Arlington Heights OKs 25-unit supportive housing project after redesign, adds staffing requirement

The Arlington Heights Village Board approved a package of land-use actions Tuesday allowing Full Circle Communities to build Grace Terrace, a 25-unit permanent supportive housing building with a stated preference for veterans with disabilities at 1519–1625 South Arlington Heights Road.

The board voted to amend the village comprehensive plan, approve a preliminary plat to consolidate seven parcels, rezone the site from the OT (office transitional) district to Institutional, and adopt a planned unit development (PUD) for the project. Each zoning action passed by supermajority margins (seven votes in favor, one opposed). Trustee Shirley was the lone no vote on the zoning matters.

The project before the board on Tuesday is a two-story design the petitioner said responds to neighborhood concerns. Denise Reyes, representing the petitioner, said the revised plan keeps the project at 25 permanent supportive-housing units, “with a preference for veterans with disabilities,” and emphasized the team elongated the building and added landscape buffers to reduce impacts on adjacent homes.

Why it matters: the approvals clear the way for a small-scale, service-enriched housing project aimed at people with disabilities and veterans in a corridor of single-family and low-rise buildings. Supporters said the building fills an unmet local need; opponents argued the site is the wrong location and raised traffic, safety and property-value concerns.

What the board approved and major conditions - Comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning. The board reclassified the long-term land use for the property from “office” to “institutional” and rezoned the consolidated lot to the Institutional district to match that change. The rezoning required a supermajority because of a protest petition filed by adjacent property owners. - Preliminary plat. The board approved a preliminary plat consolidating seven parcels into a single lot; the developer must return with a final plat later. - Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD was approved subject to 14 conditions including a tenant-selection plan, site landscaping and maintenance requirements, and reporting to the village. The board agreed to an amendment to the staffing condition: the owner must provide a full-time property manager on site a minimum of 35 hours per week; staff and the applicant said that maintenance staff will be available at least 20 hours per week and the applicant anticipates two full‑time case managers to deliver services.

Design and site details presented - Units and services: 25 permanent supportive-housing units; applicant said the project will include on-site social services and case management intended to support residents with disabilities. - Massing and materials: the developer presented a two-story building with increased brick proportions and facade modulation to reduce perceived scale. The petitioner said the midpoint height is 25 feet 11 inches, which it described as lower than the code maximum for a new two‑story single-family home. Staff also noted, using the top-of-roof measurement, the building is roughly 31 feet 5 inches to the top of the roofline, shorter than an earlier three‑story proposal. - Parking and circulation: the design shows 51 parking spaces (including eight accessible stalls). Joshua Wilmot, president and CEO of Full Circle Communities, told the board their portfolio data indicates about 30% of residents at comparable properties have cars—roughly eight to 10 vehicles for a 25‑unit building—which led trustees to suggest land‑banking some stalls rather than paving the full count now. - Landscaping and buffers: the petitioner described a landscape buffer ranging from about 68 to 104 feet between the building and the rear property line, retention of existing trees where possible, about 100 new trees to be planted, an eight‑foot minimum evergreen planting height at installation, and a six‑foot perimeter privacy fence. - Stormwater: the retention basin was described as a “dry bottom” facility with no permanent standing water.

Board and public reaction Board members split along predictable lines of process and location concerns. Trustee Schwingbeck and Trustee Lebeds said the two‑story redesign addressed neighborhood concerns and made the project more compatible with its surroundings; Trustee Tonaglia and Trustee Dunnington also voiced support, noting the redesign and the project’s service model.

Trustee Shirley said she remained opposed to approval on the grounds the site is not an appropriate location; she repeatedly framed her no vote as a location objection rather than opposition to the housing type. Shirley told the board: “I'll be voting no tonight…my opposition is not that I oppose this type of use or this type of housing being provided in Arlington Heights. It's solely about this location.”

During public comment, more than a dozen residents, faith‑group representatives and housing advocates spoke in favor of the project; other neighbors and nearby residents spoke against it, citing traffic, safety and scale. Hugh Brady, co‑president of the Housing Task Force, summarized supporters’ view by noting the board previously asked for changes and Full Circle had submitted a revised plan: “At the August meeting, you asked the developer…to make some changes and they made the changes,” he said.

Regulatory and operating controls Staff emphasized the village will enforce the PUD conditions through the usual zoning enforcement process. The ordinance requires compliance with the tenant‑selection plan and annual reporting to the village. The applicant acknowledged compliance obligations under the Cook County ordinance governing consideration of criminal history in housing decisions; Full Circle said criminal‑history assessments will be individualized as required by county law.

Next steps With the PUD and related approvals now adopted, the developer must submit a final plat of subdivision and satisfy the PUD conditions before permits are issued. The village attorney and staff said any successor owner would also be bound by the ordinance requirements unless the board later amends the zoning.

Ending The vote closes a multi‑year review process that included design commission and plan commission review and at least 13 public meetings. Supporters said the approved plan struck a balance between the neighborhood’s concerns and the community’s affordable‑housing needs; opponents said the location remains wrong. The PUD’s conditions, and the required staffing and service commitments, will be the primary means the village uses to monitor the project once built.