Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 08/16/2012 - Planning and Zoning CommissionCity of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes August 16, 2012 Chairman Schepler called the August 16, 2012 regularly scheduled meeting of the City of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. In attendance were the following: Buhrman, Doherty, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker. Absent: Strach, Morck. Also in attendance were: Deputy City Administrator Martin and Planning and Zoning Secretary Wolf. Approval of Minutes Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Thacker, to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting as presented: July 19, 2012 regularly scheduled meeting; August 2, 2012 special meeting. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: Doherty. Absent: Strach, Morck. Motion carried 4-0. Public Hearing: Michael and Doreen Freund File No. Z-796 5114 W Elm Street Use Variance Chairman Schepler called the Public Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. regarding File No Z-796 an application for a use variance to allow a residential and commercial use in the same building, as submitted by Michael and Doreen Freund for the property located at 5114 W Elm Street. Chairman Schepler stated Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on July 30, 2012. Notices were mailed to all abutting property owners of record as required by ordinance. The subject property was posted. A Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Compliance with notice requirements are on file in the City Clerk’s Office. In attendance were Michael and Doreen Freund, 1505 Val Court, McHenry, who were sworn in by Chairman Schepler. Mr. Freund provided a summary of the request before the Commission at this Hearing. Mr. Freund stated he was told by his realtor when purchasing 5114 W Elm Street the building could have a residential residence behind the commercial business in front. Mr. Freund stated he found out later that was not true and he now needs to request a use variance to allow the use he purchased the property for. Deputy City Administrator Martin provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this matter, stating the requested use would be allowed in this zoning district if the residence was located above the commercial business, but due to the layout of the building the residence is located behind rather than Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 2 above the commercial business. The building was used as residential until the late 1980’s and renovated for commercial use abutting Route 120 after that. Mr. Freund would like to have one residential tenant in the rear half (north) of the building, with the ability to add one more in the future if he desires, and to use the front half (south) of the building as a commercial use. The property has been vacant for more than one year. If approved, there would be two principal uses on one lot, which is why a use variance is needed as that is not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Similar requests have been approved in the past but only on a temporary basis. Deputy City Administrator Martin also stated this request is different from the previously approved temporary use variances in that the building was built 55 years ago to accommodate both commercial and residential uses. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated the area of Route 120 where the subject property is located is the focus of the West Illinois Route 120 Corridor Enhancement Initiative which was approved by the City Council to encourage economic investment. This corridor itself has suffered immensely particularly since the Route 120 road construction. It would be a substantial hardship for the applicants to retrofit the north half of the building to be commercial and retrofitting the south half of the building to be residential would be counterproductive and not appropriate for this area of Route 120 in the future. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated staff believes the dual use of the building is appropriate at this location as it will still be a commercial use in the front. Staff recommends approval of a use variance to allow a residential use and commercial use in the same building on the subject property with a maximum of two separate dwelling units permitted solely on the north side of the building abutting Lakeland Park Subdivision. Chairman Schepler invited questions and/or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Doherty asked what has been in the back of the building since it was built. Mr. Freund responded it originally housed a photography lab and then it was retrofitted to residential apartments without the benefit of building permits by the previous owner. He also stated in the past several years the front commercial half of the building was also used as a residential apartment. Discussion was held regarding the ability to have apartments in the rear of the building and what is required to make it in compliance with building codes. Mr. Freund stated in order to remodel the apartment portion to house 2 apartments, the upper level would need renovations and another door and stairs would need to be added. The wall between the commercial and residential sections of the building would have to be a firewall for proper separation and building permits and inspections would need to be obtained. Currently there is a door on the west side of the building for the residential use and a door on the south side of the building for the commercial use. Mr. Freund further stated it was his intent when purchasing the building to obtain a tenant that would operate a low-traffic office type business in the front half and live in the back half of the building. Commissioner Doherty asked if there were any other buildings with a similar commercial and residential use in that area. Deputy City Administrator Martin replied the only one similar in design is 4509 W Elm Street, which was formerly occupied by Nature’s Cornucopia in the front and a residential apartment in the rear. Chairman Schepler opened the floor to questions and comments from the audience. The following were sworn in by Chairman Schepler prior to their addressing the Commission: Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 3  Attorney Mary Nader, 1213 Matanuska Tr., McHenry and office address 5116 W. Elm St.;  Terry Nader, 1213 Matanuska Tr., McHenry; and  Mitch Ketchum, 5110 W. Elm St., business address. Attorney Mary Nader stated she and her husband own the property at 5116 W. Elm Street next to the subject property. She is a long time McHenry resident and purchased and made a large investment in upgrading the aesthetic appearance of her property about 5 years ago. At that time the City required a fence be installed between her commercial business and the abutting residential homes to the north. Attorney Nader stated the use variance being requested is juxtaposed to what she was told regarding requirements needed to minimize land use conflicts between residential and commercial properties. She stated previous tenants in the 5114 W Elm Street building were a hindrance to her law firm. The subject property has very limited parking and she had many issues over the years with previous tenants consistently using her parking lot for their daily parking needs and being unruly or refusing when asked politely to move their vehicles. Attorney Nader further stated previous tenants did not keep their trash contained properly and garbage was frequently left out in the open. Attorney Nader and her husband tried to purchase 5114 Elm Street to help control the issues they had with the previous owners and tenants. They were told by the City that residential use would not be allowed on the property since it had not been occupied for more than 90 days with residential use. Being satisfied with that response, they did not pursue the purchase of the property because they believed it would be occupied by a commercial tenant only and would no longer be a threat to their business. Attorney Nader commented she is aware one of her colleagues inquired into the purchase of the subject property and was told the same thing by the City and her realtor. She also did not pursue the purchase of the property since she needed the income from the rental of the back of the property to proceed with the purchase. It is the opinion of Attorney Nader that approval of residential use of the subject property would be a further hindrance of the law business she is running next door and would upset the impeccable condition of her own property. Attorney Nader further stated residential use of the subject property diminishes the directive in goal number 2 of the West Illinois Route 120 Corridor Enhancement Initiative to “develop and implement strategies to retain existing businesses in the City” and the City’s desired goal to establish high screening and traditional yard requirements to minimize land use conflicts between commercial and adjacent residential properties. She is disappointed staff recommends approval of the request and opined staff did not really understand the impact approval of this request would have to the surrounding businesses or took into consideration the parking inadequacies involved. Attorney Nader asked the Commission to deny the request for a use variance. Terry Nader stated he agreed with everything Attorney Nader commented on in her statement. He confirmed the frequent parking issues at 5116 Elm Street due to the limited parking at the subject property. Mr. Nader stated the lot at 5114 Elm Street would fill up just with cars for the commercial property in front and there were always three to four cars needing parking for the apartment in the rear which would use Attorney Nader’s lot at 5116 Elm Street. In addition, snow removal was always an issue and snow was often put on Attorney Nader’s property at 5116 Elm Street when it was cleared from the subject property at 5114 Elm St. Mr. Nader further stated the proposed use will not attract businesses who want to invest and improve the corridor if an apartment use is approved in the rear of the office building. Mitch Ketchum stated he operates a business to the east of the subject property and he confirmed agreement with the statements made by Mary and Terry Nader. He commented that garbage and snow Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 4 removal were consistently an issue when 5114 Elm Street had residents living in the rear. He also stated there is not enough parking and previous tenants would often use his lot as well as Attorney Nader’s lot when they needed to park. Mr. Ketchum added he also looked into the property at 5114 Elm Street and was told directly by a realtor that it could only be used as a commercial property. Chairman Schepler closed the public comment portion of the hearing at 7:55 p.m. Mr. Freund responded that he and his wife own a 5-unit apartment building in Wauconda and 2 homes in Wonder Lake. They are well-maintained buildings and have good renters. Mr. and Mrs. Freund intend to be selective with renters who will not cause parking and garbage issues at the subject property. Mr. Freund further pointed out that the parking is limited at 5114 Elm Street but whether the property has residential and commercial use or solely commercial use, cars will have to park there. The Freunds met with City staff and believe if the building was commercial use only there are not enough parking spaces available to be in compliance with City codes. Mr. Freund stated he would like to proceed with this request but does not want to cause further problems with the neighboring businesses. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded that the comments made by the Naders and Mr. Ketchum regarding being told by the City that the subject property was only approved for commercial use are correct. Mr. and Mrs. Freund were told the subject property could not be used as residential as well, that is why the applicants are at this hearing requesting a variance in order to have two uses on the property. Commissioner Doherty asked if there are two separate driveways for the properties at 5114 and 5116 Elm Street. Attorney Nader responded the driveways do come together but there is not a common driveway for the properties and that each of the driveways are on separate lots. Commissioner Doherty inquired if there is any room for additional paved parking area at the subject property to improve the parking issues. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded the entire lot could be paved if desired, whether it was only commercial use or a combined use of commercial and residential. Attorney Nader commented there is very limited extra space available on the subject property to accommodate additional parking. Commissioner Nader asked Mr. and Mrs. Freund if they had another plan in the event their request for a use variance was denied. Mrs. Freund responded they will look into renting the property as commercial use only but depending on the expenses involved they may just have to sell the property. Mrs. Freund further inquired how anyone could successfully operate a business on the property with the parking issues that have been stated. Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Thacker, to recommend to the City Council with regard to File No. Z- 796, an application for a use variance to allow a residential and commercial use in the same building, with a single dwelling unit solely on the North side of the building, on the property located at 5114 W Elm Street as amended, be granted, and that Table 32A, of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: None. Voting Nay: Buhrman, Doherty, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 5 Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Morck, Strach. Motion denied 0-5. Commissioner Buhrman stated the variance request does not support the variance requirements needed for a mixed use of commercial and residential. Commissioner Nadeau stated the variance request forms did not provide sufficient information to approve the request and the request does not meet the City’s comprehensive plan. Chairman Schepler stated he does not believe the request is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. Commissioner Thacker stated he agreed with the statements made by all the Commissioners. Chairman Schepler closed the Public Hearing regarding File No. Z-796 at 8:14 p.m. Public Hearing: Use Variance File No. Z-798 3705 W Elm Street Use Variance Chairman Schepler called the Public Hearing to order at 8:15 p.m. regarding File No Z-798 an application for a use variance to allow shooting instruction and a training range in conjunction with a retail sporting goods store as submitted by Dr. Bertram P. Irslinger and Thomas and Linda Sullivan for the property located at 3705 W Elm Street. Chairman Schepler stated Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on July 28, 2012. Notices were mailed to all abutting property owners of record as required by ordinance. The subject property was posted. A Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Compliance with notice requirements are on file in the City Clerk’s Office. In attendance were Dr. Bertram P. Irslinger, 409 Front Street, McHenry; Bert Irslinger, Jr., 9702 Fox Bluff Lane, Spring Grove; and Attorney Joe Klein, 2550 W Golf Road, Suite 250, Rolling Meadows; who were sworn in by Chairman Schepler. Dr. Irslinger provided a summary of the request before the Commission at this Hearing stating he operates a federally licensed firearms establishment at 409 Front Street in McHenry but wants to expand the scope of what is done at their business with the addition of sporting goods sales and a shooting range. He is hoping to work with the City on being associated with the Riverwalk and creek usage for sporting opportunities. A shooting range is needed for training in addition to the sporting good business. Their business is presently having difficulty competing with internet sales of firearms. The additional uses will support the City as well as the success of the business. Deputy City Administrator Martin provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this matter. He stated the applicants are requesting a use variance to allow a public shooting range which is not a permitted use within the City’s zoning ordinance. The retail is a permitted use on this site and the applicant is not requesting any other variances from the zoning ordinance. Deputy City Administrator Martin commented the building on the property sets over 150’ from Route 120 and the entire property Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 6 is 400’ long. It is approximately 720’ from the intersection of Richmond Road and Elm Street. When the Route 120 construction is complete it will be increasingly difficult for vehicles traveling westbound on Elm to enter the site and vehicles will also have a difficult time turning left and traveling west on Elm Street from the site. Due to the setback from Route 120 and given the size, coupled with a wider Elm Street, sustaining retail-only businesses in a 15,000 + square foot building would be extremely difficult. Deputy City Administrator Martin also opined it would be cost-prohibitive to have multiple commercial tenants at this site as well. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated a shooting range is a necessary component to the success of the applicant’s business. The proposed store will offer outdoor sporting goods, such as canoes and fishing supplies, which will likely increase recreational use of the adjacent waterway. Staff believes the proposed store with the shooting range is consistent with the goals and intent of the sub-area plan, drawing more people downtown and adding much needed vitality to the area and hopefully attracting additional commercial investment. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated variances and use variances are granted and intended to address unique situations, generally not applicable to most properties, which if not granted would cause an undue burden or hardship on the property owner. Staff believes this case is an exception, and would result in an undue hardship on the property owner if a use variance is not granted. Staff recommends approval of a use variance to allow an indoor firearms range in conjunction with a sporting goods store at 3705 W Elm Street subject to the following conditions, as amended: 1. Use Variance shall be null and void if the indoor tactical firearms range ceases operation for 90 consecutive days, but this does not include unforeseen circumstances which unexpectedly may occur and are not within the applicant’s control, such as act of nature, flood, fire, etc.; 2. If the business is sold or another party, other than the applicant, assumes operations of the business in the future, staff must be notified and all conditions listed herein must be adhered to; 3. Parking for the retail and firearms range at any one time must be legally maintained on-site unless prior arrangements have been made and approved by staff; 4. Business operation shall not be permitted to open unless all building issues, including sound mitigation measures, are properly installed and tested for compliance with City ordinances prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 5. A Knox Box shall be installed allowing 24/7 emergency access, by either of the McHenry Police Department and/or the McHenry Township Fire Protection District; 6. Indoor and outdoor surveillance cameras shall be installed to allow monitoring of the entire facility inside and outside and surveillance video/tapes shall be maintained, allowing use by law enforcement personnel solely if there is a need to do so, such as a criminal investigation; 7. The number of shooters shall be limited to the number of firing points or stations identified on the building plans; 8. A burglary alarm system shall be installed prior to obtaining an occupancy permit, to detect break-ins or unauthorized access inside the building; 9. The applicant is required to obtain an amendment to the use variance if and when the shooting range is physically altered from the originally approved building and engineering plans submitted to the City and constitutes a substantial deviation from the approved plans; Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 7 10. The storage of ammunition and firearms on-site shall comply with all applicable city, state and federal ordinances; and 11. The proposed shooting range must comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations regarding the design, construction and operation. Staff finds the requirements in Table 32(A) of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance have been satisfied. Chairman Schepler invited questions and/or comments from the Commission. Commissioner Doherty inquired whether the sporting goods store would be a chain store or a private store, what the name of the business will be, and what percentage of the building will contain the shooting range. Dr. Irslinger responded the business is presently in operation as Second Amendment Sports and will retain that name upon expansion; the store will be a private store. The shooting range sill be approximately 8,000 sq. ft. or about half of the building. Commissioner Buhrman stated although he acknowledges the research and information that has been presented by the applicant he has a concern with another gun range in the City and inquired why they feel a second gun range in McHenry is needed aside from the sale of guns. Dr. Irslinge r stated that gun ranges are highly regulated and the community needs a controlled place for people to shoot guns rather than having them shooting in their back yards and fields in our rural community. A market analysis was done providing data that there is a tremendous volume of shooters in this area. The size of the present location of Second Amendment Sports on Front Street does not allow them to offer safety training in a safe, controlled environment, which is a good complement to the sale of guns. Discussion ensued regarding a site plan for the proposed building and the separation of the sporting goods store sales and the shooting range. Concern was expressed regarding the safety of families using a shared entry with customers bringing guns into the store to be used in the shooting range. Bert Irslinger, Jr. stated customers would be required to follow all federal and state requirements regarding carrying weapons in a locked case. The range will be a box within a box essentially and there will be a safety check-in with a Range Master for the range along with an escort into a sealed separate doorway to shoot in the range. Two separate entrances were not considered because other national stores with ranges inside do not have separate entrances, such as Cabela’s, which nobody knows has a range inside unless they are going there to shoot. The proposed gun range will always be manned and a range commander will always be on the premises. The building of the range will comply with all local, state and federal building, safety and noise requirements necessary. Commissioner Nadeau asked the proposed hours of the store and shooting range. Dr. Irslinger stated they are operating with hours of 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. now but will likely expand to 9 a.m. to 8 p.m. if the use is approved to be compatible with other retail businesses in the area. Commissioner Doherty asked what type of weapons are allowed in the shooting range. Dr. Irslinger stated automatic weapons are not permissible in Illinois; most customers would use handguns and light rifles. Further discussion ensued regarding a site plan for the proposed use and/or a schematic drawing of the proposed space. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated focus was on the proposed use of the range in conjunction with the retail sporting goods store rather than on the floor plan of the actual building so Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 8 site plans were not required to be provided. Commissioners opined the idea is a good idea but they would like to see site plans to be able to address the safety elements of the combined use of the business for a sporting goods store along with a shooting range and asked if a schematic drawing, not necessarily architectural drawings, could be provided. Mr. Irslinger, Jr. stated they are in the process of working with an architect and want to build a state of the art facility but it is cost prohibitive to obtain architectural drawings without knowing whether or not the use will be allowed. They are unable to move forward without the variance being approved. Deputy City Administrator Martin asked Dr. Irslinger if federal laws govern how the shooting range can be built in conjunction with a retail establishment in regard to security and separation. Dr. Irslinger responded federal laws do govern the building of the range from a safety standpoint, not from a secure standpoint. He has already been in contact with the City’s building and zoning department regarding local building requirements. Chairman Schepler opened the floor to questions and comments from the audience. Mr. Jack Minero, 1503 Burr Oak Court, McHenry was sworn in by Chairman Schepler prior to addressing the Commission. Mr. Minero asked Commissioner Buhrman what specific issues he was concerned with regarding the gun range that precipitated his earlier comment that he had a concern with gun ranges in the City. Commissioner Buhrman stated he supports the sporting goods sales but has questions regarding the need for another gun range. He stated he understands the applicant is trying to abide by the state and federal rules but this is a local hearing regarding the local requirements and rules and in this instance they are not clearly addressed in his mind without a site plan or previous exposure to this specific type of use being requested. Commissioner Buhrman asked if there are any local ordinances regarding the proximity of a gun range to a school. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded currently there are none. Attorney Klein stated the applicant will be in compliance with every local ordinance that is required and would be happy to accompany Commissioners to national stores with the same use at a future date. Chairman Schepler closed the public comment portion of the hearing at 9:05 p.m. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated the applicant can provide a general schematic drawing but it should not be used as the basis for a decision. A request for a use variance focuses on the zoning ordinance and regulations in the municipal code and that is the criteria that need to be addressed. Commissioner Doherty inquired if the permanent sign on the business will indicate there is a shooting range inside the building. He stated that Cabela’s and other similar national chains do not advertise a shooting range inside the premises on their signage. Mr. Irslinger Jr. responded they are considering the sign language being Second Amendment Sports Indoor Range and Training Facility. Commissioner Doherty opined he would not like to see the shooting range advertised on a permanent sign at the business. Mr. Irslinger, Jr. also stated the important component of what they will be doing is gun safety, first shots, holding to NRA firearms safety and proper shooting technique training, which will include community outreach and Boy Scout badges. They will employ only NRA certified licensed instructors and provide training for new gun owners, basic gun owners, advanced gun owners all the way up to competitive shooters. Attorney Klein stated the shooting range is critical to the retail in order for the project to survive. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 9 Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Buhrman, to recommend to the City Council with regard to File No. Z- 798, approval of an application for a use variance to allow shooting instruction and a training range in conjunction with a retail sporting goods store on the property located at 3705 W Elm Street as presented by applicants Dr. Bertram P. Irslinger and Thomas and Linda Sullivan, with amended conditions as follows: 1. Use Variance shall be null and void if the indoor tactical firearms range ceases operation for 90 consecutive days, but this does not include unforeseen circumstances which unexpectedly may occur and are not within the applicant’s control, such as act of nature, flood, fire, etc.; 2. If the business is sold or another party, other than the applicant, assumes operations of the business in the future, staff must be notified and all conditions listed herein must be adhered to; 3. Parking for the retail and firearms range at any one time must be legally maintained on-site unless prior arrangements have been made and approved by staff; 4. Business operation shall not be permitted to open unless all building issues, including sound mitigation measures, are properly installed and tested for compliance with City ordinances prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy; 5. A Knox Box shall be installed allowing 24/7 emergency access, by either of the McHenry Police Department and/or the McHenry Township Fire Protection District; 6. Indoor and outdoor surveillance cameras shall be installed to allow monitoring of the entire facility inside and outside and surveillance video/tapes shall be maintained, allowing use by law enforcement personnel solely if there is a need to do so, such as a criminal investigation; 7. The number of shooters shall be limited to the number of firing points or stations identified on the building plans; 8. A burglary alarm system shall be installed prior to obtaining an occupancy permit, to detect break-ins or unauthorized access inside the building; 9. The applicant is required to obtain an amendment to the use variance if and when the shooting range is physically altered from the originally approved building and engineering plans submitted to the City and constitutes a substantial deviation from the approved plans; 10. The storage of ammunition and firearms on-site shall comply with all applicable city, state and federal ordinances; and 11. The proposed shooting range must comply with all applicable local, state and federal laws, rules and regulations regarding the design, construction and operation. be granted, and that Table 32A, of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Doherty, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Strach, Morck. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Schepler closed the Public Hearing regarding File No. Z-98 at 9:10p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission August 16, 2012 Page 10 Staff Report The next Meeting will be a September 6, 2012 special meeting regarding a use variance at 4509 W Elm Street and miscellaneous text amendments to the City of McHenry zoning ordinance. Adjournment Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Buhrman, to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Doherty, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Strach, Morck. Motion carried 5-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _____________________________________ Dorothy M. Wolf, Planning & Zoning Secretary City of McHenry