Loading...
01/12/2010DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 12, 2010 MINUTES The Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 12, 2010, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PRESENT: Catalano, Porada, Saletnik, Szabo, Seegers ABSENT: None Also present was Senior Planner Scott Mangum. Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at 7:36 P. M. Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 2 Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Request: Variations to Section 7.2-6-D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the construction of a new deck with a 0 -foot side yard setback and 0 -foot rear yard setback, where a minimum side yard setback of 5' and minimum rear yard setback of 15.2' are required by Code within the R-3 Zoning District. Ms. Laurie Wilson, 619 Nelson Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Chairman Seegers offered apologies to Ms. Wilson for the miscommunication regarding the prior hearing. Chairman Seegers asked Ms. Wilson to explain her request. Ms. Wilson stated the request is to remove the existing deck, which is approximately 10 -feet by 10 -feet and a shed of a similar size and replace the existing deck with a new deck the full length of the yard, which is approximately 20 -feet. Ms. Wilson stated her understanding of the issue as the new Zoning Code requires a 5 -foot side yard. Ms. Wilson stated that if she were to have a 5 -foot set back, the deck would be in the niddle of her back yard. Ms. Wilson added the request was originally to rebuild the shed, but that after meeting with Staff, she decided on a portable storage unit. Chairman Seegers confirmed a shed would not be built. Ms. Wilson stated that was correct — that only a deck would be built. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the deck would be built at grade. Ms. Wilson stated it would not — that it is approximately 2 -feet higher. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the deck could be accessed through the back door. Ms. Wilson stated the deck would be located to the east of the patio door and extend to the property line. Ms. Wilson stated the proposal is for essentially the same location but that the patio would extend to where the shed is now located. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the patio would be wider. Ms. Wilson stated it would not. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the depth would be greater. Ms. Wilson confirmed it would. Ms. Wilson added the existing shed is original to the home and has become a hazard and would be removed regardless. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether there is an exit in the rear yard. Ms. Wilson stated there is a gate that is in line with the patio door. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the deck would be of frame construction. Ms. Wilson stated it would. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the deck would have a roof. Ms. Wilson stated it would not. Ms. Wilson added the deck is platform -style. Mr. Szabo inquired as to the height of the existing deck. Ms. Wilson stated it is similar to a pallet, with one step up. Mr. Szabo estimated that to be approximately four inches. Ms. Wilson stated her agreement. Ms. Wilson added the deck was there at the time she purchased the home and that she likes the height. Ms. Wilson stated the height is enough to keep it off the ground and that there is sand or dirt underneath. Ms, Wilson stated, during the last scheduled hearing, she sat through a City Council hearing for over two and a half hours. Chairman Seegers stated improvements to meeting location change notification are being sought. Ms. Wilson stated she did not see the sign because she entered through the back door. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 3 Staff Report: Issue: The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 7.2-6D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the construction of a new deck with a 0' side -yard setback and 0' rear - yard setback, where a minimum side -yard setback of 5' and minimum rear -yard setback of 15.2' are required by code within the R-3 zoning district. Analysis: Address: 619 Nelson Lane Existing Zoning: R-3, Townhouse Residential District Petitioner: Lori Wilson, 619 Nelson Lane, Des Plaines IL Owner(s): Lori Wilson, 619 Nelson Lane, Des Plaines IL In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information: The 46.54' by 76' (3,537 square foot) lot at 619 Nelson Lane is legal conforming with regards to lot width (45' would be required of a new subdivision), and exceeds the minimum lot size of 2,800 square feet per dwelling unit. A two-story, attached townhouse with a deck and a rear -yard shed currently exist on site. The townhouse is built with a 0' side -yard setback, as it shares a common wall with the townhouse to the east. The R-3 zoned block is developed in a similar pattern. The applicant proposes to remove the shed, remove the existing 10' by 10' non -conforming deck, and construct a new deck with the approximate dimensions of 11' by 19'. The deck would be attached to the rear of the residence with a western side -yard setback of approximately 0' instead of 5' and a rear -yard setback of approximately 0' instead of 20% of the lot depth, 15.2'. The applicant states that the small size of the fenced yard area behind the townhouse creates the need for the variance. A setback variation of greater than 30% requires a Standard Variation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the above -requested rear and side -yard setback variations based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions imposed by Section 3.6-8 (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined by the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. The narrow usable width and depth of the yard area create a hardship by limiting the size of a deck outside of the rear and side and yard setbacks. The primary structure is also already developed with a 0' side -yard setback on the eastern property line. Additionally, many of the adjacent properties have improvements that project into their setbacks. Therefore, staff is recommending approval. Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure Under Section 3.6-6 of the Zoning Ordinance (Standard Variations) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned variances for the rear and side -yard setbacks in the R-3 zoning district. Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. No persons came forward. Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 4 Stating he felt the proposal was well thought out, a motion was made by Szabo, seconded by Catalano, to authorize the construction of a new deck with a 0 -foot side yard setback and 0 -foot rear yard setback AYES: Szabo, Catalano, Saletnik, Porada, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 5 Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road Request: A Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the operation of a driving school (Commercial School) in the C-3 Zoning District. Mr. Roshan Shaikh, 14 66 Miami Lane, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Shaikh stated the driving school is currently located at 2735 W. Devon in Chicago and that he would like to relocate the school to Des Plaines, where he lives. Mr. Shaikh stated the school provides classroom and behind -the -wheel instruction to persons of all ages. Mr. Shaikh added that when the students are teenagers, that they are dropped off and picked up by their parents. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the number of students who may be on premises at one time. Mr. Shaikh stated the maximum number of students he has ever had is 9, but that he is authorized by the Secretary of State for 30 and that, as a result, the request is for 15. Mr. Shaikh reiterated his clientele is comprised mostly of adults. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether classroom instruction was required of all students. Mr. Shaikh stated classroom instruction is required only for persons under 18 years old. Chairman Seegers confirmed the proposed school serves as a total facility for driving instruction. Mr. Shaikh confirmed it does and is required to by the Secretary of State. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the school would occupy the entire building. Mr. Shaikh stated the school would occupy one of four spaces in the building. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the number of parking spaces available. Mr. Shaikh stated approximately 23 parking spaces are available. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the amount of parking needed. Mr. Shaikh stated none was needed as any students attending class on premises would have to be dropped off and picked up because they do not yet have a driver's license. Chairman Seegers inquired as to how long Mr. Shaikh has operated the current school. Mr. Shaikh stated almost 9 years. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether Mr. Shaikh's business was local. Mr. Shaikh stated he advertises primarily within the Indian community. Referencing the Staff Report, Mr. Porada noted the hours of operation were identified as between 1:00 and 4:00 P. M. Monday through Friday. Mr. Porada asked if this was correct. Mr. Shaikh stated teen classes are conducted after school from approximately 4:30 and 7 or 8:00 P. M. Mr. Shaikh added the Secretary of State requires the school operate a total of at least eight hours per week, whether that be in one day or over several days. Mr. Porada confirmed that is a requirement of the Secretary of State's Office. Mr. Shaikh confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada summarized the hours of operation between 4:30 and 7:30 P. M. with office hours between 10:00 A. M. and 4:00 P. M. Monday through Friday. Mr. Porada confirmed the school would not operate on weekends. Mr. Shaikh confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to the on -street instruction. Mr. Shaikh stated behind -the -wheel instruction for teens typically occurs on weekends and holidays when the children are not in school. Mr. Porada inquired as to the number of employees. Mr. Shaikh stated there are two employees — himself and his father. Mr. Porada confirmed Mr. Shaikh and his father would be the persons in the office during the week. Mr. Shaikh confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to the number of cars that would be present on premises during office hours. Mr. Shaikh stated two. Mr. Porada inquired as to where the vehicles are stored when the office is closed. Mr. Shaikh stated the cars would be stored at his home. Mr. Porada inquired as to any circumstance that would require the vehicles to be stored on premises. Mr. Shaikh stated there would be no such circumstance. Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 6 Mr. Porada recalled the [zoning] composition of the area — a mix of commercial and multi -family residential. Mr. Mangum confirmed Mr. Porada's recollection was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to where the behind -the -wheel instruction would take place. Mr. Shaikh stated he typically takes the students on Elmhurst Road. Mr. Shaikh added that also depends on the student's experience — that often he starts instruction in a parking lot and then advances to the main roads. Mr. Porada stated his concern is of utilizing the residential area for instruction. Mr. Shaikh stated that would not be the case. Mr. Shaikh added he believed there was no outlet on Holiday Lane. Referencing the Conditions contained in the Staff Report, Mr. Porada cited the removal of the roof sign and inquired as to whether that was the result of the current Ordinance. Mr. Mangum confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether that Condition had been explained to the petitioner. Mr. Mangum stated the petitioner had been made aware of the Condition. Mr. Porada asked if Mr. Shaikh understood the Condition. Mr. Shaikh stated he did and added he had discussed it with Staff. Mr. Mangum noted the shop owner to the north was also required to remove the roof sign when the business changed hands. Chairman Seegers indicated Mr. Shaikh was permitted to relocate the signage. Mr. Shaikh stated e was aware. Mr. Szabo inquired as to how long Mr. Shaikh has operated at this location. Mr. Shaikh stated he is not yet because he does not yet have a license in Des Plaines, but that he is operating in Chicago with a license. Mr. Szabo inquired as to when Mr. Shaikh would begin operation at this location. Mr. Shaikh stated as soon as possible — that he expects the bonds and license to be settled in approximately four weeks. Mr. Szabo inquired as to whether the Chicago location would be closed at that time. Mr. Shaikh confirmed it will. Chairman Seegers noted the signage could be relocated to the roadway sign or pole sign. Mr. Shaikh stated he spoke with the owner and that space may be available in the front. Mr. Porada inquired as to how many of the 15-20 students on premises would be dropped off and picked - up. Mr. Shaikh reiterated he never had more than nine students. Mr. Shaikh added the business is a competitive one. Mr. Shaikh restated only teens would be on premises for classroom instruction — that he goes to the home of his adult students. Mr. Porada asked if adult on -street instruction occurs closer to home. Mr. Shaikh stated it does and that adult students are not subject to the same amount of paperwork. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions by members of the Board. None were raised. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the operation of a driving school (Commercial School) in the C-3 zoning district. Analysis: Proposed Use Petitioner Driving School (Commercial School) Roshan Shaikh, 1466 Miami Lane, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 7 Owner Dhitu, 1141 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Plan of Operation Driving School would have one employee and operate onsite classes between the hours of 1 and 4pm, while also picking up students off-site for driving lessons. Existing Use Surrounding Land Use Existing Zoning Surrounding Zoning Street Classification Comprehensive Plan Tenant space in Retail Building currently unoccupied. North: Auto Repair, Commercial East: Multi -Family Residential South: Commercial Center West: Commercial C-3, General Commercial North: C-3, General Commercial East: R-3, Townhome Residential South: C-3, General Commercial West: Village of Mount Prospect Elmhurst Road is an arterial road. The Comprehensive Plan recommends a community commercial use for this site. The applicant, Roshan Shaikh for Reliable Driving School, Inc., has requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a driving school that offers driving lessons and classroom sessions. The maximum capacity for the classroom is 15 students. The classes would be held between the hours of 1 and 4 p.m. and only one employee would be present on site. Commercial Schools require a Conditional Use Permit in the C-3 zoning district. Reliable Driving School, Inc. is a commercial driving school certified by the State of Illinois and licensed by the State of Illinois. The approximately 577 square -foot tenant space is located in a one-story multiple -tenant retail building at 1167-1171 S Elmhurst Road. The building is located on a lot with a total area of approximately 15,000 square feet. The site has approximately 23 parking spaces and is serviced by a curb -cut off of Elmhurst Road, an arterial road. The petitioner has requested a waiver of the traffic study. Due to the nature of this request, staff has agreed to waive the traffic study. The proposed operation would pick up students for driving instruction while a maximum of 15 students would be present for classroom sessions. Conditional Use Findings: As required by Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed development is reviewed below: A. The proposed conditional use is in fact a conditional use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: A Commercial School is a conditional use in C-3, General Commercial Zoning District, as specified in Section 7.3-6-C 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; Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 8 Comment: The Commercial School use generally complies with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, which recommends community commercial use for this site. 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 proposed Commercial School is located within an existing one-story multi -tenant retail building. No exterior modifications to the building are proposed. D. The proposed conditional use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses; Comment: None of the functions of the Commercial School are anticipated to be hazardous or disturbing to the surrounding neighborhood. 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: After reviewing the petitioner's plans, the proposed conditional use would be served adequately by essential public facilities and it would not overburden existing public services. 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 proposed conditional use would appear to have adequate public facilities; it would not create a burden on public facilities nor would it be a detriment to the economic well being of the community. 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 proposed Commercial School is not anticipated to create a large amount of additional traffic or noise that could be detrimental to surrounding land uses. 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 proposed project would use the existing curb cut on Elmhurst Road to access the parking areas. Elmhurst Road is an arterial road built with sufficient capacity to handle the low volume of automobiles generated by the Commercial School use. As proposed, the Commercial School would generate a small amount of traffic, and thus, should not negatively affect current traffic conditions. I. The proposed conditional use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance; Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 9 Comment: The proposed Commercial School is located within an existing commercial building. The proposed plan would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance. J. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the conditional use requested; Comment: It appears that the proposed use complies with all additional Zoning Regulations. Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request for the operation of a Commercial School, based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following Condition of Approval: 1. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit the Applicant shall remove the illegal roof sign. Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure: Under Section 3.4-4-C of the Zoning Ordinance (Conditional Uses) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned conditional use permit for a Commercial School in the C-3 zoning district The City Council has the final authority on the project. Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. No persons were present in the audience. A motion was made by Catalano, seconded by Szabo, to authorize to authorize the operation of a driving school (Commercial School) in the C-3 Zoning District, subject to the Condition contained in the Staff Report. AYES: Catalano, Szabo, Saletnik, Porada, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #09-040-V — 619 Nelson Avenue Case #09 -049 -CU —1169 S. Elmhurst Road January 12, 2010 Page 10 Chairman Seegers stated the matter of the Board's Rules and Procedures would be Continued to the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. A motion was made by Catalano, seconded by Saletnik, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:01 P. M. The next meeting of the Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals is Tuesday, February 9, 2010. Sincerely, A. W. Seegers, Chairman Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Cc: City Officials Alderm en Plan Commission Petitioner(s)