03/08/2011�,y--%g
is os , DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
MARCH 8, 2011
MINUTES
DES PLAINES
ILLINOIS
The Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, March 8,
2011, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PRESENT: Catalano, Hofhe¢, Porada, Saletnik, Szabo
ABSENT: Seegers
Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community and Economic Development.
Acting Chairman called the meeting to order at7:30 P.M.
Case Number: 10-062-V
Address: 235 N. Wolf Road
Petitioner: Cornell Krieger, 235 N. Wolf Road, Des Plaines IL 60016
Request: The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 8.1-3C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended: to legalize the construction of a shed with existing side and war yard
setbacks of approximately 6", where the minimum setback required for the side and war yard is 5'
for an accessory structure within the R-1 zoning district.
Cornell Krieger, petitioner, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Krieger stated that he has a shed on the
property and had he known he needed to have a permit he would have applied for one. Therefore, he is asking now
for a variance for his shed. Mr. Krieger stated that he only has 30% yard space that is usable and flat, the remainder
of the yard in on an incline. Mr. Krieger added that the property located at 214 8's street has their shed
approximately one foot from their fence. Mr. Krieger then passed on to the Board pictures of his neighbor's yard
and fence.
Mr. Porada asked if a permit was required to build a shed. Mr. Mangum stated that was true, but there were
exceptions such as a Rubbermaid -type product under a certain size. Mr. Porada asked if the applicant had gotten a
permit to put up his fence. Mr. Krieger responded that he had. Mr. Porada asked why he had not gotten a permit for
the shed. Mr. Krieger responded that he did not realize that a permit was required to put up a shed in his own
backyard.
Mr. Porada stated there were three things he wanted to state for the record:
1. The tree in the yard posed no significance in this case.
2. Staff recommended denial.
3. He does not believe approving after -the -fact variations because it promotes bad behavior.
Mr. Saletnik asked if the shed was on concrete slab and the type of shed. Mr. Krieger stated he bought the shed at
Home Depot; that the shed was a wooden structure; that it was not a permanent fixture; and that he would be able to
move it. Further, he understood that it had to be moved, but requested that he be permitted to position it in his yard
much in the fashion as his neighbor
Case #10-062-V - 235 N. Wolf Road
March 8, 2011
Page 2
Mr. Salemik stated that there was an encroachment onto the easement and that the Petitioner had inquired ComEd
for permission to install the shed. Further, the Petitioner had received a response from Com Ed that gave him
permission to install the shed next to the utility pole. Mr. Krieger concurred.
Mr. Saletnik asked why he put the shed where it was located. Mr. Salemik understood about the Petitioner's issue
with the free in the yard, but did not understand why he wanted the shed located next to ComEd utility pole. He
understood why he put the shed where it was located because moving it two or three feet from the fence, when the
yard was small to begin with, would not maximize the usable space in his yard.
Mr. Catalano asked if there was an increased cost for variation requests. Mr. Mangum stated there was not and went
into further detail about the building permit costs involved when work is started without a permit.
Acting Chairman Szabo stated he did not have a problem with the back yard, but he thought it would be prudent to
move the shed away from the side property line.
Mr. Hotherr stated that the free on his property would eventually grow and interfere with the utility pole wires. He
suggested that the Petitioner consider removing the free, and solve the issue of placement of the shed. He further
stated that if the Petitioner had originally applied for the permit, he would have been told that the shed could not be
placed in the current location.
Mr. Porada stated that the request was simply either to allow the after -the -fact variation concerning the current shed
location or to deny it.
Acting Chairman Szabo stated that the Board had tweaked plans a number of times over the years for the good of the
City and for the community at large. He suggested that the Board could recommend movement of the shed, instead
of putting the Petitioner through the ordeal of coming before the ZBA again for placement of the shed.
Acting Chairman Szabo asked if there were members of the audience in favor or opposed to the proposal. No
audience members raised their hand in objection to the proposal.
Acting Chairman Szabo called for the staff report to be read by Mr. Mangum
Staff Report:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 8.1-3C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance,
as amended: to legalize the construction of a shed with existing side and rear -yard setbacks of approximately 6",
where the minimum setback required for the side and rear -yard is 5' for an accessory structure within the R-1 zoning
district.
Analysis:
Address: 235 N. Wolf Road
Existing Zoning: R-1, Single -Family Residential
Petitioner: Cornell Krieger, 235 N. Wolf Road, Des Plaines IL 60016
Owner(s): Cornell Krieger, 235 N. Wolf Road, Des Plaines IL 60016
In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information:
The 50' by 124' (approximately 6,200 square foot) lot at 235 N. Wolf Road is a legal nonconforming lot with respect to
lot width and lot size, as a 55' lot width and 6,875 SF lot size would be required of a new subdivision. A bi-level brick
and frame single-family residence with a driveway and detached one and a half -car garage currently exist on site. The
applicant requests to legalize a 96 square foot shed located approximately 6" from the south property line and 6" from
the east property line. The applicant has obtained a letter from Commonwealth Edison stating no objection to the
encroachment into the easement. The applicant requests to legalize the shed at this location because the slope of the lot
Case #10-062-V - 235 N. Wolf Road
March 8, 2011
Page 3
and presence of a tree limits the flat yard space for use as a children's play area. This request, a setback variation of
greater than 30%, is a standard variation and will be considered by the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the above -requested variation for the location of an accessory
structure 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. Although
the lot size and width are nonconforming (resulting in less yard space than a conforming lot); a slope in the rear
yard; and the presence of a mature tree near the rear and side setbacks; there appears to be ample room for a shed
outside the required setbacks on either the north or south side of the property.
Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure:
Under Section 3.6-6 of the Zoning Ordinance (Standard Variations) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority
to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned variances for the side -yard and rear -yard
setbacks in the R-1 zoning district.
Mr. Saletnik stated that in light of the fact that the structure is moveable and that ComEd had granted permission of
the easement, he would vote in favor of the approval of the Petitioner's request.
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to recommend approval of
variations to Section 8.1-3C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, modified as follows: "...excepting
the rear set back of 6" and side set -back to 18" for the construction of a shed, where the minimum setback required
for the side and rear -yard is 5' for an accessory structure within the R-1 zoning district."
AYES: Catalano, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: Hotherr, Porada
MOTION DENIED
0000
There was further discussion with the Petitioner on what the next steps for him would be and how long he would
have to wait on reapplying for a variation or for pulling a permit to put up the shed in a different location.
Acting Chairman Szabo suggested that the petitioner speak with Mr. Mangum regarding his next steps and that he
work with the Building Department.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 p.m. by unanimous voice vote. The next meeting of the Des Plaines Zoning
Board of Appeals is on Tuesday, March 29, 2011.
Sincerely,
James Szabo, Acting Chairman
Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals
cc: City Officials
Aldermen
Zoning Board of Appeals