HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-22 PZB Meeting MINUTES_appdCase No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
April 22, 2025
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday,
April 22, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
VOTE FOR CHAIR PRO TEMPORE
Board Member Weaver motioned and Member Veremis seconded to elect Member Catalano as
the chair pro tempore. Unanimous Aye.
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and a roll call was
established.
PR PRESENT: Bronakowski, Catalano (Chairman Pro Tempore), Fowler, Zadrozny,
Veremis, Weaver
ABSENT: Szabo & Fowler
ALSO PRESENT: Samantha Redman, Senior Planner
Jonathan Stytz, Senior Planner
Jonathan Mendel, Asst. Dir. of Community & Economic Development
Jeff Rogers, Director of Community & Economic Development
A quorum was present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes were pulled from the agenda so staff could make revisions and provide them
to the board by the May 13, 2025 meeting for review.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM
There was no public comment.
GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS
1. Request for attendees: Virtual Planning Commissioner Training – IL American
Planning Association on April 30, 2025.
Senior Planner Redman stated there is a virtual planning commissioner training scheduled
for April 30th and the City is able to pay for the fee for this training. Request was made for
any interest in this training. Veremis and Weaver indicated interest. Senior Planner Redman
stated they will arrange this training and anyone else can contact the Zoning Division if
they change their mind.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
2
2. Request for Workshop for 9661 E Golf Road, “Fisherman’s Dude Ranch”,
redevelopment plan. Requested date: May 27, 2025 at 7:00 p.m.
Senior Planner Redman states the property owner and developer has requested a PZB
workshop on May 27th. There will be another item on the agenda, but staff anticipates
there will be sufficient time for the workshop as well. The Board indicated they are ok
with this date and hosting the workshop.
PENDING APPLICATIONS
1. Address:1871-1873 Busse Highway Case Number: 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT
The petitioner requests a Tentative and Final Plat of subdivision to consolidate two lots into
one.
PINs: 09-21-107-041-0000 and 09-21-107-043-0000
Petitioner: James Marino, 5521 N Cumberland 1109, Chicago, IL 60656
Owner: D2E7 LLC (Representative: Timothy Walbert, 1873 Busse Hwy, Des
Plaines, IL 60016)
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano introduced the case on the agenda and swore in James Marino,
the property owner ’s representative.
Mr. Marino described the site and described the office and car storage use they intend to have for
this site. There is no change to the current use, except cleaning up the property and the case before
the board are related to a subdivision to consolidate.
Senior Planner Jonathan Stytz provides the staff report.
Issue: The petitioner requests a combined Tentative and Final Plat to consolidate two lots into one
lot of record in the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District at 1871-1873 Busse Highway.
Petitioner: James Marino, 5521 N. Cumberland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60656
Owner: D2E7, LLC (Representative: Timothy Walbert, 1873 Busse
Highway, Des Plaines, IL 60016)
Case Number: #24-050-TPLAT-FPLAT
PINs: 09-21-107-040-0000; 09-21-107-041-0000
Ward Number: #1, Alderman Mark A. Lysakowski
Existing Zoning: M-1, Limited Manufacturing
Existing Land Uses: Office (commercial)
Surrounding Zoning: North: M-2, General Manufacturing District
South: R-1, Single Family Residential District
East: M-1, Limited Manufacturing District
West: M-1, Limited Manufacturing
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
3
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Manufacturer (manufacturing)
South: Single Family Residences (residential)
East: Construction company (commercial)
West: Office (commercial)
Street Classification: Busse Highway is classified as a major collector road under Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT) jurisdiction.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates this site as commercial.
Property/Zoning History: The subject properties at 1871-1873 Busse Highway were annexed
into the City in 1870 as undeveloped farmland. Around 1957, it was
developed into an industrial building positioned north to south along
the east property line with an off-street parking area1. Later in 1989,
an addition positioned east to west was built on the southwest corner
of the building, creating the existing L-shaped building today. In
2024, the building was repurposed for an office use. Note that
existing building was constructed prior to the current building
setback requirements and is classified as a legal non-conforming
structure governed under Section 12-5-6 of the Zoning Ordinance
TENTATIVE AND FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
Request Description: Overview
The subject properties described below are both located off Busse
Highway in the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District next to the
Union Pacific Northwest railroad tracks and are under common
ownership.
Address PIN Lot Size
1871 Busse Highway 09-21-107-040-0000 16,614 SF (0.38 acres)
1873 Busse Highway 09-21-107-041-0000 3,010 SF (0.07 acres)
Total Lot Area 19,624 SF (0.45 acres)
Both properties have been improved under a unified development
which consists of a one-story L-shaped building utilized as an office
and a surface parking area as shown on the attached ALTA/NSPS
Land Title Survey. However, the triangular-shaped
parcel addressed at 1873 Busse Highway is land-locked and requires
access through the 1871 Busse Highway, which has direct frontage
along and access to Busse Highway. The proposed combined
Tentative and Final Plat request resolves this by consolidating the
two lots into one lot of record as illustrated on the attached Final Plat
of D2E7 Subdivision.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
4
Building Lines and Easements
The subdivision plat shows the following easements and building
lines:
(i) A new 60-foot front building setback line along Busse
Highway;
(ii) A new 60-foot side building setback lines along the west and
east side property lines of the proposed subdivision;
(iii) A new 60-foot rear building setback along the south property
line;
(iv) A five-foot easement for public utilities and drainage along
the south property line; and
(v) A five-foot perimeter parking setback along the north, west,
and east property lines of the proposed subdivision.
Floodplain Considerations
Both properties are within a quarter mile of the Des Plaines River
and are fully located within the 100-year floodplain based on the
current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood
hazard maps. While the subject properties have been already
developed, any future changes to this development will need to
conform with all FEMA and City of Des Plaines Flood Control
regulations.
Public Works and Engineering (PWE) Review
The PWE department has reviewed the subdivision request and has
approved it without any conditions. Public improvements are also
not required with this request since IDOT is preparing to make
adjustments to Busse Highway that include the removal of the
exterior travel lane on either side of the road and replacing them with
on-street parking lanes.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Given the combined Tentative and Final Plat
request, the PZB shall make two separate motions:
• Tentative Plat: Under Section 13-2-3 (Planning and Zoning Board’s Procedure for
Tentative Plats) of the Subdivision Regulations, the PZB has final authority to approve or
deny the Tentative Plat request.
• Final Plat: Under Section 13-2-7 (Approval of Final Plat by the Planning and Zoning
Board) of the Subdivision Regulations, the PZB has final authority to recommend that the
City Council approve or deny the Final Plat request.
No staff recommended conditions are proposed for these requests.
The Board did not have discussion about this item.
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano opened public comment. No members of the public came forward.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
5
A motion was made by Member Weaver and seconded by Member Bronakowski to approve the
tentative plat of subdivision with no conditions.
AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Zadrozny, Veremis, Weaver
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
A motion was made by Member Weaver and seconded by Member Veremis to recommend City
Council approval of final plat of subdivision with no conditions.
AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Zadrozny, Veremis, Weaver
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED***
2. Address: 666 Garland Place Case Number: 25-016-MAP-TPLAT
The petitioner requests: (i) an amendment to the Zoning Map rezoning the subject property
from C-2, Limited Office Commercial and R-1, Single Family Residential to M-2, General
Manufacturing; (ii) Tentative Plat of Subdivision; and (iii) any other variations, waivers,
and zoning relief as may be necessary.
PINs: 09-16-306-005, 09-16-306-009, 09-16-306-010, 09-16-306-011, 09-16-
306-030, 09-16-306-035, 09-16-306-036, 09-16-403-002, 09-16-403-009,
09-16-403-025, 09-16-403-030, 09-16-403-031 and 09-16-403-033
Petitioner: LPC Acquisition Company, LLC, 191 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606
Owner: Wheels, Inc, 666 Garland Place, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Vince Pergande of 191 N. Wacker Suite 1700, the petitioner’s representative is sworn in and
provides an overview of their company, similar projects, and states representatives are in the
audience.
Mark Rogers of 200 S Wacker Suite 1820 was also sworn in, the petitioner’s attorney. Mr. Rogers
states the requests for a zoning map amendment and tentative plat of subdivision. Mr. Rogers does
state the discussion of compliance with the comprehensive plan in the staff report was noted, but
states this document is meant to be flexible and is need of an update, as these updates to
comprehensive plans typically occur every 5 years and the last update was 2019.
After a meeting with the city, Mr. Rogers states that maintaining the single family zoning adjacent
to the site was recommended to provide a buffer between these uses and M-2 is proposed for the
rest. Mr. Rogers describes the existing site and zoning.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
6
Mr. Rogers states he is aware this meeting is not necessarily a Site Plan review but would like to
discuss the future use. A demolition of the two existing buildings would occur and then a
158,692 square feet of LEED-Certified Class-A industrial facility would be constructed. The lot
would maintain green scape buffers along this corridor.
Mr. Rogers states the second request is a tentative lot of subdivision. 13 pins or 9 parcels are
consolidated into two PINs. Parcel 1 to the north is 12.5 acres for industrial use and the lot to the
west would be for a future development and retention ponds.
Mr. Rogers describes the map amendment and states this area has a variety of zoning. In 2018, a
7b incentive was applied for by Wheels, Inc. and the property was considered blighted at that point.
The area can be interpreted as transitional by nature and create continuity with the manufacturing
zoning to the south.
Mr. Rogers discusses the Comprehensive Plan, referencing the encouraging of consolidating
parcels into tax generating developments and redevelopment of underutilized lots. There would
be approximately 2 million dollars in real estate taxes generated by this use.
Mr. Rogers states that this will encourage the Rand Rd industrial aesthetic. This site has historically
been challenging to develop. Wheels had a plan for redevelopment, which was halted by COVID.
The intent is to clear the blight of the existing site.
Mr. Rogers described the continuity of this industrial district with the nearby industrial properties,
supporting the industrial sector. The site is being marketed to light industrial and the site plan is
not designed for heavy manufacturing. There was discussion in the staff report about maintaining
the bucolic nature of Rand Rd. They decided to limit the area of the M-2 district along the road.
Mr. Rogers states the current commercial zoning includes uses that could generate more traffic
than what is being proposed. There is a lot of focus in the staff report about the intensity of uses
for M-2, but states there are many uses such as government buildings, dance studios and other uses
in the current zoning that could create a greater amount of traffic than the proposed use.
Mr. Rogers reiterates the proposal for the building and feels this design will complement the nature
of the surrounding area. The proposed contemporary building replaces the aging office structure
in a key city gateway and creates a more modern, inviting entry point.
Mr. Rogers provided research on vacancy rates, with 1.43% for industrial parcels and 17% for
commercial real estate, which will increase once Wheels leaves this site. LPC intends to spend 14
million on the project, post construction market value would be 25.4 million. The stormwater and
environmental benefits from this project would alleviate flooding in this area. It is marketed for
light manufacturing. Mr. Rogers states the plan for lot 2 is to work with the city to redevelop the
future 5.2 acre site.
Mr. Rogers states the new industrial facility will not connect directly to Garland Place and they
will be updating the cul-de-sac to provide improved circulation.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
7
Member Weaver asks about the documents reviewed that assumed that the ultimate use of the
property would be warehouses. What would a future user do if they wanted to convert to a
manufacturing use? What about the other uses under M-2? Can the building be converted to
something other than warehousing?
Mr. Rogers states that any changes to the plan would require a site plan approval process with the
City Council. Mr. Rogers states that being shovel-ready in July will get this project off the ground.
Member Weaver stated there are stormwater improvements to alleviate flooding. Would there be
any risk of flooding elsewhere that would require others to make improvements? Mr. Rogers states
no, all improvements will be on site.
Member Weaver asked about the possibility of pervious pavers rather than impervious pavement
on the site, taking into consideration the need for large trucks. Mr. Rogers states that this would be
possible.
Member Zadrozny asked about the potential tenant. Mr. Pergande states that the typical tenant is a
Fortune 500 company. Tenants have included Ikea, SE Johnson, etc. or anything related to
warehouses.
Member Zadrozny asked about the types of trucks. Mr. Pergande states the building is built for
semi-trucks, but the proposed use will likely not generate significant truck traffic. The traffic study
indicated that the traffic would be reduced compared to the existing office building.
Member Veremis asked what will be done with the extra lot. Mr. Pergande stated it will be green
space until the City states they have interest from other companies like a Starbucks to be located
there. All the current trees will be maintained on Rand Rd. The office building will be demolished
for the detention ponds and greenspace.
Member Bronakowski thanked the petitioner for their attention to this parking. How many trucks
do you anticipate will enter at once? Mr. Pegande states there is a singular entrance/exit for truck
traffic. It will be gated depending on the fire department requirement. It is too challenging to say
how much truck traffic it will generate, but there is plenty of space on the site for queuing.
Member Bronakowski stated many decisions have been made based on the Comprehensive Plan.
Has there been discussion for updating the plan for Council? Assistant Director Jonathan Mendel
states there has not been discussion thus far about updating it and 2019 is not that old of a plan.
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano states he is happy to see a reduction in impervious area. Is there
any existing detention on site?
Ryan Blocker (1333 Butterfield Rd, Downer’s Grove), the petitioner’s engineer, is sworn in. There
was a building addition done at some point. He states there is detention, volume control and there
is a huge improvement in stormwater.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
8
Assistant Director Jonathan Mendel provides the staff report.
Issue: The Petitioner requests:
(i) Tentative Plat of Subdivision create two new lots of record;
(ii) Map amendment to rezone the westerly half of the subject
properties from the C-2 Limited Office Commercial and R-
1 Single Family Residential districts to the M -2 General
Manufacturing district.
PINs: Map Amendment: 09-16-306-005, 09-16-306-009, 09-16-306-010,
09-16-306-011, 09-16-306-030, 09-16-306-035 & 09-16-306-036
Tentative Plat: 09-16-306-005, 09-16-306-009, 09-16-306-010, 09-
16-306-011, 09-16-306-030, 09-16-306-035, 09-16-306-036, 09-
16-403-002, 09-16-403-009, 09-16-403-025, 09-16-403-030, 09-
16-403-031 and 09-16-403-033
Petitioner: LPC Acquisition Company, LLC, 191 N. Wacker Drive, Chicago,
IL 60606
Owner: Wheels, Inc, 666 Garland Place, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 25-016-MAP-TPLAT
Ward Number: #1, Mark A. Lysakowski
Existing Zoning: C-2, Limited Office Commercial & R-1, Single-Family Residential
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1, Single Family Residential
South: R-1, Single Family Residential, M-2, General
Manufacturing, and C-2, Limited Office Commercial
East: C-2, Limited Office Commercial & R-1, Single Family
Residential
West: R-1, Single Family Residential
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Cook County Forest Preserve
South: Single family residences, City of Des Plaines water tower
& manufacturing
East: Office buildings and Cook County Forest Preserve
West: Cook County Forest Preserve & Des Plaines River
Street Classification: Rand Road is classified as a principal arterial road under Illinois
Department of Transportation (IDOT) jurisdiction.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan identifies this site as Commercial.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
9
Property/Zoning History: The subject property has been within the City of Des Plaines
corporate limits since at least the 1920s and the current zoning C-2 and R-1 zoning was
established with the 1998 comprehensive zoning map changes with the new version of City Code
Title 12 – Zoning.
Project Description: The subject property is 783,331 square feet (or 17.984 acres), which
is currently improved with an approximately 123,193 square feet
commercial facility to the North and an approximately 56,411
square feet commercial facility to the South-East.
Logistics Property Company (LPC) (petitioner) requests rezoning
the subject property from C-2/R-1 to M-2, General Manufacturing
(Attachment 1)
The rezoning and tentative plat would permit the petitioner’s
proposed demolition of the current buildings and minor
improvements on the site to construct a new 158,692 square feet
Class-A industrial building with 30 truck doors and two (2) drive-in
doors, sited on a newly created 12.471-acre lot including 135 car
parking stalls. The development will include a separate 5.224-acre
lot which will remain commercially zoned and set aside for future
development. As part of the development LPC will also develop
three (3) detention ponds for adequate storm water drainage for the
entire corridor.
Zoning Map Amendment Overview
The purpose of a zoning map amendment is to provide standards and
procedures for making amendments to the zoning map. This
amendment process is not intended to relieve particular hardships
nor confer special privileges or rights upon any person, but only to
make adjustments necessary considering changed conditions or
changes in public policy.
Although a specific project can be considered alongside any zoning
application, zoning change
deliberation is intended to evaluate the potential internal and
external impacts on a subject property, the immediate surrounding
properties, the adjacent neighborhood and the general area of the
community where it is located.
Existing R-1/C-2 Zoning versus Proposed M-2 Zoning
Currently, the subject property proposed for rezoning to M-2 is
composed of a single zoning lot of R-1 zoning on the northernmost
portion of the subject property as shown in the following existing
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
10
zoning map graphic:
Additionally, the City of Des Plaines 2019 Comprehensive Plan
Future land use map illustrates the subject property as intended for
commercial activities, such as retail, office, or other service uses,
rather than the wide range of uses intended within the proposed M-
2 zoning district, especially at this primarily bucolic and medium
intensity City gateway. See the following Future Land Use map
graphic:
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
11
Given the existing zoning map and comprehensive plan future land
use map, the focus of discussion should revolve around the proposed
change of the mix of zoning districts in this immediate
neighborhood and the potential for increased external impacts given
the higher intensity nature of the M-2 zoning district.
Here are the specific purpose sections for the C-2 and M-2 zoning
districts:
City Code Section 12-7-3.E – C-2 Limited Office Commercial
District
1. Purpose: The purpose of the C-2 limited office commercial
district is to preserve existing office development and
provide locations for the development of new office
locations.
City Code Section 12-7-4.E – M-2 General Manufacturing District
1. Purpose: The purpose of the M-2 General Manufacturing
District is to provide a location for general manufacturing uses and
related uses in conformance with the comprehensive plan.
These purpose statements outline the specific zoning district’s
desired intensity and objectives of the zoning regulations. Given
that most of the subject property is currently zoned C-2, it was
determined during the 1998 zoning code and map update that C-2
was the appropriate zoning and land use designation. This
determination was later reinforced by the Future Land Use Map in
the 2019 Comprehensive Plan.
The next important part of this analysis is the comparison of the C-
2 and M-2 use tables. Attachment 4 outlines the permitted and
conditional uses for the C-2 and M-2 zoning districts (The R-1
district table is not included because the primary discussion involves
the subject property’s current C-2 zoned portion which is most of
the site). Reviewing these two use tables shows the broad spectrum
of use intensity between the two zoning districts.
Lastly, a comparison of the C-2 and M-2 district’s Bulk Controls
informs the potentially substantive difference between the
maximum possible buildout on the subject property in either zoning
district. Attachment 5 provides that comparison.
Site Plan Review
Pursuant to Section 12-3-7.D.2 of the Zoning Ordinance, a Site Plan
Review is required for all map amendment requests to assess how
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
12
the request meets the characteristics identified in Section 12-3-2,
which are listed below along with staff’s assessment of each in
relation to the current site plan provided by the petitioner, located in
the Plat of Survey/Site Plan attachment.
Site Plan Review
Item Analysis (based on Proposal)
The arrangement of
structures on the site
• The proposed building and accessory parking and
circulation areas are generally well placed
throughout the subject property to accommodate
the mostly rectilinear shape of its primary
developable space.
The arrangement of
open space and
landscape
improvements
• Adequate landscaping areas are provided
throughout the subject property to comply with
the applicable zoning code sections.
The adequacy of the
proposed circulation
system on the site
• There is concern regarding the design and
orientation of the primary truck ingress/egress
drive from Rand Road, which is the north drive.
Outbound trucks entering the roadway at low
speeds in this location are a potential hazard. The
intersection is approx. 500 feet away with a posted
speed limit of 40 mph. Line-of-sight is also not
ideal due to the existing vegetation, floodwall, and
curvature of the road.
The location, design,
and screening of
proposed off-street
parking areas
• The off-street parking lot is primarily separated
from the truck traffic circulation areas which is
appropriate to avoid possible conflicts as much as
possible.
• The proposed location and screening generally
comply.
The adequacy of the
proposed
landscaping design
on the site
• The landscape plan shelters and screens the
sensitive land uses to the south appropriately.
The design, location,
and installation of
proposed site
illumination
• The site lighting plan was submitted and is
primarily compliant. Formal full compliance
review will occur at time of building permit
review.
The correlation of
the proposed site
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the intend use
of the subject property targeted for rezoning as
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
13
plan with adopted
land use policies,
goals, and objectives
of the comp. plan
Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. This
map is intended to guide land use and zoning
decisions throughout City unless specifically
referenced directly elsewhere in the
Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is not
consistent with the Commercial designation at
this primary City gateway.
Standards for Zoning Map Amendment:
The following is a discussion of standards for zoning map amendment from Section 12-3-7.E of
the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposal addresses the standards is provided below
and in the attached petitioner responses to standards. For its rationale, the Board may use the
provided responses as written, modify, or adopt its own.
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of
the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the City Council;
Comment: The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property Commercial on the Future
Land Use Map. This is intended to guide land use and zoning decisions throughout City unless
specifically referenced directly elsewhere in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed rezoning
to M-2 is not consistent with the Commercial designation at this primary City gateway.
Additionally, as the petitioner describes in their petitioner’s response to standards, Chapter 3
(Economic Development) of the 2019 Comprehensive Plan does mention creating a
commercial/industrial flex district section 3.6 on page 23, but that is only targeted to the “Five
Corners” area of the City which does not include the subject property or its immediate
neighborhood – see Attachment 8.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall
character of existing development;
Comment: Immediate neighborhood existing character is intended to be C-2 zoning
permitted/conditional uses and site development. The proposed M-2 zoning would change the
character to manufacturing resulting in a complete change to the existing and intended character
under the 2019 Comprehensive Plan, especially when experiencing the neighborhood along the
Rand Road frontage. The below indicates the percentage change of existing zoning to proposed
zoning and its effect on the immediate neighborhood’s character:
• Rand/Miner/Des Plaines River block = 33.65 acres
• Existing C-2 zoning = 25 acres (74.8%)
• Existing C-3 zoning = 0.65 acres (2%)
• Existing M-2 zoning = 4.5 acres (13.5%)
▪ Proposed M-2 zoning = 12.5 acres (37.4%) of immediate block/neighborhood
▪ Proposed & existing M-2 zoned properties = 17 acres (50.5%) of the immediate
neighborhood
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
14
The proposed rezoning represents a 278% (12.5 acres/4.5 acres) increase to the amount of M-2
zoned properties in the immediate neighborhood surrounding the R-1 zoned residential uses on
the west side of Garland Place. The following graphic shows the context for the above
neighborhood acreage calculations:
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available to this subject property;
Comment: Given the current C-2 zoning and the existing approximately 123,000 square feet
multi-story office building, the surrounding public facilities and services should be sufficient to
accommodate M-2 district development potential.
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction; and
Comment: The M-2 district’s permitted/conditional uses is broad and includes many potentially
disruptive land uses with high likelihood of causing negative external impacts on adjacent
residential uses and sensitive commercially developed properties. The most intensive M-2 land
uses permitted include heavy manufacturing, warehouse, food processing establishment,
distillery, and auto filling stations. This range of uses have great likelihood to impose negative
external property value impacts on adjacent, less intensive properties, particularly the R-1 zoned
residential uses adjacent to the subject property on the west side of Garland Place.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
15
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and
growth.
Comment: Perhaps the C-2 zoning district is ripe for rethinking given the current and future
office real estate market trends, but the significant increase from the medium intensive C-2
office oriented commercial district to broadly high intensive M-2 district is not appropriate.
Rezoning to C-3 general commercial may reflect more responsible development and growth
standards. Additionally, revisions to the 2019 Comprehensive Plan as a policy document ideally
should not be conducted on a piecemeal basis such as the proposed, but through a comprehensive
community planning process.
Tentative Plat of Subdivision
Each tentative plat submittal must include the following
specifications:
A. Scale: Each tentative plat shall be drawn to the scale of not
less than one hundred feet to one inch (1" = 100'). The
tentative plat shall show the boundaries of the property to be
subdivided, section and half section lines, existing
permanent buildings, watercourses and other existing
features pertinent to proper subdivision..
B. Municipal Boundaries: All corporate boundary lines within
or adjacent to the proposed subdivision shall be so
designated.
C. Streets: The widths of roads, streets, with their names and
alleys; dimensions of lots and blocks and building lines shall
be shown. The full widths of streets bounding the proposed
subdivision, with their names and the widths and names of
intersecting streets in the property immediately adjacent
shall be shown. All streets shall be carried to the boundaries
of the proposed subdivision.
D. Names: The name of the proposed subdivision with the name
of the owner, sponsor or trustees shall be shown.
E. Utility Easements: Tentative approval of utility easements by
all privately owned utility companies shall be indicated via
written correspondence. The Planning and Zoning Board
may waive this requirement, conditioned upon the
subdivider obtaining approval through the Final Plat
process.
F. Dedication Of Land: Proposed dedications of land for public
use shall be shown.
G. Utility Poles, Cables And Structures: All existing and
proposed utility poles, cables and structures to include
sanitary and storm sewers, water and gas mains and other
underground lines and cables shall be shown. The size of
sewer and water mains shall be shown. This requirement
may be waived by the planning and zoning board with the
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
16
recommendation of the city engineer.
The proposed tentative plat complies with all the above
requirements, except for utility company will-serve letters. Since
this subdivision is effectively a consolidation of many underlying
lots, it is appropriate for the PZB to waive this requirement during
the tentative plat stage with a condition of approval to require the
will-serve letters at time of Final Plat of Subdivision submittal. The
Public Works and Engineering Department (PWE) reviewed the plat
of subdivision and did not indicate any public improvements are
required with this plat of subdivision.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions:
Under Section 12-3-7.D (Procedure for Review and Decision for Amendments) of the Zoning
Ordinance, the PZB has the authority to recommend that the City Council approve or deny the
above-mentioned zoning map amendment of R-1 and C-2 to M-2.
Under Section 13-2-3 (Planning and Zoning Board’s Procedure) of the Subdivision Regulations,
the PZB has the final authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Tentative Plat of
Consolidation request. Since a final plat review is still required, staff recommend the following
condition of approval:
1. The applicable utility company will-serve letters shall be provided as part of the Final
Plat of Subdivision application.
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano opened public comment.
Holly Boers of 740 Garland Place, is sworn in. She has concerns about her house next to this
property. The proximity to the potential for heavy manufacturing and proximity to the river is
concerning. She states concerns about property values for her house if this is approved. Some M-
2 is auto body repair in the area, but not heavy manufacturing. She clarifies if the retention ponds
are above or below surface. If they are above surface, issues with mosquitos and disease are a
concern already on her property, and adding to that would make her property even more
challenging to use.
Patricia Kraft of 739 Garland Place is sworn in. She states the same concerns as the previous
commentor. She does not want to lose value in the property. Staff clarifies the proposed zoning on
the map. A portion would remain C-2 and landbank it as a vacant piece of property and leave the
trees. Ms. Kraft asks if the M-2 will be against the river. Assistant Director Mendel confirms. Ms.
Kraft states concern with flooding, although it has been improved with the construction of the
flood wall. The building looks like it will be larger than the existing Wheels building. Would they
enter from Garland or Rand Rd?
Mr. Pergande states all access to Garland Place will be removed. Everything would come from
Rand Rd. The detention ponds would alleviate the flooding problem in the area and the overall
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
17
existing parking area will be reduced. Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano states he is also an engineer
and flooding has always been his concern too, but does not believe this will cause an issue.
Ms. Kraft asks how they can approve a building this large. What hours of operation are possible?
Member Bronakowski states that they would come back to the PZB with a tenant. Ms. Kraft is
concerned about what could go in there if it’s M-2, especially 10 years down the line. There is an
empty lot next to her house and what happens with that lot?
Mr. Pergande states they will be purchasing the middle lot and intend to do nothing with it. Ms.
Kraft asks about utility lines on that lot. There will not be any movement on that lot. Discussion
ensues about what are the boundaries of the re-zoning.
Ms. Kraft asks about the cul-de-sac. Asst. Dir. Mendel states the cul-de-sac will remain and the
driveways will only be along Rand Rd. All other driveways will be removed.
Asst. Dir. Mendel clarifies there is not an approval of a site plan with a zoning map amendment,
and reiterates the plan could change.
Ms. Kraft states she is against it, for the record.
Greg Lietzau, 2040 Miner St, is sworn in. He provides his overview of the project. How many
parking spaces will there be? How many loading docks? Will there be outside trailer storage? With
the white building gone, will the asphalt remain? Will there be a stoplight there for the truck traffic?
The road can get busy. What is the tax difference savings in two office buildings to one industrial
building? He states he has been at this property a long time. Is there anything gained by losing a
building? What is the value of two buildings versus one?
Mr. Pergande states no outside trailer storage is proposed. There are 125 parking spaces. The
impervious area is being reduced by 50% on the site. The current buildings are larger than the
proposed building. Warehouse use is less employees and vehicles than the current office buildings.
Mr. Rogers discusses tax revenue. Both buildings are set to go vacant and receive a vacancy credit
from Cook County. It used to be 80% of the value of the building, now it is 50%. They would get
the vacancy credit if it was vacant for a few years and that lowers the tax generation. When they
go vacant with the commercial vacancy rate, it could sit vacant for a long time. One of the biggest
things that hurts property values is vacancy in the area.
Member Weaver asks a question – will LPC remain the owner of the building but lease to the user,
rather than sell? Mr. Rogers states that is correct.
Member Bronakowski asked about the mosquito issue discussed in public comment. Mr. Pergande
states that mosquitos are a problem related to the flooding. The proposed site plan would alleviate
the flooding issue and water issue in the area. New plantings, topsoil, and landscaping will be
added that should alleviate these concerns. If anything of that nature occurs, as an industrial
property they will be long term holders of, they will do mosquito abatement.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
18
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano asked about the aerating of the detention ponds. Mr. Pergande
states that MWRD will ensure that any requirements are met. Fines and other consequences can
occur if they do not follow the established rules.
Member Veremis asks how many employees Wheels had in this area at its peak and how many the
new facility will have. Mr. Pergande states anything from 2-50 employees. 125 parking spaces are
required by code. Discussion ensues about the traffic impact of office versus industrial uses.
Member Ve remis asks about the prior fleet service of Wheels on this site, and Mr. Pergande states
that it was mostly used for office space in its later years. Member Veremis states it will likely be
reduced traffic compared to the Wheels office heyday.
Asst. Dir. Mendel states per the traffic study that 976 vehicles were in/out from the office.
David Nowak, 757 Garland Place, is sworn in. Potential of the M-2 zoning in the future is
concerning because there is not control over who will locate at this time. Truck drivers will not be
during peak hours, it will be middle of the day and the night with the sound from the trucks. The
retention pond will be placed closer to his house and his neighbor ’s house and expressed concerns
about flooding. Wheels is not that tall, so this warehouse will block off some of the sun along that
trail. That affects people who go on their runs in the morning there and enjoy that aspect. Mr.
Nowak states he is not a fan of the potential for it to be a worse use in the future. If they don’t
build here, you don’t know what to expect. It will be a lot of trucks pulling in and it will be a tight
bend for trucks to make it into the parking area.
Member Bronakowski states any new tenant will have to come to the PZB for any hours of
operations. Asst. Dir. Mendel clarifies if it is a permitted use in the M-2 zoning district (if rezoned),
then the occupancy would be a simple administrative process with staff. There are a number of
conditional uses that would come through the PZB for review, but other uses would not come
through the PZB. Not every new use would come through PZB and City Council.
Senior Planner Jonathan Stytz states that light and heavy manufacturing uses would not come
before you as long as they met the basic requirements. It is important to look at the whole picture
with the zoning classification. It could be a warehouse now and could be something else later.
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano asks the height of the building. Mr. Pergande states the existing
is approximately 36 feet and the proposed would be 38 feet.
Holly Beors returns to podium. She states Wheels has been a good neighbor and lets them use their
parking lot to get to Rand Rd, and closing that off is not ideal. She asks for clarification on the
zoning regulations. Asst. Dir. Mendel states that most of the uses discussed are not consistent with
the C-2 or C-3 zoning district. Ms. Beors states the exhaust fumes are already creating poor air
quality and queuing of the trucks could create further concerns.
Member Weaver reviewed the project and noted a few items. There are risks about an M-2 district.
There is always a risk with this zoning that you could get something other than what you hope to
get. However, Member Weaver states he is pleased with warehouse facility that is less intensive
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
19
than other types of manufacturing uses possible in M-2. Member Weaver states the reduction of
impervious pavement would appear to be a huge help on the flooding issue. Alternatively, a re-
zoning to C-3, General Commercial could create many drive-thrus and other uses that could be
considered urban blight.
Member Weaver discussed office parks being torn down in other communities to put up
warehouses. In the post COVID era, there is a massive increase in demand for these facilities and
Des Plaines is in a prime location. Member Weaver does not want to see abandoned office
buildings in these areas that are not up to the needs of modern offices. Having this modern
warehouse building here could be desirable. Weaver is not concerned it will be changed to a
different use.
Member Weaver discussed whether cutting off the street at Garland Place would be beneficial for
neighbors to prevent cut through truck traffic and that the address should probably be changed to
Rand Rd so that lost truck drivers do not accidentally drive down this area.
Member Weaver states the City needs to come to grips with the office demand dying. The 2019
Comprehensive Plan does not reflect this changing landscape.
Member Veremis asked about keeping one area as C-2. Mr. Pergande states because of the
awkward shape, they did not want to re-zone that part. Member Veremis states that was a good
move.
Member Zadrozny states if this is approved and Council approves it and financing fails or the
market crashes, will it remain M-2 at that point or revert back? Asst. Dir. Mendel states it would
be re-zoned to M-2 and that would be the zoning, whether with the proposed site development plan
or if a new property owner buys it. It is not tied to a specific development plan.
Mr. Pergande states this money is allocated to this project. In regard to this development, they
intend, if approved, to close in July, demo the buildings in the fall, and redevelop in early Spring.
Asst. Dir. Mendel provides clarification on the procedure for the motions. Member Weaver states
it is in both the City and developer’s interest to consolidate the parcels. There are many accidents
of history requiring the consolidation of lots with unusually shaped parcels.
A motion was made by Member Weaver and seconded by Member Bronakowski to approve the
tentative plat of subdivision with one condition, as drafted by staff.
AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Zadrozny, Veremis, Weaver
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED***
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
20
A motion was made by Member Weaver and seconded by Member Veremis to recommend
approval of the zoning map amendment to the City Council.
AYES: Bronakowski, Catalano, Zadrozny, Veremis, Weaver
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED***
3. Discussion Item - Building Design Review Standards – Overview of Existing Rules &
Request for Guidance
Senior Planner Redman provides an overview of the staff report included in this evening’s packet.
Member Weaver stated he reviewed the 2005 design guidelines carefully and believes this is really only
applicable to downtown and not necessarily in the other Des Plaines commercial areas. Additionally,
he doesn’t believe it should not apply to single-family residential.
Senior Planner Redman mentioned to Member Weaver that this is still something open for discussion
and future development.
Member Weaver expressed concerns about the mandatory or permissive language of design guidelines
and wants to focus on consistency with other neighboring municipalities and their specific design
guidelines and processes. He states he would like stronger design requirements.
Senior Planner Redman outlined the difference between our mandatory building design standards in the
zoning code, the 2005 downtown design guidelines and the possibility in the future as we determine the
scale and scope of code amendments. This process could use a subject matter expert consultant.
Member Weaver expressed that he prefers the strictness of proposed amended codes be less stringent
for the existing single-family residential than for multi-family and non-residential.
Member Bronakowski asked about how often the municipal design standards are typically updated in
other communities.
Senior Planner Redman stated she’s not sure about other communities, but our codes have been updated
several times since 2014.
Member Bronakowski is happy to have this discussion out loud and is happy with staff’s efforts.
Senior Planner Redman requests that the PZB provide clear direction on their support of various types
of amendments. She would like to bring forth a text amendment for smaller, specific issues and then
submit a City budget request to hire a consultant for the larger issues.
Member Bronakowski thinks priorities should be to update standards for Downtown.
Member Weaver believes focus should include Elmhurst Road and Lee Street south of Downtown.
These areas are old and dilapidated and need development and improvements.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
21
Senior Planner Redman stated staff can’t necessarily force improvements but as properties redevelop or
have significant reinvestment, then compliance with the current development standards are typically
required. In terms of a citywide plan, that would be a significantly larger scope than a corridor specific
plan.
Asst. Director Mendel reminded the PZB about the upcoming Oakton Corridor action planning process.
Senior Planner Stytz outlined the range of materials permitted in the code for single-family, multi-family,
and non-residential uses/building types and code updates may be necessary due to the building material
technology changes since the code was originally written.
Member Weaver stated that general brick/masonry only requirements may be more and more
challenging for developers to afford.
Senior Planner Redman states the building department would be happy to discuss building materials,
particularly new technologies, prior to embarking on a text amendment.
Senior Planner Redman wants to discuss the current regulatory and procedural framework for minor
variations and possible ideas for rethinking the procedure’s current framework.
Director Jeff Rogers would like to go slide by slide and determine the depth and breadth of the current
design standards, guidelines and the processes. He responds first to comments about the questions. At
the time of the 2005 Business District Guidelines, there was a commission of experts that was also
reviewing development. Since then, there was a movement away from this commission and towards
staff review. Professional guidance from a third party involving the PZB, Council and public will be
vital to shape any new design guidelines. The new guidelines will need to be very clear about the “shalls”
and “shoulds” within requirements.
Senior Planner Redman described the specific format and procedural steps for minor variation process.
She asked the PZB if minor variations should continue being decided at the staff level.
Member Weaver and Bronakowski stated they would like the staff to manage the day-to-day review and
management since they have the expertise.
Member Catalano asked about an appeal process for minor variations. Senior Planner Redman stated
there is an appeal process that goes to the PZB.
Member Zadrozny stated we should take measures to prevent the issue we had with 2200 E. Golf Road
at the 4/8/25 PZB meeting.
Member Bronakowski asked if we could differentiate between single-family residential and multi-
family and the other larger scale development. He is comfortable with single-family being able to seek
minor variations and multi-family and non-residential being handled with standard or major variations.
Case No. 24-050-TSUB-FPLAT Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision 1873 Busse Hwy
Case No. 25-016-MAP-TPLAT Zoning Map Amendment and Tentative Plat 666 Garland Place
Discussion Item Building Materials Overview and Request from Guidance
22
Senior Planner Redman stated that we could make these scale/scope differentiation as we review the
variation review processes.
Senior Planner Redman asked for PZB opinion on triggers requiring design standard reviews and
possible changes to these triggers that would limit the amount of single family residential minor
variations necessary. She provided the example of a small sunroom added to the back of a vinyl siding
house, which requires a minor variation if the homeowner is not able to change the entire perimeter of
the house to masonry. She asks if the Board feels strongly to keep this requirement.
Member Catalano asks if these types of minor variations for single family detached houses are denied.
Senior Planner Redman stated she cannot recall an instance where it was denied, but there have been
instances where specific conditions are added, such as requiring a specific color or type of material that
is compatible with the existing house.
Member Weaver recalled a case where this requirement came into effect and did not feel it was a
detriment to the city or the neighborhood. In particular, what occurs in the back of the property is less
important.
Member Veremis asked about specific downtown developments and whether they met standards. Senior
Planner Redman stated that it met all building permit standards, and it is possible that code changed
since then.
Member Weaver asked about mixed use and whether our requirements make the commercial spaces too
high? Can we do something to change these dynamics?
Senior Planner Redman stated that the majority of the downtown is within the C-5 district, which
prohibits residential on the ground floor. It can be challenging to size these type of development, and it
can also be challenging to design these spaces on sites and meet off-street parking requirements.
Director Rogers outlined the nature of non-City regulations and/or tax exemption implications that factor
into the costs of building and holding new commercial space in mixed use buildings.
Senior Planner Redman states this was just discussion and they are welcome to change their mind at
time of amendment, but this provided sufficient guidance for staff to embark on changes.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Pro Tempore Catalano adjourned the meeting by affirmative voice vote at 9:22 p.m.
Sincerely,
Jonathan Mendel/Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners