Loading...
05/25/2010DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 25, 2010 MINUTES The Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Des Plaines held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 25, 2010, at 7:30 P. M. in City Council Chambers, Room 102, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PRESENT: Catalano, Hofherr, Porada, Saletnik, Szabo, Seegers ABSENT: None Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum. The meeting was called to order at 7:35 P. M. A motion was made by Porada, seconded by Catalano, to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2009; November 24, 2009; January 12, 2010; and March 30, 2010 hearings. AYES: Porada, Catalano, Szabo, Saletnik, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Porada, seconded by Saletnik, to approve the minutes of the May 11, 2010 hearing. AYES: Porada, Saletnik, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo, Catalano, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Chairman Seegers announced that Case #10-021-V, 2800 River Road, had been Continued to the June 29, 2010, hearing of the Zoning Board of Appeals. Chairman Seegers indicated Mr. Hofherr had read the minutes of the March 30, 2010, hearing relative to the next Case, which had been Continued. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 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 an auto body repair operation in the C-3 District. Mr. Ammar Shaikh, 1141 Lee Street, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Shaikh to explain his request. Mr. Shaikh stated a landscape plan, with the parking allotted for all the existing businesses had been submitted. Mr. Shaikh stated an additional 50-60 spaces had been provided. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether adequate parking exists. Mr. Shaikh stated it does. Chairman Seegers inquired about the additional information requested by the Board. Mr. Shaikh stated information about the galvanized steel paint booth with filters had been provided. Mr. Shaikh added the exhaust is emitted through the air. Referring to the minutes of the May 11, 2010, hearing, Mr. Hofherr inquired as to current conditions in the rear of the property - whether it had been cleaned prior to the establishment of the proposed business. Mr. Shaikh stated the cleanup was in progress. Mr. Hofherr inquired as to whether the abandoned vehicles and parts had been removed. Mr. Shaikh stated the removal was complete. Mr. Hofherr noted, as of yesterday, the cars and parts remained [on the site]. Mr. Mangum noted that, since the last meeting, Building and Code Staff had sent a letter to the owner noting the applicable violations as well as the environmental hazards that exist. Mr. Hofherr asked that Mr. Shaikh also clean up the trees and brush along the railroad tracks into the property so that it is more presentable to the people entering the site as well as those who live behind the site and those who ride the train. Mr. Porada inquired as to when the property had been inspected. Mr. Mangum stated prior to the issuance of the aforementioned May 6, 2010, letter. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether that letter would become part of the record of these proceedings. Mr. Mangum stated the letter is part of the Code enforcement file. Referencing the aerial photo dated March 23, 2010, Mr. Porada inquired as to the deficiencies itemized in the letter. Mr. Mangum stated the cleanliness of the property as well as antifreeze and other liquids that are considered to be environmental hazards. Mr. Mangum added that parking also existed on non-compliant surfaces. Mr. Porada confirmed the liquids on the site were not found in bottles or containers, but in pools of liquid on the site. Mr. Mangum confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to the protocol that is followed after issuance of the letter. Mr. Mangum stated the owner was given until June 5, 2010, to bring the property into compliance and that the Administrative Hearing process is initiated if it is not complete by that date. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the site plan included in the Board's March 30, 2010, materials was still valid. Mr. Shaikh stated a new site plan had been submitted. Mr. Porada inquired as to the Plat of Survey dated May 24, 1996. Mr. Shaikh stated a new Plat of Survey had also been submitted. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether it was the large document. Mr. Mangum stated the May 24, 1996, survey had been used by the contractor hired by the petitioner as a basis to draw the dimensions of the parking spaces on site as well as the parking required for all the tenant uses as had been required in the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether Mr. Mangum was referring to the ledger sized sheet. Mr. Mangum stated the revised landscape plan dated May 21, 2010. Mr. Porada indicated he did not see a date. Chairman Seegers noted the date was found above the number on the right side. Mr. Shaikh stated he would obtain a new survey if one was needed. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 3 Referencing four photographs, Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the photos were new. Mr. Shaikh confirmed they were. Mr. Porada recalled that, during the March 30, 2010, hearing, the interior layout had been requested. Chairman Seegers stated, at that time, the fire separation was the main concern. Mr. Porada expressed concern over the placement of the spray booth and whether the spray booth would be located on the wall shared with the restaurant. Mr. Shaikh stated it would not. Mr. Szabo inquired as to whether a separation wall exists between the petitioner's space and the restaurant. Mr. Mangum stated Building and Fire Department personnel confirmed a masonry wall exists, but without fire rated openings, which are required. Mr. Szabo confirmed the doors were not fire rated. Mr. Mangum confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers inquired as to where the doors lead. Mr. Mangum stated the doors lead to the restaurant. Referencing the photo in the lower left corner, Mr. Porada confirmed that photo illustrated the masonry wall being discussed. Mr. Shaikh stated it is a big, thick wall. Mr. Porada confirmed that was the wall adjacent to the restaurant. Mr. Mangum confirmed it was the west wall. The owner of the property, Dhitu Bhagwakar, 1141 Lee Street, Des Plaines, Illinois was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Bhagwakar confirmed the masonry wall separates Mr. Shaikh's space from the restaurant. Mr. Porada inquired as to what happens when Mr. Shaikh's business is established. Mr. Bhagwakar stated the restaurant is already fire rated and the doors would not be visible. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the doors would remain. Mr. Bhagwakar stated they would. Mr. Porada confirmed whether the doors are fire rated. Mr. Bhagwakar stated they are. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the garage door would remain. Mr. Bhagwakar stated it would. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the windows would remain. Mr. Bhagwakar stated he may replace the existing windows with glass block. Mr. Porada inquired as to how many overhead doors currently exist on the east wall. Mr. Bhagwakar stated one garage door and one entry door. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether any garage doors would be added. Mr. Shaikh stated none would. Mr. Porada inquired as to the framed wall. Mr. Bhagwakar stated the framed wall is shared with the restaurant. Mr. Porada inquired as to what is behind the brick and plywood. Mr. Bhagwakar stated the brick and plywood would be enclosed by drywall. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the roof truss was also wood. Mr. Bhagwakar stated it is. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions of the petitioners by members of the Board. Mr. Saletnik confirmed that the paint booth discharge and construction of the fire walls would be part of the Building and Code review at time of construction. Mr. Mangum confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of, or in objection to the proposal. Former Alderman Patricia Beauvais, 547 Webford, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Ms. Beauvais stated, unfortunately, City Ordinance does not include any provision to suspend or revoke a Conditional Use once granted. Ms. Beauvais noted that many auto businesses do not heed the Conditions set forth and the only recourse the City has is to issue Building Department violations. Ms. Beauvais noted that the lack of upkeep by the auto sales and repair facilities pose a problem within the City. Ms. Beauvais stated she was present to request the Board augment the existing Ordinances. Ms. Beauvais noted there is no incentive for businesses to comply with the terms of Conditional Use if the City cannot uphold them. Chairman Seegers noted the ZBA does not write the Ordinances and cannot control the enforcement, but can only make stipulations as part of its recommendations. Chairman Seegers stated Ordinances can only be changed by City Council. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 4 Stating his agreement with Chairman Seegers comments, Mr. Porada inquired as to whether Ms. Beauvais was aware of other municipalities in which the provisions requested were available. Ms. Beauvais stated she was not. Ms. Beauvais stated her awareness that the Building Department is inundated with phone calls from residents filing complaints. Ms. Beauvais noted more and more Conditional Uses are being approved. Ms. Beauvais acknowledged the ZBA is not the only Board in need of being addressed, but that she felt she must start somewhere. Ms. Beauvais reiterated the magnitude of the problem and stated she was not sure of the answer. Referencing the period Ms. Beauvais served as Alderman, Mr. Porada noted she was in a better position [than the ZBA] to address the issue. Mr. Porada noted the Illinois Constitution allows Conditional Use to run with the land rather than any business and that considerable latitude between enforcing and revoking exists. Ms. Beauvais stated, as Alderman, she was a proponent of giving petitioners the benefit of the doubt but has witnessed it spiral out of control in recent years and wishes she would have addressed the matter more firmly. Ms. Beauvais stated she has more opportunity to observe sites such as the one at issue now that she has more time. Ms. Beauvais stated it was her hope that if she addressed the ZBA and the City Council, there would be some suggestions with regard to obtaining future compliance. Chairman Seegers stated Ms. Beauvais' points were well taken and thanked her for her comments. Mr. Hofherr stated citizens have recourse. Mr. Hofherr suggested that if a person is aware of a property that is in disrepair, blighted or in any way objectionable, that they should register a complaint with the Code Enforcement Department. Mr. Hofherr stated an officer physically inspects the property when a complaint is filed and that the owner, and sometimes tenants, are notified of his findings and given a specific number of days to comply. Mr. Hofherr stated if compliance is not made within the specified time period, Administrative Hearing action is initiated and, if the owner is found guilty, a fine levied. Mr. Hofherr stated that could be avoided if the owner is informed the process is more costly than correcting the problem(s). Mr. Hofherr encouraged residents to file complaints if warranted. Mr. Porada added that, in his experience, the Code Enforcement Division has always been responsive. Mr. Porada encouraged residents to attend the Administrative Hearings. Mr. Mangum noted that Article IV of the City's Zoning Ordinance, Enforcement of Penalties, include a process for revocation. Mr. Porada inquired who would initiate such a process. Mr. Mangum stated anyone who lodges a complaint for investigation. Chairman Seegers stated the ZBA has the option to include recommendations with its approval(s) and can do so when appropriate. Chairman Seegers added the City Council can then choose to enforce, add or deduct from the Board's recommendation. A motion was made by Saletnik, seconded by Szabo, to recommend authorization of an auto body repair operation in the C-3 District, subject to the Conditions set forth in the Staff Report. Mr. Szabo inquired as to the timetable for resurfacing the lot. Mr. Mangum stated the Board could require the resurfacing be completed prior to the issuance of the Permit. Mr. Saletnik stated he did not wish to pose any undue burden to the petitioner by specifying a date, but perhaps that all Conditions should be met before an Occupancy Permit is issued. Mr. Hofherr asked that the removal of all abandoned vehicles and auto parts in the rear and east side, along the railroad tracks, as well as the removal of dead trees and general cleanliness, be included. Mr. Hofherr stated it was necessary to retain the screen, but that it needed to be cleaned up. Mr. Bhagwakar stated he will remove the dead trees and clear the branches, but stated his tenant has a right to keep vehicles on the property. Mr. Bhagwakar added that the tenant, not he, should be responsible to clean up that area. Mr. Hofherr stated, as the owner, Mr. Bhagawakar not only receives the citations, but is responsible for the upkeep of the property. Mr. Bhagwakar stated he has made the request, but that the tenant has not been responsive and perhaps would be more responsive to City personnel. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Saletnik amended his motion to also include the provisions for cleanup as stated in Staffs letter of May 6, 2010. Mr. Szabo seconded the amended motion. AYES: Saletnik, Szabo, Catalano, Hoffher, Seegers NAYES: Porada MOTION CARRIED Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 6 Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Request: A Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C and a major Variation to Section 7.3-3 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the operation of a motor vehicles sales operation on a lot of less than 25,000 square feet in the C-3 District. Attorney Barry Collins, 733 Lee Street, Des Plaines, Illinois; applicant Mr. Shankar (Sam) Patel and the owner of the property, Ramesh Punitar, were sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Collins stated Bully Auto Care has been repairing automobiles at the present location for 10 years. Mr. Collins stated the current owner of the business wishes to branch out into auto sales. Mr. Collins stated the addition of auto sales would not impact traffic. Mr. Collins added one ingress/egress on Oakton Street would be closed but the existing ingress/egress on Locust would remain. Mr. Collins stated the parking would be expanded to accommodate 24 vehicles with one handicapped reserved space. Mr. Collins stated a landscape plan had been submitted. Mr. Collins noted additional sod would be added to the east. Mr. Collins stated a fence that separates his client's property from the residential area south currently exists and added the alley provides a natural barrier. Mr. Collins stated his client expects to have eight vehicles for sale at any given time. Mr. Collins stated normally there are two employees on site at a time — Mr. Patel and his brother. Mr. Collins stated the addition of auto sales would add one person, Mr. Punitar, who has an extensive sales background. Mr. Collins stated he and his clients were present to assist in answering any questions the Board may have. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the building would be improved. Mr. Collins stated no changes to the building were planned — that changes only to parking and the landscape area are proposed. Mr. Collins stated he believes the Board had been provided photos of the current conditions [on the site]. Mr. Collins stated his clients have agreed to the 7 -foot setback and addition of vegetation, as recommended by Staff. Mr. Collins inquired as to whether a copy of the traffic study had also been provided to the Board. Mr. Mangum confirmed it had. Mr. Collins noted the traffic study, conducted by KLOA, concluded the proposed auto sales would have no measurable impact to traffic on either of the two streets that abut the property. Chairman Seegers confirmed landscaping was proposed along Locust and Oakton. Mr. Collins confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed the area adjacent to the east side of the building would be improved with sod and that no vehicles would be parked in that area. Mr. Collins confirmed that was correct. Mr. Collins corrected his earlier testimony to state that lighting may be the only improvement made to the building. Mr. Collins stated his client agreed to hire the necessary lighting engineers to determine the amount of light that would be sufficient for security. Mr. Collins added that if any lighting were added, that it would be directed toward Oakton and not the residential area and would conform to Staff's recommendations. Mr. Collins stated hours of business operation as Monday through Friday until 7pm. Mr. Hofherr inquired as to whether yesterday was indicative of a typical business day. Mr. Punitar stated yesterday was an exceptional day as a result of providing parking to the neighboring restaurant who had a large crowd. Mr. Collins stated, because his client has no need for the additional space, some patrons of the restaurant park 5 to 7 cars on his client's lot. Mr. Collins stated the restaurant uses more spaces in the evening but added that would cease when auto sales commence. Mr. Porada confirmed the maximum number of employees to be four. Mr. Collins stated that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether all drive. Mr. Collins stated the third person is Mr. Patel's brother who lives two blocks from Mr. Patel and that they car pool when both are working. Mr. Porada inquired as to how many vehicles are repaired on a typical day. Mr. Collins stated four, but added that if a customer does not pickup his/her vehicle promptly that it could be on the lot for an additional day or so. Mr. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 7 Porada inquired as to how many vehicles were planned for sale. Mr. Collins stated that the matter had been approached with a total number of vehicles on the lot without any designation as to the quantity for sale and the quantity for repair because the mix could constantly be changing. Mr. Porada inquired as to the number shown on the site plan. Mr. Collins stated the site plan had been drawn to illustrate the total number available and without parking on Locust. Mr. Collins added that a finite amount of parking exists. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the petitioner was amenable to a maximum number of vehicles for sale. Mr. Collins stated his client would not be amenable to a number for sale, per se, but amenable to a maximum total number on premises of 24. Mr. Collins stated he did not feel there is any purpose served by limiting the number of repair or sales vehicles and that doing so would prevent his client from adapting to the demand. Mr. Porada confirmed the petitioner already operates an auto service repair facility. Mr. Collins confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether that had been granted previously by the Board. Mr. Mangum stated the auto repair is permitted by right in the Zoning District. Mr. Porada concluded that the petitioner could have an auto service facility for up to 24 cars by matter of right. Mr. Collins stated, conceivably, if the lot were expanded to accommodate 24 vehicles. Mr. Porada noted that there was no recourse over the auto repair operation but that because sales were not a matter of right, that sales was the only aspect of the business to which a Condition would be attached. Mr. Porada encouraged his colleagues to consider limiting the number of autos for sale. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether there was currently any on -street parking. Mr. Collins stated there was not. Mr. Porada confirmed that there was a commercial building located to the west and residential to the south. Mr. Collins confirmed that was correct and reiterated the residential properties to the south were separated by the alley. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether a landscape buffer was proposed along the alley. Mr. Collins stated nothing was planned beyond the fence. Mr. Porada confirmed the solid fence immediately to the south is 6 -feet in height. Mr. Collins confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the fence was set back from the property line. Mr. Collins stated it appears to be set back approximately 4 -feet. Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the security lights would be illuminated all night. Mr. Collins stated he expected that would be the case. Mr. Catalano inquired as to the placement of the building lights. Mr. Collins stated he was uncertain as to whether building lights would be added, but amended his original statement with regard to changes to the building in the event that would be the case. Mr. Catalano inquired as to the pole light shown on the west side of the property and another on an island at the entrance. Mr. Collins stated he was unaware of pole lights but added the person who drew the plan was likely aware of the proper placement of the lights. Mr. Porada inquired as to the rationale of assigning parking in that fashion during evening hours. Mr. Collins stated he would check with his client. Mr. Porada inquired as to the existing lighting. Mr. Collins stated there is currently a flood light on top of the building on Oakton. Mr. Catalano confirmed the light is on all night. Mr. Punitar confirmed it is. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the light is attached to the roof of the building. Mr. Punitar confirmed it is. Mr. Porada concluded the lighting is used to detour vandalism. Mr. Porada expressed he did not see any reason why repaired and new vehicles could not be moved to the spaces along Oakton in the evenings to eliminate any intrusion on the neighbors to the south. Mr. Porada added doing so would also eliminate the need for lighting directed to the south. Mr. Collins stated that would assume all the spaces along Oakton were vacant. Mr. Collins added Building Code requires parking lots be illuminated and that even office buildings are lit at night. Mr. Mangum stated light is not permitted to trespass onto the single-family residential properties across the alley. Mr. Collins stated his client would comply with that Ordinance requirement. Mr. Saletnik noted it is not the ZBA's purview to determine the lighting detail or how a business should be operated. Mr. Saletnik added the petitioner has a right to illuminate his property for security purposes and that purpose of the performance standards is to provide such protections. Mr. Mangum stated his agreement. Mr. Porada stated his opinion that attaching reasonable Conditions is the proper course. Mr. Collins reiterated his client is willing to comply with Code. Chairman Seegers stated the Boards interest in working out issues in the best interest of all parties. Citing the petitioner, as well as some of the members of the audience, as familiar, Mr. Saletnik inquired as to whether this matter had been before the ZBA previously. Mr. Mangum confirmed the petitioner appeared before the ZBA in 2004 and that the request had been subsequently rejected by the City Council. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 8 Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. Ms. Linda Caruth, 1868 Bennett, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Ms. Caruth stated she had documents, a petition and photographs to present. Ms. Caruth stated the documents included copies of the Ordinances and a history of how many times Bully Auto had appeared before the ZBA for the same reason and each outcome. Chairman Seegers asked how many times Bully Auto had appeared. Ms. Caruth stated Bully Auto has appeared before and/or requested Continuances from the ZBA and/or City Council 18 times. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the significance of item(s) highlighted. Ms. Caruth stated the highlighted item(s) are the City Ordinances and violations cited over the years and not addressed by the Department of Community and Economic Development. Chairman Seegers confirmed the third document was a copy of the petition. Ms. Caruth stated the petition includes the names and signatures of 160 persons opposed to allowing Bully Auto to become a used car lot. Chairman Seegers noted the date on the petition is June 25th. Ms. Caruth stated that was an error- that the date should be May 256. Chairman Seegers stated the ZBA is considering only the current case, not proposals since 1997. Ms. Caruth stated her understanding. Ms. Caruth reiterated all other proposals, with the exception of one in which approval was recommended by a company called Land Strategies who had developed that particular Staff Report, had been denied by both the ZBA and City Council. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the signatures had been obtained from the immediate area. Ms. Caruth stated the signatures had been obtained throughout the entire City. Chairman Seegers stated he was unable to accept the petitions because the date was incorrect and also because past cases could not be considered. Chairman Seegers stated the petitions would be recognized, but not accepted as exhibits. Chairman Seegers accepted the highlighted list as Exhibit A and the previous rulings, Exhibit B. Ms. Caruth asked if she could present photographs to the Board. Chairman Seegers stated, if the photographs would not become part of the record, the photographs could be referred to. Ms. Caruth stated, since 1997, she has been the primary person objecting to the Conditional Use and Variations requested at 1855 Oakton. Ms. Caruth stated she lives a little to the east and directly behind Bully Auto. Ms. Caruth stated Bully Auto is not a good neighbor and has never been. Ms. Caruth stated repeated complaints have been filed with regard to the upkeep of the property. Ms. Caruth stated the 1997 photos show conditions identical to those current. Ms. Caruth stated Bully Auto last appeared before the ZBA in August, 2004, and City Council, October, 2004, and that each denied the request. Ms. Caruth stated a used car lot requires property 25,000 square feet in size and that Bully Auto's property is only 14,277 square feet. Ms. Caruth stated both her property and Bully Auto's property are located in an AE100 year flood plain. Ms. Caruth stated, as a result, she is unable to improve her property and asked why Bully Auto is allowed to expand theirs. Ms. Caruth read a report prepared by Doug Hammel of Camiros Ltd., with regard to the mixed use plan for the Oakton Street corridor. Ms. Caruth stated the report indicated auto related uses should be minimized. Ms. Caruth read, "many related uses such as auto repair, new sales and gas stations can negatively impact commercial corridors by requiring excessive means of automobile access and parking, creating environmental impacts on noise and air quality and compromising the aesthetic theme of the corridor. As specific opportunities arise, such uses should be Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 9 relocated to more industrial or auto oriented location in the City." Ms. Caruth stated Community Development had told her the plan fits the plan for the Oakton corridor. Ms. Caruth stated it clearly does not. Ms. Caruth stated there were 23 cars on the lot yesterday and that although the owner stated he allowed Cuzzins Restaurant to park on his lot, that the restaurant displays a sign that indicates parking is available at Bully Auto after 6 PM. Ms. Caruth stated that, in 2004, the petitioner had clearly stated to the ZBA that he had already graded the property in preparation of landscaping, but after being denied, poured concrete within a flood plain, which she assumes was done without a permit. Ms. Caruth stated she was unable to obtain the documents from the City under her Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. Ms. Caruth asked whether the Board wished to see the photographs. Chairman Seegers replied, no, thank you. Ms. Caruth stated the Building Code Department does not always physically inspect the site when complaints are filed. Ms. Caruth stated tires are stored behind the building and milk gallons containing oil by the dumpster. Ms. Caruth stated Mike Spiel was sent out to check two containers of used fluids in the alley behind the fence, but by the time he arrived, the containers had been removed. Ms. Caruth stated the paint on the building is peeling. Ms. Caruth stated the 5 -foot required setback from the alley is actually about 3 -feet. Ms. Caruth stated when the lawn is mowed, all the garage on the property ends up on hers, which violates the new Ordinance. Ms. Michele Cederquist, 365 Graceland, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Ms. Cederquist read a prepared letter as follows: "I have lived in DP for nearly 30 years, first on Bennett Place then on Craig Drive. Now I am currently a couple of blocks away, on Graceland. I can vaguely remember when this location was a 2 -pump gas station and very well landscaped and maintained. As the years have gone by, the gas pumps have been removed and the building became an auto repair facility. When I was in my early 20's, the business was sold to the current owner, Sam. The sale of the property followed shortly thereafter. It was then that the upkeep of the property began to deteriorate. I have watched the continued deterioration of this land for many years and fail to understand why the owner continues to try to become a used car lot. Each time he has applied, he has been denied or has withdrawn his request. Now, the City and many residents have spent their time and money to seek out a plan to renew the area of Oakton Street to Lee Street. The plans I have seen and the information I have listened to, as presented by Camiros Ltd., does not seem to agree to putting a used car lot at one of the gateways to our City. In fact, it would seem that the plan is suggesting these type of uses should be phased out or relocated to a more auto related area of the City. I hope that the ZBA for the City of Des Plaines will once again recommend denial of this request. Thank you." Chairman Seegers called for additional questions or comments from members of the audience. Mr. Brian Burkross, 2133 Webster Lane, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Burkross stated he would keep his comments short because others made the same points. Mr. Burkross stated he intended to wait until the end, but that he had to leave. Mr. Burkross stated he want to point out that even though some of the petition details may have been omitted, it would not be difficult to obtain many, many more signatures. Mr. Burkross stated, generally, many residents feel there are enough car sales in the City and do not share any enthusiasm for growing that number. Mr. Burkross stated he has actively attended the past City Council hearings and noticed the same request is made repeatedly and repeatedly denied. Mr. Burkross stated City Council denial resulted, in part, from the owner's broken promises to the residents with regard to improvements [on the site]. Mr. Burkross stated, to date, no improvements had been made. Mr. Burkross noted the petitioner is very diligent about returning before the ZBA and City Council but shows no good faith as far as making improvements or taking suggestions. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 10 Mr. Burkross stated, in his opinion, if approval were granted, the City would be rewarding land owners for shunning the process. Mr. Burkross stated he feels that granting approval would set a bad example for others looking to establish businesses in Des Plaines. Mr. Burkross stated he did not feel it was fair to other businesses and residents who follow rules and make every effort to be good neighbors. Mr. Burkross noted Bully Auto has sold cars in the past, even though they are not licensed to do so. Mr. Burkross stated it was wrong to approve the request for auto sales. Mr. Burkross stated that, if perhaps, Bully Auto would have completed the items and upgrades promised and had, in any way, demonstrated good faith to the neighbors, the issue would not be so controversial. Former Alderman Patricia Beauvais, who was sworn in earlier, stated she wished to address the Conditional Use findings, Item B - Proposed Causes are found to be in accordance with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Ms. Beauvais stated the Comment indicates the 2007 Comprehensive Plan recommends commercial use for this site. Ms. Beauvais noted Oakton Street is obviously all commercial, but that the Comment does not address the specific issue of an auto corridor. Citing Item C - Proposed Use as designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity. Ms. Beauvais stated this is exactly what she had spoken to previously - not following the City's Ordinances or maintenance requirements. Ms. Beauvais noted that if Bully Auto did not follow these as an auto repair shop, she does not believe they will maintain the property any better under a Conditional Use. Citing Item G - Proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities processes, materials equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons property or general welfare, etc. Ms. Beauvais stated the use is, in fact, detrimental to the property, neighborhood and most definitely an eyesore when driving down Oakton. Ms. Beauvais thanked the Board. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions or comments from members of the audience. No persons came forward. Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the Board. None were raised. A motion was made by Porada, seconded by Hofherr, to recommend the request for authorization of the operation of a motor vehicles sales operation on a lot of less than 25,000 square feet in the C-3 District be DENIED. Mr. Szabo stated, although the Board is required to vote on what is presented, the request appears to be too much for the lot. Chairman Seegers confirmed the lot is undersized. Mr. Porada stated he feels, generally, decisions relating to these types of facilities/uses were made with an obvious lack of forethought and foresight. Mr. Porada added that piece -meal approvals result in properties in need of rehabilitation in 10-15 years. Mr. Porada concluded the problem is broader and not particular to this case. AYES: Porada, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo, Catalano, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 11 Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Request: A Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.2-4-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the expansion of parking areas at an existing Place of Worship in the R-1 District. Mr. Fazal Mahmood, 9239 Aspen Lane, Des Plaines, Illinois; and engineer Peter Olesen were sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Mahmood stated the existing facility operates as a Place of Worship with an existing parking lot on the east side. Mr. Mahmood stated approximately 100 cars use the facility during the five (5) daily prayer services and school on Saturday and Sunday. Mr. Mahmood stated they are now seeking an extension of the parking lot on the west side, where additional property had been purchased. Mr. Mahmood stated worship extends to 11 PM on Friday nights. Mr. Mahmood stated worship was divided into two shifts as a result of parking limitations. Mr. Mahmood stated most park in the church lot and the rest across the street. Mr. Mahmood stated the objective of the request is to eliminate on -street parking. Mr. Mahmood stated a second exit on Potter Road is also planned. Mr. Mahmood added that permission had been received from Cook County. Mr. Mahmood stated 480 Potter Road also owns additional neighboring properties. Chairman Seegers inquired as to how many additional spaces would result from the new parking lot. Mr. Mahmood stated the net gain would be 23 or 24 parking spaces because five were lost as a result of the Potter Road exit. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the total number of parking that would then exist. Mr. Mahmood stated approximately 120. Mr. Mahmood added that during Ramadan, an agreement exists with Lutheran General who allows parking at its building across the street during nightly prayer between 10 and 11 PM. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the other properties owned. Mr. Mahmood stated the property adjacent to the south is owned by someone else, but that the property is still in discussion, but added the property south of that is currently owned. Chairman Seegers confirmed the only improvement planned was the additional parking. Mr. Mahmood confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers asked if Mr. Olesen had anything to add. Mr. Olesen stated plans have been submitted for permits and have been approved subject to obtaining the Variation to construct the lot. Mr. Olesen stated, with respect to storm water management, both the City's requirements and those of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) have been met. Mr. Olesen stated the parking lot lighting would be minimal and that his understanding is that the lot would be lit only during the periods used for safety. Chairman Seegers confirmed the proposed lighting would comply with the City's Ordinance. Mr. Olesen confirmed it would and added there would be no spill over the property line. Mr. Mahmood confirmed the lights are currently timed to turn off between 10 and 11 PM each day. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether landscaping was also proposed. Mr. Olesen confirmed it was. Chairman Seegers called for questions of the petitioner by members of the Board. Mr. Porada inquired as to Staffs concern relating to Condition #1. Mr. Mangum stated the Engineering Division had reviewed the proposed plans and wanted to ensure vehicles had the ability to turn around if access to the western -most portion of the lot was full. Mr. Olesen stated there was no problem in meeting that requirement. Referencing Condition #2, Mr. Porada confirmed the Islamic Community Center currently utilizes two traffic management personnel to manage pre -service pedestrian crossing on Potter Road. Mr. Mahmood confirmed that Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 12 two off-duty police officers assist pedestrians every Friday and also during the month of Ramadan. Mr. Porada inquired whether the use of the officers was required by the City. Mr. Mangum stated the pedestrian assistance could be required as part of the Conditional Use. Mr. Mangum added Engineering personnel visited the site and found it works well. Mr. Porada inquired as to the parking at the Lutheran General facility. Mr. Mahmood stated that property is used only during Ramadan. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether this is the second Conditional Use request for this property. Mr. Mangum stated it was a modification to the original Conditional Use that was required for construction. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether multiple shifts could be implemented during Ramadan. Mr. Mahmood stated they could not. Mr. Porada confirmed the Community Center voluntarily devised shifts for worship. Mr. Mahmood confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada noted that, as a religious organization, the Center was not required to do so. Mr. Porada stated his appreciation of the measures taken by the Center. Referencing Condition #2 and expressing concerns of safety, Mr. Hofherr inquired whether the additional parking would eliminate parking across the street on Potter Road. Mr. Mahmood stated many members live in the neighborhood and walk to services. Mr. Mahmood added he encourages members in the vicinity to walk. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions of the petitioner by members of the Board. Mr. Catalano inquired as to whether the lighting on the new lot would mirror that on the existing lot. Mr. Mahmood confirmed it would. Mr. Catalano inquired as to why there were no Conditions pertaining to lighting included in the Staff Report as on the previous request. Mr. Mangum stated such Conditions can be attached and added that Staff had already seen the Photometric plan for this particular site and is confident the issue of light spill is addressed. Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the Board, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. Staff Report: Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of, or in objection to the proposal. Mr. John Milstead, 2515 Church, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Milstead stated he is retired and home all day. Mr. Milstead stated he does not mind on -street parking one day a week even though it tends to make traffic difficult. Mr. Milstead stated his objection to illegal parking. Mr. Milstead stated Des Plaines Police issued 22 tickets two weeks ago and 18 tickets last Friday for illegal parking. Mr. Milstead stated that the addition of 23 parking is not adequate. Mr. Milstead stated the illegal parking includes parking in front of fire hydrants. Mr. Terrance Mootoo, 489 Good Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Mootoo stated he lives directly behind the Community Center and his issue is the fact that the occupancy exceeds the 1999 request for Conditional Use. Mr. Mootoo stated his recollection from the last community meeting was that a document showing the Conditional Use was limited to 250 persons and granted without the foresight as to how many people would actually be on premises. Mr. Mootoo expressed concern over the inability to enforce what is granted. Mr. Mootoo expressed further concern that allowing the parking lot would only allow the growth to continue and further encroach on the neighbors. Mr. Mootoo inquired as to how many persons are permitted. Mr. Mangum stated he does not believe the Conditional Use places a limit on the number of persons and added that parking is based on square footage. Mr. Mangum stated that, at the time of the original request, the parking required Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 13 was 50 -something and that 70 -something parking spaces, which exceeded the Code requirement, were provided at that time. Mr. Mangum noted the current demand is greater. Mr. Mootoo suggested the growing demand is being created by the Conditional Use. Mr. Mangum noted the Conditional Use authorized the construction of the facility. Mr. Mootoo inquired as to whether the Mosque growth had been anticipated. Chairman Seegers stated the original Permit had been issued based on the parking required under Ordinance at the time. Mr. Mootoo expressed his displeasure that additional parking was now being requested and inquired as to the size that was approved at the time the original Conditional Use was granted. Mr. Porada suggested Mr. Mootoo was confusing an Occupancy Permit with Conditional Use. Mr. Mootoo stated the congregation had nearly doubled, with 470 members. Mr. Porada noted the City cannot legally prevent persons from practicing their faith at any location. Mr. Mootoo stated the issue is not of persons practicing their faith - that the issue is the size and encroachment and the resultant nuisances created. Mr. Mootoo stated he believes the Center should live within its means and that the size associated with the original [Conditional Use] Permit be maintained instead of being allowed to become a nuisance to its neighbors. Mr. Mootoo stated he and his neighbors are prepared to take action in Circuit Court and will seek monetary relief. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Mootoo to state only facts and discouraged threats. Mr. Mootoo stated he felt that fact was that the original Conditional Use had been violated. Mr. Mootoo added the Center was not prevented from cutting down all the buffering trees in 2008 in order to expand the lot which created water runoff to his property as well as increased noise and vehicle exhaust emission. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the building had changed in size over the years. Mr. Mangum stated he was not aware of any such change. Mr. Mangum added the original Conditional Use was granted in 1999 but that there was a delay in construction and that the Mosque was actually constructed in 2005. Mr. Porada explained the Conditional Use allowed the property to be used as a Place of Worship. Mr. Saletnik inquired as to whether any Conditions relating to size were imposed at the time of first construction. Mr. Mangum stated he did not have all the supporting information, but added that a Conditional Use Permit does not include size restrictions. Mr. Saletnik noted an Occupancy Permit is based upon the Building Code Inspection, which is conducted not only to ensure the structure is built in the manner proposed, but also based on the square footage of the building. Mr. Mootoo stated he is not confused - that the Conditional Use originally sought allowed the premises to operate as a Mosque for 250 people and that the membership is now 470. Mr. Mootoo reiterated additional parking would only exacerbate the existing problem. Mr. Saletnik suggested it could aid in alleviating the problem. Mr. Mootoo suggested prevention is better than cure. Mr. Mootoo stated the City should have prevented the Mosque from growing so large and creating these problems. Mr. Mootoo added the idea to provide shifts for worship resulted from community meetings. Mr. Mootoo expressed his disappointment that it appeared the Board has already made its decision. Mr. Kennedy Shenberg, 449 Good Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Shenberg stated he has two Masters Degrees, one in Clinical Counseling and the other in Social Work and is currently working on a Doctorate in Education. Mr. Stenberg stated he works for the Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) as a supervisor in child abuse investigations. Mr. Stenberg stated he supervised the Child Missing Location Unit for three years and that, during this period, he found 500 of the 501 children with which he was charged. Mr. Stenberg stated he is knowledgeable of what he speaks. Mr. Stenberg stated child abductors find open spaces to park in order to observe children. Mr. Stenberg expressed concern over the proximity of a child care center, the residential yards where children play and the school bus stop. Mr. Stenberg stated he lives directly behind the parking lot and has three children of his own. Mr. Stenberg expressed concern over the deep recession of the proposed lot as well as its proximity to the Dempster entrance to I-294. Mr. Stenberg cited the following facts relative to child abductions: If a child is not found within the first hour of disappearance, chances of finding the child alive decrease by 50% and, after 24 hours, the chances become zero. Mr. Stenberg stated there is a 95% chance the child will be found dead if not found within the first day. Mr. Stenberg stated it takes approximately an hour for a child to vanish. Mr. Stenberg asked the members of the Board to consider how far one can drive in an Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 14 hour. Mr. Stenberg reiterated his concern is for his as well as other area children and urged the Board to find other solutions - one that will not create such a hazard for the community. Mr. Stenberg stated 20 parking spaces is not adequate to accommodate 100 cars. Mr. Stenberg stated any spaces opened on the side streets as a result will only be taken by others. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether strange cars are ever parked in the lot. A woman waiting to speak indicated they are. Mr. Porada suggested a metal gate that can be hinged and locked. Mr. Olesen stated there would be additional cost and that gates would not be practical at the Potter Road exit. Mr. Olesen added the same risks exist at every school and other locations where children are present. Mr. Mahmood stated his plan to fence the property once Potter Road construction was complete. Mr. Mahmood stated video cameras extend to the back of the property. Ms. Elizabeth Papanastasopoulos, 2561 Church, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated her home is the second property west of Potter and that her backyard and deck face the Mosque. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated her parents purchased the property in 1970 and that she has lived in the home since 1985. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated she was one of the only neighbors not initially opposed to the Mosque. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated the existing fence has been in disrepair for two years. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated that although the lights in the parking lot turn off at 10 or 11 PM, car lights shine into her bedroom, deck and patio. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated the fence is inadequate. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated it will take years for the trees to grow and that it will continue to be challenging to obscure the view of the growing facility. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated she observes people looking down upon her when she is in her yard and that arguments, motorcycles and racing after hours continue to be disruptive. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated basketball, soccer and football take place during the day and that the balls end up in her yard. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated the children scale her fence to retrieve the balls and use her furniture to stand on. Ms. Papanastasoopoulos expressed concern that the sports activities will be moved to the new parking area. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated she does not receive mail on Fridays because of the parking problems. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated the off-duty officers employed on Fridays to assist pedestrian traffic are something she would expect in downtown Chicago with whistles blowing from Noon to 3 P. M. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated the Board is welcome to come to her house to observe the conditions she described. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated she is tired of calling 911 and that the police are also tired of the calls. Ms. Papanastasopoulos reiterated she previously supported the Mosque. Ms. Pam Warford, 2530 Church Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Ms. Warford stated her agreement with the freedom to practice religious beliefs but expressed concern that only the rights of the Center were being protected and her belief that it was unfair that the rights of the neighbors remained unaddressed. Ms. Warford inquired as to how many Board members had visited the site since the trees were tom down. A few members indicated they had. Ms. Warford stated the first thing that was done when the Mosque acquired the property was to cut down the trees. Ms. Warford stated the emotion involved is because, previous to the Mosque and the destruction of the trees, residents enjoyed the luxury of large parcels of land in a country setting with lots of greenery and many beautiful old trees. Ms. Warford cited it was difficult to view the Mosque as a good neighbor as a result. Ms. Warford suggested all of the distress could have been avoided if the parties involved had waited and planned. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 15 Ms. Warford requested the matter at issue be postponed. Ms. Warford added the neighbors and Mosque were attempting to discuss the issues with the help of the Alderman, who set up meeting last summer at Maine Township. Ms. Warford stated that Mike Conlan, Director, Department Community and Economic Development and the City Manager both attended. Ms. Warford stated residents were told the issues would be taken under review by the Economic Development Committee of the City Council and she only found out by accident that that was no longer the case. Ms. Warford stated her agreement that 20 spaces were insufficient to provide relief to the parking problem. Ms. Warford noted that parking is restricted on the side of Church Street where fire hydrants exist and that prevents the mail from being delivered on the opposite side. Noting the lateness of the hour, Ms. Warford suggested there are too many issues to address tonight. Ms. Warford asked the Board to keep in mind this is not a place of worship that is utilized only once a week, but an active community center. Ms. Warford stated residents want peace and quiet when they come home but instead often return to damage to their property. Ms. Warford respectfully requested other solutions than to make a decision tonight. Ms. Warford stated that continued discussion could result in Conditions being attached. Ms. Warford expressed concern over this parcel of land being just one piece of a larger plan, including a pending land swap. Ms. Warford stated it is imperative that residents reclaim their neighborhood without denying their right to worship. Chairman Seegers noted the ZBA meeting was posted. Ms. Warford stated only on Potter Road, where the legal address exists and which is under construction. Ms. Anna Marzec, 485 Good Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Ms. Marzec stated her parents live on Good Avenue and are most affected. Ms. Marzec stated the Mosque purchased the residential property next to her parents. Ms. Marzec inquired as to why the property was allowed to be such a mess and inquired as to who was responsible for cleaning the property. Ms. Marzec expressed dismay that 150 trees were cut overnight and a view that was once of a forest is now a view of a gigantic Mosque. Ms. Marzec expressed concern that Des Plaines does not have restrictions on cutting trees like Park Ridge. Ms. Marzec offered to send photographs of the dirt and garbage and general disarray of the property. Mr. Saletnik stated the Board prides itself on considering all aspects of each case and making decisions on the individual merit(s). Mr. Tom Harris, 348 Good, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Harris stated the neighbors' objective is not to prevent one's right to exercise their religious beliefs, but to secure their own rights as citizens and homeowners who have put a lot of money into their homes. Mr. Harris stated the neighbors are merely trying to protect their property and families. Mr. Harris stated his agreement that the rights of the residents have not been addressed. Mr. Harris stated it was unjust to invoke the religious aspects into issues that have nothing to do with religious freedom. Mr. Harris reiterated the residents are simply asking for an extension of time. Mr. Harris noted it would be meaningful if someone from the ZBA would serve as a proponent of the residents. Mr. Porada stated he sensed the friction results form the number of years that the residents enjoyed oversized lots and a wooded area that provided a country setting. Mr. Porada stated he purchased a home where it was unlikely the surrounding conditions would change. Mr. Porada stated the neighbors did not own all of the property in the area and, therefore, are unable to retain the bucolic setting. Mr. Szabo expressed concern over Continuing the matter. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 16 Chairman Seegers noted the ZBA was not privy to the community meetings. Mr. Saletnik suggested the Board be polled. Mr. Szabo stated he felt approval of additional parking would set a bad precedent for this location, particularly in light of the fact that the Center owns another large piece of property to the south. Mr. Szabo stated the Mosque was fortunate to have grown in size, but expressed concern over the continued intrusion into the surrounding neighborhood, which existed prior to the Mosque. Mr. Szabo expressed concern over the destruction of the quality of life in the area and suggested a shuttle service during Ramadan. Mr. Atanlleh Mohammed, 9123 Potter Road, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this matter. Mr. Mohammed stated he lives in the apartments adjacent to the Mosque. Mr. Mohammed stated he appreciated everyone staying so late and stated his understanding of the neighbor's sentiments. Mr. Mohammed stated, as a member and volunteer of the Mosque, he works very closely with the administration. Mr. Mohammed stated the Center wishes to work with the neighbors and take into consideration any of the zoning and neighborhood issues that need to be resolved. Mr. Mohammed stated the reason for the request is to alleviate some of the problems that currently exist. Mr. Mohammed stated his understanding of the neighbors' interest, emotion and other investment, but stated the Mosque is also part of the neighborhood and wishes to be more involved in the neighborhood. Mr. Mohammed stated the Center wants to make sure the neighbors' peace and privacy are respected. Chairman Seegers noted an opportunity to meet was requested to address items of safety, noise and parking. Mr. Mohammed stated he would love to invite the residents to meet with the administration and that he welcomed such a Condition being included along with a measurable way to make sure it would happen. Mr. Mohammed stated trespassing and destruction was not acceptable. Mr. Saletnik noted the ZBA Hearing was the only venue in which potential Conditions could be addressed and that would require a Continuance. Mr. Porada stated he had interest in reviewing some of the prior documentation. Chairman Seegers stated Mr. Mahmood had the choice of Continuing the case in order to meet with the neighbors or have a decision rendered this evening. Mr. Mahmood stated he would prefer the decision be made this evening. Mr. Saletnik inquired as to whether the ZBA had the ability to recommend City Council appoint a mediator before any further action is taken. Mr. Szabo stated it is incumbent upon petitioners to meet with neighbors to iron out any differences - that City Council does not have the ability to appoint such a person but reiterated it is in all parties' best interest to remedy the issues that exist. Chairman Seegers noted City Council received copies of the ZBA minutes. Mr. Sajid Afzal and his wife, 446 Good Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, were sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Afzal stated he is in a unique position as a member of both the Mosque and the community and understands both sides. Mr. Afzal stated he has the same stake in the neighborhood and agrees with the grievances stated. Mr. Afzal stated his affiliation with the Mosque does not make him prone to allow the Mosque to do anything they want. Mr. Afzal expressed concern over the animosity and hostility that exists. Mr. Afzal stated he has only lived in the area for three years but does not want to raise his family in a hostile environment. Mr. Afzal stated his belief that the additional parking would alleviate some of the existing problems. Mr. Afzal stated with that issue addressed tonight, they will have the ability to move onto the next stage. Mr. Afzal stated the Mosque wants to establish relations with its neighbors. Mr. Afzal stated he does not believe the Mosque has done as much as it should to that end. Mr.Afzal stated that doing so is not only the right thing to do, but is actually an Article of their faith - to be sure the neighbors are completely content and that the Mosque is not impeding upon them. Mr. Afzal stated the issue must be resolved. As a resident, Mr. Afzal volunteered to serve as an intermediary to the Mosque. Mr. Afzal agreed to a sit-down meeting to negotiate even if the result extended beyond City Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 17 Ordinances Mrs. Afzal stated she does not have much to add - that her husband stated their viewpoint beautifully. Mrs. Afzal stated she is a teacher and apologized for the behavior of the teenagers who are disrupting the neighbors. Mrs. Afzal asked that the Mosque not be held responsible for teen behaviors. Mrs. Afzal agreed the area is ugly and dirty and stated she is also tired of looking at it and urged the ZBA not to delay any longer. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated she also teaches at the high school and some of the children offer their apologies on Monday morning. Ms. Papanastasopoulos stated the meeting last summer was heated but that constructive suggestions resulted - such as shuttles to the church on Ballard Road, an underground parking structure and the like. Ms. Papanastasopoulos asked for the opportunity to allow the residents and the Mosque to negotiate further since nothing had transpired since. Ms. Papanastasopoulosstated this case was no different than the auto dealer case heard earlier and urged the Board not to take any action this evening. Mr. Jose Garcia, 420 Good Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Garcia stated he believes there are too many meetings like this one - a lot of talk and no solution. Mr. Garcia stated the police have been called too many times without any solution to the problems that exist. Mr. Garcia suggested more meetings are not the answer. Chairman Seegers sought feedback from members of the Board. Mr. Szabo stated he believes approval would set a bad precedent and that it would only be a band-aid to a much larger problem. Mr. Szabo noted that if the entity involved were a widget factory, the ZBA would surely deny the request. A motion was made by Szabo, seconded by Porada, to recommend the expansion of parking areas at an existing Place of Worship in the R-1 District be DENIED. Mr. Porada stated many issues raised have nothing to do with the Conditional Use request currently before the Board. Mr. Porada noted these type of hearings often spin out of control as a result of tit-for-tat issues. Mr. Porada expressed concern of precedent and changing the character within neighborhood. Mr. Porada noted that, given the number of parcels of land involved, a monolithic institutional use between Potter and Good could result. Mr. Porada stated his vote is based solely on use of property and precedent approval would set and has nothing to do with any other issues. Mr. Saletnik stated to vote down is like running away from the problem. Mr. Saletnik stated he would like more information about what transpired in the past and what is/is not legally applicable. Mr. Saletnik noted the size of the proposed parking lot is not large enough to solve the problem. Mr. Saletnik expressed concern of the land swap discussed by petitioner. Mr. Saletnik stated his opinion that adequate onsite parking is required to alleviate the mail delivery and other problems that exist and that this can only be accomplished with an integrated plan. Mr. Szabo stated he did not feel rehashing the matter would be productive and that is why he made a motion to vote on the matter before the Board this evening. Mr. Porada stated his agreement. Mr. Porada noted it was the petitioner's choice to have a decision this evening. Mr. Hoefherr suggested that, if the request were denied, that the Mosque return with a more comprehensive parking plan. Mr. Hoefherr suggested alternative solutions may better address the concerns raised. Mr. Hofherr stated his agreement that 23 parking spaces are not adequate to address the current parking problem. Chairman Seegers stated the letter issued by the ZBA must include items to support the recommendation made. Chairman Seegers stated the fact that the proposal does not solve the issue is a valid reason, as is mail delivery and issues of safety. Chairman Seegers agreed that these issues must be addressed before a Conditional Use is considered. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 18 AYES: Szabo, Porada, Hofherr, Seegers NAYES: Saletnik, Catalano MOTION CARRIED Chairman Seegers encouraged the Mosque and the neighbors to work together to solve the existing issues. Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 19 Case #10-015-V —1451 Henry Avenue Request: A Variation to Section 7.2-4-D of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to legalize the construction of a deck with a 1 -foot 6 -inch side yard setback where a minimum side yard setback of 5 -feet is required by Code within the R-1 Zoning District. Mr. Ron Lundgren, 1141 Lee Street, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Lundgren stated he built a deck in the back yard and that it is too close, approximately 18 inches, from the neighbor's fence. Mr. Lundgren stated he is now seeking a Variance, at the suggestion of Al Biancalana, Building Department, because the Ordinance requires a 5 -foot setback. Mr. Lundgren stated it is a nice deck and that the neighbors are happy with it. Mr. Lundgren stated none expressed any complaint and that each signed the acknowledgement. Mr. Lundgren stated he and his wife would appreciate it if the Board would allow them to keep the deck. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the deck had been built with a Permit. Mr. Lundgren stated it had not. Mr. Lundgren stated he is aware that if the Variance is granted, he is required to pay double the Permit fee. Referencing the aerial photo, Chairman Seegers inquired as to the placement of the deck. Mr. Lundgren stated the tree in the yard had been struck by lightning several times and had been removed. Chairman Seegers confirmed the structure had been built over the root area. Mr. Lundgren confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed the construction of the deck was one that is floating and not one that is permanent. Mr. Lundgren confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed there is no concrete foundation. Mr. Lundgren confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to how long Mr. Lundgren has lived in Des Plaines. Mr. Lundgren stated he has lived in Des Plaines for approximately 40 years. Mr. Porada inquired as to what Mr. Lundgren does for a living. Mr. Lundgren stated he is a machinist/plant manager. Mr. Porada inquired as to how long Mr. Lundgren has lived in the home. Mr. Lundgren stated approximately one year. Noting Mr. Lundgren grew up in Des Plaines, Mr. Porada inquired as to whether any improvements had been made at Mr. Lundgren's parents' home. Mr. Lundgren stated nothing that ever required a permit - that they just painted the house approximately every three years. Mr. Lundgren stated he did not have to call Julie because he did not dig and, as a result, thought it would be okay. Mr. Lundgren stated the deck is not attached to the house. Mr. Porada confirmed the deck encroaches on the side yard. Mr. Lundgren stated it does, to the east. Mr. Porada cited his personal policy to never approve after -the -fact Variations. Mr. Porada noted the floating deck could easily be made to conform. Mr. Lundgren stated he would prefer not to move the deck. Mr. Porada noted that Staff more often than not recommends approval of zoning requests, but in this case, Staff recommended denial. Mr. Porada inquired as to the size of the lot. Mr. Mangum stated the lot is 50 -feet wide. Mr. Porada noted the deck is 19 -feet by 24 -feet. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the petitioner had been provided a copy of the Staff Report. Mr. Mangum confirmed he had. Mr. Hofherr noted Building Permits are required so that inspections are made to ensure proper installation. Mr. Hofherr questioned whether footings are required. Mr. Hofherr reiterated the fact that the deck extending too close to the neighbor's property is also a major problem and violation of City Code. Mr. Lundgren stated that, although the deck is built too close to the property line, it is well built. Mr. Lundgren noted that if it were cement, there would be no issue. Mr. Lundgen asked if he would have to return before the ZBA if he chose to reduce the size and install brick pavers and whether he would have to pay an additional fee. Mr. Hofherr stated he was unaware of the Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 20 procedure. Mr. Mangum stated he would check Building Code to ascertain whether a raised patio is considered a structure. Mr. Lundgren inquired as to whether it is possible to have the Variance approved and how others obtain approval. Mr. Szabo stated each case is unique and determined as a result of individual circumstances. Mr. Lundgren reiterated that the deck is a positive improvement and asked the Board to consider that it has not caused any friction with his neighbors. Mr. Saletnik asked how the City was informed. Mr. Mangum stated he was unsure but that often these issues result from a complaint to Code Enforcement, but could not be sure that was the case in this particular instance. Mr. Dan Dicks, 1435 Henry, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Dicks stated Mr. Saletnik and Chairman Seegers know him and were on the Board when he received a Variance for his porch. Mr. Dicks stated every lot on the block is non -conforming. Mr. Dicks added his garage is 18 -inches from the lot line, as is his neighbors'. Mr. Dicks asked the Board to consider the extenuating circumstances in this particular neighborhood. Mr. Dicks stated everything requires a Variance and asked the Board to consider approval in light of Mr. Dicks' wife's health. Mr. Dicks stated she has lived in the home, where she raised four children, for 24 years. Mr. Dicks added Mrs. Lundgren has had six back surgeries in recent years and has limited mobility and that, in addition to the non-conformance of the lots, should be considered a hardship. Mr. Dicks stated Mr. Lundgren's intention was not to skate on a permit. Mr. Dicks stated Mr. Lundgren is aware he did not proceed properly. Mr. Dicks asked the Board show consideration for the work done and allow a long time resident the ability to enjoy her property. Mr. Lundgren confirmed the neighbors do not have problem with the deck. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Chairman Seegers called for questions of Mr. Mangum by members of the Board. None were raised. Chairman Seeger stated the definition of a deck, versus a patio, is at issue. Chairman Seegers stated a deck is raised above ground and considered a structure and noted this falls somewhere in between. Chairman Seegers noted that reducing the deck by 3.5 -feet is not the best proportion for the deck. Mr. Szabo stated his agreement. A motion was made by Szabo, seconded by Catalano, to legalize the construction of a deck with a 1 -foot 6 - inch side yard setback where a minimum side yard setback of 5 -feet is required by Code within the R-1 Zoning District. Mr. Hofherr stated that including a Condition to reduce the width to meet current Code would present no hardship. Mr. Szabo stated his motion remains as stated. Mr. Saletnik stated he has personally dealt with trees with low root structure and considers Mother Nature another created hardship. AYES: Szabo, Catalano, Saletnik, Seegers NAYES: Hofherr, Porada MOTION CARRIED Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 21 Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 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 a money transfer (Currency Exchange) operation in the C-3 District. Mr. Dickran Hanowick, 1108 Lee Street, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Porada inquired as to the relationship of Mr. Hanowick to the petitioner, Mr. Leon Levikov. Mr. Hanowick stated he is the General Manager for the business. Mr. Hofherr inquired as to whether Mr. Hanowick owns the property. Mr. Hanowick stated the property is leased. Chairman Seegers inquired as to Mr. Levikov's position. Mr. Hanowick stated Mr. Levikov is another manager. Chairman Seegers confirmed both gentlemen are from the same company. Mr. Hanowick confirmed that was correct. Mr. Hanowick added Mr. Levikov had to leave town on an emergency. Mr. Hanowick stated he requested Mr. Levikov pursue this matter. Mr. Hofherr confirmed Mr. Hanowick also operates out of the Des Plaines location. Mr. Hanowick confirmed he does. Chairman Seegers noted that no ownership was present. Mr. Mangum stated the owner had signed the application but was not present. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the owner was aware of the request. Mr. Hanowick stated he is. Mr. Saletnik inquired as to whether any physical changes to the property are planned. Mr. Hanowick stated none are. Mr. Saletnik inquired as to whether any of the walls would be changed. Mr. Hanowick stated none would. Mr. Saletnik inquired about the construction of a pass-through window. Mr. Hanowick stated a portion of the building had been specified for this use. Mr. Szabo inquired as to the nature of the business and whether it would operate as a currency exchange. Mr. Hanowick stated the business would not operate as a traditional currency exchange, but provide limited services, such as wire transfers. Mr. Salentik confirmed the business transfers funds back and forth overseas. Mr. Hanowick stated also within the United States. Mr. Porada confirmed the business acts as an intermediary service for the transfer of funds using cash or credit card. Mr. Hanowick confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether other services, such as check cashing, were applicable. Mr. Hanowick stated if possible. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether the reason for the currency exchange classification resulted from the money transfer service. Mr. Mangum stated the zoning classification was determined by the Zoning Administrator because no classification specific to this type of business exists. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether Staff would recommend in favor of a full currency exchange. Mr. Mangum stated Staffs recommendation was based on the petitioner's request. Mr. Porada asked whether that was acceptable to Mr. Hanowick. Mr. Hanowick stated that he would operate within the limits of whatever the City permits. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether loans would be made. Mr. Hanowick stated none would. Mr. Porada inquired as to the definition of a currency exchange. Mr. Mangum stated the Ordinance does not provide a definition. Mr. Porada suggested a definition is required. Chairman Seegers stated his agreement. Mr. Saletnik noted a money transfer can be made two ways. Mr. Hanowick stated he only wishes to have the ability to send money. Mr. Porada expressed concern over the volume of traffic and parking associated with the operation of a traditional currency exchange. Mr. Szabo inquired as to whether a money transfer store still exists on Prairie Street. Mr. Porada stated he is unsure, but is aware of the business to which Mr. Szabo referred. Mr. Hanowick inquired as to whether he was also permitted to operate his jewelry business at the proposed location. Chairman Seegers stated that was a separate issue. Mr. Porada noted a business license would be required. Mr. Saletnik stated jewelers normally operate in a typical retail environment. Mr. Hanowick stated he has a business license. Mr. Hofherr inquired as to whether the business license pertained to this location. Mr. Hanowick stated the business license is applicable to another location. Chairman Seegers added that the jewelry store/repair is a permitted use. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 22 Chairman Seegers stated he did not see a plan illustrating the interior alterations required for the proposed use. Mr. Mangum confirmed only the window was constructed. Citing the Plan of Operation, Mr. Saletnik noted the plan indicated a motor vehicle and parts sales business with two employees. Mr. Hanowick confirmed that was correct. Mr. Saletnik confirmed the petitioner intended to add this service within the existing business. Mr. Hanowick 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. No persons were present in the audience. A motion was made by Saletnik, seconded by Szabo, to recommend authorization of the operation of a money transfer (Currency Exchange) operation in the C-3 District, with the added Condition to allow checks to be cashed. MOTION CARRIED Case #10 -003 -CU - 1141 Lee Street (cont'd) Case #10 -017 -CU - 1855 E. Oakton Street Case #10 -018 -CU - 480 Potter Road Case #10-015-V - 1415 Henry Avenue Case #10 -012 -CU - 1108 Lee Street May 25, 2010 Page 23 A motion was made by Saletnik, seconded by Catlano, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting adjourned at 12:44 A. M. on Wednesday, May 26, 2010. The next meeting of the Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals is Tuesday, June 15, 2010. Respectfully submitted, A. William Seegers, Chairman Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Cc: City Officials Alderm en Commissioners, Zoning Board of Appeals Petitioner(s)