Loading...
8/27/19Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING AUGUST 27, 2019 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 27, 2019, at 7 p.m. in Room 101 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was established. PRESENT: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, & Szabo ABSENT: Bader ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Ainsworth, Coord., Devel. Mgr./Community & Economic Development Jonathan Stytz, Planner I/ Community & Economic Development Lily Neppl, Comm. Develop. Specialist/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Schell commented that on Page 13, the words should read Board Member Schell rather than Chairman. A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to approve the minutes of July 23, 2019, as amended. AYES: Schell, Saletnik, Fowler, & Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Catalano, Hofherr ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** PUBLIC COMMENT There was no Public Comment. NEW BUSINESS 1. Address: 877 Elmhurst Road Case 19-045-V Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 2 The petitioner is requesting Major Variations under Sections 12-11-5(C) and 12-11-6(B) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow additional wall signs on two non- street-facing building elevations in excess of the one wall sign maximum for non-street-facing elevations and to allow for a wall sign to extend in excess of the 15-inch maximum for wall signage in the in the C-3 Zoning District. PINs: 08-24-100-013 Petitioner: Phil Mesi, Subway, 877 Elmhurst Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: Phil Mesi, Courtesy Development, LLC, 5521 Cumberland Avenue, #1102, Chicago, IL 60656 Chairman Szabo swore in Phil Mesi, Subway, 877 Elmhurst Road, Des Plaines, IL, Louis Capozzoli, Attorney, 1484 Miner, Des Plaines, IL, & Patrick Bucaro, Subway, 5521 N. Cumberland, Suite #1102, Chicago, IL. Mr. Capozzoli stated a variance is requested for 2 additional wall signs. He noted there is no drive-thru but rather a pick-up window. A presentation was offered including: • Design panels on side of building • Plat of Survey and Exterior Elevations were illustrated • Existing signage in window is removed • Wall signs on 2 sides • Pole signs • Choice logo on accent panel • Express pick-up informational sign (illuminated) • One is unable to see the Subway with the established parkway trees; hardship • Neighbor’s signage blocks Subway sign • Feature accent design panel; no Subway sign on front of building at the moment • Building was redone • Brand signage (Taco Bell) was compared Mr. Mesi advised he’s been a franchisee owner since 1984. He won the Remodel of the Year award in Des Plaines. Mr. Mesi believes this is a balanced approach between design and signage. Characteristics are: • Gooseneck (LED) lights were removed (photo was highlighted) • Cleaned up the look • Pole sign remains • $300,000 was spent on renovation • Removed pergola from proposed remodel Mr. Mesi referred to a previous City of Des Plaines meeting with food chains. Nothing has improved the area. He noted sign renderings were presented to City Staff initially. He noted signs have been reduced, window graphics were removed. Grant money for the façade was sought, however, variances negate that. The building is now enhanced. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 3 More photos were shown (and distributed) denoting accent design panels. Mr. Mesi noted the burden is the neighbor’s sign and the trees. Mr. Capozzoli stated it appears City Staff believes if granted, Subway would be given special treatment. He doesn’t see it that way and referred to other food restaurant signage (McDonald’s etc.). Proposed signage offers visibility. Mr. Mesi stated 30% of customers would recognize this new signage better. Board Member Catalano asked if the graphic is in the window on the north elevation. Mr. Mesi stated that behind the graphic are windows. Coordinator Ainsworth stated these window signs are not in compliance. Board Member Fowler asked if Petitioner really thinks the extra panel with logo would help. She doesn’t believe the trees hide the building. She asked Coordinator Ainsworth about the extra panel sign. Coordinator Ainsworth stated that this panel is considered a wall sign since the structure is physically attached to the building. A commercial establishment is allowed either a monument sign or a pole sign. Since this green panel is attached to the building, any signage attached to this structure would be considered a wall sign. Mr. Mesi stated at one time this building could be seen from Dempster. A cleaner look facilitated the removal of signs. Board Member Fowler stated that corporate rules must fit in within a community’s ordinances. He reiterated signage wasn’t addressed. Coordinator Ainsworth stated a separate sign permit application was never submitted until 3 months after the first permit review letter was sent to the applicant. Staff tried to work with Petitioner on a sign design that would meet code, but the Petitioner did not want to go with the proposed modification. Mr. Mesi again stated they were not told this would be an issue. This is clean, well balanced, and there is a burden. Coordinator Ainsworth stated the variance was requested but Staff could not, in good faith, provide grant money to someone who is not meeting the code. Board Member Fowler asked Coordinator Ainsworth if the trees could be addressed with Public Works. Coordinator Ainsworth mentioned that the tress are in IDOT’s right-of-way. Board Member Saletnik stated he has a problem with the pole sign. He believes the choice sign should be added as the design panel is missing something. A compromise could be removing the pole sign and adding the choice logo. Mr. Mesi stated the compromise Staff recommended was to remove the large signage and just have the choice logo which won’t work. Other companies have this design panel. Coordinator Ainsworth noted an email recommending the choice logo and Subway sign on same wall, etc. He explained same that there are many options to choose that would meet the current code. Board Member Catalano asked: Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 4 • if the “S” is moved after the word Subway, is that acceptable. Coordinator Ainsworth stated – yes and explained same about how the signage is calculated. • if Petitioner could place a sign on west side of building. Coordinator Ainsworth advised – yes, 2 wall signs are allowed on the street facing elevation Board Member Saletnik stated/asked: • the sign on the building looks good. Why do you need a pole sign and digital sign? Mr. Capozzoli stated there is no sign in front (west side) so the pole sign addresses that. • pole sign doesn’t look so nice; visually offensive • the message board on the pole sign looks like a tall mass Mr. Mesi reiterated this should have been addressed initially. Customer feedback facilitated updating signage. Variances are meant for this. Coordinator Ainsworth explained that the Petitioner was not touching the pole sign and has the right to continue using and maintain the existing pole sign. Board Member Catalano asked how the choice logo sign is lit. Mr. Mesi stated it could be back- lit or halo-lit. Board Member Fowler asked what is permitted with regards to illumination. Coordinator Ainsworth stated a photometrics plan is needed under certain circumstances since residential is nearby. It is recommended to be internally illuminated or back-lit. Board Member Saletnik stated the pole sign is too close. Mr. Mesi identified that Taco Bell, McDonald’s, and Dairy Queen have the same thing. Board Member Saletnik replied they don’t have the other signage that he is proposing on the accent panel. Mr. Mesi stated he agrees with a lot of tonight’s comments. It’s when a patron is down the street that the sign can’t be seen. Board Member Schell stated: • this is a special privilege but not a variance. Coordinator Ainsworth explained the other food chains meet the code. Zoning is flexible (this building could have 5 signs). This would be setting a precedent. • a variance then is a physical thing. Coordinator Ainsworth shared Aldi’s signage and compromise. He noted there are other opportunities within the code. Board Member Fowler asked if Petitioner is in favor of the design panel. Coordinator Ainsworth stated 2 signs could face Elmhurst Road; a pole sign or a monument sign are acceptable. The “S” could be on the same wall as the word Subway, meet code and get the signage that the Petitioner is considering. Mr. Mesi stated the variance is more than 42 inches away from the sign. Coordinator Ainsworth stated that the two signs per wall are allowed on the north and south elevation as long as they are on the same wall structure and they are close enough to be within the maximum sign area. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 5 Board Member Catalano asked if the design panel was cut in half and not connected to the wall, how would Staff feel about this? Coordinator Ainsworth said this has to have a physical separation from the building. The pole sign would have to come down as the green wall would then count as a monument sign. Board Member Saletnik asked if the choice logo is added, what has to happen for Petitioner to comply? Coordinator Ainsworth stated the 2 signs on the north and south would have to come down, but they could go on the west elevation facing Elmhurst Road. Board Member Fowler stated a monument sign that’s lower to the ground solves the problem with the trees. Board Member Saletnik stated not having the Subway word on the large sign would also look awkward. Chairman Szabo stated the pole sign almost blocks the “S” that the Petitioner desires. The Staff Report is as follows: Issue: The petitioner is requesting Major Variations under Sections 12-11-5(C) and 12-11-6(B) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow additional wall signs on two non- street-facing building elevations in excess of the one wall sign maximum for non-street-facing elevations and to allow for a wall sign to extend in excess of the 15-inch maximum for wall signage in the in the C-3 Zoning District. Analysis: Address: 877 Elmhurst Road Owner: Phil Mesi, Courtesy Development, LLC, 5521 Cumberland Avenue, #1102, Chicago, IL 60656 Petitioner: Phil Mesi, Subway, 877 Elmhurst Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: 19-045-V PIN: 08-24-100-013-0000 Ward: #8, Alderman Andrew Goczkowski Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial District Existing Land Use: Subway Restaurant Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District South: C-3, General Commercial District Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 6 East: R-3, Townhouse Residential District West: B-3, Community Shopping (Village of Mount Prospect) Surrounding Land Use: North: Commercial (Best Vision) South: Commercial (Taco Bell) East: Residential (Condominiums) West: Commercial (Mount Prospect) Street Classification: Elmhurst Road is classified as an arterial street. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Commercial. Project Description: The petitioner, Phil Mesi, is requesting multiple variations to allow for additional wall signs on two non-street-facing building elevations that exceeds the one wall sign maximum for non- street-facing elevations and to allow for a wall sign to extend in excess of the 15-inch maximum for wall signage in the C-3 Zoning District. The 0.30-acre property currently contains a one-story restaurant with a drive-through and outdoor seating area. The property contains a pole sign with an electronic message board, two directional signs along Elmhurst Road, one wall sign on both the north and south building elevations, and window signs. On March 8, 2019, a building permit was submitted for an interior and exterior remodel of the building. The interior remodel included a new design and installation of new equipment. The exterior remodel included minor façade material adjustments; removal of existing canopies; installation of a framed architectural tower and pergola on the north building elevation; and new signage for the north building elevation, south building elevation, and the new framed architectural tower. Pursuant to Section 12-11-3(B), a separate sign permit shall be filed on forms so provided and in accordance with the requirements of Section 12-3-1. Thus, staff informed the petitioner that a separate sign permit could be submitted at any time and reviewed concurrently with the remodel permit. Revisions were received on May 1, 2019 for the remodel permit excluding the proposed signage and the interior and exterior remodel permit was approved on May 13, 2019. On May 31, 2019, a sign permit was submitted for six wall signs: one mobile pickup sign, two trademark “S” signs, and three Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 7 “Subway” signs. One sign was proposed for the west building elevation, two for the south elevation, and three for the north elevation. Since all but one sign was proposed for the north and south building elevations that do not face a street, not all proposed signage could be approved. Staff worked with the applicant to provide clarification of the current wall sign regulations and the permitted sign area for each building elevation where signage was proposed. Staff provided the petitioner with options regarding the size and location of the proposed signage for the site that would comply with the Zoning Ordinance: i) add one wall sign on the north, south, and west building elevations; or ii) add one wall sign on both sides of the framed architectural tower and the west building elevation. Section 12-11-6(B) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance permits one wall sign on building facades that do not face a street at one square foot of sign area per linear foot of horizontal building face, and two wall signs on building facades that do face a street at three square feet of sign area per linear foot of horizontal building face, provided that the total sign area on the entire building (including the area of any awning or canopy signs) does not exceed 125-square feet, or the total linear frontage of the building multiplied by three, whichever is less. This building is allowed a total of 125 square-feet of signage (a maximum of 65.16-square feet allowed on the west elevation and 59.84- square feet remaining on the other elevations). On June 12, 2019, sign permit revisions were received for the three “Subway” signs proposed for the north, south, and west building elevations and the other three originally proposed wall signs were withdrawn by the petitioner. The sign permit was approved with conditions by staff on June 28, 2019. However, only the north and south elevation wall signs were installed on the building since the permit was approved. On July 12, 2019, this variation application was submitted by the petitioner for the six original signs applied for in the May 31, 2019 sign permit. The petitioner’s request to allow more than one wall sign on a non-street-facing building elevation and to allow a wall sign to extend more than 15-inches from the building face constitutes the need for major variations to Section 12-11-5(C) and Section 12-11-6(B) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. Staff has Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 8 explained to the property owner that the trademark “S” and “Subway” sign could be reduced in size and combined as one wall sign on both sides of the framed architectural tower provided that each wall sign meets the sign area requirements. However, the property owner is petitioning for additional signage both on the framed architectural tower and building elevation for two separate non-street-facing building elevations. Staff does not find a hardship with the land or unique circumstance with the property to warrant such requests. 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. 1. Hardship: No variation shall be granted pursuant to this subsection H unless the applicant shall establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty. Comment: There are no found practical difficulties or particular hardship with the subject property to warrant the extent of the variance requests. Two wall signs are permitted for a street-facing building elevation and one for a non-street-facing building elevation for a total of four wall signs. The existing property currently has ample signage opportunities under the current sign chapter. 2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot. Comment: There are no unique circumstances to this property as compared to any other lot on the block or as compared to many other commercial lots within the City. Additionally, this lot does have visibility along Elmhurst Road similar to the commercial lots surrounding it. The request for additional signage in excess of the one wall sign for a non-street-facing elevation alleviates a personal situation versus an unique physical condition associated with the subject property. 3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 9 Comment: The requested variance is self-created as the applicant proposed a design and sign quantity that does not comply with the Zoning Ordinance. The combination of wall signage, directional signage, and pole sign with an electronic message board already demonstrates a strong presence along Elmhurst Road. Despite the options provided by staff, the petitioner has currently maximized the amount of signage on a non-street facing building elevation. 4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variance is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision. Comment: No property rights will be diminished with the denial of this variance as the property owner currently has the full ability to effectively advertise their business. All commercial, manufacturing, and institutional districts are governed by the same wall sign restriction for non-street-facing building elevations, regardless of building size. 5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely the inability of the owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot. Comment: Granting this variance for multiple wall signs on non-street-facing building elevations will create a special privilege for the subject property owners compared to all other businesses along the block and within the City. It could also set a precedence for increased signage on other properties throughout the City which will create aesthetic, traffic, and safety concerns. The petitioner has the capability to advertise their business as every other single business in the City with a multitude of signage options permitted in the current Zoning Ordinance. Thus, there is no alleged hardship or practical difficulty with the subject property to warrant a variance. 6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. Comment: The two existing wall signs on non-street-facing building elevations are in harmony with the rest of the single properties on this block and within the City. Allowing the additional wall signs on the subject property could lead to more requests for additional signage on other properties throughout the area. 7. 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. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 10 Comment: The property currently contains the maximum amount of signage permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff provided the petitioner with options as to how the maximum quantity of wall signage can be arranged or repositioned on site to meet the property owner’s concerns before the variation application was filed. The variation requests can be avoided by installing the wall signs permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. 8. 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 minimum extent for the proposed variation has not been met. The property owner has exhausted the total number of wall signs permitted on a single building. The alleged hardship raised by the property owner is a self-created personal hardship, not a physical hardship with the subject property. The extent of the requested variance is not warranted given the fact that the business is currently utilizing its opportunity to advertise and still meet the current zoning regulation. Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the requested 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, as amended. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-6(G) of the Zoning Ordinance (Major Variations), the Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to recommend approval, approval subject to conditions, or denial of the above-mentioned variance for multiple wall sigs on a non- street-facing building elevation and for a wall sign to extend more than 15-inches from the building face at 877 Elmhurst Road to the City Council. The Des Plaines City Council has final authority over the proposal. Planner Stytz provided a short summary from Staff: • contextual/aerial photos were illustrated • no trees are blocking the Subway on the property or within 75 feet in either direction • existing signage was shown • proposed signage was identified • Zoning Code requirements were referenced • pole sign is permitted Staff believes there are an adequate amount of options within the code; do not believe there’s a hardship. Granting this variance could set a precedent. Board Member Catalano asked: • what size the sign is on the north and south. Coordinator Ainsworth referred to Page 3 – roughly 26 sq. ft. The whole building could have 125 sq. ft. He explained same. • what size the choice logo sign is. He located same and stated it is 72x58. Mr. Mesi stated that size could be reduced. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 11 Mr. Mesi stated the trees are by Dempster. A compromise could be on lighting, size, etc. This was not a self-created hardship. Construction had started. The accent panel is $25,000. He stated they are trying to compromise; 18 signs were removed – all LEDs were removed. Chairman Szabo suggested Petitioner gather comments and review/revise signage. He asked if anyone in the audience is in favor or opposed to this proposal. No one responded. Board Member Hofherr asked if it is possible to retweak and return to a future meeting. Would like to see signage fit in with the code. Board Member Saletnik asked: • the green panel without a logo is awkward. This mass was presented to Staff at the beginning of this process? Mr. Mesi advised – yes • from a visibility point of view, no signage on parapet walls and a logo on the design panel is not overpowering. Mr. Capozzoli stated compromises have been made. Coordinator Ainsworth explained 2 wall signs and subsections per code. He noted the review letter went out in March. The sign permit application was not submitted to the City until two to three months later. Compromised solutions were offered to the Petitioner. Board Member Hofherr asked if Petitioner is applying for a variation to the code (why not?). Coordinator Ainsworth advised that Corporate requirements don’t meet the City’s requirements. This would set a precedence. There are many opportunities to comply with the code and not have to apply for a variation. Board Member Saletnik stated/asked: • if the accent panel is attached to the building. Coordinator Ainsworth advised – it is attached • how the design panel got built • a variance is for a gray area in codes • Petitioner is dealing with the technicality of the verbage of the code Coordinator Ainsworth advised – if Petitioner does not have a wall sign on the north and south, the choice logo could be there. Board Member Catalano asked if Petitioner would accept the condition to not have signage in the window. Mr. Mesi concurred. Board Member Schell asked if this could be procedurally sent to City Council. Coordinator Ainsworth said a decision to approve or deny must take place prior to going to City Council. Chairman Szabo stated the design panel should not have been installed without approval. Mr. Mesi stated this was addressed when the grant money was requested. He offered rationale of what took place. Mr. Mesi stated they knew a separate sign permit was needed. All renderings Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 12 had signs. Signs had to be removed to obtain the permit for construction. He reiterated – this issue was not raised at the beginning of the process. Board Member Fowler stated if the “S” logo was on the north and south, would this be allowed. Coordinator Ainsworth advised it would. The following audience member came forward and was sworn in by Chairman Szabo: • Tim Ryan 254 N. Babcock (business partner with Petitioner in Arlington Heights) Mr. Ryan stated he has opened 25 Subway stores. He asked if there is any consideration for this area in Des Plaines; there is vacancy after vacancy after vacancy. This street has to be revitalized. There are certain parts of the City where compassion should be given. Board Member Fowler stated Staff is trying to revitalize that part of town. Ordinances must be adhered to. Board Member Catalano stated this is a case-by-case basis; is in the middle of the block. Sign is tasteful and is a wall sign. A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to recommend approval to City Council. AYES: Catalano, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell NAYES: Fowler & Szabo ***MOTION CARRIES 4-2 *** At 8:35 p.m., a recess was taken. The meeting resumed at 8:40 p.m. 2. Address: 1475 E. Oakton Street Case 19-048-V-MAP The petitioner is requesting a Map Amendment under Section 12-3-7 to rezone the property from R-1 to C-3 and Major Variations under Section 12-3-6 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to construct a detached garage that exceeds the 720-square foot maximum area for accessory structures under Section 12-8-1(C) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. PINs: 09-29-207-023; -024; -025; -026; -027; -028 Petitioner: Michael Ramsey, 306 West Willow Road, Prospect Heights, IL 60070 Owner: Michael Ramsey, 306 West Willow Road, Prospect Heights, IL 60070 Chairman Szabo swore in Michael Ramsey, 306 West Willow Road, Prospect Heights, IL, who advised he purchased the building. There are 6 tenants on the second floor and medical tenants Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 13 on the 1st floor. He stated he would like to provide parking for second floor tenants; seeing a variation to build a garage. Chairman Szabo asked if neighbors came forward. Mr. Ramsey advised they have not. Board Member Catalano asked if Petitioner is aware and good with the 8 Conditions. Mr. Ramsey advised he is. Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions. There were none. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Planner Stytz did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting the following items: i) a Map Amendment under Section 12-3- 7 to rezone half of the property from R-1 to C-3; ii.) a Major Variation under Section 12-3-6(H), to build a five (5) car garage on the southern end of the property, and iii) a Major Variation for off street parking to reduce the required parking from 37 to 29 spaces under section 12-3-6 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance as amended. Analysis: Address: 1475 E Oakton Street Owners: Michael Ramsey, 306 W. Willow Rd., Prospect Heights, IL 60070 Petitioner: Michael Ramsey, 306 W. Willow Rd., Prospect Heights, IL 60070 Case Number: 19-048-V-MAP Real Estate Index Number(s): 09-29-207-023; -024; -025; -026; -027; -028 Ward: #6, Malcolm Chester Existing Zoning: C-3 General Commercial / R-1 Single-family residential Existing Land Use: Commercial / Multi-family housing Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3 General Commercial South: R-1 Single-family residential East: C-3 General Commercial / R-1 Single-family residential West: C-3 General Commercial / R-1 Single-family residential Surrounding Land Use: North: Commercial South: Commercial East: Commercial / Single-family residential West: Commercial Street Classification: Oakton Street is an arterial street, and Illinois Street is a local road. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 14 Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Higher Density Urban Mix with Residential. Project Description: The petitioner, Michael Ramsey, is requesting a Map Amendment to rezone the southern portion of the property from R-1 to C-3, a Major Variation to build a 1,848 square foot, five (5) car detached garage and a Major Variation to reduce the off street parking at 1475 Oakton Street. The property contains a two-story, 14,278 square foot multi-use building with a surface parking lot which contains 24 off-street parking spaces and one (1) handicap parking space. The existing building contains five (5) medical offices on the first floor, six (6) residential units on the second floor, and a basement with storage areas for the office tenants. Landscaping exists along the southern edge of the property, but the applicant will be required to install an eight (8) foot fence and shade trees to comply with section 12-10-9(C). The northern portion of the subject property is zoned C-3 and the southern portion is zoned R-1. Thus, the petitioner is planning to rezone the southern portion of the property to C-3 to accommodate the proposed detached garage on the site, and bring the property under one zoning district. The request includes rezoning half of the property from R-1 to C- 3 and building a five (5) car garage on the southern portion of the property. The proposed detached garage will be 1,848 square- feet and contain five (5) parking spaces which are intended to be used by the residential tenants. The additional five (5) parking spaces will reduce the nonconforming nature of the property, because there is currently an inadequate amount of parking provided onsite pursuant to Section 12-9-7. The existing land use requires twelve (12) off street parking spaces for the six (6) residential dwelling units, and twenty five (25) off street spaces for the office use, with a total of thirty seven (37) required parking spaces. Twenty five (25) total parking spaces are currently provided including one (1) handicap space. The proposed additional parking spaces will trigger the need for one (1) additional handicap space, which will require the conversion of one (1) existing parking space to be used as an access aisle for the new handicap space. Five (5) new spaces will be added, increasing the total onsite parking spaces to twenty nine (29) spaces. The addition of the five (5) new parking spaces will Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 15 reduce the nonconforming situation of the property, but a parking variation is needed. Additionally, the petitioner is requesting Major Variations given the need for additional parking spaces and a larger garage. Pursuant to Section 12-8-1(C)(5) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, the maximum area of a detached garage shall be seven hundred twenty (720) square feet or less. The petitioner’s request to allow for a 1,848 square foot detached garage that exceeds the seven hundred twenty (720) square foot maximum for accessory structures in Des Plaines which constitutes the need for a Major Variation to Section 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. 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 expand mixed-use development, particularly along the Oakton Street corridor. The subject property is located along the Oakton Street corridor and contains both residential and commercial office use, contributing to a more pedestrian friendly environment. The rezoning will bring the entire property under one consistent zoning district. 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 residentially-zoned properties. However, the properties directly north, east, and west of the subject property are zoned C-3 General Commercial 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 R-1 zoned portion of the property to be rezoned to the C-3 General Commercial District. D. The proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction: Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 16 Comment: The proposal would improve the existing appearance and potentially the value of the property. The plan proposes a new garage, as well as other site improvements such as adding required landscaping. This garage will assist in bringing the property closer to compliance with the parking requirement. E. The proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth: Comment: The proposal strives to meet and exceed the responsible standards required for development and growth. The project will help to provide additional parking for residents and businesses located on the property. 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 variations requested by the petitioner are based out of necessity and would create an unnecessary hardship for the petitioner to comply with. The existing parking lot does not meet the minimum parking requirement but the new garage would add parking spaces to reduce the nonconformity. Without the addition of the new five (5) car garage, there is not enough parking for residential tenants, office tenants and guests. The proposed garage effectively reduces the non-conforming parking count and utilities the southern portion of the property. 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: Comment: The physical conditions of the existing site and current development contributes a particular hardship to the petitioner. The existing portion of the site that is zoned R-1 prevents the petitioner from fully developing the property in a way in that is consistent with the surrounding commercial uses. The proposed five (5) car garage is necessary to accommodate the parking needs of the current land use. The property owner is experiencing a unique circumstance with trying to provide modern parking accommodations with a geometrically constricted site. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 17 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 Variation 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 by adding a new garage. The existing two-story building and parking lot were present on site at the time the applicant purchased the property. The issuance of these Variations would allow the petitioner to improve the existing development on the site and provide additional parking options for the users of the property while bringing the property closer to compliance with parking regulations. D. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a Variation 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 potentially improving the existing property by adding a new garage which will reduce a non- conforming parking situation. 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: Granting of the variation will not allow the petitioner to enjoy any special privilege, additional rights, or increased monetary gain. However, it will allow the petitioner to add required parking spaces for residential tenants and reduce the nonconforming nature of the property. The size of the garage will exceed the maximum allowed size, but this structure will buffer the property’s parking lot to the neighboring residential use. 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: Comment: Granting the variations will result in improvements that will be harmonious with surrounding development. The petitioner is proposing to add a five (5) car garage to provide more parking and make improvements as necessary to address any existing concerns. The Comprehensive Plan looks to promote development and redevelopment in Des Plaines, especially Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 18 along major corridors and throughout the downtown area. This proposal would help satisfy that goal and enhance the mixed use development 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 petitioner could install a surface parking lot in lieu of the garage, but the garage and added landscape will buffer the vehicles on this property from the abutting residential uses. The extent of the request is the smallest request possible. 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 i) a Map Amendment under Section 12-3-7 to rezone half of the property from R-1 to C-3; ii.) a Major Variation under Section 12-3-6(H), to build a five (5) car garage on the southern end of the property, and iii) a Major Variation for off street parking to reduce the required parking from 37 to 29 spaces under section 12-3-6 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance as amended, subject to the following conditions: Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 19 Conditions of Approval: 1. A Photometric Plan shall be provided at time of building permit to comply with Zoning Ordinance Code Section 12-12-10. 2. The proposed improvements comply with applicable codes and ordinances. Such drawings may be modified to comply with such codes. 3. A sign shall be added to the garage doors reading “no parking in front of garage door.” 4. A sign shall be added to the southwest corner of the site prohibiting parking in the area that is located west of the garage. 5. A full landscape plan shall be required at the time of the permit and comply with all applicable codes. 6. An additional handicap space shall be required that complies with all ADA regulations. 7. The detached garage shall only be used for building resident parking and common maintenance storage directly related to the building. 8. No business may store equipment or run operations out of the proposed detached garage. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under 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 Map Amendment and Major Variation for the property at 1475 E Oakton Street. The City Council has final authority on the proposal. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor of this proposal. No one raised their hand. He asked if anyone objects to this proposal. Two people raised their hands and came forward: • Mike Dobbelaere 1627 Illinois Mr. Dobbelaere advised his concerns are: o residents have been trying to fight commercial encroachment o was told a Covenant had been placed to deter any future development. Chairman Szabo asked if Staff is aware of a Covenant. Coordinator Ainsworth stated – no; however, this is a garage for residents and a condition is placed on the recommendation to remain for residents only o why was the sign placed on Oakton Street? No residents are aware of this; there has been no notice. Coordinator Ainsworth advised a legal notice was placed in the newspaper and the notice was placed on the City’s website. This notification was sent to residents within 300 ft. o there are people sleeping, drinking on this property; Police have been called in the past Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 20 o would like more time to make residents aware and defer this to a future meeting • Parth Sisodiya 609 Carriage Court, Schaumburg Mr. Sisodiya advised his concerns are: o is Petitioner allowed to charge rent for the garage? Coordinator Ainsworth stated that is between the owner and the tenants o what are the 8 Conditions? He stated he would review these later o there is a law where a fence needs to be 6 ft. or higher o from the base of the foundation, 8 ft. has to be bricked. What is the design? It was stated the garage will be sided and there will be a fence on the back side and alley Chairman Szabo asked if Mr. Sisodiya has a business in the area. Mr. Didodiya replied his parents do. Board Member Catalano asked: • on Condition #7, regarding only resident parking, how do we address that? Coordinator Ainsworth stated Petitioner has to sign this and monitor the parking per the conditions of approval • if Petitioner can offer people spaces other than tenants. Coordinator Ainsworth replied – no Chairman Szabo stated the landscaping is not presented. He noted the building is very drab in a residential area. Coordinator Ainsworth referred to Page 12 regarding landscaping details. Chairman Szabo stated this doesn’t really match the building. Board Member Saletnik stated this is plain ugly; vinyl siding and a flat roof. Petitioner advised this backs up to one house and a dead end. Chairman Szabo stated there wasn’t much thought put into this. The building is brick so a brick veneer could be placed on the garage; awfully drab. Board Member Schell asked/stated: • if this is drained adequately. Coordinator Ainsworth stated the architect has talked to the City Engineer • if the City has rules on snow removal. Coordinator Ainsworth replied – no, Petitioner has enough space • snow drifts into driveways Chairman Szabo asked if the commercial tenants have a problem with the proposal. Petitioner advised – no. A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to recommend approval of MAP Amendment, 2 Variances, and 8 Conditions. Case 19-045-V 877 Elm hurst Road Major Variations Case 19-048-V-MAP 1475 E. Oakton Street MAP Amendment & Major Variations August 27, 2019 Page 21 AYES: Catalano, Hofherr, Fowler, Saletnik, Schell, & Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Coordinator Ainsworth stated this would be on the September 16, 2019 City Council agenda. He advised of 2 upcoming variations and introduced Lily Neppl, the City’s Community Development Specialist. Everyone welcomed her. ADJOURNMENT The next PZB meeting is scheduled for September 10, 2019. A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to adjourn the meeting at 9:03 p.m. AYES: Schell, Hofherr, Catalano, Fowler, Saletnik, & Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Sincerely, Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners