Loading...
07/25/2017Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 1             DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING JULY 25, 2017 MINUTES  The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 25, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD PRESENT: Bader, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo ABSENT: Catalano, Green ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. and read this evening’s case. Roll call was conducted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to approve the minutes of July 11, 2017 as submitted. AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Bader, Szabo ABSTAIN: Schell NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED 4-0*** PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments. CONTINUED FROM JULY 11, 2017 1. Address: 1692 Whitcomb Avenue Case 17-045-APL The petitioner is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Minor Variation under Sections 12-9-6 and 12-7-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow an 11’-wide parking pad in a front yard and a 3’6”-wide sidewalk, instead of not more than 3’, in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. PIN: 09-21-303-027-0000 Petitioner: Shafee Baig, 1692 Whitcomb Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 2 Owner: Shafee Baig, 1692 Whitcomb Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Chairman Szabo swore in Shafee Baig, 1692 Whitcomb Avenue, Des Plaines, IL & Gregory Wells, Representative, 941 N. Maple, Palatine, IL. Mr. Baig advised the parking pad, on the right of the house, previously had gravel and a waste can where his wife fell. He noted concrete was added to that area. Mr. Baig referred to photos in the packet. He noted, on the left side, there was grass where his children played. As that area often became muddy after a rain, he advised he elected to place concrete there so that there wasn’t a mess. Board Member Hofherr asked/stated:  why Petitioner missed the last meeting. Mr. Baig advised – his uncle passed away the same day, and he was at the hospital that evening. Board Member Hofherr gave his condolences.  what type of business Petitioner is in. Mr. Baig advised – he owns a banquet hall  if Petitioner has a 3-car garage. Mr. Baig advised – yes  how many cars are parked in the garage. Mr. Baig advised – 3 cars  regarding waste cans, why they aren’t in the garage. Mr. Baig advised – they are large and there wouldn’t be any space. He noted the garage on the left is small, and 2 cars are parked in the garage on right leaving no additional space  if Petitioner is aware the waste cans are not supposed to be displayed in front. Mr. Baig advised – they are on the side of the house; he could place a canopy and enclosure  what problems this would give the neighbors if this petition is denied. Mr. Baig advised – all neighbors are in agreement as is; neighbors would not be affected  what the hardship is for this minimum relief. Mr. Baig advised – due to his wife falling. The waste cans don’t look appropriate atop mud; when it rains, his children go in the mud.  if a permit was obtained for the parking pad and sidewalk. Mr. Baig advised – the inspectors stopped the contractor  regarding the 2nd and 3rd times, there still were no permits. Board Member Hofherr advised Petitioner that he is the responsible party. Mr. Baig responded – he did advise the contractors to obtain permits; he wasn’t aware of a 2nd or 3rd time/fines.  if Petitioner received fines. Mr. Baig stated – yes, approximately $750.00  if the fines are paid. Mr. Baig advised – no  if this petition is denied, what has been placed is illegal. Board Member Hofherr asked how long it would take to remove the items. Mr. Baig advised – he doesn’t know  Petitioner could be fined per violation if removal is not done in a timely manner Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner met with the small municipal court. Mr. Baig advised – yes. Board Member Bader asked why the tickets haven’t been paid. Chairman Szabo advised there is a date when payment is due. Mr. Baig advised – he would like the fines waived as he was unaware of this. Chairman Szabo asked why the contractor who did the work isn’t present. Mr. Baig stated – he was advised but he hasn’t shown. Mr. Wells advised he has been a contractor for 20 years and has built a home in Des Plaines. He noted the Petitioner’s intentions are good. He offered that Mr. Baig could cut the sidewalk to make it smaller. He noted the driveway was poured to the garage doors; Petitioner filled that in. Petitioner has no intention of parking a car there. Landscaping was added in the parkway with pavers per Tina (staff) so that cars cannot drive over the unpaved surface. Regarding the extra concrete that was poured, Mr. Wells asked if the overage could be cut/removed. He stated Mr. Baig is unable to reach the contractor. It was noted the structural engineer could provide a letter (per code). Removing this is a problem as monies have been paid; contractor hasn’t been available. Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 3 Senior Planner Bye stated the maximum width of a walkway is 3 ft. and it must be 3 ft. away from a driveway. She noted it prevents the driveway from being too wide and used as a parking pad. Coordinator Pruss referred to Attachment 4. She noted Staff would have advised Petitioner this could have been altered if the area was tapered. Board Member Saletnik asked/stated:  if concrete was removed below the flower bed. Mr. Wells advised – no  this should be a permanent flower bed  he understands the need for the curvature though there is an amount needed at the property line  if Petitioner built the house. Mr. Baig advised – no, he bought the house as is  there needs to be an alteration; though the driveway is at the property line, it is too wide  paver block atop concrete with chips could be removed. Mr. Wells advised – regarding tapering the sidewalk and extra concrete at property line, he asked if this could be tabled to ensure the code would be met. He noted the flower bed could be removed though the neighbors like the flowers. Chairman Szabo advised City Staff would have helped Mr. Baig achieve his goals if permits were pulled. He asked if the Board has further questions. It was noted modifications can be made to meet code, permits can be pulled; a variance is being requested tonight. Chairman Szabo stated there was ample time to show modifications. Coordinator Pruss advised a permit cannot be issued because this does not currently meet code. She noted a permit could be given for the area to the right. Senior Planner Bye advised the single garage door has 30 ft. near it which offers space. She illustrated to the Petitioner and Representative how this could become legal. It was noted a 3 ft. walkway could be retained to accommodate waste cans; areas were noted for removal. She shared the modifications with the PZB. Staff Report is as follows: Issue: The petitioner is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Minor Variation under Sections 12- 9-6 and 12-7-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow an 11’-wide parking pad in a front yard and a 3’6”-wide sidewalk, instead of not more than 3’, in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. Analysis: Address: 1692 Whitcomb Avenue Owners: Shafee Baig, 1692 Whitcomb Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Petitioner: Shafee Baig, 1692 Whitcomb Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case Number: 17-045-APL Real Estate Index Number: 09-21-303-027-0000 Ward: #2, John Robinson Existing Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential Existing Land Use: Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1 Single-Family Residential South: R-1 Single-Family Residential Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 4 East: R-1 Single-Family Residential West: R-1 Single-Family Residential Surrounding Land Use: North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Residential Street Classification: Whitcomb Avenue is a local street Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Traditional Single Family The property at 1692 Whitcomb Avenue is a legally conforming lot with regard to both lot width (60 feet; minimum 55 feet required) and lot size (10,136 square feet; minimum 6,875 square feet required) in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. It is currently improved with a two-story brick and frame residence with an attached three-car garage. The petitioner and homeowner, Shafee Baig, is appealing the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Minor Variation that if approved, would have made legal a parking pad and sidewalk that were constructed without a permit and not to code. The house was constructed with a driveway approach that met the standards of the Zoning Ordinance; however, in September 2016, the petitioner widened the driveway 3.5 feet on the east side and added a parking pad that is approximately 11 feet wide by filling in an area below the existing driveway approach that curved to meet the driveway at the property line (see Attachment 5). In order to make these improvements legal, the petitioner applied for a Minor Variation that was denied by the Zoning Administrator on December 22, 2016. The petitioner was asked to remove the concrete extension and restore the property to grade with grass seed or sod by April 15, 2017. This has not been done, and the petitioner is now requesting an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s decision in order to make legal the completed work. Since the Minor Variation denial on December 22, 2016, the petitioner has added a planting bed on the east side of the property (see Attachment 3), also without benefit of a permit. Additionally, it should be noted that the property is located in the 100-year floodplain. Now, as of July 6, 2017 he has added an additional planting bed in the City Right-of-Way which is also not permitted nor allowed. As such, plans for the addition of impervious surface to a property are required to be reviewed by the Engineering Department. Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments: 1. Hardship: No variation shall be granted pursuant to this subsection H unless the applicant shall establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty: Comment: The petitioner has stated that due to the slope of the yard, their garbage cans were not staying in place and constantly falling onto the neighbor’s property. Additionally, it was noted in the Appeal Request Application that the area where the 11-foot wide parking pad was added was constantly filling with water and dirt, creating a problem when mud would get inside. 2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 5 physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot: Comment: The petitioner has stated that due to the slope of the yard, their garbage cans were not staying in place and constantly falling onto the neighbor’s property. 3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title: Comment: The issue was created when the homeowners added a parking pad and sidewalk to the site without benefit of a permit. 4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variance is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision: Comment: The petitioner has stated that denial of the variation would cause problems for the homeowners and the neighbors and that approval would be beneficial for both parties. 5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely the inability of the owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot: Comment: The petitioner has stated that the requested variation is the minimum relief required in order to alleviate the hardship. 6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan: Comment: The petitioner has stated that the relief requested is in harmony with the neighborhood. It should be noted that there do not appear to be similar driveways/driveway approaches in the immediate neighborhood. Recommendation: I recommend denial of the requested appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s denial of a Minor Variation under Sections 12-9-6 and 12-7-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow an 11’-wide parking pad in a front yard and a 3’6”-wide sidewalk, instead of not more than 3’, in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. The addition of impervious surface to a property should be minimized as the lot is in the floodplain. Additionally, the issue with the garbage cans can be resolved by storing them inside the three-car garage. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure Under Section 12-3-6(F) of the Zoning Ordinance (Standard Variations) the Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned Standard Variation for building coverage in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded. Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 6 A motion was made by Board Member Schell to proceed with an alteration plan, meet with Staff, and pay the $750 fine. Discussion on options took place. Board Member Schell withdrew the motion and restated the following: A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to deny this petition. AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Bader, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo stated Mr. Baig may not wish to use the former concrete contractor. PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 2. Address: Citywide Case 17-057-TA City-initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines’ Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Coordinator Pruss offered the Staff Report: Issue: City initiated Text Amendments are proposed to amend Chapter 11 Signs, of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, to permit billboard signs to have digital LED panels. Analysis: Zoning Code Text Amendment Report PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Project Description: An Amendment is requested to the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance to change the Text to allow billboard signs to have digital LED panels. The proposed text would only permit LED panels for those billboards that 1) currently meet all provisions of the sign ordinance, 2) were lawfully erected, and 3) are located within 660 feet of either I-90 or I-294. Existing nonconforming billboard signs may be permitted to convert to LED panels subject to conditional use approval. Limitations are included on the size, frequency/duration of the message, and level of luminescence. Additionally, all billboard signs with LED panels will be required to display City sponsored messages to include without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages, weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored events. Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 7 Standards for Zoning Code Text Amendment: To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12-3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council; The City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2007, does not specifically address billboards, and as such, the proposed change is not inconsistent with the goal and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The City currently has a significant number of billboards both along the tollway corridors and away from the tollway corridors. The amendment does not allow additional billboards to be built, but will allow those billboard signs that are conforming to be modernized to reflect the most current technology and advertising methods. Since the proposed amendment should only affect existing billboards, it would not significantly alter the overall character of development. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; The proposed amendment will not detrimentally affect the adequacy of public facilities and available services. In fact, the amendment would improve the ability for the City to disseminate critical public safety announcements. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and The proposed amendment will have a positive effect on the value of the billboard property. The amendment should not pose a detrimental effect to any residential areas due to the existing setback requirements for billboards within the sign code. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998) The proposed amendment is narrowly tailored to apply only to those billboards that were lawfully erected and are located within the tollway corridors, and as such represents a reasonable and responsible standard for the modernization of billboard signs. Recommendation: The Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Case #17-045-APL – 1692 Whitcomb Avenue – Appeal (Cont’d) Case #17-057-TA – Citywide – Text Amendments July 25, 2017 Page 8 Planning & Zoning Board Procedure: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Code, the Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Text Amendment. Board Member Schell asked Staff to add flood language; Coordinator Pruss concurred. Board Member Hofherr asked Staff when signs are approved for conversions, if fees will be levied. Coordinator Pruss advised – they would be $250.00 though licensing fees will not be applied. This will be regulated through the Sign Ordinance. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He asked if anyone is in favor or objects to this proposal. An audience member came forward noting he has questions. Chairman Szabo swore in:  Chris Lupo, Lamar Advertising, 500 N. Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL Mr. Lupo asked if there is a possibility, rather than go through the process for when a sign was initially erected illegally, if the face that does not affect the residential area could be converted to digital with a reduction on sign size. He asked if the Text Amendment could be tweaked to allow a sign that is reduced in size. Mr. Lupo asked, regarding a sign conversion, if the head must be removed and another face applied. Coordinator Pruss stated panels could be removed or panels would have to be repaired. She will discuss the recommendation with the City of Des Plaines’ Legal Department. Board Member Saletnik asked if LED lighting is that heavy. Mr. Lupo advised it is heavier. Board Member Schell stated it is important not to favor or burden an entity. Chairman Szabo asked if Mr. Lupo saw the Draft Amendment. Mr. Lupo advised he did. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to continue this matter to the August 22, 2017, PZB meeting so that revisions may be discussed with the Legal Department. AYES: Hofherr, Schell, Bader, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** ADJOURNMENT On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 8:05 p.m. Sincerely, Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners