Lee County hearing on rezoning of former Magnuson Hotel draws resident worries about wells, parking and traffic

Petitioners told a Lee County zoning hearing on Feb. 10 that they plan to convert the vacant Magnuson Hotel in Dixon into roughly 70 market-rate apartments and initially finance the renovation with private funds, prompting neighbors to raise questions about wells, parking and traffic and county staff to describe the rezoning as a way to limit potentially harmful commercial uses.

The petitioner’s witness, Tomasz Klimovsky, said his group purchased the former Magnuson Hotel and is developing architectural and mechanical plans to reconfigure the structure into apartments. “This is...what we agree, and that's what we are developing further,” Klimovsky said, describing a project he estimated would cost about $2 million and, he added, be financed with the owners’ funds before turning to bank loans if needed. Klimovsky and counsel said the unit mix would be similar to previous projects: studios, one-, two- and three-bedroom units, with about 70 total units and a courtyard/play area where the old pool sits.

Alice Hinkle, Lee County’s zoning administrator, testified the change from a C-3 general business district to an R-4 multifamily residential district would substantially reduce the range of permitted uses on the parcel — from more than 100 possible C-3 uses to roughly 15 residential or institutional uses under R-4 — and said, in her view, residential zoning would be more compatible with the adjacent single-family and multifamily neighborhoods. “As evidence from what is going on at the Magnuson in the past, we have seen how the conflicting zoning district has negatively impacted this area,” Hinkle said, citing prior problems associated with the hotel’s commercial use.

Residents focused on infrastructure and neighborhood impacts during factual questioning and the public-comment portion. Teresa Cisneros of Keselon Heights calculated the conversion could place as many as 194 people in the building and asked whether existing wells and sewer capacity would support that number. “How many wells do you have for that many people?” she asked. The petitioner replied the original hotel had about 100 rooms with full bathrooms and that the property currently has two wells; architects and engineers will confirm capacity during building-permit review.

Neighbors also raised concerns about parking access and traffic; one resident pointed to a back entrance off Pine Street that she said is near houses and asked how that access would be managed and fenced. The petitioner said they are under contract to purchase adjacent property to provide additional parking and would install fencing or other screening if required.

On housing policy, the petitioner said the planned units will be market-rate. “We’re gonna just, rent out on the market,” Klimovsky said when asked whether the apartments would accept Section 8 or otherwise be subsidized. Public attendees noted that zoning approval would not preclude a future owner from seeking subsidies. The petitioner acknowledged that possibility but said they do not plan to operate the building as subsidized housing.

Lee County’s building official said he had inspected the property and found that water intrusion had been abated, that mold problems had largely decreased after abatement, and that the concrete structure (including the second-floor deck) appeared sound. He said the renovation would involve removing most nonstructural walls and that contractors would address remaining issues during remodeling.

A member of the public referenced the LaSalle National Bank v. County of Cook factors — a set of considerations courts and codes use in zoning decisions — and asked whether the map amendment met those standards, including impacts on existing uses and property values. Hinkle confirmed that the LaSalle factors must be considered as part of any map amendment or variance under county code.

The hearing officer entered exhibits from both the county and petitioners into evidence (exhibits 1–17 and petitioners’ group exhibits A and B) and explained that his report will be given to the county zoning administrator and presented to the county board or its subcommittee for a final vote. The hearing was adjourned and the body set a further proceeding for April 29; no county-board vote or final decision was made at the hearing.

What happens next: the hearing officer will file a report for the county board; architects and engineers must complete building plans and the city/county building department must approve permits before construction can begin. Neighbors and petitioners will have opportunities to present additional evidence to the county board before any final rezoning decision.