Planning & Zoning Commission

Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 4, 2026 Minutes CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mundelein was held on February 4, 2026 at 300 Plaza Circle, Mundelein. Commissioner K. Garesche called the meeting to order at 7:01 PM. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner K. Garesche led the Pledge of Allegiance. ATTENDANCE Commissioner K. Garesche took the roll call. It indicated as follows: Board Attendance PRESENT: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan ABSENT: T. Roswick, S. Petti, T. Wilson Village Attendance PRESENT: I. Guadarrama, Senior Planner; E. Swanson, Recording Secretary MINUTES APPROVAL Approve the Planning and Zoning Commission Regular meeting minutes from January 21, 2026 J. Holden moved, seconded by K. Anderson, a Motion to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes from January 21, 2026. Motion passed 4-0. RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner J. Holden SECONDER: Commissioner K. Anderson AYES: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC COMMENTARY K. Garesche opened the floor to general public commentary. There was no public commentary. K. Garesche closed the floor to general public commentary. OLD PZC BUSINESS There was no old PZC business. NEW PZC BUSINESS PZ2025-0030 - 1212 and 1250 S. Butterfield Road - Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision It was decided that the Commission will review both the Plat item and the Zoning Requests simultanously. Public Hearing - PZ2025-0031 - 1212 and 1250 S. Butterfield Road - Map Amendment and Variations Open Public Hearing K. Anderson moved, seconded by J. Holden, a Motion to open Public Hearing PZ2025- 0031. Motion Passed 4-0. RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner K. Anderson SECONDER: Commissioner J. Holden AYES: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None Staff Presentation Preliminary and Final Plat I. Guadarrama gave the attached presentation and reviewed the Preliminary and Final Plat with the Commission. Map Amendment and Variations I. Guadarrama presented the history on the property and the requests for the Map Amendment and Variations. The petitioner is requesting a map amendment from Industrial to Commercial zoning and variations from connecting to a sidewalk in the Right of Way, and a Photometric variation from zero foot candles at the property line. Petitioner Presentation Preliminary and Final Plat Michi Mho of Neri Architects was sworn in to speak on behalf of the applicant, Adam Ahmad. The petitioner is proposing to construct a car was on the North portion of the lot and a Commercial retail building on the south end of the lot. In order to allow for both zoning districts, the applicant would need to re-subdivide the existing lots. Map Amendment and Variations Mr. Mho reviewed the plans for the commercial building to be rented out to commercial businesses. He elaborated on the photometric variation request and lack of feasibility to meet zero footcandles at the lot line due to there not being any streetlights in that area. He also reviewed the code requirement to bring a sidewalk from the commercial building to the public right-of-way. However, there is no current sidewalk on the public right-of-way to connect to. Public Commentary K. Garesche opened the floor to Public Commentary. There was no public commentary. K. Garesche closed the floor to Public Commentary. Commission Discussion K. Anderson asked if there was any concerns with property setbacks or transparency code. I. Guadarrama confirmed that they meet all other codes other than the photometric and sidewalk connecting to the County Right of Way. The Commission asked if the plans have been reviewed by the other departments. I. Guadarrama stated that it had not yet, as the photometric variance would need to be approved before going to the permitting review stage. It went through a general review and there were no comments. The Commission requested clarification on the landscaping and curbs planned around the drive-through portion of the planned commercial building. J. Holden asked about the median location and entrance/exit traffic flow. K. Teehan inquired as to if this is the final design, or if the petitioner will need to come back for stylistic reviews. I. Guadarrama stated that the building proposed complies with the code, so after final approval from the Village Board it could progress to permitting. Request for approval of the Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision J. Holden moved, seconded by K. Anderson, a Motion to recommend Approval of the preliminary and final plat of subdivision for the properties located at 1212 and 1250 S Butterfield Road. Motion passed 4-0. RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner J. Holden SECONDER: Commissioner K. Anderson AYES: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None Request for a Map Amendment J. Holden moved, seconded by K. Anderson, a Motion to to recommend Approval of a map amendment to rezone the property located at 1250 S. Butterfield Road from M-1 General Manufacturing to C-2 General Commercial Zoning District, including the Findings of Fact as presented. Motion passed 4-0. RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner J. Holden SECONDER: Commissioner K. Anderson AYES: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None Request of a Variation to Section 20.32.040(A)(4) J. Holden moved, seconded by K. Anderson, a Motion to recommend Approval of a variation to Section 20.32.040(A)(4) for the property located at 1250 S Butterfield Road, including the Findings of Fact with the requested changes. Motion passed 4-0. RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner Jennifer Holden SECONDER: Commissioner Kevin Anderson AYES: Kevin Anderson, Kerry Garesche, Jennifer Holden, Kevin Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None Request of a Variation to Section 20.52.040(A)(1) J. Holden moved, seconded by K. Teehan, a Motion to recommend Approval of a variation to Section 20.52.040(A)(1) for the property located at 1212 and 1250 S Butterfield Road, including the Findings of Fact with the requested changes. Motion passed 4-0. RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner J. Holden SECONDER: Commissioner K. Teehan AYES: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None Close Public Hearing J. Holden moved, seconded by K. Teehan, a Motion to close Public Hearing PZ2025- 0031. Motion passed 4-0. RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner J. Holden SECONDER: Commissioner K. Teehan AYES: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS There were no further questions or comments. ADJOURNMENT Adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting J. Holden moved, seconded by K. Anderson, a Motion to adjourn the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting of February 4, 2026. Motion passed 4-0 RESULT: Passed [Yes 4, No 0, Abstained 0] MOVER: Commissioner J. Holden SECONDER: Commissioner K. Anderson AYES: K. Anderson, K. Garesche, J. Holden, K. Teehan NAYS: None ABSTAIN: None Meeting was adjourned at 7:51 PM \-?/\An YUIO\/ EVl,\) Erin Swanson, Recording Secretary  A w"w Ptanning and Zoning Commission Meeting February 4,2026 VILLAGE OF zuw Vil,tage HatL Mund eleln 300 Ptaza Circte, Mundetein, lL 60060 Sign-ln Sheet NAME/COMPANY ADDRESS PHONE/EMAIL Name: 7t.:/1441 P/HD Phone: E4 I . {eE- q4, o /./E </, O*,6<a-> I F"eZ go+E /L eoaS w i,<ln o @y\ € r t o rr:1. Yb-{, company: I Emait: Name: Aar* Al.,maA I q5 Haven L" . 6 @ u? Phone: y\7'3?l-t84+ IE company: {2, al I eil \/eil p p,t i .... _.i_._._._.-..... Emait: [I)f, Odlra . Ah*rd €grno,l -(0n I Name: Phone: 9+1- 61P; -C4ffi companv: Name: 1t7?P+ Q2vs u-cTlfud : 60a 6usSe ttltv7 Emait: Phone: "t Company: Emait: Name: Phone: Company: Emait: Name: Phone: Company: Emait: Name: Phone: Company: Emait: Name: Phone: Company: Emait: Name: Phone: Company: Emai[: Name: Phone: Company: Emai[: Name: Phone: Company: Emait: Name: Phone: Company: Emai[: Name: Phone: Company: Emai[: Preliminary and Final Plat of Subdivision 1212 & 1250 Butterfield Rd. PZ2025-0030 37.55’ M-1 Requirement Proposed Min. Lot Area 10,000 sq. ft. 41,490.24 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width 100 ft. 191.12 ft. C-2 Requirement Proposed Min. Lot Area None 30,213.43 sq. ft. Min. Lot Width None 137.73 ft. Map Amendment and Variations 1212 & 1250 Butterfield Rd. PZ2025-0031 Vernon Hills 1212 Butterfield Rd. 1250 Butterfield Rd. Variance #1 - Section 20.32.040(A)(4) • Provide a public entrance from the sidewalk along the primary street frontage at 1250 Butterfield Rd.  Variance #2 - Section 20.52.040(A)(1) • Exterior lighting levels not exceed zero foot candles at any property line or public right-of-way at 1212 & 1250 Butterfield Rd.  FINDINGS OF FACT – MAP AMENDMENT CASE NUMBER PZ2025-0031 PUBLIC HEARING DATE February 4, 2026 Map Amendment Rezone from M-1 General Manufacturing to C-2 General Commercial On February 4, 2026, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 for approval of a Map Amendment to rezone 1250 Butterfield Road from M-1 General Manufacturing to C-2 General Commercial zoning district. No variation from the provisions of this Ordinance shall be granted unless the Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board makes specific written findings based on the standards imposed by this section. These standards are as follows: 1. The existing use and zoning of nearby property; The Commission finds that the surrounding properties within the Village of Mundelein are located in M-1 General Manufacturing and C-2 General Commercial. If the amendment is approved, this property would continue the C-2 zoning district directly south of this property. The proposed development meets the C-2 General Commercial Bulk and Yard requirements. 2. The extent to which property values of the subject property are diminished by the existing zoning; The Commission finds that the current zoning limits the permitted uses on the property. C-2 zoning district will improve the property values in the area by allowing different types of uses in one property. 3. The extent to which the proposed amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of the Village; The Commission finds that the proposed map amendment promotes the public health, safety, and welfare of the Village by enabling future commercial development. The property would yield higher taxes in the form of sales tax as a commercial property. 4. The relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the applicant; The Commission finds that the proposed rezoning offers opportunities for future growth within the commercial district. Without rezoning, the property may remain non-conforming, and underutilized. 