HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 1/18/1993 - Zoning Board of Appeals ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JANUARY 18, 1993
CITY OF MCHENRY
IN THE MA-�TER OF THE APPLICATION OF )
THE AMERI (;AN NATIONAL BANK AND ) Z-357
�. TRUST COMf'ANY OF CHICAGO , A NATIONAL ) AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK
BANKING A`.�SOCIATION , AS TRUSTEE ) INLAND LAND MANAGEMENT
UNDER THE PROUISIONS OF A TRUST ) KING PROPERTY
AGREEMENT DATED THE 15TH OF APRIL , )
1991 , AND KNOWN AS TRUST N0 . )
113739-09 FOR AMENDMENT TO THE )
ZONING ORDINANCE TO 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 January 18 ,
1993 . Chairman Semrow called the hearing to order at 7 : 37 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 the Zoning Board : Bernard V . Narusis .
3 . Recording Secretary : Kathleen Kunzer .
� 4 . Director of Building & Zoning : John A. Lobaito .
5 . Petitioner : Inland Land Management represented by Matthew
Fiascone , 2901 Butterfield Road , Oakbrook Illinois 60521 .
6 . Attorney for Petitioner : Diamond LeSueur Roth and Assoc .
represented by John Roth , 3431 West Elm Street McHenry
Illinois 60050 .
7 . City Council Members : Randy Patterson .
8 . Court Reporter : Cheryl Barone .
9 . Objectors :
1 . Martin Stoffel , 4014 W . McCullom Lake Rd McHenry
2 . Albert Jasin , 4024 W . McCullom Lake Rd McHenry
3 . Ray Pausback , 3906 W . Prestwick St McHenry
4 . Arnie Snow , 3904 W . Prestwick St McHenry
5 . Mick Hodges , 4106 W . McCullom Lake Rd McHenry
6 . Nancy Hodges , 4106 W . McCullom Lake Rd McHenry
7 . Patricia Laycock , 4014 W . Prestwick St McHenry
8 . Chester Okrasinski , 3816 W . Prestwick St McHenry
9 . Judy Gertz , 1718 Leonard Ave McHenry
10 . Pam Payton , 1720 Leonard Ave McHenry
11 . Michelle Bala , 1714 Leonard Ave McHenry
12 . Walter Amstadt , 1707 Leonard Ave McHenry
� 13 . Scott Wilson , 1706 Leonard Ave McHenry
14 . Chris Dixon , 4012 W . Prestwick St McHenry
15 . Rory Mattioli , 4011 W . Prestwick St McHenry
16 . Sue Mattioli , 4011 W . Prestwick St McHenry
17 . Denise Pausback , 3906 W . Prestwick St McHenry
18 . Gregory Bates , 4002 W . Prestwick St McHenry
Page 2
ZBA- Inland/King
1/18/93
NOTICE OF PUBLICATION
Notice was published in the Northwest Herald on December 30 , 1992
'�..- and the Publisher ' s Certificate of Publication is on file in the
City Clerk ' s office . An Affidavit certifying that all abutting
property owners of record were notified of tonight ' s proceedings
is on file in the City Clerk ' s office . An Affidavit of beneficial
ownership of the trust is on file in the City Clerk ' s office .
LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
--------------------------------
The subject property is located on the south side of McCullom Lake
Road , north of Prestwick Street , East of Petersen Park with 1093
of frontage along McCullom Lake Road . The subject property is
comprised of approximately 56 acres .
SUMMARY
The Petitioner is requesting that the subject property be
reclassified from A-1 County Agricultural upon annexation to the
following zoning districts : RS-2 Medium Density Single Family
Residential District ; RM-2 High Density Multi -Family Residential
District ; 0-2 Office Park District .
TESTIMONY
Chairman Semrow stated that for the record , both school district
15 and school district 156 were notified of this hearing . No
representative from either district was present at this hearing
tonight .
�, Chairman Semrow swore in the following witnesses for the
Petitioner :
Matthew Fiascone , 2901 Butterfield Road Oak Brook Illinois
60521 .
Robert Grossman , 774 Regina Court Woodstock Illinois 60098 .
Attorney Roth submitted the resume of Robert Grossman , land
planner , as Petitioner ' s Exhibit I . Planning Memorandum presented
by Robert Grossman was submitted as Petitioner ' s Exhibit J .
Grossman explained each of his visual aids used in clarifying
Exhibit J :
a . PIQ map of the location of the subject property
b . Plat of Survey which shows the topography of the
subject property ; 90% of the subject property is at
an elevation between 650-660 feet.
c . Land use and zoning of all adjacent parcels to the
subject property ( as indicated in the Petition ) .
d . Neighborhood Access map to the subject property ;
discussion included the proposed connector road from
the subject property to the Market Place on Route
120 via the Oak Street extension .
e . Proposed sketch plan #B of the subject property
which indicated that there would be three distinct
zoning districts within the site : RS-2 , RM-2 and
0-2 . Grossman explained the feathering effect which
� would buffer the single family district from the
. more intense uses of office and multi -family to the
north and east .
Page 3
ZBA- Inland/King
1/ 18/93
f . Table of land use areas which would be as follows :
�- LAND USE ACRES PERCENT
single family 18 . 7 33 . 05%
multiple family 14 . 0 26 . 00%
professional office 11 . 7 20 . 48%
roads & streets 9 . 8 17 . 28%
TOTAL 56 . 7 100 . 00%
Grossman said that this proposal was compatible with the
Comprehensive Plan for the City of McHenry . All proposed uses
would be compatible with the urban residential designation shown
on the land use map for the Comprehensive Plan . Grossman said that
the multi -family use would be in keeping with the trend of
development in the area . The proposal for the multi -family would
include townhomes and condominiums . There would be individual
ownership of dwelling units on individually owned lots , rather than
apartments which would be leased or rented . Grossman said the
office use would be a good fit in the neighborhood . At times
duri ng the day when the off i ce i s occupi ed , there woul d be 1 ess
activity in the adjacent Petersen Park . At peak times of park use ,
the offices would be unoccupied . A full range of professional
offices would fill the office space .
Attorney Roth addressed the Approval Criteria for Zoning
Amendments ; Grossman responded as indicated in the Petition .
�
Grossman further explained the characteristics of the feathering
principle which is being used on this site . Feathering means a
gradual increase in density away from a less intense use , in this
instance , the single family residential district .
Grossman said there would be on-site retention of surface water
run-off for each of the development areas ( zoning districts ) of the
development .
QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
---------------------------------------------------
Swierk asked if the RM-2 district would be townhomes or
condominiums . Grossman said those are two different building
styles . No definite building plans or developer has even been
chosen at this point . This is a very preliminary sketch plan of
the subject property .
Chairman Semrow asked Grossman to explain how the 0-2 District
would act as a buffer . Grossman said the 0-2 District would be a
buffer between the RM-2 District and the highway (McCullom Lake
Road ) . Semrow said the Petitioner is requesting that the RM-2
classification be granted to the entire multi -family district shown
on the sketch plan . The City would have no guarantee that the
developer would indeed follow through on the feathering principle ;
there actually could be uniform density on that entire portion of
� the site at the maximums allowable in the RM-2 District which would
be 31 persons per acre .
Page 4
ZBA- Inland/King
1/18/93
Grossman said that the feathering was projected as follows :
Northern portion of RM-2 District maximum 14 dwelling
`— units/acre
Middle portion of RM-2 District maximum 9 dwelling
units/acre
Southern portion of RM-2 District maximum 6 dwelling
units/acre .
The Petitioner stated he would be agreeable to amending the
Petition on its face to reflect the above-mentioned maximums . In
addition , the Petitioner would amend the Petition to request RM-1
zoning district for the middle portion and RA-1 for the southern
portion of the previously depicted RM-2 district on the sketch
plan . Grossman said that he would provide corrected copies of the
sketch plan for review by the Zoning Board .
Semrow said he still had some questions regarding the proposed 0-
2 district and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map .
Semrow said he felt this would be spot zoning inasmuch as there is
no other 0-2 district in the immediate surrounds of this property .
Grossman said this is not a single lot surrounded by another use ,
and therefore would not be spot zoning . Semrow asked Grossman to
explain how the 0-2 district fit into the urban residential portion
of the Comprehensive Plan . Grossman said that local professional
offices , where the professionals might even live in this
neighborhood would fit into the intent of the Plan .
\.. Discussion followed regarding whether the 0-2 Office Park or 0-1
Local Office District would be more appropriate in this area .
Grossman recommended that 0-1 designation would be more
appropriate . The Petitioner agreed to amend the Petition to
request 0- 1 Local Office District rather than the 0-2 Office Park .
This change will also be shown on the revised sketch plan provided
to the Zoning Board .
Swierk said he had a question regarding the ownership of the units
in the multi -family district of the sketch plan . He asked Narusis
if the Zoning Board could recommend that a stipulation be made as
to the ownership of the units . Swierk noted that the Comprehensive
Plan makes a recommendation that dwelling units be individually
owned rather than apartments ( rental units ) . Narusis said the
subject property is in annexation mode and this stipulation could
be made by Council . In addition , the testimony given tonight
indicates that individual ownership of units is the intent of the
Petitioner . It will be so indicated in the report of these
proceedings .
Adamson asked if there would be adequate parking provided for all
multi -family units and what type of parking would be provided .
Grossman said it would be a combination of interior ( garages ) and
exterior parking ( parking lot ) ; parking would comply with
ordinance requirements .
� Semrow asked Grossman to calculate the maximum number of units
which could ultimately be erected in the multi -family district .
Grossman said that he would provide that information for review by
the Zoning Board .
Page 5
ZBA- Inland/King
1/18/93
Swierk said the development revolves around the connector road
between tr� is development and the Market Place on Route 120 . Has
� the right-of-way for this roadway been purchased? Who will pay for
the installation of the road? Who will pay for crossing the
railroad tracks? Fiascone said staff and City Council expressed
a desire to have a main connector go through this development . It
is at their direction that we are submitting a plan which includes
the connector road . The exact location and the specifics about who
would pay for it have not been determined at this time .
Engineering would have to be completed on this site before an exact
location would be known . This is a concept plan only which is
being presented this evening .
Semrow asked if a soil suitability test had been done on this
property . Grossman said testing had been done prior to purchase
of the property by the Petitioner . Semrow said there was concern
regarding surface water run-off and the ability of the soil to
absorb this run-off . Fiascone said that the soil report was
favorable . In fact , Inland refused to purchase Cunat ' s property
to the west because of the poor quality of the soils . Semrow
requested that the Petitioner provide a soil report to the Zoning
Board for review.
Tobeck asked about the projected time frame for multi -family
buildout . Fiascone said there is no time frame at this point .
Building would commence in the RS-2 district first ; the development
would be market driven .
�
Christensen asked if the project moves forward and the connector
street does not go through , where would there be access to this
development from existing development in the City . Grossman said
there would be access via Leonard Avenue .
�UESTIONS OF THE PETITIONER_BY_THE_OBJECTORS
---------------- — — — —
Denise Pausback : Where is the McHenry Market Place Subdivision?
----------------
Grossman said he referred to the Market Place Mall on Route 120 .
Pausback asked if there is an estimated price range for the single
family dwellings? Grossman said that would be market driven , but
that the homes would be in keeping with those existing in Mill
Creek Subdivision . Pausback asked if there was a projected number
of people which would be housed on this site? Grossman said that
would depend upon the number of bedrooms contained in all units
whether single family or multi -family . Pausback said that it was
her understanding that when Cunat ' s came before this Board with a
proposal for multi -family they were told that sewer capacity was
not adequate for the proposed multi -family. Why is there enough
capacity for this development? Semrow said the issue at the Cunat
hearing was that the mains were not adequate and who would pay for
upgrade of the mains .
Chris Dixon : Regarding the proposed retention area at the
southwest corner of the development , how would the installation of
� that reter.tion area decrease the surface ground water that abutting
existing residents would be subjected to on their property? Semrow
said that the purpose would not be to decrease existing run-off but
to assure that there is no additional run-off from the subject
property . Dixon asked how the Petitioner could guarantee that the
Page 6
ZBA- Inland/King
1/ 18/93
develop�ent would not increase the run-off and increase the over-
saturation problems in this area . Grossman said this development
�— would bE� subject to the city standards found in the Subdivision
Control Ordinance and the recommendations of the city engineers .
The developer would not be permitted to increase the surface water
run-off . Semrow asked if the Petitioner would testify that the
developrrent would meet the standards and provisions of the
Subdivision Control Ordinance . Fiascone said he would . Dixon said
there had been testimony that the proposed connector road to the
Market Place would alleviate traffic congestion in this area ; how
would it do this? Grossman said the developer should work on a
traffic generation program . Much would depend on the exact style
of housing which would be built in the development . Dixon asked
if the Petitioner has done a traffic impact study of this area?
Grossman said it is too early to conduct a traffic impact analysis .
Semrow said that the City Council at the annexation hearings
regarding this property could require that a traffic impact
analysis be completed . Dixon said that the 0-1 Local Office
District would be inactive during peak hours at the Park and vice
versa . Dixon asked how the Petitioner could say that the Park
would not be utilized by families during the hours when the
professional offices are open . Grossman said that peak times for
the Park would be evening and weekends during the non-summer
months .
Martin Stoffel : How would the people exit from the multi -family
district onto McCullom Lake Road as there is no exit shown on this
� proposal ? Grossman said there is no definite plan with a road grid
yet . There could possibly be two exits from the Multi -family
district onto McCullom Lake Road . Stoffel asked if there would be
sidewalks in the development . Grossman said the development will
meet the provisions of the Subdivision Control Ordinance which
requires sidewalks .
Jud�_ Gertz_ Who would be the developer for this subdivision?
Grossman said there is no developer at this time . Gertz asked why
the plan shows a connection to the Mill Creek Subdivision via
Leonard Avenue ; would that be necessary? Fiascone said that the
connection to the Mili Creek Subdivision was at the recommendation
of staff. Staff requested this connection in addition to the
proposed connector to the Market Place via the Oak Street
extension . Gertz said the Petitioner has stated that he will meet
all of the standards of City ordinances , would the Petitioner do
anything above or beyond City minimums? Grossman said the
Petitioner would not be prepared to state at this time as there is
no developer for the parcel yet . Gertz asked if there would be a
neighborhood park for the children of the subdivision . Grossman
said this development is adjacent to a large city park ; there would
be no need for a small neighborhood park . Gertz asked if the
traffic impact analysis would be completed prior to the annexation
of this property . Semrow said that would be the Council
jurisdic:tion to require that the study be completed prior to
,� annexation . Gertz said that she was under the impression that
Baxter � Woodman have stated that there is no more sewer capacity
north of Route 120 , yet there has been much development in that
area . Is the City beyond capacity to the north of 120? How would
the sewer capacity needs for this development be met? Semrow said
that would be an issue which would be discussed before the City
Council .
Page 7
ZBA- Inland/King
1/ 18/93
Gre�or�_B�ites : Would Mill Creek Avenue be suitable for a City road
� and meet city standards ? Grossman said he does not know at this
time . Bat,es asked who would pay for the installation of this road?
Grossman ��aid he believed it would be paid for by participation of
the property owners and developers involved . Bates asked what
would be the averag� lot sizes in the RS-2 District . What would
be the sm �llest and what would be the largest? Grossman said the
lot sizes would range from one-quarter acre to one-half acre in
area . Bates said the city ordinance provides for one acre donation
of park land for each 50 persons generated by the subdivision .
Could the Petitioner provide an estimate of the lowest possible
number of people which would be generated by this subdivision?
Grossman said he could not do so at this time until the exact
housing styles have been determined . Bates said the Petitioner
should consider the impact of the children in the subdivision ;
where would they attend school ? Would the Petitioner be willing
to donate land for a school for the children generated by this
development? Grossman said he could not discuss that issue at this
time .
QUESTIONS OF PETITIONER BY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD
-----------------------------------------------
Semrow asked if there was a proposed developer of this site .
Fiascone said there was none at this time . Semrow asked if Inland
Land Management would develop this land or would it be sold off as
zoned land . Fiascone said the residential portion , both single
family and multi -family , would be sold off to home builders .
Semrow asked if Inland would develop the office district . Fiascone
`--� said they would not .
Swierk asked if the Petitioner had considered a Planned Unit
Development ( PUD ) . Attorney Roth said the Petitioner met with
staff and the modifications to the original plan presented to
council are a direct result of the staff ineetings regarding this
development . Swierk said that he feels this should come into the
City as a PUD .
Discussion followed regarding a potential recess date for this
hearing due to the lateness of the hour.
QUESTIONS_OF_THE_PETITIONER_BY_THE_OBJECTORS
Chris Dixon : Would a soils report and a soils expert be present
when this hearing reconvenes? Semrow said that the Board has
requested that it be provided with the soils report . The
Petitioner might also consider having a soils expert present when
this hearing reconvenes .
Walter Amstadt : Provided this land is annexed to the City , is the
bypass connector really mandatory? Semrow said that if that is
what the City Council requests , it would be put in . Amstadt
expressed concern that Leonard Avenue would become more heavily
travelled if this development is put in .
� Denise Pausback : Who should questions regarding the road grid for
this subdivision be directed to? Semrow said questions should be
directed to the Plan Commission or the City Council . Narusis said
if platting of this subdivision does not commence immediately , then
the proper forum would be the annexation hearing before the City
Council .
Page 8
ZBA- Inland/ King
1/18/93
Sue Mattioli : The Petitioner states that the children generated
� by this development would not increase the school populations .
What would the City do about the overcrowding due to this
development .
The Petitioner has consented to provide the following documents no
later that February 11 , 1993 to the Building & Zoning Department :
1 ) Soils report
2 ) Revised sketch plan indicating the exact acreage for each
zoning district and revised zoning districts as amended at
this hearing .
3 ) Projection of maximum number of units in each zoning district .
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Tobeck , seconded by Christensen to recess this hearing
to Monday , February 22 , 1993 at 7 : 30 p .m . in the Council chambers
of the Municipal Center .
Voting Aye : Adamson , Christensen , Semrow , Swierk , Tobeck .
Voting Nay : None .
Not Voting : None .
Abstaining : None .
Absent : Dixon , Kleemann .
Motion carried 5-0 .
Respectfully su itted ,
�
---- --- --------------------
Harry Se ow , 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 , Aldermen Reference Copy ,
Petitioner , Objectors ( 15 ) , B & Z Zoning File , Landmark
Comrrission Chairman , Northwest Herald , City Clerk File Copy .
DOC . ZBAMIN . 357
