Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 03/04/2010 - Planning and Zoning Commission City of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting March 4, 2010 Chairman Howell called the March 4, 2010 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, Ekstrom, Howell, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Absent: None. Also in attendance were: Attorney Kelly Cahill, Deputy City Administrator Martin, Deputy Clerk Kunzer. Approval of Minutes Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Buhrman, to approve minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission as presented: December 17, 2009 regularly scheduled meeting. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Ekstrom, Howell, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 7-0. Public Hearing: David and Barbara Kallay File No. Z-752 600 Bally Road Minor Variances Chairman Howell called the Public Hearing to order at 7:31 p.m. regarding File No. Z-752, an application for minor variances to allow construction of a shed on the property located at 600 Bally Road as submitted by David and Barbara Kallay. Said variances include: 1. Allowing more than two accessory structures on the subject property; 2. Exceeding the maximum square footage allowed for accessory structures on the subject property; 3. Allowing an accessory structure to be located in the required side yard less than three feet from the property line; 4. Allowing less than the minimum separation distance required between accessory structures on the subject property. Chairman Howell stated Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on February 12, 2010. Notices were mailed to all abutting property owners of record and the property was posted in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of posting and notification requirements is on file in the City Clerk’s Office. Chairman Howell swore in David and Barbara Kallay, property owners of the subject premises. Mr. Kallay stated they moved into the subject property in 2005. At that time there were four accessory structures on the site: a two-car garage, a one and one-half car garage, a boathouse, and a shed. He stated he elected to tear down the shed and replace it last fall. He received written notice from the City to cease construction and secure a building permit. Mr. Kallay noted the shed is completed and is used to store various equipment and water-related items and gear, i.e. Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 2 wave runners, jet skis, etc. He stated they have three vehicles and use the garages to store them. He further noted that his property is comprised of three plats and that the appearance of four accessory structures is not unsightly due to the larger and average lot size. He opined that the presence of four accessory structures on the property does not present an eyesore for his neighborhood, particularly as his property is the second from the end of his dead end street. Deputy City Administrator Martin provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this request. He noted the applicant requires the granting of the four variances in order to keep the new shed at its present location. If the applicant had applied for a building permit prior to constructing the shed, he would have been advised that a variance would be required regarding the amount of square footage of all accessory structures and the number of accessory structures. The remaining two issues would have been avoided as the setback requirements would have been noted on the permit. As the work was done without benefit of securing a permit, the shed was situated in such a way to require the additional two variance requests. Deputy City Administrator reviewed the request from the approval criteria for variances point of view. Staff had a difficult time justifying the variance requests. It is therefore Staff’s recommendation to deny the request as the Approval Criteria for Variances found in Table 32 of the Zoning Ordinance have not been met. Chairman Howell inquired as to the remedy if the request is denied by the City. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded the applicant would either have to: 1. remove the building; or 2. move it to an acceptable location (meeting all required setbacks) and seek a variance to allow four accessory structures on the site and to exceed the maximum allowable area for all accessory structures on a premises. Chairman Howell invited questions and comments from the Commission. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Kallay stated he did not secure a building permit because he figured he was just replacing an older structure. He noted the new shed is larger than the initial building. The size of the newly constructed shed is 16’ by 16’, 256 square feet, which brings the total area of accessory structures on the site to 1,621 square feet. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated the ordinance allows for a maximum of two accessory structures having a combined total of no more than 1,000 square feet in area on a lot. When asked if he constructed the shed or had a contractor do the construction, Mr. Kallay replied a contractor was hired to build the shed. Mr. Kallay stated the contractor did not suggest he secure a building permit. The Commission sought clarification that there were four accessory structures on the premises when the Kallay’s purchased the property in 2005. Mr. Kallay noted there were four accessory structures at that time. Responding to an inquiry, Mr. Kallay stated he is before the Commission tonight, because he was advised by the City that his shed was not allowed and that he would be required to seek several variances in order to keep it on the property. Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 3 Chairman Howell inquired if the applicant could cite mitigating circumstances in that his contractor did not obtain the required building permit. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded the ordinance clearly states it is the property owner’s responsibility to ensure that a building permit be obtained prior to having the work done. Suggestion was made that the shed be moved so that it would be “attached to” the garage. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted if the shed were connected to the garage, the variances as to the number of structures and total area would still be needed. In response to Chairman Howell’s inquiry there were no comments or questions from members of the audience. Attorney Cahill noted if the commissioners make a motion to approve the request, the language of the motion should include the reasons why the request is being supported in spite of Staff’s recommendation. Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Morck, to recommend to City Council with regard to File No. Z-752, a request for minor variances to allow: 1. Placement of more than two accessory structures on the subject property; 2. Exceeding the maximum square footage allowed for accessory structures on the subject property; 3. An accessory structure to be located in the required side yard less than three feet from the property line; 4. Less than the minimum separation distance required between accessory structures on the subject property. be approved, as there were already four existing accessory structures on the premises when it was purchased by the applicant in 2005, and that allowing four accessory structures as shown on the site plan would not present a major obstacle to residents in the area, and that, therefore, Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Morck, Nadeau. Voting Nay: Buhrman, Ekstrom, Howell, Schepler, Thacker. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion failed 2-5. Comments by Commission: Commissioner Buhrman: The homeowner was negligent in following the City code. The City has not made itself clear as to what would happen if the request is not approved. He stated he cannot support the request for variances. Deputy City Administrator Martin clarified if the request is not approved, the applicant would be required to do one of two things: 1. remove the building; or 2. move it to an acceptable location (meeting all required setbacks) and seek a variance to allow four accessory structures on the site and to exceed the maximum allowable area for all accessory structures on a premises. Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 4 Commissioner Ekstrom: Expressed the same concerns as Commissioner Buhrman. The applicant should have applied for a building permit prior to constructing the shed so that the matter could be addressed prior to constructing the shed. Chairman Howell: Acknowledged this is a difficult decision. He noted the new shed is not aesthetically unpleasant and its placement would not be an inconvenience to the neighborhood. However, the Commission needs to be careful about setting a precedent. It seems punitive, but the bottom line is it would be wrong to set a precedent in this situation. Commissioner Nadeau: Originally there were four accessory structures on the premises. At this point, three have been grandfathered in but the homeowner is being penalized for replacing the fourth one, even though he has improved the appearance of his property. It is for this reason that he supports the request for variances. Commissioner Schepler: The homeowner should have come in for a building permit. Any local contractor should know that a building permit would be required for this type of project. This is a code that is place for the good of the community and it should be followed. Commissioner Thacker: Concurred with Chairman Howell and Commissioner Schepler. He stated he has a hard time believing the applicant did not realize he had to obtain a building permit for this project. If the Commission supports the variance requests it would set a precedent and encourage others to do work without benefit of obtaining a building permit. Attorney Cahill requested the Commission offer another motion which would result in making a recommendation to Council. Motion by Ekstrom, seconded by Schepler, to recommend to the City Council, with regard to File No. Z-752, a request for minor variances to allow: 1. Placement of more than two accessory structures on the subject property; 2. Exceeding the maximum square footage allowed for accessory structures on the subject property; 3. An accessory structure to be located in the required side yard less than three feet from the property line; 4. Less than the minimum separation distance required between accessory structures on the subject property. be denied, and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has not been met. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Ekstrom, Howell, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: Morck, Nadeau. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 5-2. Chairman Howell closed the Public Hearing at 7:55 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 5 Public Hearing: McDonald’s USA File No. Z-753 Conditional Use Permit Variances Chairman Howell called the Public Hearing to order at 7:56 p.m. regarding File No. Z-753, an application for the following relief as submitted by McDonald’s USA for their property located at 4411 West Elm Street: 1. Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant with a drive-up facility; 2. Variance from the lighting regulations; 3. Variance from the landscape ordinance. Chairman Howell stated Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on February 11, 2010. Notices were mailed to all abutting property owners of record and the property was posted in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance. Certificate of Publication and Affidavit of posting and notification requirements is on file in the City Clerk’s Office. Chairman Howell swore in the following on behalf of McDonald’s USA: 1. Rich Neubauer, Rebuild Manager; 2. Edward Krause, McDonald’s of McHenry; 3. Gina Paul, McDonald’s of McHenry. Mr. Neubauer stated McDonald’s intends to remove everything from its existing site and rebuild a new prototype facility from the ground up. He stated the site would evolve from its current three-drive curb-cut to a two-drive site plan. He stated 70% of McDonald’s business is attributed to drive-up. To that end they will be including a dual drive up window layout in order to have more efficient service. There will be 53 parking spaces and three handicapped accessible spaces. Overall the intent is to increase landscape 15% over that which exists on the site. Mr. Neubauer also noted McDonald’s will incorporate new sign package on the site. The appearance of the site will be much enhanced over the existing tired structure. Mr. Neubauer stated McDonald’s is seeking a conditional use permit to allow the drive-up facility in conjunction with its restaurant. Additionally, they are seeking a variance as to the maximum allowed foot candles emitted at the base of each of its light poles. There will be nine double–headed light fixtures. There is a possibility they may exceed the maximum 10 foot allowed on a commercial site. However, there would be no overspill onto residential properties to the south. A landscape ordinance variance is also being sought as the required landscaping on the west building foundation will not meet the minimum requirement. Deputy City Administrator Martin provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this matter. McDonald’s did not have a conditional use permit for this site as the facility predated the adoption of the ordinance requiring a conditional use for the drive-up, which was passed in 1986. As McDonald’s is doing a completely new building, they are required to comply with current ordinance requirements. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated the lighting regulations allow a minimum of 1.5 foot candles to a maximum of 10 foot candles for a parking lot. He noted they would only exceed the Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 6 maximum directly under the light fixtures. However, the lights are shielded and aimed downward. No light would trespass the property line to the south, residential property. The variance from the landscape provisions relate to the minimum 10 foot required around the parking lot perimeter as well as the foundation landscaping required on the west side of the building. Landscaping requirements would be met on the north and south building foundations. The east side is exempt due to the location of the drive-up window for merchandise pickup. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted Staff has reviewed the requests and recommends approval. Chairman Howell invited questions and comments from the commissioners. Responding to an inquiry, Mr. Neubauer stated McDonald’s had not yet submitted a request to IDOT for two curb cuts for the redeveloped site. However, as the plans would indicate a reduction from three to two curb cuts, he opined IDOT would likely approve the site plan. Noting the reduction in size and height of the freestanding sign, Mr. Neubauer stated City Council had recently approved a variance granting a variance as to the height of the proposed monument sign for the site. Suggestion was made to move the building back further to the south on the premises. Deputy City Administrator responded the proposed building location has been moved further south on the site plan. He noted Staff would prefer the building not be shifted any further south because of the proximity of Boone Creek and potential affect upon it. Mr. Neubauer stated the proposed building location is approximately 20 feet further to the south than the location of the existing building. Responding to inquiries regarding the proposed signage, Deputy City Administrator Martin stated the proposed monument sign meets the total area requirements. McDonald’s sought and received City Council variances as to the number of wall signs and the height of directional signs. He noted the proposed sign package is in good taste. In answer to a question as to where deliveries would be made to the facility, Mr. Neubauer responded deliveries would be made to the west side of the building. Delivery hours varied from store to store as well as from day to day in order to vary the impact on restaurants, particularly during peak hours. He further noted the delivery would have minimal impact on customers making their way into the restaurant or in line for drive-up services. Mr. Neubauer stated handicapped access to the facility would be available at both the west entrance and the northeast corner entrance, although the west entrance is preferred as the handicapped accessible parking is located adjacent to the building on its west side. Responding to questions regarding building reconstruction, Mr. Neubauer stated the general contractor would be one typically used by McDonald’s. The company is based out of Wisconsin. However, local sub-contractors would be used for the project. Inquiring as to the projected construction timetable, Mr. Neubauer stated it is anticipated the project will begin in July and Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 7 finish by October, a four-month down time for the restaurant. It was pointed out that all McHenry employees would be offered the opportunity to work at nearby facilities during the local restaurant’s down time. Some workers are using this opportunity to take time off from working, however. Brief discussion occurred regarding the dual lane order system. Mr. Neubauer stated he is unaware of any issues with traffic mishaps generated as a result of merging of the dual ordering traffic lanes. Mr. Krause stated dual lanes would likely only be utilized during peak times. Suggestion was made to incorporate a modest berm within the landscape strip surrounding the site. Deputy City Administrator Martin responded with the space constraints of the site it would be very difficult if not impossible to include a berm in the parking landscape strip. Utilization of a berm would require gentle sloping and there would not be adequate land available to utilize this landscape feature. In response to Chairman Howell’s inquiry, there was no one in the audience who wished to comment on this matter. Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Buhrman, to recommend to City Council that with regard to File No. Z-753, a request for the following relief as requested by McDonald’s USA for their site located at 4411 West Elm Street be granted: 1. Conditional Use Permit to allow a restaurant with a drive-up facility; 2. Variance from the lighting regulations as to maximum foot candles from parking lot fixtures; 3. Variance from the landscape ordinance as to required foundation landscaping along the west side of the building; and that Table 31, the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits, pages 357-358 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Ekstrom, Howell, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: Howell. Motion carried 7-0. Comments by Commissioners: Commissioner Ekstrom: Expressed disappointment that a variance was being granted to the hard- fought-for recently adopted and amended Lighting Regulations. Chairman Howell closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m. Planning and Zoning Commission March 4, 2010 Page 8 Other Business Brief discussion occurred regarding the following:  Deputy City Administrator Martin announced the parking variance originally sought by Chipotle Grill was withdrawn. Parking needs for the site were recalculated utilizing actual public areas within the facility and it was determined a variance was not required.  The Green Pearl Bistro building is for sale and the restaurant is currently closed.  Deputy City Administrator Martin stated although inquires regarding potential new business in town have increased, there are currently no specific plans for matters coming before this body in the foreseeable future.  Deputy City Administrator Martin stated there is no update on the status of the McHenry Wal-Mart or word of the move to Johnsburg.  Discussion occurred regarding the lack of sidewalk shoveling along Elm Street. Commercial property owners are not shoveling the walks. Deputy City Administrator Martin noted State Statute exempts resident from liability if they shovel their walks. However, there is no provision for businesses or commercial entities being exempt from liability following shoveling of their walkways. Hence, there are several businesses in town that refuse to shovel their walks.  Downtown Parking. Deputy City Administrator Martin stated the Public Works Committee met on Monday evening to discuss several scenarios and/or options to provide additional public parking in the downtown. Adjournment Motion by Ekstrom, seconded by Nadeau, to adjourn the meeting at 8:44 p.m. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Ekstrom, Howell, Morck, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 6-0. The meeting was adjourned at 8:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _______________________________ Kathleen M. Kunzer, Deputy Clerk City of McHenry