Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-04-09 - PZB Minutes FINALCase No. 24-010-V Variation 840 E Grant Drive Case No. 24-004-CU Conditional Use 1628 Rand Road 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING April 9, 2024 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 9, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. Vice Chair Saletnik called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and roll call was established. PRESENT: Weaver, Saletnik, Veremis, Fowler ABSENT: Catalano, Hofherr, Szabo ALSO PRESENT: Jeff Rogers, CED Director Samantha Redman, Senior Planner A quorum was present. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Fowler, seconded by Board Member Weaver to approve the meeting minutes of March 5, 2024. AYES: Weaver, Saletnik, Veremis, Fowler NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Veremis to approve the meeting minutes of March 12, 2024. AYES: Weaver, Saletnik, Veremis, Fowler NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM There was no public comment. 2 Pending Applications: 1. Address: 840 E Grant Drive Case Number: 24-010-V The petitioner is requesting a standard variation to vary from building coverage requirements to allow for construction of an addition to the house that would result in building coverage in excess of 30 percent for an interior lot. Petitioner: Mark Boronski, 840 E Grant Dr., Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: Mark Boronski, 840 E Grant Dr., Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: 24-010-V PIN: 09-19-204-005-0000 Ward: #3, Alderman Sean Oskerka Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential Existing Land Use: Single family residence Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1 Single Family Residential District South: R-1 Single Family Residential District East: R-1 Single Family Residential District West: R-1 Single Family Residential District Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Dwellings (Residential) South: Single Family Dwellings (Residential) East: Single Family Dwellings (Residential) West: Single Family Dwellings (Residential) Street Classification: East Grant Drive is classified as a local road. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as single family residential. Zoning/Property History: The subject property at 840 East Grant Drive currently consists of a single- family house, detached garage, and driveway, with a canopy covering a patio in the back of the house. The house was constructed in the 1950s and the current property owner (petitioner) has received several permits for various improvements on the property in the past five years. 3 Project Description: _ Overview The subject property consists of a single-story, single-family residence located in the R-1 zoning district. The request is to vary from the building coverage requirement for R-1 zoning districts to allow for building coverage of 33.6 percent where 30 percent is allowed. This request is associated with a proposed 234-square-foot addition (Refer to Proposed Building Plans and Site Plan). Standard Variation Request A variation to the minimum building coverage requirement is necessary to allow for the construction of a 234-square-foot addition to the house. A standard variation allows the PZB to vary maximum lot requirements, including building coverage, by not more than 20 percent. Therefore, the maximum excess in building coverage the PZB can authorize with a standard variation is 6 percent. The requested relief is 3.6 percent to allow for building coverage of 33.6 percent. Note the existing structures already exceed the allowable building coverage amount by 0.4 percent. Refer to Proposed Site Plan attachment. R-1 District Standards Requirement Existing / Proposed Maximum Height 2 ½ stories to 35 feet Existing House: One Story Proposed Addition: No change Minimum Front Yard 25 feet Existing House: 28.23 feet Proposed Addition: No change Minimum Side Yard 5 feet Existing House: 5.61 feet Proposed Addition: 5 ft Minimum Rear Yard 25 feet Existing House: 54 feet Proposed Addition: No change Minimum Lot Width 55 feet 65.94 feet Minimum Lot Area 6,875 square feet 7,507 square feet Maximum Building Coverage Maximum 30 percent Existing House: 1,260 square feet 4 Detached Garage: 728 square feet Canopy: 300 square feet Existing coverage: 2,288 square feet 30.4 percent Proposed Existing structures: 2,288 square feet Proposed Addition: 234 square feet Proposed coverage: 2,522 square feet 33.6 percent . Building Materials The existing building materials for the house are brick and the proposed addition would be clad with vinyl siding. For additions resulting in a greater than 15 percent increase in floor area, the entire house must be in conformance with Section 12-3-11 – Building Design Review, which includes building material requirements. For a one story, single family detached residence, 100 percent face brick, natural stone, or anchored or adhered masonry veneer must be present on all exterior elevations. Siding is not a permitted building material in this circumstance; however, a minor variation from these standards can be granted administratively, to be processed prior to building permit if this variation is approved. Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6.H. of the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how well the proposal addresses the standards is provided below and in the attached petitioner responses to standards. The Board may use the provided responses as written as its rationale, modify, or adopt 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: Considering other potential alternatives are available, the zoning challenges encountered may not rise to the level of hardship or practical difficulty. The size of the subject 5 property (7,507 square feet) is larger than many interior lots across the City and larger than the minimum 6,875-square-foot interior lot size required. Several existing structures, including the detached garage (728 square feet) and the canopy over the driveway increase the amount of the lot covered by buildings compared to other similar properties. With the 30 percent building coverage allowance for R-1 zoned properties, the size affords more building coverage than many other interior lots. 2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot. Comment: The lot area is 7,507 square feet which exceeds the minimum lot size requirement for an interior lot in the R-1 district. The existing 30.4 percent building coverage of the lot exceeds current requirements. Other home designs could yield more total floor area by utilizing multiple floors versus the proposed design while complying with the maximum building coverage requirements. 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 the subject property’s location, size, and development style may not be a result of any action or inaction of the property owner, the subject property was purchased with the understanding of these attributes and conditions. The construction of a larger than average garage and a canopy over the patio create building coverage issues not encountered at other properties. 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: Enforcing the building coverage requirements does not deny the property owners the ability to construct an addition on their property but requires said addition to conform with the applicable building coverage requirements that apply to all R-1 zoned properties. 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: Other interior lots in Des Plaines of various sizes and shapes have designed additions that meet the required building coverage regulations, and the petitioners have the ability to do so as well on 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 6 and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan: Comment: The project would allow re-investment into a single-family home, which the Municipal Code and Comprehensive Plan encourage. However, reasonable options may exist for redesigning the proposed addition to create additional living space and/or reducing the amount of current coverage on the property. The petitioner’s proposal would yield a one-story structure which would appear from the street to be harmonious with other residences in the vicinity. 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: Several alternative options exist to this proposed addition. The canopy over the driveway and/or the detached garage could be removed or reduced to accommodate additional square feet for the addition. Another option is a second story addition, which would allow additional living space while meeting building coverage requirements, and thus not requiring this zoning relief. 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 the minimum measure of relief needed. PZB Procedure: Standard Variation Under Section 12-3-6(F) of the Zoning Ordinance (Standard Variations), the PZB has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the request. The decision should be based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions met by Section 12-3-6(H) (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. With any variation, the PZB has the authority impose such specific conditions and limitations concerning use, construction, character, location, landscaping, screening, and other matters relating to the purposes and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance upon any lot benefited by a variation as may be necessary or appropriate to prevent or minimize adverse effects upon other property and improvements in the vicinity of the subject lot or upon public facilities and services (Section 12-3-6.J). The petitioner, Mr. Mark Boronski, addressed the Board, explaining that he’d like to add a 13-foot by 18- foot bedroom at the back of the house because space is getting tight within the home. He is seeking a variation to increase lot coverage from 30.4 percent to 33 percent. Board Member Weaver asked whether there were any written comments from neighbors. Senior Planner Samantha Redman stated that staff did not receive any written comments regarding this proposed project. 7 Vice Chairman Saletnik inquired whether there were any members of the public that wished to speak for or against the request. No members of the public came forward. Senior Planner Samantha Redman presented a summary of the variation request for relief for building coverage. Vice Chairman Saletnik asked whether the proposed use of masonry board met zoning standards, or if masonry would be required at the exterior elevations. Senior Planner Redman explained that materials other than masonry would require review and approval of a minor zoning variation by staff. Vice Chairman Saletnik explained that he felt the use of masonry board was not an issue, because it would be in the back yard and behind a fence. Board Member Fowler stated that she was also in favor of the minor variation to allow the masonry board. Board Member Weaver requested confirmation that the addition was not visible from the street, and Senior Planner Redman confirmed that was correct. Board Member Fowler inquired about the format of the motion. Senior Planner Redman provided clarity that only one motion regarding the building coverage variation would be required. Motion by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Veremis to approve a standard variation request for the building lot coverage at 840 E. Grant Drive. AYES: Weaver, Saletnik, Veremis, Fowler NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** 2. Address: 1628 Rand Road Case Number: 24-004-CU The petitioner is requesting the following items: (i) a Conditional Use amendment under Section 12-7-3(K) of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code to allow a trade contractor use with outdoor display and storage; and (ii) a conditional use for a new motor vehicle sales use within existing tenant spaces in an existing multi-tenant building upon the subject property in the C-3 General Commercial zoning district. PIN: 09-16-104-022-0000 Petitioner: Urszula Topolewicz, 2020 Berry Lane, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Owner: Art Investment LLC, 2020 Berry Lane, Des Plaines, IL 60018 The petitioner requested the continuation of this case to the April 23rd Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. Director Jeff Rogers explained that the petitioner requested this continuation due to a medical issue. 8 Motion by Board Member Fowler, seconded by Board Member Veremis to approve a continuance to the April 23rd Planning and Zoning Board Meeting. AYES: Weaver, Saletnik, Veremis, Fowler NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** Other items: None ADJOURNMENT Acting Chairman Saletnik adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m. Sincerely, Jeff Rogers/Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners