Loading...
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 � �