Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPROVED PZB Minutes 2021.09.28Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING September 28, 2021 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September 28, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 101 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. Acting Chairman Saletnik called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was established. PRESENT: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr Saletnik, Veremis (via phone) ABSENT: Bader, Szabo ALSO PRESENT: John T. Carlisle, AICP, Director/Community & Economic Development Jonathan Stytz, Planner/Community & Economic Development Wendy Bednarz/Recording Secretary A quorum was present. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to approve the minutes of September 14, 2021, as presented. AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Fowler, Veremis, Saletnik NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED *** Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 2 OLD BUSINESS None NEW BUSINESS 1. Address: 110 S. River Road Case Number: 21-037-CU Public Hearing The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use as required by Section 12-7-3(K) of the Zoning Ordinance for a trade contractor use at 110 S. River Road, and the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PIN: 09-17-200-089-0000 Petitioner: Neil Hansen, 110 S. River Road, Suite 5, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: Amarex Real Properties Co., 700 Busse Hwy, Suite #L2, Park Ridge, IL 60068 Acting Chairman Saletnik swore in Neil Hansen, Petitioner for the property located at 110 S. River Road, Suite 5, Des Plaines. Mr. Hansen stated that he has been in business for over 28 years, including 14 years in Wilmette and 7 years in Northbrook. The Petitioner stated that he was moving to Des Plaines to secure a larger space. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if the Board had any questions. Member Fowler inquired about the nature of his business. Mr. Hansen stated that his business includes power washing, and carpet and upholstery cleaning and commercial and residential sites. Acting Chairman Saletnik reiterated that the location would serve as the employee headquarters and provide office space. Acting Chairman Saletnik inquired about vehicles and outdoor storage. The Petitioner stated that two vans, a pick-up truck and a small trailer will be parked outdoors. The remainder of the equipment will be stored indoors, including portable carpet cleaning equipment, files, and cleaning supplies. The Petitioner stated that he has outgrown his current location and is therefore interested in the Des Plaines location. Member Hofherr stated that he is familiar with the condition of the parking lot and understands that the paving and striping is a condition of the conditional use. The Petitioner, Mr. Hansen, stated that the condition of the parking lot has nothing to do with him and should be directed to the owner of the property. Planner Stytz stated that he is working with the property owner regarding the repair and restriping of the existing parking lot. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 3 Member Veremis inquired about the cleaning of rugs at the facility. Mr. Hansen replied that sometimes rugs are brought to the office to be cleaned to protect customers’ homes. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked that the Staff Report be entered into record. Planner Stytz provided a summary of the following report: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use under Section 12-7-3(F)(3) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance to allow for a trade contractor use in the C-3 zoning district. Address: 110 S. River Road Petitioner: Neil Hansen, 110 S. River Road, Suite 5, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: Amarex Real Properties, 110 S. River Road, Suite 5, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: 21-037-CU PIN: 09-17-200-089-0000 Ward: #1, Alderman Mark A. Lysakowski Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial Existing Land Use: Multi-Tenant Commercial Building Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District South: C-3, General Commercial District East: R-1, Single Family Residential District West: C-3, General Commercial District Surrounding Land Use: North: Rand Road Community (Residential) South: Rand Road Community (Residential) / Pesche’s (Commercial) East: Lions Woods Park (Recreational) West: Rand Road Mobile Home Park (Residential) Street Classification: River Road is classified as a principal arterial road. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this site as Commercial Industrial Urban Mix. Project Description: The petitioner, Neil Hansen, has requested a Conditional Use Permit to operate a carpet, upholstery, and air duct cleaning business, The Bright Side, INC., at 110 S. River Road, Suite 5. The subject property contains a multi-tenant building with a surface parking area as shown in the Plat of Survey. The subject property is located along River Road east of the Rand Road Community Mobile Home Park and north of Pesche’s Flowers. The subject property is currently accessed by two curb cuts off River Road. The petitioner began operating The Bright Side, INC. out of this location in May 2021 without a Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 4 business license. Thus, the petitioner is requesting a conditional use permit to bring his trade contractor use into compliance with the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. The existing one-story, 26,320-square-foot building is made up of five suites with a front customer entrance and service entrance with garage door at the rear of the unit. Suite 5 has its main entrance on the south side of the building and consists of approximately 2,573 square feet. The existing suite is mostly open with one frame partition separating the main entrance, offices, and restrooms from the open shop floor. Based on the Floor Plan, the petitioner proposes to utilize the existing frame partition area as an office and waiting area with the restrooms, totaling approximately 1,294 square feet. The remaining area, totaling approximately 1,279 square feet, will be utilized for storage and open shop area. The petitioner’s proposal does not include any changes to the building. The dumpster for this suite will be stored inside the building at all times with the exception of trash pickup days in compliance with Section 12-10-11 of the Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 12-9-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following off-street parking requirements apply: • 1 parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area for office spaces; and • 1 parking space for every 1,500 square feet of gross floor area for warehouse space (i.e., accessory storage). Thus, a total of six parking spaces, including one handicap accessible parking space, are required. The Site Plan, in coordination with the property owner, indicates all of the available parking on for the entire site totaling 78 parking spaces and four handicap accessible spaces with unloading areas. The available parking on the property meets the parking requirement for the proposed trade contractor use. The Bright Side, INC. will be open on Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm, Saturday from 9 am to 12 pm, and closed on Sundays. Their services will include the cleaning of carpets, upholstery, and air ducts off-site at customer’s houses. There are total of six employees including the owner. However, a maximum of two employees will be present on site at a given time. Please see the Project Narrative for more details. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed project, including the proposed the site improvements, address various goals and objectives of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan including the following aspects: • Future Land Use Plan: o This property is illustrated as Commercial Industrial Urban Mix on the Future Land Use Plan. The Future Land Use Plan strives to create a well-balanced development area with a healthy mixture of commercial and industrial uses. While the current use is commercial and the existing building contains multiple tenant spaces, the petitioner will work to enhance the subject tenant space with general maintenance. All activities and items stored will be inside to reduce any negative impacts. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 5 o The subject property is located along the defined River Road commercial corridor with a mobile home community to the north and west, commercial development to the south, and park to the east. The subject property contains a multi-tenant building with a variety of different commercial uses and is located in between large, established commercial developments along River Road. The request would assist in the retention of a new commercial business at this location and provide additional cleaning services for the residents of Des Plaines. While the aforementioned aspects represent a small portion of the goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a large emphasis on improving existing commercial developments and enhancing commercial corridors throughout Des Plaines. Conditional Use Findings: Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3- 4(E) of the Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments: A. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. B. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. C. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. E. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional Use shall provide adequately any such services: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. F. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of the entire community: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 6 G. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. H. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. I. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. J. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested: Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned conditional use for a Trade Contactor use at 110 S. River Road. City Council has final authority on the proposal. Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the condition that the parking area shall be repaved with a dust-free hard surface and the parking spaces shall be painted on the property to match the approved Site Plan. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no comments. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 7 A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to recommend approval of a Conditional Use as required by Section 12-7-3(K) of the Zoning Ordinance for a trade contractor use at 110 S. River Road, and the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary; with the condition that the parking area shall be repaved with a dust-free hard surface and the parking spaces shall be painted on the property to match the approved Site Plan. AYES: Hofherr, Fowler, Catalano, Veremis, Saletnik NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 8 2. Address: 2071 Pine Street Case Number: 21-039-V Public Hearing The petitioner is requesting variations as required by Sections 12-7-1 and 12-9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a driveway and parking pad at 2071 Pine Street, and the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PIN: 09-29-409-073-0000 Petitioner: Jayantkumar Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Owner: Jayantkumar Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Acting Chairman Saletnik swore in Jayantkumar Sheth, Petitioner for the property located at 2071 Pine Street. Mr. Sheth stated that he has been the owner of the townhouse for a long time; he is requesting a parking pad in front of his home due to safety and mobility issues. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there was a Homeowners Association (HOA) as part of this townhome development. The Petitioner stated that there is not an HOA and confirmed that parking spaces are owned by individual property owners; tied to the individual townhome. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if the Board had any questions. Member Hofherr drove by the property, and reviewed the driveway configuration. He noticed that the townhomes on the end have driveway access, but his unit does not have a driveway. Member Hofherr mentioned that installing a hard surface as suggested would eliminate all the green space on the property. Member Hofherr also mentioned that the portion of Pine Street where the Petitioner lives is currently being redone with new curb and gutter; Member Hofherr’s main concern is that several others may be interested in installing a hard surface/parking pad in the front yard. The Petitioner explained that the current location of his parking space is unsafe and the parking pad is necessary. Member Catalano stated that there are four units of the townhome building. Director Carlisle confirmed that those driveways are the property of the end townhomes. The dedicated parking for the middle units is in the parking lot, accessible off Chestnut Street for one parking space. The site plan was discussed. Director Carlisle stated that that in standard townhome developments, parking would be considered a deeded element and not deeded to individual owners. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 9 Member Hofherr stated that the current parking lot is a gravel parking lot and questioned Staff if there would be a requirement to repave the area to a hard surface. Director Carlisle stated that due to the lack of a Homeowners Association, there is no feasible way to require that the space be paved. Member Catalano inquired about the plat of survey and dimensions. Director Carlisle provided some explanation of the plat of survey and the general site configuration regarding the location of the parking area and the townhome. Acting Chairman Saletnik commented on the uniqueness of this request with parking being assigned to an owner without a Homeowners Association. Member Catalano asked the Petitioner if he was aware that one of the conditions of approval is the removal of the front fence. The Petitioner stated he plans on removing and re-fencing the yard appropriately. Member Fowler inquired if the Board can add a condition that the driveway is constructed with a permeable service; there was a concern about setting a precedent on type of materials. Member Veremis asked if it would be possible to pour concrete for the tire locations. Director Carlisle interjected that due to City Code, parking is only available on hard dust-free surfaces. Acting Chairman Saletnik inquired about the economics and practicality of requiring the Petitioner to use a permeable surface. Member Catalano stated that it may the project may need to be tied appropriately with plants providing the materials. Acting Chairman Saletnik agreed that a permeable surface would be best for flood and water control efforts. Member Fowler expressed concern that nearby neighbors would be interested in placing parking pads in the front yards. Member Veremis seconded the concern that there are additional townhomes to the north with similar layouts. Director Carlisle stated that the Board was able to add the condition of the permeable service if they wished. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked the Petitioner his thoughts about using a permeable surface for the driveway. The Board explained what a permeable surface was and provided examples. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. Todd Schaeffer, with Hager Engineering and Engineer for River’s Casino, provided some insight about permeable pavers in this area as there is a lack of an underdrain to drain into storm sewers. Mr. Schaeffer Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 10 suggested that if a condition is included in the approval, per the feasibility of the City Engineer. The Board thanked Mr. Schaeffer for his suggestion. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked that the Staff Report entered into record. Director Carlisle provided a summary of the following report: Issue: The petitioner is requesting variations (major and minor) from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a parking pad and to reduce the minimum side yard at 2071 Pine Street. Address: 2071 Pine Street Owner: Jayantkumar (Jay) Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Petitioner: Jayantkumar (Jay) Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case Number: 21-039-V PIN: 09-29-409-073-0000 Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman Existing Zoning/Land Use: R-3, Townhouse Residential District (Townhouse) Surrounding Zoning: North: R-3, Townhouse Residential District South: R-3, Townhouse Residential District East: R-3 Townhouse Residential District West: R-3 Townhouse Residential District Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Attached (Townhouse) Residences South: Single Family Attached (Townhouse) Residence East: Single Family Attached (Townhouse) Residences and Accessory Parking Lot West: Multifamily Residences Street Classification: Pine Street is a local road. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as single-family residential (attached or detached). Project Description: The petitioner, Jay Sheth, is requesting variations to install one off-street parking space, defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a “parking pad,” of approximately 200 square feet in the front of his townhouse unit at 2071 Pine Street. For access, the parking pad will require a short “residential driveway,” also defined Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 11 by the Ordinance, as well as a driveway apron in the public right-of-way to connect the parking pad with the street. The subject property is 1,314 square feet in area and 18 feet wide. It is improved with the petitioner’s townhouse unit, which is adjoined under one roof with three other townhouse units, all of which are separated by vertical walls and individually owned. The existing residence is set back 25 from the west (front) property line and built to the north and south (side) lot lines, where it adjoins other townhouse units. Therefore, it is nonconforming with the minimum side yard setback (5 feet), as well as the minimum lot area per unit of 2,800 square feet. Per the Ordinance, each of townhouse units, including the subject property, is its own zoning lot. See the Plat of Survey. The subject property includes one deeded parking space in the parking lot to the east, accessible from Chestnut Street. With only one space, the property is nonconforming, as two off-street spaces are required per townhouse unit per Section 12- 9-7. The front yard is currently landscaped with grass and plantings, and is delineated by a chain-link fence, evident in the site photos. In Section 12-9-6.C., the Ordinance states that off-street parking spaces may be located “on surface lots, underground, under a building, or in parking structures.” “Parking pad” is defined in the Ordinance as exactly the kind of facility the petitioner is proposing: adjacent to a driveway, providing access to a single motor vehicle (Section 12-13-3). But a parking pad is distinct from a surface lot, which refers to a parking facility with more than one space. In 2019 the City adopted text amendments aimed at mostly eliminating parking pads for single-family detached properties. However, “parking pad” was not stricken entirely from the Ordinance, signaling that it may be appropriate for some districts or uses. Nonetheless, the lack of mention of parking pad in 12-9-6 necessitates a major variation in this case. Furthermore, Section 12-7-1.C. contains a table of permitted obstructions in required yards. The table refers to driveways multiple times but does not identify them as a permitted obstruction. Therefore, strict adherence to the Ordinance requires a maximum eight-foot-wide driveway – to allow five feet on each side – which would be substandard. Instead, as shown on the site plan, the petitioner is proposing a 11- foot-wide by 18-foot-long parking pad, which would reasonably accommodate the bumper-to-bumper length and door swing of a sedan vehicle. The parking pad would be accessed by a short residential driveway that is part of the same surface. See the following diagram of the site plan. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 12 Not to scale To accommodate the project, the petitioner also seeks a reduction of the required side yard to 3.5 feet from the minimum five. This is a 30 percent reduction and falls under a minor variation that may be granted by the Zoning Administrator per Section 12.3.6. While the yard reductions are required for the driveway, they are not required for the parking pad because Section 12-9-6.C allows off-street parking in any required yard in the R-3 district. Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan The proposed project is not well aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Plan makes no reference to the need to provide ample off-street parking to residents, it does in Chapter 7: Water Resource Management call for “educating homeowners” on stormwater best management practices. These include minimizing the amount of impervious surface on properties instead of adding to it. In addition, the Plan calls for protecting the existing tree canopy, and this project would almost certainly require the removal of one parkway tree. Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Staff comments on the proposal are included below. In summary, there appears to be a practical difficulty experienced by the petitioner without easily achieved alternatives to rectify. However, allowing the project to assuage the practical difficulty may work against community goals to preserve or expand pervious, natural surfaces for the purposes of absorbing stormwater runoff, not to mention preserving the urban tree canopy. The issue presents a trade-off between preserving front yard green space/planting areas, for their aesthetic and functional value, and allowing an option to get an additional car off the street. The PZB and City Council should review the petitioner’s responses to the variation standards to determine each of the following standards is met. PARKING PAD D R I V E W A DRIVEWAY APRON IN RIGHT-OF- WAY REQUIRED SIDE YARD REQUIRED SIDE YARD Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 13 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: The petitioner submits that it is impractical to enforce the use of the one surface parking space to which his property is entitled: in the parking lot accessible from Chestnut Street. The parking lot, which is not managed by any association, is in poor condition. Striping is very inconsistent. As a single entity, he does not believe he can carry out the necessary project on that parking space to improve it and clearly reserve it, as it is commingled with other parking spaces. The petitioner also cites personal challenges with age and mobility, as the single parking space that he owns is somewhat far from his unit. Mr. Sheth provided with his application documentation for Illinois mobility impaired accessible parking placard. Additionally, walking between the parking space and the back door to his unit requires walking through a narrow gangway. 2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot. Comment: The lot’s nonconformities are somewhat unique, although in the neighborhood there are other properties experiencing the same or similar nonconformities. The single assigned parking space is about 100 feet from an entrance to the unit, which is longer than one would normally find in a townhouse development. Further, the lack of a homeowners’ association to manage a shared parking lot is also somewhat unique. 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 development was obviously created by a “predecessor in title,” but its design and functionality may not have been contemplated by the current owners before the petitioner purchased the unit. The PZB and/or City Council may wish to ask the petitioner about how a lack of parking did or did not factor in to the decision at that time. Has the owner attempted to work with other owners to form an association or pose another collective solution to the parking management problem? The PZB and City Council finding may be reached that the practical hardship is not self-created. 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 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 14 Comment: Carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Ordinance would negate the ability to correct a nonconformity—to have two parking spaces instead of one. The residents at 2063 Pine and 2075 Pine – the end units in the four-unit townhouse building that houses the subject property – have side driveways and enough space to park two vehicles. On the other hand, generally speaking some properties are simply not built to accommodate front or side driveways while others are. 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: For the entire block on the east side of Pine Street between Howard and Apache Park, there are eight “interior” units, including the petitioner’s. These units all have the predicament that they each rely on only one assigned parking space in the parking lot next to Chestnut Street. Allowing the petitioner to construct the proposed parking pad would set a precedent and signal a policy direction – to allow parking pads in townhouse front yards – that the decision makers are comfortable with. If that is, indeed, the desired direction, the variation would not be special privilege but instead address an Ordinance shortcoming that is problematic for this homeowner and perhaps should be amended. 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: On the face, there is a practical difficulty, so the request falls under the purpose for variations in the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance as currently amended does not do away with parking pads entirely, despite amendments in 2019 that were designed to cut back on their frequency and use. On the other hand, the proposed project would trade off more than 200 square feet of green space – the vast majority of the front lawn – for a hard surface. This is not engineering or stormwater best management practice, nor is it in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. 7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the subject lot. Comment: Better collective management of the Chestnut parking lot could serve the petitioner, so the PZB and/or City Council may wish to ask the petitioner what challenges with the neighbors preclude this collective action. However, even if the parking lot were in better shape and one space was reliably available, that would not resolve that only one space, not the required two spaces, are available for this development. The only possible location for a second off-street parking space for the property is where the petitioner is proposing it. There is no on-street parking on the east side of the street (i.e. in front of the unit). Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 15 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: If the concept of having a parking pad in the front yard for this townhouse is deemed to be appropriate, this design is not excessive in its dimensions to provide the parking pad. 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 should recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned major variation for a parking pad at 2071 Pine Street. 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 analyzed 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 conditions: 1. The front segment of chain-link fence is removed to accommodate the project; 2. The parking pad, driveway, and driveway apron cannot obstruct access to any utilities, with modifications to the final project design as necessary to comply, while still complying with all other City regulations; and 3. On-site landscaping shall be installed at the north and eastern edges of the parking pad. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no comments. A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Fowler, for approval of the request for a variations as required by Sections 12-7-1 and 12-9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a driveway and parking pad at 2071 Pine Street, and the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary, with the following conditions; (1) the front segment of chain-link fence is removed to accommodate the project; (2) the parking pad, driveway, and driveway apron cannot obstruct access to any utilities, with modifications to the final project design as necessary to comply, while still complying with all other City regulations; (3) on-site landscaping shall be installed at the north and eastern edges of the parking pad; and (4) that the a permeable material be used for the parking surface subject to feasibility by the City Engineer. AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Veremis, Saletnik NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** A point of clarification was made by Director Carlisle, the Board still recommends approval if a permeable surface is not feasible. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 16 3. Address: 2980-3000 S. River Road Case Number: 21-040-CU-LASR Public Hearing The petitioner is requesting to amend a Conditional Use for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR) as required by Section 12-11-8 of the Zoning Ordinance at 2980-3000 S. River Road, commonly known as Rivers Casino, and the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PINs: 09-34-300-032-0000; 09-34-300-045-0000; 09-34-300-046-0000; and 09-34-300-047-0000 Petitioner: Midwest Gaming & Entertainment LLC, 900 M. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611 Owner: Midwest Gaming & Entertainment LLC, 900 M. Michigan Ave, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611 Acting Chairman Saletnik swore in the Petitioners for the case; Michael Tobin, Todd Schaeffer and Chris Wong. Mr. Wong provided a detailed overview of the sign plan amendment request. The request includes static signs and LED signs, each broken into three categories; existing sign, new sign and existing sign to be replaced. Additional sign elevation information and sign type/listing are included in the informational packet. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if the Board had any questions. Member Catalano asked if there was information on the amount of new sign square footage versus the total sign square footage; Planner Stytz referred to the informational packet tables, number of existing square footage versus new square footage is not available at this time. Planner Stytz stated that the new sign square footage, LED and static, is approximately 6,000 square feet. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked Mr. Wong to provide additional information on sign 54, the LED sign at the intersection, regarding illumination and safety concerns. Mr. Wong stated that the sign currently exists, and any improvements will need to meet or exceed timing and lumen standards per the Department of Transportation (DOT) and City code. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no comments. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked that the Staff Report entered into record. Planner Stytz provided a summary of the following report: Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 17 Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Amendment for an existing Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR) under Sections 12-3-4 and 12-11-8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for an increase in signage on the property located at 2980-3000 S. River Road. Address: 2980-3000 S. River Road Owner: Gregory A. Carlin, Midwest Gaming & Entertainment, LLC, 900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611 Petitioner: Michael Tobin, Midwest Gaming & Entertainment, LLC 900 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611 Case Number: 21-040-LASR CU PINs: 09-34-300-032; -045; -046; & -047 Ward: 6, Alderman Malcolm Chester Existing Zoning: C-6, Casino District Existing Land Use: Casino, Parking Garage, Office Building, and Surface Parking Surrounding Zoning: North: C-2, Limited Office Commercial District South: D, Commercial (Village of Rosemont) East: P-1, Public Land District (Cook County) West: C-7, High Density Campus District Surrounding Land Use: North: Multi-Unit Office Building (Commercial) South: Hotel / Restaurants (Commercial) East: Recreation West: Multi-Unit Office Building (Commercial) Street Classification: River Road and Devon Avenue are classified as minor arterials. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as commercial. Project Description: The applicant, Michael Tobin on behalf of Midwest Gaming & Entertainment, has requested a Conditional Use Amendment for an existing LASR to allow for increased signage on the property located at 2980-3000 S. River Road. The existing property contains a 140,363-square-foot casino building, a four-story parking garage with a pedestrian bridge connecting from the second level of the garage to the casino building, and a two-story office building with a surface parking lot. A casino expansion is underway that will result in an approximately 225,000-square-foot building with an expanded number of gaming positions (from 1,200 to 2,000), as well as an enlarged parking structure (now 3,063 total Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 18 parking spaces). The two-story expansion of the casino building has led to new gaming space, a small food and beverage outlet, and a more than 10,000-square-foot multipurpose event area, with associated back- of-house areas. With all lots combined, the property encompasses 20.017 acres in land area. This request comes after the previous two Planned Unit Development Major Amendment requests to expand the existing parking garage (approved December 2, 2019 through Ordinance Z-33-19) and expand the existing casino building (approved March 15, 2021 through Ordinance Z-31-21) to accommodate necessary floor area and parking for the expansion. The most currently approved LASR was embedded into the approval of Ordinance Z- 33-19. Pursuant to Section 12-11-8 of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit Developments may establish a LASR plan via a conditional use for their property subject to review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Board pursuant to the procedures for conditional uses. The existing building and site as a whole currently contain a variety of different building and freestanding signage ranging from directional to video signs with a total count of 95 signs, as shown in the Sign Plan Amendment (Attachment 6). However, the petitioner is requesting to add 20 new static signs, replace 15 existing static signs, add eight new LED signs, and replace one existing LED sign totaling 28 new signs altogether: • Static Signs: The new static signs consist of identity, directional, and clearance bar signs proposed at and around vehicle/pedestrian entrances/access drives and bus stop/rideshare pickup/drop-off areas. The existing static signs to be replaced are directional signs to assist motorists and pedestrians in navigating the property. • LED Signs: The new LED signs consist of identification signs positioned in high visible areas to attract motorists and pedestrians to the property. There is one new LED sign proposed for the east elevation facing the main entrance. However, the remainder of the new LED signs are located on the west elevation facing I-294. The existing LED sign at the northwest corner of the River Road/Devon Avenue intersection is the only LED sign being replaced as part of this request. All proposed signage is shown below. The Project Narrative and Sign Plan Amendment provide additional information. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 19 Static Signs* Sign Type Location Area of Signage Window Vinyl South Office Building Façade at 2980 River Rd 168 SF Wall - Identity Northeast Property Entrance 6 SF Clearance Bars x 3 Northwest Property Entrance 5 SF each Directional x 2 (Valet/Self-Park) Near East Property Entrance (Overhead) 11 SF each Wall - Identity Near East Property Entrance 419 SF Directional – Vehicle x 2 Near East Property Entrance (Wall Mounted) 97 SF Wall – Parking Entrance Parking Garage – North Entrance 53 SF Wall – Valet Drop-off East Casino Entrance (covered drop- off area) 11 SF (one-sided) Wall – Bus/Valet Drop-off x 2 East Casino Entrance (covered drop-off area) 24 SF (two-sided) Directional – Vehicle x 2 Southeast & Northeast Property Entrances 75 SF each Directional – Pedestrian x 2 Northeast Property Entrance 29 SF each Wall – Bus Drop-off x 2 East Casino Entrance (covered drop-off area) 10 SF each Directional – Pedestrian x 2 Northwest Property / North Garage Entrances 29 SF each Directional – Pedestrian Far Northeast Access Drive Entrance 29 SF TOTAL 1,125 SF LED Signs* Sign Type Location Area of Signage LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#6) 426 SF LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#8) 426 SF LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#73) 884 SF LED Video Wall East Building Façade (#74) 1,535 SF LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#75) 455 SF LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#17) 319 SF LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#15) 310 SF LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#16) 588 SF TOTAL 4,943 SF GRAND TOTAL 6,068 SF Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 20 *Sign requests are proposed for the property at 3000 S. River Road unless otherwise noted. See Sign Plan Amendment for more information. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan There are several parts of the City of Des Plaines’ 2019 Comprehensive Plan that align with the proposed project. Those portions are as follows: • Under Future Land Use Map: o The property is identified for commercial use. The casino complex will be able to increase visibility and take advantage of existing, well-traveled public roadways, such as I-294, with the approval of the amended LASR request. • Under Economic Development: o The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the economic vitality of the subject property and its benefit to the surrounding area. The existing development of this site provides additional revenue, job opportunities, and services for the region as a whole and continues development trends already established in this area. While the aforementioned bullet points are only a small portion of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a large emphasis on developing and enhancing our commercial corridors. This casino complex is adding additional services for the community and further enhancing the River Road corridor. The proposed signage will assist in the continued promotion of the existing development for residents and visitors while also potentially attracting new development proposals in the future. Conditional Use Findings: Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3- 4(E) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments: 1. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: A Localized Alternative Sign Regulation is a Conditional Use, as specified in Section 12- 11-8 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. 2. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The use of the site is a casino, which consists of large casino building, surface and covered parking areas, and office building. The development of the subject property and its location in close proximity to I-294 allows for expanded commercial development opportunities. The proposed signage for the site is intended to help further identify the casino complex and assist both residents and visitors alike in navigating the site. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 21 3. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity: Comment: The proposed Conditional Use for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation requests additional signage to assist in the identification of the casino complex and help both residents and visitors navigate the property. The petitioner has designed the sign plan to match the character of the apartment complex building and blend with the existing character of the development within the surrounding area. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. 4. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: The proposed signs are not hazardous or disturbing to the existing neighboring uses. All signs will meet all required performance standards as outlined in Section 12-11-6(B) of the Zoning Ordinance. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. 5. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional Use shall provide adequately any such services: Comment: The proposed signs have no effect on essential public facilities and services. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. 6. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of the entire community: Comment: The proposed signs would not create a burden on public facilities, nor would they be a detriment to the economic well-being of the community. The signs are intended to share information and help customers safely and easily access the site. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. 7. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors: Comment: The proposed signs will not create additional traffic or noise that could be detrimental to surrounding land uses. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. 8. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares: Comment: The proposed signs will not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares but rather establish building identification for both motorists and pedestrians. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 22 9. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance: Comment: The proposed new signs would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance. The signs will be used to enhance a site that has already been developed. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. 10. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested: Comment: All signs do comply with setback requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned conditional use amendment for a LASR at 2980-3000 S. River Road. City Council has final authority on the proposal. Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the following conditions: 1. A three-foot landscape bed in all directions be provided at the base of all freestanding signs, per the standards set forth in Section 12-11-4(G). This landscaping shall be comprised of low-lying evergreen shrubs, perennials, and annuals. 2. That structural design plans shall be provided for all signage at time of permit. 3. The applicant shall provide sight line analysis for vehicle-to-vehicle sightlines and vehicle-to- pedestrian/bicycle sightlines showing that the sign position does not intrude upon the AASHTO Green Book sight triangles for the freestanding signs proposed along the roadway driveways and site access drives. The location of the freestanding signs may have to be slightly adjusted at the time of building permit review to comply with AASHTO site triangle clearance. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no comments. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano, is requesting a Conditional Use Amendment for an existing Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR) under Sections 12-3-4 and 12-11-8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for an increase in signage on the property located at 2980-3000 S. River Road, with the three conditions: (1) a three-foot landscape bed in all directions be provided at the base of all freestanding signs, per the standards set forth in Section 12-11-4(G). This landscaping shall be comprised of low-lying evergreen shrubs, perennials, and annuals; (2) that structural design plans shall be provided for all signage at time of permit; (3) The applicant shall provide sight line analysis for vehicle-to-vehicle sightlines and vehicle-to-pedestrian/bicycle sightlines showing that the sign position does not intrude upon the AASHTO Green Book sight triangles for the freestanding Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 23 signs proposed along the roadway driveways and site access drives, the location of the freestanding signs may have to be slightly adjusted at the time of building permit review to comply with AASHTO site triangle clearance. AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Fowler, Veremis, Saletnik NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 24 4. Address: 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Case Number: 21-041-MAP-TSUB-V Public Hearing The petitioner is requesting the following from the Zoning Ordinance: (i) a Map Amendment from C-2 Limited Office Commercial to C-3 General Commercial to allow a mix of Class A and B restaurants and retail, as required by Section 12-7-3; (ii) a Major Variation to allow more than one principal building on a zoning lot as required by Section 12-7-1; and (iii) the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. In addition, the petitioner is requesting approval of a Tentative Plat of Subdivision per Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations. PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000; 09-33-300-004- 0000; 09-33-300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000; 09-33-300-007-0000; 09-33- 300-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000; 09-33-301-008-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000 Petitioner: Image Des Plaines, LLC, 5101 Darmstadt Road, Suite A, Hillside IL 60142, in partnership with GW Properties, 2211 N. Elston Ave, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60614 Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Road, Suite E, Schaumburg IL, 60173 Acting Chairman Saletnik swore in Mitch Golz, GW Properties, the developer of record for the property. Mr. Golz provided an overview of GW Properties and highlighted local projects. The Petitioner provided an overview of the proposed site plan, with a sit-down restaurant (Outback Steakhouse) and three retail/restaurant spaces, with outdoor dining spaces. The landscape plan was also addresses along with stormwater management improvements. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if the Board had any questions. Member Hofherr inquired about remediation on the property; staff was not able to provide additional information and was not aware of any recent remediation. Mr. Golz is aware of the remediation measures and assured the Board that the developers were not coming to the City and asking for subsidies or TIF monies. Acting Chairman Saletnik stated that he believed the development would do well, especially with the proximity to O’Hare airport. He expressed some disappointment that the current project is at a lesser scale that previous projects in the area; Mr. Golz stated that the smaller scale projects can be executed and get tenants in those spaces. Member Hofherr stated he was impressed with the improvements and believes they will have much success at that location. Member Veremis inquired if any of the smaller tenants have drive-through windows or the ability to add them into the plan. Mr. Golz stated that the final tenants in those spaces do not have drive-through Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 25 windows, but may have pick-up windows. A pick-up window does not have a menu board, strictly for mobile, pick-up orders. Member Catalano inquired about traffic, he briefly reviewed the traffic study and believes this use will not generate additional traffic. Mr. Golz agreed with that statement and that most cards will enter on Pratt Ave, no major changes to the traffic pattern. Mr. Golz also stated that Mannheim Road is for all intent and purposes is a highway, and deemed accurate. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked about the other restaurants, as it is known Building A will be Outback Steakhouse, and stated that since there is ample parking in the area if it is possible to get additional full service restaurants. Mr. Golz replied that they are in talks for 4,000 square foot tenant for a full service breakfast/lunch establishment. Mr. Golz also stated that tenants often have stronger parking demands than municipal codes require. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no comments. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked that the Staff Report entered into record. Director Carlisle provided a summary of the following report: Issue: The petitioner, contract purchaser Image Des Plaines LLC, in partnership with developer GW Properties, is requesting the following from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a restaurant and retail development: (i) a Map Amendment from C-2 Limited Office Commercial to C-3 General Commercial as required by Section 12-7-3 and (ii) a Major Variation to allow more than one principal building on a zoning lot as required by Section 12-7-1. In addition, the petitioner is requesting approval of a Tentative Plat of Subdivision per Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations. PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000; 09-33-300-004-0000; 09-33- 300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000; 09-33-300-007-0000; 09-33-301-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000; 09-33-301-015-0000 Petitioner: Image Des Plaines LLC (Contact: Mike Scheid, Image Media, 5101 Darmstadt Rd. Suite A Hillside, IL), in partnership with GW Properties, 2211 N. Elston Ave, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60614 Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E, Schaumburg, IL 60173 Existing Zoning: C-2 Limited Office District (proposed as C-3 General Commercial District) Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District South: C-3, General Commercial District East: C-3, General Commercial District West: Commercial (Village of Rosemont) Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 26 Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial (banquet hall) South: Tollway; Orchards at O’Hare commercial development East: Railroad; ComEd facility West: Commercial (hotel) Street Classification Mannheim Road is an arterial road, and Pratt Avenue is a local road. Comprehensive Plan Commercial is the recommended use of the property. Project Summary: Image Des Plaines LLC is contract purchaser of the approximately 3.8-acre site at the southeast corner of Mannheim Road and Pratt Avenue, roughly bordered by the Canadian National rail line on the east and I- 90/Tollway on the south. Aside from an existing electronic message board billboard in the southwest corner, the site is currently vacant, despite having received redevelopment interest in the past (most notably for a La Quinta Inn motel that did not materialize). Image Des Plaines is partnering with Chicago- based GW properties to propose a full redevelopment of the largely vacant site with the following concepts: - A 5,000-square-foot building, currently envisioned as a Class A restaurant - A 10,500-square-foot multi-tenant commercial building containing a mix of restaurants and retail - 212 surface parking spaces, including eight mobility impaired accessible spaces - A 19,000-square-foot above-ground basin for stormwater - A new electronic message board billboard in the southeast corner of the site (a separate application has been filed regarding the billboard: Case 21-042-TA-V) The existing zoning designation, C-2, allows restaurants and retail only when they are accessory to an office or hotel. A map amendment to C-3 would entitle both restaurants and retail as permitted uses. Developer GW Properties has begun negotiations with multiple national-brand chain restaurant tenants, as well as a retailer. The Tentative Plat of Subdivision shows the land being delineated into four lots of record: Lot 1 (northernmost) is the standalone restaurant with parking, Lot 2 is the multi-tenant restaurant-retail development with parking and stormwater basin, and Lots 3 and 4 are for billboards. Lots 3 and 4 will not meet minimum lot dimensions, and Lot 4 will not front on a public street, requiring variation at the time of approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision. Otherwise, the Tentative Plat meets the requirements as expressed in Section 13-2-2. Of note, the Plat labels a 12-inch sanitary sewer running north-south and bisecting the property, which the City’s Public Works and Engineering Department will require to maintained via an easement indicated on the Final Plat. Other underground infrastructure on site may be abandoned, as the previous Alger Street and Railroad Avenue were vacated many years ago. The Site Plan Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 27 indicates an easement and access drive from the parking lot area in Lot 2 to the billboard area, which will be necessary for maintenance and repair to the billboard. Although the full 3.8-acre development after subdivision is likely to exist eventually under separate ownership, it will be built upon as a unit under common ownership, which makes it one zoning lot at this time of initial review. Section 12-7-1 limits zoning lots to one principal building except in instances of planned unit development (PUD), C-4-zoned regional shopping centers, and other large-lot institutional and industrial development. The petitioner is not applying for a PUD nor do they propose joining all of the potential commercial tenants under one roof, in large part because of the site-selection demands of the potential tenants they are forming agreements with. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variation from this provision. The following is an estimated application of the parking requirements (Section 12-9-7) to the various uses, with some assumptions based on the potential use mix. All assumed uses would be permitted under C-3 zoning: • Restaurant (Class A) / North Building: 1 space for every 100 square feet of net floor area, or 1 space for every 4 seats, whichever is greater, plus 1 space for every 3 employees. o Comment: Employee counts and detailed floor plans are not yet available, but Lot 1 of the subdivision is shown with 97 parking spaces. Assuming 4,000 square feet of net floor area and 30 employees (restaurant staff working at one time), the requirement would be around 50 spaces. The parking appears to be ample and, in fact, much could be utilized by the uses in the other building if necessary. • Restaurants (Class B) / South Building: 1 space for every 50 square feet of net floor area, or 1 space for every 4 seats, whichever is greater, plus 1 space for every 3 employees. o Comment: Employee counts are not yet available, but Lot 2 of the subdivision is shown with 115 parking spaces. Assuming 5,000 square feet of net area plus 15 employees, the requirement is 105 spaces. • Retail establishment / South Building: 1 space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area. o Comment: The estimated requirement would be 16 spaces, although there are specific types of retail establishments that have separate ratios than the general one used here. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 28 In summary, the total parking requirement is estimated around 170-175 spaces, so the parking would likely be more than sufficient. Regarding traffic, the petitioner submitted a study conducted by Kenig, Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.). The study concludes that while the development and uses can be expected to generate additional traffic, the existing roadway system can accommodate the traffic without the need for additional signals, lanes (e.g. turn or deceleration lanes), or other substantial changes to either Mannheim or Pratt. The study also concludes the site layout allows for efficient internal circulation and access. See Attachment 10 for the report. While the conclusions generally seem reasonable, the Illinois Department of Transportation will need to permit the proposed driveway to Mannheim. IDOT may require this to be altered to a “right-in, right-out” configuration. Standards for Map Amendment: The standards for amendments are contained in Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance. The following is a discussion of those standards. 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; Comment: The Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial development on the site; however, the current zoning (C-2) is quite restrictive is its allowance of uses, as it has a specific vision for primarily hotel and office development. Changing to C-3 will open up a much wider range of uses, including the desirable ones proposed through the concept of this application. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; Comment: C-3 zoning is proximate to the subject property. In fact, its current designation of C-2 makes the property stick out. Changing to C-3 actually brings it more in line with the property to the north (Café La Cave, 2777 Mannheim Road) and the south (Orchards at O’Hare). Both of these are zoned C-3. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; Comment: The roadway and other infrastructure access is adequate to serve the range of uses possible under C-3 zoning. See the conclusions of the traffic report. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; Comment: Amending the zoning to C-3 would enable and attract greater commercial development, making Des Plaines and the neighborhood more desirable and likely having a positive effect on property values. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. Comment: C-3 is the most common commercial zoning designation, so adding it to the map at the subject property would be in line with the City’s current process for managing growth. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 29 Standards for Variation: The standards for variations contained in Section 12-3-6.H of the Zoning Ordinance are discussed below. 1. Hardship: Carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty; Comment: The petitioner could have applied for a PUD to avoid the limitation to only one principal building on the zoning lot. However, because no bulk exceptions are expected for the development (e.g. setback, height, parking), and while important an important commercial investment, the project is not especially unique or innovative, which is the underlying purpose of PUDs. A PUD process may be unnecessarily onerous. Alternatively, the petitioner could lump all of the uses together in one building, but the interest from various users necessitates that one of them be in a freestanding building. 2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot. Comment: The site’s boundary with the Tollway is a diagonal line, as is its boundary with the railroad, creating an irregular shape. Further, the site has an existing billboard. These are design constraints the petitioner must work around. 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 shape of the site was dictated by the infrastructure-related actions of public and private entities (e.g. City, Department of Transportation, railroads). 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: Forcing the project into a PUD process or to be redesigned to be under one roof would hamper the development potential, when similar styles of development are quite common and the deals with potential tenants are time-sensitive. The PZB and City Council are welcome to ask the petitioner about the negotiations with users, their space and design needs, and their target timelines. 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: Allowing a two-building restaurant-and-retail development outside of the PUD process would be a reasonable request by any potential developer of a similar site. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 30 6. Title and Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. Comment: The variation would make feasible the proposed commercial development, which is the vision of the Comprehensive Plan for the site. 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: Forcing the process into a PUD or a redesign would risk losing tenants, in particular the tenant who demands a freestanding building. 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 total number of principal buildings is only two instead of a greater number. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the map amendment and variation regarding the number of principal buildings. The map amendment may be suitable to approve without conditions, However, should the PZB recommend and/or the City Council approve the variation, staff suggests the following conditions: 1. A landscape plan showing perimeter, interior, and foundation plantings to fulfill all requirements of Section 12-10 must be approved before issuance of a building permit. 2. All proposed ground and building-mounted signs must comply with all provisions of Section 12- 11, or the petitioner must obtain variation or approval of a conditional use for localized alternative sign regulations (LASR). 3. A lighting plan labeling all building-mounted and freestanding light fixtures and proving photometric details must be submitted and approved with the building permit. 4. Grading/drainage and other on-site infrastructure details are provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Engineering Department with the submission of the Final Plat of Subdivision. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no comments. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Fowler, for approval of the request for a (i) a Map Amendment from C-2 Limited Office Commercial to C-3 General Commercial to allow a mix of Class A and B restaurants and retail, as required by Section 12-7-3; (ii) a Major Variation to allow more than one principal building on a zoning lot as required by Section 12-7-1; and (iii) the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. In addition, the request for a Tentative Plat of Subdivision per Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations was approved, with the following conditions: (1) A landscape plan showing perimeter, interior, and foundation plantings to Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 31 fulfill all requirements of Section 12-10 must be approved before issuance of a building permit; (2) All proposed ground and building-mounted signs must comply with all provisions of Section 12-11, or the petitioner must obtain variation or approval of a conditional use for localized alternative sign regulations (LASR); (3) A lighting plan labeling all building-mounted and freestanding light fixtures and proving photometric details must be submitted and approved with the building permit; and (4) Grading/drainage and other on-site infrastructure details are provided to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Engineering Department with the submission of the Final Plat of Subdivision. AYES: Hofherr, Fowler, Catalano, Veremis, Saletnik NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 32 5. 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Case Number: 21-042-TA-V Public Hearing The petitioner is requesting text amendments to Section 12-11-5 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the initial installation of an electronic message board billboard and Section 12-11-6 to increase the total number of allowable billboards across the City from 12 to 13. The petitioner is also requesting a major variation, as required by Section 12-11-6, for a portion of a proposed billboard to be less than the minimum 300 feet away from a residential property line, as well as any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000; 09-33-300-004- 0000; 09-33-300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000; 09-33-300-007-0000; 09-33- 300-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000; 09-33-301-008-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000 Petitioner: Image Des Plaines, LLC, 5101 Darmstadt Road, Suite A, Hillside IL 60142 Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Road, Suite E, Schaumburg IL, 60173 Acting Chairman Saletnik swore in Dan Dowd, attorney representing, Image Des Plaines, LLC, the Petitioner. Mr. Dowd provided an overview of the draft amendments, which are site specific to the site. Mike Schied provided information on the location of the billboard, along with lighting and illumination specifications and City requirements. Mr. Schied also stated that Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approvals have been secured. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if the Board had any questions. There were no questions or comments. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no comments. Acting Chairman Saletnik asked that the Staff Report entered into record. Director Carlisle provided a summary of the following report: Issue: The petitioner and contract purchaser of 3.8 acres at the southeast corner of Mannheim Road and Pratt Avenue (2805-2845 Mannheim Road) proposes erecting a new electronic message board billboard in concert with a proposal for a restaurant-retail development (Case 21-041-MAP-TSUB-V). The petitioner is requesting approval of text amendments to two Sections of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the project: 1.) To Section 12-11-5.H, which currently allows electronic message board billboards only through the conversion of existing static billboards, and 2.) to 12-11-6.B to increase the maximum number of billboard permits that can be issued citywide from 12 to 13, as well as an exemption from the 600-square-foot limitation for all signage on lots of 5 acres or less. Finally, the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow a portion of a billboard to be within 300 feet of a residential property line (approximately 127 feet). Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 33 PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000; 09-33-300-004-0000; 09-33-300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000; 09-33-300-007-0000; 09-33-300-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000; 09-33-301-015-0000 Petitioner: Image Des Plaines LLC Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E, Schaumburg, IL 60173 Existing Zoning: C-2 Limited Office District (proposed as C-3 General Commercial District) Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District South: C-3, General Commercial District East: C-3, General Commercial District West: Commercial (Village of Rosemont) Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial (banquet hall) South: Tollway; Orchards at O’Hare commercial development East: Railroad; ComEd facility West: Commercial (hotel) Street Classification Mannheim Road is an arterial road, and Pratt Avenue is a local road. Comprehensive Plan Commercial is the recommended use of the property. Project Description: Image Des Plaines LLC is contract purchaser of the approximately 3.8-acre site at the southeast corner of Mannheim Road and Pratt Avenue, roughly bordered by the Canadian National rail line on the east and I- 90/Tollway on the south. Aside from an existing electronic message board billboard in the southwest corner of the site, it is currently vacant, despite having received redevelopment interest in the past (most notably for a La Quinta Inn motel that did not materialize). As depicted in Attachment 6, in the southeast corner of the site the petitioner intends to erect a new electronic message board billboard, not to exceed 99 feet in height, with two 1,200-square-foot sign faces aimed at both directions of I-90 traffic. The last new, additional billboard permitted by the City was in 2005 by Ordinance Z-24-05. The new billboard would be wholly part of Lot 4 in the subdivision proposed in the Tentative Plat that is part of the application for Case 21-041-MA-TSUB-V. Permitting and erecting the billboard is integral to the financing for the restaurant-and-retail proposal inherent to that application. However, permitting the billboard requires 1.) a text amendment to Section 12-11-5 to allow an electronic message board as an initial installation, as currently they may only occur through conversions of existing static, non-electronic billboards; 2.) a text amendment to Section 12-11-6 to increase the maximum number of total billboard permits (both static and electronic message board) within the City from 12 to 13; 3.) another text amendment to 12-11-6 to exempt all billboards from the signage limitation of 600 square feet on lots of less than 5 acres; and 4.) a variation from the provision that requires at least 300 feet between any portion of a billboard and a residential property line. The closest portion of the proposed Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 34 billboard “V” (i.e. two sign faces) is the northeast corner. Per the measurement method of the Ordinance, the billboard is 127 feet from residentially zoned property, which is PIN 09-33-302-002, an unimproved, wooded property owned by ComEd. However, the closest lot line of a property improved with a residence is 316 feet away. Based on staff review, the proposed billboard would meet the other zoning and location requirements, which generally include: - The proposed location must be on a lot zoned C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1 M-2 or M-3 (the subject site is currently zoned C-2 and proposed as C-3); - The billboard must be within 660 feet of I-90 or I-294 - The proposed billboard must satisfy the spacing requirements of the Illinois Advertising Control Act - All third-party government approvals must be obtained The applicant has already sought approval from the Illinois Department of Transportation and the Federal Aviation Administration. However, no billboard can be constructed on this property without first obtaining approval from the City of Des Plaines. Standards for Text Amendments: The standards for amendments are contained in Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance. The following is a discussion of those standards. 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; Comment: The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically mention billboards but does call out an economic development vision for “a variety of retail, dining, and entertainment options, with special focus on major commercial corridors….” These amendments, which are narrowly aimed at a specific sign on a specific site. 2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing development; Comment: Allowing only one additional billboard, in the proposed location, would be compatible with the general character of commercial properties directly next to the Tollway, where billboards are common. 3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available to this subject property; Comment: The petitioner’s site plan shows an access easement to get to the proposed billboard for maintenance or emergency purposes. Further, the property overall is easy for public safety or Public Works crews to access because it is at the visible corner of Mannheim and Pratt. The billboard structure will not be permitted to interfere with any infrastructure, above- or underground. 4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the jurisdiction; Comment: The proposed amendments enable the installation of only one new billboard in a specific location, so the only properties across the city that would be affected are those with residents who may Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 35 be able to see it. However, the many trees and railroad area that separate the proposed billboard from the single-family residential development along Central Avenue and Sycamore Street are likely to provide adequate screening. Further, the rules in the existing ordinance limit the luminescence level detectable outside of the property line, and these are not proposed to change. The petitioner has submitted a lighting study, which indicates compliance with the luminescence limitations. It appears more likely that the reactivation of a long-vacant site – which is generally a drag on property values – may be more beneficial to the property values of the area than any concerns generated by the billboard. 5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth. Comment: The amendments are deliberate and narrow, particularly by extending the allowance for new billboards by only one. They would not lead to an over-proliferation of billboards. Standards for Variation: The standards for variations contained in Section 12-3-6.H of the Zoning Ordinance are discussed below. 1. Hardship: Carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular hardship or a practical difficulty; Comment: For the new proposed billboard to be the minimum distance according to state spacing requirements from the existing on-site billboard, it must be located in the far southeast corner of the subject property. Further, the southeast portion of the site least intrusive with the affiliated proposed restaurant-and-retail development. Those factors necessitate locating the sign within 300 feet of a residential property line. 2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot. Comment: The site’s boundary with the Tollway is a diagonal line, as is its boundary with the railroad. With respect to billboards, they are only logical and permissible when directly next to an expressway. Further, as addressed under the “hardship/practical difficulty” standard, because of the location of the existing billboard on the site, a second billboard would have to be sited in the southeast corner, where it would run afoul of the 300-foot-minimum distance. There is also underground public sanitary sewer, access to which must be maintained. 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. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 36 Comment: The location of all infrastructure was established by other public and private entities, and necessitates the location of the billboard in its proposed location. 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: The strict letter of the provision does not take into consideration a residentially zoned piece of land that is unlikely to actually be developed and inhabited by residents. The location of the billboard at 316 feet from the lot line of the nearest actual house meets the intent of the Ordinance. Other billboard permittees in the past likely did not have a scenario similar to the one necessitating a variation in this case. 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: While the strict application encompasses all residentially zoned property, the intent of the 300- foot-rule is to provide ample space between a residence and a billboard. Granting this variation would not compromise that intent and therefore not grant a special privilege compared to other billboard owners. 6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. Comment: The variation would enable the billboard, which would enable a restaurant-and-retail development on the site, which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. 7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of the subject lot. Comment: Because of regulatory and practical factors, this proposed location of the billboard is the only reasonable location. 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: Only the moving of the billboard to the west and north would lessen the need for relief, and for reasons stated under other standards, this move would not be practical. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7(D)3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the text amendments and variation. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 37 Should the PZB recommend and/or the City Council approve the request, staff suggests the following conditions for the variation: 1. The billboard permit shall not be issued until and unless construction has commenced for the proposed restaurant and retail development at 2805-2845 Mannheim, proposed through Case 21-041-MAP-TSUB-V. 2. The elevation drawing is revised so the billboard will not exceed 99 feet in height. 3. All required IDOT and FAA approvals are completed and obtained for the current, up-to-date proposal. Approvals from previous proposals will not be accepted by the City if no longer valid. Director Carlisle provided clarification on the amendments in question. The clarification and corrections are as follows: • Only 12 billboard structures permits are issued by the City. The proposal is to expand the permit count to 13. There are other billboards that do not have a City permit but are either conforming structures because they meet all rules of the Ordinance or are nonconforming. • The last time the City increased the number of possible billboard permits was in 2005 by Ordinance Z-24-05. Director Carlisle went over the previous licensing fees and the current revenue structure. Per the City Attorney, if the Board chose to recommend approval, the portion of the draft amendments under Section 12-11-6 should be revised to state: “The city shall cause to be permitted no more than 12 13 permits for outdoor advertising structures (billboards) under subsection 12-11-3C3, "Billboard Permits", of this chapter. The 13th billboard permit shall be issued only in accordance with Ordinance Z-XX-21. As of amendatory ordinance Z-24-05, all 12 permits have been allocated to permittees. (This Ordinance number will be updated if the text amendment and variation for Case 21-042-TA-V is successful.)” The Planning and Zoning Board chose to break out the approval into two motions. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano for approval of the revised text amendments, per City Attorney, to Section 12-11-5 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the initial installation of an electronic message board billboard and Section 12-11-6 to increase the total number of billboard permit across the City, with the additional permit to be issued in accordance with a future ordinance, and with the condition that the billboard permit shall not be issued until and unless construction has commenced for the proposed restaurant and retail development at 2805-2845 Mannheim, proposed through Case 21-041-MAP-TSUB-V. Case 21-037-CU 110 S River Road Conditional Use Case 21-039-V 2071 Pine Street Variation Case 21-040-CU-LASR 2980-3000 S River Road Conditional Use/LASR Case 20-041-MAP-TSUB-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Map Amend/Maj Var/Tent Plat Case 20-042-TA-V 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Text Amendment/Maj Variation September 28, 2021 Page 38 AYES: Hofherr, Catalano, Fowler, Veremis, Saletnik NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY*** A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Fowler, for approval of a major variation, as required by Section 12-11-6, for a portion of a proposed billboard to be less than the minimum 300 feet away from a residential property line, as well as any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary, with the following conditions: (1) The billboard permit shall not be issued until and unless construction has commenced for the proposed restaurant and retail development at 2805-2845 Mannheim, proposed through Case 21-041-MAP-TSUB-V; (2) The elevation drawing is revised so the billboard will not exceed 99 feet in height; and (3) All required IDOT and FAA approvals are completed and obtained for the current, up-to-date proposal. Approvals from previous proposals will not be accepted by the City if no longer valid. AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Veremis, Saletnik NAYES: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY** ADJOURNMENT The next scheduled Planning & Zoning Board meeting is Tuesday, October 26, 2021. Acting Chairman Saletnik adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 8:41 p.m. Sincerely, Wendy Bednarz, Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners