HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 2/8/1993 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FEBRUARY 8, 1993
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MA�fTER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
LEE J . C0�)NEY FOR VARIATIONS AND ) Z-355
� RECLASSIF [ CATION OF PROPERTY UNDER ) COONEY/ZOIA
THE ZONIN�a ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ) 1309 N RICHMOND RD
OF MCHENRf , 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 . Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7 : 29 p .m .
The following persons were in attendance :
1 . Zoning Board Members : Richard Adamson , Randy Christensen ,
Wayne Dixon , Emil Kleemann , Harry Semrow , John Swierk , Donna
Tobeck .
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 .
L
6 . Attorney for Petitioner : Diamond LeSueur Roth and Associates
represented by Carl Isermann , 3431 West Elm Street , McHenry
Illinois 60050 .
7 . City Council Members : Alderman Randy Patterson , Alderman
William Bolger.
8 . Court Reporter : None .
9 . Objectors :
1 . Pam Gough , 3615 Freund Avenue , McHenry
2 . Marceline Gough , 3615 Freund Avenue , McHenry.
NOTICE_OF_PUBLICATION
------ — ---------
Notice was published in the Northwest Herald on January 11 , 1993
and the Publisher ' s Certificate of Publication is on file in the
City Clerk ' s office . An Affidavit authorizing Lee Cooney to act
on behalf of Mary Zoia is on file in the City Clerk ' s office . An
affidavit of notification to all abutting property owners and
posting of the subject property is on file regarding this matter .
LOCATION OF SUBJECT_PROPERTY
-- — -------- — -- ----- --
The subject property is located at 1309 North Richmond Road and is
comprised of approximately 29 ,000 square feet .
�
Page 2
ZBA-Cooney/Zoia
2/8/93
SUMMARY
The Petii:ioner is requesting that the subject property be
reclassif� ed from RM-2 and RS-4 to 0-1 and that variances be
L. granted a�� to the fol 1 owi ng :
1 ) the minimum lot width requirement of 200 feet along an
artei•ial street (actual lot width is 65 . 98 feet ) ;
2 ) park- ng be permitted within the required interior side yard
on the east 264 feet of the south side of the subject
property ;
3 ) elim- nate requirement for screening strip within the side
yard defined in #2 above to allow parking spaces to be located
within the screening strip area .
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow swore in the following witness for the Petitioner :
1 ) Lee J . Cooney , 1313 North Richmond Road , McHenry Illinois
60050 .
Attorney Isermann provided the Board with an overview of his case
and substantiated his claim that the surrounding existing uses are
basically in conformance with the zoning being requested for the
subject property . The granting of this reclassification would also
eliminate an RM-2 zoned parcel ( the eastern portion of the subject
property . It would bring the entire parcel into one uniform zoning
district ( the subject property currently has split zoning : RS-4
on the west and RM-2 on the east ) .
Cooney testified that he is trying to improve the neighborhood
\., where he lives . He stated that he could put in a 6-flat or an 8-
flat with the existing zoning on the east portion of the site . He
said that he would prefer to put up an office building . The multi -
family buildings in the neighborhood are poorly run and improperly
maintained . An office building would improve the appearance of the
area .
Isermann asked Cooney to address the concerns regarding surface
water drainage from the site . Cooney said that he would do
whatever is necessary to that no hardship would be created as far
as drainage onto abutting properties .
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
----------------- -----
Tobeck asked if the Petitioner perceived this site with one large
building or several buildings . Cooney said it would be a single
two-story building which would contain 6-8 offices .
Kleemann asked the number of parking spaces which would be
provided . Cooney said there would be 28 spaces as indicated on the
concept plan provided to the Board . Cooney said that he is
requesting a variance to be allowed to park vehicles adjacent to
the retaining wall which abuts the southern boundary of this
property .
Chairman Semrow asked if the building would be erected on parcel
,� 3 of the subject property and the parking would basically be
located on parcel 2 . Cooney said that is correct . Semrow asked
how the design of the development of this property would assure
that water would not drain toward Freund Avenue in view of the
steep slope of the property from east to west . Cooney said that
no additional runoff could be created as a direct result of this
developmert. City Ordinance would not permit it .
Page 3
ZBA-Cooney/Zoia
2/8/93
Christens �n asked what is on the other side of the retaining wall
� at the scuthern boundary of the property . Cooney said it is a
� parking l �t for the apartment building located on that property .
Christens �n asked the slope of the lot from Richmond Road to Freund
Avenue . Cooney said the lot drops about 15 feet in elevation .
Christens �n expressed concern regarding the proposed layout of the
parking l �t and drive and the safety of the abutting residents who
are all single family at the western boundary of the property . A
fifteen foot drop in elevation is a steep incline and there could
be problems when there is snow/ice on the driveway and in the
parking lot .
Christensen asked the Petitioner to substantiate paragraph 12f of
the Petition which states that if the variances are not granted ,
the applicant would be deprived of any reasonable use or enjoyment
of the property , and that the purpose of the variances would not
be to increase the economic return of the Petitioner . Isermann
said the Board should focus on the "reasonable use" and the multi -
family use would not be reasonable for this property . Cooney
stated that there would not be as much economic return on an office
building as there would be on an apartment building if both were
the same size buildings .
Chairman Semrow asked the Petitioner to substantiate the claim that
the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendment and the Approval
Criteria for Variances have been met . Semrow asked Cooney if he
is the contract purchaser of the subject property or what the
�, arrangements would be once the zoning and variances were granted .
Cooney said there is a partnership arrangement with Mary Zoia .
Semrow asked if the proposed parking lot for this development would
exit onto Freund Avenue . Cooney said that is correct .
Dixon said he does not have a problem with the proposed office use .
He is concerned regarding the parking lot exiting into a
residential neighborhood . Dixon asked the Petitioner if the
variance as to the screening provisions would be applicable only
on the southern boundary of the property . Isermann said the
variance would only pertain to the southern boundary and only the
easternmost 264 feet of it .
Chairman Semrow asked what would happen to the surface water runoff
which would drain onto Freund Avenue . Twenty eight parking spaces
would be created in addition to a through driveway . That
constitutes a lot of asphalt which would not be a permeable
surface . Cooney said if the Board does not want the traffic to
exit onto Freund Avenue , he would be willing to find an alternative
plan .
Swierk asked the Petitioner to substantiate paragraph 12c of the
Petition . What special circumstances have created the need for the
variances to be granted . Isermann said that the narrow lot width
� would be the main circumstance . This lot was platted long ago .
Swierk asked the Petitioner if he would be willing to erect a
smaller building which would also require less parking spaces .
This could eliminate the parking spaces along the southern boundary
at the retaining wall . Screening could then be provided as
required by ordinance .
Page 4
ZBA-Cooney/Zoia
2/8/93
Chairman Semrow asked if it would be feasible to downsize the
� building so there would only be parking spaces along the northern
�. portion of the property . The exit onto Freund Avenue could then
be eliminated . It may then be possible to have both egress/ ingress
onto Rich�nond Road . Cooney said the smallest building he could put
up economically would be 6 ,000 square feet . He said he is not sure
if IDOT would allow double access to the lot .
Swierk said it is possible that the Petitioner could lose access
to Route 31 altogether ; in that event there would only be access
to the site from Freund Avenue . Swierk asked if the City has a
storm water retention ordinance . Lobaito said there is an
ordi nance i n effect and i t wou 1 d come under the j uri sdi cti on of the
Public Works Department . Swierk asked the Petitioner if he was
aware that the Site Plan provided would not be acceptable as a
final plan for this development . All building codes and zoning
ordinances would have to be met . Cooney said this is a preliminary
concept plan for the development.
Swierk asked how the Petitioner would buffer the office use from
the adjacent single family use . Cooney said screening would be
provided where possible . Cooney said he thinks that the abutting
residents would prefer to see an office building erected rather
than an apartment building which would currently be permitted as
it is zoned multi -family .
Dixon said that the Petitioner may not be able to erect an
� apartment building , even though the eastern portion of this lot is
zoned RM-2 . The zoning may be in place , but there may be other
ways in which the Petitioner could not conform to City ordinances .
Dixon said that he did not think the Petitioner could put up an
apartment building as he stated .
Chairman Semrow asked what would be the height of the office
building . Cooney said it would be two stories ; the building would
be no higher than neighboring buildings in this area .
Swierk asked the Petitioner if he would consider reducing the size
of the building . Cooney said he could not go smaller than 6 ,000
square feet .
Motion by Dixon , seconded by Swierk to recess . Motion carried
unanimously . The hearing recessed at 8 : 45 p .m . The hearing
reconvened at 8 : 55 p .m . with all members still in attendance .
Rttorney Isermann read into the record a letter of support for the
Petitioner from McHenry State Bank , an abutting property owner .
Attorney Isermann addressed the Approval Criteria for Variances as
stated in paragraph 12 of the Petition . With regard to sub-
paragraph 12f , Semrow asked the Petitioner if he was being deprived
of any reasonable use of this property . Cooney said that he would
� have reasonable use , but not necessarily the best use of the
property if the variances were not granted . Dixon asked how the
Petitioner could justify sub-paragraph 12g , which states that the
variances if granted would not cause the character of the
neighborhood to be altered , nor would the public safety or welfare
be altered . Cooney said he would screen the parking lot . He said
he would deal with the drainage from the site with engineering of
Page 5
ZBA-Cooney/Zoia
2/8/93
the propF�rty . Dixon asked if the character of the neighborhood
would no : be altered . He said traffic would be exiting from a
L- driveway onto Freund Avenue at a location where there is just a
vacant l ��t at this time . Cooney said there would be no traffic
leaving i;he site between the hours of 6 p .m. and 8 a .m .
Christen�.en asked the Petitioner if he had considered moving the
building further away from Route 31 on the site and place the
parking lot on the east side of the property adjacent to Route 31 .
Cooney said he could not bury an office building 175 feet from the
road . Christensen said if the building were moved further to the
west , perhaps there could be both ingress and egress from the site
from Route 31 . This may help to alleviate some of the potential
drainage problems and traffic congestion in the residential
neighborhood to the west of the site . Cooney said the exact
location of the building on the site would not be known until the
engineering has been done .
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY THE OBJECTORS
--------------------------------------------
Marceline Gou�h_ Would there be parking located on the downward
slope of the hill toward the western end of the property? Cooney
said there would . Gough asked if this would be an exit only onto
Freund Avenue . Cooney said that is correct ; the driveway would be
sloped and the parking spaces in this location would be terraced .
Gough asked how the property would be maintained on the western
portion of the site . Cooney said there would be some green space
in addition to the exit drive being located in this area .
�
Pamela Gou�h : If Freund Avenue is the proposed lone exit from the
site , what would the Petitioner do about potential blind spots at
the juncture with Freund Avenue . Cooney said he did not know how
to answer that question because the engineering has not been
completed at this time . Gough asked what the Petitioner would do
about surface water runoff from the site . Cooney said the engineer
would decide what would be done about any potential drainage
problems created by the development .
CLOSING STATEMENT BY ATTORNEY FOR PETITIONER
--------------------------------------------
Attorney Isermann said that the questions raised by the Objectors
are all legitimate . The Petitioner is requesting that the subject
property be reclassified from RM-2 and RS-4 to 0-1 . The Site Plan
is not set in stone and is subject to change when the engineering
has been completed for the project . The Petitioner is before the
Zoning Board to request a recommendation to the City Council that
the subject property be reclassified and the afore-mentioned
variances be granted . Office use is clearly a more acceptable and
a better use than an apartment building . There would be a clear
idea for the development of the property in place at the point when
the building permit application process begins .
SWORN_STATEMENTS_BY_THE_OBJECTORS
Pamela_Gou�h_ " I do not object to what is being proposed . My
� concerns are the water drainage problems which already exist in
this area and how this project could make them worse . The influx
of children in the neighborhood coupled with potential blind spots
for vehicles exiting this project could present safety problems .
This project could alter the neighborhood character. This project
could change the old-time character of this part of McHenry . The
Petitionar needs to plan for heavy rains . The area where we live
Page 6
ZBA-Cooney/Zoia
2/8/93
does floo � during heavy rains . When the catch basin becomes
blocked , our lots flood with ankle deep water . I am concerned that
this floo�iing would be increased with the development of this
L- project . "
Attorney Isermann said that it would be incumbent upon the City to
notify the Petitioner that if this request is denied , what should
be the zoning for this property .
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 . "
DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION
-------------------------------
Motion by Swierk , seconded by Kleemann to recess this hearing until
such time as the Petitioner has prepared a report of a preliminary
engineering plan for the subject property so that a determination
can be made if the entire site would be buildable ; said engineering
report should indicate how surface water would be stored on-site ,
so that runoff would not exceed the existing rate from this
property .
Voting Aye : Adamson , Dixon , Kleemann , Semrow , Swierk , Tobeck .
Voting Nay : Christensen .
Not Voting : None .
Abstaining : None .
Absent : None .
� Motion carried 6- 1 .
The date for reconvening this hearing will be posted once the
engineering report has been received from the Petitioner and all
Objectors will be notified of the recessed hearing date .
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Semrow said " there being nothing further befor� 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 9 : 38 p .m .
Voting Aye : Adamson , Christensen , Dixon , Kleemann , Semrow ,
Swierk , Tobeck .
Voting Nay : None .
Not Voting : None .
Abstaining : None .
Absent : None .
Motion carried 7-0 .
Re ctfully s b itted ,
. ��;
-------- ------------'�'L_----
Harry S row, 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