Loading...
09/10/19Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING SEPTEMBER 10, 2019 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September 10, 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: Bader, Catalano (entered at 7:06 pm), Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Schell, & Szabo ALSO PRESENT: Patrick Ainsworth, Coord., Devel. Mgr./Community & Economic Development Jonathan Stytz, Planner/Community & Economic Development Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to approve the minutes of August 27, 2019. AYES: Hofherr, Fowler, Catalano, Schell, Saletnik, & Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Bader ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** PUBLIC COMMENT There was no Public Comment. NEW BUSINESS 1. Address: 1784 Everett Avenue Case 19-050-V The petitioner is requesting Major Variations under Sections 12-7-1(C) and 12-7-2(J) and 12-8-1 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a shed in the corner side yard, to allow a side-yard setback of less than five feet, to allow a rear-yard setback of less than five feet, and to allow the rear-yard lot coverage to exceed 60% for a residence in the R-1 Zoning District. Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 2 PINs: 09-28-111-044; -045 Petitioner: Kristin Michalak, 1784 Everett Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Owner: Patricia Michalak, 1784 Everett Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Chairman Szabo swore in Kristin Michalak, 1784 Everett Avenue, Des Plaines, IL who advised there is a shed on her property that she wishes to keep. She knows there are issues as to where it’s located. Ms. Michalak advised they are seeking a Variation: • Purchased a portable shed for extra storage • Lives with grandmother who has items in storage • Has an abundance of Christmas items; huge display • Has a block party • Patronizes Des Plaines • They are running out of room and they do not want to rent a storage unit • Not an eyesore • Did not know this would be a disruption • Shed is to the left of the home and garage • Doesn’t interfere with parking • Uncovered items are being displayed now; will be housed indoor following the holiday Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has questions. Board Member Hofherr asked: • shed was delivered in August of 2018 – was there a permit? Ms. Michalak stated – no, didn’t know it was needed; subsequently, applied for one in February, 2019 after receiving a violation notice. • Have you been to court? Ms. Michalak stated – it has been continued; pursuing the variation process was recommended. Board Member Fowler asked if the holiday décor and grandmother’s items are in the shed. Ms. Michalak stated the grandmother’s items are in the garage, and Christmas items are in the shed. She doesn’t feel right to dispose of the grandmother’s items at this time. Chairman Szabo asked for the Staff Report to be given which Planner Stytz did along with a PowerPoint presentation (including contextual photos; Zoning Ordinance was referenced; no building permit). Staff does not recommend approval: Issue: The petitioner is requesting Major Variations under Sections 12-7-1(C), 12-7-2(J), and 12- 8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow: i) a Shed in the Corner Side Yard, ii) a Side Yard Setback Distance of Less Than Five-Feet, iii) a Rear Yard Setback Distance of Less Than Five-Feet, and iv) a Rear Yard Lot Coverage In Excess of 60% in the R-1 Zoning District. Analysis: Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 3 Address: 1784 Everett Avenue Owner: Patricia Michalak, 1784 Everett Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Petitioner: Kristin Michalak, 1784 Everett Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case Number: 19-050-V PINs: 09-28-111-044; -045 Ward: #6, Alderman Malcolm Chester Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, Single Family Residential District South: R-1, Single Family Residential District East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District West: R-1, Single Family Residential District Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Residence South: Single Family Residence East: Single Family Residence West: Single Family Residence Street Classification: Everett Avenue is classified as a local street. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential. Project Description: The petitioner, Kristin Michalak, is requesting several Major Variations to allow a shed to remain in its current location which is located in the corner side yard, a side yard setback of less than five-feet, a rear yard setback of less than five-feet, and a rear yard coverage that exceeds 60% in the R-1 Zoning District located at 1784 Everett Avenue. This 6,700-square foot property currently contains a one-story residence with a 416-square foot addition, 586-square foot detached garage, concrete driveway, private walkways, and two sheds. The smaller shed is located along the west side of the detached garage and the larger, 150-square foot shed is located along the west side of the concrete driveway. The 15-foot wide alley shown on the Plat of Survey (Attachment 4) has since been vacated to the surrounding properties adding 7.5- feet to the subject property. The 150-square foot shed was installed without a permit and is the subject of this request. Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 4 On February 19, 2019, the City of Des Plaines sent the property owner a notice stating the shed and section of fence in front of the shed were constructed without a permit and that the installation of a these items requires the submission of a building permit application. The permit was submitted on February 27, 2019 for the shed. The attached plat of survey indicated that the shed is located off the property in the vacated alley right-of-way. A letter was sent to the property owner on March 18, 2019 stating that the building permit application submitted confirmed the existing location of shed on the property and that the shed did not meet proper setback requirements per Section 12-8- 1(C)(3) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the property owner was instructed to remove the shed and the fence in front of it. On March 25, 2019, the City of Des Plaines sent a second notice to the property owner stating: • That the shed permit was denied and the shed shall be removed; • That the fence along Everett Avenue was in disrepair and shall be replaced; and • That outdoor storage of materials is not permitted and the items stored along the west side of the property shall be removed. On June 10, 2019 the City of Des Plaines sent another notice to the property owner indicating that the items in the March 25, 2019 notice had not been addressed and action would be taken if they did not contact staff by July 10, 2019. The property owner gave no response so a citation was issued on July 16, 2019 requesting that they appear for an Administrative Hearing on August 1, 2019. On July 29, 2019, the petitioner submitted this development application with the request to the keep the shed on site as is. Please see the Site Plan (Attachment 5) for more information on the shed’s current location on site. The following code sections of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance pertain to the petitioner’s request: • Pursuant to Section 12-7-1(C), accessory sheds may only be located in the rear yard and may be located no closer than five-feet from side and rear lot lines. Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 5 • Pursuant to Section 12-7-2(J), the maximum rear yard coverage shall not exceed 60% in the R-1 zoning district. • Pursuant to Section 12-8-1(C), the maximum number of accessory structures permitted for any use shall be two and the minimum side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures shall be five-feet. The petitioner’s request to allow a shed in the corner side yard, a side yard setback of less than five-feet, a rear yard setback of less than five-feet, and a rear yard coverage in excess of 60% constitutes the need for major variations to Sections 12-7-1(C), 12-7-2(J), and 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. Staff has attempted to find alternative locations for the 150-square foot shed on site but has not found a solution that complies with the Zoning Ordinance sections above. Hence, the property owners are petitioning to keep a shed installed without a permit in a location not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does not find a hardship with the land or unique circumstance with the property to warrant such variations. 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. The room addition on the residence and detached garage have both decreased the available rear yard space for the proposed accessory structure. Additional stored items located in the rear yard have further decreased greenspace on the site. However, there are other storage options available to the petitioner that do not require the requested variations. 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 and compared to any other corner lot within the City. Additionally, this Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 6 lot has already been improved with a 416-square foot addition and 586-square foot detached garage that have both decreased the amount of available space in the rear yard. The requested variations to deviate from the location requirements, minimum setback requirements, and maximum rear yard coverage restriction alleviates a personal situation versus an unique physical condition associated with the subject property. Additionally, the shed further exceeds the maximum rear yard coverage, which limits the amount of greenspace available on the property and increases storm water runoff as compared to neighboring properties. 3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title. Comment: The requested variances are self-created as the subject property already contains a room addition on the principle structure and a detached garage. Additionally, the petitioners have an option to remove the existing sheds and install, with a permit, a shed size and orientation that could be accessible in the existing rear yard and meet required accessory structure setbacks. The room addition to the principle structure, detached garage, and uncovered storage items currently located in the rear yard were self-created and do not reflect a physical constraint with the property itself. Additionally, the shed location presents a safety concern as the shed blocks visibility between pedestrians/bicyclists and vehicles utilizing the subject driveway and the neighboring driveways. 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. The property owner has existing structures and spaces to utilize as storage or has the option to replace the existing shed structures with an alternative structure that better accommodates their needs and fits within the guise of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. All single-family residences are allowed two separate accessory structures with the same size, location, and setback requirements. 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 the four variances for the shed will create a special privilege for the subject property owners compared to all other homes on this block and within the City who have code compliant sheds. The owners have the capability to utilize their rear yard Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 7 for storage purposes while still complying with the Zoning Ordinance. There is no alleged hardship or practical difficulty with the subject property to warrant the variances. 