HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPPROVED - 2023-10-24 PZB Minutes
Case 23-039-MAP-PUD-TSUB 900 Graceland Ave and 1217 Thacker St
Rezone, Preliminary PUD, Tentative Plat of Subdivision
Case 23-061-TA Citywide Text Amendments
Discussion 414 East Golf Road Workshop
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
October 24, 2023
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday,
October 24, 2023, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
Chair Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. and roll call was established.
PRESENT: Szabo, Hofherr, Weaver, Catalano, Saletnik, Veremis
ABSENT: Fowler
ALSO PRESENT: Ryan Johnson, Assistant CED Director
Jonathan Stytz, AICP, Senior Planner
Samantha Redman, Senior Planner
Stewart Weiss, Legal Counsel, Elrod Friedman LLP
A quorum was present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Catalano to
approve the meeting minutes of October 10, 2023.
AYES: Hofherr, Weaver, Szabo, Catalano, Saletnik
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Fowler
ABSTAIN: Veremis
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM
There was no public comment.
Pending Applications:
1. Address: 900 Graceland Avenue and 1217 Thacker Street
Case Number: 23-039-MAP-PUD-TSUB
The petitioner has requested the following items: (i) a Map Amendment to rezone from M-2
General Manufacturing to R-3 Townhouse Residential District; (ii) a Preliminary Planned Unit
Development (PUD) with exceptions; (iii) a Tentative Plat of Subdivision to consolidate eight
lots into two lots; and (iv) any other variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary.
PINs: 09-20-105-016-0000, 09-20-105-017-0000, 09-20-105-020-0000, 09-20-
105-021-0000, 09-20-105-022-0000, 09-20-105-023-0000, 09-20-105-
024-0000, 09-20-105-045-0000
Petitioner: Luz and Associates #1, LLC, 2030 West Wabansia Avenue, Chicago, IL
60611
Owner: Contour Saws, Inc., 100 Lakeview Parkway, Ste. 100, Vernon Hills,
60061
Ward: #3, Alderman Sean Oskerka
Existing Zoning: M-2, General Manufacturing
Existing Land Use: Unoccupied manufacturing building
Surrounding Zoning: North: M-1, Light Manufacturing and R-1, Single Family Residential
South: R-4, Central Core Residential and C-3, General Commercial
East: R-1, Single Family Residential and R-4, Central Core Residential
West: Railroad and M-1, Light Manufacturing
Surrounding Land Uses: North: Manufacturing building and single-family detached
residences
South: Multi-family residential buildings and vacant parking lot
(proposed multi-family residential on this property)
East: Railroad and manufacturing buildings
West: Single-family detached and multi-family residential
buildings
Street Classification: Graceland Avenue is classified as a major road and under the
ownership of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT);
Thacker Street is classified as a secondary road and is under the
ownership of the City of Des Plaines.
Comprehensive Plan: Industrial is the recommended use for this property.
Property/Zoning History: The subject property was previously the
site of Contour Saws, a manufacturing facility operating from the
1960s to 2020. The property is currently improved with an
approximately 105,000 square foot manufacturing facility,
consisting of several joined buildings to create one large two-story
building. The remainder of the property consists of surface
parking.
Sanborn maps from the 1920s indicate this site was previously a
subdivision with half acre tracts of land with single-family
detached residences.1 In the early 1960s the Contour Saws facility
began operating at this site, using existing buildings and
constructing additional buildings. Functionally, the facility is one
joined building, including an original residence from the 1920s
subdivision previously used for the office of Contour Saws. Zoning
between the late 1920s and present day has shifted from residential
to commercial to manufacturing on this property. The property is
currently owned by Contour Saws and is unoccupied.
On September 20, 2022, a No Further Remediation (NFR) letter
was issued for the property from the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (IEPA). An NFR letter signifies that, while the
site may have previously contained contaminants that exceeded
state or federal limits, the IEPA does not deem this site to
constitute a significant risk of harm. The NFR letter was pursued in
response to a Phase II environmental review completed in 2016
indicating presence of contaminants in soil and groundwater,
associated with the previous use at this property.
After review of a Remedial Action Plan prepared in 2022, an NFR
Letter was issued by IEPA stating the property is approved for
residential, commercial, or industrial land use. However, any NFR
letter typically specifies actions necessary for safe use of the
property. For this property, the controls include the development of
a safety plan for construction of the building to limit worker
exposure, and the necessary asphalt/concrete barriers and types of
foundation necessary for buildings. All of the controls must be
maintained to maintain the certification of the NFR; if any
violation of the controls is observed, the letter will be voided and
enforcement actions would be implemented by the IEPA. The
petitioner is aware of the NFR Letter and designed the project to be
compliant with all the controls required to be in place.
1 1924 Sanborn Map of Des Plaines
Project Description: Overview
The petitioner is Luz and Associates, which is the contract
purchaser of the subject property, along with the Contour Saws
parking lot on the other side of Graceland. They are proposing to
build a 50-unit townhouse development and a private, publicly
accessible park on the property.
Proposal
The proposal includes the removal of all existing buildings and
structures to redevelop the subject property into a 50-unit
townhouse Planned Unit Development (PUD). The proposed
development consists of eight separate three story townhouse
buildings with various numbers of units depending on the building.
A publicly accessible, privately owned park is proposed at the
north corner of the development with landscaped areas throughout
the development. Refer to Architectural Plan attachment. The
anticipated unit mix will be 33 three-bedrooms and 17 two-
bedrooms, with a unit size ranging from approximately 2,200 to
2,500 square feet each. Refer to Floor Plan attachment. Each unit
will have a two-car, attached garage and thirteen surface parking
spaces are provided for guests on the site.
MAP AMENDMENT
Request Description: Zoning Map Amendment Overview
The purpose of a zoning map amendment is to determine whether
an existing zoning district is suitable for a location and, if not,
which zoning district would be more suitable, given the context of
the neighborhood, city goals, and local, state, and national
development trends. Although a specific project can be considered
alongside any zoning application, zoning change deliberation
often looks at a property at a larger scale within the neighborhood
and city.
A Site Plan Review, as required by Section 12-3-2, was
performed for the conceptual project at this site. The Site Plan
Review contributes to the overall assessment of a zoning map
amendment, demonstrating the feasibility of a specific project
with this zoning. Refer to the Site Plan Review section of this
report and associated attachments.
M-2 Zoning and Suitability of the Site for Proposed R-3 Zoning
The M-2, General Manufacturing zoning district is intended to
accommodate a diversity of industrial uses. Out of all of the
industrial districts, M-2 permits the largest number of different
uses, allowing for 23 uses permitted by right (meaning no zoning
entitlement process) and 24 conditional uses. A broad variety of
uses are allowed by right, including light and heavy
manufacturing, warehouses or distribution facilities, or food
processing establishments.
Few available properties exist in Des Plaines with the range of
transit, recreational, and commercial opportunities available
within walking distance, making this site an ideal location for
additional residential versus commercial or manufacturing
development. Within a half-mile of the property (an approximate
8–15-minute walk for the average person 2), the following services
are available. Refer to Amenities and Services Map attachment
for further details.
A change to the zoning would be necessary to allow residential
uses on this property. No residential uses are permitted within the
M-2 zoning district. An analysis of the various options for
residential zoning districts is necessary to determine what is best
suited for this site. Below is a table of residential zoning districts
and the residential uses permitted within them.
A change to the zoning would be necessary to allow residential
2 Bohannon, R. W. (1997). Comfortable and maximum walking speeds of adults aged 20-79 years: reference values
and determinants. Age and Ageing, page 17.
Service
Transit Des Plaines Metra Station platform; Pace Bus Stops
for Lines 226, 230, and 250, and the PULSE
Dempster Line
Downtown Commercial Area Restaurants, grocery store, retail/personal services
including dentist, optometrist, urgent care, physical
therapist, private gym, and salons
Schools (private and public) Central Elementary School, Willows Academy,
Little Bulgarian School, Islamic City Center of Des
Plaines Academy
Parks Centennial Park, Central Park, Paroubeck
Park, Potowatomie Park
Public Buildings Library, City Hall
uses on this property. No residential uses are permitted within the
M-2 zoning district. An analysis of the various options for
residential zoning districts is necessary to determine what is best
suited for this site. Below is a table of residential zoning districts
and the residential uses permitted within them.
Residential Districts Use Matrix
Use R-1 R-2 R-3 R-4
Single Family Detached P C* C* C*
Townhouse Not
permitted
Not
permitted
P P
Two-family (duplex) Not
permitted
P Not
permitted
Not
permitted
Multi-Family Not
permitted
Not
permitted
P P
*Note: Only applies to single-family detached dwellings that were lawfully constructed prior to
August 17, 2020 and are located in a zoning district other than R-1.
The R-1 and R-2 zoning districts would restrict the density of
residential units at the property, limiting the development potential.
As the name suggests, the R-1, Single Family Residential district
limits the number of dwelling units to one dwelling unit per parcel.
The R-2, Two-Family Residential district similarly limits the
number of dwellings to two units per parcel. To allow for more
than one or two residences on this 3.13-acre property, the property
would need to be subdivided. If the property were subdivided to
meet the R-1 or R-2 bulk standards, it is unlikely the property could
produce 50 units, even with a planned unit development.
Comparatively, a townhouse or multi-family development would
supply a greater number of units in the same amount of space,
creating a more efficient and economical option for this location.
For the contemplated project, the R-3 zoning district was selected
by the petitioner because this zoning best fits the intended scale
and purpose of the development.
Demographic Trends and Accommodating an Aging Population
The existing housing stock throughout the city is predominantly
single-family residential and the Comprehensive Plan states it is a
goal to maintain this stock of high-quality single family residential
property within the city. However, the detached single family
housing type is an increasingly unaffordable product for many
existing and future residents. In comparison, townhouses provide
additional housing stock at a more financially attainable scale due to
the smaller size and reduced maintenance cost.
An important goal of 2019 Comprehensive Plan is to provide
avenues to allow residents to age-in-place and improve
accessibility. As of 2015, the percentage of Des Plaines residents
50 or older was 40.2%, compared to the regional average of
31.4%.3 According to the U.S. Census Bureau, this percentage is
likely to grow, with one in five Americans at retirement age by
2030.4 Households approaching retirement are frequently
interested in downsizing to limit maintenance costs and reduce
monthly housing costs to meet limitations of fixed incomes.
Supplying a diverse housing stock in this area provides the option
for seniors to continue living within the city. A residential
development in this location would be close enough to facilities
and services for an aging population to independently complete
activities of daily living, with many amenities available within
walking or transit distance.
With these considerations regarding the location of the property
near multi- family properties and zoning, the proximity to
numerous private and public services, and the goals of the
Comprehensive Plan focused on providing diversity of housing
stock and providing accessible and attainable options for residents,
senior or otherwise, the R-3 zoning district is a suitable fit for this
property.
Site Plan Review
Proposed Project Overview
The petitioner proposes 50 townhouse units, including 33 three-
bedroom units and 17 two-bedroom units and a publicly accessible,
private park space. The proposed development is one of two for the
former Contour Saws properties. The parking lot of the former
Contour Saws facility is proposed to be a 56-unit multifamily
development; a petition to change the zoning from C-3 to R-4 was
recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Board
(PZB) on July 25, 2023.
3 Des Plaines 2019 Comprehensive Plan, Page 32
https://www.desplaines.org/home/showpublisheddocument/162/637612522934400000
4 U.S. Census Bureau (2018) Older People Projected to Outnumber Children for First Time in U.S. History,
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-41-population-projections.html
This type of development is a permitted use in the proposed R-3
Townhouse, with a PUD. The below diagram illustrates staff’s
interpretation of where the required yards are located for this property, as
noted in Section 12-7-2 and defined in Section 12-13-3.
R-3 -Central Core Residential District Bulk Standards
Bulk Controls Required Proposed
Maximum height 45 ft. 34 ft.
Minimum front yard 25 ft. 12 ft.1
Minimum corner side 10 ft. 10 ft.
Minimum rear yard 25 ft. 25 ft.
Minimum lot width 55 ft. 516.72 ft
Minimum lot area 2800 sq. ft. per dwelling
unit
* 50 units =
140,000 sq. ft.
130,406 sq.
ft.2
1 Exception request with PUD to reduce required front yard.
2 Exception request with PUD to reduce minimum lot area. Publicly accessible private
parking lot excluded from total lot area.
Site Plan Review Standards
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 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 Site Plan attachment.
Site Plan Review
Item Analysis (based on Proposal)
The arrangement of
structures on the site
The arrangement of open
space and landscape
improvements
• Places buildings along the street frontage, rather than garages
or surface parking. The design presents better cohesion with
the buildings surrounding it by placing the building at
approximately the same distance from the property line as
the existing building and the adjacent existing and proposed
multi- family buildings. The proximity of the building to the
street also provides better surveillance within the
neighborhood, with windows facing the residential
neighborhood and providing additional “eyes on the street.”
• The design of each townhouse includes a two car, attached
garage, providing covered parking in a more compact manner
than surface parking. Guest spaces are located in the center
of the property. The site layout minimizes view of the parking
area and interior roadway, with the buildings as the primary
focus along the street.
• A subdivision is requested as part of this request.
Improvements deemed necessary in the area adjacent to a
subdivision can be required pursuant to Section 13-3-2.L.
The improvements required to serve this development are
discussed in the Public Works and Engineering (PWE)
Department Memo attachment. Improvements are required
prior to completion of the development or within 2 years of
the recorded subdivision. A summary of the improvements
includes replacement of a water main in a portion of
Graceland Avenue, construction of pedestrian bump out and
flashing pedestrian signage at the intersection of Thacker and
Laurel, replacement of a streetlight on Graceland Avenue,
and grinding and resurfacing Thacker Street as well as
replacement of any damaged public sidewalk.
• Landscaping is provided around and within the development
meeting zoning requirements. In addition, a park space is
proposed, as noted on the plans and the Park Concept Plan
attachment. Refer to Landscape Plane attachment for details
on landscaping.
• Parkway trees and landscaping proposed along Graceland
Avenue, where none currently exist.
• A Solid wood fence is proposed along the railroad track to
screen the railroad from the development. A condition of
approval requires an open fence at the northwest corner of
the park to alleviate any sight obstruction between the
railroad and Thacker Street.
The adequacy of the
proposed circulation
system on the site
• Several driveways will be closed along Graceland Avenue,
with one driveway entrance/exit proposed on Graceland
Avenue and one along Thacker Street. The existing driveway
along Thacker is not aligned with Laurel Avenue. The
proposed plan aligns the driveway to this street. The closure
of these extra driveways and replacement with a parkway and
walkway improves safety and comfort of pedestrians along
Graceland and Thacker.
• Pedestrian circulation is provided by numerous walkways
from Graceland and Thacker from each unit to the existing
public sidewalk or to sidewalks withing the development. The
proposed plan includes bump outs at the intersection of
Thacker and Laurel to improve pedestrian safety to and from
the publicly accessible park and the adjacent neighborhood.
• Vehicular circulation is provided by interior, private roads
accessed from two driveways, one along Graceland Avenue
and one along Thacker Street. The roads are 26 feet in width,
exceeding the maximum required width (22 ft) for a two- way
drive aisle per Section 12-9-6.
The location, design, and
screening of proposed off-street
parking areas
• Parking meets the off-street parking requirements of Section
12-9-7, providing two spaces per residential unit (50 garage
spaces) and one space per four units (13 guest spaces, in
surface parking area) which is the minimum required amount.
• It is anticipated, as discussed in the petitioner’s response to
standards and the provided traffic study, that the proximity of
the site to numerous transit options and a bike route along
Thacker St, will reduce dependence on automobiles for this
project.
• Attached garages are proposed with each unit, facing interior,
private roads within the development rather than connecting
to the street. The proposed site is situated in such a way that
guest parking is located in the middle and has minimal
visibility from Graceland Avenue and Thacker Street.
Landscaping is provided along driveways.
The adequacy of the proposed
landscaping design on the site • All required landscaping in terms of foundation landscaping,
parkway landscaping, and overall site landscaping are
provided (pursuant to Sections 12-10-6, 12-10-7 and 12-10-
10). Landscaping, either turf, bushes or trees are provided
throughout the development. Refer to Landscape Plan.
• The park along Thacker Street is proposed to be a publicly
accessible park space, providing additional landscaping and
recreational opportunities.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
P
u
b
l
i
c
O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h
I
n
a
n
e
ffort to improve community engagement and transparency surrounding
new, large developments within Des Plaines, the City provided numerous
opportunities for residents to review the proposal and provide input. To
provide regular project updates, a webpage on the city website was
created: desplaines.org/contourplace. On June 6, 2023, the Planning
and Zoning Board hosted a public workshop to provide the developer,
board, and the public an opportunity to review plans and provide input
into the proposed development at this location and the former Contour
Saws facility to the north of this property. During the July 25, 2023 PZB
meeting, the petitioner provided an updated site plan depicting
townhouses instead of multi-family residential buildings. The project
webpage was launched prior to the PZB workshop to share details about
the proposed projects and includes a public input form to continuously
gather community comments. Refer to Public Comment attachment for
all public comments.
The design, location, and
installation of proposed site
illumination
• Photometric plan demonstrates conformance with
Section 12-12-10, with no more than 0.2-foot candles
spilling over the property line in any location, well
within the limits of the zoning ordinance.
• The parking lot is properly illuminated, with at least 0.1
footcandles in any parking area, meeting requirements
of Section 12-9-6.G. A condition of approval is to
provide additional illumination at the driveways
entering the
development on Graceland Avenue and Thacker Street.
The correlation of the
proposed site plan with
adopted land use policies,
goals, and objectives of the
comp. plan
• Does not fit the manufacturing use illustrated by the
Comprehensive Plan; however, the 2019 plan was
written under the assumption that the Contour Saw
facility would continue operating.
• The proposed plan supports the following goals (refer
to M-2 Zoning and Suitability of the Site for Proposed
R-3 Zoning section of this report for further details):
o Goal 4.1. Ensure the City has several housing options
to fit diverse needs.
o Goal 4.3 Provide new housing at different price points.
• In addition to housing goals, the proposed
development meets economic goals of the city by
providing additional property tax revenue compared to
the existing use of the site. Refer to the Tax Projections
attachment.
• The creation of a separate parcel for a privately owned,
publicly accessible park provides additional
recreational opportunities, which is supported by the
Comprehensive Plan.
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD)
Request Description: Overview
The proposed development includes eight separate “principal buildings.”
Section 12-13-3 of the Zoning Ordinance defines a “principal building” as
“a nonaccessory building in which a principal use of the lot, on which it is
located, is conducted.” Pursuant to Section 12-7-1.A, not more than one
principal building or structure can be located on a zoning lot, except in
certain cases. In this circumstance, a planned development, as defined
below, is the only case suitable for the proposal.
“A development occurring on a parcel under single ownership or unified
control which is developed as a unit and includes two (2) or more principal
buildings or uses and is processed under the planned development
procedure of this title” (Section 12-13-3).
The purpose of a PUD is to promote a unified development by providing
flexibility in development standards to accommodate site conditions and
encourage innovative use of land. Certain characteristics are required by
Section 12-3-5.A of the Zoning Ordinance, which are listed below along
with staff’s assessment of each in relation to the attached Preliminary PUD
Plat provided by the petitioner.
Preliminary 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
Allows for construction of a development on an
irregularly shaped parcel and provides an additional
housing option with increased density and multiple
principal buildings that is not permitted without a PUD
in the Zoning Ordinance.
Permanent preservation of common open space
and recreation areas and facilities
Creates a publicly accessible, private park where none
exists currently. Landscaping and open space is
provided around and between residential units and the
private road as well as along Graceland Avenue,
where landscaping was limited or non- existent before.
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. However, allowing for additional
buildings breaks up the site so landscaping can be
provided between buildings and sufficient area is
available for a park and open space.
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
Building design/layout provides a defined separation
between paved areas and common space; provides
adequate screening between these areas and
neighboring lots.
An efficient use of the land resulting in more
economic networks of utilities, streets and other
facilities
Reduces curb cuts onto both streets and ties into
existing utilities and facilities.
The traffic study provided by the petitioner (refer to
attachments) did not indicate any substantial impact to
traffic in the area compared to the manufacturing use
previously operating in this location for decades.
A land use which promotes the public health, safety,
and general welfare
Transforms a presently vacant site with
dilapidating manufacturing structures to create a
use that includes more visual appeal,
additional landscaping and recreational
opportunities, and adds additional residential
housing stock in a suitable area.
Prerequisites: Location, Ownership, and Size
PUDs are authorized in all zoning districts in the City subject to the
regulations in Section 12-3-5 of the Zoning Ordinance and are required to
be under single ownership and/or unified control. While the subject
property is currently not owned by the petitioner, the petitioner does intend
to take ownership of the property upon approval of the requests in this
application. Because the development will involve rental units with one
property management and maintenance entity, a Homeowner’s Association
(HOA) is not required at this time; however, a condition of approval states
if the development is subdivided into separate, fee-simple townhouse units,
an HOA must be established to manage and maintain the proposed PUD.
PUD Bulk Exceptions
As identified in the R-3 Bulk Regulations table, the proposal does not meet
the minimum front yard size and does not meet the minimum lot area,
requiring a PUD exception from Section 12-3-5.C.2 (Perimeter Yards) and
Section 12-3-5.C. The exceptions allow for a development that efficiently
uses the irregularly shaped parcel in a way that would not be possible under
the strict application of the code.
Parking Requirement
Pursuant to Section 12-9-7, a townhouse (single-family attached) residential
use requires a minimum of two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit
plus one common guest space for every four dwelling units. The proposed
50-unit PUD requires a minimum of 100 off-street parking spaces and 13
common guest spaces. The attached PUD Site Plan indicates two covered
off-street garage spaces for each unit and guest parking provided by
thirteen standard spaces, including one accessible space in an interior
parking area of the development.
.
TENTATIVE PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
Request Description: Overview
The proposal includes a consolidation of the property from eight lots to two
lots. One lot will be 130,406 square feet, proposed to be developed with the
townhouses and associated structures. A second lot, 6,182 square feet, is
proposed to be a publicly accessible, private park space. The attached
Tentative Plat of Subdivision, titled 1217 Thacker Street Consolidation,
shows the location and boundaries of each lot.
Easements
The Tentative Plat shows both existing and proposed easements. Proposed
easements include storm sewer, watermain, sanitary sewer, and a general
public utility and drainage easement, depicting both drainage on the site
and the proposed unground vault to accommodate stormwater.
Subdivision Improvements
The Department of Public Works and Engineering (PWE) has provided
comments (attached) based on the submittal. The memo states the
following is required with this subdivision, to be finalized at the final plat
of subdivision stage:
1. Grind and re-surface eastbound lane on Thacker Street.
2. Add 8” water main to replace 4” water main along a portion of
Graceland Avenue.
3. Add pedestrian crosswalk crossing on Thacker Street including a
bump- out, striping, and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
(RRFB).
4. The sole streetlight along Graceland Avenue must be replaced
and electrical conduit undergrounded. The petitioner will work
with staff and ComEd to coordinate this replacement.
Section 13-3-2 of the Subdivision Ordinance discusses required
improvements for subdivided properties and timelines for the improvements.
Improvements are approved by the City Council during the final plat of
subdivision process and financial guarantees for improvements are included
within the resolution.
In addition, Section 13-4-2 of the Subdivision Ordinance discusses
dedication of park lands and/or fees in lieu for subdivisions. The publicly
accessible, private park will count for a portion of the required park land
dedication and any remainder will require a fee in lieu, to be calculated at the
time of final plat of subdivision, approved by the Park District, and included
with the final approved City Council resolution to subdivide the property.
Note the petitioner’s request is for a Tentative Plat only at this time. The
steps for Final Plat are articulated in Sections 13-2-4 through 13-2-8 of the
Subdivision Regulations. The Final Plat of Subdivision will occur at a later
date and will be a concurrent process with the Final PUD plat. All necessary
dedications, fees, and necessary improvements will be outlined in the final
subdivision resolution.
Standards for Zoning Map Amendment:
The following is a discussion of standards for zoning map amendments from Section 12-3-7.E of
the Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how well the proposal addresses the standards is provided
below and in the attached petitioner responses to standards. The Board may use the provided
responses as written as its rationale, modify, or adopt its own.
1. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the City Council;
The Comprehensive Plan was written in 2019 when the Contour Saws facility was still operating.
Due to the manufacturing facility’s longstanding operations in Des Plaines, the Comprehensive Plan
did not envision this area to be used for anything else. However, the proposed amendment and
development would meet several goals from the Housing chapter of the Comprehensive Plan,
including Goal 4.1. Ensure the City has several housing options to fit diverse needs and Goal 4.3
Provide new housing at different price points. to “Demographic Trends and Accommodating an
Aging Population” and “M-2 Zoning and Suitability of the Site for Proposed R-3 Zoning” sections of
this report for further details. In addition to housing goals, the proposed development meets economic
goals of the city by providing additional property tax revenue compared to the existing use of the site.
Refer to the Tax Projections attachment.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall
character of existing development;
The subject property is adjacent to R-4 zoning to the northeast and south and is close to several
multifamily developments. The area is in close proximity to numerous services within walking,
biking or transit distance. Refer to Amenities and Services Map attachment. Any proposed
development would need to meet all building material and design requirements outlined in Section 12-
3-11 – Building Design Review, including requirements for face brick, which will be similar in
material to the many adjacent single family and multi-family residential buildings in this
neighborhood.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities
and services available to this subject property;
An engineering and utility plan was prepared with this application. Based on the provided site plan,
City engineering staff did not indicate any concerns with the adequacy of public facilities or services
being available to meet the needs of this proposed development.
A traffic impact study was provided with this application to assess impacts of the proposed
development (Refer to Traffic Study attachment). The study indicated the traffic generated by this use
would not create a significant impact on the surrounding street network.
It is important to note the previous use of this property was a manufacturing use, including a parking
lot on site with a large loading/unloading dock into the facility, approximately 25 parking spaces on
site, and over one hundred spaces in a surface parking lot across the street (Site B of this
development), while the proposed residential development provides 90 spaces within attached
garages on the townhouses and 16 guest spaces. At minimum, this development brings less potential
for vehicles to be travelling in and out of the site at peak hours versus large trucks delivering or
picking up in the loading dock and over one hundred employees of a manufacturing facility. Parking
meets the off-street parking requirements of Section 12-9-7, providing 106 spaces, which is in excess
of the minimum required amount.
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction; and
The proposed map amendment would allow for residential uses on a property that has been zoned
manufacturing within a residential area for decades and operated as a more intensive use in the past.
A building that provides additional residential options for the area and follows the Building Design
Standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance creates a more appealing urban design for the
neighborhood versus a large manufacturing facility.
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth.
The current use of this property is a vacant manufacturing facility that is unlikely to be filled with
another similar manufacturing business. Providing a residential use for the property, particularly a use
that capitalizes on the close proximity to downtown Des Plaines and the various amenities associated
with the area, would present a more efficient and effective way to use this property. As discussed in
the Demographic Trends and Accommodating an Aging Population section, the City needs to
promote opportunities that increase housing stock for a diversity of populations in the area, both in
the short term and long term. Amending the zoning district for this property, regardless of the
proposed project, provides an additional opportunity to construct a townhouse development, a
transitional density development between single family residential and multi-family residential
buildings and with the necessary services to support this type of use.
PUD Findings of Fact:
The following is a discussion of standards for PUDs from Section 12-3-5 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Rationale for how well the proposal addresses the standards is provided below and in the attached
petitioner responses to standards. The Board may use the provided responses as written as its
rationale, modify, or adopt its own.
1. 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 proposed townhouse PUD generally aligns with the stated purposes of PUDs as analyzed in the
Preliminary PUD Plat Review table above with a proposed multiple principal building development,
designated open spaces and landscaping and separate vehicular and pedestrian areas, all of which
foster public health, safety, and general welfare for residents. Refer to Petitioner’s Response to
Standards for a full analysis of how the development meets each standard.
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 proposal meets the majority of the bulk regulations in Section 12-7-2.J of the Zoning Ordinance
(See Site Plan Review section above) but requires exceptions from the required front yard and the
2,800-square- foot minimum lot area requirement. The proposed density is a moderate density
compared to the surrounding single-family and multi-family developments in the area, providing
additional housing stock in the City. The front yard building setback deficiency is located on the
south side of the lot, which faces existing and proposed multi-family residential developments with an
R-4 zoning and has a smaller required front yard than the R-3 zoning district of this proposed project.
Proposed landscaping along the parkway and around the perimeter of the proposed townhouse PUD
provides a buffer between this property and any adjacent uses. In addition, the proposed development
improves the current conditions of the subject property.
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 proposed design of the townhouse PUD and layout of residential buildings allows for recreational
space on property, reduces the number of curb cuts, concentrates vehicular traffic in the center of the
development, and encourages pedestrian activity on Graceland Avenue and Thacker Street by
extending walkways from each townhouse to the public sidewalk.
Refer to the Traffic Study for details on anticipated traffic impact. The development is not anticipated
to generate traffic that exceeds the amount of traffic previously generated for the industrial
development at this property. In addition, no changes are proposed to the adjacent railway and at
grade crossings. Questions were raised from members of the community about the proximity of the
development to the rail line. The development is not proposed to be any closer than the existing
development to the railroad track, and much of the area adjacent to the track is proposed to be open
space. There are two at grade crossings adjacent to the property. Per documents from the Federal
Railroad Administration crossing inventory, 22 trains a day (on average) pass along the rail line
adjacent to the property. Accident history at these crossing indicates a total of five accidents
associated with the crossing have occurred since 1975, and no accident reports have been filed
within the last decade5.
5. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is
beneficial or adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood:
The proposal creates a moderate density residential development compared to the surrounding single-
family and multi-family developments in the area, creating a transitional density on this property and
providing additional housing stock in the City. The proposed development redevelops an industrial
property--that no longer fits within this residential neighborhood and is near the commercial areas in
downtown Des Plaines--and provides transit options to support the economic vitality of the area.
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 proposal would provide additional housing stock that helps to increase 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 subject property at this
time. Refer to the Real Property Tax Base Impact attachment provided by the petitioner.
7. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2019
Comprehensive Plan:
The proposal increases housing stock and creates additional housing options for residents, which
aligns with the housing goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. It also redevelops an
unoccupied industrial property in an area close to commercial and transit opportunities, which is
promoted by the Comprehensive Plan.
5 Federal Railroad Administration Office of Safety Analysis – Crossing Inventory and Accident Reports for
Crossings 689657J and 689658R - Revision Date 07/05/2023; accessed from
https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/PublicSite/Crossing/Crossing.aspx
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions:
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 Subdivision request at 900 Graceland Avenue and 1217 Thacker Street.
Under Section 12-3-5.D.2.c (Procedure for Review and Decision for PUDs) and 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, approve with modifications, or
deny the Map Amendment and Tentative Planned Unit Development (PUD) at 900 Graceland
Avenue and 1217 Thacker Street. The City Council has final authority on these requests.
The PZB should take the following motions. The zoning motions can be combined or taken
individually:
Zoning Recommendations to City Council
• A motion pursuant to Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance to recommend to City
Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the proposed Map Amendment;
• A motion pursuant to Section 12-3-5.E of the Zoning Ordinance to recommend to City
Council to approve, approve with modifications, or deny the request for a Conditional Use for a
Preliminary PUD, with exceptions for minimum required front yard and minimum lot area;
and
Subdivision Approval (Tentative Plat)
• A motion pursuant to Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations to approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the Tentative Plat of Subdivision.
If the PZB recommends approval, staff recommends the following conditions for the Tentative
PUD.
Conditions of Approval:
1. In the event the property is sold, and a property owner desires to sell separate, fee-simple
townhouse units, a Plat of Subdivision will be necessary to create separate lots and a
Homeowner’s Association or similar unified control entity must be established along with any
covenants, conditions, and restrictions governing maintenance of common areas.
2. At time of submission for final subdivision and PUD plat, all public improvements must be noted
on plans and all engineering comments addressed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public
Works and Engineering.
3. At time of submission for final subdivision and PUD Plat, the landscape plan must be revised in
the park area closest to Thacker Street between Laurel Avenue and the railroad track. Bushes and
a semi- open fence (wrought iron or chain link) should be placed around the north corner of the
proposed park to allow visibility for traffic from Thacker Street.
4. At time of final subdivision and PUD Plat, the photometric plan must be revised to include
lighting at the entrances of both driveways. Any new lighting must be in conformance with
Section 12-12-10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
5. Each townhouse unit shall have separate water and sanitary sewer services.
6. All electrical lines on the property must be installed underground.
Chair Szabo swore in Rolando Acosta, Attorney, Keith Lee, Architect with FitzGerald Architects and
Javier Millan, KLOA representative.
Mr. A costa presented an overview of the proposed project.
Mr. Lee reviewed the site design. The proposed development consists of 50 townhomes: 33 two-
bedrooms and 17 three-bedrooms. All townhomes are three stories with an internal garage. Parking
on the interior of the development limits the need for curb cuts. One curb cut aligns with the existing
street across Thacker Street, which is Laurel Avenue. Because the townhomes are front facing there
will be more ‘eyes on the street’. A park is proposed for the north side of the property and parkway
trees will be added along Graceland Avenue. Most of the material used is brick, with limited fiber
cement. The façade is undulating with alternating colors and changing angled rooflines.
Mr. Millan explained that the traffic study was conducted in the morning and evening, at 10
locations, during the peak hours of 8:00-9:00 a.m. and 4:45-5:45 p.m. The study also included the
railroad crossing at Graceland Av enue. During the morning peak hours, there were three crossing
events. During evening peak hours there were four railroad crossing events. Traffic did not back up
beyond Laurel Avenue in the morning but did once in the evening for a duration of 45 seconds.
Mr. Acosta highlighted the proposal. There are few sites available for such a proposal. This proposal
meets the Comprehensive plan goals for differentiated housing. Building to the R-3 with 11’ less
building height than that code would allow and with a reduction of the required lot square footage. If
the park could be included – and it can’t because it’s a separate subdivision – it would be just 2%
less than the requirement of square footage space. The current improvements are almost all building
and pavement. They are providing the park, plus publicly available improvements such as a bump
out pedestrian crossing on Thacker Street that includes signage with flashing lights, replacement
light with buried electric on Graceland Avenue, among other improvements planned. The 113
parking spaces meet all the City of Des Plaines requirements.
Member Weaver questioned how long the developer will be involved once the project is completed.
Mr. Acosta explained that the petitioner plans to build and own the development. The development
will be managed by a third-party property management company after construction is complete.
Senior Planner Redman highlighted items from a slide presentation.
Mr. Millan answered questions asked by Member Catalano.
Member Veremis asked if the apartments at Graceland Aven ue and Webford Av enue were considered
in the traffic study. Mr. Acosta responded that the development was not included specifically,
because they were not aware of it, but the study does factor in additional traffic generated by future
projects.
John Jossund, 926 S. Graceland Avenue, is a representative of Owl Lumber located next to the
proposed development and has been at that location for 34 years. Mr. Jossund is concerned that
residents may complain about the noise from the lumber company. There is a dust collector that
sounds like a jet engine in the morning.
Rick Wilson, 1340 E. Walnut Ave nue, opposes the development for two reasons: density and traffic.
Mr. Wilson asked if the pedestrian bump out on Thacker Avenue will cause loss of a traffic lane.
Ms. Redman responded that it would not and reviewed the exhibit on the slide.
Oscar Hernandez, 1095 Oakwood, does not feel that the traffic study is accurate. The study
addresses the Metra trains, but not the freight trains that back up traffic. Mr. Hernandez addressed
speeding in the area and does not believe that renters have the same at stake as an owner.
Hannah Pair, 774 Arlington Avenue, provided videos of the trains to staff and explained that there is
a loud noise when the train goes over the crossing. Ms. Pair also expressed concern over a
transformer that is located too close to the buildings, pet owners not picking up after their pets, and
requested a sign be erected on the corner for a pedestrian crossing.
Govana Baig, 880 Lee, stated that she understands that noise is always a challenge for the builder,
however particular material and landscaping can be used to minimize the sound. She approves of the
development; townhomes typically attract middle-class families with jobs, not short-term renters.
Mary Scanlon, 828 Graceland, is concerned about the additional traffic and the fact that the units are
rentals. Ms. Scanlon would prefer a development geared towards senior citizens and believes that the
traffic study is inaccurate. The crossings are closed for more than 51 seconds when a Metra train
passes the crossing.
Joe Weber, 944 Margaret Street, would like the Planning and Zoning Board to consider more open
space as further developments come into the City.
Ahmed Kadir, 880 Lee Street, approves the project because of the law of supply and demand and the
stability to property taxes. Less restrictive zoning in the past has made Des Plaines more affordable
than our neighboring towns. Mr. Kadir b elieves they should continue to allow these projects and
ignore the vocal minority. This proposed development decreased from 100 down to 50 units already,
lessening the traffic.
Francine Grossi, 1591 E Thacker, requested the website address for this project. Ms. Redman
informed the public that if anyone has a comment to please send her an email or enter it through the
public input form on desplaines.org/contourplace. All comments go directly to staff so the comments
will be incorporated with staff review and included in the PZB staff report packet.
Mr. Acosta responded to the questions from the public. The traffic study showed that there will be 38
fewer vehicular trips in the morning, 56 fewer in the afternoon, 242 trips fewer in a week than if
Contour Saws reopened, or if there was another commercial/industrial use at the location. A
greenbelt and a fence will separate the townhomes from Owl Lumber.
Mr. Millan explained that this project will produce 50% less traffic during the peak hours and 35-
40% less on a daily basis than it would be for industrial or commercial use. No accidents are
reported from 2018 to 2022 at Thacker Street and Laurel Avenue. Unfortunately determining traffic
from freight trains is difficult since they are not on a time schedule. Only Metra trains were included
as part of the traffic study.
Member Saletnik asked what the size of a condo was in the initial plan compared to the new
townhome proposal. Barry Sidel, Petitioner, was sworn in. The original plan was comprised of 122
apartments of 800-900 square feet and a 4-5 story building. The townhouses have an average size of
2,000-2,200 square feet including the garage. The monthly rent is $3,800 to $4,000. A p roperty
management company will take care of the property. Mr. Sidel is looking for long-term renters; it
costs too much to be without a tenant.
Member Saletnik would like the interiors reworked. He has concerns with the master bedroom being
too small and a lack of storage.
Member Veremis said the townhomes that she’s recently toured are similar, not very large, and that
this is common in the market right now.
Mr. Sidel responded that this is the same layout as an apartment of that size. The pricing has to be
matched with square footage. If there is more square footage, then the cost will go up. These are
priced and designed for the market, but he will take these concerns into account and discuss this with
his architect.
A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Catalano
pursuant to Section 12-3-7.E of the Zoning Ordinance to recommend approval to the City
Council a Map Amendment for 900 Graceland Avenue and 1217 Thacker Street.
AYES: Weaver, Hofherr, Veremis, Szabo, Catalano, Saletnik
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Fowler
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Catalano
pursuant to Section 12-3-5.E. of the Zoning Ordinance to recommend approval to the City
Council a Conditional Use for a Preliminary PUD, with exceptions for minimum required
front yard and minimum lot area with the conditions in the staff report.
AYES: Weaver, Hofherr, Veremis, Szabo, Catalano, Saletnik
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Fowler
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Catalano
pursuant to Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations to approve the Tentative Plat of
Subdivision
AYES: Weaver, Hofherr, Veremis, Szabo, Catalano, Saletnik
NAYES: None
ABSENT: Fowler
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
2 . Address: Citywide Case Number: 23-061-TA
The City of Des Plaines is proposing amending the Zoning Ordinance to clarify regulations for
landscape buffers on properties located in the C-4 district that abut residential properties.
PINs: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: #23-061-TA
Background: Chapter 10 of the Zoning Ordinance, “Landscaping and Screening,” was
created to “preserve and enhance the appearance, character, health, safety, and general welfare
of the community by fostering aesthetically pleasing development…” [and] “…increase the
compatibility of adjacent uses, and minimize the adverse impact of noise, dust, motor vehicle
headlight glare or other artificial light intrusions, and other objectionable activities or impacts
conducted on or created by adjoining or neighboring uses.” (Section 12-10-1 of the Zoning
Ordinance)
To achieve this purpose, Section 12-10-9 of the Zoning Ordinance was created to specify
landscape buffer requirements for properties with more intensive uses such as higher density
residential districts and properties in non-residential districts that abut properties in the R-1
Single Family Residential and R-2 Two-Family Residential districts to provide screening in
between the two districts. The landscape buffer/screening requirements vary based on the type
of zoning district that abuts an R-1 or R-2 district as indicated on the following table.
However, the landscape buffer/screening requirements include the installation of a minimum
five-foot-wide non-paved landscape buffer and opaque fence for the entire length of the
property line of the more intensive district that abuts the R-1 or R-2 district.
Section 12-10-9.C - Landscape Buffer Requirements
Zoning District Abutting a
R-1 or R-2 district
Buffer
Width
Buffer
Improv
ements
R-3 Townhouse Residential, R-4 Central
Core Residential, or MH-1 Mobile Home
Park districts
5 feet • Solid wood, vinyl, or masonry fence not
exceeding six feet in height.
• Remaining landscape buffer not covered
by the fence must be maintained as turf or
other ground cover.
C-1 Neighborhood Shopping and C-2
Limited Office Commercial districts
5 feet • Shade trees, a minimum of two and one-
half inches in caliper, must be planted on
an average of one tree for every 30 feet of
the yard length.
• A solid wood, vinyl, or masonry fence
eight feet in height shall be erected along
one 100 percent of the yard length.
• The remaining landscape buffer area not
planted with trees shall be maintained as
turf or other ground cover.
Currently, properties in the C-4 Regional Shopping district are exempt from the landscape buffer
requirements. However, many properties in the C-4 district directly abut or are adjacent to
properties in the R-1 or R-2 districts. Staff has also received complaints regarding existing fences
on some C-4-zoned properties that are in disrepair and are not providing proper screening between
different districts. As such, staff is proposing to adjust the landscape buffer table above to add the
C-4 district, requiring properties in this district to comply with the landscape buffer regulations
currently in place for properties in the C-3, M-1, M- 2, and M-3 districts.
Proposed Amendments
The full proposed amendments are attached and are summarized below:
Section 12-10-9, Landscape Buffers: Adjust subsection C of this section to regulate
landscape buffers for properties located in the C-4 Regional Shopping district the same way
as currently regulated for properties in the C-3, M-1, M-2, and M-3 districts. The landscape
buffer regulations that will apply are as follows:
• Shade trees, a minimum of two and one-half inches in caliper, shall be planted on an
average of one tree for every 30 feet of the yard length.
• A solid wood, vinyl, or masonry fence eight feet in height shall be erected along one
100 percent of the yard length.
• The landscape buffer area not planted with trees shall be maintained as turf or other
ground cover.
C-3 General Commercial, M-1 Limited
Manufacturing, M-2 General Manufacturing,
or M-3 Special Manufacturing
districts
5 feet • Shade trees, a minimum of two and one-
half inches in caliper, shall be planted on
an average of one tree for every 30 feet of
the yard length.
• A solid wood, vinyl, or masonry fence
eight feet in height shall be erected along
one 100 percent of the yard length.
• A solid wood, vinyl, or masonry fence
eight feet in height shall be erected along
one 100 percent of the yard length.
I-1 Institutional district 5 feet • The landscape buffer shall contain the
following improvements: Shade trees, a
minimum of two and one-half inches in
caliper, shall be planted on an average of
one tree for every 30 feet of the yard
length.
• A solid wood, vinyl, or masonry fence
eight feet in height shall be erected along
one 100 percent of the yard length.
• The Landscape buffer area not planted
with trees shall be maintained as turf or
other ground cover.
Standards for Zoning Text Amendment:
The following is a discussion of standards for zoning amendments from Section 12-3-7.E of
the Zoning Ordinance. The PZB may recommend the City Council approve, approve with
modifications, or deny the amendments. The PZB may adopt the following rationale for how
the proposed amendments would satisfy the standards, or the Board may use 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;
These amendments help clarify and expand on the landscape buffer regulations in between
different districts to address a current gap in the Zoning Ordinance. As many C-4-zoned
properties directly abut or are adjacent to R-1 and R-2 districts, the proposed amendments
require appropriate screening mechanisms to strengthen the transition between uses to reduce
adverse effects on neighboring properties, which the Comprehensive Plan strives to achieve.
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the
overall character of existing development;
The proposed amendments provide further consistency in screening regulations city-wide and
align with the existing landscape buffer regulations currently in place for similar zoning
districts, such as the C-3 General Commercial district. The amendments focus on furthering
screening mechanisms in between large commercial buildings often found in the C-4 district
with lower density residential development to soften the transition between these two different
uses.
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available to this subject property;
The proposed amendments would not impact the public facilities and services available to
properties located within the C-4 district, but rather extend the existing buffer regulations to the
C-4 district. The existing regulations also provide accommodation for pedestrian connections
between the two uses as necessary.
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of
properties throughout the jurisdiction; and
It is not anticipated that the proposed amendments will have any adverse effect on surrounding
properties, but rather an improved and softened transition between differing uses that decreases
adverse effects.
5. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and
growth.
The proposed text amendments facilitate a path towards responsible standards for development
and growth for all properties in the C-4 district that are already in place for other districts in Des
Plaines. The amendments purpose is to provide an adequate buffer in between varying uses and
foster commercial site design in a way that is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.
PZB Procedure and Recommendation: Under Section 12-3-7 of the Zoning Ordinance, the PZB has
the authority to recommend that the City Council approve, approve with modifications, or deny the
above- mentioned amendments. The Board should clearly state any modifications so that its
recommended language can be incorporated in the approving ordinance passed on to the Council, which
has final authority on the proposal.
Senior Planner Stytz reviewed the case slides and provided an overview of the proposed amendments.
Member Weaver stated that after reviewing the zoning map can see where the buffers are missing and is
support of making this correction.
Legal Counsel Weiss explained that the existing areas that do not have fences will be legal non-
conforming. If there is a major redevelopment, then the developer would have to install a fence at that
time.
A motion was made by Board Member Weaver, seconded by Board Member Hofherr to approve
Section 12-10-9, Landscape Buffers: Adjust subsection C of this section to regulate landscape
buffers for properties located in the C-4 Regional Shopping district as recommended by staff.
AYES: Weaver, Veremis, Fowler, Hofherr, Szabo, Saletnik
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
Senior Planner Redman requested a meeting date for a public workshop pertaining to a mixed-use
development at 414 E. Golf Road. The consensus was to schedule the workshop for November 28, 2023
at 7:00 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
The next scheduled Planning & Zoning Board meeting is Tuesday November 14, 2023.
Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 8:45 p.m.
Sincerely,
Laura Fast, Deputy City Clerk/Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners