Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Summary – June 9, 2026

On June 9, 2026, the Park Ridge Planning and Zoning Commission met in the City Hall Council Chambers at 505 Butler Place. The commission unanimously recommended approval of a map amendment at 425 W. Talcott Road and a car wash special use at 505 Busse Highway, approved the related site plan review, and continued a proposed hotel and multifamily planned unit development to July 28, 2026. The room reached capacity during the final case, with overflow seating provided.

Opening and Minutes

• Roll call: Chair Hanlin and Commissioners Gilpin, Karstens, McMillan, and Hutchinson were present. Commissioners Shepherd and Peppery were absent. Commissioner Coogan was initially marked absent but later participated.
• The commission unanimously approved the minutes of the May 26, 2026 meeting.
• No public comments were offered on non-agenda items.

Development Case A: MA-26-02 – Map Amendment at 425 W. Talcott Road

• Applicant Chris DeFranco requested rezoning from R-4, Multi-Family Residential, to B-1, Retail and Office. He said the property has been owned by his family since 1996, was previously zoned B-1, was rezoned to R-4 around 2018, and has been vacant for roughly seven to eight years. After the COVID pandemic, residential development was not economically viable, and the property did not sell under R-4 zoning.
• No members of the public spoke during the hearing.
• The commission found the change consistent with the surrounding commercial zoning. A motion to recommend city council approval with no additional or optional conditions carried unanimously.

Development Cases B and C: SU-26-08 and ZPR-26-07 – Car Wash and Site Plan at 505 Busse Highway

• Dream Clean, represented by attorney Craig Crandall, requested a special use to operate an express car wash at 505 Busse Highway. Project details included roughly three employees on site at a time, operating hours around 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., 55% recycled water, three stacking lanes, and capacity for about 43 vehicles in the queue or tunnel. The building’s tallest tower would be about 35 feet, with a setback of about 46.62 feet.
• Sound expert Dr. Tom Thunder testified that the study used measurements from an existing Dream Clean wash and modeled maximum vacuum and blower use. He said the median ambient noise in the area was about 53 to 55 dB and that the highest modeled impact would be near 515 Busse Highway, although those windows appeared to be non-operable. The city code’s daytime 50 dB limit could be exceeded; staff said they would review enforcement and legal implications with the city attorney.
• Public comment included one speaker, Sonya Dietzick, who raised concern about air pollution from idling cars near a memory-care facility and children’s outdoor play areas.
• The commission unanimously recommended city council approval of the special use.
• For the adjacent site plan review, Dream Clean agreed to address staff comments, including ADA parking stall locations, possible removal of one parking space to avoid an interior landscape-island requirement, and landscaping buffering. Public commenter Norm Dietzick asked for signs alerting drivers to cyclists on Busse Highway; the chair called that a reasonable request, though it was not included in the final motion.
• The commission approved the site plan with conditions that ADA parking be resolved and the outstanding landscaping buffer be addressed with staff. Site plan review is final at the commission level; the special use recommendation goes to city council.

Development Case D: MA-26-04 and PUD-26-02 – Hotel and Multifamily Development near 809 W. Touhy Avenue

• Staff explained that the nine parcels are currently zoned R-2, Single-Family Residential. The applicant requested a map amendment to B-4, Uptown Transitional, for the northern portion and R-4, Multi-Family Residential, for the southern portion. The PUD would allow a 76-room boutique hotel, a 48-unit apartment building, and 178 parking spaces: 80 at grade plus two upper parking decks with 49 spaces each. The tallest proposed height was 56 feet 4 inches, with multiple requested exemptions from height, setback, lot coverage, open space, and landscaping requirements.
• Staff noted that the Illinois ‘People over Parking Act,’ effective June 1, 2026, prohibits municipalities from requiring minimum parking ratios for residential uses within one-half mile of public transit. The site is within that radius, so residential parking is not required; the hotel portion is not covered by that law.
• Applicant Andrew Nast and hotel consultant Tiffany Braun said the project would be the first hotel in Park Ridge, would capture demand currently going to Rosemont, Des Plaines, and O’Hare, and would include a restaurant, rooftop event space, market, co-working space, and possibly golf simulators. They projected the hotel could reach about 70% occupancy quickly. The apartments were described as ‘attainable’ market-rate rentals starting around $2,500 per month, with no affordable housing units set aside in the project.
• Commissioners raised significant concerns about inconsistencies and missing details. The fifth-floor roof plan was depicted as an enclosed box with windows, but the applicant said part of the rooftop is open air. Staff and applicant materials differed on parking totals: the staff report referenced 129 spaces and a 38-unit, four-story residential building, while the applicant presented 178 spaces and a 48-unit, five-story building. The upper-level parking ramp and access were not clearly shown, no loading dock was indicated, and the traffic and parking study used a limited-service hotel classification despite the hotel’s proposed restaurant, event, and rooftop amenities. Several commissioners said they could not evaluate the project fairly as presented.
• Commissioners also said the PUD’s public benefits were not strong enough to justify the requested exemptions, and specifically noted the absence of affordable housing. The applicant said he would go back and ‘sharpen’ the plans.

Public Comments on Case D

• A large number of residents spoke, with most expressing opposition or deep concern. Their concerns included building height and density, parking overflow, traffic on Touhy, Third Street, and Garden Street, illegal turns and alley shortcuts, rooftop noise and privacy, sewer and stormwater capacity, electrical reliability, fire suppression, property values, and loss of the neighborhood’s residential character. Some speakers said they supported development on the site in principle but objected to the proposed scale. A 14-year-old resident described existing Friday-night parking scarcity, and one 52-year Garden Street resident said he was completely against the project because he would face the parking deck from his porch.
• Several speakers supported the project or the developer. Kevin Noonan and Tom Hunt cited the benefit of having a hotel for visiting family. Carissa Schaefer and Tim Mariefee, small-business owners from 112 S. Prospect, supported added foot traffic and revenue for Uptown. Aaron Swiak read a letter from Dr. Lauren Hitchins, a Third Street homeowner, in support of the proposal; the letter said Third Street has become commercially surrounded and unsafe for single-family use due to farmers market traffic, event parking, and nearby commercial activity.
• Staff noted that one written public comment in support of the project was received shortly before the meeting and would be posted with the record.

Key Outcomes

• MA-26-02: Commission unanimously recommended that city council approve the R-4 to B-1 map amendment at 425 W. Talcott Road.
• SU-26-08: Commission unanimously recommended that city council approve the car wash special use at 505 Busse Highway.
• ZPR-26-07: Commission approved the site plan review at 505 Busse Highway with conditions related to ADA parking and landscaping.
• MA-26-04 and PUD-26-02: Commission voted unanimously to continue both cases to July 28, 2026, to allow the applicant to provide corrected drawings, consistent parking and traffic data, and more detailed plans.
• No discussion items or city council liaison report were presented, and the meeting adjourned after the continuance vote.