Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025.01.28 PZB Meeting Minutes_appdCase No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING JANUARY 28, 2025 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 28, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS There were no general communication items to report. ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS One administrative decision was reported: • 1812 Orchard Street – Case #25-008-V – Allow Fence Transparency of 40 percent in the front yard. Approved January 24, 2025. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and roll call was established. PRESENT: Bronakowski, Catalano, Fowler, Szabo, Veremis, Weaver ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Mendel, AICP, Assistant CED Director Samantha Redman, AICP, Senior Planner Jonathan Stytz, AICP, Senior Planner A quorum was present. APPROVAL OF JANUARY 7, 2025 PZB MEETING MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Bronakowski, seconded by Member Fowler, to approve the meeting minutes. AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Fowler, Szabo, Veremis NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Weaver Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 2 APPROVAL OF JANUARY 14, 2025 PZB MEETING MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Fowler, seconded by Member Weaver, to approve the meeting minutes. Chairman Szabo stated Member Weaver made corrections in the packet. No questions about the corrections made. AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Fowler, Szabo, Veremis, Weaver NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM There was no public comment. PENDING APPLICATIONS 1. Addresses: 965 & 975 Rand Road Case Number: 25-003-CU-V The petitioners are requesting the following: (i) conditional uses for two trade contractor uses; (ii) a major variation to allow the display and storage of finished products in the required rear yard; and (iii) any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PINs: 09-08-301-006-0000 & 09-08-301-007-0000 Proceedings/Discussion: Chairman Szabo introduced applicant and asked if they are requesting a continuance. Applicant’s attorney introduced herself as did the applicant Peter Wrzesinski Peter Wrzesinski stated he would like to continue to February 25, 2025 PZB meeting to permit additional time to prepare adequate plans for PZB. Member Veremis motion to move to February 25, 2025 , seconded by Member Catalano. AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Fowler, Szabo, Veremis, Weaver NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 3 2. Address: 634 Debra Drive Case Number: 25-002-V The petitioner is requesting a major variation to allow an accessory structure to exceed the maximum area allowed in the R-1 Single Family Residential district at 634 Debra Drive, and any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PIN: 08-13-310-037-0000 Proceedings/Discussion: Chair Szabo introduced the case on the agenda and swore in petitioner Caroline Shamoun of 634 Debra Drive in Des Plaines. Caroline Shamoun explained her variation request, for an existing gazebo that is in her backyard that is bigger in size than what is allowed. The gazebo was inspected and needs some setbacks. This is why she is here to find out what needs to be done in order for the gazebo to be up to City code. Chairman Szabo asked for questions from board members. Member Weaver stated he will have questions for applicant after staff presentation. Chairman Szabo asked for staff presentation. Senior Planner Jonathan Stytz outlined staff report and analysis. Issue: The petitioner requests a major variation to permit a 288-square-foot accessory structure (gazebo) in the R-1 Single Family Residential district, where a maximum area of 225 square feet is permitted for accessory structures other than detached garages. Petitioner: Caroline Shamoun, 634 Debra Drive, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: Caroline Shamoun, 634 Debra Drive, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: #25-002-V PIN: 08-13-310-037-0000 Ward Number: #4, Alderman Dick Sayad Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence (residential) Surrounding Zoning: North: R-3, Townhouse Residential District South: R-1, Single Family Residential District Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 4 East: R-1, Single Family Residential District West: R-1, Single Family Residential District Surrounding Land Uses: North: Townhouses (residential) South: Single Family Residences (residential) East: Single Family Residences (residential) West: Single Family Residences (residential) Street Classification: Debra 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 property at 634 Debra Drive was annexed into the City in 1959 as vacant land. Aerial imagery indicates that the subject property and the surrounding properties were developed with a residential neighborhood around 19601. Since then, the subject property has been utilized for a single-family residence. Non-Permitted Improvements Staff had been made aware of several non-permitted hard surface and accessory structure improvements on the subject property. Back in 2011, a concrete patio permit was approved for the replacement of a 436-square-foot rear patio area with two patio additions totaling 437 square feet. While the patio was originally installed in alignment with the approved Site Plan, staff have found that the same patio surface has been substantially enlarged to ~1527 square feet without a permit. A review of aerial imagery and the attached Plat of Survey confirmed that a shed, driveway widening with paver bricks, a porch expansion with paver bricks, and a gazebo structure were also installed on site without permits. As a result, two retroactive permits were required for all improvements, one for the hard surfaces (i.e., patio, porch, and driveway areas) and one for the accessory structures (i.e., shed and gazebo structures). Through collaboration with staff, additional information and adjustments to the existing improvements yielded the attached Current Site Plan to clearly show the location, 1 Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.625/-87.875/T1890/16. Retrieved January 22, 2025. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 5 dimensions, and setback distance in feet from property lines of all the aforementioned improvements installed on the subject property without permits and ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the existing gazebo structure located on the rear patio exceeds the maximum area for an accessory structure and requires a major variation. MAJOR VARIATION Request Description: Overview The petitioner requests a major variation from Section 12-8-1.C of the Zoning Ordinance, which limits the size of all accessory structures other than detached garages to 225 square feet in area. Accessory structures, as defined below, are governed by Section 12- 8-1 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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. Accessory structures, by their very nature, are: 1. Incidental to the principal use or structure served; 2. Operated and maintained under the same ownership and on the same lot, or adjoining lots, as the principal use or structure; and 3. Subordinate in height, area, bulk, and location to the principal use or structure served. The table below shows the regulations for accessory structures— excluding detached garages—in comparison with the subject gazebo structure. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 6 Standard Type Requirement Existing/Proposed Maximum Height 15 FT (cannot be taller than residence) 10.5 FT (shorter in height than residence) Minimum Side Yard Setback Distance 5 FT 5.4 FT Minimum Rear Yard Setback Distance 5 FT ~45.0 FT Maximum Number of Accessory Structures Two Two (shed and combined gazebo structure) Maximum Area 225 SF 288 SF* *Major Variation requested for accessory structure area. The current gazebo structure consists of two 144-square-foot prefabricated gazebo structures combined with a gutter system in the middle (center supports shared by both structures), creating a 288- square-foot accessory structure in total. Note that since the two prefabricated structures were combined both with a gutter system and shared center support beams, staff have determined the structure in question to be a single gazebo instead of two separate gazebos. Given the accessory structure size exceeds 225 square feet in area, a major variation is required. Building Considerations The building specifications provided are for a 12-foot by 12-foot gazebo. Since two of these prefabricated gazebos were combined and two support beams were removed, the gazebo structure was installed outside of the manufacturer’s specifications and therefore requires an analysis from a licensed structural engineer and additional documentation to confirm it is structurally sound and safe. In addition, staff have noted the gazebo structure’s close proximity to overhead electrical lines, which the City’s adopted building codes require to be: Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 7 • A minimum of three feet from the edge of the roof of the accessory structure; and • A minimum of eight feet above the roof of an accessory structure unless the accessory structure roof has a slope of 4:12 or greater in which the requirement can be reduced to a minimum three feet above the roof. Therefore, staff proposes a condition of approval requiring submittal of the following at time of building permit: • Foundation details for the gazebo posts; • Connection details; • Framing analysis by a structure engineer; and • Roof plan showing roof slope, setback from overhead electrical lines, and required compliant drainage design. Fire Prevention Bureau Considerations The gazebo structures are comprised of aluminum roofs supported by wooden posts. Page 2 of the Gazebo Specifications2 denotes that the wood posts are not flame retardant and will burn, cautioning that grills, fire pits, and chimineas are a fire hazard if placed too close to the gazebo structure. Staff have noted in the attached Photos of Existing Conditions the presence of heating elements such as a fireplace or grill which are located underneath the gazebo structure near the two rear posts. Given the safety concerns associated with heating elements and flammable materials such as wood, staff proposes a condition of approval requiring submittal of the following at time of building permit: • Description and specifications of all heating elements and the like located near, underneath, or on top of the gazebo structure; • The distance in feet of each heating element from the gazebo structure itself, the property line, and the residence. Public Works and Engineering Considerations The impervious patio in which the gazebo structure sits has been substantially expanded beyond the scope of the original 2011 Permit Site Plan (attached). As a result, staff proposes a condition of approval requiring the submittal of elevation measurements and drainage patterns both around the gazebo structure and enlarged 2 Full copy available upon request to the Community and Economic Development department. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 8 patio area to determine if run-off is impacting neighboring properties and if compensatory storage is needed on site. Consideration of Alternatives The subject property is approximately 6,614 square feet in size, and the Zoning Ordinance allows up to 30-percent of interior lots in the R-1 district to be covered with structures, equating to a total building coverage allowance of 1,984 square feet. Factoring in the approximately 1,399-square-foot residence, the total building coverage allowance for accessory structures to 584 square feet. Given this information, staff have concluded that alternatives are available on the subject property in lieu of the requested variation: • Alternative 1 – Remove the existing shed and construct the two prefabricated gazebos separately as intended and designed by the gazebo structure manufacturer: This saves the petitioner both time and money associated with obtaining reports and documentation from licensed structural engineers and other design professionals for the structure in question, which may still conclude that the structure in question is not sound and is not safe to permit. • Alternative 2 – Replace the existing accessory structures with two 225-square-foot structures: Currently on site is the 288-square-foot gazebo structure in question and a 63- square-foot shed. However, the replacement of two existing accessory structures with two larger structures maximizes the coverage of accessory structures on the subject property and is more cost-efficient to the petitioner. • Alternative 3 - Installation of an open or enclosed addition onto the existing residence: This option could provide a covered patio space, which could negate the need for accessory structures on site. Additional Information Needed; Staff Site Visit The petitioner has provided a video3 attempting to answer staff’s comments above. However, additional information is necessary. Given the technical nature of the information needed, staff offered to perform a site visit on the subject property to assess the gazebo structure and the surrounding area. The petitioner agreed to the site visit while she was present on site but was not available from 3 Full copy available upon request to the Community and Economic Development department. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 9 January 7 to January 26. Therefore, staff scheduled a site visit for January 27, 2025, with their findings to be provided separately from this report for the PZB’s review and consideration. In its review of this request, the PZB and City Council may consider: 1. The viability of requests involving structures built near residences and outside of the manufacturer’s specifications, especially when these structures are accompanied with heating elements; 2. If alternative roof structure designs are more feasible, safe, and functional compared to the subject gazebo structure; and 3. If this request is ready for review given the lack of all necessary information to make an informed decision. 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: Staff does not see a hardship or practical difficulty preventing the petitioner from complying with the accessory structure area requirement. For one, there exists more than ample space on the 6,614-square-foot subject property to accommodate two separate 225-square-foot accessory structures instead of one larger structure. In addition, the existing combined gazebo structure could easily be separated and built to manufacturer’s specifications with minimal cost and work to minimize concerns related to structural integrity and safety. As the request does not constitute a defined hardship or practical difficulty, approving the variation could undermine the accessory structure requirements and encourage other property owners to construct structures without appropriate permits that may be unsafe. 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: Staff concludes that there is no unique physical condition on the subject property that warrants the requested variation. In fact, this property is of similar size and shape as the Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 10 interior lots surrounding it. There is more than ample space in the rear yard to accommodate a covered patio area of a considerable size. Thus, the variation request appears to be more of a personal preference and convenience of the property owner instead of a definable physical condition. Nonetheless, see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations. 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: While there is no defined unique physical characteristic of the subject property warranting this variation request, the petitioner’s construction of the gazebo structure without a building permit and outside of manufacturer’s specifications is the direct action and the reason for which a major variation is required. As such, it is staff’s opinion the proposal does not adequately utilize the available space on the subject property or appropriately design the accessory structure to avoid the need for a variation. Nonetheless, see the Petitioner’s Responses to Standards for Variations. 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: Staff has concluded that carrying out the strict letter of this code for accessory structure area does not deprive the property owner of substantial rights. First, while some property owners may have larger lots or additional spaces for accessory structures, having the ability to install accessory structures is not, in and of itself, a right granted to property owners. In fact, the Zoning Ordinance specifically limits the size of accessory structures in an effort to ensure that development scaled appropriately to property size. All properties within Des Plaines are governed by the same requirements for accessory structures—excluding detached garages—regardless of size, shape, and development. Enforcing these regulations does not deny property owners the opportunity to install and utilize accessory structures on the subject property but requires said accessory structures to conform with the requirements for all properties. That said, enforcing the accessory structure area requirement would not deprive the property owner of any substantial rights enjoyed by other properties in the city. 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 would, in fact, provide a special privilege for the property owner not available to other property owners in the city. While other properties may have existing non-conformities in relation to accessory structure area that were established through earlier regulations—and have repaired said non-conformities regularly—this does not compare to the proposal on the subject property for a new non-conformity created in direct violation of the current codes. The aforementioned consideration for the accessory structure in question Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 11 illustrates that variation decisions are made on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis upon applying the variation standards. In those evaluations, the determining body looked to see if the petitioner exhausted design options that do not require a variation. In this case, there are different design options for one or more accessory structures given the ample space in the subject property. 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: While the installation of the accessory structure and other site changes mentioned above could be classified as a positive improvement to an existing residential property, it can be argued that the execution of these site changes were installed without any concern with safety, adopted regulations, and harmony with surrounding development. While accessory structures are prevalent throughout the city, the combining of two separate gazebo structures with an altered support and drainage system is neither harmonious with surrounding properties nor in alignment with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. 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: The Consideration of Alternatives section above identifies multiple viable alternatives to the proposed variation being requested by the petitioner, many of which make better use of the available space on the subject property. While staff have discussed these options with the petitioner, out of convenience the petitioner has requested approval of the gazebo structure in question. Given the multiple alternatives available to the petitioner, t he PZB may wish to ask why certain alternative designs are not feasible. 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 request is not, in staff’s opinion, the minimum measure of relief to address the petitioner’s concerns. Instead, the petitioner could reconstruct the existing accessory structure as the two separate structures intended by design or utilize other combinations of accessory and principal structures to better utilize the available property and to meet the applicable city ordinances. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-6.G.2.b (Procedure for Review and Decision of Major Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve or deny the major variation request. Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-6.H (Standards for Variation) of the Zoning Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 12 Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the following conditions. Conditions of Approval: 1. At time of building permit, the petitioner must provide foundation details for the gazebo posts, connection details, a framing analysis by a structure engineer, and a roof plan showing roof slope, setback from overhead electrical lines, and a required compliant drainage design. 2. At time of building permit, the petitioner must provide a description and full manufacturer specifications of all heating elements located near, underneath, or on top of the gazebo structure in addition to the distance in feet of each heating element from the gazebo structure itself, the property line, and the residence. 3. At time of building permit, the petitioner must provide elevation measurements and drainage patterns prepared by a licensed engineer for the enlarged patio area and around the gazebo structure. 4. The gazebo accessory structure and patio area must be adjusted as necessary to be compliant with all adopted city ordinances or removed. Member Weaver asked about the 2nd alternative for accessory structures and their impervious surface. Jonathan Stytz addressed Member Weaver’s questions. Member Weaver asked for the petitioner’s position on the staff delineated options in the staff report. Caroline Shamoun stated she needs to review the options to determine what will be the best option for her and what will be safe. Member Weaver is concerned that the PZB may need a specific plan from the petitioner to know what they are voting on. Member Weaver wants a plan to know what the PZB would be approving. Member Catalano is concerned about the petitioner not being aware of what was required. Caroline Shamoun stated she had compliant permits in 2011 and would like a copy of the list of violations outlined by staff within the PZB case packet. Member Catalano stated that staff have outlined a list of violations in the staff report packet. Caroline Shamoun outlined the information performed in 2011 and 2020. Jonathan Stytz outlined the information regarding past permits records. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 13 Member Fowler asked about sufficiency of petitioner’s desired proposal and thinks there should be a continuance. Member Weaver was uncomfortable with the conditions and proposal currently before the PZB. Member Veremis mentioned that there was an inspection and wants to give reassurance that Caroline is in compliance with the most recent inspection. Member Fowler stated that codes are for your safety. Member Bronakowski asked about the proximity of the existing gazebo to the overhead power service. Jonathan Stytz stated that the power service line is too close to the subject gazebo. A 3-foot- separation is required, and the gazebo is only about 1 foot away. Chairman Szabo asked if the petitioner received a permit for the shed installation. Caroline Shamoun stated she did not get a permit for the shed in 2020. There was discussion about the location of the existing fence and the location of the existing fence. This discussion is not pertinent to the variation requested. Jonathan Stytz stated the shed will be moved to comply. Member Bronakowski made a motion for continuance, until petitioner is ready to present a compliant proposal. Asst. Dir Jonathan Mendel stated that the major variation before the PZB is for excess accessory structure area and that the code issues related to the gazebo structure will be handled by staff. Chairman Szabo asked for public comment. Member Bronakowski motioned and Member Fowler seconded to recommend approval of the major variation request as presented including the four staff conditions as written. AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Fowler, Szabo, Veremis, NAYS: Weaver ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 14 3. Address: 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case Number: 25-004-CU The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use for motor vehicle sales and any other exceptions, variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PIN: 09-21-302-057-0000 Chair Szabo swore in the petitioners, Thomas Donofrio of 200 SW 1 st Ave. Fort Lauderdale FL (the petitioner and owner’s representative with AutoNation) and Julian Arango with Goree Architects of 5151 San Felipe Houston, TX. The petitioner’s representatives outlined the proposed remodel of the existing Honda dealership, which requires a Conditional Use for the Honda Dealership. Proceedings/Discussion: Chairman Szabo asked Senior Planner Redman how long an auto dealer has been at this location. Senior Planner Redman stated since 1982. Chairman Szabo asked if this was a complete demolition and rebuild. Mr. Aranago stated a new showroom will be constructed in approximately the same footprint as the old building. Member Fowler asked if the Hyundai dealer part of this request. The petitioner’s representative stated it is not. Chairman Szabo had the Petitioner restate the context of the proposal. Senior Planner Redman outlined staff report and packet: Issue: The petitioner requests a Conditional Use for motor vehicle sales. PINs: 09-21-302-057-0000 & 09-21-302-058-0000 Petitioner & Owner: Auto Dealership III, LLC, c/o AutoNation 200 SW 1st Ave Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301 Case Number: #25-004-CU Ward Number: #2, Alderman Colt Moylan Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 15 Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial South: C-3, General Commercial and R-3, Townhouse Residential East: C-3, General Commercial West: C-3, General Commercial and R-1, Single Family Residential Surrounding Land Uses: North: Motor vehicle sales South: Gas station and convenience store and multi-family residential building East: River and forest preserve West: Commercial building and single family detached houses Street Classification: South Des Plaines River Road is classified as a minor arterial under jurisdiction of the City of Des Plaines. Oakton Street is classified as a minor arterial under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation. Comprehensive Plan: Commercial is the recommended use for this property. Property/Zoning History: The property currently consists of an existing and operating Honda dealership, including a building with showrooms, offices, and auto service repair center. A motor vehicle sales business has operated on this site since 1982. Prior to 1998, the zoning ordinance did not require a conditional use for this property. Therefore, this business has operated as a non-conforming use in this location, allowing it to persist under Section 12-5-5 and 12-5-6. Pursuant to Section 12-5- 5.D, the proposed enlargement and structural alterations of the building requires the proposed use to come into conformance with the zoning ordinance. During the building permit review process for the proposed building remodel, zoning staff determined a conditional use would be necessary due to the proposed improvements. Project Description: The petitioner and property owner, AutoNation, proposes a conditional use to continue operations of a motor vehicle sales operation at this property and accessory auto service repair activities. As stated above, a conditional use is required due to the proposed renovation on this building involving expansion of the building and structural modifications. Operations and Hours AutoNation Honda has operated on this property since 2012 and intends to continue identical operations to the current business, without an increase in the total inventory or service repair activities. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 16 Motor vehicle sales are a conditional use allowed within the C-3 Zoning District if they exceed 25,000 square feet. This property is approximately 180,068.85 square feet. There are currently 65 total employees. Hours of operation will continue to be Monday through Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Improvements to the Site Proposed improvements to the building include a partial demolition and reconstruction of the showroom and a new canopy and louvers. The proposed alterations are proposed for the showroom on the south side of the building, facing Des Plaines River Road. The current showroom/office space is approximately 5,500 square feet; the proposed addition will increase this area approximately 400 square feet to 5,900 square feet. The footprint will slightly expand the structure north, covering an existing un-used paved area next to the building. Interior renovations will include remodeling the customer lounge, restrooms, offices, service drive and back of house spaces as well as minor refresh of the parts areas and service shops. The building will also be repainted and new signage added, with an appropriate permit issued. The proposed addition will meet standards for transparency and materials specified in Section 12-3-11. However, the requirements of the zoning ordinance specify that if alterations occur to any street facing elevation, the remainder of the building must come into conformance with requirements. For this building, the existing building with frontage along Oakton Street would need to meet transparency requirements, including the addition of a substantial amount of windows or other transparency along the existing service center building. The petitioner has indicated they intend to request a minor variation from this requirement, as adding windows along this portion of the existing building would be challenging both architecturally and operationally for the auto service repair use. Minor variations are under the purview of the zoning administrator. Any new proposed lighting on the property will be reviewed at time of building permit to determine if it meets requirements of Section 12-12-10 regarding light spillage onto adjacent properties. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 17 Traffic Conditional uses require a traffic study; however, this requirement was waived by the Zoning Administrator based on information provided by the petitioner about the existing and proposed use. Refer to the Traffic Study Waiver attachment. The scale of this operation will remain the same as the current use and no known issues with traffic have been communicated by Police or Code Enforcement surrounding this business. However, in lieu of the traffic study, staff reviewed an AutoTURN exhibit demonstrating the proposed circulation plan surrounding the building for larger vehicles and fire trucks, included in the Traffic Study Waiver attachment. A suggested condition of approval states all vehicle loading/unloading operations must occur within the property lines and cannot occur within any public way. Parking The table below provides an overview of required and provided parking for this building and uses. Use Requirement Total Required Total Proposed Motor vehicle sales 1 space for every 500 square feet of showroom and office floor area, plus 1 space for every 20 vehicle display spaces (required off street parking spaces cannot be occupied by motor vehicles for sale or for lease) 43 vehicle display spaces = 3 spaces 5,777 sq ft of showroom/office area = 12 spaces 15 required spaces 20 spaces Auto service repair use 2 spaces per bay, plus 1 space for every 200 sq ft of accessory retail 28 bays = 56 spaces Accessory retail: 1681 sq ft = 9 spaces 65 required spaces 103 spaces Accessible Spaces Parking lots with 101 to 150 spaces 5 accessible spaces 5 accessible spaces* Total Spaces: Required 80 off-street parking spaces 5 accessible spaces Proposed 123 off street parking spaces + 291 parking spaces for inventory 414 total spaces Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 18 The proposed circulation pattern of the site, as provided by the petitioner, is using the two driveways along South Des Plaines River Road. Driveways along Oakton Street access points are presently not used, with vehicles parked in these areas. A suggested condition of approval is either the installation of bollards or landscape beds to prevent traffic from entering/exiting at these points, or complete closure of the unused driveways along Oakton Street, with restoration of sidewalk and parkway. A multimodal path was completed in 2023 along Oakton Street. The intent with this condition of approval is to reduce conflict points with vehicles and pedestrians/cyclists along this portion of the path abutting the property. Standards for Conditional Use The following is a discussion of standards for conditional uses from Section 12-3-4(E) of the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposed amendments 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 modify the recommendation. 1. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: Auto service repair and motor vehicle sales (on properties greater than 25,000 square feet) are conditional uses within the C-3, General Commercial District. 2. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The 2019 Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area to be used for Commercial. This business would continue commercial activity in this area. 3. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity: Comment: Several suggested conditions of approval are included with this case to provide assurances about the use being compliant with applicable zoning requirements, including requiring closure of the driveways along Oakton Street and all vehicle delivery operations to occur on the property rather than along Des Plaines River Road or Oakton Street. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 19 4. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: As discussed in the Petitioner’s Narrative, the business will operate Monday through Thursday 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., Friday 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., and Saturday 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The property is within an existing commercial area, with existing single- family residences across the street from Des Plaines River Road and Oakton Street. See the Petitioner’s Narrative and Response to Standards for additional information about business operations. The suggested conditions of approval are meant to provide assurances that limit disturbance or nuisance to the neighborhood. 5. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional Use shall provide adequately any such services: Comment: The existing building has been adequately served by essential public facilities and services. Staff has no concerns that the proposed use will not be adequately served with essential public facilities and services. 6. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of the entire community: Comment: The proposed use would not create a burden on public facilities. The dealership intends to expand the building slightly providing a benefit to the community with an improved public image. 7. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors: Comment: Traffic generated by these uses will be consistent with the amount of traffic previously generated at this site, and staff believes the existing street network can accommodate the traffic for this use. Refer to Traffic Study Waiver for additional details, including an exhibit demonstrating proposed traffic circulation. The use would result in the same amount of fumes, noise, and odors as the current business, with no intent to intensify this use expressed by the petitioner. The petitioner indicates in their narrative and response to standards that any hazardous materials generated by this use (oil, tires, etc.) will be properly handled and meet city, state, and federal requirements. A suggested condition of approval requires delineation of on-site Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 20 used tire storage, and the petitioner may need to provide staff a copy of this tire disposal company contract, if needed for future code enforcement purposes. No underground storage tanks (UST) are proposed for this property and none currently exist or previously existed on the site, per the State Fire Marshall UST Database. 8. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares: Comment: Access to the building will continue to be provided by two existing driveways along Des Plaines River Road. Traffic generated by these uses will be consistent with the amount of traffic currently generated at this site. Staff believes that the existing street network can accommodate the traffic for this new use, as the intensity is not proposed to increase. A condition of approval states the unused driveways currently located along Oakton Street must either be completely closed or a temporary barrier (bollards or landscape beds) must block entrance/exit to reduce potential conflict points for pedestrians/cyclists and vehicles along the Oakton Street Side Path. 9. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance: Comment: The subject property is within an existing building and thus would not result in the loss or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features. Although a portion of this property is within the floodplain, all local, state and federal regulations will be verified with the building permit process. The petitioner has already worked with the Public Works and Engineering Department to develop compliant civil engineering plans. 10. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested: Comment: The proposed uses comply with all applicable requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-4.D (Procedure for Review and Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above - mentioned conditional use permit. City Council has final authority on the proposal. Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-4.E (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the following conditions. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 21 Recommended Conditions of Approval: 1. Existing driveways along Oakton Street must be modified to prevent traffic from entering/exiting along these entrances. Petitioner may either close the driveway and restore parkway and walkway to City standards, or provide another method of obstruction, including bollards, fencing, or landscape beds. Site plan must be modified at time of building permit to indicate this condition is met and approved by Director of Community and Economic Development. 2. No storage or delivery of vehicles may occur outside of the property line. Loading/unloading of vehicles is prohibited within any public right-of-way. 3. Except for operable motor vehicles, all materials or supplies related to this use must be stored inside the building or a dumpster enclosure. 4. All used tires must be located inside a building or within a permitted accessory structure. If any code enforcement violations are noted related to tire storage on the property, City staff may require a copy of a current tire disposal contract. The petitioner ’s representative stated that the operations will not change, the only activity will be a renovation to the building/showroom. Chairman Szabo stated that the subject property is in the floodplain and wanted to know if the showroom would be elevated so floodwater would go under. The petitioner’s representative stated the proposed plans are currently not in conflict with any flood requirements. The foundation is currently high enough where it is not needed to elevate the building. Senior Planner Redman stated the petitioner has been working with the City public works and engineering department to resolve any flood plain concerns. Member Catalano asked the petitioner if they had any issues with the four suggested conditions. The petitioner’s representatives stated they are aware of the conditions and did not have concerns. Chairman Szabo opened public comment for the hearing. Karen Raymond of 1518 S. River Road in Des Plaines was sworn in by Chairman Szabo. Ms. Raymond had concerns about the car transport vehicles unloading in adjacent public ROWs and creating traffic conflicts. The petitioner’s representative stated they will be loading/unloading cars within the private property and directed the Board to the site plan exhibit demonstrating the proposed delivery location. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 22 Chairman Szabo stated the public should contact the City with any complaints regarding loading and unloading occurs in the adjacent public right-of-way. Michael Raymond of 1518 S. River Road in Des Plaines was sworn in the Chairman Szabo and stated that he has previously communicated complaints to the police department with no change. Member Bronakowski asked staff for information about whether trailers are allowed to park on River Road and if there are any specific sections of code prohibiting it. Senior Planner Redman stated there is not a specific regulation in the zoning ordinance prohibiting this activity, but a condition of approval is suggested that no loading or unloading could occur in adjacent public ROWs and there could be ramifications such as conditional use revocation and outlined the potential violation and citation process. Member Catalano requested information from staff about the conditional use revocation implications. Senior Planner Redman outlined the code enforcement process for violation and the possibility of a conditional use revocation, which would not allow this use to continue to operate if the violations were severe and the Council chose to revoke it. The Board generally discussed the issue of car transporter loading/unloading issue at current site and in relation to the proposed conditional use site plan and operational requirements. Member Weaver asked the petitioner to provide information about a physical site planning method to delineate loading areas within the site. The petitioner’s representative outlined the general location of the customer and delivery traffic patterns through the service drive. Karen Raymond questioned how to manage two car transporters at the same time. The petitioner’s representative stated it is a matter of logistics and site delivery management. Member Veremis asked if Hyundai is under this conditional use review. Senior Planner Redman stated this request is only for this specific property. The petitioner’s representative stated the properties are both owned by AutoNation, but did not have information about deliveries on the Hyundai site. Member Bronakowski stated that the proposed site plan should accommodate the deliveries. Member Fowler asked who to call at the City with loading complaints. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 23 Senior Planner Redman stated that complaints should be directed to CED code enforcement staff and that this conditional use request is only for the Honda dealership. Assistant Director Mendel stated CED and code enforcement will address complaints as they come in. Member Weaver motioned and Member Catalano seconded the motion to recommend approval of the conditional use request with the four suggested conditions as presented by staff. AYES: Weaver, Catalano, Fowler, Szabo, Veremis, Bronakowski NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** 4. Address: Citywide Case Number: 25-007-TA Proceedings/Discussion: Assistant Director Jonathan Mendel outlined staff report and packet: Issue: The City proposes modifying Sections 12-8 and 12-13-3 to define, categorize, and create specific standards for recreational vehicle parking and use in residential and non-residential districts. PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: #25-007-TA Request Description: The City of Des Plaines proposes amending the Zoning Ordinance to specifically regulate recreational vehicle parking and use in residential and non-residential districts and create a new definition for recreational vehicles. Background This process was initiated when several Alderman communicated to staff concerns regarding recreational vehicle parking, either permanently or temporarily, in locations throughout the City. The City Council requested staff explore this topic and develop possible regulations. At the October 28 and November 18, 2024 City Council meetings, Community and Economic Development Director Jeff Rogers presented a staff memo (Attachment 2) providing an overview of possible regulatory frameworks for recreational vehicle parking in Des Plaines and a comparison of regulations in surrounding municipalities. The City Council discussed the staff Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 24 presentation and heard community commentary. This discussion revolved around the main ways to regulate recreational vehicle parking in the following ways: • Residential versus non-residential zoning districts • Location on a zoning lot (i.e. front yard, side yard and/or rear yard, etc.) • A recreational vehicle’s three-dimensional bulk parameters (i.e. length, height, etc.) • Time of year After discussion, the City Council instructed staff to advance to the Planning & Zoning Board with a text amendment with a narrow regulatory framework centered on these elements. (Attachment 3). Proposed Amendments The full proposed amendments are attached and summarized below: New 12-8 subsection 16 12-8-16: Recreational Vehicles: The following requirements and restrictions shall apply to all recreational vehicles parked, kept, or otherwise stored on a residential or non-residential zoning lot. A. All Recreational Vehicles must be currently registered with the State of Illinois and must comply with all requirements of the City Code applicable to inoperable motor vehicles. Documentation of current registration must be displayed in a manner visible from the exterior of the vehicle. B. At no time may a Recreational Vehicle be used for living, sleeping or other purposes associated with dwelling units. No Recreational Vehicle may be connected to gas, water, sanitary sewer service, or septic tank. C. A Recreational Vehicle may not be used as an accessory structure in any zoning district. D. District Regulations: 1. Residential Districts: Parking of one (1) Recreational Vehicle not more than 32 feet in length shall be allowed per residential zoning lot 2. Non-Residential Districts: A Recreational Vehicle stored in any non-residential district may only be located in a rear yard and must be parked or stored on a paved, dust -free hard surface; provided, however, such storage may not reduce, block, or otherwise interfere with parking lot drive aisles and off- street parking spaces, nor shall any Recreational Vehicle occupy any required off-street parking spaces. This shall not apply to legally approved or established permitted or conditional principal uses in applicable non-residential zoning district such as commercial parking lot, commercial parking garage, leasing/rental agents - moving vehicles, motor vehicle sales, auto body repair, auto service repair, vehicle towing, and commercial storage. E. Elimination of Nonconforming Recreational Vehicle Parking Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 25 1. As of the effective date of Section 12-8-16, all nonconforming recreational vehicles must be brought into compliance with this Section 12-8-16 no later than December 31, 2025. New recreational vehicle definition 12-13-3: DEFINITION OF TERMS: VEHICLE, RECREATIONAL: A motorized or towable vehicle designed for temporary living for recreational purposes. This may include a motorhome, camper van/truck/bus, camper trailer, travel trailer, destination trailer, and fifth-wheel trailer, but does not include boats/personal watercraft on trailers, utility trailers. As differentiated from a mobile home, a recreational vehicle is not intended for permanent occupancy or as a permanent residence. Standards for Zoning Text Amendment: The following discusses the Zoning Ordinance Section 12-3-7.E standards for zoning amendments. 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. 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; These amendments create a new and specifically designed regulatory framework in the Zoning Code for the storing and parking recreational vehicles in residential and non-residential areas of the City. Currently within the Zoning Code, recreational vehicle parking and storage on private property is regulated in the same manner as passenger vehicles. Vehicles must be operable, parked on dust-free hard surface and have valid license and registration with no explicit limit on the number of nor the yards in which recreational vehicles that can be parked on a zoning lot. In Chapter 2 (Land Use and Development), the 2019 Comprehensive Plan states primary goals of the Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan is to: • Preserve and enhance established single-family neighborhoods… • Commercial areas include retail, office, and service-oriented uses that primarily serve day-to-day needs of local residents. • Industrial land use includes production, warehousing, assembly, and distribution. Defining and specifically regulating recreational vehicle parking and storage in this manner could reinforce and further enhance the reality and perception of residential areas’ market desirability and the productive nature of the City’s non-residential areas. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 26 The proposed amendments actually define Recreational Vehicles and how and where they can be parked throughout the City. With this specific regulatory framework, the character of our built environment could be prevented from degrading into ad hoc recreational vehicle storage uses, especially in residential areas. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; The proposed amendments would likely reduce the potential for public sidewalk vision obstructions, especially in residential areas. Often parking multiple recreational vehicles and passenger vehicles can lead to obstructions of public sidewalks at the intersection with private driveways. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and The amendments could greatly reduce the potential for ad hoc recreational vehicle storage uses on properties. Such ad hoc situations could create negative real estate market perception for properties in the City. Limiting the recreational vehicle number, use and locati on puts specific rules and bounds around the activity. Specific and clear regulations can create predictability which can have a positive effect on property market value perception. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. The proposed text amendments could provide desired predictability for current and potential property owners throughout the City. Additionally, such amendments are consistent with the majority of the eleven purposes outlined in Section 12-1-3 (Purpose) of the Zoning Code promoting the City of Des Plaines’ public health, safety, and general welfare. PZB Procedure and Recommendation: Under Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend the City Council approve, approve with modifications, or deny the above-mentioned amendments. The Board should clearly state any modifications so that its recommended language can be incorporated in the approving ordinance passed on to the Council, which has final authority on the proposed amendment. Member Veremis inquired as to how property owners would be informed of these new regulations. Assistant Director Mendel stated that if approved by City Council, code enforcement will notify property owners. Bronakowski asked if staff knows how many residents utilized these structures as dwelling units. Assistant Director Mendel stated that there is at least one; however, this type of use is currently not permitted under certain standards, so the amendments make this prohibition clearer. Member Fowler questioned if the proposed amendments included regulations on storage and if Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 27 people can store this vehicle in the front yard? Assistant Director Mendel stated that there are defined yards, but RVs would be allowed anywhere on site provided they are located on hard surface. Chair Szabo asked how the proposed amendments came up. Assistant Director Mendel explained that City council initiated this process after three alderman expressed interest in regulating RV’s and asked staff to create text amendment. Member Veremis asked how many of these vehicles would be incompliant with these standards. Assistant Director Mendel responded that staff do not have data to provide a definitive answer; mostly focusing on sites with more than one or have junk/debris violations. Member Bronakowski asked if city staff have seen instances where there are RVs larger than 32 feet in length. Assistant Director Mendel answered no because staff have not measured RVs and there are no specific restrictions on RV length at this time. Member Bronakowski mentioned that he is not a fan of size restrictions for RVs; should not be an arbitrary number. A larger discussion on RV length restrictions ensued. Member Veremis asked if this item requires two votes at Council. Assistant Director Mendel responded yes; this request requires two readings on Council unless they vote to consolidate their discussion into one. Member Veremis asked if a 36-foot-long RV requires a variation. Assistant Director Mendel responded that staff would work on complaints and would follow up with site visit to confirm compliance. Member Catalano asked if the proposed amendments could allow RVs up to 32 feet by right and require a case-by-case assessment for RVs over this length? Assistant Director Mendel answered possibility; staff would need to determine what entitlement process would apply (i.e., minor or standard variation). Member Bronakowski asked what the next steps are for the text amendment. Assistant Director Mendel explained that the PZB will need to either make determination on text amendment as written, make determination on text amendment with corrections, or continue with directions to staff on corrections. Case No. 25-002 MAJOR VAR 634 Debra Drive Case No. 25-003 CU-V 965 & 975 Rand Road Case No. 25-004 CU 1533 S. Des Plaines River Road Case No. 25-007 TA Citywide 28 Chair Szabo asked if the proposed amendment apply to trailers as well. Assistant Director Mendel responded yes; they apply to both non-motorized trailers and motorized RVs. Member Fowler asked if boats are excluded from this regulation. Assistant Director Mendel responded yes; boats are not defined as RV with the proposed definition. Member Bronakowski motioned, and Member Weaver seconded the motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to City Council. AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Fowler, Szabo, Veremis, Weaver NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** ADJOURNMENT The Planning & Zoning Board meeting on Tuesday, February 11, 2025 is planned and there are four cases. Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 8:38 p.m. Sincerely, Jonathan Mendel, AICP, Assistant Director of CED/Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners