01/28/2013Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 1 of 12
DES PLAINES PLAN COMMISSION
JANUARY 28, 2013
MINUTES
The Des Plaines Plan Commission held its regularly scheduled meeting on Monday, January 28, 2013 at 7:00 P.M.,
in Room 102, City Council Chambers, of the Des Plaines Civic Center.
PLAN COMMISSION
PRESENT: Niemotka, Yi, Bar
ABSENT: Lane, Perez
Also present was Senior Planner, Scott Mangum, Department of Community and Economic Development.
Chairman Niemotka called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
A motion was made by Commissioner Yi seconded by Chairman Bar to approve the minutes of the November
26, 2012 minutes as submitted.
AYES: Yi, Bar ,Niemotka
NAYES: None
A motion was made by Commissioner Yi seconded by Chairman Niemotka to approve the minutes of the
January 14, 2013 minutes as submitted. Chairman Yi stated that he would like the minutes to reflect the
reason he was late was because the agenda had an incorrect starting time.
AYES: Yi, Niemotka, Bar
NAYES: None
Chairman Niemotka read a summary of the cases up for hearing.
NEW BUSINESS
Address: Citywide Case Number: 12-078-TA
Text Amendments to the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, are requested to amend Table
7.2.1, Residential Districts Use Matrix, to allow townhouse dwellings as a permitted use in the R-4, Central Core
Residential Zoning District, to amend Sections 3.5-3.C and 3.5-3.D regarding minimum residential setbacks and
minimum distance between buildings within Planned Unit Developments; and Amendments to Sections 13-2-5(R)
and 13.2-5(V) of the City of Des Plaines Subdivision Regulations to remove the minimum lot depth requirement for
townhouse developments and to allow townhouse developments to front on a private street, alley, or courtyard
instead of only upon on a dedicated public street.
Petitioner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60614
Owner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 2 of 12
60614
Address: 254 Laurel Avenue, (Located between Wildflower Street, Western Avenue, Evergreen Avenue, and
Harding Avenue) Case Number: 05-031-PUD
A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) is requested under Section 3.5 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for the construction of 29 Townhomes on approximately 1.1 acres as Phase
II of the Lexington Park PUD in the R-4, Central Core Residential Zoning District with requested PUD exceptions
for lot sizes as small as 6,732 square feet, instead of not less than 10,000 square feet, setbacks as small as 3-feet
(front yard) instead of not less than 12-feet, 3-feet (side yard) instead of not less than 5-feet, and 9-feet (rear yard)
instead of not less than 12.6-feet (20 percent of lot depth);
A Tentative Plat of Resubdivision of an existing lot is requested to result in a total of 6 lots with a subdivision
variation from Section 13.2-5(L) for a right-of-way width of as narrow as approximately 33-feet, instead of not less
than 66-feet;
PINs: 09-17-213-001, 09-17-213-007
Petitioner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60614
Owner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL60614
Chairman Niemotka swore in the following individuals:
Bernie Citron of Thompson Coburn, Joe A. Safin of BSB Design, Sharon L. Dickson of Pugsley & La Haie, Ltd,
and Moises Cukierman of Lexington Homes.
Mr. Citron gave a brief description of the case and why they are seeking these amendments. Mr. Citron explained
that 120 multi-family units were originally approved for Phase II, but the petitioner now wanted to complete the
project with the revised plans. Mr. Citron stated that the project was similar to the townhomes built in Phase I.
Chairman Niemotka asked for any other questions from the commissioners.
Chairman Niemotka asked if they considered re-orientating two of the rows of townhomes which would result in a
loss of approximately 6 units.
Mr. Citron stated that a couple of years ago they were hoping to do 120 units but because of the market they’ve had
to significantly change the design and density and this is why they are asking for some allowances from the city.
Mr. Safin showed a power point presentation of the site plan and architecture. He addressed the issues that staff
expressed regarding architectural design, orientation, and reduced setbacks due to fire access.
Ms. Dickson gave a presentation on the landscaping including the variety of trees, shrubs, and ornamental grass.
Chairman Niemotka asked what greenery was between the buildings.
Sharon stated that it is ground cover for easy maintenance and as well as deterring foot traffic between the buildings.
Mr. Cukierman gave a brief discussion on the development why it’s been difficult to sell the units because of the
market and explained why the site plan had to change. Mr. Cukierman stated that Lexington purchased the property
in 2006 and started development in 2007. He explained that Lexington has been a good corporate citizen despite not
making money on sale of units due to the economic downturn. He stated that the westernmost units have been more
difficult to sell due to proximity to the railroad tracks and the ComEd infrastructure and that Lexington could not
afford to lose any additional units.
Chairman Niemotka asked how many units in Phase 1 are sold.
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 3 of 12
Mr. Cukierman answered 95% have sold but it took them 5 years.
Chairman Niemotka asked if the commissioners had any questions. They had none.
Chairman Niemotka asked Mr. Mangum to read the applicable staff report into record, as follows:
Issue: Text Amendments to the 1998 City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, are requested to amend
Table 7.2.1, Residential Districts Use Matrix, to allow townhouse dwellings as a permitted use in the R-4, Central
Core Residential Zoning District, to amend Sections 3.5-3.C and 3.5-3.D regarding minimum residential setbacks
and minimum distance between buildings within Planned Unit Developments; and Amendments to Sections 13-2-
5(R) and 13.2-5(V) of the City of Des Plaines Subdivision Regulations to remove the minimum lot depth
requirement for townhouse developments and to allow townhouse developments to front on a private street, alley, or
courtyard instead of only upon on a dedicated public street.
Analysis:
Text Amendment Report
Petitioner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60614
Address: Citywide
Case Number: 12-078-TA
Background Information
The petitioner, Lexington Des Plaines LLC, has requested amendments to City’s Zoning and Subdivision
regulations to facilitate development of Phase II of the Lexington Park Planned Unit Development (PUD) (Case#
05-031-PUD). A change to the Residential Districts Use Matrix, Table 7.2.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, would allow
Townhouses to be developed within the R-4, Central Core Residential District by right where multiple family
dwelling units are currently the only permitted residential use.
A second change to the Zoning Ordinance would remove restrictions on the degree of an exception from setbacks
and building separation requirements that could be requested for a residential Planned Unit Development. Currently
the Planned Unit Development regulations do not allow for an exception from the requirement of a 15-foot
separation between buildings and also limit the degree of an exception to residential setbacks to not more than 25
percent. Finally, amendments to the Subdivision Regulations, located within Title 13 of the City Code, would
remove the 125-foot minimum lot depth requirement and also remove the requirement that lots front on a public
street for Townhouse Residential Planned Unit Developments.
To properly evaluate the text amendment requests, the standards below, which are contained in Section 3.7-5 of the
Zoning Ordinance, must be employed. Following is a discussion of those standards:
A. Whether the proposed amendments are consistent with the goals, objectives and policies contained in the
Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: The City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City Council in 2007, encourages low
density multi-family residential land uses in a number of areas, but also recommends high-quality housing with a
distinctive landscaping and open space system as integral to multi-family residential development. The proposed
amendments would make it easier to develop townhomes on smaller sites within the areas surrounding downtown,
however, the quality of development could be compromised.
B. Whether the proposed amendments are compatible with the current conditions and the overall character
of existing developments in the immediate area:
Comment: The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations would allow
townhome developments with shallower lots, reduced setbacks and building separation, as well as orientation away
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 4 of 12
from a public street. The character of existing townhome developments in the City is mixed. There are some existing
newer and mid-century townhome developments that are similarly configured and also some older more traditional
townhome developments that front streets with private rear-yard open space.
C. Whether the amendments are appropriate considering the adequacy of public facilities and services
available to the property:
Comment: The proposed amendments are not anticipated to have a large effect on public facilities or services.
Public Works and Engineering and Fire Department approval is required of townhome developments.
D. Whether the proposed amendments will have an adverse effect on the value of properties throughout the
jurisdiction:
Comment: The proposed amendments include allowing an additional land use (townhomes) for properties within
the R-4 zoning district and ultimately allowing for a higher density of townhome units by removing or allowing for
exceptions from zoning and subdivision regulations.
E. Whether the proposed amendments reflects responsible standards for development and growth:
Comment: This zoning text amendments do not appear to directly conflict with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, the
official policy guide to future land use, development, and conservation with the community. Therefore, the proposed
text amendments would not appear to be in conflict with responsible standards for development and growth.
Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, the Community and Economic Development Department
recommends consideration of proposed text amendments regarding the residential use matrix, planned unit
development exceptions, and subdivision regulations.
Plan Commission Procedure: Under Section 3.7-4 of the Zoning Ordinance (Amendments) the
Plan Commission may vote to recommend approval, approval with modifications, or disapproval. The City Council
has the final authority on Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Chairman Niemotka asked for any questions from the commissioners.
Commissioner Yi stated that he was not a member of the commission for Phase I and asked why both were not
approved at the same time.
Mr. Mangum answered that a Preliminary PUD was approved, but that approval has expired.
Mr. Citron stated that the overall project was preliminarily approved for this one parcel for 120 multifamily homes
and was extended several times. Ultimately Lexington determined that we could not build that many condos and
that is why we are asking to change the PUD to 29 townhomes.
Commissioner Yi asked if the variations that where given in Phase II are consistent with Phase I.
Mr. Mangum stated that some items were approved but they are asking for further reductions. Some of the
amendments are required to construct the development according to the code.
Mr. Citron stated that while he was also not involved in the Phase I approvals, much of the Phase I development also
differed from the code.
Chairman Niemotka asked if all the units have the same square footage as Phase I.
Mr. Cukierman answered yes; in fact we are using the same models as we offered in Phase I.
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 5 of 12
Mr. Citron stated that the exterior materials are the same as Phase I.
Commissioner Yi stated that the variations they are asking for are extreme. Going from 12 ft. to 3 feet is a 75%
deduction.
Mr. Mangum answered yes, but clarified that the first vote is for the Text Amendments and then the variations can
be discussed as part of the second item.
Mr. Safin wanted to clarify that it is not a reduction from12 feet to 3 feet but from 5 feet in Phase I to 3 ft in Phase
II.
Mr. Mangum stated that the code requirement in the R-4 District is 12 feet.
Mr. Cukierman stated that there is not a drastic difference from the Phase I that was approved by City Council.
Chairman Niemotka asked if this gets approved then this would apply to all new developments.
Mr. Mangum stated yes, if the commission approves Case 12-078-TA then this would apply to new developments.
The second case would apply to this particular development.
Mr. Citron elaborated that the Amendments would allow a request for a variation, but it does not require a future
variation to be granted. He also explained that he thought there was value for the density of townhomes in the R-4
District.
Commissioner Yi stated that he hears a lot about the quality of condos that are in Des Plaines and hopes this does
not decrease.
Mr. Cukierman stated that they will not. They are going to be built with the same quality as was built in Phase I and
he doesn’t believe there have been complaints to the city.
Chairman Niemotka asked if anyone from the audience would like to speak.
Resident John Burke from 1351 Evergreen was sworn in. Mr. Burke spoke about Lexington Homes and how happy
the neighbors are that they are following the same footsteps as the previous developer and the minimal effect it
would have on our neighborhood. His only concern is the possibility of the city showing precedence with reduced
setbacks. He used Graceland as an example. He urged the city to proceed cautiously on approving this text
amendment.
Chairman Niemotka asked about the precedence. Mr. Mangum stated that the text amendment would relieve the
maximum reduction that can currently be granted, however, the Plan Commission and City Council could evaluate
future requests on a case by case basis.
Commissioner Yi asked if the changes could only apply to this development. Mr. Mangum explained that the
exceptions requested cannot be granted under the current Ordinance. If the amendments are approved the changes
would apply to future requests.
Mr. Cukierman compared the current request to the previously approved request.
A discussion was heard.
Chairman Niemotka asked for a motion by the Board.
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 6 of 12
A motion was made by Commissioner Barr to recommend approval amending Table 7.2.1, Residential
Districts Use Matrix, Table 7.3.1, Commercial District Use Matrix, and Table 7.4.1, Manufacturing Districts
Use Matrix, to make modifications to the list of permitted and conditional uses, and to Section 3.6-6-A.,
Standard Variations, to add the location of accessory structures in relation to the principle structure for
double-frontage lots as a Standard Variation.
A substitute motion was made by Commissioner Yi to recommend to continue the item to meet with staff to
obtain additional information.
Mr. Mangum provided the Plan Commission the options to either continue the item to a date certain in order to
obtain additional information, or to recommend approval, disapproval, or approval with modifications to the City
Council at this evening’s meeting.
Chairman Niemotka stated that the information has already been evaluated by staff.
Commissioner Bar asked whether the petitioner would leave the site vacant.
Mr. Cukierman stated that if the project was not approved there would likely be vacant land for 5-10 years.
Mr. Citron described the staff recommendation and stated that he did not know what additional information could be
provided.
Mr. Mangum clarified that the staff recommendation was a neutral recommendation as opposed to a
recommendation for approval or disapproval.
Commissioner Yi was concerned that the developer was presenting the project as “take it or leave it” without the
ability to make modifications.
Mr. Citron noted that the staff interpretation of the setback has changed from the first approval by including porches
in the setback calculations and there also have been code changes with fire access drive aisle widths. Mr. Citron
reiterated that if the project was not approved the land would continue to sit vacant.
Chairman Niemotka asked for clarification of Lexington’s intent if the project were not approved.
Mr. Cukierman reiterated that the land would sit vacant and that the Fire Department requirement for 26-foot wide
alleys was causing the reduced setbacks.
Chairman Niemotka stated that he felt the Commission should vote on the original motion.
Commissioner Bar noted that the current proposal was approximately 90 units less than the original proposal for the
site.
Commissioner Yi seconded the original motion by Commissioner Bar.
Ayes: Barr, Niemotka
Nayes:
Abstentions: Yi
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 7 of 12
MOTION CARRIED
****
Mr. Mangum read the next case on the agenda.
Address: 254 Laurel Avenue, (Located between Wildflower Street, Western Avenue, Evergreen Avenue, and
Harding Avenue) Case
Number: 05-031-PUD
A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) is requested under Section 3.5 of the 1998 City of Des Plaines
Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for the construction of 29 Townhomes on approximately 1.1 acres as Phase
II of the Lexington Park PUD in the R-4, Central Core Residential Zoning District with requested PUD exceptions
for lot sizes as small as 6,732 square feet, instead of not less than 10,000 square feet, setbacks as small as 3-feet
(front yard) instead of not less than 12-feet, 3-feet (side yard) instead of not less than 5-feet, and 9-feet (rear yard)
instead of not less than 12.6-feet (20 percent of lot depth);
A Tentative Plat of Resubdivision of an existing lot is requested to result in a total of 6 lots with a subdivision
variation from Section 13.2-5(L) for a right-of-way width of as narrow as approximately 33-feet, instead of not less
than 66-feet;
PINs: 09-17-213-001, 09-17-213-007
Petitioner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL 60614
Owner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200, Chicago, IL60614
Chairman Niemotka asked Mr. Mangum to read the applicable staff report into record, as follows:
Issue: A Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) is requested under Section 3.5 of the 1998 City of Des
Plaines Zoning Ordinance, as amended, to allow for the construction of 29 Townhomes on approximately 1.1 acres
as Phase II of the Lexington Park PUD in the R-4, Central Core Residential Zoning District with requested PUD
exceptions for lot sizes as small as 6,732 square feet, instead of not less than 10,000 square feet, setbacks as small as
3-feet (front yard) instead of not less than 12-feet, 3-feet (side yard) instead of not less than 5-feet, and 9-feet (rear
yard) instead of not less than 12.6-feet (20 percent of lot depth);
A Tentative Plat of Resubdivision of an existing lot is requested to result in a total of 6 lots with a subdivision
variation from Section 13.2-5(L) for a right-of-way width of as narrow as approximately 33-feet, instead of not less
than 66-feet;
Analysis:
Preliminary Planned Unit Development Report
Owners: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200,
Chicago, IL 60614
Petitioner: Lexington Des Plaines LLC, 1731 Marcey Street, Suite 200,
Chicago, IL 60614
Case Number: 05-031-PUD
Real Estate Index 09-17-213-001, 09-17-213-007
Numbers
Existing Zoning R-4, Central Core Residential
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 8 of 12
Existing Land Use Vacant land (Phase II)
Surrounding Zoning North: M-2, General Manufacturing
South: R-4, Central Core Residential
East: R-1, Single Family Residential, R-3 Townhouse Residential
West: R-4, Central Core Residential
Surrounding Land Use North: Phase I Townhomes, Railroad Tracks, Manufacturing
South: Multi-family residential
East: Phase I Townhomes, Single Family Residential
West: Vacant Land
Street Classification Western Avenue, Evergreen Avenue, Harding Avenue, and Wildflower Street
are all local streets.
Comprehensive Plan Low density multi-family residential is the recommended use of the property.
Development Schedule 2013 Construction
Project Description On October 18, 2007, the City Council approved the Final Planned Unit
Development for Phase I of the Lexington Park townhome development at a
former industrial site located at 254 Laurel Avenue. The plan included a small
area, identified as ‘Block A,’ which was excluded and intended as a Phase II
component. Construction of townhomes on the major portion of the Lexington
property, the 8.2-acre Phase I site, began in 2008 and is nearing completion. The
smaller, 1.2-acre Phase II site received preliminary PUD approval for two
condominium structures with a total of 120 units. Those entitlements expired
and the developer is now presenting a plan for 6 buildings with 29 townhome
units on the Phase II site.
Six townhome buildings, organized into three rows of townhomes are proposed
on the site. The two northernmost buildings would front Evergreen Avenue,
while the remaining four buildings would face each other with an approximately
20-30-foot wide landscaped courtyard with walkway separating the structures.
An eight foot separation is proposed between the new buildings. Access to
attached two car garages for each unit would be provided by two 33-foot wide
private alleys. Western Avenue would be extended to connect with Evergreen
Avenue with a width of 28-feet from curb to curb.
PUD Findings
As required, the proposed development is reviewed below in terms of the findings contained in Section 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 3.5-1:
Comment: The proposed plan is consistent with the stated purpose of Section 3.5-1 of the Zoning Ordinance in so
far as the proposed townhome development would allow for an efficient use of land resulting in more economic
networks of utilities, street and other facilities not be possible under the strict application of the Zoning Ordinance
based on the proposed density of residential development on the site.
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 would be located in a zoning district (R-4) that permits PUDs, it meets the minimum size
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 9 of 12
standard of two acres, as it is 9.5 acres in size, and the land for Phase II is under unified control of Lexington
Homes, LLC.
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 meets or exceeds the following applicable zoning regulations as proposed
for the R-4, Central Core Residential District:
• Minimum size for PUD; Two acres are required; the total site is 9.5 acres;
• Maximum building coverage (Not applicable in R-4, Central Core Residential);
• Parking requirements; 58 spaces (2/unit) are required; 58 are proposed;
• Building Height; A maximum height of 80’ is allowed and a maximum of 38’ is proposed;
• Compatibly with surrounding properties; and
• Traffic (Adequate provision for safe ingress and egress and minimal traffic congestion)
In addition to proposed Text Amendments regarding the residential use matrix, planned unit development
exceptions, and subdivision regulations as part of Case #12-078-TA, Planned Unit Development exceptions are
requested for:
• (1) Lot sizes as small as 6,732 square feet, instead of not less than 10,000 square feet. The proposed lot
sizes are smaller than what is allowed by code which acts to reduce the amount of landscaping and open
space provided per lot. An average of approximately 1,817 square feet of lot area is provided per unit in
comparison to the 2,800 square feet per unit that would be required in the R-3, Townhouse Residential
district. The development does exceed the minimum lot area required per unit of 1,500 square feet in the R-
4 District and some common open space areas are provided.
• (2) Front-yard setbacks of as small as 3’ instead of not less than 12’, side-yard setbacks of as small as 3-
feet, instead of not less than 5-feet and rear-yard setbacks of as small as 9-feet, instead of not less than
12.6-feet (20 percent of lot depth). The proposed setbacks are a reduction from the 7’-front yard setbacks
approved in Phase I, however, the reduced front yard setbacks proposed would create wider alley access to
accommodate current Fire Code standards while maintaining the proposed number of units.
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: After reviewing the petitioner’s preliminary building and site improvement plans; it appears that the
proposed development is making adequate provision for the necessary infrastructure. Comments and conditions
from the Public Works and Engineering Department further address this issue.
Pedestrian access to the site would be provided by a continuation of the sidewalk network through the site. No
additional open space is proposed as part of Phase II, but wider park-like courtyards in addition to detention and
open areas along the railroad tracks were provided as a part of Phase I.
The control of vehicular traffic is addressed by the petitioner’s professional 2007 traffic study, which was performed
by KLOA of Rosemont, IL. The study concludes, “The project site is well situated with respect to the area roadway.
The roadway system in the area, together with the proposed access plan, will provide sufficient capacity to
accommodate the projected traffic demands by the proposed development.” The City’s Engineering Division
reviewed the traffic study.
E. The extent to which the relationship and compatibility of the proposed development is beneficial or
adverse to adjacent properties and neighborhood:
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 10 of 12
Comment: The architecture of the proposed 29-unit Phase II townhome development is identical to the 116 units in
Phase I. Compatibility is provided at the expense of architectural variety. The development does continue the
existing City street grid and Phase II would connect Western Avenue to Evergreen Avenue.
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 Phase II location is vacant. If the development is built as proposed with the 29 townhomes, the
assessed valuation of the property may increase, which will result in an increase in property tax revenue for the City
of Des Plaines and thus enhance the economic well-being of the City.
Of course, once the townhomes are built and occupied, there will be greater demands on city services, city streets
and other public facilities. It is assumed that the city’s current public services and public facilities will be able to
handle the increased need for services at this location without being overburdened.
G. The extent to which the proposed plan is in conformity with the recommendations of the 2007
Comprehensive Plan:
Comment: The proposed townhome development generally conforms to the land use plan contained in the 2007
City of Des Plaines Comprehensive Plan. The proposed development is in conformity with the plan’s stated goal for
Low Density Multi-Family Residential which calls for residential areas consisting primarily of low-rise multi-
family, duplex, and townhouse dwellings, generally with a density of up to 22 dwelling units per acre. The plan also
calls for this type of residential to be developed on vacant and/or former industrial sites west of downtown.
In addition, townhouses in this area of the city could be in conformity with the 2007 Comprehensive Plan’s (Chapter
Two) goals for Land Use and Development. Specifically, the proposed townhouses could serve, “to provide high
quality and diverse housing options for city residents.”
PUD Issues/Considerations:
1. While uniform with the Phase I development, the architectural design and unit types lack variety.
2. The orientation and configuration of the townhome buildings lack presence of Wildflower Street and
Western Avenue.
3. The reduced yard setbacks and distance between buildings reduces useable open space.
Tentative Plat Report
Name of Subdivision: Lexington Park Phase II
Address: 254 Laurel Avenue, (Located between Wildflower Street, Western Avenue,
Evergreen Avenue, and Harding Avenue)
Request: Approval of a Tentative Plat of Subdivision consisting of six lots.
Total Acreage of Resubdivision: 1.21 acres
General Information
Lot Descriptions and Construction Plans: The Tentative plat shows the existing lots being resubdivided into six
lots: Lot #18 (9,163 square feet) would have approximately 63 feet of frontage on Wildflower Street with a 6-unit
townhome building facing north; Lot #19 (7,361 square feet) would have approximately 72 feet of frontage on
Wildflower Street with a 4-unit townhome building facing south; Lot #20 (6,732 square feet) would have
approximately 67 feet of frontage on Wildflower Street with a 4-unit townhome building facing north with
approximately 101 feet of frontage on Evergreen Avenue; Lot #25 (8,578 square feet) would have approximately 70
feet of frontage on Western Avenue with a 5-unit townhome building facing north with approximately 118 feet of
frontage on Evergreen Avenue; Lot #26 (11,442 square feet) would have approximately 83 feet of frontage on
Western Avenue with a 6-unit townhome building facing south; Lot #27 (6,308 square feet) would have
approximately 63 feet of frontage on Western Avenue with a 4-unit townhome building facing north.
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 11 of 12
In addition to proposed Text Amendments regarding the subdivision frontage requirements and minimum lot depth
requirements as part of Case #12-078-TA, a subdivision variation is requested from Section 13.2-5(L) for a right-of-
way width of as narrow as approximately 33-feet, instead of not less than 66-feet. While the requested right-of-way
width is less than required, the proposed 28-feet of roadway width would equal that of Wildflower Street and
generally conform to the narrower street widths in the neighborhood.
Tentative Plat Comments
1. If approved, the Final Plat must show the Name of the Owner(s) and notarized signatures;
2. The Final Plat must show the proper easement provisions and signature lines and have them signed by all the
public service utilities;
3. On the Final Plat, the petitioner shall sign the owner certificate(s) and have them notarized.
4. The Final Plat must show Municipal Boundaries.
5. The Final Plat must show building lines and easements including dimensions.
6. The Final Plat must show a statement of land dedication for public use.
7. The Final Plat must show a complete legal description.
8. The Final Plat must include Certificates from the Finance Director, Director of Public Works and Engineering,
and Director of Community and Economic Development;
9. The Final Plat must show all subdivision regulation variances.
Plan Commission Procedure
The Plan Commission may vote to grant or deny approval of the Tentative Plat. If approved, the petitioner’s next
step is to submit final engineering plans to the Public Works and Engineering Department and return to the Plan
Commission with a corrected plat for Final Plat consideration.
Staff Recommendations:
• The Department of Community and Economic Development recommends consideration of the Preliminary
Planned Unit Development and consideration of the Tentative Plat.
• The Public Works and Engineering Department recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD, subject to
condition #4 listed below. The Engineering Division has reviewed the Tentative Plat of Subdivision,
Preliminary Engineering plans and the Traffic Study and is recommending approval subject to the
conditions and comments below.
• The City of Des Plaines Fire Department recommends approval of the Preliminary PUD, and approval of
the Tentative Plat of Subdivision, subject to conditions #5 – #6, as listed below:
Conditions:
1. The petitioner must prepare a Final Planned Unit Development Plat that meets all the requirements of Appendix
A-4 (Minimum Submittal requirements for PUDs) of the City of Des Plaines Zoning Ordinance and a Final Plat
of Subdivision that meets all the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the comments in this report
and submit it to the Community and Economic Development Department.
2. Provide written proof of Final Engineering approval from the City of Des Plaines Public Works and
Engineering Department;
3. The petitioner shall pay all applicable building permits and related fees.
4. Provide additional detail on the alignment of Western Avenue, including right of way width and ownership of
property, to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works and Engineering.
5. Provide sufficient fire hydrants on 8-inch looped mains to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
Provide sufficient emergency vehicle turning radius to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief.
Commissioner Yi asked to change his first vote on the previous item to abstain.
Chairman Niemotka asked for the motion again from the Board.
Case #12-078-TA – Citywide
Case #05-031-PUD – 254 Laurel Avenue
Page 12 of 12
A motion was made by Commissioner Barr seconded by Commissioner Yi to recommend approval to allow
for the construction of 29 Townhomes on approximately 1.1 acres as Phase II of the Lexington Park PUD in
the R-4, Central Core Residential Zoning District with requested PUD exceptions for lot sizes as small as
6,732 square feet, instead of not less than 10,000 square feet, setbacks as small as 3-feet (front yard) instead of
not less than 12-feet, 3-feet (side yard) instead of not less than 5-feet, and 9-feet (rear yard) instead of not less
than 12.6-feet (20 percent of lot depth);
And to approve the Tentative Plat of Resubdivision of an existing lot is requested to result in a total of 6 lots
with a subdivision variation from Section 13.2-5(L) for a right-of-way width of as narrow as approximately
33-feet, instead of not less than 66-feet;
Ayes: Bar, Niemotka, Yi
Nayes:
MOTION CARRIED
****
The meeting was adjourned at 8:18 p.m. by unanimous voice vote.
Sincerely,
Robert Niemotka, Chairman
Des Plaines Plan Commission
cc: City Officials, Alderman, Plan Commission, Petitioner