Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZB 4.28.26 Mtg Mins-appdCASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, April 28, 2026 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. Acting Chairman Catalano called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and a roll call was established. PRESENT: Veremis, Weaver, Fowler, Fallico, Zadrozny and Catalano ABSENT: Szabo ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Stytz, AICP, Senior Planner Marc Rostan, AICP, Associate Planner Jonathan Mendel, AICP, Assistant Director A quorum was present. APPROVAL OF APRIL 14, 2026 PZB MEETINGS MINUTES Member Fowler moved and Member Zadrozny seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. AYES: Veremis, Weaver, Fowler, Zadrozny, and Catalano NAYS: None ABSTAIN: Fallico ***MOTION CARRIED*** PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM There was no public comment. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS Assistant Director Jonathan Mendel provided the following updates and general communication: April 20, 2026 City Council meeting results: • Approved Text Amendments to the City Code, Title 12, Zoning Regarding Regulations for Off-Street Parking, Accessory Uses Related to EV Readiness and Drive-Through Facility Operation and Layout Design Regulations – 2nd Reading (from the March 10, 2026 PZB recommendation) CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: • 23-045-FPLAT-CU-LASR – 2741 Mannheim Rd. – Minor Change to LASR Plan to add signs – Approved • 26-011-V – 75 Bender Rd. – Minor Variation to allow a fence taller than four feet within the corner side yard – Denied • 26-015-V – 1440 Rand Rd. – Minor Variation to allow the existing commercial building’s façade transparency as required per City Code Sec. 12-3-11.D.1 & Table 1 – Approved PENDING APPLICATIONS: 1. Addresses: 240, 280, and 310 Potter Road Case Number: 26-012-TPLAT-PPUD-CU Petitioner requested continuance to the May 12, 2026 scheduled PZB meeting The petitioner requests: (i) a Tentative Plat to consolidate the existing five lots into one lot of record; (ii) a preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) to add a new multi-purpose building on the subject property; (iii) a Conditional Use to allow a residentially zoned assembly use on the subject property; and (iv) any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. Petitioner/Owner: Chicago Mar Thoma Church (Representatives: Matthew Varghese and Dr. Abraham George, 240 Potter Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016) Acting Chairman Catalano explained the applicant’s request for a continuance to the May 12, 2026 scheduled PZB meeting. Member Zadrozny moved and Member Veremis seconded a motion to approve the continuance of the zoning request to the May 12, 2026 PZB meeting. AYES: Weaver, Veremis, Fowler, Fallico, Zadrozny and Catalano NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** 2. Address: 33 N. Sixth Avenue Case Number: 26-013-V  The petitioner requests a major variation to allow a driveway width that exceeds the maximum driveway width for residences with a three-car-wide garage, and any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. Petitioner: Judith Covarrubias, 33 N. Sixth Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owners: Adam Covarrubias and Mazana Covarrubias, 33 N. Sixth Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Acting Chairman Catalano opened the public hearing and swore-in the petitioner - Judith Covarrubias Ms. Covarrubias gave a simple outline of her request. CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 3 Acting Chair Catalano assisted the petitioner to explain and clarify her request for the record and Acting Chair Catalano tried to explain the existing and proposed conditions of the subject property and was able, through extended back and forth, to clarify for the record the Petitioner’s request. Acting Chair Catalano asked for any PZB member questions. Member Veremis asked the Petitioner if she has four cars and the RV. Ms. C. stated they only have three garages in the garage and Member Veremis stated the Petitioner only needs the extra driveway and pavement for parking the RV. Ms. C confirmed this as outlined in her request and the RV has been parked in this location since probably 1998. Acting Chairman Catalano asked the staff to clarify the staff report outlining her two variation requests. Acting Chairman Catalano asked for the staff report. Senior Planner Jonathan Stytz presented the staff analysis. Issue: The petitioner requests major variations to: (i) permit a second residential driveway in the R-1 Single Family Residential district, where only one driveway is permitted, and (ii) allow a 34- foot-wide driveway, where the maximum residential driveway width for a three-car-wide garage is 26 feet. Petitioner: Judith Covarrubias, 33 N. Sixth Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owners: Adam Covarrubias and Mazana Covarrubias, 33 N. Sixth Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Case Number: #26-013-V PIN: 09-07-421-010-0000 Ward Number: #7, Alderman Patsy Smith Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence (residential) Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, Single Family Residential District South: R-1, Single Family Residential District East: R-1, Single Family Residential District West: R-1, Single Family Residential District Surrounding Land Uses: North: Single Family Residences (residential) CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 4 South: Single Family Residences (residential) East: Single Family Residences (residential) West: Single Family Residences (residential) Street Classification: Sixth Avenue is classified as a local road under City of Des Plaines jurisdiction. Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates this site as residential. Property/Zoning History: Overview The property at 33 N. Sixth Avenue was annexed into the City in 1927 as vacant land. Aerial imagery indicates that the subject property and the surrounding properties were developed with a residential neighborhood around 19511. Since then, the subject property has been utilized for a single-family residence. The original development included a one-car-wide detached garage facing west and accessed by the alley along the south property line via a curvilinear driveway (Driveway 1). However, in 1996 the original detached garage was replaced with a new 640- square-foot, three-car-wide detached garage facing south and accessed via a new driveway apron (Driveway 2) from the alley. Driveway 1 was not removed and still exists on site today but is in disrepair. Non-Permitted Vehicle Parking Staff had been made aware of a recreational vehicle (RV) on the subject property that was parked partially on the original curvilinear driveway and partially in the grass in violation of Sections 12-9-6.B.3.k and 10-9-2 of the Municipal Code requiring all vehicles to be parked on approved dust-free hard surfaces such as asphalt, concrete, or brick pavers. A review of aerial imagery confirmed that a RV has been parked and stored in this manner since 2005. A notice of violation was sent to the property owner on October 1, 2025 and, after receiving no response from the owner, staff issued a ticket and set an administrative hearing date for November 13, 2025. At the November 13, 2025 hearing, the case was continued to the December 5, 2025 administrative hearing and an inspection was later scheduled for November 17, 2025. This on-site inspection confirmed the illegal parking of the RV on the subject property requiring either the removal of the RV or an adjustment of the existing driveway area to accommodate the RV. Active Hard Surface Permit and Major Variation Submittal In November 2025, a hard surface permit was received to expand the existing nonconforming curvilinear driveway (Driveway 1) to accommodate the RV requiring a major variation. A complete major variation application was received in March 2026 and is described in more detail below. Aside from the extension of Driveway 1, the attached Proposed Site Plan also indicates the widening of Driveway 2 to 34 feet, which exceeds the maximum driveway width and requires a separate major variation. 1 Historic Aerials. https://www.historicaerials.com/location/41.625/-87.875/T1890/16. Retrieved April 22, 2026. CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 5 MAJOR VARIATIONS Request Description: Overview The petitioner requests a major variation from Section 12-9-6.B.3.b(2) of the Zoning Ordinance, which limits the width of all residential driveways for properties with a three-car-wide garage to 26 feet. Residential driveways, as defined below, are governed by Section 12-9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance. RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY: An approved hard surface that allows for a vehicular connection from an off street parking space, including a garage, carport, parking pad, or approved parking area, to a street or alley (Section 12-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance). Existing Conditions The subject property currently contains multiple nonconforming aspects related to the width and number of residential driveways that currently exist on site. • Number of Driveways: Pursuant to Section 12-9-6.B.3.a of the Zoning Ordinance, a maximum of one driveway is allowed per zoning lot, and a maximum of one curb cut is allowed per driveway. An entrance from a public alley will be considered one curb cut for the purposes of this section. The subject property currently has two separate driveways each with their own curb cut onto the public alley, which does not conform with this regulation. While there are not sufficient records to confirm that both existing driveways were lawfully established, the expansion of one or both of these driveways requires a major variation. • Driveway Width: Pursuant to Section 12-9-6.B.3.b(3) of the Zoning Ordinance, properties improved with a single family detached dwelling and a three car wide garage are allowed to have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. The original curvilinear driveway does not exceed 16 feet in width and is compliant with this regulation. However, Driveway 2 installed with the new detached garage is 32 feet in width and the petitioner is looking to add a 2-foot-wide addition onto it, which requires a major variation. Proposed Driveway Expansion The current RV is 35 feet in length, 8.5 feet wide, and 11 feet tall. As such, the petitioner proposes replacing the existing curvilinear driveway with a new 39-foot-long by 8-foot-wide dust-free hard driveway surface to park the RV in compliance with Sections 12-9-6.B.3.k and 10-9-2 of the Municipal Code. The attached Site Plan shows the new driveway area, a new 13- foot-long by 2-foot-wide paved area along Driveway 2 to provide access from the garage side door to the alley, and a non-paved natural turf area in between. Consideration of Alternatives The subject property, along with many properties on this block, have narrower widths along the rear property line. That said, staff have noted that alternatives are available on the subject property in lieu of the requested variations: CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 6 • Alternative 1 – Store the RV off-site: The current RV size is too large for the current property size and development. Even shifting the existing detached garage to the north property line would not accommodate the garage and parking area for the 35-foot-long RV. As such, storing the RV on a separate lot approved for vehicle parking and storage would remove the current space issues on site but still allow the petitioner to utilize the RV when desired. • Alternative 2 – Replace the existing RV with a smaller RV: The 35-foot-long RV is too large to be accommodated on the subject property without substantial zoning relief. Conversely, a smaller/shorter RV could be stored on the subject property utilizing the existing nonconforming curvilinear driveway on the property. The Zoning Ordinance allows nonconforming structures such as driveways to be repaired and maintained as necessary to be kept in good working order. This would also reduce the addition of new impervious surfaces on site. Standards for Variation: The following is a discussion of standards for variations from Section 12-3-6(H) of the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposed use would satisfy the standards is provided below and in the petitioner’s response to standards. The PZB may use this rationale toward its recommendation, or the Board may make up its own. 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: There may not be a hardship or practical difficulty preventing the petitioner from complying with the off-street parking requirements and parking all vehicles on dust-free hard surfaces. While parking the RV in question on the subject property may be convenient for the property owner, the subject property is not developed and existing off-street parking areas are not designed to accommodate the 35-foot-long RV. In addition, the property owner’s heavy reliance on the RV for electrical needs during power outages is not a defined hardship or practical difficulty in relation to the off-street parking requirements but rather evidence of an underlying problem that should be addressed absent of the RV. As the request may not constitute a defined hardship or practical difficulty, approving the variation could undermine the off-street parking requirements and encourage other property owners to store oversized vehicles and install larger impervious pavement areas on properties that cannot accommodate them. 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: There may be no unique physical condition on the subject property that warrants the requested variation. While the subject property’s width along the rear property line (49 feet) is CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 7 less than the minimum 55 feet required for interior lots in the R-1 Single Family Residential district, this is consistent with the neighboring properties throughout this block, especially on the east side of Sixth Avenue where the subject property is located. In addition, even if the lot width was a minimum of 55 feet in width, there would still not be ample room to accommodate the 20- foot-deep garage with a minimum five foot setback and the 35-foot-long RV. Thus, the variation request appears to be more of a personal preference and convenience of the property owner instead of a definable physical condition. Nonetheless, 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: There may be no defined unique physical characteristic of the subject property in comparison with neighboring properties to warrant these variation requests. Moreover, the necessity to request these variations is the direct result of the purchase of the RV and intent to store it on the subject property without an approved parking space on site.. Any perceived unique physical conditions can be attributed to the development and design of the subject property, specifically the large 640-square-foot detached garage comprising a substantial portion of the rear yard and in a location that limits available driveway space for the outdoor parking of vehicles. As such, it is staff’s opinion that the proposal is an attempt to rectify issues directly created through the current property owner or a previous property owner’s installation of a large, detached garage and purchase of a larger RV on a property with existing size constraints and inability to properly accommodate it. Nonetheless, 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: Carrying out the strict letter of this code for off-street parking areas may not deprive the property owner of substantial rights. First, while some property owners may have larger lots or additional spaces for the parking of larger vehicles, such as RVs, having the ability to park or store an RV on a residential property is not, in and of itself, a right granted to property owners. In fact, the Zoning Ordinance specifically limits the number and size of off-street parking areas for single family residences in an effort to ensure that parking and storage of vehicles is scaled appropriately to property size and development. For instance, all properties within Des Plaines are governed by the same general requirements for residential driveways with the exception of driveway width which is dependent on the size of the garage (one-car-wide, two-car-wide, etc.). The subject property has a three-car-wide garage and largest driveway width allowance (26 feet) but is not designed properly to accommodate the parking of the RV. While enforcing these regulations does not deny property owners the opportunity to park and store vehicles, such as an RV, on the subject property, it does require vehicle parking to conform with the off-street CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 8 parking requirements. That said, denying these variation requests and enforcing the off-street parking area requirements would not deprive the property owner of any substantial rights. 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: Granting this variation could be considered to provide a special privilege for the property owner not available to other property owners in the city. While other properties may have existing non-conformities in relation to off-street parking areas that were established through earlier regulations—and have repaired said non-conformities regularly—this does not compare to the proposal on the subject property for new non-conformities created in direct violation of the current codes. The aforementioned consideration for the proposed driveway area in question illustrates that variation decisions are made on a case-by-case, project-by-project basis upon applying the variation standards. In those evaluations, the determining body looked to see if the petitioner exhausted alternative options that do not require a variation. In this case, the sheer size of the 35-foot-long RV would be difficult to store on any property. With this in mind, the PZB may consider whether it is appropriate to store a vehicle of this size on properties such as the subject property, especially when space does not allow for compliant parking or storage of that vehicle. 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: In general, the parking/storage of an oversized vehicle, such as an RV, on the subject property may not be harmonious with the existing development or character of the area. It can be argued that the parking or storage of the RV with minimal space on site and constricted access to public rights-of-way was done without concern with safety, adopted regulations, and harmony with surrounding development. While some residents own RVs and these vehicles can be parked on residential properties, they must comply with off-street parking requirements and the specific requirements outlined in Section 12-8-16 of the Zoning Ordinance. Aside from the off-street parking issues, the utilization of the RV for electrical supply as stated in the petitioner’s testimony is in violation of this section, which prohibits the use of an RV for living, sleeping, or other purposes (e.g., electricity) associated with dwelling units. In short, the proposal is neither harmonious with the Municipal Code, nor in alignment with the objectives and intent of 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: The Consideration of Alternatives section above identifies alternatives to the requested variations with a focus on making better use of the available space on the subject CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 9 property. While these options are available to the petitioner, out of convenience the petitioner requested approval of the proposed driveway expansion and new driveway area. Given the alternatives available to the petitioner and large size of the RV, the PZB may wish to ask why certain alternatives are not feasible. 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 variations requested may not be the minimum measure of relief to address the petitioner’s concerns. Instead, the oversized RV could be stored on a separate lot approved for vehicle parking and storage where there is ample space for larger vehicles but still access by the property owner to utilize the RV when desired, resulting in a better utilization of the current property and compliance with the applicable city ordinances. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-6.G.2.b (Procedure for Review and Decision of Major Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve or deny the major variation request. 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 Variation) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately approves the request, staff recommends the following conditions. Conditions of Approval: 1. At time of the building permit process, the Proposed Site Plan may be modified as necessary to comply with all local and state requirements, provided the size and location of the driveway area is not altered in any way. 2. All off-street parking areas on the subject property shall remain in compliance with all requirements for residential driveways set forth in Section 12-9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance. All vehicles must be parked on dust-free hard surfaces at all times. 3. The area between the proposed driveway and existing driveway shall be improved and maintained with natural turf and/or landscaping area with wood mulch and plantings in accordance with Section 12-10-6 of the Zoning Ordinance. No rocks, stone mulch, or gravel are permitted anywhere on site. Acting Chairman Catalano asked for PZB comments or questions. Member Veremis asked if the proposal is to remove the existing conditions for the proposed. Senior Planner Stytz outlined the permit and development history at this property resulting in the current proposal. The proposed improvements require the proposed major variation. Member Fallico did the current owners build the current three car garage. Ms. Covarrubias stated that yes her parents built the current detached garage in about 1996. CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 10 Member Fallico asked if they owned the current RV at that time. Ms. Covarrubias didn’t know the answer. Member Zadrozny stated the RV is needed for it’s generator and why not just get a separate house generator and does anyone live in it. Ms. Covarrubias they use it for its generator purposes when the power is out in their house and no one lives in it. Member Zadrozny asked how often the RV is used. Ms. Covarrubias stated her parents use it several times a year usually on holidays. Member Fallico if a 34 foot RV is permitted to be parked on residential properties. Senior Planner Stytz stated the current RV parking regulations in the zoning code and the maximum permitted RV length is 36 feet. Member Zadrozny stated then this RV would comply if parked on hard surface. Senior Planner Stytz confirmed this statement. Member Fallico stated under the current applicable driveway zoning regulations the existing conditions is not compliant. Senior Planner Stytz explained the maximum width driveway permitted for this property Member Zadrozny if there was a permit approved for the existing conditions – driveway and garage. Senior Planner Stytz confirmed that there was a permit in the past, but the permit. Member Fowler clarified they are only asking for two more feet of driveway width. Senior Planner Stytz confirmed this clarifying statement. Member Weaver asked what the two feet are needed for. Senior Planner Stytz stated it is for a walkway to the access the man door on the garage side. Member Weaver asked if the last plan is considered the site plan. Senior Planner clarified the proposed site plan is Attachment #7 to the staff report packet. CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 11 Some clarifying discussion of the proposed site plan ensued between the PZB, the petitioner and staff. Assistant Director Mendel asked Acting Chair Catalano to permit Senior Planner Stytz to finish his staff report presentation. Senior Planner Stytz finished his presentation. Member Weaver asked about the R-1 maximum impervious surface. Senior Planner Stytz confirmed this proposal is under the zoning’s maximum permitted 60% rear yard coverage regulations. Member Veremis would the proposed driveways be connected. Senior Planner Stytz stated the driveways will not be connected and not a continuous surface. Member Fallico asked about other variations approved for oversized and second driveways within the City. Senior Planner Stytz he has not experienced any recent such variation requests and approvals. Asst. Director Mendel stated there are many second driveway and/or oversized driveways throughout the City, especially on arterial roads, and most likely existing non-conforming. Also, for the record, variations don’t set precedent and approvals or existing conditions on other properties does not force approval on other properties. Member Fowler asked if an existing circular driveway has two aprons, it would be considered to have two driveways. Senior Planner Stytz confirmed this statement. Member Veremis what promoted this variation request if the RV has been parked this way since about 1998. Ms. Covarrubias stated it was due to a letter she received in October 2025 stating the RV’s current noncompliant conditions. Asst. Dir. Mendel stated this is the outcome of proactive informational actions by CED informing owners of the new zoning regulations for RV which was PZB recommended for approval and ultimately approved by the City Council in mid-2025. The Petitioner likely received these communications. Member Veremis asked if there were any comments from the public prior to this meeting. Senior Planner Stytz stated there were none so far. CASE NO. 26-012-PPUD-CU-TPLAT COND. USE/PRELIM. PUD/TENT. PLAT 240, 280, & 310 POTTER RD CASE NO. 26-013-V MAJOR VARIATION 33 N. SIXTH AVE 12 Member Fallico asked if the petitioner considered the alternatives Ms. Covarrubias stated they considered the alternatives, but decided the current variation request was best for them. Acting Chairman Catalano asked for public comment. There was none. Member Fowler moved and Member Veremis seconded a motion to recommend approval to the City Council both proposed driveway major variations with the staff proposed conditions of approval. AYES: Veremis, Fowler, and Zadrozny NAYS: Weaver, Catalano and Fallico ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION FAILED – RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL*** ADDITIONAL ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Acting Chairman Catalano adjourned the meeting by affirmative voice vote at 7:32 P.M. Sincerely, Jonthan Mendel, AICP, Assistant Director/Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners