6/11/19Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
JUNE 11, 2019
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday,
June 11, 2019, at 7 p.m. in Room 101 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD
Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was
established.
PRESENT: Bader, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, & Szabo
ABSENT: Catalano & Fowler
ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Ainsworth, Coord., Devel. Mgr./Community & Economic Development
Jonathan Stytz, Planner/Community & Economic Development
Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to approve the
minutes of May 14, 2019, as presented.
AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, & Schell
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Bader & Szabo
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no Public Comment.
OLD BUSINESS (continued from April 23, 2019)
1. Address: 1065 Lee Street Case 19-017-CU
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 2
The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to Ordinance Z-16-01 under Section 12-7-
3(K) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the existing Motor Vehicle Sales
and Auto Service Repair use in the C-3 General Commercial District allow for the sale of six (6)
more automobiles on site for a total of ten (10) vehicles.
PIN: 09-20-214-002-0000
Petitioner: Louis Capozzoli, 1484 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: MD and SD, LLC, 15 N. Waverly Place, Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Chairman Szabo swore in Louis Capozzoli, 1484 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL & Mike Difatta,
Owner, MD and SD, LLC, 15 N. Waverly Place, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Capozzoli advised this was
previously approved for four vehicles; this request is for an additional six more cars. There are
14 parking spaces and another six. Mr. Capozzoli and team believe this fits in with the
Comprehensive Plan; is a family-owned business; nothing else is changing. The hours are: Monday
through Saturday from 8 a.m.-6 p.m. There are six bays. Rather than four vehicles in front, there
will be 10.
Chairman Szabo asked if there are any questions.
Board Member Hofherr asked/commented:
• how many cars are sold monthly. Mr. Difatta advised – 2-10.
• if Petitioner received approval from City Council. Mr. Capozzoli stated they cannot add
more.
• Coordinator Ainsworth advised the Petitioner is in proceedings as they are in violating
their current conditional use ordinance.
• there are seven vehicles marked for sale
• why Petitioner is exceeding the limit. Mr. Capozzoli stated cars are in the back being
repaired. Board Member Hofherr stated the cars are in front. Mr. Capozzoli stated there
is a fenced-in area in the back.
• the concern is if we approve 10 vehicles, how many will there really be? Mr. Capozzoli
stated – 10
Chairman Szabo asked if there are any questions. He asked, on the vehicles for sale, if there are
any flags. Mr. Capozzoli advised – generally, there are For Sale signs.
Board Member Saletnik asked if legal counsel knows the Petitioner is here. Coordinator
Ainsworth advised – yes, as this is in court. Mr. Capozzoli shared the reason they are here
tonight is to limit the cars to 10. Board Member Hofherr relayed – there are seven cars.
Coordinator Ainsworth asked that Mr. DiFatta explain cars on the other lot.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 3
Mr. DiFatta explained there was a verbal understanding with the restaurant owner’s father that
the cars can be parked on the parking lot during the day and are moved at night.
Coordinator Ainsworth advised the title is still under Giuseppe's ownership. A bill of sale has
occurred but not a title change.
Chairman Szabo asked if there has ever been a (written) agreement. Mr. Capozzoli advised – no.
Coordinator Ainsworth noted a 7th Condition should be added – a floor plan is required to
ensure the property meets the zoning ordinance. Board Member Hofherr stated a new Plat of
Survey may be requested due to an alleyway. Coordinator Ainsworth responded, for the parking
spaces to the north, there is an 8 ft. alley (undeveloped land); alleys are typically 16 ft. There
technically is access; owned by the City of Des Plaines.
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There was none. He asked Staff to
provide the Staff Report which Planner Stytz did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Ordinance Z-16-01
under Section 12-7-3(K) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the existing
Motor Vehicle Sales and Auto Service Repair use in the C-3 General Commercial District to allow
for the sale of six (6) more automobiles on site for a total of ten (10) vehicles.
Analysis:
Address: 1065 Lee Street
Owners: MD and SD, LLC, 15 N. Waverly Place, Mount Prospect, IL 60056
Petitioner: Louis Capozzoli, 1484 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 19-017-CU
Real Estate Index Number: 09-20-214-002-0000
Ward: #2, Alderman Colt Moylan
Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial District
Existing Land Use: Midwest Automotive (Commercial)
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3 General Commercial District
South: C-3 General Commercial District
East: R-1 Single Family Residential
West: C-3 General Commercial District
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 4
Surrounding Land Use: North: Parking lot serving 1062 Lee Street
South: Commercial (hair salon)
East: Residential (single-family)
West: Commercial (shopping center)
Street Classification: Lee Street is an arterial street.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Commercial.
Project Description: The petitioner, Louis Capozzoli, on behalf of MD & SD, LLC, has
requested an amendment to their Conditional Use Permit under
Ordinance Z-16-01 in order to allow for the sale of six (6) more
automobiles on site for a total of ten (10) vehicles for their
existing Motor Vehicle Sales and Auto Service Repair use at
1065 Lee Street. The petitioners have been operating the auto
repair shop, Midwest Automotive, out of the 7,100 square foot
building since 1988 and are currently the only business
operating out of the building. The applicants successfully
obtained a Conditional Use from City Council in October 2001
for the sale of four (4) automobiles on site. The petitioner is
now requesting to expand the area utilized for the sale of
automobiles and amend their current Conditional Use
Ordinance. The petitioner submitted a Project Narrative
(Attachment #2) and Site Plan (Attachment #6) detailing the
proposed location of parking spaces to be utilized for the sale of
automobiles.
Midwest Automotive would continue to operate Motor Vehicle
Sales and Auto Service Repair hours from Monday through
Saturday, 8 am to 6 pm. Aside from the increase in the number
of vehicles displayed for sale on site, Midwest Automotive is not
seeking any additional modifications to the Conditional Use.
