Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - 08/03/2006 - Planning and Zoning Commission City of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting August 3, 2006 Chairman Howell called the August 3, 2006 regularly scheduled meeting of the City of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. in the McHenry Municipal Center Council Chambers. In attendance were commissioners Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker (arrived at 7:31 p.m.) Absent: None. Also in attendance were Planner Zeller, City Attorney Cahill, Deputy Clerk Kunzer, Alderman Santi. Approval of Minutes Motion by Cadotte seconded by Buhrman, to approve the July 6, 2006 regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission as presented. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 7-0. Public Hearing – Jim Pappas File No - Z-676 921 North Front Street Chairman Howell reconvened the Public Hearing at 7:32 p.m. regarding File No. Z-676, an application for the following as submitted by Applicant James Pappas for the property located at 921 North Front Street: 1. Variance for building setback to allow the continued use of existing buildings; 2. Variance to reduce the number of required parking spaces; 3. Conditional Use Permit to allow the service of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant. Chairman Howell noted this Public Hearing was initiated on July 6, 2006 and was recessed to this evening allowing time for the applicant to address concerns expressed by the Commission and audience relative to the requested parking variance. In attendance were Applicant James Pappas, architect Mike Coan, and Attorney Steven Cuda. Chairman Howell reminded them they were sworn in on July 6, 2006. Also in attendance were the following persons who wished to address the Commission regarding this matter: 1. Virginia Anzinger, former owner of 3908 John Street, McHenry IL 60050. Attorney Cuda stated the applicant has been researching ways to resolve concerns raised by the Commission at its July 6, 2006 meeting. Specifically, the applicant has contacted the owner of the Just for Fun Roller Rink who has agreed to lease space to the applicant to accommodate restaurant patrons parking. A second option would be for the applicant to remove a portion of his office building on the premises in order to increase parking on the site. Admittedly, this option would result in a net increase of only five parking spaces. Attorney Cuda noted Option 1, overflow parking at the roller rink, was not met with Staff approval. Staff cited safety concerns with having patrons cross Route 31 to get to/from the Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 2 restaurant to the roller rink lot for parking. Option 2 also was discouraged by Staff as the cost to the applicant did not justify the small increase in available parking. Attorney Cuda reported he investigated the amount of available parking in the area on the way to this evening’s meeting. He noted there were only two vehicles parked in the south municipal Main Street Lot. The north municipal Mail Street Lot was fairly full, however there was plenty of available parking along the north side of Main Street. In addition there were five available spaces along the east side of Route 31 in the Main Street area. Attorney Cuda concluded there were approximately thirty available spaces in the vicinity of the proposed restaurant between 6:45 p.m. and 7 p.m. this evening. Architect Coan noted if a portion of the office building is torn down, only five additional spaces would be realized. He stated approximately forty feet of the rear portion of the building would be demolished if this option was selected. Planner Zeller provided the Commission with an updated Staff Report regarding this project. She stated Staff reviewed and evaluated both options proposed by the Applicant. Option 1, the use of the roller rink property, was deemed a dangerous solution as there is no safe way to cross Route 31. Option 2, the partial removal of the office building would cause the applicant to incur additional expense. This option would also result in dead-end parking which would cause adverse onsite traffic conditions and additional safety concerns as well. Staff believes there is adequate public parking available in the vicinity of the subject property which, when combined with the indicated onsite parking, should be adequate for the proposed use. Planner Zeller stated Staff believes the original site plan submitted by the Applicant is the best possible layout for the proposed uses. The Applicant intends to increase landscaping on the site and to install sidewalks as requested by Staff for patron safety. Staff recommends approval of the original site plan, variances as to building setback and parking, and a conditional use permit to allow serving alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant. Chairman Howell invited comment and questions from the commissioners. Responding to an inquiry, Planner Zeller stated she is not certain if or when John Street roadway improvements would be scheduled. She noted the roadway is in poor condition. However, as this area is redeveloped, John Street would have to be improved to accommodate additional traffic. Question was raised as to the Applicant’s choice of use for this property. It was noted restaurants require more parking than other retail/commercial uses. Attorney Cuda concurred that different uses require different numbers of parking spaces. Architect Coan noted the Applicant acquired the potential Mexican restaurant tenant which precipitated the request for parking variance. If there had been no potential restaurant tenant, it was unknown if the parking variance would have been needed for the retail, residential and office uses on site. Attorney Cuda also noted C-4 Downtown Commercial Zoning has no parking requirements. The Applicant originally sought C4 Zoning; however, Staff did not support this request. Commissioners expressed concern with the amount of parking variance being sought. The restaurant use requires 83 parking spaces while the site plan indicates only 26 spaces. It was Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 3 brought to the attention of the Commission by Attorney Cuda that several restaurants in town are located in the C4 Zoning District and have no available parking, i.e. Plum Garden and Touch of Italy on Main Street, as well as several restaurants on Riverside Drive and Green Street. Discussion followed regarding parking availability for restaurants in the downtown area. It was noted that if the quality of the proposed restaurant is good, patrons will find a parking in the area to accommodate their needs. Chairman Howell invited Public Comment from the audience. The following were sworn in by Chairman Howell: Virginia Anzinger: Ms. Anzinger stated she previously owned the property across the street from the property in question. She noted she offered her property to the City several times. Now, instead of helping to solve concerns, the proposed development is creating several more problems. She noted with the existing congestion in the area, traffic issues will be increased if a restaurant is located on the premises. Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Buhrman, to recommend to City Council, with regard to File No. Z-676, a request for parking variance for the property located at 921 North Front Street as submitted by Jim Pappas, be denied as too many concerns were expressed due to the lack of available parking in the area and that a reduction from 83 to 26 onsite parking spaces is too great to be approved. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Nadeau, Schepler. Voting Nay: Howell, Thacker. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 5-2. Comments by Commissioners: Buhrman: Concerned regarding the infringement on the rights of adjacent property owners if the parking variance were granted. Cadotte: The variance being requested is too great for the use being proposed. Ekstrom: There has been much discussion regarding evening parking in the area. Parking during the daytime hours would be even more difficult, especially during the lunch hour when John Street is already so crowded and oftentimes blocked by large trucks. Chairman Howell: Disagreed with not tearing down the office building; however, when the alternatives are viewed, and acknowledging the vast improvement on this property being proposed, he must support the applicant’s request. Nadeau: He is in favor of the restaurant but feels this is not an ideal location. There is parking in the area; however, he questioned how the public will know where available parking is located. He also noted safety issues and traffic issues on Route 31 regarding the development. Schepler: There is parking available in the area, but he concurred there are safety concerns. The daytime parking along John Street is also an issue which needs to be addressed. Thacker: Echoed Chairman Howell’s comments. The trade off is a little drastic regarding the parking. However, having an applicant eager to improve this part of town outweighs the parking shortage. Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 4 Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Ekstrom, to recommend to City Council, with regard to File No. Z-676, a variances as to building setbacks for the property located at 921 North Front Street, be denied. Voting Aye: Cadotte, Ekstrom. Voting Nay: Buhrman, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion failed 2-5. Comments by Commissioners: Cadotte: The setback variance should not be allowed in light of the denial of the parking variance. Ekstrom: The restaurant would have been an asset. However, John Street does not function well as it is. The City needs to do something with the road other than allowing illegal parking on the street to continue. Chairman Howell: This is an existing situation. It is not fair to take such drastic measures to prevent the Applicant from utilizing his property. Nadeau: The Applicant has the right idea. The use of public right-of-way has continued over the years. The Applicant is proposing to greatly improve this property. Schepler: He would like to give the owner a chance to develop this site. Thacker: The property owner should have an opportunity to enhance this property. Buhrman: Denial would provide the City an opportunity to correct the John Street problems. At the suggestion of City Attorney Cahill, Chairman Howell called for an affirmative motion regarding the request for setback variance. He noted a 5-2 vote of denial of the motion is not necessarily an affirmative vote regarding the requested variance. Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Schepler, to recommend to City Council, with regard to File No. Z-676, a request for setback variance as requested by James Pappas for his property located at 921 North Front Street, as follows: Restaurant Building Setback Type Required Setback Requested Setback Front Yard 30 feet 11 feet 6 inches Corner Side Yard 30 feet Negative 60 feet Rear Yard 15 feet 15 feet Office Building Front Yard 30 feet 19 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet 4 feet Rear Yard 15 feet 2 feet 11 inches be granted, subject to the applicant/owner entering into a license agreement with the City of McHenry to address the continued use of the building within the John Street right-of-way; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 5 Voting Aye: Buhrman, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: Cadotte, Ekstrom. Not Voting: None Abstaining: None Absent: None.. Motion carried 5-2. Motion by Nadeau, seconded by Buhrman, to recommend to City Council, with regard to File No. Z-676, a request for conditional use permit to serve alcoholic beverages in conjunction with a restaurant use, as requested by James Pappas for his property located at 921 North Front Street, be approved, subject to the condition that the conditional use permit shall expire and become null and void if the restaurant (Taqueria Taluca) closes (defined by not being operational, i.e., serving customers) for a period of three consecutive months; and that Table 31, the Approval Criteria for Conditional Use Permits, pages 357-358 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Howell, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: Cadotte, Ekstrom, Nadeau. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 4-3. Chairman Howell recessed the Public Hearing at 8:09 p.m. Public Hearing – Oakridge Properties File No. - Z-674 Zoning Map Amendment and Landscape Variance Chairman Howell at 8:15 p.m. convened a Public Hearing regarding File No. Z-674, a proposed zoning map amendment from RS-4 High Density Single Family District and C-4 Downtown Commercial District to C-3 Community Commercial District and landscape variance regarding the required five foot residential screening strip as requested by Oakridge Development for their property located at the northeast corner of Route 31 and Pearl Street. Chairman Howell stated notice of the Public Hearing was published in the Northwest Herald on July 15 , 2006. A Certificate of Publication is on file in the City Clerk’s Office. Certified notices were mailed to all abutting property owners of record. Receipts are on file as is an Affidavit of Service as required by Zoning Ordinance. In attendance were the following representative of the Applicant, who were sworn in by the Chairman: Tim Billimack, Oakridge Properties Matthew Hopp, Tara Construction Timothy Schwartz, Oakridge Properties Jeremy Hamer, Haeger Engineering John Swierk, Direct Design Architects. Also in attendance were the following: 1. Carol Cooney, 1313 North Richmond Road, McHenry 2. Tim McCann, 3507 Broad Street, McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 6 3. Paul Freund, 3215 Fairway Drive, McHenry 4. Peter Keller, 3411 Fairway Drive, McHenry 5. Walt Taylor, 1501 North Green Street, McHenry 6. Patrick Wirtz, 1503 North Richmond Road, McHenry 7. Bill Bolger, 906 North Allen Avenue, McHenry. Mr. Billimack informed the Commission, the subject property was purchased from First Midwest Bank. The property is currently zoned single family and downtown commercial. He stated the Applicant has worked with Staff regarding the site plan. The applicant is proposing to construct an approximately 14,000 square foot five-unit building on the premises which would face Pearl Street. Full access to Pearl Street would be allowed. There would be no access onto Route 31. The site would have pedestrian access sidewalks. The trash enclosure would be located on the northeast corner of the property. Mr. Billimack stated the plan shows 74 parking spaces which exceeds the required parking allowing them the flexibility to market one of the units to a restaurant tenant. The anchor for the strip mall would be Cardinal Fitness which would utilize approximately 7,900 square feet on the east end of the strip center. Mr. Swierk described the building exterior noting the masonry composition around the entire structure. He stated there would be canopies comprised of metal or fabric to provide interest on the façade. Mr. Billimack pointed out a public alley along the north property line which will be vacated and ownership split between the applicant and the residents/property owners abutting to the north. Mr. Billimack stated he had met with two of the property owners abutting the site to the north and both stated their support of the project including a proposed cross-access easement agreement which would also be created to accommodate those who would be losing access due to the vacation of the public alley. Mr. Billimack stated the developer would improve the easement and provide for its maintenance, including landscaping and snowplowing. The developer intends to provide a residential screening strip around the entire perimeter of the site except where the cross access easement exists. Planner Zeller provided the Commission with a Staff Report regarding the project. The requested landscape variance is from the previous landscape ordinance which required a 5-foot residential screening strip. The applicants cannot provide this screening strip along the area designated as ingress/egress for the adjacent residents. She also noted the submittal was received prior to the City’s adoption of recent landscape ordinance amendments and the developer is not required to comply with the newly adopted standards. However, the developer has included more landscape than required for the site in order to soften the effect of the development, particularly as it is adjacent to a residential district. Planner Zeller stated the proposed 14,000 square foot tenant retail space will accommodate 5 users of inline retail space. The developer has agreed to dedicate 10’ of right-of-way toward the Route 31 improvements. Staff recommends approval of the Applicant’s request. Chairman Howell invited questions by the commissioners. Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 7 In response to an inquiry, Mr. Billimack stated there would be no monument or other free- standing sign. The only signage used would be located on the building. Brief discussion followed regarding sign color uniformity. It was noted this would be difficult to enforce, as retail users would want to utilize their particular colors in their signage. Responding to in inquiry regarding lighting, Mr. Billimack stated there would be four parking lot lights, three wall lights on the north elevation, two wall lights on the east elevation and five street lights along Pearl Street and Route 31. In response to a question regarding the inclusion of paved bike path along the site’s perimeter, Planner Zeller acknowledged the bike path is being included at Staff’s request. Planner Zeller noted the Applicant will conform to the Tree Preservation Ordinance requirements and will either compensate the City or replace applicable trees which are removed during development of the site. Brief discussion followed regarding the proposed Cardinal Fitness Center to be located in the easternmost unit of the strip center. The Applicant noted there are no signed leases for the remaining four units of the center. Responding to a request for clarification, Mr. Billimack stated the developer will pave a portion of the alley on the north property line. The remainder of it will be landscaped. Regarding further questions about signage for the center, Mr. Billimack noted the users will be allowed to place their logo and appropriate signage on the building, but all will conform to the City’s sign ordinance. Chairman Howell opened the floor to audience comment and questions regarding this matter. The following were sworn in by the Chairman prior to their turn at the podium: Tim McCann: Mr. McCann inquired about the 15’ residential screening strip. He also asked why the Applicant was seeking C3 zoning instead of leaving the east portion of the property zoned C4 as is. Planner Zeller noted the C3 zoning being requested is actually more restrictive than the current C4 zoning. It was at Staff’s recommendation that the more restrictive zoning be sought. Responding to Mr. McCann’s inquiry regarding fitness center hours of operation, Mr. Billimack noted typical hours are 6 a.m. until 10 p.m. Mr. McCann expressed concerns regarding the amount of additional traffic which would be generated by this strip center in this predominantly residential neighborhood. He noted the intense screening proposed along Route 31 and questioned why the landscaping is not more intense adjacent to the existing residential properties. He opined the Applicant would desire visibility of the strip center from Route 31 and the screening would hide the site from Route 31. Mr. McCann also expressed concerns regarding signage for the development being inappropriate in the residential neighborhood. Patrick Wirtz: Mr. Wirtz stated he has lived in this neighborhood most of his life. He noted the residents in the area have concerns regarding the proposed widening of Route 31 and that the residences along Route 31 would be subject to being taken over by the City one by one. As an area school teacher, he is very concerned regarding the safety of Montini children. He stated he would hate to be forced out of the block and moving from an area he has lived in for more than twenty years. Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 8 Bill Bolger: Mr. Bolger provided those in attendance with an extensive history of McHenry and how, in his opinion, this project would eat away at the core of McHenry’s residential district. He opined the City does not need to have the residential areas eroded. Many of the older homes have vanished. The center of old-time McHenry is getting far too crowded. He opined the population is becoming so great that it is causing more and more traffic congestion everywhere in the community. He stated McHenry needs more safety for its children. The City does not need more commercial enterprise in this area. McHenry is still worth fighting for. Walt Taylor: Mr. Taylor stated he has resided in his home for nineteen years. The proposed strip center is better than the former proposal as submitted by Advance Auto for this site. He expressed surprise that the building is fronting on Pearl Street. He stated he is concerned that the commercial district will continue to grow and replace all of the residential property along Pearl Street, and ultimately destroy the quaintness of Veteran’s Park. He opined the structure’s impact on the neighborhood should be softened. He worried the project would cause more traffic congestion in the neighborhood. He would prefer the strip center being constructed parallel to Route 31 rather than perpendicular to it. Mr. Taylor also stated his concern that the City will ultimately have strip malls being constructed all along Pearl Street right up the Veteran’s Park. As this area becomes more commercialized, speeding traffic along Green Street is inevitable, especially in light of the no left turn onto Route 120 from northbound Green Street. Traffic in his neighborhood is already bad, particularly during rush hour as many motorists go past his home in circumventing the traffic signal at Richmond Road and Pearl Street. Carol Cooney: Ms. Cooney stated traffic is already horrendous at the Route 31 and Pearl Street intersection. It will be impossible for patrons of the strip center to turn left onto Pearl Street as traffic is continuously backed up on Pearl Street at the traffic signal. She expressed safety concerns. Ms. Cooney also read into the record correspondence submitted by Father Robert Balog, newly- appointed pastor of St. Mary of the Assumption Catholic Church. Father Balog expressed his concerns regarding the safety of Montini children as well as his parishioners due to the increased traffic generated by the proposed commercial development. He also suggested as the remaining four tenants are unknown, it is difficult to determine the potential traffic impact on the area. Ms. Cooney stated she has resided in the neighborhood for almost fifty years. She cited several vacant commercial buildings in the area and questioned why a new facility is being constructed when there are many available sites. Ms. Cooney also noted the City has several health and fitness centers and questioned the need for another one in this residential district. She opined the building would not blend in with the neighborhood. She requested the Commission deny the request. She suggested the financial gain of the developer appears to outweigh the needs and desires of the residential neighborhood. In closing, Ms. Cooney submitted petitions against the proposed strip center which were signed by residents of the area. Paul Freund: Mr. Freund sought assurance that the Plat of Vacation is recorded with the County Recorder of Deeds. He noted he owns one of the properties adjacent to the subject property to the north which would be affected by the cross access easement and vacation of the alley. Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 9 Carol Cooney: Ms. Cooney inquired if the applicant's projects in Cary and Woodstock were adjacent to residential districts. Mr. Billimack responded the Cary project is adjacent to residential property. Ms. Cooney suggested this development should be moved further north as part of the Shoppes at Fox River project. Chairman Howell closed the Public Comment portion of the Public Hearing. Mr. Swierk responded to a concern raised by area residents, noting the Applicant is requesting the subject property be down zoned from C4 to C3. Mr. Billimack pointed out the Applicant has met with Staff and attempted to create a project that will blend in with the surrounding residential neighborhood. He stated as the property abuts Route 31 and in light of the proposed Route expansion, it would never be developed residentially. Motion by Ekstrom, seconded by Nadeau, to recommend to City Council with regard to File No. Z-674, a request for zoning map amendment for the property located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Route 31 and Pearl Street from RS-4 High Density Residential District and C- 4 Downtown Commercial District to C-3 Community Commercial District, be approved; and that Table 33, the Approval Criteria for Zoning Map Amendments, page 401 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 7-0. Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Nadeau, to recommend to City Council with regard to File No. Z-674, a request for variance from the required 5 foot residential screening strip along the paved cross access easement, be granted, subject to the following conditions: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial accordance with the plans submitted; 2. An easement for ingress/egress to Pearl Street shall be recorded for the benefit of the residential property owners to the north; and 3. The applicants shall dedicate 10 feet along Route 31 for right-of-way; and that Table 32, the Approval Criteria for Variances, pages 377-378 of the Zoning Ordinance, has been met. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 7-0. Comments by Commissioners: Chairman Howell: Stated it is not easy finding an acceptable way to develop this site. However, this project represents the best possible compromise for all in developing this property. Planning and Zoning Commission August 3, 2006 Page 10 Nadeau: Citing the bank facility to the south, he noted this project will provide a good transition to the residential neighborhood, particularly as it is a one-story structure. The Public Hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Other Business Responding to an inquiry about the property formerly known as Lenny the Legends, Planner Zeller noted the property is being renovated to a Fatman’s Tavern. The site is being upgraded, parking lot lights are being installed, and there is a proposed future outdoor patio area. Some discussion occurred regarding the audience being able/unable to see exhibits prior to or during the public hearing. It was suggested an extra packet for each file be created and placed on an Exhibit Table for public review during and immediately prior to the public hearing. Discussion also followed regarding the former Whale’s Tail property. Adjournment Motion by Cadotte, seconded by Buhrman, to adjourn the meeting at 9:48 p.m. Voting Aye: Buhrman, Cadotte, Ekstrom, Howell, Nadeau, Schepler, Thacker. Voting Nay: None. Not Voting: None. Abstaining: None. Absent: None. Motion carried 7-0. The meeting was adjourned at 9:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, _________________________________ Kathleen M. Kunzer, Deputy Clerk Planning and Zoning Commission Secretary