Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Unit Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff seeks return to two-step PUD process; Zoning Board gives feedback ahead of public hearing
Summary
Village staff proposed restoring a two-step Planned Unit Development process (general development plan then precise implementation plan) to reduce upfront costs for developers and provide concept-level assurance; the board suggested clarifications on required submittals and how traffic or stormwater studies would be handled.
On April 9 the Zoning Board of Appeals discussed DBA2025-008, a draft amendment to Article 13 (Planned Unit Development) of Chapter 155 of the village zoning code that would reinstate a two-step PUD approval (a general development plan, GDP, followed by a precise implementation plan, PIP).
Evan, a village staff member, told the board he and a colleague had spoken with several developers who had requested changes to the village’s PUD requirements. Evan said the current single-step process adopted around 2021 requires applicants to submit full construction drawings, landscaping and engineering at the outset and can force smaller developers to incur significant expense before getting concept-level approval.
"What this amendment would be doing is going back to that two-step process," Evan said. He and other staff said the two-step approach would let a developer present a concept-level GDP to establish zoning, setbacks and general layout before preparing the full, costlier PIP materials.
Board members broadly supported the principle but raised questions about details. One member asked whether the GDP is the only public-hearing portion (staff said it is). Several members asked how traffic and stormwater concerns would be handled when neighbors raise such issues at a GDP hearing; staff and board discussed making traffic or stormwater studies a contingent requirement that the ZBA could impose case by case or require at the PIP stage.
Members also flagged wording in the draft that currently says certain PIP items "may include" a site plan and final plat; they suggested changing the language to "must include" for clarity where appropriate. Staff said they would revise the draft to reflect the board’s feedback and return to the ZBA for a formal public hearing, likely in May.
No vote was taken on the amendment at the April 9 meeting; staff indicated the item will be publicly noticed for a future hearing after revisions.
The amendment is indexed on the agenda as DBA2025-008 and references Chapter 155 (zoning regulations) and Article 13 (PUD). Staff and developers discussed the change as a procedural update intended to provide concept-level certainty and reduce up-front costs for smaller developers while retaining the ability to require additional studies for projects with potential traffic or stormwater impacts.
