Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZB 5.26.26 Mtg Mins-appdCASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, May 26, 2026 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. Acting Chairman Catalano called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and a roll call was established. PRESENT: Weaver, Fowler, Fallico, Zadrozny and Catalano ABSENT: Szabo, Veremis ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Stytz, AICP, Senior Planner Jonathan Mendel, AICP, Assistant Director A quorum was present. APPROVAL OF MAY 12, 2026 PZB MEETINGS MINUTES Member Zadrozny moved and Member Fowler seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. AYES: Weaver, Fowler, Zadrozny, Fallico and Catalano NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM There was no public comment. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Director Jonathan Mendel provided the following updates and general communication: May 18, 2026 City Council meeting results: • Consideration of an Ordinance Approving a Conditional Use for a Commercial School for Central Scholar Academy at 1585 Ellinwood Street – 2nd Reading and Approved (from the April 14, 2026 PZB recommendation) Administrative Decisions: • 26-026-V - 1603 Stockton Ave - To vary the maximum 4 foot tall fence height in a corner CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 2 side yard in Section 12-8-2.A.2 permitting an 6 foot tall solid fence within the side yard. – Denied – 1. The fence can be lowered to 4.0 feet & 50% open or remain at a height of 6 feet w/ a solid design at a minimum setback of 10.0 feet. 2. There are no other nonconforming/noncompliant fences along the adjacent blocks near Arndt Park. PENDING APPLICATIONS: 1. Address: 319 Dover Drive Case Number: 26-018-V The petitioner requests a major variation to allow a rear yard patio less than the minimum required 5 feet from the rear lot line and any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. Petitioner/Owner: Peter Siakpere, 319 Dover Dr, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Acting Chairman Catalano swore in the Petitioner – Peter Siakpere Petitioner/owner: Peter Siakpere was present and requested waiver of oral presentation, which was approved by PZB Acting Chairman Catalano, since Assistant Director Jonathan Mendel clarified that the Petitioner’s request is sufficiently outlined in the PZB meeting agenda packet. Assistant Director Mendel presented the staff memo analysis. Issue: The petitioner requests major variation to keep a patio setback 0 feet from the rear lot line instead of the minimum required 5 feet. This is a for a patio constructed without approved permits. Petitioner/Owner: Peter Siakpere, 319 Dover Drive, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case Number: #26-018-V PIN: 08-024-402-156 Ward Number: #8, Alderman Mike Charewicz Existing Zoning: R-3, Townhouse Residential Existing Land Use: Two-Family Residence (residential) Surrounding Zoning: North: R-3, Townhouse Residential District South: R-3, Townhouse Residential District East: R-3, Townhouse Residential District West: R-3, Townhouse Residential District Surrounding Land Uses: North: Two-Family Residences (residential) South: Two-Family Residences (residential) East: Two-Family Residences (residential) West: Two-Family Residences (residential) CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 3 Street Classification: Dover Drive is classified as a local road under City of Des Plaines jurisdiction. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this site as residential. Property/Zoning History: Overview The subject property was developed sometime in the early 1960s. Patio Construction and Zoning Compliance Staff had been made aware of the subject patio’s construction without an approved permit in late March 2026 and staff issued a notice of violation to the Petitioner requiring a permit application. The submitted permit application was reviewed for zoning compliance. The patio, as constructed, did not comply with minimum required 5 foot setback from the rear (westerly) lot line. Instead of automatically removing the noncompliant portion of the patio, the Petitioner requests the major variation to keep the patio as constructed without approved permits. MAJOR VARIATION Request Description: Overview The petitioner requests a major variation from City Code Section 12-7-1.C requiring patios have a minimum 5 foot setback from a rear lot line for patios. Existing Conditions The subject patio was constructed without an approved permit and is therefore an illegal nonconforming structure as shown in the attached site photos. Consideration of Alternatives The subject patio has effectively only one option in lieu of a variation, which is to remove the nonconforming portion of the patio and provide the minimum required 5 foot setback from the rear lot line. Subject Property – red outline CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 4 Standards for Variation: The following is a discussion of standards for variations from Section 12-3-6(H) of the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposed use would satisfy the standards is provided below and in the petitioner’s response to standards. The PZB may use this rationale toward its recommendation, or the Board may make up its own. 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 may not be any objective hardship or practical difficulty in this context as compliance with the minimum setback could still provide a sufficient outdoor patio area about 6-7 feet deep. 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; irre gular 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 may be no unique physical condition on the subject property warranting the variation as its lot dimensions and yard layout is almost the same as other similar properties in its immediate neighborhood. 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: There is no unique physical condition on this property regardless of whether it was the owner’s action or inaction. 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 the strict letter of the setback regulation may not deprive the owner of substantial rights as compliance would still provide a likely sufficient area for an outdoor patio similar in the manner enjoyed by the immediate neighbors with similar nearby lots. 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 variation could be granting a special privilege to the Petitioner not available to neighbors with similar properties. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 5 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 intent of the minimum 5 foot setback is to provide pervious areas for drainage at property lines and to prevent over-development of land, especially at property line transitions. 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: Compliance should still provide sufficiently ample outdoor patio area on this portion of the subject property. 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 variation requested is not the minimum measure necessary for relief as the Petitioner does not desire to remove any of the illegally constructed patio. Acting Chairman Catalano asked for PZB member comments. Member Zadrozny asked if we know if the patio construction and pitch will cause flooding issues onto the neighboring property. Assistant Director Mendel suggested the petitioner provide additional information on the construction of the patio but it appears the patio may slope west towards the neighbor’s property. Acting Chairman Catalano asked the Petitioner to address this drainage question. Mr. Siakpere stated the patio is pitched from house to fence but does not drain into neighbor’s yard and he stated the neighbor to the west also has patio up against the property line. Acting Chairman Catalano stated he was not sure the claim that no drainage goes into the neighbor’s property can be substantiated. Acting Chairman Catalano asked Assistant Director Mendel if the fence shown in the photos is the west neighbor’s. Petitioner stated it is the neighbor’s fence. Member Weaver asked if this building is a single unit building. Petitioner stated it is a two-unit building. Member Weaver asked if this patio extends across both units. Mr. Siakpere stated the patio does not. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 6 Member Weaver asked when the original patio was put in. Mr. Siakpere stated when the house was built in 1964. Member Weaver when did the Petitioner acquire the property. Mr. Siakpere stated in 2012. Member Weaver asked when the patio extension was constructed. Mr. Siakpere stated in early 2026. Member Weaver asked how code enforcement discovered this issue. Assistant Director Mendel said we do not have this information but it was discovered to be installed without a permit. Member Weaver asked if the original patio was not in acceptable condition, why extend and not replace the existing patio as it was. Mr. Siakpere stated he extended patio like his neighbor did. Member Weaver asked how the neighbor’s action has any bearing on what the petitioner does. Mr. Siakpere stated he didn’t know, he just did it. Assistant Director Mendel clarified that the entirety of the patio area was replaced but that the new section extended into the setback area. Member Weaver asked if the neighbor who did the patio extension was next door at 323 Dover or on the other side of the fence. Mr. Siakpere stated it was the neighbor on the other side of the fence. Member Weaver asked staff if the property at 323 is a code violation. Assistant Director Mendel stated the aerial photograph shows a possible pervious area separating the neighbor’s patio from the property line so it is not to the same extent as the subject property. Member Weaver asked if the requirement is to have five feet of permeable material. Assistant Director Mendel stated yes, the patio must be set back five feet per the zoning code. Member Weaver asked again if 323 Dover Drive is in violation. Assistant Director Mendel stated staff did not make a comparison on the neighboring property and staff’s analysis is focused on the subject property. Member Fowler asked if the petitioner was aware he needed a permit. Mr. Siakpere said no. Member Zadrozny asked if the neighbor directly abutting this patio expressed any concerns with the patio expansion on the subject property. Mr. Siakpere said no. Natania Grantcharova of 317 Dover Drive, immediately to the south of the subject property, stated she did not have a problem with the patio expansion. Acting Chairman Catalano asked what the notice buffer area and requirements are for this request. Assistant Director Mendel said the buffer area is 300 feet and properties within this area received a physical letter. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 7 Member Fallico asked who did the concrete work and was that person a licensed contractor. Mr. Siakpere said a friend did the work; he thinks he has a contractor’s license but doesn’t know. Member Fallico asked the petitioner if he asked his friend if a permit was needed. Mr. Siakpere said he did and his friend said no permit was needed. Member Weaver said there are a number of cases looking to correct work done without a permit and asked staff what could be done to keep this from happening. Assistant Director Mendel stated the city has an entire section of the website devoted to permitting guides and contact information. Constant reminders have diminishing returns and residents in any given community will take action without permit regardless. When that happens in Des Plaines, staff try to give residents information on due process remedies with the reminder there is no guarantee of approval. Member Weaver expressed concern about work being done without a permit being approved after the fact and potentially impacting neighboring properties but noted it is in the petitioner’s favor that no one is at the meeting to express complaints. He also expressed concern generally of paving over Des Plaines and contributing to flooding issues in City. Assistant Director Mendel stated it is baked into the zoning code that patios are impervious surfaces and regulates the minimization of them to an extent determined to be reasonable. Senior Planner Stytz reminded the board they have the opportunity to review the request against the standards for variation before making a decision. Member Weaver asked how long the patio extension has been there. Assistant Director Mendel said at least since March of 2026 when the permit review was completed. Acting Chairman Catalano asked what the patio dimensions are. Assistant Director Mendel said 26 feet long by 15 feet wide and house is set back 15.9 feet from property line. Acting Chairman Catalano asked if any permeable coverage calculation was done. Assistant Director Mendel said no, the zoning code does not generally restrict impervious coverage in the R-3 district. Member Fallico stated this puts the board in an awkward position after the fact, because we don’t know about the safety and durability of the work. There should be a better system to let people know what they can and can’t do on their properties. Member Fowler stated this issue doesn’t come up as often as we think and it may be time to evaluate reduced setbacks with permeable materials used. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 8 Member Fowler moved and Member Fallico seconded a motion to recommend approval the major variation as requested with no conditions of approval. AYES: Weaver, Fowler, and Fallico NAYS: Zadrozny and Catalano ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** Under Section 4.08 of the Planning & Zoning Board Rules and Procedures, the 3-yes, 2-no vote is a recommendation to the City Council to approve the request. 2. Address: City-Wide       Case Number: 26-019-TA The petitioner requests text amendments to the City Code Title 12 (Zoning) Section 12-3- 11 Building Design Review, Section 12-8-1 Accessory Uses and Structures, Section 12-8- 13 Cannabis Business Establishments, and any other text amendments as may be necessary. Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner St., Des Plaines, IL 60016 Assistant Director Mendel presented the staff memo analysis. Issue: The petitioner is proposing the following text amendments to the City Code: (i) Modify Sections 12-3-11 and 12-8-1.C to create separate allowances for detached parking structures based on category of use, and requiring certain larger garages to be subject to building design requirements; and (ii) Delete the specific Cannabis Business Establishments signage regulations in Section 12-8-13. PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: #26-019-TA Request Description: The City of Des Plaines is proposing amending the Zoning Ordinance to clarify regulations for detached parking structures based on use and delete the use specific separate sign regulations for Cannabis Business Establishments residing outside the normal sign regulations City Code section. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 9 Background Accessory Structures Chapter 8 of the Zoning Ordinance, “Accessory, Temporary, and Specific Use Regulations,” was created to identify and differentiate regulations for both uses and structures that are either: (i) incidental and subordinate to a principal use or structure in the same zoning lot (e.g., detached garages and sheds); (ii) temporary in duration and construction (e.g., tents and yard sales); or (iii) are sensitive uses requiring tailored regulations (e.g., cannabis business establishments and residential care homes). The proposed amendments focus on accessory structures, which are currently defined in Section 12-13-3 as follows: ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A structure which is detached from a principal structure and is located on the same zoning lot and incidental and subordinate to the principal structure. Accessory structures are characterized by having a solid or semi- open roof, and include, but are not limited to, detached garages, carports, pergolas, sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. Accessory structures may not exceed the height of the principal structure. An accessory use is incidental to the principal use or structure served (i.e., accompanying but not a major part of the property). For example, a detached garage is incidental to a single-family residence and smaller in area and height than the residence. Zoning also requires that accessory structures are (i) operated and maintained under the same ownership and on the same lot, or adjoining lots, as the principal use or structure and (ii) subordinate in height, area, bulk, and location to the principal use served. Section 12-8-1.C. also identifies the general bulk regulations for accessory structures in all zoning districts with specific height, setback, location, size, and quantity restrictions. There are two main categories of accessory structures identified: (i) detached garages and carports; and (ii) other accessory structures (e.g., sheds, pergolas, gazebos, etc.). These categories share regulations related to height, setbacks/minimum distance from lot lines (with some exceptions), and location, but differ regarding quantity of structures and size permitted. In regard to quantity, the City Code allows for up to two accessory structures on any property; however, only one garage (attached or detached) or carport is permitted. In the case of a property with a detached garage or carport, one other accessory structure is permitted. Regarding size, a detached garage or carport can be up to 720 square feet in area for residential uses and up to 960 square feet for non-residential lots greater than 20,000 square feet. Other accessory structures can be up to 225 square feet in area regardless of the Zoning District. Staff Commentary: The current accessory structures bulk regulations in Section 12-8-1.C. permit detached garages on only (i) a single- or two-family dwelling or (ii) a non-residential lot, but do not consider the possibility for detached garages serving townhouses or multifamily. Staff proposes differentiating regulations for accessory structures based on the category of the property’s principal land use. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 10 The proposed amendments (attached) split subsection C of Section 12-8-1 into three separate portions: (i) Single-Family Residential and Two-Family Residential uses; (ii) Townhouse Residential and Multifamily Residential uses; and (iii) Non-Residential uses. In addition, some regulations are reorganized into table format. Single-Family Residential and Two-Family Residential Uses: Staff intends to retain the existing bulk accessory structure regulations in Section 12-8-1.C. for these types of uses since these are appropriate for low density residential developments but reformat the text under a new subsection and list for single-family residential and two-family residential uses. Townhouse (Single-Family Attached) Residential and Multi-Family Residential Uses: Staff proposes a second new subsection and table specifically permitting and regulating accessory structures for higher density residential uses. The table splits accessory structures into three separate categories: (i) Single-story detached garages and carports; (ii) Multiple-story detached parking garages; and (iii) Other accessory structures (e.g., sheds). Explicitly delineating both single-story and multi-story garage structures provides flexibility for both existing and proposed residential developments. This also could encourage denser off-street parking designs with smaller overall footprint than a surface lot. o Single-Story Detached Garage or Carport Structures: The proposed height and setback regulations for a single-story detached garage or carport mirrors the existing height and setback regulations for accessory structures in Section 12-8-1.C. However, the amendments would not restrict the quantity of single-story detached garage and carport structures permitted on a single lot. Instead, it would restrict the collective area of all garage and carport structures on site to 25 percent of the total lot area or less. For detached garage and carport structures that exceed 720 square feet in area, the Building Design Review standards in Section 12-3-11 of the Zoning Ordinance would apply. o Multiple-Story Detached Parking Garage Structures: Multiple-story detached parking garages would: (i) be limited by the collective area of all multiple-story detached parking garage structures—not to exceed 25 percent of the total lot area—instead of by a specific number of structures and; (ii) would also be subject to the Building Design Review standards in Section 12-3-11 of the Zoning Ordinance if more than 720 square feet in size. However, multiple-story detached parking garage structures would have larger minimum setback requirements than other accessory structures given their greater height allowance of 45 feet (compared to the maximum height of 15 feet for all other accessory structures including single-story-story detached garages and carports). The greater height allowance is CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 11 necessary to allow a parking garage structure with multiple stories but also appropriate given that the maximum height allowance for principal structures in the R-3 Townhouse Residential district is also 45 feet. Given this height allowance, the proposed amendments would require multiple-story detached parking garages to be located behind the front building line of the principal structure and the zoning district applicable minimum setback from other lot lines providing greater separation between this structure and property lines. The amendments also set a requirement that any such garage would have to be shorter than any principal structures served to retain the spirit of an “accessory” structure. o Other Accessory Structures: All other accessory structures—excluding detached garages and carports, such as sheds, pergolas, and gazebos—would follow the existing height, setback, and quantity standards in Section 12-8-1.C; the rules would be unchanged. Non-Residential Uses: Staff proposes creating a third new subsection and table regulating accessory structures for non-residential uses. The table format is identical to the proposed table for the townhouse residential and multifamily residential uses with the three separate accessory structure categories—single-story-story detached garages and carports; multiple-story detached parking garages; and other accessory structures—but with two main differences. Section 12-8-1.C of the Zoning Ordinance currently has a separate section devoted to bulk regulations for detached garages and carports on lots in non-residential zoning districts, which allows for a larger detached garage or carport area based on whether the subject lot is less than 20,000 square feet in size or more. In addition, it requires said detached garage or carport structures to be set back a minimum of ten feet from all side and rear property lines. Staff propose keeping these distinctions given the varying sizes of non-residential lots throughout Des Plaines and the variable uses that operate or could operate at these locations. o Single-Story Detached Garage or Carport Structures: The proposed bulk regulations for a single-story detached garage or carport would match the existing standards in Section 12-8- 1.C regarding height (maximum of 15 feet), setbacks (minimum of 10 feet), and size (maximum of 920 square feet on lots 20,000 square feet or more in size and a maximum of 720 square feet on lots less than 20,000 square feet). A maximum of one single-story detached garage or carport structure would be permitted on a lot with a non-residential use to match the existing standards. o Multiple-Story Detached Parking Garage Structures: The standards for multiple-story detached parking garage structures would match the height (maximum 45 feet), setbacks (minimum 10 feet), and size (25 percent of the total lot area, regardless of the specific lot size) but with three distinctions. • The first distinction deals directly with the location of the subject lot. When located on a lot that abuts a residential zoning lot, the height of multiple-story detached parking garage cannot exceed the maximum height of the abutting residential district. For example, this type of structure located on a lot next to a R-1 Single Family Residential district would be limited to 2½ stories or 35 feet in height, which is the maximum height allowance in that residential district. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 12 • The second distinction relates to Building Design Review Standards in Section 12-3- 11. While the proposed amendments require all single-story detached garages or carports and multiple-story detached parking garages more than 720 square feet must comply with the Building Design Review Standards, this is not a requirement for these types of structures on lots with non-residential uses. • The final distinction relates to the maximum quantity allowed. A maximum of one multiple-story detached parking garage structure would be permitted on a lot with a non-residential use to match the existing standards. o Other Accessory Structures: All other accessory structures such as sheds, pergolas, and gazebos would not be limited by total number, but (i) must be located behind the principal building front line; (ii) setback 5 feet from side and rear lot lines; and (iii) not exceed, in total, 2 25 square feet for zoning lots 20,000 square feet or less and 10% of the zoning lot area for zoning lots greater than 20,000 square feet. Cannabis Dispensary specific sign regulations Lastly, Section 12-8-13.A outlines specific signage regulations for Cannabis Business Establishment uses which differ significantly and are located outside the intuitive, appropriate location in City Code Title 12, Chapter 11 Signs for the generally applicable sign regulations for all the broadly defined zoning district land use, sign type and sign bulk regulations throughout the City of Des Plaines. Staff Commentary: With these specific regulations located outside the normal sign regulations chapter, there can and have been compliance review mistakes by business owners, sign contractors and/or City review staff. Additionally, from regulatory and land use perspectives, a Cannabis Business Establishment does not operate or generate true objectively distinct impacts from other highly regulated retail stores such as liquor stores, alternative tobacco establishments, etc. Further, there are already sign regulations included in the State regulations for retail cannabis dispensaries. Given the high propensity for mistakes with specific regulations codified outside the Zoning Code’s Chapter 11 (Signs) and the objective fact that a Cannabis Business Establishment does not have external land use impacts sufficient to separately define and regulate associated business signage, staff propose completely deleting all the sign regulations from City Code Section 12-8-3 and reordering the remaining use regulations accordingly as outlined in Attachment 3. Standards for Zoning Text Amendment: The following is a discussion of standards for zoning amendments from Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance. The PZB may recommend the City Council approve, approve with modifications, or deny the amendments. The PZB may adopt the following rationale for how the proposed amendments would satisfy the standards, or the Board may use its own. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 13 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; The accessory structures’ amendments clarify and expand the bulk regulations for accessory structures throughout the City by creating separate regulations for all use categories tailored to the scale and uses. They also provide additional options for existing and proposed developments regarding storage, off-street parking, and overall site design—especially in denser areas of the City—which the Comprehensive Plan intends to capitalize on to achieve better and more sustainable developments. The proposed Cannabis Dispensary specific sign regulation deletion is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s desired positive economic development orientation by making the approval and operation of this business type consistent with most other business types permitted in the City of Des Plaines. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The proposed accessory structures’ amendments allow further flexibility for various accessory structures regardless of the lot size, use, and location. They focus on promoting denser parking structures to reduce impervious coverage on lots with either residential or non-residential uses. However, they also provide additional clarification on the specific standards for accessory structures based on their type and use, which is something the current zoning ordinance does not fully identify. The amendments are tailored to minimize impacts of storage and parking structures on neighboring properties regardless of their location. The cannabis dispensary specific sign regulations deletion will treat these businesses equally with most other permitted similar business types and reinforcing overall character compatibility. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; Neither of these categorical text amendments would impact the provision of public facilities or services. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and It is not anticipated the accessory structures’ amendments will have any adverse effect on surrounding properties. Instead, the flexibility provided with these amendments encourages reinvestment in properties and can lead to new uses or improvements to existing uses that benefits the City and its residents. The cannabis dispensary specific sign regulation deletion should ease the operation of the limited number of such businesses permitted within the City. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 14 The proposed text amendments facilitate a path towards responsible standards for development, growth and signage regulation clarity for all applicable uses and properties by establishing a clear and streamlined permitting path for additional parking, storage, and cannabis dispensaries by promoting a better design of all. Assistant Director Mendel recommended the Board act this evening on the Cannabis Business Establishments section text amendment and then discuss the Building Design Review and Accessory Uses and Structures sections’ text amendments but take action at a future meeting. Member Fowler asked why the current provision is complicated. Assistant Director Mendel stated the section was added in 2018 shortly after legalization at the state level and may have come from another code; staff may not have had the capacity at the time to structurally analyze its placement as we’ve determined it is often professional best practice to locate regulations within the applicable subject matter City Code section/chapter. Member Weaver moved and Member Fallico seconded a motion to recommend approval of the text amendment concerning cannabis dispensary signage as proposed by staff. AYES: Weaver, Fowler, Zadrozny, Fallico, Catalano NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** The Board next discussed the text amendments to Section 12-8-1, Accessory Uses and Structures. Member Weaver asked if the proposed amendments are related to an initial proposal from 2023. Senior Planner Stytz said in July 2023 the text amendments were originally discussed and the increase from 150 to 225 square feet was the only amendment passed at the time. The Board wanted additional information then and staff are now coming back with that analysis. Member Fowler asked about the impact of the amendments and what varying uses would be able to do, mentioning The Monarch on East River Rd as an example. Assistant Director Mendel said this multifamily use would be able to convert existing surface parking spaces to covered garage spaces, with the total structures calibrated to the total land area of the lot. Acting Chairman Catalano asked when discussion of the amendments should resume. Assistant Director Mendel suggested the July 14th meeting to give additional staff time to revise. Member Zadrozny moved and Member Fowler seconded a motion to table discussion of accessory structure amendments to the July 14th PZB meeting. CASE NO. 26-018-V MAJOR VARIATION 319 DOVER DR CASE NO. 26-019-TA TEXT AMENDEMNT CITY-WIDE 15 AYES: Zadrozny, Fowler, Fallico, Weaver, Catalano NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** ADDITIONAL ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Acting Chairman Catalano adjourned the meeting by affirmative voice vote at 8:30 P.M. Sincerely, Jonthan Mendel, AICP, Assistant Director/Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners