Loading...
06/29/2010DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 29, 2010 MINUTES The Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 29, 2010, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, 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, Department of Community and Economic Development. Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at 7:33 P. M. Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 2 Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Request: A Variation under Section 11.5-2-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to legalize an existing monument sign which will be setback O'from the front property line after IDOT Right -of -Way acquisition instead of 5' as required in the C-2 District. Attorney Stephen Schuster was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Schuster stated that written notice was received from IDOT in July, 2009, stating that 7 -feet of frontage would be lost as a result of the River Road widening project. Mr. Schuster stated that the building sign that currently exists and conforms would become non -conforming in the after condition. Mr. Schuster stated hardships exist for his client in that the use of the sign could be permanently lost if not permitted the requested Variance and added that there is no appropriate location at the south building entrance to which to relocate the sign. Mr. Schuster cited the parking lot and other space restrictions as contributing factors prohibiting relocation of the sign. Chairman Seegers confirmed the sign would remain as it currently exists without change. Mr. Schuster confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed the reason for the issue was that frontage was taken by IDOT. Mr. Schuster confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers confirmed there would be no changes or improvements to the existing sign. Mr. Schuster confirmed that was correct. Referencing the photographs contained in the Commissioners' packets, Mr. Porada identified the sign would be located between the right-of-way and the new sidewalk. Mr. Schuster stated the sidewalk that is currently 2-3 feet wide will become 5 -feet wide after the [River Road} widening project is completed. Mr. Porada inquired as to the fate of the bus enclosure. Mr. Schuster stated his understanding is that the bus enclosure will be demolished and relocated by IDOT and added he was not involved in the discussions relating to the bus enclosure. Mr. Porada confirmed no landscaping was proposed. Mr. Schuster confirmed that was correct. Mr. Porada inquired as to the tree located west of the sign. Mr. Schuster stated the building, the tree, the parking lot are all factors prohibiting the relocation of the sign. Mr. Schuster reiterated the sign currently conforms. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether parking spaces would be lost if the sign were moved. Noting the sign would have to be moved another 5 -feet back in order to conform, Mr. Schuster confirmed some would. Mr. Porada inquired as to the total number of signs on River Road. Stating he did not believe the north sign was visible in the photographs, Mr. Schuster stated the north sign would remain in conformance. Mr. Porada confirmed IDOT had no issue with leaving the south sign at its present location. Mr. Schuster confirmed IDOT had no issue with the sign remaining in place. Mr. Schuster added he participated in extensive negotiations with IDOT with regard to the retaining wall in the front of his client's property. Mr. Catalano asked Mr. Mangum whether a barrier curb was planned. Mr. Mangum stated he was not aware of the proposed configuration. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions of Mr. Schuster by members of the Board. None were raised. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 3 Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Variation under Section 11.5-2-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to legalize an existing monument sign which will be setback 0' from the front property line after IDOT Right -of -Way acquisition instead of 5' as required in the C-2 District. Analysis: Address: 2800 River Road Existing Zoning: C-2, Limited Office Commercial District Petitioner: Stephen R. Schuster, 330 N. Wabash St, Chicago, IL 60611 Owner(s): S.M. Brell II, L.P., c/o CBRE, 40 Shuman Boulevard, Naperville, IL In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information: A four-story office building and three-level parking garage is located on the approximately 85,695 square - foot lot at 2800 Des Plaines River Road. As part of roadway improvement to Des Plaines River Road the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) is taking a portion of the lot along the Des Plaines River Road frontage. Although the existing building and one of two monument signs will remain conforming, a second monument sign will become nonconforming. The applicant has requested a variation to allow the sign to remain with an approximately 0' (.048") setback, instead of the 5' required by code. A setback variation of greater than 30% may be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Recommendation:Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the above -requested setback variation based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions imposed by Section 3.6-8 (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined by the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. The taking for a public roadway improvement project is out of the control of the property owner and presents a unique hardship. The existing sign is not located in close proximity to a driveway, and thus does not create any visibility concerns. Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure Under Section 3.6-6 of the Zoning Ordinance (Variations) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned variance for the monument sign setback in the C-2 zoning district. Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. No persons came forward. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether the building setback would be an issue. Mr. Mangum stated the building setback will remain conforming. A motion was made by Catalano, seconded by Saletnik, to legalize an existing monument sign which will be setback O'from the front property line after IDOT Right -of -Way acquisition instead of 5' as required in the C-2 District. AYES: Catalano, Saletnik, Hofherr, Szabo, Porada, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 4 Case #10 -023 -CU —1495 Prospect Avenue Request: A Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.2-4-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize a change in land use in the R-1 District. Architect Antonio Fanizza and Mr. Duc Nguyen were sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Fanizza stated the Temple purchased the property west in order to expand its parking with twelve additional parking spaces. Mr. Fanizza stated the additional property will help alleviate the neighbors' issues and the problems with street parking. Mr. Fanizza stated landscaping is planned around the parking lot with a fence as well as an emergency gate that meets fire requirements. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the number of parking spaces in the existing parking lot. Mr. Fanizza stated there are currently 16 parking spaces. Chairman Seegers confirmed the additional parking will provide 12 additional spaces. Mr. Fanizza confirmed that was correct. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the entrance and exit. Mr. Fanizza stated a gate is planned at the alley. Mr. Fanizza added that the Temple prefers to control the traffic in/out of the two-way driveway. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the size of the Temple's membership. Mr. Ngyuen stated the membership is between 30 and 100 persons. Mr. Ngyuen stated that worship takes place on the weekends only and that approximately 30-40 persons present. Chairman Seegers inquired as to whether any education classes are held. Mr. Ngyuen stated none at this time, but perhaps in the future. Chairman Seegers inquired as to the hours of operation. Mr. Ngyuen stated the Temple is open from 7:00 A. M. to 7:00 P. M. on the weekend and reiterated that there is a maximum of approximately 40 persons on site during the weekend. Chairman Seegers called for questions of the petitioner by members of the Board. Mr. Porada questioned Staffs rationale with regard to Condition #1, which requires a sliding gate at the south end. Mr. Mangum stated Staff felt it would be easier to exit through the alley, particularly during peak periods, if the lot were full. Mr. Mangum stated that without alley access the only other alternative was to make vehicles turn around or back up through the parking area and hope that there were no other cars queued behind the one attempting to exit. Mr. Porada inquired as to whether any signage is planned in the alley to direct traffic west. Mr. Mangum confirmed signage is planned. Mr. Mangum added that is the shortest means of egress [from the parking area]. Mr. Porada questioned the one entrance/exit configuration. Mr. Mangum stated there is an existing curb cut on Prospect and that another is planned for the new lot. Mr. Mangum stated no vehicles were permitted in/out on Illinois Street. Mr. Hofherr inquired as to whether a permit had been acquired for the demolition of the existing home on the property. Mr. Mangum stated he believed one had and that the demolition was in progress. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions of the petitioner by members of the Board. None were raised. Chairman Seegers called for the Staff Report to be read by Mr. Mangum. Staff Report: Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 5 Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.2-4-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize a change in land use in the R-1 District. Analysis: Proposed Use Place of Worship Petitioner Phat Bao Temple, 1495 Prospect Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018 Owner Phat Bao Temple, 1495 Prospect Ave., Des Plaines, IL 60018 Existing Use Vacant two story single family detached residence Surrounding Land Use North: Single Family Residential East: Parking Lot South: Single Family Residential West: Single Family Residential Existing Zoning R-1, Single Family Residential Surrounding Zoning North: R-1, Single Family Residential East: R-1, Single Family Residential South: R-1, Single Family Residential West: R-1, Single Family Residential Street Classification Prospect Avenue is a Local Street. Comprehensive Plan Recommends Single Family Residential use for this site. The applicant, Phat Bao Temple, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to change the existing land use at 1469 Prospect from a single family residential to a parking lot. In its present condition, the 6,250 square foot parcel contains a vacant two story single family detached residence. The applicant plans on demolishing the house to create additional parking to supplement the temple's existing parking lot (see Attachment 2 Location Map). The present lot is located in the parcel immediately east to the proposed site and will be separated by an eight foot wide landscaped strip (see Exhibit B Landscaping Plan). The main sanctuary of the temple is approximately 1,465 square feet and does not have affixed seating. To that end, the Zoning Ordinance requires one off-street parking space for every 60 square feet of the central area of worship. The temple currently has a legal nonconforming sum of 14 parking spaces. The planned parking lot proposes an additional 12 spaces and would satisfy the current Off -Street Parking Requirements of Section 93 (minimum 24 needed). Conditions of Approval are recommended to mitigate potential circulation issues by installing a sliding gate at the south end of the proposed lot and a one-way sign directing exiting vehicles west (on an existing vacated alley) towards Deane Street (see Attachment 3 Site and Context Photos). The applicant has stated that the parking lots would only be utilized on Sundays Due to the nature of this request, staff has agreed to waive the traffic study. Conditional Use Findings: As required by Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed development is reviewed below: A. The proposed conditional use is in fact a conditional use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 6 Comment: A Place of worship is a conditional use in R-1, Single Family Residential District, as specified in Section 7.2-4-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. B. The proposed conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The Comprehensive Plan recommends single-family residential use; institutional places of worship are recommended conditional uses within R-1 districts. C. The proposed conditional use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity: Comment: The proposed parking lot is designed and to be constructed, operated and maintained under the requirements of the City Zoning Ordinance and Building Code. Conditions of Approval incorporate operational requirements to lessen the impact of traffic. D. The proposed conditional use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: The proposed conditional use would not be hazardous or disturb the surrounding neighborhood uses. Based on the Zoning Ordinance and size of the place of worship, the additional parking lot would provide the appropriate amount of off-street parking. E. The proposed conditional use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the conditional use shall provide adequately any such services: Comment: After reviewing the petitioner's plans, the proposed conditional use would be served adequately by essential public facilities and would not require additional public services. F. The proposed conditional use does not create excessive additional requirements at public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of the entire community: Comment: The proposed conditional use would not create an additional burden on public facilities nor would it be detrimental to the economic well being of the community. G. The proposed conditional use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors: Comment: The proposed parking lot is not anticipated to create additional traffic, noise, or odors that could be detrimental to surrounding land uses. Conversely, the conditional use is anticipated to reduce the amount of parking on surrounding residential streets. 11. The proposed conditional use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares: Comment: The proposed conditional use is not anticipated to generate an increase in traffic, and therefore not negatively affect current traffic conditions. 1. The proposed conditional use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic:, or historic features of major importance: Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 7 Comment: The proposed conditional use would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance. J. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the conditional use requested: Comment: It appears that the proposed conditional use complies with all additional regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: The Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit request for the additional parking at Phat Bao Temple, based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant shall install a sliding gate at the south end of the proposed lot and a one-way sign directing exiting vehicles west towards Deane Street. 2. The applicant shall provide both mobility -impaired accessible parking spaces as shown on the submitted Site Plan (Exhibit A). 3. All parking areas shall be surfaced and striped to meet all applicable Building Code hard surface requirements. Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure: Under Section 3.4-4-C of the Zoning Ordinance (Conditional Uses) the City Council has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned conditional use permit. Chairman Seegers called for questions or comments by members of the audience, either in favor of or in objection to the proposal. Four persons in the audience raised their hand in favor of the proposal. Mr. Jim Crandall, 1486 Prospect, Des Plaines, Illinois, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Crandall stated he lives directly north of the Temple. Mr. Crandall stated the Temple has been an excellent neighbor. Mr. Crandall stated the services at the Temple are not typical of church services - that members of the Temple help their members park, despite weather conditions. Mr. Crandall noted the Temple has also made improvements to their property as well as the neighborhood. Mr. Crandall stated his support of the proposal and reiterated the Temple has been an excellent neighbor. Chairman Seegers called for additional questions by members of the Board. None were raised. Mr. Szabo stated it was refreshing to hear neighbors and non -profits getting along. A motion was made by Mr. Hofherr, seconded by Mr. Szabo, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit to authorize a change in land use for a parking lot at a place of worship in the R-1 District. AYES: Hofherr, Szabo, Porada, Saletnik, Catalano, Seegers NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 8 Case #10-021-V — 2800 River Road Case #10 -023 -CU — 1495 Prospect Avenue June 29, 2010 Page 9 A motion was made by Hofherr, seconded by Saletnik, to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:59 P. M. The next meeting of the Des Plaines Plan Commission is Tuesday, July 13, 2010. Sincerely, A. W. Seegers, Chairman Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Cc: City Officials Aldermen Zoning Board of Appeals