5. The suitability of the property for the purposes for which it is presently zoned, i.e. the feasibility of developing the property in question for 1 or more uses permitted under the existing zoning classification; The Commission finds that the topography of the site, the proximity to office/business parks, and the close proximity to other commercial shopping centers, this site is well suited for more commercial development. 6. The length of time that a property in question has been vacant, as presently zoned, considered in the context of development in the area where the property is located; The Commission finds that the Subject Property has remained non-conforming under the M-1 zoning district for many years. Development opportunities are not viable under the present zoning. 7. The evidence, or lack of evidence, of community need for the use proposed by the applicant; The Commission finds that there is ample evidence to support the community's need for the proposed use by the Petitioner. Given that there is significant lack of new development in the general vicinity, there appears to be a need to revitalize this area. 8. The consistency of the proposed amendment with the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Subject Property as “Office/Business Park.” C-2 zoning district will facilitate future development of a variety of new commercial development. 9. That the proposed amendment will benefit the residents of the Village as a whole, and not just the applicant, property owner(s), neighbors of any property under consideration, or other special interest groups, and the extent to which the proposed use would be in the public interest and would not serve solely on the interest of the applicant; The Commission finds that the proposed amendment will expand potential retail uses, restaurants, and services not allowed in the current M-1 zoning district that can benefit the uses in the immediate area. 10. The extent to which the proposed amendment creates nonconformities; The Commission finds the proposed amendment will not create new nonconformities. 11. The trend of development, if any, in the general area of the property in question; and The Commission finds the proposed amendment is in line with the overall trend of commercial development in the surrounding area. 12. Whether adequate public facilities are available including, but not limited to, schools, parks, police and fire protection, roads, sanitary sewers, storm sewers, and water lines, or are reasonably capable of being provided prior to the development of the uses, which would be permitted on the subject property if the amendment were adopted. The Commission finds that the public facilities, including water and sewer lines, police and fire protection, and road are adequate to support the development.  FINDINGS OF FACT – VARIATION 1 CASE NUMBER PZ2025-0031 PUBLIC HEARING DATE February 4, 2026 VARIATION Waiver for the required public entrance from the sidewalk along the primary street frontage. On February 4, 2026, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 for approval of a variation from Section 20.32.040 (A) (4) of the Zoning Ordinance to waive the required entrance from the sidewalk along the primary street frontage at 1250 S. Butterfield Road. No variation from the provisions of this Ordinance shall be granted unless the Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board makes specific written findings based on the standards imposed by this section. These standards are as follows: 1. The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance will result in undue hardship; The strict enforcement of this Ordinance would impose undue hardship on the Petitioner, as there is no public sidewalk along Butterfield Road. The sidewalk would lead to nowhere and welcome people to walk towards busy traffic. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; The property is subject to unique circumstances, as the Zoning Ordinance does not account for all potential circumstances, particularly those arising from factors beyond the control of the Petitioner and Property Owner. Butterfield Road is a County Road and therefore the Village cannot mandate a public sidewalk along the road. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; The requested variation will not alter the essential character of the locality, as proper lighting and entrances will still be included in the development for safety of the users. The Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board, in making its findings, may inquire into the following evidentiary issues, as well as any others deemed appropriate. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship or difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The shape and size of the Subject Property, as well as the characteristics of the surrounding area, impose a hardship on the property owner, distinguishing it from a mere inconvenience if the regulations are strictly enforced. 2. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having a proprietary interest in the property in question. The Commission finds that the Petitioner has successfully demonstrated that the requested variation was not caused by any person currently holding a proprietary interest in the Subject Property. 3. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The Commission finds that the granting of the requested variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in which the property is located. 4. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or impair property values within the neighborhood. Parking lot lighting is proposed but will accommodate full cut off shields to achieve the 0.0fc light levels along the property lines while maintaining security light levels within the parking lots. 5. The proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use policies. The Commission finds that the proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use policies. 6. The value of the property in question will be substantially reduced if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. The value of the property in question will be substantially reduced if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located.  FINDINGS OF FACT – VARIATION 2 CASE NUMBER PZ2025-0031 PUBLIC HEARING DATE February 4, 2026 VARIATION Waiver from the requirement of a zero (0) footcandle light level at any property line or public right- of-way line. On February 4, 2026, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-0 for approval of a variation from Section 20.52.040(A)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance to waive the requirement of a zero (0) footcandle light level at any property line or public right-of- way line at 1212 and 1250 S. Butterfield Road. No variation from the provisions of this Ordinance shall be granted unless the Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board makes specific written findings based on the standards imposed by this section. These standards are as follows: 1. The strict application of the terms of this Ordinance will result in undue hardship; Strict enforcement of this Ordinance would impose an undue hardship on the Petitioner, as there is no existing roadway lighting along Butterfield Road. To provide safe vehicular movement entering and exiting the site, the development proposes light levels greater than zero (0) throughout the property, particularly at the site entrances. 2. The plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances; The property is subject to unique circumstances, as the Zoning Ordinance does not account for all potential conditions, particularly those arising from factors beyond the control of the Petitioner and Property Owner. Butterfield Road is a County roadway; therefore, the Village cannot require the installation of roadway lighting along the road. The lighting standards in the Zoning Ordinance predate many modern lighting practices and requirements. 3. The variation, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality; The requested variation will not alter the essential character of the locality, as the development will continue to provide appropriate lighting and safe, clearly defined entrances for users. The Zoning Administrator, Planning & Zoning Commission, and Village Board, in making its findings, may inquire into the following evidentiary issues, as well as any others deemed appropriate. 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship or difficulty to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the regulations were to be carried out. The shape and size of the Subject Property, along with the characteristics of the surrounding area, impose a hardship on the property owner that goes beyond a mere inconvenience if the regulations are strictly enforced. There is currently no roadway lighting along Butterfield Road, and the development has been designed to offer safe light levels throughout the property. 2. The alleged difficulty or hardship has not been created by any person presently having a proprietary interest in the property in question. The Commission finds that the Petitioner has successfully demonstrated that the requested variation was not caused by any person currently holding a proprietary interest in the Subject Property. The lighting standards in the Zoning Ordinance predate many modern lighting practices and requirements. 3. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in the neighborhood in which the property is located. The Commission finds that the granting of the requested variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare in which the property is located. 4. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, substantially increase congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the public safety, or impair property values within the neighborhood. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent properties, substantially increase congestion on public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger public safety, or impair property values within the neighborhood. Appropriate lighting and vehicular access will remain part of the development. 5. The proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use policies. The Commission finds that the proposed variation is consistent with the spirit and intent of this Ordinance and Village land use policies. 6. The value of the property in question will be substantially reduced if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located. The value of the property in question will be substantially reduced if permitted to be used only under the conditions allowed by the regulations governing the district in which it is located.