Loading...
07/31/2012# DES PLAINES ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Un m �July 31,2012 tL ) MINUTES DES PLAINES ILLINOIS The Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, July 31, 2012, at 7:30 P. M., in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PRESENT: Seegers, Catalano, Saletnik, Hofher, Schell, Porada ABSENT: Szabo Also presentwas Associate Planner, Chan Yu, Department of Community and Economic Development. Chairman called the meeting to order at7:30 P.M. Chairman Seegers introduced the only new business item on the agenda, case with the following information: Case Number: 12 -042 -CU -V Address: 959-971 Lee Street Petitioner: Edward Scald, 959 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Request: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use permit under Section 7.3-6-C and a major variation to Section 7.3-6-D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to construct an assisted living facility with a building height of approximately 55'-2" to the top of roof (60'-4" to top of parapet), instead of not higher than 45' in the C-3 Zoning District. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr seconded by Board Member Catalano to approve the minutes of the July 10, 2012, hearings as submitted. AYES: Catalano, Hotherr, Saletnik, Schell, Seegers, Porada NAYES: None MOTION CARRIED Address: 959-971 Lee Street Case 12 -042 -CU -V The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use permit under Section 7.3-6-C and a major variation to Section 7.3-6- D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to construct an assisted living facility with a building height of approximately 55'-2" to the top of roof (60'-4" to top of parapet), instead of not higher than 45' in the C-3 Zoning District. Petitioner: Edward Sosld, 959 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 The following individual was sworn in: Mr. Joe Humann, Tyson and Billy Architects. Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 2 Mr. Joe Hamann, Tyson and Billy Architects, was sworn in to give testimony in this case. Mr. Humann reviewed the proposal as a 5 -story assisted living facility at the address above. Chairman Seegers asked how many lots this proposal would cover to Mr. Hamann. Mr. Humann responded with 2 lots, and described the site area of 36,000 square feet. He explained that a variance was needed in order to fit the building onsite while meeting the required parking and zoning ordinances. The proposed height and number of units would allow the project to be feasible. The conditional use is permissible given the C-3 zoning he asserted. A brief description of the setbacks, parking location, landscaping and building requirements would be met, assured Mr. Hamann, with the exception of the parkway trees. This is due to the setback requirements. The ground floor is primarily dining room, office, mechanical and lobby space. The 2"d floor consists of memory care and 17 units while floors 3-5 would be assisted living units at also 17 per floor. The building exterior would be built to match the surrounding area and he referenced buildings to the north that is 9 stories tall and similar size, scope and textures. The building was also presented to the architectural review commission to receive feedback including materials and colors he explained. Chairman Seegers asked what the additional height was for. Mr. Hum arm responded, due to the required parking and for the building to be cost effective. Moreover, without the additional floor, the project would be unable to move forward. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any parking underneath the building itself. Mr. Hum arm responded no. Chairman Seegers asked if the first floor then is all functional community space, doctor spaces and etc. Mr. Humann responds that is correct and added floors 3 through 5 includes, a game, exercise and salon room and etc. Chairman Seegers asked if the main entrance is all for the parking or off of Lee Street. Mr. Humann responded for the parking, but that there is an entrance off of Lee Street. The main drop off and canopy would face the Southeast. Chairman Seegers asked if the structure is mainly concrete. Mr. Humann responded that the exterior is masonry while the structure itself would be low -bearing steel studs and steel trust floor system. Chairman Seegers asked if the Board Members have any questions. Board Member Catalano asked to clarify if the project did indeed cover 2 lots, as stated by Mr. Humann because he understood it to be 4 lots. Mr. Hum arm acknowledges that Mr. Catalano is correct. Chairman Seegers asked for clarification that the project includes 4 lots, or essentially the whole corner up to the alley, previously commercial. Mr. Humann confirmed this and added that a parking study was performed, and will be removing 3 entrance drives and creating an entrance drive to the proposed building off of Oakwood Avenue. To this end, the study showed that this would ease traffic congestion. Chairman Seegers asked if the parking facility was mainly for guests of the proposed facility. Mr. Humann answered for guests, staff and residents themselves, but added that the majority of the residents will not be able to drive on their own. Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 3 Board Member Hofherr referred to the notes and asks if the peak figure of 21 staff members during the morning shift is correct. Mr. Humann confirmed that this is correct. Board Member Hofherr asked if the project is providing for 28 onsite parking spaces, which would leave 7 spaces for guests or anybody else that would be visiting. Mr. Humann confirmed that this is correct. Board Member Hofherr asked if this parking would be sufficient. Mr. Yu responded that this would meet the parking requirements per the City Ordinance. Mr. Catalano added a question, referring to Exhibit B, of the bulk regulations table, that lists 14 spaces required for staff, and 14 for the residents of the assisted living. With the 2 added, questioned how this would work with 21 staff members working. Mr. Yu responded that the zoning ordinance requires 1 space per 5 beds which equates to 14 spaces and 2 spaces per every 3 employee, which requires 14 more. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any other questions. There were none. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Humann if the variation was for anything other than the height and conditional use. Mr. Humann confirmed the requested height variation and conditional use. Board Member Schell asked whether or not the traffic study considered the use of emergency vehicles, which he added are utilized frequently in this particular area of the City. Mr. Hum arm said that he did not have an answer to that. Board Member Schell then asked Mr. Yu, at what point from a zoning perspective, is density an issue when you put too many of these buildings together in one spot. Mr. Yu responded that the height and area of the lots are considered. This said, the building is 33% higher than what is allowed —or a 3% difference than a typical minor variation. He further stated this project appears to be OK and is why there is a conditional use/variation process to consider it. Board Member Schell responded that this was his point and that it can always be argued that this area of Des Plaines is very dense with these types of buildings. To this end, he asked City staff to look at the project with a broader perspective and at what point do you put too many of these types of buildings together whereas you put stress on City services, cause traffic, congestion, etc. Mr. Yu responded that traffic was considered and due to fewer curb cuts, and the change of land use, which basically shifts from a commercial use to residential would reduce traffic. Board Member Saletnik responded that may be true on Lee Street but given the design, it is forcing all the traffic to go down Oakwood Avenue —which is a residential street. He further added that he believes there should be underground parking provided given the size of the building. Given the staff, visitors and occupants, having only 28 spaces concluded that he can foresee a great deal of overflow of parking on the adjacent neighborhood, especially Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 4 during the holidays. Board Member Saletnik then referred back to underground parking as a solution to that possible issue. Board Member Schell added when you consider the existing congestion on Oakwood Street, summer construction season and flooding, there would be an enormous fight for traffic space. Board Member Porada asked Board Member Schell to clarify that if his last opinion was with respect to parking. Board Member Schell clarified that his argument is supportive of what Board Member Saletnik said about density. The whole development just seemed too dense. Chairman Seegers asked Board Member Saletnik if parking was an issue. Board Member Saletnik responded that parking, density, size of the structure and architecture are issues. Further added that the difference between an average and quality town is the architecture. Boxy buildings and projects that do not offer enough open space are not desired. Board Member Saletnik asserted that the project just appears to be designed to meet minimal requirements versus quality, and as a side effect, will create traffic and parking issues. Board Member Hofherr asked if City staff considered the strain on the Fire Department and ambulance services, especially with the additional demand by the new Casino. This is particularly true for the area he added, given the type of facility and services it offers. Mr. Hum arm said that he does not have an answer to that. Board Member Hofherr added that it appears that the newspapers report weekly on the high volume of calls by the Casino, to a point that the City will begin charging the Casino for services. Additional points included that the Casino is considering for their own in-house ambulance service while City Council is concerned for the funding of an additional fire truck. Board Member Porada asked Board Member Catalano if his basic issue was the parking. Board Member Catalano said yes and added that the highway capacity manual that the study refers to should include emergency services for the type of facility. And that the project should not increase traffic but parking is still a concern. Board Member Porada expressed his respect for his fellow board members but added that the parking code is the parking code. City staff he argued, has checked and verified parking compliance, and suggested that if there is an issue with the parking, to argue and express this to City Council, and to change this in the Zoning Ordinance itself. Board Member Porada concluded that it is not the Zoning Board's place to give personal opinions against the code requirements that were met by the applicant. Chairman Seegers argued, however, that the Zoning Board does consider proposals, in this case, the allowance for additional height, which is an example of the gray area of the ordinance. Board Member Porada concurred that there is gray area, however, the point was, that the applicant met the parking requirements per the code. He further added with respect to Board Member Hofherr's comments that the code does not touch on the subject of ambulance services. Board Member Porada also expressed that tax revenues generated by the project could potentially support services it may require. Chairman Seegers added that legally, the applicant is meeting certain requirements, however, they are also asking for additional requirements. Thus, the ZBA really needs to weigh in on everything —and that includes the quality of the proposal. This is especially true since the ordinance does not touch base with quality. Chairman Seegers then asked Mr. Yu to summarize the staff report. Staff Report Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 5 Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use permit under Section 7.3-6-C and a major variation to Section 7.3-6-D of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: to construct an assisted living facility with a building height of approximately 55'-2" to the top of roof (60'-4" to top of parapet), instead of not higher than 45' in the C-3 Zoning District. Analysis: Proposed Use Assisted Living Facility Petitioner Edward Soske, 959 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner 959 Lee Street LLC, 959 Lee Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016 PIN 09 -20 -208 -003 -0000,09-20-208-004-0000,09-20-208-025-0000,09-20-208- 026-0000 Plan of Operation Twenty-four hour assisted living facility providing 68 units (51 assisted living, 17 memory care) with a maximum of 21 employees per shift Existing Use Printing Company, Auto Repair Service and Tire Shop, Hot Dog Stand Surrounding Land Use North: Multi -Family Residential (Henrich House — Senior Housing) East: Institutional/Commercial (Des Plaines Park District Maintenance) South: Commercial (Auto Body Repair) West: Commercial (Office, Trade Contractor) Existing Zoning C-3, General Commercial Surrounding Zoning North: R-4, Central Core Residential East: G3, General Commercial South: G3, General Commercial West: G3, General Commercial Street Classification Lee Street is classified as an arterial street and Oakwood Avenue as a local street according to the City's Comprehensive Plan. Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan recommends low density multi -family residential for most of the site and office for the remainder. The applicant, Edward Soske, has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to construct an Assisted Living Facility at 959-997 Lee Street. The site is located at the northeast comer of Lee Street and Oakwood Avenue and consists of four lots totaling 36,281 square -feet The site currently contains eight structures and four businesses. Printing and graphics businesses are located within a 4,260 square foot building at the northern edge of the site. An automotive repair and tire shop and hot dog stand are located within the attached structures at the southern end of the site. The property is currently accessed by three curb cuts on Lee Street, two on Oakwood Avenue, and two off the public alley to the east. A five story, 65,308 square -foot Assisted Living Facility is proposed. A major variation is sought because proposed height of the building is approximately 55'-2" to the top of roof (60'-4" to top of parapet), instead of not higher than 45'. Revere Healthcare, Ltd, proposes to manage an Illinois licensed assisted living facility providing housing anc assistance to seniors. The facility will be in operation twenty-four hours a day seven days a week with a peak of 21 Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 6 staff members during the morning shift. The facility would contain 51 assisted living units and 17 memory care units. Additional resident services provided on site would include food service, with a first floor kitchen and dining room, administrative and health professional offices, a chapel, housekeeping, and maintenance. The masonry clad building would be oriented towards Lee Street with the main entrance, gift shop, and other active uses occupying the street frontage. An additional entrance at the rear of the building would provide access to the 28 - space parking lot with drop-off and loading areas. The proposed amount of parking would meet the Zoning Ordinance requirement of one space per 5 beds (68/5=14) plus two spaces per three employees (2/3 x 21=14). The parking lot would be accessed by one curb cut on Oakwood Avenue and two drive entrances from the adjacent alley. The attached traffic study, which was reviewed by the City's Engineering Division, found that: • The volume of traffic generated by the development is minimal (10 to 15 vehicles per hour) due to the nature of the use. • The net change in area traffic volumes is positive because the project replaces four higher traffic generating uses. • Three existing driveways along Lee Street will be removed which reduces both vehicular and pedestrian conflicts points and allows the creation of five on -street parking spaces. • The proposed driveway on Oakwood Avenue will be narrower than the existing driveway creating more room for on -street parking east of the drive. • An on-site loading space is provided with access to the alley for truck maneuvers. • The proposed project will also reduce the volume of trucks in Downtown Des Plaines. • The development requires and provides 28 on-site parking spaces. Conditional Use Findings: As required by Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed development is reviewed below: A. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: An Assisted Living Facility is a Conditional Use in C-3, General Commercial Zoning District, as specified in Section 7.3 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. B. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The 2007 Comprehensive Plan recommends a low density residential and office uses for this site, however, an Assisted Living Facility is a Conditional Use in the current Zoning Ordinance. 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: The proposed Assisted Living Facility would front on Lee Street, an arterial street that is a gateway into Downtown. While the proposed structure would be taller than is allowed in the C-3 District, the structure would be considerably lower in height that the adjacent nine -story multi -family residential structure to the north and would not be out of scale with other buildings in the area that surrounds Downtown. D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: None of the functions of the Assisted Living Facility operation are anticipated to be hazardous or disturbing to the surrounding neighborhood. Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 7 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. 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. 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: Based on the information provided and the traffic study, the proposed Assisted Living Facility is not anticipated to create additional traffic, noise, or odors that could be detrimental to surrounding land 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: The proposed project would reduce the number of existing curbs cuts. According to the traffic study provided, there are is no evidence of potential interference with traffic patterns. I. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance: Comment: All existing structures on the property would be demolished, however, the proposed project would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic or historic features of major importance. J. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested: Comment: A major variation is requested for a building height of greater than 45 -feet, otherwise it appears that the proposed conditional use complies with all additional regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. Recommendation: The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Variation requests for the establishment of an Assisted Living Facility, based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings made above, as specified in Section 3.4-5 (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to conditions of approval: 1. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the existing lots shall be combined through the Subdivision process. 2. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, the Site Plan should be revised to add a minimum of 3 secured bicycle parking spaces for employees and visitors within 50' of the building entrance. 3. Prior to issuance of the Building Permit, a photometric plan shall be submitted that meets the following requirements: a minimum of 1 -foot candle of lighting in parking areas, not to exceed 2.0 -foot candles at commercial district property lines and 0.2 -foot candles at multiple family residential district property lines. Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 8 Zoning Board of Appeals Procedure: Under Section 3.4-4-C of the Zoning Ordinance (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 and Major Variance for the establishment of an Assisted Living Facility in the C-3 zoning district. The City Council has the final authority on the project. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any questions by the board, staff or anyone in the audience in favor or objecting to the proposal. Mr. Tewell stated that he objected and was sworn in by Chairman Seegers. He explained that he and his partners have been working the last couple of years to establish Happy Dawgs and that he worked at the tire shop next door. Mr. Tewell also claimed that the landlord knew about the development plans regarding the aforementioned businesses and failed to tell his tenants. Further, he explained that the two days after Happy Dawgs opened, the landlord raised the rent by $2,500 and is unfair to the tenants. Chairman Seegers asked to confirm that the tenant was not notified of the development plans. Mr. Tewell confirmed Gene and him were not. Gene, he explained, is one of the tenants at 969 Lee Street (J&J Tires). The tire business has been there for eight years and Happy Dawgs just opened he further added, and asked how this project can happen. Chairman Seegers responded that he does not know the terms of the lease. Mr. Tewell responded that there is no lease. Chairman Seegers asked if there was no written lease. Mr. Tewell responded that there is no written lease and thus they are not protected. He then asked the landlord (in the audience) if they can come to an agreement somehow. With no response, Chairman Seegers asked the audience if there was anyone who would like to speak. Mr. Gaughan, a concerned citizen, was sworn in. He explained that he recently retired after 30 years of being a fireman and paramedic in a neighboring town in Glenview, which has 13 assisted living/nursing homes. He further explained that he personally knows the burden that these facilities can have on the emergency response system. He also pointed out the tax revenue of those businesses in the area that must leave would be lost. However, his main point is the location of the proposed facility can only be reached by one direction (northbound on Lee Street) versus four at Glenview. Also mentioned were the two train tracks in the vicinity. Lastly, he explained that he felt it was his duty as a retired firefighter/paramedic to express his concerns with the proposed plan. Chairman Seegers asked the audience if there was anyone who would like to speak. Mr. Lewkowitz, of Arlington Heights was sworn in. He introduced himself as the Executive Director of Oakton Place in Des Plaines which opened January 1, 1980 and described the location of Oakton Place and the staff it employs and services it provides for the community. Mr. Lewkowitz explained that he has been in this field since 1970 and wanted to give his opinion based on his experience. To this end, he suggested that the aging population is aging in place. However, if a person is dependent for three or more categories for activities of daily living, they must seek assistance, and added the average age for assisted living is 88. He then explained the population history and trend since World War II where he concluded that presently, there is a miscalculation for how many baby boomers will need assistance in facilities such as the project presented. He also touched base with Medicare and Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 9 Medicaid cuts in Illinois for nursing homes. The general cost he said, was about $3,500 a month for assisted living. Mr. Lewkowitz concluded that his main argument is that there is a shift away from the assisted living services (less demand) proposed by the project presently. Chairman Seegers asked the audience if there was anyone with anything else they would like to add. Ms. Clemente, an employee of Happy Dawgs and resident of Des Plaines was sworn in. She expressed that she is concerned about the area closing down. She further explained that many people think the existing building is very beautiful, historic, and a petition has been signed by many people to see it remain. Another issue she suggested was that the area already has parking limitations and that the proposed plan would probably pose a worse parking scenario. Chairman Seegers thanked her for her input Mr. Soske, the owner of the property was sworn in. He responded, directed to the Happy Dawgs employees present, that they are employees only, versus the person who is financially responsible for the business. That gentleman, he stated, is not present. He further explained that six months prior to Happy Dawgs opening, he told to the owner, Tom Johnson what was happening to the property. Thereafter, he claimed Mr. Johnson proceeded to give him plans for his business after Mr. Soske suggested against putting any money into the property or opening a business. Mr. Soske stated that Mr. Johnson told him that this is what he wanted to do and he is moving forward with his plan. Three weeks later, Mr. Soske explained that he told Mr. Johnson again, not to invest money into the property, but Mr. Johnson continued nevertheless. Mr. Soske next reported that the day the business opened, he received a letter from the Cook County Assessor's Office, tripling the tax assessment for the property. Thus, he raised the rent to cover the increase in property tax. He concluded that the rent was raised due to taxes by Cook County and that Mr. Johnson, the owner of Happy Dawgs knew about his plans for eight months total. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Soske if there is a written lease or no Mr. Soske responded that there is not. Chairman Seegers confirmed that there were not any terms Mr. Soske confirmed that there were not. Board Member Saletnik asked Mr. Soske if Mr. Johnson knew about his plans and why he should not develop Happy Dawgs. Mr. Soske reconfirmed that this is correct. Thereafter, Board Member Saletnik expressed that this did not make too much sense. Mr. Soske agreed and that is why he reported that he had multiple conversations with Mr. Johnson. Board Member Saletnik explained how serious he takes this position on the board, to serve to the best of his ability for his community. Given, he expressed that he has no issue with an assisted living facility at the location. However, he would like it to be two stories higher with more green space, versus what he believes is a crammed building just to meet the requirements. Further, he explained his architectural background and that he, after reviewing the plans, believes who ever designed the building obviously did it for the most profit possible rather than creating a prideful place in the community. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any more comments. Board Member Porada asked if Mr. Lewkowitz could come back up to speak. Board Member Porada then asked Mr. Lewkowitz to clarify what his purpose was in terms of his attendance. Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 10 Mr. Lewkowitz stated that he is against the project and is concerned for the senior citizens in general and location demands of the facility over the time. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Lewkowitz to reiterate his opposition for the plan. Mr. Lewkowitz stated that he does not think the plan is a viable project, and reviewed political policies, demographics and market demands pertinent to assisted living facilities in general. Board Member Porada expressed that he believes there is a conflict of interest given his position at another assisted living facility and asked why he cares if it is viable project or not. Mr. Lewkowitz expressed because it bothers him that there may be a failed project in the community where he's been a part of for the last 32 years, and further reviewed political/international policies regarding pensions and general incorrect projections of baby boomers. Board Member Catalano asked Mr. Yu if emergency services have any comments on the plan. Mr. Yu responded that Mr. Scott Mangum, the Senior Planner and project manager works closely with other departments of the City, but does not know if he explicitly spoke with the Fire Department. Chairman Seegers asked if there were any more general questions or concerns. Board Member Schell added that he watched a City Council meeting on TV and they discussed the burden of public services due to the Casino. Chairman Seegers asked if that was just a general issue. Board Member Schell responded that it was. Chairman Seegers asked Mr. Yu if the ZBA is to make a recommendation to City Council only. Mr. Yu responded that is correct. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Yu if the ZBA is making two separate recommendations, one for the major variation and one for the conditional use. Mr. Yu responded that is correct. Chairman Seegers asked if there is a motion for the conditional use. A motion was made by Board Member Catalano to recommend approval of the Conditional Use Permit, subject to three conditions proposed by staff. Chairman Seegers asked if there was a second to that motion. There was none and therefore the motion failed. A motion was made by Board Member Schell seconded by Board Member Hofherr to recommend denial of the Conditional Use Permit AYES: Schell, Holbert, Saletnik, Porada NAYES: Catalano, Seegers Case #10 -042 -CU -V-959-997 Lee Street July 31, 2012 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED A motion was made by Board Member Catalano to recommend approval of the height variation as requested. Chairman Seegers asked if there was a second to the motion. There was none and therefore the motion failed. Board Member Catalano asked to clarify procedures if City Council has to approve both the conditional use and height. Conversation among board members continued in regards to treating both proposals as a separate request to be reviewed by City Council. It was clarified at the end of the conversation that the height of the major variation would only pertain to this particular project. A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr seconded by Board Member Schell to recommend denial of the height variation. Board Member Porada asked Mr. Yu what the percentage difference is in terms of height. Mr. Yu responded that it is a 33 percent difference between the top of the parapet and what is the maximum allowed in the district. AYES: Holbert, Schell, Saletnik, Seegers NAYES: Catalano, Porada MOTION CARRIED The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 p.m. by unanimous voice vote. The next scheduled meeting of the Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals is on Tuesday, August 14, 2012. Sincerely, A.W. Seegers, Chairman Seegers Des Plaines Zoning Board of Appeals cc: City Officials Aldermen Zoning Board of Appeals