Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 10/07/2004 - Planning and Zoning CommissionMinutes of the City of McHenry PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION October 7, 2004 The October 7, 2004 Meeting of the City of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order by Chairman Howell at 7:31 p.m. in the McHenry Municipal Center Council Chambers. Commission members in attendance: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom (arrived at 7:34 p.m.), Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Absent: None. Also in attendance: Planner Martin, Deputy Clerk Kunzer, Attorney Rob Fetzner. Public Hearing – Gerstad Builders File No. Z-613 Adams Farm Property Planner Martin announced due to a publication error the Public Hearing for File No. Z-613 the Adams Farm Petition, is being deferred until October 21, 2004. Chairman Howell requested a motion from the floor to defer the Public Hearing regarding File No. Z-613 until Thursday, October 21, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Nadeau, to defer the Public Hearing regarding File No. Z-613 Adams Farm Petition to Thursday, October 21, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. in the McHenry Municipal Center Council Chambers. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: Ekstrom. Motion carried 6-0. Approval of Minutes Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Nadeau, to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission as presented: September 16, 2004 regularly scheduled meeting. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: Ekstrom. Motion carried 6-0. Public Hearing: Oak Orleans File No. Z-626 Lots 1-4, Block 3, City Centre Business Park Chairman Howell at 7:35 p.m. convened the Public Hearing regarding a request for map amendment from I-1 Industrial to RM-1 Low Density Multi-Family Residential and a variance to permit multiple buildings on a zoned lot as submitted by Oak Orleans LLC for Lots 1-4 in Block 3 of City Centre Business Park. P&Z Commission October 7, 2004 Page 2 In attendance representing the applicant were: 1. Mark Towne, Managing Partner of Oak Orleans LLC 2. Attorney Neal Anderson 3. Walter Bilinski, Direct Design 4. John Swierk, Direct Design architect who were sworn in by Chairman Howell. Also in attendance were the following Observers/Objectors: 1. Edward Rous, 1814 N Oak Drive, McHenry IL 2. Jerry Michaels, 1717 N Oak Drive, McHenry IL 3. Sheral Howe, 2018 N Oak Drive, McHenry IL 4. Diana Mantzoros, 1904 N Oak Drive, McHenry IL. Chairman Howell stated public notification requirements had been met. Notice was published in the Northwest Herald on September 18, 2004. A Certificate of Publication is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Notification was made to all adjacent property owners. An Affidavit of Service is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. Attorney Anderson invited Mr. Towne to provide background information on his business park. Mr. Towne stated the property was purchased by his family in the 1970’s. In 1990 he platted the property as a business park with light industrial zoning. For the most part the business park has developed in sequential manner. However, he noted he has had difficulty, particularly with regard to topography and existing foliage, in marketing Lots 1-4 in Block 3 of the business park. He has chosen to seek a map amendment to reclassify Lots 1-4 to RM-1 Multi-Family Residential. In additional he is requesting a variance to permit multiple buildings on a zoned lot. Mr. Towne stated if the map amendment and variance are granted, he intends to construct townhomes on the site. The units would be owner-occupied and would sell for approximately $250,000. Attorney Anderson went over the applicant’s response to the Approval Criteria for Zoning Map Amendment and the Approval Criteria for Variances as stated in the petition. Planner Martin provided an overview of the Staff Report regarding this matter. He noted zoning map amendments are reviewed based on criteria listed in table 33, of the City of McHenry Zoning Ordinance. These criteria include compatibility with the zoning and uses of the surrounding area; trend of development; consistency with comprehensive plan objectives and furthering the public interest. Planner Martin noted the character of the surrounding area is mixed, with industrial uses to the west and south and single-family residential to the north and east, along with the Union Pacific railroad tracks to the east and the Lakeland Park drainage ditch to the north. The drainage ditch provides a good physical separation between the business park and the Lakeland Park subdivision to the north; and the railroad tracks provide a good physical barrier from the Mill Creek subdivision to the east. The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as industrial as a P&Z Commission October 7, 2004 Page 3 result of a policy decision made by the City Council in 1999 when the Plan was adopted. Planner Martin stated land use allocations made in the Plan affect the future planning of the City’s infrastructure; including water, sewer and roadways. Changing a land use to something that conflicts with the Plan will have an affect on the overall land use ratio in the City, thereby impacting the City’s infrastructure. Planner Martin stated, in addition, there are approximately 744 townhomes that are approved but not yet constructed in the City. He noted multi-family is typically used as a transitional land use buffer between single-family and nonresidential development. In this instance, the multi-family would be an island placed within an already established light industrial business park. Staff believes that the proposed zoning map amendment does not meet the criteria established in Table 33 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the zoning map amendment from I-1 to RM-1 and denial of the variance for multiple buildings on a zoning lot. Mr. Swierk responding to the Staff Report, summarily rejected the points stressed by Mr. Martin. Mr. Swierk stated the proposed project is actually very similar to the Kresswood Home Subdivision on Bull Valley Road. The similarities in the projects include the Union Pacific Railroad bounding the properties on one side, adjacent single-family residential development, as well as industrial development abutting both projects. In conclusion, Mr. Swierk stated surrounding properties and uses are very similar in the two townhome projects. Chairman Howell invited questions and/or comments from the commissioners. In response to an inquiry, Mr. Towne stated he has received offers to purchase the subject property, but deemed the proposed uses would not be a good fit in the business park. He stated the uses proposed were an aluminum/metal sorting business and a firewood storage/sale business. Mr. Towne rejected both offers. In response to further inquiry, Mr. Towne stated the soils on the property would accommodate structures constructed according to traditional building methods. Responding to Commission inquiry, Mr. Towne stated the units would be owner-occupied and not rentals. Landscaping and the private drive would be maintained by the homeowners association. He noted the association covenants would have to address the prohibition of unit rentals. Mr. Towne noted the buildings would be constructed of masonry. No architectural renderings are available at this time. The buildings would be comprised of 2 and 3-bedroom units. At this time, Mr. Towne is not certain how many of each sized units would be constructed. The numbers would be market-driven. In response to further inquiry, Mr. Towne stated the garages would be located facing the private drive in front of the buildings. Mr. Swierk noted, however, the rear of the buildings would be facing Oak Drive which would provide for varied streetscape and not a wall of garage doors. Question was raised by the Commission as to market demand for this type of unit in the business park location. Mr. Towne responded he conducted an informal survey and believes the units would sell in this location. The issue was raised regarding the proposed increased Metra service P&Z Commission October 7, 2004 Page 4 in the area which would mean additional train traffic on adjacent rail tracks. The commissioners questioned the impact on unit sales in light of the additional train traffic. In response to a question regarding the handling of storm water run-off, Mr. Swierk stated the storm water run-off will be handled by the existing engineering for the business park. Mr. Towne noted the units would have basements. Lengthy discussion followed regarding the loss of mature quality trees due to the development of this project. Mr. Towne assured the commissioners as many of the existing mature trees would be saved as possible. He noted many of the trees on this site are scrub trees and would not be salvaged. Replacement of removed mature trees would be done pursuant to the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The tree ordinance requires remuneration to the City in the amount of $100 for each qualified tree when the tree is not replaced by substantial trees. Regarding the separation of Lot 4 from Lot 5, Mr. Towne stated he would provide extensive landscaping to create a barrier between Lot 5 of the business park and the residences located on Lot 4. There were no further comments and/or questions from the Commission regarding the request. In response to Chairman Howell’s request, the following comments and questions were raised from the audience regarding this matter. Each person was sworn in by Chairman Howell prior to speaking. Jerry Michaels: Mr. Michaels concurred many of the trees on this property are scrub trees. He noted the City’s Tree Preservation Ordinance is applicable to only parcels of land comprised of one or more acres. He noted the subject property is not actually adjacent to residential property to the east as there are railroad tracks, a fence, and a bike path between the residential property and the subject property. He expressed concern regarding the placement of residential property amid industrial use. He suggested it would be more appropriate to have commercial uses adjacent to residential use. When residential use is placed in an industrial park, there is nothing in common between them. He stated he owns industrial property across the street from the proposed site, and would not welcome the residential development. He stated the residential development would generate much more traffic than if the property were developed as industrial. He also expressed concerns regarding residents placing refuse/trash in the dumpsters at his business. Overflow residential parking in his parking lot could also be a problem. Also at issue might be future complaints from residents regarding the “eyesore” of adjacent industrial uses, even though the industrial uses preceded the residential development. Edward Rous: Mr. Rous stated he lives adjacent to the proposed site. His property abuts Mr. Towne’s property to the north. He expressed concern that most of the existing trees would be destroyed. In 1991 Mr. Towne attempted to have this property reclassified to multi-family, but was denied the request. Mr. Towne then requested light industrial zoning for the property. He suggested the proposed $250,000 price tag for the townhome units is unrealistic. No residential properties in the area sell for that amount of money. In response to Mr. Rous’s inquiry, Mr. Towne stated he does not own Lot 5, adjacent to the subject property. P&Z Commission October 7, 2004 Page 5 Sheral Howe: Ms. Howe expressed concern with Mr. Town’s testimony no being consistent with what he has stated at prior zoning hearings. She suggested adding more residential development in this area would exacerbate existing traffic congestion in the area. Ms. Howe noted Mr. Towne has stated that developing the subject property as light industrial would decrease adjacent residential property values. She stated when Mr. Towne originally had this property zoned industrial, he opined the industrial use would NOT decrease property values. She wondered which was correct. Ms. Howe stated she would prefer this property be developed as light industrial. Diana Mantzoros: Ms. Mantzoros stated the proposed development plan looks good. She expressed concerns regarding the proposed increase in Metra trains along the adjacent railroad tracks and the impact on this residential development. Referencing the existing trees on the site, Ms. Mantzoros stated the scrub trees provide a nice buffer between the residential property to the north and the business park. Chairman Howell closed the Public Comment portion of the Public Hearing at 8:51 p.m. Mr. Towne provided a closing statement regarding his petition. He suggested development of his plan would provide a less disruptive use of the subject property. Only one access to Oak Drive is shown on the plan which would not greatly impact traffic in the neighborhood. Mr. Towne stated residential development in this area would enjoy amenities nearby, such as the rail station, shopping, the Riverwalk, and park land. This would be a pedestrian-friendly development. In conclusion, Mr. Towne stated the neighborhood would be better served if this property is developed with multi-family residential than the existing light industrial permitted in the business park. Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Nadeau, to recommend to the City Council, with regard to File No. Z-626, an application for map amendment to RM-1 Low Density Multi-Family Residential District in order to construct 28 townhome dwelling units, as submitted by Oak Orleans LLC for the property located on Lots 1-4 Block 3 of City Centre Business Park be granted; and that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Zoning Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Nadeau. Voting Nay: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Schepler, Thacker. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: None. Motion failed 1-6. Commission Comments on Motion: Buhrman: Applicant did not meet the criteria contained in Table 33. Cadotte: Applicant did not meet the criteria contained in Table 33; the City already has a surplus of approved townhomes. P&Z Commission October 7, 2004 Page 6 Ekstrom: Would prefer the property retain its light industrial zoning; the existing adjacent rail service could best be utilized by industrial users. An adequate supply of approved townhomes exists; possible negative impact on law enforcement and schools. Howell: Concept plan appeals to him, particularly the mixed use nature of the park; he supports pedestrian traffic so close to retail development and the bike trail. However, he suggested there are too many existing physical barriers; the property would be best suited to remain light industrial. Nadeau: Supports the request; the multi-family provides a good transition between single family and light industrial development. He is not supportive of the view onto the adjacent industrial buildings and encourages more buffering and landscaping. Schepler: Industrial use is more appropriate for this property; multi-family residential is not a good mix at this location. Thacker: the criteria contained in Table 33 have not been met; dividing what has been previously zoned industrial is not appropriate. He suggested to reclassify this property to multi-family would be precedent-setting. Chairman Howell called for a brief recess at 9:02 p.m. The Public Hearing reconvened at 9:07 will all commissioners still in attendance. Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Nadeau, to recommend to the City Council that with regard to File No Z-626, a request for variance to permit multiple buildings on a zoning lot for Lots 1-4 of Block 3 of City Centre Business Park, as submitted by Oak Orleans LLC, be approved; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: None. Voting Nay: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: None. Motion failed 0-7. Chairman Howell closed the Public Hearing regarding File No. Z-626 at 9:09 p.m. Other Business Planner Martin provided a brief report of recent Council action. He also advised the Commission a Public Hearing regarding the new Gerstad Adams Farm concept plan would be held on October 21, 2004. On November 4, 2004 a hearing will be held regarding a proposed day care center as well a review of the revised Planned Unit Development Ordinance. Suggestion was made that Staff investigate a new product which permits paving of parking lots with a semi-permeable product. Code Compliance Issues raised by Commission: P&Z Commission October 7, 2004 Page 7 Question was raised as to the status of China Light building on Green Street. Staff will investigate the status and report back to the Commission. The Commission also expressed concern with parking violations on the Gary Lang property. Community Development Department will follow up on the complaints. A brief discussion ensued regarding a possible dog park in the City. Staff advised the Commission this matter is currently being discussed at the Parks and Recreation Committee. Adjournment Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Nadeau, to adjourn the meeting at 9:17 p.m. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstained: None. Absent: None.. Motion carried 7-0. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Kathleen M. Kunzer, Deputy Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission C: Mayor, Aldermen, City Administrator, City Clerk, City Attorney, City Planner, City Engineers, Applicants, Landmark Commission Chairman, Chicago Tribune, Northwest Herald, Aldermen Conference Room, File Copy.