09/28/2021 PZB Full Packet
Community & Economic Development
1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
P: 847.391.5392 | W: desplaines.org
Planning and Zoning Board Agenda
September 28, 2021
Room 102 – 7:00 P.M.
Call to Order:
Roll Call:
Approval of Minutes: September 14, 2021
Public Comment: For matters that are not on the Agenda
Old Business: None
New Business:
1. Address: 110 S. River Road Case Number: 21-037-CU
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use as required by Section 12-7-3(K) of the
Zoning Ordinance for a trade contractor use at 110 S. River Road, and the approval of
any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary.
PIN: 09-17-200-089-0000
Petitioner: Neil Hansen, 110 S. River Road, Suite 5, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Amarex Real Properties Co., 700 Busse Hwy, Suite #L2,
Park Ridge, IL 60068
2. Address: 2071 Pine Street Case Number: 21-039-V
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting variations as required by Sections 12-7-1 and 12-9-6 of the
Zoning Ordinance to allow the construction of a driveway and parking pad at 2071 Pine
Street, and the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be
necessary.
PIN: 09-29-409-073-0000
Petitioner: Jayantkumar Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner: Jayantkumar Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
3. Address: 2980-3000 S. River Road Case Number: 21-040-CU-LASR
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting to amend a Conditional Use for a Localized Alternative Sign
Regulation (LASR) as required by Section 12-11-8 of the Zoning Ordinance at 2980-3000
S. River Road, commonly known as Rivers Casino, and the approval of any other
variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary.
PINs: 09-34-300-032-0000; 09-34-300-045-0000; 09-34-300-046-0000;
and 09-34-300-047-0000
Petitioner: Midwest Gaming & Entertainment LLC, 900 M. Michigan Ave, Suite
1600, Chicago, IL 60611
Owner: Midwest Gaming & Entertainment LLC, 900 M. Michigan Ave, Suite
1600, Chicago, IL 60611
4. Address: 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Case Number: 21-041-MAP-TSUB-V
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting the following from the Zoning Ordinance: (i) a Map
Amendment from C-2 Limited Office Commercial to C-3 General Commercial to allow a
mix of Class A and B restaurants and retail, as required by Section 12-7-3; (ii) a Major
Variation to allow more than one principal building on a zoning lot as required by Section
12-7-1; and (iii) the approval of any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may
be necessary. In addition, the petitioner is requesting approval of a Tentative Plat of
Subdivision per Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000;
09-33-300-004-0000; 09-33-300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000;
09-33-300-007-0000; 09-33-300-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000;
09-33-301-008-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000
Petitioner: Image Des Plaines, LLC, 5101 Darmstadt Road, Suite A, Hillside IL
60142, in partnership with GW Properties, 2211 N. Elston Ave, Suite
400, Chicago, IL 60614
Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Road, Suite E,
Schaumburg IL, 60173
5. Address: 2805-2845 Mannheim Road Case Number: 21-042-TA-V
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting text amendments to Section 12-11-5 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow the initial installation of an electronic message board billboard and
Section 12-11-6 to increase the total number of allowable billboards across the City from
12 to 13. The petitioner is also requesting a major variation, as required by Section 12-
11-6, for a portion of a proposed billboard to be less than the minimum 300 feet away
from a residential property line, as well as any other variations, waivers, and zoning
relief as may be necessary.
PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000;
09-33-300-004-0000; 09-33-300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000;
09-33-300-007-0000; 09-33-300-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000;
09-33-301-008-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000
Petitioner: Image Des Plaines, LLC, 5101 Darmstadt Road, Suite A, Hillside IL
60142
Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Road, Suite E,
Schaumburg IL, 60173
Next Agenda – October 26, 2021
City of Des Plaines, in compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, requests that persons with disabilities, who require certain
accommodations to allow them to observe and/or participate in the meeting(s) or have questions about the meeting(s) or facili ties, contact
the ADA Coordinator at 847-391-5486 to allow the City to make reasonable accommodations for these persons. The public hearing may be
continued to a further date, time and place without publication of a further published notice such as this notice.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
September 14, 2021
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, September
14, 2021, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 101 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was
established.
PRESENT: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr Saletnik, Szabo, Veremis
ABSENT: Bader
ALSO PRESENT: John T. Carlisle, AICP, Economic Development Manager/Community & Economic
Development
Jonathan Stytz, Planner/Community & Economic Development
Wendy Bednarz/Recording Secretary
A quorum was present.
PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Veremis, to approve the
minutes of August 24 2021, as presented.
AYES: Catalano, Veremis, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Fowler, Hofherr
***MOTION CARRIED ***
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 2
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
1. Address: 1316 Webford Avenue Case Number: 21-016-V
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-8-1(C) of the Des Plaines Zoning
Ordinance, as amended, to allow for the installation of a detached garage that exceeds the maximum area
of 720-square feet in the R-1 zoning district, and the approval of any other such variations, waivers, and
zoning relief as may be necessary.
PIN: 09-17-306-028-0000
Petitioner: Chris Colldock, 1316 Webford Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Chris Colldock, 1316 Webford Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Chairman Szabo swore in Chris Colldock and Michelle Daniel, property owners and Petitioners for the
property located at 1316 Webford, Des Plaines. The Petitioners explained the revisit to the Planning &
Zoning Board as based on a clarification regarding square footage of the proposed garage, the square
footage of the garage will be 917 square feet. Plans have been updated and included in the packet for
review.
Chairman Szabo sked if the Board had any questions. There were no questions from the Board.
Chairman Szabo inquired if the applicant was charged again to reappear in front of the Board, staff
responded that the applicant was not charged an additional fee.
Chairman Szabo asked that the Staff Report be entered into record. Planner Stytz provided a summary of
the following report:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Major Variation under Section 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow the construction of an over-sized detached garage that exceeds
the maximum area permitted for a detached garage in a residential zoning district.
UPDATE: New plans have been submitted for this request detailing a 916 -square-foot detached garage
on the subject property. Previously, the Planning and Zoning Board deliberated over an 897-square-foot
detached garage at this location. The new plans require a new public hearing for the Planning and Zoning
Board. All references in this report to 897 square feet have been changed to 916 square feet. Any attached
plans have been updated to illustrate the proposed 916-square-foot detached garage. The rest of this
report is substantially the same from the June 8, 2021, public hearing.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 3
Address: 1316 Webford Avenue
Owner: Chris Colldock, 1316 Webford Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Petitioner: Chris Colldock, 1316 Webford Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 21-016-V
PIN: 09-17-306-028-0000
Ward: #3, Alderman Sean Oskerka
Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: R-1, Single Family Residential District
East: R-1, Single Family Residential District
West: R-1, Single Family Residential District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Railroad; Pharmacy (Commercial)
South: Single Family Residences
East: Single Family Residences
West: Single Family Residences
Street Classification: Webford Avenue is classified as a local street.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as residential.
Project Description: The petitioner, Chris Colldock, is requesting a major variation to allow for a 916-
square-foot detached garage in the R-1, Single Family Residential District at 1316 Webford Avenue where
a maximum area for a detached garage in a residential zoning district is 720 square feet. The subject
property is located along Webford Avenue near Downtown Des Plaines and backs up to the Metra
railroad. The property is 13,650 square feet (0.31 acres) in size and currently consists of a one-story
residence, patio area, detached garage, and driveway area as shown on the Plat of Survey. The existing
one-car detached garage is approximately 337 square feet in size, is located 3.67 feet from the east
property line, and is setback approximately 33.37 feet from the north property line. Pursuant to Section
12-8-1(C), the maximum area for a detached garage in a residential zoning district is 720 square foot.
The petitioner is proposing to construct a one-story, 916-square foot detached garage with an 18 foot
wide garage door. The proposed garage will be setback 5’-6” off the east property line and 19’-2” off the
north property line to meet the minimum five-foot setback requirement for detached garages as shown
on the Site Plan. The petitioner is requesting the over-sized detached garage to accommodate additional
vehicles, yard equipment, seasonal furniture, and personal workbench for residence maintenance on the
property in an enclosed structure, which is not possible in the existing one-car garage. The proposal would
replace the existing detached garage with the new 916-square-foot detached garage setback further from
the property lines but without any changes to access. The petitioner has provided architectural plans to
illustrate the overall design, layout, and elevations of the proposed garage as shown in the Garage Plans.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 4
The existing gravel driveway leading from the front property line to the existing detached garage does not
comply with current code. If approval is recommended for this request, staff is adding a condition that
the gravel driveway is improved with a dust-free hard surface in compliance with all applicable City of Des
Plaines codes.
Pursuant to Section 12-8-1(C)(5) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, the maximum area of a detached
garage in a residential district shall be seven hundred twenty (720) square feet or less. The petitioner’s
request to allow for a detached garage that exceeds the 720 square foot maximum for a detached garage
in a residential area constitutes the need for a major variation to Section 12-8-1(C) of the 1998 Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance.
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.
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: Staff finds that there is no hardship or practical difficulty preventing the petitioner
from complying with the 720-square foot maximum area allowance for detached garages in
residential districts as a 720-square foot space does allow for the storage of multiple vehicles,
equipment, and workbench area depending on design. Additionally, the zoning code allows for
two accessory structures for each property so a shed could be added to accommodate additional
storage as needed. Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
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: Staff finds that there is no unique physical condition on the subject property than
differs from any other property along this street as there are several other properties backing up
to the Metra train tracks that share the same conditions. While detached garages and other
accessory structures inevitably may provide some semblance of privacy and noise reduction, this
is not their intended purpose. Additionally, there is ample room to install landscaping as a natural
barrier to address the noise and privacy concerns posed by the petitioner. Please see the
Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or
inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the
provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of
governmental action, other than the adoption of this title:
Comment: While the subject property’s location, size, and close proximity to the Metra train
tracks may not be a result of any action or inaction of the property owner, the subject property
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 5
was purchased with the understanding of these attributes and conditions. As such, staff does not
find these physical conditions of the subject property warrant the approval of a variation for an
over-sized garage, whether for privacy, noise dampening, or additional storage, since other
properties along this street deal with similar circumstances. Please see the Petitioner’s responses
to Standards for Variations.
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: Staff finds that carrying out the strict letter of this code to permit a 720-squae foot
detached garage would not deprive the existing property owner of substantial rights enjoyed by
other owners of similarly zoned lots since this regulation in enforced for all residentially-zoned
properties regardless of size, location, and composition of the property. All new detached garages
are held to the same standards under Section 12-8-1(C) of the Zoning Ordinance so enforcing the
maximum detached garage area would not prevent the property owner from any substantial
rights enjoyed by other single family residential properties. Please see the Petitioner’s responses
to Standards for Variations.
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: Staff finds that the granting of this variation for density would, in fact, provide a special
privilege for the property owner not available to other single family residential properties as it
would give the petitioner preferential treatment over owners of other single family residences.
Additionally, it could create a precedence for additional over-sized garage requests for single
family residential properties that do not meet the standards for variations and may not have the
available space or justifiable need for an over-sized detached garage. Please see the Petitioner’s
responses to Standards for Variations.
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: Staff finds that the proposed over-sized detached garage would not be harmonious
with the surrounding single family residential development in this area or for other single family
zoned properties in Des Plaines and does not meet the standards for variation in Section 12 -3-6
of the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, the zoning code requires a minimum of two off-street
parking spaces, which a 720-square foot garage can meet and exceed depending on design. The
request for the oversized detached garage would not support the goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan as this does not benefit other residents or the City of Des Plaines as a whole.
Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for Variations.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 6
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged
hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable
use of the subject lot.
Comment: Staff finds that there are ways to avoid the requested variation for an oversized garage.
Aside from the fact that the allowable 720-sqare foot size for a detached garage can
accommodate multiple vehicles, equipment storage, and work area depending on its design, the
zoning code allows up to two accessory structures for each property up to 150-square feet in size.
Thus, a shed could be added on the property as a second accessory structure to accommodate
additional storage as needed totaling 870-square feet, which is near the area that the petitioner
is requesting for the detached garage. An additional alternative if more space is needed is
constructing an addition on the existing residence, in conformance with all applicable codes, since
there is ample room in the rear yard. In essence, there are other available options aside from the
variation to remedy the petitioner’s posed concerns. Please see the Petitioner’s responses to
Standards for Variations.
8. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of this title.
Comment: Staff finds that the approval of this variation request for an oversized garage is not the
minimum measure if relief to address the petitioner’s concerns, but rather the installation of
mature landscaping at the rear of the property to reduce noise, add privacy, and allow for outdoor
space. In addition to that, the zoning ordinance allows properties that abut a railroad right-of-way
to install an eight-foot tall fence along the side that abuts the alley, which could assist in the
privacy and noise reduction measures. Please see the Petitioner’s responses to Standards for
Variations.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-6(G)(2) (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Major Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the
City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned major variation for an
over-sized detached garage at 1316 Webford Avenue. The City Council has final authority on the proposal.
Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant
and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-6(H) (Standards for Variations) of the Zoning
Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends
the following condition:
1. The existing gravel driveway shall be improved with a dust-free hard surface in conformance with
all applicable City of Des Plaines codes.
Chairman Szabo asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no
comments.
A motion was made by Board Catalano, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to recommend approval
of a Major Variation under Section 12-8-1(C) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow
for the installation of a detached garage that exceeds the maximum area of 720-square feet in the R-1
zoning district, and the approval of any other such variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 7
necessary, with the condition that the existing gravel driveway shall be improved with a dust-free hard
surface in conformance with all applicable City of Des Plaines codes.
AYES: Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Saletnik, Veremis, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 8
2. Address: 2000 Mannheim Road Case Number: 21-036-CU-V
Public Hearing
The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use as required by Section 12-7-3(K) and a Major Variation from
the Building Design rules of Section 12-3-11 of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for a
convenience mart fueling station at 2000 Mannheim Road, and the approval of any other such variations,
waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary.
PINs: 09-29-402-038-0000 and 09-29-402-043-0000
Petitioner: Henry Patel, 2000 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Owner: Henry Patel, 2000 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Chairman Szabo swore in Henry Patel and Ron Ambrose. Mr. Ambrose provided an overview of the
request, stating that Mr. Patel wishes to expand his convenience mart for the sale of wine and beer. To
comply with the City’s space requirements, Mr. Patel plans to remove the current car wash and enlarge
the store area, by building out the convenience mart, installing a beer cave and walk-in cooler, and
creating storage and office spaces.
Mr. Ambrose continued that the building would be infilled with brick and glass, with no additional major
modification to the area. Mr. Ambrose highlighted staffs request for additional landscaping and
commented that a trash enclosure would be added to the property, toward the rear of the building, which
will be hidden but easily accessible.
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board had any questions.
Member Fowler asked if the entire building façade would be updated, Mr. Ambrose stated that the
current building is attractive and in good shape, but the car wash overhead doors would be removed
and infilled with brick to match the look of the existing building.
Member Catalano questioned staff about a Traffic Study. Mr. Stytz stated that a traffic study was not
required since the current building is being utilized; staff has no traffic concerns.
Member Catalano inquired about traffic to the area. Mr. Patel stated that he anticipates that traffic will
decrease, since the car wash will be removed.
Member Saletnik asked the Petitioner to discuss revenue based on having a car wash versus a convenience
mart that sells alcohol products. Mr. Patel provided an overview of his business perspective stating that
improvements to the gas station/car wash have not been made for over 15 years and over that time newer
car washes have been built. Mr. Patel believes that an updated convenience mart/food mart is most
beneficial for him at this time.
Member Saletnik continued stating that the car was equipment most likely needs to be updated, and can
be quite costly, especially with competition down the street. Member Saletnik suggested that the owner
spend money where there is an opportunity to grow revenues.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 9
Chairman Szabo inquire about limousines utilizing the car wash, he mentioned that within the past four
years, additional larger gas stations and car washes have been built, closer to O’Hare airport. Mr. Patel
continued that opening a larger convenience store should generate larger revenues, Mr. Patel stated that
he wants to continue to update and beautify the current location.
Chairman Szabo asked what the projected liquor sales, Mr. Patel did not have an estimated revenue
amount, but stated that people have been asking for beer and wine at the store location.
Member Veremis stated that the space will be less congested with the removal of the carwash, since in
the past people stopped to dry their vehicles, etc. Member Veremis also commented on the space to the
west; Mr. Patel stated that there are no plans to utilize that space at this time, the main goal is to update
the convenience store.
Chairman Szabo asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no
comments.
Chairman Szabo asked that the Staff Report be entered into record. Planner Stytz provided a summary
of the following report:
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use under Section 12-7-3(K) of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow a Convenience Mart Fueling Center in the C-3 zoning district. The petitioner is also requesting
variations from the blank wall limitations of Section 12-3-11.
Address: 2000 Mannheim Road
Petitioner: Henry Patel, 6N232 Dinah Road, Medinah, IL 60157
Owner: Henry Patel, 6N232 Dinah Road, Medinah, IL 60157
Case Number: 21-036-CU-V
Real Estate Index #: 09-29-402-038-0000; -043
Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman
Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial District
Existing Land Use: Fueling Station and Car Wash
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: M-2, General Manufacturing District
East: R-1, Single Family Residential District
West: R-3, Townhouse Residential District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Gas Station/Water Tower
South: Self-Storage Business (Commercial)
East: Railroad; Power Station (Utilities)
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 10
West: Townhouse Residences (Residential)
Street Classification: Mannheim Road is classified as an other principal arterial and Howard
Avenue is classified as a minor collector.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this site as commercial.
Project Description: The petitioner, Henry Patel, with the assistance of architect Ronald J.
Ambrose, has requested a Conditional Use Permit for a Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use at 2000
Mannheim Road. The subject property is a double frontage lot on the southwest corner of the Mannheim
Road/Howard Avenue intersection, which fronts Mannheim Road to the east, Howard Avenue to the
north, and Chestnut Street to the west. The property is within the C-3 General Commercial district, where
a Convenience Mart Fueling Station is a conditional use. The Plat of Survey shows a single-tenant building
with seven fuel pumps and one canopy, a car wash, and an off-street surface parking areas on the west
side of the property. Access to the subject property is available off Mannheim Road and Howard Avenue,
each with two curb cuts. There is no available property access off Chestnut Street.
The existing one-story, 2,610-square-foot building consists of a small lobby area with counter, a restroom,
utility room, cooler, and car wash tunnel. The petitioner wishes to renovate the existing floor plan by
removing the car wash tunnel to make room for the convenience mart, adding an office, and adding a
storage room, based on the Floor Plan. The petitioner does not propose to make façade and finishing
changes to the building’s exterior with the exception of the masonry in-fill areas on the east (front) and
west (rear) elevations of the building where the existing car wash is located and retain the existing building
material and façade finishes on the remainder of the building, based on the Elevations (Attachment 7).
The petitioner’s proposal also includes site improvements such as the addition of landscaping along the
perimeter of the west and north parking lot area, the addition of five new parking spaces on the east side
of the property, and new dumpster enclosure, based on the Site Plan (Attachment 5). Staff has added a
condition that the proposed dumpster enclosure meets the requirements of Section 12-10-11 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
The proposed floor plan includes a 1,929-square-foot retail area, 100-square-foot office, freezer, and
storage area. The following parking regulations apply to automotive fuel stations pursuant to Section 12-
9-7 of the Zoning Ordinance:
One parking space for every 200 square feet of accessory retail
area; and
Two parking spaces provided at each fuel pump.
A total of 24 off-street parking spaces are required, including two handicap accessible parking spaces. The
Site Plan provides 25 spaces including two spaces per fuel pump, and 11 spaces next to the building to
serve the retail. The Site Plan does not designate the two required accessible parking spaces. Staff has
added a condition that the petitioner’s site plan submitted at the time of building permitting contain
accessible parking, with the required striping and dimensions.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 11
The convenience mart fueling station will be open 24 hours a day Monday through Sunday. The proposed
convenience mart is intended to sell beer, liquor, and similar items, per the hours and other limitations
on liquor licenses. The petitioner will have to obtain or update all necessary local and state licenses
necessary to sell alcohol and tobacco. A maximum of two employees will be on site at a given time. Please
see the Project Narrative for more details.
The façade alterations make the project subject to the Building Design Review requirements of Section
12-3-11. The closure of the car wash tunnel naturally leads to larger walls, which the petitioner is
proposing to enclose with a mixture of windows (i.e. transparency) and brick. However, Section 12-3-
11.D.1.a-b, street-facing facades have maximum requirements for what can be windowless. This project
will exceed 30 percent of rectangular area of blank wall on the west façade (facing Chestnut), as well as
having a windowless area with a horizontal distance greater than 15 feet. The petitioner contends that
complying with the strict adherence is not practical, given that the building is existing and the project
moves it closer toward – but not fully – compliant. Discussion of the variation standards begin on Page 5
of this report and are addressed by the petitioner in Attachment 2.
Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project, including the proposed site improvements, addresses various goals and objectives
of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan including the following aspects:
Future Land Use Plan:
o This property is illustrated designated as Commercial on the Future Land Use Plan. The
Future Land Use Plan strives to create a well-balanced development area with a healthy
mixture of commercial uses. While the current use is a commercial fuel station, the
petitioner will work to enhance the subject property by renovating the interior and
portions of the exterior of the existing building and making various site improvements
including the addition of landscaping, new dumpster enclosure, and fence repairs at the
west and north property lines of the property.
o The subject property is located along the defined Mannheim Road corridor with a park to
the east, townhouse residential to the west, commercial to the north, manufacturing
development to the south. It contains a single-tenant building located in between
established commercial developments along Mannheim Road. The request would assist
in the retention and expansion of an existing commercial business at this location and
provide additional retail goods and services for the residents of Des Plaines.
Landscaping and Screening:
o The Comprehensive Plan seeks to encourage and actively pursue beautification
opportunities and efforts, including the installation of landscaping, street furniture,
lighting, and other amenities, to establish a more attractive shopping environment and
achieve stronger corridor identity in Des Plaines.
o The proposal seeks to add a landscape buffer along the west and north property lines to
provide a more pronounced buffer between the building and the townhouse residences
and commercial development directly to the west and north, respectively. The addition
of landscaping in this area is intended to capitalize on available space for screening of the
property.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 12
o The proposal also includes repairing portions of the existing fence section along the west
and north property lines. While the aforementioned aspects represent a small portion of
the goals and strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, there is an emphasis on improving
existing commercial developments and enhancing commercial corridors throughout Des
Plaines.
Conditional Use Findings: Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-
3-4(E) of the Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments:
1. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning
district involved:
Comment: The proposed Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use is a conditional use in the C-3
zoning district where the subject property is located. Please see the petitioner’s responses to
Standards for Conditional Uses.
2. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan:
Comment: The proposed Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use is a retail-oriented use that
primarily serves day-to-day needs of local residents. Additionally, the subject property is along a
major corridor in Des Plaines and in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. The proposed
convenience mart will enhance the existing building and property as a whole as well as provide
additional retail opportunities for residents nearby aside from fuel. Please see the petitioner’s
responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
3. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity:
Comment: The Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use will transform the existing fuel station into
a more pronounced commercial use similar to nearby businesses. The proposal includes
enhancements to the interior and exterior of the building and site as a whole, which will be
harmonious and appropriate with neighboring business. Please see the petitioner’s responses to
Standards for Conditional Uses.
4. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses:
Comment: The existing fueling station does not create adverse effects to the surrounding
properties and the Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use will not have negative effect on the
surrounding area. The proposal strives to enhance the property as a whole and expand an existing
business to provide additional retail opportunities for residents. Please see the petitioner’s
responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
5. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage s tructures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional
Use shall provide adequately any such services:
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 13
Comment: The subject property is served adequately by essential public facilities and services
since it is currently accessible by both Mannheim Road and Howard Avenue. The proposed
Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use will not affect the existing public facilities and services for
this property. Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
6. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public
expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being
of the entire community:
Comment: The proposed use will operate within existing infrastructure and is not expected to
have a larger service demand than the existing use. Further, it will enhance an existing building
and use for Des Plaines and can help improve the local economy. Please see the petitioner’s
responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
7. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general
welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors:
Comment: The proposed Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use will include an enlarged retail
area within the existing building footprint and site improvements within the existing property
boundaries, neither of which will produce excessive production of noise, smoke fumes, glare, or
odors. Additionally, the building and site enhancements will improve the property as a whole from
both a functional and aesthetic standpoint. Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for
Conditional Uses.
8. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does
not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares:
Comment: The subject property does not create traffic concerns in the area with the existing
access points and configuration. The proposed Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use does not
intend to alter these access points or the overall configuration of the site. Please see the
petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
9. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural,
scenic, or historic features of major importance:
Comment: The subject property is currently developed and improved with a building and surface
parking area. The proposed Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use will not lead to the loss or
damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance on this property. Please see
the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
10. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
specific to the Conditional Use requested:
Comment: Provided conditions are met, the proposed Convenience Mart Fueling Station Use
will comply with all additional regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Please see the petitioner’s
responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the
Zoning Ordinance. Staff has the following comments based on the standards.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 14
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: Requiring the petitioner to comply with the Building Design Standards in Section 12-3-
11 would prevent the petitioner from making substantial improvements to the existing fueling
station and car wash on the subject property. The existing building faces three streets and would
require substantial appearance altering renovations to the principal structure, which would be
impractical for the petitioner to meet for the request. Please see the responses to standards from
the Petitioner.
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 subject property is located a double frontage lot and fronts three separate streets
making it difficult for the petitioner to comply with the transparency and blank wall limitation
regulations pursuant to Section 12-3-11 of the Zoning Ordinance on all elevations. The petitioner
plans to fill in the car wash tunnel entrance and exit to make room for the convenience mart
fueling center. The proposal includes the addition of windows on the west elevation where there
is currently a rectangular area greater than 30% of a story's facade and portions of the building
facade that are windowless for a horizontal distance greater than 15 feet. However, the proposed
building improvements do not fully meet the requirements of the code, requiring a variation.
Please see the responses to standards from the Petitioner.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or
inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the
provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of
governmental action, other than the adoption of this title.
Comment: The size and shape of the property have not changed due to any action of the
petitioner. The unique physical aspects of the property are unavoidable due to the fact that the
property is land-locked and fronts three streets. Please see the responses to standards from the
Petitioner.
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: Carrying out of the strict letter of the Zoning Ordinance would not allow the petitioner
to adequately and intuitively make improvements to the existing building and property as a
whole. Please see the responses to standards from the Petitioner.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 15
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 approval of this variation would not provide the petitioner with any special
privilege or additional right, as these exact circumstances occurring on a different property would
warrant similar consideration. The proposal would allow the petitioner to make improvements to
an existing property by reinvesting in the existing fueling center. Please see the responses to
standards from the Petitioner.
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 approval of this variation would contribute to a harmonious neighborhood by
accommodating a proposed reinvestment in a commercial property that is in context with the
surrounding area. Please see the responses to standards from the Petitioner.
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged
hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable
use of the subject lot.
Comment: It would be impractical for the applicant to design the existing building in a way that
meets the required transparency and blank wall limitation regulations. The transparency and
design of the existing commercial building is nonconforming with the current blank wall limitation
requirements, so reducing the required transparency requirements to allow for the proposed
project is the most reasonable way to encourage and support the planned reinvestment in the
property. Please see the responses to standards from the Petitioner.
8. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of this title.
Comment: The approval of this variation would be the minimum measure of relief for the
petitioner to overcome the existing physical hardship on the property and make improvements
to the existing commercial building. Please see the responses to standards from the Petitioner.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that
the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned conditional use
for a Convenience Mart Fueling Station at 2000 Mannheim Road. City Council has final authority on the
proposal.
Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant
and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the
Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff
recommends the following conditions:
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 16
1. The petitioner shall revise the site plan to be submitted at the time of building permitting to add
the necessary accessible parking spaces.
2. Plans for the dumpster enclosure in compliance with Section 12-10-11 of the Zoning Ordinance
shall be submitted to staff at time of building permit.
3. A Photometric Plan in compliance with Section 12-12-10 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be
submitted to staff at time of building permit.
4. No vehicles or materials shall be stored on site at any time.
Chairman Szabo asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no
comments.
A motion was made by Board Member Catalano, seconded by Board Member Hofherr, for approval of
the request for a Conditional Use as required by Section 12-7-3(K) and a Major Variation from the
Building Design rules of Section 12-3-11 of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, for a
convenience mart fueling station at 2000 Mannheim Road, and the approval of any other such
variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary, with the four recommended conditions: 1.
The petitioner shall revise the site plan to be submitted at the time of building permitting to add the
necessary accessible parking spaces; 2. Plans for the dumpster enclosure in compliance with Section
12-10-11 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted to staff at time of building permit; 3. A
Photometric Plan in compliance with Section 12-12-10 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be submitted to
staff at time of building permit; and 4. No vehicles or materials shall be stored on site at any time.
.
AYES: Catalano, Hofherr, Fowler, Saletnik, Veremis, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 17
3. Address: Citywide Text Amendment Case Number: 21-038-TA
Public Hearing
The City of Des Plaines is filing a request for consideration of the following text amendments to the Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: (i) add limitations to the eligibility for collective parking under
Section 12-9-3; (ii) establish definitions and regulations for electric vehicle charging in parking areas; and
(iii) any other amendments as may be necessary.
PIN: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
The City is the applicant for this case; Economic Development Manager Carlisle will present this case. For
ease of presentation, the text amendment will be broken up into two smaller presentations, one
addressing the collection parking agreements and the second related to electric vehicle charging in
parking areas.
Collective/Shared Parking Agreements
Mr. Carlisle presented an overview of the rationale to update the collective/shared parking agreement,
including looking at a maximum distance limitation, considerations of barriers such as busy roads may
impact parking agreement, or proposing amendments to prevent unworkable or unrealistic shared
parking agreements.
Mr. Carlisle presented research from neighboring communities; of the communities that responded to
the survey the majority sets a 300 feet maximum distance, Mount Prospect differs in that the maximum
distance is 1,000 feet.
Mr. Carlisle also provided an overview of draft amendment language which aims to clarify zoning
administrator and City Council authority to approve shared or off-site parking, rewords “reduction” to “be
fulfilled” and reorganized and limits when possible, off-site parking on privately-owned zoning lots if
possible.
Member Catalano asked for clarification about the 300 foot requirement; in the sense that the close st
space/furthest space meets the requirement. Mr. Carlisle stated that the requirement is all-inclusive
meaning that all spaces must be within the 300 feet.
Mr. Carlisle further stated that in some cases, an applicant might only be deficient by two parking spaces
and enter into collective parking agreement, for those two spaces and additional overflow parking. Based
on these amendments, the two spaces must be within the 300 feet, while the overflow parking may be
beyond that.
Member Catalano stated that the 300-foot requirement is very restrictive, Chairman Szabo agreed.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 18
Member Catalano further stated that the first space should be within the 300-foot requirement, but the
subsequent spaces can exceed that requirement.
Member Saletnik stated based on the restrictive nature of 300 feet, the City is not interested in collective
parking arrangements. Member Saletnik stated that the use of the property should also be analyzed
regarding parking requirements.
Member Saletnik further stated that he agrees with the safe passage verbiage but finds the 300-foot
limitation very restrictive.
Mr. Carlisle stated that the 300-foot number was based on responses from local municipalities; he did not
want to choose an arbitrary number. Mr. Carlisle also reminded the Board that there is still a possibility
for variation based on practical hardships.
Member Saletnik stated that often while people are looking at property acquisition, they will review the
code prior to purchases. This amendment maybe seen as too restrictive and the property may go
elsewhere.
Member Fowler asked why the Mount Prospect requirement is vastly different at 1,000 feet. Mr. Carlisle
does not know the exact reason but can hypothesize that it may be due to the fact that they are further
out from Chicagoland where the setbacks are further and in general there is more space.
Member Saletnik would like additional information and detail from other local municipalities, such as
Arlington Heights and Palatine.
Member Catalano also stated that he would prefer straight line to properties to make the requirement
less restrictive, Member Saletnik agreed. Member Saletnik further stated the goal of the collective parking
agreement is to have that use in your community.
Member Veremis inquired about the distance between the Des Plaines Theatre and municipal parking
garage. Mr. Carlisle stated that he believed the distance would be between 200-300 feet from the theater
to the top of the parking deck. Member Veremis stated that patrons of the theater are expected to cross
at the light at the crosswalk.
Member Catalano also brought up the question of vertical distance, for example the stairs up to the top
floor of the parking deck.
Mr. Carlisle went over what is perceived as general walking distances; in general an able bodied person is
can walk a quarter mile, approximately 1,300 feet, which is reasonable; 500 feet would equate to
approximately 1/10th of a mile. The draft amendments are written in a way to mirror the bulk of
respondents from neighboring communities.
Member Fowler asked about making recommendations; Mr. Carlisle stated that the Board is able to make
recommendations or ask for additional information.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 19
Member Saletnik reiterated the language regarding safe passage versus a set number of feet.
Chairman Szabo asked Staff to touch on other circumstances; Mr. Carlisle stated that is a synopsis of other
code information.
Member Saletnik recommended that Staff look into the active collective parking agreements to see what
the current language. Mr. Carlisle stated that the data collection/research regarding the documents may
not be possible. Member Saletnik still would like staff to complete the due diligence on the current
agreements.
Member Veremis inquired about the previous case on Broadway, which brought the parking agreement
discussion to light. Mr. Carlisle provided an overview of their parking arrangement. Member Saletnik
chimed in regarding that case, residents were concerned that people would be parking on their residential
streets, since parking was inconvenient.
Member Saletnik reiterated that additional information is provided compared to other communities.
Member Catalano provided some information based on Arlington Heights’ code, the distances vary based
on type of use.
Chairman Szabo asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no
comments.
Electric Vehicles
Mr. Carlisle stated that the goals of electric vehicle charging in parking areas, is to support and prepare
for the further proliferation of electric vehicles, emulate best regulatory practices as the appropriate level,
clarify how open, unreserved parking spaces and electric vehicles spaces work to fulfill a parking
requirement.
Mr. Carlisle stressed that this amendment is not intended to affect private home users.
The goals of the proposed amendment will:
• Establish term definitions for “Electric Vehicle Charging Space” and “Electric Vehicle Supply
Equipment,” with the latter covering charging ports
• Allow EV charging spaces to count for up to 5 percent of an off-street parking minimum. For
government- and institutionally owned parking, a maximum of 5 percent of the total number of
spaces in the facility can be allocated for EV charging
• Set up where and how charging spaces may be marked, limit the height of charging ports (8 feet),
area of identification signage (1.5 square feet), and reinforce landscaping requirements
• Limited allowance for electronic signs embedded within charging port: 6 square feet max & copy
limited to businesses for which the sign is intended
• Carve out a “minor change” circumstance for PUDs when retrofitting parking with EV charging or
additional mobility impaired accessible spaces
The City has received an application for an electric vehicle charging ports, which has prompted the
amendments to the ordinance.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 20
Member Fowler inquired about the future of possible ADA accessible electric vehicle charging spaces, Mr.
Carlisle stated that it can be a possibility in the future.
Member Veremis inquired about how long an electric vehicle takes to charge. Mr. Carlisle stated that
charging ports are available in low, medium, high and can take 30 minutes to 2 hours to charge. Most
newer models have shorter charging times.
Member Veremis asked how many residents have electric vehicles in Des Plaines; Mr. Carlisle does not
have that information but it may be accessible through Secretary of State data.
There was some discussion about ticketing individuals that park in EV parking spaces; Mr. Carlisle
responded the City does not do parking enforcement on private property, private security may ticket the
individual if needed.
Member Veremis asked about ticketing those without a placard who park in ADA spaces, Mr. Carlisle
stated the City would ticket in those instances because it is a State law.
Mr. Carlisle also reviewed the portion of the amendment regarding location of electric vehicle parking, as
well as the precedence the ADA parking has in any given parking lot, EV can be as close as to a building
entrance as wanted.
Chairman Szabo asked if there were any questions or comments from the audience. There were no
comments.
The staff report has been entered below.
Issue: Consider Zoning Ordinance amendments related to multiple off-street parking regulations. The
following areas of the Ordinance are addressed: (1) Section 12-9-3 to establish distance and context
limitations to using a separate, privately owned zoning lot to fulfill a portion of an off-street parking
requirement; (2) Sections 12-13-3, 12-9-5, 12-9-6, 12-11-5, and 12-11-6 to establish definitions for electric
vehicle charging spaces and supply equipment, and to create allowances and limitations on quantity,
location, dimensions, design, and signage; and (3) Section 12-3-5 to allow existing PUDs to retrofit parking
with accessible or electric vehicle charging without requiring a “Major Change” procedure (i.e. a public
hearing and City Council approval).
PIN: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: #21-038-TA
Project Summary: The City of Des Plaines is applying for various zoning text amendments to
address off-street parking issues that have arisen during 2021.
Collective and Shared Parking
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 21
In general the City wants to foster the efficient use of land and to give businesses, organizations, and
developments some flexibility in how they meet their off-street parking requirements. The Zoning
Ordinance, which establishes the City’s off-street parking rules, currently attempts to make allowances
for when a particular property does not have enough on-site parking to accommodate a proposed use.
While the most typical arrangement is for each property to have enough parking on its own site for all
uses and units served (i.e. residential, commercial, institutional), occasionally this is not feasible. Related,
it is somewhat common that a.) uses within a given area do not operate at the same time and b.) some
parking facilities have excess spaces beyond the requirements of the uses they serve, and most often the
spaces go unused. For these reasons the City tries not to turn away potential users simply because the
property they desire to use is deficient in on-site parking. A reasonable option for nearby shared parking,
on a different property or properties, may exist.
Therefore, in Section 12-9-3, the Ordinance provides for how uses can capitalize on shared or off-site
parking. The existing rules first introduce general circumstances for when one parking facility can serve
multiple uses (12-9-3.A) and then introduces 12-9-3.B., C., and D., which establish parameters for required
parking spaces on a separate property from the particular use they serve. Sub-section B refers to privately
owned parking and properties, sub-section C addresses publicly owned parking (e.g. a City-owned parking
lot or garage), and sub-section D refers to instances of vacancy when parking is temporarily or for the
foreseeable future going unused.
Earlier in 2021, a conditional use petitioner sought to utilize allowances of sub-section B. The subject
property was deficient per the baseline requirement of Section 12-9-7. Beyond day-to-day activities
addressed by Section 12-9-7, the use was expected to have well-attended meetings when demand for
parking would far exceed the baseline requirement. The petitioner submitted multiple draft shared
parking agreements to demonstrate that parking spaces would be available to them at other properties
in the same neighborhood. However, these properties lay on the other side of busy roads and
intersections, and the walking path to the entrance of the proposed use would not have been linear or
convenient from the majority of the proposed off-site parking. The City Council chose to deny the
conditional use and then instructed staff and the PZB to take up amendments that would prevent future
protracted considerations of generally unworkable shared parking arrangements. The Council’s intent is
not to eliminate fully the potential for requirements to be met through off-site or shared parking
agreements. However, the Council suggests that a minimum distance, as exists in some other
communities, be put into place, as well as any other common-sense limitations. Staff has prepared
proposed amendments beginning on Page 4 of this report.
As part of research for the draft amendments, staff sought assistance from the Northwest Municipal
Conference (NWMC), which distributed survey questions to other communities. The following table is a
sample of results.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 22
MUNICIPALITY MAXIMUM
DISTANCE FOR
SHARED PARKING
METHOD FOR
MEASURING
DISTANCE
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Lincolnwood 300 feet Walking distance Must be located on a lot owned or leased by
the owner or lessee of the lot for which the
parking spaces are required.
Morton Grove 300 feet Straight line
between property
boundaries
Can account for 15 to 35 percent of the
parking minimum for a use, depending on
circumstances.
Mount Prospect 1,000 feet Straight line
between property
boundaries
None.
Niles 300 feet Straight line
between property
boundaries
Can account for up to 20 percent of the
parking minimum for a use, depending on
circumstances.
Park Ridge 300 feet Not specified The off-site parking spaces must be under the
same ownership of the subject property of
the use utilizing the off-site parking.
In summary, the proposed amendments related to shared parking accomplish the following:
Clarifies zoning administrator and City Council authority to approve shared or off-site parking;
Rewords “reduction” in off-street parking requirement instead as a “fulfillment;” and
Reorganizes and adds to the limitations for when shared, off-site parking on privately-owned
zoning lots is possible. These are the added limitations:
o Required spaces must be within 300 feet of the main entrance of the use served; and
o Walking between any required off-site space cannot require at-grade crossing of
roadways classified by the Illinois Department of Transportation as arterials, except for
arterials in downtown Des Plaines and other select corridors where there are ample
signalized intersections and cross-sections of road that are feasible to cross safely.
Electric Vehicle Charging Spaces
As electric vehicles (EV) become more common, the need for charging is increasing. While some EV
owners have a charging port at their homes, many do not, or they drive frequently enough or for long
enough durations and distances that they must charge away from home. Commercial vehicles such as
those used in freight and delivery are also becoming part of the EV market. Charging spaces and their
attendant equipment are now present throughout the Chicago region in public and private parking lots
and garages. In fact, Des Plaines already has two charging spaces in a public lot at the northeast corner of
Ellinwood and Lee Street, adjacent to the library. Charging spaces that are generally open to the public –
whether on public or private property – usually operate on three models: 1.) Users pay to charge, either
per unit of energy or based on a subscription; 2.) property owners pay for the vendor for the charging
equipment to attract or serve a market of customers or employees who need EV c harging; and/or 3.)
charging is free or very low-cost because the ports display advertisements. See Attachment 3 for photos.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 23
However, earlier this year staff received a building permit application to install four charging spaces and
equipment at Metropolitan Square, specifically adjacent to Shop and Save and Fifth Third Bank. Staff has
denied this permit for now because the proposed change a.) requires currently open, unreserved
parking to be repurposed as parking reserved for charging EVs only and b.) the proposed change would
reduce the number of parking spaces in a Planned Unit Development, which per 12-3-5 qualifies as a
“Major Change,” necessitating a public hearing, City Council approval, and the formal altering of the
Final Plat of PUD.
Staff sought assistance from NWMC, which provided prior survey results for zoning rules in nearby
communities. The Village of Schaumburg had the most thorough set of regulations, and their definitions
served as the basis for these amendments. Further, The Great Plains Institute, a reputable nonprofit
organization working to further renewable energy, published Summary of Best Practices in Electric
Vehicle Ordinances1, which provided an array of options. Attempting to address the reasonably
foreseeable circumstances without over-regulating, staff proposes amendments that would do the
following:
Establish term definitions in Section 12-13-13 for “Electric Vehicle Charging Space” and “Electric
Vehicle Supply Equipment,” with the latter covering charging ports;
Add to Section 12-9-5 to allow EV charging spaces to count for up to 5 percent of an off-street
parking minimum (i.e. one space within a 20-space requirement; 5 spaces within a 100-space
requirement; 10 spaces within a 500-space requirement), with no limitation if the EV spaces are
allocated from the supply beyond the requirement—except for government- and institutionally
owned parking, where a maximum of 5 percent of the total number of spaces in the facility can
be allocated for EV charging;
Address in Section 12-9-6 where and how EV charging spaces may be marked within parking
facilities and limit the height of charging ports (maximum 8 feet), area of identification signage
(1.5 square feet), and reinforce landscaping requirements;
Amend Sections 12-11-5 and 12-11-6 to create a limited allowance for electronic message
board signs embedded within charging ports, with a maximum area of 6 square feet and copy
limited to businesses for which the sign is intended; and
Carve out a “minor change” circumstance in 12-3-5 for PUDs when repurposing/restriping
parking spaces for EV charging or additional mobility impaired accessible parking.
o The Illinois Accessibility Code changes from time to time, imposing greater
requirements that may be triggered by a restriping project. Further, these amendments
are designed to avoid an unduly onerous approval process for property
owners/managers who chose to allocate more accessible parking than is required.
o Minor changes may be approved administratively, without a public hearing and
months-long public process.
The following images illustrate a permit application received by staff.
1 BetterEnergy.org (June 2019). Available at: https://www.betterenergy.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/06/GPI_EV_Ordinance_Summary_web.pdf
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 24
Proposed charging ports at Metropolitan Square. Not to
scale.
Proposed reserved sign at Metropolitan
Square. Not to scale.
Proposed Amended Sections
All proposed amendments related to shared parking are contained in Attachment 1, and all proposed
amendments related to electric vehicle charging are contained in Attachment 2. Additions are bold,
double-underline. Deletions are struck through. Amended sections are provided with some surrounding,
unamended text for context.
Standards for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment:
The following is a discussion of standards for zoning amendments from Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning
Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposed amendments would satisfy the standards is provided.
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the City Council;
The Comprehensive Plan calls for improving traffic flow, circulation, and parking (Goal 3.3). The
amendments to add parameters for shared parking would improve the existing situation and
consider circulation and flow not only for vehicles but also for pedestrians.
The Plan does not mention electric vehicles specifically but does call for a “modern” network,
which would include electric vehicle charging infrastructure.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall
character of existing development;
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 25
The amendments make future parking proposals more compatible with the character and
nature of Des Plaines than the current rules provide. The proliferation of electric vehicles is
already observable withing Des Plaines and the Chicago region, and is expected to grow. The
amendments contemplate providing supportive infrastructure for this expansion.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available;
The amendments related to shared parking consider the classification and design of roadways as
to the degree they serve as a barrier between uses and required parking spaces. Related to
electric vehicles, the amendments protect against publicly-owned facilities becoming overrun
with EV charging by capping their number at five percent of the total number of spaces in the
facility.
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction; and
The proposed amendments, if they have any impact, are likely to improve property values by
fostering a reasonable way to meet off-street parking requirements, as well as offering
additional flexibility among property owners in how to allocate parking.
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and
growth.
The amendments are based in thoughtful, well-researched considerations of trends in
development in other communities and the region overall. The amendments also respond to
issues encountered by the City Council and City staff.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB
has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve with modifications, or deny the
above-mentioned amendments. City Council has final authority on the proposal.
If the PZB wishes, it may consider two motions to separate the issues addressed by these amendments,
with the first motion covering shared parking rules and the second for EV charging rules and process.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the PZB recommend approval of all the parking- and process-
related amendments in this report.
The Planning & Zoning Board chose to break this text amendment into two motions.
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 26
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to continue
the discussion Collective Parking Agreements, Case Number 21-038-TA, consideration of the following
text amendments to the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended: (i) add limitations to the
eligibility for collective parking under Section 12-9-3 until October 26, 2021.
AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Veremis, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Fowler, to approve to
establish definitions and regulations for electric vehicle charging in parking areas; and any other
amendments as may be necessary
AYES: Saletnik, Catalano, Fowler, Hofherr, Veremis, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Case 21-016-V 1316 Webford Ave Major Variation
Case 21-036-CU-V 2000 Mannheim Rd Conditional Use/Major Var
Case 21-038-TA Citywide Text Amendment – Parking/EV
September 14, 2021
Page 27
ADJOURNMENT
The next scheduled Planning & Zoning Board meeting is Tuesday, September 28, 2021.
Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 8:28 p.m.
Sincerely,
Wendy Bednarz, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners
COMMUNITY AND
ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
1420 Miner
Street Des
Plaines, IL 60016
P: 847.391.5380
desplaines.org
Date: September 16, 2021
To: Planning and Zoning Board (PZB)
From: Jonathan Stytz, Planner
Cc: John Carlisle, AICP, Economic Development Manager
Subject: Consideration of Conditional Use for Trade Contractor Use at 110 S. River Road, Case
21-037-CU (1st Ward)
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use under Section 12-7-3(F)(3) of the Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance to allow for a trade contractor use in the C-3 zoning district.
Address: 110 S. River Road
Petitioner: Neil Hansen, 110 S. River Road, Suite 5, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Ararex Real Properties, 110 S. River Road, Suite 5, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 21-037-CU
PIN: 09-17-200-089-0000
Ward: #1, Alderman Mark A. Lysakowski
Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial
Existing Land Use: Multi-Tenant Commercial Building
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: C-3, General Commercial District
East: R-1, Single Family Residential District
West: C-3, General Commercial District
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 15
Surrounding Land Use: North: Rand Road Community (Residential)
South: Rand Road Community (Residential) / Pesche’s (Commercial)
East: Lions Woods Park (Recreational)
West: Rand Road Mobile Home Park (Residential)
Street Classification: River Road is classified as a principal arterial road.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this site as Commercial Industrial
Urban Mix.
Project Description: The petitioner, Neil Hansen, has requested a Conditional Use Permit to
operate a carpet, upholstery, and air duct cleaning business, The Bright Side,
INC., at 110 S. River Road, Suite 5. The subject property contains a multi-
tenant building with a surface parking area as shown in the Plat of Survey
(Attachment 4). The subject property is located along River Road east of the
Rand Road Community Mobile Home Park and north of Pesche’s Flowers.
The subject property is currently accessed by two curb cuts off River Road.
The petitioner began operating The Bright Side, INC. out of this location in
May 2021 without a business license. Thus, the petitioner is requesting a
conditional use permit to bring his trade contractor use into compliance with
the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance.
The existing one-story, 26,320-square-foot building is made up of five suites
with a front customer entrance and service entrance with garage door at the
rear of the unit. Suite 5 has its main entrance on the south side of the building
and consists of approximately 2,573 square feet. The existing suite is mostly
open with one frame partition separating the main entrance, offices, and
restrooms from the open shop floor. Based on the Floor Plan (Attachment
6), the petitioner proposes to utilize the existing frame partition area as an
office and waiting area with the restrooms, totaling approximately 1,294
square feet. The remaining area, totaling approximately 1,279 square feet,
will be utilized for storage and open shop area. The petitioner’s proposal
does not include any changes to the building. The dumpster for this suite will
be stored inside the building at all times with the exception of trash pickup
days in compliance with Section 12-10-11 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Pursuant to Section 12-9-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the following off-street
parking requirements apply:
• 1 parking space for every 200 square feet of gross floor area for
office spaces; and
• 1 parking space for every 1,500 square feet of gross floor area for
warehouse space (i.e., accessory storage).
Thus, a total of six parking spaces, including one handicap accessible
parking space, are required. The Site Plan (Attachment 5), in coordination
with the property owner, indicates all of the available parking on for the
entire site totaling 78 parking spaces and four handicap accessible spaces
with unloading areas. The available parking on the property meets the
parking requirement for the proposed trade contractor use. The Bright Side,
INC. will be open on Monday through Friday from 7 am to 7 pm, Saturday
Page 2 of 15
from 9 am to 12 pm, and closed on Sundays. Their services will include the
cleaning of carpets, upholstery, and air ducts off-site at customer’s houses.
There are total of six employees including the owner. However, a maximum
of two employees will be present on site at a given time. Please see the
Project Narrative (Attachment 1) for more details.
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project, including the proposed the site improvements, address various goals and objectives
of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan including the following aspects:
• Future Land Use Plan:
o This property is illustrated as Commercial Industrial Urban Mix on the Future Land Use Plan.
The Future Land Use Plan strives to create a well-balanced development area with a healthy
mixture of commercial and industrial uses. While the current use is commercial and the
existing building contains multiple tenant spaces, the petitioner will work to enhance the
subject tenant space with general maintenance. All activities and items stored will be inside
to reduce any negative impacts.
o The subject property is located along the defined River Road commercial corridor with a
mobile home community to the north and west, commercial development to the south, and
park to the east. The subject property contains a multi-tenant building with a variety of
different commercial uses and is located in between large, established commercial
developments along River Road. The request would assist in the retention of a new
commercial business at this location and provide additional cleaning services for the
residents of Des Plaines.
While the aforementioned aspects represent a small portion of the goals and strategies of the
Comprehensive Plan, there is a large emphasis on improving existing commercial developments and
enhancing commercial corridors throughout Des Plaines.
Conditional Use Findings: Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-
3- 4(E) of the Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments:
A. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific
Zoning district involved:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
B. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
C. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
D. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
Page 3 of 15
E. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and services,
such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and
sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional Use shall provide
adequately any such services:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
F. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public
expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being of
the entire community:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
G. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment
and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare
by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
H. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does
not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
I. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural,
scenic, or historic features of major importance:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
J. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
specific to the Conditional Use requested:
Comment: Please see the petitioner’s responses to Standards for Conditional Uses.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the
City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned conditional use for a
Trade Contactor use at 110 S. River Road. City Council has final authority on the proposal.
Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant
and the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the
Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff
recommends the condition that the parking area shall be repaved with a dust-free hard surface and the
parking spaces shall be painted on the property to match the approved Site Plan.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Project Narrative
Attachment 2: Petitioner’s Reponses to Standards
Attachment 3: Location Map
Attachment 4: Plat of Survey
Attachment 5: Site Plan
Attachment 6: Floor Plan
Attachment 7: Existing Conditions Photos
Attachment 8: Site and Context Photos
Page 4 of 15
Attachment 1 Page 5 of 15
Attachment 2 Page 6 of 15
Attachment 2 Page 7 of 15
0 300 600
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the
information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering
design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Print Date: 3/16/2021
110 S. River Road
Notes
Legend
Attachment 3 Page 8 of 15
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
4
P
a
g
e
9
o
f
1
5
Attachment 5 Page 10 of 15
Attachment 6 Page 11 of 15
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
P
a
g
e
1
2
o
f
1
5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
1
5
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
P
a
g
e
1
4
o
f
1
5
110 S. River Rd – Public Notice
110 S. River Rd – Looking West at Front Entrance & Parking
110 S. River Rd – Looking South at Front of Site
110 S. River Rd – Looking Southeast at Rear Entrance & Parking
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
8
P
a
g
e
1
5
o
f
1
5
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1420 Miner Street
Des Plaines, IL 60016
P: 847.391.5380
desplaines.org
Date: September 16, 2021
To: Planning and Zoning Board (PZB)
From: John T. Carlisle, AICP, Economic Development Manager
Cc: Jonathan Stytz, Planner
Subject: Consideration of Request for Variations to Allow a Parking Pad and Driveway Connection in
Front of a Townhouse at 2071 Pine Street
Issue: The petitioner is requesting variations from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a parking pad and to reduce
the minimum side yard at 2071 Pine Street.
Address: 2071 Pine Street
Owner: Jayantkumar (Jay) Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Petitioner: Jayantkumar (Jay) Sheth, 2071 Pine Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018
Case Number: 21-039-V
PIN: 09-29-409-073-0000
Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman
Existing Zoning/Land Use: R-3, Townhouse Residential District (Townhouse)
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-3, Townhouse Residential District
South: R-3, Townhouse Residential District
East: R-3 Townhouse Residential District
West: R-3 Townhouse Residential District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Single Family Attached (Townhouse) Residences
South: Single Family Attached (Townhouse) Residence
East: Single Family Attached (Townhouse) Residences and Accessory
Parking Lot
West: Multifamily Residences
Street Classification: Pine Street is a local road.
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 11
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as single-family residential
(attached or detached).
Project Description: The petitioner, Jay Sheth, is requesting variations to install one off-street
parking space, defined by the Zoning Ordinance as a “parking pad,” of
approximately 200 square feet in the front of his townhouse unit at 2071 Pine
Street. For access, the parking pad will require a short “residential driveway,”
also defined by the Ordinance, as well as a driveway apron in the public right-
of-way to connect the parking pad with the street. The subject property is 1,314
square feet in area and 18 feet wide. It is improved with the petitioner’s
townhouse unit, which is adjoined under one roof with three other townhouse
units, all of which are separated by vertical walls and individually owned. The
existing residence is set back 25 from the west (front) property line and built to
the north and south (side) lot lines, where it adjoins other townhouse units.
Therefore, it is nonconforming with the minimum side yard setback (5 feet), as
well as the minimum lot area per unit of 2,800 square feet. Per the Ordinance,
each of townhouse units, including the subject property, is its own zoning lot.
See the Plat of Survey (Attachment 3). The subject property includes one
deeded parking space in the parking lot to the east, accessible from Chestnut
Street. With only one space, the property is nonconforming, as two off-street
spaces are required per townhouse unit per Section 12-9-7. The front yard is
currently landscaped with grass and plantings, and is delineated by a chain-link
fence, evident in the site photos (Attachment 4).
In Section 12-9-6.C., the Ordinance states that off-street parking spaces may be
located “on surface lots, underground, under a building, or in parking
structures.” “Parking pad” is defined in the Ordinance as exactly the kind of
facility the petitioner is proposing: adjacent to a driveway, providing access to
a single motor vehicle (Section 12-13-3). But a parking pad is distinct from a
surface lot, which refers to a parking facility with more than one space. In 2019
the City adopted text amendments aimed at mostly eliminating parking pads for
single-family detached properties. However, “parking pad” was not stricken
entirely from the Ordinance, signaling that it may be appropriate for some
districts or uses. Nonetheless, the lack of mention of parking pad in 12-9-6
necessitates a major variation in this case.
Furthermore, Section 12-7-1.C. contains a table of permitted obstructions in
required yards. The table refers to driveways multiple times but does not
identify them as a permitted obstruction. Therefore, strict adherence to the
Ordinance requires a maximum eight-foot-wide driveway – to allow five feet
on each side – which would be substandard. Instead, as shown on the site plan
(Attachment 1), the petitioner is proposing a 11-foot-wide by 18-foot-long
parking pad, which would reasonably accommodate the bumper-to-bumper
length and door swing of a sedan vehicle. The parking pad would be accessed
by a short residential driveway that is part of the same surface. See the following
diagram of the site plan.
Page 2 of 11
Not to scale
To accommodate the project, the petitioner also seeks a reduction of the
required side yard to 3.5 feet from the minimum five. This is a 30 percent
reduction and falls under a minor variation that may be granted by the Zoning
Administrator per Section 12.3.6. While the yard reductions are required for the
driveway, they are not required for the parking pad because Section 12-9-6.C
allows off-street parking in any required yard in the R-3 district.
Alignment with the Comprehensive Plan
The proposed project is not well aligned with the Comprehensive Plan. While the Plan makes no reference
to the need to provide ample off-street parking to residents, it does in Chapter 7: Water Resource
Management call for “educating homeowners” on stormwater best management practices. These include
minimizing the amount of impervious surface on properties instead of adding to it. In addition, the Plan calls
for protecting the existing tree canopy, and this project would almost certainly require the removal of one
parkway tree.
Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6(H) of the
Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Staff comments on the proposal are included below. In summary, there
appears to be a practical difficulty experienced by the petitioner without easily achieved alternatives to rectify.
However, allowing the project to assuage the practical difficulty may work against community goals to
preserve or expand pervious, natural surfaces for the purposes of absorbing stormwater runoff, not to mention
preserving the urban tree canopy. The issue presents a trade-off between preserving front yard green
space/planting areas, for their aesthetic and functional value, and allowing an option to get an additional car
off the street. The PZB and City Council should review the petitioner’s responses to the variation standards
(Attachment 3) to determine each of the following standards is met.
1. Hardship: No variation shall be granted pursuant to this subsection H unless the applicant shall
establish that carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular
hardship or a practical difficulty.
Comment: The petitioner submits that it is impractical to enforce the use of the one surface parking
space to which his property is entitled: in the parking lot accessible from Chestnut Street. The parking
lot, which is not managed by any association, is in poor condition. Striping is very inconsistent. As a
single entity, he does not believe he can carry out the necessary project on that parking space to
improve it and clearly reserve it, as it is commingled with other parking spaces. The petitioner also
cites personal challenges with age and mobility, as the single parking space that he owns is somewhat
PARKING PAD
D
R
I
V
E
W
A
Y
DRIVEWAY
APRON IN
RIGHT-OF-
WAY
REQUIRED SIDE YARD
REQUIRED SIDE YARD
Page 3 of 11
far from his unit. Mr. Sheth provided with his application documentation for Illinois mobility impaired
accessible parking placard. Additionally, walking between the parking space and the back door to his
unit requires walking through a narrow gangway.
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to
the same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing
use, structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape
or size; exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar
to and inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner
and that relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner
of the lot.
Comment: The lot’s nonconformities are somewhat unique, although in the neighborhood there are
other properties experiencing the same or similar nonconformities. The single assigned parking space
is about 100 feet from an entrance to the unit, which is longer than one would normally find in a
townhouse development. Further, the lack of a homeowners’ association to manage a shared parking
lot is also somewhat unique.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or
inaction of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the
provisions from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of
governmental action, other than the adoption of this title.
Comment: The development was obviously created by a “predecessor in title,” but its design and
functionality may not have been contemplated by the current owners before the petitioner purchased
the unit. The PZB and/or City Council may wish to ask the petitioner about how a lack of parking did
or did not factor in to the decision at that time. Has the owner attempted to work with other owners to
form an association or pose another collective solution to the parking management problem? The PZB
and City Council finding may be reached that the practical hardship is not self-created.
4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a
variance is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial rights commonly
enjoyed by owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Comment: Carrying out the strict letter of the Zoning Ordinance would negate the ability to correct a
nonconformity—to have two parking spaces instead of one. The residents at 2063 Pine and 2075 Pine
– the end units in the four-unit townhouse building that houses the subject property – have side
driveways and enough space to park two vehicles. On the other hand, generally speaking some
properties are simply not built to accommodate front or side driveways while others are.
5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the inability
of the owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to
owners or occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely the inability of the
owner to make more money from the use of the subject lot.
Comment: For the entire block on the east side of Pine Street between Howard and Apache Park, there
are eight “interior” units, including the petitioner’s. These units all have the predicament that they
each rely on only one assigned parking space in the parking lot next to Chestnut Street. Allowing the
petitioner to construct the proposed parking pad would set a precedent and signal a policy direction –
to allow parking pads in townhouse front yards – that the decision makers are comfortable with. If that
is, indeed, the desired direction, the variation would not be special privilege but instead address an
Ordinance shortcoming that is problematic for this homeowner and perhaps should be amended.
Page 4 of 11
6. Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject
lot that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and
the provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent
of the comprehensive plan.
Comment: On the face, there is a practical difficulty, so the request falls under the purpose for
variations in the Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance as currently amended does not do away with
parking pads entirely, despite amendments in 2019 that were designed to cut back on their frequency
and use. On the other hand, the proposed project would trade off more than 200 square feet of green
space – the vast majority of the front lawn – for a hard surface. This is not engineering or stormwater
best management practice, nor is it in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan.
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged
hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable
use of the subject lot.
Comment: Better collective management of the Chestnut parking lot could serve the petitioner, so the
PZB and/or City Council may wish to ask the petitioner what challenges with the neighbors preclude
this collective action. However, even if the parking lot were in better shape and one space was reliably
available, that would not resolve that only one space, not the required two spaces, are available for
this development.
The only possible location for a second off-street parking space for the property is where the petitioner
is proposing it. There is no on-street parking on the east side of the street (i.e. in front of the unit).
8. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of this title.
Comment: If the concept of having a parking pad in the front yard for this townhouse is deemed to be
appropriate, this design is not excessive in its dimensions to provide the parking pad.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-6(G)(2) (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Major Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB should recommend that the City Council
approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned major variation for a parking pad at
2071 Pine Street. The City Council has final authority on the proposal. Consideration of the request should be
based on a review of the information presented by the applicant and the findings analyzed above, as specified
in Section 12-3-6(H) (Standards for Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City
Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the following conditions:
1. The front segment of chain-link fence is removed to accommodate the project;
2. The parking pad, driveway, and driveway apron cannot obstruct access to any utilities, with
modifications to the final project design as necessar y to comply, while still complying with all other
City regulations; and
3. On-site landscaping shall be installed at the north and eastern edges of the parking pad.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Project Narrative
Attachment 2: Site Plan
Attachment 3: Responses to Standards
Attachment 4: Plat of Survey
Attachment 5: Site Photos
Page 5 of 11
Attachment 1 Page 6 of 11
Page 7 of 11
RESPONSES TO STANDARDS: VARIATION(S)
1.Hardship/Practical Difficulty: The assigned parking is not usable and available, and I am a senior
with a hard time walking and physical conditions. There is no association so there is no control
or management of the parking. It is also not safe and is far from my home. You cannot see the
parking from my home.
2.Unique Physical Condition: The lot is much smaller than required for the R-3 district: 1,314
square feet instead of the minimum 2,800 square feet. Also the lot was developed without any
adjacent off-street parking.
3.Not Self-Created: The development was done long before my purchase or awareness of the
rules and function of the parking in the area.
4.Denied Substantial Rights: Housing, townhouses or single family houses, usually have at least
one parking space off the street that is somewhat easy to use. I do not have any that I can rely
on.
5.Not Merely Special Privilege: My problem is unique when considering all of Des Plaines. I am
not seeking this for economic gain but just to use my home better.
6.Title and Plan Purposes: The rules of Des Plaines try to provide enough parking for
development, and my proposal would do that for my home. The current rules require at least
two off street parking spaces for a townhouse, and I have only one, which is not practically
usable.
7.No other remedy: There is no other place on my property for a parking area to be built.
8.Minimum required: The depth and width of the proposed parking area are not excessive. They
are designed to serve one mid-size sedan car, a Nissan Sentra.
Attachment 3 Page 8 of 11
Attachment 4 Page 9 of 11
Attachment 4 Page 10 of 11
Site Photos by Staff
Looking at approximate area of existing
parking space and parking lot (Chestnut
Street)
Walking path/gangway between parking
space and unit
Existing front yard and area of proposed
driveway Parkway tree that would likely require
removal
Attachment 5 Page 11 of 11
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1420 Miner Street
Des Plaines, IL 60016
P: 847.391.5380
desplaines.org
Date: September 21, 2021
To: Planning and Zoning Board
From: Jonathan Stytz, Planner
Cc: John Carlisle, AICP, Economic Development Manager
Subject: Consideration of Conditional Use Amendment for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation for
River’s Casino at 2980-3000 S. River Road, Case #21-040-LASR CU (6th Ward)
Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use Amendment for an existing Localized Alternative Sign
Regulation (LASR) under Sections 12-3-4 and 12-11-8 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow for an increase in
signage on the property located at 2980-3000 S. River Road.
Address: 2980-3000 S. River Road
Owner: Gregory A. Carlin, Midwest Gaming & Entertainment, LLC, 900 N. Michigan
Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611
Petitioner: Michael Tobin, Midwest Gaming & Entertainment, LLC, 900 N. Michigan
Avenue, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60611
Case Number: 21-040-LASR CU
PINs: 09-34-300-032; -045; -046; & -047
Ward: #6, Alderman Malcolm Chester
Existing Zoning: C-6, Casino District
Existing Land Use: Casino, Parking Garage, Office Building, and Surface Parking
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-2, Limited Office Commercial District
South: D, Commercial (Village of Rosemont)
East: P-1, Public Land District (Cook County)
West: C-7, High Density Campus District
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 47
Surrounding Land Use: North: Multi-Unit Office Building (Commercial)
South: Hotel / Restaurants (Commercial)
East: Recreation
West: Multi-Unit Office Building (Commercial)
Street Classification: River Road and Devon Avenue are classified as minor arterials.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as commercial.
Project Description: The applicant, Michael Tobin on behalf of Midwest Gaming & Entertainment,
has requested a Conditional Use Amendment for an existing LASR to allow for
increased signage on the property located at 2980-3000 S. River Road. The
existing property contains a 140,363-square-foot casino building, a four-story
parking garage with a pedestrian bridge connecting from the second level of the
garage to the casino building, and a two-story office building with a surface
parking lot. A casino expansion is underway that will result in an approximately
225,000-square-foot building with an expanded number of gaming positions
(from 1,200 to 2,000), as well as an enlarged parking structure (now 3,063 total
parking spaces). The two-story expansion of the casino building has led to new
gaming space, a small food and beverage outlet, and a more than 10,000-square-
foot multipurpose event area, with associated back-of-house areas.
With all lots combined, the property encompasses 20.017 acres in land area.
This request comes after the previous two Planned Unit Development Major
Amendment requests to expand the existing parking garage (approved
December 2, 2019 through Ordinance Z-33-19) and expand the existing casino
building (approved March 15, 2021 through Ordinance Z-31-21) to
accommodate necessary floor area and parking for the expansion. The most
currently approved LASR was embedded into the approval of Ordinance Z-33-
19. Pursuant to Section 12-11-8 of the Zoning Ordinance, Planned Unit
Developments may establish a LASR plan via a conditional use for their
property subject to review and approval from the Planning and Zoning Board
pursuant to the procedures for conditional uses.
The existing building and site as a whole currently contain a variety of different
building and freestanding signage ranging from directional to video signs with
a total count of 95 signs, as shown in the Sign Plan Amendment (Attachment
6). However, the petitioner is requesting to add 20 new static signs, replace 15
existing static signs, add eight new LED signs, and replace one existing LED
sign totaling 28 new signs altogether:
• Static Signs: The new static signs consist of identity, directional, and
clearance bar signs proposed at and around vehicle/pedestrian
entrances/access drives and bus stop/rideshare pickup/drop-off areas.
The existing static signs to be replaced are directional signs to assist
motorists and pedestrians in navigating the property.
• LED Signs: The new LED signs consist of identification signs
positioned in high visible areas to attract motorists and pedestrians to
the property. There is one new LED sign proposed for the east elevation
facing the main entrance. However, the remainder of the new LED
signs are located on the west elevation facing I-294. The existing LED
Page 2 of 47
sign at the northwest corner of the River Road/Devon Avenue
intersection is the only LED sign being replaced as part of this request.
All proposed signage is shown below. The Project Narrative (Attachment 1)
and Sign Plan Amendment (Attachment 6) provide additional information.
*Sign requests are proposed for the property at 3000 S. River Road unless
otherwise noted. See Sign Plan Amendment for more information.
Static Signs*
Sign Type Location Area of Signage
Window Vinyl South Office Building Façade at
2980 River Rd
168 SF
Wall - Identity Northeast Property Entrance 6 SF
Clearance Bars x 3 Northwest Property Entrance 5 SF each
Directional x 2
(Valet/Self-Park)
Near East Property Entrance
(Overhead)
11 SF each
Wall - Identity Near East Property Entrance 419 SF
Directional –
Vehicle x 2
Near East Property Entrance
(Wall Mounted)
97 SF
Wall – Parking
Entrance
Parking Garage – North Entrance 53 SF
Wall – Valet Drop-
off
East Casino Entrance (covered
drop-off area)
11 SF (one-
sided)
Wall – Bus/Valet
Drop-off x 2
East Casino Entrance
(covered drop-off area)
24 SF (two-
sided)
Directional –
Vehicle x 2
Southeast & Northeast Property
Entrances
75 SF each
Directional –
Pedestrian x 2
Northeast Property Entrance 29 SF each
Wall – Bus Drop-
off x 2
East Casino Entrance
(covered drop-off area)
10 SF each
Directional –
Pedestrian x 2
Northwest Property / North
Garage Entrances
29 SF each
Directional –
Pedestrian
Far Northeast Access Drive
Entrance
29 SF
TOTAL 1,125 SF
LED Signs*
Sign Type Location Area of Signage
LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#6) 426 SF
LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#8) 426 SF
LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#73) 884 SF
LED Video Wall East Building Façade (#74) 1,535 SF
LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#75) 455 SF
LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#17) 319 SF
LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#15) 310 SF
LED Video Wall West Building Façade (#16) 588 SF
TOTAL 4,943 SF
GRAND TOTAL 6,068 SF
Page 3 of 47
Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
There are several parts of the City of Des Plaines’ 2019 Comprehensive Plan that align with the proposed
project. Those portions are as follows:
• Under Future Land Use Map:
o The property is identified for commercial use. The casino complex will be able to increase
visibility and take advantage of existing, well-traveled public roadways, such as I-294, with
the approval of the amended LASR request.
• Under Economic Development:
o The Comprehensive Plan recognizes the economic vitality of the subject property and its
benefit to the surrounding area. The existing development of this site provides additional
revenue, job opportunities, and services for the region as a whole and continues development
trends already established in this area.
While the aforementioned bullet points are only a small portion of the Comprehensive Plan, there is a large
emphasis on developing and enhancing our commercial corridors. This casino complex is adding additional
services for the community and further enhancing the River Road corridor. The proposed signage will assist
in the continued promotion of the existing development for residents and visitors while also potentially
attracting new development proposals in the future.
Conditional Use Findings: Conditional Use requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-
4(E) of the Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance. In reviewing these standards, staff has the following comments:
1. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning
district involved:
Comment: A Localized Alternative Sign Regulation is a Conditional Use, as specified in Section 12-
11-8 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended. Please see the Petitioner’s
responses for Conditional Uses.
2. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive
Plan:
Comment: The use of the site is a casino, which consists of large casino building, surface and covered
parking areas, and office building. The development of the subject property and its location in close
proximity to I-294 allows for expanded commercial development opportunities. The proposed signage
for the site is intended to help further identify the casino complex and assist both residents and visitors
alike in navigating the site. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
3. The proposed Conditional Use is designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the
general vicinity:
Comment: The proposed Conditional Use for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation requests
additional signage to assist in the identification of the casino complex and help both residents and
visitors navigate the property. The petitioner has designed the sign plan to match the character of the
apartment complex building and blend with the existing character of the development within the
surrounding area. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
4. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses:
Comment: The proposed signs are not hazardous or disturbing to the existing neighboring uses. All
signs will meet all required performance standards as outlined in Section 12-11-6(B) of the Zoning
Page 4 of 47
Ordinance. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
5. The proposed Conditional Use is to be served adequately by essential public facilities and
services, such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse
disposal, water and sewer, and schools; or, agencies responsible for establishing the Conditional
Use shall provide adequately any such services:
Comment: The proposed signs have no effect on essential public facilities and services. Please see the
Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
6. The proposed Conditional Use does not create excessive additional requirements at public
expense for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic well-being
of the entire community:
Comment: The proposed signs would not create a burden on public facilities, nor would they be a
detriment to the economic well-being of the community. The signs are intended to share information
and help customers safely and easily access the site. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for
Conditional Uses.
7. The proposed Conditional Use does not involve uses, activities, processes, materials,
equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property, or the
general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke fumes, glare or odors:
Comment: The proposed signs will not create additional traffic or noise that could be detrimental to
surrounding land uses. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
8. The proposed Conditional Use provides vehicular access to the property designed so that it does
not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares:
Comment: The proposed signs will not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public
thoroughfares but rather establish building identification for both motorists and pedestrians. Please see
the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
9. The proposed Conditional Use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural,
scenic, or historic features of major importance:
Comment: The proposed new signs would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural,
scenic or historic features of major importance. The signs will be used to enhance a site that has already
been developed. Please see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
10. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance
specific to the Conditional Use requested:
Comment: All signs do comply with setback requirements as stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Please
see the Petitioner’s responses for Conditional Uses.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-4(D) (Procedure for Review and
Decision for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the
City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned conditional use amendment
for a LASR at 2980-3000 S. River Road. City Council has final authority on the proposal.
Consideration of the request should be based on a review of the information presented by the applicant and
the findings made above, as specified in Section 12-3-4(E) (Standards for Conditional Uses) of the Zoning
Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the
following conditions:
Page 5 of 47
1. A three-foot landscape bed in all directions be provided at the base of all freestanding signs, per the
standards set forth in Section 12-11-4(G). This landscaping shall be comprised of low-lying evergreen
shrubs, perennials, and annuals.
2. That structural design plans shall be provided for all signage at time of permit.
3. The applicant shall provide sight line analysis for vehicle-to-vehicle sightlines and vehicle-to-
pedestrian/bicycle sightlines showing that the sign position does not intrude upon the AASHTO Green
Book sight triangles for the freestanding signs proposed along the roadway driveways and site access
drives. The location of the freestanding signs may have to be slightly adjusted at the time of building
permit review to comply with AASHTO site triangle clearance.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Petitioner’s Project Narrative
Attachment 2: Petitioner’s Standards for a Conditional Use
Attachment 3: Location Map
Attachment 4: Plat of Survey
Attachment 5: Overall Site Plan
Attachment 6: Sign Plan Amendment
Attachment 7: Site and Context Photos
Page 6 of 47
Rivers Casino
Amendment to Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR)
Project Narrative
The applicant is proposing several amendments to the existing Localized Alternative Sign
Regulation (LASR) as first approved under Ordinance Z-6-10 and then approved under
Ordinance Z-11-11, Ordinance Z-14-11, Ordinance Z-33-119 for modifications to the
original LASR. The proposed amendments to the LASR as summarized below.
The effort to improve signage at the project property affect the following signage types:
a.Static wayfinding / Identity signs
b.LED signs (digital board)
These signs are located as freestanding units or mounted to the façade of buildings. In
terms of general design approach, it does not deviate from previously approved
amendments. The sought-after improvements for necessary signage elements are
related to overall aesthetic improvements and brand congruence.
As such the statuses of all signage elements observed on property fall into 6 general
categories:
1.Static - Existing Signs
2.Static - New Signs
3.Static - Existing Signs to be replaced
4.LED (digital board) - Existing
5.LED (digital board) - New Sign
6.LED (digital board) - Existing Signs to be replaced
1.Static - Existing Signs
These signs are currently existing on property and do not anticipate change, adjustment
or replacement. These static signage elements feature traditional manufacturing methods
as follows:
•Painted aluminum sign frame, cabinet or channel letterforms
•Internally illuminated via LED light strips
•Illuminated acrylic letterforms, vinyl film
•Mechanical attachment to footer/foundation and building façade
•Vinyl film applied to vertical building façade or surfaces
•Painted graphic on ground surface (parking deck)
2.Static - New Signs
These signs currently do not exist on property and are proposed for implementation to
aid wayfinding as a result of the expansion effort at the property and overall aesthetic
improvement effort for brand congruence. The new signs will be completely engineered
by the sign fabricator and will feature new foundation/footer. All new proposed signs
feature sign face square footage that are equal to or smaller than previous sign program’s
sign type equivalent.
Page 7 of 47
Rivers Casino
Amendment to Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR)
Project Narrative
These static signage elements feature traditional manufacturing methods as follows:
•Painted aluminum sign frame, cabinet or channel letterforms
•Internally illuminated via LED light strips
•Illuminated acrylic letterforms, vinyl film
•Cabinet edge glow for select sign types
•Mechanical attachment to footer/foundation and building façade
3.Static – Existing Signs to be Replaced
These signs are currently existing on property and are proposed for
replacement/improvement to aid wayfinding as a result of the expansion effort at the
property and overall aesthetic improvement effort for brand congruence. Whenever
possible, the intention is to engineer the entire sign completely and re-utilize any existing
foundation/footer to integrate new signs. All new proposed sign
replacement/improvement feature sign face square footage that are equal to or smaller
than previous sign program’s sign type equivalent.
These static signage elements feature traditional manufacturing methods as follows:
•Painted aluminum sign frame, cabinet or channel letterforms
•Internally illuminated via LED light strips
•Illuminated acrylic letterforms, vinyl film
•Cabinet edge glow for select sign types
•Mechanical attachment to footer/foundation and building façade
4.LED (digital board) - Existing Signs
These signs are currently existing on property and do not anticipate change, adjustment
or replacement. These LED signage elements feature typical industry implementation
methods as follows:
•LUMENS/NIT Levels output, media cycles conform to standards set forth by IDOT
and City of Des Plaines, IL
•Mechanical attachment to footer/foundation and building façade
5.LED (digital board) - New Signs
These signs currently do not exist on property and are proposed for implementation to
aid wayfinding as a result of the expansion effort at the property and overall aesthetic
improvement effort for brand congruence.
These LED signage elements feature typical industry implementation methods as follows:
•LUMENS/NIT Levels output, media cycles conform to standards set forth by IDOT
and City of Des Plaines, IL
•Mechanical attachment to footer/foundation and building façade
Page 8 of 47
Rivers Casino
Amendment to Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR)
Project Narrative
6.LED (digital board) - Existing Signs to be Replaced
These signs are currently existing on property and are proposed for
replacement/improvement to aid wayfinding as a result of the expansion effort at the
property and overall aesthetic improvement effort for brand congruence. All new proposed
sign replacement/improvement feature sign face square footage that are equal to or
smaller than previous sign program’s sign type equivalent.
These LED signage elements feature typical industry implementation methods as follows:
•LUMENS/NIT Levels output, media cycles conform to standards set forth by IDOT
and City of Des Plaines, IL
•Mechanical attachment to footer/foundation and building façade
Page 9 of 47
The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed Conditional Use in terms of the following standards. Keep in mind that in responding to the
items below, you are demonstrating that the proposed use is appropriate for the site and will not have a
negative impact on surrounding properties and the community. Please answer each item completely and
thoroughly (two to three sentences each).
A.The proposed conditional use is in fact a conditional use established within the specific zoning
district involved;
A Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR) is a Conditional Use, as specified in Section 12-11-
8 of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance in the C-6, Casino District.
B.The proposed conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the city's comprehensive
plan and this title;
The use of the site is commercial and located in the C-6, Casino District. The proposed
amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign Regulations (LASR) will
continue to help keep the site commercial and assist potential patrons to find this regional
attraction.
C.The proposed conditional use is designed, constructed, operated, and maintained so as to be
harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general
vicinity;
The existing Conditional Use for a Localized Alternative Sign Regulation (LASR) allows for multiple
signs on the property. The proposed amendment to the previously approved LASR request
includes:
1.Static – Existing Signs to remain
2.Static – New Signs
3.Static – Existing Signs to be replaced
4.LED (digital board) – Existing Signs to remain
5.LED (digital board) – New Signs
6.LED (digital board) – Existing Signs to be replaced
All new signage will be of the same quality as the existing signage.
D.The proposed conditional use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses;
Based on the relatively isolated location of the signage in relation to residential areas, the
proposed amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign Regulations (LASR) is
not anticipated to be hazardous or disturbing to the existing neighboring uses.
Attachment 2 Page 10 of 47
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 the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the
proposed conditional use shall provide adequately any such services;
The proposed amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign Regulations
(LASR) will have no effect on essential public facilities and services.
F.The proposed conditional use does not create excessive additional requirements at public
expense for public facilities and services and not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the
community;
The proposed amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign Regulations
(LASR) will not create a burden on public facilities, nor would they 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;
The proposed amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign Regulations
(LASR) will not create additional traffic or noise that could be detrimental to surrounding land
uses.
H.The proposed conditional use provides vehicular access to the property designed that does not
create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares;
The proposed amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign Regulations
(LASR) will not create an interference with traffic on surrounding public thoroughfares.
I.The proposed conditional use does not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of a natural,
scenic, or historic feature of major importance; and
The proposed The proposed amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign
Regulations (LASR) would not cause the destruction, loss, or damage of any natural, scenic, or
historic features of major importance. The signs will be used to enhance an existing development.
J.The proposed conditional use complies with all additional regulations in this title specific to the
conditional use requested
The proposed amendment to the previously approved Localized Alternative Sign Regulations
(LASR) will comply with all regulations.
Attachment 2 Page 11 of 47
0 1000 2000
ft
Disclaimer: The GIS Consortium and MGP Inc. are not liable for any use, misuse, modification or disclosure of any map provided under applicable law. This map is for general information purposes only. Although the
information is believed to be generally accurate, errors may exist and the user should independently confirm for accuracy. The map does not constitute a regulatory determination and is not a base for engineering
design. A Registered Land Surveyor should be consulted to determine precise location boundaries on the ground.
Print Date: 9/21/2021
2980-3000 S. River Road
Notes
Attachment 3 Page 12 of 47
HATCHED AREA "UNDER
CONSTRUCTION" AT TIMEOF FIELD WORK
8QVXEGLYLGHG
1RW,QFOXGHG
/RWLQ'HYRQ
$YHQXH6XEGLYLVLRQ
1RW,QFOXGHG
File Name:
Layout:
P:\2012\12127\Drawings\Final Survey\12127B-PLAT OF SURVEY FOR LASR AMENDMENT (2021).dwg
Aug 25, 2021 - 3:03pm 12127-PLAT OF SURVEYtammy-kPlot Date:Plotted By:
3$5&(//(*(1'/27'(63/$,1(6&$6,12),567$0(1'('5(68%',9,6,21/27'(63/$,1(6&$6,125(68%',9,6,21D E V O N A V E N U ED E V O N A V E N U ED E V O N A V E N U E D E S P L A I N E S R I V E R R O A DD E S P L A I N E S R I V E R R O A DD E S P L A I N E S R I V E R R O A DT R I - S T A T E ( I - 2 9 4 ) T O L L W A YT R I - S T A T E ( I - 2 9 4 ) T O L L W A YT R I - S T A T E ( I - 2 9 4 ) T O L L W A YPARCEL 13$5&(/.(<0$33$5&(/3$5&(/ ,1&/8'(',1/$65$0(1'0(17 3$5&(/ ,1&/8'(',1/$65$0(1'0(17 %,//%2$5'3$5&(/ 127,1&/8'(',1/$65$0(1'0(17 '(9213$5&(/ 127,1&/8'(',1/$65$0(1'0(17 Attachment 4
P
a
g
e
1
3
o
f
4
7
SGSG
T
SG SG
SG SG
T
T
E
40+00
4
9
+
0
0
5
0
+
0
0
5
1
+
0
0
5
2
+
0
0
5
3
+
0
0
5
4
+
0
0
5
5
+
0
0
5
6
+
0
0
5
7
+
0
0
5
8
+
0
0
5
9
+
0
0
6
0
+
0
0
6
1
+
0
0
6
2
+
0
0
63+0064+0065+00
311+00 312+00 313+00 314+00 315+00 316+00 317+00 318+00 319+00 320+00 321+00
50+01.73
320+00.00
310+00309+00
SB
AG EXIT LANE #ENTRY L ANE #
AG
A
G
ENTRY
L
A
N
E
#
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
P
H
A
S
E
1
P
H
A
S
E
1
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
A
S
T
L
O
T
G
A
R
A
G
E
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
S
O
U
T
H
E
A
S
T
L
O
T
S
O
U
T
H
W
E
S
T
L
O
T
(
M
O
D
I
F
I
E
D
L
O
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
S
H
O
W
N
)
2
5
0
0
E
.
D
E
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
(
N
O
T
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
D
)
NOT
INCLUDED
V.
I
.
P
.
L
O
T
P
H
A
S
E
1
A
(
L
O
W
E
R
L
E
V
E
L
S
H
O
W
N
)
N O R T H E A S T L O T
P
H
A
S
E
2
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
L
I
N
E
O
F
P
H
A
S
E
2
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
A
B
O
V
E
Scale:NORTH 0 30 60 1" = 60'Revision Date No.
to
d
d
-
s
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
B
y
:
Project Manager:Engineer:SheetDate:C 2021 Haeger Engineering, LLC Project No.consulting engineers HAEGER ENGINEERINGland surveyors OVERALL SITE PLAN (60 SCALE)DES PLAINES CASINO FINAL PUD AMENDMENT 2980 & 3000 S. DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD, DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS T A S P A C 01/22/2021 12127-PUD 1 31 03/03/2021 Site Plan & Lower Level Garage Modifications for Valet/Drop-Off in Lower Level of GarageLOT LEGEND LOT 1 - DES PLAINES CASINO FIRST AMENDED RESUBDIVISION LOT 3 - DES PLAINES CASINO RESUBDIVISIOND E V O N A V E N U ED E V O N A V E N U ED E V O N A V E N U E D E S P L A I N E S R I V E R R O A D D E S P L A I N E S R I V E R R O A D D E S P L A I N E S R I V E R R O A DT R I - S T A T E ( I - 2 9 4 ) T O L L W A Y T R I - S T A T E ( I - 2 9 4 ) T O L L W A Y T R I - S T A T E ( I - 2 9 4 ) T O L L W A Y L O T 1 LOT KEY MAPL O T 3 NOT INCLUDED
NO
T
E
S
:
1.
S
E
E
S
H
E
E
T
S
2
&
3
F
O
R
M
O
R
E
D
E
T
A
I
L
E
D
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
.
6.
A
R
E
A
'
N
O
T
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
D
'
I
N
T
H
E
F
I
N
A
L
P
U
D
F
O
R
T
H
E
D
E
S
P
L
A
I
N
E
S
C
A
S
I
N
O
.
AR
E
A
N
O
T
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
D
I
N
D
E
S
P
L
A
I
N
E
S
C
A
S
I
N
O
P
U
D
=
2.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
G
A
R
A
G
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
O
N
T
H
E
F
O
L
L
O
W
I
N
G
:
A.
F
L
O
O
R
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
E
A
C
H
G
A
R
A
G
E
L
E
V
E
L
B.
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
I
O
N
S
&
H
E
I
G
H
T
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
3.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
P
A
C
K
A
G
E
F
O
R
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
O
N
T
H
E
S
I
G
N
A
G
E
F
O
R
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
.
4.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
E
P
L
A
N
S
F
O
R
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
O
N
T
H
E
L
A
N
D
S
C
A
P
I
N
G
F
O
R
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
.
5.
R
E
F
E
R
T
O
S
I
T
E
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
S
P
R
E
P
A
R
E
D
B
Y
H
A
E
G
E
R
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
L
L
C
F
O
R
D
E
T
A
I
L
E
D
I
N
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
O
N
T
H
E
G
R
A
D
I
N
G
,
P
A
V
I
N
G
A
N
D
U
T
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
F
O
R
T
H
E
S
I
T
E
.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
Page 14 of 47
T
57+0058+0059+00
6
0
+
0
0
6
1
+
0
0
6
2
+
0
0
6
3
+
0
0
6
4
+
0
0
6
5
+
0
0
6
6
+
0
0
A
G
E
X
I
T
L
A
N
E
#
E
N
T
R
Y
L
A
N
E
#
A
G
A
G
E
N
T
R
Y
L
A
N
E
#
Scale:NORTH 0 20 40 1" = 40'Revision Date No.
to
d
d
-
s
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
B
y
:
Project Manager:Engineer:SheetDate:C 2021 Haeger Engineering, LLC Project No.consulting engineers HAEGER ENGINEERINGland surveyors SITE PLAN - NORTH (40 SCALE)DES PLAINES CASINO FINAL PUD AMENDMENT 2980 & 3000 S. DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD, DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS T A S P A C 01/22/2021 12127-PUD 2 31 03/03/2021 Site Plan & Lower Level Garage Modifications for Valet/Drop-Off in Lower Level of GarageNOTES:1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR THE OVERALL PLAN.2. REFER TO PARKING GARAGE PLANS FOR INFORMATION ON THE FOLLOWING:A. FLOOR PLANS FOR EACH GARAGE LEVEL B. BUILDING ELEVATIONS & HEIGHT INFORMATION 3.REFER TO SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR INFORMATION ON THE SIGNAGE FOR THE SITE.4. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR INFORMATION ON THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE SITE.5. REFER TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS PREPARED BY HAEGER ENGINEERING LLC FOR DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE GRADING, PAVING AND UTILITIES FOR THE SITE.
SE
E
S
H
E
E
T
3
F
O
R
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
A
T
I
O
N
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
Page 15 of 47
SG
SG
T
SG
SG
SG SGT
E
40+00 49+0050+0051+0052+0053+0054+0055+0056+0057+00
31
1
+
0
0
31
2
+
0
0
31
3
+
0
0
31
4
+
0
0
31
5
+
0
0
31
6
+
0
0
31
7
+
0
0
318+00319+00320+00 321+0050+01.73 320+00.00
31
0
+
0
0
30
9
+
0
0
SB
2
5
0
0
E
.
D
E
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
(
N
O
T
I
N
C
L
U
D
E
D
)
NO
T
IN
C
L
U
D
E
D
Scale:NORTH 0 20 40 1" = 40'Revision Date No.
to
d
d
-
s
Pl
o
t
t
e
d
B
y
:
Project Manager:Engineer:SheetDate:C 2021 Haeger Engineering, LLC Project No.consulting engineers HAEGER ENGINEERINGland surveyors SITE PLAN - SOUTH (40 SCALE)DES PLAINES CASINO FINAL PUD AMENDMENT 2980 & 3000 S. DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD, DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS T A S P A C 01/22/2021 12127-PUD 3 31 03/03/2021 Site Plan & Lower Level Garage Modifications for Valet/Drop-Off in Lower Level of Garage6. AREA 'NOT INCLUDED' IN THE FINAL PUD FOR THE DES PLAINES CASINO. AREA NOT INCLUDED IN DES PLAINES CASINO PUD =
SE
E
S
H
E
E
T
2
F
O
R
C
O
N
T
I
N
U
A
T
I
O
N
NOTES:1. SEE SHEET 1 FOR THE OVERALL PLAN.2. REFER TO PARKING GARAGE PLANS FOR INFORMATION ON THE FOLLOWING:A. FLOOR PLANS FOR EACH GARAGE LEVEL B. BUILDING ELEVATIONS & HEIGHT INFORMATION 3.REFER TO SIGNAGE PACKAGE FOR INFORMATION ON THE SIGNAGE FOR THE SITE.4. REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR INFORMATION ON THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE SITE.5. REFER TO SITE IMPROVEMENT PLANS PREPARED BY HAEGER ENGINEERING LLC FOR DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE GRADING, PAVING AND UTILITIES FOR THE SITE.
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
5
Page 16 of 47
selbert perkins design collaborative
2 North Riverside Plaza, Suite 1475
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 876 1839
prepared by:
RIVERS CASINO DES PLAINES
SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT
7 SEPTEMBER, 2021
Attachment 6 Page 17 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 2EXTERIOR SIGN PROGRAM G1.0
S D
O N L Y
O
N
L
Y
O
N
L
Y
O N L Y
O
N
L
Y
O
N
L
Y
O N L Y
O N L Y
O N L Y
O N L Y
O N L Y
O N L Y
ONLY
O
N
L
Y
O N L Y
T
S
G
S
G
S
G
S
G
T
S
G
S
G
T
S
B
E
H
H
H
UPS
N 1941828.1537
E 1111567.8751
N 1941880.1198
E 1111954.3974
N 1942612.6305
E 1111428.4073
C
C
C
C
C
C
T T
1A 2 2A 3
31
28a
28b
28c
5
4a
49 5048 51 52
7
9 10
1413
18
6
8
1
45
36
47
44
43
42
30
54
11
35
57
17
15
46
2
3
40
21
⚡⚡24
33a 33b
19b
41
20
58
59
60
61
62
63
64a 64b
65a 65b
66
67
68
69
70
71
73
74 75
80
16
76
26
78
77
7981
83
85
86
N.I.C
EXHIBIT BILLBOARD
NOT INCLUDED
87 88
91
90
89
92
98
97
96
95
94 93
99
102
103
104
100
101
107
105 106
CASINO
DES PLAINES
RIVERS
KJWA Job Number: 19036
KEY PLAN
ISSUED/REVISED
DESCRIPTION DATE:NO:
PERMIT ISSUE 05.21.21
3000 SOUTH RIVER ROAD
DES PLAINES, ILLINOIS 60018
GAMING
EXPANSION
BUILD OUT
REVISION 02 09.01.212
SITE-CITY
AMENDMENT
EG401
1" = 40'-0"1
SITE PLAN / RIVERS DES PLAINES
CASINO
MARK TYPE DESCRIPTION Status
1 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION - PRIMARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
2 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
3 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
4a e12.1 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL EXISTING SIGN
5 e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX EXISTING SIGN
6 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
7 e12.2 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL EXISTING SIGN
8 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
9 e11.2 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE (EMPLOYEE ENTRY)EXISTING SIGN
10 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME)EXISTING SIGN
11 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
13 e12.2 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL EXISTING SIGN
14 e12.2 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL EXISTING SIGN
15 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
16 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
17 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
18 e4.1 ILUMINATED PARKING SIGN EXISTING SIGN
19b e12.1 LED MONITOR EXISTING- LED SIGN
20 D81 CLEARANCE BAR NEW SIGN
21 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
24 A10 BUILDING IDENTITY - PRIMARY NEW SIGN
26 e4.1 ILUMINATED PARKING SIGN EXISTING SIGN
28a e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX EXISTING SIGN
28b e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX EXISTING SIGN
28c e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX EXISTING SIGN
30 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
31 e9.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE (CASINO NAME)EXISTING SIGN
33a e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX EXISTING SIGN
33b e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX EXISTING SIGN
35 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME)EXISTING SIGN
36 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
40 A30 VALET IDENTITY NEW SIGN
41 A32 BUS DROP IDENTITY NEW SIGN
42 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
43 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY NEW SIGN
44 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION - PRIMARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
45 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION - PRIMARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
46 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
47 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
48 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE EXISTING SIGN
49 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE EXISTING SIGN
50 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE EXISTING SIGN
51 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE EXISTING SIGN
52 e7.1 F.E.C SIGN EXISTING SIGN
54 A5 MONUMENT SIGN - PRIMARY EXISTING- LED SIGN TO BE
REPLACED
57 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
58 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
59 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY NEW SIGN
60 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY NEW SIGN
61 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY NEW SIGN
62 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED
63 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY NEW SIGN
64a B80 VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL - OVERHEAD NEW SIGN
64b B80 VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL - OVERHEAD NEW SIGN
65a D81 CLEARANCE BAR NEW SIGN
65b D81 CLEARANCE BAR NEW SIGN
66 B10 DIRECTION WALL MOUNTED NEW SIGN
67 A34 RIDE SHARE IDENTITY NEW SIGN
68 A35 BUS DROP OFF IDENTITY NEW SIGN
69 e11.3 IDENTITY LETTERS EXISTING SIGN
70 e11.3 IDENTITY LETTERS EXISTING SIGN
71 e11.3 IDENTITY LETTERS EXISTING SIGN
73 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
74 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
75 A01 BUILDING IDENTITY NEW SIGN
76 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE NEW- LED SIGN
77 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME)EXISTING SIGN
78 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME)EXISTING SIGN
79 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME)EXISTING SIGN
80 E1 ROOF PAINTED SIGN EXISTING SIGN
81 A14 VALET BLADE IDENTITY NEW SIGN
83 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY NEW SIGN
84 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION- TERTIARY DELETED
85 E2 VINYL IDENTITY NEW SIGN
86 e4.1a ILUMINATED PARKING SIGN NEW SIGN
87 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
88 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
89 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
90 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
91 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
92 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
93 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
94 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
95 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
96 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
97 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
98 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
99 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
100 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
101 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
102 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
103 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
104 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
105 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
106 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
107 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN EXISTING SIGN
STATIC SIGNS
LED SIGNS
EXISTING SIGN
EXISTING SIGN
NEW SIGN
EXISTING TO BE REPLACED
EXISTING TO BE REPLACED
NEW SIGN
Attachment 6 Page 18 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 3
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
NORTH ELEVATIONS
GARAGE - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
Sign Type: e4.1a, #40
VALET
Sign Type: A14, #81 Sign Type: A32, #41
EXIT ONLY ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
SELF PAR KINGSELF PAR KING
G2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #26
EXIT ONLY
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
G2.503 Sign Type: e4.1a, #86
G2.503
EXIT ONLY ENTERCLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”SELF PAR KINGSELF PAR KINGG2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #18 Sign Type:e11.3, #71G2.203 Sign Type: e12.2, #137Sign Type: e12.2, #147
Sign Type: e11,3, #70G2.203 Sign Type: e14.2, #79
Sign Type: e12.1, #19b
Sign Type: e3.1, #15G2.206
ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
Sign Type: e11.3, #69 G2.103
G2.204
Sign Type: e12.3, #16G2.206
7
Sign Type: e12.3, #17G2.206
49'-7"
22'-3"
41'-0"
18'-2"
17'-1"
17'-1"
17'-1"
18'-8"
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
EXISTING
LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 16'-0" (MIN.)(FROM ROAD)14'-0"CASINO BUILDING - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1CASINO BUILDING - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
DES PLAINES CASINO
C R
16
'
-
0
"
(
M
I
N
.
)
25
'
-
1
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
1
A7.00.1
2
F.E.C.56 4 3 2 1Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 8’_0”
INTERIOR
G 2.404
Static Static Static Static
Static StaticSign Type: e9.1, #31 Sign Type: e8.1, #33a7Sign Type: e8.1, #33b7 Sign Type: e14.2, #35 LED VIDEO SIGNAGELED VIDEO SIGNAGE
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
Sign Type: e14.2, #10 Sign Type:Static e12.2, #7Sign Type: e11.2, #9 G2.60115'-8"7
G 2.303 Sign Type: e14.2, #77
7 Sign Type: e12.1, #4a
Sign Type:G 2.304 e14.2, #78
Sign Type: e8.1, #28a7
Sign Type: e8.1, #28b7
Sign Type: e9.1, #31Sign Type: e8.1, #28c7Sign Type: e8.1, #59
CLEARANCE 8'-2"G2.501 Sign Type: e12.3, #73Sign Type: e12.3, #7619'-6"
Sign Type:
e12.3, #6
25'-1"
17'-0"
16'-2"54'-8"
20'-6"
39'-9"
97'-11"18'-0"16'-0"
Static
Sign Type:D81 #20G2.2002 Sign Type:e12.3, #74G2.205Sign Type:A01, #75Sign Type:B80, #64a, #64bSign Type:A10, #24 SELF PARK SELF PARK VALETVALET23'-4"
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
Sign Type:
e12.3, #8
25'-1"
17'-0"
NEW/PROPOSEDNEW/PROPOSEDNEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
G2.1
KEY PLAN:
I-294
01
02
DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
WA LL
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
SEAML ESS, STAIN LES S STEEL
FABR ICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINIS H.
WHITE LED’S
POST M OU NTED O FF BUILDIN G FACE
D IGIT AL PRINTED MURAL ON EX TERIOR
GRADE MATER IAL MOU NTED T O R IGID ALUM
EXT RUDED FRAME.
LARGE FORMAT LED VIDEO SCREEN C HAN GABLE
PER IDO T GUIDEL INES
NOTES:
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”3 ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”4
2
2
3
3
4
5
1 8"
2'-9"
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”4
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”3
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”5 AXON/CORNER WRAPPED DIGITAL DISPLAY
SCALE: NTS6
SIDE VIEW SIMILAR.
SEE BELOW
KEY PLAN:
I-294
DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
01 02
0
4
/
G
2.
2
O PT. 01 OPT . 02
WEST E
L
E
V
.
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
.
4'
-
0
"
9"
3'
-
8
"
4'
-
0
"
9"
1'-0" 6"3"
WEST ELEVATION
19a
19b
1
3
2
6
4
5
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND BACK
LIT W/ LED, SEAMLESS S.S.
FABRICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINISH.
WHITE LED’S
BUILDING PARAPET
CONCEALED POWER
FABRICATED MTL. ARMATURE W/
POWDER COAT PAINT FINISH
NOTES:
DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL ON EXTERIOR
GRADE MATERIAL MOUNTED TO RIGID ALUM
EXTRUDED FRAME. FACE LIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4'-4"
Attachment 6 Page 19 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 4
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
GARAGE - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
Sign Type: e4.1a, #40
VALET
Sign Type: A14, #81Sign Type: A32, #41
EXIT ONLY ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
SELF PAR KINGSELF PAR KING
G2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #26
EXIT ONLY
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
G2.503 Sign Type: e4.1a, #86
G2.503
EXIT ONLY ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
SELF PAR KINGSELF PAR KING
G2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #18
Sign Type:e11.3, #71G2.203
Sign Type: e12.2, #137Sign Type: e12.2, #147
Sign Type: e11,3, #70G2.203 Sign Type: e14.2, #79
Sign Type: e12.1, #19b
Sign Type: e3.1, #15G2.206
ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
Sign Type: e11.3, #69 G2.103
G2.204
Sign Type: e12.3, #16G2.206
7
Sign Type: e12.3, #17G2.206
49'-7"
22'-3"
41'-0"
18'-2"
17'-1"
17'-1"
17'-1"
18'-8"
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
EXISTING
LED VIDEO SIGNAGE
16
'
-
0
"
(
M
I
N
.
)
(F
R
O
M
R
O
A
D
)
14
'
-
0
"
CASINO BUILDING - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
DES PLAINES CASINO
C R
16
'
-
0
"
(
M
I
N
.
)
25
'
-
1
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
1
A7.00.1
2
F.E.C.
5
6
4
3 2 1Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 16’_0”
Clearance 8’_0”
INTERIOR
G 2.404
Static Static Static Static
Static Static
Sign Type: e9.1, #31
Sign Type: e8.1, #33a7
Sign Type: e8.1, #33b7
Sign Type: e14.2, #35
LED VIDEO SIGNAGE
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
Sign Type: e14.2, #10
Sign Type:
Static
e12.2, #7Sign Type: e11.2, #9 G2.601
15'-8"
7
G 2.303 Sign Type: e14.2, #77
7 Sign Type: e12.1, #4a
Sign Type:G 2.304 e14.2, #78
Sign Type: e8.1, #28a7
Sign Type: e8.1, #28b7
Sign Type: e9.1, #31Sign Type: e8.1, #28c7Sign Type: e8.1, #59
CLEARANCE 8'-2"
G2.501
Sign Type: e12.3, #73Sign Type: e12.3, #7619'-6"
Sign Type:
e12.3, #6
25'-1"
17'-0"
16'-2"
54'-8"
20'-6"
39'-9"
97'-11"
18'-0"
16'-0"
Static
Sign Type:D81 #20G2.2002
Sign Type:e12.3, #74G2.205
Sign Type:A01, #75
Sign Type:B80, #64a, #64bSign Type:A10, #24
SELF PARK SELF PARK VALETVALET
23'-4"
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
Sign Type:
e12.3, #8
25'-1"
17'-0"
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”4
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”3
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”5 AXON/CORNER WRAPPED DIGITAL DISPLAY
SCALE: NTS6
SIDE VIEW SIMILAR.
SEE BELOW
KEY PLAN:
I-294
DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
01 02
0
4
/
G
2.
2
O PT. 01 OPT . 02
WEST E
L
E
V
.
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
.
4'
-
0
"
9"
3'
-
8
"
4'
-
0
"
9"
1'-0" 6"3"
WEST ELEVATION
19a
19b
1
3
2
6
4
5
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND BACK
LIT W/ LED, SEAMLESS S.S.
FABRICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINISH.
WHITE LED’S
BUILDING PARAPET
CONCEALED POWER
FABRICATED MTL. ARMATURE W/
POWDER COAT PAINT FINISH
NOTES:
DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL ON EXTERIOR
GRADE MATERIAL MOUNTED TO RIGID ALUM
EXTRUDED FRAME. FACE LIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4'-4"
WEST ELEVATIONS G2.2
Attachment 6 Page 20 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 5
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
GARAGE - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2GARAGE - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
Sign Type: e4.1a, #40
VALET
Sign Type: A14, #81 Sign Type: A32, #41
EXIT ONLY ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
SELF PAR KINGSELF PARKING
G2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #26
EXIT ONLY
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
G2.503 Sign Type: e4.1a, #86
G2.503
EXIT ONLY ENTERCLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”SELF PAR KINGSELF PARKINGG2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #18 Sign Type:e11.3, #71G2.203 Sign Type: e12.2, #137Sign Type: e12.2, #147Sign Type: e11,3, #70G2.203 Sign Type: e14.2, #79
Sign Type: e12.1, #19b
Sign Type: e3.1, #15G2.206
ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
Sign Type: e11.3, #69 G2.103
G2.204Sign Type: e12.3, #16G2.206
7
Sign Type: e12.3, #17G2.20649'-7"
22'-3"
41'-0"
18'-2"
17'-1"17'-1"
17'-1"
18'-8"
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
EXISTING
LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 16'-0" (MIN.)(FROM ROAD)14'-0"CASINO BUILDING - EAST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1CASINO BUILDING - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1 CASINO BUILDING - NORTH ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
DES PLAINES CASINO
C R
16'-0" (MIN.)25'-10"19'-0"1A7.00.12F.E.C.56 4 3 2 1Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 8’_0” INTERIOR G 2.404
Static Static Static Static
Static StaticSign Type: e9.1, #31 Sign Type: e8.1, #33a7Sign Type: e8.1, #33b7 Sign Type: e14.2, #35 LED VIDEO SIGNAGELED VIDEO SIGNAGE
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
Sign Type: e14.2, #10 Sign Type:Static e12.2, #7Sign Type: e11.2, #9 G2.60115'-8"7
G 2.303 Sign Type: e14.2, #77
7 Sign Type: e12.1, #4a
Sign Type:G 2.304 e14.2, #78
Sign Type: e8.1, #28a7
Sign Type: e8.1, #28b7
Sign Type: e9.1, #31Sign Type: e8.1, #28c7Sign Type: e8.1, #59
CLEARANCE 8'-2"G2.501 Sign Type: e12.3, #73Sign Type: e12.3, #7619'-6"
Sign Type:
e12.3, #6
25'-1"
17'-0"
16'-2"54'-8"
20'-6"
39'-9"
97'-11"18'-0"16'-0"
Static
Sign Type:D81 #20G2.2002 Sign Type:e12.3, #74G2.205Sign Type:A01, #75Sign Type:B80, #64a, #64bSign Type:A10, #24 SELF PARK SELF PARK VALETVALET23'-4"LED VIDEO SIGNAGESign Type: e12.3, #8 25'-1"17'-0"NEW/PROPOSEDNEW/PROPOSEDNEW/PROPOSED NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
SOUTH ELEVATIONS G2.3
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”4
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”3
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”5 AXON/CORNER WRAPPED DIGITAL DISPLAY
SCALE: NTS6
SIDE VIEW SIMILAR.
SEE BELOW
KEY PLAN:
I-294
DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
01 02
0
4
/
G
2.
2
O PT. 01 OPT . 02
WEST E
L
E
V
.
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
.
4'
-
0
"
9"
3'
-
8
"
4'
-
0
"
9"
1'-0" 6"3"
WEST ELEVATION
19a
19b
1
3
2
6
4
5
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND BACK
LIT W/ LED, SEAMLESS S.S.
FABRICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINISH.
WHITE LED’S
BUILDING PARAPET
CONCEALED POWER
FABRICATED MTL. ARMATURE W/
POWDER COAT PAINT FINISH
NOTES:
DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL ON EXTERIOR
GRADE MATERIAL MOUNTED TO RIGID ALUM
EXTRUDED FRAME. FACE LIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4'-4"
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”4
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”3
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”5 AXON/CORNER WRAPPED DIGITAL DISPLAY
SCALE: NTS6
SIDE VIEW SIMILAR.
SEE BELOW
KEY PLAN:
I-294
DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
01 02
0
4
/
G
2.
2
O PT. 01 OPT . 02
WEST E
L
E
V
.
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
.
4'
-
0
"
9"
3'
-
8
"
4'
-
0
"
9"
1'-0" 6"3"
WEST ELEVATION
19a
19b
1
3
2
6
4
5
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND BACK
LIT W/ LED, SEAMLESS S.S.
FABRICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINISH.
WHITE LED’S
BUILDING PARAPET
CONCEALED POWER
FABRICATED MTL. ARMATURE W/
POWDER COAT PAINT FINISH
NOTES:
DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL ON EXTERIOR
GRADE MATERIAL MOUNTED TO RIGID ALUM
EXTRUDED FRAME. FACE LIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4'-4"
Attachment 6 Page 21 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 6
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
GARAGE - WEST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
GARAGE - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”2
Sign Type: e4.1a, #40
VALET
Sign Type: A14, #81Sign Type: A32, #41
EXIT ONLY ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
SELF PARKINGSELF PAR KING
G2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #26
EXIT ONLY
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
G2.503 Sign Type: e4.1a, #86
G2.503
EXIT ONLY ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
SELF PAR KINGSELF PAR KING
G2.502 Sign Type: e4.1, #18
Sign Type:e11.3, #71G2.203
Sign Type: e12.2, #137Sign Type: e12.2, #147
Sign Type: e11,3, #70G2.203 Sign Type: e14.2, #79
Sign Type: e12.1, #19b
Sign Type: e3.1, #15G2.206
ENTER
CLEARANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
Sign Type: e11.3, #69 G2.103
G2.204
Sign Type: e12.3, #16G2.206
7
Sign Type: e12.3, #17G2.206
49'-7"
22'-3"
41'-0"
18'-2"
17'-1"
17'-1"
17'-1"
18'-8"
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
EXISTING
LED VIDEO SIGNAGE
16
'
-
0
"
(
M
I
N
.
)
(F
R
O
M
R
O
A
D
)
14
'
-
0
"
CASINO BUILDING - EAST ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - WEST ELEVATIONSCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - NORTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
CASINO BUILDING - SOUTH ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/32”=1’-0”1
DES PLAINES CASINO
C R
16
'
-
0
"
(
M
I
N
.
)
25
'
-
1
0
"
19
'
-
0
"
1
A7.00.1
2
F.E.C.56 4 3 2 1Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 8’_0”
INTERIOR
G 2.404
Static Static Static Static
Static Static
Sign Type: e9.1, #31
Sign Type: e8.1, #33a7
Sign Type: e8.1, #33b7
Sign Type: e14.2, #35
LED VIDEO SIGNAGELED VIDEO SIGNAGE
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
Sign Type: e14.2, #10 Sign Type:Static e12.2, #7Sign Type: e11.2, #9 G2.601
15'-8"
7
G 2.303 Sign Type: e14.2, #77
7 Sign Type: e12.1, #4a
Sign Type:G 2.304 e14.2, #78
Sign Type: e8.1, #28a7
Sign Type: e8.1, #28b7
Sign Type: e9.1, #31Sign Type: e8.1, #28c7Sign Type: e8.1, #59
CLEARANCE 8'-2"G2.501 Sign Type: e12.3, #73Sign Type: e12.3, #7619'-6"
Sign Type:
e12.3, #6
25'-1"
17'-0"
16'-2"54'-8"
20'-6"
39'-9"
97'-11"
18'-0"16'-0"
Static
Sign Type:D81 #20G2.2002
Sign Type:e12.3, #74G2.205
Sign Type:A01, #75
Sign Type:B80, #64a, #64bSign Type:A10, #24
SELF PARK SELF PARK VALETVALET
23'-4"
LED VIDEO
SIGNAGE
Sign Type:
e12.3, #8
25'-1"
17'-0"
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSEDNEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
NEW/PROPOSED
EAST ELEVATIONS G2.4
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND BACK
LIT W/ LED, SEAMLESS S.S.
FABRICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINISH.
WHITE LED’S
BUILDING PARAPET
CONCEALED POWER
FABRICATED MTL. ARMATURE W/
POWDER COAT PAINT FINISH
NOTES:
DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL ON EXTERIOR
GRADE MATERIAL MOUNTED TO RIGID ALUM
EXTRUDED FRAME. FACE LIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4'-4"
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”4
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”3
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”5 AXON/CORNER WRAPPED DIGITAL DISPLAY
SCALE: NTS6
SIDE VIEW SIMILAR.
SEE BELOW
KEY PLAN:
I-294
DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
01 02
0
4
/
G
2.
2
O PT. 01 OPT . 02
WEST E
L
E
V
.
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
.
4'
-
0
"
9"
3'
-
8
"
4'
-
0
"
9"
1'-0" 6"3"
WEST ELEVATION
19a
19b
1
3
2
6
4
5
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND BACK
LIT W/ LED, SEAMLESS S.S.
FABRICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINISH.
WHITE LED’S
BUILDING PARAPET
CONCEALED POWER
FABRICATED MTL. ARMATURE W/
POWDER COAT PAINT FINISH
NOTES:
DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL ON EXTERIOR
GRADE MATERIAL MOUNTED TO RIGID ALUM
EXTRUDED FRAME. FACE LIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4'-4"
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”4
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”3
ENLARGED ELEVATION WALL MOUNTED TYPE
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”5 AXON/CORNER WRAPPED DIGITAL DISPLAY
SCALE: NTS6
SIDE VIEW SIMILAR.
SEE BELOW
KEY PLAN:
I-294
DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD
DE
V
O
N
A
V
E
N
U
E
N
01 02
0
4
/
G
2.
2
O PT. 01 OPT . 02
WEST E
L
E
V
.
NO
R
T
H
E
L
E
V
.
4'
-
0
"
9"
3'
-
8
"
4'
-
0
"
9"
1'-0" 6"3"
WEST ELEVATION
19a
19b
1
3
2
6
4
5
1/2” THK. ALUM. BACKER
PAINTED TO PROVIDE CONTRAST
WITH BACKGROUND.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED AND BACK
LIT W/ LED, SEAMLESS S.S.
FABRICATED TYPE W/ SATIN
GRAIN FINISH.
WHITE LED’S
BUILDING PARAPET
CONCEALED POWER
FABRICATED MTL. ARMATURE W/
POWDER COAT PAINT FINISH
NOTES:
DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL ON EXTERIOR
GRADE MATERIAL MOUNTED TO RIGID ALUM
EXTRUDED FRAME. FACE LIT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
4'-4"
Attachment 6 Page 22 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 7
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION G2.5
EMPLO
Y
E
E
ENTRA
N
C
E
CORNER OF BUILDING
e11.0 & e11.1
SIGN CABINET.
CHANNEL LETTERS
FACE LIT
NOTE: SCOPE OF WORK IS LIMITED TO SIGN CABINET FABRICATION & INSTALLATION ONLY.
CHANNEL LETTERS FRONT & REVERSE
ILLUMINATED, HIGHER LIGHT LEVEL ON FRONT
FACE W/ REDUCED LIGHT LEVEL ON REVERSE
SURFACE.
PAINTED ALUM. SIGN CABINET W/ REVEAL
FRAME.
MOUNT TO HORZ. METAL SUPPORTS
PROVIDED BY G.C.
USE LED WHITE LIGHTS FOR LETTERS.
3/8” THK. FCO TYPE 13“ CAP. HGT. W/ PAINT
FIN., COLOR NO.2, PIN MOUNTED TO HORZ.
TUBE SUPPORT.
CUSTOM 2 COLOR GLOSS FIN, ARROW, PIN
MOUNTED TO TUBE.
1.5” X 3” SQ. ALUM. TUBE W/ 90 DEGREE
RETURN WELDED & GROUND SMOOTH,
PROVIDE END CAPS. PAINT COLOR NO.2 SEMI
GLOSS.
NOTES:
SIGN TYPE: e11.2
ENLARGED SOUTH ELEVATION / SIGN TYPE e3.1
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”1
ISOMETRIC VIEW / SIGN TYPE e11.2
SCALE: NTS1
SECTION SOUTH ELEVATION / SIGN TYPE e3.1
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”2
18'-2"
18'-11"
1
2
3
4
5
5
5
6
2
2
3
3
4
DES PLAINESCASINO
1
ENLARGED GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATIONS SIGN GYPE e4.1
SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”2 ENLARGED GARAGE SOUTH ELEVATIONS SIGN GYPE e4.1a
SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”3
Similar to e4.1
Similar to e4.1SELF PARKING
EXIT ONLY E NTER
C LEA R A N C E 6 ’ - 6 ”
SELF PARKING
REVERSE CHANNEL LETTERS
METAL SIGN CARRIER
TUBE STEEL ARMITURE
FLAT CUT-OUT TYPE / SYMBOLS 1/4”
THK. PAINTED
CUSTOM CLEARENCE BAR WITH SOILD
BUBBER BUMPER
PAINTED CONCRETE
LED SIGN IN CUSTOM CABINETS
METAL SIGN CARRIER TUBE AND WATER
JET CUT FLAT STOCK FRAME W PAINT
FINISH.
NOTES:
5
2'
-
6
"
1'
-
1
0
"
9
1
/
2
"
30'-6"
QUANTITY: (01) #26 QUANTITY: (01) #40 QUANTITY: (01) #86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
4
5
4
6
2
EXIT ONLY
CLEA RANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
ENTER
CLEA RANC E 6 ’ - 6 ”
15'-3"15'-3"
1'
-
1
0
"
2'
-
6
"
2'
-
6
"
Attachment 6 Page 23 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 8
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
PARTIAL WEST ELEVATION G2.6
F.E.C.
5
6
4
3 2 1Clearance 16’_0” Clearance 16’_0”
Clearance 8’_0”
PARTIAL WEST BUILDING/ LOADING DOCKS / SIGN TYPE e6.1 & e7.1
SCALE: 1/8”=1’-0”1
FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS
FLUSH MOUNTED TO BUILDING 10” X 1.5“
NO. 4 VERTICAL GRAIN FIN.
FABRICATED STAINLESS STEEL LETTERS
FLUSH MOUNTED TO BUILDING 8” X 1.0“
NO. 4 VERTICAL GRAIN FIN.
FLAT CUT-OUT STAINLESS STEEL TYPE,
GLASS BEAD BLASTED. 7” X 1/4“ THK.
MOUNTED FLUSH TO BUILDING.
PAINTED ALUM. PLAQUE ( ) W/ WHITERED
3M REFLECTIVE VDC FOR GRAPHIC
INFORMATION. 12” X 18” X 1/8”
NOTES:
1
2
3
4
Sign Type: e7.1, #524
Sign Type: e6.1, #512
Sign Type: e6.1, #501
Sign Type: e6.1, #491 Sign Type: e6.1, #4813 3
8"
10"
Attachment 6 Page 24 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 9
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A01 BUILDING IDENTITY - PRIMARY, #75 G2.7
OVERVIEW SIT E CO NTEXT
CL
CL
SIGN TO BE CENTERED
OVER OPENING
DET AIL E L EVAT ION
SC ALE: 1/4”=1’-0”2 SIDE VIEW
SCAL E: 1 /4”=1’-0”3
10’-0”
41’-10¾”
4
1’-0”
S ECT ION VIEW
SCA LE: 1/2”=1’-0”4CONTEXT ELEVAT ION
SC ALE : 1/1 6”=1 ’-0”1
A01 BUILDING IDE NTITY - PRIMARY
1. Logo: Custom fabricated flex face letters & symbol w/
brushed aluminum returns. Include internal structure to
provide rigidity.
2. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
into architecture. Coordinate w/ general contractor on
attachments. Coordinate w/ structural engineer for
support structure. Conceal all electrical conduits,
fasteners, hardware (unless where noted) etc. Fabricator to
provide all attachments.
3. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
Additional Notes:
Sign is single side d and illuminated.
1
2
3
Attachment 6 Page 25 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 10
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
DES PLAINES CASINO
IN CONCERT
64'-6"
9'
-
9
"
19
'
-
0
"
AMBROSINIdesign LTDG2.5bMONUMENT SIGN: e1.2
THE CITY OF DES PLAINES SUBMITTAL
DATE: 02/09/2010
DES PLAINES CASINO
ELEVATION / CORNER MONUMENT SIGN 01 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
PLAN / CORNER MONUMENT SIGN 02 SCALE: 1/8” = 1’-0”
Sign Type: e1.2, #54
1000 SQFT.
e1.2 EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN, #54 G2.8A
SIGN TYPE: e1.2, #54
OVERALL WIDTH: 64’-6”
OVERALL HEIGHT: 19’-0”
TOTAL: 1000sq ft2
Attachment 6 Page 26 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 11
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
SIGN TYPE: A5, #54
OVERALL WIDTH: 64’-6”
OVERALL HEIGHT: 19’-0”
TOTAL: 1000sq ft2
LED: APPROX. 11’-6” X 40’-6”
A5 PROPOSED MONUMENT SIGN, #54 G2.8
Attachment 6 Page 27 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 12
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A10 ENTRANCE IDENTITY, #31 G2.9
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”1
7'-0"
10”
1”
1½”
½”
A10 ENTRANCE IDENTITY
1. Letters: Custom fabricated acrylic letters w/ 1/2” formed
backplate (Refer Bitro Resno Letter Face & Side
Illumination series - RS-AC-FS2). Backer of letters to extend
beyond white letters by 1/2” and painted to match PMS
534C. Integrate dimmer for on-site lighting adjustments.
2. Support Bar: 3” thk custom-fabricated metal support
bar painted to match PMS 534C. Coordinate depth of
bar with door hardware an/or mullions.
3. Mounting: Individual sign letters mechanically anchored
into architecture. Provide additional blocking or expansion
anchors to ensure secure mounting. Coordinate w/
general contractor on attachments. Conceal all electrical
conduits, fasteners, hardware (unless where noted) etc.
4. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
Additional Notes:
Sign is single sided and illuminated.
DETAIL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”2 SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”3
1
2
3
4
REFERENCE IMAGE
Attachment 6 Page 28 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 13
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A14 VALET IDENTITY - BLADE G2.10
GARAGE
EXIST
GARAGE
EXIST
+ 123'-6"
SECOND LEVEL
+ 100'-0"
GROUND LEVEL
16
'
-
0
"
+ 116'-0"
DRIVE CEILING
7'-
6
"
EXISTING PARKING
GARAGE STRUCTURE
CONCRETE FLOOR SLAB AND STRUCTURE
UNDER CORE AND SHELL PACKAGE.
EXISTING PARKING
GARAGE STRUCTURE
1 WALL SECTION
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
L GA-3J.2
10’-0”
AFF
VERIFY
CONDITIONS &
VISIBILITY
IN FIELD
VALET
DROP-OFF
PLAN & SECTION
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”4
3’-0”4”
VALET
DROP-OFF
VALET
DROP-OFF
CL
SIDE (LHS)
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”2 ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”3
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16”=1’-0”1
A14 VALET IDENTITY - BLADE
1. Primary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign cabinet painted to match PMS 534C.
2. Inset: Inset painted to match MPC Ultra Low VOC Pale
Silver Metallic MP18073.
3. Dimensional Symbol: Cut-out pushed
through white acrylic arrows and letters; internally
illuminated via LEDs.
4. Structure: Provide interior engineered tube
steel/aluminum structure.
5. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
6. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
through architectural column covers and into existing
steel column. Coordinate with site/built conditions.
Additional Notes: Sign fabricator to engineer all
components & coordinate w/ all related trades,
disciplines.
Coordinate all dimensions & field verify all existing
conditions per each sign location prior to fabrication/
installation to confirm that all locations can accept
signage as designed.
Confirm all messaging w/ owner & provide all layouts
before fabrication.
Sign is double sided, and illuminated.
4’-0”
4”1/2”1/2”
3”
4”
2”
2’-3”1’-6”
1
4
6
5
4”
4
EQEQ
1
3
4”5”
EQ
EQ
Attachment 6 Page 29 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 14
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A30 VALET IDENTITY, #40 G2.11
VALET
VALET
12'-8"
A30 VALET IDENTITY
1. Letters & Symbol: 2” thk fabricated aluminum sign
letters and symbol w/ acrylic face featuring perforated
blue vinyl. Sign letters to appear blue by day, lit white
at night. Blue vinyl to match PMS 534C
2. Support Bar: Metal support bar painted to match
PMS 534C.
3. Mounting: Mechanically anchored into scheduled
architectural ceilings with w/ VHB tape, silicone,
and threaded studs; no exposed fasteners or seams -
coordinate fastener type w/ sign location ceiling
construction.
4. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
Additional Notes:
Sign is single sided and illuminated.
REFERENCE IMAGE
DETAIL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1"=1’-0"1
DETAIL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/8"=1’-0"1
SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1"=1’-0"2
1'-0"
2"
3"
4”
1
2
3
4
CL SIGN TO BE CENTERED
OVER ENTRANCE OPENING
9¾”
Attachment 6 Page 30 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 15
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A32 BUS DROP-OFF IDENTITY, #41 G2.12
+ 100'-0"
GROUND LEVEL
16
'
-
0
"
+ 116'-0"
DRIVE CEILING
10’-0”
AFF
VERIFY
CONDITIONS &
VISIBILITY
IN FIELD
OVERSIZE
BUSES
OVERSIZE
BUSES
3’-0”4”
OVERSIZE
BUSES
OVERSIZE
BUSES
CL
SIDE (LHS)
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”2 ELEVATION
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”3
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 3/16”=1’-0”1
A32 BUS DROP-OFF IDENTITY
(OVERSIZE)
1. Primary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign cabinet painted to match PMS 534C.
2. Inset: Inset painted to match MPC Ultra Low VOC Pale
Silver Metallic MP18073.
3. Dimensional Symbol: Cut-out pushed
through white acrylic arrows and letters; internally
illuminated via LEDs.
4. Structure: Provide interior engineered tube
steel/aluminum structure.
5. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
6. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
through architectural column covers and into existing
steel column. Coordinate with site/built conditions.
Additional Notes: Sign fabricator to engineer all
components & coordinate w/ all related trades,
disciplines.
Coordinate all dimensions & field verify all existing
conditions per each sign location prior to fabrication/
installation to confirm that all locations can accept
signage as designed.
Confirm all messaging w/ owner & provide all layouts
before fabrication.
Sign is double sided, and illuminated.
4’-0”
4”1/2”1/2”
1
3
4”
4
EQEQ
3”
4”
2”
2’-3”
1’-6”
EQ
EQ
PLAN & SECTION
SCALE: 1 1/2”=1’-0”4
1
4
6
5
4”5”
Attachment 6 Page 31 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 16
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A34 RIDE SHARE IDENTITY, #67 G2.13
RIDE
SHARE
RIDE
SHARE
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”1
4’-6”
4”
9”
4”
2”
2”
1½”
1’-0”
10”5”
3”
½” ½”
A34 RIDE SHARE IDENTITY
1. Toe Kick: Inset stainless steel cladded toe kick painted
to match PMS 7527C.
2. Primary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign cabinet painted to match PMS 534C. Cabinet
internally illuminated via LEDs.
3. Dimensional Symbol: 1/2” thk cut-out pushed
through white acrylic arrows and letters; internally
illuminated via LEDs.
4. Structure: Provide interior engineered tube
steel/aluminum structure.
5. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
into foundation.
6. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
7. Foundation: Provide engineered foundation.
Additional Notes:
Sign is double sided and illuminated.
FRONT VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”2
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”4
RIGHT SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”3
1
6
7
8
2
3
3
Attachment 6 Page 32 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 17
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A35 BUS DROP OFF IDENTITY, #68 G2.14
BUS
DROP
OFF
BUS
DROP
OFF
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”1
4’-6”
4”
9”
4”
2”
2”
1½”
1’-0”
10”
A35 BUS DROP OFF IDENTITY
1. Toe Kick: Inset stainless steel cladded toe kick painted
to match MPC Ultra Low VOC Pale Silver Metallic
MP18073.
2. Primary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign cabinet painted to match PMS 534C. Cabinet
internally illuminated via LEDs.
3. Dimensional Symbol: 1/2” thk cut-out pushed
through white acrylic arrows and letters; internally
illuminated via LEDs.
4. Structure: Provide interior engineered tube
steel/aluminum structure.
5. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
into foundation.
6. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
7. Foundation: Provide engineered foundation.
Additional Notes:
Sign is double sided and illuminated.
FRONT VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”2
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”4
RIGHT SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”3
1
6
7
8
2
3
3
5”
3”
½” ½”
Attachment 6 Page 33 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 18
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN G2.15
SIGN TYPE: A80
OVERALL DIMENSIONS:
APPROX. 2’-0” X 3’-0” (ONE PANEL - EACH LOCATION IS A
PAIR)
TOTAL: APPROX. 24 ft2 (TOTAL PER PAIR BOTH SIDES)
Note:1/8” thk aluminum panel with direct digital print.
Attachment 6 Page 34 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 19
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
B01 VEHICLE DIRECTION - PRIMARY, #1, #44, #45 G2.16
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
PARKINGPARKING
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”1
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
PARKINGPARKING
12’-6”11’-0”
10”
3’-2”
3’-8 1/2”
1’-0”
9”
½”
FRONT VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”3
FRONT SECTION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’-0”6
RIGHT SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”4
SIDE SECTION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’-0”7
PLAN SECTION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’-0”5
LEFT SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”2
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
6
B01 VEHICLE DIRECTION - PRIMARY
1. Secondary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign base w/ “L” shaped cabinet wrapping the top &
left side of base. Sign base to be inset 1 1/2” from “L”
shaped cabinet. Base painted to match MPC Ultra
Low VOC Pale Silver Metallic MP18073. “L” shaped sign
cabinet painted to match PMS 534C.
2. Primary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign cabinet painted to match PMS 534C. Cabinet to
wrap front, back and right side of sign base. Frosted
acrylic reveal on top, bottom and interior sides of
cabinet to allow for halo effect/glow on sign base;
internally illuminated via LEDs.
3. Modular Slats: Tamper-proof modular slats (2 sizes 12“
& 8”) to be slid onto sign cabinet w/ a seamless butt
joint. Slats to be removable for message change-out.
4. Logo: 1/2” thk cut-out pushed through white acrylic
logo w/ surface applied translucent vinyl in yellow to
match brand standards; internally illuminated via LEDs.
5. Dimensional Letters & Symbol: 1/2” thk cut-out pushed
through white acrylic arrows, symbol and letters w/
surface applied translucent vinyl in blue for parking
symbol; internally illuminated via LEDs.
6. Structure: Provide interior engineered tube
steel/aluminum structure.
7. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
into foundation.
8. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
9. Foundation: Provide engineered foundation.
Additional Notes:
Sign is double sided and illuminated.
FOR B01-R SIGN TYPE, SIGN FABRICATOR
TO SURVEY AND REUSE EXISTING SIGN
COMPONENTS, STRUCTURE & FOUNDATION,
AS APPROPRIATE.
ENTIRE SIGN ASSEMBLY AND COMPONENTS
(OLD & NEW) TO BE ENGINEERED.
Attachment 6 Page 35 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 20
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
G2.17B02 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY, #2, #11, #21, #30,
#36, #42, #43, #47, #58, #59, #61
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
PARKINGPARKING
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
CASINO &
VALET
DROP-OFF
PARKINGPARKING
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”1
9’-0”7’-6”
10”
3’-2”
3’-8 1/2”
FRONT VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”3 RIGHT SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”4LEFT SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”2
FRONT SECTION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’-0”6
1
2
3
4
1’-0”
9”
6
7
8
½”
SIDE SECTION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’-0”7
PLAN SECTION
SCALE: 3/4”=1’-0”5
5
B02 VEHICLE DIRECTION - SECONDARY
1. Secondary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign base w/ “L” shaped cabinet wrapping the top &
left side of base. Sign base to be inset 1 1/2” from “L”
shaped cabinet. Base painted to match MPC Ultra
Low VOC Pale Silver Metallic MP18073. “L” shaped sign
cabinet painted to match PMS 534C.
2. Primary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign cabinet painted to match PMS 534C. Cabinet to
wrap front, back and right side of sign base. Frosted
acrylic reveal on top, bottom and interior sides of
cabinet to allow for halo effect/glow on sign base;
internally illuminated via LEDs.
3. Modular Slats: Tamper-proof modular slats (2 sizes 12“
& 8”) to be slid onto sign cabinet w/ a seamless butt
joint. Slats to be removable for message change-out.
4. Dimensional Letters & Symbol: 1/2” thk cut-out pushed
through white acrylic arrows, symbol and letters w/
surface applied translucent vinyl in blue for parking
symbol; internally illuminated via LEDs.
5. Structure: Provide interior engineered tube
steel/aluminum structure.
6. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
into foundation.
7. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
8. Foundation: Provide engineered foundation.
Additional Notes:
Sign is double sided and illuminated.
FOR B02-R SIGN TYPE, SIGN FABRICATOR
TO SURVEY AND REUSE EXISTING SIGN
COMPONENTS, STRUCTURE &
FOUNDATION, AS APPROPRIATE.
ENTIRE SIGN ASSEMBLY AND
COMPONENTS (OLD & NEW) TO BE
ENGINEERED.
Attachment 6 Page 36 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 21
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
G2.18B03 VEHICLE DIRECTION - TERTIARY, #3, #46, #60, #62, #63
VALET
PARKING
ONLY
VALET
PARKING
ONLY
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”1
4’-6”
4”
9”1’-0”
8”4½”
3’-0”
2’-10”
4”
7”
5”
B03 VEHICLE DIRECTION - TERTIARY
1. Toe Kick: Inset stainless steel cladded toe kick painted
to match MPC Ultra Low VOC Pale Silver Metallic
MP18073.
2. Primary Sign Cabinet: Custom fabricated aluminum
sign cabinet painted to match PMS 534C. Cabinet
internally illuminated via LEDs.
3. Modular Slats: Tamper-proof modular slats (2 sizes 12“
& 8”) to be slid onto sign cabinet w/ a seamless butt
joint. Slats to be removable for message change-out
4. Dimensional Letters & Symbol: 1/2” thk cut-out pushed
through white acrylic arrows and letters; internally
illuminated via LEDs.
5. Structure: Provide interior engineered tube
steel/aluminum structure.
6. Mounting: Entire sign assembly mechanically anchored
into foundation.
7. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
8. Foundation: Provide engineered foundation.
Additional Notes:
Sign is double sided and illuminated.
FOR B03-R SIGN TYPE, SIGN FABRICATOR
TO SURVEY AND REUSE EXISTING SIGN
COMPONENTS, STRUCTURE & FOUNDATION,
AS APPROPRIATE.
ENTIRE SIGN ASSEMBLY AND COMPONENTS
(OLD & NEW) TO BE ENGINEERED.
FRONT VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”2
PLAN VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”4
RIGHT SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”3
1
6
7
8
2
3
4
4
Attachment 6 Page 37 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 22
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
B10 DIRECTION WALL MOUNTED, #66 G2.19
SELF PARK
SELF PARK
VALET
2½”
4”
6'-9 1/2"
7'--0"
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/4”=1’-0”1
DETAIL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”2 DETAIL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”4SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”3 SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 3/8”=1’-0”5
ALT LAYOUTS
SCALE: 1/2”=1’-0”6
1
3
2
3
2
B10 PARKING DIRECTIONAL -
WALL MOUNTED
1. Parking Symbol: Custom fabricated aluminum
channel letters painted to match PMS 534C.
2. Dimensional Letters & Symbol: Custom fabricated
aluminum channel letters painted to match PMS 534C.
3. Mounting: Mechanically anchored into scheduled
architectural conditions with w/ VHB tape, silicone,
and threaded studs; no exposed fasteners or seams -
coordinate fastener type w/ sign location wall
construction.
Final location must be coordinated with site conditions
for visibility from circulation and exterior architectural
features.
Additional Notes:
Sign is single sided and non-illuminated.
7’-0”3’-6”
5’-6”
2’-10”
10”
8¾”
2’-6”
Attachment 6 Page 38 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 23
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
B80 VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL - PRIMARY, #64a, #64b G2.20
B80 OVERHEAD VEHICLE DIRECTION
1. Letters & Symbol: 2” thk fabricated aluminum sign
letters and symbol w/ acrylic face featuring perforated
blue vinyl. Sign letters to appear blue by day, lit white
at night. Blue vinyl to match PMS 534C
2. Support Bar: Metal support bar painted to match
PMS 534C.
3. Tube: 1 1/2” width metal square tube painted to
match PMS 534C; conceal conduit.
4. Mounting: Mechanically anchored into scheduled
architectural ceilings with w/ VHB tape, silicone,
and threaded studs; no exposed fasteners or seams -
coordinate fastener type w/ sign location ceiling
construction.
5. Electrical: Coordinate power supplies, locations &
requirements/limitations.
Additional Notes:
Sign is single sided and illuminated.
SELF PARK
REFERENCE IMAGE
DETAIL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1"=1’-0"1 DETAIL/SECTION
SCALE: 1"=1’-0"2
ALT LAYOUTS
SCALE: 1/2"=1’-0"3 CONTEXT RENDERING
SCALE: NTS4
1'-0"
2"VALET4”4”4”
4”
2”
1
45
2
3
SELF PARKSELF PARKSELF PARK
SELF PARK SELF PARK VALETVALET
14'0" MINIMUM CLEARANCE REQUIRED
(FIELD VERIFY)
Attachment 6 Page 39 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 24
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
D81 CLEARANCE BAR, #65a, #65b G2.21
CLEARANCE 14'-0" CLEARANCE 14'-0"
VALET SELF PARK
8'-0"
2"
CLEARANCE 14'-0"
DO NOT ENTER
ALTERNATE MESSAGE
SCALE: NTS4
D81 CLEARANCE BAR
1. Bar: 8” diameter PVC tube painted w/ reflective vinyl
text, with ends closed and finished.
2. Primary Copy: Surface screened text and graphics.
3. Mounting: Mechanically anchored into B80 valet
overhead signs w/ 1/4” thk aircraft cable w/
concealed attachments to PVC tube; no exposed
fasteners or seams, coordinate fastener type w/ sign
location wall construction. Ensure mounting allows sign
to sway when hit by vehicles.
Additional Notes:
Sign is single sided, and non-illuminated.
14'0" MINIMUM CLEARANCE REQUIRED
(FIELD VERIFY)
8"
DETAIL ELEVATION
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”2 SIDE VIEW
SCALE: 1”=1’-0”3
CONTEXT ELEVATION
SCALE: 1/16”=1’-0”1
3
2
1
Attachment 6 Page 40 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 25E1 ROOF PAINTED SIGN, #80 G2.22
O N L Y
N 1942612.6305
E 1111428.4073
1A 2 2A 3
17
65b
69
71 16
85
SIGN TYPE: E1, #80
OVERALL DIMENSIONS
WIDTH: 198’-0” & HEIGHT: 158’-7”
TOTAL: 31399 ft2
Note: Rivers Casino logo is painted to match PMS 1235C
(Sunglow Yellow) and PMS 534C(Midnight blue).
Attachment 6 Page 41 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 26E2 VINYL IDENTITY, #85 G2.23
SIGN TYPE: E2, #85
WINDOW VINYL
WIDTH: APPROX. 12’-0”
HEIGHT: APPROX. 14’-0”
TOTAL: 168 ft2
Note: Digitally printed vinyl.
Attachment 6 Page 42 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 27SIGN MATRIX G0.1
CITY AMENDMENT SUMMARY TABLE
MARK TYPE DESCRIPTION SignWidth SignHeight Sqft Status COMMENTS
EXTERIOR‐ 2980 DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD PARCEL
85 E2 VINYL IDENTITY 12' ‐ 0" 14' ‐ 0" 168 NEW SIGN
Total 168
EXTERIOR‐ CASINO EAST
24 A10 BUILDING IDENTITY ‐ PRIMARY 7' ‐ 0" 0' ‐ 11" 6 NEW SIGN
31 e9.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE (CASINO NAME)16' ‐ 5" 1' ‐ 0" 16 EXISTING SIGN
Total 22
EXTERIOR‐ CASINO SOUTH
4a e12.1 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL 40' ‐ 0" 16' ‐ 0" 640 EXISTING SIGN
5 e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN
28a e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN
28b e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN
28c e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN
77 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 77' ‐ 7" 5' ‐ 3" 407 EXISTING SIGN
78 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 36' ‐ 0" 5' ‐ 3" 189 EXISTING SIGN
Total 1556
EXTERIOR‐ CASINO WEST
6 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 25' ‐ 1" 17' ‐ 0" 426 NEW‐ LED SIGN
7 e12.2 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL 18' ‐ 0" 16' ‐ 0" 288 EXISTING SIGN
8 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 25' ‐ 1" 17' ‐ 0" 426 NEW‐ LED SIGN
9 e11.2 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE (EMPLOYEE ENTRY)4' ‐ 5" 1' ‐ 5" 6 EXISTING SIGN
10 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 61' ‐ 0" 5' ‐ 0" 305 EXISTING SIGN
20 D81 CLEARANCE BAR 8' ‐ 0" 0' ‐ 8" 5 NEW SIGN
33a e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 8' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 64 EXISTING SIGN
33b e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 8' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 64 EXISTING SIGN
35 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 61' ‐ 0" 5' ‐ 0" 305 EXISTING SIGN
48 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 13' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 13 EXISTING SIGN
49 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 13' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 13 EXISTING SIGN
50 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 3' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 9 EXISTING SIGN
51 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 7' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 7 EXISTING SIGN
52 e7.1 F.E.C SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 2 EXISTING SIGN
64a B80 VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL ‐ OVERHEAD 9' ‐ 5" 1' ‐ 2" 11 NEW SIGN
Attachment 6 Page 43 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 28SIGN MATRIX G0.2
64b B80 VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL ‐ OVERHEAD 6' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 6 NEW SIGN
65a D81 CLEARANCE BAR 8' ‐ 0" 0' ‐ 8" 5 NEW SIGN
65b D81 CLEARANCE BAR 8' ‐ 0" 0' ‐ 8" 5 NEW SIGN
73 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 54' ‐ 8" 16' ‐ 2" 884 NEW‐ LED SIGN
74 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 98' ‐ 0" 15' ‐ 8" 1535 NEW‐ LED SIGN
75 A01 BUILDING IDENTITY 41' ‐ 11" 10' ‐ 0" 419 NEW SIGN
76 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 23' ‐ 4" 19' ‐ 6" 455 NEW‐ LED SIGN
Total 5253
EXTERIOR‐ GARAGE EAST
66 B10 DIRECTION WALL MOUNTED 13' ‐ 9 1/2"7' ‐ 0" 97 NEW SIGN
69 e11.3 IDENTITY LETTERS 21' ‐ 3" 11' ‐ 8" 248 EXISTING SIGN
Total 345
EXTERIOR‐ GARAGE NORTH
17 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 18' ‐ 8" 17' ‐ 1" 319 NEW‐ LED SIGN
19b e12.1 LED MONITOR 41' ‐ 0" 22' ‐ 3" 912 EXISTING‐ LED
70 e11.3 IDENTITY LETTERS 21' ‐ 3" 11' ‐ 8" 248 EXISTING SIGN
79 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 35' ‐ 8" 5' ‐ 7" 199 EXISTING SIGN
86 e4.1a ILUMINATED PARKING SIGN 15' ‐ 3" 3' ‐ 6" 53 NEW SIGN
Total 1731
EXTERIOR‐ GARAGE ROOF
80 E1 ROOF PAINTED SIGN 198' ‐ 0" 158' ‐ 7" 31400 EXISTING SIGN
Total 31400
EXTERIOR‐ GARAGE SOUTH
15 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 18' ‐ 2" 17' ‐ 1" 310 NEW‐ LED SIGN
26 e4.1 ILUMINATED PARKING SIGN 30' ‐ 6" 7' ‐ 0" 214 EXISTING SIGN
40 A30 VALET IDENTITY 9' ‐ 6" 1' ‐ 2" 11 NEW SIGN
41 A32 BUS DROP IDENTITY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 0" 24 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
81 A14 VALET BLADE IDENTITY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 0" 24 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
Total 583
EXTERIOR‐ GARAGE WEST
13 e12.2 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL 22' ‐ 0" 13' ‐ 6" 297 EXISTING SIGN
14 e12.2 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL 22' ‐ 0" 13' ‐ 6" 297 EXISTING SIGN
16 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 24' ‐ 6" 24' ‐ 0" 588 NEW‐ LED SIGN
18 e4.1 ILUMINATED PARKING SIGN 30' ‐ 6" 7' ‐ 0" 214 EXISTING SIGN
71 e11.3 IDENTITY LETTERS 32' ‐ 3" 17' ‐ 8" 570 EXISTING SIGN
CITY AMENDMENT SUMMARY TABLEMARK TYPE DESCRIPTION SignWidth SignHeight Sqft Status COMMENTSEXTERIOR‐ 2980 DES PLAINES RIVER ROAD PARCEL85 E2 VINYL IDENTITY 12' ‐ 0" 14' ‐ 0" 168 NEW SIGNTotal 168EXTERIOR‐ CASINO EAST24 A10 BUILDING IDENTITY ‐ PRIMARY 7' ‐ 0" 0' ‐ 11" 6 NEW SIGN31 e9.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE (CASINO NAME)16' ‐ 5" 1' ‐ 0" 16 EXISTING SIGNTotal 22EXTERIOR‐ CASINO SOUTH4a e12.1 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL 40' ‐ 0" 16' ‐ 0" 640 EXISTING SIGN5 e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN28a e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN28b e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN28c e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 10' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 80 EXISTING SIGN77 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 77' ‐ 7" 5' ‐ 3" 407 EXISTING SIGN78 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 36' ‐ 0" 5' ‐ 3" 189 EXISTING SIGN
Total 1556
EXTERIOR‐ CASINO WEST
6 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 25' ‐ 1" 17' ‐ 0" 426 NEW‐ LED SIGN
7 e12.2 DIGITAL PRINTED MURAL 18' ‐ 0" 16' ‐ 0" 288 EXISTING SIGN
8 e12.3 LED VIDEO SIGNAGE 25' ‐ 1" 17' ‐ 0" 426 NEW‐ LED SIGN
9 e11.2 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE (EMPLOYEE ENTRY)4' ‐ 5" 1' ‐ 5" 6 EXISTING SIGN
10 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 61' ‐ 0" 5' ‐ 0" 305 EXISTING SIGN
20 D81 CLEARANCE BAR 8' ‐ 0" 0' ‐ 8" 5 NEW SIGN
33a e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 8' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 64 EXISTING SIGN
33b e8.1 DURATRANS LIGHTBOX 8' ‐ 0" 8' ‐ 0" 64 EXISTING SIGN
35 e14.2 INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED TYPE (CASINO NAME) 61' ‐ 0" 5' ‐ 0" 305 EXISTING SIGN
48 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 13' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 13 EXISTING SIGN
49 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 13' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 13 EXISTING SIGN
50 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 3' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 9 EXISTING SIGN
51 e6.1 FLAT CUTOUT TYPE 7' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 7 EXISTING SIGN
52 e7.1 F.E.C SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 1' ‐ 0" 2 EXISTING SIGN
64a B80 VEHICLE DIRECTIONAL ‐ OVERHEAD 9' ‐ 5" 1' ‐ 2" 11 NEW SIGN
(CONT’D)
Total 1966
EXTERIOR‐ SITE
1 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
2 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
3 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
11 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
21 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
30 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
36 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
42 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
43 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
44 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
45 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
46 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
47 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
54 A5 MONUMENT SIGN ‐ PRIMARY 64' ‐ 2 1/2"15' ‐ 7" 1001
EXISTING‐ LED
SIGN TO BE
57 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
58 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
59 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
60 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
Attachment 6 Page 44 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 29SIGN MATRIX G0.3
Total 1966
EXTERIOR‐ SITE
1 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
2 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
3 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
11 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
21 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
30 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
36 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
42 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
43 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
44 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
45 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
46 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
47 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
54 A5 MONUMENT SIGN ‐ PRIMARY 64' ‐ 2 1/2"15' ‐ 7" 1001
EXISTING‐ LED
SIGN TO BE
57 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
58 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
59 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
60 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
Attachment 6 Page 45 of 47
l SIGN PLAN AMENDMENT l 7 SEPTEMBER 2021 30
OVERVIEW SITE CONTEXTOVERVIEW SITE CONTEXTOVERVIEW SITE CONTEXT
SIGN MATRIX G0.4
61 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
62 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
63 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
67 A34 RIDE SHARE IDENTITY 1' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 10 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
68 A35 BUS DROP OFF IDENTITY 1' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 10 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
83 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
87 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
88 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
89 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
90 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
91 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
92 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
93 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
94 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
95 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
96 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
97 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
98 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
99 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
100 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
101 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
102 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
103 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
104 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
105 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
106 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
107 A80 LIGHT POLE SIGN 2' ‐ 0" 3' ‐ 0" 24 EXISTING SIGN PER PAIR BOTH SIDES
Total 2819
Grand total: 95 Total 45843
Total 1966
EXTERIOR‐ SITE
1 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
2 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
3 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
11 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
21 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
30 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
36 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
42 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
43 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
44 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
45 B1 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ PRIMARY 4' ‐ 2" 12' ‐ 6" 104
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
46 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
47 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
54 A5 MONUMENT SIGN ‐ PRIMARY 64' ‐ 2 1/2"15' ‐ 7" 1001
EXISTING‐ LED
SIGN TO BE
57 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
58 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75
EXISTING TO BE
REPLACED BOTH SIDE
59 B2 VEHICLE DIRECTION ‐ SECONDARY 4' ‐ 2" 9' ‐ 0" 75 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
60 B3 PEDESTRIAN DIRECTION‐ TERTIARY 3' ‐ 0" 4' ‐ 10" 29 NEW SIGN BOTH SIDE
(CONT’D)
Attachment 6 Page 46 of 47
2980-3000 River Rd – Public Notice at East Casino Entrance
2980-3000 River Rd – Looking Southeast at West Casino Entrance
2980-3000 River Rd – Public Notice at North Office Building
2980-3000 River Rd – Looking Southeast at West Garage Entrance
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
7
P
a
g
e
4
7
o
f
4
7
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1420 Miner Street
Des Plaines, IL 60016
P: 847.391.5380
desplaines.org
Date: September 21, 2021
To: Planning and Zoning Board (PZB)
From: John T. Carlisle, AICP, Economic Development Manager
Cc: Jonathan Stytz, Planner
Subject: Mannheim and Pratt Redevelopment – Case #21-041-MAP-TSUB-V
Proposal for a Restaurant and Retail Development at 2805-2845 Mannheim Road
Issue: The petitioner, contract purchaser Image Des Plaines LLC, in partnership with developer GW
Properties, is requesting the following from the Zoning Ordinance to allow a restaurant and retail
development: (i) a Map Amendment from C-2 Limited Office Commercial to C-3 General Commercial as
required by Section 12-7-3 and (ii) a Major Variation to allow more than one principal building on a zoning
lot as required by Section 12-7-1. In addition, the petitioner is requesting approval of a Tentative Plat of
Subdivision per Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000; 09-33-300-
004-0000; 09-33-300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000; 09-33-300-007-0000;
09-33-301-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000; 09-33-301-
015-0000
Petitioner: Image Des Plaines LLC (Contact: Mike Scheid, Image Media, 5101 Darmstadt
Rd. Suite A Hillside, IL), in partnership with GW Properties, 2211 N. Elston
Ave, Suite 400, Chicago, IL 60614
Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E, Schaumburg, IL
60173
Existing Zoning: C-2 Limited Office District (proposed as C-3 General Commercial District)
Surrounding
Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: C-3, General Commercial District
East: C-3, General Commercial District
West: Commercial (Village of Rosemont)
Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial (banquet hall)
South: Tollway; Orchards at O’Hare commercial development
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 50
East: Railroad; ComEd facility
West: Commercial (hotel)
Street Classification Mannheim Road is an arterial road, and Pratt Avenue is a local road.
Comprehensive Plan Commercial is the recommended use of the property.
Project Summary: Image Des Plaines LLC is contract purchaser of the approximately 3.8-acre site
at the southeast corner of Mannheim Road and Pratt Avenue, roughly bordered
by the Canadian National rail line on the east and I-90/Tollway on the south.
Aside from an existing electronic message board billboard in the southwest
corner, the site is currently vacant, despite having received redevelopment
interest in the past (most notably for a La Quinta Inn motel that did not
materialize). Image Des Plaines is partnering with Chicago-based GW
properties to propose a full redevelopment of the largely vacant site with the
following concepts:
- A 5,000-square-foot building, currently envisioned as a Class A restaurant
- A 10,500-square-foot multi-tenant commercial building containing a mix of
restaurants and retail
- 212 surface parking spaces, including eight mobility impaired accessible
spaces
- A 19,000-square-foot above-ground basin for stormwater
- A new electronic message board billboard in the southeast corner of the site
(a separate application has been filed regarding the billboard: Case 21-042-
TA-V)
The existing zoning designation, C-2, allows restaurants and retail only when
they are accessory to an office or hotel. A map amendment to C-3 would entitle
both restaurants and retail as permitted uses. Developer GW Properties has
begun negotiations with multiple national-brand chain restaurant tenants, as
well as a retailer.
The Tentative Plat of Subdivision shows the land being delineated into four lots
of record: Lot 1 (northernmost) is the standalone restaurant with parking, Lot 2
is the multi-tenant restaurant-retail development with parking and stormwater
basin, and Lots 3 and 4 are for billboards. Lots 3 and 4 will not meet minimum
lot dimensions, and Lot 4 will not front on a public street, requiring variation at
the time of approval of the Final Plat of Subdivision. Otherwise, the Tentative
Plat meets the requirements as expressed in Section 13-2-2. Of note, the Plat
labels a 12-inch sanitary sewer running north-south and bisecting the property,
which the City’s Public Works and Engineering Department will require to
maintained via an easement indicated on the Final Plat. Other underground
infrastructure on site may be abandoned, as the previous Alger Street and
Railroad Avenue were vacated many years ago. The Site Plan indicates an
easement and access drive from the parking lot area in Lot 2 to the billboard
area, which will be necessary for maintenance and repair to the billboard.
Although the full 3.8-acre development after subdivision is likely to exist
eventually under separate ownership, it will be built upon as a unit under
common ownership, which makes it one zoning lot at this time of initial review.
Section 12-7-1 limits zoning lots to one principal building except in instances
Page 2 of 50
of planned unit development (PUD), C-4-zoned regional shopping centers, and
other large-lot institutional and industrial development. The petitioner is not
applying for a PUD nor do they propose joining all of the potential commercial
tenants under one roof, in large part because of the site-selection demands of
the potential tenants they are forming agreements with. Therefore, the petitioner
is seeking a variation from this provision.
The following is an estimated application of the parking requirements (Section
12-9-7) to the various uses, with some assumptions based on the potential use
mix. All assumed uses would be permitted under C-3 zoning:
• Restaurant (Class A) / North Building: 1 space for every 100 square
feet of net floor area, or 1 space for every 4 seats, whichever is greater,
plus 1 space for every 3 employees.
o Comment: Employee counts and detailed floor plans are not yet
available, but Lot 1 of the subdivision is shown with 97 parking
spaces. Assuming 4,000 square feet of net floor area and 30
employees (restaurant staff working at one time), the
requirement would be around 50 spaces. The parking appears to
be ample and, in fact, much could be utilized by the uses in the
other building if necessary.
• Restaurants (Class B) / South Building: 1 space for every 50 square
feet of net floor area, or 1 space for every 4 seats, whichever is greater,
plus 1 space for every 3 employees.
o Comment: Employee counts are not yet available, but Lot 2 of
the subdivision is shown with 115 parking spaces. Assuming
5,000 square feet of net area plus 15 employees, the requirement
is 105 spaces.
• Retail establishment / South Building: 1 space for every 250 square
feet of gross floor area.
o Comment: The estimated requirement would be 16 spaces,
although there are specific types of retail establishments that
have separate ratios than the general one used here.
In summary, the total parking requirement is estimated around 170-175 spaces,
so the parking would likely be more than sufficient. Regarding traffic, the
petitioner submitted a study conducted by Kenig, Lindgren, O’Hara, Aboona,
Inc. (KLOA, Inc.). The study concludes that while the development and uses
can be expected to generate additional traffic, the existing roadway system can
accommodate the traffic without the need for additional signals, lanes (e.g. turn
or deceleration lanes), or other substantial changes to either Mannheim or Pratt.
The study also concludes the site layout allows for efficient internal circulation
and access. See Attachment 10 for the report. While the conclusions generally
seem reasonable, the Illinois Department of Transportation will need to permit
the proposed driveway to Mannheim. IDOT may require this to be altered to a
“right -in, right-out” configuration.
Page 3 of 50
Standards for Map Amendment:
The standards for amendments are contained in Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance. The following is
a discussion of those standards. See also the applicant’s responses to standards in Attachment 4.
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council;
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan calls for commercial development on the site; however, the current
zoning (C-2) is quite restrictive is its allowance of uses, as it has a specific vision for primarily hotel and
office development. Changing to C-3 will open up a much wider range of uses, including the desirable ones
proposed through the concept of this application.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character
of existing development;
Comment: C-3 zoning is proximate to the subject property. In fact, its current designation of C-2 makes the
property stick out. Changing to C-3 actually brings it more in line with the property to the north (Café La
Cave, 2777 Mannheim Road) and the south (Orchards at O’Hare). Both of these are zoned C-3.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and
services available to this subject property;
Comment: The roadway and other infrastructure access is adequate to serve the range of uses possible under
C-3 zoning. See the conclusions of the traffic report (Attachment 10).
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout
the jurisdiction;
Comment: Amending the zoning to C-3 would enable and attract greater commercial development, making
Des Plaines and the neighborhood more desirable and likely having a positive effect on property values.
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth.
Comment: C-3 is the most common commercial zoning designation, so adding it to the map at the subject
property would be in line with the City’s current process for managing growth.
Standards for Variation:
The standards for variations contained in Section 12-3-6.H of the Zoning Ordinance are discussed below. See
also the petitioner’s responses in Attachment 5.
1. Hardship: Carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular
hardship or a practical difficulty;
Comment: The petitioner could have applied for a PUD to avoid the limitation to only one principal building
on the zoning lot. However, because no bulk exceptions are expected for the development (e.g. setback,
height, parking), and while important an important commercial investment, the project is not especially
unique or innovative, which is the underlying purpose of PUDs. A PUD process may be unnecessarily
onerous. Alternatively, the petitioner could lump all of the uses together in one building, but the interest
from various users necessitates that one of them be in a freestanding building.
Page 4 of 50
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the
same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use,
structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size;
exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and
inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that
relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.
Comment: The site’s boundary with the Tollway is a diagonal line, as is its boundary with the railroad,
creating an irregular shape. Further, the site has an existing billboard. These are design constraints the
petitioner must work around.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction
of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions
from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental
action, other than the adoption of this title.
Comment: The shape of the site was dictated by the infrastructure-related actions of public and private
entities (e.g. City, Department of Transportation, railroads.
4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variance
is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by
owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Comment: Forcing the project into a PUD process or to be redesigned to be under one roof would hamper
the development potential, when similar styles of development are quite common and the deals with
potential tenants are time-sensitive. The PZB and City Council are welcome to ask the petitioner about the
negotiations with users, their space and design needs, and their target timelines.
5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the inability of the
owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or
occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely the inability of the owner to make
more money from the use of the subject lot.
Comment: Allowing a two-building restaurant-and-retail development outside of the PUD process would
be a reasonable request by any potential developer of a similar site.
6. Title and Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject lot
that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and the
provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the
comprehensive plan.
Comment: The variation would make feasible the proposed commercial development, which is the vision
of the Comprehensive Plan for the site.
7. No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged
hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of
the subject lot.
Comment: Forcing the process into a PUD or a redesign would risk losing tenants, in particular the tenant
who demands a freestanding building.
Page 5 of 50
8. Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief necessary to alleviate
the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of this title.
Comment: The total number of principal buildings is only two instead of a greater number.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7.D.3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the PZB may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council
has final authority over the map amendment and variation regarding the number of principal buildings. The
map amendment may be suitable to approve without conditions, However, should the PZB recommend and/or
the City Council approve the variation, staff suggests the following conditions:
1. A landscape plan showing perimeter, interior, and foundation plantings to fulfill all requirements of
Section 12-10 must be approved before issuance of a building permit.
2. All proposed ground and building-mounted signs must comply with all provisions of Section 12-11,
or the petitioner must obtain variation or approval of a conditional use for localized alternative sign
regulations (LASR).
3. A lighting plan labeling all building-mounted and freestanding light fixtures and proving photometric
details must be submitted and approved with the building permit.
4. Grading/drainage and other on-site infrastructure details are provided to the satisfaction of the Public
Works and Engineering Department with the submission of the Final Plat of Subdivision.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location/Zoning Map
Attachment 2: Site Photos
Attachment 3: Project Narrative
Attachment 4: Responses to Map Amendment Standards
Attachment 5: Responses to Variation Standards
Attachment 6: Plat of Survey
Attachment 7: Site Plan
Attachment 8: Tentative Plat of Subdivision
Attachment 9: Concept Renderings of Buildings
Attachment 10: Traffic Study1
1 Without appendices. Full report is available upon request to City staff.
Page 6 of 50
Attachment 1 Page 7 of 50
Site Photos by Staff
Looking south from northwest corner of site Looking southeast from Mannheim
Looking toward southeast corner of site Looking west toward Rosemont Hyatt Place
hotel from center of the site
Looking north toward existing Pratt curb cut Looking west toward existing billboard,
Tollway
Attachment 2 Page 8 of 50
Attachment 2 Page 9 of 50
September 9, 2021
City of Des Plaines
1420 Miner Street
Des Plaines, IL 60016
RE: 2805-2845 Mannheim Road, Des Plaines – Project Narrative
Dear Village of Des Plaines,
GW Properties is proposing a new development on the Southeast corner of Mannheim Road
and Pratt Street in Des Plaines, Illinois. The site would include a 5,000sf free standing
restaurant, as well as a 10,000sf building that can fit up to an additional three restaurants and/
or retail tenants, tenants to be determined. Our complete development application provides the
finding of facts with regard to our site plan, variance, and map amendment request.
The proposed project if approved would be designed and constructed per the development site
plan as submitted. Upon completion, the project would be subdivided into four lots to allow the
proposed buildings and billboards to be on its own legal lots. The contribution to the project by
Image Media Des Plaines, LLC, for the billboard is essential to the feasibility and successful
development of the property and the development will not proceed without approval of the
billboard, which is subject to a tandem zoning application filed in conjunction with this matter.
Furthermore, we have spoken with our traffic consultant, KLOA, although not directly with
IDOT, in order to determine where to locate the curb cuts for our development. After various
discussions with KLOA, we believe that the access drives as shown would be acceptable to
IDOT, but still needs further review. Ultimately, all development activities would be completed
in accordance with the City of Des Plaines, IDOT and all other governmental/municipal
requirements.
This property would ultimately be transformed from its current state of vacant land into a vibrant
development with many new businesses and offerings that will be complementary to the
surrounding area. This project would create well over a dozen of new full-time jobs in Des
Plaines and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars in property and sales tax for the City on
an annual basis that do not exist today. This project entails the highest and best use for the
property and is a rare opportunity to create one cohesive development that has been
thoughtfully designed and considered.
We look forward to working with the City of Des Plaines on all aspects of the proposed
development and welcome the opportunity to discuss it soon. If you have any questions, please
feel free to contact me.
Regards,
Mitch Goltz
Principal
GW Properties
Attachment 3 Page 10 of 50
STANDARDS FOR MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS
Responses to Standards for Map and Text Amendments
•Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council
•The Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan provides, in pertinent part, that according to Chapter 4,
Section 4.2, “The City should revisit its current zone classifications and add a new zone
exclusively for mixed-use development or amend existing regulations to allow for mixed
uses. Focus should be placed on commercial areas zoned C-1, C-2, and C-3, for potential sites
for mixed-use development.”. We are requesting that the subject property be amended and
rezoned in accordance with the intent of the Plan from C-2 to C-3.
•Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall
character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property
•The proposed amendment to change the zoning from C-2 to C-3 is compatible with
the current conditions and the overall character of existing development in the
immediate vicinity of the subject property. As the site currently sits it is vacant land
surrounded by commercial buildings such as retail, restaurants, and hotels.
•Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available to this subject property
•Public facilities such as, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, water lines are all available
and adequate for the proposed amendment and project and will be tapped and
connected, per permit, in accordance with City code. In order to determine the
exact locations for our anticipated connections to public facilities, forthcoming will
be our civil engineering plans which describe accessibility and adequacy.
•Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction
•The proposed zoning amendment will not have adverse effects on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction. To the contrary, we have determined that with the addition of
our project, values of the surrounding parcels will increase as they are no longer located
next to or near vacant undeveloped land.
•Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth.
•With the proposed zoning amendment from C-2 to C-3, this ultimately allows for
vacant, undeveloped land to be constructed into a project that not only provides a
place of convenience and gathering for the residents of Des Plaines, but more
importantly lays a foundation for future developments within the vicinity.
Attachment 4 Page 11 of 50
STANDARDS FOR VARIATIONS
Responses to Standards for
Variations
•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.
•In the event the Applicant is required to comply with the strict letter of the provisions
of the Zoning Code, the proposed subdivision would be impossible to construct and
legally record with the county. The dimensions of the site, the subdivision
requirements in conjunction with the inability to meet the requirements of a P.U.D
would prohibit this property from being redeveloped in an efficient manner. In order
(i) to meet the requirements of the existing Zoning Code and (ii) to allow for more
than one principal structure on a single lot of record, it is essential to the operation
of the tenants that a variance be granted for the subdivision standards.
•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.
•The property has the unique physical condition of being situated on the southeast
corner of a significantly busy street. This traffic flow is necessary to generate the
required demand from a restaurant standpoint and provide the tenants with
sufficient customer demand to be viable. The irregular shape of the east side yard
along the train tracks would impede the ability for the tenants to spread out amongst
the site and build their respective spaces.
•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.
•The location and shape of the property is the result of (i) roadways created prior to
the Applicant’s acquisition and (ii) not as a result of any of the property’s prior
owners.
•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.
•The requirement to not allow more than one principal structure on a single lot of
record will deprive the Applicant of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by other
lots subject to the same provision. The property in its current condition sits on a
parcel of land that dimensionally restricts the possibility to develop the lot and fulfill
the subdivision requirement and market demands in a suitable and useful manner.
The Applicant is requesting a variance that should be subjected to allow for two
principal structures to be subdivided onto a single lot. Ultimately, in the event the
Attachment 5 Page 12 of 50
Applicant is not granted the requested variance, then the Applicant will not be able
to develop the property in accordance with its plans and specifications, which will
ultimately prevent the ability of the Applicant to enjoy the commercial use of the
property.
• 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.
• The Applicant is not requesting a special privilege, but rather consideration with
regard to the number of principal structures allowed on a single subdivided lot. The
proposed development is driven by not only specific tenant standards, but by market
standards and governmental standards which request separate taxing parcels for
each specified tenant on within the development.
• 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.
• The geometry of the property does not allow the project to be viable without the
variation of allowing more than one principal structures on a single lot of record. The
variation will result in a use and development of the property in harmony with the
general and specific purposes of the Zoning Code and comprehensive plan.
• No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged
hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use
of the subject lot.
• Given the dimensions of the parcel and the constraints of surrounding area, there is
no means other than the requested variation to allow for more than one principal
structures on a single lot of record that will allow for this project to be viable both
from a development and more importantly a tenant perspective.
• Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief necessary to
alleviate the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of this title.
• The variation to allow more than one principal structures on a single lot of record is
the minimum measure of relief necessary to alleviate the alleged hardship and
constraints of the parcel in conjunction with the various tenants needs and
requirements.
Attachment 5 Page 13 of 50
Attachment 6 Page 14 of 50
Attachment 7 Page 15 of 50
Attachment 8
Pa
g
e
16
of
50
Attachment 9 Page 17 of 50
Attachment 9 Page 18 of 50
Attachment 9 Page 19 of 50
Traffic Impact Study
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail
Development
Des Plaines, Illinois
Prepared For:
August 26, 2021
Attachment 10 Page 20 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 1
Executive Summary
traffic impact study for the
proposed Mannheim/Pratt retail development to be located in the southeast quadrant of the
unsignalized intersection of Mannheim Road with Pratt Street in Des Plaines, Illinois.
The plans call for three retail buildings that all contain multiple dining establishments, totaling
approximately 15,400 square feet of restaurant space. The plans call for two sit-down restaurants,
a fast casual restaurant, and a quick-service restaurant (QSR) with a pick-up lane. The site is
proposed to be served by two full-movement access drives off Pratt Street and a restricted access
drive off Mannheim Road.
Traffic capacity analyses were conducted for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak
hours for the following two conditions:
1. Existing Conditions - Analyzes the capacity of the existing roadway system using existing
peak hour traffic volumes in the surrounding area.
2. Year 2027 Total Projected Conditions - The total projected traffic volumes includes the
existing traffic volumes increased by a regional growth factor of three percent, traffic
estimated to be generated by planned developments in the area, and the traffic estimated to
be generated by the proposed development.
The following summarizes the results and recommendations of the study:
The proposed development-generated traffic will be consistent and compatible with traffic
patterns and volumes in the area.
The proposed restaurant land uses typically attract a significant amount of its traffic from
the existing traffic on the adjacent roadway network en route to another destination. As
such, the net new traffic the subject development is proposed to generate is reduced.
The proposed access system to serve the development will help disperse the development-
generated traffic onto the surrounding roadway network and provide alternatives for the
site traffic to enter and exit the development.
A southbound left-turn lane on Mannheim Road is not recommended given the existing
offset alignment of Pratt Street with the hotel access drive to the north. Providing a
southbound left-turn lane at Pratt Street will impact northbound left-turn movements at the
Hyatt access drive, which has an offset T-intersection approximately 80 feet to the north
of Pratt Street.
Attachment 10 Page 21 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 2
No traffic control or roadway improvements are recommended at the signalized
intersection of Mannheim Road with Lunt Avenue or at the offset, all-way stop sign
controlled intersection of Maple Street/Curtis Street with Pratt Street.
The two proposed full access drives off Pratt Street will each provide one inbound lane and
one outbound lane under stop sign control. No improvements on Pratt Street are needed or
recommended.
The proposed restricted access off Mannheim Road will provide one inbound lane and one
outbound lane under stop sign control. The access drive will be designed to physically
restrict and channelize vehicles to right-in/right-out only turning movements.
The site layout allows for efficient internal circulation and access to the three proposed
access drives serving the development.
The proposed pick-up lane serving the QSR will have a counterclockwise rotation and a
bypass lane for vehicles to exit from the queue. The proposed stacking for the pick-up lane
will be adequate.
Attachment 10 Page 22 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 3
1. Introduction
A traffic impact study was conducted for the proposed Mannheim/Pratt retail development to be
located in the southeast quadrant of the intersection of Mannheim Road with Pratt Street in Des
Plaines, Illinois. The intersection of Mannheim Road with Pratt Street is unsignalized.
The plans call for three buildings housing multiple dining establishments, totaling approximately
15,400 square feet of restaurant space. The plans call for two sit-down restaurants, a fast casual
restaurant, and a 2,400 square-foot quick-service restaurant (QSR) with a pick-up lane. The site is
proposed to be served by two full-movement access drives off Pratt Street and a restricted access
drive off Mannheim Road.
The sections of this report present the following:
Existing roadway conditions including vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic volumes for
the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours
A detailed description of the proposed development
Vehicle trip generation for the proposed development
Directional distribution of development-generated traffic
Regional growth in traffic and background development traffic for Year 2027 no-build
conditions
Future transportation conditions including access to and from the development
Traffic capacity analyses were conducted for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak
hours for the following two conditions:
1. Existing Conditions - Analyzes the capacity of the existing roadway system using existing
peak hour traffic volumes in the surrounding area.
2. Year 2027 Total Projected Conditions - The total projected traffic volumes includes the
existing traffic volumes increased by a regional growth factor of three percent, traffic from
planned background developments in the immediate area, and the traffic estimated to be
generated by the proposed subject development.
The purpose of this study was to examine existing traffic conditions to establish a base condition,
assess the impact that the proposed development would have on traffic conditions in the area, and
determine the roadway and traffic control improvements needed
impact based on Year 2027 projected traffic conditions.
Attachment 10 Page 23 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 4
2. Existing Conditions
Existing traffic and roadway conditions were documented based on field visits and traffic counts
conducted by KLOA, Inc. The following provides a detailed description of the physical
characteristics of the roadways including geometry and traffic control, adjacent land uses, and peak
hour traffic flows along area roadways.
Site Location
The development site is located in the southeast quadrant of the unsignalized intersection of
Mannheim Road with Pratt Street in Des Plaines, Illinois and is generally bordered by Pratt Street
to the north, Interstate 90 to the south, Canadian National Railway (CN) railroad tracks to the east,
and Mannheim Road to the west. There are four curb cuts along Mannheim Road and one on Pratt
Street. These provide maintenance access to billboards and Illinois Department of Transportation
(IDOT) devices located along Interstate 90. Figure 1 shows the location of the site in relation to
the area roadway system. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the site.
Surrounding Land Uses
Land uses surrounding the site include Café La Cave restaurant and Royal Touch car wash to the
north, residential to the east, and Hyatt Place hotel and Allstate Arena to the west of Mannheim
Road. The Rosemont Marketplace shopping center is located in the northwest quadrant of the
signalized intersection of Mannheim Road with Lunt Avenue and the Potbelly/Starbucks restaurant
development is located north of Royal Touch car wash.
Existing Roadway System Characteristics
The characteristics of the existing roadways that surround the proposed development are illustrated
in Figure 3 and described below.
Mannheim Road (US Route 12 and 45) is a north-south other principal arterial roadway that is
under the jurisdiction of IDOT. The roadway is designated as a Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA).
At its signalized intersection with Lunt Avenue, an exclusive left-turn lane and two through lanes
are provided on the northbound approach and a through lane and a combined through/right-turn
lane are provided on the southbound approach along with a high-visibility crosswalk. No exclusive
turn lanes are provided on Mannheim Road at its unsignalized intersection with Pratt Street.
Mannheim Road has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and carries an Annual Average Daily Traffic
(AADT) volume of 24,700 vehicles (IDOT 2019).
Attachment 10 Page 24 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 5
Site Location Figure 1
SITE
^
N
Attachment 10 Page 25 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 6
Aerial View of Site Figure 2
^
N
SITE
Attachment 10 Page 26 of 50
Attachment 10 Page 27 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 8
Pratt Street is an east-west local roadway that is under stop sign control at its three-way
intersection with Mannheim Road (US Route 12 and 45) providing one inbound lane and one
outbound lane allowing both left- and right-turn exiting movements. The westbound approach
provides a standard-style crosswalk. One of the access drives to the Hyatt Place hotel is located on
the west side of Mannheim Road approximately 80 feet north of Pratt Street. Pratt Street is under
all-way stop sign control at its intersection with Maple Street/Curtis Street to the east of Mannheim
Road and provides a high-visibility crosswalk in the middle of the offset intersection. There is an
at-grade railroad crossing between Mannheim Road and Maple Street/Curtis Street. Pratt Street
carries an AADT volume of 1,950 vehicles (IDOT 2018). The posted speed limit is 25 mph and
parking is restricted on both sides of the roadway. Pratt Street is under the jurisdiction of the City
of Des Plaines.
Maple Street/Curtis Street are north-south local roadways that provide one lane in each direction
and T-intersect Pratt Street as an offset intersection. Maple Street is north of Pratt Street and Curtis
Street is south of Pratt Street. The southbound approach provides a high-visibility crosswalk and
the northbound approach provides a standard-style crosswalk. On-street parking is permitted on
both sides of the roadways and the posted speed limit is 25 mph. Maple Street and Curtis Street
are under the jurisdiction of the City of Des Plaines.
Lunt Avenue is an east-west roadway that provides one lane in each direction and is under the
jurisdiction of the Village of Rosemont. At its signalized intersection with Mannheim Road, Lunt
Avenue provides an exclusive left-turn lane and an exclusive right-turn lane. Lunt Avenue
provides a high-visibility crosswalk on the eastbound approach. Parking is restricted on both sides
of the roadway and the posted speed limit is 25 mph.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic counts were conducted on Wednesday, August 18, 2021
and Thursday, August 19, 2021 during the morning (7:00 to 9:00 A.M.) and the evening (4:00 to
6:00 P.M.) peak periods at the following two intersections:
Mannheim Road with Pratt Street (stop sign)
Mannheim Road with Hyatt access drive (stop sign)
From the manual turning movement count data, it was determined that the weekday morning peak
hour generally occurs between 7:30 and 8:30 A.M. and the weekday evening peak hour generally
occurs between 4:30 and 5:30 P.M. These two respective peak hours will be used for the traffic
capacity analyses and are presented later in this report. Pedestrian and bicycle activity was reported
to be very low at the study intersections. A copy of the existing traffic counts is included in the
Appendix.
Attachment 10 Page 28 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 9
Furthermore, traffic counts previously conducted in 2018 were utilized for the following two
intersections:
Mannheim Road with Lunt Avenue (signalized)
Maple Street/Curtis Street with Pratt Street (all-way stop sign)
The traffic counts conducted in 2021 were compared with the 2018 counts and it was determined
that no adjustments were needed to reflect normal traffic conditions.
The existing peak hour vehicle traffic volumes are shown in Figure 4.
Railroad Crossing
As noted, there is an at-grade, gated railroad crossing on Pratt Street approximately 350 feet east
of Mannheim Road. Based on information provided by the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC)
which is included in the Appendix of this report, this railroad line carries both passenger trains and
freight trains with 38 average daily trains, a daily average of 22 of which are passenger trains.
Based on observations, the gates were lowered for passing trains during the morning peak hour
three times for an average of 55 seconds with an average eastbound queue of one vehicle. The
gates were lowered for passing trains during the evening peak hour three times for an average of
60 seconds with an average eastbound queue of one vehicle. It is important to note that anecdotal
observations have noted that freight trains sometimes stop in the vicinity of Pratt Street, resulting
in the gates being lowered for an extended period of time. Vehicles east of the tracks can use the
various roadways in the area, including Maple Street and Curtis Street, as a detour. Vehicles west
of the tracks must make a U-turn on Pratt Street and return to Mannheim Road.
Attachment 10 Page 29 of 50
Attachment 10 Page 30 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 11
Crash Data Analysis
KLOA, Inc. obtained crash data from IDOT for the most recent past five years available (2016 to
2020) for the intersections of Mannheim Road (US Route 12 and 45) with Pratt Street, Mannheim
Road with Lunt Avenue, and Pratt Street with Curtis Street/Maple Street. A review of the crash
data indicated that no fatalities were reported at any of the intersections 1. Tables 1 through 3
summarize the crash data.
Table 1
MANNHEIM ROAD WITH PRATT STREET CRASH SUMMARY
Type of Crash Frequency
Year Angle Object Rear End Sideswipe Turning Other Total
2016 0 0 4 0 1 0 5
2017 0 0 2 1 2 0 5
2018 0 0 6 0 2 0 8
2019 0 1 3 0 2 1 7
2020 1 0 0 0 4 0 5
Total 1 1 15 1 11 1 30
Average/Year <1.0 <1.0 3.0 <1.0 2.2 <1.0 6.0
Table 2
MANNHEIM ROAD WITH LUNT AVENUE CRASH SUMMARY
Type of Crash Frequency
Year Angle Object Rear End Sideswipe Turning Other Total
2016 0 0 2 1 5 1 9
2017 0 0 0 0 1 1 2
2018 0 0 3 1 3 0 7
2019 1 1 2 0 0 2 6
2020 1 0 1 0 0 0 2
Total 2 1 8 2 9 4 26
Average/Year <1.0 <1.0 1.6 <1.0 1.8 <1.0 5.2
1 IDOT DISCLAIMER: The motor vehicle crash data referenced herein was provided by the Illinois Department of Transportation. Any
conclusions drawn from analysis of the aforementioned data are the sole responsibility of the data recipient(s). Additionally, for coding years
2015 to present, the Bureau of Data Collection uses the exact latitude/longitude supplied by the investigating law enforcement agency to locate
crashes. Therefore, location data may vary in previous years since data prior to 2015 was physically located by bureau personnel. The author is
responsible for any data analyses and conclusions drawn.
Attachment 10 Page 31 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 12
Table 3
PRATT STREET WITH CURTIS STREET/MAPLE STREET CRASH SUMMARY
Type of Crash Frequency
Year Angle Object Rear End Sideswipe Turning Other Total
2016 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2017 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
2018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2019 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2020 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Total 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
Average/Year <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0 <1.0
Attachment 10 Page 32 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 13
3. Traffic Characteristics of the Proposed Development
To evaluate the impact of the subject development on the area roadway system, it was necessary
to quantify the number of vehicle trips the overall site will generate during the weekday morning
and weekday evening peak hours and then determine the directions from which the proposed traffic
will approach and depart the site, given the proposed access points that will serve the overall
development.
Proposed Site and Development Plan
The site is located in the southeast quadrant of the unsignalized intersection of Mannheim Road
with Pratt Street in Des Plaines, Illinois. The plans call for three buildings containing multiple
dining establishments totaling approximately 15,400 square feet of restaurant space. The plans call
for two sit-down restaurants, a quick-service restaurant (QSR), and a 2,400 square-foot QSR with
a pick-up lane. The site is proposed to be served by two full access drives off Pratt Street and a
restricted access drive off Mannheim Road.
A copy of the site plan is included in the Appendix.
Vehicle Access
The three access points proposed to serve the development are described below:
East Access Drive with Pratt Street. This full access drive is proposed to be located off Pratt Street
approximately 330 feet east of Mannheim Road and will be aligned with the Café La Cave
restaurant access drive. The access drive is proposed to provide one inbound lane and one outbound
lane under stop sign control. The access drive will extend south along the rear sides of the buildings
where it will intersect with the exit of the pick-up lane that will have an east-west orientation,
allowing vehicles to turn left to access the parking for the restaurants.
West Access Drive with Pratt Street. This full access drive is proposed to be located off Pratt Street
approximately 155 feet east of Mannheim Road. The access drive is proposed to provide one
inbound lane and one outbound lane under stop sign control. The access drive will extend south
along the west edge of the buildings.
Restricted Access Drive with Mannheim Road. Located approximately 250 feet south of Pratt
Street, this access drive is proposed to be restricted to right-in/right-out only turning movements.
The access drive will provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane channelized and signed to
prohibit left-turn movements. The outbound lane will be under stop sign control. Vehicles entering
the site will continue eastbound and turn right to access the quick-service restaurant pick-up lane,
turn left to access parking, or continue east to the rear of the development to access additional
parking.
Development
Attachment 10 Page 33 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 14
Pick-Up Lane Circulation and Stacking
The pick-up lane for the proposed quick-service restaurant (QSR) will have a single lane, operating
in a counter-clockwise direction with vehicles entering the pick-up lane on the southwest corner
of the site and the pick-up window located on the south side of the building. To reinforce the one-
pick-
up lane and way-finding signage should be provided directing vehicles to the pick-up lane
entrance. A pass-by lane will also be provided. Furthermore, a posted stop sign and striped stop
bar should be provided for traffic exiting the pick-up lane into the parking lot drive aisle.
According to the site plan, the pick-up lane has been designed to allow a total of approximately
eleven total vehicles to be stored within the pick-up lane without interfering with traffic circulation
patterns on-site.
The pick-up window operates differently that a traditional drive-through. Patrons utilizing the lane
must order their food and pay in advance utilizing a smartphone application or website and the
pick-up window is only utilized for picking up orders placed in this manner. There will be no
ordering board and payment will not be accepted at the pick-up window.
Based on an operations study conducted at two existing QSRs with pick-up lanes which included
the number of vehicles utilizing the pick-up lane, the service time, the arrival rate, and the average
and maximum queues observed at the ordering board and the pick-up window, the following was
determined:
The average maximum queue length at the pick-up window was four to five vehicles.
The queue length at the pick-up window did not exceed seven vehicles and the queue of
seven vehicles occurred just one time.
Vehicles spend an average of 45 to 60 seconds at the pick-up window and an average of
approximately 24 to 71 seconds in queue.
Therefore, based on these observations and given the operations of the pick-up lane, the
proposed stacking of eleven vehicles within the pick-up lane will be adequate in accommodating
the pick-up lane demand without spilling outside of the designated pick-up lane or affecting the
circulation through the parking lot.
Directional Distribution of Development Traffic
The directional distribution of how traffic will approach and depart the site was estimated based
on the general travel patterns through the study area derived from the peak hour traffic volumes
and previous studies conducted in the area. Figure 5 shows the directional distribution established
for this development. Further, Figure 5 shows the distance, in feet, between the existing and
proposed intersections analyzed in this study.
Attachment 10 Page 34 of 50
Attachment 10 Page 35 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 16
Development Traffic Generation
The estimates of vehicle traffic to be generated by the proposed development is based upon the
proposed land use types and sizes. The volume of traffic generated for the proposed development
was estimated using data published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip
Generation Manual, 10th Edition. Further, a pass-by vehicle trip reduction of 45 percent was
applied to the land uses. Pass-by vehicle trips are those vehicles already on the adjacent roadway
(i.e. Mannheim Road) en route to another destination (i.e. work to home or vice versa) and are not
considered new vehicle trips to the roadway system.
Table 4 tabulates the vehicle trips anticipated for this development for the weekday morning and
weekday evening peak hours as well as the daily (two-way) traffic volumes.
Attachment 10 Page 36 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 17
Table 4
ESTIMATED DEVELOPMENT-GENERATED PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES
ITE
Land-
Use
Code
Weekday Morning
Peak Hour Weekday Evening
Peak Hour Daily Two-Way Traffic
Type/Size In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total
932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down)
Restaurant (5,000 s.f.)(1) -- -- -- 30 19 49 281 281 562
932 High-Turnover (Sit-Down)(2)
Restaurant (4,000 s.f.) 22 18 40 -- -- -- 225 225 450
930 Fast Casual Restaurant
(4,000 s.f.)(1) -- -- -- 31 26 57 630 630 1,260
930 Quick-Service Restaurant (QSR)
(Pick-Up Window) (2,400 s.f.)(1) -- -- -- 19 15 34 378 378 756
Total Vehicle Trips: 22 18 40 80 60 140 1,514 1,514 3,028
Less Pass-By Trips (45%): -9 -9 -18 -32 -32 -64 -682 -682 -1,364
Total New Vehicle Trips: 13 9 22 48 28 76 832 832 1,664
(1): Not open for breakfast
(2): Not open for dinner
Attachment 10 Page 37 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 18
Development Traffic Assignment
The peak hour traffic volumes projected to be generated by the proposed development (Table 4)
were assigned to the area roadways based on the directional distribution analysis (Figure 5).
Figure 6 shows the assignment of the net new vehicle trip volumes.
Figure 7 shows the assignment of the pass-by vehicle trip volumes.
Year 2024 Base (No-Build) Traffic Conditions
To account for the increase in existing traffic related to regional growth in the area (i.e. not
attributable to any particular planned development) for Year 2027 conditions, the existing traffic
volumes were increased by a total of three percent. This percentage increase is based on AADT
projections provided by the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP) in a letter dated
August 23, 2021. A copy of the CMAP letter is included in the Appendix.
Figure 8 shows the Year 2027 base (no-build) traffic volumes, which do not include the traffic
estimated to be generated by the subject development.
Year 2027 Total Projected Traffic Conditions
The Year 2027 total projected traffic volumes include the Year 2027 base (no-build) traffic
volumes (Figure 8) plus the traffic estimated to be generated by the proposed subject development
(Figures 6 and 7).
Figure 9 shows the Year 2027 total projected traffic volumes.
Attachment 10 Page 38 of 50
Attachment 10 Page 39 of 50
Attachment 10 Page 40 of 50
Attachment 10 Page 41 of 50
Attachment 10 Page 42 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 23
4. Traffic Analysis and Recommendations
Capacity analyses were performed for the key intersections included in the study area to determine
the ability of the existing roadway system to accommodate existing and future traffic demands.
Analyses were performed for the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours for both
existing (Year 2021) and total projected future (Year 2027) conditions.
The traffic analyses were performed using the methodologies outlined in the Transportation
Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2010 and using Synchro/SimTraffic
analysis software.
The signalized intersection of Mannheim Road with Lunt Avenue was analyzed using existing
signal cycle lengths (110 seconds weekday morning and evening) offsets, and phasings to
determine the average overall vehicle delay, volume-to-capacity ratios, and levels of service.
The analyses for the unsignalized intersections determine the average control delay to vehicles at
an intersection. Control delay is the elapsed time from a vehicle joining the queue at a stop sign
(includes the time required to decelerate to a stop) until its departure from the stop sign and
resumption of free flow speed. The methodology analyzes each intersection approach controlled
by a stop sign and considers traffic volumes on all approaches and lane characteristics.
The ability of an intersection to accommodate traffic flow is expressed in terms of level of service,
which is assigned a letter from A to F based on the average control delay experienced by vehicles
passing through the intersection. The Highway Capacity Manual definitions for levels of service
and the corresponding control delay for signalized intersections and unsignalized intersections are
included in the Appendix of this report.
A summary of the traffic analysis results showing the LOS and delay (measured in seconds) for
the signalized intersection for the existing (Year 2021) and future (Year 2027) conditions is shown
in Table 5. The unsignalized intersections are presented in Table 6 and Table 7. A copy of the
capacity analysis reports is included in the Appendix. A discussion of each of the intersections
follows.
Traffic Analysis and Recommendations
Attachment 10 Page 43 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 24
Table 5
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS MANNHEIM ROAD WITH LUNT AVENUE SIGNALIZED
Condition Peak Hour Eastbound Northbound Southbound Overall L R L T T R
Ye
a
r
2
0
2
1
B
a
s
e
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Weekday
Morning
D
48.0
B
19.7
A
0.9
A
1.7 A 4.9 A 3.9
C 21.7 A 1.7
Weekday
Evening
E
59.4
D
35.1
B
12.2
A
6.0 B 11.2 B 12.6
D 40.4 A 7.2
Ye
a
r
2
0
2
7
N
o
-
B
u
i
l
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Weekday
Morning
D
48.0
B
19.7
A
1.0
A
1.8 A 4.9 A 3.9
C 21.7 A 1.7
Weekday
Evening
E
58.7
D
36.5
B
13.6
A
6.4 B 12.1 B 13.3
D 41.4 A 7.7
Ye
a
r
2
0
2
7
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Weekday
Morning
D
48.0
B
19.4
A
1.1
A
1.4 A 4.9 A 3.7
C 21.4 A 1.4
Weekday
Evening
E
58.1
D
37.8
B
15.0
A
6.5 B 13.0 B 13.8
D 42.2 A 8.0
Attachment 10 Page 44 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 25
Table 6
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Weekday Morning
Peak Hour Weekday Evening
Peak Hour
Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay
Mannheim Road with Pratt Street
Westbound Approach E 36.9 F 99+
Southbound Left Turn B 10.5 B 10.9
Maple Street/Curtis Street with Pratt Street
Overall A 8.3 A 7.8
Eastbound Approach A 7.7 A 8.0
Westbound Approach A 8.7 A 7.4
Northbound Approach A 7.9 A 7.7
Southbound Approach A 8.0 A 7.8
LOS = Level of Service
Delay is measured in seconds.
Attachment 10 Page 45 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 26
Table 7
CAPACITY ANALYSIS RESULTS UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
YEAR 2027 FUTURE CONDITIONS
Weekday Morning
Peak Hour
Weekday Evening
Peak Hour
Intersection LOS Delay LOS Delay
Mannheim Road with Pratt Street
Westbound Approach C 15.1 F 99+
Southbound Left Turn A 8.6 A 9.0
Maple Street/Curtis Street with Pratt Street
Overall A 7.8 A 7.8
Eastbound Approach A 7.8 A 8.0
Westbound Approach A 7.8 A 7.5
Northbound Approach A 7.7 A 7.7
Southbound Approach A 7.6 A 7.8
West Access Drive with Pratt Street
Northbound Approach A 9.7 B 10.4
East Access Drive with Pratt Street
Northbound Approach A 9.8 B 10.1
Restricted Access with Mannheim Road
Westbound Approach B 12.4 B 13.2
LOS = Level of Service
Delay is measured in seconds.
Attachment 10 Page 46 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 27
Discussion and Recommendations
The following is an evaluation of the analyzed intersections based on the projected traffic volumes
and the capacity analyses performed.
Mannheim Road with Lunt Avenue
This signalized intersection currently operates overall at Level of Service (LOS) A during the
weekday morning peak hour and at LOS B during the weekday evening peak hour. The eastbound
approach operates at LOS C during the weekday morning peak hour and at LOS D during the
weekday evening peak hour. Under projected Year 2027 conditions, the intersection is expected
to continue operating at LOS A during the weekday morning peak hour and at LOS B during the
weekday evening peak hour. The eastbound approach is projected to continue operating at LOS C
and at LOS D during the weekday morning and evening peak hours, respectively, under projected
Year 2027 conditions. The LOS D on the eastbound approach of Lunt Avenue is acceptable due
to the limited green time given to the eastbound approach. This is common for a minor roadway
intersecting a major arterial to receive limited green time so that the northbound and southbound
through traffic flow on Mannheim Road will continue to operate at good levels of service. High-
visibility crosswalks are already provided on the north and west legs of the intersection and the
traffic signal is equipped with pedestrian countdown signals. As such, no roadway widening
improvements or traffic control improvements are recommended at this signalized intersection in
conjunction with the proposed development.
Mannheim Road with Pratt Street
Under existing conditions, Pratt Street T-intersects Mannheim Road from the east under stop sign
control and provides one inbound lane and one outbound lane allowing left- and right-turn
movements. Southbound vehicles on Mannheim Road desiring to turn left and travel eastbound on
Pratt Street must do so from the inside through lane of traffic since there is no center lane to allow
for left-turn storage. There is approximately a six-foot wide painted median that separates the
opposing through traffic flow that a vehicle can partially queue on; however, it is not wide enough
to effectively remove the southbound left-turn vehicle from the southbound through traffic stream.
The Hyatt Place access drive T-intersects Mannheim Road from the west under stop sign control
and is located approximately 80 feet north of Pratt Street. This full access drive allows northbound
Mannheim Road to westbound left-turn movements.
The traffic capacity analyses indicate that under both existing and projected conditions, exiting
traffic from Pratt Street will operate at LOS E and F during the weekday morning and evening
peak hours, respectively. However, it should be noted that this is normal and expected for minor
roadways intersecting major roads such as Mannheim Road.
Attachment 10 Page 47 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 28
Further, field observations during both the weekday morning and weekday evening peak hours
show the following:
Vehicle gaps in through traffic on Mannheim Road were observed throughout each peak
hour. This is primarily due to the traffic signals at Lunt Avenue to the north and Higgins
Road (IL Route 72) to the south, which effectively platoon the through traffic along
Mannheim Road, thereby creating additional gaps in traffic for vehicles to both exit from
Pratt Street onto Mannheim Road and for southbound vehicles desiring to turn left onto
Pratt Street or northbound vehicles desiring to turn left onto the Hyatt Place access drive.
A southbound left-turn lane on Mannheim Road is not recommended given the existing offset
alignment of Pratt Street with the hotel access drive to the north. Providing a southbound left-turn
lane at Pratt Street will impact northbound left-turn movements at the Hyatt access drive, which
has an offset T-intersection approximately 80 feet to the north of Pratt Street.
Maple Street/Curtis Street with Pratt Street
As noted, Maple Street T-intersects Pratt Street from the north, slightly offset to the east of Curtis
Street, which T-intersects Pratt Street from the south. All four approaches are under stop sign
control. Further, the intersection provides high-visibility crosswalks on both the north and west
legs of the Maple Street/Pratt Street intersection. The capacity analyses show that this offset
intersection will continue to operate at LOS A under projected conditions. Further, the
development is projected to generate a low volume of traffic through this intersection and within
the neighborhood. As such, this intersection has sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the
projected volumes and no traffic control or roadway improvements are needed or recommended
at this intersection.
Proposed East Access Drive with Pratt Street
The proposed east full-access drive serving the site will be located approximately 330 feet east of
Mannheim Road and will provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane under stop sign control.
The capacity analyses show that the northbound approach will operate at LOS A during the
weekday morning peak hour and at LOS B during the weekday evening peak hour. No
improvements to Pratt Street to provide a westbound left-turn lane or an eastbound right-turn lane
are needed or recommended.
Proposed West Access Drive with Pratt Street
The proposed west full-access drive serving the site will be located approximately 155 feet east of
Mannheim Road and will provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane under stop sign control.
The capacity analyses show that the northbound approach will operate at LOS A during the
weekday morning peak hour and at LOS B during the weekday evening peak hour. No
improvements to Pratt Street to provide a westbound left-turn lane or an eastbound right-turn lane
are needed or recommended.
Attachment 10 Page 48 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 29
The queue analysis at the Mannheim Road/Pratt Street intersection shows that the westbound
queue on Pratt Street may extend east of the proposed access drive. However, it is important to
note the following:
As indicated previously, the Pratt Street approach will likely operate better than the
capacity analysis indicates due to the additional gaps provided by the traffic signals at
Higgins Road (IL 72) and Lunt Avenue.
The access drive has adequate stacking that can accommodate internal queuing on the
access drive without impeding internal circulation in and around the proposed
development.
Proposed Restricted Access Drive with Mannheim Road
The proposed restricted access drive serving the site will be located approximately 170 feet south
of Pratt Street and will provide one inbound lane and one outbound lane under stop sign control.
The access will be designed to physically restrict and channelize vehicles to make right-in/right-
out only turning movements. The capacity analyses show that this intersection will operate at LOS
B during the morning and evening peak hours.
Attachment 10 Page 49 of 50
Proposed Mannheim/Pratt Retail Development
Des Plaines, Illinois 30
5. Conclusion
Based on the preceding analyses and recommendations, the following conclusions have been
made:
The proposed development-generated traffic will be consistent and compatible with traffic
patterns and volumes in the area.
The proposed restaurant land uses typically attract a significant amount of its traffic from
the existing traffic on the adjacent roadway network en route to another destination. As
such, the net new traffic the subject development is proposed to generate is reduced.
The proposed access system to serve the development will help disperse the development-
generated traffic onto the surrounding roadway network and provide alternatives for the
site traffic to enter and exit the development.
A southbound left-turn lane on Mannheim Road is not recommended given the existing
offset alignment of Pratt Street with the hotel access drive to the north. Providing a
southbound left-turn lane at Pratt Street will impact northbound left-turn movements at the
Hyatt access drive, which has an offset T-intersection approximately 80 feet to the north
of Pratt Street.
No traffic control or roadway improvements are recommended at the signalized
intersection of Mannheim Road with Lunt Avenue or at the offset, all-way stop sign
controlled intersection of Maple Street/Curtis Street with Pratt Street.
The two proposed full access drives off Pratt Street will each provide one inbound lane and
one outbound lane under stop sign control. No improvements on Pratt Street are needed or
recommended.
The proposed restricted access off Mannheim Road will provide one inbound lane and one
outbound lane under stop sign control. The access drive will be designed to physically
restrict and channelize vehicles to right-in/right-out only turning movements.
The site layout allows for efficient internal circulation and access to the three proposed
access drives serving the development.
The proposed pick-up lane serving the quick-service restaurant will have a
counterclockwise rotation and a bypass lane for vehicles to exit from the queue. The
proposed stacking for the pick-up lane will be adequate.
Attachment 10 Page 50 of 50
COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1420 Miner Street
Des Plaines, IL 60016
P: 847.391.5380
desplaines.org
Date: September 21, 2021
To: Planning and Zoning Board (PZB)
From: John T. Carlisle, AICP, Economic Development Manager
Cc: Jonathan Stytz, Planner
Subject: Case 21-042-TA-V: Zoning Text Amendments and Variation to Allow a New Electronic
Message Board Billboard in the Southeast Portion of the Proposed Development at Mannheim
Road and Pratt Avenue (2805-2845 Mannheim)
Issue: The petitioner and contract purchaser of 3.8 acres at the southeast corner of Mannheim Road and Pratt
Avenue (2805-2845 Mannheim Road) proposes erecting a new electronic message board billboard in concert
with a proposal for a restaurant-retail development (Case 21-041-MAP-TSUB-V). The petitioner is requesting
approval of text amendments to two Sections of the Zoning Ordinance to allow the project: 1.) To Section 12-
11-5.H, which currently allows electronic message board billboards only through the conversion of existing
static billboards, and 2.) to 12-11-6.B to increase the maximum number of billboard permits that can be issued
citywide from 12 to 13, as well as an exemption from the 600-square-foot limitation for all signage on lots of
5 acres or less. Finally, the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow a portion of a billboard to be within 300
feet of a residential property line (approximately 127 feet).
PINs: 09-33-300-001-0000; 09-33-300-002-0000; 09-33-300-003-0000; 09-33-300-
004-0000; 09-33-300-005-0000; 09-33-300-006-0000; 09-33-300-007-0000;
09-33-300-008-0000; 09-33-300-009-0000; 09-33-301-014-0000; 09-33-301-
015-0000
Petitioner: Image Des Plaines LLC (Contact: Mike Scheid, Image Media, 5101 Darmstadt
Rd. Suite A Hillside, IL)
Owner: Prominence Des Plaines LLC, 1375 Remington Rd, Suite E, Schaumburg, IL
60173
Existing Zoning: C-2 Limited Office District (proposed as C-3 General Commercial District)
Surrounding Zoning: North: C-3, General Commercial District
South: C-3, General Commercial District
East: C-3, General Commercial District
West: Commercial (Village of Rosemont)
Surrounding Land Use North: Commercial (banquet hall)
MEMORANDUM
Page 1 of 28Page 1 of 28
South: Tollway; Orchards at O’Hare commercial development
East: Railroad; ComEd facility
West: Commercial (hotel)
Street Classification Mannheim Road is an arterial road, and Pratt Avenue is a local road.
Comprehensive Plan Commercial is the recommended use of the property
Project Description: Image Des Plaines LLC is contract purchaser of the approximately 3.8-acre site
at the southeast corner of Mannheim Road and Pratt Avenue, roughly bordered
by the Canadian National rail line on the east and I-90/Tollway on the south.
Aside from an existing electronic message board billboard in the southwest
corner of the site, it is currently vacant, despite having received redevelopment
interest in the past (most notably for a La Quinta Inn motel that did not
materialize). As depicted in Attachment 6, in the southeast corner of the site the
petitioner intends to erect a new electronic message board billboard, not to
exceed 99 feet in height, with two 1,200-square-foot sign faces aimed at both
directions of I-90 traffic. The last new, additional billboard permitted by the
City was in 2005 by Ordinance Z-24-05. The new billboard would be wholly
part of Lot 4 in the subdivision proposed in the Tentative Plat that is part of the
application for Case 21-041-MA-TSUB-V. Permitting and erecting the
billboard is integral to the financing for the restaurant-and-retail proposal
inherent to that application.
However, permitting the billboard requires 1.) a text amendment to Section 12-
11-5 to allow an electronic message board as an initial installation, as currently
they may only occur through conversions of existing static, non-electronic
billboards; 2.) a text amendment to Section 12-11-6 to increase the maximum
number of total billboard permits (both static and electronic message board)
within the City from 12 to 13; 3.) another text amendment to 12-11-6 to exempt
all billboards from the signage limitation of 600 square feet on lots of less than
5 acres; and 4.) a variation from the provision that requires at least 300 feet
between any portion of a billboard and a residential property line. The closest
portion of the proposed billboard “V” (i.e. two sign faces) is the northeast
corner. Per the measurement method of the Ordinance, the billboard is 127 feet
from residentially zoned property, which is PIN 09-33-302-002, an
unimproved, wooded property owned by ComEd. However, the closest lot line
of a property improved with a residence is 316 feet away. Based on staff review,
the proposed billboard would meet the other zoning and location requirements,
which generally include:
- The proposed location must be on a lot zoned C-1, C-2, C-3, M-1 M-2 or
M-3 (the subject site is currently zoned C-2 and proposed as C-3);
- The billboard must be within 660 feet of I-90 or I-294
- The proposed billboard must satisfy the spacing requirements of the Illinois
Advertising Control Act
- All third-party government approvals must be obtained
Page 2 of 28Page 2 of 28
The applicant has already sought approval from the Illinois Department of Transportation
and the Federal Aviation Administration. However, no billboard can be constructed on this
property without first obtaining approval from the City of Des Plaines. The proposed text
amendments are in Attachment 2.
Standards for Text Amendments:
The standards for amendments are contained in Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance. The following is
a discussion of those standards. See also the applicant’s responses to standards in Attachment 3.
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city council;
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan does not specifically mention billboards but does call out an economic
development vision for “a variety of retail, dining, and entertainment options, with special focus on major
commercial corridors….” These amendments, which are narrowly aimed at a specific sign on a specific site
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall character
of existing development;
Comment: Allowing only one additional billboard, in the proposed location, would be compatible with the
general character of commercial properties directly next to the Tollway, where billboards are common.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and
services available to this subject property;
Comment: The petitioner’s site plan shows an access easement to get to the proposed billboard for
maintenance or emergency purposes. Further, the property overall is easy for public safety or Public Works
crews to access because it is at the visible corner of Mannheim and Pratt. The billboard structure will not
be permitted to interfere with any infrastructure, above- or underground.
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout
the jurisdiction;
Comment: The proposed amendments enable the installation of only one new billboard in a specific
location, so the only properties across the city that would be affected are those with residents who may be
able to see it. However, the many trees and railroad area that separate the proposed billboard from the
single-family residential development along Central Avenue and Sycamore Street are likely to provide
adequate screening. Further, the rules in the existing ordinance limit the luminescence level detectable
outside of the property line, and these are not proposed to change. The petitioner has submitted a lighting
study, which indicates compliance with the luminescence limitations.
It appears more likely that the reactivation of a long-vacant site – which is generally a drag on property
values – may be more beneficial to the property values of the area than any concerns generated by the
billboard.
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth.
Comment: The amendments are deliberate and narrow, particularly by extending the allowance for new
billboards by only one. They would not lead to an over-proliferation of billboards.
Page 3 of 28Page 3 of 28
Standards for Variation:
The standards for variations contained in Section 12-3-6.H of the Zoning Ordinance are discussed below. See
also the petitioner’s responses in Attachment 4.
1. Hardship: Carrying out the strict letter of the provisions of this title would create a particular
hardship or a practical difficulty;
Comment: For the new proposed billboard to be the minimum distance according to state spacing
requirements from the existing on-site billboard, it must be located in the far southeast corner of the subject
property. Further, the southeast portion of the site least intrusive with the affiliated proposed restaurant-
and-retail development. Those factors necessitate locating the sign within 300 feet of a residential property
line.
2. Unique Physical Condition: The subject lot is exceptional as compared to other lots subject to the
same provision by reason of a unique physical condition, including presence of an existing use,
structure, or sign, whether conforming or nonconforming; irregular or substandard shape or size;
exceptional topographical features; or other extraordinary physical conditions peculiar to and
inherent in the subject lot that amount to more than a mere inconvenience to the owner and that
relate to or arise out of the lot rather than the personal situation of the current owner of the lot.
Comment: The site’s boundary with the Tollway is a diagonal line, as is its boundary with the railroad. With
respect to billboards, they are only logical and permissible when directly next to an expressway. Further,
as addressed under the “hardship/practical difficulty” standard, because of the location of the existing
billboard on the site, a second billboard would have to be sited in the southeast corner, where it would run
afoul of the 300-foot-minimum distance. There is also underground public sanitary sewer, access to which
must be maintained.
3. Not Self-Created: The aforesaid unique physical condition is not the result of any action or inaction
of the owner or its predecessors in title and existed at the time of the enactment of the provisions
from which a variance is sought or was created by natural forces or was the result of governmental
action, other than the adoption of this title.
Comment: The location of all infrastructure was established by other public and private entities, and
necessitates the location of the billboard in its proposed location.
4. Denied Substantial Rights: The carrying out of the strict letter of the provision from which a variance
is sought would deprive the owner of the subject lot of substantial rights commonly enjoyed by
owners of other lots subject to the same provision.
Comment: The strict letter of the provision does not take into consideration a residentially zoned piece of
land that is unlikely to actually be developed and inhabited by residents. The location of the billboard at
316 feet from the lot line of the nearest actual house meets the intent of the Ordinance. Other billboard
permittees in the past likely did not have a scenario similar to the one necessitating a variation in this case.
5. Not Merely Special Privilege: The alleged hardship or difficulty is neither merely the inability of the
owner or occupant to enjoy some special privilege or additional right not available to owners or
occupants of other lots subject to the same provision, nor merely the inability of the owner to make
more money from the use of the subject lot.
Comment: While the strict application encompasses all residentially zoned property, the intent of the 300-
foot-rule is to provide ample space between a residence and a billboard. Granting this variation would not
compromise that intent and therefore not grant a special privilege compared to other billboard owners.
Page 4 of 28Page 4 of 28
6.Title And Plan Purposes: The variation would not result in a use or development of the subject lot
that would be not in harmony with the general and specific purposes for which this title and the
provision from which a variation is sought were enacted or the general purpose and intent of the
comprehensive plan.
Comment: The variation would enable the billboard, which would enable a restaurant-and-retail
development on the site, which is supported by the Comprehensive Plan.
7.No Other Remedy: There is no means other than the requested variation by which the alleged
hardship or difficulty can be avoided or remedied to a degree sufficient to permit a reasonable use of
the subject lot.
Comment: Because of regulatory and practical factors, this proposed location of the billboard is the only
reasonable location.
8.Minimum Required: The requested variation is the minimum measure of relief necessary to alleviate
the alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of this title.
Comment: Only the moving of the billboard to the west and north would lessen the need for relief, and for
reasons stated under other standards, this move would not be practical.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Pursuant to Sections 12-3-7(D)3 of the Zoning Ordinance,
the PZB may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council
has final authority over the text amendments and variation.
Should the PZB recommend and/or the City Council approve the request, staff suggests the following
conditions for the variation:
1.The billboard permit shall not be issued until and unless construction has commenced for the proposed
restaurant and retail development at 2805-2845 Mannheim, proposed through Case 21-041-MAP-
TSUB-V.
2.The elevation drawing is revised so the billboard will not exceed 99 feet in height.
3.All required IDOT and FAA approvals are completed and obtained for the current, up-to-date
proposal. Approvals from previous proposals will not be accepted by the City if no longer valid.
Attachments
Attachment 1: Location/Zoning Map
Attachment 2: Proposed Text Amendments
Attachment 3: Responses to Text Amendment Standards
Attachment 4: Responses to Variation Standards
Attachment 5: Project Narrative
Attachment 6: Plat of Survey including Site Plan for Billboard
Attachment 7: Distance to Residential Property
Attachment 8: Staff Photos
Attachment 9: Elevation Drawing of Proposed Billboard
Attachment 10: Lighting Study
Attachment 11: Illinois Department of Transportation and
Federal Aviation Administration Documents
Page 5 of 28Page 5 of 28
Attachment 1 Page 6 of 28Page 6 of 28
Proposed additions are bold and double-underlined. Proposed deletions are struck through. Some
surrounding unamended text is included for context.
##
12-11-5: SIGN STANDARDS BY SIGN TYPE
H.Electronic Message Board Billboard: A new electronic message board billboard may be
permitted subject to the standards and regulations for billboards and electronic message
board billboards set forth in section 12-11-6 of this chapter. The static billboard panels of a
qualified non-electronic billboard may be converted to electronic message board panels only
pursuant to an electronic message board billboard permit issued by the City, and subject to the
standards and regulations for electronic message board billboards set forth in section 12-11-6 of
this chapter. For the purposes of this subsection, a qualified billboard must meet the following
criteria:
1.The billboard was erected prior to the effective date of this subsection. If the billboard is
relocated in accordance with subsection 12-11-10C of this chapter, the date the billboard
was originally erected, prior to relocation, will be determinative.
2.The billboard must be a legally conforming billboard. For the purposes of this subsection
only, an applicant for an electronic message board billboard permit may establish that
the existing billboard is legally conforming by either:
a.Providing proof that the existing billboard was erected pursuant to a valid permit
issued by the City; or
b.Providing documentation to show that the existing billboard conforms with all of the
standards and regulations as set forth for billboards in section 12-11-6 of this chapter except for
the permit requirement.
c.Notwithstanding section 12-11-10 of this chapter, if a billboard is not legally conforming
in accordance with subsection H2a or H2b of this section, the removal and replacement of the
sign in the same location for the sole purpose of converting the static panels to electronic
message board panels is permitted only as a conditional use pursuant to section 12-3-4 of this
title, and subject to the standards and regulations for electronic message board billboards as set
forth in section 12-11-6 of this chapter.
3.The billboard must have a valid IDOT sign permit.
4.The billboard must be located within six hundred sixty feet (660') of I-90 or I-294.
##
12-11-6: REGULATION BY DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION:
B.Commercial, Manufacturing And Institutional Districts:
Sign Type Number, Height, And Other Limitations2
Billboards
Billboards shall be permitted only within the C-1, C-2, C-
3, M-1, M-2 and I-1 districts and located within 660 feet
of I-90 and I-294 toll roads.
Attachment 2 Page 7 of 28Page 7 of 28
Structure must be in compliance with the Illinois
department of transportation regulations and a valid
current IDOT permit must be presented with the
application for city permits.
The city shall cause to be permitted no more than 12 13
permits for outdoor advertising structures (billboards)
under subsection 12-11-3C3, "Billboard Permits", of this
chapter. The thirteenth billboard shall be permitted
only in substantial conformance with exhibits to
amendatory Ordinance Z-XX-21, as of which all 13 As
of amendatory ordinance Z-24-05, all 12 permits have
been allocated to permittees. (This Ordinance number
will be updated if the text amendment is successful and
there are 13 permits allocated.)
Total surface area of the signs shall not exceed 1,200
square feet per face and 2,400 total square feet for a
double faced sign.
Height of the sign shall not exceed 99 feet from the base
of the pole to the top of the structure or 65 feet from the
surface of the pavement of the lane closest to the
structure, except as otherwise provided by a limited
variation ordinance adopted by council.
All billboards must meet the spacing requirements as
required by the Illinois advertising control act.
No portion of a billboard shall be allowed within 300 feet
of a residential property line. This distance shall be
measured at ground level from a line perpendicular to
the closest part of the billboard to the residential property
line.
. . .
Electronic message board
billboards
The electronic message board panel must not exceed
the square footage of the static panel replaced by the
electronic message board panel or 1,200 sq. ft.,
whichever is less.
The electronic message board panel must not exceed
the square footage of the static panel replaced by the
electronic message board panel or 1,200 sq. ft.,
whichever is less.
The electronic message board must be adequately
screened from any residential zoning district.
Attachment 2 Page 8 of 28Page 8 of 28
The electronic message board panel may only face the I-
90 or I-294 rights-of-way.
The applicant must submit an affidavit stating that all
required permits or approvals from IDOT, the FAA, or
any other government or regulatory agency or body with
proper jurisdiction, have been obtained for the proposed
electronic message board billboard.
The images and text displayed on the electronic
message board may be changed no more frequently
than once every 10 seconds or as established by
Federal or State guidelines for digital signage along an
interstate, whichever is greater. Each change must be
completed in 1 second or less.
Sounds, animation, moving video, flashing, blinking,
spinning, or any other appearance of movement are
prohibited.
The sign must possess an ambient light sensor and
utilize automatic dimming capabilities so that the
maximum luminescence level is not more than 0.3 foot
candle over ambient light levels measured as close to
perpendicular to the sign face as possible and measured
from the appropriate distance as set forth in the table
below:
Sign Face Size Distance From
Which To Measure
Under 300 sq. ft.
300 - 385 sq. ft.
386 - 680 sq. ft.
681 - 1,200 sq. ft.
150'
200'
250'
350'
The applicant, with written permission from the
landowner, must apply for and obtain the following
permits from the City prior to performing any alterations
to the existing billboard: 1) a building permit for the
electronic message board panels and support structure;
and 2) an electronic message board billboard sign
permit. Plans prepared by a licensed structural engineer
must be submitted with the permit application.
City sponsored messages must be made available for
display on the electronic message board on a regular
rotation, as determined by agreement between the City
and the applicant. City sponsored messages include
without limitation Amber Alerts, FBI wanted messages,
weather alerts, and messages promoting City sponsored
Attachment 2 Page 9 of 28Page 9 of 28
events. The City sponsored messages will be displayed
at no cost to the City.
Notes:
1. In the case where there are multiple uses in a single structure (i.e., commercial strip
shopping center) 1 wall sign is permitted for each business, however the aggregate total
square footage of all signs shall not exceed the limits set forth in this section.
2. On parcels less than 5 acres, the total square footage area of all signs shall not exceed
600 square feet, not including area for static or electronic message board billboards.
Attachment 2 Page 10 of 28Page 10 of 28
STANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS
The Planning and Zoning Board and City Council review the particular facts and circumstances of each
proposed Text Amendment in terms of the following standards. Keep in mind that in responding to the
questions below, you are demonstrating that the proposed text change is appropriate for the entire
jurisdiction, not just a particular site. Please answer each question completely and thoroughly.
1.Is the proposed amendment consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan?
Yes the amendment and redevelopment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The current
contaminated, vacant, 3.81-acre parcel will be purchased by Image Des Plaines, LLC and GW Properties and
developed in accordance with Village staff requirements. Subject to amendment approval, Image Des
Plaines, LLC is contributing over 1-million dollars to the development partner, to offset the cost of purchase
and remediation.
2. Is the proposed amendment compatible with current conditions and the overall character of existing
development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property?
Yes, the proposed amendment is consistent with similar developments in the immediate vicinity. There
are numerous billboards through out the general area, including a sign immediately to the west. On the
south side of I-90 there are (4) four signs, spaced 500’ ft apart, beginning at Mannheim road and moving
East. To the East of subject site, a railroad and forested area exists to buffer residential properties. The
proposed sign will be positioned so as to have no impact on the residential area.
3.Is the proposed amendment appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services available
to the subject property?
Yes. No public facilities or services have been utilized to the vacant property over the past 20-years. The
redevelopment of this parcel will provide for enhanced services and facilities contributed by the developer,
ie: rebuild water lines, utilities etc.
4. Will the proposed amendment have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout Des Plaines?
No, the proposed amendment will have a positive effect. With the passage of the amendment, Image Des
Plaines, LLC and GW Properties will close on the property and begin the redevelopment process of the 3.8-
acre parcel. It is anticipated that three to four buildings consisting of restaurant and retail space, will take
place on this property, resulting in a net benefit to the surrounding properties and City of Des Plaines.
5. Does the proposed amendment reflect responsible standards for development and growth?
Yes. Billboards have been removed with no additional sites replacing them over the past few years. This
site was approved for a second billboard in 2004-2005. The redevelopment of the property will provide for
additional services to the community, clean-up an adverse health concern, and increase the tax base.
Attachment 3 Page 11 of 28Page 11 of 28
1
STANDARDS OF VARIATIONS
1.What would you describe as the hardship(s) that prevent you from being able to carry out
the strict letter of the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance?
The Zoning Ordinance requires a 300’ foot distance from the edge of an advertising sign
structure to a residential zoned lot. Our proposed sign is approximately 340’ feet to the
closest edge of a residential lot containing a residential dwelling. We are seeking relief
from arbitrary residential zoning which happens to be a ComEd substation as well as a
non-buildable lot which is also zoned residential. The distance from our sign to the middle
of Greco Ave, to the East is approximately 160’ feet. Our proposal does meet the “spirit”
of the ordinance by virtue of the approximate 340’ foot measurement to a utilized
residential lot. However, the strictest interpretation results in an approximate 140’ foot
shortfall when measured to the West of the ComEd distribution facility, and the center of
Greco Ave.
2.How do site conditions prevent the reasonable use of your land under the terms of the
Zoning Ordinance?
There are no apparent site conditions which prevent our proposed use of the land for our
billboard development. There are no utilities or topographic issues, etc. However the
overall 3.8 acre subject property does contain significant contamination. It is anticipated
the developer/co-buyer of the property will use our significant easement purchase
revenue to offset required remediation costs. Without our substantial financial
contribution, the property may remain undeveloped for the foreseeable future.
3.To the best of your knowledge, can you affirm that the physical condition of your property
was not created by an action of anyone having property interests in the land after the
Zoning Ordinance of 1998 was adopted, or as the result of other governmental action, or
was created by natural forces:
Yes. It is our understanding prior to the property consolidation in the early 2000’s there
was significant contamination activity by a number of the individual parcel owners. The
current ownership including Image Des Plaines, LLC did not contribute to the
contamination but will ultimately have to pay for its removal.
4.How would the denial of the variation deprive you from rights enjoyed by other pers ons
subject to the same provisions?
The utilized residential properties approximately 340’ feet to the East are effected to
some degree by the three (3) billboard sites on the south side of the expressway which
Attachment 4 Page 12 of 28Page 12 of 28
2
face towards their properties. The closest of these signs is approximately 330’ feet from
residential. Although our sign is a similar distance to the occupied residential dwellings
there are additional physical barriers between our proposed sign and the residents. The
railroad crossing barrier as well as a heavily wooded area of approximately 275’ feet lies
between our sign site and the residential to the East. The existing trees are taller than the
height of our sign and provide a natural screening. Finally and most significantly, our
Eastern facing sign display will be positioned in a Southeasterly direction which will
minimalize its visibility to the residential property to the East. Due to these factors, we
believe our proposed sign will be less impactful than the three (3) existing signs on the
South side of the highway.
5. Is the requested variation the minimum measure of relief necessary to alleviate the
alleged hardship or difficulty presented by the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance?
Yes. We are seeking the recognition that the 300’ foot spacing measurement was
intended to be measured from a sign to an occupied residential zone. In the above
circumstance we are approximately 340’ feet away. In the alternative, we are seeking an
acknowledgement that the 160’ foot spacing from our sign to the nearest residential
zoning (which is the middle of Greco Ave.) is extremely misleading due to the fact that
the ComEd distribution facility lies between Greco Ave. and occupied residential zoning
East of Sycamore St. The ComEd distribution facility is not an appropriate use for a
residential district.
6. Will the granting of the variation be in harmony with the neighborhood and the provisions
of the Zoning Ordinance from which it is being sought?
We believe the variance will enhance the property by virtue of the financial contribution
Image Des Plaines, LLC is contributing to the property’s redevelopment. In addition to the
natural forested barrier between our sign site and the residential district the economic
influx that Image Des Plaines, LLC is contributing to the project will result in a grouping of
two (2) or three (3) restaurants and retail space, which will not only benefit the
surrounding neighbors but will add needed tax revenues to the City of Des Plaines as well.
Attachment 4 Page 13 of 28Page 13 of 28
Attachment 5 Page 14 of 28Page 14 of 28
Attachment 6 Page 15 of 28Page 15 of 28
Attachment 7 Page 16 of 28
Staff Photos
Looking west at proposed billboard area from
Central and Sycamore, in front of nearest
residential homes to proposed billboard
Looking west from Central, mid-block
Approximate location of the proposed billboard
Attachment 8 Page 17 of 28Page 17 of 28
Attachment 9 Page 18 of 28
August 24, 2021
Background on Optical Measurements and Calculations
Watchfire Signs has manufactured outdoor electric signs since 1932 and led signs since 1996. We
have more than 60,000 led signs in operation worldwide.
Incandescent signs were commonly measured using illuminance measurements, partly because the
light bulb is ideally a point source of light, illuminating equally in all directions, and illuminance meters
are commonly available and inexpensive. Foot-candle measurements are made at a defined distance
from the sign and the magnitude depends on the physical size of the sign.
LED signs are highly directional however, which is an advantage in an urban setting since the light can
be directed more precisely to the intended audience. Luminance measurements have been used to
specify LED signs by the industry. The candela per square meter (NITs) unit allows a specification that
does not depend on size or viewing distance.
The study done on the sign adjacent to a residential area used actual lab measurements made on
modules using an illuminance meter. These measurements and extrapolations are then scaled up to
the size of the sign and the distance corrections are made using the inverse square law.
Watchfire adopted brightness standards set forth by both the ISA (International sign Association) and
OAAA (Outdoor Advertising Association of America). The standards used are based on the studies of
Dr. Lewin and the IESNA (Illuminating Engineering Society of North America).
Below is a list of some of the measurement equipment used by Watchfire engineers.
Equipment used by Watchfire engineers to make lighting measurements:
Foot-candles/Lux - Minolta Illuminance Meter T-10
NITs/candela/sq. m – Minolta Luminance Meter LS-100
Sign Calibration – Minolta CS-1000 Spectra radiometer
Attachment 10 Page 19 of 28Page 19 of 28
SIGN LIGHTING STUDY
Sign Details
Size: 20’x60’ Digital Billboard
Location: City of Des Plaines
Light measurements are completed in foot-candles. A foot-candle is the amount of light produced by a
single candle when measured from 1 foot away. For reference two 400-watt metal halide lights produce
15 foot-candles each at an average mounting height of 50 feet. Compare to the table below for light
output of proposed digital billboard.
The table represents the total increase in ambient light produced by the sign under normal or typical
operation at night. The ambient light increases will be less than shown in the chart since they fail to
consider any objects blocking the line of site to the sign. Obstructions such as trees would further
reduce real world overall ambient light increases. In addition to obstructions any existing light within the
viewing cone will further diminish any light increase.
Light values in foot-candles at night under typical operation
0 degrees 20 degrees 40 degrees 60 degrees 75 degrees
100’ 0.8883 0.7328 0.4948 0.2238 0.0444
200’ 0.2221 0.1832 0.1237 0.0560 0.0111
300’ 0.0987 0.0814 0.0550 0.0249 0.0049
400’ 0.0555 0.0458 0.0309 0.0140 0.0028
500’00 0.0375 0.0309 0.0209 0.0095 0.0019
Attachment 10 Page 20 of 28Page 20 of 28
Attachment 10 Page 21 of 28Page 21 of 28
Conclusion
Given the above comparisons and measurements, the area will see an almost undetectable difference in ambient
light after installation of the digital led displays. Light levels at the nearest residential structure will be a fraction of
the recommended 0.3 foot-candles. Ambient light levels are more heavily impacted by street, building, and
landscape lights than the increases produced by a LED display.
Ray Digby
Office 800-637-2645, ext. 3006
email ray.digby@watchfiresigns.com
Attachment 10 Page 22 of 28Page 22 of 28
Attachment 11 Page 23 of 28Page 23 of 28
Attachment 11 Page 24 of 28Page 24 of 28
Attachment 11 Page 25 of 28Page 25 of 28
Attachment 11 Page 26 of 28Page 26 of 28
Attachment 11 Page 27 of 28Page 27 of 28
Attachment 11 Page 28 of 28Page 28 of 28