McHenry Times

City of McHenry Planning & Zoning Commission met March 16.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

Chairwoman Rockweiler called the regular meeting of the City of McHenry Planning and Zoning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. In attendance were the following: Bremer, Davis, Riley, Rockweiler, Smale, and Sobotta. Absent: Lehman. Also in attendance were City Planner Cody Sheriff, Community Development Director Polerecky and Economic Development Coordinator Wolf.

Chairwoman Rockweiler opened the public comment portion of the meeting at 7:01 p.m. LeeAnn Depner 3801 Bull Valley Rd., McHenry, commented that Justen Funeral Home seems to have changed the lighting in their parking lots and they shine in her windows. She stated the funeral home plan was approved many years back and the old lighting didn’t bother them. She asked if the City could look at the original lighting plans approved and review them with what is present today and at least have the new lighting turned off in the lots by 10:00 p.m.

Approval of Minutes:

Consideration of the February 16, 2022, regular meeting minutes as presented. Motion by Riley and seconded by Bremer for approval.

Roll Call: Vote: 6-ayes: Commissioners Bremer, Davis, Riley, Rockweiler, Smale, and Sobotta. 0-nay; 0-abstained; 1-absent: Lehman. Motion Carried.

File No. Z-2022-13

Petitioner Market Holdings LLC

Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru

restaurant (Starbucks) at 904 S. Illinois Route 31

Chairwoman Rockweiler called the hearing to order at 7:05 p.m. regarding File No Z-2022-13, a Conditional Use Permit for a drive-thru restaurant (Starbucks) at the subject property, commonly known as 904 S IL-31. Chairwoman Rockweiler confirmed all legal posting requirements have been met.

Mr. Jeffrey Kimbell, Manager, Market Holdings, LLC, wassworn in. Mr. Kimbellstated the process working with McHenry has been very responsive and smooth. The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for a Drive Thru Lane as part of its plan to build a stand-alone Starbucks on the Property. The applicant is also requesting three variances.

City Planner Sheriff provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this file stating the subject property is currently zoned O-2 Office Park District and located in the Professional Plaza Subdivision. The property to the south of the subject property was annexed to the City of McHenry within the last year and was zoned Estate District per the City’s Annexation Ordinance. Staff has been in contact with the property owner to the south and he is aware he will need to rezone the property at some point. The property owner indicated he was supportive of the request. Staff believes the proposed use of the property for a drive-thru Starbucks restaurant is complementary of the surrounding office uses. Drive-thru restaurants are listed as a permitted conditional use in the Office Park District. The proposed drive-thru Starbucks restaurant is in compliance with the Future Land Use Map Designation for Office. Overall, staff believes the proposed development is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan objectives and policies.

Planner Sheriff stated in summary, staff believes the proposed development is in substantial conformance with the Future Land Use Map recommendation for Office. IDOT is in the process of right-of-way acquisition for the IL-31 expansion and Staff included conditions of approval regarding the installation of landscaping. Staff does not object to the petitioner’s request to locate the trash enclosure between the front lot line (IL-31) and the principal structure in order to secure additional stacking spaces. Staff does not object to the petitioner’s request for relief from the residential landscape screening strip design standards subject to the condition that the existing tree line is preserved to the greatest extent possible.

Planner Sheriff stated if the Planning & Zoning Commission agreed with the petitioner’s request, then approval of two motions as presented in the Staff Report were recommended.

Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Davis asked for clarification of the trash enclosure of the drawing presented. Mr. Kimbell clarified. There were no other questions from the Commissioners.

Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Public. There were no comments from the public. Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the public comment portion of the hearing at 7:14 p.m.

Commissioner Bremer believes the criteria has been met and has no issues. Commissioner Smale has no objections as long as the enclosure is covered by landscaping. Commissioner Riley is happy with traffic pattern and trash enclosure.

Commissioners Davis and Rockweiler concurred with the other Commissioner comments. Commissioner Sobotta stated his only issue is he believes it will be hard for trucks to empty dumpsters in the proposed location of the trash enclosure.

Motion by Bremer seconded by Smale with regard to File No. Z-2022-13, to recommend approval the petitioner’s request for a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a Drive Through Starbucks Restaurant at 904 S IL-31 subject to the following conditions:

1. The Property Owner shall provide a revised landscaping plan, subject to review and approval by the Zoning Administrator, to relocate the trash enclosure and applicable base landscaping to the location depicted on the submitted site plan.

2. The Property Owner shall preserve the tree line along the south property line to the greatest extent possible excluding that portion thereof identified on the landscape plan that is to be removed.

3. All development on site shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan and landscape plan.

4. The Property Owner shall be allowed to install landscaping along the west property line once IDOT has completed construction of this segment of the IL-31 corridor. 5. Any site plan changes requested by IDOT shall be allowed to be reviewed and approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator. and by making said motion, that the approval criteria for Conditional Uses have been met as outlined in the Staff Report.

Roll Call: Vote: 6-ayes: Commissioners Bremer, Davis, Riley, Rockweiler, Smale, and Sobotta. 0-nay; 0-abstained; 1-absent: Lehman. Motion Carried.

Motion by Smale, seconded by Bremer with regard to File No. Z-2022-13, to recommend approval of the petitioner’s request for the following Zoning Variations as presented:

1. Variation to allow a minimum lot area of 38,684 square feet in lieu of the 40,000 square feet required in the O-2 Office Park District.

2. Zoning Variations to allow a trash enclosure between the principal building and the front lot line.

3. Zoning Variation for relief from Residential Landscaping Screening Strip Design Standards along the south property line (Taradash Law Offices) subject under the condition that the Property Owner shall maintain the tree line to the south to the greatest extent possible as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

4. Any other Zoning Variations necessary to accommodate the proposed Starbucks drive thru restaurant. and by making said motion, that the approval criteria for Zoning Variations have been met as outlined in the Staff Report.

Roll Call: Vote: 6-ayes: Commissioners Bremer, Davis, Lehman, Riley, Rockweiler, Smale, and Sobotta. 0-nay; 0-abstained; 1-absent: Lehman. Motion Carried.

Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the hearing regarding File No. Z-2022-13 at 7:19 p.m.

File No. Z-2022-06

Bear Development LLC

Zoning Map Amendment to RM-2 High Density Multifamily Residential District and Zoning Variations to accommodate a Multifamily Senior Housing Development on the Southeast Corner of Municipal Drive and Knox Drive

Chairwoman Rockweiler called the hearing to order at 7:20 p.m. regarding File No Z-2022-06 a Zoning Map Amendment from C-3 Community Commercial District to RM-2 High-Density Multifamily Residential District to construct a 3-story, 40-unit, age, and income restricted senior housing development on the undeveloped parcel located on the southeast corner of Knox Drive and Municipal Drive. Chairwoman Rockweiler confirmed all legal posting requirements have been met.

Adam Templer, Vice President of Development, and Sarah Beck, Project Manager, Bear Development LLC were sworn in. Ms. Beck stated Bear Development requests the rezoning of two parcels of undeveloped land. They are seeking a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone both parcels to RM-2. In seeking the rezone, Bear Development is proposing a 40-unit senior citizen development with a mix of one-bedroom and two-bedroom units. This would be made up of 1 forty-unit building. Onsite amenities would include a community room with kitchen facilities, a fitness center, a management office, and ample surface parking. No variances from the RM-2 zoning regulations are requested. She went over a brief review of their experience and other projects. There would be a minimum hold of fifteen years on Bear Development’s ownership of the project. They propose to hire a site manager for the property. Rents would be based on income but in the range of $500-$1000 for a 1-bedroom and $600-$1200 for a 2-bedroom apartment. There would be a 13-month construction timeline and if all their applications are approved they would hope to begin building in November 2022 with completion by December of 2023.

City Planner Sheriff provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this file stating the petitioner, Bear Development, LLC, is requesting approval of a Zoning Map Amendment to construct a 3-story, 40-unit, age, and income restricted senior housing development on the undeveloped parcel located on the southeast corner of Knox Drive and Municipal Drive. To accommodate the request, the petitioner is also seeking approval of several zoning variations. The development will also need to seek approval from the City Council for a variation from the Building Code regarding the 75% brick requirement which is not reviewed by P&Z. However, staff believes feedback regarding the request would be valuable to City Council members.

Planner Sheriff stated in summary, the proposed development is not in conformance with the future land use map recommendation for commercial. He suggested the commission may wish to consider whether the request is an appropriate response to changing conditions. Staff believes the proposed number of parking spaces (1.5/DU (dwelling unit)) is adequate to service the needs of the development.

A submitted traffic impact analysis confirmed that the city can expect no decrease in the level of service for the intersections identified in the report. Staff is not recommending the full access onto Municipal Drive be altered and remain in place. The development does not meet the RM-2 Recreational Space requirements (deficit of approximately 2290 ft). Staff is not opposed to the petitioner’s request given there are many off-site amenities located within walking distance of the subject property. Staff have been informed that the detention pond may not be needed once site engineering has been completed. This may create a new opportunity to add additional outside seating areas/recreation space. Staff has included a condition that the petitioner work with the Zoning Administrator to add additional outdoor landscaped seating/recreational space if it is determined the detention pond is not required. Staff believes the proposed use would be complimentary of all the surrounding properties. Planner Sheriff stated the Commission may wish to take into consideration the need for low income senior housing in McHenry County.

Planner Sheriff further stated if the Planning & Zoning Commission agreed with the petitioner’s request, then approval of motions as presented in the Staff Report was recommended.

Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Sobotta asked for the age range for renters to be considered seniors. Ms. Beck responded 62 years old and above.

Commissioner Rockweiler asked for clarification on layout of the common areas available to residents. Ms. Beck explained. Commissioner Rockweiler asked if they were agreeable to an enlarged outdoor area if the detention isn’t needed and Ms. Beck responded yes.

Commissioner Bremer asked for clarification of pet areas. Ms. Beck clarified. Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Public.

Joseph Depner, 3801 Bull Valley Rd., was sworn in stating he was not happy with the building being a large 3-story large and number of units that would not be aesthetically pleasing for his family to look at and he had a concern with the traffic flow and egress onto Charles Miller Rd. He also asked if the garbage enclosure could be moved out of the line of sight from his home. He has lived there for 40 years and has seen quite a bit of expansion around his home.

LeeAnn Depner, 3801 Bull Valley Rd. stated all the surrounding buildings are brick and they are not happy with the look of this large a building on this particular lot. She has a concern with the lighting requirements. Planner Sheriff explained the lighting requirements that would need to be met.

Denise Wojcik, 1827 Magnolia Ct., was sworn in and stated it seems like everything being built in McHenry is for low-income and would like to see more developments for families. She would like to see more discernment on these developments.

Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the public comment portion of the hearing at 7:44 p.m.

Commissioner Sobotta stated he agrees with public comment regarding this project not fitting in with the neighborhood and believes it does not meet the City’s future land plans.

Commissioner Riley likes the proximity to restaurants, etc. but is a little concerned with the size/height and parking. He believes the lighting and landscaping looks fine and will help with some of the concerns of neighbors.

Commissioner Smale stated the project presented is a beautiful plan and she agrees the lighting and landscaping plans are sufficient.

Commissioner Bremer is slightly concerned about the parking and how a 3-story building on the property will look. Her greatest concern is the parking. She stated it’s a beautiful project she’s just not sure it fits on this property. The applicant stated they were open to reconfiguring the parking to meet a higher demand of spaces, if required.

Commissioner Davis stated his main concern is the lowered number of parking spaces. He asked the applicants what their parking studies were at their other projects. They responded they made their plans for this project based on what they’ve seen on other properties. Commissioner Davis also wasn’t sure a project this size fit on this property and in this neighborhood.

Commissioner Rockweiler stated she is very much in favor of this project. She asked if a parking study was done and the applicants replied their presentation of this project was based off a parking study. She asked Planner Sheriff if there has been any prior interest in a commercial use on the property and he stated no. The applicants have owned the property for many years and have looked into other uses and they have been unable to sell it for any other use.

Planner Sheriff gave a summary of recent senior and apartment studies done by the City determining there was a need in our city for this type of housing, and it is a nationwide crisis. He stated a condition could be made to the applicants to match the brick of surrounding buildings if the Commission desires. He also clarified that 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit is fairly standard for all of our surrounding communities. There is a 277 single-family home development in process off of Curran Rd. Director Polerecky clarified information on the dumpster enclosure regarding landscaping and screening requirements.

Commissioner Sobotta stated he believes this project will stick out aesthetically and not fit in the neighborhood as it is presented.

Motion by Bremer seconded by Davis with regard to File No. Z-2022-06, to recommend approval of the petitioner’s request for a zoning map amendment from the C-3 Community Commercial District to the RM-2 High Density Multifamily Residential District, and by making said motion, that the approval criteria for Zoning Amendments have been met as outlined in the Staff Report.

Roll Call: Vote: 5-ayes: Commissioners Bremer, Davis, Riley, Rockweiler, and Smale. 1-nay: Sobotta; 0-abstained; 1-absent: Lehman. Motion Carried.

Motion by Bremer seconded by Riley with regard to File No. Z-2022-06, to recommend approval of the petitioner’s request for the following Zoning Variations:

• Zoning Variation to allow 61 parking spaces in lieu of the 94 spaces required.

• Zoning Variation to allow relief from Recreational Space requirements in the RM-2 High Density Multifamily Residential District.

• Any other zoning variations necessary to accommodate the proposed development; and the granting of said variations shall be subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be in substantial conformance with the submitted plans as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

2. In the event engineering determines the existing detention area is adequate to service the development, the Property Owner shall add additional outdoor landscaped seating area(s) onsite equal to 2,300 square feet or to the greatest extent possible as determined by the Zoning Administrator.

3. The Property Owner shall be responsible for the construction of a multiuse path, to specifications found acceptable by the Director of Public Works, along Knox Drive from Municipal Drive to Charles Miller Road.

AND by making said motion, that the approval criteria for Zoning Variations have been met as outlined in the Staff Report.

Roll Call: Vote: 5-ayes: Commissioners Bremer, Davis, Riley, Rockweiler, and Smale. 1-nay: Sobotta; 0-abstained; 1-absent: Lehman. Motion Carried.

Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the hearing regarding File No. Z-2022-06 at 8:07 p.m.

File No. Z-2022-10

Petitioner Dennis G Diamantopoulos

Use Variation to allow an Ancillary Dwelling Unit at 3311 Walnut Lane

Chairwoman Rockweiler called the hearing to order at 8:08 p.m. regarding File No Z-2022-10 a Use Variation to allow an Ancillary Dwelling Unit at the subject property, commonly known as 3311 Walnut Lane. Chairwoman Rockweiler confirmed all legal posting requirements have been met.

Mr. Diamantopoulos was sworn in and stated he is requesting a use variation to allow close family or family friends to rent and reside in the finished basement of the residence which consists of a kitchen, bathroom, dining/living room, and bedroom with appropriate egress window.

City Planner Sheriff provided the Commission with the Staff Report regarding this file stating the City of McHenry doesn’t have a definition for ancillary dwelling, but it is often referred to as

a ‘granny flat’ or ‘in-law suite’. The McHenry County Unified Development Ordinance defines an Ancillary Dwelling Unit (ADU) as “a detached structure or portion of a principal structure with living and cooking facilities designed to be occupied as a residence by a household, but not constituting the principal use on the property”. The ADU is located in the finished walkout basement with kitchen and bathroom which is currently occupied by a relative of the petitioner.

The property is currently subject to an open code enforcement violation for the keeping more than (3) dogs per dwelling unit. There are four (4) dogs present on the property – two belonging to the property owner, and two belonging to the relative residing in the basement. It was at this time staff also discovered the basement had been fully finished without a permit but was performed by the prior owner of the property. The petitioner originally requested to rezone the property to multifamily which staff advised against and instead recommended he apply for a use variation to allow an Ancillary Dwelling Unit. Staff informed the petitioner that staff would make the Commission fully aware that the request was made because of the code enforcement activity related to the dogs. Approval of the request would allow all four (4) dogs to remain on the property up to a maximum of six (6) dogs.

It was suggested the Commission take into consideration how the proposed use will fit in with the surrounding land use.

Planner Sheriff stated in summary, staff believes the request is not consistent with the future land use map recommendation for low density residential which recommends 1-4 DU/Acre. The proposed ADU would place the subject property at approximately 4.65 DU/Acre which slightly exceeds the future land use map recommendation. Staff believes approval of the request would establish a legal precedent which could have far reaching impacts outside of this property. It was suggested the Commission may wish to consider the adoption of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance, if the petitioner’s request is viewed favorably, that would apply to all RS-2 Medium Density Single-Family Residential Zoned property.

Planner Sheriff stated if the Planning & Zoning Commission agreed with Staff’s assessment of the request, then approval of a motion as presented in the Staff Report was recommended.

Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Commissioners.

Commissioner Rockweiler asked if there were other ways of changing rules for the number of dogs rather than changing zoning on the property. Planner Sheriff clarified the rules and requirements and stated it would cause a precedent for all similar properties in the city if that were to happen. Director Polerecky gave a brief review of how the city came to their rules regarding number of animals on any one property. Commissioner Bremer asked if the rules apply to emotional support animals. Planner Sheriff and Director Polerecky explained but did not have a definitive answer to Commissioner Bremer’s question.

The petitioner did state he has the ability to have one of his animals listed as an emotional support dog but he does not currently have that in place.

Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Public.

Diane Schrey, 1906 Birch Lane, was sworn in and stated she is concerned if this request is allowed there are already four cars at the applicant’s home and there is limited parking in the cul de sac. She is concerned with additional noise and has had to call on this property several times for many different issues and especially on the barking dogs. She stated she did try to talk to the applicants about the barking and was informed they didn’t care.

Elida Soria, wife of the applicant at 3311 Walnut Lane, was sworn in and stated they have tried to address the issues stated by the neighbor but has been met with conflict from the day they moved in.

Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the public comment portion of the hearing at 8:20 p.m.

Commissioner Davis stated due to the implications of approving the applicant’s request he agrees with staff assessment.

Commissioner Bremer does not wish to set a precedent. Commissioner Smale agreed.

Commissioner Riley asked for clarification of parking regulations. Planner Sheriff stated all parking is required to be onsite, it is not allowed to be on the street. There is not a limit on the number of vehicles per dwelling unit. Director Polerecky stated there is room on the property to enlarge the parking footprint.

Commissioner Sobotta asked if there was a separate egress to the basement property. Director Polerecky stated he was not sure. The applicant stated there is a walkout with locking doors. It was also clarified that there is single utility service to the residence, it is not separated out for the basement dwelling.

Motion by Davis seconded by Smale with regard to File No. Z-2022-10, to recommend denial of the petitioner’s request for a Use Variation to allow an Ancillary Dwelling Unit at 3311 Walnut Lane and by making said motion, that the approval criteria for Conditional Uses have not been met as outlined in the Staff Report.

Roll Call: Vote: 6-ayes: Commissioners Bremer, Davis, Riley, Rockweiler, Smale, and Sobotta. 0-nay; 0-abstained; 1-absent: Lehman. Motion Carried.

Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the hearing regarding File No. Z-2022-13 at 8:28 p.m.

File No. Z-2022-03

Zoning Text Amendments for the elimination of the Integrated Design District and replace with a Planned Unit Development Ordinance. And Zoning Map Amendment for all existing property zoned Integrated Design District as well as Various Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance including, but not limited to, the following: Outdoor Lighting Regulations (§11-6- 14), Chapter 11: Integrated Design District, Adoption of a Planned Unit Development Ordinance, Chapter 9: Commercial Districts, Chapter 8: Residential Districts, Approval Criteria for Variances (§11-19-5).

Chairwoman Rockweiler called the hearing to order at 8:28 p.m. regarding File No Z-2022-03 PUD Ordinance & Text Amendments to Noticing Requirements. Chairwoman Rockweiler confirmed all legal posting requirements have been met.

Planner Sheriff stated Staff is in the process of replacing the Integrated Design District (IDD) Ordinance with a traditional Planned Unit Development (PUD) Ordinance. Both types of zoning tools provide a comprehensive development plan for a parcel which usually varies substantially from the traditional zoning and subdivision control ordinances. The difference is that an IDD development rezones a property and ties it to the approved plans. This can become problematic when a developer receives approval of an IDD development but fails to close on the property. Property owners would then need to rezone the property back to its original zoning district classification. The City has approved two IDD developments which include the Authentix at McHenry Subdivision, and the Oaks at Irish Prairie. Approval of the request would not impact existing developments and they would be allowed to continue as approved. Staff is also requesting text amendments to change the mailing requirement for public hearing notices from certified mail to First Class mail in the noticing requirement based on feedback received from City Council and changes in consumer preferences.

Staff originally planned to proceed with the full retirement of the IDD Ordinance including the rezoning of IDD properties. After a discussing the item again internally, staff felt that rezoning IDD properties was not required for the adoption of the PUD Ordinance. The Community Development Department is planning to budget for a comprehensive rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance that will take place sometime at the end of the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan expected to begin next year. The new Zoning Ordinance would likely involve zoning district consolidation and rezoning of certain properties – including those zoned IDD. To avoid creating more stress on existing property owners than what is necessary, staff decided it was best to wait until the adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance to fully retired the IDD Ordinance.

Procedurally, a PUD development only goes through 3 meetings at most. This is in a large part due to the fact the only process involved in final plan approval is making sure it matches the Preliminary Plan. A City can only deny a Final PUD Plan if it doesn’t substantially match the Preliminary PUD Plan. Many cities have opted to instead just have the item go straight to City Council for Final Plan Approval. A comparison chart for IDD vs PUD was presented. Many other aspects of the PUD compared to the IDD are similar in their intent for regulating planned developments. Draft text was given to the Commission to review that was modeled after South Elgin’s PUD Ordinance. Staff also provided links to Crystal Lake and Woodstock examples of PUD Ordinances for the Commission to review.

Planner Sheriff stated if the Planning & Zoning Commission is in favor of adopting the proposed text amendments then approval of a motion as presented in the Staff Report was recommended.

Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Commissioners. There were no questions from any of the Commissioners.

Chairwoman Rockweiler invited questions and/or comments from the Public. There were no comments from the public. Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the public comment portion of the hearing at 8:32 p.m.

Motion by Bremer seconded by Smale with regard to File No. Z-2022-03, to recommend approval of the City’s request for zoning text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as presented.

Roll Call: Vote: 6-ayes: Commissioners Bremer, Davis, Lehman, Riley, Rockweiler, Smale, and Sobotta. 0-nay; 0-abstained; 1-absent: Lehman. Motion Carried.

Chairwoman Rockweiler closed the hearing regarding File No. Z-2022-03 at 8:33 p.m.

Open Discussion: Commissioner Rockweiler asked about potential parking issues on Green St. that have been brought up by residents regarding the new business, The Vixen. Discussion of parking requirements, primarily in downtown districts, and possibility of valet or uber being used for businesses, was held.

Staff Report: The next meeting is a special meeting on Wednesday March 30, 2022. Planner Sheriff gave updates on upcoming development projects in the city. The city’s new streetscape plan has formally been adopted.

Adjourn: Motion by Bremer and seconded by Smale, all approved. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.

https://cms8.revize.com/revize/mchenryil/Document_Center/Department/Community%20Development/Planning%20&%20Zoning%20Commission/Minutes/PZMIN%203-16-22.pdf