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 existing 150-square foot shed located in the corner side yard is not in harmony with the surrounding residential development in the area and does not match the goals and objects outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Two accessory structures in line with the size and location requirements specified in the Zoning Ordinance are prevalent throughout the surrounding area and the City as a whole. Allowing a shed in the current location and in violation of several code requirements will set a precedent for excessive shed requests in potentially unsafe locations. This property currently accommodates multiple spaces for storage within the required rear yard of the property without the installation of the 150-square foot shed. 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. Comment: There are other remedies available, aside from the variation, which permit a reasonable use of the subject lot. One remedy would be to replace the existing sheds with a shed size and orientation that better suits the existing development of this property pursuant to permit approval. This would be an additional storage place on top of the available principle structure with the addition and the detached garage. The removal of other storage items on site could also help remedy the difficulty experienced by the petitioner and could assist in the installation of an alternative storage structure that complies with 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 variations have not been met. The subject property currently contains three accessory structures and additional storage items outside of the accessory structures. The alleged hardship raised by the property owner is a personal hardship, not a physical hardship with the subject property. The extent of the requested variances are not warranted given the opportunity to fully utilize the accessory structures on site and still meet the current zoning regulation. Recommendation: Staff does not recommend approval of the requested variations based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions met by Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 8 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 variances for a shed in the R-1 Zoning District at 1784 Everett Avenue to the City Council. The Des Plaines City Council has final authority over the proposal. Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions. Ms. Michalak stated the shed is near the sidewalk, a 6-ft. privacy fence was there. City Staff advised there are other potential locations on the property to add storage such as a code compliant addition to the garage. Board Member Catalano asked Staff if there was a permit for the fence. Coordinator Ainsworth advised it was issued in 1999 and was off the lot line, but there is a concern as the shed further obstructs visibility between the garage/driveway and the street/sidewalk. Chairman Szabo asked if anyone is in favor of this petition or against it. The following audience members came forward and were sworn in by Chairman Szabo: • Malcolm Chester 1757 E. Touhy Mr. Chester, Alderman & Attorney, stated the Halloween display is an award-winning display. Children come from all over. A petition with 100 names supporting the variation was mentioned. He hopes the Board looks away from the letter of the law. This Halloween display is more well-known than displays that the City showcases. Chairman Szabo stated he doesn’t ever recall an Alderman speaking and crossing a line (or gray area) at a Planning & Zoning Board Meeting. Alderman Chester stated he is giving his opinion. • Harry Hernandez 1785 Maple (lives next to the park) Mr. Hernandez stated: o the residents provide this display for the kids o to not have this display and a storage option would be a disservice o they are great people; we are a community of neighbors o they help the neighborhood; good for the community • Scott Hillier 1808 Maple Mr. Hillier stated: o shed is not an eyesore; it’s an improvement; there are other eyesores that could be tackled o not a major issue Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 9 o doesn’t see the correlation for Petitioners to take a small additional amount of space • Theresa Bulatovic 1807 Sycamore Ms. Bulatovic stated: o the grandmother has been there forever o we want people to be invested o would like the Board to make this work Board Member Fowler asked Staff how this impacts future cases. Coordinator Ainsworth stated this opens up opportunities for others who cannot follow the Zoning Ordinace. This is a personal hardship (standards are not met) – not a physical hardship with the land. He noted Staff is willing to continue working to help Petitioner accommodate storage on the property. Board Member Hofherr stated the Board is not trying to interfere with the Halloween display; commends Petitioner on the decorations. Rather the Board is looking at this for variances. He asked if the four issues could be addressed and corrected. Ms. Michalak stated there is a small plastic shed which serves no purpose; is not in working order and will be disposed of. She noted the Maple Street side of the yard is the front yard per City Staff. This is the only space on the property where the items would fit; there is no backyard. Board Member Catalano asked: • Staff regarding locating alternatives, what are they? Coordinator Ainsworth referenced the instance on Webster. He noted an addition on the garage is an option. Planner Stytz clarified the shed opens on the larger side; perhaps this could open on the smaller side; a different orientation of the shed. Ms. Michalak stated it opens in the middle facing the driveway. The roofline of garage won’t allow shed to go further back. • what the items leaning on the side are. Ms. Michalak advised these are walls for the display. • where the items are stored. Ms. Michalak advised in the garage after Halloween. A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to approve the four variances. AYES: Schell, Fowler, Catalano, Bader, Hofherr, Saletnik, NAYES: Szabo ***MOTION CARRIES 6-1 *** Coordinator Ainsworth advised this case would be presented to City Council the first meeting in October. 2. Address: 1658 Orchard Street Case 19-051-V Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 10 The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to construct a detached garage with a side-yard setback of less than five feet for a residence in the R-2 zoning district. PIN: 09-28-101-064 Petitioner: Arthur Berkwitt, 1658 Orchard Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Owner: Arthur Berkwitt, 1658 Orchard Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Chairman Szabo swore in Arthur Berkwitt, 1658 Orchard Street, Des Plaines, IL, who advised he has been in this property for 26 years with a one-car garage. He now would like to build a two- car garage for himself and his wife. There is a shed where his wife cannot fully open her car door on the driveway side. Chairman Szabo asked if Petitioner is using the existing foundation. Mr. Berkwitt advised they are placing a four-inch pad. Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions. There was none. He asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Planner Stytz did: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for a 440-square foot detached garage that does not meet the minimum five-foot setback requirement for the side property lines in the R-2 zoning district. Analysis: Address: 1658 Orchard Street Owner: Arthur Berkwitt, 1658 Orchard Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Petitioner: Arthur Berkwitt, 1658 Orchard Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case Number: 19-051-V PIN: 09-28-101-064 Ward: #2, Alderman Colt Moylan Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, Single Family Residential District South: R-1, Single Family Residential District Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 11 East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District West: R-1, Single Family Residential District Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Residence South: Single Family Residence East: Single Family Residence West: Single Family Residence Street Classification: Orchard Street is classified as a local street. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as Residential. Project Description: The petitioner, Arthur Berkwitt, is requesting a Standard Variation to allow for a 440-square foot detached garage that does not meet the minimum five-foot setback requirement for the side property lines at 1658 Orchard Street. This 3,404.16- square foot, 27-foot wide property contains a two-story residence with a deck, private walk, a 305.80-square foot detached garage accessed from the alley, and an uncovered off- street parking area consisting of two concrete strips. The petitioner is requesting the 440-square foot garage with a 16-foot wide by eight-foot tall garage door since the existing one- car garage does not have ample room for two vehicles. The petitioner aspires to provide two covered off-street parking spaces on the property by constructing the new 20-foot wide by 22-foot long detached garage. The proposal would replace the existing detached garage with the new 440-square foot detached garage without any changes to access as shown in the Site Plan (Attachment 5). The proposed detached garage will be positioned five-feet away from the west (rear) property line, four-feet from the north (side) property line, and three-feet from the south (side) property line. The existing concrete apron connecting the existing detached garage to the alley will be expanded to 20-feet in width to accommodate the wider detached garage and the concrete strips currently utilized for the uncovered off-street parking will be removed and replaced with the footprint of the proposed detached garage. Pursuant to Section 12-8-1(C)(3) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance: “The minimum setback distance required for accessory structures shall be five-feet. However, a detached Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 12 accessory garage for a residential use in the R-1 and R-2 Residential Districts may be located on the rear lot line where the rear lot line abuts an alley.” The petitioner’s request to allow for a detached garage that is located less than five-feet from the side property lines for accessory structures in Des Plaines constitutes the need for a standard variation to Section 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed project, including the proposed the site improvements, address various goals and objectives of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan including the following aspects: • Future Land Use Plan: o The property is marked for the Single Family Residential land use. The Future Land Use Plan strives to create a well-balanced development area with a healthy mixture of commercial and residential uses. The petitioner strives to make functional and aesthetic improvements to the existing property in order to maintain a practical off-street parking area for multiple vehicles. o The proposal allows the petitioner to provide two covered off-street parking spaces, which is consistent with the character of the neighborhood. While the aforementioned aspects represent a small portion of the goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a large emphasis on encouraging reinvestment in residential properties in order to enhance the residential corridors throughout Des Plaines and to increase the quality of life for residents. 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: The physical constraints of this property prevent the petitioner from complying with the strict letter of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance. The required five-foot side yard setbacks limit the width of a detached garage on this property to a structure that could not accommodate two covered off-street parking spaces. 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 Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 13 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 unique size and shape of this property create a particular hardship for the petitioner. The property is only 27-feet wide and does not provide enough width to construct a two-car detached garage in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner has proposed the detached garage size and location in an effort to provide the two covered off-street parking spaces and meet all regulations for accessory structures in the Zoning Ordinance as possible. 3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental action, other than the adoption of this title. Comment: The size and shape of the property have not changed due to any action of the petitioner. The unique physical constraints of the property are unavoidable due to the fact that the property is land-locked. 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: Carrying out of the strict letter of the Zoning Ordinance would not allow the petitioner to install a two-car detached garage and fully utilize the property as neighboring properties have done throughout the surrounding area. The available space on the property for a detached garage in conformance to the Zoning Ordinance denies the owner substantial rights commonly enjoyed by owners of surrounding lots under the same provision. 5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the inability of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely the inability of the owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot. Comment: The approval of this variation would not provide the petitioner with any special privilege or additional right not available to owners or occupants of surrounding lots under the same provision. The proposal would allow the petitioner to make improvements to an existing property and provide two essential covered off-street parking spaces on the site. 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 Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 14 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 approval of this variation would result in the construction of a new, two- car detached garage that would be in harmony with the general and specific purposes of this title. It would also encourage reinvestment and retention of single-family neighborhoods, which the Comprehensive Plan strives to accomplish. 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. Comment: There is no means other than the requested variation that the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided given the physical constraints of the property. The narrow lot width prevents the petitioner from conforming to all regulations for accessory structures in 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 approval of this variation would be the minimum measure of relief for the petitioner to overcome the existing physical hardship on the property and provide two covered off-street parking spaces on site. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the requested variation with the following conditions: 1. That no portion of the detached garage overhangs the property line. 2. That no easements are affected or drainage concerns are created with the construction of the detached garage. 3. That the driveway apron width does not exceed the maximum driveway width permitted in the Zoning Ordinance. 4. That the existing concrete strips located next to the existing detached garage and utilized for parking are removed. 5. All construction with a fire separation distance of less than five-feet is required to comply with the requirements of the 2015 International Residential Code, ‘Section R302 Fire – Resistant Construction.’ The current design requires that the North and South sides of the detached garage structure will be required to comply with the fire resistant construction requirements. Please submit all required documentation at time of permit submittal. Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: Under Section 12-3-6(F) of the Zoning Ordinance (Standard Variations), the Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned variance for a detached garage at 1658 Orchard Street that does not meet the minimum side yard setbacks required for an accessory structure. Case 19-050-V 1784 Everett Avenue Variations Case 19-051-V-MAP 1658 Orchard Street Variations September 10, 2019 Page 15 Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience is in favor of this proposal. No one responded. Board Member Schell asked if Petitioner is familiar with the Conditions. Mr. Berkwitt explained same and concurred. Board Member Saletnik stated, in older sections of Des Plaines, there have been zero lot lines approved; this is a minor variation; in favor of. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, to approve the Variation. AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Catalano, Bader, Fowler, Schell, & Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** ADJOURNMENT Coordinator Ainsworth advised there would not be a PZB meeting on September 24, 2019. The next meeting is scheduled for October 8, 2019. Coordinator Ainsworth advised there will be a series of Text Amendments (for recreational marijuana) coming up. He suggested looking at the City’s web site for further information. Chairman Szabo stated he doesn’t believe a sitting Alderman should participate in a case at the PZB. Other Board Members stated politicians may have attended in the past but did not speak. A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. AYES: Schell, Catalano, Bader, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, & Szabo NAYES: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Sincerely, Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners