Loading...
4/9/19Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING APRIL 9, 2019 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 9, 2019, at 7 p.m. in Room 101 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. and read this evening’s case. Roll call was established. PRESENT: Bader, Fowler, Hofherr, Schell, Szabo ABSENT: Catalano & Saletnik ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Stytz, Planner/Community & Economic Development 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 Bader, to approve the minutes of March 26, 2019, with revisions on Page 3.c. and 9.c. to read as “any other hours”. AYES: Hofherr, Bader, Fowler, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS Coordinator Ainsworth requested to open the public hearing, and advised the Petitioner for Item #1 is requesting to continue this matter to April 23, 2019. 1. Address: 1065 Lee Street Case 19-007-CU The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Ordinance Z-16-01 under Section 12-7-3(K) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the existing Motor Vehicle Sales and Auto Service Repair use in the C-3 General Commercial District allow for the sale of six (6) more automobiles on site for a total of ten (10) vehicles. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 2 PIN: 09-20-214-002-0000 Petitioner: Louis Capozzoli, 1484 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: MD and SD, LLC, 15 N. Waverly Place, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to open the public hearing and move this case to the April 23, 2019, PZB Meeting. AYES: Hofherr, Fowler, Bader, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Coordinator Ainsworth addressed the audience stating this item is continued to the April 23, 2019, PZB Meeting. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no Public Comment. 2. Address: 915 Lee Street Case 19-014-CU-MAP-V The petitioner is requesting three items: i) an amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, to reclassify the property from the C-3 General Commercial District to the R-4 Central Core Residential District; ii) a Conditional Use to operate a Congregate Housing establishment and iii) variations. PINs: 09-20-204-001-0000; 09-20-204-007-0000 Petitioner: Tom Leontios, 717 Sheridan Road, Highwood, IL 60040 Owner: Emergency Nurses Association, 915 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Chairman Szabo swore in Tom Leontios, Plum Creek Development, 717 Sheridan Road, Highwood, IL 60040 who distributed a brochure to the Board & Staff. He mentioned he owns and operates supportive and assisted-living communities in the area. Mr. Leontios offered a PowerPoint presentation: • Introduction (the current Plum Creek property in Rolling Meadows, built in 2006, was described as well as the upcoming community in Highwood); has longevity with employees; is family-owned • Site Plan (retain existing building) o 6-story wing for residents o Courtyard Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 3 o Parking; met zoning requirements o Elevations were shown o Floor plans were illustrated (studios, one-bedroom independent units) Mr. Leontios thanked Staff. He stated he is proud of the care and services they provide. The senior market wishes to live near their loved ones. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has questions. Board Member Fowler asked: • if these units are subsidized by the government. Mr. Leontios advised – no. • at Plum Creek, is the resident’s rent subsidized. Mr. Leontios advised – no, residents are income-qualified. • what the rent range is. Mr. Leontios advised -- $3800 including meals • if other communities are in Markham and Rolling Meadows. Mr. Leontios stated – some are income-qualified (though Markham is not). • about parking. Coordinator Ainsworth expounded and stated requirements are met. Most residents would not drive; there is a shuttle/van. Mr. Leontios noted there are 36 staff for 100 people in Rolling Meadows, but the staffing is staggered. Coordinator Ainsworth reminded that on-site staff at this community is managing the parking. Mr. Leontios stated there would be employee parking, visitor parking, etc. • how many residents at Plum Creek have vehicles. Mr. Leontios stated – approximately 6 out of 106. Board Member Schell asked/stated: • how many paramedic visits there are daily. Mr. Leontios advised – 2-4 per week • there is a concern there will be a lot of paramedic calls; this is a niche industry. Coordinator Ainsworth explained past petitioner requests. He stated Des Plaines has an older population. • This is shocking if Des Plaines is housing people over 62; niche market. Coordinator Ainsworth further explained the market study as shown in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan indicates there is a need. Mr. Leontios noted this is not a niche market. There is everything in Des Plaines to accommodate seniors, especially the existing residents who want to stay in Des Plaines, but may need a little care. Board Member Fowler asked: • how you accommodate residents when needs increase. Mr. Leontios stated – an evaluation process is conducted regularly; compliance is key. Some illnesses cannot be accommodated. • how long the length of stay is. Mr. Leontios stated – 38 months for residents who are socially active and may need some services. Board Member Schell asked how many nurses are on duty. Mr. Leontios advised: • 1 9 a.m.-5 p.m. Monday-Friday Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 4 • 1 9 a.m.-11 p.m. Saturday • CNAs are more plentiful Board Member Fowler asked/stated: • how couples are accommodated. Mr. Leontios advised – meals are $1,500 extra for the other spouse • she is still concerned about parking, as 62 to 65-year olds still drive. Mr. Leontios stated – in reality, the average age is 74-78 Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. Board Member Hofherr asked/identified: • about Fire Department requirements. Mr. Leontios stated – there have been discussions, and the policies are in line. Coordinator Ainsworth stated, like other developments, the Fire Department has reviewed this project for any potential concerns. • if the Fire Department will be overwhelmed. Coordinator Ainsworth will pass comments along to Fire Department staff • about the water and sanitation impact. Mr. Leontios advised – there have been no concerns. Coordinator Ainsworth stated that this application was reviewed by Engineering for the past two months, and there are no issues for capacity. Some developments (like Compasspoint) increase water lines to help the entire system. • additional water obtained from other communities. • about traffic impact - Mr. Leontios stated – there will be no more than what the Emergency Nurses’ staff used • about storage areas. Mr. Leontios stated – there aren’t any • what the actual size of one-bedrooms is. Mr. Leontios advised – 10x15 (including kitchenette and bathroom); meets code – unit sizes are around 500 square feet • if units have bathtubs. Mr. Leontios stated – there would be one or two (on site). Coordinator Ainsworth stated showers have bench seats. Mr. Leontios stated seniors take showers as they may not be able to rise from a tub. • regarding a concierge shuttle service, is this based on other communities that you own? Mr. Leontios advised – yes • if there will be a charge (for shuttle service). Mr. Leontios advised – no Board Member Fowler asked: • if petitioner will not offer subsidies to residents. Mr. Leontios advised – no • why build in Des Plaines? Mr. Leontios stated – the Des Plaines market supports a private- model Chairman Szabo asked: • if the shuttle takes residents to doctor appointments. Mr. Leontios advised – yes • how many vans there will be. Mr. Leontios advised – two • if there is a schedule for shopping trips. Mr. Leontios advised – yes • if Plum Creek is the branding for all communities. Mr. Leontios advised – yes Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 5 It was asked if Highwood is a Plum Creek community also. Mr. Leontios advised – yes Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Coordinator Ainsworth did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting the following items: i) a Map Amendment under Section 12-3- 7; ii.) two Variances under Section 12-3-6(H); and iii) a Conditional Use under Section 12-7-3(F)(3) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to rezone the property from C-3 to R-4 and to operate a Congregate Housing Use in the R-4 zoning district. Analysis: Address: 915 Lee Street Owners: Jim Fetty, Emergency Nurses Association, 930 E. Woodfield Road, Schaumburg, IL 60173 Petitioner: Tom Leontios, 707 Sheridan Avenue, Highwood, IL 60045 Case Number: 19-014-CU-MAP Real Estate Index Number: 09-20-204-001-0000 Ward: #2, Alderman John Robinson Existing Zoning: C-3 General Commercial Existing Land Use: Vacant (office building) Surrounding Zoning: North: C-5 General Business South: R-4 Central Core Residential East: R-4 Central Core Residential West: C-3 General Commercial / R-4 Central Core Residential Surrounding Land Use: North: Commercial South: Multi-family housing East: Multi-family housing West: Commercial / Multi-family housing Street Classification: Lee Street is an arterial street, Thacker Street is a collector street, and Ashland Avenue is a local road. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Commercial. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 6 Project Description: The petitioner, Mr. Tom Leontios, is requesting a Map Amendment to rezone the property from C-3 to R-4, two Major Variations, and a Conditional Use to operate a Congregate Housing Use at 915 Lee Street. This property contains a two- story, 23,800 square foot building with a surface parking lot containing 82 off-street parking spaces. The petitioner proposes to transform the vacant building into a “hotel-style” retirement community as the end use is a senior independent living facility. The request includes retaining and renovating the existing two- story building and constructing a six-story addition off of the northeast corner of the existing building. The existing building will contain offices, a dining lounge, various recreation space, and communal amenities for residents while the new addition will consist of 100 independent retirement units including 52 one- bedroom units and 48 studio/efficiency units. The one-bedroom units will be 502 square-feet and the studio/efficiency units will be 454 square feet. Each unit will contain a private bathroom and kitchenette with a sink, cabinets, microwave, and mini- refrigerator. Meals will be provided to residents in a restaurant- style dining room and the facility will include a bistro and ice cream parlor for resident use. A variety of services will be offered to the residents including a spa and wellness center; indoor pool and fitness center; resident activities; clubs and group outings; beauty/barber shop; arts and crafts; music; and education seminars and lectures. A nurse will be available at scheduled times to conduct medical evaluations for residents. Additionally, the parking provided on-site meets the amount of parking required by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed land use will require 50 off-street parking spaces for Congregate Housing Centers and 50 off-street spaces are currently provided including two (2) handicap spaces. Residents will have designated parking spaces in the parking area; Staff is recommending that a max of 25 parking spaces be designated for resident parking. The residents will have access to a concierge shuttle service as a transportation option since many residents do not drive. The applicant is requesting two (2) variances given the existing conditions of the property and dimension conflicts between the Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 7 geometric parking area and the required curb and gutter setback: i) relief from Section 12-7-2(J) requiring a 12-foot front yard setback and ii) relief from 12-9-6(D) requiring all curb and gutter sections to be setback at least 3.5-feet from the property line. Amendment Findings: Map Amendment requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-7(E) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council: Comment: The Comprehensive Plan strives to provide a range of housing options, especially multi-unit residences, which would provide convenient access to shopping centers, civic uses, and open space. The subject property is located along the Lee Street Corridor situated in close proximity to downtown Des Plaines which provides residents with easy and convenient access to downtown amenities. B. The proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property: Comment: The subject property is surrounded by a mix of commercial and multi-unit residentially-zoned properties. However, the properties directly east, west, and south of the subject property are zoned R-4 Residential Core which are compatible with the proposed map amendment for the subject property. C. The proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property: Comment: There are adequate public facilities to enable the property to be rezoned to the R-4 Central Core Residential District. D. The proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction: Comment: The proposal would improve the existing appearance and potentially the value of the property. The redevelopment of this property from a vacant office use to a multi-unit residence use will increase housing options in the downtown area as well as assist in the promotion of major commercial corridors such as Lee Street, Graceland Avenue, and downtown Des Plaines. E. The proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth: Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 8 Comment: The proposal strives to meet and exceed the responsible standards required for development and growth. The redevelopment project will help provide “age-in-place” living options to Des Plaines residents as well as responsibly redevelop an under-utilized property. 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: Congregate Housing is a Conditional Use, as specified in Section 12-7-2(I) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for properties in the R-4 Central Core Residential District. B. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The proposed use of the property is Congregate Housing. The Future Land Use Map found in the Comprehensive Plan designates this site as Commercial. This type of land use typically includes general commercial spaces with a variety of business sizes. Congregate Housing is a conditional use in both the C-3 General Commercial and R-4 Central Core Residential Districts, but would be better suited for the R-4 Central Core Residential District. The petitioner plans to renovate the existing two-story building while also adding a six-story addition to the east, both of which would provide additional high density multi-unit housing in close proximity to the downtown area. Moreover, the proposed development will add more age-in-place housing options for residents. 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 proposes to renovate the existing building and construct the addition utilizing comparable designs to the surrounding development. The existing building design will be altered from the current office appearance to reflect the appearance and functionality of a Congregate Housing use. The proposed site design will be harmonious with the surrounding multi- unit residential development in the area. D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: The petitioner proposes to redevelop the existing office building into a “hotel-style” retirement community building and provide a variety of services to its residents. The Conditional Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 9 Use for Congregate Housing will be comparable to the surrounding multi-unit residential buildings and thus will not be hazardous or distributing to existing neighboring uses. 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 existing office building has been adequately served by essential public facilities and services. The proposed use will also be adequately served by 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 Congregate Housing Conditional Use will not create excessive additional requirements at the public expense as the petitioner plans to use the existing building and property for all proposed operations. The proposed Conditional Use will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of the community but rather increase the housing base in this area for senior housing. 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 Congregate Housing Conditional Use operations will be conducted within the building with the exception of the outdoor seating area located along Lee Street on the west side of the building. A concierge shuttle service will be available to residents which will consolidate trip generation and reduce parking demand. In any respect, it is determined that there will not be any detriment to the public or to adjoining properties. 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 Congregate Housing Conditional Use will continue to provide adequate vehicular access to the site as the existing office use. The proposed parking area will be accessed via Thacker Street on the north elevation and Ashland Avenue on the south elevation similar to the existing use. The proposed Conditional Use will not interfere with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 10 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 Congregate Housing Conditional Use will not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance. The building and site were already developed and the petitioner is only proposing redevelopment of existing non- permeable surfaces and structures. A future building expansion will result in a new Conditional Use Application and require another public hearing. J. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested: Comment: The proposed Congregate Housing Conditional Use meets all other requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for the R-4 Central Core Residential District. However, the petitioner is requesting two variations beyond the Conditional Use Permit. Variation Findings: Variations 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: A. 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 two variations requested by the petitioner are based out of necessity and would create an unnecessary hardship for the petitioner to comply with. The existing two-story building does not meet the front yard setback requirement but the new addition would comply with all zoning requirements. The site plan was designed to maximize the parking area to meet the parking requirements for the Congregate Housing Use. However, there is a direct dimension conflict between the geometric regulations for the parking area and the required curb and gutter setback from the property line. Therefore, the petitioner is unable to meet the required separation between the curb and gutter and the side lot line without the creation of a particular hardship. B. 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 #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 11 Comment: The physical conditions of the existing site and current development contributes a particular hardship to the petitioner. The site fronts three separate streets and is accessed by two curb-cuts on the north and south portions of the property. The existing size and irregular-shape of the property limits the petitioner from meeting all setback requirements with the existing structure and proposed development. C. 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 owner did not create the unique physical conditions on the property but is looking to improve the property through the redevelopment proposal. The existing two-story building was present on site at the time of enactment of the provisions for which the variances are been sought. The issuance of these variances would allow the petitioner to improve the existing development on the site and provide additional housing options for the area while complying with all other requirements. D. 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: Carrying out the strict letter of the provision would prevent the petitioner from improving the existing property through a redevelopment proposal. The existing property configuration contains unique characteristics that add particular hardships to the petitioner to comply with all applicable zoning requirements. The petitioner has worked with Staff and revised plans accordingly to meet or exceed all other requirements. E. 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 granting of these two variations would not allow the petitioner to enjoy any special privilege, additional rights, or increased monetary gain. However, it would allow the petitioner to redevelop the property into a retirement community and provide more aging-in-place housing. F. 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: Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 12 Comment: The variations would not result in any development that would not be harmonious with surrounding development or oppose the purposes of this title or the Comprehensive Plan. The petitioner is proposing to renovate and design the site to match surrounding residential development and make improvements as necessary to address any existing concerns. The Comprehensive Plan looks to promote development and redevelopment in Des Plaines, especially along major corridors and throughout the downtown area. This proposal would help satisfy that goal and promote additional development/redevelopment in the area. G. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the subject lot: Comment: The existing hardships cannot be remedied by the petitioner without the approval of the requested variations. The location of the existing two-story building does not meet the front yard setback requirement and cannot be avoided. The proposed parking area was repositioned to accommodate the number of parking spaces required but does not meet proper curb and gutter setback requirements due to geometric constraints. Consequently, both variations cannot be avoided to permit the proposed use of the subject lot. H. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of this title: Comment: The requested variations would provide the minimum amount of relief to the petitioner to alleviate the existing hardships on the site as the proposal meets all other requirements. Recommendation: I recommend approval of a Map Amendment, two Variances, and a Conditional Use to rezone the property from C-3 to R-4 and to operate a Congregate Housing Use in the R-4 zoning district based on a 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), Section 12-3-7(E) (Standards for Amendments), and Section 12-3-6(H) (Standards for Variations) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following conditions: Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 13 Conditions of Approval: 1. The inner lanes of Ashland Avenue, Lee Street, and Thacker Street shall be milled and resurfaced for the length of each property line abutting the respective roadways. 2. A Photometric Plan shall be provided at time of building permit to comply with Zoning Ordinance Code Section 12-12-10. 3. A Landscape Plan shall be provided at time of building permit and evergreen shrubs shall be added along the entire length of the parking lot that faces Ashland Avenue. 4. The parking lot shall be improved with curb and gutter as well as catch basins. 5. No more than 50% of the off-street parking spaces shall be reserved for residents. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and Decision for Conditional Uses), Section 12-3-6(F) (Procedure for Review and Decision for Standard Variations), Section 12-3-6(G) (Procedure for Review and Decision for Major Variations), and Section 12-3-7(D) (Procedure for Review and Decision for Amendments) 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 requests for a Congregate Housing use for the property at 915 Lee Street. The City Council has final authority on the proposal. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this petition. The following were sworn in: • Ken Kutella 900 Center Street Mr. Kutella stated he faces west, and advised there is no additional parking. When ENA was open, they took 80% of parking. Where will staff park? Coordinator Ainsworth stated – ENA moved out in July – ENA will not be reoccupying this building. The existing office building will be dining space, social areas,reception, etc. • Gary Clark 900 Lee Street (lived there for 15 years) Mr. Clark advised he has been a resident for 15 years and is a member of the association board. Regarding traffic and food deliveries, how will they be managed? Mr. Leontios advised – they are weekly. Mr. Clark quoted an article in the Pioneer Press stating local residents can participate at the Highwood community. Mr. Leontios advised – this community will not offer restaurant dining to outside local residents. Coordinator Ainsworth expounded that local residents may participate in tours, etc. Mr. Leontios stated – they may host a Pancake Breakfast for the community, have a Grand Opening, etc.; 1-2 events yearly. Coordinator Ainsworth stated such coordination will have to take place with valet Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 14 parking, etc. • Danny Rodriguez 900 Center Street (lived there for 18 years) Mr. Rodriguez stated parking is a concern. It is packed on Sunday mornings. This will bring congestion; too many people driving with cars. He noted other condo-unit parking is filled also as is street parking. Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions. He asked if Petitioner is aware of the Conditions. Mr. Leontios advised – he is, and there are no issues. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Schell, to deny the request. AYES: Hofherr, Schell NAYES: Bader, Szabo ABSTAIN: Fowler ***MOTION CARRIED 2-2*** Chairman Szabo stated the recommendation would be submitted to City Council. 3. Address: Citywide Text Amendment Case 19-019-TA The City of Des Plaines is requesting Text Amendments to the following sections of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended: ) Section 12-3-5.C, Planned Unit Development, to clarify the permitted bulk regulations and minimum development standards; (ii) Section 12-7-2.J, Residential Districts Bulk Matrix, to add “Corner Side Yard”; (iii) 12-8-2, Fence Regulations, to add a regulation where no fencing can abut another fence and to acknowledge the corner side yard; (iv) Section 12-9-7, Off Street Parking Requirements, to amend “Warehousing and Wholesaling”, and add “Food Processing Establishment” and “Shopping Center” in the off-street parking requirements; (v) Section 12-9-9 to amend “Off Street Loading Requirements); (vi) Section 12-9-10 to add a new section entitled, “Permitted Land Bank Parking”; and (vii) Section 12-13-3, Definitions, to add definitions for “Yard, Corner Side”, “Shopping Center”, and to amend the definitions of “Floor Area”, “Yard, Rear” and “Yard, Front”. PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 15 Coordinator Ainsworth stated the Zoning Code is 21 years old. He explained the Proposed Text Amendment for: • Planned & Mixed-Use Developments – clarifying parking requirements • Corner Side-Yard (for Residential Districts) Board Member Fowler asked about landscaping. Coordinator Ainsworth stated that would be introduced in a future text amendment request. • Fence Regulations Chairman Szabo asked about a 6 ft. fence reducing to 3 ft. Coordinator Ainsworth explained same. • Off-Street Parking Requirements for manufacturing, wholesaling and distribution Board Member Schell reminded about benefits to Des Plaines’ parking requirements. Coordinator Ainsworth identified examples. Board Member Fowler asked about the new shopping center parking requirement. Coordinator Ainsworth explained that there is no shopping center parking requirement currently in the Code. A brief discussion took place on how parking calculations are reduced when there are certain credits o Floor Area o Loading Requirements • Permitted Land Bank Parking Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioners could ask for variations. Coordinator Ainsworth advised – yes, and stated Des Plaines will still be restrictive for warehousing. Chairman Szabo asked if there are any questions. Board Member Fowler asked if Coordinator Ainsworth would provide her with information on congregate parking. Coordinator Ainsworth stated he will do so. The Staff Report is as follows: Issue: The City of Des Plaines is requesting Text Amendments to the following sections of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Code, as amended: (i) Section 12-3-5.C, Planned Unit Development, to clarify the permitted bulk regulations and minimum development standards; (ii) Section 12-7-2.J, Residential Districts Bulk Matrix, to add a “Corner Side Yard” regulation; (iii) 12-8-2, Fence Regulations, to add a regulation where no fencing can abut another fence and to acknowledge Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 16 the corner side yard; (iv) Section 12-9-7, Off Street Parking Requirements, to amend “Warehousing and Wholesaling” and “Industrial and Manufacturing Uses”, add “Food Processing Establishment” and “Shopping Center” in the off street parking requirements; (v) Section 12-9-9 to amend “Off Street Loading Requirements; (vi) Section 12-9-10 to add a new section entitled, “Permitted Land Bank Parking”; and (vii) Section 12-13-3, Definitions, to add definitions for “Corner Side Yard”, “Shopping Center”, and to amend the definitions of “Floor Area” and “Yard, Front”. Analysis: PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: #19-019-TA Project Description: The City of Des Plaines is proposing several text amendments to the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, which are as follows: • Amending the Planned Unit Development – Permitted Exceptions and Minimum Development Standards; • Amending the Residential Bulk Regulation Matrix to add a Corner Side Yard regulation; • Under Fence Regulations, adding a regulation regarding abutting fences and to account for the new corner side yard regulation; • Amending Off Street Parking Requirements for the following items; o Amend the parking regulation for “Warehousing and Wholesaling”; o Add “Food Processing Establishment”; o Add “Shopping Center”; • Amending the Off Street Loading Requirement section; • Adding a new Permitted Land Bank Parking section; and • Amending or Adding the following terms to the Definition section of the Zoning Ordinance: o “Yard, Corner Side”; o “Yard, Front”; o “Shopping Center”; and o “Floor Area”. Updating the Regulations on Planned Unit Developments Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 17 Regarding Planned Unit Developments in Zoning Ordinance Section 12-3-5, there are inconsistencies between 12-3-5.A.C and 12-3-5-1 as both code sections refer to Planned Unit Development (PUD) types and they do not contain the same regulation for minimum parking. The intent of a PUD is to allow for zoning flexibility given when a project is proposing to add a variety of uses, the site is challenged by physical constraints and/or the proposed project is serving as a transition between varying uses. Staff is recommending to have consistency with the parking portions and use the existing text from 12-3-5-1.E.1.b as the parking regulation to use when eliminating this code conflict. The proposed text amendment is as follows: 12-3-5-C: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS: Add/Amend: C. Permitted Bulk Exceptions and Minimum Development Standards: 4. Parking Requirements: The individual uses permitted within the planned unit development shall adhere to the parking requirements provided for in other sections of this title for the particular use or uses proposed. In no case shall the required parking be less than seventy five percent (75%) of the base parking requirement of the uses as required collectively. 12-3-5-1: MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS: E. Parking Requirements (Mixed Use Developments): 1. General Requirements: The parking requirements for mixed-use developments shall be determined on a case by case basis analyzing the parking demand for each use and how sharing the parking spaces shall be used to ensure that times of maximum usage will not overlap. The following evaluation criteria shall apply: a. Section 12-9-7, "Off Street Parking Requirements", of this title. b. In no case shall the required parking be less than seventy five percent (75%) of the base parking requirement of the uses as required collectively, or the base parking requirement of the most parking intensive use, whichever is greater. (Ord. Z-24-06, 8-7-2006) Staff is also proposing to eliminate the phrase “or the base parking requirement of the most parking intensive use, whichever is greater” to eliminate confusion on future parking calculations. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 18 Adding Corner Side Yards to Residential Districts and to Definition Section In September, 2018, City Staff, PZB, and City Council updated the Zoning Ordinance to remove the three code conflicts regarding corner lots for single family lots. As a result, only one front yard setback is applied to one side of a single-family dwelling unit located on a corner lot – the setback for the other side of the property abutting a public right-of-way is a five-foot side yard setback. This text amendment request is proposing to create a brand-new setback called a “corner side yard” setback that will only be applied for corner lots and the portion of the property that is abutting a public right-of-way and is not the defined front yard. The proposed corner side yard setback is 10 feet. However, in instances where corner lots widths are rather narrow, there is built in flexibility to reduce the 10-foot setback down to five feet in order to accommodate a 30-foot wide house (see the note section text below). The goal of introducing this new type of side yard setback is to ensure visual clearance for the abutting intersection. Every surrounding community contains either two front yards or a corner side yard regulation assigned to corner lots to ensure that a dwelling unit or other structure does not impede with the visual clearance. The proposed text amendment is as follows: 12-7-2-J. Residential Bulk Matrix: Add/Amend: TABLE 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BULK MATRIX Bulk Controls R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 Minimum front yard 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 12 ft. Minimum corner side yard 10 ft.2 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. Notes: 2. Where a lot is defined as a corner lot, the required front yard and corner side Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 19 yard shall be observed, provided, however, that the minimum corner side yard may be reduced to allow for a buildable width of 30 feet for single family detached dwelling unit in the R-1 district. In no instance shall the minimum corner side yard setback be reduced to less than five feet. No accessory building or roofed structure shall encroach into the required front yard and corner side yard setback, provided, however, structures and building lawfully established prior to May 6, 2019 that do not meet the front yard or corner side yard setbacks shall be considered legal non-conforming and may remain and be maintained per section 5-6 of this title. 12-13-1 DEFINITIONS: Add/Amend: YARD, CORNER SIDE: A yard which adjoins a public right-of-way and is not the designated front yard. A corner side yard setback assignment shall extend along the length of such assigned lot line from the front yard setback back to the rear lot line. Note, corner side yards are strictly for corner lots that are located within the R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. YARD, FRONT: A yard extending along the full length of the front lot line between the assigned side/corner side lot lines. On corner lots, the front lot line shall be the shorter of the two (2) lot lines separating the property from the streets A diagram showing the proposed corner side yard is provided below: Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 20 This diagram is not to scale. Amending Fence Regulations Community and Economic Development staff have been experiencing a series of issues over the years with regards to fencing on one lot abutting another existing fence. If one abutting fence is not maintained, then it may impact the other fencing which leads to property maintenance issues. There are other communities that do not allow back-to-back fencing for the same reason of prior consistent property maintenance issue. The amendment below proposes adding language to aid in this property maintenance concern. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 21 Additionally, the proposed fence regulation amendment section is introducing the corner side yard concept with regards to the placement of six-foot tall fences. The proposed amendment will still allow a four-foot open design fence in the front and corner side yards, but a six-foot tall fence will have to comply with a new 10-foot sight triangle to maintain sight visibility for pedestrians, motorists and surrounding properties. More importantly, there are numerous lot properties that contain six-foot tall fences around the side, corner side and rear portions of the subject lot and the six-foot tall fence immediately abuts the driveway of a neighboring property. This presents a challenge to the abutting property owner when backing out of their subject driveway and trying to properly view oncoming traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists. See the diagram below the proposed amendment for a visual aid (see Attachment #2 for more visual aids). Note, six-foot tall fences are not permitted within the existing front yard setback, staff is not proposing to amend that specific regulation. The proposed text amendments are as follows: 12-8-2: FENCE REGULATIONS Add/Amend: A. Height Requirement: 1. The maximum height of a fence for a nonresidential use shall be eight feet (8'). (Ord. Z-8-98, 9-21-1998) 2. The maximum height of a fence for a residential use shall be four feet (4') when located in front yards and corner side yards and six feet (6') when located in rear yard, and side yards, corner side yard, or within the buildable area of the lot. When a six-foot tall fence is located in any rear yard, side or corner side yard, there shall be no portion of such fence located within any 10 foot sight triangle when abutting any alley, driveway or street. Lots having double frontage, one of which abuts an arterial street, may erect a fence of six feet (6') along the frontage, which abuts the arterial street. Lots that abut the railroad right of way may erect an eight foot (8') tall fence along the side that abuts the railroad right of way. In instances when a fence is not located on a property line, all portions of the subject lot shall be properly maintained. New fencing shall be located at least five feet away from a parallel fence. G. Fences that directly abut existing fences are prohibited. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 22 Diagram showing fence locations with proposed site triangle addition as proposed in Section 12-8-2-A.2. Amending Certain Off Street Parking and Loading Requirements CED staff is introducing amendments to the off street parking and loading requirements as some of the regulations do not reflect modern land use patterns and there are existing land uses within the City that do not contain off street parking assignments. The following text amendments are as follows: 12-9-7: OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Amend: Industrial and manufacturing uses: 1 space for every 1,000 1,500 square feet of gross floor area Warehousing and wholesaling 1 space for every 1,000 1,500 square feet of gross floor area Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 23 Staff is proposing to reduce the required number of parking spaces for industrial, manufacturing, warehousing and wholesaling operations as these portions of industrial buildings are largely dedicated for large machinery placement, storage, distribution and warehousing. Additionally, a comparison of other nearby industrialized town shows that the proposed amendment is in-line with modern parking trends. Municipality Type of Land Use Parking Requirement Franklin Park Manufacturing 2 spaces per every 3 employees Franklin Park Distribution 1 space for 2,500 sf or 2.5 spaces per loading dock whichever is greater Elk Grove Village Industrial and warehousing 1 space per 2 employees plus one space for every company vehicle Bensenville Warehousing and wholesaling .5 spaces per 1,000 sf or 1 per employee, whichever is greater While other municipalities review parking requirements based on employee count, CED staff is recommending to maintain a gross floor area approach for our zoning regulation as companies that move in and out of a space can fluctuate with employee requirements which is rather difficult to enforce off street parking. Note, the portion of industrial buildings dedicated to office space will still remain unchanged at 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet. 12-9-7: OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Add: Food Processing Establishment 2 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of dedicated food preparation and office areas The proposed text above is an addition to the off street parking matrix as “Food Process Establishment”. This is an existing land use found in the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance and it does not have an associated off street parking assignment. As such, the proposed regulation is specific to the type of floor areas dedicated to food processing/catering businesses. Another land use that does not have an assigned off street parking requirement is shopping centers. While office uses, retail establishments and service establishments contain a parking requirement of 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area, there are other uses such as day care facilities, restaurants and schools that may also be found in shopping centers which do not contain the same off street parking requirement. As such, staff is introducing a parking requirement specific to shopping centers to assist with enforcing parking requirements for such type of development. Additionally, a definition for shopping center is also proposed to help with Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 24 interpretation and enforcement of the zoning regulation. The proposed amendments are as follows: 12-9-7: OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Add: Shopping Centers 3 spaces for every 1,000 square feet of gross floor area 12-13-1 DEFINITIONS: Add/Amend: SHOPPING CENTER: A development in which at least three commercial units are constructed with individual entrances and share improvements such as common walls and a common off street parking lot. The next proposed amendment further clarifies how off street parking is calculated. There is an existing statement in the definition section of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance that exempts certain parts of a building as they are accessory in function. However, staff is proposing to further enhance this sentence as it leaving out other accessory building functions such as mechanical rooms, stairwells, hallways and elevators. The proposed amendment is as follows: 12-13-1 DEFINITIONS: Amend: FLOOR AREA: The sum of the gross horizontal areas of the several floors of the building, or portion thereof, devoted to such use, including accessory storage areas located within selling or working space such as counters, racks, or closets, and any basement floor area devoted to retailing activities, to the production or processing of goods, or to business or professional offices. "Floor area" for purposes of measurement for off street parking spaces shall not include: floor area devoted primarily to storage areas, food preparation areas, and bathrooms, mechanical rooms, hallways, stairwells and elevators. Food preparation areas shall not be exempt from food processing establishment uses. No more than 10% of the entire combined floor area may be reduced for rooms devoted primarily to storage areas. The next proposed text amendment deals with off street loading requirements for buildings in manufacturing districts. As currently written, a 100,001 square foot building would need four (4) loading zones that measures 15’ X 35’ for each loading zone space – this results in Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 25 2,100 square feet of land area dedicated to loading zones. Additionally, this requirement is separate from drive in doors and loading docks that are typically associated with industrial building construction. The text amendment below proposes to reduce the number of loading spaces. The new-found land area savings could be dedicated to open space, off street parking spaces or circulation for future industrial buildings. 12-9-9: OFF STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS: Amend B. Manufacturing Districts: Where any building is erected, reconstructed or converted for a use permitted in the M-1, M-2 or M-3 manufacturing districts, the loading space requirements shall be as follows: Building Size Spaces Required 0 - 10,000 100,000 sq. ft. 1 loading space 10,001 - 35,000 100,001 – 200,000 sq. ft. 2 loading spaces 35,001 - 70,000 200,001 – 300,000 sq. ft. 3 loading spaces 70,001 - 100,000 sq. ft. 4 loading spaces Each additional 100,000 sq. ft. in excess of the first 300,000 sq. ft. 1 loading space The final text amendment regarding Chapter 9 of the Zoning Ordinance is to introduce a brand-new code section, Section 12-9-10 – Permitted Land Bank Parking. This is a concept where a new industrial or commercial development can construct more green space in-lieu of building a certain amount of required off street parking. There are assurances that the required parking may have to be constructed in the future and that the land dedicated to parking is left open as green space. The proposed text is as follows: 12-9-10: PERMITTED LAND BANK PARKING: A. A portion of required off street parking spaces may be land banked in-lieu of constructing the subject parking spaces for buildings established after May 6, 2019 in attempt to promote open and greenspace and subject to the following conditions and requirements. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 26 1. Properties zoned C-2, C-3, C-4, M-1 and M-2 are eligible for permitted land bank parking. 2. Commercially Zoned Assembly Uses and Restaurants are not eligible for permitted land bank parking. 3. A maximum of 25% of the total required off street parking spaces can be land banked in-lieu of constructing the subject parking spaces. 4. The zoning administrator and city council reserve the right to require the subject property owner to construct a portion of all of the land banked parking spaces at any time. 5. A parking plan which shall be provided at the time of the request and shall contain the following information: a. The locations of the land bank parking spaces. The land bank parking spaces shall be in full compliance with the parking regulations of this chapter. b. An off street parking calculation table shall be provided showing the total number of required spaces and the proposed number of parking spaces to be land banked. c. The parking plan shall show the interim use of the land banked area. d. A statement shall be added to the parking plan that the Des Plaines Zoning Administrator and the Des Plaines City Council reserve the right to require the current property owner to construct a portion or all of the land bank parking spaces at any time. 6. No permanent buildings or roofed structures shall be improved on the portion of the subject building that is dedicated for the land banked parking. 7. A legal agreement shall be approved by the city attorney which will ensure that the land banked parking spaces shall be effectively maintained as open green space until such time the land bank spaces are constructed. The approved agreement shall also be recorded by the property owners with the county recorder's office. 8. A fee of $75.00 per space land banked shall be charged to the applicant when applying for a lank bank parking request. Standards for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment: To analyze this text amendment request, the standards for amendments contained in Section 12- 3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance are used. Following is a discussion of those standards. 1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council; Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 27 The new 2019 Comprehensive Plan generally discusses the modernization of code to match emerging land use trends, but still respect existing land uses. The Comprehensive Plan also specifically discusses updating development standards to assist with handling stormwater, which is partially being accomplished through the new land bank parking option. The overarching goal of this text amendment application is to clarify, enhance and modernize the 21-year-old Zoning Ordinance. In general, the aforementioned text amendments assist with enhancing business opportunities while protecting nearby properties from potential hazards, clarify specific code sections to eliminate code conflicts and update certain sections of the code to match emerging land use trends. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The proposed text amendments help to modernize the Zoning Ordinance and ensure the proposed amendments are compatible with the overall character of existing development. The updates to the single-family lots, parking, and fencing are all in an attempt to maintain compatibility with current conditions, but to also introduce land use concepts to increase safety and comfort. The various definition additions will assist with enforcing the Zoning Ordinance and maintain the overall character of existing development. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; All proposed amendments are not anticipated to impact public facilities and available services. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and All proposed amendments will not have an adverse effect on property values throughout the City. There are several mechanisms to control any potential impacts such as assigning land uses as conditional uses, adding screening and buffering requirements as well as providing detailed definitions to assist with enforcement control of potential hazards. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. The proposed text amendment to clarify the variation section to ensure that use variations are not requested will ensure responsible growth. Amending the Zoning Ordinance to eliminate any code conflicts with PUDs with help with consistency of regulation administration, adding corner side yards to single family residential lots will assist with maintaining visual clearance Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 28 and assist with safety, amending the fencing regulations will help reduce property maintenance issues as well as increase safety by appropriately placing privacy fencing, amending the various parking regulations ensures that the uses will be adequately parked, but also assist with increasing open space and finally, adding and amending certain definitions will assist with adequately enforcing the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: The Community and Economic Development Department recommends approval of the proposed text amendments to the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: (i) Section 12-3-5.C, Planned Unit Development, to clarify the permitted bulk regulations and minimum development standards; (ii) Section 12-7-2.J, Residential Districts Bulk Matrix, to add a “Corner Side Yard” regulation; (iii) 12-8-2, Fence Regulations, to add a regulation where no fencing can abut another fence and to acknowledge the corner side yard; (iv) Section 12-9-7, Off Street Parking Requirements, to amend “Warehousing and Wholesaling” and “Industrial and Manufacturing Uses”, add “Food Processing Establishment” and “Shopping Center” in the off street parking requirements; (v) Section 12-9-9 to amend “Off Street Loading Requirements; (vi) Section 12-9-10 to add a new section entitled, “Permitted Land Bank Parking”; and (vii) Section 12-13-3, Definitions, to add definitions for “Corner Side Yard”, “Shopping Center”, and to amend the definitions of “Floor Area” and “Yard, Front”. Planning & Zoning Board Procedure: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Text Amendments. A motion was made by Board Member Fowler, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to recommend approval to City Council of the Proposed Text Amendment changes. AYES: Fowler, Hofherr, Bader, Schell, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be submitted to City Council. Coordinator Ainsworth noted this may be an agenda item at the May 20, 2019 City Council meeting. ADJOURNMENT The next PZB meeting is scheduled for April 23, 2019. Case #19-007-CU 1065 Lee Street – Conditional Use Permit Case #19-014-LSA 915 Lee Street – Zoning MAP Amendment, Conditional Use Permit, Setback Variations Case 19-019-TA Citywide – Text Amendments April 9, 2019 Page 29 A motion was made by Board Member Fowler, seconded by Board Member Schell, to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 p.m. AYES: Fowler, Schell Bader, Hofherr, Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Sincerely, Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning and Zoning Board, Petitioners