Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023.07.25 PZB Meeting MinutesCitywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING July 25, 2023 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 25, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. Chair Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and roll call was established. PRESENT: Weaver, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Veremis, Szabo ABSENT: Catalano ALSO PRESENT: Brooke Lenneman, Attorney, Elrod Friedman Ryan Johnson, Assistant CED Director Jonathan Stytz, AICP, Senior Planner Samantha Redman, Planner Margie Mosele, Executive Assistant A quorum was present. Call to Order and Roll Call APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM July 11, 2023 A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Hofherr to approve the meeting minutes of July 11, 2023. AYES: Weaver, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: Fowler, Veremis ***MOTION CARRIES ** PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM - None Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 2 Pending ;Applications: 1. Address: Approximately 919-921 Graceland Avenue Case Number: 23-40-MAP (parking lot for 1217 Thacker Street) The petitioner has requested a zoning map amendment to rezone the subject property from C-3 General Commercial to R-4 Central Core Residential, and any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PIN: 09-20-203-006-0000 Petitioner: Luz and Associates #1, LLC, 2030 West Wabansia Ave., Chicago, IL 60611 Owner/Property Control: Contour Saws, Inc., 100 Lakeview Parkway, Ste. 100, Vernon Hills, IL 60061 Ward Number: #2, Alderman Colt Moylan Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial Surrounding Zoning: North: R-4, Central Core Residential South: Railroad and C-3, General Commercial East: C-3, General Commercial West: M-2, General Manufacturing Surrounding Land Uses: North: Multi-family residential building South: Railroad and commercial office buildings East: Commercial buildings West: Former Contour Saws manufacturing building Street Classification: Graceland Avenue is classified as a minor arterial road. Comprehensive Plan: Industrial is the recommended use for this property. Property/Zoning History: The property was formerly the parking lot associated with the Contour Saws manufacturing facility located to the northwest. The Contour Saws building was built in the 1960s and operated in this location until 2020. Historic aerials indicate the site has been developed as a parking lot since the early 1960s, and the use has never changed.1 Between 1938 and 1960, zoning for the property 1 Historic Aerials, 1961 Aerial, historicaerials.com Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 3 changed from commercial to light industrial and back to the current commercial zoning. However, no commercial use has ever been associated with this property. The property is currently owned by Contour Saws and is vacant. Project Description: The petitioner is Luz and Associates, which is the contract purchaser of the subject property, along with the main Contour Saws building property on the other side of Graceland. They are proposing a zoning map amendment from C-3, General Commercial to R-4, Central Core Residential. The amendment would allow for a contemplated multifamily residential building at this site, one of two that are proposed for the former Contour Saws facility. Zoning Map Amendment Overview The purpose of a zoning map amendment is to determine whether an existing zoning district is suitable for a location and, if not, which zoning district would be more suitable, given the context of the neighborhood, city goals, and local, state, and national development trends. Although a specific project can be considered alongside any zoning application, zoning change deliberation often looks at a property at a larger scale within the neighborhood and city. However, a Site Plan Review, as required by Section 12-3-2, was performed for the conceptual project at this site. The Site Plan Review contributes to the overall assessment of a zoning map amendment, demonstrating the feasibility of a specific project with this zoning. Refer to the Site Plan Review section of this report and associated attachments. C-3 Zoning and Suitability of the Site for Proposed R-4 Zoning The C-3, General Commercial zoning district is intended to accommodate a diversity of businesses. Out of all of the commercial districts, C-3 permits the largest number of different uses, allowing for 37 uses permitted by right (meaning no zoning entitlement process) and 28 conditional uses. A broad variety of uses are allowed, including retail, office, restaurants, and other commercial services. However, this site has never been developed with a commercial use, despite having the most permissive commercial zoning for decades. Even with the closure of Contour Saws in 2020, the site remains an unoccupied, surface parking lot. The Comprehensive Plan envisions this area for manufacturing uses; however, the plan was written in 2019 prior to the unanticipated closure of Contour Saws in 2020. Considering this site has never successfully been developed into a commercial use, the zoning map amendment process allows the City to determine if another type of use would be more suitable. This site is uniquely situated near many amenities and services necessary to support residential development. Few available properties exist in Des Plaines with the transit, recreational, and commercial opportunities available within walking distance, making this site an ideal location for additional residential versus commercial or manufacturing development. Within a half-mile of the property (an approximate 8-15- Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 4 minute walk for the average person2), the following services are available. Refer to Amenities and Services Map attachment for further details. Service Transit Des Plaines Metra Station platform; Pace Bus Stops for Lines 226, 230, and 250, and PULSE Downtown Commercial Area Restaurants, retail/personal services including dentist, optometrist, urgent care, private gym, and salons Schools (private and public) Central Elementary School, Willows Academy, Little Bulgarian School, Islamic City Center of Des Plaines Academy Parks Centennial Park, Central Park, Paroubeck Park, Potowatomie Park Public Buildings Library, City Hall A change to the zoning would be necessary to allow residential uses on this property. No new residential uses are permitted within the C-3 zoning district in this location. An analysis of the various options for residential zoning districts is necessary to determine what is best suited for this site. Below is a table of residential zoning districts and the residential uses permitted within them. Residential Districts Use Matrix Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4 Single Family Detached P C* C* C* Townhouse Not permitted Not permitted P P Two-family (duplex) Not permitted P Not permitted Not permitted Multi-Family Not permitted Not permitted P P *Note: Only applies to single-family detached dwellings that were lawfully constructed prior to August 17, 2020 and are located in a zoning district other than R -1. The R-1 and R-2 zoning districts would restrict the density of residential units at the property, limiting the development potential. As the name suggests, the R-1, Single Family Residential district limits the number of dwelling units to one dwelling unit per parcel. The R-2, Two-Family Residential district similarly limits the number of dwellings to two units per parcel. To allow for more than one or two residences on this 1.23-acre property, the property would need to be subdivided. If the property were subdivided to meet the R -1 or R-2 bulk standards, it is unlikely the property could produce more than five residential units. 2 Bohannon, R. W. (1997). Comfortable and maximum walking speeds o f adults aged 20-79 years: reference values and determinants. Age and Ageing, page 17. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 5 The property is also too small to allow for a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which would allow for smaller lots but requires a minimum parcel size of 2 acres (Section 12-3-5.B.3). The R-3, Townhouse Residential and R-4, Central Core Residential districts provide the option to increase the number of units on this parcel without requiring subdivision. Comparatively, a townhouse or multi-family development would supply a greater number of units in the same amount of space, creating a more efficient and economical option for this location. The main difference between the R-3 and R-4 districts are the bulk standards. The table below provides a comparison. R-3 Versus R-4 Bulk Standards Bulk Controls R-3 R-4 Maximum height 45 ft 80 ft Minimum front yard 25 ft 12 ft Minimum side yard Buildings 35 ft. and under: 5 ft. Over 35 ft.: 10 ft. Buildings 35 ft. and under: 5 ft. Over 35 ft.: 10 ft. Minimum rear yard Buildings 35 ft. and under: 25 ft. or 20% of lot depth, whichever is less Buildings over 35 ft.: 30 ft. Buildings 40 ft. and under: 25 ft. or 20% of lot depth, whichever is less Buildings over 40 ft.: 25 ft., plus 2 ft. for every 10 ft. over 40 ft. Minimum lot width 45 ft. 45 ft. Minimum lot area 2800 sq. ft. per dwelling unit 40,700 sq. ft (.93 acres).1 1. The minimum lot area for a zoning lot in the “R-4 Central Core Residential District” shall be either 10,000 square feet or shall be determined by the total sum of the required minimum lot area of each dwelling unit on the zoning lot in accordance with the table in Section 12-7-2.J. R-3 and R-4 zoning districts both allow for multifamily residential development. However, R-3 requires 2,800 square feet of space per dwelling unit, allowing a maximum of 19 units on this 53,731-square-foot (1.23-acre) property. Compared to R-3, the R-4 district allows for a significantly larger number of residential units, requiring smaller lot areas per unit and allowing for a taller building. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 6 Demographic Trends and Accommodating an Aging Population The existing housing stock throughout the city is predominantly single-family residential and the Comprehensive Plan states it is a goal to maintain this stock of high-quality single family residential property within the city. However, the detached single family housing type is an increasingly unaffordable product for many existing and future residents. In comparison, townhouses and multi-family provide additional housing stock at a more financially attainable scale due to the smaller size and reduced maintenance cost. An important goal of 2019 Comprehensive Plan is providing avenues to allow residents to age-in-place and improve accessibility. As of 2015, the percentage of Des Plaines residents 50 or older was 40.2%, compared to the regional average of 31.4%.3 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, this percentage is likely to grow, with one in five Americans at retirement age by 2030.4 Households approaching retirement are frequently interested in downsizing to limit maintenance costs and reduce monthly housing costs to meet limitations of fixed incomes. Supplying a diverse housing stock in this area provides the option for seniors to continue living within the city. A residential development in this location would be close enough to facilities and services for an aging population to independently complete activities of daily living, with many amenities available within walking or transit distance. In terms of accessibility, it is relevant to note that multifamily housing developments, either private or public, with four or more units are required to meet accessibility requirements outlined in the Fair Housing Act.5 This includes provisions requiring certain units to have accessible access, routes, and usable private and common spaces for individuals with disabilities. Note buildings separated by a firewall, such as townhouses, are not subject to these accessibility requirements.6 Additionally, the International Building Code (IBC) requires buildings of a certain size to have at least one elevator and it must be able to accommodate an ambulance stretcher (IBC 2015 Section 3002.4). Overall, multi-family residential developments over a certain size versus single-family detached or attached residences provide a greater likelihood of providing the accessibility needs of an aging population and provide additional housing opportunities for individuals with disabilities regardless of age. 3 Des Plaines 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Page 32 https://www.desplaines.org/home/showpublisheddocument/162/637612522934400000 4 U.S. Census Bureau (2018) Older People Projected to Outnumber Children for First Time in U.S. History, https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html 5 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Accessibility Requirements for Buildings https://www.hud.gov/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/disabilities/accessibilityR 6 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fair Housing Act Design Manual, Page 10 https://www.huduser.gov/portal//Publications/PDF/FAIRHOUSING/fairfull.pdf Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 7 With these considerations regarding the location of the property near other R-4 zoned, multi- family properties, the proximity to numerous private and public services, and the goals of the Comprehensive Plan focused on providing diversity of housing stock and providing accessible options for residents, senior or otherwise, the R-4 zoning district is a suitable fit for this property. Site Plan Review Proposed Project Overview The petitioner proposes a four story, 56-unit multi-family residential development and associated parking lot and private park space. Note the proposed development is one of two for the former Contour Saws properties; the site to the north will be reviewed and considered as a separate application. This type of development is a permitted use in the proposed R-4 Central Core Residential district if it follows all bulk regulations and other standards. The below diagram illustrates staff’s interpretation of where the required yards are located for this property, as noted in Section 12-7-2 and defined in Section 12-13-3. _____________ The table on the following page compares the R-4 district regulations with the proposed development on the subject property. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 8 R-4 -Central Core Residential District Bulk Standards Bulk Controls Required Proposed Maximum height 80 ft.1 48 ft. Minimum front yard 12 ft. 15 ft. Minimum side yard 5 ft. 5 ft. Minimum rear yard 25 ft. 25 ft.1 Minimum lot width 50 ft. 193.86 ft. Minimum lot area 40,700 sq. ft.2 (refer to Footnote 2 and associated table below) 53,731.42 sq. ft. Note: 1. Off-street parking spaces are permitted to be located in any required yard, including the rear yard, per Section 12-9-6.C. 2. The minimum lot area for a zoning lot in the “R-4 Central Core Residential District” shall be either 10,000 square feet or shall be determined by the total sum of the required minimum lot area of each dwelling unit on the zoning lot in accordance with the following table, whichever is greater : Number Of Bedrooms Minimum Lot Area (Square Feet) Efficiency dwelling unit 600 1 bedroom 700 sq. ft. minimum required lot area * 41 units proposed = 28,700 sq. ft. of lot area required 2 bedrooms 800 sq. ft. minimum required lot area * 15 units = 12,000 sq. ft. of lot area required Total Required Lot Area: 40,700 sq ft Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 9 Site Plan Review Standards Pursuant to Section 12-3-7.D.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a Site Plan Review is required for all map amendment requests to assess how the request meets the characteristics identified in Section 12-3-2, which are listed below along with staff’s assessment of each in relation to the current Site Plan provided by the petitioner, located in the Site Plan attachment. Note many of the provided plans include an entrance/exit from the alley. However, the developer has chosen to remove this proposed driveway in favor of one entrance entering and exiting. The Site Plan attachment provides the most up to date plan; this plan was used to complete the Site Plan Review below. All other updated plans, including an updated traffic study, will be provided with any future Planning and Zoning Board and City Council packets and will be uploaded onto the desplaines.org/contourplace when available. Site Plan Review Item Analysis (based on Proposal) The arrangement of structures on the site • Places the building along the street frontage rather than the parking lot. By placing a building along a street rather than the parking lot, the design presents better cohesion with the buildings surrounding it by placing the building at approximately the same distance from the property line as adjacent multi-family buildings. • A more efficient design would involve the placement of parking in a parking garage underneath the building, rather than surface parking. However, it is unknown the expense and the impact on economic viability for this project if this site design change were required. Taking into consideration the current use (vacant surface parking lot), the proposed development provides a substantially more efficient use of the property. The arrangement of open space and landscape improvements • Landscaping is provided around the building in excess of requirements along the front yard and perimeter parking lot landscaping meets zoning requirements. In addition, a private park space is proposed, as noted on the plans. Refer to Landscape Plan attachment. • Staff advises the movement of the shade tree shown on the landscape plan from the corner between Oakwood Avenue and the alley to improve visibility for vehicles and pedestrians entering and exiting the driveway. The tree will need to be located elsewhere on the property and staff will confirm the landscape plan includes the required amount of parking lot landscaping at time of building permit. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 10 The adequacy of the proposed circulation system on the site • Curb cut closed onto Graceland, pushing traffic to Oakwood Ave. and the alley. The traffic study provided with this application demonstrates that proposed traffic will not have a significant impact on the area roadways. It is important to note the existing parking lot includes over one hundred parking spaces and the Contour Saws facility likely generated a greater amount of traffic for employees and deliveries than proposed with this residential development. The Board may seek to ask the petitioner if they anticipate any significant changes to traffic with the updated site plan (eliminating the entrance/exit of the parking lot into the alley) not reflected in the traffic impact study. • The closure of a curb cut along Graceland Ave and replacing with a parkway and walkway improves safety and comfort of pedestrians along this side of Graceland. The proximity of the building to the street also provides better surveillance within the neighborhood, with windows facing the residential neighborhood and providing additional “eyes on the street.” • A loading/unloading zone within the development eliminates traffic on the adjacent streets and alley for deliveries, dumpster pickup, and ride sharing for proposed future residents and visitors. • Parking meets the off-street parking requirements of Section 12- 9-7, providing sixty-five spaces which is the minimum required amount. It is anticipated, as discussed in the petitioner’s response to standards and the provided traffic study, that the proximity of the site to numerous transit options and a bike route along Thacker St, will reduce dependence on automobiles for this project. The location, design, and screening of proposed off-street parking areas • Perimeter landscaping, including required shrubs and shade trees, are provided around the proposed parking lot. A private park blocks some view of the parking lot from Oakwood Ave. • Site is situated in such a way that the parking lot has minimum visibility from Graceland Avenue and Oakwood Avenue and minimal conflict with pedestrians along public walkways. The adequacy of the proposed landscaping design on the site • All required landscaping in terms of perimeter and interior parking lot landscaping and landscaping of required yards is fulfilled. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 11 • Private park space provided in the southwestern area of the property with accessible walking path to the building and from Oakwood Ave. The design, location, and installation of proposed site illumination • Photometric plan demonstrates conformance with Section 12- 12-10, with no more than 0.2-foot candles spilling over the property line in any location, well within the limits of the zoning ordinance. • The parking lot is properly illuminated, with at least 0.1 footcandles in any parking area, meeting requirements of Section 12-9-6.G. The correlation of the proposed site plan with adopted land use policies, goals, and objectives of the comp. plan • Does not fit the manufacturing use illustrated by the Comprehensive Plan; however, the 2019 plan was written on the assumption that the Contour Saw facility will continue operating. • The proposed plan supports the following goals (refer to “Demographic Trends and Accommodating an Aging Population” and “C-3 Zoning and Suitability of the Site for Proposed R-4 Zoning” sections of this report for further details): o Goal 4.1. Ensure the City has several housing options to fit diverse needs. o Goal 4.3 Provide new housing at different price points o Goal 4.5 – Plan for and identify policies and tools that ensure accessibility • In addition to housing goals, the proposed development meets economic goals of the city by providing additional property tax revenue compared to the existing use of the site. Refer to the Tax Projections attachment. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 12 Summary of Public Outreach In an effort to improve community engagement and transparency surrounding new, large developments within Des Plaines, the City provided numerous opportunities for residents to review the proposal and provide input. To provide regular project updates, a webpage on the city website was created: desplaines.org/contourplace. On June 6, 2023, the Planning and Zoning Board hosted a public workshop to provide the developer, board, and the public an opportunity to review plans and provide input into the proposed development at this location and the former Contour Saws facility to the north of this property. After this meeting, the project webpage was updated to include a public input form to continue gathering community comments on the plans. Refer to Public Comment attachment for all public comments. Standards for Zoning Map Amendment: The following is a discussion of standards for zoning map amendments from Section 12-3-7.E 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. 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 Comprehensive Plan was written in 2019 when the Contour Saws facility was still operating. Due to the manufacturing facility’s longstanding operations in Des Plaines, the Comprehensive Plan did not envision this area to be used for anything else. However, the proposed amendment and development would meet several goals from the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan, including: Goal 4.1. Ensure the City has several housing options to fit diverse needs; Goal 4.3 Provide new housing at different price points; and Goal 4.5 Plan for and identify policies and tools that ensure accessibility. Refer to “Demographic Trends and Accommodating an Aging Population” and “C-3 Zoning and Suitability of the Site for Proposed R-4 Zoning” sections of this report for further details. In addition to housing goals, the proposed development meets economic goals of the city by providing additional property tax revenue compared to the existing use of the site. Refer to the Tax Projections attachment. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 13 The subject property is adjacent to R-4 zoning to the north and is close to several similar multifamily developments. The area is in close proximity to numerous services within walking, biking or transit distance, Refer to Amenities and Services Map attachment. Any proposed development would need to meet all building material and design requirements outlined in Section 12-3-11 – Building Design Review, including requirements for face brick which will be similar in design to the adjacent multi-family residential buildings in this neighborhood. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; An engineering and utility plan was prepared with this application. Based on the provided site plan, City engineering staff did not indicate any concerns with the adequacy of public facilities or services being available to meet the needs of this proposed development. A traffic impact study was provided with this application to assess impacts of the proposed development (Refer to Traffic Study attachment). The study indicated the traffic generated by this use would not create a significant impact on the surrounding street network. The Board may seek to ask the petitioner if they anticipate any significant changes to traffic with the updated site plan (eliminating the entrance/exit of the parking lot into the alley) not reflected in the traffic impact study. It is important to note the previous use of this property was an employee parking lot with over one hundred parking spaces, while the proposed residential development provides 65 parking spaces as well as a loading and unloading zone. At minimum, this development brings less potential for vehicles to be travelling in and out of the site at peak hours versus one hundred employees of a manufacturing facility. Parking meets the off-street parking requirements of Section 12-9-7, providing 65 spaces which is in excess of the minimum required amount. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and The proposed map amendment would allow for residential uses on a property that has been zoned commercial for decades and, throughout its history, existed as a surface parking lot for employees of a now closed manufacturing facility. A building that provides additional residential options for the area and required to follow the Building Design Standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance creates a more appealing urban design for the neighborhood versus an unoccupied surface parking lot. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 14 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. The current use of this property is a surface parking lot for a manufacturing use that is unlikely to be filled with another similar manufacturing business. Despite the commercial zoning, the property has remained unimproved for several years, and remains vacant and in disrepair. Providing a residential use for the property, particularly a use that capitalizes on the close proximity to downtown Des Plaines and the various amenities associated with the area, would present a more efficient and useful way to use this property. As discussed in the Demographic Trends and Accommodating an Aging Population section, the City needs to promote opportunities that increase housing stock for a diversity of populations in the area, both in the short term and long term. Amending the zoning district for this property, regardless of the proposed project, provides an additional opportunity to construct a multifamily development in an area with similar residences and with the necessary services to support this type of use. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-7.D (Procedure for Review and Decision for Amendments) 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 zoning map amendment. 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 12-3-7.E (Standards for Amendments) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the following conditions. Attachments: Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2: Site and Context Photos Attachment 3: Project Narrative and Responses to Standards Attachment 4: Amenities and Services Map Attachment 5: Plat of Survey Attachment 6: Site Plan Attachment 7: Architectural Plans and Site Plan Attachment 8: Landscape Plans Attachment 9: Engineering Plans Attachment 10: Photometric Plan Attachment 11: Traffic Impact Study Attachment 12: Property Tax Projections Attachment 13: Public Comments Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 15 Chair Szabo swore in Rolando Acosta, Attorney, Keith Lee, Architect and Javier Millan Traffic Consultant, representative for the petition. Rolando Acosta described the scope of the project. He explained Site B – Contour Place, located approximately at 919 & 921 Graceland Ave. He stated that they are looking for a Zoning Map Amendment to change zoning from C-3 to R-4. He explained the Graceland and Oakwood site map. Mr. Acosta displayed a map showing services within a ½ mile of the subject site. He stated that multifamily developments add to the population of Des Plaines. He displayed a zoning map including the zones in the site area. He displayed an aerial of the project side including the existing heights of the neighboring properties. Mr. Acosta displayed the ground level plan which includes 56 residential dwelling units in a four-story building and 65 parking spaces. Keith Lee through a power point presentation, displayed a view of the project on Graceland and Oakwood. He stated there will be 56 units with amenities on the first floor. He showed the proposed Building Elevations from all views. He explained the locations for the two entrances. He displayed the types of material would be used. He stated that the building design would be comparable to others in the area. He stated the building would have an elegant look with the long balconies. Mr. Lee described the Landscape Plan which includes a park. He stated that they will be adding a 7-foot-wide sidewalk on Oakwood. He stated there would be a 15-minute walk to downtown and the Metra station. He stated there will be a surface parking lot with 65 spaces including 3 accessible spaces and 2 EV spaces. Javier Millan explained the traffic study. Full movement to the site will be provided by an access drive on Oakwood Avenue. KLOA did two traffic studies on a weekday morning and two in the evening. The conclusions from the study are: o Generated traffic volume will be reduced due to proximity to Metra Train Station o Capacity analysis indicates that proposed development traffic will not have a significant impact on area roadways. o Full access drive from Oakwood Avenue is well located and provides suitable access for inbound and outbound traffic, with outbound traffic under stop sign control. o The proposed parking supply of 65 spaces will meet the Des Plaines and ITE requirements. Mr. Acosta concluded the presentation by stating that they are looking for a Map Amendment to go from C-3 to R-4. He stated that the petitioner’s goals are similar to the Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan in providing alternative modes of housing in the area. He stated that they will be improving property values because this is an improved condition from the current vacant parking lot. He believes that the project is meeting responsible development and growth standards by providing housing near transportation. Member Hofherr asked if they are able to add additional EV charging if there is demand for it. Mr. Acosta stated that they can add more charging stations if there is a demand. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 16 Member Weaver asked about the difference in the drawings with the two access points on some plans, versus one access point on others. He also asked about the decision to face the entrance of the building towards the parking lot. He wanted to know if the visitors had to walk into the parking lot to enter. Mr. Acosta stated that when the process was started, they had two access points. One of the access points was to the alley and the other was to Oakwood. However, City staff stated it would be required to reconstruct the alley if the development uses it as an access point and that was too high of a cost burden. They realized they could use accommodate need for access from one point using Oakwood. He also stated that they have two entrances one off of Oakwood and one off of the parking lot. Residents and visitors could use either entrance. Member Weaver asked if the decision for tonight’s board is for the zoning change and not an endorsing of the plan as it currently stands. Mr. Acosta stated that is correct. Samantha Redman, Planner, gave the staff report. She gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the petitioner ’s request. She explained the Location Map and Description. The subject property is zoned C-3, General Commercial and has been commercial for decades, but the Comprehensive Plan illustrates it as “manufacturing” because it was associated with a manufacturing use. One parcel included this surface parking lot, previously used for employees of Contour Saws. Ms. Redman presented the Site Photos giving a current view of the project. She explained the background of the former Contour Saws site. She discussed the PZB Special Workshop on June 6, 2023, where the project concepts were given, comments were received and a webpage was provided for additional information and comment. Ms. Redman explained the request for the zoning map amendment to go from C-3 to R-4. She explained a chart for the uses for the R-4 Central Core Residential District. She presented a chart with information on Condominiums versus Apartments. She explained the Residential Purpose and Goals including general purpose statement for residential zoning districts and Housing Chapter of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan. She presented the Site Plan Review which explains the connection between the proposed site plan with adopted land use policies, goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan which includes the Housing Objectives and the Economic Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, including supporting increasing tax revenue. Ms. Redman explained the Existing Conditions, Surrounding Area and Site Plan slides. Ms. Redman stated the PZB considerations which includes one action to recommend approval, approval with conditions, continuance, or denial of zoning map amendment from C-3 to R-4, noting that Zoning Map Amendments do not have conditions of approval. Chair Szabo asked if any audience members have any questions or concerns about the petition. Chair Szabo swore in Marian Cosmides, neighbor to the property. She asked if any other projects were considered for this site. She wanted to know if any external resources were used to attract businesses to the site. She asked about following the Comprehensive Plan to attract a business or manufacturer to the site. She stated that she feels that Des Plaines is becoming a bedroom Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 17 community. She would like an independent traffic study. She asked about the occupancy at the Welkin. She also asked how close the property would be to the train tracks. Ms. Redman responded to the questions. She stated that no other petitioner has submitted an application for this property. She stated that the City maintains an available properties map. Ms. Redman reminded the board that this is a private property. Ms. Redman stated that the current plans state the property would have at least a 25-foot setback and Oakwood Avenue is 20 to 22 foot wide. Chair Szabo swore in Myrna Simes, neighbor to the property. She stated that she has lived across from the property for 16 years. She was not happy with the manufacturing, smoke emissions and smokestacks that went along with the prior owner. She stated that she is happy about the proposed development. She stated she would rather see apartments or condos then more factories. She stated she would rather look at a residential property than a factory. Chair Szabo swore in Tom Loveland, neighbor to the property. He stated he was happy to hear about the townhouses for the other property site. He stated he feels like we have a recurring business model which includes Developer, Builder Financier and an end owner. He stated that the end owner is not in for the long run and does not care about the area or the community. He would like to see ownership that is more long term. A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Saletnik to recommend approval of the proposed Zoning Map Amendment to go from C-3 to R-4 at the approximate address of 919-921 Graceland. He noted that this is a zoning change and not a design approval. AYES: Weaver, Saletnik, Veremis, Fowler, Hofherr, Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY *** Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 18 New Business 1. Update from Luz & Associates on Plan and Application for 900 Graceland/1217 Thacker (“Site A”) of the Contour Place Redevelopment a. Petitioner provided a conceptual site plan, different from the public workshop, for discussion only. No votes or actions to be taken on this site. b. Once an application is submitted, public hearing will be scheduled and noticed at a later date Rolando Acosta gave a presentation to describe the scope of the project. He explained that the new concept for Site A would be 45, three-story townhouses with green space and a club house. There would be an one access point from Graceland and one access point from Thacker. There will be 2 parking spaces per townhouse and 16 guest spaces. He displayed the Site Plan. He displayed the Building Rendering and explained that the design, elevation, and materials would be similar color palette and design to the other multifamily building. Chair Szabo asked if they will be looking for a zoning change from R-3 to R-4 and how many units they plan to build. Samantha Redman stated that townhomes are allowed in both R-3 and R-4. She stated that the proposed plan has 45 units. Member Fowler asked if these would be rental and if there will be elevators. Mr. Acosta stated that they changed their plans from 122 apartment to 45 townhouses for rent. He stated that the townhouses would be 2 and 3 bedrooms, so likely no elevators. He expects to charge $3,800 per month rent. He said they will have to make some of the units adaptable for accessibility purposes. Member Weaver asked about the garages and the asphalt. He asked if city code requires two spaces per unit. Samantha Redman stated that city code requires two parking spaces per dwelling and one guest space per four units. Marion Cosmides asked the rationale for rentals versus purchase. She is concerned about the excessive demand on city resources by transient residents. She asked if the rentals will be converted into ownership. Mr. Acosta stated that the rationale is for diversity of product, lessening the burden of ownership, and ease of financing. He stated that in the future, if there is demand, the rental could be converted into individual purchase units. Chair Szabo asked when they think they will bring the petition to the Planning and Zoning Board. Mr. Acosta plans to bring it to the board in September. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 19 Pending Applications 2. Address: Citywide Case Number: 23-043-TA The petitioner is proposing the following text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: (i) modify Sections 12-3-11 and 12-8-1.C to create separate allowances for detached parking structures based on use, provided that certain larger garages would be subject to building design requirements; (ii) modify Section 12-8-1.C to increase the maximum size for accessory structures that are not detached garages and carports (e.g., sheds, gazebos, pergolas); and (iii) modify Section 12-13-3 to revise the Accessory Structure definition to clarify the types and characteristics of the structures that are included in this definition. PIN: Citywide Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Request Description: The City of Des Plaines is proposing amending the Zoning Ordinance to clarify regulations for detached parking structures based on use, to increase the maximum area for accessory structures except detached garages and carports, and to amend the accessory structure definition. Background 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 scope of the proposed amendments focus on the first of these— 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 roof, and include, but are not limited to, detached garages, sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos. Accessory structures may not exceed the height of the principal structure. As identified in the definition, an accessory use is intended to be 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 (e.g., provides covered parking for the residents) but a garage is smaller in area and height than the residence and not occupied as much. Due to the incidental nature of accessory structures, the Zoning Ordinance does not permit the construction of an accessory structure without the prior construction of a principal use or structure. Zoning also requires that accessory structures are (i) operated and maintained under the same ownership and Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 20 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 in regard to quantity of structures and size permitted. In regard to quantity, the Zoning Ordinance allows for up to two accessory structures on any property; however, only one garage (attached or detached) is permitted. In the case of a property with a detached garage or carport, one other accessory structure is permitted. In regard to size, a detached garage or carport can be up to 720 square feet in area—on all residentially zoned lots, regardless of their use—while other accessory structures are limited to 150 square feet in size. Accessory Structure Definition The current accessory structure definition describes an accessory structure’s incidental and subordinate relation to a principal use, how these uses are characterized (e.g., having a solid roof), and provides a non-exhaustive list of types of accessory structures (e.g., detached garages, sheds, greenhouses, and gazebos). However, the definition does not list many of the most common types of accessory structures—such as pergolas or carports—and does not fully encompass all of the characteristics of accessory structures—especially structures such as pergolas which can have semi-open roofs—even though it is intended. As such, staff is proposing to amend the definition to clarify that both flat and semi-open roofed-structures are all classified as accessory structures. The proposed amendments also add pergolas and carports to the list of accessory structures specifically identified in the definition. While the list is still non-exhaustive and is intended to remain so, the addition of these two accessory structures helps to further clarify what is classified as an accessory structure, especially commonly-installed accessory structures such as a pergola. Accessory Structure Bulk Regulations The current bulk regulations in Section 12-8-1.C appear to contemplate only (i) a single- or two- family dwelling or (ii) a non-residential lot. They do not consider the possibility for detached garages serving townhouses or multifamily. As such, staff is proposing to differentiate regulations for accessory structures based on the principal use of the property. The proposed amendments 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: Aside from one proposed change, staff intends to retain the existing bulk accessory structure regulations in Section 12-8-1.C for these types of uses given that these regulations are appropriate for lower density residential developments. The proposed change intends to increase the size allowance for accessory structures—excluding detached garages and carports—to 200 square feet. Staff’s observance and attached Accessory Structure Research indicates that Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 21 many pre-fabricated accessory structures like sheds, gazebos, and pergolas are greater than 150 square feet (the current size restriction) but are below 200 square feet (proposed size restriction). As such, the proposed amendments adjust the size allowance for these types of structures. • Townhouse (Single-Family Attached) Residential and Multi-Family Residential Uses: Staff proposes to create a new subpoint and table to regulate 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). The allowance for both single-story and multi-story garage structures provides flexibility for both existing and proposed residential developments. They also could encourage denser off-street parking designs with a 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 would mirror the existing height and setback regulations for accessory structures in Section 12-8- 1.C. However, the amendments would not restrict the number 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: Similar to single-story detached garages and carports, 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 in excess of 720 square feet in size. However, multiple-story detached parking garage structures would have higher 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 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 a minimum of ten feet from all other property lines in order to provide a 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, so for example, sheds, pergolas, and gazebos—would follow the existing height, setback, and quantity standards in Section 12-8-1.C; the rules would be unchanged except to allow a maximum area of 200 square feet in size. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 22 • Non-Residential Uses: Staff proposes to create a second new subpoint and table to regulate accessory structures for non-residential uses. The table setup 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 setback a minimum of ten feet from all side and rear property lines. Staff intends to keep these distinctions given the varying sizes of non-residential lots throughout Des Plaines and the varying 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)—as proposed for townhouse residential and multi-family residential uses—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. The second distinction relates to Building Design Review Standards in Section 12-3-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. While the proposed amendments require that all single-story detached garages or carports and multiple-story detached parking garages in excess of 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—excluding detached garages and carports—would follow the existing height, setback, and quantity standards in Section 12-8-1.C, but would be allowed to be up to 200 square feet in size. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 23 Proposed Amendments The full proposed amendments are attached and are summarized below: Section 12-3-11, Building Design Review: Revise the list of activities that trigger the adherence to the Building Design standards to include certain accessory structures mentioned in Section 12-8-1.C. Section 12-8-1, Accessory Uses and Structures: Split subsection C of this section into three portions with specific regulations in each: • (i) Single-family Residential and Two-family Residential uses o Indent existing bulk regulation standards; and o Amend the maximum size allowance for accessory structures—excluding detached garages and carports—to 200 square feet. • (ii) Townhouse Residential and Multifamily Residential o Create new table and specific bulk regulations for three different accessory structure types: (i) single-story detached garages and carports; (ii) multiple- story detached parking garages; and (iii) other accessory structures (e.g., sheds). • (iii) Non-residential uses o Create new table and specific bulk regulations for three different accessory structure types: (i) single-story detached garages and carports; (ii) multiple- story detached parking garages; and (iii) other accessory structures (e.g., sheds). Section 12-13-3, Definition of Terms: Amend the Accessory Structure definition to include structures with semi-open roofs (such as pergolas) and add additional items to the non-exhaustive list of accessory structure examples. 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. 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 help clarify and expand on the bulk regulations for accessory structures throughout the City by creating separate regulations for all use categories that are tailored to the scale and intention of those uses. They also provide additional options for existing and proposed developments in regard to 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. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 24 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; The proposed amendments allow for further flexibility for various accessory structures regardless of the lot size, use, and location. The amendments 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 that 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. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; The proposed amendments would allow for additional options for both storage and parking on properties throughout the City that may require additional public facilities and services for an individual site based on their use and design. However, these amendments would still require site plan review and adherence to applicable municipal codes to ensure that any improvements are compliant and are adequately serviced. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; and It is not anticipated that the proposed 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. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. The proposed text amendments facilitate a path towards responsible standards for development and growth for all uses and properties by establishing a clear and streamlined permitting path for additional parking and storage options that promote better design of both residential and non-residential developments. PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________ Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 25 PZB Procedure and Recommendation: Under Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that 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 proposal. Attachments: Attachment 1: Accessory Structure Research7 Attachment 2: Photos of Detached Garages Serving Multifamily Development (The Parker, Park Ridge, IL)8 Attachment 3: Proposed Amendments Jonathan Stytz, Senior Planner, gave the staff report. He explained the reason for amending the existing accessory structure definition is because it does not fully describe and account for all types of accessory structures. Updating the definition provides additional clarification as to how accessory structures are classified. He gave background on accessory structures. All accessory structures are governed under the same regulations regardless of type of use or zoning classification (Section 12-8-1.C). He stated that the city plans to update the definition to avoid confusion. The definition would be 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. Mr. Stytz explained the Proposed Addition and Proposed Amendments to 12-8-1.C. He explained the accessory structure for Single and Two Family Residential, Townhouse and Multifamily Residential and Non-Residential uses on Non-Residential zoning lots. He presented the Proposed Amendments to Section 12-3-11. Mr. Stytz explained a chart of the analysis of average dimensions of sheds, pergolas, and gazebos. And displayed an example of existing accessory structures serving multi-family developments: (The Parker, Park Ridge, IL). Mr. Stytz stated that PZB can recommend approval, approval with modifications, or denial of the proposed amendments. Member Weaver states that he appreciates staff looking at how the proposed regulations fit. He asked what happens if a problem with the guidelines comes before the city in the future. Where are we most likely to find the most problems with the regulations? And asked who would benefit from the proposed changes and who would not be happy with the changes? Also do you think the proposed changes would make or break a business from coming to Des Plaines? 7 Source: Home Depot and Lowes websites, obtained July 18, 2023. 8 Source: Google Streetview, obtained July 21, 2023. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 26 Mr. Stytz said that a petitioner could still come before the board for a variation. He stated multifamily petitioners would benefit because it gives more flexibility. Examples of the new rules not working out as well could be manufacturing or small commercial lots if they would want a larger accessory structure. However, Mr. Stytz does not think the proposed changes would stop someone from wanting to do business in Des Plaines. They could still ask for a variation. The changes are only looking at accessory, detached structures. Member Fowler asked about the height of the structure and how staff came up with allowing two accessory structures. Mr. Stytz stated that height cannot be taller than the residential building and it would have to follow the allowed percentage area. Two accessory structures is what is currently allowed across the board and does not specify the type of uses. Most of the changes are for multifamily and non- residential uses. Member Weaver has questions in the other accessory structures in the non-residential section since he does not see a maximum of 200 square feet to be viable with a lot of businesses. Are we able to make things more flexible in this area? Chair Szabo stated that in larger business with large areas like the proposed Des Plaines Material business on Golf, two accessory structures of 200 square feet each would not be enough. They could come to the board but why put them through that. Mr. Stytz stated that the current allowance is two structures at 150 square feet each. That would allow for 300 square feet total. We do not have a lot of requests that come in for these types of non-residential accessory structures. Mr. Stytz stated that we can look into adding additional square footage allowance based on the size of the lot. Also, the business on Golf Road is an outdoor bulk material facility, which is a separate use with additional allowance for structures. Brooke Lenneman discussed when a structure is considered an accessory structure and when it is considered a secondary principal use or a Planned Unit Development. She also stated that there are uses that have outdoor components or a storage use. Some of the examples referenced are not accessory structures. Mr. Stytz stated that the City does allow more than one principal structure on a commercial site of half acre or more which most of the discussed properties fit that description. He gave definitions of principal structure and accessory structure. He stated that if a business required several structures for a multiple building development, they would go in front of the PZB for a PUD. Member Weaver has questions on the commercial and manufacturing in the non-residential use. Member Fowler asked if staff did a comparison from neighboring communities for best practices. She thinks that would help the board make an educated decision, especially for the non-residential structures. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 27 Mr. Stytz stated that staff did not research the individual size allowances for accessory structures for surrounding communities but researched the common sizes for accessory structures as found on Menards and Lowe’s websites instead to determine an appropriate size restriction. Chair Szabo stated that we could continue the whole amendment, or we can continue just the non-residential accessory area. He asked if they decided to break up the amendment if it will be a problem, legally. Ms. Lenneman stated that as long as you continue the non-residential portion to a specific date you would be able to continue the public hearing and the board could vote on the residential portion tonight and non-residential portion on the continued date. If they do break it up, staff will redraft the amendments. Mr. Stytz stated that they can continue the whole case, or they can vote on the residential and continue the non-residential if they have concerns and would like more information. Member Weaver stated he believes the City Council would like to hear the entire amendment at one time. He asked if they could vote on it at the next meeting. Ms. Redman stated that staff would need more time to do research and contemplation. Staff would not be able to turn the research around this quickly. Member Saletnik stated that he thinks the staff should get a comparison to make sure the City is doing the right thing. He stated for residential a 15 x 15 pergola is 225 ft. He stated that is a common dimension and would be over the proposed allowable amount. Member Weaver stated that looking at Table 3: Non-Residential, Column – Other Accessory Structures – Row- Minimum Size both Greater and Less Than 20,000, instead of a certain number for the square footage he would recommend 5%. He stated he is comfortable putting in the 5% and revisiting if necessary. Member Fowler would like more information and to see what is happening in the surrounding suburbs. Member Saletnik asked how the City came up with the 200 square feet measurement and what the other municipalities are doing. Mr. Stytz stated that the City based the numbers on the data that they collected and provided in attachment 1 where the average was less than 200. These are the prebuilt items that you can purchase. Most of the sheds on the sites were between 150 and 200. This is attempting to satisfy the majority of the requests that we get for these types of structures and one that can be purchased. The variation process is in place if a larger accessory structure is requested. Citywide Text Amendment 23-043-TA 919-921 Graceland Map Amendment 23-040-MAP 28 Ms. Redman stated that typically when someone asks for a pergola over the allowance, they attach it to their principal structure. Then its no longer an accessory structure. Then the City would look at other things like building coverage. Member Weaver stated that he doesn’t want to run through non-residential. If we are not comfortable with what we have then we can wait and get the analysis of what other municipalities are doing. He stated that he is not comfortable with approving in pieces. He asked how research is done. Mr. Stytz stated that staff will need more time to research the non-residential component. They start by looking up the information online then they contact the planning departments. Staff can also send out a survey from the Northwest Municipal Conference. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Hofherr to continue the matter to a date certain, August 22, 2023, so staff can find out what the other municipalities are doing on all aspects to be able to make an educated decision. AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Weaver, Fowler, Veremis, Szabo NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY ** ADJOURNMENT The next scheduled Planning & Zoning Board meeting is Tuesday August 8, 2023. Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 9:00 p.m. Sincerely, Margie Mosele, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners