Loading...
09/26/2017Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD PRESENT: Bader, Catalano (remotely), Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development Brooke Lenneman, General Counsel/Holland & Knight Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was conducted. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to approve the minutes of September 12, 2017 as written. AYES: Saletnik, Fowler, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Bader, Hofherr ***MOTION CARRIED 4-0*** PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comments. Chairman Szabo stated Board Member Catalano would be joining the meeting remotely (via conference call). A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to approve Board Member Catalano to join the meeting remotely. AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Bader, Fowler, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED 6-0*** Senior Planner Bye conferenced in Board Member Catalano via telephone at 7:17 p.m. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS 1. Address: 1822 White Street Case 17-079-V The petitioner is requesting Standard Variations to Sections 12-7-2(J) and 12-8-1(C)3 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a building coverage of 35%, when a maximum of 30% is permitted, and to allow an accessory structure to be located 3.5’ from the rear lot line, when a minimum setback of 5’ is required, for the construction of a shed in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District. PIN: 09-29-231-020-0000 Petitioner: Miguel Mora, 1822 White Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Owner: Miguel Mora, 1822 White Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Chairman Szabo swore in Mr. Miguel Mora and daughter, Estrella Mora, 1822 White Street, Des Plaines, IL. Ms. Estrella Mora advised they didn’t know about the zoning rules. She noted that they were informed that the shed was not permitted as built (without benefit of a permit). Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting Standard Variations to Sections 12-7-2(J) and 12-8-1(C)3 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a building coverage of 35%, when a maximum of 30% is permitted, and to allow an accessory structure to be located 3.5’ from the rear lot line, when a minimum setback of 5’ is required, for the construction of a shed in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District. Analysis: Address: 1822 White Street Owners: Miguel Mora, 1822 White Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Petitioner: Miguel Mora, 1822 White Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case Number: 17-079-V Real Estate Index Number: 09-29-231-020-0000 Ward: #6, Alderman Malcolm Chester Existing Zoning: R-2 Two-Family Residential Existing Land Use: Residential Surrounding Zoning: North: R-2 Two-Family Residential South: R-2 Two-Family Residential East: R-1 Single-Family Residential West: R-1 Single-Family Residential Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 3 Surrounding Land Use: North: Residential South: Residential East: Residential West: Institutional (South Elementary School) Street Classification: White Street is a local street Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential – Low Density Multi-Family Project Description: The property at 1822 White Street is a legal non-conforming lot in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District. Though the lot meets the minimum required lot size of 2,800 square feet for an interior lot in the R-2 district (lot is 3,842 square feet), it does not meet the minimum required lot width of 45 feet for an interior lot (lot is 34 feet wide). The property is improved with a one-story, brick, single-family attached residence and a detached two-car garage. The applicant proposes to construct an 8-foot by 8-foot (64 square feet) shed behind the garage that puts total building coverage at 35%, when 30% is the maximum permitted. At present, the property has 33.2% building coverage (a 733 square foot house and 544 square foot detached garage on a 3,842 square foot lot). Additionally, based on the location of the existing detached garage (11.5 feet from the rear lot line), the shed has a proposed setback of 3.5 feet from the rear lot line, when a 5-foot setback is required. Please note that the petitioner has already constructed the shed on the property, without benefit of a permit. The existing shed will be moved to the proposed new location and the homeowner will obtain a permit for the shed to ensure that it meets building code, if approved for the variations. If the variations are not approved, the shed will be required to be removed from the property. 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 lot consists of a principal building (733 square feet) and a detached two-car garage (544 square feet). The zoning ordinance allows for two accessory structures per lot, a garage of no more than 720 square feet and a shed of no more than 150 square feet. Due to the size of the lot, an additional accessory structure is not allowed as a result of the issue with building coverage. With regard to the setback variance, the proposed shed will be placed behind the existing detached garage, which cannot be relocated. The garage has a setback of 11.5 feet, leaving only 6.5 feet of space for a shed, if the 5-foot setback is observed. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 4 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 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: Without the proposed shed (which is permitted by the zoning ordinance), there will be no extra storage space for items like bicycles, the lawn mower, patio furniture, etc. The area behind the garage, where the proposed shed will be located, is narrow, but is the best location for a shed so that it is out-of-the-way and the rest of the lot can remain free and usable by the homeowners. 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 property is legally platted and meets the standards for lot area, though not lot width, in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District. The detached two-car garage was already constructed when the current owners purchased the home and cannot be relocated or altered. 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: Denial of the variations would deny the homeowner the right to a second accessory structure, as permitted by the zoning ordinance. 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: A 50-square foot shed is proposed; 150-sqaure feet is the maximum size permitted by code. Additionally, the proposed shed will be placed up against the detached garage, so as not to encroach further into the required rear-yard setback. 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 applicant has stated that neighbors in the immediate vicinity have sheds. Recommendation: I recommend approval of the above-requested Standard Variations for building coverage and rear-yard setback in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District, based on a review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions imposed by Section 12-3-6(H) (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined by the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 5 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 Variations for building coverage and rear-yard setback in the R-2 Two-Family Residential District. It was noted the shed is already constructed, and officials cited this Petitioner. Chairman Szabo asked if there are questions from the Board. Board Member Hofherr asked/stated: • when the structure was built. Mr. Mora stated July of 2016. • if Petitioner is planning to paint the structure or add siding as there is a school in the rear that can see the shed. Ms. Estrella Mora stated the structure will be painted. • there is a tire on the west side. Ms. Estrella Mora stated it will be removed. Board Member Saletnik asked: • what year the shed was built. Chairman Szabo swore in Mrs. Araceli Mora, 1822 White Street, Des Plaines, IL. Mrs. Mora clarified July of 2017 (not 2016). • Staff, if this is an easement. Senior Planner Bye stated she would review same. Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded. A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to grant the request for a standard variation. Board Member Saletnik amended that this motion be based on no utility easement issues. Board Members Schell & Hofherr accepted the amendment. Board Member Hofherr amended that the structure be painted or siding be installed. Board Member Schell accepted the amendment. AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Saletnik, Bader, Fowler, Catalano, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** It was noted that Case #3 has been moved to next on the agenda. 2. Address: Citywide Case 17-076-TA The petitioner is requesting Text Amendments to Sections 12-11-2: Signs Prohibited and 12-13-3: Definitions of Terms of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to permit painted roof signs on owner-occupied industrial properties. PIN: Citywide Petitioner: Thomas Goodwyn, 33 N. LaSalle Street, 28th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602 Chairman Szabo swore in Brian P. Liston, Attorney at Law, Law Offices of Liston & Tsantilis, PC, 33 N. LaSalle Street, 28th Floor, Chicago, IL & Matt Berns, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Hu-Friedy Mfg. Co., LLC, 3232 N. Rockwell Street, Chicago, IL. Mr. Liston advised they are requesting a roof sign logo at 1666 E. Touhy, Des Plaines, IL. He noted the company has been there for 5 years and has 120 Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 6 employees. The company manufactures dental instruments. There is currently a different logo on the roof. Board Member Fowler asked if the sign is visible from the street. Mr. Berns advised – it is a flat roof; it would be visible from aircraft only. Chairman Szabo stated this is a unique request with no impact to the general public. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting Text Amendments to Sections 12-11-2: Signs Prohibited and 12-13-3: Definitions of Terms of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to permit painted roof signs on owner-occupied industrial properties. Analysis: Zoning Code Text Amendment Report PIN: Citywide Petitioner: Thomas Goodwyn, 33 N. LaSalle Street, 28th Floor, Chicago, IL 60602 Case Number: 17-076-TA Project Description: The petitioner proposes to alter two sections of the Zoning Ordinance in order to allow for painted roof signs on owner-occupied industrial buildings. The petitioner’s client, Hu-Friedy, which is located at 1666 E. Touhy Avenue, had previously inquired about painting a roof sign that would only be visible from above the roofline. The current code prohibits this use based on existing Sections 12-11-2 and 12-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance. At present, Section 12-13-3: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS defines roof signs as the following: SIGN, ROOF: A sign that is mounted or painted on the roof of a building, or that is wholly dependent upon a building for support and that projects above the roof. (Roof signs are prohibited.) The petitioner proposes to alter the definition to the following: SIGN, ROOF: A sign that is mounted or painted on the roof of a building, or that is wholly dependent upon a building for support and that projects above the roof. (Roof signs are prohibited except for painted signs on owner-occupied Industrial properties as provided in subsection 12-11-2.) At present, Section 12-11-2: SIGNS PROHIBITED states that roof signs are not permitted (B). The petitioner proposes to list roof signs as not permitted, except for painted signs on owner-occupied industrial properties. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 7 The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance only allow for owner- occupies industrial businesses to paint their logos on their own buildings; property management companies and tenants would be excluded from this as to limit who can paint on roofs and to encourage business owners to purchase their own properties. Additionally, the proposed changes would not allow for mounted roof signs, only painted. These types of signs would primarily be visible to air passengers and would not interfere with the air and light of neighboring properties. 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 in 2007, makes reference to capitalizing on the City’s proximity to O’Hare International Airport. The City recognizes O’Hare as a valuable asset, especially considering the cargo entrance on the north side of the airport. The objectives are to retain industrial businesses throughout Des Plaines, but also encourage existing businesses to relocate to the southwestern industrial area near O’Hare. Allowing painted roof signs could encourage businesses to move to or remain in Des Plaines. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The only type of signage proposed to be permitted as part of the amendments are painted roof signs that are primarily visible to air passengers. These types of signs are not visible from the ground and in no way alter or affect the character of the surrounding community. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; The proposed amendments will not affect public facilities and available services. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and The proposed amendments will not negatively affect the value of properties, and in fact may increase the value of certain industrial properties given the fact that additional advertising and marketing is permitted. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998) Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 8 The proposed amendments allow for signage that is primarily visible to air passengers and has no visible effect on surrounding properties. The availability of this type of signage may help keep existing businesses in Des Plaines or incentivize new businesses to move here. 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, subject to the following conditions: 1. Painted roof signs be limited to the M-2 General Manufacturing District and roofs to which they are painted on must have a slope of not more than .5 inch per foot. Staff recommends the following language to Sections 12-11-2 and 12-13-3: 12-11-2: SIGNS PROHIBITED B. Roof signs, except for painted signs on owner-occupied buildings with roofs that have a slope of not more than .5 inch per foot in the M-2 General Manufacturing District. 12-13-3: DEFINITIONS OF TERMS SIGN, ROOF: A sign that is mounted or painted on the roof of a building, or that is wholly dependent upon a building for support and that projects above the roof. (Roof signs are prohibited, except for painted signs on owner-occupied buildings with roofs that have a slope of not more than .5 inch per foot in the M-2 General Manufacturing District.) 2. Roof signs, subject to the conditions established in Sections 12-11-2 and 12-13-3, be added to Section 12-11-3(G): Exempt Signs of the Zoning Ordinance. Roof signs should be added as #14 of this list of signs that do not require permits, subject to the condition that they not cover more than 50% of the roof area. 12-11-3(G): Exempt Signs: The following signs shall be exempt from the permit requirements set forth in this section; provided however, they meet the remaining requirements of this chapter, as well as, any limitation set forth herein. 14. Roof signs, as permitted by the requirements of Sections 12-11-2 and 12-13- 13 of the Zoning Ordinance. Such signs shall not cover more than 50% of the roof area. 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 Saletnik stated, as an architect, the first Condition is very limiting. He suggested a flat roof would be less than 3 inches per ft. Chairman Szabo noted a potential problem if the language is too broad. Mr. Liston shared an aerial of the area that shows existing roof signs in Rosemont and the roof of Hu- Friedy. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 9 Board Member Bader stated the roof is surrounded by other manufacturers. Senior Planner Bye stated this would be a Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to only allow roof signs in the M-2 Zoning District, subject to other conditions. Chairman Szabo asked why this is not a Conditional Use. Senior Planner Bye responded that roof signs are not allowed at all, without a Text Amendment. They are not listed as a Conditional Use. Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded. Board Member Saletnik suggested the following language. This should be limited to flat roofs. A flat roof should be constituted by interior drainage, rather than perimeter drainage, and not visible from the ground. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to recommend approval to City Council with Conditions as recommended by Staff with a revision that this be limited to flat roofs. A flat roof should be constituted by interior drainage, rather than perimeter drainage, and not visible from the ground. AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Bader, Fowler, Schell, Catalano, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. 3. Address: 225,300,301,304,310 & 330 N. East River Road Case 17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, under Section 12-3-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to zone the below properties R-1 Single-Family Residential District and a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 12-3-5 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, and a Tentative Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-1 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of 39 single-family homes, with requested PUD exceptions from the R-1 Single-Family Residential Zoning District standards under Section 12-7-2(J) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum front yard setbacks, and total building coverage. The lots under consideration for the Map Amendment, Preliminary PUD and Tentative Plat of Subdivision are all on the west side of N. East River Road and include 09-09-400-016-0000, 09-09- 400-023-0000, 09-09-400-024-0000, 09-09-400-025-0000, 09-09-400-026-0000, 09-09-400-027-0000, and 09-09-400-028-0000. The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, under Section 12-3-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to zone the below properties R-1 Single-Family Residential District. These properties are not part of the request for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision. The lots under consideration for the Map Amendment only are on the east side of N. East River Road and include 09-09-401-021-0000 and 09-09- 401-035-0000. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 10 While not part of the Planning and Zoning Board’s purview, annexation of all of the above-mentioned properties to the City of Des Plaines will be a prerequisite for final approval. The City Council has sole authority for approval of annexation, and such review and approval will happen pursuant to an annexation public hearing held at a later date and time that will be duly noticed as required by law. PINs: 09-09-400-016-0000; 09-09-400-023-0000; 09-09-400-024-0000; 09-09-400-025-0000; 09-09-400-026-0000; 09-09-400-027-0000; 09-09-400-028-0000 The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, under Section 12-3-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to zone the below properties R-1 Single-Family Residential District, with no request for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) or Tentative Plat of Subdivision. While not part of the Planning and Zoning Board’s purview, annexation of the properties to the City of Des Plaines will be a prerequisite to final approval. The City Council has sole authority for approval of annexation, and such review and approval will happen pursuant to an annexation public hearing held at a later date and time that will be duly noticed as required by law. PINs: 09-09-401-021-0000; 09-09-401-035-0000 Petitioner: David Dubin, Dubin Consulting, Inc., 607 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL 60062 Owner: Kimberly Lombardino, 34185 N. Wineberry Road, Round Lake, IL 60073; John P. Sinitean, 319 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Daniel I. Abrudeanu and Claudia Abrudeanu, 330 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Acadia Ventures L.L.C., 330 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Joseph D. Vitulli, 301 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Frank Sciannameo, 225 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Chairman Szabo swore in David Dubin, Dubin Consulting, Inc., 607 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL; Bernard I. Citron, Thompson Coburn LLP, 55 E. Monroe, 37th floor, Chicago, IL; William B. Loftus P.E., President, Spaceco Inc., 9575 W. Higgins, Suite 700, Rosemont, IL; William R. Woodward, Senior Consultant, KLOA, 9575 W. Higgins, Suite 400, Rosemont, IL; & Kevin Clark, Director of Design, The Lakota Group, 116 W. Illinois, 7th floor, Chicago, IL. Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, under Section 12-3-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to zone the below properties R-1 Single-Family Residential District and a Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 12-3-5 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, and a Tentative Plat of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-1 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code, to allow for the construction of 39 single-family homes, with requested PUD exceptions from the R-1 Single- Family Residential Zoning District standards under Section 12-7-2(J) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum front yard setbacks, and total building coverage. The lots under consideration for the Map Amendment, Preliminary PUD and Tentative Plat of Subdivision are all on the west side of N. East River Road and include 09-09-400-016-0000, 09-09- 400-023-0000, 09-09-400-024-0000, 09-09-400-025-0000, 09-09-400-026-0000, 09-09-400-027-0000, and 09-09-400-028-0000. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 11 The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, under Section 12-3-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to zone the below properties R-1 Single-Family Residential District. These properties are not part of the request for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Tentative Plat of Subdivision. The lots under consideration for the Map Amendment only are on the east side of N. East River Road and include 09-09-401-021-0000 and 09-09- 401-035-0000. While not part of the Planning and Zoning Board’s purview, annexation of all of the above-mentioned properties to the City of Des Plaines will be a prerequisite for final approval. The City Council has sole authority for approval of annexation, and such review and approval will happen pursuant to an annexation public hearing held at a later date and time that will be duly noticed as required by law. Analysis: Address: 225, 300, 301, 304, 310 & 330 N. East River Road Owners: Kimberly Lombardino, 34185 N. Wineberry Road, Round Lake, IL 60073; John P. Sinitean, 319 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Daniel I. Abrudeanu and Claudia Abrudeanu, 330 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Acadia Ventures L.L.C., 330 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Joseph D. Vitulli, 301 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016; Frank Sciannameo, 225 N. East River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Petitioner: David Dubin, Dubin Consulting, Inc., 607 Academy Drive, Northbrook, IL 60062 Case Number: 17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP Real Estate Index Numbers: 09-09-400-016-0000; 09-09-400-023-0000; 09-09-400-024-0000; 09- 09-400-025-0000; 09-09-400-026-0000; 09-09-400-027-0000; 09-09- 400-028-0000; 09-09-401-021-0000; 09-09-401-035-0000 Ward: #1, Alderman Mark Lysakowski Existing Zoning N/A (unincorporated) Existing Land Use Residential Surrounding Zoning North: N/A (unincorporated) South: N/A (unincorporated) East: N/A (unincorporated) West: N/A (unincorporated) Surrounding Land Use North: Single-Family Residential South: Utilities (ComEd right-of-way) East: Single-Family Residential West: Railroad; Forest Preserve Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 12 Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates N. East River Road as a collector street Comprehensive Plan Residential – Large-Lot Single Family is the recommended use of the site Project Description The petitioner proposes a residential development of 39 single-family detached homes on 6.584 acres of land that are currently unincorporated. The parcels that are included as part of the development must be annexed into the City of Des Plaines. If annexed, the petitioner proposed to zone the development area R-1 Single-Family Residential. In order to construct the 39 single-family homes, the petitioner proposes a Planned Unit Development and Subdivision for the 6.584 acres. The homes will have three or four bedrooms and come in three different styles (Shingle, European, and Craftsman) with three different models each. The petitioner is proposing each house have a two-car garage, with room for two cars in the driveway of each home and an additional 19 on- street parking spaces within the development. The proposed lots vary in width from 40 to 55 feet and vary in area from 4,299 to 8,113 square feet, with most falling between 4,300 and 5,000 square feet. As a result, the petitioner is requesting exceptions from the Zoning Ordinance to allow lots that do not meet the required lot width (55 feet for interior lots and 65 feet for corner lots are required) or area (6,875 square feet for interior lots and 8,125 square feet for corner lots are required) in the R-1 Single- Family Residential District. Additionally, the petitioner is requesting exceptions to the maximum building coverage permitted (30% for interior lots and 35% for corner lots are permitted; between 35% and 50% is proposed) as well as required front yard setback (25 feet is required; 20 feet is proposed). Vehicular access to the site would be provided by two new access points off of N. East River Road. Please note that a total of nine individual parcels are proposed to be annexed by the City of Des Plaines; however, only seven of these parcels (those on the west side of N. East River Road) are proposed to be included as part of the PUD and Subdivision. The two parcels on the east side of N. East River Road are to be annexed and zoned only; no changes are proposed to these single-family homes. Zoning Map Amendment Findings As required, the proposed amendment is reviewed below in terms of the standards contained in Section 12- 3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance: A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 13 The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Large-Lot Single Family. As defined by the Plan, Large-Lot Single Family is a residential area that includes single-family detached dwellings on lots that are a minimum of one-half acre in size. If the Comprehensive Plan designation is followed, then a maximum of 14 homes could be built on the nearly seven-acre site. However, this number does not include required rights-of-way such as streets and sidewalks, which would take away from the overall developable area. If the proposed site layout is used, then there are 4.28 acres available for development (286,800 square feet of total land area, less the three outlots for detention, open space, and right- of-way, which leaves 186,517 square feet), which results in eight homes on half-acre lots. The petitioner, however, is requesting 39 homes. This is approximately five and a half homes per acre, instead of two. If the site were to be developed per the lot standards for the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, then 26 homes would be permitted by-right (186,517 square feet of developable area, less four lots at 8,125 square feet [the minimum required lot area for corner lots], leaving 154,017 square feet for an additional 22 interior lots at 6,875 square feet each). B. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the current conditions and the overall character of existing developments in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Five and a half homes are proposed per acre, though most of the surrounding single-family homes are located on one- to three-acre lots. It should also be noted, though, that there are townhomes and apartment buildings in the vicinity along N. East River Road, resulting in a variety of housing types. C. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to the subject property. The petitioner will be required to extend Des Plaines water and sewer lines north to serve the proposed development. It is expected that these facilities are sized to serve the development. In regards to open space requirements, the petitioner has been made aware of the requirement to either dedicate parkland to the Des Plaines Park District or pay a fee-in-lieu based on the impact the development will have on local parks. It should also be noted that the petitioner’s traffic impact study, completed by Kenig, Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) of Rosemont, IL, concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact traffic on N. East River Road or Central Road and that no improvements to the roadways are recommended. D. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction. The proposed single-family residential use of the site would likely have a neutral to positive impact on property values surrounding the development. However, it should be noted that the homes in this area are on much larger lots (one to three acres) than those lots proposed for the development. E. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 14 The proposal for single-family detached housing complies with the Comprehensive Plan’s call for residential in this area; however, the proposed development is much more dense (five and a half homes per acre) than the Plan calls for (two homes per acre). Planned Unit Development Findings As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in Section 12- 3-5(E) of the Zoning Ordinance: A. The extent to which the Proposed Plan is or is not consistent with the stated purpose of the PUD regulations in Section 12-3-5(A): Comment: The proposed plan is consistent with the stated purpose of Section 12-3-5(A) of the Zoning Ordinance in that the small-lot, single-family residential development would allow for a more efficient use of land resulting in more economic networks of utilities, streets and other facilities not possible under the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the proposed PUD offers a creative approach to the use of land that results in better development and design and the construction of aesthetic amenities. B. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the planned unit development regulations: Comment: The proposed Planned Unit Development meets all PUD requirements contained in Section 12- 3-5(B) of the Zoning Ordinance as it would be located in a zoning district that permits PUDs (R-1 Single- Family Residential District), meets the minimum size standard of two acres (combined lot is 6.584 acres), and the land is under unified control of Dubin Holdings Inc. as the contract purchaser. C. The extent to which the proposed plan departs from the applicable zoning and subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to the density, dimension, area, bulk, and use and the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest: Comment: The proposed development meets or exceeds the following applicable zoning regulations for the R-1 Single-Family Residential District: • Minimum Size for PUD: 2 acres are required; the total site is 6.584 acres; • Parking Requirements: 78 spaces (2/unit) are required; 175 are proposed; • Side- and Rear-Yard Setbacks: side-yard setbacks of 5 feet and rear-yard setbacks of 25 feet are required; side-yard setbacks of 5 feet and rear-yard setbacks of 25 feet are proposed; • Height: a maximum height of 35 feet is permitted; 30 feet is proposed; • Compatibility with Surrounding Properties: the style of residences in this area (both unincorporated and incorporated) is varied; while many single-family homes exist on one to three acres of land, there are also townhomes and apartments in the vicinity along N. East River Road; • Traffic: adequate provisions for safe ingress and egress and minimal traffic impact will be provided according to the traffic study; and • General Design: the general design of the proposed single-family homes meets the design guidelines of Section 12-3-11 of the Zoning Ordinance and the general design of the development is not expected to be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare. A Planned Unit Development exception is requested for: Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 15 • Minimum Lot Area: a minimum lot area of 6,875 square feet for interior lots and 8,125 square feet for corner lots is required; lots range in area from 4,299 to 8,113 square feet, with most falling between 4,300 and 5,000 square feet; • Minimum Lot Width: a minimum lot width of 55 feet for interior lots and 65 feet for corner lots is required; lots range in width from 40 to 55 feet, with most at 40 feet in width; • Maximum building coverage: a maximum building coverage of 30% for interior lots and 35% for corner lots is permitted; between 35% and 50% building coverage is proposed; • Front-Yard Setback: a front yard setback of 25 feet is required; a front yard setback of 20 feet is proposed. D. The extent to which the physical design of the proposed development does or does not make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control of vehicular traffic, provide for, protect open space, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment: Comment: After reviewing the petitioner’s preliminary building and site improvement plans, it appears that the proposed development is making adequate provision for the necessary infrastructure. Comments and conditions from the Public Works and Engineering Department further address this issue. In terms of recreational amenities proposed for the site, the petitioner has identified on the site plan an outlot for open space or a private park. The developer has been made aware of the requirement for a parks dedication or impact fee for the development, which will likely take the form of a fee-in-lieu donation to the Des Plaines Park District. The petitioner may receive credit for the proposed private park, as approved by the City Council. The control of vehicular traffic is addressed in the petitioner’s professional traffic impact study, which was performed by Kenig, Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) of Rosemont, IL. The study concluded that the traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact traffic on N. East River Road or Central Road and that N. East River Road has adequate capacity to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the development. Additionally, the proposed access with two-way access drives off of N. East River Road will ensure that adequate access is provided to serve the development. E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is beneficial or adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood: Comment: The style, location and massing of the proposed single-family homes are compatible with the surrounding uses. However, most of the surrounding single-family homes, all unincorporated, are located on one- to three-acre lots. It should also be noted, though, that there are townhomes and apartment buildings in the vicinity along N. East River Road, resulting in a variety of housing types. F. The extent to which the proposed plan is not desirable to physical development, tax base and economic well-being of the entire community: Comment: The proposed single-family residential use of the site would likely have a positive impact on property values and tax base. If the homes are constructed and occupied, there will be greater demands on city services, city streets, and other public facilities; however, it is believed that the City’s current public services and public facilities will be able to handle the increased need for services at this location without being overburdened. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 16 G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2007 Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Large-Lot Single Family. As defined by the Plan, Large-Lot Single Family is a residential area that includes single-family detached dwellings on lots that are a minimum of one-half acre in size. If the Comprehensive Plan designation is followed, then a maximum of 14 homes could be built on the nearly seven-acre site. However, this number does not include required rights-of-way such as streets and sidewalks, which would take away from the overall developable area. If the proposed site layout is used, then there are 4.28 acres available for development (286,800 square feet of total land area, less the three outlots for detention, open space, and right- of-way, which leaves 186,517 square feet), which results in eight homes on half-acre lots. The petitioner, however, is requesting 39 homes. This is approximately five and a half homes per acre, instead of two. If the site were to be developed per the lot standards for the R-1 Single-Family Residential District, then 26 homes would be permitted by-right (186,517 square feet of developable area, less four lots at 8,125 square feet [the minimum required lot area for corner lots], leaving 154,017 square feet for an additional 22 interior lots at 6,875 square feet each). Tentative Plat Report Name of Subdivision: 300 East River Road Subdivision Address: 300 N. East River Road Request: Approval of a Tentative Plat of Subdivision Total Acreage of Subdivision: 6.584 acres Lot Descriptions: The petitioner’s Preliminary Plat of Subdivision shows the existing seven parcels being combined and divided into three outlots (A, B and C) and 39 lots for single-family homes. It shows easements for public utilities and drainage. Tentative Plat Comments: 1. The Final Plat must show the name of the owner(s) and notarized signatures; 2. The Final Plat must have the surveyor’s seal and date of preparation; 3. The Final Plat must show the proper easement provisions and signature lines and have them signed by all public service utilities; 4. The Final Plat must show building lines and easements including dimensions; 5. The Final Plat must include Certificates from the Finance Director, Director of Public Works and Engineering, and Director of Community and Economic Development; 6. The Final Plat must show all subdivision regulation variances; 7. The Final Plat must meet the minimum standards for Plat of Subdivision in the State of Illinois. Final Comments Staff Recommendations: I recommend approval of the Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development and Tentative Plat of Subdivision, subject to the condition listed below: Condition: Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 17 1. The petitioner comply with all comments not already addressed per the Staff Review Letter dated August 31, 2017. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to grant or deny approval of the Tentative Plat. If approved, the petitioner’s next step is to submit final engineering plans to the Public Works and Engineering Department and return to the Planning and Zoning Board with an updated plat for Final Plat consideration. The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval of the Map Amendment and Preliminary Planned Unit Development. The City Council has final authority over the Map Amendment and Preliminary Planned Unit Development. Senior Planner Bye stated there 9 parcels in total that are proposed to be annexed and zoned R-1. She stated that 7 are on the west side of East River Road and included as part of the PUD and that 2 parcels on the east side of East River Road and are not included as part of the PUD. Mr. Citron gave a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed development and clarified which parcels are included as part of the PUD. He noted there has not been a lot of development there. Mr. Citron stated they are proposing 39 (originally 50) single-family home s which is more in keeping with the surrounding community. He noted there are 2 access points on East River Road. There is detention and usable open space. Various home styles will be offered. Most developments have been townhomes or multi- family residential homes. These are single-family detached homes. These traditional houses were noted as such: • 2-car garage and 2-car parking in driveway • Lots range in width • Those along River Road will have a landscape buffer • Water and sewer components are present; engineers have concurred • Buyers want brand-new homes and individual lots Mr. Citron introduced Mr. Clark who advised the trend is neo-traditional (front porches, walkable environment, open space in middle, and landscape buffers). Mr. Citron stated this is a self-contained (buffered) environment. Mr. Clark identified same on site plan. Mr. Citron stated and Mr. Clark concurred there is no impact on surrounding areas. Board Member Fowler asked: • regarding traffic, if there is a plan. She appreciates single-family homes in Des Plaines. The concern is traffic. Mr. Citron stated 39 homes create very little traffic. Most traffic is south of this development (in the evening). Mr. Woodward provided traffic study information (regional growth factor, 2 access drives are more than adequate, intersection is a stand-alone condition, and rush- hour traffic will be low). • if there is street parking. Mr. Woodward stated – 19 parking spaces on the street Board Member Hofherr cited a personal experience and asked, regarding southbound traffic, if there would be turn lanes. Mr. Woodward stated – no, due to IDOT standards and low traffic, a left-turn lane on River Road into the development is not warranted. Board Member Hofherr noted traffic on Central going south onto tollway and stated this would be a problem. Mr. Woodward responded – with 39 single-family homes, Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 18 22 vehicles would enter site during peak hours (1 every 3 minutes). With an additional access driveway, it is even lower. Board Member Fowler asked: • if there are other similar developments with this design. Mr. Citron stated one development is slated for Bensenville but not yet built. • what the price point is. Mr. Citron advised – starting at $450,000 (3-4 bedrooms) • where the front porch is; a house with a garage attached is disturbing. Mr. Citron advised – there are areas to gather; no area for garages in the rear. • how much yard space there is for the homes in the center. Mr. Dubin stated 25 ft. per property. Board Member Schell asked: • to please explain the tree preservation plan. Mr. Citron advised – the trees that are there presently are not preservable. Trees will be added. • how many trees will be added. Mr. Citron advised – they will go by the City’s list. Chairman Szabo asked/stated: • what size caliper the trees are. Mr. Citron advised – 3 ½-4 inches • based on only having front elevations, what the side elevations will look like. Mr. Citron stated – full elevations are yet to come. This petitioner will need to return and present those drawings. • Masonry is required on the 1st floor. Mr. Dubin stated the code will be followed regarding brick; designs will be provided, and feedback is suggested. Chairman Szabo cited a similar development. Mr. Citron stated these are affordable due to the number of units. Board Member Saletnik stated, when there are so many homes on small lots with garages in front, all homes can look alike. Variety in architecture is essential. Mr. Citron advised there would be 6 different design styles with multiple choices (roof lines, materials, etc.). Board Member Saletnik suggested there may be a need for more; needs to be enhanced. All concurred that the architecture is extremely important for a development like this. Chairman Szabo suggested staying away from dryvit; it breeds mold. Mr. Citron stated natural products will be used (masonry, stone, wood/HardiePlank). Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He asked if anyone in the audience has comments. The following came forward and were sworn in by Chairman Szabo: • Bill Epplen 350 N. East River Road (property adjacent on the north) Mr. Epplen advised he has lived here 30 years; is happy about single-family homes. His concerns are: o Water management o Houses abutting against his property o Traffic (has to currently go north to go south); emergency vehicles need to get through o Being in unincorporated Cook County, with the development in Des Plaines city limits, who will resolve future issues if they arise? o During floods with roads closed, his commute was 1 ½ hours • Anthony Phillips 470 N. East River Road Mr. Phillips asked/stated the following: Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 19 o How would he receive information on these proceedings? Staff advised the minutes will be on the City’s web site after they are approved in 2 weeks o Concerned about very bad current traffic (from tollway) clogging intersections o How much will tax base be increased? How much will be appropriated to Police, Fire, etc.? Chairman Szabo stated video recordings are permissible for future meetings. He noted the City Finance Staff might be able to address taxes. • Lucy Niewiarowski 210 N. East River Road Ms. Niewiarowski stated her concern is the traffic as she was hit 6 years ago on East River Road due to no exit. She noted wider lanes are necessary. She almost lost her legs. I-294 has traffic as well. Traffic has increased over the last 30 years. Pedestrians are afraid to walk in the grass; sidewalks are too small. Bicycles are not even present. She came to show what could happen when drivers are nasty. • Susan Mack 514 Teela Lane Mrs. Mack stated they are neighbors in favor of developing. Density is a concern. There are no playgrounds in the area. Where will these children play in this small space? There are no sidewalks on East River Road. Would like to see the area be less dense and a playground built. Chairman Szabo asked Staff what the agreement is with the Des Plaines Park District. Senior Planner Bye stated in the future, parkland will need to be dedicated (or a fee-in-lieu of). • Fred Mack 514 Teela Lane Mr. Mack shared his concern as there’s a 1 ½ ft. shoulder. There are 236 apartments being built to the south, and there is a train crossing in the vicinity. How will an emergency vehicle pass without a shoulder? Pedestrians currently are not safe; children will attempt to walk as well. • Lisa Levally 476 N. East River Road Ms. Levally advised she has lived here since 1988. She is concerned about the density and traffic; only egress for 236 apartments is East River Road. Cars coming off of I-294 go fast. She is afraid to walk. • Kathy O’Hare 390 N. East River Road Ms. O’Hare asked how many ordinances will be changed. Chairman Szabo advised there would be none. Senior Planner Bye noted there are exceptions as part of the PUD such as minimum- required lot area; she will provide a copy of same. It was asked how often exceptions are granted. Board Member Saletnik responded – spaces allow for a Planned Unit Development with acceptable changes. Chairman Szabo cited Des Plaines is landlocked. This petition is unique. Board Member Hofherr stated/asked: • regarding the development at Golf & River Roads, improvements to the intersection are supposed to be made Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 20 • the City Engineering Staff could request to widen the road/shoulder or add sidewalk. It was noted Cook County owns the road. Chairman Szabo stated a sidewalk in front of this development would not do much, but that it would be connected to future sidewalks that are a part of future development. In regards to the approved apartment building to the south (150 N. East River Road), Senior Planner Bye explained it exits at River Road, with no exits out to Golf. Board Member Hofherr added that construction vehicles only can access the site from Golf. Mr. Citron reiterate/stated: • there will be a park/playground on this site • traffic at peak hours are 500 cars per hour. This development will bring an additional 22 cars to the traffic that’s there currently. • he agrees with a sidewalk along East River Road • elevations are forthcoming; architecture is being increased because it’s a PUD • utilities are being extended • 30 homes (not the original 50) allows for affordable units • internal density cannot be seen • site needs to be developed rather than leave as is • site is not in a flood plain; cannot send water to neighbors; a detention pond is slated. City Engineers will review these issues. • Extending water and sewer line to the edge of the property Mr. Citron stated the above surmises benefits and costs. He noted this is a great compromise. Chairman Szabo asked about utilities being added and if that will mitigate neighbors’ concerns. Board Member Catalano stated the storm water management would be better. Traffic may not make a noticeable difference. The developer is mandated to follow drainage rules; well thought-out plan. Engineers will be sure everything is well designed. Board Member Saletnik stated the traffic is due to the I-294 exit. The light sequencing is being improved to mitigate this traffic. Board Member Catalano agreed that the intersection is odd and close to Golf Road. He noted if the City of Des Plaines’ Staff approaches the tollway authority and IDOT, this would help. The timing may not be coordinated at the present time. Board Member Saletnik added that State Representatives should be addressed as well. Mr. Citron suggested a recommendation or Condition for natural elements on elevations. Chairman Szabo stated he is a masonry contractor, and Des Plaines had in the code that brick would be present on all elevations. Mr. Citron stated there are other architecture styles (with not all masonry). Chairman Szabo stated a brick home has a better resale value. Blending in with the neighborhood is important. Mr. Citron stated he would like to have flexibility. Mr. Dubin stated there are no issues with brick around the first floor. He noted various designs would be presented. Chairman Szabo recalled a project where brick had to be added to blend in with Des Plaines. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik to recommend approval of the Preliminary PUD to City Council. He then restated the motion to recommend approval to City Council of the: • Amendment to the Zoning Map • Preliminary PUD with the exceptions that natural materials be used on all exterior elevations • Tentative Plat of Subdivisions Board Member Saletnik stated, in addition, there is a global traffic problem at East River and Golf Roads. Something proactive needs to be done by the City of Des Plaines to initiate talks with the tollway authorities, IDOT, and lobby with other State officials. Case #17-079-V – 1822 White Street – Variations Case #17-069-PPUD-SUB-MAP – 225,300,301,304,310, & 330 N. River Road – MAP Amendment, Preliminary PUD, & Tentative Plat of Subdivision Case #17-076-TA – Citywide – Text Amendment September 26, 2017 Page 21 The motion was seconded by Board Member Hofherr. AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Bader, Fowler, Catalano, Szabo NAYES: Schell ***MOTION CARRIED 6-1*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council. OLD BUSINESS There was no Old Business ADJOURNMENT On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Sincerely, Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners