09/13/2011CRY OF
DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
n a September 13, 2011
MINUTES
DES PLAINES
IWNOIS
The Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September
13, 2011, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PRESENT: Szabo, Saletnik, Hotherr, Porada, Seegers, Catalano (arrived at 7:42 P.M.)
ABSENT: None
Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community.
Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at7:36 P.M.
Approval of the August 9, 2011, meeting minutes.
A motion was made by Board Member Salemik, seconded by Board Member Szabo, to approve the minutes August
9, 2011, hearing.
AYES: Szabo, Saletnik, Hothefr, Porada, Seegers
NAYES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
MOTION CARRIED
Approval of the August 30, 2011, meeting minutes.
A motion was made by Board Member Salemik, seconded by Board Member Szabo, to approve the minutes August
30, 2011, hearing.
AYES: Szabo, Saletnik, Hothefr, Porada, Seegers
NAYES: None
ABSTENTIONS: None
MOTION CARRIED
Case Number: 11-042-V
Address: 1225 S. Third Avenue
Petitioner: Ted T. Powal, 1225 S. Third Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
Case #11 -041 -CU -V — 877 Central Road
Case #11-042-V — 1225 S. Third Avenue
Case #11-043-V — 977 Clark Lane
September 13, 2011
Page 2
Request: The petitioner is requesting variations to Sections 8.1-1-C and 8.1-3-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the construction of an accessory structure (garage) that is taller than the
primary structure (house), where an accessory structure should be subordinate in height to the primary structure, and
with a side -yard setback of 3'-6", where the minimum side -yard setback allowed is 5' for an accessory structure in
the R-1 zoning district
[Board Member Catalano joined the meeting at this time, 7:42 P.M.]
Petitioner, Ted T. Powal, was sworn in and stated that he needed the garage taller than the house for storage. Every
time it rains, all the water runs towards his house and it (the basement) floods, ruining personal belongings, etc.
Cannot use the attic because it will not support the weight Therefore, he needed enough garage space so that they
can walk up the stairs so that they can store personal belongings. There are other garages in the area that are the
same as what he wants to build.
Chairman Seegers asked if it would be a frame construction garage. Mr. Powal stated it would be frame
construction with dry wall which would be fire rated.
Board Member Saletnik asked about the other locations of garages similar to what petitioner wanted to build and if
they were approved. Mr. Mangum stated that there was a variance for at least one of those garages.
Mr. Powal stated that the actual garage which is identical to the one shown on attachment 3.
Board Member Saletnik stated that the garage would also have a gambrel roof. Mr. Powal stated it would.
Board Member Porada asked if the garages were the same as the proposed garage regarding the height of the garage.
Mr. Mangum stated that he was not sure and could not tell from the field survey.
Chairman Seegers asked why the garage doors would be 8' high instead of the norm of 7'. Mr. Powal explained that
his existing garage door had to be adjusted to a 7.5' height in order to fit his van and Ford Explorer, which are taller
than the norm of 7'.
Chairman Seegers asked for the report to be read in by Mr. Mangum.
Issue: The petitioner is requesting variations to Sections 8.1-1-C and 8.1-3-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the construction of an accessory structure (garage) that is taller than the
primary structure (house), where an accessory structure should be subordinate in height to the primary structure, and
with a side -yard setback of 3'-6", where the minimum side -yard setback allowed is 5' for an accessory structure in
the R-1 zoning district
Analysis:
Address:
1225 S. Third Avenue
Existing Zoning:
R-1, Single Family Residential District
Petitioner:
Ted T. Powal, 1225 S. Third Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
Owner(s):
Ted T. Powal, 1225 S. Third Avenue, Des Plaines, IL
In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information:
Case #11 -041 -CU -V — 877 Central Road
Case #11-042-V — 1225 S. Third Avenue
Case #11-043-V — 977 Clark Lane
September 13, 2011
Page 3
The 55' by 130' lot (7,150 square foot), at 1225 S Third Avenue is a legal conforming lot. A one story frame
residence with aluminum siding with a driveway and detached rear garage currently exists on site. The applicant has
proposed to demolish and replace the existing approximately 20' by 20' garage with a new 720 square -foot garage
(24' x 30'). The proposed garage would be located 3' 6" from the south property line, the same as the existing
garage.
As proposed the building height of the garage measures approximately 12' 9", the average between the eaves
(approximately 8') and ridge level (17' 6'). This would comply with the maximum height allowed for an accessory
structure of 15' to the midpoint. However, the height of the house is 15' 6" to the ridge and 11' 10 1/2" to the
midpoint Section 8.1-1-C of the Zoning Ordinance requires an accessory structure to be subordinate in height to the
primary structure. A variance has been requested because the proposed garage would be taller than the house. The
applicant has stated that he is seeking additional storage space, due to flooding of basement storage areas in the
house.
In summary, two variations are requested: to allow an accessory structure, the garage, with a 3' 6" side yard setback,
instead of not less than 5', and to allow an accessory structure that is taller than the primary structure.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested side -yard setback variation and denial of the
requested variation for an accessory structure that is taller than the primary 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.
The side yard setback variance request would maintain the existing setback where compliance with the 5' side -yard
setback would further impact the tight area for vehicle movements between the house and garage. However, staff
does not believe that there is a hardship that justifies an accessory structure to be taller than the house. The height of
the structure is somewhat out of character in the neighborhood filled with predominantly one to one and half story
primary structures with garages that are generally subordinate in height. The ZBA recommended against, and the
City Council denied, a similar request at 1115 E. Grant Avenue earlier this year.
Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure:
The Zoning Board of Appeals has final authority for the side -yard setback variation request Under Section 3.6-7 of
the Zoning Ordinance (Major Variations) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to recommend that the City
Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the variance for an accessory structure that is taller than the
primary structure. The City Council has the final authority on the project.
Board Member Porada asked how long he had lived in the house, type, and basement. Mr. Powal stated 37 years,
ranch, and basement. Board Member Porada asked if the basement flooding was the only reason, or if was that they
needed the space. Mr. Powal stated both.
Chairman Seegers asked for comments from the audience.
Michael Goldstein, 1216 S. third, stated that he was in favor of it. Mr. Goldstein moved into his house 18 years ago,
Mr. Powal has been a good neighbor. Mr. Goldstein stated that when his house flooded, he also experienced the loss
of personal possessions and furniture from the flooding. Most of the people in the neighborhood had a problem with
storage as well.
Mr. Mangum stated that he received a letter from Margaret Ann Wolframs giving support for this project
Board Member Porada stated that there were 2 requests: 1 for the side -yard setback of 3'6" where the minimum is 5'
with staff recommending approval, but staff recommends denial of the height of the structure. He asks that they
Case #11 -041 -CU -V — 877 Central Road
Case #11-042-V — 1225 S. Third Avenue
Case #11-043-V — 977 Clark Lane
September 13, 2011
Page 4
consider staffs recommendation to deny the proposal. Board Member Porada reviewed the standards, stated that
the height would change the character, that flooding was not unique, and that inadequate storage was not a hardship
that should allow the variation.
Board Member Hofherr asked about the height of the garage and storage. Would the petitioner be able to have
storage in the garage above where the vehicles are parked without having to ask for a variance. Mr. Powal stated
that it would be very hard to carry things in and out of the garage.
Board Member Saletnik stated that after looking at attachment 3, all the garages seem to have the additional storage
space and was not out of character for the area. The hardship of storage was always an issue and common to
households today. He stated that as long as it would be in character of the neighborhood he would agree with it.
Board Member Szabo stated that it seemed that you could not put anything of value in the basement in homes in Des
Plaines because of the flooding. He would be agreeable to approve.
Commissioner Catalano stated that he would approve because it would not affect the character of the neighborhood
and the field work could not tell that the garages were bigger.
Board Member Hofherr asked about other homes. Mr. Powal stated there were six homes on his block and all had
smaller yards. Board Member Hofherr stated that if it were allowed, it would be the tallest structure of the block.
Mr. Powal spoke with all his neighbors and across the street all had given him their approval.
Chairman Seegers asked if his property sloped. The backyard to his house was flat but sloped (3' drop) from his
house to the street
Board Member Saletnik asked that two separate motions be made
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Commissioner Catalano for approval of a variation to
Sections 8.1-3-C with a side -yard setback of 3'6", where the minimum side -yard setback allowed is 5' for an
accessory structure in the R-1 zoning district.
AYES: Catalano, Szabo, Saletnik, Holbert, Porada, Seegers
NAYES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Case #11 -041 -CU -V — 877 Central Road
Case #11-042-V — 1225 S. Third Avenue
Case #11-043-V — 977 Clark Lane
September 13, 2011
Page 5
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Commissioner Catalano to recommend approval of a
variation to Section 8.1-1-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the
construction of an accessory structure (garage) that is taller than the primary structure (house), where an accessory
structure should be subordinate in height to the primary structure, and
AYES: Catalano, Szabo, Saletnik, Seegers
NAYES: Holbert, Porada
MOTION CARRIED
Case Number: 11-043-V
Address: 977 Clark Lane
Petitioner: Koshy Daniel, 977 Clark Lane, Des Plaines, IL
Request: The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 8.1-3C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended: to authorize construction of a 100 square -foot shed with a rear -yard setback of 3', where the
minimum rear -yard setback allowed is 5' for an accessory structure within the R-1 zoning district.
Petitioner, Daniel Koshy, was swom in and stated that he wanted to build a storage shed in the back of the house.
He moved in the house last year and found out from the city that he needed to apply for a variance.
Chairman Seegers asked if he had spoken with his neighbors. Mr. Koshy stated he had and they approved.
Board Member Saletnik asked if he was not putting it in the easement by the pole, but in the back yard towards the
rear -yard setback. Mr. Daniel stated he was locating it outside the easement.
Board Member Szabo asked if he considered putting it elsewhere. Mr. Koshy stated that they had a comer lot and
this was the best place to put it.
Board Member Hofherr suggested that if it was not approved to take it back to Sears and explain the issue.
Chairman Seegers asked for the report to be read in by Mr. Mangum.
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 8.1-3C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance,
as amended: to authorize construction of a 100 square -foot shed with a rear -yard setback of 3', where the minimum
rear -yard setback allowed is 5' for an accessory structure within the R-1 zoning district.
Analysis
Address:
977 Clark Lane
Existing Zoning:
R-1, Single Family Residential District
Petitioner:
Koshy Daniel, 977 Clark Lane, Des Plaines, IL
Owner(s):
Koshy Daniel, 977 Clark Lane, Des Plaines, IL
In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information:
Case #11 -041 -CU -V — 877 Central Road
Case #11-042-V — 1225 S. Third Avenue
Case #11-043-V — 977 Clark Lane
September 13, 2011
Page 6
The irregularly shaped corner lot (8,975 square feet), at 977 Clark Lane is a legal conforming lot with regards to lot
width, as the average width is greater than the 65' that would be required of a new subdivision, and meets the
minimum lot size (8,125 square feet would be required of a new subdivision).
A one story brick and frame residence with a driveway and attached garage currently exists on site. The applicant
has proposed to construct a 10' by 10' shed located 3' from the east property line. The shed would be located behind
the principal structure and outside of the 7.5' utility easement along the north property line, however, it would be
located within the required 5' rear -yard setback.
Recommendation: Staff recommends denial of the requested rear -yard 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. Staff does not believe there is a hardship
with the new shed proposed on a legal conforming lot. There appears to be adequate room to either construct the
proposed shed 5' from the property line or to construct a shed with dimensions that fit within the proposed space (8'
by 10' for example).
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 variance for a shed within the rear -yard
setback in the R-1 zoning district.
Chairman Seegers asked for comments from the audience. There were none.
Board Member Porada stated that staff recommended denial and the board should give consideration to it. In
addition, he did not believe it was a hardship.
Mr. Koshy stated that he had already bought the shed and could not return it. Otherwise, he would have gotten a
smaller one. His neighbors approved of the shed.
Board Member Saletnik stated that he would challenge the idea of a fellow board member that there would be an
adverse visual impact and that if the variance were granted, it would be negligible for the passerby and would not
have an impact.
Board Member Szabo stated it would not make an impact on the neighborhood.
Commissioner Catalano asked what the floor of the shed would be. Mr. Koshy was unsure but stated it would be a
on grass of concrete pavers.
A motion was made by Board Member Szabo, seconded by Board Member Saletnik for approval of a variation to
Section 8.1-3C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize construction of a 100
square -foot shed with a rear -yard setback of 3', where the minimum rear -yard setback allowed is 5' for an accessory
structure within the R-1 zoning district
AYES: Catalano, Szabo, Saletnik, Seegers
NAYES: Holbert, Porada
MOTION CARRIED
Case Number: 11 -041 -CU -V
Address: 877 Central Road
Petitioner: Michael Howley, Insite RE, Inc. as agent for T -Mobile, 2210 Midwest Road, Suite 213,
Oakbrook, IL 60523
Owner(s): City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Request: The petitioner is requesting a Second Application be reconsidered by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
construction of an approximately 100' tall monopole -style Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facility.
Michael Howley, Insite RE, Inc., agent for T -Mobile, and Kevin Mize, Radio Frequency Engineer with T -Mobile
were sworn in.
Chairman Seegers stated that the case was whether the Zoning Board of Appeals would allow for rehearing of the
second application.
Board Member Saletnik stated he wanted to know the background and how it was different than the previous
request
Mr. Howley gave the background of the previous variation requests (which is also covered in the staff report noted
below). He believes that the current proposal should not be compared as it was significantly different than the
previous request. After the initial denial by the city council, it was stated in the minutes of the public hearing that
the City of Des Plaines was having a problem with the public safety communication. He stated that moving the
antenna from the top of the mausoleum to their proposed tower, free of charge.
Board Member Saletnik asked what the change was from the previous request.
Mr. Howley stated the design of the tower was changed from lattice type tower to a monopole.
Mr. Mangum stated that Section 3.1-2 of the Zoning Ordinance speaks to Successive Applications stating that
second applications without new grounds are barred and shall not be brought unless there is substantial new
evidence available or a mistake of law or fact occurred that significantly affected the prior denial. It was up to the
Zoning board of Appeals to review the evidence and decide whether the application shall be reheard or shall be
dismissed.
Mr. Howley stated that substantial new evidence that the City of Des Plaines had a significant need to improve the
public safety communication, which they could help.
Board Member Saletnik asked about the need for public safety communication and how did they know it would be
the most beneficial for the City.
Board Member Porada asked about the location and size of the pole as previously requested was the same location.
At some point the height of the pole was reduced from 120' to 100'. Mr. Howley stated that it was a
recommendation of the staff that the tower be reduced to 100' and be a lattice tower.
Board Member Porada stated that T -mobile wanted a monopole and not a lattice tower. Mr. Howley stated that the
only change was from a lattice to a monopole. Board Member Porada asked how was the City's request to change
the monopole to a lattice tower not appropriate. Mr. Howley stated that some city council members were against the
tower entirely and others were only concerned with the design of the tower.
Board Member Porada stated that it was his understanding from the January 2011 hearing there was a staff report
and 2 applications (one for the conditional use and one for variation). He asked if the same petitioner questions and
responses were the same as the previous case. Mr. Howley stated they were.
Case #11 -041 -CU -V — 877 Central Road
Case #11-042-V — 1225 S. Third Avenue
Case #11-043-V — 977 Clark Lane
September 13, 2011
Page 8
Mr. Howley stated that there were two items that were significantly different — monopole vs. lattice, and need to
improve public safety communications.
Board Member Porada asked if the public safety issued was explored and T -Mobile offering use of their tower for
that purpose in January 2011. Mr. Howley stated it was and they did.
Chairman Seegers asked for the report to be read in by Mr. Mangum.
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Second Application be reconsidered by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the
construction of an approximately 100' tall monopole -style Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facility.
Analysis: The petitioner appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 11, 2011 requesting a
Conditional Use Permit and Variations to allow an approximately 100' tall lattice -style Commercial Mobile Radio
Service Facility with a setback of approximately 56' from the residential district to the East, instead of not less than
100' from a residential district, and in front of the structure housing the primary principal use, instead of behind the
rear of the structure housing the primary principal use in the I-1 Zoning District. The ZBA recommended approval
(4-1) to the City Council. The City Council considered the matter at its July 5, 2011, July, 19 2011, and August 1,
2011, meetings with the requests denied on August 1, 2011.
Section 3.1-2 of the Zoning Ordinance speaks to Successive Applications stating that second applications without
new grounds are barred and shall not be brought unless there is substantial new evidence available or a mistake of
law or fact occurred that significantly affected the prior denial. New applications may be filed more than one year
after denial whether or not new grounds are stated. The applicant has submitted a statement of grounds justifying
reconsideration stating the need for City public safety communications and the change in tower design from a lattice
to monopole.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Zoning Board of Appeals review the information presented to
determine whether the application shall be reheard or shall be dismissed.
Board Member Porada stated that the petition and supporting materials speak for themselves; however, on July 5,
2011, a motion was made to deny the cell phone tower (vote 5-3) by City council. Next heard on July19_,the
previous vote was reconsidered by Alderman Haugeberg and the vote was 5/4 for approval with the Mayor casting
the deciding vote. Then on August 1, 2011, the City Council met to consider second reading of the ordinance and
had a tie vote, which denied T -Mobile's request. He stated further that the style of the tower was the only
difference from the first petition, the height and location of tower were the same. The only change was to the
appearance of the pole for a monopole instead of lattice. The posture was a little different, but not new.
Mr. Howley also stated that the location of the tower was the only location the City would allow.
Board Member Saletnik stated that just because when the staff makes a recommendation, it may not always meet
what the governing body wants.
Board Member Szabo stated that he felt that the change from a lattice style pole to a monopole was a significant
change and would merit the reopening of the case.
Chairman Seegers asked for comments from the audience.
Ken Wysocki, 10 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, on behalf of Alice and Joe Ferrini, stated that the style and height
change is not enough, it was still requesting essentially the same relief and therefore would be a successive
application. He also stated the claimed new evidence, emergency communications issues, was previously raised and
the claimed mistake was a mistake in judgment, but not a mistake in fact to change the design.
Case #11 -041 -CU -V — 877 Central Road
Case #11-042-V — 1225 S. Third Avenue
Case #11-043-V — 977 Clark Lane
September 13, 2011
Page 9
Board Member Porada thanked Mr. Wysocki for his comments on the procedural process. He stated there were no
material changes to the petition.
Board Member Porada stated that this procedural issue would take this off the burner until August 1, 2012 when the
applicant could re -apply to start this procedure to start all over again. Mr. Wysocki stated that he concurred.
Mr. Howley stated that he understood it was a procedural issue; however, the language allows this under certain
circumstances where there is new evidence or a mistake of fact A second application seeking the same relief
whether or not in the same form or on the same theory, shall not be brought unless in the opinion of the official,
board or commission before which it is brought there is substantially new evidence available or a mistake of law or
fact occurred that significantly affected the prior denial. "
Brian Burkross, 2133 Webster Lane, stated that the motion for a monopole at City Council failed and that
emergency issues were not brought up at City Council.
A motion was made by Board Member Holbert, seconded by Board Member Porada for denial of a Second
Application to be reconsidered by the Zoning Board of Appeals for the construction of an approximately 100' tall
monopole -style Commercial Mobile Radio Service Facility:
AYES: Catalano, Saletnik, Holbert, Porada, Seegers
NAYES: Szabo
MOTION CARRIED
The meeting was adjourned at 9:30_ p.m. by unanimous voice vote.
Sincerely,
A.W. Seegers, Chairman
Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals
cc: City Officials
Aldermen
Zoning Board of Appeals