HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-9-27 PZB Meeting MinutesCase 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
September 27, 2022
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board held its regularly scheduled meeting on
Tuesday, September 27, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
Chair Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and roll call was established.
PRESENT: Szabo, Hofherr, Saletnik, Veremis
ABSENT: Catalano, Fowler, Weaver
ALSO PRESENT: Jonathan Stytz, AICP, Senior Planner
Samantha Redman, Associate Planner
Margie Mosele, CED Executive Assistant
A quorum was present.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Veremis, seconded by Board Member Hofherr to
approve the meeting minutes of September 13, 2022.
AYES: Veremis, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEM
There was no public comment.
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Pending Applications
1. Address: 1353 Lee Street Case Number: 22-0035-FPLAT
The petitioner is requesting approval of a Tentative Plat of Subdivision under Section 13-2-2 of
the Subdivision Regulations and recommended approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision under
Section 13-2-7 of the Subdivision Regulations to subdivide the existing lot into two lots of record,
and the approval of any other such variations, waivers, and zoning relief as may be necessary.
The petitioner has chosen to file the Tentative and Final Plats concurrently.
Address: 1353 Lee Street
Owner: Hall Property Group, LLC c/o Andrea Ragona, 200 W. Madison
Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60606
Petitioner: Hall Property Group, LLC c/o Andrea Ragona, 200 W. Madison
Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, IL 60606
Case Number: 22-035-FPLAT
Real Estate Index Number: 09-20-400-047-0000
Ward: #5, Alderman Carla Brookman
Existing Zoning: C-3, General Commercial District
Existing Land Use: Vacant Lot (Outlot)
Surrounding Zoning: North: M-1, Limited Manufacturing District
South: C-3, General Commercial District
East: C-3, General Commercial District
West: C-3, General Commercial District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Manufacturing (Single-tenant industrial building)
South: Shopping Center (Commercial)
East: Grocery Store (Commercial)
West: Car Wash (Commercial) / Auto Service Repair Shop
(Commercial)
Street Classification: Lee Street is classified as an Other Principal Arterial.
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan illustrates the site as commercial.
Property/Zoning History: Based on City records, the subject property was originally
developed with a large industrial building. Around 2015, the
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
industrial building was demolished for future redevelopment. Since
then the subject property has been vacant.
Final Plat of Subdivision Report
Project Description: The petitioner, Hall Property Group, LLC, is requesting a Tentative
and Final Plat of Subdivision, named Des Plaines Plaza II, for the
property located at 1353 Lee Street. The subject property is 66,714
square feet (1.53 acres) and is comprised of one lot, which is
currently vacant and unimproved as shown in the attached
ALTA/NSPS Land Title Survey.
The petitioner is proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two
lots of record to construct two separate commercial buildings, one
on each proposed lot, as shown on the attached Final Plat of
Subdivision. The first building is proposed on the northern lot, Lot
1, and would have imminent construction. It is envisioned as a
single-tenant commercial retail building. The second building
would not be constructed now but instead reserved for construction
at a later date, with a development-ready pad installed. The two lots
would share a collective parking lot, although the lot boundaries
would not divide any parking stalls or create substandard drive
aisles. The length and width dimensions vary for the proposed lots
due to their slightly irregular shape:
• Lot 1, the smallest of the two proposed lots, measures 77
feet in width at the street and totals 21,492 square feet in
size; and
• Lot 2 measures 158 feet in width at the street and totals
42,957 square feet in size.
There are no lot width or lot area minimums for properties located
within a commercial district. However, both lots front Lee Street
and meet the minimum lot depth requirements in Section 13-2-5 of
the Subdivision Regulations. It is important to note that while both
of the proposed lots front Lee Street, they will both be accessed
from a service driveway located directly south of the subject
property, which is shared by the shopping center directly south and
the grocery store directly east of the subject property. Specifically,
the proposed Lot 1 will require access through the proposed Lot 2
to connect it to the service drive.
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
The petitioner proposes to construct a stand-alone single-tenant
commercial building on Lot 1 initially with appropriate off-street
parking areas as shown on the attached Site Plan. The proposal
includes the eventual development of Lot 2 with a multi-tenant
building. However, for now, the petitioner intends to provide
additional off-street parking areas along the perimeter of Lot 2,
leaving an undeveloped turf area in the middle of the lot. See the
attached Project Narrative for additional information.
The petitioner’s Final Plat of Des Plaines Plaza II Subdivision
shows the subdivision of the existing lot into two lots with the
following easements: (i) an existing ten-foot drainage easement
between the subject property’s east property line and the Aldi
property’s west property line; (ii) an existing 15.5-foot ingress,
egress, and public utility easement along the south property line of
the subject property (south line of proposed Lot 2); and (iii) a
temporary construction easement along the west property line of
the subject property. There is also an 80-foot-wide no build area as
measured from the northern edge of the service drive into the
subject property, which is identified on the attached Final Plat of
Subdivision for reference. This area is designed to comply with a
private restrictive covenant intended to ensure the Aldi building is
visible from Lee Street. Per the C-3 Zoning District bulk
requirements (Section 12-7-3.L of the Zoning Ordinance), a five-
foot building setback line is required for the front yard (along Lee
Street), the rear yard (abutting Aldi), and the south property line
(along the service drive). Note that the attached Final Engineering
Plans have been approved as noted by staff, pending the approval
of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) permit.
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: Given the two requests of the petitioner, the
PZB should consider the Tentative Plat of Subdivision and Final Plat of Subdivision requests with
two separate motions. Under Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations, the PZB has the
authority to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the Tentative Plat of Subdivision request.
The decision should be based on review of the information presented by the applicant and the
standards and conditions met by Section 13-2-2 as outlined in the Subdivision Regulations. Staff
does not suggest any conditions regarding the tentative approval.
Upon approval or approval with conditions of the Tentative Plat of Subdivision, a separate motion
should be taken by the PZB regarding the Final Plat of Subdivision. Under Section 13-2-7 of the
Subdivision Regulations, the PZB has the authority to recommend approval, approval subject to
conditions, or denial of the request. The decision should be based on review of the information
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
presented by the applicant and the standards and conditions met by Section 13-2-7 as outlined in
the Subdivision Regulations. If the PZB votes to recommend approval, staff recommends the
following condition: That the applicant work to address Final Engineering Plan comments as
expressed in the attachments before Final Plat approval.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Location Map
Attachment 2: Site and Context Photos
Attachment 3: Plat of Survey
Attachment 4: Project Narrative
Attachment 5: Final Plat of Subdivision
Attachment 6: Select Final Engineering Plansi
Attachment 7: Engineering Memo
Attachment 8: Site Plan
Attachment 9: Landscape Plan
Chair Szabo swore in Lawrence Freeman, Attorney from Ash Anos Freedman and Logan, and
David Mangurten, principal Architect for Hall Properties. Mr. Freedman stated Hall Properties
Group LLC is looking to subdivide the property at 1353 Lee Street into two commercial sites.
Mr. Freeman explained that Lot 1 is being developed with a 5,000-square foot building for an
immediate retail use. They are actively seeing tenants for the second property but are planning
to add parking areas on Lot 2. Today they are looking for approval for the tentative and final
subdivision for the property.
Mr. Mangurten explained that the proposed 5,000-square foot, single tenant masonry building
with the majority of the storefront facing Lee Street and a portion of storefront facing south. The
tenant is a national paint store.
Chairman Szabo asked how many parking spaces are on the subject property.
Mr. Mangurten explained the site plan and that the property will be single tenant. He stated he
believes there are 40 parking spaces over the entire lot and that they would have adequate parking
to develop a retail building in the second lot.
Member Vermis asked if the petitioner has any idea when the second lot would be developed.
Mr. Freeman and Mr. Mangurten answered that they are not sure at this time as it is dependent
on finding additional tenants. They do not intend to build a speculative building. Mr. Mangurten
added that the shopping center directly south of the subject property is owned and was developed
by the petitioner.
Member Saletnik asked if the owner is looking for a buyer or specific type of tenant for the
property.
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Mr. Freedman stated that his client is not looking to sell the property and is looking for a tenant
that would fit into the zoning category.
Member Saletnik asked if the owner is looking for someone to enter into a long-term lease.
Mr. Freeman confirmed that this is what the petitioner wants.
Chair Szabo asked about parking and the vehicular circulation and number of curb-cuts.
Mr. Mangurten stated that there is only one curb-cut that provides access to both sites and patrons
can come around the Lot 2 development pad to get to the paint retail store. He added that a lot
of the patrons for this use would be mom and pop businesses and for patrons buying in bulk,
there is a man-door on the east side of the building that can be used for loading.
Chairman Szabo asked if there is a roll-up door.
Mr. Mangurten confirmed that were is a roll-up door on the east side of the building for
contractors and receiving.
Member Veremis asked if you can go from the Aldi lot into the subject property.
Mr. Mangurten explained that the two parking areas separated by a landscape buffer between
this property and Aldi.
Chairman Szabo asked for an explanation regarding the two monument signs proposed.
Mr. Mangurten stated that it is monument/pylon sign which is similar to other monument signs
in the city. He added that the proposed signs would be 12 feet in height.
Jonathan Stytz, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report and discussed the site maps and area
photos for 1353 Lee Street. Mr. Stytz discussed the Tentative and Final Plat of Subdivision to
split the lots into Lot One (21,492 sq ft) and Lot Two (42,957 sq ft). He also explained the 80
foot No Build Area restricts development on Lot 2 to allow Aldi to be seen from Lee Street. The
City Engineering department took a look at the final engineering plans and did approve them
pending outcome of Metropolitan Water Reclamation District (MWRD) permit.
Chair Szabo swore in resident Brent Burval, P.O. Box 1238, Barrington, Illinois. Mr. Burval is
representing his father and aunt who own the property at 1325 Lee Street which is north to the
proposal. Mr. Burval stated that his family does not have any problem with the subdivisions.
They would ask that traffic flow be considered. He stated that traffic on Lee street is busy and
there is a lack of directions for delivery trucks. He was asking to consider the removal of the
curb cut for their property and the subject property to help with traffic flow.
Chair Szabo swore in resident Steve Burval of 1653 East Forest Ave, Des Plaines IL. Mr. Burval
wanted to explain that they are not adversarial to the division of the property. He is in favor of
the theory of the subdivision, but they are concerned about traffic flow. Wants to work together
with the petitioner for the benefit of both parties.
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Mr. Freeman said his client would be consulting with the engineering department. He also stated
that they want to be a good neighbor and work to make the outcome beneficial to all parties. Mr.
Freeman reminded the board that he is there for the Plat of Subdivision. His client does not want
delays and is asking that the board take action to make a recommendation for the subdivision.
Mr. Stytz reiterated that this meeting is for the Plat of Subdivision and all additional plans would
have to go through a site plan review. Mr. Stytz also stated that if there is a condition it would
go on the Final Plat of Subdivision.
Member Saletnik suggested that a condition to be added to the Final Plat of Subdivision that the
petitioner and their neighbor meet to discuss utilizing the curb cuts for the mutual benefit of both
parties.
A motion was made by Member Saletnik and seconded by Member Hofherr to approve the
Tentative Plat of Subdivision under Section 13-2-2 of the Subdivision Regulations.
AYES: Saletnik, Hofherr, Veremis, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Veremis
recommended approval of a Final Plat of Subdivision under Section 13 -2-7 of the
Subdivision Regulations with the condition in the staff report and with the added condition
that the petitioner explores to see if there are mutually beneficial opportunities to utilize
the curb cut from the neighbor to help or change the circulation pattern within their space.
AYES: Saletnik, Veremis, Hofherr, Szabo,
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
2. Address: Citywide Case Number: 22-0041-TA
The PZB is holding a public hearing to consider zoning text amendments to Section 12-7-1.A of
the Zoning Ordinance to allow more than one principal structure on a single zoning lot for specific
institutional uses and for lots in the C-2 Limited Office and C-3 General Commercial Districts of
at least one-half acre.
PIN: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: #22-041-TA
Request Description: The City of Des Plaines is proposing amending the Zoning
Ordinance to add an allowance for more than one principal building
or structure on a zoning lot in the following instances: (i) a C-2 or
C-3-zoned property of at least one-half acre in size; and (ii) for
institutional uses (e.g., parks and recreation centers; elementary,
middle, and high schools; colleges and universities; and
residentially zoned assembly uses).
Background
Land development is diverse and can take on many forms depending on different factors such as
the site’s location, size, proposed use, zoning district, and local regulations. While many sites
consist of a singular use, this is not necessarily the trend for development or a goal of the
Comprehensive Plan. An overarching principle of the Comprehensive Plan is to expand mixed -
use developments, especially along major thoroughfares throughout the City, to “encourage
development within compact areas of land, reduce traffic and pollution, and contribute to the
creation of a pedestrian-friendly environment.” Based on the land use, the type and design of a
proposed development could be multi-faceted by function, aesthetics, and purpose. Sites intended
for multiple uses—especially sites delineated to provide separate spaces for individual uses—
may require multiple buildings or structures to meet the anticipated needs of the use. Where
developers intend to create separate spaces for different uses or design the site in mind for future
subdivision, a more flexible Zoning Ordinance can foster opportunities with developers and users
than ordinances with restrictive regulations. When too restrictive, zoning may prohibit or reduce
development opportunities, especially on sites where additional development or redevelopment
are more attainable.
Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows for only one principal building located on a zoning lot
with the exception of the following cases: (i) planned developments; (ii) regional shopping centers
in the C-4 Regional Shopping District; (iii) commercial mobile radio service facilities (i.e., cell
towers); (iv) lots of more than four acres in size in the I-1 Institutional District provided that each
principal building has a minimum lot of two acres; and (v) lots of five or more acres located in
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
the M-1 Limited Manufacturing District, and the M-2 General Manufacturing District, and M-3
Special Manufacturing District. Properties or proposed developments that are not one of the
aforementioned cases are limited to one principal building or are required to apply for
entitlements—variation, subdivision, planned development, etc.—in order to get approval for
more than one principal structure. Any of these processes can result in a lengthy, and sometimes
expensive, process with an uncertain approval outcome, in particular for planned developments
and variations. The Ordinance defines a zoning lot as “a single tract of land located within a single
block, which is developed or built upon as a unit, under single ownership or control,” and many
different developments or redevelopments can be impacted by this regulation.
There have been instances where the current regulations allowing only one building on a zoning
lot has created additional steps for developers and investors in Des Plaines. In Fall 2021, there
was a request for a second principal building on a single zoning lot for a restaurant and retail
complex at Mannheim Road and Pratt Avenue. While the individual properties are expected to be
under different ownership in the long term, and thus eventually will not be the same zoning lot,
the request to construct two principal buildings as a unit under single ownership (e.g. a zoning
lot) required a major variation. Developer GW Properties has expressed interest in redeveloping
other Des Plaines sites in the same mold, and has written support (attached) for a change to this
rule. More recent, the Lee Commons Shopping Center at the northeast corner of Lee Street and
Algonquin Road has shared plans to construct a stand-alone building for a coffee shop chain in a
portion of the existing parking area. The shopping center is also limited to one principal building
since it is zoned C-3, and therefore would need to seek entitlements to allow the second building,
even if the development can comply with all other relevant provisions, such as minimum parking.
Ownership of Lee Commons has also provided a letter of support for the amendments (attached).
Furthermore, this regulation does not account for uses such as parks, schools, religious
institutions, and similar institutional uses in residential zones. Even in “R” districts, these uses
may be on large lots and require additional buildings and structures for their operation (e.g., a
separate rectory building for a religious institution). In the instance of a park with public facilities
(e.g., Arndt Park), separate buildings may be necessary to appropriately provide programming.
The attached Institutional Use Research table identifies the property size of various institutional
uses throughout Des Plaines varying from less than one acre to over 100 acres in size. With some
exceptions, the listed institutional uses are located within neighborhoods in the R-1 Single Family
Residential District and are limited to one principal building under current rules.
The current intent of the principal building restriction appears to favor singular uses on a zoning
lot, or, in the event of a multi-use proposal, intends to steer projects into a planned development
or other mechanism including a more intense staff, PZB, and Council review. While this may be
a necessary avenue for larger, more comprehensive developments with a mixture of residential
and commercial uses, this does not make sense for moderately-sized properties with the potential
for additional development on a smaller scale. In fact, staff argues that it impedes development
opportunities for these types of properties, which make up a large portion of Des Plaines.
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Consequently, staff proposes to amend this portion of the Zoning Ordinance to expand the
allowance of multiple principal buildings for specific types of uses and districts in Des Plaines
not only to reduce the barrier of entry for new developments but also to foster opportunities for
the redevelopment or expansion of existing developments to better utilize available space . All
principal buildings would still need to comply with all applicable zoning regulations of the district
in which it is located as these amendments are not intended to abridge any existing zoning
regulations.
Proposed Amendments
The full proposed amendments are attached and are summarized below:
Section 12-7-1, General District Regulations: Modify Section 12-7-1.A, “Number of
Buildings On A Zoning Lot,” to:
• extend the existing allowance for multiple buildings on a zoning lot to sites of four
acres or more in any district where specific institutional uses are the principal use
and there are at least two acres for each principal building; and
• add an allowance for additional buildings for properties of one-half acre or more
in the C-2 Limited Office Commercial District and C-3 General Commercial
District.
Extend Allowance for Institutional Uses in All Districts
• removes the zoning district qualifier allowing institutional uses in any zoning
district provided they are located on properties four or more acres in size;
• rewords the acreage per building language to clarify that a minimum lot area of
two acres is required for each principal building in order to control the number of
principal buildings on a single zoning lot; and
• restricts the allowance to specific institutional uses, including (i) public or private
elementary, middle, and high schools; (ii) parks, community and recreation
centers; (iii) residentially-zoned assembly uses; and (iv) colleges and universities.
Add Allowance for All Uses in C-2 and C-3 Districts
• adds new allowance for multiple principal buildings on sites of one -half acre or
more in the C-2 and C-3 districts without any restriction on the type of use.
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, and 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;
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
These amendments help fulfill an overarching principle in the Comprehensive Plan, which
seeks to encourage mixed-use development by extending the allowance of additional principal
buildings permitted in the Zoning Ordinance and fostering opportunities for development.
These amendments provide more flexibility in the code to allow for different development
designs and uses that can greatly benefit the community as a whole and make Des Plaines more
development-friendly. As the City is mostly built-out, these amendments also provide more
opportunities for the redevelopment or extension of existing sites throughout the City that can
ultimately encourage reinvestment in properties overall. In particular, underused parking lots
that contain an excess of code-required spaces serve as an opportunity for a second principal
building. In the C-2 and C-3 districts especially, adding such building will typically generate
more land value and thus property tax revenue, as well as possibly sales or food and beverage
tax revenue.
PZB Modifications (if any): _____________________________________________________
2. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with current conditions and the overall
character of existing development;
The proposed amendments allow for further development of properties with commercial and
institutional uses in a way that is compatible with the design, layout, and operation of these
types of uses today, as it strives to extend the allowance for multiple uses on a single property
with separate spaces. The amendments consider the type, purpose, and design of these uses
where separate buildings are not only practical but also functional aspects of the development.
Examples of this are: (i) community centers, aquatic centers, outdoor entertainment, private
events, etc. for park areas; (ii) religious services, rectories, classrooms, and event spaces for
religious institutions; and (iii) quick service uses, such as a coffee shop or convenience mart
for larger office and commercial uses. The proposed text amendments complement the
character of the existing development while also allowing for new development to occur in a
more stream-lined way.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
3. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available to this subject property;
The proposed amendments would allow for additional buildings on a property that may require
additional public facilities and services for an individual site based on its use and design.
However, these amendments would still require site plan review and adherence to applicable
municipal codes to ensure that any proposed buildings are compliant and are adequately
serviced.
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
4. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction; and
The proposed amendments will allow multiple buildings on a single property for select sites,
which can actually help increase the property value of the subject property and the surrounding
properties. The flexibility provided with these amendments encourages reinvestment in
properties and can lead to new uses or improvements to existing uses that benefits the City and
its residents.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
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 eligible institutional uses and commercial properties by establishing a clear and
streamlined permitting path for additional principal buildings.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
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.
Attachment
Attachment 1: Proposed Amendments
Attachment 2: Institutional Uses Research Table
Attachment 3: Letter of Support from GW Properties
Attachment 4: Letter of Support from MPT Holdings LLC, owner of Lee Commons
(1143-1175 Lee Street)
Jonathan Stytz, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff report. Mr. Stytz explained the text
amendment, noting that the focus of the text amendment is to look at the institutional districts as
well as commercial districts and see what portions of the sites can be utilized for increased
development or redevelopment opportunities for mixed uses or multiple uses. Mr. Stytz
explained that there has been a shift in development to increase demand for multi-use properties.
The comprehensive plan looks to promote mixed use development especially near major
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
throughfare areas of the city to “encourage development within compact areas of land, reduce
traffic and pollution, and contribute to the creation of a pedestrian-friendly environment.” Mr.
Stytz gave examples on a power point which included large office building, parks, schools and
churches. Mr. Stytz stated that passing this amendment would help with proposed development
and not force them to go through a planning and zoning process. Mr. Stytz reminded the board
that all zoning regulations will still apply, and the petitioner will still need to meet all regulations.
Mr. Stytz stated that this text amendment would not take decisions away from the board, but it
will make it easier for redevelopment in Des Plaines.
A motion was made by Board Member Veremis, seconded by Board Member Hofherr to
recommend approval of zoning text amendments to Section 12-7-1.A of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow more than one principal structure on a single zoning lot for: (i) specific
institutional uses on lots of four acres or more with a minimum of two acres available for
each principal building; and (ii) for lots in the C-2 Limited Office and C-3 General
Commercial Districts of at least one-half acre.
AYES: Veremis, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
3. Address: Citywide Case Number: 22-0043-TA
The PZB is holding a public hearing to consider zoning ordinance amendments to: (i) revise the
sign standards to allow for two menu board signs that collectively total up to 60 square feet in
area within the drive-through menu board sign type pursuant to Section 12-11-6.B; and (ii) amend
electronic message board sign type to include reference to drive-through menu board signs, also
pursuant to Section 12-11-6.B.
PIN: Citywide
Petitioner: City of Des Plaines, 1420 Miner Street, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: #22-043-TA
Project Summary: The City of Des Plaines is applying for zoning text amendments to
address trends in signs for drive-through facilities.
Revising Menu Board Sign Regulations
Digital signage for drive-through restaurant establishments is increasingly popular, as they
provide the option to quickly change menu options and provide additional avenues to advertise
promotions to customers. Recently, the COVID-19 pandemic required many restaurants to adapt
their restaurants to better accommodate a growth in drive-through patronage and quickly adapt
menus to meet the challenges of lower staffing and supply chain issues.1 Digital signs (defined as
“electronic message boards” in the zoning ordinance) provide the flexibility needed for
restaurants.
Pre-sell menu boards are an increasingly common type of signage that is located prior to the full
pricing board, typically located a car length or two away from the full menu board. The purpose
of these pre-sell boards is to advertise specials, limited time offers, or entertain guests in line.
Offering additional menu information to waiting guests to has been shown to have positive effects
for restaurants, including reducing perceived waiting time for customers.2 Nationwide labor
shortages have increased customer wait times at many restaurants, including drive-through
facilities.3 Presently, the Zoning Ordinance allows for only one sign, and staff regularly requires
revisions to submitted sign permits to remove any menu signs exceeding the maximum number.
Staff proposes to allow for up to two signs and to increase the maximum total sign area from 42
square feet (current) to 60 square feet (proposed). Further, staff proposes slight adjustments to the
electronic message board (EMB) rules to clearly allow electronic drive-through menu board signs
1 Damask, K. (2021, 07 23). “Restaurants hungry for digital signage.” Digital Signage Today
https://www.digitalsignagetoday.com/articles/covid-19-pushes-restaurants-to-dive-into-digital-signage/
2 Bae, G., & Kim, D.-Y. (2014). The Effects of Offering Menu Information on Perceived Waiting Time. Journal of
Hospitality Marketing & Management, 37-41. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.879547
3 SeeLevel HX. (September 23, 2021). PR News Wire. “SeeLevel HX 21st Annual Drive-Thru Study Uncovers Delays
and Inaccuracy as QSRs Struggle with Labor Shortage.” https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/seelevel-hx-
21st-annual-drive-thru-study-uncovers-delays-and-inaccuracy-as-qsrs-struggle-with-labor-shortage-
301383881.html
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
and to allow a drive-through to have up to two of them.
Through the amendments restaurants would have the ability to promote their business, alleviate
issues associated with longer wait times, and follow trends in marketing and advertising for these
types of facilities. Because of existing zoning rules such as limitations on light trespass (Section
12-12-10: Performance Standards), requirements for landscaping at the sign base, a requirement
for a conditional use permit when drive-through facilities border residential properties, a
minimum distance for EMB signs from certain residential zones, and landscape buffer/screening
requirements that lead to solid fences along lot lines, staff is not concerned the additional sign
allowance would have a neighbor impact.
Drive-Through Sign Regulations Signs are regulated by sign type and zoning district.
Definitions for the sign types discussed in this amendment are included in Section 12-13-3 and
the table below. Drive-through signs are only permitted within commercial districts, and thus are
controlled by Section 12-11-6.B. The table in this section provides the below restrictions for
drive-through menu board signs and electronic message board signs. Sections hindering the
construction of secondary menu boards are italicized fo r emphasis. Note the electronic message
boards (EMBs) section does not explicitly state drive-through menu boards are permitted to
embed a digital display in the sign.
Definition (12-13-3) Regulation (12-11-6.B)
Sign, Drive-
through
Menu Board
A freestanding or wall sign
displaying items or services
available at a drive-through facility
and located on the same zoning lot
of the subject business.
One drive-through menu board sign is
permitted adjacent to each ordering
point for any lawfully established drive-
through facility. The drive through menu
board shall not exceed 42 square feet in
area and six feet in height. A two-foot
radius of landscaping shall be provided
around the base of a drive-through menu
board sign.
Electronic
message
boards
(EMBs)
A sign whose informational content
can be changed or altered by
manual or electric,
electromechanical or electronic
means.
Electronic message boards shall not
exceed 50% of the total sign area. When
embedded within an electric vehicle
charging port, an electronic message
board may not exceed six square feet.
Only 1 electronic message board will be
permitted per lot. In the event that a
single business exists on multiple lots or
in the case of a business park or retail
center, only 1 electronic message board
will be permitted overall.
Location: The animated face of an
electronic message board sign shall be a
minimum of 250' away from a residence
in the R-1, R-2, and R-3 Residential
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Districts and shall be arranged to prevent
direct glare onto any adjacent properties.
Institutional district exempt from this
standard. LED illumination of the
numerical pricing component of
gasoline station signs are exempt from
this location standard.
Video display signs are permitted.
The changeable copy shall be specific to
the business in which the sign was
intended.
No sounds will be permitted.
Automatic dimming: Electronic message
board signs shall be equipped with light
sensing devices or a scheduled dimming
timer which automatically dims the
intensity of the light emitted by the sign
during ambient low light and nighttime
(dusk to dawn) conditions. The signs
shall not exceed 500 nits of intensity as
measured at the sign surface during
nighttime and low light conditions and
5,000 nits during daytime hours.
Proposed Changes
All proposed amendments are contained in Attachment 1. Additions are bold, double-underline.
Deletions are struck through. Amended sections are provided with some surrounding, unamended
text for context.
Standards for Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment:
The following is a discussion of standards for zoning amendments from Section 12-3-7.E of the
Zoning Ordinance. Rationale for how the proposed amendments would satisfy the standards is
provided. The PZB may use the statements below as its rationale or adopt its own.
1. Whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies
of the comprehensive plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the City
Council;
Although the Comprehensive Plan does not specifically discuss signs or restaurants, the plan
overall encourages economic development in Des Plaines. This amendment creates conditions
to support successful businesses in the city.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
2. Whether the proposed amendments are compatible with current conditions and the
overall character of existing development;
The amendments allow for one additional sign, in a scale similar to the size of other signs in
the city and the average size and number of signs permitted in drive-throughs in other
municipalities.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
3. Whether the proposed amendments are appropriate considering the adequacy of public
facilities and services available;
The amendments will have no significant effect on public facilities and services.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
4. Whether the proposed amendments will have an adverse effect on the value of properties
throughout the jurisdiction; and
The proposed amendments, if they have any impact, are likely to improve sales at drive-through
establishments and encourage the prosperity of restaurants in the city.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
5. Whether the proposed amendments reflect responsible standards for development a nd
growth.
Many other municipalities allow for additional menu board signs and this amendment follows
the evolving trends of advertising and marketing for this type of establishment. The
amendments are based on thoughtful considerations of development trends and existing
conditions throughout the City.
PZB Modifications (if any): ______________________________________________________
PZB Procedure and Recommended Conditions: 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. City Council has final authority on the
proposal.
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Proposed Text Amendments
Attachment 2: Photos of Drive-Through Menu board Signs: Main Pricing Boards and
Pre-Browse Boards
Samantha Redman, Associate Planner, reviewed the staff report. Ms. Redman explained the text
amendment with a PowerPoint and provided photo examples. Secondary menu board signs can
Case 22—35-FPLAT 1353 Lee Street Final Plat of Subdivision
Case 22-041-TA Citywide Text Amendment
Case 22-043-TA Citywide Text Amendment
display special and other types of things to help customers waiting in line. They are a little further
away from the actual drive through menu board. Many restaurants during the pandemic expanded
their drive through options. Also in the discussion is the use of digital displays allow businesses
to rapidly update and change their menus. Marketing research support the benefit of secondary
boards which benefit restaurant sales and help elevates customer discomfort during the long waits.
There will still be regulations preventing light trespassing into residential areas.
Board members discussed the importance of keeping up with trends and supporting businesses
and discussed examples of businesses with these types of signs.
A motion was made by Board Member Saletnik, seconded by Board Member Veremis to
recommend approval of the text amendment to: (i) revise the sign standards to allow for
two menu board signs that collectively total up to 60 square feet in area within the drive-
through menu board sign type pursuant to Section 12-11-6.B; and (ii) amend electronic
message board sign type to include reference to drive-through menu board signs, also
pursuant to Section 12-11-6.B.
AYES: Veremis, Saletnik, Szabo, Hofherr
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: None
***MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY **
ADJOURNMENT
The next scheduled Planning & Zoning Board meeting is Tuesday, October 25, 2022.
October 11, 2022 PZB will be cancelled.
Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting by voice vote at 8:14 p.m.
Sincerely,
Margie Mosele, Executive Assistant/Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Planning & Zoning Board, Petitioners