HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-01-25 PZB MinutesCase 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
January 25, 2022
APPROVED MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 25,
2022, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 101 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read this evening's cases. Roll call
was established.
PRESENT: Szabo, Veremis, Saletnik, Hofherr, Catalano, Weaver, Fowler
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Stytz, Planner/Community & Economic Development
Vanessa Wells/Recording Secretary
A quorum was present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Weaver to approve the
minutes of January 11, 2022, as presented.
AYES: Szabo, Veremis, Saletnik, Hofherr, Catalano, Weaver, Fowler
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED ***
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
NEW BUSINESS
1. Addresses: 1473 Henry Avenue Case Number: 22-001-V
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting the following items under Section 12-3-6 of the Zoning Ordinance: (i) a
Standard Variation from Section 12-7-2(J) to allow construction of a two-story addition to an existing
single family residence that is set back less than five feet from the interior side property line; (ii) a Standard
Variation to allow a building coverage that exceeds the 30 percent limit for interior lots in the R-1 district;
and (iii) the approval of any other such variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary.
PINs: 09-20-219-012-0000
Petitioner: Kirk Vondra & Candice Vondra, 1473 Henry Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Kirk Vondra & Candice Vondra, 1473 Henry Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Kirk and Candice Vondra, 1473 Henry Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 and their
architect Kevin Kazimer from 18 Executive Court. South Barrington, IL 60010.
Candice Vondra homeowner of 1473 Henry stated her family takes great pride in their home and the
neighborhood and wanted to make sure the addition matched closely to the existing and surrounding
homes in the area.
Kirk Vondra homeowner of 1473 Henry stated they did not want to build another box, so when we saw
Kevin’s plans we loved the idea of attaching the garage and adding green space behind the garage to allow
for better drainage in our yard and our neighbor’s yards as well as a space for our kids to play.
Member Catalano stated he thinks the math is off and from what he calculated the total square footage
would be larger than the 35.6 percent and it is actually 36.2 percent.
Kevin Kazimer, architect, stated that in fact the calculations are 36.2 percent and there was a
miscalculation on the plans.
Jonathan Stytz, Planner for CED gave his staff report.
Issue: The petitioner is requesting the following: (i) a Standard Variation to reduce the required interior
side yard setback from five feet to 2.25 feet; and (ii) a Standard Variation to allow a building coverage of
35.6 percent where 30 percent is permitted for interior lots. This relief is required to build a second-story
addition to an existing single family residence in the R-1 Single Family Residential District at 1473 Henry
Avenue.
Address: 1473 Henry Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
Owner: Kirk Vondra & Candice Vondra, 1473 Henry Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: Kirk Vondra & Candice Vondra, 1473 Henry Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 22-001-V
PIN: 09-20-219-012-0000
Ward: #2, Alderman Colt Moylan
Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, Single Family Residential District
South: R-1, Single Family Residential District
East: R-1, Single-Family Residential District
West: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Residence
South: Single Family Residence
East: Single Family Residence
West: Single Family Residence
Street Classification: Henry Avenue is classified as a local street.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as single family residential.
Zoning/Property History: Based on City records, the existing structure has been utilized as a single family
residence. A second story addition was added back in 1958.
Project Description: The petitioners, Kirk and Candace Vondra, are requesting Standard Variations
through the PZB to: (i) reduce the required interior side yard from five feet to 2.25 feet; and (ii) to allow
35.6 percent building coverage where a maximum of 30 percent building coverage is permitted for interior
lots in the R-1 district. They propose a two-story addition on an existing single-story single-family detached
house. The subject property consists of one lot of 6,104 square feet and is currently improved with a two-
story, 1,610-square-foot residence, a 36- square-foot covered front porch, a wood deck with open trellis,
private walks, an asphalt driveway, and a 450-square foot detached garage, as shown in the Plat of Survey
(Attachment 3). At its closest points, the existing house is set back 13.10 feet from the north (front)
property line, 2.60 feet from the west (interior side) property line, 21.90 feet from the east (interior side)
property line, and approximately 64.90 feet from the south (rear) property line. The house is an existing
nonconforming structure with regard to both the west interior side and front yards. In this case, the
proposed addition on the east elevation of the existing residence creates new deficiencies for both the
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
west interior side yard and the total building coverage, and therefore variations are required. See the
Existing Conditions Photos (Attachment 7) for the current conditions of the subject property.
The proposed addition includes a two-story addition on the east elevation of the existing two-story
residence extending the width of the existing residence towards the east interior side property line,
reducing the east interior side yard from 21.90 feet to 2.25 feet, and increasing the building coverage
from 26 percent existing to 35.6 percent as illustrated on the Site Plan (Attachment 4). The proposed
2.25-foot interior side yard setback requires an interior side yard reduction of more than 30 percent,
which cannot be granted through a minor variation by the zoning administrator and must instead be a
standard variation by the PZB. Similarly, an increase in building coverage to greater than 30 percent
requires a standard variation through the PZB. In all, the proposed addition will increase the area
of the residence from 1,610 square feet to 2,213 square feet, including a new attached garage on the
first level, and a family room and bedroom with bathroom and office nook on the second floor as
illustrated in the Floor Plans (Attachment 5). Dimensions for the addition have not been identified on the
Site Plan and Floor Plan drawings, so staff has added a condition that these drawings are revised to show
all appropriate dimensions. While the existing detached garage will be removed as part of this request,
the proposed building coverage exceeds 30 percent, requiring a standard variation
The project amounts to a greater than a 15 percent change of gross floor area and includes appearance-
altering renovations to the front façade. Therefore, the project must comply with the Building Design
Review standards in Section 12- 3-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. The project would comply, as the new first
floor portion of the addition proposes masonry veneer on all elevations to conform to these design
standards. The second level of the proposed addition proposes fiber cement board and siding to match
the second-story materials on the existing residence as illustrated in the Elevations (Attachment 6).
Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff has the following comments based on the standards. The PZB may use staff
comments, the petitioner’s response, or state their own comments as rationale for their decision.
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 minimum interior side yard setback or the maximum building coverage requirement, as there
are opportunities to construct the two-story addition without a variation even with the property
dimensions. First, the subject property has ample space in the rear yard and access to an alley, both of
which provide the necessary space to satisfy the property owner’s needs and are property characteristics
not always available to other owners of smaller R-1 zoned properties. A larger detached garage, accessed
from the alley, could be constructed to provide room for multiple vehicles and a smaller room addition
onto the existing house could be positioned outside of the required interior side yard and could be sized
to be underneath the maximum building coverage threshold. The R-1 bulk regulations apply to all
residential properties in the R-1 zoning district, regardless of their characteristics, with the intention of
promoting developments whose size is proportional to the property’s size and consistent with other R-1
zoned properties throughout the City. Simply put, adding a larger structure that comprises more area on
a property, which currently does not meet minimum lot width and area requirements, not only increases
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
drainage concerns for the area but also sets a precedent for overbuilding on residential lots. Taking into
account the other opportunities available on site, the zoning challenges encountered do not rise to the
level of hardship or practical difficulty. See the
Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to
the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing
use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape
or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar
inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and
that relate or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of
the lot.
Comment: The lot is 50 feet wide instead of the minimum 55, which makes it a nonconforming lot.
However, that is not especially unique, in staff’s opinion. This physical condition exists throughout
Des Plaines and along this street as there are several other interior lots in the immediate area and
throughout Des Plaines that have similar widths and property areas. On the other hand, the flat 30 percent
building coverage requirement for interior lots in the R-1 district is consistent across all R-1 zoned
properties regardless of their size. Contrary to the petitioner’s belief, the maximum 30 percent building
coverage requirement for their 6,104-square foot property is applied the same way for a
10,000-square foot property. Simply put, the physical conditions of the subject property, while less than
the minimum lot width and area required in the R-1 district, are not unique and do not inherently limit
the property owners from constructing an addition on their property, but rather restrict the scale of the
addition in proportion to the subject property’s area. Moreover, the argument can be made that the larger
garage and additional living space sought by the property owners could be designed and positioned to
achieve the desired results while still within the confines of the code. Thus, the request appears to be
more of a personal preference 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 the subject property’s location, size, and development 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. Even at 50 feet in width and 6,104 square feet in area, the subject property
provides adequate space for the existing residence and garage without any unique physical conditions
present. It is staff’s opinion that the proposal does not adequately utilize the available space and access
on the site or appropriately design the proposed addition to avoid the need for variations. 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.
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
Comment: Staff’s review has concluded that carrying out the strict letter of this code for both the interior
side yard setback and building coverage does not deprive the property owners of substantial rights. First,
while home owners of 55-foot-wide lots can construct a 45-foot-wide residence as permitted by the R-
1 district regulations, having the ability to construct a 45-foot-wide residence is not, in and of itself, a
right granted to property owners. Similar to building coverage, all R-1 zoned properties are governed by
the same building setback requirements. Enforcing the setback and building coverage requirements
does not deny the property owners from constructing an addition on their house but requires said
addition to conform with the applicable setback and building coverage requirements that apply to all R-
1 zoned properties. The argument that the requested variations shall be approved solely because the
subject property does not meet the minimum size and width standards is dubious, as property
nonconformities are common enough that property owners throughout Des Plaines must work with
what they have, so to speak. All room additions are held to the same standards under Section 12-7-2(J)
of the Zoning Ordinance, so enforcing the minimum setback and maximum building coverage
requirements would not deprive the property owner from any substantial rights enjoyed by other single
family residential properties. Regarding the proposal to replace a detached garage with an attached
garage, the PZB may ask itself if this is a right to which Des Plaines property owners are entitled. See the
Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
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 single family residential properties. As written under Standard No. 2, there are other
single family residences with similar lot dimensions. Other interior lots in Des Plaines of various sizes and
shapes have designed additions to nonconforming structures that met the required setback regulations,
while others have requested and received variations. On the contrary, the 30 percent building coverage
regulation is not an inherent characteristic of any property, and other interior lots in Des Plaines of various
shapes and sizes have designed additions to meet the required building coverage regulation. An addition
could be designed to meet the building coverage regulation regardless of lot width and lot area
characteristics. The aforementioned consideration for both setbacks and building coverage indicates to
staff 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 (e.g. PZB and/or City Council) usually
looked to see if the applicant exhausted design options that do not require a variation. In this case, it
seems there are different design options and positions for the addition on this site, given the buildable
space to the east. Granting a variation for this design, when other viable options are available, could be
too lenient and tread into the territory of allowing a special privilege. Nonetheless, the PZB should decide.
See the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
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
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
and from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the
comprehensive plan.
Comment: On one hand, the project would allow re-investment into a single-family home, which the
Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan want to encourage. However, the proposed addition is largely
for the benefit of the property owners. For one, the existing detached garage and deep
driveway are currently able to accommodate multiple vehicles on the subject property without a
perceived impact on the street and alley. The proposal not only shortens the available off-street parking
area in front of the new garage but also creates smaller building setbacks and increased building coverage
on a smaller lot, neither of which aligns with Chapter 7: Water Research Management of the
Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, staff’s review concludes that there are reasonable options for
redesigning the single family home to add additional space without needing relief from the required
setbacks and building coverage. See the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged
hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable
use of the subject lot.
Comment: There are multiple alternatives to the proposed setback and building coverage variations being
requested by the petitioner. First, the code allows for a maximum 720-square-foot detached garage,
which could be accessed from the alley at the rear of the property and free up rear yard and side yard
space that is currently taken up by the existing driveway. As for the room addition, this could be
redesigned as a thinner and deeper addition in the buildable area that projects less towards the side
property line and stays within the maximum allowed building coverage limit. Conversely, this addition
could also be added onto the rear elevation, or a portion of the rear elevation, of the existing residence
to achieve additional living space the petitioners are seeking. The PZB may wish to ask why certain
alternative designs are not feasible. Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
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 request for the setback reduction is not, in staff’s opinion, the minimum measure of relief
to address the petitioner’s concerns. Instead, the petitioner could redesign the proposed additions, in
concert with reducing accessory structures, to better utilize the available property and to meet the
setback requirement. See the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: 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: A variation allowing a 2.25-foot interior side yard setback from the east lot line and a variation
to allow a building coverage of 35.6 percent to accommodate the proposed two-story addition for the
single-family residence at 1473 Henry Avenue. 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. If the PZB approves the request, staff recommends
the following conditions.
Conditions of Approval:
1. No easements are affected or drainage concerns are created.
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
2. Fire-rated walls will be required for the east elevation in all areas where the structure is setback less
than five feet from the property line.
3. That the existing detached garage and any paved area surveying this garage are removed prior to the
construction of the proposed room addition.
4. That no pavement installation, parking, or other vehicular use is conducted off the alley at any time for
any reason.
5. That plans are revised at time of building permit to display all dimensions and labels necessary to denote
the proposed development and to comply with applicable City of Des Plaines codes.
6. That all appropriate building permit documents and details are submitted as necessary for the single
family residence. All permit documents shall be sealed and signed by a design professional licensed in the
State of Illinois and must comply with all City of Des Plaines building and life safety codes.
Kevin Kazimer, architect stated the homeowners had a question regarding the third condition. He asked
the members of the board if the existing garage could stay up while the project was taking place to allow
for storage of construction items and their vehicles. Once the project is completed we can take down the
previous structure. The homeowners also can obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy for the existing
garage.
Member Saletnik stated he wanted to make an amendment to change the wording in condition three (3)
to read that the existing detached garage and any paved area served this garage are removed prior after
the construction of the proposed room addition is complete.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to approve a (i) a
Standard Variation to reduce the required interior side yard setback from five feet to 2.25 feet; and (ii)
a Standard Variation to allow a building coverage of 36 percent where 30 percent is permitted for
interior lots and amend condition three to read the existing detached garage be removed after the
construction of the proposed room addition is complete.
AYES: Szabo, Veremis, Saletnik, Hofherr, Catalano, Weaver, Fowler
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY ***
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
2. Addresses: 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Case Number: 22-004-V
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-3-6 and from Section 12-9-6 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a drive aisle width that is less than the minimum requirement for a parking area, and
the approval of any other such variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary.
PINs: 09-33-201-026-0000; -027
Petitioner: George Nellamattathil, 5318 W. Devon Avenue, Chicago, IL 60616
Owner: George Nellamattathil, 5318 W. Devon Avenue, Chicago, IL 60616
Chairman Szabo swore in petitioner George Nellamattathil, 5318 W. Devon Avenue, Chicago, IL 60616 and
his architect Henry Bills, 226 Linden Rd. Barrington IL.
George Nellamattathil stated he owns Edgebrook Radiology and he is requesting a drive aisle that is less
than the minimum requirement in the parking area. He stated that they never have more than five
patients in the building at one time but we would like to use the south end of the lot for parking just in
case we have additional staff.
Henry Bills, architect, stated safety is always a concern and we would like to have a two way stop sign and
speed bumps put in place to reduce speed of the vehicles on the east side of the property at its narrowest
point.
Member Weaver asked who owns the property in between the east property line of the subject property
and the southbound I-294 on-ramp.
Mr. Nellamattathil stated that IDOT owns this property and it is a drainage swale for the highway.
Member Weaver asked if Mr. Nellamattathil felt that IDOT would consider granting an easement in this
area to allow for a wider drive aisle.
Mr. Nellamattathil stated that he had not reached out to IDOT about that option.
Chair Szabo asked how long the other property has been vacant.
Jonathan Stytz, Planner, stated he checked and there was a business license from 2017-2018, so it has
been vacant roughly three years.
Jonathan Stytz, Planner for CED gave his staff report.
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation from Section 12-9-6(B) of the Zoning Ordinance,
as amended, to allow a two-way drive aisle width of 13.86 feet where 22 feet is required.
Address: 2410 S. River Road
Owner: George Nellamattahil, 2410 S. River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: George Nellamattahil, 2410 S. River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 22-004-V
PIN: 09-33-201-025-0000; -026; -027
Ward: #6, Alderman Malcolm Chester
Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial District
Existing Land Use: Vacant office building; cell tower; billboard
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: R-1, Single Family Residential District
East: OS, Open Space Special Purpose District (Park Ridge)
West: R-1, Single Family Residential / C-3, General Commercial Districts
Surrounding Land Use: North: Gas station (Commercial)
South: Single family residences
East: I-294; Open Space
West: Single family residences / restaurant (Commercial)
Street Classification: River Road is classified as a minor arterial.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as commercial.
Project Description: The petitioner, George Nellamattahil, is requesting a major variation to allow for a
13.86-foot-wide drive aisle width for two-way travel where a minimum of 22 feet is required. The subject
property is located in the C-3 General Commercial District at 2410 S. River Road directly southwest of the
River Road and Touhy Avenue intersection and abutting I-294. The property consists of three parcels
totaling 28,999 square feet (0.67 acres) and currently consists of a 7,358-square foot, one-story
commercial building, paved parking area, cell tower, and billboard as shown on the Plat of Survey
(Attachment 4). The existing one-story commercial building is located on the west property line and is
setback 13.86 feet from the east property line, which runs diagonal with the southbound I-294 on-ramp.
The existing cell tower, billboard, and rear pavement area of the property are all accessed by the existing
13.86-foot wide drive aisle along the east side of the building.
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
The petitioner is proposing to locate a medical office use in the existing building and utilize the rear paved
portion of the property for additional parking. The proposal includes an interior remodel of the building
to retrofit it for the new medical office use as well as some site improvements such as stripping for 90-
degree parking spaces, new landscaping, and new dumpster enclosure as shown on the Site Plan
(Attachment 5). There are no proposed exterior alterations to the existing building. The petitioner is
requesting the variation for drive aisle width because the proposed medical office use requires more
parking spaces than the number of parking spaces that can be accommodated at the front of the building.
This requires employees, customers, and the like to utilize the existing 13.86-foot drive aisle alongside the
building, which does not provide enough width for two-way vehicular travel. While Section 12-5-6 of the
Zoning Ordinance (Nonconforming Structures) allows for nonconformities to continue in some
circumstances, in this case it is likely the degree of the nonconformity would increase, requiring a
variation. Parking lots are structures, and for this parking lot, in its existing deteriorated state, it is not
possible to determine how many striped spaces are located in the rear. Therefore, it must be assumed
that the striping is creating additional spaces and will lead to additional traffic and use of rear of the
parking lot, requiring more activity through the nonconforming, narrow drive aisle.
Pursuant to Section 12-9-6 of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, one parking space is required for every
250 square feet of gross floor area. Floor area, as defined in Section 12-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
includes all space devoted to the proposed office use and any portion of the total proposed storage area
greater than 10 percent of the entire combined floor area of the building. Based on the Floor Plans
(Attachment 6), the proposed office space and portions of intended storage over 10 percent of the entire
combined floor area equates to a total of 15 required parking spaces. The Site Plan (Attachment 5) shows
that 23 parking spaces, including two handicap accessible spaces, are proposed, which meets the
minimum requirement. Pursuant to Section 12-9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance, the minimum drive aisle
width for two-way travel lanes in 90- degree parking areas is 22 feet. Since the existing building is set back
only 13.86 feet from the east property line, the proposed drive aisle width does not meet the necessary
minimum drive aisle width, requiring a major variation.
Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the
Zoning Ordinance.
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’s review concludes that the layout of the existing development does not provide the
property owner ample space to meet the minimum drive aisle requirements. The enforcement of the
minimum drive aisle width would either restrict the scale and/or the type of uses permitted on the subject
property, especially those requiring larger parking space counts, or create a cost-prohibitive alteration to
the building reducing its size. Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for
Variations.
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to
the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing
use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
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’s review concludes that there are some unique physical conditions on the subject
property than differs from many other properties along both River Road and Touhy Avenue. First, the lot
frontage along Touhy Avenue is narrow and is located directly west of the River Road and Touhy Avenue
intersection, negating the use of the north curb-cut for full access to the site. The lot frontage along River
Road is greater, but the abutting I-294 on-ramp also restricts the vehicular movements and access on the
east curb-cut onto River Road. Additionally, the property is abnormally-shaped and does not provide
additional space for proper circulation on the site. Last, the subject property is land- locked, preventing
the property owner from acquiring additional land to rectify the existing drive aisle width deficit. Please
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: The subject property and adjoining commercial properties were annexed into the City in 1956.
There is no indication that the current owner or previous owners took action to create the existing
property as it is today. Please 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’s review concludes that carrying out the strict letter of this code to require the minimum
22-foot-wide drive aisle along the east side of the building would limit the property owner from fully
utilizing the existing structure and property as a whole, and thus would deprive the owner of substantial
rights enjoyed by other commercial properties. Additionally, it would adversely affect the proposed office
use on the subject property that would not apply to other commercially zoned properties with office uses.
Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
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: Staff’s review concludes that the granting of this variation for drive aisle width would not
provide any special privilege but rather a solution to some of the existing unique physical conditions of
the site and practical difficulties associated with the development of the subject property. As the deficient
drive aisle width has been an existing characteristic on the site since it was developed, granting the
variation would instead better utilize the existing commercial property. Additionally, the granting of this
variation does not allow the property owner to make additional money with the proposed use but rather
allows the property owner to locate a new use in Des Plaines to provide additional services to residents.
Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
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: Staff’s review concludes that the proposed variation would help meet objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan, especially those pertaining to the retention of new businesses and the addition of
new services for Des Plaines’ residents. The granting of this variation for drive aisle width for this proposed
use has the potential to align with the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan better than a smaller use or
an underutilized property. Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
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: Staff’s review concludes that there are no reasonable ways to avoid the requested variation
for the drive aisle width given the characteristics of the existing development and the property as a whole.
Any potential options, including a demolition of a portion of the existing building, would be too cost
prohibitive for any use and could drive potential businesses away. Please see the Petitioner’s responses
to Standards for Variations.
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: Staff’s review concludes that the approval of this variation request is the minimum measure if
relief to address the petitioner’s concerns and the existing conditions on site. The variation would allow
the property owner to fully utilize the existing building with a new use and provide ample parking for all
future patrons. Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-6(G)(2) (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Major Variations) 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 major variation for
drive aisle width at 2410 S. River Road. The 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 12-3-6(H) (Standards for Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the
PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the following
condition:
1. That all appropriate building permit documents and details are submitted as necessary for the
commercial building. All permit documents shall be sealed and signed by a design professional
licensed in the State of Illinois and must comply with all City of Des Plaines building codes.
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Hofherr to recommend
approval a Major Variation from Section 12-9-6(B) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a
two-way drive aisle width of 13.86 feet where 22 feet is required with the addition of speedbumps and
two way stop signs.
Case 22-001-V 1473 Henry Avenue Standard Variation
Case 22-004-V 2410 S Des Plaines River Road Major Variation
AYES: Szabo, Veremis, Saletnik, Hofherr, Catalano, Weaver, Fowler
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY ***
3. Approval of Revised 2022 Meeting Calendar
Jonathan Stytz, Planner, noted the update to the 2022 meeting calendar. The second PZB Meeting in
February will be held on Wednesday the 23rd, instead of Tuesday the 22nd.
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY BY VOICE VOTE***
ADJOURNMENT
The next scheduled Planning & Zoning Board meeting is Tuesday, February 8, 2022.
Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 7:40 p.m.
Sincerely,
Vanessa Wells, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners