chairman
Zonin Board of Appeals
c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7) , Plan Commission (7) , City Administrator,
Director of Building & Zoning, Publir. Works Administration, City Attorney,
City Engineers, Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, Building & Zoning Zoning
File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk File.
Doc/ZBAMIN.374
�
