Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZB 1.13.26 Mtg Minutes_appdCASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 1 DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING Tuesday, January 13, 2026 MINUTES The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 13, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center. Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and a roll call was established. PRESENT: Weaver, Fowler, Fallico, Veremis, and Szabo ABSENT: Catalano and Zadrozny ALSO PRESENT: Samantha Redman, Senior Planner Jeff Rogers, Director Jonathan Mendel, Assistant Director of CED Ryan Johnson, Assistant Director of CED A quorum was present. APPROVAL OF DECEMBER 9, 2025 PZB MEETING MINUTES Member Fowler moved and Member Fallico seconded a motion to approve the minutes as presented. AYES: Fowler, Weaver, Fallico, Veremis, and Szabo NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM There was no public comment. GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS Chairman Szabo provided the following updates: • Correction on PZB Calendar – Change September 8, 2026 to September 15, 2026 o Discussed at end of meeting • January 5, 2026 City Council meeting results: CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 2 o Ordinance Z-1-26 approving a Text Amendment to the C-7 District – Approved (6-1). final consideration on 01/20 o Ordinance Z-2-26 approving CUs for a PPUD and a LASR, TPLAT, and Variations for Costco Business Center & Fuel Center at 2200 & 2400 E Devon Ave – Approved (6-1) o Final Plat of Subdivision from Section 13-2-8 of the Subdivision Regulations to Split Two Lots into Four Lots with Variations for Lot Width at 2234 Webster Lane and 2247 Westview Drive – Approved (7-0) o Consideration of an Ordinance Approving Waivers from Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Requiring Connection to City Water Mains and Sanitary Sewer for EFN Des Plaines Property, LLC at 9661 West Golf Road – Denied (5-2) by City Council ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: None PENDING APPLICATIONS: Chairman Szabo introduced the cases on the agenda and noting that Case Number 25-046-TPLAT- PPUD at 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. Golf Road has been withdrawn. Senior Planner Sam Redman stated this application was withdrawn and they would have to submit a completely new application if they chose to continue in the future. 1. Address: 1057 Hollywood Ave. Case Number: 25-068-APPEAL Continued from the December 9, 2025 PZB meeting - Continuance requested for January 27, 2026 PZB meeting The petitioner requests an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s October 2, 2025 determination regarding the loss of nonconforming use status for a two-unit dwelling in the R-1 Single Family Residential District. PIN: 09-17-305-007-0000 Petitioner/Owner: Kendall Partners, Ltd. (Representative: Kevin Hansen), 129 Commercial Drive, Unit 7, Yorkville IL 60560 Member Fowler moved and Member Veremis seconded a motion to grant the continuance to the January 27, 2026 meeting. AYES: Weaver, Fowler, Fallico, Veremis, and Szabo NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 3 2. Address: 1314 Cora St Case Number: 26-002-V The petitioner is requesting a standard variation for building coverage exceeding the 30 percent requirement to construct a covered front porch and any other exceptions, variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PIN: 09-20-408-015-00000 Petitioner: Radu Alexa, 4235 N. Austin Avenue, Chicago, IL 60634 Owner: Florin Vlad, 1314 S. Cora Street, Des Plaines, IL 60018 Chairman Szabo swore in all members of the petitioner. Florian Vlad & Radu Alexa outlined the standard variation request. Chairman Szabo asked what the proposed Building Coverage would be. Radu Alexa stated the number outlined in their request. Chairman Szabo asked if there are any PZB member questions or comments and there were none. Senior Planner Sam Redman presented the staff analysis. Issue: The petitioner is requesting a standard variation to exceed the 30 percent building coverage requirement in order to construct a covered front porch. Case Number: 26-002-V PIN: 09-20-408-015-00000 Ward: #2, Alderman Colt Moylan Existing Zoning: R-1, Single Family Residential District Existing Land Use: Single Family Residence 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 Use: North: Single Family Residences South: Single Family Residences East: Single Family Residences West: Church CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 4 Street Classification: Cora Street is a local street under Des Plaines jurisdiction. Comprehensive Plan : Single Family Residential is the recommended use of the property. Zoning/Property History: Based on information from the Cook County Assessor, the original house was constructed in 1921 in this location. Per City permit records, a detached garage was constructed in 1951 and an addition to the house in 1954. Since 1954, no additional expansions to the buildings have been made. Project Description: The petitioner is requesting a variation to allow for the construction of a covered front porch on the existing single-family residence. The proposed porch would relocate the primary entrance from the side of the house to the front and would include a gabled roof, new steps, a new front door, and an additional window on the front façade. The porch would be approximately 126.5 square feet in area and would not be fully enclosed. Because the porch includes a roof, it qualifies as building coverage as defined in Title 12 of the Zoning Code: “The percentage of the surface area of a zoning lot that is occupied by principal buildings and any accessory buildings and structures. All areas of buildings or structures covered by a roof are included in building coverage” (Section 12-13-3). Variation Request In the R-1 Single-Family Zoning District, building coverage is limited to 30 percent. The existing building coverage on the property is approximately 31.8 percent, based on the existing house, garage, and accessory structures, all of which were constructed pursuant to permits. With the addition of the proposed porch, total building coverage would increase to approximately 34.9 percent. The Planning and Zoning Board has the authority to grant variations for building coverage in the R-1 District of up to 39 percent. The proposed covered porch would increase the building footprint but would not increase the height of the structure or add additional stories. Many nearby single-family homes achieve additional floor area through vertical expansion, while the subject property will remain a two-story structure. As a result, the requested increase in building coverage represents a modest expansion at ground level rather than an increase in overall building scale or intensity. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 5 A separate, minor variation is also required to allow the porch to encroach approximately 5 feet 5 inches and 124 square feet into the required front yard setback. This request is reviewed administratively by the Zoning Administrator and is processed independently from the building coverage variation. Alternatives to Variation One alternative would be to construct the porch without a roof, which would avoid an increase in building coverage. However, a minor setback variation would still be required to accommodate a porch of this size and location, and the absence of a roof could significantly alter the architectural character and functionality of the proposed entrance. Another alternative would be to reduce the size of the existing house or garage to offset the additional building coverage created by the porch. This option would require substantial modifications to existing structures and a significantly greater investment than the proposed porch addition. Variation Findings: Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6.H. of the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how well the proposal addresses the standards is provided below and in the attached petitioner responses to standards. The Board may use the provided responses as written as its rationale, modify, or adopt 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: Without the requested variation, the petitioner would be unable to construct the proposed covered porch. Strict application of the front yard setback limits the ability to relocate the primary entrance from the side of the house to the front. This creates a practical difficulty in providing a functional and coherent front entry that is consistent with typical single-family residential design. 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 smaller than the minimum lot size currently required in the R-1 District. The zoning ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 6,570 square feet CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 6 for new single family lots, while the subject lot is approximately 4,200 square feet. While other nonconforming lots exist within the City, the reduced lot size limits the allowable building coverage and constrains additions in a way that does not affect conforming lots to the same degree. This condition relates to the physical characteristics of the lot and not to the personal circumstances of the owner. 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 physical conditions of the subject property are not the result of actions by the current owner or prior owners. The existing house and garage were constructed pursuant to permits, and there is no evidence that the owners were advised of any conflict with building coverage limitations when the garage was constructed in 1951 and the addition in 1954. 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: Due to the unique physical conditions of the lot, strict enforcement of the front yard setback could limit the owner’s ability to make improvements commonly enjoyed by other single-family residential properties. The proposed covered porch would allow the primary entrance to be located on the front façade, which is a typical feature of single- family homes. Front porches are common in the neighborhood and support pedestrian orientation and interaction with the street. 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 would not provide a special privilege for the property owner not available to other single-family residential properties. Most other buildings along this street contain front porches and similar lot coverage. The proposed porch increases the building footprint but does not add height or additional stories, and therefore does not materially alter the scale of development relative to surrounding single-family homes. This variation would allow the property owner the ability to make improvements to the subject property as other property owners along Cora Street who reside on properties of similar sizes. In addition, the granting of this variation does not inherently allow the property owner to make additional money off the subject property and its development. 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 CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 7 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 project would allow re-investment into a single-family home, which the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan encourage. While one could argue that the proposed front porch in the location and design identified on the attached Site and Architectural Plan is largely for the benefit of the property owner, a study of the neighborhood indicates that many of the neighboring properties are developed in a similar fashion. It can be concluded that the proposed porch will be in harmony with existing development and potentially provide more benefit for the neighborhood as a whole—in relation to property values—than just for 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: Alternative designs were considered and are discussed in the “Alternatives” section of this report. While alternatives may avoid the need for a variation, they would not provide a comparable covered porch and front entrance configuration. As a result, the requested variation is necessary to reasonably address the identified practical difficulty. 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: A minor variation is also required to allow for the porch to encroach into the front yard by 5 feet 5 inches. Otherwise, the requested relief is limited to what is necessary to accommodate the porch. PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-6.F (Procedure for Review and Decision for Standard Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the final authority to approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the above-mentioned standard variation request for the building setback. 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 (Findings of Fact for Variations) of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff does not have any suggested conditions of approval. Member Veremis asked if there is a back door to the house. Mr. Vlad stated there is and the proposal is to remove the side door and install a new front door with the front porch, which makes parking easier in on the side driveway. Member Fallico asked if the proposed will be the same as the existing neighboring houses’ front setback. Mr. Vlad stated they will still be about 5 feet further from the front lot line than the existing neighboring houses. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 8 Senior Planner Redman outlined the requirement for a front yard setback minor variation. Member Weaver confirmed that the building lot coverage standard variation still requires PZB review and approval and Senior Planner Redman confirmed this. Chairman Szabo asked for public comments. There were none. Member Weaver moved and Member Fowler seconded a motion to approve the proposed building lot coverage standard variation as presented. AYES: Weaver, Fowler, Fallico, Veremis, and Szabo NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** 3. Addresses: 1777 and 1841 Busse Highway Case Number: 25-071-CU-V The petitioner is requesting (i.) a Conditional Use for a Recycling Center for a metal processing facility; (ii.) Major Variations to allow a.) loading spaces that open onto or face a public right -of- way, and b.) reduce required front, side, and rear yards to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing facility; and (iii.) any other exceptions, variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. PINs: 09-21-107-033-0000 & 09-21-107-039-0000 Petitioner: Mid-States Recycling, Inc., 1841 Busse Highway, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Owner: ELSE II, LLC, 1841 Busse Highway, Des Plaines, IL 60016 Chairman Szabo swore in the petitioner’s representatives – Jack Brown, Dan Dowd, Tom McCabe, Micheal Arenson & Brian Mihelik Dan Dowd (petitioner’s attorney) outlined the petitioner’s request. Jack Brown (petitioner) further outlined his request and his history of owning the 1777 Busse Highway property and operating the business for the last 25 years. This project will permit adding 3-4 full time staff along with the current 23 full-time staff. Mr. Brown then reiterated most of Mr. Dowd’s presentation. Additionally, Mr. Brown stated his perspective on staff interactions on 12/5/25 regarding the Busse Highway public ROW parking. He also outlined his perspective regarding the details of the interactions with staff from the first meeting in August 2025 and he outlined a staff email with the 12/9/25 PZB meeting agenda and staff report which stated all parking must comply with the applicable City Code section. Mr. Brown stated he read that as staff requiring the removal of the existing parking area on the northside of the 1841 Busse Hwy building partially within the Busse Hwy public ROW. Mr. Brown stated that if the 15 parking spaces in the Busse Hwy public ROW were removed or significantly reduced he wouldn’t have enough parking for his employees and he likely wouldn’t do this project. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 9 Mr. Dowd asserts the public ROW parking is existing nonconforming. Mr. Brown stated he needs the public ROW parking for his operation and employee parking. Mr. Brown stated if he is not permitted to have the Busse public ROW parking as currently exists, he will move out of the City of Des Plaines and demolish the existing building at 1841 Busse Highway. Mr. Brown further presented their development proposal and went through his digital presentation of the project’s design and layout. Mr. Dowd and Mr. Brown asserted the staff proposed requirement to remove the public ROW parking was told to them too late before the 12/9/25 PZB meeting. Mr. Dowd and Mr. Brown also reiterated their team’s notes from the August 2025 meeting staff. Mr. Dowd stated they will post warnings regarding the parking spaces’ location and the Busse ROW bike lane. Chairman Szabo asked for comments or questions from the PZB. Member Weaver asked if the new building’s floor elevation will affect accessibility into the existing building. Michael Arenson (architect) outlined the requirements for the difference between the proposed and existing buildings’ floor heights. Member Weaver asked about the requirement for the on-site accessible parking space on the new building’s entrance. Mr. Arenson and Jack Brown discussed the location of the accessible space can be relocated to another location on the property in response to Member Weaver’s inquiries. Member Weaver stated the accessible entrance path is along the front of the existing building. Member Weaver, Mr. Brown and Mr. Arenson discussed possible locations for accessible spaces and locations throughout the entire subject project. Mr. Arenson asserted staff stated they could not restripe the existing 1841 Busse building parking and retain their existing nonconforming status. Member Weaver further provided a suggestion regarding the accessible parking space location and accessible routes. Mr. Arenson stated they can’t access the easterly side of the site within the fenced and secure off- site parking area. Member Fowler asked that staff provide its analysis because she feels the petitioner’s commentary doesn’t seem to fit with her experience with staff. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 10 Member Veremis stated employees back into the Busse ROW parking spaces. Mr. Brown stated some employees do back in and come park head-in. He stated he would like employees to back into the parking spaces. Member Veremis stated there is not a lot of traffic on Busse Hwy and the backing movements should be less hazardous. Mr. Brown stated many of these employees come to work about 6a weekdays. He would like to propose angled parking for these spaces in the Busse Hwy public ROW as they are safer for visibility purposes. Member Fowler asked why don’t employees park on the new parking lot and leave the front parking in the Busse public ROW and leave them for customers. Mr. Brown stated he needs about four of these spaces for customers and the remaining ones for 6a shift employees or change to a 60 degree angled design. Member Fallico asked if 1765 Busse Hwy is for sale. Mr. Brown stated it is for sale, but 1765 Busse effectively has no parking onsite. There was general discussion about the current market status of 1765 Busse Hwy. Mr. Dowd restated that staff has been very cooperative but reiterated their opinions regarding the staff recommended condition to remove the parking in the Busse Hwy public ROW. Member Fowler stated it is a code compliance and not a causal opinion. Mr. Dowd asserted that the staff recommended condition regarding removing the parking is not required and may not have to be done if the project was completely for the only 1777 Busse Hwy lot. Senior Planner Sam Redman presented the staff analysis. Issue: The petitioner is requesting a Conditional Use for Recycling Facility and variations for the following, (i.) a Conditional Use for a Recycling Center for a metal processing facility; (ii.) Major Variations to allow a.) loading spaces that open onto or face a public right-of-way, and b.) reduce required front, side, and rear yards to allow for the construction of an addition to the existing facility and (iii.) any other exceptions, variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary. Petitioner: Mid-States Recycling, Inc., 1841 Busse Highway, Des Plaines, IL 60016 CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 11 Case Number: 25-071-CU-V Ward Number: #1, Alderman Margaret Chlebek Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial Surrounding Zoning: North: M-2, General Manufacturing South: R-1, Single Family Residential East: M-1, Limited Manufacturing West: M-2, General Manufacturing Surrounding Land Uses: North: Storage facility South: Railroad and Northwestern Woods (Forest Preserve property) East: Auto repair business West: Auto repair business Street Classification: Busse Highway is classified as a major collector under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Comprehensive Plan: Industrial is the recommended use for this property. Property/Zoning History: This property was formerly the facility for Avenues of Independence which operated offices and a workshop at this property during the 1980s and 1990s. In 1999, a Conditional Use for a recycling facility was granted (Ordinance Z-10-99) and the property was subsequently remodeled for this facility. Between 2011 and 2013, the 1777 Busse Hwy property was purchased, the building demolished by the petitioner and the site has remained vacant since that time. Project Description: The petitioner, Mid-States Recycling Inc. requests a new conditional use to expand the existing precious metal recycling facility. 1841 Busse Highway has operated as a recycling facility since 1999, and the proposed expansion would extend the existing building onto the adjacent property at 1777 Busse Highway. The attached floor plan shows the proposed development, including alterations to the existing building and a 15,000-square-foot addition. The properties are located within the FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain. The proposed building design is intended to comply with all applicable floodplain regulations. Civil engineering plans are included as attachments and have been preliminarily reviewed by the Public Works and Engineering Department. Proposed Use and Hours of Operation CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 12 Mid-States Recycling, Inc. operates as a secondary processor and smelter of precious metal, which is classified under the zoning ordinance as a “recycling facility.” The facility purchases and recycles precious metal-bearing scrap, including manufacturing by- products and unwanted jewelry. Operations include on-site melting, processing, casting, refining, and internal laboratory services. The proposed expansion is intended to accommodate increased processing volume and broaden refining capabilities. Per the petitioner’s narrative, hours of operation are proposed to remain Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., with shipping and receiving from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. The facility does not serve the general public; customers are licensed wholesale or retail dealers, manufacturers, and businesses generating recyclable materials. Most shipments are small parcels through the postal service, with approximately six to seven larger trucks per week. Loading will occur in either the existing or proposed loading areas. Current staffing includes 22 full-time and three part-time employees, with an additional four to five employees anticipated following construction. Variation Requests Reduced Required Yards The M-1, Limited Manufacturing zoning district requires substantial setbacks for properties. The table below provides bulk requirements and how the proposal meets or does not meet these requirements and thus a variation requested: Bulk Control Requirement Proposed Height 50 feet 21 feet 6 inches Minimum front yard 60 feet 10 feet 4 inches* Minimum side yard 60 feet 60 feet Minimum rear yard 60 feet 4 feet 8 ½ inches* Maximum building coverage 75 percent 57 percent *Variation requested Within Des Plaines, minimum required yards (setbacks) are measured from the zoning lot line. This property includes two parcels, but is under common ownership with a common zoning, thereby making it a “zoning lot.” Therefore, the required setbacks are measured from the boundary of the combined properties. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 13 Note this 1.37 acre property is significantly smaller than the minimum required lot size of 5 acres, and the existing building does not meet the required setbacks. The size and zoning of the property create constraints with meeting these setback requirements. Loading Spaces Section 12-9-9.C.3 requires loading spaces to not face a public right- of-way. The proposed loading area on the new addition faces Busse Highway, requiring a variation. Note the proposed plan includes a driveway of over 100 feet in length leading to the loading dock, allowing for ample space to maneuver into the loading space and load/unload. In addition, Section 12-10-9.C also requires screening for loading spaces to buffer their appearance from surrounding areas, including a solid wood or masonry fence to a height between six and eight feet or a continuous evergreen or dense deciduous shrub hedge, or a combination of the two. The permit review process, if this request is approved, would confirm this requirement is met. Traffic and Circulation For industrial and manufacturing uses, one off-street parking space is required per 1,500 square feet of gross floor area, excluding items from the calculation (as specified in Section 12-13-3) like mechanical rooms, bathrooms, and a portion of storage areas. Twenty-one off-street parking spaces are required for this property, and thirty-two spaces are provided on both sites, with ten spaces proposed in the new parking lot on 1777 Busse Highway and 32 spaces provided on 1841 Busse Highway. No on-street parking spaces are provided along Busse Highway adjacent to the property. The facility’s operations are anticipated to generate limited vehicular traffic, with most shipments arriving via small parcel delivery services and 6–7 larger trucks per week. Loading would occur at the docks on 1777 and 1841 Busse Highway, which are spaces that currently face into Busse Highway, with access drives on the property. Non-Conforming Parking Spaces and Traffic Conflict Seventeen parking spaces along the front of the existing building at 1841 Busse Highway are considered existing non-conforming, as they directly open onto Busse Highway rather than a properly sized drive aisle, as required under current zoning regulations (Section 12- 9-6). Per evidence provided by the petitioner, this condition has existed for several decades prior to the establishment of this CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 14 requirement. Of note, Busse Highway was restriped in fall 2025 to include a new bicycle lane which begins at this