HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 04/14/2011 - Planning and Zoning CommissionCity of McHenry
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
April 14, 2011
Chairman Schepler called the April 14, 2011 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, Ekstrom, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker. Absent: None. Also in attendance were:
Deputy City Administrator Martin and Deputy City Clerk Kunzer.
Approval of Minutes
Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Buhrman, to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning
Commission Meeting as presented:
March 17, 2011 regularly scheduled meeting.
Voting Aye: Buhrman, Doherty, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: Ekstrom, Morck.
Absent: None.
Motion carried 5‐0.
Public Hearing: Robert E Martel
File No. Z‐764
614 John Street
Minor Variance
Chairman Schepler called the Public Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. regarding File No Z‐764 an application
for minor variance to the corner side yard setback requirements to allow the construction of an
attached 22’ by 24’ garage on the property located at 614 John Street as submitted by Robert E. Martel.
Chairman Schepler stated Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on March
26, 2011. Notice was provided to all abutting property owners of record as required by ordinance. A
Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of Compliance with notice requirements are on file in the City
Clerk’s Office.
In attendance was applicant Robert E Martel who was sworn in by Chairman Schepler.
Mr. Martel provided a summary of the request before the Commission at this Hearing. He noted he
would like to construct a 22’ by 24’ attached garage. When his house was constructed it was built in a
utility easement. In order to construct his garage he requires a setback variance from the required
corner side yard setback as noted on his plat of survey.
Deputy City Administrator Martin provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this matter.
He stated the applicant needs a 32 inch variance from the corner side yard setback from his John Street
property line in order to construct his garage. Construction of the garage presents a challenge to the
applicant as there is a utility easement to the south on which is house was originally constructed. In
addition the swooping curve configuration of the lot causes addition challenges to the requested garage
addition. Deputy Administrator Martin noted the applicant intends to remove the existing driveway and
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 2
put in a side load garage which necessitates the 32’ variance. Staff has reviewed the application and the
site and recommends approval of the variance as requested.
Chairman Schepler invited questions and/or comments from the Commission.
In response to an inquiry, Mr. Martel stated he would utilize concrete board on the exterior of the
garage and it would coordinate with the existing exterior of the residence.
Question was raised as to the possibility of the garage interfering with the utility easement. Mr. Martel
responded the garage would not be constructed within the utility easement. The 32” variance will
ensure that the new garage will not encroach in the utility easement.
In response to Chairman Schepler’s inquiry, there were not comments or questions from the audience
regarding this matter.
Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Buhrman, to recommend to the City Council with regard to File No. Z‐
764, an application for minor variance of 32’ from the required corner side yard setback along John
Street to allow the construction of an attached 22’ by 24’ attached garage on the property located at
614 North John Street as presented by applicant Robert E. Martel be granted, and that Table 32, the
Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377‐378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met.
Voting Aye: Buhrman, Doherty, Ekstrom, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried 7‐0.
Mr. Martel expressed his appreciation to the building department and Mr. Martin for their assistance in
helping his to bring this matter forward.
Chairman Schepler closed the Public Hearing regarding File No. Z‐764 at 7:39 p.m.
Public Hearing: McDonald’s USA
File No. Z‐762
1904 N Richmond Rd
Conditional Use Permit and Variances
Chairman Schepler called the Public Hearing to order at 7:40 p.m. regarding File No Z‐762 an application
for the following zoning relief for the property located at 1904 North Richmond Road as requested by
McDonald’s USA:
1. Conditional use permit to allow a drive‐thru establishment in conjunction with a restaurant;
2. Variance to allow for a reduction to 28 spaces from the required 35 off‐street parking space requirement;
3. Variance to allow a minimum lot width of 158’ along an arterial road;
4. Variance from landscape requirements regarding foundation base landscaping and parking screening strips;
5. Variance from the driveway width requirements.
Chairman Schepler stated Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on March
30, 2011. Notices were sent via certified mail to all abutting property owners of record as required by
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 3
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 the following, who were sworn in by Chairman Schepler:
1. Attorney Henry Stillwell;
2. Landscape architect Dan Olsen;
3. Construction manager Rick Dolan;
4. McDonald’s area supervisor Ed Kraus;
5. McDonald’s operations manager Joe Gott;
6. McDonald’s real estate manager Elizabeth Stack.
Mr. Stillwell provided an overview of the proposed redevelopment project for the property located at
1904 North Richmond Road. The site currently is the location of the former LaSalle Bank. The site was
purchased at auction by McDonald’s USA who intends to tear down the existing structure and redevelop
the location according to their new prototype building. In order to construct the building and develop
the site, a conditional use permit and variances are required. The conditional use permit is needed in
order for McDonald’s to have a drive‐thru facility on the premises. Variances are required as to lot
width, landscaping requirements and onsite parking regulations.
Mr. Stilwell went over the proposed site development in detail outlining features on the aerial map of
the project, the Alta survey, and the site plan. McDonald’s intends to construct a 4,000 square foot
building on the premises. Onsite traffic flow would be counterclockwise in order to provide ease of
circulation into and out of the dual side‐by‐side drive‐thru lanes. He noted McDonald’s has discerned an
increase in drive‐thru traffic from 40‐50% nationwide to a current 70% or higher in most regions. To that
end McDonald’s has developed the unique side‐by‐side dual ordering system.
Mr. Stillwell stated there would be intensive use of landscape on the site. Proposed landscaping would
exceed ordinance requirements. However, two variances are being sought:
1. Elimination of the foundation plantings on the east side of the building due to pedestrian access
to the building at this location;
2. Reduction in the required parking screening strip minimum requirements to the constraints of
existing public improvements (retaining wall) and loss in lot area when the Richmond Road and
McCullom Lake Road intersection improvements were done.
Mr. Stillwell stated the site plan shows only 28 parking spaces. By utilizing the ordinance formula for
computing the required number of parking spaces for net floor area, 35 spaces are required. He noted
McDonald’s is confident the 28 spaces shown on the site plan will be more than adequate for the
restaurant.
Mr. Stillwell noted the site plan also includes the location of the freestanding monument sign at the
southwest corner of the parcel and the trash corral to be located on the northeast corner of the site.
Ten light standards would be used to illuminate the site, similar to the fixtures recently used to
illuminate the recent redevelopment of the McDonald’s Route 120 restaurant. Access to the site would
be from the northwest corner and/or the southeast corner of the lot, from the McHenry Commons
Shopping Center. There would be no direct access from Route 31 or McCullom Lake Road to the site.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 4
Mr. Olsen provided an overview of the proposed landscape plan and signage package for the site. He
noted there would be a bike rack at the southeast corner of the building. There is a proposed increase in
existing green space on the site of 5%. The landscape variance requests relate to the restrictions
imposed by the site. Even though variance are being sought relating to the parking screening strip and
foundation landscaping, more than the minimum landscaping requirement has been included in all
other areas of the plan.
Mr. Olsen, for the commissioners’ edification, explained the various elements to the signage package,
both freestanding signs and wall signs. He clarified the need for each of the signs noted on the plan.
Mr. Stillwell concluded the presentation noting he would address individually each of the approval
criteria for conditional use permits and variances if the commissioners required further clarification
from the written narrative. Mr. Stillwell stated McDonald’s believes the drive‐thru sales will comprise
70‐80% of its volume at this location, which should assist in mitigating the need for additional parking
spaces; the proposed 28 spaces will be more than adequate. The proposed hours of operation would be
5 a.m. until 1 a.m. for the inside customers and 24/7 service at the drive‐thru. There would be four shifts
per day.
Deputy Administrator Martin provided the Commission with the staff report regarding this matter.
McDonald’s intends to redevelop the site which is smaller than a typical site McDonald’s would seek for
one of their restaurants. He summarized McDonald’s request as follows:
1. Driveway width variance: There is no direct access to the site from a roadway; consequently, a driveway width variance would not
be required.
2. Lot width along an arterial roadway variance: This site was platted in 1990 and was a non‐conforming width at its inception.
3. Conditional use permit for drive‐thru establishment: The applicant has substantially complied with all but two of the City’s provisions
of the Drive‐thru Guidelines.
4. Variances from required landscaping: The applicant has exceeded landscaping in all where it could be accommodated by the
restrictions of the site. The site has many challenges. The widening of Route 31 reduced the site area as did the installation of the
retaining wall along McCullom Lake Road. He noted McDonald’s intends to grant the City an easement to allow for maintenance of
the City’s retaining wall.
5. Variance to parking requirement: The usable store space, the net floor area as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, requires 35 parking
spaces. The parking regulations require 10 spaces/1,000 square feet with an area to be set aside for development of additional
parking of 5/1000 square feet is Staff deems it is needed. McDonald’s has provided for 12 spaces/1,000 square feet which is
appropriate for its use.
Deputy Administrator Martin stated in view of the lot size and other constraints as noted, the variances
requested by the applicant are justified. After Staff review of the site and proposed plans, it is the
recommendation to approve the conditional use permit and itemized variances as requested.
Commissioner Buhrman inquired about pedestrian traffic coming into the site. He inquired if there is a
cross‐access easement agreement with McHenry Commons regarding parking in the shopping center.
Mr. Stillwell responded McDonald’s expects to be self‐sufficient on their property and does not
anticipate needing additional overflow parking area. Mr. Buhrman expressed concern regarding children
entering the site from the east as they would have to cross over the parking lot driveway entrance. He
opined there is no safe way for pedestrian access to the site. Mr. Stillwell responded there is a well‐
marked pedestrian access way onsite from the south property line north to the building. He suggested it
might be possible to construct a pedestrian‐delineated walkway from the east boundary parking area
west to the building entrance on the east side of the structure.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 5
Deputy Administrator Martin interjected Staff would hope the pedestrians would use the sidewalk along
McCullom Lake Road to access the site. It is possible Staff could look into another painted/striped
walkway internal to the site to assist with pedestrian safety.
In response to an inquiry, Deputy Administrator Martin stated the City owns the retaining wall and is
responsible for its maintenance.
Question was raised as to a fence surrounding the property as depicted on the architectural renderings.
Mr. Olsen indicated there would not be a fence surrounding the site. When asked about the flag pole
also shown on the renderings, it was noted this has not yet been decided.
Chairman Schepler inquired as to the internal truck delivery route on the premises. Mr. Stillwell
displayed the truck route exhibit and noted trucks would circulate counterclockwise for deliveries and
refuse pickup on the site.
When asked why McDonald’s is requesting permission to build at this location, Ms. Stack responded that
following research it was determined this was a good location for a store. McHenry is a very good
market for McDonald’s. As there was not McDonald’s in the vicinity of the Richmond Road corridor, it
was the company’s determination to locate a restaurant in this area; she noted 43% of their customers
use McDonalds in their daily lifestyle.
Question was raised regarding the location and directional facing of the proposed monument sign at the
southwest corner of the site. Mr. Stillwell responded McDonald’s has done its due diligence regarding
sign placement. The proposed location offers the best placement for the freestanding sign. Ms. Stack
also noted that prior to placing all freestanding signs McDonald’s conducts onsite field tests for signage.
For every new site selection a road test is conducted. The new signs are tested and reviewed as far as
height and the manner in which the sign is angled. Based on a conducted sign test, the proposed sign
location offers the best visibility for McDonald’s.
In response to Commissioner Nadeau’s inquiry, Ms. Stack stated there would be no play land at this
restaurant. McDonald’s screens the area regarding this amenity, and the area did not meet the screen
standards to offer a play land onsite. Commissioner Nadeau then inquired if there would be outdoor
seating available on premises. Mr. Stillwell responded outdoor seating has not been included on the
proposed site plan. Ms. Stack noted although there is not outdoor seating indicated on the plan,
McDonald’s could consider it. The normal place for location of outdoor seating would be immediately in
front of the building. Mr. Stillwell noted if outdoor seating were implemented, it would likely impact the
landscaped area, it would require a safety railing, and other issues might need to be addressed.
Commissioner Nadeau inquired as to the number of employees required during peak times. Mr. Stillwell
responded there would be between 12‐15 employees during peak hours. He noted there is not a 1‐1
ratio as far as cars/employees is concerned. Mr. Kraus noted typically 30% of employees drive to work.
Commissioner Nadeau asked if McDonald’s recycles its waste. Mr. Stillwell responded McDonald’s
recycles its cardboard.
Commissioner Morck inquired if McDonald’s would recycle its construction waste from the demolition
of the existing building. Mr. Dolan responded the demolition contractor would take care of the waste
materials.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 6
Chairman Schepler invited questions and comments from the audience.
Mr. Adam Hecht, an attorney for BT McHenry was sworn in by Chairman Schepler prior to asking
questions and commenting on the proposal. Mr. Hecht noted the subject property is a part of the
McHenry Commons Shopping Center which is owned by BT McHenry. Mr. Hecht stated no cross‐access
easement exists on the subject property. Mr. Hecht requested supporting documentation and
calculations which allow a reduction in the required parking. He suggested that 35 spaces were not
adequate and a further reduction to 28 spaces is not acceptable. He requested this matter be tabled
until such documentation has been provided to his client. He noted if McDonald’s would like to work out
a cross‐access easement agreement for overflow parking on his client’s property, they would also have
to be a party to the parking lot maintenance and snow removal expenses. Mr. Hecht opined that 12‐15
employees being onsite during peak hours would further limit available parking and that McDonald’s
would likely be utilizing McHenry Commons parking spaces during the peak times of operation. Mr.
Hecht concluded noting that his client is requesting the matter be tabled until such time as some of
these concerns could be addressed and further information is provided as to the calculations to allow
reduced parking on the site.
Mr. Stillwell responded that the Declaration of Covenants for the shopping center allows the outlots to
have unlimited access and parking, but outlot owners are not required to contribute to the maintenance
of the shopping center common areas. He stated McDonald’s should have sufficient parking on its site.
McDonald’s has an obligation to provide sufficient parking for its employees and patrons. The shopping
center documentation provides for certain rights and McDonald’s is asking for more than is allowed and
entitled to them by the existing documentation. The discussion of common property usage is a matter
which should be discussed between the affected parties. He suggested the Public Hearing was not the
correct environment or venue to discuss this matter.
In response to Chairman Schepler’s inquiry there were no further comments or questions from the
audience or members of the Commission.
Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Ekstrom, to recommend to the City Council, with regard to File No. Z‐
762, a request for the following zoning relief as submitted by McDonald’s USA for their property located
at 1904 North Richmond Road, be granted:
1. Conditional use permit to allow a drive‐thru establishment in conjunction with a restaurant in accordance with the site plan and
landscape plan prepared by Watermark Engineering Resources Ltd, dated 3/21/2011 and building elevations prepared by Lingle
Design Group, Inc, dated 3/8/2010, consisting of two separate elevation plans, subject to the conditional use permit being revoked
and becoming null and void if the use is not established, or a required building permit is not obtained and construction started
within one year of the date of approval by Council, or it the use ceases operation for more than one year;
2. Variance to allow for a reduction to 28 spaces from the required 35 off‐street parking space requirement, subject to the condition
that the site is designed in accordance with the site plan prepared by Watermark Engineering dated 3/21/2011;
3. Variance to allow a minimum lot width of 158’ along an arterial road;
4. Variance from landscape requirements regarding parking screening strips to allow a minimum landscaping strip width of 3/6 feet
along the southern and western property lines and a reduction to zero feet of foundation base landscaping along the eastern side of
the building with the condition the site is designed in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Watermark Engineering
Resources Inc, dated 3/21/2011; subject to the condition that the property owner provide the City with an easement to perform
maintenance and ensure access to the retaining wall on the south property line as needed;
and that Table 31, the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits, pages 357‐358, and Table 32, the
Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377‐378, of the Zoning Ordinance, have been met.
Planning and Zoning Commission
April 14, 2011
Page 7
Voting Aye: Buhrman, Doherty, Ekstrom, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried 7‐0.
Comments by Commissioners:
Commissioner Thacker voted Aye and added regarding Mr. Hecht’s issues, that communication between
the parties is necessary for any venture to succeed. He stated it disturbed him that BT McHenry was
unaware of McDonald’s plans for the site. He opined that McDonald’s is doing a good job in
redeveloping and revitalizing the area.
Commissioner Buhrman stated while he sympathized with Mr. Hecht, he hopes the differences between
the two parties are resolved before this matter goes before Council, for consideration.
Chairman Schepler closed the Public Hearing at 9:10 p.m.
Other Business
Deputy Administrator Martin stated the next meeting of the commission is May 19, 2011. Mattes to be
discussed include O’Reilly Auto Parts, McDonald’s restaurant proposed on Park Place, and a minor
variance.
Adjournment
Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Morck, to adjourn the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
Voting Aye: Buhrman, Doherty, Ekstrom, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, and Thacker.
Voting Nay: None.
Not Voting: None.
Abstaining: None.
Absent: None.
Motion carried 7‐0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
Kathleen M. Kunzer, Deputy Clerk
City of McHenry