04/25/2017Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 1
DES PLAINES PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD MEETING
April 25, 2017
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Planning and Zoning Board Meeting held its regularly-scheduled meeting on Tuesday, April 25,
2017, at 7 p.m. in Room 102 of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
ZONING BOARD
PRESENT: Bader, Catalano, Green, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo
ABSENT: Schell
ALSO PRESENT: Lauren Pruss, AICP, Coordinator/Community & Economic Development
Gale Cerabona/Recording Secretary
Chairman Szabo called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. and read this evening’s cases. Roll call was conducted.
Board Member Green arrived at 7:03 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to approve the minutes
of April 11, 2017 with a revision on page 6, 3d bullet point, from the word apartment to hotel.
AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Bader, Catalano, Szabo
NAYES: None
ABSTAIN: Green
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
PUBLIC COMMENT
There were no comments.
PUBLIC HEARING NEW BUSINESS
1. Address: 1200 E. Golf Road Case 17-004-P-FPUD
An application has been filed requesting a Map Amendment from the I-1 Institutional District to the M-2
General Manufacturing District, and requesting preliminary and final Planned Unit Development Approval
to permit the continued use of the subject property for current and permitted uses in the M-2 district, to
permit trade contractors office and storage buildings, and to permit contractor storage yards; and requesting
setback and design exceptions from the M-2 District as necessary to make conforming the existing non-
conforming setbacks and site design of the property. Legal Description: The part of the West 100.00 feet of
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 2
Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Circuit Court Partition of the South 80 acres of the North 137 ½ acres of the South East
Quarter of Section 8, Township 41 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal Meridian, which lies North
of the North line of Golf Road in Cook County, Illinois.
PIN: 09-08-400-003-0000
Petitioner: Bernard J. Tameling, 90 S. River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Owner: Chicago Title Land Trust Company, as Successor to Glenview State Bank Trust No.
4011, 10 S. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL 60603
Chairman Szabo swore in Gregory L. Dose, Attorney, Goldstine, Skrodzki, Russian, Nemec and Hoff, Ltd.,
835 McClintock Drive, Second Floor, Burr Ridge, IL; Messrs. Bernard & Ken Tameling.
Mr. Dose advised the purpose is to allow use and improvements for small businesses and storage needs.
Mr. Bernard Tameling stated he is representing his family and advised they’d like to change the zoning to
M2 (as it once was); there will be no changes. A history was provided. Their father bought this property in
the 1940s as a mushroom farm (1200 ft. long & 100 ft. wide); was once a railroad spur. He noted later
buildings were rented (Wally’s Auto Body in 1970, etc.). There are 12 tenants (who employ up to 100
people), 9 contractor storage yards. Total size of property is 2.7 acres. In 1967, the City of Des Plaines
annexed them then changed zoning to I-1 Institutional. The Mayor advised changes were being made, and
operations could remain. In 2009, a tenant left and Building #2 became vacant. After some investigation, a
discussion took place with George Sakas who was interested in resolving the zoning issues.
Mr. Bernard Tameling advised the intention is to fill the units. Rebuilding is an issue as well. He noted
no construction would occur.
He highlighted points about the Staff Report:
• Regarding the term commercial truck parking, this should indicate small businesses (storage units)
• The term proliferation is troubling as there is no room to expand; parcel is surrounded by trees
• The term deterioration should be noted as the opposite; if these units are not filled, the area could
deteriorate
Coordinator Pruss responded these should be conditional uses. When commercial trucks are parked, there
are frequent requests for truck parking. There is not sufficient paving to park trucks.
Chairman Szabo asked if the storage yards are paved. Mr. Dose stated they are not and advised that
historical uses were reviewed. He referred to Page 12. Some uses would be prohibited. Mr. Dose concurred
that commercial truck parking could be stricken as a use (or come before the Commission). The contractor
storage yards, that have been there for decades, are small operators and the bread and butter of this
operation. He advised a new user could be deterred due to the City’s process. He referred to the parcel
illustrated on Page 18 and described same. He reminded it is naturally landscaped.
For this company to thrive as well as the tenants, the request is to allow permitted uses so they can bypass
the process. Machinery uses were highlighted. Inappropriate uses were noted.
Regarding bulk regulations, they would like to make those conforming. If this is zoned M-2, due to
setbacks, it would be impossible to sell. A variance to allow three buildings is recommended.
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 3
Mr. Dose continued and stated this property paid $82,000 in property taxes; this family is a good citizen.
He noted this is not well-suited for the current zoning it has. The family is trying to continue their business.
He doesn’t believe they are hurting nearby businesses that arrived later.
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions.
Board Member Saletnik asked/stated:
• what the actual definition of commercial truck parking is. Coordinator Pruss advised – the
distinction is when the owner leases the space for commercial parking without an office. She read
that definition (in the code) as well as contractor storage yards.
• if the tenants have offices there. Mr. Dose referred to Page 18 noting the three buildings (end
tenants are Wally’s Auto Body).
Coordinator Pruss noted machine and welding shops would be a permitted use in the M-2 zone.
• uses could have conditions put on them.
Mr. Dose reminded they are looking at this unique property with its contractor storage yards.
Chairman Szabo asked:
• if the City has had any issues. Coordinator Pruss advised – no
• what the average length of stay is. Mr. Bernard Tameling advised – 10 years
Board Member Hofherr stated he only thought the auto body shop was there. He advised he did not see any
unauthorized trucks. Conditions could be added. Chairman Szabo noted contractors lease their equipment;
it is cost prohibitive to buy.
Chairman Szabo asked Staff to provide the Staff Report which Coordinator Pruss did:
Issue: An application has been filed requesting a Map Amendment from the I-1 Institutional District to the
M-2 General Manufacturing District, and requesting preliminary and final Planned Unit Development
approval to permit the continued use of the subject property for current and permitted uses in the M-2 district,
to permit commercial truck parking, trade contractors offices and storage buildings, and to permit contractor
storage yards; and requesting setback and design exceptions from the M-2 District as necessary to make
conforming the existing nonconforming setbacks and site design of the property.
Map Amendment and Final Planned Unit Development Report
Address: 1200 E. Golf Road
Owner/Petitioner: Bernard J. Tameling, 90 S. River Road, Des Plaines, IL 60016
Case Number: 17-004-MAP-PFPUD
Real Estate Index Numbers: 09-08-400-003-0000
Ward: #1, Patricia Haugeberg
Existing Zoning: I-1 Institutional District
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 4
Existing Land Use: Industrial
Surrounding Zoning: North: I-1 Institutional District
South: C-2 Limited Office Commercial District
East: I-1 Institutional District
West: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Institutional
South: Commercial
East: Medical Office/Institutional
West: Forest Preserve Golf Range
Street Classification: Golf Road is an arterial street
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site Institutional
Project Description The subject property, containing 2.77 acres of land, was developed for
and has been in continuous industrial use since the 1940s. The current
use of the property consists of auto body repair, contractor’s storage
yards without an onsite office, trade contractors, machine shops, and
landscape maintenance contractors. The lot is developed with gravel,
paved and unpaved surfaces, and the buildings and parking lots are
nonconforming with respect to setbacks.
The subject property was annexed in 1960 and zoned M-2 General
Manufacturing District subsequent to annexation. It appears that the
property was later rezoned to I-1 Institutional in 1998 along with a
comprehensive rezoning of the City and adoption of a new zoning
ordinance. This action rendered the existing development and industrial
use of the property legal nonconforming. Although staff has been unable
to obtain evidence supporting the basis for this change, it is thought that
staff anticipated the nearby hospital and supporting uses would continue
to expand and the property would ultimately redevelop in a manner
consistent with those uses. This assumption is supported by the fact that
other properties within the nearby Golf Road corridor were similarly
rezoned with the comprehensive amendment. However, since that time,
the hospital has scaled back their nearby operation, and the anticipated
redevelopment of the surrounding area has not been realized.
The applicant is requesting that the property be rezoned to M-2 with
Planned Unit Development approval to render the existing
nonconforming setbacks conforming, and to permit auto repair, auto
body repair, commercial truck parking, contractor storage yards,
machine shops, and welding shops as permitted uses on site. In the M-2
zone, contractor’s storage yards and commercial truck parking are
classified as a conditional use, which requires City Council approval
upon a change in use, expansion, or termination of the land use longer
than one year. This request would allow these uses to continue as
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 5
permitted uses without the oversight of a public hearing process and
without limitation on operations as is common with conditional uses.
Zoning Map Amendment Findings
As required, the proposed amendment is reviewed below in terms of the standards contained in Section 12-
3-7(E) of the Zoning Ordinance:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Institutional. As defined by the
Plan, institutional is an area containing churches, private schools, cemeteries, non-profit organizations, and
the Des Plaines Historical Society. While this designation is in keeping with the area to the east, it does not
recognize the current pattern of development, and would indicate a desire to see the property redevelop in a
manner consistent with the institutional designation and the area to the east.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with the current conditions and the overall
character of existing developments in the immediate vicinity of the subject property.
The proposed map amendment from I-1 to M-2 recognizes the historic use of the subject property and would
allow additional flexibility for reoccupancy of vacant tenant spaces. While this pattern of development is
consistent with some properties within the surrounding area, it is inconsistent with those immediately east
and west. Staff supports the reversion to the previous M-2 zoning, but does not support any of the requested
PUD exceptions. The request to fully legalize the existing nonconforming structures and to permit uses by
right that should otherwise be regulated as a conditional use could result in deterioration of the property and
have a negative impact on the surrounding area.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and
services available to the subject property.
The public facilities and services provided by the City of Des Plaines are expected to be adequate within this
area to support the existing pattern of development on site.
D. Whether the proposed amendment will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout
the jurisdiction.
Staff believes that it is reasonable to allow the continued use of the property within the constraints of M-2
zoning while allowing the existing site development to be regulated by the nonconforming structures section
of the Zoning Ordinance. If allowed to continue in this manner, it is not anticipated that the proposed use of
the property would have a detrimental impact of the surrounding area.
However, if allowed to remain in perpetuity as requested with the proposed PUD, and if the contractor’s
yards and commercial truck parking is allowed as a permitted use, staff is of the opinion that these uses would
ultimately dominate the subject property due to the significant demand, and lack of available sites, for these
uses. In this scenario, it is staff opinion that the proposed use of the property would create a significant
detrimental impact on the surrounding area.
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 6
E. Whether the proposed amendment reflects responsible standards for development and growth.
For the reasons stated in subsection D, above, staff does not believe the proposed PUD represents a
responsible standard for the future use and development of the site. However staff believes that it is a more
responsible standard to permit rezoning the property to M-2, while allowing the site to continue in
nonconforming status with respect to site design.
The Zoning Ordinance permits the maintenance of nonconforming structures as follows:
“Repair, Maintenance, Alterations, And Enlargement: Except as limited by subsections C and D of this
section, any nonconforming structure may be repaired, maintained, altered, or enlarged provided, however,
that no such repair, maintenance, alteration, or enlargement shall either create any new nonconformity or
increase the degree of the existing nonconformity of all or any part of such structure. For the purposes of this
section, the vertical or horizontal extension of a structure shall be considered to increase the degree of an
existing nonconformity related to a required yard or setback.”
Planned Unit Development Findings
As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in Section 12-
3-5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance:
A. The extent to which the Proposed Plan is or is not consistent with the stated purpose of the PUD
regulations in Section 12-3-5.1:
Comment: The proposed plan is consistent with the stated purpose of Section 12-3.5(A) of the Zoning
Ordinance. The plan would provide a maximum choice in the types of environment available to the public
by allowing a development that would not be possible under the strict application of the zoning regulations
which would require the existing development and land uses to be maintained in conformance with the I-1
zone.
B. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the planned unit
development regulations:
Comment: The proposed Planned Unit Development meets all PUD requirements contained in Section 12-
3-5 of the Zoning Ordinance as it would be located in a zoning district (I-1) that permits PUDs, it meets the
minimum size standard of two acres (2.77 acres in size), and the land is under unified control of the owner.
However, the proposed PUD does not meet all of the following standards as provided in Section 12-3-5.C of
the Zoning Ordinance:
Permitted Bulk Exceptions And Minimum Development Standards: To achieve the intent of this
section, the planning and zoning board may recommend and the city council may authorize any
exceptions to the applicable bulk regulations of this title; provided however, the following minimum
standards are met:
1. Necessity of Bulk Exceptions: Any bulk exceptions authorized under this provision shall be solely
for the purpose of promoting a unified site plan, and meeting the objective of this title and the
comprehensive plan.
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 7
The proposed bulk exceptions are not being requested in support of a unified site plan, but rather to
avoid the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that regulate nonconforming uses and structures.
2. Distance Between Buildings: The minimum horizontal distance between buildings shall be fifteen
feet (15'). However, where necessary, the distance may be varied to be consistent with recognized
site planning principles.
The proposed PUD would conform to this requirement.
3. Perimeter Yards: The minimum front, side and rear yards on the perimeter of the planned unit
development shall be provided in accordance with the underlying zoning district or districts,
although exceptions may be granted. Greater minimum yards and/or landscape buffers may be
required to foster aesthetically pleasing planned unit developments and to make planned unit
developments more compatible with adjacent uses, to minimize possible adverse impacts and to
provide privacy.
The proposed bulk exceptions are not being requested in support of a unified site plan, but rather to
avoid the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance that regulate nonconforming uses and structures.
Additionally, the applicant is not proposing any improvements to the existing property that would
improve the aesthetic of the site.
4. Compatibility: The uses permitted in a planned unit development must be of a type and located
to minimize detrimental influence upon surrounding properties.
If the contractor’s yards and commercial truck parking are allowed as permitted uses, these uses
would ultimately dominate the subject property due to the significant demand, and lack of available
sites within the surrounding area, and would create a significant detrimental impact on the
surrounding area.
5. Parking Requirements: The individual uses permitted within the planned unit development shall
adhere to the parking requirements provided for in other sections of this title for the particular use
or uses proposed.
The existing uses may be nonconforming with respect to parking, but any future change in use would
require conformance with the off street parking requirements should the map amendment to M-2 be
granted. Additionally, the applicant is not requesting a PUD exception for parking, any future
change in use would require conformance with the City’s parking requirements.
6. Traffic: Adequate provision shall be made to provide safe ingress and egress and designed to
minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.
It is believed that the existing site provides adequate provisions for safe ingress and egress.
7. General Design: The planned unit development shall not be designed as to be detrimental to or
endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare. The planned unit
development shall be designed to offer more architectural features, enhanced landscaping and extra
open space.
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 8
The request to fully legalize the existing nonconforming structures and to permit uses by right that
should otherwise be regulated as a conditional use could result in deterioration of the property and
have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Additionally, the applicant is not proposing any
improvements to the existing property that would improve the aesthetic of the site.
C. 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:
Comment: The proposed development would meet or exceed the following applicable zoning regulations
in the M-2 General Manufacturing District:
• Minimum size for PUD: Two acres are required; the total site is 2.77 acres.
• Maximum building coverage: 70% or 84,463 square feet; 15,049 square feet of building coverage
exists.
• Maximum Building Height 40’; existing 16-foot maximum height.
• Compatibility with surrounding properties: The project is not expected to be detrimental to
surrounding residential properties.
• General Design: The general design of the development is not expected to be detrimental to the
public health, safety or general welfare.
A Planned Unit Development exception is requested for:
• Setbacks: A minimum 30-foot front yard where 65 feet is required from Golf Road, a minimum
side yard of 4 feet where 50 feet is required to the east and west, and a zero foot setback for a
contractor’s storage yard where 50 feet is required.
• To permit gravel and unpaved surfaces for vehicle use areas, parking lots, and contractor’s storage
yards.
• To permit contractor’s storage yards and commercial truck parking where they are only permitted
as conditional uses.
• To permit three principle buildings on one zoning lot where only one is permitted.
D. 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:
Comment: It appears that the proposed development provides adequate provision for the necessary
infrastructure.
E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is beneficial or
adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood:
Comment: The requested map amendment is unlikely to create an additional adverse effect on the adjacent
properties. However, the proposed planned unit development would permit by right certain patters of
development and the use of land which were rendered a conditional use. The goal of rendering certain uses
conditional is to ensure that potential detrimental impacts on the property or surrounding area are not
exacerbated by a lack of regulation. Contractor’s storage yards without an associated on-site office and
commercial truck parking have been strictly regulated by the City for many years due to their potential for
significant detrimental impact on the City’s aesthetic environment, the City’s proximity to the airport and
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 9
significant demand for these uses. As a result, it is anticipated, that if permitted, these uses would proliferate
on site and impose a significant negative influence on the surrounding area.
F. The extent to which the proposed plan is not desirable to physical development, tax base and
economic well-being of the entire community:
Comment: The request to fully legalize the existing nonconforming structures and to permit uses by right
that should otherwise be regulated as a conditional use could result in deterioration of the property and have
a negative impact on the economic well-being of the surrounding area.
G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2007
Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: The 2007 City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan designates the area as Institutional. As defined
by the Plan, institutional is an area containing churches, private schools, cemeteries, non-profit organizations,
and the Des Plaines Historical Society. While this designation is in keeping with the area to the east, it does
not recognize the current pattern of development, and would indicate a desire to see the property redevelop
in a manner consistent with the institutional designation and the area to the east.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the requested map amendment from I-1 to M-2, but denial of
the requested planned unit development. Should the City Council approve the requested PUD, the following
conditions are recommended:
o The existing contractor’s storage yards should not be made a permitted use, but should
remain as a nonconforming use and require future conditional use approval for any change
in occupant.
o Commercial truck parking shall be a conditional use. If commercial truck parking is
approved as a permitted use, the site shall be brought into full conformance with all
requirements of the off street parking ordinance.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend
approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final
PUD.
Coordinator Pruss commented if the commercial truck parking was removed, the City would concur. The
recommendation for contractor yards would remain. Paving is mandatory for parking.
Board Member Saletnik asked/stated:
• which type of businesses walked away. Mr. Bernard Tameling advised – it scares small businesses
to come to the City for variances.
• he believes it’s overkill if a contractor wishes to increase their space
Board Member Catalano asked Staff if the five storage areas could remain. Coordinator Pruss stated –
tenants wouldn’t matter; the area should remain.
Chairman Szabo advised the types of uses are important; there are a lot of contractors who need this use.
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 10
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, to move the MAP
Amendment from I-1 to M-2.
AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Green, Bader, Catalano, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
A motion was made by Board Member Hofherr, seconded by Board Member Saletnik, for the PUD approval
to continue its use with the uses as shown. Coordinator Pruss read Staff’s Conditions. Board Member Hofherr
amended his motion to add Staff Conditions. He amended the last sentence on the second Condition be
removed. Board Member Saletnik believes storage contractors could be allowed if the use stays the same. Coordinator
Pruss summarized the existed storage yards be a permitted use. Board Member Hofherr accepted this verbage and
leaves Condition 2 as is. Board Member Saletnik accepted the amendment.
AYES: Hofherr, Saletnik, Green, Bader, Catalano, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be submitted to City Council.
2. Address: 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster Street Case 17-027-PFPUD
An application has been filed requesting an amendment to a previously approved final planned unit
development at 2550 East Dempster Street, to permit the removal of a planned office building and an
increase in a proposed 6,225 square foot greenhouse by 7,885 square feet, for a total of 14,110 square feet,
in the C-3 General Commercial District.
Legal Description: All of Lots 8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,22,23,24,25,26,27,28, and 29, all being situated in
Albert H. Ahrens Homestead Acres Subdivision of that part of the West Half of the Southwest Quarter of
Section 15, Township 41 North, Range 12 East, of the Third Principal Meridian, in the City of Des Plaines,
Cook County, Illinois according to the Plat thereof recorded August 19, 1947 as Document No. 14126112.
Lots 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 all in Albert H. Ahrens Homestead Acres Subdivision of that part of the
West Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 41 North, Range 12 East, of the Third
Principal Meridian lying South of a line drawn from a point 635 feet North of the South East corner thereof
to a point 653 feet North of the Southwest corner thereof as per plat thereof recorded August 19, 1947 as
Document No. 14126112. In Cook Count Illinois.
That part of the West one-half of the Southwest quarter of Section 15, Township 41 North, Range 12 East,
of the Third Principal Meridian, bounded and described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of
Lot 1 in Albert H. Ahrens Subdivision recorded July 7, 1966, as Document No. 19878750, thence North
along the West line of said Lot 1 and along the West lines of Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 in Albert H. Ahrens
Subdivision aforesaid, to the Northwest corner of said Lot 5, thence West to the Northeast corner of Lot 19
in Albert H. Ahrens Homestead Acres subdivision recorded August 19, 1947 as Document No. 14126112
and as corrected by certificate recorded September 23, 1947 as Document No. 14150720, thence South
along the East line of said Lot 19 and along the East line of Lot 18, in Albert H. Ahrens Homestead Acres
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 11
Subdivision aforesaid, to the Southwest corner of said Lot 18, thence East to the place of beginning, in
Cook County, Illinois.
Lots 3,4 and 5 in Albert H. Ahrens Subdivision of part of Lot 2 in Assessor’s Division of the West one-half
of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, Township 41 North, Range 12 East of the Third Principal
Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois.
PINs: 09-15-306-013-0000, 09-15-306-014-0000, 09-15-306-015-0000, 09-15-306-016- 000,
09-15-306-039-0000, 09-15-306-040-0000, 09-15-306-043-0000, 09-15-306- 044-0000,
09-15-306-056-0000, 09-15-306-057-0000, 09-15-306-045-0000, 09- 15-306-018-0000,
09-15-306-037-0000, 09-15-306-017-0000, 09-15-306-019- 0000, 09-15-306-049-0000,
09-15-306-052-0000, 09-15-306-053-0000, 09-15- 306-054-0000
Petitioner: Mark Lurvey & Eileen Lurvey Joint Revocable Trust, 35680 Wayfare Trail,
Oconomo woc Wisconsin, 53066
Owner: Mark Lurvey & Eileen Lurvey Joint Revocable Trust, 35680 Wayfare Trail,
Oconomowoc Wisconsin, 53066
Chairman Szabo swore in Mark Lurvey, Owner & Scott Goczkowski, Sales Manager, Lurvey, 2550 E.
Dempster, Des Plaines, IL. Mr. Lurvey asked for a modification of the use. Everything has been completed.
He noted they are proposing that the greenhouse be expanded.
Mr. Goczkowski offered a presentation:
• existing greenhouse is 6200 sq. ft.; would like to add 7800 sq. ft.
• space is used for indoor shopping
• current structure has three peaks; one peak would be added; gutter connected houses
• displays and photos were shown
Chairman Szabo asked if the Board has any questions. There were none. He asked Staff to read the Staff
Report which Coordinator Pruss did:
Issue: An application has been filed requesting an amendment to a previously approved final planned unit
development at 2550 East Dempster Street, to permit the removal of a planned office building and an
increase in a proposed 6,225 square foot greenhouse by 7,885 square feet, for a total of 14,110 square feet,
in the C-3 General Commercial District.
Map Amendment and Final Planned Unit Development Report
Address: 2550 East Dempster Street
Owner/Petitioner: Mark Lurvey & Eileen Lurvey Joint Revocable Trust, 35680 Wayfare
Trail, Oconomowoc Wisconsin, 53066
Case Number: 17-027-PFPUD
Real Estate Index Numbers: 09-15-306-013-0000, 09-15-306-014-0000, 09-15-306-015-0000,
09-15-306-016-000, 09-15-306-039-0000, 09-15-306-040-0000,
09-15-306-043-0000, 09-15-306-044-0000, 09-15-306-056-0000,
09-15-306-057-0000, 09-15-306-045-0000, 09-15-306-018-0000,
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 12
09-15-306-037-0000, 09-15-306-017-0000, 09-15-306-019-0000,
09-15-306-049-0000, 09-15-306-052-0000, 09-15-306-053-0000,
09-15-306-054-0000
Ward: #1, Patricia Haugeberg
Existing Zoning: C-3 General Commercial District
Existing Land Use: Commercial
Surrounding Zoning: North: R-1 Single-Family Residential District
South: Residential (City of Park Ridge)
East: Commercial/Residential (City of Park Ridge)
West: C-3 General Commercial District
Surrounding Land Use: North: Residential
South: Residential
East: Commercial/Office/Residential
West: Office
Street Classification: East Dempster Street is an arterial street
Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan designates the site a Community Commercial
Project Description In 2010, the subject property, Lurvey Landscape Supply & Garden
Center, received PUD approval in order to expand the existing landscape
supply/garden center on the 9.4 acre site. During the first phase of
construction, a new wholesale sales center was constructed on the rear
portion of the property to replace the smaller existing wholesale sales
center. During the second phase of construction, the existing retail shop
on the southern portion of the site was expanded and a greenhouse retail
area constructed.
Two changes to the approved PUD site plan are requested as part of this
amendment: 1) remove the single-story brick office building at the
southwest corner of the site for more outdoor plant storage, and 2)
expand the existing greenhouse from the approved 6,225 square feet to
14,110 square feet for additional indoor shopping area. Please note that
the office building has already been removed, and that during the original
discussions regarding the PUD in 2010, it was noted that this building
would remain. The proposed greenhouse addition will match the style of
the existing greenhouse. Additionally, please note that a fence is
proposed for the southwestern part of the site for safety and security
reasons.
Planned Unit Development Findings
As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in Section 12-
3-5.5 of the Zoning Ordinance:
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 13
A. The extent to which the Proposed Plan is or is not consistent with the stated purpose of the PUD
regulations in Section 12-3-5.1:
Comment: The proposed plan is consistent with the stated purpose of Section 3.5-1 of the Zoning Ordinance
in that it would comply with Section 3.5-1-A which states: A maximum choice in the types of environment
available to the public by allowing a development that would not be possible under the strict application of
the other sections of the (Zoning) Ordinance.
B. The extent to which the proposed plan meets the prerequisites and standards of the planned unit
development regulations:
Comment: The proposed Planned Unit Development meets all PUD requirements contained in Section 3.5-
2 of the Zoning Ordinance as it is located in a zoning district that permits PUDs, it meets the minimum size
standard of two acres and is under single ownership or unified control.
C. 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:
Comment: The proposed plan has no departures from zoning or subdivision regulations that would be
considered negative; in fact, the proposed buildings in Phase I and II meet or exceed the following applicable
zoning regulations:
• Minimum distance between buildings (15-feet is required, approximately 200- feet is provided);
• Parking requirements (143 off-street parking spaces are required (one space per 300 square feet)
and 170 off-street spaces are provided);
• Building height of the proposed Landscape Supply Building and others (Up to 45-feet is
allowed and 32-feet is proposed); and
• Front, side and rear yard setbacks (assuming the proposed concrete storage bins located along
Prairie Avenue are temporary, if not, a variance/exception is required).
D. 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:
Comment: The petitioner submitted a professional traffic study for the PUD approved in 2009 and 2010.
Metro Transportation Group, Inc performed the study. In the firm’s summary of conclusions, it states that
the proposed construction will not affect the property in a negative manner, even though there will be a slight
increase in commercial traffic. The City of Des Plaines Engineering Department has reviewed the traffic
study and it concurred with the Metro Transportation’s conclusions. With respect to the current proposal for
expanding the outdoor and indoor sales area, it is not anticipated to greatly affect the previous traffic study
as the PUD converts 7,885 square feet of existing outdoor sales area to the same square footage of greenhouse
sales area. Additionally, the demolition of approximately 14,000 square feet of office space would be
replaced with a similar area of outdoor display.
Case #17-004-MAP-PFPUD - 1200 E. Golf – MAP Amendment &
Final PUD Approval
Case #17-027-PFPUD – 2474, 2500, 2510, & 2550 E. Dempster –
Preliminary & Final PUD Approval
April 25, 2017
Page 14
E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is beneficial or
adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood:
Comment: The proposed modifications are consistent with the existing use and development of the property,
which, since its recent renovation, has provided significant aesthetic improvement to the surrounding area.
F. The extent to which the proposed plan is not desirable to physical development, tax base and
economic well-being of the entire community:
Comment: The proposed plan should be a benefit to the tax base and economic well-being of the entire
community.
G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2007
Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: The proposed commercial Planned Unit Development conforms to the land use recommended in
the 2007 Comprehensive Plan in that community commercial is the recommended land use. According to the
Plan, community commercial includes neighborhood and community-based retail goods and services located
at major intersections in commercial districts. These commercial areas serve surrounding neighborhood
residents as well as consumers from outside the city.
Recommendation: I recommend approval of the requested amendment to a previously approved final
planned unit development at 2550 East Dempster Street, to permit the removal of a planned office building
and an increase in a proposed 6,225 square foot greenhouse by 7,885 square feet, for a total of 14,110 square
feet, in the C-3 General Commercial District.
Planning and Zoning Board Procedure: The Planning and Zoning Board may vote to recommend approval,
approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council has final authority over the Final PUD.
Chairman Szabo asked how much square footage the building had that was torn down. Coordinator Pruss
offered rationale. Mr. Lurvey advised he bought the building in 2003.
A motion was made by Board Member Green, seconded by Board Member Catalano, to recommend approval
to City Council.
AYES: Green, Catalano, Bader, Hofherr, Saletnik, Szabo
NAYES: None
***MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY***
Chairman Szabo advised a recommendation for approval would be submitted to City Council.
ADJOURNMENT
On a voice vote, Chairman Szabo adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.
Sincerely,
Gale Cerabona, Recording Secretary
cc: City Officials, Aldermen, Zoning Board of Appeals, Petitioners