05/08/2018Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
MAY 8, 2018
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday,
May 8, 2018, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD
PRESENT: Catalano, Hofherr, Fowler, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
ABSENT: Bader
ALSO PRESENT: Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development
Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary
Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:03 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 Fowler, to approve the
minutes of April 24, 2018, as presented.
AYES: Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Catalano
***MOTION CARRIED 5-0***
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no Public Comment.
PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS
1. Address: 1436 Campbell Avenue Case 18-030-V
The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-7-1(C) of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a patio with a side-yard setback of 2’, when 5’ is
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 2
required, and a patio extending 30’ from the primary structure, when no more than 25’ is
permitted, in the R-1 Single Family Residential District.
PIN: 09-20-219-022-0000
Petitioner: Kelley Wiley & Justin Torres, 1436 Campbell Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Kelley Wiley & Justin Torres, 1436 Campbell Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Kelley Wiley & Justin Torres, 1436 Campbell Avenue, Des Plaines, IL. Ms.
Wiley noted the current patio (concrete and pavers) is crumbling. She advised when they went to
obtain a permit, they realized it must be 5 ft. from property line. The plan is to be 2 ft. from the
west property line, like the current patio.
Board Member Saletnik asked if this is low level paving. Ms. Wiley advised it is.
Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner is tearing out old concrete and installing pavers. Ms. Wiley
concurred.
Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report that Senior Planner Bye did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-7-1(C) of the 1998 City
of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a patio with a side-yard setback of two
feet, when five feet is required, and a patio extending 30 feet from the primary structure, when
no more than 25 feet is permitted, in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
Analysis:
Address: 1436 Campbell Avenue
Owners: Kelley Wiley & Justin Torres, 1436 Campbell Avenue, Des Plaines,
IL 60016
Petitioner: Kelley Wiley & Justin Torres, 1436 Campbell Avenue, Des Plaines,
IL 60016
Case Number: 18-030-V
Real Estate Index Number: 09-20-219-022-0000
Ward: #2, Alderman John Robinson
Existing Zoning: R-1 Single-Family Residential
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 3
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: Campbell Avenue is a local road
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Traditional Single
Family
Project Description: The petitioners, Kelley Wiley and Justin Torres, have requested a
Standard Variation for the setback and length of a proposed new
patio at 1436 Campbell Avenue. The 6,250 square-foot property
is currently improved with a single-family home, detached
garage, and parking pad. The petitioners are proposing to replace
an existing ten-foot by 15-foot patio and to extend this patio an
additional 20 feet towards the rear of the property. The existing
patio has a two-foot setback from the side lot line; the petitioners
propose to maintain this setback for the entire length of the new
patio. Patios are required to have a setback of five feet from the
side and rear lot lines and to extend no farther than 25 feet from
the rear of the home, necessitating the request for the Standard
Variation.
The proposed new patio will be 15 feet wide at the south end
(closest to the house), 21 feet wide at the north end, and 30 feet
deep, for a total area of approximately 510 square feet (see
Attachment 5). The new portion of the patio will replace existing
brick pavers that formed a walkway to the rear of the lot and will
have a three-foot setback from the existing parking pad, as
required by code. Additionally, the homeowners are proposing
to install a three-foot by eight-foot concrete pad to the south of
the patio, adjacent to the existing walkway from the front of the
property, for their garbage cans.
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 4
Note there is an existing wood deck on the east side of the home,
as well as a brick patio that is approximately 180 square feet.
Both of these are proposed to remain.
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 petitioners have stated that the current 150 square-foot patio near the
rear of the home is not large enough to meet their needs. They propose to extend this
patio farther north on the property, which is permitted by code. However, the existing
patio has a two-foot setback from the side lot line, when five feet is required. In order to
maintain as much lawn as possible on the east side of the yard, the homeowners propose
to keep this two-foot setback for the entire length of the patio. Allowing a patio with a
depth of 30 feet, instead of 25 feet, ensures that the patio is as usable as possible. If the
variation is denied, the petitioners could simply extend the patio farther east for more
square footage than is currently proposed, which would be permitted by code.
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 current patio has a setback of two feet. The homeowners propose to utilize
this existing condition and increase the depth of the patio with the same setback. By
allowing this, the homeowners can keep as much lawn as possible on the east portion of
the lot.
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 current patio, walkway, rear-parking pad and detached garage were all
existing when the homeowners purchased the home last year. The homeowners propose
to replace the existing rear patio and extend it farther north on the lot to make it a more
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 5
usable size. This new patio will replace the existing walkway. A three-foot separation
between the parking pad, as required by code, will be maintained.
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 prevent them from
installing a patio that is adequate in size. By allowing the patio to encroach into the
required five-foot side-yard setback, the homeowners can maintain the largest grass area
on the east side of the backyard as possible.
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: Currently, there is an existing patio that has a two-foot setback from the side
lot line. The homeowners propose to replace this patio and extend it farther north on the
property with the same two-foot setback. The homeowners do not propose to bring the
patio any closer to the side lot line than the existing patio. Approval of the variation would
allow the homeowners the opportunity to build a usable patio while at the same time
maintain a lawn on the east side of the rear of the lot. This would allow for maximum
utilization of the lot, just as other homeowners are permitted.
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 petitioners have stated that approval of the variation will allow them to
install a patio that enhances the property and neighborhood. The proposed patio will
replace a smaller patio and a walkway that extends to the rear of the lot. The existing
patio has a two-foot setback from the side lot line; the proposed new patio will maintain
this setback without further encroachment.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the above-requested Standard Variation for patio
setback and length at 1436 Campbell Avenue, 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 #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 6
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 patio setback and length at 1436 Campbell Avenue.
Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner is installing this. Ms. Wiley advised – no, she has bids from
several contractors. He asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this proposal.
No one responded.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to approve this
variation.
AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
2. Address: 170 Drake Lane Case 18-032-V
The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-8-1(C)3 of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow an accessory structure (a pergola) with a side-
yard setback of 0’, when 3’ is required, in the R-1 Single-Family Residential District.
PIN: 09-07-315-010-0000
Petitioner: Jeffrey Lowinski, 170 Drake Lane, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Jeffrey & Carol Beth Lowinski, 170 Drake Lane, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Jeffrey Lowinski, 170 Drake Lane, Des Plaines, IL, who advised they wish
to install a pergola on the existing patio adjacent to the house; requesting a 0 ft. setback or the
pergola would not be able to be installed.
Chairman Szabo asked if any neighbors have inquired. Mr. Lowinski advised – yes, they are fine
with it.
Chairman Szabo asked Staff to present the Staff Report that Senior Planner Bye did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-8-1(C)3 of the 1998 City
of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow an accessory structure (a pergola) with a
side-yard setback of zero feet, when three feet is required, in the R-1 Single-Family Residential
District.
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 7
Analysis:
Address: 170 Drake Lane
Owners: Jeffrey & Carol Beth Lowinski, 170 Drake Lane, Des Plaines, IL
60016
Petitioner: Jeffrey Lowinski, 170 Drake Lane, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 18-032-V
Real Estate Index Number: 09-07-315-010-0000
Ward: #7, Alderman Don Smith
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: Drake Lane is a local road
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Traditional Single
Family
Project Description: The petitioner, Jeffrey Lowinski, proposes to install a pergola
over an existing patio at 170 Drake Lane. The 7,500 square-foot
property is currently improved with a single-family home. The
existing patio is 16 feet by 14 feet (224 square feet) and located
near the northwest corner of the home. The patio encroaches
into the required side-yard setback of five feet and has a setback
of zero feet.
The proposed pergola will be located directly over the patio and
will also have a setback of zero feet, when a setback of three feet
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 8
is required per code for a pergola (see Attachment 4). The posts
will be located with an approximate setback of one foot from the
side lot line; however, the rafters will extend to the property line
(see Attachment 5). The petitioner has stated in his application
that because there is a gate where the concrete walk from the
front yard meets the patio, the posts and rafters cannot meet the
three-foot setback minimum as this entrance would be blocked.
The pergola as proposed would maximize patio coverage.
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: As proposed, the pergola would cover the entire patio, which already
encroaches into the required side-yard setback. The petitioner has stated that it is not
possible to construct the pergola with a three-foot setback, as required by code, because
of the existing gate where the concrete walk from the front yard meets the patio (the
post would block the entrance). The pergola as proposed allows for as much patio
coverage as possible and maximum utilization of the exiting outdoor space.
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 patio is existing and already encroaches into the required side yard.
Additionally, the gate/entrance from the walkway is existing as well, which limits where
the pergola post can be located. To meet the required setback of three feet and be out of
the way of the gate/entrance, the pergola would only cover part of the patio.
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:
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 9
Comment: The patio and walkway have been in the current location for at least 15 years,
according to aerials of the property. The pergola is proposed as an improvement to the
existing patio.
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 prevent the
homeowners from covering their entire patio with the proposed pergola, as other
homeowners are allowed to do. The variation is required because of the existing location
of the patio, not because the pergola itself is an issue. Without the pergola, the patio is
not usable as a result of health conditions.
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: All homeowners are permitted pergolas, subject to meeting setback
requirements for the zoning district. The proposed pergola allows the homeowners to
fully utilize their existing patio.
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: Approval of the variation would allow for the construction of a pergola over an
existing patio. The pergola itself is a permitted accessory structure; the setback requires
a variation.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the above-requested Standard Variation for pergola
setback at 170 Drake Lane, 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, subject to the following condition:
Condition: No permanent roof material be placed atop of the pergola for the life of the
structure.
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 pergola setback at 170 Drake Lane.
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 10
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one
responded.
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to approve the
Variance with the Condition as stated.
AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
3. Address: 464 E. Northwest Highway Case 18-028-V
The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-9-7 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to reduce the required number of off-street parking spaces from
16 to seven for a Class A Restaurant in the C-3 General Commercial District.
PINs: 09-07-417-036-0000; 09-07-417-037-0000
Petitioner: Lisa Leslie, 1440 E. Algonquin Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owners: Lisa Leslie & Alessandro Forti, 1440 E. Algonquin Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Lisa Leslie & Alessandro Forti, 1440 E. Algonquin Road, Des Plaines, IL.
Ms. Leslie advised they wish to reduce the number of required off-street parking spaces from 16
to 7.
Chairman Szabo asked:
• how many square feet there are in the new location. Ms. Leslie advised 1,300 sq. ft.
– about the same as the current location.
• if there will be any dining in front of the building. Ms. Leslie stated – no, the side will
have a patio.
Board Member Hofherr asked when Petitioner would be moving into the new space. Ms. Leslie
advised – May of 2019 (as the current lease is until then).
Board Member Saletnik stated:
• it appears that parking will never be an issue as the train station is closed when the
restaurant is busy. Ms. Leslie concurred.
• he wishes the Petitioners good luck.
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one
responded. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report that Senior Planner Bye did:
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 11
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-9-7 of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to reduce the required number of off-street parking
spaces from 16 to seven for a Class A Restaurant in the C-3 General Commercial District.
Analysis:
Address: 464 E. Northwest Highway
Owners: Lisa Leslie & Alessandro Forti, 1440 E. Algonquin Road, Des
Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: Lisa Leslie, 1440 E. Algonquin Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 18-028-V
Real Estate Index Numbers: 09-07-417-036-0000; 09-07-417-037-0000
Ward: #7, Alderman Don Smith
Existing Zoning: C-3 General Commercial
Existing Land Use: Commercial (office)
Surrounding Zoning: Northwest: C-3 General Commercial
Southwest: Railroad; M-1 Limited Manufacturing
Northeast: C-3 General Commercial
Southeast: C-3 General Commercial
Surrounding Land Use: Northwest: Commercial (retail)
Southwest: Place of Worship
Northeast: Place of Worship
Southeast: Railroad; Train Station Parking
Street Classification: E. Northwest Highway is an arterial road
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Mixed Use – Low
Density
The petitioner, Lisa Leslie, has requested a Major Variation to reduce the number of required on-
site parking spaces from 16 to seven in order to operate a restaurant at 464 E. Northwest Highway.
The petitioner and her husband own Via Roma restaurant, which is currently located in downtown
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 12
Des Plaines at 686 Lee Street. They plan to relocate the restaurant to 646 E. Northwest Highway
as a result of a developer purchasing the current building and planning to tear it down.
The subject property is located in the C-3 General Commercial District. Restaurants are a
permitted use in this zoning district; however, the lots only have seven parking spaces, when 16
are required per code. Class A restaurants require one parking space for every four seats, plus one
parking space for every three employees. The proposed restaurant will have 54 seats, which
requires 13 parking spaces. There will be seven employees during the busiest shifts, which
requires an additional three parking spaces, for a total of 16 parking spaces needed on-site.
To off-set the shortage of on-site parking spaces, the petitioner has entered into a lease
agreement for nine parking spaces at the Roman Baptist Church of Metropolitan Chicago, which
is located next door (see Attachment 6). These nine parking spaces are located in the parking lot
that is directly north of the proposed restaurant. Note that Via Roma is closed on Sundays, which
is the busiest day in terms of number of visitors for the church.
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 is relocating an existing restaurant, Via Roma, to 646 E.
Northwest Highway as a result of their current location being purchased by a developer.
The site and building have already been developed and the petitioner proposes an interior
buildout for the restaurant. To make up for the shortage of on-site parking spaces, the
petitioner has entered into a lease agreement with the adjacent church, which has a
surplus of parking spaces. Additionally, there is public parking on Northwest Highway (90
minutes) and across the street at the train station ($1.50 for the day), both of which can
provide parking opportunities for restaurant patrons. There is a designated crosswalk
from the Cumberland Metra train station to the 400 block of East Northwest Highway to
help connect the parking spaces located adjacent to the Cumberland Metra station to this
particular building.
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:
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 13
Comment: The site and building have already been developed. As previously stated, while
there is a shortage of on-site parking based on the requirements of the Zoning Code, the
petitioner has entered into a parking lease agreement with the adjacent church for nine
parking spaces. These spaces, plus public parking on the street and at the train station,
make up for the lack of on-site parking.
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 building and site have already developed; the petitioner seeks to occupy
the building with a restaurant use. Previously, the building was used as an office, which
requires less parking per the Zoning Code than a restaurant, necessitating the need for
the parking variation. In the future, the petitioner has stated that they may demolish the
existing detached garage on the property (currently used for storage) to increase the
number of on-site parking spaces.
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: Class A restaurants are a permitted use in the C-3 General Commercial District.
While the use is permitted, there is not enough on-site parking based on the requirements
of the Zoning Code. The parking lease agreement with the Romanian Baptist Church of
Metropolitan Chicago, plus public parking in the vicinity, provide ample parking
opportunities for restaurant patrons.
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 Via Roma has been serving the community for
ten years and that she and her husband have lived in Des Plaines for 12 years. They have
been forced to move from their current location as a result of building being sold to a
developer and have diligently searched to find a new location that meets their needs.
The petitioner and her husband have dedicated employees and customers that rely on
them. As there is public parking in the vicinity of the proposed restaurant, the requested
parking variation would not be a burden on the surrounding buildings and tenants.
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 14
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: Except for the parking variation, the proposed use otherwise complies with all
other zoning regulations for the C-3 General Commercial District. A restaurant
compliments the surrounding uses and maintains the integrity of the neighborhood.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Major Variation from Section 12-9-7 of the 1998
City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to reduce the required number of off-street
parking spaces from 16 to seven for a Class A Restaurant in the C-3 General Commercial District,
subject to the condition listed below. The parking lease with the adjacent church ensures that
there are enough parking spaces, per code, for the restaurant use.
Condition: The parking lease agreement for nine parking spaces with the Romanian
Baptist Church of Metropolitan Chicago be maintained as long as the restaurant is in
operation.
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 variation. The City Council
has final authority over the variation requested.
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to recommend
approval of the Variation to City Council with the Condition as stated.
Chairman Szabo asked if there is a parking lease agreement. Ms. Leslie advised there is.
AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be submitted to City Council.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Fowler to adjourn the
meeting at 7:24 p.m. On a voice vote, the motion carried unanimously.
Case #18-030-V 1436 Campbell – Variation
Case #18-032-V 170 Drake – Variation
Case #18-028-V 464 E. Northwest Highway – Variation
May 8, 2018
Page 15
Sincerely,
Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners