3/12/19Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
MARCH 12, 2019
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday,
March 12, 2019, at 7 p.m. in Room 101 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD
Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and read this evening’s case. Roll call was
established.
PRESENT: Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
ABSENT: Bader, Fowler
ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Ainsworth, Coord., Devel. Mgr./Community & Economic Development
Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to approve the
minutes of February 26, 2019, as presented.
AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Catalano
***MOTION CARRIED 4-0***
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no Public Comment.
PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS
1. Address: 1428-1440 Lee Street Case 19-009-V
The petitioner is requesting a variance (Standard Variance) from the required five-foot setback to
2.8 feet in an effort to maintain the property’s existing pole sign under Code Section 12-11-5.A.3
of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. The request is being made as a result of
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 2
the Lee Street road improvement project.
PINs: 09-20-305-008
Petitioner: Mike Elliott from Elliott Law, 1430 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner: Mike Elliott from Lee Street LLC, 1430 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Chairman Szabo swore in Ms. Lauren Elliott, Attorney, Elliott & Associates Attorneys, P.C., 1430
Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL, who advised they are requesting a sign variance. She noted there is
128 ft. of frontage. The sign is near the property line and in compliance. IDOT took 384 sq. ft. (3
ft.) from their lot line. The sidewalk would be moved eastward (and closer to the sign). Sign must
be setback 5 ft.
Chairman Szabo asked if there were any questions. He asked Petitioner if she saw the Staff Report
and one Condition. Ms. Elliott advised – yes and has no issue with it.
Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Coordinator Ainsworth did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-11-5.A.3 of the 1998
Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a pole sign with a setback of 2.8 feet, where
a setback of 5 feet is required.
Analysis Case Number 19-009-V
Address: 1430 Lee Street
Petitioner/Owner: Michael Elliot, 1430 Lee Street LLC, 1430 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL
60018
PINs: 09-20-305-008
Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman
Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial District
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: C-4, Regional Shopping District
East: C-3, General Commercial District/C-4, Regional Shopping District
West: R-1, Single-Family Residential District
In reviewing the variation request, staff has considered the following information:
The subject property, 1430 Lee Street, is located southwest of the intersection of Lee Street and
Forest Avenue and is zoned C-3, General Commercial (see Attachment 2, Location Map). The
32,468-square foot property is improved with one single-story story, multi-tenant commercial
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 3
building featuring insurance, financial services and law offices. The subject site has approximately
128 feet of frontage on Lee Street. In 2018, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
acquired 384 square feet of land from the subject site to widen the right-of-way and conduct
intersection improvements along Lee Street (see Attachment 6 for the portion of property
acquired by IDOT). As a result of this action, the petitioner’s pole sign was now within the five-
foot setback from the newly established property line, being just 2.8 feet from the public right-
of-way. The petitioner is proposing to maintain the existing pole sign with a 2.8-foot setback and
is requesting the setback variance to protect the existing sign. The pole sign would continue to
meet all requirements in the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance except for the five-foot setback.
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:
Finding: The pole sign would continue to meet all requirements as found in the Zoning
Ordinance except for the setback variation. This particular property is experiencing a
particular hardship as IDOT acquired part of the petitioner’s property to expand Lee
Street’s 83 right-of-way and for intersection improvements. The specific land taking
resulted in the loss of the setback requirement.
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:
Finding: A unique physical condition exists due to the new property boundary created
from the land acquisition initiated by IDOT. The specific portion of the land taking will
now result in a non-conforming setback for the existing pole sign.
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:
Finding: This hardship was not created by the petitioner/property owner, but rather by
road widening and intersection improvement project that benefits the general public, a
government action.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 4
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:
Finding: While the pole sign can remain in place with a legal non-conforming status.
However, if the sign were to come down, a new one could not reinstalled in the same
place without obtaining a variance. Hence, the property owner may be denied substantial
rights to his property by having to install a sign farther from the public right-of-way as
compared to neighboring properties.
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:
Finding: No special privilege will be given to this property as the land taken by IDOT for
roadway improvements resulted in the loss of the setback requirement. No additional
rights are being given to this property owner compared to other similar properties as only
a few properties had to give up private land for a public infrastructure project.
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:
Finding: The existing pole sign is in harmony with the general purposes of this title. The
requested variation is in-keeping with the intent of the comprehensive plan.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested setback variation based on
review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions met by
Section 12-3-6.H (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined within the City of Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance. The recommendation for approval of the setback is based on the rationale that IDOT
had to acquire a portion of the property owner’s land that impacts the pole sign setback. The sign
will not project into the public right of way if granted the variance.
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 disapprove the above-mentioned variance for the sign setback within
the C-3 Zoning District.
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this petition. He swore
in the following who came forward:
• Vicky Benziger 1106 Wicke
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 5
Ms. Benziger asked if the road would be widened so the sign could be seen more. Staff
stated the road would be widened by 3 ½ ft. The City Engineer has no issue with this
sign remaining in its current location compared to the road widening.
Ms. Benziger stated there are obstructed views when turning left. Staff advised this sign
won’t impede traffic and motorists’ vision clearance as it is over 35 feet away from the
driveway entrance that she is referring to.
Board Member Hofherr asked if this resident is aware that a stoplight is being erected.
Ms. Benziger advised – yes, though she is still concerned. Petitioner advised the sign is
20 ft. tall, Chairman Szabo stated he sees why this is being questioned as Lee Street is a
tricky area to drive around.
Ms. Benziger reminded the car wash would be there. Chairman Szabo stated the car
wash team did not request variations. Coordinator Ainsworth expounded.
Board Member Catalano asked what left turn Ms. Benziger is referring to. She
responded – onto Lee Street.
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to approve
with the Condition as stated.
AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
2. Address: 1620 Higgins Road Case 19-010-PUD-CU
The petitioner is requesting a Planned Unit Development Amendment of Ordinance Z-18- 16
under Code Section 12-3-5.G.1, of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, and a
Conditional Use Amendment for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation of Ordinance Z-18- 18,
under Code Section 12-3-4, of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, to allow for the
construction of a new commercial retail building with signage on Lot 1 of the Orchards at O’Hare
development.
PINs: 09-33-305-020-0000
Petitioner: Bimal Doshi from DP Higgins LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E Schaumburg, IL 60173
Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Mr. Paul Busching, Managing Partner, BASK Development, Inc., 1375
Remington Road, Suite E, Schaumburg, IL & Todd Shaffer, Principal, Haeger Engineering LLC, 100
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 6
E. State Parkway, Schaumburg, IL.
Mr. Busching advised this is a request for an Amendment to the PUD. He noted a Condition was
to return to the PZB. Panera Bread is slated to be a tenant and another is being sought.
Mr. Busching offered a PowerPoint presentation:
• Site plan
• Storm water management
• Waste enclosure
• Stacking of cars in drive-thru lane
• Outdoor dining for both tenants
• Retaining wall as site slopes down; will be leveled
• Rendering was shown; brick metal panels and glass
• Landscape plan
• Tenant interior plan
• Signage plan
• Elevations were shown
• Monument sign at SW corner of lot
Chairman Szabo asked if there were any questions. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report
which Coordinator Ainsworth did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Planned Unit Development Amendment of Ordinance Z-18-
16 under Code Section 12-3-5.G.1, of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, and a
Conditional Use Amendment for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation of Ordinance Z-18-18,
under Code Section 12-3-4, of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended, to allow for the
construction of a new commercial retail building with signage on Lot 1 of the Orchards at O’Hare
development.
Analysis:
Planned Unit Development Amendment
Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: Bimal Doshi from DP Higgins LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E,
Schaumburg, IL 60173
Case Number: 19-010-PUD-CU
Real Estate Index #s 09-33-305-020-0000
Existing Zoning C-3, General Commercial PUD
Existing Land Use Vacant land
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 7
Surrounding Zoning North: C-3, General Commercial PUD
South: Commercial (Rosemont)
East: C-2, Limited Office Commercial
West: C-3 General Commercial District
Surrounding Land Use North: Hotel (under construction)
South: Office/Hotel
East: Railroad/Office
West: Fast Casual Restaurant
Street Classification West Higgins Road – Arterial Street
Comprehensive Plan Commercial
Project Description The subject parcel is Lot 1 of the Orchards at O’Hare
development which is a nine-acre major commercial
redevelopment of the northeast quadrant of Mannheim and
Higgins Roads. However, this lot was not laid out in the original
PUD application. Hence, a condition was placed in Ordinance Z-
18-16 to have the petitioner apply for a PUD Amendment in the
vent a development proposal came forward. Since 2016, this area
has experienced the following approvals/improvements:
- Approval of a Final PUD and Subdivision for the Orchards at
O’Hare development
- Significant stormwater improvements to accommodate
stormwater run-off
- Significant utility relocations
- The construction of a new fueling center (opened in 2018)
- A new Dunkin Donuts (opened in 2018)
- A new Which Wich Sandwiches (opened in 2018)
- A new 130 room Holiday Inn Hotel (under construction)
- New pedestrian and roadway improvements to Mannheim
and Higgins Roads
- Construction of a new bridge over Willow Creek connect
Higgins Road to the development
The Orchards at O’Hare is a multi-year project and there are
remaining lots for future development including Lot 5 for a sit-
down restaurant, Lot 7 for a car wash and the subject lot, Lot 1
for a commercial retail building. The petitioner is proposing to
construct a 6,727 square foot, one-story commercial retail
building with 75 off-street parking spaces on the 1.4997 acre
property. This building will consist of two tenant spaces and the
western space will he occupied by Panera Bread. A tenant has
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 8
not been identified with the second tenant space at this time. A
drive-through facility will also be improved on the property that
is connected to Panera Bread. Note, drive-through facilities are
a permitted use in the C-3 zoning district when not adjacent to
residential uses. This property is completely surrounded by
commercially-zoned properties.
The proposed building will be constructed with a variety of
architectural building materials, including brick, stone and metal
panels with neutral colors to blend with the rest of the Orchards
at O’Hare and also to meet the branding requirements of Panera
Bread. Additionally, each tenant space will be improved outdoor
seating areas to provide additional seating options to patrons.
Conditional Use Amendment – Localized Alterative Sign
Regulation
Project Description: The petitioner received approval from the Des Plaines City
Council in 2018 for the development’s signage. However, at that
time, there were no tenants identified for the development at
Lot 1. Hence, the applicant is proposing to amend Ordinance Z-
18-18 to include the signage of the proposed development into
the entire sign plan for the development. The request is to add
a monument sign at the southwest corner of the subject lot that
would be adjacent to Higgins Road. This double-faced sign will
measure 17 feet in height (measured from the base of the sign to
the top of the metal cabinet) and encompass eight tenant panels
and the name of the development. The base of the sign will entail
the same stone masonry material as the rest of the monument
signs found on Mannheim Road as well as the aluminum cabinet
to ensure a consistent look.
In addition to the monument sign, there are two menu board
signs proposed for the drive-through lane that will serve the
Panera Bread restaurant. Moreover, several directional signs are
being proposed throughout the lot to assist motorists and
pedestrians to navigate through the development. A total of
seven (7) wall signs are proposed for the site: two indicating
Panera Bread, two set aside as wall signs for the future tenant,
two additional wall signs identifying the Panera drive-thru
entrance and one small Panera Bread logo sign to the left of their
main entrance. Total wall signage square footage will total 324.5
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 9
square feet. This does not include additional directional and
menu signs on the property. The proposed breakdown of the
wall signage is as follows:
Elevation Tenant Area of Signage
North N/A N/A
East Panera 60.7 sf
South
Panera and Future
Tenant
69.3 sf (Panera)
67.7 sf (Future Tenant
West Future Tenant 90.2 sf
Note, the future unidentified tenant may not take all of the
proposed signage as allotted in the development proposal.
Compliance with the Building Design Standards (Zoning Ordinance Section 12-3-11)
The proposed development utilizes high quality architecture and building materials and contains
attention to detail which meets and exceeds the requirements found in Zoning Ordinance Section
12-3-11. Some of the building design and material choices are as follows:
• Modern glass storefronts with floor to ceiling window panes;
• Undulating storefront facades to add variety and uniqueness to the retail buildings;
• A variety of stone veneer, brick veneer, metal and glass is utilized in a manner to
emphasize a modern design for the entire project; and
• A signage package that will add visual consistency to the entire development.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The City of Des Plaines’ 2019 Comprehensive Plan. There are several parts of the current
Comprehensive Plan that align with the proposed project. Those portions are as follows:
• Under Future Land Use Map:
o The property is marked for commercial land use. The proposed restaurants will
take advantage of a well-located site with abutting population generators
including O’Hare International Airport, Allstate Arena, several hundred thousand
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 10
square feet of abutting office space, arterial roads and general proximity to
established residential neighborhoods.
• Under Economic Development:
o The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the economic vitality of the surrounding area
and its importance to the broader region. The proposed development of this site
would be in keeping with prior development efforts.
While the aforementioned bullet points are only a small portion of the Comprehensive Plan, there
is a large emphasis on developing and enhancing our commercial corridors and underutilized
properties.
Compliance with the TIF #7 Redevelopment Plan
The subject site has been chronically vacant due to flooding issues. To assist with the development
of this property, the City enacted a Tax Increment Finance District (TIF #7) to spur redevelopment
of the Mannheim Higgins commercial area including the subject property. The proposed
development advances the goals and objectives identified in the Redevelopment Plan. Those
goals and objectives are as follows:
• Encourage a complimentary and market driven series of commercial and mixed use
developments that are organized to provide a variety of goods and services throughout
the community;
• Encourage aesthetically pleasing and functionally well designed commercial area
environments;
• Improve the City’s ability to attract and retain high quality employers;
• Require adequate buffering to adjacent uses, including parking facilities and loading
areas;
• Reduce or eliminate blight and other negative factors present within the area;
• Accomplish redevelopment over a reasonable amount of time; and
• Provide for an attractive overall appearance of the area.
The proposed development touches on all of the aforementioned goals and objectives as there
are numerous benefits associated with the project including, but not limited: increased
landscaping and buffering, high quality architectural design and use of building materials, and
adding a variety of proposed businesses that will be bring new retail and restaurant options to
the immediate and surrounding areas.
Compliance with the City’s Strategic Plan, Focus 2022
The City’s current strategic plan lays out a clear vision for future economic development projects.
Specifically, under Re-imagined Growth, the Plan states the following: “Facilitate creation of a
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 11
built environment that reflects our character, and attracts the marketplace that will capitalize on
our City’s assets and opportunities”. While there are more specific strategies identified in the
Plan, the subject project helps to harness the vision of the City’s Strategic Plan by offering a variety
of commercial uses that will enhance our tax base, reactivate a blighted and under-utilized
property, and add much needed restaurant and retail options to the Mannheim and Higgins
corridor.
Conditional Use and PUD Findings
As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in
Section 3.5-5 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 12-3.5-1:
Comment: The proposed use as a restaurant meets the standard of a Conditional Use with the
PUD. Please also see the responses from the applicant.
B. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the planned
unit development regulations:
Comment: The development’s quality and aesthetic standards are in keeping with the City’s
prerequisites and standards regarding planned unit development regulations. Please also see the
responses from the applicant.
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 nature of the development in the surrounding area and its importance in the
context of the broader region means that the site’s departures from typical development
standards are best suited through the Planned Unit Development process and the additional
flexibility it allows. Please also see the responses from the applicant.
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: The petitioner indicates that the site is adequately served by existing public facilities.
In the event that the petitioner finds that additional public services are necessary, they will seek
opportunities to extend or improve such facilities. Please also see the responses from the
applicant.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 12
E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is
beneficial or adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood:
Comment: The proposed development complements existing development surrounding it on all
sides. Please also see the responses from the applicant.
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 development will contribute to an improved physical appearance within
the City by virtue of building on a currently vacant lot, and will contribute positively to the tax
base and economic well-being of the community. Please also see the responses from the
applicant.
G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the
2019 Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: The proposed development meets the goals, objectives and recommendations of the
2019 Comprehensive Plan. Please also see the responses from the applicant.
Recommendations: Staff supports the approval of a PUD Amendment (Case #16-043-FSUB-FPUD)
and a Conditional Use Amendment for a localized Alternative Sign Regulation (Case #18-037-CU)
to construct a commercial retail building on Lot 1 of the Orchards at O’Hare development, located
at 1620-1630 Higgins Road subject to the following conditions:
1) That the retaining wall located within the five-foot public utility and drainage easement
along the east property line be moved out of the easement or all utilities and other
applicable entities must provide the applicant written authorization to allow the retaining
wall to remain within the easement.
2) That no portion of any ground sign shall conflict with AASHTO sight vision triangles.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure:
The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications,
or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the PUD Amendment and the
Conditional Use Localized Alternative Sign Regulation Amendment.
Chairman Szabo asked Petitioner if he is aware of the two Conditions or has any issues. Mr.
Busching stated – yes.
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this petition. There
was no response.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 13
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend
approval to City Council with two Conditions as presented.
AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Hofherr, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation would be forwarded to City Council. Coordinator
Ainsworth advised this petition would be on the April 1st City Council agenda.
3. Address: 2811 Mannheim Road Case 19-011-V
The petitioner is requesting a variance (Major Variance) to reduce the required 300 foot setback
to approximately 127 feet from a billboard sign to a residentially zoned property line (ComEd
property) in order to construct a new billboard at the southeast corner of the subject property
under Code Section 12-11-6.B. of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended.
PINs: 09-33-300-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009, 09-33- 301-008, -014,
and -015
Petitioner: Daniel Dowd from Dowd, Dowd & Mertes, LTD, 701 Lee Street, Suite 790 Des Plaines,
IL 60016
Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E Schaumburg, IL 60173
Chairman Szabo swore in Daniel Dowd from Dowd, Dowd & Mertes, LTD, 701 Lee Street, Suite
790, Des Plaines, IL & Michael E. Scheid, Image Outdoor.
Mr. Dowd advised a Text Amendment was addressed in November, 2018. He stated they have
returned to obtain a variance; is zoned residentially. Nearest residential lot is 316 ft. away. The
City intended for billboard development. Petitioner is working with the current developer to
defray costs ($1 million will be contributed).
Mr. Scheid described the aerial photograph. He advised they closed on the contract. Developer is
seeking tenants. Due to high cost and being involved for 7 years, they have decided to participate.
Mr. Scheid described the area, screening.
Mr. Dowd displayed two exhibits. Mr. Scheid advised signs would be angled toward the highway.
He showed an artist drawing; there would be no impact to residents.
The Plat of Survey was displayed and explained. Mr. Scheid illustrated photos of the line-of-sight
and an overview of nearby properties.
The property was purchased (at $2.2 million).
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 14
Board Member Hofherr asked:
• if Petitioner is going to help remediate the problems on the property. Mr. Scheid advised
– yes, in effect (and the soil conditions).
• with the signs, what are the rental costs? Mr. Scheid stated he rents the sign space to
advertisers. A range is $1,500-5,000 monthly. He cited an example and shared that some
times during the year are slower than others. He reminded this has been a family business
for 25 years.
Chairman Szabo asked what businesses were there previously. Petitioner shared – an auto repair,
etc.
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to the proposal. Three
people who are opposed raised their hands. The following were sworn in and came forward:
• David Witt 2861 Sycamore (in Des Plaines for 40 years)
Mr. Witt provided pictures from his home. He advised the lighted signs are disruptive.
He is not in favor of lighting up the whole neighborhood. Board Member Saletnik
referred to Page 11 of 11. Petitioner also identified his home. Mr. Witt stated he would
leave the photos as an exhibit.
Board Member Catalano asked if the sign would be digital or static. Mr. Scheid stated it
is designed to be static. He shared that the high buildings (4-5 stories) could block the
lighting which is angled away from residents’ homes.
Coordinator Ainsworth reminded Mr. Witt that he should direct comments to the PZB.
• Bobby Marchetti 2845 Sycamore
Mr. Marchetti stated he concurs with Mr. Witt (and lives next door to him). He noted it
does light up the second story. There is a hotel going up, and staff or guests may not like
the light either.
Board Member Saletnik asked Mr. Marchetti if the lights are north or south. Mr. Marchetti stated
– north.
Coordinator Ainsworth suggested a light study be conducted (as a Condition) to ensure that the
billboard lights will to be directed away from residents.
Board Member Catalano asked about the billboard at Touhy & River Road. Coordinator Ainsworth
believes those signs are turned off at a certain time; there is a mandate to reduce lighting at dusk
for digital billboards, etc. Chairman Szabo asked if Board Member Catalano lives in this area. Mr.
Catalano stated he does.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 15
• Anna Swiatek 2933 Sycamore
Ms. Swiatek stated she appreciates what the Petitioner is doing. She advised 80-90% of
her windows face the street; she is less than 75 ft. from the highway. Shrubbery may
help. However, due to a recent robbery, culprits hide in the shrubs which are not
maintained. She believe it will affect her property value and condition of living. This may
not be the best place to have a sign as there are 3 or 4 currently.
Board Member Saletnik asked about her residential lot.
Board Member Schell likes the recommendation of a light study. He asked if a shrub policy could
be instituted. Coordinator Ainsworth advised – this is ComEd property; he could reach out. Tall
trees could be a Condition.
Board Member Catalano asked if the 316 ft. from Ms. Swiatek’s house is the closest residence.
Coordinator Ainsworth advised it is.
Board Member Schell asked what the baffles do. Mr. Schied stated, on a static sign, the lighting is
on the back. Digital signs are less impactful. Digital signs are internally illuminated which are less
impactful as compared to static signs and their external lighting system.
Mr. Scheid advised that this location is approved by IDOT & FAA via their permit processes. The
hotel owner to the south is also a partner on the subject property.
Mr. Scheid again illustrated the backs of digital signs (which don’t have lights on the back). He
concurs that Ms. Swiatek’s home could be impacted more than others. Lighting shines to the west
and the east. A baffle could be used to splay (prevent) the light from shining toward residents. A
baffle could be constructed like a screen. He advised the sign Board Member Catalano referred to
does have a light on it.
Mr. Scheid stated they want to be a good corporate citizen. They are partners with the Villages of
Broadview, Hillside, Franklin Park, Berkeley, etc. He shared they are contributing to communities
to help develop properties.
Mr. Scheid advised that residents living farther away were notified (for this meeting). He stated
they would work with residents; could possibly contribute to trees for residents’ green space.
It was clarified that the lights are in front of the sign (about 8 ft.); intensities are regulated.
Board Member Saletnik asked, in reference to Mr. Witt’s photo, is the white bright light from the
sign on Mannheim? Mr. Scheid advised – yes and identified the sign where the glare is coming
from. Development could obstruct lighted signage for residents. They are prepared to install a
baffle and could even turn the sign slightly (tighter angle).
Chairman Szabo asked Staff when the redevelopment would happen. Coordinator Ainsworth
stated this is part of TIF #7. He said that there might be a development proposal within 12 to 18
months.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 16
Board Member Hofherr commented/thanked:
• most hotels use room-darkening window coverings
• Petitioner for being amenable to sign adjustments
Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Coordinator Ainsworth did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a variance (Major Variance) to reduce the required 300 foot
setback to 127 feet from a billboard sign to a residentially zoned property line (ComEd property)
in order to construct a new billboard at the southeast corner of the subject property under Code
Section 12-11-6.B. of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended.
Analysis Case Number 19-011-V
Address: 2811 Mannheim Road
Petitioner: Daniel Dowd from Dowd, Dowd & Mertes, LTD, 701 Lee Street,
Suite 790 Des Plaines, IL 60016 on behalf of Mike Scheid of
Image Media
Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E,
Schaumburg, IL 60173
PINs: 09-33-300-001, -002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -007, -008, -009,
09-33-301-008, -014, and -015
Ward: #6, Alderman Malcolm Chester
Existing Zoning: C-2, Limited Office District
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: C-3, General Commercial District
East: C-3, General Commercial District
West: Commercial (Village of Rosemont)
Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial (banquet hall)
South: Tollway; commercial development under construction
East: Railroad; ComEd facility
West: Commercial (hotel)
Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates Mannheim Road as an
arterial road and Pratt Avenue as a local road.
Comprehensive Plan Commercial is the recommended use of the property
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 17
Project Description: The applicant, Mike Scheid of Image Media, is desirous to
construct a second billboard on the property located at 2811 S.
Mannheim Road. According to Code Section 12-11-6.B. of the Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, all 12 billboard permits have been
issued. Mr. Scheid subsequently applied for a text amendment
(Case #18-101-TA) requesting to add a thirteenth allowable
billboard permit within the City of Des Plaines. The Planning and
Zoning Board recommended approval of the request and the
case was then presented at the December 17, 2018 City Council
Meeting.
City Council approved the text amendment request on first
reading; however, City Council requested the applicant to apply
for a Major Variation from the 300 foot distance separation of
the proposed billboard to the nearby residential property line
(ComEd property) and bring the variance request for City Council
to consider the same agenda as the second ordinance reading for
the text amendment application.
Hence, the applicant is now applying for a Major Variation from
Code Section 12-11-6.B. of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as
amended, as the proposed billboard location will be within 300
feet of a residential lot line. Specifically, the applicant is
requesting to reduce the 300 foot separation to the residential
lot line down to 127 feet. The closest residential lot line is PIN 09-
33-302-002 which is owned by ComEd. The closest lot line of a
single family house to the proposed billboard is 316 feet (see
Attachment #4). The proposed billboard meets all other zoning
and location requirements which generally includes:
- The proposed location must be on a lot zoned C-1, C-2, C-3,
M-1 M-2 or M-3 (the subject site is currently zoned C-2)
- The billboard must be within 660 feet of I-90 or I-294
- The proposed billboard must satisfy the spacing
requirements of the Illinois Advertising Control Act
- All third party government approvals must be obtained
Additionally, the proposed billboard cannot exceed 1,200 square
feet in area for each advertising face and cannot exceed 99 feet
in height.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 18
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.
7. 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: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
8. 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, building, 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: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
9. 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: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
10. 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: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
11. 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: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
12. 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: Please see the applicant’s response to the Standards for Variation approval.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 19
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Major Variance to reduce the required 300-foot
setback to 127 feet from a billboard sign to a residentially zoned property line (ComEd property)
in order to construct a new billboard at the southeast corner of the subject property under Code
Section 12-11-6.B. of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-6.G.2 (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Variations), 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 petition. The City Council has final authority over the proposal.
Chairman Szabo asked how close two billboards can be. Mr. Scheid responded – 500 ft. apart;
his signs would be 510 ft. apart.
Coordinator Ainsworth drafted and read two potential Conditions:
• That a photometrics plan be provided at time of permit as well as details on light baffle
technology in order to reduce lighting to a level of one foot-candle at 200 feet from the
light sources shining onto the adjacent single-family residences. The Director of
Community and Economic Development shall have the authority to continue working
with the petitioner on addressing any lighting concerns and administratively require
adjustments to the baffles and lights shining onto the single-family residences.
• A landscape plan shall be submitted at the time a development proposal comes forward
for the subject property in which case dense evergreen trees shall be planted east of the
base of the billboard sign so as to thoroughly screen the billboard from the single family
residences.
Board Member Catalano stated if this was a commercial development, there could not be
lighting greater than one foot-candle toward residential properties. He asked if a zero foot-
candle is achievable. Mr. Scheid stated – perhaps 200 ft. would be a compromise. He stated if it
is a digital sign, the light splay would be less; he could provide studies. This doesn’t take into
account the light splashing off of a sign; a reflection. They will try their best to curtail lighting
toward residents.
Coordinator Ainsworth noted a static or digital billboard should not be delineated – only a
billboard at this point in the process.
Board Member Schell asked Staff where trees would be planted. Coordinator Ainsworth advised
the entire lot is under review. He stated a Condition could be added to place trees. This could be
memorialized at time of development.
Petitioner stated they don’t have control and cannot commit to landscaping on the entire
parcel.
Coordinator Ainsworth illustrated a photo of Evergreen shrubs that grew 25 ft. in a 12-year
timeframe.
Case #19-009-V 1428-1440 Lee Street – Variation
Case #19-010-PUD-CU 1620 Higgins Road – Planned Unit Development Amendment
Case 19-011-V 2811 Mannheim Road – Variance
March 12, 2019
Page 20
Board Member Hofherr asked:
• if the two properties (he identified) on Sycamore Street are owned by ComEd.
Coordinator Ainsworth stated they are and explained same.
• if City Staff could contact ComEd to request placement of trees. Coordinator Ainsworth
advised – yes.
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend
approval to City Council with these two Conditions:
• A photometrics plan be provided at time of permit as well as details on light baffle
technology in order to reduce lighting to a level of one foot-candle at 200 feet from the
light sources shining onto the adjacent single- family residences. The Director of
Community and Economic Development shall have the authority to continue working
with the petitioner on addressing any lighting concerns and administratively require
adjustments to the baffles and lights shining onto the single-family residences.
• A landscape plan shall be submitted at the time a development proposal comes forward
for the subject property in which case dense evergreen trees shall be planted east of the
base of the billboard sign so as to thoroughly screen the billboard from the single family
residences.
AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be submitted to City Council.
Coordinator Ainsworth noted this would be an agenda item at the April 1st City Council meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
The next PZB meeting is scheduled for March 26, 2019.
A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to adjourn the
meeting at 8:37 p.m.
AYES: Schell, Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Sincerely,
Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners