Loading...
03/30/2010DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MARCH 30, 2010 MINUTES The Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, March 30, 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, Department of Community and Economic Development. Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at 7:34 P. M. A motion was made by Catalano, seconded by Saletnik, to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2010, hearing. AYES: Catalano, Saletnik, Szabo, Porada, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 2 Case #10 -003 -CU —1141 Lee Street Request: A Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the operation of an auto body repair facility in the C-3 District. Mr. Ammar Shaikh, 1466 Miami Lane, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Shaikh stated he has been in business as an auto dealer for 15 years. Mr. Shaikh stated his current dealership fixes and sells cars and is located in Indiana. Mr. Shaikh stated he would like to relocate the business to Illinois and would require a full-body shop. Mr. Shaikh added a body shop would include a frame machine and paint booths. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether auto repairs would be made on premises. Mr. Shaikh stated they would. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether auto sales would be conducted at the proposed location. Mr. Shaikh stated none would. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the maximum number of vehicles that would be within the building at any one time. Mr. Shaikh stated two or three. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether any improvements to the property were proposed. Mr. Shaikh stated a fence and landscaping, as well as improvements to the parking lot, were required. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the nature of adjacent uses. Mr. Shaikh stated a restaurant and liquor store are located on the southeast corner and that his business would be located in the rear of the property facing the [train] tracks. Chairman Seegers confirmed Mr. Shaikh's business would not face the street. Mr. Shaikh confirmed that was correct. Mr. Shaikh added that O'Hare Honda was formerly located on the property. Mr. Shaikh stated he spoke with the owner and agreed there would be no disabled cars in the parking lot. Chairman Seegers called for questions of Mr. Shaikh by members of the Board. Noting a detailed site plan, illustrating the petitioner's parking requirement and that of other tenants, was not presented but required under Condition #2, Mr. Porada stated his belief that the Board was not in a position to consider this matter tonight. Mr. Porada suggested the petitioner's testimony be given and the matter be Continued until a time such a site plan was made available to the Board. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether Mr. Shaikh had appeared before the Board within the last three months in relation to a driving school business. Mr. Shaikh stated he had and added that he has not yet received a Business License. Mr. Porada inquired as to what is visible from Lee Street. Mr. Shaikh stated the restaurant and liquor store are visible from Lee Street. Referencing Attachment #3, Mr. Porada confirmed the adjacent restaurant and liquor store uses. Mr. Mangum reconfirmed these. Referencing a photograph in the lower right-hand corner, Mr. Porada confirmed residential properties east of the tracks. Mr. Mangum confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed the proposed location to be in the rear of the building to the south. Mr. Shaikh confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed there is an existing body shop on the property. Mr. Shaikh confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether that body shop would continue to exist. Mr. Shaikh stated it would. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Porada reconfirmed the proposed auto body repair would not face Lee Street. Mr. Shaikh restated it would not. Mr. Porada confirmed there would be four tenants on the property. Mr. Shaikh confirmed there would. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the space in which Mr. Shaikh is interested is currently vacant. Mr. Shaikh confirmed it is. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the space would be sublet from_the other repair shop. Mr. Shaikh stated it was not. Mr. Porada inquired as to the type of repair(s) that are being conducted by the other body shop. Mr. Shaikh stated mechanical repairs and mostly cabs. Mr. Porada inquired as to the size of the property. Mr. Shaikh stated the total parcel is approximately 77,000- square feet. Mr. Porada restated his concern over not having adequate information on parking for all the businesses on the property. Mr. Shaikh stated parking is available on the side of the building. Mr. Shaikh added that each business has assigned parking and that he was assigned 20 parking spaces. Mr. Shaikh stated he would submit the information to Staff. Mr. Porada requested the information be submitted with adequate detail. Mr. Saletnik inquired as to the parking requirements for the restaurant. Citing Condition #1 deals with the Lee Street frontage and north parking, Mr. Mangum noted 7 -feet of landscaping is required from the property line. Mr. Mangum added that this requirement would impact the shared parking field and that, without further detail, it is difficult to know to what degree. Mr. Saletnik stated his preference that a detailed plan be reviewed. Chairman Seegers stated his agreement. Mr. Szabo inquired as to whether April 13th was too soon for the petitioner to obtain the information required. Mr. Mangum stated the decision was ultimately the petitioner's, but that it seemed fairly soon to him given the fact that a landscape plan was required. Mr. Mangum recommended at least one more Hearing. Mr. Szabo inquired as to whether a Continuance to May 11`h would provide sufficient time. Mr. Shaikh stated either date is fine. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions of Mr. Shaikh by members of the Board. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether any signage for the mechanical repair shop existed on the front of the building. Mr. Shaikh stated that none does. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether any signage is planned for Mr. Shaikh's proposed business. Mr. Shaikh stated signage is planned and is needed because of the location in the rear of the property. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the signage should be a part of the Conditional Use proposal. Mr. Mangum stated the signage would be handled administratively and would likely be a wall sign or shared tenant sign. Chairman Seegers confirmed signage is a separate matter. Mr. Saletnik noted that the Board does not review signage if the signage conforms [to Ordinance]. Mr. Szabo confirmed the case would be Continued to May 11, 2010. Chairman Seegers confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. Restaurant owner Nina Tzvetkova, 1141 Lee Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this matter. Ms. Tzvetkova submitted a letter objecting to the proposal (attached). Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 4 Stating her restaurant shares a wall with the proposed body shop, Ms. Tzvetkova stated her concern of noise, dust and chemicals. Ms. Tzvetkova inquired as to whether any Regulations existed with regard to the incompatibility of such uses. Chairman Seegers stated the auto body repair activities would have to meet EPA and Fire Regulations. Chairman Seegers stated the wall may be masonry. Ms. Tzvetkova stated she was not the owner of the building and had no idea as to its construction. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether Ms. Tzvetkova and Mr. Shaikh have the same landlord. Ms. Tzvetkova stated they do. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the landlord was aware Ms. Tzvetkova operates a restaurant. Ms. Tzvetkova stated he does. Mr. Porada suggested Ms. Tzvetkova review her lease for alternative recourse. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether Ms. Tzvetkova negotiated her lease with her landlord or through an attorney. Ms. Tzvetkova stated through an attorney, but added that he did not work in her best interest. Ms. Tzvetkova again inquired about the regulations and whether it was acceptable to have an auto body repair in the same building as a restaurant. Mr. Saletnik indicated there were plenty of regulations. Mr. Saletnik noted that a Building Permit, detailing the scope of work, would be required and that the separation wall and the emissions would have to meet Code. Mr. Saletnik cited that sprinklers or a higher rated separation may be required and that these, along with other regulations, would be required during the Building Code Review process. Mr. Mangum stated his agreement. Mr. Mangum stated he would be proactive in speaking with the Fire Department and Building Staff with regard to these issues. Ms. Saletnik noted an inspection of the premises would also be conducted. Mr. Mangum stated an inspection is automatically scheduled when an application for a Business License is filed. Mr. Saletnik inquired as to whether Permits are required for specific equipment such as the paint booth. Chairman Seegers stated Permits are not specific to equipment. Mr. Mangum added that he is working with the applicant to make him aware of the various Code requirements. Mr. Porada inquired as to the impact to Ms. Tzvetkova's outdoor dining area. Mr. Porada concluded that he proposed use would emit paint and other fumes from the roof. Mr. Porada noted the concerns expressed by Ms. Tzvetkova are valid and stated he shares her concerns. Mr. Porada stated that if it was not within the Zoning Board of Appeal's purview to address these concerns, than the City must. Chairman Seegers noted the use is a permitted use within the Zoning District, as is the restaurant. Mr. Saletnik suggested more details of the construction of the building be required. Referencing Condition #5, Mr. Mangum noted the Operational Standards for the Environment includes the impact to adjacent properties. Noting the restrictions concerning a paint spray booth are the greatest of all, Mr. Saletnik inquired as to whether the petitioner's equipment met those standards. Mr. Shaikh stated that the equipment meets OSHA and NEC Regulations. Mr. Saletnik stated, to his knowledge, none were allowed to be emitted into the atmosphere. Mr. Porada noted that, because it occupies the same building, the restaurant is located within the boundaries of the property. Mr. Mangum stated his agreement. Mr. William Schiavone, Billy's Automotive, 1113 Lee Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Schiavone stated he owns the auto repair business directly north. Mr. Schiavone stated he has no problem with anyone wanting to start a business in this economy. Mr. Schiavone stated, in his professional experience, there is no way to eliminate primer, paint and other fumes from a body shop. Mr. Schiavone stated the lacquer thinner can give someone just walking in a headache. Mr. Schiavone stated those are not his primary concerns, but that, in his opinion, occupying the same building is not going to work. Mr. Schiavone noted that he went through the same process several years ago in order to permit car sales, so he knows what the petitioner is going through. Mr. Schiavone stated he knows the man who owns the taxi cab repair facility and they have no issues. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Schiavone inquired as to whether the landlord would be required to make any improvements on the remainder of the property, which Mr. Schiavone stated was a total wreck with broken glass, fallen signs, etc. Mr. Schiavone stated he tries to keep his property nice, but that it doesn't help other tenants to only fix one corner in the back. Mr. Schiavone stated parking is already an issue. Ms. Tzvetkova stated her agreement. Mr. Schiavone stated more parking was available when the restaurant and sports bar across the street was vacant. Noting the property is huge, almost four acres in size, Mr. Schiavone stated that very little of it is paved — that most of the parking area is mud or gravel. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions of member of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. Mr. Schiavone inquired as to whether sewers would be required. Mr. Schiavone noted that there is currently no drainage on the site and expressed concern that additional paving would make the flood water worse. Chairman Seegers noted that drainage would be required to meet Code. Mr. Schiavone expressed concern that the current gravel areas could be paved. Chairman Seegers stated gravel cannot just be paved over. Mr. Porada inquired as to the Ward in which the property is located. Mr. Schiavone stated the former Alderman was Alderman Christiansen. Mr. Porada noted that City Council has final authority over the matter and that Mr. Schiavone and Ms. Tzvetkova and other members of the public have a right to attend the City Council hearing on this matter. Mr. Porada also suggested Mr. Schiavone contact the current Alderman. Stating the other business owners did not have to appear at future hearings with regard to this matter, Mr. Porada confirmed the testimony given this evening carries over as part of the record. Chairman Seegers confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers restated that a total site plan, with landscaping and defined parking and surface materials, was required. Mr. Shaikh stated his understanding. Mr. Porada confirmed that the petitioner was aware of the parking requirements — that parking was only permitted on improved [paved] surfaces. Mr. Mangum stated that was correct and that he would work with the petitioner to ensure the parking is illustrated properly. Mr. Porada noted the Survey of the property included in the packet was dated May 24, 1996. Mr. Mangum stated the more recent aerial photographs illustrated portions of the property were paved and others were not. Chairman Seegers noted the petitioner is required to return with a Site Plan that shows his assigned spaces, as well as those of the other tenants. Mr. Shaikh restated his understanding and agreement. Expressing concern that some of the improved surface area has deteriorated over the past 14 years, Mr. Porada suggested Staff be required to provide twelve (12) current photographs of the property for reference. Mr. Porada also suggested a more current Survey be required. Chairman Seegers noted a more current Survey is required to obtain a Permit. Mr. Saletnik noted the Zoning Ordinance lists the requirements for Site Plan and what is needed to make a request of the ZBA. Mr. Mangum stated he would work with the applicant to be sure the criteria are met. Mr. Porada suggested another Condition be added relating to the parking being required on an improved surface. Mr. Szabo stated that when Mr. Shaikh returns, he would like to know how Mr. Shaikh intends to control the noxious fumes, annoying odors and noise that is associated with an auto body repair business. Mr. Szabo suggested Mr. Shaikh speak to his landlord about the issue. Mr. Szabo noted it was not in the Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 6 landlord's best interest to risk losing three (3) thriving tenants to gain one new. Mr. Szabo reiterated that details of the separation wall are also required. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions of Mr. Shaikh by members of the Board. None were raised. A motion was made by Szabo, seconded by Catalano, to Continue this matter to the May 11, 2010, hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals. AYES: Szabo, Catalano, Saletnik, Porada, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 7 Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road Request: A Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize a Class B restaurant in the C-3 District. Mr. Hukum S. Rawat, 1167 S. Elmhurst Road, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Rawat stated the request is to expand his existing business with seating for 20 persons in his fast food restaurant. Chairman Seegers confirmed the request is for an existing business. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed the request was for more space. Mr. Rawat stated specifically for seating. Chairman Seegers inquired whether the request was for additional seating. Mr. Rawat stated, currently, he does not have any seating. Chairman Seegers confirmed the request was to add seating. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed the business was currently open and operating. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed that the premises would not be expanded, just seating added. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed that the business is currently carry -out. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether adequate space exists to accommodate the seating requested. Mr. Rawat confirmed it does. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether Mr. Rawat's request meets the parking requirements. Mr. Rawat confirmed it does. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the restaurant's hours of operation. Mr. Rawat stated the hours of operation would remain the same — approximately 10:30 A. M. to 9:30 P. M. and closed two hours in the evening. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the number of days per week the restaurant is open. Mr. Rawat stated the maximum would be seven (7) days per week. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the interior of the restaurant would be changed or modernized to accommodate the seating. Mr. Rawat stated it would. Noting that "ice cream" appears on the sign, Mr. Szabo inquired as to the type of restaurant that currently operates. Mr. Rawat stated fast Indian food. Mr. Szabo inquired as to how long Mr. Rawat has operated the restaurant. Mr. Rawat stated almost two years. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether a 25 -foot distance from the front of the restaurant to the counter was an accurate measure. Mr. Rawat stated it was. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether a 19 -foot distance from the window to the counter was an accurate measure. Mr. Rawat stated it was. Referencing an illustration showing the proposed layout of five (5) tables of four (4) chairs, Mr. Porada inquired as to the distance between the counter and the Table 5. Mr. Rawat stated approximately 3 -feet. Mr. Porada concluded the final distance was 16 -feet. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to the distance between the Table 4 chairs. Mr. Rawat stated approximately 3'/2 feet. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the entrance was the only entrance to the restaurant. Mr. Rawat stated it is. Mr. Porada concluded that after one opens the door, there is 3'/2 feet of space before one would reach Table 4. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to the amount of space between Tables 4 and 5. Mr. Rawat stated he did not know. Mr. Porada inquired as to the width of the tables. Mr. Rawat stated approximately two (2) chairs wide. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 8 Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the tables were affixed to the floor or able to be moved. Mr. Rawat stated the tables are able to be moved. Mr. Porada reconfirmed the business is currently take-out. Mr. Rawat restated that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the existing take-out business would continue to operate. Mr. Rawat stated it would. Mr. Porada confirmed Mr. Rawat's intention was to offer both take-out and sit-down dining. Mr. Rawat confirmed that was correct. Expressing concern over the traffic flow [within the restaurant], Mr. Porada inquired as to whether seating for 16 would be acceptable. Mr. Porada suggested four tables in a square pattern. Mr. Catalano noted that Code Requirements for space, occupancy, ingress and egress would determine the seating design. Mr. Mangum suggested the Board consider a maximum number for permitted seating. Mr. Szabo stated he felt, from personal experience, that ample room exists to accommodate the Mr. Rawat's request. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether any counter seating was proposed. Mr. Rawat stated none is. Noting the proposed layout may not be ideal, Mr. Saletnik noted a counter along the wall with four (4) tables would improve circulation and still accommodate 20 persons. Citing the type of seating was not at issue, Chairman Seegers stated the Board would consider a maximum capacity for use. Referencing the Staff Report, Mr. Porada noted that the first paragraph on Page 2 specifically stated five (5) tables and 20 seats. Chairman Seegers reiterated the seating for 20, not the configuration, is at issue. Mr. Porada noted Mr. Saletnik's suggestion was an excellent remedy [to his concerns]. Chairman Seegers reiterated the final determinations on layout, ingress and egress and whether or not adequate circulation was provided, would be addressed at the time Mr. Rawat applies for a Building Permit. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Chairman Seegers inquired as to the reason the number of tables had been specified. Mr. Mangum stated the information was provided by the applicant [Mr. Rawat]. Mr. Porada inquired as to the hours of operation for the driving school. Mr. Rawat stated he did not know. Mr. Porada inquired as to the hours of operation of the Tae Kwon Do business. Mr. Rawat stated evenings. Mr. Porada inquired as to the hours of operation of the beauty salon. Mr. Rawat stated approximately 11:00 A. M. to 8:00 P. M. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether these are the only four (4) tenants. Mr. Mangum confirmed they are. Mr. Saletnik inquired if seating for 20 was adequate for Mr. Rawat's needs. Mr. Rawat stated it is. Noting he was the only restaurant in the small commercial center, Mr. Szabo stated he did not foresee a parking conflict. 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 #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 9 A motion was made by Saletnik, seconded by Szabo, to recommend authorization of a maximum seating capacity of 20 persons for the petitioner's Class B restaurant, located in a C-3 District. AYES: Saletnik, Szabo, Catalano, Porada, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street Case #10 -008 -CU —1167 S. Elmhurst Road March 30, 2010 Page 10 Chairman Seegers continued the matter of the Board's Procedures to the next meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals. A motion was made by Porada, seconded by Saletnik, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 8:51 P. M. The next meeting of the Des Plaines Plan Commission is Tuesday, April 13, 2010. Sincerely, A. W. Seegers, Chairman Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Cc: City Officials Alderm en Zoning Board of Appeals