10/24/2017Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2017
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, October 24,
2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD
PRESENT: Bader, Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell
ABSENT: Szabo
ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development
Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary
Vice Chair Saletnik called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was conducted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Bader, to approve the minutes of
October 10, 2017 as written.
AYES: Hofherr, Bader, Fowler, Schell, Saletnik
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments.
Board Member Catalano arrived at 7:06 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS
1. Address: 943 Walter Avenue Case 17-089-V
The petitioner is requesting Major Variations to Sections 12-7-2(J) and 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a principal structure with a side-yard setback of 3’, when 5’ is
required, and to allow two garages.
PIN: 09-17-317-033-0000
Petitioner: Erik Kim, 943 Walter Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 2
Owner: Erik Kim, 943 Walter Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Vice Chair Saletnik swore in Mr. Erik Kim and Ms. Margaret Zhu, 943 Walter Avenue, Des Plaines, IL.
Mr. Kim advised he wishes to build an attached garage so that the family can have secured, covered access
to the house. He noted an SUV cannot be parked in the existing detached garage because the garage door is
too low (lawn equipment will be stored). Garage doors on the proposed attached garage will block the view
of cars parked in the rear. Mr. Kim stated the driveway is already there on the right side of the house. The
front corner of the proposed attached garage is 3 ft.; however the back half is 4 ½ ft. since the lot is angled.
Vice Chair Saletnik asked:
• if this will be a two -story building, and if an architect was hired. Mr. Kim advised – yes
• why on the right side? Mr. Kim reiterated – the existing driveway is there; more economical
• if the architect is present. Mr. Kim advised – no, and continued that another reason is the time
constraint; would be completed quicker; to rebuild on the other side would lengthen the process
(by three months).
• if the first-floor plan (bathroom) is existing? Mr. Kim advised -- yes
Vice Chair Saletnik asked if the Board has questions.
Board Member Hofherr asked:
• how long Petitioner has owned the house. Mr. Kim advised – one year
• if Petitioner is currently living there. Mr. Kim advised – no. Ms. Zhu stated it is uninhabitable
• if anyone is living in the camper. Mr. Kim advised – no
• what will be done to the exterior. Mr. Kim advised – most of the house will be demolished
• what type of business Petitioner is in. Mr. Kim advised – he’s a builder
• if Petitioner’s business will be located there. Mr. Kim advised – no, his office is in Chicago
Board Member Fowler asked why two garages are needed. Mr. Kim advised – for storage purposes, rather
than building a shed.
Board Member Catalano asked why Petitioner is not building in the same location of existing garage. Mr.
Kim advised – due to long driveway (75 ft.), Ms. Zhu would have to walk far to the house from garage.
Board Member Fowler asked what the cost differential is between building on the other side of the house
than proposed. Mr. Kim stated -- $50,000 (for driveway, paving, cutting an apron; neighbors wouldn’t be
able to use sidewalk).
Board Member Hofherr asked:
• if Petitioner is planning to keep the camper on the property. Mr. Kim advised – possibly, based on
what the code allows
• how many vehicles Petitioner has. Mr. Kim advised – two
• how Petitioner will handle the other car with the SUV parked in existing garage. Mr. Kim advised
– he and Ms. Zhu have different schedules; two garage doors will allow for cars to be pulled in
and out.
Vice Chair stated Petitioner has done himself a disservice by not having the architect present. He noted the
plan is impressive due to the yard, plumbing wall, existing garage, driveway, etc.; elevation is attractive
and unique.
Vice Chair Saletnik asked if anyone in the audience is in favor of this proposal. The following came
forward; however, they are opposed:
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 3
• Mike Cosentino 936 Walter
Mr. Cosentino noted:
o the 3 ft. setback would not fit in with the neighborhood
o concerned it may become a commercial zone if the Petitioner uses the existing garage for
his business
• Tim Finnander 955 Walter
Mr. Finnander noted/asked:
o his concern is a drainage issue; there are water problems in the area. How will that work?
Would like to see a site plan from a Civil Engineer.
o if the setback is from the foundation. Senior Planner Bye responded – yes
o why can’t the addition be placed on the rear of the house? Mr. Kim responded – if the
garage is built on the east side, there would be more of a runoff issue (via downspouts,
etc.). The downspouts will be between two structures.
o there should be a storm sewer
Board Member Fowler asked:
• why the garage is not going to be in the rear. Mr. Kim stated – there isn’t enough space
between the existing detached garage; not comfortable with that design.
• how many feet there are from the rear of the house to the existing garage. Petitioner
advised – 15 ft. Senior Planner Bye clarified – 20 ft. according to the plat of survey
• how deep the garage is. Mr. Kim advised – 18-20 ft.
Mr. Finnander asked Staff if three-car garages are allowed. Senior Planner Bye advised – 720 sq.
ft. is allowed, which is enough for three cars.
Vice Chair Saletnik stated this layout as presented is optimal.
Board Member Fowler asked if Petitioner is planning on living on the property. Mr. Kim stated –
yes.
• Mary Candra 935 Walter
Ms. Candra noted she is speaking on behalf of her mother, Mrs. Pesche. Concerns are:
o the house will not be in keeping with the neighborhood
o property values will go down
o privacy and security
o additional heating fees (due to reduced sunlight)
o this is a lifetime effect
o depth and height were noted
o if there will be an addition to the house on the other side in the future
o drainage
o the need for an additional attached garage; don’t see a burden; most homes in the
neighborhood have detached garages
o measurements may not be accurate
o lack of green space between structures
o where will snow go
o foliage may not be able to grow
o car doors inside the garage or in the driveway may not open properly
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 4
Vice Chair Saletnik stated the house begins after the driveway property line. Senior Planner Bye
stated the City’s engineer would be required to review all plans for permits. Vice Chair Saletnik
referred to the fence, property line, and cars in photo (Attachment 3, upper right-hand corner).
Mrs. Candra distributed a photo (illustrating the driveway width with open car doors) to the Board.
She stated this would look like a tunnel.
Vice Chair Saletnik then asked if anyone is in favor of the proposal. No one responded. He asked Staff to
provide the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting Major Variations to Sections 12-7-2(J) and 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a principal structure with a side-yard setback of 3’, when 5’
is required, and to allow two garages.
Analysis:
Address: 943 Walter Avenue
Owners: Erik Kim, 943 Walter Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: Erik Kim, 943 Walter Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 17-089-V
Real Estate Index Number: 09-17-317-033-0000
Ward: #3, Alderman Denise Rodd
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
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 Walter Avenue is a local street
Comprehensive Plan Residential – Traditional Single Family is the recommended use of the
property
Project Description The petitioner, Erik Kim, proposes to construct an addition requiring two
variations at 943 Walter Avenue. The property is approximately 9,340
square feet and is currently improved with a single-story, single-family
detached home of 1,390 square feet and a detached garage of 788 square
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 5
feet. The garage is accessed by a driveway that runs along the west side
of the home.
The proposed addition would be located on the west side of the house,
over the existing driveway. The petitioner proposes a 12’2” by 22’2”,
two -story addition that would be 3’ from the side lot line, when a 5’
setback is required. The first story of the addition would be an attached
single-car garage that would have garage doors on the north and south
facades so that a car could drive all the way through to the rear detached
garage. As only one garage is permitted per lot, this is an additional
variation sought by the petitioner. The second story of the addition would
be the master bedroom, closet and bathroom.
Staff would like to point out a few inconsistencies with the plans
submitted. First, the rear elevation submitted shows the new addition,
but not the additional garage door that would allow cars to pass through
to the existing detached garage. Second, the homeowner has stated that
the rear patio area would remain the same; however, the site plan
submitted does not accurately reflect the patio shown on the plat of
survey. It also appears that the existing driveway would need to be
modified to fit the new garage doors proposed as part of the addition.
Finally, the new addition is proposed to extend 12’2” off the side of the
house. The existing setback from the west lot line is 14’10-3/4”. This
means that the side-yard setback is actually 2’8-3/4”, not 3’, at the closest
point to the lot line. Staff would also like clarification from the petitioner
on the how far the eaves extend from the addition towards the property
to west, and how the issue of the drainage will be addressed.
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 the existing garage is not attached to the house and that the
height of the ceiling and garage door opening is not high enough to accommodate a taller car, such
as an SUV or pickup truck, creating a hardship as they would not be able to park their cars inside
the garage. The petitioner has also stated that they would like an attached garage to protect the
family and children from rain and snow. Due to budget constraints and timeline, it would be a
financial burden to build the new attached garage on the east side of the house and that the zoning
code only allows for one apron per lot (the petitioner would want to keep the existing detached
garage and driveway).
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
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 6
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: The applicant has stated that the house was built off-center with a narrow driveway. The
petitioner proposes to put the two-story addition on this side of the house, over the existing
driveway. The proposed new attached garage would have pass-through garage doors so that the
homeowner can park cars in the rear of the lot and keep cars out-of-site from the street.
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 petitioner’s proposal is a result of the existing home and site conditions. The home
was purchased with the detached garage in the rear and a driveway that approached this garage on
the side of the house that is closest to the property line.
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 deny the family the benefit
and protection of an attached garage. Adhering to the zoning regulations would lengthen the
construction project and cause unnecessary debris and hazards for the neighborhood to endure. It
would also be financially unattainable due to the scope of the work.
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 setback requested is the minimum needed to allow the
single-car, attached garage and second-story addition to be built.
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 neighborhood mostly consists of two-story, single-
family residences with attached garages. However, staff would like to point out that while many of
the homes in the area are two stories, nearly all have detached garages. Of the 20 houses on Walter
Avenue between Second Avenue and Third Avenue, only 3 have attached garages and 17 have
detached garages. The petitioner also stated a remodel of the existing home will raise the value of
the property and the surrounding community, and potentially inspire others in the area to invest in
their properties.
Recommendation: I recommend denial of the Major Variations to Sections 12-7-2(J) and 12-8-1(C) of the
1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a principal structure with a side-yard setback of
3’, when 5’ is required, and to allow two garages. Though staff would like to see the property improved, there
is space on the east side of the house for an addition that does not encroach into the required 5’ setback. The
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 7
proposed addition, with a 3’ setback, will create a situation where a two-story home is unevenly placed on
one side of the lot, with plenty of room on the other. Additionally, staff does not support the need for two
garages, when the existing detached garage is 788 square feet, 68 square feet larger than allowed per the
zoning ordinance (720 square feet is the maximum area allowed for a detached garage).
Plan & Zoning Board Procedure: Under Sections 12-3-6(G)2 (Procedure for Review and Decision for
Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning & Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval,
approval with modifications, or disapproval of the proposed variations. The City Council has final authority
over the variations requested.
Vice Chair Saletnik asked if there are further questions from the Board.
Board Member Hoffher asked:
• Staff, regarding placing driveway on other side, if IDOT gets involved. Senior Planner Bye stated
– not for this local road
• if home is being demolished, plumbing could be placed anywhere. Mr. Kim stated – the water
meters are by the stairs; planning to keep the sewers.
Vice Chair Saletnik stated the plan is very well done; ingenious. He noted, regarding side-yard setbacks,
there are many, even zero-lot lines, in Des Plaines. He referred to the upper right-hand photo in Attachment
3 and stated the house next door has a driveway between their home and the proposed addition.
Board Member Catalano stated he likes the layout but has a problem with two garages. Mr. Kim stated he
would demolish the existing garage. Board Member Catalano asked and Senior Planner Bye suggested a
continuance with Petitioner to return with a modified plan. Vice Chair Saletnik recommended having
architect present.
Vice Chair Saletnik asked what Petitioner would do for storage (if garage is demolished). Mr. Kim stated
they would add a shed. Senior Planner Bye raised the issue of the driveway. Various options were
discussed. She noted the next PZB meeting is scheduled for November 14, 2017.
Board Member Fowler stated the Petitioner should consider more than a one-car garage. Mr. Kim stated he
is concerned about curb appeal. Vice Chair Saletnik noted an attached garage has no limitations – however
a detached garage does.
A motion was made by Board Member Fowler, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to continue this proposal
to the November 14, 2017, PZB Meeting.
AYES: Fowler, Catalano, Bader, Hofherr, Schell, Saletnik
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
2. Address: 2750 S. River Road Case 17-086-V
The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation from Section 12-11-6(B) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to allow a monument sign with a setback of 1 foot from the front property line, when
5 feet is required.
PIN: 09-33-203-007-0000, 09-33-401-006-0000, 09-34-300-001-0000
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 8
Petitioner: Chris Setzler, 2245 Enterprise Drive, Suite 406, Westchester, IL 60154
Owner: UroPartners Real Estate LLC, 2245 Enterprise Drive, Suite 406, Westchester, IL 60154
Vice Chair Saletnik swore in Christopher Setzler, Chief Operating Officer, UroPartners Real Estate LLC,
2245 Enterprise Drive, Suite 406, Westchester, IL who advised he purchased the surgery center. He noted
the sign designer suggested a monument sign. The setback required is 5 ft.; are proposing 1 ft. due to patients
being elderly and the curve of S. River Road at this location.
Vice Chair Saletnik asked if the sign would be perpendicular to the road. Mr. Setzler advised it would.
Board Member Hofherr asked if the word “Urology” would be on the sign. Mr. Setzler advised – no, just
UroPartners.
Vice Chair Saletnik asked if anyone is in favor of the proposal. One person raised her hand. He asked if
anyone is opposed. No one responded. Vice Chair Saletnik then asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which
Senior Planner Bye did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation from Section 12-11-6(B) of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a monument sign with a setback of 1 foot from the front property
line, when 5 feet is required.
Analysis:
Address: 2750 S. River Road
Owners: Uropartners Real Estate LLC, 2245 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4506,
Westchester, IL 60154
Petitioner: Chris Setzler, 2245 Enterprise Drive, Suite 4506, Westchester, IL 60154
Case Number: 17-086-V
Real Estate Index Numbers: 09-33-203-007-0000; 09-33-401-006-0000; 09-34-300-001-0000
Ward: #6, Alderman Malcolm Chester
Existing Zoning: C-2 Limited Office Commercial
Existing Land Use: Office
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-2 Limited Office Commercial
South: C-2 Limited Office Commercial
East: N/A (Forest Preserve)
West: C-2 Limited Office Commercial
Surrounding Land Use: North: Office
South: Office
East: Forest Preserve
West: Office
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 9
Street Classification: S. River Road is a collector road
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site Office
Project Description: The applicant, Chris Setzler, has requested a Standard Variation for the
setback of a new monument sign at 2750 S. River Road. UroPartners
Surgery Center, a urology office with several locations throughout the
region, recently purchased the building for a new medical office.
The petitioner proposes to install a monument sign 1 foot from the
property line, when a 5-foot setback is required. The proposed
monument sign is 9 feet wide and 6 feet tall. There are 11 feet between
the curb of the existing parking lot and the property line, and the
petitioner proposes to place the sign in the middle of this area. There is
an additional 8 feet of grass from the property line to the sidewalk and
the sidewalk is 6 feet wide. As proposed, the sign will be 15 feet from
the road. Please note that the existing monument sign is right on the
property line, with no setback provided.
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 the requested setback is for sign visibility. The majority of
patients visiting the medical office are elderly and there is a slight bend when approaching the
building, which obstructs the sign.
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: The petitioner has stated that they are requesting the setback variation as a result of the
speed limit and high traffic on S. River Road, as well as the fact that the building is setback from
the street. It should also be noted that the property line is approximately 8 feet from the sidewalk,
and another 6 feet from the road.
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 site and building are existing; the petitioner does not plan to make changes to the
building or site and proposes to put the sign in the same location as the existing monument sign.
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 10
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 the existing sign is taller and has more visibility; however,
due to UroPartners Surgery Center’s logo, it does not lend itself to a vertical type sign. The petitioner
is seeking approval of a monument sign on a stone base. Please note that the existing sign is located
right on the property line, and that the new sign has a proposed setback of 1 foot.
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 a 1-foot setback is the minimum required. Due to the
existing site conditions, the sign cannot be placed further west as it would encroach into the parking
lot.
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 sign is in harmony with other signs in the area and
would not hinder or obstruct vehicle street views.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the above-requested Standard Variation for a monument sign
with a setback of 1 foot in the C-2 Limited Office Commercial 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.
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
monument sign setback in the C-2 Limited Office Commercial District.
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to approve as presented.
AYES: Hofherr, Schell, Bader, Catalano, Fowler, Saletnik
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
3. Address: 1555 Lee Street Case 17-088-CU
The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 12-11-8 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation to allow a total of 523 square feet of
wall signage, when 125 square feet is the maximum permitted.
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 11
PIN: 09-20-400-036-0000
Petitioner: Lisa Neal, Doyle Signs, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, IL 60101
Owner: PJR Properties, 2215 Union Avenue, Sheboygan, WI 53081
Vice Chair Saletnik swore in Joseph Butera, Butera Foods, and Terrence J. Doyle, President, General Sign
Contractors, Doyle Signs, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, IL.
Mr. Doyle advised Butera is planning to occupy the former Dominick’s store. He noted one sign is internally
illuminated (492 sq. ft.). He noted it is important to have a large sign because of the setback of the store from
the street.
Board Member Hofherr asked if there would be address numbers on the front of the building. Mr. Butera
stated – yes, on the glass. He advised the new address would be 1565 Lee Street.
Board Member Fowler asked about electronic messaging. Mr. Doyle stated this is not included in tonight’s
petition. He noted all letters, Butera Fruit Market, would be illuminated. Senior Planner Bye clarified that the
proposed monument/EMB signs meet the requirements of the code and that just the wall signs need special
approval.
Board Member Hofherr asked if Petitioner would only be selling fruit. Mr. Butera stated – no, it’s a full-
service supermarket.
Vice Chair Saletnik asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this proposal. No one responded.
The Staff Report is as follows:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 12-11-8 of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation to allow a total of 523 square
feet of wall signage, when 125 square feet is the maximum permitted.
Analysis:
Address: 1555 Lee Street
Owners: PJR Properties, 2215 Union Avenue, Sheboygan, WI 53081
Petitioner: Lisa Neal, Doyle Signs, 232 W. Interstate Road, Addison, IL 60101
Case Number: 17-088-CU
Real Estate Index Number: 09-20-400-036-0000
Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman
Existing Zoning: C-4 Regional Shopping
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Surrounding Zoning: North: M-2 General Manufacturing; C-3 General Commercial; C-4
Regional Shopping
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 12
South: C-3 General Commercial; C-4 Regional Shopping; R-1 Single-
Family Residential
East: C-3 General Commercial; R-1 Single-Family Residential
West: C-3 General Commercial; C-4 Regional Shopping
Surrounding Land Use: North: Commercial; Light Industrial
South: Commercial; Residential
East: Commercial; Residential
West: Commercial
Street Classification: Lee Street is an arterial road
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site Community Commercial
Project Description: The applicant, Lisa Neal of Doyle Signs, has requested a Conditional Use
Permit for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation in order to install two
wall signs totaling 523 square feet in area, when a total 125 square feet
is the maximum permitted, at 1555 Lee Street. Butera Fruit Market, a
grocery store and the proposed anchor in the Oaks Shopping Center, is
nearing completion of their tenant buildout and seeking approval of these
two wall signs.
The petitioner proposes to install two wall signs on the south façade of
the tenant space that total 523 square feet in area. One sign is proposed
to say “Entrance” and is 31 square feet. The second sign is proposed to
say “Butera Fruit Market” and is 492 square feet. The City Council has
the authority to approve sign variations; however, no variation may be
granted which increases any dimension (height, length, width or area) to
an amount over fifty percent (50%) of the corresponding dimensions
normally permitted, which in this case would be 187.5 square feet. As a
result, the petitioner is requesting a Localized Alternative Sign
Regulation (a Conditional Use) to allow two wall signs that total 523
square feet in area.
Conditional Use Findings: Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-
4(E) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has
the following comments:
A. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning
district involved:
Comment: A Localized Alternative Sign Regulation is a Conditional Use, as specified in Section 12-11-8 of
the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended.
B. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan:
Comment: The 2007 Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Commercial for the site. The petitioner
has stated that the sign sizes are appropriate for the size and setback of the tenant space and that the wall
signs will adequately identify the business with no disruption to the surrounding properties.
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 13
C. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious
and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity:
Comment: The petitioner has stated that the proposed signs are proportional to the size of the building. They
have been designed to be securely mounted to the building façade so that they remains harmonious with the
existing character of the shopping center.
D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses:
Comment: The proposed wall signs are not hazardous or disturbing to the existing neighboring uses as the
signs have been designed to be securely mounted to the front facade of the building. Additionally, the
illuminated signs will be turned off when the store closes at the end of the evening.
E. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional Use shall provide
adequately any such services:
Comment: The proposed wall signs will have no effect on essential public facilities and services.
F. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public expense
for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of the entire
community:
Comment: The proposed wall signs would not create a burden on public facilities nor would they be a
detriment to the economic well-being of the community. The surrounding land uses are commercial and may
benefit from additional customers visiting the shopping center.
G. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors:
Comment: The proposed wall signs are not anticipated to create additional traffic or noise that could be
detrimental to surrounding land uses.
H. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does not
create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares:
Comment: The proposed wall signs will not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares, and will help identify the business and reduce congestion by notifying patrons of the location.
I. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic,
or historic features of major importance:
Comment: The proposed wall signs would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic
or historic features of major importance. The building to which the wall signs will be affixed holds no historic
significance, nor does the area it is located in have any historic value.
J. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
specific to the Conditional Use requested:
Case #17-089-V – 943 Walter Avenue – Variations
Case #17-086-V – 2750 S. River Road – Variation
Case #17-088-CU – 1555 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit
October 24, 2017
Page 14
Comment: Approval of the proposed Conditional Use for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation will allow
the petitioner to exceed the maximum allowed area for wall signs. The petitioner is proposing 523 square
feet of wall signage, when 125 square feet is permitted. No other zoning regulations would be violated.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Localized Alternative Sign
Regulation in order to install two wall signs totaling 523 square feet in area, when 125 square feet is
permitted, based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as
specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and Decision for
Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to recommend
that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned Conditional Use
Permit for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation in the C-4 Regional Shopping District. The City Council
has the final authority on the proposal.
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to recommend approval
to City Council as presented.
AYES: Hofherr, Fowler, Bader, Catalano, Schell, Saletnik
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Vice Chair Saletnik advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to adjourn the meeting
at 8:15 p.m.
AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Bader, Hofherr, Schell, Saletnik
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Sincerely,
Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners