Title/Name/Summary
Substantive Amendment: Building Heights in the R-2A, R-3, R-3A & R-4 Zoning Districts
History
Staff recommends raising the maximum building height in the R-2A, R-3, R-3A and R-4 Districts from 30’ to 35’, matching the standard already in place in the E-1, R-1 and R-2 Districts.
The change creates one consistent height standard for all single-family detached homes in Orland Park. It does not change setbacks, lot coverage, density, permitted uses, or the way height is measured.
Findings that support the amendment:
Regional alignment. Every one of Orland Park's nearest neighbors in the study - Tinley Park, Mokena, Homer Glen, New Lenox, Frankfort, Lemont, Palos Park, Palos Heights and Oak Forest - allows at least 35’. Orland Park's 30’ districts are the outlier in the southwest suburbs.
Current housing design. A 30’ limit, measured to the mean roof height, constrains two-story homes with 9’ to 10’ ceilings, conventional roof pitches, and lots that slope. The result can be variance requests, flattened roof designs, and less design flexibility for reinvestment in older neighborhoods.
Consistency. Today a home on an R-2 lot may be 35’ tall, while a similar home on an R-2A lot is capped at 30’. There is no measurable neighborhood-character reason for the 5’ difference.
Staff also recommend amending the adjacency height threshold in the R-3 District to match the R-2A, R-3A and R-4 Districts. Currently, the mean height of a new or expanded home in R-3 may not exceed the mean height of adjacent homes by more than 10’ if those homes are within 30’. The other three districts apply the same limit only within 15’. Because R-3 requires 8’ side yard setbacks, conforming homes already stand at least 16’ apart, so the 30’ trigger applies to nearly every R-3 property.
As a result, owners next to one-story homes are often unable to add a second story or rebuild. Reducing the threshold to 15’ creates one consistent standard across the four districts. It keeps the height-differential protection for closely spaced homes, allows the proposed 35’ height limit to benefit R-3 property owners, and supports reinvestment in the Village's established neighborhoods.
Benefits of the Amendments
A single 35’ building height requirement is fairer to property owners, matches the region, and fits how homes are built today, while every other bulk control that shapes neighborhood character stays in place.
1. One building type, one height rule. Single-family detached homes are the same building type in E-1 through R-4. The districts already differ where it matters for neighborhood form: lot size, lot width, setbacks and lot coverage. A second, lower height limit adds complexity for residents, builders and staff without a clear planning purpose.
2. The 30’ cap constrains ordinary two-story homes. Because Orland Park measures to the mean roof height, the cap is reached by homes that are of normal size.
3. Today's builders commonly offer 9’ to 10’ first-floor ceilings. Under a 30’ limit, the usual response is a flatter, less traditional roof, which works against the architectural character that residents value.
4. Sloping lots use up height. Where grade falls away from the house, the code measures from grade 6’ out, which adds to the measured height. On these lots, 30’ can be reached by a modest home.
5. Reinvestment in established neighborhoods. The R-2A through R-4 districts include much of the Village's older housing stock. Owners adding a second story, or replacing an outdated home, should have the same design latitude as owners in R-1 and R-2. This allows for families to grow in place and renewal of older blocks supports.
6. Look-out and walk-out basements. Since the Land Development Code measures the building height from the average grade plane, the building designs with look-out and walk-out basements are unable to conform to the 30’ building height requirement.
7. Fewer variances, clearer permitting. A uniform standard reduces requests to vary height for designs that are otherwise unremarkable. The Pulte Development has many units with look-out and walk-out basements that exceed the LDC’s 30’ building height requirement and would require a modification to their Special Use Permit, or would need to request variances for the lots that do not conform to the height regulations.
8. The safeguards stay in place. Setbacks, lot coverage, minimum lot size, the measurement method and all other district standards remain unchanged. Accessory structure heights are not affected. The amendment adds vertical allowance only; it does not allow larger footprints or more units.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TEXT
Please see the attached Staff Report in case file 2026-0982 for the proposed amendment text.
Recommended Action/Motion
STAFF RECOMMENDED ACTION
Regarding Case Number 2026-0982 - Building Heights Text Amendment, Staff recommends to accept and make findings of fact as discussed at this Plan Commission meeting and within the Staff Report dated October 16, 2026;
And
Staff Recommends the Plan Commission approve the Land Development Code Amendment for Sections 6-203.5, 6-204, 6-204.5 and 6-205.
STAFF RECOMMENDED MOTION
Regarding Case Number 2026- 0982 - Building Heights Text Amendment, I move to approve the Staff Recommended Action as presented in the Staff Report to the Plan Commission for this case.