09/12/2017Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
SEPTEMBER 12, 2017
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September
12, 2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD
PRESENT: Bader, Catalano, Fowler, Saletnik, Schell, Szabo
ABSENT: Hofherr
ALSO PRESENT: Michael McMahon, Director/Community & Economic Development
Johanna Bye, AICP, Senior Planner/Community & Economic Development
Stewart Weiss, General Counsel/Holland & Knight
Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary
Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was conducted.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to approve the minutes
of August 22, 2017 as written.
AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Bader, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Fowler
***MOTION CARRIED 5-0***
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments.
Chairman Szabo introduced and welcomed Rebecca Fowler as a new PZB Member.
PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS
1. Address: 550 Graceland Avenue Case 17-067-V
The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-3-6(F)a of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to make legal an addition to the west side of the building that has a setback of 0 feet,
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 2
when a minimum of 5 feet is required. This addition was done at least 25 year ago; approval of a Standard
Variation will allow the property owners to make life safety upgrades to the structure.
PIN: 09-20-400-011-0000
Petitioner: John Graham, 550 Graceland Avenue #1, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: 550 Graceland Condo Association, 550 Graceland Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Petitioner John Graham, 550 Graceland Avenue #1, Des Plaines, IL 60016 who
advised there was a wooden extension placed on the garage (before 1992); garage door was added. This
extension is up to the property line. The Building & Fire Code Enforcement Officer identified there were
no permits. Petitioner asks that a variation be granted, and he will make it fire proof. He stated if this is not
granted, 3 ft. of parking spaces would be cut-off which will be a problem, as the parking spaces are legally
deeded to the condo owners.
Board Member Catalano asked if Petitioner is aware that the materials be one-hour fire resistant. Petitioner
stated fire-resistant paint or drywall would be used. Chairman Szabo stated paint won’t be enough; drywall
will accomplish the goal. Board Member Saletnik stated construction of a new roof and walls will have to
be rebuilt.
Chairman Szabo asked Senior Planner Bye to provide the Staff Report which she did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Standard Variation under Section 12-3-6(F)a of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to make legal an addition to the west side of the building that has a setback
of 0 feet, when a minimum of 5 feet is required. This addition was done at least 25 year ago; approval of a
Standard Variation will allow the property owners to make life safety upgrades to the structure.
Analysis:
Address: 550 Graceland Avenue
Owners: 550 Graceland Condo Association, 550 Graceland Avenue, Des Plaines,
IL 60016
Petitioner: John Graham, 550 Graceland Avenue #1, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 17-067-V
Real Estate Index Number: 09-20-400-011-0000
Ward: #1, Alderman Mark Lysakowski
Existing Zoning: R-4 Central Core Residential
Existing Land Use: Multiple-Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-4 Central Core Residential
South: C-3 General Commercial
East: R-4 Central Core Residential
West: R-4 Central Core Residential
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 3
Surrounding Land Use: North: Multiple-Family Residential
South: Commercial
East: Multiple-Family Residential
West: Multiple-Family Residential
Street Classification: Graceland Avenue in this area is a local street
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as High Density Multiple-Family
The property at 550 Graceland Avenue is a legally conforming lot with regard to both lot width (100 feet;
minimum 50 feet required) and lot size (12,500 square feet; minimum 10,000 square feet required) in the R-
4 Central Core Residential District. The property is currently improved with a three-story, multiple-family
brick building that was constructed in the late 1970s.
When constructed, the building had a 5-foot setback from the western lot line (the minimum required side-
yard setback for a property in this zoning district). At some point between the building’s construction and
the early 1990s, a 5-foot addition to the west side of the building was constructed that resulted in a side-yard
setback of 0 feet. Our records do not indicate that a permit was obtained for this work. During a recent Des
Plaines Fire Prevention Bureau and Building Department inspection of the property, it was noted that the
addition does not meet current building and fire code standards. In order to make required improvements to
the addition, it must become legal through approval of a Standard Variation for the setback from the lot line.
The applicant does not propose to change the area or height of the structure, just make upgrades as required
by building and fire code.
Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the
1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following
comments:
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 has stated that the addition to the building is recorded in the legal
description of the interior parking spaces. The addition to the building was done prior to 1998 and
is estimated to have been completed sometime between construction of the building in the late 1970s
and the early 1990s.
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 petitioner has stated that without the addition, the interior parking spaces would be
too short to be usable.
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
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 4
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 addition to the building was done prior to 1998 and is estimated to have been
completed sometime between construction of the building in the late 1970s and the early 1990s.
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 petitioner has stated that the loss of the building addition would change the size of
the interior parking spaces that have been legally assigned to unit owners. Loss of the building
addition could possibly result in legal action against the homeowners association.
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: The petitioner has stated that without the addition, the interior parking spaces would be
too short to be usable.
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 petitioner has stated that there have been no complaints against the building addition
that was completed at least 25 years ago.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the above-requested Standard Variation for building setback
in the R-4 Central Core Residential District based on a review of the information presented by the applicant
and the standards and conditions imposed by Section 12-3-6(H) (Findings of Fact for Variations) as outlined
by the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, subject to the condition that the building addition be upgraded
to meet the standards of the building and fire code, as per the attached Fire Department Memo dated August
15, 2017.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure
Under Section 12-3-6(F) of the Zoning Ordinance (Standard Variations) the Planning and Zoning Board
has the authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned Standard
Variation for building setback in the R-4 Central Core Residential District.
Chairman Szabo asked if there are further questions from the Board. There were none. He asked if anyone
in the audience is in favor or against this proposal. No one responded.
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Schell, to approve as requested
with Conditions by Fire Department.
AYES: Catalano, Schell, Bader, Fowler, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 5
2. Address: 30 N. River Road Case 17-062-V-MAP
The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, to reclassify
the property from the C-3 General Commercial District to the I-1 Institutional District to permit a place of
worship, Major Variations under Section 12-7-5(A)7 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended,
to allow: a front yard setback of 11.5 feet, when a minimum of 50 feet is required; a side yard setback of 0
feet, when 25 feet is required; a rear yard setback of 3 feet, when 50 feet is required; a lot coverage of 100%,
when a maximum of 40% is permitted; a total lot area of .35 acres, when a minimum of 2 acres is required,
in the I-1 Institutional District, and a Major Variation under Section 12-9-7 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to allow a total of 9 on-site parking spaces, when a minimum of 39 parking spaces
are required.
PIN: 09-08-402-008-0000
Petitioner: Babatope Adedara, 1645 S. River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner: Patel Family LLP, 30 N. River Road, Suite 103, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Babatope Adedara, 860 Reserve Drive, St. Charles, IL. He noted the order
changes when religious institutions are presenting and asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Senior
Planner Bye did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting an Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map, as amended, to
reclassify the property from the C-3 General Commercial District to the I-1 Institutional District to permit a
place of worship, Major Variations under Section 12-7-5(A)7 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as
amended, to allow: a front yard setback of 11.5 feet, when a minimum of 50 feet is required; a side yard
setback of 0 feet, when 25 feet is required; a rear yard setback of 3 feet, when 50 feet is required; a lot
coverage of 100%, when a maximum of 40% is permitted; a total lot area of .35 acres, when a minimum of
2 acres is required, in the I-1 Institutional District, and a Major Variation under Section 12-9-7 of the 1998
Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow a total of 9 on-site parking spaces, when a minimum of
39 parking spaces are required.
Analysis:
Address: 30 N. River Road
Owners: Patel Family LLP, 30 N. River Road, Suite 103, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: Babatope Adedara, 1645 S. River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Case Number: 17-062-V-MAP
Real Estate Index Number: 09-08-402-008-0000
Ward: #1, Alderman Mark Lysakowski
Existing Zoning C-3 General Commercial District
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 6
Existing Land Use Commercial
Surrounding Zoning North: C-2 Limited Office Commercial District
South: C-3 General Commercial District
East: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
West: C-2 Limited Office Commercial District
Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial
South: Commercial
East: Forest Preserve
West: Commercial
Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates N. River Road as an arterial street
Comprehensive Plan Community Commercial is the recommended use of the property
Project Description The petitioner proposes to rezone 30 N. East River Road from the C-3
General Commercial District to the I-1 Institutional District in order to
operate Fountain of Life Church, a place of worship. Places of worship
are not a permitted use in the C-3 General Commercial District, but are
permitted in the I-1 Institutional District. The property is approximately
15,600 square feet and is improved with two structures, a front and a rear
building. The front building is approximately 5,236 square feet and the
rear building is approximately 2,400 square feet. No changes are
proposed for the exterior of the buildings or the site.
The petitioner proposes to occupy the front portion of the front building,
as well as the rear building, and would offer church services on
Wednesday evenings and Sundays. Additional social services, such as
counseling, may be offered in the future. Fountain of Life Church
currently operates at 1645 S. River Road 1 and plans to move to 30 N.
River Road for more space.
Currently, a physical fitness studio occupies the rear of the front building
and would remain. The tenant, Rush Performance, is an appointment-
only, high-intensity workout studio that is primarily utilized early
mornings and in the evening, with some use at lunchtime. The business
is closed on Sundays. This type of use (indoor commercial recreation)
requires a Conditional Use Permit in the I-1 Institutional District and is
permitted in the C-3 General Commercial District. If the property is
rezoned, the tenant would become legal non-conforming, but would only
1 1645 S. River Road is zoned C-3 General Commercial. In 2012, Fountain of Life Church received a Conditional Use
Permit to operate from the space. At that time, places of worship were permitted as a Conditional Use in the C-3
General Commercial District. In 2013, a Text Amendment was approved by the City Council that removed places of
worship from all commercial districts. The reasoning behind this was that the change created consistency between
other non-commercial institutional uses, such as community centers and membership organizations, which are
also not permitted in commercial zoning districts.
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 7
be required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit if in the future they
decided to expand their operations.
Properties that are rezoned must meet the bulk requirements (setbacks,
lot and/or building coverage, etc.) for the proposed new zoning district.
As is, the structures at 30 N. River Road do not meet the required front
(25 feet), side (25 feet), and rear (50 feet) yard setbacks required for
properties in the I-1 Institutional District, nor does the lot meet the
minimum lot area required (2 acres). Additionally, a maximum of 40%
lot coverage is permitted in the I-1 Institutional District, and the lot at
present has 100% lot coverage. As a result, the petitioner has requested
variations for all of the above.
The petitioner is seeking one final variation to decrease the number of
required parking spaces from 39 to 9. Based on the proposed size of the
church (122 seats), 31 parking spaces are required (1 parking space per
4 seats in the main auditorium or sanctuary), plus 8 parking spaces for
the fitness studio use (1 parking space per 300 square feet of area; 8
spaces required for a 2,400 square foot tenant space). In order to make
up for this deficiency, the petitioners have stated that they plan to secure
a parking lease agreement with the property to the north. A draft of the
parking lease agreement is attached with this report.
Zoning Map Amendment Findings
As required, the proposed amendment is reviewed below in terms of the standards contained in Section 12-
3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Community Commercial. As
defined by the Plan, Community Commercial areas provide 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 Comprehensive Plan
identifies the Rand and River Road area as one of five major commercial “nodes” in Des Plaines. Places of
worship have not been contemplated as a proposed use in Community Commercial areas. It should be noted,
however, that places of worship are only briefly touched upon in the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the current conditions and the overall
character of existing developments in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
There are no other places of worship in the immediate vicinity of the proposed church at 30 N. East River
Road. The surrounding properties are primarily commercial and light industrial in nature. Though there are
no other places of worship, this type of use can complement the surrounding commercial and light industrial
operations, as these are typically daytime and weekday operations. The church proposes to offer services
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 8
Wednesday evenings and on Sundays, when most of the surrounding businesses will be closed. The proposed
use is not expected to have a negative impact on the surrounding properties.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and
services available to the subject property.
The public facilities and services provided by the City of Des Plaines are expected to be adequate within this
area. No additional expansion of public facilities or services is anticipated.
D. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout
the jurisdiction.
The use of the site as a church is not expected to have an adverse effect on the value of surrounding properties.
The petitioner proposes no changes to the buildings or site that would alter the character of the neighborhood
in any way.
E. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth.
The proposed Map Amendment to reclassify the property to the I-1 Institutional District would allow for a
place of worship to operate on the site. While not a traditional location for a place of worship, the proposed
site offers an opportunity for a small church to expand its operations while occupying a modest property that
fits their needs.
Variation Findings
Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments:
7. 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:
Bulk Standards Variations: The petitioner has stated that churches come in different sizes and that
two acres of land (the minimum amount required for properties in the I-1 Institutional District) is
more than the church will ever need. The petitioner stated that there are no appropriately-zoned
locations for churches their size within Des Plaines.
Parking Variations: The petitioner has stated that while their proposed floor plan shows 122 seats
in the sanctuary, likely the total number of parishioners will be much less for the time being, which
results in fewer parking spaces needed. Though the church has outgrown its current location, the
proposed new location will have plenty of space. The congregation has had difficulty finding a
tenant space in Des Plaines that is the right size for the congregation, while at that same time has
enough parking per the Zoning Ordinance.
8. 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
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 9
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:
Bulk Standards Variations: The lot is approximately 15,000 square feet in area and has two existing
structures. The surrounding properties are already developed and cannot be acquired to create the
minimum two acres required for lots in the I-1Institutional District.
Parking Variations: The lot is approximately 15,000 square feet and has already been developed
with two structures. At this time, the lot cannot be altered in any way to add more parking, nor can
adjacent parcels be assembled to enlarge the site. Parking spaces can, however, be leased from
adjacent sites to make up for the lack of parking.
9. 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:
Bulk Standards Variations: The lot has already been developed. The petitioner is not seeking to
make changes to the buildings or lot, simply to operate a place of worship.
Parking Variations: The lot has already been developed. To address the lack of parking on-site, the
petitioner proposes to lease parking spaces from adjacent sites.
10. 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:
Bulk Standards Variations: The petitioner has stated that since moving into Des Plaines in 2012,
they have been able to reach out to like-minded individuals and establish a community. Since they
have outgrown their current space, denial of the proposed variations would prevent churches of their
size from operating in the city. The petitioner has stated that that would send a message that only
larger churches and businesses are supported, as opposed to small- to medium-sized ones.
Parking Variation: Though the site has a shortage of parking spaces based on the church’s needs,
there is plenty of unused parking within the vicinity of the site, especially given the fact that church
services will be held on days and times that the surrounding businesses will be closed. Not
permitting the church to utilize these spaces would prevent them from operating in the space.
11. 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:
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 10
Comment:
Bulk Standards Variations: The variations for lot area, setbacks, and lot coverage result from the
proposed zoning change. No changes are proposed for the already established site; the petitioner
simply seeks to utilize the buildings for a place of worship.
Parking Variation: Approval of a parking variation, with the condition of a parking lease with an
adjacent property, allows the petitioner to use the site as-is and utilize existing parking in the
vicinity.
12. 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:
Bulk Standards Variations: Approval of the requested variations would allow for the petitioner to
operate a place of worship on the site. Use of the space by a church would not alter the character of
the community in any way, since no changes are proposed to the building or site.
Parking Variation: Approval of the parking variation would allow the petitioner to utilize existing
parking in the surrounding area.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Map Amendment to the Official Des Plaines Zoning Map,
as amended, to reclassify the property from the C-3 General Commercial District to the I-1 Institutional
District to permit a place of worship. The Map Amendment would allow a place of worship to operate in a
non-traditional site that meets the growing church’s needs.
I recommend approval of the Major Variations under Section 12-7-5(A)7 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to allow: a front yard setback of 11.5 feet, when a minimum of 50 feet is required; a
side yard setback of 0 feet, when 25 feet is required; a rear yard setback of 3 feet, when 50 feet is required; a
lot coverage of 100%, when a maximum of 40% is permitted; a total lot area of .35 acres, when a minimum
of 2 acres is required, in the I-1 Institutional District. No changes to the site are proposed; the above variations
are required simply as a result of the zoning change.
I recommend approval of the Major Variation under Section 12-9-7 of the 1998 Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to allow a total of 9 on-site parking spaces, when a minimum of 39 parking spaces
are required, subject to the following condition listed below. Staff supports shared parking, especially given
the fact that the church services are offered on Wednesday nights and Sundays when most of the surrounding
businesses are closed.
Condition:
1. The petitioner execute and maintain in perpetuity a parking lease agreement with the property to the
north.
Plan & Zoning Board Procedure: Under Sections 12-3-6(G)2 (Procedure for Review and Decision for
Variations) and 12-3-7(D)3 (Procedure for Review and Decision for Amendments) of the Zoning Ordinance,
the Planning & Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval
of the proposed variations. The City Council has final authority over the variations requested.
Mr. Adedara stated he is the Pastor of the RCC Fountain of Life Church which was incorporated in 2011
and is a 501(c)3 organization. The church was in Rosemont prior to 2011; presently the church is in Des
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 11
Plaines at 1645 S. River Road. As the size of the parish has grown, he advised a new larger church and
location is needed. Mr. Adedara stated 55% of members live in Des Plaines and surrounding suburbs. He
noted the co-Pastor is Rolly, his wife and accountant (Mr. Adedara noted he is an accountant as well). He
stated there are approximately 50 adults and 20 children as parishioners.
One program was identified as Operation Christmas Child. Events include rummage sales and
complimentary car washes. In 2013, the church sponsored a church in India and gave $400 per month for a
period of 2 years.
Mr. Adedara advised the current location is in a flood zone (photos were illustrated). Mr. Adedara noted
two years ago, the church staff came before this Board regarding another location (to move to) however
that did not materialize.
There are two buildings on the proposed lot. Multiple variations are being sought. Mr. Adedara noted most
landlords, due to a lengthy approval process, do not like working with churches. He noted the current
parking is nine spaces. Agreements were circulated and lots were identified north of this lot (where 46
spaces are available) and behind this lot (where 25 spaces are available). The additional lots would be used
for two hours on Sunday. A $3 million insurance policy has been drafted (and was distributed). It was
noted there is a building lease of 5 years. The church has been at the current building for 5 years also.
Mr. Weiss, General Counsel, asked if parking spaces would be leased from both locations. Petitioner
advised – yes and illustrated same. Petitioner stated the lease identifies 18 current parking spaces at 30 N.
River Road (not just nine as the City recognizes). Ms. Bye stated that the parking spaces identified on the
site plan in the rear of the property do not meet the size and drive aisle requirements of the Zoning
Ordinance, and can therefore not be considered legal parking spaces.
Chairman Szabo asked what the name of the business is that they proposed to lease parking spaces from.
Petitioner advised – 1415 Redeker LLC. Mr. Weiss, advised the lease is specifically for Sundays with
specific times. The Petitioner concurred (and stated around 10 a.m.-12:30 p.m.).
Board Member Catalano asked what the plans are for Wednesday services. Petitioner advised – services are
taken to people’s homes; up to nine spaces won’t even be needed. He noted 45% of parishioners live in
Chicago and attend their other church.
Chairman Szabo asked if anyone in the audience would like to comment. The following came forward:
• Tom Schiro 1355 E. Golf Road
Mr. Schiro asked what time parking is needed on Wednesday nights. Petitioner advised – 7 p.m.-
8:30 p.m.
He asked what if the church grows. Petitioner advised – the extra spaces will be adequate.
• Barb Vanslambrouck 286 Stratford; business (Chromatech Printing, Inc.) is located at 16
Mary Street
Ms. Vanslambrouck stated:
o the building on Redeker may be up for sale
o more churches are needed; however, there is concern about zoning; worried about
changing C-3 to I-1 (due to no taxes)
o she is concerned about spot zoning
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 12
o what happens after 5 years if the church staff leaves the building? Will I-1 revert back to
C-3?
o an exception is recommended to allow churches to rent in C-3
o does this require a traffic study?
Ms. Vanslambrouck noted she was approached for a parking lease originally.
Chairman Szabo stated options are perhaps reverting the zone back to C-3 after the church staff
leaves or when the lease expires; Board Member Saletnik concurred. Mr. Weiss stated this will
bring up Public Notice issues, and stated further research could be conducted.
It was noted a Text Amendment would be required to alter uses. Senior Planner Bye added history
on this zoning and previous Text Amendments. She shared any C-3 Text Amendment would apply
to all C-3 Districts. Mr. Weiss advised a Conditional Use could be written for a specific user (map
rezoning).
Petitioner responded to questions:
o in the lease, there are taxes included
o regarding a traffic study, there is no traffic. On Wednesdays, there are less than 20
people.
Board Member Saletnik noted the Petitioner is requesting a Map Amendment. Mr. Weiss stated exploring a
reverter is possible (with research). Director McMahon reiterated the footnote noting zoning changes and
the City’s rationale to require Map Amendments.
Board Member Catalano asked if Staff is in favor of just 20 parking spaces. Senior Planner Bye stated the
preference is the parking lot to the north. Board Member Fowler asked if it is either/or. Petitioner stated
they are still in discussions (landlord is charging $2,000 per month). He noted the Electrical Building
parking lot has 15 spaces. Economics are distancing the church from securing the parking lot to the north.
Director McMahon suggested a motion with a condition to secure 30 legal off-site parking spaces;
Chairman Szabo concurred. Board Member Saletnik concurred but stated the lot at 1415 Redeker may not
be properly striped.
Board Member Catalano asked if the parking lease should match the length of the building lease. Petitioner
advised the landlord only wants to offer a one-year lease at a time. He shared both lots have the same
owner.
The following audience members came forward and were sworn in by Chairman Szabo:
• Mike Vanslambrouck 286 Stratford; business (Chromatech Printing, Inc.) is located at 16
Mary Street
Mr. Vanslambrouck inquired/stated:
o as to what the current status is of the sale at 1415 Redeker. Director McMahon stated
research would have to be conducted to learn that information.
o the lot is unstriped
o he is supportive of church services
o his concerns are:
parking
safety; liability (snow in winter)
zoning change (health fitness business in current space)
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 13
taxes
Mr. Vanslambrouck asked if the owner is present. No one responded. He stated he believes the
owner should be addressed on these issues.
• John Carbone 112 Wisner Street
(real estate broker Park Ridge
representing owner)
Mr. Carbone stated the building at 1415 Redeker is off the market and not for sale. He noted the
owner’s support for the zoning change, and stated all documents have been signed.
Board Member Saletnik suggested a change to the length of legal parking lease. Mr. Weiss suggested a
lease for 30 off-street legal parking spaces as approved by City Council.
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to recommend approval
to City Council of Variations and Conditions as recommended by Staff with a lease for 30 off-street legal
parking spaces.
AYES: Catalano, Saletnik, Bader, Fowler, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council.
At 8:29 p.m., a five-minute break was taken. Board Member Bader recused himself for the evening.
3. Address: 1450 E. Touhy Avenue Case 17-065-FPUD
The petitioner is requesting a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 12-3-5 of the 1998 City
of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the Fairfield Inn & Suites PUD and a Final Plat of
Subdivision, under Section 13-2-1 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code.
The petitioner proposes to construct a 137-unit, five-story hotel and 81 parking spaces, with requested PUD
exceptions from:
• the C-3 General Commercial District standards under Section 12-7-3(L) of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for a total height of 64 feet 6 inches, instead of not more
than 45 feet;
• the Off Street Parking Requirements for hotels and class A restaurants under Section 12-9-7 of the
1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for 335 parking spaces, instead of not less
than 469;
• the Parking Lot Landscaping requirements under Section 12-10-8(C) of the 1998 City of Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for a parking lot setback of .5 feet along the north property line and
3 feet along the west property line, instead of not less than 7 feet, for all parking lots with more than
10 parking spaces;
• and the Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards under Section 12-7-1(c) of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for two trash enclosures to be located 3 feet from a property
line, instead of not less than 5 feet, in the C-3 General Commercial District.
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 14
PIN: 09-29-403-010-0000
Petitioner: Pancor Construction & Development, LLC, 2175 Point Boulevard, Suite 125, Elgin, IL
60123
Owner: Southern Exposure LP/Mannheim Hotel LLC, 2175 Point Boulevard, Suite 125, Elgin, IL
60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Peter Nelson with Pancor Construction & Development, LLC, 2175 Point
Boulevard, Suite 125, Elgin, IL who referred to the Wyndham project at 1450 Touhy (northwest corner of
Mannheim & Touhy) as it has received a facelift. He advised this property at 2350 Mannheim is slated to
be a Fairfield Inn (part of Marriott). He gave background and noted a 5-story, 137-room hotel, 65 ft. tall, is
intended. Mr. Nelson stressed there is sufficient parking as this is a transient hotel. Most guests are
without cars and taking shuttles from the hotel. The uncontrolled parking lot would be controlled with gates
(PARCS’ system for hotel or restaurant guests only). Specifics are:
• 334 parking spaces
• land is being donated for a bus stop with walkway to the building
• 5 shuttle busses (bus parking was illustrated)
• setbacks are on north side and in two waste container areas
• rendering was shown and windows were identified (mason wrap, stone)
Chairman Szabo stated the proposal is a good one though parking is limited. Petitioner noted the PARCS
system with the gates alerts hotel staff to control parking for guests only. Director McMahon noted there
would be Valet Services in the event the parking lot becomes full.
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has further questions. There were none. He asked if anyone in the
audience is in favor or objects to this proposal. No one responded. Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide
the Staff Report which Senior Planner Bye did:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) under Section 12-3-5 of the
1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for the Fairfield Inn & Suites PUD and a Final Plat
of Subdivision, under Section 13-2-1 of Subdivision Regulations of the City of Des Plaines Municipal Code.
The petitioner proposes to construct a 137-unit, five-story hotel and 81 parking spaces, with requested PUD
exceptions from:
• the C-3 General Commercial District standards under Section 12-7-3(L) of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for a total height of 64 feet 6 inches, instead of not more
than 45 feet;
• the Off Street Parking Requirements for hotels and class A restaurants under Section 12-9-7 of the
1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for 335 parking spaces, instead of not
less than 469;
• the Parking Lot Landscaping requirements under Section 12-10-8(C) of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for a parking lot setback of .5 feet along the north property
line and 3 feet along the west property line, instead of not less than 7 feet, for all parking lots with
more than 10 parking spaces;
• and the Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards under Section 12-7-1(c) of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for two trash enclosures to be located 3 feet from a property
line, instead of not less than 5 feet, in the C-3 General Commercial District.
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 15
Analysis:
Final Planned Unit Development Report
Address: 1450 Touhy Avenue
Owners: Southern Exposure LP/Mannheim Hotel LLC, 2175 Point Boulevard,
Suite 125, Elgin, IL 60123
Petitioner: Pancor Construction & Development LLC, 2175 Point Boulevard,
Suite 125, Elgin, IL 60123
Case Number: 17-065-FPUD
Real Estate Index Numbers: 09-29-403-010-0000
Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman
Existing Zoning C-3 General Commercial District
Existing Land Use Hotel and restaurant
Surrounding Zoning North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: Village of Rosemont
East: Railroad; M-2, General Manufacturing District
West: C-2, Limited Office Commercial District
Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial
South: Commercial
East: Railroad; Industrial
West: Office
Street Classification The Comprehensive Plan designates Touhy Avenue as an arterial street
Comprehensive Plan Entertainment is the recommended use of the property
Project Description The petitioner is requesting a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD)
and Plat of Subdivision in order to construct a Fairfield Inn & Suites
hotel at 1450 Touhy Avenue in the C-3 General Commercial District.
The site at present is approximately 5.81 acres and has the 246-unit
Wyndham Chicago O’Hare Hotel and a 5,500 square foot LongHorn
Steakhouse restaurant, both of which will remain. The petitioner
proposes to subdivide the northern portion of the site (approximately
1.59 acres) in order to construct the new hotel. Currently this portion of
the site has parking spaces and a pool. The pool is proposed to be
removed and the parking will be reconfigured to accommodate the new
hotel.
The proposed new 137-room, 5-story hotel will have EIFS facades with
stone veneer and brick on the entire first story. The site currently has 320
parking spaces and after construction will have 335 parking spaces in
total. 469 parking spaces are required per the Zoning Ordinance (this
number is based on the number of rooms and office space in each hotel
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 16
and the number of seats and employees for the restaurant). The existing
curb-cuts to the site, one off of Mannheim Road and one off of Touhy
Avenue, will remain and no additional access points to the site are
proposed.
The petitioner appeared before the Planning and Zoning Board on April
11, 2017, for review of the proposed Preliminary PUD and Tentative Plat
of Subdivision. The PZB recommended (5-0) that the City Council
approve the requests. On June 19, 2017, the petitioner received approval
for the Preliminary PUD and Tentative Plat of Subdivision from the City
Council.
There are two changes to note between the plans submitted for
preliminary approval and those submitted now for final approval. First,
137 hotel rooms are proposed, while only 136 were proposed during
preliminary approval. Staff does not have an issue with the additional
hotel room; however, it does increase by one the number of parking
spaces required per the Zoning Ordinance (and which the petitioner has
requested an exception from). Second, the total height of the structure’s
parapets are now shown at 64 feet 6 inches, instead of 63 feet 4 inches.
Again, staff does not have an issue with this increase in height of 1 feet
2 inches; however, an exception to the maximum height permitted is also
requested by the petitioner. Staff believes the plans are still in substantial
conformity with those submitted for preliminary approval.
Planned Unit Development Findings
As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in Section 12-
3-5(E) of the Zoning Ordinance:
A. The extent to which the Proposed Plan is or is not consistent with the stated purpose of the PUD
regulations in Section 12-3-5(A):
Comment: The proposed plan is consistent with the stated purpose of Section 12-3-5(A) of the Zoning
Ordinance in that the hotel development would allow for a more efficient use of land resulting in more
economic networks of utilities, streets and other facilities not possible under the strict application of the
Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the proposed PUD offers a creative approach to the use of land that results
in better development and design and the construction of aesthetic amenities.
B. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the planned unit
development regulations:
Comment: The proposed Planned Unit Development meets all PUD requirements contained in Section 12-
3-5(B) of the Zoning Ordinance as it would be located in a zoning district that permits PUDs (C-3 General
Commercial District), meets the minimum size standard of two acres (lot is 5.81 acres), and the land is under
unified control of Mannheim Hotel LLC.
C. The extent to which the proposed plan departs from the applicable zoning and subdivision
regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not limited to the density,
dimension, area, bulk, and use and the reasons why such departures are or are not deemed to be in the
public interest:
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 17
Comment: The proposed development meets or exceeds the following applicable zoning regulations for
the C-3 General Commercial District:
• Minimum size for PUD; 2 acres are required; the total site is 5.81 acres;
• Maximum building coverage (Not applicable in the C-3 General Commercial District);
• Setbacks; A front yard setback of 5 feet, side yard setbacks of 5 feet, and a rear yard setback of 5
feet are required; a front yard setback of approximately 78 feet, side yard setbacks of approximately
10.5 feet and 30 feet, and a rear yard setback of approximately 172 feet are proposed;
• Compatibility with surrounding properties; There is no negative impact expected from the proposed
hotel; a hotel and restaurant are located south of the proposed new hotel, a banquet hall to the north,
and office building to the west. An additional hotel is compatible and complementary to these uses.
However, staff would like to point out that a condition of approval will be the installation of a
Parking and Revenue Control System (PARCS) so as not to create a situation where hotel and
restaurant users park on adjacent properties (see section D below for more information);
• Traffic; Adequate provisions for safe ingress and egress and minimal traffic impact will be provided
according to the traffic study; and
• General Design; The general design of the proposed hotel building is not expected to be detrimental
to public health, safety or general welfare.
Planned Unit Development exceptions are requested for:
• Off Street Parking Requirements; 469 spaces (for hotels: 1 parking space per guest room, plus 1
space per 200 square feet of office area; for restaurants: 1 parking 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) are required; 335 are proposed;
• Height; A maximum height of 45 feet is permitted; 64 feet 6 inches feet is proposed;
• Parking Lot Landscaping; a landscaped, 7 foot setback from lot lines is required for parking lots
with more than 10 spaces; a .5 feet and 3 feet setback is proposed; and
• Permitted Obstructions in Required Yards; a 5 foot setback from lot lines is required for trash
enclosures; 3 feet is proposed.
D. The extent to which the physical design of the proposed development does or does not make
adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control of vehicular traffic, provide for,
protect open space, and further the amenities of light and air, recreation and visual enjoyment:
Comment: After reviewing the petitioner’s building and site improvement plans, it appears that the proposed
development is making adequate provision for the necessary infrastructure. Comments and conditions from
the Public Works and Engineering Department further address this issue.
The following table summarizes the current conditions and Zoning Ordinance requirements for on-site
parking:
Parking Summary
Use Rooms/Sq. Ft. Existing Proposed Required
Hotel – Existing 246 266 199 246
Hotel Banquet 3,000 -- -- 30
Class A Restaurant 5,600 55 55 56
Hotel – New 137 -- 81 137
Shuttle N/A 7 0 --
335 469
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 18
Parking is addressed in the petitioner’s professional parking study, which was performed by Walker Parking
Consultants. Contrary to Zoning Ordinance requirements, the study concluded that at peak demand, the site
will have a surplus of 22 parking spaces. However, this is assuming the petitioner installs a Parking and
Revenue Control System (PARCS) to help control access to the site. The need for this system is illuminated
by the petitioner and the parking study. Given the site’s proximity to O’Hare International Airport and several
entertainment venues, the property owners have found that individuals not using the hotel or restaurant have
been parking, often for long periods of time, on the unsecured site. Staff would like to highlight the need for
PARCS to be installed (a condition of approval), so that on-site parking is better managed and a situation is
not created where hotel and restaurants guests are required to utilize parking on adjacent lots.
The control of vehicular traffic is addressed in the petitioner’s professional traffic impact study, which was
performed by Kenig, Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.). The study concluded that the number
of trips estimated to be generated by the development will not be significant and will be further reduced by
approximately 40 percent due to the hotel’s close proximity to O’Hare International Airport and that the
traffic generated by the proposed development will not significantly impact traffic on Mannheim Road or
Touhy Avenue. Additionally, the study concluded that the intersection of Mannheim Road and Touhy
Avenue will experience minimal increases in delay and that the existing access system serving the site is
sufficient.
E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is beneficial or
adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood:
Comment: The style, location and massing of the proposed hotel is compatible with the surrounding
buildings. Touhy Avenue and Mannheim Road are commercial corridors with a variety of building styles and
uses.
F. The extent to which the proposed plan is not desirable to physical development, tax base and
economic well-being of the entire community:
Comment: The proposed hotel would likely have a greater positive impact on property values and the tax
base over the existing land used for parking and a pool. Once the hotel is constructed and occupied, there
will be greater demands on city streets and utilities; however, it is assumed that the City’s current public
services and facilities will be able to handle the increased need at this location.
G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2007
Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan identifies the site as Entertainment. As defined
by the Plan, these areas include establishments such as movie theaters, bowling alleys, casinos, indoor sports
arenas, and restaurants. Though not itself an entertainment use, hotels can support and draw these types of
uses. Given the proximity to O’Hare International Airport and entertainment venues such as Rivers Casino,
a hotel is a compatible and complementary use.
Tentative Plat Report
Name of Subdivision: Fairfield Inn Subdivision
Address: 1450 Touhy Avenue
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 19
Request: Approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision
Total Acreage of Subdivision: 1.59 acres
Lot Descriptions and Construction Plans: The petitioner’s Final Plat of Subdivision for Fairfield Inn
Subdivision shows the existing parcel subdivided into two, with Lot 1 comprised of 1.59 acres and Lot 2
comprised of 4.22 acres. The Final Plat of Subdivision shows existing utility easements as well as the newly
created easement for a bus shelter.
Final Comments
Staff Recommendation: I recommend approval of the Final PUD and Plat of Subdivision for the
construction of a 137-unit, five-story hotel and 81 parking spaces, based on review of the information
presented by the applicant and the findings made above. The plans are in substantial conformity with those
plans submitted and approved for Preliminary PUD and Tentative Plat of Subdivision. Approval is subject to
the following conditions:
Conditions:
1. All engineering plans must be reviewed and approved by the City’s Engineering Department
prior to the application for Final PUD and Plat of Subdivision appearing before the City
Council. This includes obtaining all necessary MWRD, WMO and IDOT permits.
2. The petitioner shall install a Parking and Revenue Control System (PARCS) to manage parking
on the site.
3. Address all comments per the Staff Review Letter dated September 8, 2017.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval,
approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final Planned Unit
Development (PUD) and Plat of Subdivision.
Petitioner stated they are in agreement with Staff Comments & Conditions.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to recommend approval
to City Council with Conditions and notations from September 8, 2017, letter.
AYES: Saletnik, Fowler, Catalano, Schell, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be provided to City Council.
OLD BUSINESS
There was no Old Business
Case #17-067-V – 550 Graceland Avenue – Variation
Case #17-062-V – 30 N. River Road – MAP Amendment & Variations
Case #17-065-FPUD – 1450 E. Touhy Avenue – Final Planned Unit
Development & Plat of Subdivision
September 12, 2017
Page 20
ADJOURNMENT
A motion was made by Board Member Schell, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to adjourn the meeting
at 8:51 p.m.
AYES: Schell, Catalano, Fowler, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Sincerely,
Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners