McHenry Times

City of Crystal Lake Planning and Zoning Commission met Sept. 7.

Here are the minutes provided by the commission:

The meeting was called to order by Mr. Greenman at 7:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

On roll call, members, Atkinson, Greenman, Gronow, Repholz, Skluzacek, and Teetsov were present. Mr. Jouron was absent.

Elizabeth Maxwell, City Planner, and Katie Rivard, Assistant City Planner, were present from Staff.

Mr. Greenman said this meeting is being recorded for broadcast and future playback on the City’s cable channel. He led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance.

APPROVE MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 17, 2022 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING

Mr. Skluzacek moved to approve the minutes from the August 17, 2022 regular Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as presented. Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On roll call, members Atkinson, Greenman, Gronow, Repholz, Skluzacek, and Teetsov voted aye. Motion passed.

2022-205 – 72 N WILLIAMS STREET – ROOKIES – SPECIAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT – PUBLIC HEARING

Continuation to the September 21, 2022 Regular Planning and Zoning Meeting for a Special Use Permit Amendment to amend the opening time to start at 10:00 a.m.

Ms. Teetsov made a motion to continue item 2022-205 to the September 21, 2022 meeting. Mr. Gronow seconded the motion. On voice vote all members voted aye. Motion passed.

2022-178 – 775 OAK COURT – SIMPLIFIED RESIDENTIAL VARIATION – PUBLIC HEARING Simplified Residential Variation from the maximum dormer length of 5 feet (20% of the length of the side of the structure) to allow a dormer length of 16 feet, a variation of 11 feet on the north and south elevations for a new detached garage.

Becky and Dennis Crounse were present to represent the petition. Ms. Crounse spoke to the new detached garage being in the same location and only slightly larger.

Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing.

Scott Puma, 799 Oak Court, spoke in favor of the request. He stated it will be in keeping with the neighbors and residential neighborhood.

Mr. Greenman closed the public hearing portion and turned it over to staff for a summary of the request. Ms. Rivard provided a summary of the request.

Ms. Crounse stated the size of the garage is very small and can only fit one vehicle. The new garage would fit two cars and help keep cars off the heavily walked street. She noted they downsized from approximately 3,000 square feet and currently have a storage unit.

Mr. Gronow asked if the petitioners would remove the carport. Ms. Crounse responded yes. Mr. Gronow asked if they were okay with the conditions. Ms. Crounse responded yes. Mr. Gronow stated he supports the request and there is a similar garage nearby.

Ms. Teetsov agreed with Mr. Gronow. It would help keep cars off the street.

Ms. Repholz said she would prefer three 5-foot dormers as they are more aesthetically pleasing. She has no problems with the request.

Mr. Skluzacek asked the petitioners if they could move the garage closer to the house for more parking. Mr. Crounse responded they do not want the garage closer to the house. There are power lines there as well. Mr. Skluzacek asked about the roof. Ms. Crounse stated they worked within the height requirements. Mr. Skluzacek had no issues with the request.

Mr. Greenman stated there was a general consensus agreement of support. He appreciated the petitioners’ willingness to invest in their property. He stated that the petitioners meet the Findings of Fact.

Ms. Teetsov made a motion to approve the Variation with the following recommendations:

1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:

A. Application (Crounse, dated 08/05/2022, received 08/22/22) B. Site Plans (Crounse, received 08/22/22) C. Elevations (Crounse, received 08/22/2022)2. The proposed detached garage must complement the existing exterior house in material, color, and style of roof. 3. The petitioners must provide the existing and proposed impervious amounts with the permit application for review and be in compliance with the impervious surface coverage. 4. The unfinished upper-story of the detached garage can only be used for storage and not living space. An affidavit acknowledging this must be recorded with the McHenry County Recorder’s Office. 5. The petitioners shall address all of the review comments and requirements of the Community Development and Engineering Departments.

Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On roll call Members Atkinson, Gronow, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Ms. Repholz voted no. Motion passed 5-1.

2022-187 – 647 LEE DRIVE – SIMPLIFIED RESIDENTIAL VARIATION – PUBLIC HEARING

Simplified Residential Variations to allow an accessory structure to encroach 20 feet in the front yard setback for a treehouse.

Steve and Julia Palmisano were present to represent the petition. Mr. Palmisano stated the treehouse is in the front yard. He referenced the height and setbacks. It is solely supported by the tree, and it complements the house. He spoke to the variation standards. His rationale is that the R-2 zoning district requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet, but they have less than 70 feet, the side yard is very narrow, and there are utility lines that cut through the property so trying to plant trees in the back yard would not work. They bought the house in 2011. The previous owner put a basketball hoop in the backyard. It doesn’t change the character of the neighborhood. There is no safety issue. He is okay with all of the conditions. They have 8 children. One son is a 20-year old carpenter who is helping him building the treehouse.

Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing.

Jeanne Kamin, 590 Eletson Drive, stated it will not be an eyesore. The neighborhood has transitioned from older residents to younger residents. The treehouse looks very neat and professional.

Katie Waling, 348 Everett, stated she loves the treehouse. It is a great addition to the neighborhood. It brings joy to the neighborhood.

George Kowalski, 623 Lee Drive, stated he has a similar lot and has been in the home for 23 years. His daughter wanted a treehouse and so he built a clubhouse on stilts in the backyard and these owners could do the same. The treehouse is visual to people and it will be an eyesore. Safety is also an issue and wondered if it would be locked or if anyone could climb up in it. He spoke to when he remodeled his home and got permits and had inspections that was the right way to do things. The neighborhoods should not have waited to be caught and then try to change the rules. The neighbors like to do farm-like activities such as raising chickens and bunnies, and riding motor bikes. The police are always there.

Mr. Greenman closed the public hearing portion and turned it over to staff for a summary of the request.

Ms. Maxwell provided a summary of the request highlighting the setback from the front lot line. The UDO classifies this as an accessory structure.

Ms. Palmisano wanted to clear up any confusion and stated this is the first house they have ever owned. There have never been police at their house. The bunny was for a 4-H activity for one of their children. They have a 27-year old with a motor bike who has since moved out. They thought they were doing the right thing as they looked through the building codes and did not see anything addressing tree houses so did not think they needed any permits or approvals.

Mr. Skluzacek stated it does not look bad. Mr. Palmisano noted it is just under 10 feet off of the ground. Mr. Skluzacek does not think this is the right place.

Mr. Atkinson asked about the street setback. Ms. Maxwell responded that the structure is 10 feet from the sidewalk. Mr. Atkinson asked if the City has looked at it from construction. Ms. Maxwell said that the City does not issue permits for this and is not sure if anyone looked at it when they were taking pictures for the violation notice. Mr. Atkinson stated by putting it in the front yard it opens a huge can of worms. He is not sure it is a good location and it sets precedent.

Ms. Repholz stated as a realtor accessory structures in the front yard impact the aesthetics of a neighborhood. It is a potential safety issue. She is not in favor of any accessory structure in the front yard.

Ms. Teetsov stated the front yard is not the place. She has safety and aesthetics concerns. Mr. Gronow thinks it is a good idea, but not the right spot. He cannot support the request.

Mr. Greenman said the project looks nice, but it comes down to location. He appreciates the petitioner for coming before them, but they cannot look at the individual, but the impact the approval could have on the City as a whole. In regard to the Findings of Fact, this will alter the character of the neighborhood and he cannot support. There is still the opportunity to go before City Council.

Mr. Palmisano stated it was not the intent to do it without approval.

Mr. Gronow made a motion to deny the Simplified Residential Variation.

Ms. Repholz seconded the motion. On roll call Members Atkinson, Gronow, Repholz, Skluzacek, Teetsov, and Greenman voted aye. Motion to deny passed 6-0.

2022-166 – 6319 NORTHWEST HIGHWAY – VALVOLINE – VARIATION – PUBLIC HEARING

Variations to allow a 0-foot setback for the parking lot along the western side lot line instead of the required 8 feet, a variation of 8 feet; a 5-foot setback for the parking lot abutting Northwest Highway, instead of the required 20 feet, a variation of 15 feet; a 5-foot wide perimeter landscape area along the Northwest Highway, instead of the required continuous 15-foot wide landscape area, for parking lots abutting rights-of-way; a 0-foot wide perimeter landscape area along the west lot line, instead of the required continuous 8-foot wide landscape area, for parking lots not abutting rights-of-way; and, no foundation landscape area around the west and south sides of the building, instead of the required 5-foot wide landscape area.

Mr. Stan Latos, Real Estate Development Manager, and Mr. Ed Kurzeja, Architect, were present to represent the petition. Mr. Latos stated Valvoline has 60 franchises with exclusive territorial rights in Northern Illinois and parts of Wisconsin. The positives of this site is the location, B-2 zoning, and the outbuilding for storage. The negatives of this site is the narrow lot which required them to modify the building down to 59 feet in width.

Mr. Kurzeja stated they are not changing the way the neighborhood looks.

Mr. Greenman opened the public hearing. There being no one in the public wishing to speak Mr. Greenman closed the public hearing portion and turned it over to staff for a summary of the request.

Ms. Rivard provided a summary of the request.

Mr. Greenman asked the petitioners if they were okay with the conditions. Mr. Latos responded yes.

Mr. Gronow confirmed there were three bays and that they are okay with the recommendations by staff. This will be an improvement to the property.

Ms. Teetsov stated this will definitely be an improvement. She would like to see more landscaping wherever possible. The overall plan and building is okay.

Ms. Repholz stated that based on the use the request makes sense. Mr. Latos stated they are leaving the back half of the property and landscaping. Ms. Repholz appreciates staff being creative.

Mr. Atkinson stated he is okay with the conditions if the petitioners are okay with the conditions as well.

Mr. Skluzacek agreed with the other commission members. He asked the petitioners if the accessory building is on well or City water. Mr. Latos stated they will fix up the accessory building. They will be removing the well and septic and connecting to City utilities by going under Northwest Highway.

Mr. Greenman stated there was a general consensus agreement of support. He asked the petitioners what the hardships are for the variations. Mr. Latos stated that due to the narrow lot, they had to decrease the building size. Mr. Greenman stated he is not in support of the request as they chose this lot and created the hardships by trying to make the site work.

Ms. Repholz made a motion to approve the Variations with the following recommendations:

1. Approved plans, reflecting staff and advisory board recommendations, as approved by the City Council:

D. Application (Aterra 176, date signed 07/25/2022, received 05/10/2022)

E. Site Plan (Arch America, dated 07/29/2022, received 06/07/2022)

F. Landscape Plan (Webster, McGrath & Ahlberg, Ltd., dated 07/29/2022, received 07/26/2022)

G. Building Elevations (Arch America, dated 04/29/2022, received 06/07/2022)

2. Add the required 5-foot foundation base landscape along the west and south sides of the building, except in front of doors.

3. The far west parking space in the south row of parking shall be a landscape island.

4. The Petitioner shall address all of the review comments and requirements of the Community Development, Engineering, and Fire Rescue Departments.

Mr. Atkinson seconded the motion. On roll call Members Atkinson, Gronow, Skluzacek, and Repholz voted aye. Ms. Teetsov and Mr. Greenman voted no. Motion passed 4-2.

REPORT FROM PLANNING

Staff noted the items on the upcoming September 21st meeting.

COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION

None.

ADJOURNMENT

Mr. Gronow made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Skluzacek seconded the motion. On voice vote, all members voted aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:05 p.m.

https://ecode360.com/CR2206/document/682779425.pdf