HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZB Minutes - 09.09.25 appdCASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
Tuesday, September 9, 2025
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday,
September 9, 2025, 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: Szabo, Fowler, Veremis, Catalano, Fallico, Zadrozny
ABSENT: Weaver
ALSO PRESENT: Samantha Redman, Senior Planner
Jeff Rogers, Director of CED
Jonathan Mendel, Assistant Director of CED
A quorum was present.
APPROVAL OF AUGUST 26, 2025 PZB MEETING MINUTES
Member Fallico moved and Member Catalano seconded a motion to approve the minutes as
presented.
AYES: Fallico, Catalano, Zadrozny & Szabo
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Fowler & Veremis
***MOTION CARRIED***
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM
There was no public comment.
GENERAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Chairman Szabo outlined the results of the September 2, 2025 City Council meeting regarding the
PZB cases that were reviewed:
• 1634 E. Oakton St. – CU for Trade Contractor – Approved at 2nd reading
• Text Amendments to Section 12-3-11 Related to Building Design Review Standards for
Single-Family and Two-Family Residences – Approved at 1st & 2nd reading
• Major Variations for Site Landscaping at 555 Howard Avenue – Approved at 1st & 2nd
reading
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
2
ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS:
Chairman Szabo noted there were no final Administrative Decisions available for this agenda.
Pending Applications:
Chairman Szabo introduced the cases on the agenda.
1. Addresses: 9535, 9575, 9585, and 9601 East Golf Road – Request Continuance to
September 30, 2025 PZB meeting
Case Number: 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD
The petitioner requests the following: i) a Tentative Plat of Subdivision to consolidate
nine lots into one lot; ii) a Preliminary Planned Unit Development with a height, lot area,
and required off-street parking exception for a proposed multifamily residential and
single family attached residential development; and iii) any other variations, waivers, and
zoning relief as may be necessary.
PIN: 09-16-201-011-0000, 09-16-201-014-0000, 09-16-201-013-0000, 09-16-201-016-0000,
09-16-201-015-0000, 09-16-201-003-0000, 09-15-100-033-0000, 09-15-100-032-0000,
09-15-100-035-0000
Petitioner/Owner: EFN Des Plaines Property LLC, One Oakbrook Terr., Ste 600, Oakbrook
Terrace, IL 60181
Chairman Szabo outlined the request to continue to the September 30, 2025 PZB meeting and
asked for a motion. Staff clarified the agenda misstated October 28, 2025 as the requested
continuance date, but the correct date is September 30, 2025.
Member Catalano moved and Member Fowler seconded a motion to approve a continuance to the
September 30, 2025 PZB meeting
AYES: Fallico, Catalano, Zadrozny, Fowler, Veremis & Szabo
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED***
2. Address: 2200 E Golf Rd Case Number: 25-047-FPUD
The petitioner requests a Final Planned Unit Development with a height exception for a
proposed Assisted Living Facility, and any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as
may be necessary.
PIN: 09-09-402-010-0000
Petitioner: Heritage Woods Northwest LLC, 1016 W. Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60607
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
3
Owner: RJB-II LP and First American Self-Storage Group, LLC, 1731 N. Marcey St., #200,
Chicago, IL 60614
Chairman Szabo swore in the petitioner ’s representatives – Robert Helle, Bernie Citron,
Developer, Jane Sloss & Judd Barron.
Robert Helle outlined the public meeting history for this project to date and mentioned that the
major issue in the preliminary PUD stage surrounded building exterior materials and design. Mr.
Helle then read from the current staff report confirming that the building plans submitted for the
Final PUD request are fully compliant with the building design standards.
Jane Sloss (architect with WJW Architects) represented the petitioner. Ms. Sloss outlined the
final PUD plans’ changes that occurred since the June 2025 City Council PPUD and Conditional
Use approved. She outlined that they reconfigured the loading and trash enclosure to be fully
screened from adjacent streets, east parking area is double loaded to maintain the number of
parking spaces while reducing the impervious area, and additional landscaping was added
throughout the site for the enjoyment of the residents and the adjacent properties. The building
facades and design are compliant, and the overall development remains consistent with the
PPUD. The intent with the exterior building design was an inviting residential look with base,
sills and multiple materials and colors.
Chairman Szabo asked for PZB member questions and there were none.
Senior Planner Samantha Redman presented the staff analysis.
Issue: The petitioner requests a Final Planned Unit Development (PUD) with an exception for
height from 45 feet to 50.5 feet.
Petitioner: Heritage Woods Northwest LLC, 1016 W. Jackson Boulevard., Chicago, IL 60607
Owner: RJB-11 LP & First American Self-Storage Group, LLC, 1731 N. Marcey Street,
Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60614
Case Number: 25-047-FPUD
PIN: 09-09-402-010-0000
Ward: #1, Alderman Margaret Chlebek
Existing Zoning: R-3, Townhouse Residential
Existing Land Use: Surface parking lot and undeveloped land
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-3, Townhouse Residential
South: R-1, Single Family Residential
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
4
East: R-3, Townhouse Residential; C-3, General Commercial
District
West: P1, Public Land District (Unincorporated Cook County)
Surrounding Land Use: North: Multifamily Building (The Monarch)
South: Forest preserve
East: Undeveloped land
West: Forest preserve
Street Classification: Golf Road is classified as a principal arterial road and is under the
jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). N. East River Road is classified
as local road and is under the jurisdiction of Cook County.
Comprehensive Plan: “Multi-Family Residential” is the use illustrated in the
Comprehensive Plan.
Property History: In 1984, this site was annexed into the city (Ordinance A-2-83) and the
building for the United Stationers Corporate Headquarters was constructed. This building was
occupied by the United Stationers until approximately 2007. The building was demolished in 2009,
and the site has remained vacant for approximately fourteen years.
Project Summary: Overview
The petitioner, Heritage Woods Northwest LLC, is the contract purchaser of 2200 E. Golf Road.
On June 2, 2025, the City Council granted preliminary approval for a Planned Unit Development
(PUD) and Conditional Use for a 150-unit assisted living facility. The proposed building footprint
is approximately 32,000 square feet and will include three residential floors above one floor of
resident amenities. The site plan provides 150 sleeping units, an 80-space parking lot with
loading/unloading areas, and a large detention basin on the east side of the property. The building
is designed around a central courtyard, with landscaping and walkways throughout the site for
residents and staff. Refer to Site Plan in the attachments.
The Conditional Use for the assisted living facility was approved with the Preliminary PUD,
subject to conditions outlined in Ordinance Z-12-25. These include updating the property address,
coordinating regularly with the Fire Department, maintaining a private ambulance contract for
non-emergent calls, and providing a private resident transportation option. At the final City
Council meeting, two additional conditions were added: compliance with the Zoning Ordinance’s
Building Design Standards and a $200,000 donation to the City toward the purchase of an
ambulance or related equipment or programs. All conditions remain in effect and will be enforced
at the time of operation.
Concurrence with Preliminary Plat
Pursuant to Section 12-3-5.D.3,
“Approval of a preliminary plat for a planned unit development shall not constitute approval of
the final plat. Rather it shall be deemed an expression of approval of the layout submitted on the
preliminary plat as a guide to the preparation of the final plat, which shall be submitted by the
developer not later than 12 months after approval of the preliminary plat. The final plat shall be
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
5
approved as the final land use and zoning plat if it conforms with the preliminary land use and
zoning plat.”
The Final PUD Plat, including final engineering plans, has been reviewed by staff. Refer to PUD
Plat attachments. The proposal is consistent with the preliminary plans and includes the height
exception acknowledged in Ordinance Z-12-25, which granted preliminary approval. This
exception, permitted under Section 12-3-5, grants relief from the maximum height allowed in the
R-3 district. No additional exceptions have been requested.
Streets, Parking and Access
Access will continue to be provided to this property through the existing full-access driveway
along Golf Road to the southwest of the property. Additional access points will connect to the
existing multifamily development to the north, The Monarch. Per the petitioner, easement and
access agreements already exist allowing for this connection from the proposed development. No
driveways will open to N. East River Road.
Pursuant to Section 12-9-7, assisted living facilities require 1 space for each 5 beds, plus 2 spaces
for every 3 employees. The proposed plan provides 80 standard spaces, and four accessible spaces
will be provided, which will exceed the minimum required off-street parking requirement for this
use. A condition of the approved Conditional Use ordinance states a private transportation option
must be available to residents throughout the operation of this use, to ensure adequate access to
services is provided for a site with minimal public transportation access.
Prior to approval of the Conditional Use, a Traffic Impact Study was submitted and reviewed. The
report stated the combination of the existing traffic volume and the predicted increase generated
by this site could be accommodated by the existing street network and intersections without
affecting the Level of Service (LOS) on any adjacent streets. Refer to the Traffic Impact Study
attachment for information regarding traffic related to this use. The Public Works and Engineering
Department (PWE) reviewed the traffic study and did not indicate specific concerns regarding its
findings.
PUD Bulk Exceptions
As identified in the Project Overview section, the proposal exceeds the maximum height permitted
in the R-3 zoning district, requiring PUD exceptions from Section 12-3-5.C. All bulk exceptions,
including required yards, are met except for the height. A height of 50’-6” is requested, which is
taller than the permitted 45 feet in this zoning district. This exception allowing for increased height
for a PUD reduces the overall building footprint by allowing for increased development vertically
rather than horizontally and allowing for a pitching of the roof to create a more residential
appearance to the building.
Building Materials
At the June 12, 2025 meeting, the Council added a condition to the approved Preliminary PUD
ordinance stating the development must comply with Section 12-3-11 – Building Design
Standards. The plans within the Final PUD submitted are fully compliant with this requirement,
including the required amount of masonry on the exterior facades.
Construction Schedule and Phasing Plan
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
6
The petitioner has submitted a construction schedule as required by Section 12-3-5.H, refer to the
Construction Schedule attachment. The building will be constructed in one phase, with a projected
start date of March 2026 and construction end date of May 2027, with project completion and
opening in August 2027. A construction schedule is required pursuant Section 12-3-5.H, which
authorizes the City Council to revoke the PUD if the construction falls more than 18 months behind
the submitted construction schedule.
Pursuant to Section 12-3-5, the PZB may recommend approval when the following standards are
met. The following standards were met with the Preliminary PUD and remain unchanged with the
Final PUD.
Final PUD Plat Review
Item Analysis (based on Proposal)
A maximum choice in the types
of environments available to the
public by allowing a
development that would not be
possible under the strict
application of the other sections
of this title
Combined with the Conditional Use in the Preliminary
PUD stage, this entitlement strategy was chosen to
provide a streamlined process for requesting any
exceptions, including the increased height, and to
provide the ability for the PZB and City Council to
engage in meaningful dialogue during the review
process about the overall site plan.
Permanent preservation of
common open space and
recreation areas and facilities
The Final PUD plat includes proposed modifications
along the gravel path along the south boundary of the
property, to be determined after consultation with
Public Works and Engineering, IDOT, and Cook
County Forest Preserve. This path connects to a paved
multi-use path along N. East River Road and connects
to the forest preserve trail network to the west.
A pattern of development to
preserve natural vegetation,
topographic and geologic
features
No significant natural vegetation, topographic or
geologic features exist on site that would be beneficial
to maintain. New landscaping is proposed throughout
the development, reducing the amount of impervious
surface currently located on the site.
A creative approach to the use of
land and related physical
facilities that results in better
development and design and the
construction of aesthetic
amenities
The proposed building is constructed on a vacant
property previously occupied by an office building.
The new development will include significantly more
landscaping than the previous development (Refer to
Landscape Plan), and the residents will have access to
an interior courtyard for recreation, as well as access
to the forest preserve trail network adjacent to this
property.
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
7
An efficient use of the land
resulting in more economic
networks of utilities, streets and
other facilities
No new driveways onto public streets are proposed,
and all utilities will be placed underground. According
to the petitioner’s traffic study (see attachments), the
development is not expected to disproportionately
impact traffic in the area. Compared to a traditional
multifamily development, which is permitted by right
in this zoning district, this use may generate less
traffic, as most residents are not expected to rely on
personal vehicles. Instead, the primary sources of site
traffic will be employees, deliveries, and the shuttle
service.
A land use which promotes the
public health, safety, and general
welfare
This development develops long-vacant land to serve
the region’s growing senior population, addressing the
need for specialized housing and services described in
the Comprehensive Plan. While the nature of this use
may increase demand on emergency services, the
proposed conditions of approval may help mitigate
potential impacts, ensuring continued service
efficiency.
Additionally, the development fully complies with fire
code regulations, and its access design—maintaining
the existing entrance and utilizing the internal road
network connected to The Monarch development—
supports safe and efficient emergency response. By
providing housing and services tailored to seniors
while maintaining adherence to safety standards, the
project promotes public health, safety, and general
welfare.
Findings of Fact for Planned Unit Development:
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 responses provided as written as its
rationale, modify, or adopt its own.
1. The extent to which the Proposed Plan is or is not consistent with the stated purpose of
the PUD regulations in Section 12-3-5.A of this title:
The Planned Unit Development (PUD) process is available to any property owner seeking approval
for a proposed project. PUDs are permitted in all zoning districts within the City, subject to the
regulations outlined in Section 12-3-5 of the Zoning Ordinance. To qualify, a PUD must be under
single ownership or unified control, and the petitioner intends to purchase the property after
receiving necessary approvals.
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
8
2. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the
planned unit development regulations:
The proposal meets the ownership/unified control and size requirements in the Zoning Ordinance.
3. The extent to which the proposed plan departs from the applicable zoning and
subdivision regulations otherwise applicable to the subject property, including, but not
limited to the density, dimension, area, bulk, and use and the reasons why such
departures are or are not deemed to be in the public interest:
The attached Petitioner’s Response to Standards for Planned Unit Development provides their
response to this standard.
Staff Comments: The proposal complies with the majority of bulk regulations outlined in Section
12-7-2.J of the Zoning Ordinance but requires an exception for building height. Specifically, the
development seeks approval for a height of 50.5 feet, exceeding the 45-foot maximum permitted
in the R-3 zoning district by 5.5 feet, or approximately 12%, with building setbacks of 53’-7” from
north property line, 30’-1” from south property line, 167’-4” from the west property line, and 219’-
1” from east property line.
This height exception may allow a more efficient building design, minimizing the development’s
overall footprint and allowing for a more residential style of the roof and architecture of the
building. By slightly increasing the height, the project can provide necessary amenities, improved
unit layouts, and enhanced accessibility features without requiring a larger building footprint,
thereby preserving open space and reducing impervious surface coverage. Additionally, the
proposed height is compatible with the surrounding built environment and does not create adverse
impacts on adjacent properties.
4. The extent to which the physical design of the proposed development does or does not
make adequate provision for public services, provide adequate control of vehicular
traffic, provide for, protect open space, and further the amenities of light and air,
recreation and visual enjoyment:
The attached Petitioner’s Response to Standards for Planned Unit Development provides their
response to this standard.
Staff Comments: The physical design of the proposed development provides adequate
consideration for public services, vehicular traffic control, open space, and amenities such as light,
air, recreation, and visual enjoyment. The project includes underground utilities, which reduces
visual clutter and maintains the area’s aesthetic quality. Vehicular access is provided through the
existing full access driveway and an internal road network connecting to The Monarch
development, which helps mitigate potential traffic impacts on surrounding public streets.
According to the petitioner’s traffic study, the development is not expected to result in a
disproportionate impact on local traffic, with the primary sources of traffic being employees,
deliveries, and shuttle service. The amount of landscaped area will be increased with this
development, as illustrated in the Landscape Plan attachment.
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
9
5. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is
beneficial or adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood:
The attached Petitioner’s Response to Standards for Planned Unit Development provides their
response to this standard.
Staff Comments: The project is located within a zoning district that permits multifamily residential
uses, and the petitioner has made efforts to align with the existing built environment. Access to the
site is provided through an entrance and an internal road network connected to The Monarch
development to the north, which minimizes disruption to surrounding streets and ensures efficient
traffic flow. The height of the building is slightly above the district’s maximum allowable height,
but the design is intended to minimize visual impact and maintain adequate light and air circulation
for surrounding properties.
The project also incorporates landscaping and open space amenities for residents, which contribute
to the aesthetic value of the area and improve the visual appeal that has not existed for this vacant
property since the building was demolished fourteen years ago. Overall, the proposed development
is not expected to create adverse impacts on adjacent properties or the neighborhood.
6. The extent to which the proposed plan is not desirable to physical development, tax base,
and economic well-being of the entire community:
The attached Petitioner’s Response to Standards for Conditional Use provides their response to
this standard.
Staff comments: The proposal would provide additional housing stock that increases the tax base
for the City and improve the economic well-being of Des Plaines. It would also provide extra
economic benefit through utility and public service fees that are currently not eligible for the vacant
property at this time.
7. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the
2019 Comprehensive Plan:
The attached Petitioner’s Response to Standards for Conditional Use provides their response to
this standard.
Staff comments: The proposed use aligns with the housing goals and objectives of the 2019
Comprehensive Plan by increasing the housing stock and providing additional options for senior
residents. While not a traditional multifamily development, the proposed use supports the
Comprehensive Plan’s vision for this property as a multifamily residential site. Additionally, the
development advances several key goals, including pursuing high-quality housing for residents at
all stages of life, particularly older adults; ensuring a diverse range of housing options to
accommodate varying needs within the community; and planning for accessibility by creating a
facility that, by its nature, must be accessible to older residents. By addressing these priorities, the
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
10
proposal contributes to the City's long-term vision for balanced and inclusive housing
development.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Under Section 12-3-5.D (Procedure for Review
and Decision for Planned Unit Developments) of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has the authority
to recommend that the City Council approve, approve subject to conditions, or deny the Final
Planned Unit Development. 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 12-3-5.E (Standards for Planned
Unit Developments) of the Zoning Ordinance. If the PZB recommends and City Council ultimately
approves the request, staff recommends the following conditions.
Suggested Condition of Approval:
1. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the petitioner shall construct a walkway
or pedestrian path along the southern boundary of the property, generally following the
alignment of the existing gravel path, unless otherwise directed by the Public Works and
Engineering (PWE) Director. The PWE Director, or their designee, shall determine the
required size and materials of the path. Upon written request, the PWE Director, or their
designee, may grant a one-year extension to this requirement.
Member Catalano asked staff to define the review of final PUD submittals to verify consistency
with the Conditional Use and Preliminary PUD approval from June 2025.
Senior Planner Redman outlined staff’s method for FPUD review for consistency with the PPUD
and the codified FPUD requirement and procedural. The FPUD process primarily requires full
engineering plans and construction schedule. The engineering plans must be reviewed and
approved by PWE, and the developer must substantively adhere to the approved construction
schedule.
Member Fallico asked about the condition of approval for paving the Golf Road public sidewalk
is regarding keeping the sidewalk as is.
Senior Planner Redman described the details of the existing gravel path and stated the Petitioner
would be required to pave the Golf Road path during the project’s construction, but there is still
ongoing coordination between various agencies on the final alignment and dimensions. The
condition of approval included by staff provides an expanded timeline for the petitioner to
complete coordination and permitting for the final design of the path, with a final determination
by Public Works and Engineering.
Chairman Szabo asked if the bike/ped path along Golf Road would remain open during
construction.
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
11
Senior Planner Redman stated she understands the intent is that the path would remain open during
the project’s main construction and may only be closed during paving of the path by the Petitioner.
Chairman Szabo asked for PZB questions for staff. There were none.
Mr. Helle stated that they will plan to keep the Golf Road path open during construction and they
will make sure to treat it appropriately as directed by the applicable regulatory jurisdiction.
Chairman Szabo asked for any public comments and there were none.
Member Catalano moved and Member Veremis seconded a motion to recommend the City Council
approve the Final PUD as proposed with the condition of approval drafted by staff.
AYES: Zadrozny, Catalano, Fowler, Veremis, Fallico & Szabo
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED***
3. Address: Citywide Case Number: 25-051-TA
The petitioner is requesting text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance including i)
amending the definition for “government facility” in Section 12-13-3; and ii) adding
“government facility” as a land use in various residential, commercial, manufacturing
and/or institutional zoning districts as permitted or conditional uses.
PIN: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Des Plaines
Chairman Szabo introduced staff presentation
Director Jeff Rogers presented the staff analysis.
Issue: Consideration of Text Amendments modifying regulations of the Zoning Ordinance
applicable to City Facilities including those districts where government services are provided or
conducted.
Background
The purpose of the City’s zoning ordinance is to regulate and control the use and development of
land within the City of Des Plaines. The City’s zoning ordinance is codified as Title 12 of the City
Code of Des Plaines.
Section 12-13-2 of the Code includes various definitions of terms including the following excerpt
defining the term “government facility”:
12-13-3: DEFINITION OF TERMS:
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
12
For the purposes of this title, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
* * *
GOVERNMENT FACILITY: A building or structure owned and operated by a Municipal,
State, Federal, or other taxing body institution in which governmental services are provided
or conducted.
* * *
This definition and regulations relating thereto are differentiated from definitions and regulations
for other regulated land uses including the following:
a. “colleges and universities”
b. “libraries, public”
c. “parks”
d. “post office”
e. “public utilities” and
f. “schools, public – elementary and high school.”
Considering the current variety of land use listings in the Code, the various specific uses which
would be classified as a “government facility” include existing and proposed administrative
offices, government service centers, fleet dispatch & maintenance operations and similar uses
comprised of operations and services of government agencies.
Existing uses throughout the community including buildings, structures, and properties operated
by the State, Township, Park District, and the City are currently regulated as a “government
facility.” These existing uses include the following:
Facility Address Current Zoning Current Use
Regulation
Des Plaines Park District
Administrative Center 2222 Birch St
R-1 Single-
Family
Residential
Legal Nonconforming
Fire Station 62 1313 E.
Oakton Ave
R-1 Single-
Family
Residential
Legal Nonconforming
Fire Station 63 130 E. Thacker
St
R-1 Single-
Family
Residential
Legal Nonconforming
Fire Station 61
405 S. Des
Plaines River
Rd
C-3 General
Commercial Legal Nonconforming
Des Plaines Park District
Maintenance Facility
1300-1350
Oakwood Ave
C-3 General
Commercial Legal Nonconforming
Illinois Secretary of State
Driver Services 1462 Lee St C-4 Regional
Shopping Legal Nonconforming
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
13
City Hall & Police
Station 1420 Miner St C-5 Central
Business Permitted
Maine Township
Highway Department
1387 Redeker
Rd
M-1 Limited
Manufacturing Legal Nonconforming
Fire Station 64 877 Central Rd I-1 Institutional Legal Nonconforming
(Government offices)
Public Works
Department
1111 Joseph
Schwab Rd I-1 Institutional Legal Nonconforming
(Government offices)
Cook County Highway
Department
2101 Ballard
Rd I-1 Institutional Legal Nonconforming
(Government offices)
As outlined in the table above, several existing government facilities are noted as “legal
nonconforming” uses in the zoning districts in which they are located.
The proposed amendments are an attempt to remedy many of these legal nonconformities while
also providing reasonable regulations for future government facilities across the City’s various
zoning districts.
Proposed Amendments
To align requirements for government facilities with other similar land uses, text amendments are
proposed to several sections of the City Code.
The following amendments would apply to the Residential Districts Use Matrix included in Sec.
12-7-2.I. Table 1:
12-7-2: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS REGULATIONS:
I. Residential Use Matrix:
TABLE 1
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS USE MATRIX
P = Permitted use
C = Conditional use permit required
Uses R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4
* * *
Government facility P3
* * *
Note:
* * *
3. On sites of 0.5 acre or more with frontage on a collector or arterial
street.
* * *
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
14
Staff Commentary: Staff recommends adding “Government facility” as a listed land use in
the Residential Districts Use Matrix as a “Permitted use” in the R-1
Single-Family Residential District only. The text amendment would
authorize the Des Plaines Park District Administrative Center and Fire
Stations 62 & 63. The classification of the use as a “Permitted use”
would align with other land uses which are permitted in the R-1
District including public libraries, parks, playgrounds, and public
schools.
The following amendments would apply to the Commercial Districts Use Matrix included in Sec.
12-7-3.K. Table 3:
12-7-3: COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS REGULATIONS:
K. Commercial Use Matrix:
TABLE 3
COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS USE MATRIX
P = Permitted use
C = Conditional use permit required
Uses C-1 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 C-6 C-7
* * *
Government facility P P P P
* * *
Notes:
* * *
25. Reserved.
* * *
Staff Commentary: Staff recommends amending current regulations regarding
“Government facility” the Commercial Districts Use Matrix to allow
the use as a “Permitted use” in the C-3 and C-4 Districts in addition to
current allowances in the C-2 and C-5 Districts. The text amendment
would authorize the State of Illinois Secretary of State Driver Services
Facility and Fire Station 61. The classification of the use as a
“Permitted use” would align with other land uses which are permitted
in the C-3 & C-4 Districts including public libraries, parks, post offices,
and public utilities. The amendment to the “Notes” section is intended
as a “housekeeping” measure to restore a placeholder for a previous
Note which was removed from the Code in accordance with a prior text
amendment.
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
15
No changes are proposed to the Manufacturing Districts Use Matrix included in Sec. 12-7-4.G.
Table 5.
12-7-4: MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS REGULATIONS:
G. Manufacturing Use Matrix:
TABLE 5
MANUFACTURING DISTRICTS USE MATRIX
P = Permitted use
C = Conditional use permit required
Uses M-1 M-2 M-3
* * *
Staff Commentary: More so than any other category of zoning, properties throughout the
City’s manufacturing zoning districts provide the majority of revenues
for the area’s various taxing districts which generate revenues via real
estate property taxes. As such, introducing new government facilities
in manufacturing districts is not recommended. As proposed, the
existing Maine Township Highway Department use would remain
legal nonconforming and be subject to the requirements of Title 12
Zoning, Chapter 5 Nonconforming Uses and Structures. Future
government facility uses upon property currently zoned for
manufacturing district uses would require rezoning to a classification
that allows government facilities such as the I-1 Institutional District.
The following amendments would apply to the Institutional Districts Use Matrix included in Sec.
12-7-5.A.6. Table 7:
12-7-5: SPECIAL DISTRICTS REGULATIONS:
A. Institutional District:
6. Institutional Use Matrix:
TABLE 7
INSTITUTIONAL DISTRICT USE MATRIX
P = Permitted use
C = Conditional use permit required
Use I-1
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
16
* * *
Government offices facility P
* * *
Staff Commentary: The proposed amendment to this section is intended as a
“housekeeping” amendment to align the terminology utilized in Table
7 with the existing definition of “Government facility” provided in
Sec. 12-13-3 of the Code.
Standards for Text Amendments:
Consideration of the following standards included in Sec. 12-3-7.E. of the City Code is required
when formulating a recommendation or determination to amend the text of the Zonin Ordinance.
Both the PZB & City Council may utilize the justifications below as their rationale, adopt their
own, or reject the amendments based upon these points, however consideration should be based
upon sound legislative discretion rather than any one standard.
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the city
council;
The 2019 Comprehensive Plan does not suggest the elimination of any of the existing
government facilities serving the community. The proposed amendments would provide
clarity for any future government facility to be proposed by the State, County, City, or other
government agency.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall
character of existing development;
The proposed amendment is intended specifically to acknowledge the compatibility of
existing government facilities with the existing zoning of the properties on which they are
located. Further, the proposed amendments would introduce new land use requirements which
align with the closest comparable uses in the affected districts.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available to this subject property;
The proposed amendments are intended to ensure the continued adequacy of existing and
future public facilities and services.
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction.
The proposed amendments would not be anticipated to have any adverse impact on the value
of properties throughout the City which are proximate to existing government facilities.
Specific consideration of impacts of future government facilities pursued in accordance with
the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance as amended is warranted, however the proposed
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
17
land use regulations were introduced with consideration of current regulations applicable to
the closest comparable uses in the affected districts, including libraries, parks, public schools,
etc.
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and
growth.
The proposed amendments are intended to ensure responsible maintenance, improvements,
expansion, and replacement of existing government facilities in their current locations as well
as potential new government facilities which may enhance government operations and
delivery of government services.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Per Section 12-3-7.D.3. of the Code, the PZB
has the authority to recommend approval, approval with modification, or disapproval of the
proposed text amendments to the City Council. Per Section 12-3-7.D.4. of the Code, City Council
has final authority regarding whether to adopt the proposed text amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance.
Member Fowler asked if there are any sites where new City facilities are proposed.
Director Rogers described the proposed Central Road fire station and the replacement of another
fire station on Oakton St. There may be other government facilities in the future, but there are no
pending applications.
Chairman Szabo asked how long other example municipalities have had their land use regulations
relating to government facilities.
Director Rogers stated that the cited municipalities have had their applicable regulatory
frameworks for many years and complete text amendments over time in the same manner as the
City currently does.
Chair Szabo asked whether there were any further questions and there were none by PZB members.
Member Zadrozny moved and Member Fallico seconded a motion to recommend the City Council
approve the proposed Text Amendments as drafted by staff.
AYES: Zadrozny, Fallico, Catalano, Fowler, Veremis & Szabo
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIED***
OTHER DISCUSSION
Member Fowler asked if staff has proceeded with changes to the multi-family, commercial,
industrial building design regulations and procedures.
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
18
Senior Planner Redman outlined the current regulatory framework has not changed for those
development categories. Staff drafted a discussion item at a prior PZB meeting describing the
existing Building Design Standards.
Member Fowler asked if the 622 Graceland development would have to comply with updated or
existing building design and materials codes now that there is a new owner.
Senior Planner Redman stated this project would have to comply with the current building and
design regulations. If a proposal doesn’t comply, the applicant would likely have to request a
major variation which would be reviewed for recommendation by the PZB and City Council
approval.
Member Veremis asked about previously approved but not constructed developments.
Senior Planner Redman stated there have not been any proposed changes to the multi-family and
non-residential building design regulations. The recent text amendment recommended by PZB and
approved by City Council related only to single family detached and two-family residential.
Member Fowler asked about the process for proposing changes to the multi-family and non-
residential building design regulations.
Director Rogers outlined the process to determine policy direction on this item from City Council
and through the 2026 Budget creation process to identify the bounds of the project requirements
and hiring a consultant to amend the architectural design related requirements. If that is prioritized,
then it would proceed through an RFP process and would involve working with the consultant on
research, public engagement, and then developing amended language to be presented to PZB and
Council.
Member Fowler stated she still gets comments from people regarding the Welkin and the aesthetics
of the building.
Chairman Szabo asked for examples of requirements from other municipalities for building design
and exterior materials especially the recent developments in downtown Mount Prospect and
Glenview, where buildings are primarily masonry.
Senior Planner Redman stated that staff could collate the other municipalities’ material and design
review procedures and provide the details for the PZB as a sample and possible discussion item.
She also reiterated that zoning and design regulations are often shaped by community context and
provided information on the origin of the existing code requirements.
Chairman Szabo asked for the information over the next couple months.
Member Veremis asked about whether developments the PZB has reviewed are stalled or
canceled.
CASE NO. 25-047-FPUD FINAL PUD 2200 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-046-TPLAT-PPUD TENT. PLAT OF SUB & PRELIM PUD 9535-9601 E. GOLF RD
CASE NO. 25-051-TA GOVERNMENT FACILITIES IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS CITYWIDE
19
Director Rogers outlined the details of the status for several specific projects and their status.
Member Veremis asked specifically about the 414 E. Golf Road development.
Director Rogers stated that 414 E. Golf Road development has no active development
application.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by affirmative voice vote at 7:45 P.M.
Sincerely,
Jonthan Mendel, AICP, Assistant Director/Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners