Loading...
05/29/2012492PW�\ A CITY OFN DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS n ]s May 29, 2012 MINUTES DES PLAINES ILLINOIS The lies Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 29, 2012, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PRESENT: Catalano, Porada, Salemik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo ABSENT: Hotherr Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community and Economic Development. Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at 7:32 P.M. Chairman Seegers directed that the following cases would be heard: Case 11021-V: The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 7.24D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the construction of a one-story addition to an existing single family residence with a building coverage of approximately 34.5%, where a maximum of 30% is allowed within the R-1 zoning district. Case 12-025-V: The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 7.24D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize a second story addition with a front yard setback of 19.43 -feet and a porch with a front yard setback of 12.52', where the minimum frontyard setback allowed is 25-feetwithin the R-1 zoning district. Case 11024 -CU: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the establishment of a Place of Worship in the C-3 District. Case 11011-V: The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 7.24D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the creation of two 50 -foot wide lots of record for Piot/ Dabrowski's Second Addition Subdivision, where a minimum lot width of 55 -feet is requiredwithin the R-1 zoning district. A motion was made by Board Member Salemik seconded by Board Member Catalano to approve the minutes of the May 8, 2012, hearings as submitted. AYES: Catalano, Porada, Salemik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED 2021 Busse Htehwav Case 11021-V Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 2 The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 7.2-4D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the construction of a one-story addition to an existing single family residence with a building coverage of approximately 34.5%, where a maximum of 30% is allowed within the R-1 zoning district. Petitioner: Fadi Tamer, 2021 Busse Highway, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: Fadi Tamer, 2021 Busse Highway, Des Plaines, IL 60016 The following individual was sworn in: Fadi Tamer, 2021 Busse Highway Petitioner Tamer introduced himself Petitioner said he is planning to add a kitchen and transfer the current kitchen to the dining room. He said all the other houses in the area did the same thing. He said as it stands, the area between the house and garage is dead area that could be put to better use. Chairman Seegers asked if he needed that much lot coverage. Petitioner said yes. He said he needed at least a 10'x10' kitchen. Chairman Seegers asked Petitioner if he was connecting the house to the garage to make it all one building. Petitioner said yes, the entire area would be enclosed and nothing would be seen from the street Chairman Seegers asked if the materials to be used would be the same as are currently there for the house. That is, he asked if brick would be used. Petitioner said matching brick would be used. Board Member Porada asked what the anticipated cost of the project would be. Petitioner said $7,000. Board Member Porada asked if the Petitioner planned on hiring an architect. Petitioner said yes. Board Member Porada asked why an architect had not been hired yet. Petitioner said he chose a remodeling company. Board Member Porada was curious why the Petitioner didn't have any architectural plans. Board Member Porada held up a rough sketch and asked Petitioner if there was any more. He asked Petitioner if he had any architectural plans with him. Petitioner said he did not Board Member Porada asked Petitioner if anyone from the City of Des Plaines advised him about what the requirements are to ask for and obtain a variance. He asked Petitioner whether or not he was aware that under City code, in order to obtain a variance, Petitioner would have to show a hardship. Petitioner said he did not have a hardship. Board Member Porada directed Petitioner to page 5 of Petitioner's reason for a variance request and pointed out that Petitioner said he did not have a hardship. Board Member Porada asked if the Petitioner had any hardships. Petitioner said it would be better use of the land if the project were approved. Board Member Porada clarified that there was no hardship. Petitioner said there was no hardship. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if this proposed project was too premature to come before the Zoning Board of Appeals. He assured Mr. Mangum that this was not a criticism of the department. Mr. Mangum said the sketch provided by Petitioner was more for a roof plan for building permits rather than for planning. He went on to say that as for the information needed to display the proposed lot coverage, it has been provided. Board Member Salemik asked the Petitioner to discuss the current and proposed entryways. Petitioner pointed to a plat of survey and indicated a sidewalk next to the garage with an entryway, a front entryway, and a back entryway. Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 3 Board Member Saletnik asked Petitioner if he was moving the main entrance adjacent to the garage and if so, would there be some sort of porch or something similar covering the entrance. Petitioner said an awning would go over it. Board Member Saletnik asked if the auxiliary entrance currently to the garage would be closed off if the project were approved. Petitioner said the only entrances to the building would be the front and the back otherwise it would be through the garage. Board Member Saletnik said if an architect looks at this closer, Petitioner may not need all the area he is asking for. Board Member Porada asked Board Member Saletnik if he was suggesting that Petitioner step back and ask for a continuance. Board Member Saletnik said he did not suggest it, but the adequacy of the design, to him, is lacking. He said Petitioner might want to reconsider what he is doing and contact an architect with more expertise rather than a remodeling company that does not have the level of expertise necessary to look at circulation patters and know what the effect would be on the appearance of the house and appropriate significance to the main entry. Board Member Porada asked Chairman Seegers if he would entertain the recommendation of advising Petitioner of his right to obtain a continuance or at a minimum explain to the Petitioner his options. Chairman Seegers said that right now the Board feels that there is not sufficient evidence to consider the proposal for the overage without any parameters. In other words, if the layout showed how the rooms came together and the entry, something might be done where Petitioner would not need the overage he is looking for. He said the Board is concerned with whether or not this would enhance the area or be detrimental. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum what the earliest would be that Petitioner could come back if he wanted a continuance. Mr. Mangum said it would depend on when Petitioner could bring in the necessary information. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if the City needed to republish or not. Mr. Mangum said if it were to be continued to a date certain, it would not need to be republished. If it were continued generally, it would need to be republished. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if there was anything planned on June 26, 2012. Mr. Mangum said there is one or possibly two items scheduled. Chairman Seegers said the next meeting for which this could come back would be July 10, 2012. Mr. Mangum agreed and said July 10, 2012. Board Member Saletnik told Petitioner to make sure he allows himself ample time. Mr. Basman introduced himself and said he was Petitioner's cousin. He said currently the space is dead space and his cousin wants to attach the garage to the house to make use of the dead space. He said the main entrance would be on the same side and would go back a little. Chairman Seegers said that the Board's concern was that there were no architectural drawings indicating this. Mr. Basman said the carpenter drew out the sketches. Chairman Seegers said carpenter drawings were not sufficient. Board Member Saletnik said an architect's drawings are what the Board is looking for. He went on to say that it would be in Petitioner's best interest to get an architect to design this. He said it reflects on the value of the property, if something is done in an improper way, it lowers the property value. If it is done properly, it raises the property value. Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 4 Chairman Seegers asked Petitioner if he needed more time. Petitioner said he would need two weeks. Chairman Seegers said that would push the Board back to July. Mr. Mangum said if staff was able to receive the information as requested (floor plan and elevations) by June 12, 2012, the Board could hear this by June 26, 2012. Petitioner said he would try to get that Chairman Seegers recommended Petitioner ask for a continuance for a June 26, 2012 meeting. Petitioner thanked the Board. 191 Fremont Avenue Case 12-025-V The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 7.2-4D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize a second story addition with a front yard setback of 19.43 -feet and a porch with a front yard setback of 12.52', where the minimum front yard setback allowed is 25 -feet within the R-1 zoning district. Petitioner: Jason and Kristy Mattson, 191 Fremont Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: Jason and Kristy Mattson, 191 Fremont Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 The following individuals was sworn in: Jason Mattson, 191 Fremont Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Petitioner Mattson introduced himself. He said he was looking to put on a second story addition as well as a front porch on the house to improve the aesthetics and also to be able to utilize the front porch. Chairman Seegers asked if it was a comer lot. Petitioner said yes, it is a sweeping corner. Chairman Seegers asked if the main addition that Petitioner was talking about was over the main portion of the house. Petitioner said there is a two-story addition in the back with bedrooms above and it also goes above the North portion of the house. Chairman Seegers asked if the addition would line up. Petitioner said the addition would line up with the Northeast comer walls. Chairman Seegers asked if the main addition would sit on the existing walls and if the porch would project Petitioner said the porch would project 5 feet from that Chairman Seegers asked if it would project toward LaSalle Street. Petitioner said it would go toward LaSalle Street and Fremont. Petitioner said it would wrap around. Chairman Seegers asked if the encroachment would be on the North and East. Petitioner said yes, and the closest would be on the Northeast comer. Chairman Seegers asked if the 12.52 feet would be on the radius of the sloped comer. Petitioner said it would be. Chairman Seegers asked about the 19.4 foot setback. Petitioner said it would be a setback of the current house. Chairman Seegers if that was only due to the cutoff of the comer of the lot Petitioner said if it was not a curved lot it could potentially be over. Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 5 Board Member Salemik said that the shape of the lot is a hardship that other lots do not have and he would concur that it would be somewhat of a hardship. He added that the addition of the porch, though it brings the house closer to the lot line, it creates a horizontal lower roof line and helps scale the house with the neighborhood better. He commended the Petitioner in that regard. Petitioner thanked him and said there would not be a restriction of the view of traffic because it would be an open porch. Board Member Porada asked if the current house is a split-level. Petitioner said it was. Board Member Porada asked where the addition would be. Petitioner said it would go above the North portion of the house. He also said there is also a two-story addition behind with a family room and bedrooms. Board Member Porada said the first story and the story and a half portion has an existing footprint. He asked if approved if the house would keep the same footprint other than the porch. Petitioner said no. He said there is still a second -story addition that would increase the footprint on the backside of the home. Chairman Seegers asked if would encroach. Petitioner said it would not, and would stay within the variance. Board Member Porada asked if the proposed construction that does not maintain the footprint of the existing construction is in an area of the lot where Petitioner maintains the 5 foot setback. Petitioner said that was correct, and said it is on the West side of the house. Board Member Porada asked, with respect to the North and East portions of the lot, if the footprint was the same. Petitioner said that was correct excluding the porch. Board Member Porada asked if the second story addition would maintain the same footprint. Petitioner said that was correct. Board Member Porada said given the arch nature of the lot where Fremont meets LaSalle, Petitioner does have a hardship. He went on to say that given the nature of the lot and intersection, the porch is an excellent design element. Petitioner thanked him. Board Member Szabo asked if the brick work would match the height of the existing house. Petitioner said he was planning on doing all siding on the West side of the addition because it is not visible to anyone. The brick portion would be on the South portion of the addition. Board Member Szabo said aesthetically it would look better if he did not have artificial siding. Petitioner said he understands and it was a cost decision to eliminate some brick. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any other comments, there were none. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Mangum to read into the record the summary of the staff report. Mr. Mangum summarized the following staff report for the record: Issue: The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 7.2-4D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize a second story addition with a front yard setback of 19.43 -feet and a porch with a front yard setback of 12.52', where the minimum front yard setback allowed is 25 -feet within the R-1 zoning district. Analysis: Address: 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 6 Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District Petitioner: Jason and Kristy Mattson, 191 Fremont Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner(s): Jason and Kristy Mattson, 191 Fremont Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 PIN: 09-18-304-010-0000 In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information: The irregularly shaped (7,954 square foot) corner lot at 191 Fremont is conforming with regards to lot width (65' would be required of a corner lot in a new subdivision) and but is smaller than the minimum lot size of 8,125 square feet. A bi-level brick and frame single-family residence with attached one -car garage currently exists on site. Because the property is located at the comer of Fremont Avenue and Lasalle Street a 25 -foot setback is required on both frontages. The curvilinear intersection reduces the lot width and depth at its northeast comer. The applicant proposes to add a second story addition that would match the existing nonconforming front yard setback of 19.43' at the closest point. The first story portion of the addition, containing a half -bathroom, breakfast area, and media room, would be located along the western portion of the lot and would conform to the required 5 - foot side -yard setback and 25 -foot rear -yard setback. The second story would contain three new bedrooms and two new bathrooms. A five-foot deep covered front porch is also proposed which would be located 12.52' from the front property line at the closest point. Per Section 3.6-6 of the Zoning Ordinance, a setback that projects more than 30% into the required setback may be allowed with a standard variation. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the above -requested front -yard setback variations 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 curvilinear intersection reduces the lot width and depth at its northeast comer. The second story addition would not project any closer than the existing footprint of the house. In addition, porch setback variations have been approved in the past based on their limited bulk and ability to enhance the aesthetics of a house and relationship with the street. 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 front -yard setback for an addition to a single-family residence in the R-1 zoning district Chairman Seegers asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none. Chairman Seegers asked if anyone in the audience was in favor of the proposal. He then asked if anyone in the audience objected to the proposal. No one in the audience commented. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik seconded by Board Member Schell to recommend approval of variations to Section 7.2-4D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize a second story addition with a front yard setback of 19.43 -feet and a porch with a front yard setback of 12.52', where the minimum front yard setback allowed is 25 -feet within the R-1 zoning district. AYES: Catalano, Porada, Salemik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo NAYES: None Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 7 MOTION CARRIED 1645 S. River Road Case 12 -024 -CU The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the establishment of a Place of Worship in the C-3 District. Petitioner: Abayomi Joel, 4920 Mary Ct., Country Club Hills, IL 60478 Owner: Gus Bahramis, 1645 S. River Rd., Suite. 17, Des Plaines, IL 60018 The following individual was sworn in Abayomi Joel, 4920 Mary Ct., Country Club Hills, IL 60478 Petitioner Joel introduced himself as the assistant pastor for Fountain of Light Church. Petitioner said the church has a property at 1645 S. River Road that it intends to lease as a worship center. He said the building has about 25 units. He said the unit the church intends to use as a worship center is vacant right now. Chairman Seegers asked where the unit is located on the building. For example, North or South. Petitioner said it is on the Northeast end of the building. Chairman Seegers asked if there would need to be remodeling. Petitioner said there would be no remodeling. The only thing that would be needed is seating. Chairman Seegers asked what the proposed capacity would be for the church's intended use. Petitioner said currently 15-22 people worship. Chairman Seegers asked if there would be adequate parking since the proposed proj ect would operate off peak hours. Petitioner said yes. Chairman Seegers asked if the main use would be Sundays. Petitioner said the main time is Sunday between 9 A.M. and 1 P.M. Petitioner said the church also meets on Wednesday between 7 P.M. and 8 P.M. Chairman Seegers asked if there would office hours throughout the week. Petitioner said Tuesdays and Fridays would be when they held office hours. Board Member Szabo asked if there is a set of services on Sundays such as one service at 9 A.M. and one at 11 A.M. Petitioner said there is only one service that goes from 9 A.M. to 1 P.M. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any other comments, there were none. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Mangum to read into the record the summary of the staff report. Mr. Mangum summarized the following staff report for the record: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the establishment of a Place of Worship in the C-3 District. Analysis: Proposed Use Place of Worship (Fountain of Life) Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 8 Petitioner Abayomi Joel 4920 Mary Ct., Country Club Hills, IL 60478 Owner Gus Bahramis 1645 S. River Rd., Suite. 17, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Plan of Operation Assembly Services from 9 00a and 12:OOpm on Sundays and 7:OOpm and 8:30pm on Wednesdays. Office hours from 12:OOpm to 7:OOpm on Wednesdays and 12:OOpm to 7:OOpm on Fridays. Existing Use Vacant Office Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial (Gas Station) and Residential (Apartments) East: Unincorporated Cook County/Undeveloped Land South: Undeveloped land West: Commercial (Restaurant) Existing Zoning G3, General Commercial Surrounding Zoning North: C-3, General Commercial and R-3, Townhouse Residential East: Unincorporated Cook County South: C-3, General Commercial West: G3, General Commercial Street Classification S. River Road is a collector per the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends office use for the proposed site. Fountain of Life Church has requested a Conditional Use Permit to establish a place of worship inside a vacant 1,705 square foot suite within an approximately 27,413 square foot, 24 -unit office building in the C-3 zoning district (Attachment 2, Exhibit 1 and 2). The asymmetrical lot at 1645 S. River Road is approximately 67,449 square feet and meets all of the bulk regulations that apply in the district. The building also features a 90 space asphalt paved parking lot (Attachment 3 and 4). The submitted floor plan illustrates that services would take place in a sanctuary with 45 fixed seats (Exhibit 3). Given, the proposed would require 12 parking spaces per the Zoning Ordinance ratio of one space per four seats in the main sanctuary. The applicant has submitted a letter that indicates that the average number of congregants on Sundays will range from 18 to 22 and Wednesdays from 8 to 12 (Exhibit 4). The applicant has indicated to staff that the parking lot is essentially empty on Sundays between 9 00a and 1:OOpm and Wednesdays between 7:OOpm and 8:30pm through multiple onsite observations. Moreover, the maximum spaces needed per their estimates would be approximately 6 and 3, respectively based on the aforementioned ordinance ratio. Conditions of Approval will require that the restrooms of the proposed place of worship comply with ADA standards for accessibility. Conditional Use Findings: As required by Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed development is reviewed below: Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 9 A. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: Places of Worship are a Conditional Use in C-3, General Commercial Zoning District, as specified in Section 7.3-6-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 proposed place of worship will occupy one of 24 office units. Therefore, it complies with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan, which suggests office use for the site. A place of worship however, requires a conditional use permit in the C-3 Zoning District as mentioned immediately above. 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 church would be located within an existing structure with no exterior alterations proposed. D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: The functions of the church are anticipated not to be hazardous or disturbing to the surrounding neighborhood. Further, the proposed assembly hours will be during non -typical office hours (weekdays 9am to 5pm) with minimal traffic in relation to the capacity of the office building. 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 the existing essential public facilities and services. Again, the proposed will only utilize a fraction of the building during non -typical office hours (Exhibit 4). 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: As mentioned above, the proposed conditional use would not create an additional burden on public facilities and services, nor would it be detrimental to the economic well being of the entire community. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the importance of institutional land uses for sustaining basic community service functions and enhancing the overall quality of life. 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 place of worship is not anticipated to create additional traffic, noise or odors that could be detrimental to surrounding land uses. Staff determined that a traffic study is unnecessary given the size of the suite, hours of operation and estimated number of congregants (Exhibit 4 and 5). H. 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: Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 10 Comment: As stated above, the proposed conditional use is not anticipated to generate a significant increase in traffic, and therefore should not negatively affect the capacity of the collector street. I. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance: Comment: Again, the proposed would be locating within an existing structure with no exterior alterations proposed. Thus, it would not result in 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 establishment of a place of worship 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. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall submit a plan that shows the restrooms of the proposed place of worship will comply with the ADA standards for accessibility. Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure: Under Section 3.4-4-C of the Zoning Ordinance (Conditional Uses) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned Conditional Use Permit. The City Council has the final authority on the project. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any questions from the Board. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if the 90 space asphalt parking lot was for the entire property. Mr. Mangum said yes. Board Member Porada asked Petitioner if he is the only tenant to be operational on Sundays. Petitioner said yes. He said he has been to the site several times and has only seen one or two cars parked in the parking lot on Sundays. Board Member Porada asked if parking was restricted in that lot. Petitioner said it was not Chairman Seegers asked if there would be any identification on the building. Petitioner said it would depend what the City rules are. Mr. Mangum told Petitioner that they could discuss signage later. Chairman Seegers asked if anyone in the audience was in favor of the proposal. He then asked if anyone in the audience objected to the proposal. No one in the audience commented. Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 11 A motion was made by Board Member Szabo seconded by Board Member Catalano to recommend approval of a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the establishment of a Place of Worship in the C-3 District AYES: Catalano, Porada, Salemik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED 1141 Everett Lane Case 12-011-V The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 7.2-4D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the creation of two 50 -foot wide lots of record for Piotr Dabrowski's Second Addition Subdivision, where a minimum lot width of 55 -feet is required within the R-1 zoning district. Petitioner: Andrzej L. Bednarczyk, 12 S 355 Lemont Road, Lemont, IL 60439 Owner: Stanislaw Dabrowski, 2323 Douglas Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 The following individual was sworn in: Andrzej L. Bednarczyk, 12 S 355 Lemont Road, Lemont, IL 60439 Petitioner Bednarczyk introduced himself and explained what type of variance he was looking for. He said the hardship in this case is a development that required an extension of an existing storm sewer. Chairman Seegers asked if the subdivision had been approved by the Plan Commission. Petitioner said no, but it is in the process. Petitioner said he had been approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2001 and 2008 for this matter but because of costs and change of ownership, the project was called off. Board Member Szabo asked how Stanislaw Dabrowski was related to Peter Dabrowski. Petitioner said Peter Dabrowski is the son of Stanislaw Dabrowski. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum asked if the 2001 case and 2008 case were requesting the same thing as this case. That is, a 50 foot lot. Mr. Mangum said yes, they were requesting a 50 foot lot as opposed to a 55 foot lot. Board member Porada asked if they are asking for the same thing here. Mr. Mangum said yes. Board Member Porada asked if recommending approval would be the same as what was recommended for approval previously in the 2001 and 2008 case. Mr. Mangum said yes. Board Member Porada asked if this would be nothing new but for lapse of time. Mr. Mangum said Board Member Porada was correct and the only difference now is that there is construction now rather than a vacant lot. Board Member Porada asked how far 1125 Everett is set back from the West lot line. Petitioner said about 10 feet from the West property line. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if this was before the Plan Commission first in 2008. Mr. Mangum said yes, for a tentative plat of subdivision, there is a plat that goes to the Plan Commission first. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if the tentative plat was obtained from the Plan Commission. Mr. Mangum said on April 30, 2012, they did. Board Member Porada asked if the final variance for the two lots was with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Mangum said it was. Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 12 Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if the approval of the final plat was with City Council rather than the Zoning Board of Appeals. Mr. Mangum said that was correct Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if the same three conditions attached were the same back in 2008. Mr. Mangum said they were essentially the same. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Mangum to read into the record the summary of the staff report. Mr. Mangum summarized the following staff report for the record: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 7.2-41) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the creation of two 50 -foot wide lots of record for Piotr Dabrowski's Second Addition Subdivision, where a minimum lot width of 55 -feet is required within the R-1 zoning district. Analysis Address: 1141 Everett Lane Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District Petitioner: Andrzej L. Bednarczyk, 12 S 355 Lemont Road, Lemont, IL 60439 Owner(s): Stanislaw Dabrowski, 2323 Douglas Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 PIN: 09-29-101-115-0000 In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information: As part of a subdivision request the petitioner is seeking a variation to create two 50 -foot wide lots. The Plan Commission approved a Tentative Plat of Subdivision on April 30, 2011. The petitioner has already started construction of a new 4,003 square foot residence with attached 3 -car garage on proposed Lot #1 and plans to construct a new single-family residence on Lot #2. The residence on Lot #1 would meet the minimum required setbacks if the lot were subdivided as proposed: Front (51' 6" vs. 25' required), Side (5' vs. 5' required), Rear (31' 5" vs. 25' required). In addition the new residence would meet the maximum lot coverage allowance of 30% if the subdivision were approved. Background The Zoning Board of Appeals granted approval of lot width variances in 2001 (Case #01-13-V) and 2008 (Case #08- 08-V) with conditions to prohibit further variations and to set the houses back a minimum of 50' feet from the street There was, however, opposition to the 50 -feet wide -lots within the neighborhood in the form of petitions submitted to the Zoning Board at the variance hearings. Staff has not received any comments about the current variation request. These previous variation approvals, in addition to 2001 and 2007 Tentative Plat of Subdivision approvals, have expired and the property still has its original dimensions. The subject property is situated in a subdivision that was originally divided in 1945 into lots ranging from 45 -feet to120-feet in width. Since 1973, three of the original 120 -foot wide lots have been resubdivided into two lots, each 60 -feet wide. The other parcel was resubdivided into two lots: 49.50 -feet and 60 -feet in width. Most other lots retain their original dimensions. Other houses along Everett Lane are built 45 to 50 -feet from the front property line. A proposed condition of approval, the same as approved in 2008, would require each proposed house to be located a minimum of 50 -feet from the front property line, similar to neighboring houses in the subdivision. If the Zoning Board of Appeals were to grant the requested variance, the petitioner would still have to submit final engineering plans the Engineering Division for approval and apply to the Plan Commission and the City Council for Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 13 final plat approval. The request to vary the lot frontage requirements less than 30% of the 55 -foot minimum lot width requirement in the R-1 Zoning District is a standard variance. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested lot -width 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 subject to conditions of approval: 1. The petitioner shall secure final subdivision plat approval by the Plan Commission and the City Council. 2. If approved, the petitioner shall not request any more zoning variations to build on either of the lots. 3. The front yard setback of each house proposed for this two -lot subdivision shall be a minimum of 50 -feet, which would be similar to the front yard setback of most of the existing houses on Everett Lane. 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 disapprove the variance for lot width. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any questions from the Board. There were none. Chairman Seegers asked if anyone in the audience was in favor of the proposal. He then asked if anyone in the audience objected to the proposal. No one in the audience commented. A motion was made by Board Member Catalano seconded by Board Member Szabo to recommend approval of a variation to Section 7.2-4D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize the creation of two 50 -foot wide lots of record for Piotr Dabrowski's Second Addition Subdivision, where a minimum lot width of 55 -feet is required within the R-1 zoning district AYES: Catalano, Porada, Salemik, Schell, Seegers, Szabo NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Board Member Porada requested to reopen the May 8, 2012 minutes. With respect to 197 N. 8"' Ave., the owner is incorrectly listed as ADM2 LLC and should be changed to reflect Des Plaines Park District as the owner. Board Member Saletnik seconded by Board Member Catalano amended his previous motion to take into account what Board Member Porada said. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Chairman Seegers said that regarding the Open Meetings Act, there are a few things that have changed with procedure that deal with electronics and urged the Board Members to look at them. Meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M Sincerely, Case # 12-021-V — 2021 Busse Highway Case # 12-025-V — 191 Fremont Avenue Case # 12 -024 -CU — 1645 S. River Road Case # 12-011-V — 1141 Everett Lane May 29, 2012 Page 14 A.W. Seegers, Chairman Seegers Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals cc: City Officials Aldermen Zoning Board of Appeals