Loading...
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 