Note, to date, the City of Des Plaines has not received any noise
or operation complaints from anyone regarding the petitioner’s
current business.
The existing building has six (6) service bays and 400-square feet
of office space. The rest of the building is used for storage of tires
and vehicles that are actively being repaired. Pursuant to Section
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 5
12-9-7, automotive repair shop uses shall provide at least two (2)
parking spaces per service bay and at least one (1) space for every
200-square feet of accessory retail space to be used for customer
and employee parking. Based on the information obtained from
the petitioner, staff finds that at least fourteen (14) spaces are
required on site for customer and employee parking. However,
staff recommends that a Floor Plan diagram of the existing
building is submitted as a reference for the City Council meeting
to confirm that adequate parking is provided.
Conditional Use Findings: As required, the proposed amendment is reviewed below in terms of
the standards contained in Section 12-3-4(E) of the Zoning Ordinance:
A. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific
Zoning district involved:
Comment: A Motor Vehicle Sales and Auto Service Repair are Conditional Uses in the C-3
General Commercial District, as specified in Section 12-7-3(K) of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
B. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan seeks to promote additional land uses in the area
through development and/or redevelopment opportunities in its commercial districts.
The existing Conditional Use for Motor Vehicle Sales was granted to allow the business
owner to operate another use and provide an additional service on site to the public. The
Conditional Use amendment would continue this trend and may, in turn, promote future
development or redevelopment opportunities with multi-use concepts for the
surrounding properties.
C. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of
the general vicinity:
Comment: The existing Conditional Use for Motor Vehicle Sales is harmonious with the
surrounding commercial development in the area and the Conditional Use amendment
would not alter this existing character.
D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring
uses:
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 6
Comment: The existing Conditional Use for Motor Vehicle Sales is not hazardous or
disturbing to existing neighboring uses as it more so blends in with surrounding
commercial development. The amendment to the Conditional Use would not alter the
property’s effect on surrounding uses.
E. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities
and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures,
refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing
the Conditional Use shall provide adequately any such services:
Comment: The subject property is located east of the intersection of Lee Street and East
Walnut Avenue and has two access points along Lee Street. The Conditional Use
amendment will not affect the service of the property by public facilities and services or
agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional Use.
F. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at
public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the
economic well-being of the entire community:
Comment: The existing Conditional Use does not create excessive additional
requirements at the public’s expense or detract from the economic well-being of the
community. The Conditional Use amendment will not create any additional requirements
or negatively affect the community.
G. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons,
property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise,
smoke fumes, glare or odors:
Comment: The existing Conditional Use includes only the display of four (4) stationary
vehicles on site which does not cause excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes,
glare or odors. The Conditional Use amendment will increase the number of displayed
vehicles to ten (10) but not have a detrimental effect on any individual, property, or
general welfare of the community.
H. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so
that it does not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares:
Comment: The subject property contains two access points onto Lee Street that negate
any interference with traffic on surrounding thoroughfares and the existing Conditional
Use granted to this property for vehicle display for sale has not affected the use of these
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 7
access points. The Conditional Use amendment for additional vehicles displayed for sale
on site will be designed to maintain the use of these existing access points.
I. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of
natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance:
Comment: The existing Conditional Use has not resulted in any destruction, loss, damage,
or change to the natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance since the display
of vehicles for sale is located on an existing parking lot. The Conditional Use amendment
will increase the number of vehicles displayed for sale but would not increase impervious
surfaces or have a negative effect on natural elements.
J. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested:
Comment: The existing Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in Section
12-3-4 in the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. The Conditional Use amendment will
continue to comply with all applicable regulations for Conditional Uses.
Recommendation: I recommend approval to amend Ordinance Z-16-01 for a the Conditional Use
Permit for a Motor Vehicle Sales and Auto Service Repair based on a review of the information
presented by the applicant as specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of
the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following conditions:
1. That no more than ten (10) personal vehicles may be displayed for sale and that they must
be displayed in the exact location shown on the site plan submitted by the Petitioner.
2. No vehicles associated with this property shall park on the parking lot to the north (PIN:
09-20-214-001-0000). The Community and Economic Development Director or City
Manager may require an agreement from the petitioner to restrict parking for Midwest
Automotive to the boundaries of the property at 1065 Lee Street.
3. Planter boxes shall be installed on the private property side in front of the vehicles for
sale and shall contain evergreen shrubs and perennials. The minimum width of the plant
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 8
boxes shall be 18”. These planter boxes shall be installed within 60 days of City Council
approval.
4. A detailed parking plan shall be provided to Community & Economic Development staff
showing all parking spaces and the use of each space. The parking plan shall follow the
current off-street parking regulations.
5. At least two (2) handicap accessible parking spaces shall be installed on the site and meet
all applicable codes and ordinances.
6. No vehicles not directly associated with this business shall be allowed to park on the
subject site.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Sections 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Board has the
authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny
the above-mentioned Conditional Use Permit for Motor Vehicle Sales and Auto Service Repair in
the C-3 General Commercial District. The City Council has final authority on the proposal.
Coordinator Ainsworth summarized same and repeated the 7th Condition. He noted this is being
held until the court issue is settled. Board Member Schell read Condition #2; Coordinator
Ainsworth explained same. He stated this is too ambiguous. Chairman Szabo believes the word
may should say shall (be an agreement between the two parties).
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this petition. No one
responded.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Bader, to recommend
approval to City Council with changes as follows:
• Condition #2 – alter the word may to shall
• Condition #7 -- A floor plan is required with comments on what the spaces are needed for to
ensure compliance with the zoning ordinance in relationship to off street parking.
AYES: Saletnik, Bader, & Szabo
NAYES: Hofherr & Schell
***MOTION CARRIED 3-2***
Chairman Szabo stated a favorable recommendation would be submitted to City Council.
Coordinator Ainsworth advised this would be on the July 1, 2019, City Council agenda.
2. Address: 1274 Rand Road Case 19-021-V-CU-MAP
The petitioner is requesting the following items: i) a MAP Amendment under Section 12-3-7 of
the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to rezone the property from C-3 General
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 9
Commercial to M-2 General Manufacturing; ii) a Conditional Use Permit under Section 12-7-4(G)
of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, to allow for a Recycling Center business in the
M-2 district; and iii) Major Variations under Section 12-7-4(H) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning
Code, as amended, for the structure(s).
PINs: 09-17-200-068 & -115
Petitioner: Jason Doland, Doland Engineering, 334 Colfax Street, Unit C, Palatine, IL 60067
Owner: Robert Katz, 1274 Rand Road LLC, 1274 Rand Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Daniel J. Dowd, Attorney at Law, Dowd, Dowd & Mertes, Ltd., 701 Lee
Street, Suite 790, Des Plaines, IL & Jason R. Doland, P.E., P.L.S., Doland Engineering, LLC, 334 E.
Colfax Street, Suite C, Palatine, IL. Mr. Dowd introduced himself and Mr. Doland and advised the
owner is Mr. Katz. He shared that the existing land use is a recycling center. A brief history was
given. Mr. Dowd stated a TIF District was created in this area. Information on the fire was shared.
He reminded that like businesses have come before City Council and the PZB for similar instances.
They are in agreement with most Conditions and would like to discuss some.
Mr. Doland shared logistics (circulation). An aerial photo was shown. He noted enhanced safety
would be offered; creating a driveway corridor. Other improvements are an opaque fence (for
screening) and a landscape buffer (for curb appeal). Mr. Doland shared a story where a resident
brought a bike in for recycling; the process (transport facilities) was explained.
The front-yard setback is non-conforming; another 20-ft. setback would also be added.
Mr. Doland advised that some operations cannot take place inside.
Coordinator Ainsworth stated the Conditions are similar to another metal-recycling company that
was approved by City Council.
Mr. Dowd stated, at present, the group cannot utilize the site.
Coordinator Ainsworth stated part of the condition (along with city attorney consensus) is that
corrosion, etc. does not become a fire hazard and a safety detriment to neighboring properties.
Mr. Doland stated a cyclone fence and screen was recommended by a vendor. Chairman Szabo
concurred considering an alternative fencing material, and Coordinator Ainsworth stated the
Condition is based on wood or masonry. Chairman Szabo explained another type that Mr. Doland
will be researched.
Chairman Szabo advised his family owned the building at 1300; used to be an industrial area; there
was never a way to get to the back of the property.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 10
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions.
Board Member Hofherr asked/commented:
• if there is a reason why the owner isn’t present tonight. Mr. Dowd advised there was a
death in his family so he traveled out of town (to his father’s funeral services).
• He has gone by this property countless times and when stopped by a train, the condition
of the property is noticeable. He asked if what it would look like in 1-2 years. Coordinator
Ainsworth reiterated the conditions attached to the staff report are intended for life
safety and not to be considered a recommendation by staff.
• that he would like to be sure employees are aware of the fact that people observe the
condition of the property. Mr. Dowd stated now there is incentive to improve the
property.
Board Member Schell asked:
• Staff if the City’s preference is that this entity conduct everything under one roof (as there
have been more than one fire on this property). Coordinator Ainsworth advised – yes, the
goal is to have all operations under a roof with a fire suppression system and a fire alarm.
Board Member Schell stated he believes there should be a masonry fence around the
property as a wood fence could burn. Mr. Doland advised they would find a non-
combustible material for the fence. Mr. Dowd stated, within 18 months, a sprinkler
system would be added.
• about clarification of Condition #10; this deprives the owner. Mr. Dowd concurred stating
this cannot accommodate large bulk containers, forklifts; this is a small manufacturing
site; need flexibility. It is impractical. This has been as is for 51 years.
Coordinator Ainsworth stated the property has illegally operated beyond the existing
boundaries. Mr. Doland advised there was an intent/negotiation with the property to the
west. When circulation is added (for fire vehicles), 40% of the building is compromised.
The fence allows confinement.
Coordinator Ainsworth noted the building could be built higher. Cars could unload outside
as well. Discussion took place about loading and unloading inside and outside.
Board Member Saletnik asked if this is considered storage. He believes if the owner
cannot continue based on Condition #10 that is serious. A compromise needs to happen
to keep Petitioner in business as well as provide safety. Chairman Szabo stated the
problem with Condition #10 is how do they recycle large items such as an I-beam; big
metal.
Coordinator Ainsworth noted the loading and unloading is the only thing conducted
outside with the competitor/vendor. He stated Staff and Petitioner could review this issue
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 11
again. The owner should be at the next meeting. Chairman Szabo asked that the owner
share the day-by-day operation (materials, condition).
Board Member Hofherr raised the issue of chemical dumping; wants to be sure the owner does
not participate in this.
Coordinator Ainsworth stated July 9, 2019, would be the next meeting.
Board Member Saletnik stated there should be a Condition related to combustible materials.
Coordinator Ainsworth stated this is addressed in Condition #6 and explained same. Board
Member Hofherr stated the employees must also be aware and fully trained.
The Staff Report is as follows:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting the following items: i) a Map Amendment under Section 12-3-
7 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, to rezone the property from C-3 General
Commercial to M-2 General Manufacturing; ii) a Conditional Use Permit under Section 12-7-4(G)
of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, to allow for a Recycling Center in the M-2
district; and iii) Major Variations under Section 12-7-4(H) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as
amended, for the existing structure.
Analysis:
Address: 1274 Rand Road
Owners: Robert Katz, 1274 Rand Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: Robert Katz, 1274 Rand Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 19-021-V-CU-MAP
Real Estate Index Number: 09-17-200-068 & -115
Ward: #1, Alderman Mark A. Lysakowski
Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial District
Existing Land Use: Recycling Center
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: C-3, General Commercial District
East: M-2, General Manufacturing District (2019 Zoning)
West: M-2, General Manufacturing District
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 12
Surrounding Land Use: North: ComEd Utilities
South: Manufacturing
East: Livery Service
West: Manufacturing
Street Classification: Rand Road is an arterial street.
Comprehensive Plan: The 2018 Comprehensive Plan designates the site as
Commercial/Industrial Urban Mix.
Project Description: The applicant, Robert Kratz, has requested a Conditional Use,
Map Amendment and Variations in order to bring a recycling
center business into conformity with the Zoning Ordinance. He is
the owner of Maine Scrap Metal which has operated on the
subject property since 1996. Scrap metal/recycling centers are
not a permitted use in the C-3 General Commercial District but
the business was permitted to continuously operate a legal non-
conforming use per Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance Code Section
Title 12, Chapter 5: Nonconforming Uses and Structures.
On January 10, 2018, a fire occurred on the property destroying
a 9,554-square foot building and damaging several others on the
property. It was determined that the business could not reopen
under the current operations plan and zoning because over 50%
of the value of the structures on the property had been
destroyed and an inspection by the Building Department
determined that the buildings on the property were
uninhabitable. The Business Registration for Maine Scrap Metal
was revoked and signage was posted on site indicating that the
buildings were uninhabitable.
Maine Scrap Metal reopened soon after the fire and has
remained open since. Thus, the Community and Economic
Development Department delivered a letter to the subject
property on January 29, 2018 stating that the business could not
reopen until the property conforms to the use regulations in the
Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. Operations continued on the
property and Staff did not receive an application from Maine
Scrap Metal to address the zoning concerns detailed in the
January 29, 2018 letter. Consequently, the City of Des Plaines
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 13
filed a complaint with the Circuit Court of Cook County regarding
Maine Scrap Metal on August 13, 2018. On February 8, 2019,
Staff met with Maine Scrap Metal to discuss the steps required
for the property to comply with zoning code. Staff met with
Maine Scrap Metal representatives again on February 25, 2019
to discuss the map amendment, conditional use, and variance
applications and the overall review process. On March 11, 2019,
this application was received to bring this property into
compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
The subject property is 1.14 acres in size and is improved with a
one-story office and warehouse building approximately 6,682-
square feet in size and no defined off-street parking area. The
petitioner is proposing a new building layout as compared to the
building that was destroyed by the fire. The new building will be
narrower and will allow for vehicles to navigate around the entire
building. The proposed variations identified below are for the
remaining structure as well as the new proposed building. Please
see the Application Narrative (Attachment 1) for more specific
details on the activities and operations.
However, with the proposed rezoning to the M-2 zoning district,
the bulk regulations for the M-2 district will apply. Please see
Attachment 2 for the Plat of Survey showing the principal
building location. The setbacks of the building compared to the
M-2 and C-3 district can be found in the table below:
Bulk Matrix for 1274 Rand Road
Bulk Regulation Proposed/Current C-3 Zoning M-2 Zoning (proposed)
Front Yard *32.44 feet / 32.44 feet Five feet 65 feet
Side Yard (north) 27.53 feet / 27.53 feet Five feet 25 feet
Side Yard (south) *20.00 feet / 51.05 feet Five feet 25 feet
Rear Yard 25.00 feet / 49.14 feet Five feet 25 feet
Bldg. Height Approx. 25 feet 45 feet 60 feet
* Indicates a requested variation from the proposed M-2 zoning district bulk regulations.
The property shape is irregular which leads to the
aforementioned variance requests. As summarized in the table
above, there are two bulk regulation variances being requested,
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 14
(i) a request to reduce the required front yard setback from sixty-
five feet (65’) to 32.44 feet for the existing building; and (ii) a
request to reduce the required side yard setback from twenty-
five feet (25’) to twenty feet (20’) for the new building.
If the petitioner is successful in obtaining all requests, then 13
off-street parking spaces are required (12,982 square feet of
office and warehouse space with a parking requirement of 1
space/1,000 sf equals 13 required spaces). While there are
currently no stripped parking spaces on the property, the
proposed Site Plan (Attachment 3) shows the location of the 17
proposed parking spaces. Since the City of Des Plaines contains
an active lawsuit with the petitioner, staff is not making a
recommendation on this matter.
Zoning Map Amendment Findings
As required, the proposed amendment is reviewed below in terms of the standards contained in
Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance:
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Map Amendment
approval.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the current conditions and
the overall character of existing developments in the immediate vicinity of the
subject property.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Map Amendment
approval.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of
public facilities and services available to the subject property.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Map Amendment
approval
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of
properties throughout the jurisdiction.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 15
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Map Amendment
approval.
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development
and growth.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Map Amendment
approval.
Conditional Use Findings
Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-4(E) of the
1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff
has the following comments:
1. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the
specific Zoning district involved:
Comment: A Recycling Center use is a Conditional Use in the M-2, General
Manufacturing District pursuant to Section 12-7-4(G).
2. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s
Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
3. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained
to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended
character of the general vicinity:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
4. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring
uses:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 16
5. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public
facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage
buildings, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible
for establishing the Conditional Use shall provide adequately any such services:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
6. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at
public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the
economic well-being of the entire community:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
7. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes,
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any
persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of
traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
8. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed
so that it does not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
9. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of
natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
10. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning
Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested:
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Conditional Use
approval.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 17
Variation Findings
Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the 1998 City of
Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following
comments:
1. Hardship: No variation shall be granted pursuant to this subsection H unless the
applicant shall establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title
would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots
subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including
presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming;
irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other
extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that
amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out
of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action
or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the
enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural
forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from
which a variance is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial
rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the
inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not
available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely
the inability of the owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the
subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 18
which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the
general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the
alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to
permit a reasonable use of the subject lot.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
8. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief
necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict
application of this title.
Comment: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
Recommendation: Staff is not making a recommendation of the request. However, if the Planning
and Zoning Board makes a positive recommendation to the City Council, then staff advises that
the conditions listed below are attached to the written recommendation:
1. All proposed activities shall solely take place on the subject property. No operations
associated with the applicant’s business will be allowed on any other property without
first obtaining proper approvals.
2. Remove the pole sign located and/or overhangs in the public right-of-way.
3. A solid wood or masonry fence shall be constructed along all property lines where
permitted by code.
4. Directional arrows should be striped at each driveway to indicate the intended direction
of traffic and the ingress vs egress lane through the driveway.
5. A fire suppression and alarm system will be required throughout all buildings. The
sprinkler systems shall be installed within 18 months of City Council approval.
6. Combustible waste materials shall only be stored in approved exterior trash enclosures.
7. Fire apparatus roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with the Fire Code.
8. The entrance onto this property shall be reconstructed and be in conformance with IDOT
and the Des Plaines commercial driveway standards.
9. All unpaved areas shall be paved where vehicles and trucks will be parking or traversing.
All new paving shall conform to current codes and ordinances.
10. Outdoor storage of materials and material storage containers shall be strictly prohibited
at all times. All material processing and storage and material containers shall be
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 19
encompassed within a permanent building(s) within 18 months of City Council approval.
11. An ADA compliant sidewalk shall be added for the width of the subject property within
the IDOT right-of-way and comply with IDOT and City of Des Plaines standards.
12. All new off-street parking spaces, loading spaces and any allowed temporary
storage/loading areas shall be improved with a dust-free hard surface and comply with
all other regulations.
13. All proposed improvements and modifications shall be in full compliance with all
applicable codes and ordinances. Drawings may have to be modified to comply with
current codes and ordinances.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-7(E) (Standards for Map Amendments),
Section 12-3-6(G) (Standards for Variations), and Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses), the
Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to recommend to the City Council approval, approval with
conditions, or denial of the above-mentioned map amendment, conditional use, and variance for 1274
Rand Road. The City Council has final authority over the proposal.
A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to continue this
matter to the July 9, 2019, meeting.
AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Bader, Saletnik, & Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
NEW BUSINESS
1. Address: 651 E. Prairie Avenue Case 19-027-APPEAL
The petitioner is appealing a decision by the Zoning Administrator regarding building design
standards under Section 12-3-11(D) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, requiring
100% of masonry material on the ground floor street-facing elevations and eight (8) feet of
masonry material on all other elevations of new single-family residences.
PIN: 09-18-409-004-0000
Petitioner: Matt McCaw, M.T. McCaw, Inc., 414 Deerfield Drive, Oswego, IL 60543
Owner: Ray & Heather Caprio, 544 S. Fourth Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Matt McCaw, M.T. McCaw, Inc., 414 Deerfield Drive, Oswego, IL Ray &
Heather Caprio, 544 S. Fourth Avenue, Des Plaines, IL.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 20
Mr. Caprio stated they are looking to build a single-family home. He referenced the proposed
plan (in the packet). The front of the house has no masonry but has a limestone wall. There is a
combination of materials on the front of contextual homes. Relief is being requested due to
financial reasons and the first architect did not notice that the City of Des Plaines contains a
brick/stone requirement on homes (improvements including unforeseen storm water
management).
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions.
Board Member Hofherr asked how much the differential is in cost to meet code. Mr. McCaw
stated – a rough estimate is $20,000-25,000. Chairman Szabo asked what the cost is to replace
the siding. Mr. McCaw estimated $15,000. Board Member Hofherr advised homes for sale have
brick. Mr. Caprio identified 663 Court Avenue does not meet the requirement (built in 2017).
Mr. McCaw stated the owners contracted an architect before he was hired.
Board Member Saletnik asked, regarding Hardie board, what is the rest (of the materials). Mr.
McCaw advised – it’s all Hardie board; an expensive product.
Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Coordinator Ainsworth did:
Issue: The petitioner is appealing a decision from the Zoning Administrator under Section 12-3-
11(E) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for the use of non-
permitted materials on the ground story of new single-family home. If the Planning and Zoning
Board grants the appeal, then the applicant will effectively be granted a standard variation under
Section 12-3-9 of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance.
Analysis:
Address: 651 Prairie Avenue
Owner: Ray & Heather Caprio, 544 South Fourth Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
60016
Petitioner: Matt McCaw, 414 Deerfield Drive, Oswego, IL 60543
Case Number: 19-027-Appeal
PIN: 09-18-409-004-0000
Ward: #3, Alderman Dennis Rodd
Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 21
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, Single Family Residential District
South: R-1, Single Family Residential District
East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District
West: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Residence
South: Single Family Residence
East: Single Family Residence
West: Single Family Residence
Street Classification: Prairie Avenue is classified as a local road.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential.
Project Description: The petitioner, Matt McCaw, is appealing a decision from the
Zoning Administrator and requesting a Standard Variation under
Section 12-3-11(E) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as
amended, to allow for the use of non-permitted materials on the
ground story of new single-family home located at 651 Prairie
Avenue. This property currently contains a 1,106.30-square foot
one-story residence with a 481.80-square foot detached garage
and concrete driveway totaling 3,476-square feet of impervious
area. The petitioner is proposing to remove all existing structures
and surfaces and construct a 2,636-square foot residence with an
attached garage, new front walk, and new stoop areas totaling
3,410.40-square feet of impervious area. The building materials
for the proposed residence includes a 2-foot stone veneer knee
wall on the front (north) elevation and a portion of the west
(side) elevation; lap siding throughout the ground story; and
board and batten siding throughout the second level as shown in
the Proposed Building Elevations (Attachment 7).
Pursuant to Section 12-3-11(C) of the Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, proposed development plans are required to meet
the Building Design Review Standards outlined in Section 12-3-
11(E) for the following activities: (1) new construction of a
principle structure; (2) appearance altering renovations to the
front or corner facades of a principle structure; and (3) additions
to principle structures resulting in greater than a fifteen percent
(15%) change of gross floor area.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 22
These standards require that the ground level of any detached
multi-level or multi-story single-family residential shall be
constructed with 100% face brick, natural stone, or anchored or
adhered masonry veneer on all street facing elevations and a
minimum of eight feet (8’) from the top of foundation on all
remaining elevations. Permitted upper story materials include
ground story materials plus painted or stained wood, stucco,
vinyl siding, and fiber cement board. The petitioner’s request to
allow building materials on the ground story of the proposed
structure that are not permitted ground story materials
constitutes the need for a standard variation to Section 12-3-
11(E) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance when the
applicant requests as appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s
decision.
The existing residences along Prairie Avenue near the subject
property exhibit a mixture of building materials varying from full
vinyl siding to full stone or brick materials. The two residences
abutting the subject property along Prairie Avenue contain all
masonry materials and a majority of the existing one-story or
multi-story homes along Prairie Avenue contain all masonry
materials or are constructed predominately with masonry
materials. However, a number of one-story homes contain all
vinyl siding or are constructed predominately with vinyl siding
including some residences located across the street from the
subject property. See Attachment 6 for an overview of building
materials used on existing residences along Prairie Avenue.
Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H)
of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
1. Hardship: No variation shall be granted pursuant to this subsection H unless the applicant shall
establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular
hardship or a practical difficulty.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots
subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including
presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming;
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 23
irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other
extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that
amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out
of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action
or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the
enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural
forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from
which a variance is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial
rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the
inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not
available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely
the inability of the owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the
subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for
which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the
general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the
alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to
permit a reasonable use of the subject lot.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
8. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief
necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict
application of this title.
Comment: Staff is not recommending approval or denial of the request.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 24
Recommendation: Staff is not making a recommendation of the request.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-9 of the Zoning Ordinance
(Appeal/Standard Variations), the Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to approve,
approve subject to conditions, or disapprove the above-mentioned appeal/variance for use of
non-permitted building materials for the ground floor of a new multi-story single family
residence within the R-1 Zoning District at 651 Prairie Avenue.
Board Member Schell asked if neighbors were contacted. Mr. Caprio stated letters were sent,
but no discussions took place.
Board Member Saletnik stated we don’t want to limit architectural; concerned about the
number of materials. Mr. McCaw distributed renderings which were deemed Exhibit A.
Chairman Szabo asked if it is real or manufactured stone. Mr. McCaw stated – manufactured,
but he is not opposed to real stone. Chairman Szabo stated if there was 4 ft. of masonry all
around the building, it would look more like a farm house and wouldn’t be that costly; unique
architecture.
Board Member Saletnik stated landscaping covers the stone; destroys the architecture. He
noted in Elmhurst, wainscoting is carried around the sides and front; concurs with Chairman’s
comments about stone; a further accent. Appreciates the true farmhouse look; stone would
enhance the architecture.
Board Member Schell suggested split fieldstone. Chairman Szabo restated the stone (a natural
material) could be split (sparkle then comes out); labor intensive – place up 4 ft. and 8 ft. at the
front of the house (at the porch).
Coordinator Ainsworth referred to the grade and Attachment 7. Mr. McCaw stated there is
stone on each side of the garage (not shown on rendering). Board Member Saletnik suggested
bringing the wainscot all around and up to the porch roof. Coordinator Ainsworth clarified same.
Chairman Szabo suggested including the bottom of the window.
Mr. Caprio inquired about the suggested revision. Coordinator Ainsworth clarified same and
suggested to use the building materials as identified in the Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Caprio asked
what the PZB would like to see for material. Chairman Szabo stated manufactured stone could
be used. Coordinator Ainsworth read the code (chart). The Board concurred on these options.
Board Member Saletnik stated he would like to see a variation in stone color (as the house is all
white).
Chairman Szabo stated fieldstone would look really great and would add value.
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 25
Mr. McCaw asked if the wainscot should go all the way up. A nearby house at 642 Meadow
Court was illustrated. Board Member Saletnik stated there would not be that much more. The
masonry not going all the way up is a negative; Chairman Szabo concurred. Board Member
Hofherr reminded about curb appeal when selling in the future.
Board Member Salenik thanked Petitioner for the color rendering.
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this petition. No one
responded.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik to approve the scheme with the portions of
the first floor that are underneath the proposed porch, north (front) and east (side) elevations
of the proposed house, shall be improved with natural stone, face brick, and adhered or
attached masonry veneer in addition to a three-foot tall knee wall around the entire
perimeter of the house improved with natural stone, face brick, and adhered or attached
masonry veneer.
Discussion took place…
Chairman Szabo asked what material. Board Member Saletnik stated any type is fine (a stone
look).
Mr. Caprio asked what happens if they don’t adhere to the motion. Coordinator Ainsworth
stated then the code would have to be followed (and explained same).
Chairman Szabo stated the architect doesn’t have to redraw the building permit plans.
Mr. McCaw stated this suggestion has a financial impact. Owner has already had to deal with the
flooding concerns from the surrounding properties. Chairman Szabo reminded that Hardie
board would be taken away.
Mr. Caprio conveyed the rendering shows a major improvement. He believes the
recommendation is a personal preference. He advised a fire-sprinkler system was added, etc.
Board Member Saletnik responded that these are typical building expenses. Chairman Szabo
stated the front is a farm-style house. Mrs. Caprio stated it is a modern farmhouse with modern
materials.
The motion was seconded by Board Member Hofherr.
AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Bader, Schell, & Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 26
2. Address: 1665 Farwell Avenue Case 19-029-V
The petitioner is requesting a major variation from Section 12-9-6(B) of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for a driveway width that exceeds the maximum
driveway width restrictions in the R-1, Single-Family Residential District.
PIN: 09-33-110-034-0000
Petitioner: Jesus Blancas & Norma Cortes, 1665 Farwell Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner: Jesus Blancas & Norma Cortes, 1665 Farwell Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Chairman Szabo swore in Jesus Blancas & Norma Cortes & their daughter Maria Espinoza, 1665
Farwell Avenue, Des Plaines, IL. A PowerPoint presentation was displayed.
Ms. Espinoza stated a variation is requested as their four cars are being parked and changed
regularly due to varying schedules; this is a hardship. There is a safety concern – moving the cars
in the middle of the night. Ms. Espinoza stated she has to move the cars every night. Her parents
leave the house first (at 6 a.m.). She and her brother park in the street. Her brother’s car was hit
by a neighbor’s vehicle. This is a reason to expand the driveway. Also, busses go through this
area. On Monday mornings, waste cans are placed in front. It is a busy street. There is no
parking on Greco Ave Street nor across the street. The intention is to have two cars parallel and
another two cars parallel and are desirous to have a two car wide driveway for the entire length
of the driveway.
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions.
Board Member Hofherr asked/stated:
• what business Mr. Blancas is in. Ms. Espinoza stated – construction
• if Mr. Blancas has construction vehicles. Ms. Espinoza stated – just his truck for work
that have tools inside
• if Ms. Espinoza typed up the comment in point #5 (on the response to standards for a
variation). Ms. Espinoza advised she did. Board Member Hofherr referred to this
discrimination comment and stated others do this as well. He stated the cost to start
such proceedings begins at $35,000. He noted the PZB treats everyone the same.
Chairman Szabo stated this petition goes to City Council. He recommends striking that
comment.
Board Member Saletnik asked/stated:
• when looking on the side of the house, there is a flagpole – is that staying? Ms.
Espinoza stated it would be moved if the driveway expands. Ms. Cortes stated it would
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 27
be moved to the other side of the house, and the trees would be trimmed. She stated
this expansion would be on an angle; 13 ft.
• less concrete could achieve the objective
More photos were shown.
Ms. Espinoza explained the expansion is toward the house. Board Member Saletnik stated he
doesn’t believe that is necessary. Ms. Espinoza stated the expansion wouldn’t be toward the
flagpole but rather on an angle. Coordinator Ainsworth explained Board Member Saletnik’s
suggestion. He noted the Condition indicates the Community & Economic Development staff
would verify and suggest tapering the width to the private residential sidewalk. Ms. Cortez
advised they are removing the sidewalk. She noted they have a permit for a patio which will go
away.
Coordinator Ainsworth recommended reducing the impervious surface/width to 9 ft. or less to
create an additional parking pad next to the house; this would be reviewed with the Community
& Economic Development Director. He explained the process to Petitioner.
Planner Stytz reviewed the discussion and intent as well as the Staff Report:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-9-6(B) of the 1998 Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a driveway width that exceeds the twelve foot
(12’) driveway width maximum permitted in the R-1 Zoning District.
Analysis:
Address: 1665 Farwell Avenue
Owner: Jesus Blancas & Norma Cortes, 1665 Farwell Avenue, Des
Plaines, IL 60018
Petitioner: Jesus Blancas & Norma Cortes, 1665 Farwell Avenue, Des
Plaines, IL 60018
Case Number: 19-029-V
PIN: 09-33-110-034-0000
Ward: #6, Alderman Malcolm Chester
Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 28
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, Single Family Residential District
South: R-1, Single Family Residential District
East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District
West: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Residence
South: Single Family Residence
East: Single Family Residence
West: Single Family Residence
Street Classification: Farwell Avenue is classified as a local street.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential.
Project Description: The petitioners, Jesus Blancas and Norma Cortes, are requesting
a Major Variation to allow for a driveway that exceeds the twelve
foot (12’) maximum width permitted in the R-1 Zoning District
located at 1665 Farwell Avenue. This 0.38-acre property
currently contains a one-story residence with a detached garage,
concrete driveway, patio, and shed. The driveway is located on
the west side of the property in the corner side yard alongside
Greco Avenue.
The existing driveway surface is approximately 84-feet long from
the detached garage to the street and ten feet (10’) wide from
the property line to the southwest corner of the house where it
extends to twenty feet (20’) in width. The petitioner is proposing
to widen the existing driveway at varying widths from thirteen
feet (13’) in width up to twenty-one and a half feet (21.50’) in
some areas. The widest point requested by the petitioner is
located at the northwest corner of the house where a new four
foot (4’) wide front walk is being proposed. The proposal would
pave the open space in-between the house and existing driveway
as well as a portion of the grassy space in the front yard in an
effort to accommodate additional parking. Please see the Site
Plan (Attachment 5) for more details regarding the proposed
driveway widening request. Please note that the petitioners have
also filed a permit to replace the existing 270-square foot
concrete patio, located in-between the residence and detached
garage and abutting the driveway, with a 962.50-square foot
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 29
paver patio and a 3-foot (3’) separation between the existing
driveway and the new patio area.
Pursuant to Section 12-9-6(B)(3)(d) of the Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance:
“Each driveway may include a garage approach that: 1) is
not wider than the width of the garage door(s) plus thirty
inches (30") (2.5 feet) on each side of the garage door(s);
and 2) extends from the garage door(s) to a point on the
driveway not more than twenty feet (20') from the
garage door(s). Except as provided in subsection B3e of
this section, between the point on the driveway where
the garage approach ends and the point on the driveway
that intersects with the property line, the width of the
driveway must be tapered….until the width of the
driveway is not wider than twelve feet (12') or the
driveway reaches the property line.”
The petitioner’s request to allow a driveway width that exceeds
the twelve foot (12’) maximum width constitutes the need for a
major variation to Section 12-9-6(B) of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance. Staff has explained to the property owner that
the driveway can only be 12-feet (12’) wide from the property
line to the parking area in front of the driveway. Hence, the
property owners are petitioning to expand the driveway wider
than what is permitted. Staff does not find a hardship with the
land or unique circumstance with the property to warrant a
variation.
Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H)
of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
1. Hardship: No variation shall be granted pursuant to this subsection H unless the applicant shall
establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular
hardship or a practical difficulty.
Comment: There are no found practical difficulties or particular hardship with the subject
property to warrant the extent of the variance requests. The maximum allowable width
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 30
of the driveway past the garage is 12 feet. The length of the subject driveway and the
size of the garage allows the property owner to park the requested four vehicles on the
lot.
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots
subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including
presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming;
irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other
extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that
amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out
of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.
Comment: There are no unique circumstances to this property as compared to any other
lot on the block and compared to any other corner lot within the City. Additionally, this
lot is able to accommodate more vehicles on the driveway and garage given the property
dimensions. The requested expansion to deviate from the maximum allowable 12 feet
alleviates a personal situation versus a unique physical condition associated with the
subject property.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action
or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the
enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural
forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title.
Comment: The requested variance is self-created as the existing driveway is able to
accommodate several vehicles. Additionally, the petitioners can expand the existing
driveway to the maximum allowable width of 12 feet and utilize the area in front of the
garage to accommodate a two-car width.
4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from
which a variance is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial
rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Comment: No property rights will not be diminished with the denial of this variance as the
property owner has an opportunity to expand the existing driveway and to accommodate
more than the anticipated four vehicle parking. All single family driveways are allowed to
be 12 feet by the current Zoning Ordinance within the City. Note, this standard is
specifically tied to the property and no one property owner in particular.
5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the
inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 31
available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely
the inability of the owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot.
Comment: Granting the variance for the driveway expansion will create a special privilege
for the subject property owners compared to all other homes on this block and within the
City. The owners have the capability to expand the existing driveway to the maximum
allowable width of 12 feet as every single family residence can utilize. There is no alleged
hardship or practical difficulty with the subject property to warrant a variance.
6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the
subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for
which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the
general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan.
Comment: The width of the driveway can go up to 12 feet in width which would be in
harmony with the rest of the single properties on this block and within the City.
Expanding the driveway past the maximum allowable 12 foot width may set a precedent
for excessive driveway widths and increased imperious surfaces. This property can
accommodate more than the four vehicles anticipated to be parked on this property.
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the
alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to
permit a reasonable use of the subject lot.
Comment: There is a remedy for the request which is to expand to the maximum
allowable width of 12 feet. Note, Zoning Ordinance Section 12-9-6.B.3.d states the
following, “d. Each driveway may include a garage approach that: 1) is not wider than the
width of the garage door(s) plus thirty inches (30") (2.5 feet) on each side of the garage
door(s); and 2) extends from the garage door(s) to a point on the driveway not more than
twenty feet (20') from the garage door(s)….”
This specific code section allows all driveways to be wider than the garage for a length of
20 feet as to accommodate additional off street parking in front of the garage. This allows
two vehicles to be parked in the garage as well as two vehicles in front of the garage –this
is in addition to vehicles that can be parked on the driveway leading up to garage.
8. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief
necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict
application of this title.
Comment: The minimum extent for the proposed variation has not been met. The
property owner is allowed to expand the driveway to 12 feet whereas the majority of the
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 32
driveway is currently 10 feet wide. The alleged hardship raised by the property owner is
a personal hardship, not a physical hardship with the subject property. The extent of the
requested variance is not warranted given the opportunity to expand the driveway and
still meet the current zoning regulation.
Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the requested variation based on
review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions met by
Section 12-3-6(H) (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined within the City of Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-6(G) of the Zoning Ordinance (Major
Variations), the Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to recommend approval, approval
subject to conditions, or denial the above-mentioned variance for a driveway width that
exceeds the maximum width permitted within the R-1 Zoning District at 1665 Farwell Avenue to
the City Council. The Des Plaines City Council has final authority over the proposal.
A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to approve a
modified design; that Staff works with Petitioner to taper the driveway at the private residential
sidewalk and reduce impervious surface to 9 ft. or less to achieve another parking spot between the
side of the house and the existing driveway.
AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Bader, Saletnik, & Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner feels comfortable with this. Coordinator Ainsworth stated they could
use a tapering system found in the zoning ordinance to find a tapering ratio from the driveway
expansion to the new parking space.
ADJOURNMENT
The next PZB meeting is scheduled for June 25, 2019.
A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to adjourn the
meeting at 9:09 p.m.
AYES: Schell, Saletnik, Bader, Hofherr, & Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street Variation
Case #19-021-V-CU-MAP 1274 Rand Road MAP Amendment, Conditional
Use Permit, & Variations
Case #19-027-APPEAL 651 E. Prairie Appeal
Case #19-029-V 1665 Farwell Variation
June 11, 2019
Page 33
Sincerely,
Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners