06/12/2012492PW�\
A CITY OFN
DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
June 12, 2012
MINUTES
DES PLAINES
ILLINOIS
The lies Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, June 12,
2012, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
PRESENT: Hotherr, Porada, Saletnik, Schell, Seegers
ABSENT: Catalano, Szabo
Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community and Economic Development.
Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at 7:31 P.M.
Chairman Seegers directed that the following cases would be heard:
Case 12030-V:
The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 7.2-51) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as
amended: to authorize a one story addition with a frontyard setback of approximately 10 -feet and a covered deck
with a frontyard setback of 7 -feet, where the minimum front yard setback allowed is 25-feetwithin the R-2 zoning
district.
Case 12026-V:
The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 8.1-3-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as
amended: to authorize the construction of a garage with a side -yard setback of 3 -feet, where a minimum setback of
5 -feet is allowed for a detached accessory structure in the R-1 zoning district.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik seconded by Board Member Schell to approve the minutes of
the May 29, 2012, hearings as submitted.
AYES: Porada, Saletnik, Schell, Seegers
NAYES: None
ABSTENTIONS: Hotherr
MOTION CARRIED
Address: 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case 12030-V
The petitioner is requesting variations to Section 7.2-51) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as
amended: to authorize a one story addition with a front yard setback of approximately 10 -feet and a covered deck
with a front yard setback of 7 -feet, where the minimum front yard setback allowed is 25 -feet within the R-2 zoning
district.
PIN 09-28-122-021-0000
Petitioner: Paulina Grigoruk, 1603 Stockton Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Paulina Grigoruk, 1603 Stockton Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 2
The following individual was sworn in:
Paulin Grigoruk, 1603 Stockton Avenue
Petitioner introduced herself and explained the setback she was looking for because of the need for an entry that was
separate from the dining room.
Chairman Seegers asked if the encroachment was for an entry.
Petitioner said it was.
Chairman Seegers asked if the encroachment would be on the side yard.
Petitioner said it would be the side yard.
Chairman Seegers said because it sits on a corner lot, it is considered a front yard as well.
Chairman Seegers asked about the construction.
Petitioner said her husband would be doing the construction.
Chairman Seegers asked if it would be frame or mason.
Petitioner's husband said it would be frame.
Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum about the City's position with regard to the issue. He asked if the City's
position regarding a less obtrusive addition that would not encroach any further on the setback was communicated to
the Petitioner.
Mr. Mangum said it was included in the staff report that was mailed out to the Petitioner.
Petitioner said the problem she is facing is that there are stairs to the basement on the other side of the house. She
said she would have to add an additional staircase to the basement if the less obtrusive addition the City
communicated to her were constructed. She said it would be too costly.
Chairman Seegers asked if the room now is a dining room or kitchen.
Petitioner said it is a dining room and the door is so close to the dining table that when it opens, it almost hits the
dining table. She said there is no room for shoes or anything else. She said she has no other room for the dining
table. She said previously the door was on the other side of the house but she had her husband move it to its present
location.
Board Member Porada said his understanding was that staff was not opposed to any addition per se, just this
addition because of the encroachment on the set back. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if he was correct
in his assessment.
Mr. Mangum said the proposed addition would affect the public realm. Also, in reviewing other properties in the
area, no other similar duplexes on comer lots expanded out toward the street.
Petitioner said she was walking her baby around the neighborhood and said she noticed many comer lots with
additions.
Board Member Porada asked if the additions Petitioner had seen were to the rear
Petitioner said yes.
Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if what Petitioner said was similar to what Mr. Mangum said in that the
additions to comer lots that had been allowed had been to the rear.
Mr. Mangum said that was correct based on a review of aerial photography.
Petitioner said the problem she is facing is the location of the stairs to the basement.
Board Member Porada asked if that is why she cannot go to the rear.
Petitioner's husband said there is no way to build around the stairs of the basement.
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 3
Board Member Porada asked Petitioner if the other duplexes that she had seen that had additions that were to the
rear and not to the side.
Petitioner said yes.
Board Member Porada said he is not familiar with the area. He asked if most of the duplexes were almost all
"cookie cutter," that is to say, almost exactly the same.
Petitioner said yes, and usually the additions are to the rear, but her house is on a corner.
Board Member Porada said he understands. He said that Petitioner said earlier that she observed other additions to
the rear, between the duplex and the garage. He didn't understand why Petitioner could not build the addition to the
rear if others were able to do so in the neighborhood.
Petitioner said she does not know what the interiors of the other duplexes look like. She said when she was in the
process of purchasing her duplex she looked at others and the interiors were not exactly the same.
Board Member Porada asked Petitioner why she could not build around the staircase to the basement. He asked if it
was an exterior staircase to the basement.
Petitioner said yes. She said she was in the process of building a 6 foot high fence so the addition would not be as
noticeable from the street
Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if an addition could be built to the rear/South.
Mr. Mangum said from a zoning standpoint, yes.
Board Member Hofherr asked if the current basement entrance was used very often.
Petitioner said it was used quite often.
Board Member Hofherr asked Petitioner if blocking that basement entrance off completely to build to the South side
of the building would affect entrance and exit to and from the residence.
Petitioner said there is no other place to put the stairs.
Board Member Hofherr said he understood and again asked if it were to be blocked off would it affect entrance and
exit to and from the residence.
Petitioner said definitely yes.
Board Member Saletnik asked if Petitioner had consulted with an architect to determine the best way to solve
Petitioner's problem.
Petitioner said no, she does not have the money for it.
Board Member told Petitioner that when someone adds on to their home and does it properly, it actually enhances
the value of his or her home. He agreed with Staff that on the side of Petitioner's house where the proposed addition
would be, Petitioner is tacking on a little block that would encroach on the street side yet there is ample room to the
rear to construct an addition. He asked Petitioner about a discrepancy between a photograph that shows a door by
the stairs and a basement entrance adjacent to it and the floor plan Petitioner provided that showed a window where
the door in the photograph is with cabinetry in front of it. He asked which one is an accurate reflection of the
residence.
Petitioner said she closed the doors in the photograph, but has not yet bricked it up.
Board Member Saletnik asked if the door was still there, just not walled over yet.
Petitioner said yes, she just has not had an opportunity to do it yet.
Board Member Saletnik asked Petitioner if she had an architect look over that beforehand.
Petitioner said no.
Board Member Saletnik asked if Petitioner built a kitchen counter where the rear door was.
Petitioner said she put a stove there.
Board Member Saletnik recommended that before Petitioner proceeds with any more construction, that she hire an
architect to determine Petitioner's long-term plan in order to best enhance the value of the property.
Petitioner's husband he spoke to his neighbor to the east about building the addition to the rear/South, and his
neighbor said she would not be pleased with it because it would obstruct her view of the park across the street.
Board member Saletnik said he could put an addition to the rear there because he has more room there.
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 4
Petitioner said she could not afford an architect at this moment She said she spoke to her neighbors and they are not
opposed to the addition.
Board Member Saletnik said it was obvious to him that there was no professional recommendation when the door
was moved and it is never too late to correct the mistake.
Petitioner said her and her husband may have gone too far.
Petitioner's husband said the addition him and Petitioner plan to build will cost them only $5,000 because he will
not have to pay for labor because he intends on doing all the work himself. He said building an addition to the
rear/South is not a feasible option for him and Petitioner due to costs.
Board Member Hofherr asked what type of business Petitioner's husband is currently in.
Petitioner's husband said he is currently in transportation but before that he was a master carpenter for 9 years
building houses.
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 7.2-5D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance,
as amended: to authorize a one story addition with a front yard setback of approximately 10 -feet, where the
minimum front yard setback allowed is 25 -feet within the R-2 zoning district
Analysis
Address: 1603 Stockton Avenue
Existing Zoning: R-2, Two Family Residential District
Petitioner: Paulina Grigoruk, 1603 Stockton Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner(s): Paulina Grigoruk, 1603 Stockton Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
PIN: 09-21-207-004-0000
In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information:
The approximately 39' by 129' (4,558 square feet) corner lot at 1603 Stockton Avenue is legal nonconforming with
regards to both lot width, 45' would be required of a new subdivision, and the minimum lot size of 6,875 square feet
for a comer lot in the R-2 District. A two-story raised brick single-family attached residence with detached two -car
garage currently exists on site. The applicant proposes to add a 50 square -foot (5 -foot by 10 -foot) single story mud
room addition to the White Street (west) side of the structure. Because the property is located on a comer lot, the
required 25 -foot front yard setback shall be observed on both frontages. As the existing structure already projects
approximately 10 -feet into the required 25 -foot setback, the resulting addition would be located approximately 10 -
feet from the front property line on White Street. The applicant states that the addition will provide an entryway
separate from the dining room.
The applicant was issued a permit in September 2011 to remove a rear doorway and create a side doorway and
landing on the White Street side, however, the construction has not been finalized. Per Section 3.6-6 of the Zoning
Ordinance, a setback variation over 30% of the minimum requirements may be allowed with a standard variation.
Recommendation: Staff recommends disapproval of the above -requested front 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. A less obtrusive addition
could be requested at the rear of the building which would not encroach any further into the front yard setback.
Therefore, in staffs estimation, the requested variation is not the minimum measure of relief necessary to alleviate
the alleged hardship or difficulty. Additionally, based on aerial photography of the neighborhood, staff could not
find any examples of corner lot duplexes with additions that projected further into the front yard setback.
Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 5
Under Section 3.6-6 of the Zoning Ordinance (Standard Variations) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority
to approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the above-mentioned variance for the front yard setback of an
addition to a residence in the R-2 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.
Mr. Friedman, 1613 Stockton, Des Plaines, IL, Petitioner's neighbor, was swom in.
Mr. Friedman said there are a number of duplexes similar to Petitioner's in the area, but only the comer lots have
external stairwells going into the basement. He said there are no residences in the area with rear additions build on
the comer lots that have external stairwells. He said Petitioner's proposal is not objectionable to him.
Board Member Porada said he would assume, for the sake of his line of questioning, that the sidewalk is the
property line. Board Member Porada asked if on the corner lots where there are additions if the additions are
between the house and garage.
Mr. Friedman said some of them were.
Board Member Porada noted that that was what the City was recommending in this case.
Mr. Friedman said those residences did not have exterior entrances to the basement.
Board Member Porada said Mr. Friedman previously said that all the comer lots have exterior entrances.
Mr. Friedman said the additions he was talking about were in a different subdivision.
Board Member Porada asked if all the corner lots in this particular subdivision are the only ones that have exterior
entrances.
Mr. Friedman said that is correct.
Board Member Porada asked if the houses in the other subdivisions other than Petitioner's and Mr. Friedman's,
where the duplexes were built on a corner, don't necessarily have exterior stairwells to the basement.
Mr. Friedman said that was correct. He further said that all the houses are nearly identical/"cookie cutter" but with
variations.
Board Member Porada asked if the duplexes built by another builder have additions between the house and garage.
Mr. Friedman said they did.
Board Member Porada asked if those houses have exterior stairwells.
Mr. Friedman said they do not.
Board Member Porada said he is trying to see the relevance of duplexes by a different builder which do not have
exterior stairwells but have additions. Board Member Porada said the other duplexes built by another builder are
irrelevant because it is like comparing apples to oranges. He asked Mr. Friedman if he would agree that they are not
relevant.
Mr. Friedman said he would not say they're irrelevant. He just could not cite an example that was directly on point
to Petitioner's issue.
Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum if Petitioner's duplex isl0 feet off of the sidewalk.
Chairman Seegers said they are 15 feet off.
Board Member Porada asked Mr. Friedman if the houses that he has seen in the area that are 10 feet off from the
sidewalk were like that when they were originally constructed or if they are 10 feet off because of an addition.
Mr. Friedman said the only one he knew of that is at or within the 10 foot line that had an addition is the one where
an addition was built between the primary living structure and the garage.
Chairman Seegers asked if the original building was within the 10 foot line and the addition filled it in.
Mr. Friedman said that was correct.
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 6
Board Member Porada asked if the garage was also 15 feet off of White Street.
Chairman Seegers said it is 11 feet off.
Chairman Seegers explained to the Petitioner what the City's concerns were with regard to setbacks and
encroachments. He said the Board must honor the community as well as the Petitioner.
Petitioner's husband said he will do whatever it will take to look good.
Petitioner said it will look nice. She said if they cannot build it in the way they proposed, they will not put an
addition on at all.
Chairman Seegers said the drawings are very crude and if this is what it were to look like, the addition would not
enhance the property.
Board Member Saletnik said he was conflicted because he came before the ZBA when he was Petitioner's age and
he was turned down. He said it is important to avoid self-inflicted restrictions that prohibit the best use of one's
property. He strongly urged Petitioner to seek professional assistance. He said moving the door was Petitioner's
first mistake and was self-imposed. He understood Petitioner's angst, but two wrongs do not make a right. He said
if Petitioner is to put on an addition, an architect should be consulted with in order to maximize the best use of
property and enhance its value. He said there is space to add on to the house in the rear, but it will cost more.
Petitioner's husband asked if he needed his neighbor's permission to put a rear addition on.
Chairman Seegers said no, unless he goes over lot coverage. Chairman Seegers said he would only need to have a 5
foot setback.
Board Member Porada asked if they were talking about the side yard setback between 1603 and 1605.
Chairman Seegers said yes.
Board Member Porada explained to Petitioner the controlling rules regarding building an addition to the rear of
Petitioner's lot.
Chairman Seegers advised Petitioner what her options were with regard to the disposition of the issue.
Petitioner did not wish to seek a continuance.
Chairman Seegers asked Petitioner if she would like to withdraw her case. He told her it would be to her benefit to
do so.
Petitioner did not wish to withdraw her case.
A motion was made by Board Member Porada seconded by Board Member Hofherr to deny variations to
Section 7.2-51) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to authorize a one story
addition with a front yard setback of approximately 10 -feet and a covered deck with a front yard setback of
7 -feet, where the minimum front yard setback allowed is 25 -feet within the R-2 zoning district.
AYES: Holbert, Porada, Saletnik, Seegers
NAYES: Schell
MOTION CARRIED
1329 Marsaret Street Case 12-026-V
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 7
The petitioner is requesting a variation to Section 8.1-3-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as
amended: to authorize the construction of a garage with a side -yard setback of 3 -feet, where a minimum setback of
5 -feet is allowed for a detached accessory structure in the R-1 zoning district.
Petitioner: Michael Kernan, 1329 Margret Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner: Michael Kernan, 1329 Margret Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
The following individual was sworn in:
Michael Kernan, 1329 Margret Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Petitioner Kernan introduced himself and explained his request
Chairman Seegers asked Petitioner if he was going to tear down the present garage and build a garage further back
Petitioner said yes.
Chairman Seegers asked if the minimum would be 3 feet.
Petitioner said yes. He said it would be to the back comer.
Board Member Porada asked if the garage was squared to the frontage.
Petitioner said that was correct.
Chairman Seegers asked what the material of the new garage would be.
Petitioner said frame with vinyl siding to match'/ of the house. The house currently has a brick face.
Chairman Seegers asked if the driveway was parallel to the house right now.
Petitioner said yes. He would be changing the driveway and the garage at the same time.
Chairman Seegers asked if the driveway would come closer to Petitioner's house.
Petitioner said no, it would be about the same. He said the only issue would be at the parkway where there's a
sewer. He said he talked to someone at Public Works to shift that parkway portion of the driveway to come straight
down instead of at an angle.
Board Member Hofherr asked Petitioner if the Public Works would let him keep the sewer there
Petitioner said the sewer would remain, he wouldjust need to make a separate block around it.
Chairman Seegers asked if there were any questions from the Board.
Board Member Porada asked how long Petitioner had lived in the house.
Petitioner said 14 years.
Board Member Porada asked how long the garage had been there.
Petitioner said since 1973.
Board Member Porada said Petitioner was one year away from claiming the portion of property the garage sits on
through adverse possession. He said Petitioner did the right thing.
Chairman Seegers, Board Member Porada, and Petitioner discussed the history of Petitioner's property.
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 variation to Section 8.1-3-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance,
as amended: to authorize the construction of a garage with a side -yard setback of 3 -feet, where a minimum setback
of 5 -feet is allowed for a detached accessory structure in the R-1 zoning district.
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 8
Analysis
Address: 1329 Margret Street
Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Petitioner: Michael Keman, 1329 Margret Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner(s): Michael Keman, 1329 Margret Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
PIN: 09-20-302-008-0000
In reviewing this variation request, staff has considered the following information:
The irregularly shaped (6,249 square foot) lot at 1329 Margret Street is 59.8 -feet wide along the front property line,
but narrows to 49.49 -feet wide at the rear property line. The lot is nonconforming with regards to lot width (55'
would be required of a lot in a new subdivision) and is smaller than the minimum lot size of 6,875 square feet A
one-story brick and frame single-family residence with detached two -car garage currently exists on site. The existing
501 square -foot garage is partially located on the property of the neighboring residence to the south. The applicant
proposes to demolish the garage and construct a new 22 -foot by 26 -foot (572 square foot) garage approximately 10 -
feet east of the current location with a 3 -foot setback from the south side property line at the rear of the garage.
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 side -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. The "pie -shaped" lot which
narrows towards the rear creates a unique physical condition that warrants a variation for the side -yard setback of a
garage.
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 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 Hofherr to recommend
approval of a variation to Section 8.1-3-C of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to
authorize the construction of a garage with a side -yard setback of 3 -feet, where a minimum setback of 5 -feet
is allowed for a detached accessory structure in the R-1 zoning district.
AYES: Holbert, Porada, Saletnik, Schell, Seegers
NAYES: None
MOTION CARRIED
Meeting adjourned at 9:14 P.M.
Sincerely,
Case # 12-030-V — 1603 Stockton Avenue
Case # 12-026-V — 1329 Margaret Street
June 12, 2012
Page 9
A.W. Seegers, Chairman Seegers
Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals
cc: City Officials
Aldermen
Zoning Board of Appeals