HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 5/3/1993 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONINGM�$A3D ��9�PPEALS
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MATTE� OF THE APPLICATION OF ) Z-355
LEE J. COONEY FOR VARIATIONS AND � COONEY/ZOIA
� RECLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY UNDER )
THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY j 1309 N RICHMOND RD
OF MCHENRY, MCHENRY COUNTY, RECLASSIFICATION
ILLINOIS ) AND VARIATIONS
REPORT OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO THE
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MCHENRY, ILLINOIS
A hearing on the above-captioned petition was held on February 8, 1993 and was
recessed to this date. Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7:38 p.m.
The following persons were in attendance:
1. Zoninc� Board Members: Richard Adamson, Randy Christensen, Wayne Dixon,
Emil I;leemann, Harry Semrow, Donna Tobeck. Absent: John Swierk.
2. Attorney for the Zoning Board: Bernard V. Narusis.
3. Recording Secretary: Kathleen Kunzer.
4. Director of Building & Zoning: John A. Lobaito.
5. Petitioner: Lee J. Cooney, 1313 North Richmond Road, McHenry Illinois
60050.
6. Attorney for Petitioner: Diamond LeSueur Roth and Associates represented
� by Carl Isermann, 3431 West Elm Street, McHenry Illinois 60050.
7. City Council Members: None.
8. Court Reporter: None.
9. Objectors:
1, Pam Gough, 3615 Freund Avenue, McHenry
2. Marceline Gough, 3615 Freund Avenue, McHenry.
LOCATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
The subject property is located at 1309 North Richmond Road and is comprised of
approximately 29,000 square feet.
SUhaIARY
The Petitianer is requesting that the subject property be reclassified from RM-2
and RS-4 to 0-1 and that variances be granted as to the following:
1) the •ninimum lot width requirement of 200 feet along an arterial street
(act�aal lot width is 65.98 feet) ;
2) parking be permitted within the required interior side yard on the east
264 feet of the south side of the subject property;
3) eliminate requirement for screening strip within the side yard defined in
#2 a�ove to allow parking spaces to be located within the screening strip
area.
�
TESTIMONY
Chairman �emrow noted that the reason for the recess of the hearing was to
provide ample time for the Petitioner to provide to the Board a report of a
ZBA-Cooney��oia
5/3/93
preliminary ��ngineering plan for the subject property so that a determination can
be made if the entire site would be buildable. The engineering report should
indicate how surface water would be stored on-site, so that runoff would not
`.- exceed the existing rate from this property.
Attorney Isf�rmann referenced his correspondence to Lobaito dated 2/23/93.
Isermann reiterated the Petitioner's request to reconvene the hearing and that
it would be �►remature at this time to go to the expense of obtaining preliminary
engineering for the site in light of the fact that the zoning request has not
been granted at this time.
Isermann stated this is not a case for growth; rather the proposed development
of this property would be an improvement to a specific property and would
increase the overall appearance of the neighborhood. The Petitioner has
presented a definite site plan for this property. The proposed development of
this site would increase the revenue for the schools and not adversely impact the
schools. The Petitioner is not speculating on this property. Office use would
be the best and most appropriate use for this property.
Isermann said that the variances which are being requested would be applicable
in a tract of vacant land, but not to a parcel of land located in the older part
of town which was platted many years ago. If the Petitioner were intending to
build on vacant land elsewhere in town, he should be made to comply with all of
the zoning regulations, setbacks, parking requirements, and screening
requirements. However, this property was platted so long ago, compliance with
these regulations would present a hardship.
The amount of money required to obtain a preliminary engineering plan for this
�, property was cost prohibitive, when the zoning has not yet been approved.
Drainage issues which are addressed in Municipal Code Chapter 7, Section 7-215
and Chapter 26, Section 26-121 will be met and complied with.
It is the request of the Petitioner that the rezoning and variances which are
being sought be granted. The Approval Criteria for Rezoning and Variances were
set out in paragraphs 8 and 12 of the petition, respectively.
Isermann said that the Objectors questions were raised to the wrong body.
Questions concerning engineering and drainage should be addressed to the
appropriate hody. Engineering for this site would be addressed at the time of
building perrnit issuance.
Isermann said an apartment building could be erected on this site and no
variances woiald be needed from the City.
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
Tobeck asked the Petitioner to restate where ingress/egress would be located on
the site plan. Isermann said ingress would be from Route 31 and egress would go
onto Freund Avenue. Isermann said there may be an option of egress onto Route
31 as well , but it is not likely that Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT) would approve a wider curb cut which would accommodate both entry and exit
onto Route 3:1.
,�,
ZBA-Cooney��oia
5/3/93
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE OBJECTORS -
Pamela Gou�h: Gough asked if money is not the main objective, why not rehab the
house which � s on the property at this time and rent it out to someone who is
`- just startin3 out? Cooney said it is not much of a house; it is not worth
rehabbing. (�ough said there are many vacant office spaces around town, why do
we need more at this time? Cooney said he would not build for several years; he
would just 1 - ke to have the approval of the city at this point, so that he can
begin making plans for the future.
Semrow said with regard to the Approval Criteria for Variances, specifically,
paragraph 12g of the Petition which states: "The granting of the variances will
not alter the essential character of the locality nor substantially impair
environmental quality, property values , or public safety or welfare in the
vicinity" . The proposed driveway exiting the site onto Freund Avenue, given the
locale of the property, not far off of the curve that comes down Freund Avenue,
how can you state that this would not impair the public safety or welfare in the
vicinity of the subject premises? How can you state that you have a drive which
exits into a residential neighborhood, from a commercial area on an unprotected
curve, and that it would not cause a safety hazard to the neighborhood? Isermann
said he proved his case as stated in paragraph 12g. The proposed development
would improve the neighborhood; it would not impair public safety.
Pamela Gou�h: The Petitioner stated he would not change the environment in the
neighborhood and that the development would actually upgrade property values -
how? Isermann said office use would improve the value rather than putting up
an apartment building which could be done without benefit of City approval .
Gough said she would like to see facts, figures and numbers as to how this
development could improve property values in the area.
�.
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 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 Tobeck, seconded by Dixon to recommend to the City Council that
the Petitioner's request to reclassify the subject property from RM-2 and
RS-4 to 0-1 be denied.
Voting Aye: Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: Adamson.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Swierk.
Motion to dery Petition carried 5-1.
Motion by Dixon, seconded by Tobeck to recommend to the City Council that
the Pe1:itioner's request for variance as to minimum lot width, parking
requirEments, and screening requirements for the subject property upon
reclas�ification to 0-1 be denied.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
� Abstaining: None.
Absent: Swierk.
Motion to dery Petition carried 6-0.
ZBA-Cooney��oia
5/3/93
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Semrow said "there being nothing further before this Board with regard
� to the Petition, the Chair will entertain a motion with regard to adjournment. "
Motion by Dixon, seconded by Christensen to adjourn at 8:14 p.m.
Voting Aye: Adamson, Christensen, Dixon, Kleemann, Semrow, Tobeck.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: Swierk.
Motion carried 6-0.
Respectfully sub tted,
�
Harry Sem w, Chairman
Zoning Board of Appeals
c: Agenda, Zoning Board of Appeals (7) , Plan Commission (7) , City
Administrator, Director of Building & Zoning, PW Administration, City
Engineers, Objectors (2) , Aldermen Reference Copy, Petitioner, B & Z
Zoning File, Landmark Commission Chairman, Northwest Herald, City Clerk
File Copy.
DOC.ZBAMIN.355
�
