HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 07/07/2011 - Planning and Zoning CommissionCity of McHenry
Planning and Zoning Commission Minutes
July 7, 2011
Chairman Schepler called the July 7, 2011 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 was: Deputy
City Administrator Martin.
Public Hearing: McHenry Township Fire Protection District (MTFPD)
File No. Z-771
3610 West Elm Street
Map Amendment, Expansion of CUP and Variances
Chairman Schepler called the Public Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. regarding File No Z-771 an
application for the following zoning relief as submitted by McHenry Township Fire Protection
District for the property located at 3610 West Elm Street:
1. Zoning map amendment from RS-4 High Density Single-Family Residential to C-5
Highway Commercial for Parcels 1 and 5; and from RM-2 High Density Multi-Family
Residential to C-5 Highway Commercial for Parcel 7;
2. Amendment to Ordinance O-87-424 (granting a Conditional Public Use to the subject
property) to allow a building addition and site expansion (Parcels 1-7):
3. Variances to Landscape and Screening Ordinance for parking lot landscaping, residential
buffer requirements;
4. Variances to the Off-Street Parking and Loading REquireme3nts to allow an additional
driveway and an increase in width/driveway land and total width for non-residential
driveways;
5. Variances from Off-Street Parking requirements to accommodate future buildout of
proposed administrative facility and elimination of wheel guard and curbing requirement
adjacent to pedestrian area and loading space;
6. Variances to the Landscape and Screening ordinance regarding parking screening and
foundation base landscaping requirements;
7. Variance from front and corner side yard building setback requirements;
8. Any other variances necessary and proper for the intended use of the subject property.
Chairman Schepler stated Notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald
on June 22, 2011. 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 the following, who were sworn in by Chairman Schepler:
Jim Militello, Attorney
Ken Schaefer, Architect
Kelly O’Connor, Architect
Tim Schmitt, Architect
Alan Miller, Trustee MTFPD
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011
Page 2
Bob Meyer, Trustee MTFPD
Mark Justen, Trustee MTFPD
Tony Huemann, Fire Chief.
Attorney Militello provided the commission with a summary of the fire district’s request which
essentially provides for an expansion of the administrative facilities located at Station 1, 3610
West Elm Street. The size of the new facility will be approximately 4,700 square feet in area.
The site will include operations and administration headquarters for the district. In order to
accommodate the proposed expansion zoning relief is being sought. The district is requesting
zoning map amendment for residential zoning parcels on the subject property as well as an
amendment to ordinance no O-87-424 which granted the initial condition public use permit for
the existing site. Several variances are also required to permit the proposed facility expansion.
Variances relate to landscape and screening, off-street parking and loading, driveway width and
building setback requirements.
Attorney Militello noted the district purchased two additional properties, Parcels 6 and 7 for their
expansion, depicted on the Plat of Consolidation. The total site area is approximately 2 acres.
Mr. Militello explained the proposed zoning map amendments and criteria, Table 33, used to
evaluate such amendments and stated his belief the applicant meets those criteria. He explained
the request for variances due to the uniqueness of the property. The applicant is requesting to
construct 23 parking spaces without a parking lot landscape island and is requesting a variance
from the residential landscaping and screening requirements to reduce the residential landscape
buffer to a minimum of 7.5’. Mr. Militello also explained the need for the driveway variances, to
allow a third driveway and allow each driveway lane to exceed 12’ and a total width of the
proposed driveways to exceed 36’ which is the maximum permitted in the city’s zoning
ordinance. He detailed plans for the proposed retaining wall on the north side of the property
and the elimination of approximately 100’ of retaining wall at the northwest part of the site
which will facilitate efficient drainage from the property.
Deputy Administrator Martin provided the staff report and clarified the requests being sought,
separating from the original list of requests published as part of the public notice. He reiterated
the history of the district’s original approval in 1987 and detailed the zoning map amendment
requests. He stated staff’s opinion of supporting the zoning map amendments, as they met the
criteria established in Table 33 of the zoning ordinance. Deputy Administrator Martin detailed
plans for expanding the existing conditional public use permit approved in 1987, provided an
overview of the future Richmond Road/Elm Street road improvements and stated the
redevelopment of the site at 3610 W Elm will not result in a substantial change to the property as
it currently sits and reiterated staff’s support of the conditional public use permit expansion
request. Mr. Martin detailed the variance requests regarding the elimination of a parking lot
landscape island and reduction of the residential landscape buffer to a minimum of 7.5’. He
restated the plans of the district to install a new retaining wall along the north property line and
stated staff’s recommendation to install a four-foot high wooden fence on-top of the proposed
retaining wall. He said this was an acceptable and appropriate screen because it would provide a
physical barrier for children playing on the property to the north. In staff’s opinion, installing
landscaping north of the proposed retaining wall/fence would be impractical due to long-term
maintenance and relative survivability of the vegetation. Deputy Administrator Martin stated the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011
Page 3
district’s intent of preserving two large trees at the northwest portion of the site and the
impossibility of doing so while installing a sidewalk extension on the east side of Freund
Avenue. He stated staff’s recommendation that the district provide a monetary contribution in
lieu of the sidewalk installation in this location.
Deputy Administrator Martin reiterated and explained the fire district’s requests for two
variances from the off-street parking and loading ordinance: the first, to exceed 12’/driveway
lane and total allowable driveway width of 36’; and the second, to allow a third driveway. Mr.
Martin explained the site currently has four driveways; and, as a result of the redevelopment, one
existing driveway would be eliminated. Additionally, the district is eliminating the two vehicular
driveways on Elm Street which staff believes is a great public safety benefit. Mr. Martin
reiterated when the initial approval was granted in 1987 the driveway construction portion of the
off-street parking and loading ordinance was in the city’s municipal code. Since that time, the
driveway requirements were incorporated into the zoning ordinance.
Martin stated staff’s recommendation:
1. Approval of Zoning Map Amendment for Parcel 7 from RM-2 High-Density Multi-Family
Residential to C-5 Highway Commercial and for Parcels 1 and 5 from RS-4 High-Density
Single-Family Residential to C-5. Staff finds all requirements of Table 33 have been met
and
2. Approval of an amendment to Ordinance O-87-424, Conditional Public Use, to allow a
building addition and site expansion (Parcels 1-7) in substantial accordance with the
geometric site plan and building elevations prepared by 222 Architects dated June 24, 2011
consisting of two sheets and the landscape plan prepared by upland Design ltd dated June
29, 2011 consisting of two sheets (collectively “SITE PLAN”). Staff finds that the
requirements in Table 31 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met and;
3. Approval of Variances to the Landscaping and Screening Ordinance to allow the
development of the subject property in substantial accordance with the SITE PLAN with
the following conditions: a four-foot high solid wooden fence be erected on the proposed
retaining along the entire length of the northern property line and a contribution be made to
the City in lieu of installation of a commercial sidewalk from the existing sidewalk
terminus at the southern end of Freund Avenue on the east side to the northern property
boundary on the east side of Freund Avenue. Staff finds the requirements of Table 32 of
the zoning ordinance have been met and;
4. Approval of Variances to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements to allow a third
driveway and increase in width for a non-residential driveway. Staff finds the requirements
of Table 32 of the Zoning Ordinance have been met.
Chairman Schepler invited questions and comments from the commissioners.
Commissioner Doherty sought clarification on the extent of the proposed retaining wall. Mr.
Militello handed out a detail of the proposed retaining wall to the Commissioners depicting the
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011
Page 4
location, height variations and installation detail. Mr. Schmitt stated they had acquired more
specific information on grading which result in a slight change in the retaining wall design. Mr.
Schaefer stated that 100’ of retaining wall was eliminated from the original site plan submittal.
Mr. Militello stated the petitioner’s concurrence with the conditions of approval imposed by
staff.
Mr. Schmitt went into further detail about the proposed retaining wall. Chairman Schepler asked
about the type of retaining wall being proposed. Mr. Schmidt answered it would be similar to the
existing concrete wall. Mr. Schaefer stated the retaining wall height fluctuates but would
maintain an above-grade barrier to adjacent properties to the north. Commissioner Thacker
sought clarification on the fence style proposed on-top of the proposed concrete retaining wall to
the west. Schaefer explained differences in fence styles and that vertical boards would be used
on the proposed fence to discourage people from climbing the fence.
Commissioner Buhrman asked for further explanation regarding questions and responses from
the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) relating to the proposed roadway
improvements for this intersection. Schaefer went into detail about the proposed access points
from the subject property onto Elm and Richmond Roads.
Chairman Schepler asked how emergency vehicle traffic would flow onto Elm Street and Illinois
Route 31 (Richmond Road), as well as onto Freund Avenue. Schaefer provided a detailed
explanation of which vehicles accessed each of the roadways. Chairman Schepler asked how
employees would access the site. Schaefer explained the evolution/history of the fire district,
detailing paid-on-call, permanent staff and who is inside the building. He stated they still needed
to work with IDOT on the design and function of the Freund Avenue access onto Elm Street,
full, right-in/right-out, etc.
Commissioner Buhrman asked about the location of the public sidewalk after IDOT had
completed their roadway improvements. Mr. Schmitt provided further clarification regarding the
future right-of-way location and sidewalk location.
Chairman Schepler opened the public hearing to questions and/or comments from people in the
audience. Each of the following was sworn in by Chairman Schepler.
Ray Walsh, 3614 Freund Avenue: Mr. Walsh stated the 15’ residential landscape buffer should
be provided and a variance to reduce it should not be granted. When the site is redeveloped there
will be 30 cars within 7’ of his house. Mr. Walsh noted a wrought iron fence would be more
acceptable than a wood fence. The proposed plan is unacceptable. He also questioned the height
of the retaining wall. Mr. Walsh also noted the code requires the applicants to provide a tree
survey and he has not seen evidence of one provided. Mr. Walsh stated several years ago he was
told he could not build on his property due to contaminated soil issues in the area. He questioned
why the fire district was not being restricted in the same manner. Deputy Administrator Martin
noted while there had been environmental issues regarding soil in the area, the land has been
remediated and is now free of contamination.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011
Page 5
Mr. Schaefer and Mr. Schmidt went into further detail and explanation about the location,
distance and width of retaining wall and buffer from the residential properties to the north.
There would be no more than eight inches of concrete retaining wall visible on the Walsh side of
the property.
Mr. Walsh further stressed additional landscaping should be required to property screen his
property from the subject property. He opined the four-foot wood fence would be the easy way
out to provide screening.
Attorney Militello noted the applicant would not be increasing any environmental concerns as a
result of the facility expansion. He noted the tree survey would be provided to the City along
with the building permit application.
Robert Walsh, 1307 Richmond Road: Mr. Walsh stated his concerns regarding the proposed
landscaping and screening and variance sought. Mr. Militello stated the fire district is open and
wants to be a good neighbor. Several conversational exchanges occurred between Robert and
Ray Walsh and the applicant and representatives of the applicant and staff regarding the
landscaping, screening, retaining wall and proposed fence type. Robert and Ray Walsh
expressed their displeasure with the proposed plans, the inadequacy of landscaping and
screening, the proposed 4’ wooden fence and potential increase of noise which would be
generated from the subject property.
The applicant and representatives responded to the questions and concerns; however, Robert and
Ray Walsh did not appear to be satisfied with the responses and began to argue and became
somewhat verbally confrontational. Deputy Administrator Martin and Chairman Schepler tried
multiple times to interrupt and bring order to the meeting but it became very difficult as Ray and
Robert Walsh remained unsatisfied, continued to state and restate their displeasure and concerns
about the lack of landscaping, height of the proposed retaining wall, storm water management,
and inappropriate fence type, implying it was proposed because it was the cheapest and easiest
way to address the issue. Verbal exchange also occurred regarding existing trees on the property,
on the property line, and the status of the trees following the improvements of the property.
Deputy Administrator Martin attempted to explain the purpose of public comment and directed
Robert and Ray Walsh to state any additional concerns, ask any further questions which hadn’t
already been asked and then to allow the applicants an opportunity to respond.
Ray and Robert Walsh continued to express displeasure regarding the construction of the four-
foot wood fence, indicating they would prefer extensive landscaping be utilized instead, which
would be more aesthetically pleasing. Attorney Militello responded the district would take the
complaints regarding the proposed landscaping plan into consideration as the project moved
forward. He noted the fence would provide a safety feature so that children would not fall from
the retaining wall. Further questions were asked by the Walsh’s regarding the landscaping of the
parking perimeter and the entire site. Attorney Militello responded additional landscaping and
reduced impervious surface is shown on the site plan.
Ray Walsh inquired if storm water management would be addressed. Deputy Administrator
Martin responded this issue would be addressed during the building permit review process.
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011
Page 6
Pam Gough, 3615 W Freund Avenue: Ms. Gough sought clarification and more detail regarding
the height of the proposed berm at the northwest portion of the property, as this was directly
across from her driveway. Mr. Schmitt provided clarification of the proposed height of the berm.
Ms. Gough stated her concern about the in and out traffic flow from the fire district site and
stated it was an accident waiting to happen. She expressed further concern about cut-through
traffic from Richmond Road west to Freund Avenue via the subject property. She also thanked
the district for saving the two large trees. Mr. Militello stated traffic has also increased over the
years and he also indicated the traffic from the subject property is consistent with the proposed
C-5 Highway Commercial District zoning classification.
Chairman Schepler closed public comment at 8:43 p.m.
Commissioner Thacker sought more explanation about the egress onto Richmond Road for
northbound traffic. Mr. Schaefer explained the need for emergency vehicles to exit onto
Richmond Road, as well as members from the fire district’s Johnsburg location to bring
equipment from Richmond Road into the site. Deputy Administrator Martin stated the left-hand
turn into the site from Richmond Road and the left-hand turn from the site onto Richmond Road
were proposed for emergency vehicles only.
Commissioner Doherty asked for more clarification on vehicles cutting through the fire district
site from Richmond Road to access Freund Avenue. Mr. Schaefer stated this was a concern of
the McHenry public works department but believed the district’s parking lot, from Richmond
Road to Freund Avenue would not be a very desirable way for vehicles to access Freund
Avenue.
Commissioner Nadeau asked what the height of the radio tower was. Mr. Schaefer responded he
believed it could not exceed 65’ and be in compliance with the city’s zoning ordinance. Deputy
Administrator Martin indicated that was correct. Commissioner Nadeau asked if there was any
thought given to placing the tower on-top of the building. Mr. Schaefer sated there had been no
discussion to that regard and indicated with the height required the tower would become very
unstable during high wind events. Deputy Administrator Martin also noted the structural
integrity of the building would also need to be readdressed as the tower would compromise the
structural integrity of the building if placed on the roof.
Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Doherty, to recommend approval to the City Council, with
regard to File No. Z-771, an application for the following zoning relief as requested by the
McHenry Township Fire Protection District for their property located at 3610 West Elm Street:
1. Zoning Map Amendment for Parcel 7 from RM-2 High-Density Multi-Family Residential
to C-5 Highway Commercial and for Parcels 1 and 5 from RS-4 High-Density Single-
Family Residential to C-5;
2. Amendment to Ordinance O-87-424, Conditional Public Use, to allow a building addition
and site expansion (Parcels 1-7) in substantial accordance with the geometric site plan and
building elevations prepared by 222 Architects dated June 24, 2011 consisting of two
Planning and Zoning Commission
July 7, 2011
Page 7
sheets and the landscape plan prepared by upland Design ltd dated June 29, 2011 consisting
of two sheets (collectively “SITE PLAN”);
3. Variances to the Landscape and Screening Ordinance to allow the development of the
subject property in substantial accordance with the SITE PLAN subject to the following
conditions being met:
a four-foot high solid wooden fence be erected on the proposed retaining wall along the
entire length of the northern property line;
b. a contribution be made to the City in lieu of installation of a commercial sidewalk from
the existing sidewalk terminus at the southern end of the east side of Freund Avenue to
the northern property boundary on the east side of Freund Avenue;
4. Variances to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Ordinance to allow a third driveway on
the site and an increase in width for a non-residential driveway with a total driveway in
excess of 36 lineal feet;
And that Table 31, the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits, Table 32, the Approval
Criteria for Variances and Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Map Amendments, have 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. Chairman Schepler closed the Public Hearing regarding File No. Z-771 at
8:51 p.m.
Adjournment
Motion by Ekstrom, seconded by Nadeau, to adjourn the meeting at 8:52 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 8:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________________________
Kathleen M. Kunzer, Deputy Clerk
City of McHenry