property. This bicycle infrastructure is identified as an important connection to downtown Des Plaines, Park Ridge, and regional trails in the draft 2025 Des Plaines Active Transportation Plan. Parking spaces that back directly into this new bike lane create a potential conflict between automobiles and cyclists. The Planning and Zoning Board are encouraged to evaluate the site in relation to Standard 8 of the Conditional Use Standards regarding traffic and access. A suggested condition of approval would require reconfiguration of existing parking spaces along Busse Highway to comply with Section 12-9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance, if the Planning and Zoning Board and City Council determine it is necessary to address potential traffic and bicycle safety considerations. Draft language for this condition is included in the suggested conditions section. Environmental Considerations Industrial properties typically raise two environmental questions: (1) what are the site’s historical conditions affecting development, and (2) do the proposed or continued operations introduce new environmental considerations? Considerations Prior to Construction Construction and site improvements have been designed to meet FEMA floodplain requirements and minimize potential flood- related impacts. Stormwater management will be addressed in accordance with City and IDOT requirements. In addition, both subject properties have been or are currently being evaluated through the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) Site Remediation Program (SRP) due to historical industrial uses and previously identified environmental impacts. Property owners may voluntarily enroll in the IEPA Site Remediation Program to address historical environmental impacts and obtain a No Further Remediation (NFR) determination, which helps support redevelopment and reduce future liability without implying the current owner caused the contamination. An NFR letter is commonly requested by lenders prior to financing a project. The property at 1777 Busse Highway was previously enrolled in the IEPA Site Remediation Program (SRP) and received an NFR CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 15 determination in 2011. Focused remediation on the site was related to a historical underground storage tank. The IEPA determination does not restrict the proposed industrial use, provided redevelopment does not disturb previously addressed conditions. The adjacent property at 1841 Busse Highway was enrolled in the SRP in June 2025, and environmental investigations have identified localized impacts associated with past industrial activities. These conditions are historical in nature. Based on available information, no evidence indicates that the current property owner or petitioner caused these conditions. The site is being evaluated for an NFR determination for continued industrial use, with mitigation measures incorporated into the proposed building, hardscape, and construction-phase practices. To ensure environmental mitigation measures are implemented during construction, the suggested conditions of approval at the end of this report include a Construction-Phase Environmental Inspection Schedule, documentation by a qualified environmental professional, stop-work procedures if unexpected conditions are encountered, and a final environmental compliance letter prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. These measures provide City oversight and verification while remaining consistent with the IEPA SRP process. Considerations for Ongoing Recycling Operations The petitioner provided environmental documentation demonstrating compliance with applicable state and federal requirements for their operations. The petitioner provided documentation demonstrating compliance with applicable IEPA requirements related to air quality. The petitioner also stated the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which monitors compliance for hazardous and non-hazardous waste regulations specifically exempts previous metal recycling, and states no items related to this operation are disposed of on site. Section 12-3-3 requires all industrial uses must be evaluated for compliance with environmental performance standards specified in Chapter 12 of the zoning ordinance, which include toxic matter, fire and explosion hazards, odor, light, water, and air pollution. Standards for Conditional Use The following is a discussion of standards for conditional uses from Section 12-3-4(E) of the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposed amendments 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. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 16 1. The proposed Conditional Use is in fact a Conditional Use established within the specific Zoning district involved: Comment: Yes, recycling facilities are permitted as a conditional use. 2. The proposed Conditional Use is in accordance with the objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan: Comment: The 2019 Comprehensive Plan illustrates this area to be used for industrial uses. This property will continue to operate as an industrial use. 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 expansion will be an extension of the existing building, maintaining the general character and scale of the site and surrounding properties. 4. The proposed Conditional Use is not hazardous or disturbing to existing neighboring uses: Comment: Refer to the Petitioner’s Response to Standards and environmental documents. Environmental documentation demonstrates that operations comply with applicable state and federal regulations. The expansion is not expected to create hazards or disturbances to neighboring properties. 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 existing building is currently served by essential public facilities and services, and the proposed expansion is anticipated to continue to be served by the same facilities. 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 would not create a burden on public facilities. This expansion will be connected to an existing facility and function as one business. 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: As detailed in the Environmental Considerations section above, historical environmental conditions are being addressed through the Illinois EPA Site Remediation Program (SRP) and were not caused by the current owner or petitioner. The proposed expansion is not anticipated to produce excessive traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, or odors. Subject to recommended conditions of approval, including construction-phase CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 17 oversight and environmental mitigation, the proposed use appears consistent with the intent of this standard. Final evaluation under Section 12-3-3 performance standards will be conducted prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 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: As discussed in the Parking and Access section of this report, several existing parking spaces along the front of the building back directly onto Busse Highway and do not meet current zoning standards for parking access. Since Busse Highway was restriped in fall 2025 by IDOT to include a designated bicycle lane, these parking movements present a potential conflict with both vehicular and bicycle traffic along the corridor. Refer to the petitioner’s response to standards and attachments. The petitioner has provided justification for maintaining these spaces based on operational needs. However, staff notes the current configuration may not fully align with the intent of this standard due to potential traffic and safety considerations related to direct access to the public way. The Planning and Zoning Board is encouraged to consider both the petitioner’s response and the staff analysis when evaluating compliance with this standard. A suggested condition of approval is provided should the Board determine that revisions to the parking layout are necessary to better address traffic and safety considerations. 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 project will not result in the destruction, loss, or damage of natural, scenic, or historic features of major importance. 10. The proposed Conditional Use complies with all additional regulations in the Zoning Ordinance specific to the Conditional Use requested: Comment: The proposed expansion requires variations for reduced front, side, and rear yards and a loading space facing a public way. These variations are included within this request. Variation Findings Variation requests are subject to the standards set forth in Section 12-3-6.H. of the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how well the proposal addresses the standards is provided below and in the attached petitioner responses to standards. The Board may use t he provided responses as written as its rationale, modify, or adopt its own. 9. 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. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 18 Comment: Refer to the petitioner’s response to standards. Strict application of the zoning requirements would create practical difficulty in expanding the facility. 10. 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: Refer to the petitioner’s response to standards. The presence of a railroad right- of-way along the site and the limited available space constrain the orientation of loading areas and driveways. The existing building includes a long-standing loading area that is already oriented in this configuration, reflecting the physical limitations of the lot. 11. 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: Refer to the petitioner’s response to standards. The site’s constraints predate the petitioner’s ownership. Nonconformities in setbacks and loading orientation exist for the existing facility at 1841 Busse and the addition is consistent with the current building configuration. 12. 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: Refer to the petitioner’s response to standards. Strict enforcement of the zoning standards may deprive the property of reasonable use enjoyed by similarly sized industrial lots in this area, including sites adjacent to the property. 13. 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: Refer to the petitioner’s response to standards. As noted, the adjacent properties face similar nonconformities and development constraints created by zoning regulations. 14. 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. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 19 Comment: Yes, the variation would allow the expansion of the building onto the adjacent property in a manner similar to other properties in this area and consistent with the comprehensive plan’s intent for this area to remain for industrial uses. 15. 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: Refer to the petitioner’s response to standards. Other remedies would include reducing the size of the building to meet setbacks and also re-configuring the loading area to face away from Busse Highway. 16. 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 requested variations represent the minimum relief necessary to accommodate the proposed expansion while respecting physical constraints of the lot. 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 permit. 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 suggests the following conditions. Suggested Conditions of Approval: 1. All existing parking spaces that directly open onto Busse Highway shall be removed and reconfigured so that vehicular access complies with Section 12-9-6 of the Zoning Ordinance. The reconfigured parking layout shall provide access from a properly sized drive aisle or driveway. Final plans demonstrating compliance with this requirement shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 2. The petitioner shall install and maintain signage identifying site entry and exit points for delivery and service vehicles. Signage shall be visible from Busse Highway and designed to minimize conflicts with bicycles, pedestrians, and other vehicles. Final plans for signage shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Community and Economic Development prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. Parkway landscaping adjacent to the site must be installed in accordance with City requirements. The Public Works and Engineering Director or their designee may allow CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 20 for modified plantings in this area, based on Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) requirements or consultation. 4. Environmental inspections shall be conducted by a qualified environmental professional retained by the petitioner at each milestone identified in the Construction-Phase Environmental Inspection Schedule. The consultant shall document each inspection and shall provide this documentation to the City. The Construction-Phase Environmental Inspection Schedule may be revised as necessary by the Director of Community and Economic Development to accommodate changes in construction sequencing or site conditions. 5. If previously unidentified contaminated soil, groundwater, or vapors are encountered, work shall cease in the affected areas and the petitioner shall notify the City and retain a qualified environmental professional to evaluate the conditions. Documentation of any such events and response actions shall be provided to the City before work can continue. 6. If construction experiences significant delays, as determined by the Director of Community and Economic Development, the petitioner shall coordinate with the City to implement temporary site protection measures. 7. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the petitioner shall submit a letter from a qualified environmental professional or applicable agency confirming that construction was completed in compliance with approved environmental measures and that no unresolved environmental issues remain that would limit the approved use of the site. Member Weaver asked that IDOT owns the Busse public ROW. Director Jeff Rogers stated IDOT typically pays most attention to the through lanes and outside the through lanes IDOT leaves it to the City. Member Weaver asked if the parking area partially in the Busse Hwy public ROW is a concern to IDOT either policy-wise and/or design permit review. Director Rogers the parking area is public property and not owned by the petitioner despite their stated claims. Reconfiguring the public ROW parking area would be the City’s responsibility to review and enforce though IDOT would have to approve such plans. Member Weaver asked who has the right to park in the public ROW and who gives people the right to park in on-street parking. Director Rogers stated managing the public ROW parking is left to the City to enforce, but modifications to the ROW requires IDOT permit review and approval. He also described the CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 21 existing full urban ROW cross-section as it alternates between modern ROW parkway/sidewalk improvements and complete lack of modern ROW improvements along the subject property’s Busse Hwy frontage and the neighboring properties to easterly and westerly. Member Weaver described the odd improvement variations along this stretch of Busse Hwy. He then asked if the PZB permitted the continued existence of this parking area on the Busse public ROW would IDOT have to approve the parking area’s continued and unchanged existence. Director Rogers clarified some items by stating that the parking area in the Busse public ROW is cannot be considered ‘existing nonconforming’ as it’s primarily on public property and is not the petitioner’s property. Typically, neither IDOT or the City would require these changes if not for the proposed conditional use and proposed building additional construction. Director Rogers also stated that improvements to the public ROW would be required if the subject property were sold for development. Additionally, the subject parking area in the public ROW cannot be counted to satisfy the Zoning Code required off-street parking for the subject use. Director Rogers explained that presented an option to the petitioner to modify the subject parking area in the public ROW to parallel spaces, which the petitioner rejected. Member Weaver stated concerns about the conditions throughout this area of Busse Hwy are constricted by the physical nature of the current land configurations and stated all the properties and businesses in this area of Busse Hwy are tightly spaced and probably exceed the current bulk requirements of their underlying zoning districts. Member Weaver also questioned how this area would be less development desirable due to site constraints and location with the flood hazard zone. He would like to see this neighborhood be active land uses and not just vacant buildings and/or land. Director Rogers outlined additional application of the code and expectation of using publicly owned ROW. He also clarified that some of the requested variations such as setbacks are reasonable but the continuation of the hazardous existing parking area in the Busse public ROW should be removed through compliant modification and/or elimination. Member Fowler asked if the proposed building could be reduced to accommodate more on-site parking. She asked for clarification is parallel spaces could be in the front yard adjacent. Mr. Brown stated if there were public ROW parking reconfigured to be parallel spaces a public sidewalk would have to be installed as well as his cost. Mr. Brown stated that he would refuse to pay for the construction of a public sidewalk in front of his property. Senior Planner Redman stated she did not recall that discussion and staff would have to review a proposed development alternative for the subject property’s front and within the Buss public ROW. Member Fowler would the parallel parking be on the private property. Staff stated it could not be located within the remaining private property between the existing and proposed buildings and the Busse public ROW. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 22 Mr. Dowd stated this is not a high traffic parking use such as fast food, etc and would not create a significant hazard in his opinion. Member Veremis asked who installed the bike lanes on IDOT. Senior Planner Redman stated IDOT did and finished them in Summer 2025. Director Rogers stated that IDOT did not review these conditions. Director Rogers if property sold or subdivided, etc the improvements in the public ROW would be required. Member Weaver stated described his experience of the design and layout of the new bike lane in the Busse Hwy through-lanes. Director Rogers if there was parkway and curb-cut in this area would Member Weaver bike there. Member Weaver described the safe way to construct a bike lane. Mr. Brown described a new IDOT sign on the northerly side of Busse Hwy directly across from the subject property stating that bikes must enter the sidewalk proceeding west from the point of the sign. Member Fallico asked if the new and/or existing loading dock is truly necessary. Mr. Brown outlined the reasons for the existing and proposed loading docks. Member Fallico asked if the existing building could be the only access location. Mr. Brown described the operational need for the new building’s loading dock and stated two docks are required for the critical business operations. Member Fallico stated if the petitioner removes the existing dock more off-site parking could be located on the 1841 Busse building parking area. Member Fowler stated why the new construction could be reduced to provide the needed off-street parking. Mr. Brown reiterated that he didn’t recall the staff discussion regarding parallel parking on the Busse Hwy public ROW. Member Fowler did not believe the compromise would be sufficient. Mr. Brown stated his compromise is suggesting angled on-street parking reconfiguration. Member Fallico reiterated that the existing parking area within the Buss public ROW is not the petitioner’s property and anyone could use it right now if they wished. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 23 Michael Aronsen outlined the existing building’s loading dock access locations and the interior layout of the proposed building. He also stated that the needs for the compensatory stormwater control in the surface basin and underground under the new parking area on the 1777 Busse Hwy property. He also stated they have reviewed all possible scenarios but needs the proposed 15,000 sqft expansion for the business operations. Member Weaver is there any curb, gutter and storm sewer along the Busse Hwy frontage of the subject property. Mr. Brown stated there is not any curb and gutter, but there are two storm drains in Busse Hwy in front of the 1777 Busse Hwy property. Member Weaver reiterated his concept and that some community’s have angled on-street parkin but agrees that people will seldom park in any new on-street parallel parking spaces in front of the petitioner’s property. Mr. Brown described some neighboring property parking activities as they intersect with his property, and he could have customers park in the fenced parking area on 1841 Busse Hwy. Member Weaver stated the public ROW parking cannot be dedicated only to the petitioner’s need. Mr. Brown stated he needs those parking spaces to accommodate his needs. Mr. Dowd and Mr. Brown reasserted there have been no accidents associated with their public ROW parking in the 26 years at this location. Member Fowler reiterated the PZB wants to work with the petitioner and doesn’t believe providing off-street parking on the subject property. Mr. Brown stated he could move the property building Director Rogers stated that reducing the proposed building east-west to provide more off-street parking in a double loaded parking area on the westerly end of the entire subject property. Chairman Szabo asked that if the petitioner wasn’t proposing the new building why would the existing parking area in the Busse public ROW be permitted to remain. Director Rogers stated the IDOT does not have any intent to remove the parking area. Mr. Brown stated if he could ever sell the property and not retire. Director Rogers stated that is not what he said, but when sale, subdivision and/or conditional use are requested these improvements in the Busse public ROW would be required. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 24 Mr. Brown then stated he would demolish the existing building at 1841 Busse Hwy. Member Veremis is pleased with the petitioner’s time in the City and asked if you continue to expand will you need more space than existing and asked about the petitioner’s projected future expansion and what if 10 new employees were needed. The petitioner is not leaving himself much expansion space. Mr. Brown stated he needs to expand to meet a near future and that there are companies interested in acquiring this business and property. These businesses would like the proposed building’s space. Member Veremis asked if a second shift is possible. Mr. Brown stated he doesn’t desire a second shift for operations and security purposes. Member Fallico stated that we are considering the future and the applicable code requirements. Mr. Brown stated he doesn’t think there is need for a sidewalk on the southerly side of Busse Hwy. Member Fallico does not know if a sidewalk all the way to Park Ridge is planned, but a full modern parkway and sidewalk improvement is desired by the City of Des Plaines City Code. Chairman Szabo asked for additional comments and questions from the PZB. Member Weaver stated the need to find a way to continue business operations and occupancy in the subject property’s immediate neighborhood and not move out of the City of Des Plaines. Mr. Brown reiterated his possible decision to move out of the subject property and the City of Des Plaines and demolish the existing building/site at 1841 Busse Hwy and reasserted that he doesn’t believe his property and the neighboring properties have long term market viability given the applicable regulatory constraints. Member Weaver stated he is concerned about the viability of these properties in this neighborhood and he believes there is too much public ROW in Busse Hwy. Mr. Brown asked for flexibility from the PZB and City staff. Member Fowler stated she doesn’t think there is likely a future for the subject property’s neighborhood. Member Fallico stated the proposed building could be reduced to provide off-street parking. Member Fowler asked if the proposed building could be two stories. Chairman Szabo asked the petitioner and architect if there could be continuance. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 25 Mr. Brown stated he would be open to a continuance to prepare design changes. Member Fallico if all parking could be placed off-street and on-street parking could still be available. Director Rogers outlined the public ROW improvements as part of the proposed construction and how the public ROW in front of 1841 Busse Hwy. Member Fowler asked for clarification. Director Rogers clarified his description. Senior Planner Redman reiterated that this could be redesigned and return the PZB after a continuance. Chairman Szabo wants them to redesign their project and not for the PZB to do it. Chairman Szabo asked for public comments. Carl Grunschel (owner of 1840 Busse Hwy) stated he favors the petitioner’s proposed request and is concerned about the testimony he’s heard about implications for his own property. He agrees that the concerns regarding this neighborhood’s future real estate market viability. Mathew Malaski (2838 Scott - representing1865 Busse Hwy) outlined his concern about the about the loss of the parking spaces in the Busse public ROW. He believes there are no problems with the parking areas. He also asked who’s responsible for maintenance costs of the parking areas in the public ROW. Chairman Szabo asked if the petitioner is willing to ask for continuance. Mr. Dowd and Mr. Brown agreed to continue to the February 10, 2026 PZB meeting. Member Fowler moved and Member Weaver seconded a motion to continue the meeting to the February 10, 2026 meeting. AYES: Weaver, Fowler, Fallico, Veremis, and Szabo NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None ***MOTION CARRIED*** Correction on PZB Calendar – Change September 8, 2026 to September 15, 2026 Staff explained the need to amend the 2026 PZB meeting schedule due to a conflict with a scheduled City Council meeting. CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT & COND. USE 9535, 9575, 9585 & 9601 E. GOLF ROAD CASE NO. 25-068-APPEAL APPEAL 1057 HOLLYWOOD AVE CASE NO. 26-002-V STAND. VAR. 1314 CORA ST CASE NO. 25-071-CU-V COND. USE & MAJ. VARS. 1777 &1841 BUSSE HIGHWAY 26 The PZB approved the change with a voice vote of 5 Ayes and 0 Nays. ADDITIONAL ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by affirmative voice vote at 9:06 P.M. Sincerely, Jonthan Mendel, AICP, Assistant Director/Recording Secretary cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners