MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE PLAN COMMISSION AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FOR THE CITY OF COUNTRYSIDE, IL
HELD IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2011

Chairman Fullmer called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Secretary Lube called the Roll of Members physically present:

PRESENT: Chairman Richard Fullmer, Jr., Secretary Robert Lube, Mr .Mark Benson, Mr. Daniel Moss, Ms. Tina Grotzke, Mr. Richard Toth, Mr. Crecencio Gonzalez IV.

ABSENT: Mr. Charles Stoub

ALSO PRESENT: Atty. Erik Peck, CDP Swanson, Steve Tisinai, Bldg. Inspector.

Chairman Fullmer stated the Rules of Proceeding for the hearing before the Plan Commission – Zoning Board of Appeals will follow a strict order of presentation. A sign-in sheet for interested persons is located at the podium. This hearing is being recorded. Please silence all cell phones and pagers.

PUBLIC HEARING RE: 10221 W. 5^THAVENUE CUTOFF

Chairman Fullmer read the Public Hearing notice for the 5^thAvenue Cutoff application published on October 13, 2011 in The Doings Newspaper.

A request for relief to portions of the City of Countryside, IL Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance and Building Ordinance) to permit an accessory shed built without a building permit with the following zoning variation and building variation:

A variance to Section 10-2-9 G-3 (size of accessory buildings and structures), Title 10, Chapter 2 in the Municipal Code to permit construction of a 400-s.f. accessory shed on a lot which already contains an existing 1,500 s.f. detached accessory building;

A building Code variance request to portions of the International Residential Code Section R403.1.1 as adopted by City Code Section 8-1-1 to permit a structure without a frost-proof footing or a thickened edge slab which extends a minimum of 12 below ground and is 12 wide around the perimeter of the structure –

At the real estate commonly known as 10221 W. 5^thAvenue Cutoff, Countryside, IL 60525. The applicant is Ms. Victoria Ganz, a property owner of 10221 W. 5^thAvenue Cutoff, Countryside, IL 60525.

Mr. Toth moved to open the Public Hearing in this matter, seconded by Mr. Benson and carried unanimously. The applicant, Victoria Ganz, was sworn in by Chairman Fullmer. The Community Development Department has received the required Proof of Notice.

CDP Mr. Swanson presented the Staff report. The first agenda item covers both zoning building variations. Zoning regulates land use, size of structure and is pertinent to the local community. Building variations relate to science and safety; rules and regulations governing general building structures. The property at 10221 5^thAve. Cutoff is zoned R-7 rural residential; approximately 1.53 acres in size. In 2004, sections of the ^thAve. Cutoff were incorporated into Countryside; residents sought to preserve the rural characteristics and unique aspects of that neighborhood. The first zoning variance requested is to allow a 400-s.f. accessory garage on a lot that has an existing 1,500 s.f. detached accessory building. Ms. Ganz constructed the accessory building without benefit of a permit. In addition, the structure was not built with a frost-proof footing or a thickened edge slab which extends a minimum of 12 below ground and is 12 wide around the perimeter of the building. Surrounding properties are all zoned R-7. The primary purpose of the shed is storage of landscaping equipment, riding mowers, etc. Photos depicting the garage, the foundation slab, and the existing detached accessory garage were viewed.

Ms. Ganz stated that she was under the impression that they could add another out-building or shed from Home Depot on their own. She was told mice would chew thru wires so they added a slab and began looking at sheds. She wanted something that looked nice and matched the house. She didn’t think much about it; it began as a Home Depot shed to house power equipment, lawn mowers and landscape equipment in the back of the lot and kind of got out of control.

Mr. Benson asked how deep is the concrete from bottom to top. Mr. Tisinai stated that judging from the photos, it appears to be about 6. Ms. Ganz stated that it is at least 10-12. Snow melt and water can get underneath and ground freezing can cause heaving. Mr. Benson asked whether J-bolts were properly installed – if not, the material could crack and eventually severely settle to one side. Mr. Moss stated that the International Building Code requirement must be met; can this be fixed? It needs a footing underneath. Mr. Tisinai stated that when concrete is under tension it fails miserably; it doesn’t have any strength. If correction is not done properly, it could create a worse problem; the sub-base is not known. Mr. Lube stated that any garage in the City has a footing under it for that reason; they could do angle drilling, put rebar in and extend the concrete out 2-3 and up a couple of inches – the concrete would fill the voids.

Mr. Tisinai suggested that the Plan Commission consider ruling on the zoning variance and imposing a one-year time frame where the slab addition could be checked for condition; if it shows signs of cracking or structural deterioration, the City could impose, at the present time, a requirement that it must be corrected at that time, or have a design professional – an architect or structural engineer create that design. Mr. Tisinai stated that red heads that can be drilled in and will secure the structure to the slab. Mr. Benson is concerned with future sale of the house and disclosure. Mr. Tisinai stated that a declaration should be recorded on the deed stating that the shed was built without a permit, it does not meet current building codes and must be disclosed to any future buyer. Ms. Grotzke asked whether they plan to extend the driveway to the garage. Ms. Ganz stated that it will only be used for lawn tractors and utility vehicles, a small John Deere tractor. Mr. Gonzalez asked about the distinction between an accessory shed and a garage. Mr. Tisinai stated that the Zoning Code permits an accessory structure – it doesn’t distinguish between the two. If vehicles are driven across a driveway to the structure, it becomes a garage. Chairman Fullmer stated that the petitioner was well aware of the City’s permit process and chose to ignore it. Ms. Ganz thought they were allowed another out-building besides the 1,500 s.f. existing garage.

Chairman Fullmer asked if interested persons had any questions for the Petitioner. Frank Zickus, Countryside resident and neighbor, is not opposed to the variation. The building is not obtrusive or problematic; it is a storage shed. Mr. Lube stated there was no permit and it has an improper foundation. Mr. Zickus asked the Board to make accommodation for the shed and the feelings of neighbors to allow the building to remain. He believes the footing is entirely adequate for its purpose; adding a skirt may be beneficial. He understands the Board’s need to enforce the Code. He thanked the Board for listening.

Penny O’Neill, 10251 – 5^thAve. Cutoff, two doors west of the property, appreciates the Board adhering to Codes, etc., but stated that this is an innocent mistake and should not be punished. The building improves the property; she has no problem with it; it does not interfere. She hopes that some remedy could be found to make it fit into the City Code. She suggested following the one-year remedy suggested.

Melinda Decker lives east of the subject property; she stated that although rules are rules, the residents should not be punished for believing that they did not need a permit for a Home Depot shed. Mr. Tisinai stated that any structure over 120 s.f. needs a permit. She stated that there is no driveway because it is too close to the lot line. Ms. Grotzke visited the site and stated that a driveway is possible. Ms. Decker has no objection to the shed; there is no electric supply to the structure at present.

Ms. Ganz made a Closing Statement and apologized for the entire matter. Their intention was not to cause problems; their neighbors have been really great. The structure itself is built well; they have no intentions of moving. She hopes the Board will consider everything and allow the shed. Mr. Lube stated that the building must be brought to Code and proper permits taken out. Mr. Toth asked about the simplest way to make the building viable. Mr. Tisinai stated that the simplest method is excavation and pinning with rebars; he needs an architect to provide a design for that.

Mr. Toth moved to close the evidentiary portion of the Public Hearing, seconded by Mr. Benson and carried unanimously. Mr. Peck stated that there are two variances to be considered. Mr. Tisinai stated that the City’s Building Code has a method to deal with this situation — when a job is started without a permit. The Building Department can review the drawings, using the appropriate application, and the permit fees are tripled – which is the normal permit fee and two times the permit fee for work begun without a permit. The excess size issues would have to be ruled on tonight prior to issuing a building permit.

Mr. Benson moved to deny the variance to construct a 400 s.f. accessory structure in excess of the existing 1,500 s.f. detached accessory building, seconded by Ms. Grotzke and carried by Roll Call vote – 6/1/1.

Mr. Benson recommended that they be allowed 60 days to bring the shed up to Code. Mr. Moss stated that Mr. Tisinai has not personally viewed the structure. He recommends continuing this matter until all the information is complete.

Ms. Grotzke moved to deny the variance to permit a structure without a frost-proof footing or a thickened edge slab which extends a minimum of 12 below ground and is 12 wide around the perimeter of the structure, seconded by Mr. Lube and carried by Roll Call vote 6/1/1. Chairman Fullmer stated that this recommendation will come before the City Council at its Regular Meeting on November 9, 2011.

PUBLIC HEARING RE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10-2-4-5

Chairman Fullmer read the Public Hearing notice for the text amendment published on September 15, 2011 in The Doings Newspaper.

Consideration of amending Section 10-2-4-5: Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards:

To allow driveways as permitted obstructions in the side yard setback but not closer than 2′ to the side lot line on lots greater than 10,000 s.f.;

To allow driveways as permitted obstructions in the side yard setback but not closer than 18 to the side lot line on lots of 10,000 s.f. or less;

To allow sidewalks and stoops as permitted obstructions of up to 3′ in the side yard setback.

CDP Swanson stated that at present driveways, sidewalks and stoops are not listed as permitted obstructions in side yard setbacks. The zoning setback of ten feet in the side yard lot line cannot contain any driveways, sidewalks or stoops. Staff seeks direction; if the Code is changed, parameters are needed especially in determining how to handle new construction, but also for renovations/upgrades. The Board came up with very general specifications at the previous hearing – 1) to allow driveways as permitted obstructions 2′ from the side lot line on lots larger than 10,000 s.f. 2) to allow driveways as permitted obstructions 18 from the side lot line on lots smaller than 10,000 s.f. 3) to allow stoops and sidewalks as permitted obstructions up to 3′ in the side yard setback, including air conditioning units, bay windows, window wells, etc. Mr. Tisinai, the Building Commissioner, is here per request of Chairman Fullmer. These changes are related to -3 zoning district north of 55^thSt. where lots have narrow frontage but are very deep. The same rules cannot be applied to lots that are 75-100′ wide.

Mr. Tisinai addressed existing driveways north of 55^thSt that do not comply. The City needs a definite rule on how driveways should be treated. Are they allowed in the side yard setback or are they not allowed? Mr. Lube stated this is happening all over town, not only north of 55^thSt. Mr. Benson suggested grandfathering in existing driveways. Mr. Tisinai suggested allowing residents in the R-3 zoning district to remove and replace driveways to the exact conditions without requiring a zoning variance – and making it applicable to every resident uniformly. Mr. Benson suggested going with the current setbacks on new construction.

Chairman Fullmer stated that two feet is not adequate on lots larger than 10,000 s.f.

Mr. Tisinai suggested using the width of the lot as the determining factor for existing driveways. A different formula is needed for new driveways. Residents that don’t fit into those categories can come before the Board to seek a variance. Mr. Keane stated that the present system has worked for 50 years; there is no need to change it.

Mr. Lube agreed that grandfathering could work for existing driveways; set up a formula for the width of the lot with a maximum of 10′. Mr. Tisinai stated that the Plat of Survey will identify the lot width and suggested using 5% which will be easy to calculate; this affects only the driveway, not the normal setbacks of the house. Mr. Benson agreed that it may be a starting point. Mr. Swanson suggested publishing a new text amendment. Mr. Tisinai stated that 5% on a 100′ wide lot would be a 5′ minimum side yard setback; on a 60′ wide lot it will be a 3′ setback; a reasonable number is between 3-5%. Board members agreed. Chairman Fullmer moved to continue the hearing to next month and asked Mr. Swanson to gather different percentages for different sized lots, seconded by Mr. Lube and carried by unanimous voice vote.

PUBLIC HEARING RE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 8-5-13(D)

Chairman Fullmer read the Public Hearing notice for the text amendment published on October 13, 2011 in The Doings Newspaper.

A text amendment to portions of the City of Countryside, IL Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) as follows:

Consideration of amending 8-5-13(D) (Special Event Permit) to permit temporary outdoor sales.

CDP Mr. Swanson stated that when businesses like National Tire & Battery has a special event, they fill out an application for a ten-day permit which allows them to have giant balloons or temporary attractions. The City does not allow them to have an outdoor display of merchandise. Is this something that can be added to the Code. This is strictly a temporary display; not for permanent outdoor sales. There is a difference between sales and displays and the Code should state that. Mr. Tisinai suggested an amendment to the Zoning Code Section to grant the outside temporary display. The Building Code covers special event signs and temporary tent sales; they have been granting outdoor displays unofficially and they need something in writing. Atty. Peck stated that the change should be in the Building Code. Mr. Moss stated that they must differentiate between outdoor sales of merchandise and temporary displays. Mr. Lube moved to approve a text amendment to permit temporary outdoor sales and displays, seconded by Mr. Benson and carried by unanimous Roll Call vote – 7/0/1.

(Whereupon a brief recess was had.)

PUBLIC HEARING RE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 10-6A-1

Chairman Fullmer read the Public Hearing notice for the text amendment published on October 13, 2011 in The Doings Newspaper.

A text amendment to portions of the City of Countryside, IL Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) as follows:

Consideration of amending 10-6A-1: Permitted Uses: to consider allowing outdoor storage containers.

CDP Mr. Swanson stated that Staff needs direction regarding storage containers – shipping containers that have been cropping up around the community. He provided photos of several containers – specifically the three containers on the Jewel property – Brainard and 55^thSt. side, containing non-perishable items such as storage racks and shelving units. Another photo of a fourth container shows items piled up along side the container. One photo shows a man entering the container; Jewel uses them on a daily basis. Should the City handle this as an accessory use in the commercial district, or a special use – where should they be located on the property?

Mr. Moss is concerned with storage of flammables in the containers; it is a smaller version of an accessory building – a storage shed. Each container should be a special use and should be regulated. They cannot block fire lanes or take up parking spaces in a parking lot. Mr. Tisinai noted they should be so many feet from the lot line – license them and require inspection twice a year; put time limits on them and a license fee; they must be secured in the rear of the building. He also suggested making them a special use with a list of items stored inside; if the list is violated, the special use could be revoked. The City should keep control and limit the number of containers. Mr. Swanson was asked to do a comprehensive survey this month and ask the owners what are they storing inside. Chairman Fullmer suggested continuing this matter. Ms. Grotzke moved to continue this matter to next month’s agenda, seconded by Mr. Toth and carried unanimously.

PUBLIC HEARING RE: TEXT AMENDMENT TO Section 10-6A-2

Chairman Fullmer read the Public Hearing notice for the text amendment published on October 13, 2011 in The Doings Newspaper.

A text amendment to portions of the City of Countryside, IL Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) as follows:

Consideration of amending 10-6A-2: Special Use: to consider making clothing/donation boxes a special use in the B-1 retail zoning district.

Mr. Swanson stated that clothing/donation boxes are not permitted in commercial zoning district, however, they are scattered throughout the community. Mr. Swanson provided photos of donation boxes in various locations. Mr. Lube stated that many of them are now owned by for-profit corporations. They should be made a special use and licensed. Along with being unsightly, the boxes can prove to be site hazards. Staff seeks review and discussion of either allowing donation boxes as a special use or prohibiting them. Mr. Tisinai stated that trying to reach the owners of the boxes by using the phone numbers listed on them is impossible; no one answers or ever calls back. Atty. Peck stated that the City could post notice, find the owner and send written notice that it will be removed; they have 30 days to remove their box. What the City Code doesn’t directly address is thereby prohibited. Mr. Moss suggested getting guidance from surrounding communities. Other communities do not permit them. There are none in Burr Ridge or Willowbrook. Atty. Peck stated that they are not illegal and the City should make provision for them. They should be prohibited in the B-1, 2 and 3 districts; make it a special use in the industrial park with the property owner’s permission. Mr. Lube moved to strictly prohibit clothing/donation /recycling boxes in the B-1, B-2 and B-3 business district and make them a special use in the M-1 district with the property owner’s permission, seconded by Mr. Benson and carried by unanimous Roll Call vote – 7/0/1.

OTHER BUSINESS

Mr. Swanson stated that a PUD application to redevelop the BMW property at 6150 LaGrange Road is on the agenda; there will be a Chase Bank and a multi-tenant retail building. The other car dealers are moving into various locations along LaGrange Road. Hooters plans on locating next door to Bally’s Fitness in the City Center. The City is working on Granite City Brewery at the corner.

The electric charging station will be on the agenda.

ADJOURNMENT

There being no further business to discuss, Mr. Toth moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Mr. Benson and carried unanimously.

Chairman Fullmer declared the meeting adjourned at 10:07 p.m.

RICHARD FULLMER, JR., CHAIRMAN