Loading...
03/12/2013Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 1 04;CITY OF 11/ DES PLAINES ILLINOIS DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD MEETING MARCH 12, 2013 MINUTES The Des Plaines Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 7:30 P.M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD PRESENT: Seegers, Saletnik, Szabo, Catalano, Porada, Hofherr, Schell ABSENT: None Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community and Economic Development and Director of Community & Economic Development, Alex Dambach. Chairman Seegers called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. Roll call was made. A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik seconded by Board Member Catalano to approve the minutes of the February 12, 2013 as submitted. AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Porada, Schell, Seegers ABSTAINED: Szabo, Hofherr NAYES: None Chairman Seegers read the summary of the case up for hearing. NEW BUSINESS Address: 2300 Mannheim Rd. Case Number: 13 -003 -CU The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the expansion of a Banquet Hall (Commercial Indoor Recreation — Dance Hall) within a tent structure in the C-3 District. PIN: 09-29-403-008-0000 Petitioner: Owner(s): Thomas C. Diamond, 2300 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Diamond Holdings I, LLC, 2300 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 2 Chairman Seegers swore in Angelo Spyratos, Attorney for the petitioner, and petitioners Mr. and Mrs. Tom Diamond. Commissioner Porada stated for disclosure purposes, he has worked with Mr. Spyratos on other cases but this will not have any effect on his partiality or impartiality for this evening's case. Mr. Spyratos gave a brief history of when the tent was constructed and its use. He also discussed the issues the neighbors expressed and how the petitioner has dealt with them. He discussed the findings of the sound engineer that was hired by the petitioner and the sound system has been changed and that the petitioner is willing to go further in constructing a sound wall on the north side measuring 14' x 110' and 14' x 75' on the west sides of the tent. This would further reduce the sound by 6-7 decibals. Mr. Spyratos stated that the petitioner stands to comply with the city's conditions except for the time limit of 10:00 p.m. He stated that this is specifically a wedding venue and its intended target is to book the tent. The petitioner will not be able to operate this facility if the city imposes these time limits. The petitioner is requesting the time limit change to midnight. He stated if the city does not approve this then the petitioner would not be able to operate the tent and respectfully asks the time change to midnight. He expressed the petitioner is prepared to deal with any concerns the residents may have. Chairman Seegers asked the board members for any questions. Board Member Szabo asked when the sound system changed. Mr. Spyratos stated it changed in January 2012. Board Member Szabo asked if the direction of the speakers where changed at the same time. Mr. Spyratos confirmed that the direction of the speakers was modified in January 2012. Board Member Szabo asked what material the proposed sound wall is made of. Brian Homans of Shiner and Associates was sworn in. Mr. Homans explained the different materials sound walls are constructed of including wood, masonry, concrete tilt - up, composite, and metal and their similar effectiveness. Board Member Hofherr noted that the tent was approved by the City Council in January 2011 and inquired as to when the tent was erected. Mr. Spyratos stated that the first event in the tent was held in July 2011. Board Member Porada inquired about the timeline of the tent construction. Mr. Mangum stated that the tent was constructed in 2010 and approved by the City Council January 18, 2011. Mr. Diamond stated that the tent was constructed in late summer 2010, replacing a landscaped area; following discussions with the former Mayor and former Director of Community and Economic Development. The City rezoned the area and then Mr. Diamond stated that he had verbal permission to erect the tent. City Council approval was sought following citations for construction of the tent that were heard at administrative hearings. Conditions were agreed to following the citations. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Mangum about the tent approval process. Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Mangum explained the tent conditions of approval and that nine of the 29 original conditions were included in the proposed conditions of approval for this process. Mr. Spyratos reiterated that the only objectionable condition was the condition to limit operation to earlier than midnight. A discussion continued between Mr. Sypratos and Board Member Porada regarding the tent permit process. Mr. Diamond and Board Member Porada discussed in length the erection of the tent, the conditions that where asked, who was involved at that time with the process, and the reasons why it has been brought to this point. Board Member Porada, Mr. Spyratos and Mr. Mangum discussed in length the conditions that were addressed, the noise issues, and discussed the staff report. Board Member Szabo asked Mr. Mangum if complaints lessened after the modifications were made with the sound system. Mr. Mangum stated that at this time he doesn't have information about of the number of complaints or when the majority of complaints were received. Mr. Diamond noted that the number of complaints has increased. In response to questions about the amount of events from Board Member Szabo, Mr. Diamond stated that during the busy season of May through October there are typically 2-3 events per week and only one event per week during other times. In response to questions about operations from Board Member Porada, Mr. Diamond stated that the tent differentiates their location from other banquet halls, and also that a tent structure is less costly than constructing a building addition. Mr. Mangum summarized the procedure for police response to noise complaints. Mr. Spyratos stated that of the citations issued, the police officers would not have issued the citations if not for resident complaints. Mr. Nathan Sevener, sound engineer, discussed the possibility of installing sophisticated equipment, including color coding of the noise meter. Mr. Diamond described the existing sound system and stated that the music in the tent is controlled and governed by the sound system. The two speaker system is used for announcements and the four speaker system for music. The current speakers were installed in October 2012. Mr. Diamond stated that most complaints were by one individual. There was discussion about building an angled 14 foot wall, but engineers had not reviewed this issue. Mr. Homans stated that if a wall is constructed there would be a substantial reduction in sound of 6-7 dB. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Mangum to read into the record the summary of the staff report. Mr. Mangum summarized the following staff report for the record: Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Permit under Section 7.3-6-C of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to authorize the expansion of a Banquet Hall (Commercial Indoor Recreation — Dance Hall) within a tent structure in the C-3 District. Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 4 Analysis: Address: Petitioner: Owner(s): PINs: Plan of Operation Existing Use Surrounding Land Use Existing Zoning Surrounding Zoning 2300 Mannheim Road Thomas C. Diamond, 2300 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Diamond Holdings I, LLC, 2300 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018 09-29-403-008-0000 The proposed four -season temperature controlled tent is comprised of 6,000 square feet of banquet and conference space and would operate Monday through Sunday with all events completed by 12 midnight. The total number of employees working varies depending on each event. Events of 150 attendees require approximately 15-18 employees. Full attendance for an event of 400 requires 35 to 38 employees. Additionally, the three event rooms within the Fountain Blue building accommodate events and business conferences for 50 to 400 people seven days a week from 6:00 am until 2:00 am. The total number of employees working these rooms varies depending on each event. Events of 50 people require approximately 4-5 employees. Events of 200 attendees require approximately 20-22 employees. And full attendance for an event of 400 requires 35-38 employees. Office hours are Monday thru Friday 10:OOam until 8:OOpm and Saturdays and Sundays from 10:OOam until 5:OOpm. Banquet Hall Facility North: Commercial (Car, rental, sales, and service) East: Canadian National Railroad/Industrial South: Commercial (hotel, office) West: Parking/Residential C-3, General Commercial Zoning District North: C-2, General Commercial East: M-2, General Manufacturing South: C-2, General Commercial West: C-2, Limited Office Commercial Street Classification Mannheim Road is designated as an arterial street in the Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends Community Commercial Use. In reviewing the conditional use request, staff has considered the following information: Fountain Blue is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the expansion of a banquet hall (Indoor Commercial Recreation — Dance Hall) facility within a tent at 2300 Mannheim Road. The approximately 3.01 acre property is located on the west side of Mannheim Road with vehicular access from Mannheim Road, as well as from adjacent hotel and office properties, and 177 on-site parking spaces. Fountain Blue has been operating as a banquet facility for a number of years, but expanded by installing a 60 -foot by 100 -foot tent immediately to the west of the existing structure (building) in 2010. The City Council approved the Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 5 tent with a number of conditions for a two year time period on January 18, 2011. The applicant is now seeking a Conditional Use Permit to allow operations to continue within the tent. As the Zoning Ordinance is currently silent on banquet facilities, the Zoning Administrator has classified the current operation as an "Indoor Commercial Recreation — Dance Hall" which requires a Conditional Use Permit in the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. However, staff has proposed, and the Plan Commission recommended, a Text Amendment to clarify the banquet facility use. The Text Amendment is scheduled to be considered by the City Council on March 18, 2013. A total of 12,020 square feet of meeting space is contained within the interior of the building within three event areas. The 5,294 square foot Versailles Room accommodates 100-400 guests depending on the set-up, while the smaller Athenaeum (3,093 square feet) and Normandy (3,633 square feet) rooms will hold 80-200 guests each. The proposed floor plans would accommodate up to 510 guests within the 6,000 square -foot tent when setup without a dance floor. Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, and Aboona, Inc. prepared a traffic and parking study with the following conclusions and recommendations as stated in its report: • Direct access to the facility is provided via a single access drive located on Mannheim Road approximately 600 feet north of Touhy Avenue. In addition, the facility has cross access with the Radisson Hotel and Touhy Avenue Plaza that provides additional access to Mannheim Road and Touhy Avenue. • The results of the capacity analysis indicate both the facility access drive and the Radisson Hotel access drives are operating at a good level of service assuming the existing traffic volumes and the maximum day projected traffic volumes. As such, the design of the facility access drive and the Radisson Hotel access drives are sufficient to accommodate the traffic generated by the facility and the hotel. • The facility provides a total of 177 parking spaces and has a parking easement with the Touhy Office Plaza that permits it to use the 279 parking spaces located on the north side of the office building after 5:00 P.M. on weekday and all day on weekends. As such, the facility has access to a total of 456 parking spaces. • Assuming a maximum day of 900 people at the facility, it is estimated that the facility will have a peak parking demand of 378 vehicles which is 80 vehicles less than can be accommodated by the facility. As such, the existing parking supply of the facility is sufficient to meet is peak parking demand on a maximum day. Engineering Division staff reviewed the traffic study prepared by Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, and Aboona, Inc. and found it to be sufficient to demonstrate that there are not issues with traffic or parking at the facility. Since operation of the tent, the City's Community and Economic Development and Police Departments have received numerous complaints regarding noise generated from events in the tent being audible at single family residential properties to the northwest of the tent on Chestnut, Pine Street, and Fargo Avenue. The Zoning Ordinance contains Environmental Performance Standards (Article 12) that limit noise at the property line to only ordinary vehicular noise, while the applicant's provided reports completed by Shiner + Associates (Attachment 6) compare measured noise levels to the Illinois Pollution Control Board standards. The latest Shiner report, dated October 9, 2012 evaluated the construction of a 12 -foot high, L-shaped acoustic barrier (wall) adjacent to the north and west sides of tent and estimated that it would result in a 6-7 dB reduction in noise levels at the neighboring residences. The City contracted with Soundscape Engineering LLC to peer review the Shiner + Associates reports, review the steps that have already be taken by Fountain Blue in an attempt to reduce the noise level, describe any potential additional or alternate noise control approaches that could be considered by Fountain Blue, and place the noise levels in context by comparing them with the State noise regulations and criteria typically found in other community noise ordinances. The Soundscape report contains the following conclusions: • Fountain Blue has already taken steps which have most likely resulted in a significant noise reduction. As a result, the Event related noise levels are below or only slightly above the IPCB regulations at the residential property. However, Event noise is still clearly audible at the residences and disturbs the residents. Constructing the proposed sound barrier wall to the west and north of the Tent would provide a significant further reduction in the level of noise heard at the residences. If, as we suspect, the noise levels at some points along the residential property lines are currently slightly higher than the IPCB regulations, the sound barrier wall would bring the noise levels into compliance at these points. The sound barrier wall will provide a significant improvement, but Event noise will most likely still be audible. Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 6 • A full application of the IPCB regulations would require that Event noise levels also be assessed at the adjacent commercial properties, especially the hotel property, which is considered a Class A property, the same as the residential properties. The Event noise levels at these commercial properties are currently, clearly in violation of the IPCB regulations, however, it is our understanding from the City that these property owners have indicated that they are not troubled by the noise. • Whether now or in the future, the City may wish to consider adopting a noise ordinance that includes limitations on noise from specific types of sources, such as music and amplified speech. The U.S. EPA Model Noise Ordinance includes language that could be considered as do some other community noise ordinances. • To ensure that the proposed sound barrier wall performs as predicted, minimum sound transmission loss (TL) and minimum sound absorption coefficients should be specified for the wall. Shiner + Associates should also confirm the necessary wall height at the proposed location. • The settings on the audio system's limiters should be optimized to minimize sound levels while still providing a satisfactory experience for guests. This may already have been done by Fountain Blue. A sound level monitor with visible warning and exceedance lights should be installed in the Tent to help Fountain Blue and the DJ's monitor the noise levels. • Finally, the construction of a second sound barrier wall, located along the east and south residential property lines could be considered, however it would be expensive and it is not needed to meet the IPCB regulations at the residences. Conditional Use Standards: As required by Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Board of Appeals must review the proposed development in accordance with the following standards: A. The proposed conditional use is in fact a conditional use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: As the Zoning Ordinance is currently silent on banquet facilities, the Zoning Administrator has classified the current operation as an "Indoor Commercial Recreation — Dance Hall" which requires is a conditional use in the C-3, General Commercial Zoning District. B. The proposed conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The 2007 Comprehensive Plan proposes "Community Commercial" development for this area. Community Commercial includes commercial areas providing neighborhood -and community-based retail goods and services located at major intersections in commercial districts. These commercial areas serve surrounding neighborhood residents as well as consumers from outside the City. The proposed commercial use serves both residents and patrons from outside the City. 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: While no changes are proposed to the existing masonry building, the white tent is visible from some vantage points on the commercial corridor streets and also from the neighboring residential streets. The tent is currently in good condition and not considered to be detrimental in appearance to the surrounding properties. D. The proposed conditional use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: None of the functions of the banquet facility (Indoor Commercial Recreation — Dance Hall) are anticipated to be hazardous or disturbing to the surrounding neighborhood with recommended conditions of approval. 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: After reviewing the petitioner's plans, the proposed conditional use would be served adequately by essential public facilities and it would not overburden existing public services. Recommended conditions of approval are included that address compliance with Fire and Building Codes including an annual inspection. Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 7 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: The proposed conditional use would appear to have adequate public facilities; it would not create a burden on public facilities nor would it be a detriment to the economic well being of the community. Recommended conditions of approval are included that address compliance with Fire and Building Codes including an annual inspection. 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: A traffic and parking study prepared by Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, and Aboona, Inc. to examine the traffic characteristics of the proposed facility determined that traffic generated by the facility can be accommodated on the adjacent street network. Acoustical studies were performed by Shriner + Associates and Soundscape Engineering evaluating noise levels. It is anticipated that noise issues can be significantly improved with recommended conditions of approval. 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: The project would continue to primarily use an existing curb cut on Mannheim Road with additional vehicular access provided from adjacent commercial properties. Mannheim Road is designated as an arterial street in the Comprehensive Plan. A traffic study prepared by Kenig, Lindgren, O'Hara, and Aboona, Inc. to examine the traffic characteristics of the proposed facility determined that traffic generated by the facility can be accommodated on the adjacent street network. I. 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 plan would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance. The tent does cover an area of the site that was previously developed as a pervious surface with turf landscaping. J. The proposed conditional use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the conditional use requested: Comment: The Zoning Ordinance contains Environmental Performance Standards (Article 12) that limit noise at the property line to not more than ordinary vehicular noise, while the applicant's provided reports completed by Shiner + Associates (Attachment 6) compare measured noise level to the Illinois Pollution Control Board standards. Both the Shiner and Soundscape reports anticipate that noise levels will remain audible beyond the property line, even with recommended conditions of approval. If the Conditional Use Permit is approved, it is recommended that the City Council direct staff to research and develop a Noise Ordinance for the City that would create standards for noise limits. The U.S. Environmental Agency's Model Community Noise Ordinance is one example. Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit request for the expansion of a Banquet Hall (Commercial Indoor Recreation — Dance Hall) within a tent structure based on a review of the information presented by the applicant, the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the findings made above, all in accordance with Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to the following conditions of approval: 1. An annual inspection shall be performed by the tent manufacturer, or seller, between April 1-15 with CED and Fire Department staff present. An annual inspection fee of $250.00 is required. 2. For any event in the tent, a minimum of two employees shall be present who have received annual training in the use of fire extinguishers and who can assist in evacuating occupants. 3. No exits shall be obscured. 4. No open flames, Sterno warmers, pyrotechnics, or candles shall be used in the tent at any time. An exemption shall be allowed for weddings for the use of a "Unity Candle" on a metal or other fire retardant surface, which candle will be extinguished following the lighting ceremony. Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 8 5. No cooking shall take place in the tent. 6. All decoration and wall coverings shall comply with the International Fire Code, as adopted by the City of Des Plaines. 7. The applicant shall maintain the exterior of the tent in a clean and undamaged condition at all times. 8. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the applicant shall post security in the form of a letter of credit in a sufficient amount to cover any disassembly that may be required if the tent falls into disrepair. 9. Hours of Operation within the tent shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., with amplified sound limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. 10. Live bands or music shall be prohibited at the site in question outdoors or inside the tent. 11. The use of subwoofers shall be prohibited outdoors or inside the tent. 12. The house audio system shall include sound level limiters which shall be set at the most restrictive level that still provides a satisfactory experience for the guests. 13. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, sound meters shall be installed within the tent with a visible indicator to warn when sound levels are exceeding a pre -established noise limit. One potential commercial monitoring system is the SoundEar II. A system of quality equivalent to this shall be used. 14. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, sound absorbing materials that shall have a minimum noise reduction coefficient of 0.80 (NRC 0.80 min.) shall be affixed to the exterior of the West wall of the building. 15. Prior to issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, the petitioner shall construct the proposed sound barrier wall. The wall shall be constructed with a sound absorbing finish on the side facing the Tent rather than a more standard sound reflective side that would increase the amount of Event noise heard at the hotel located to the site's south. The sound absorption shall have a minimum noise reduction coefficient of 0.80 (NRC 0.80 min.). The sound barrier wall shall also provide a transmission loss (TL) of 20 dB or greater in all octave bands from 31.5 Hz to 4,000 Hz. 16. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the sound barrier wall, Shiner + Associates shall provide details about height and type of wall used in the modeling that resulted in 6-7 dB reduction, including the height from grade of the tent. The construction plans shall conform to the height of the barrier that was modeled. 17. Prior to issuance of the building permit for the sound barrier wall, the Zoning Administrator shall review and consider the exterior appearance of wall. 18. In order to continue operations, the applicant shall install all necessary improvements needed to comply with all conditions contained herein, including construction of the required sound barrier within 120 days of City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit Ordinance. 19. The City shall reevaluate the noise conditions one year following issuance of the Conditional Use Permit and may require, at the banquet facility's expense, construction of additional sound mitigating site improvements possibly including a second sound barrier wall located directly to the south and east of the residential properties that would provide significant additional noise reduction, 10 dB or greater. The location of the improvements shall be determined by a third party acoustical engineer while taking into account property ownership. 20. Noise levels shall not exceed Illinois Pollution Control Board standards at any residential property line. Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure: Under Section 3.4-4-C (Conditional Uses) the Zoning Board of Appeals has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or disapprove the above-mentioned Conditional Use Permit for expansion of a Banquet Hall (Commercial Indoor Recreation — Dance Hall) within a tent structure in the C-3, General Commercial District. The City Council has the final authority on the project. Mr. Sevener provided a brief summary of his report. The Shiner and Associates reports realistic reductions of 6-7 dB if a barrier is constructed. The sound levels measured are currently close to the Illinois pollution criteria and would be reduced further with a wall, but would still likely be heard at the residences. Absorption materials would also help reduce noise for neighboring properties including the hotel. Additionally sound system limiters are present and can be adjusted to address noise. The following residents spoke with numerous complaints regarding noise generated from events in the tent being audible at their homes: Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 9 Ray Bochat, 2230 Pine Street: Multiple complaints were received besides Mr. Dillon who claims that noise can still be heard. The sound at Fountain Blue goes on for 3-4 hours. He suggests that the tent get moved to in front of the building. Mary Ann Naccarato, 2231 Pine Street: Questions how the sound can be contained in a fabric structure and feels that it is not possible. She continued by saying that modifications have been made, but feels the problem is still there. She said the music is quieter but there are still loud noises when the crowd cheers and toasts are made. Dorothy Sarno, 2240 Chestnut Street: The music is so loud that she can still hear it even when her windows are closed. She continued to say the noise has been going on for two summers. Pablo Montes, 2210 Pine Street: Main concern is the loud noise. He feels a wall would not help and talked about the aesthetics and worries about the outcome if no one likes the way the wall looks. He feels the noise affects people's sleep levels and how they function and personally needs quiet after 10:00 p.m. Madulo Montes, 2210 Pine Street: Stated that they moved to their current house from a townhouse two blocks away in order to avoid noise and does not feel a wall will eliminate the noise. Ronald Larson, 885 Hoffman Parkway: Spoke about other villages' noise ordinances. Discusses previous complaints against Fountain Blue and citations they received. Sandra Dillon, 2251 Pine Street: She feels improvements were made but the problem still exists. She says that aldermen have witnessed the noise levels. She stressed her health concerns about the noise levels and recommends everything be evaluated again. Bill Dillon, 2251 Pine Street: A 33 year resident states the when the tent went up is when the complaints started. A major source is environmental noise, DJ speaking, singing and shouting. He spoke about acoustical reports and stated that there is no practical solution for the outdoor tent other than containing the sound inside the building. Mr. Spyratos summarized that the noise has been reduced. Citations that were issued in July and August 2012 regarding the noise were subjective and the fines were reduced. The sound studies concluded that noise would be further reduced with a wall, but the citizens are not satisfied with that proposal. There was discussion about the location of other tents in the Chicago area. Board Member Saletnik expressed his opinion that the problem was proximity between the tent and residences In response to questions from Board Members about either building a permanent structure or relocating the tent, Mr. Diamond stated that neither option was financially feasible. In response to concerns about noise spikes, Mr. Sevener said that a compressor limiter should address the spikes and would be quieter but some spikes in sound would still be there. Mr. and Mrs. Dillon stated that they have gone back to acoustic consultants and the consultants feel that the tent should not be in a residential area. Disturbing the peace is the issue. Board Member Hofherr recommended city should come up with a noise ordinance for the city and a code regarding tents and that certain conditions were not included and should be addressed. Board Members concurred that the code is not clearly defined and lacks objective standards. Case # 13 -003 -CU 2300 Mannheim Road March 12, 2013 Page 10 A motion was made by Board Member Szabo seconded by Board Member Catalano to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit request to the City Council, subject to conditions of approval presented in the staff memo with the modification that the hours of operation are amended to allow the tent to operate until midnight instead of 10:OOp.m.. AYES: NAYES: Szabo, Catalano Hofherr, Porada, Saletnik, Seegers, Schell MOTION FAILED Chairman Seegers stated that the case would move forward without a recommendation from the ZBA. The meeting was adjourned at 10:59 p.m. by unanimous voice vote. Sincerely, Arnie Seegers, Chairman Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioner