Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. NEW BUSINESS 8/5/03 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1, 2003 PZ-26-03 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 109 N. FOREST AVENUE KEVIN & BETSY GRIEBENOW - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-26-03, a request for an unenclosed covered porch, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their July 24, 2003 meeting. The Subject Property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed porch would encroach no more than 5-feet into the required 3 O-foot front yard setback. Therefore, it requires Conditional Use approval. The Planning & Zoning Commission briefly discussed the Petitioner's plans for a one-story addition, how the existing garage is a legal nonconforming structure, and that a Plat of Resubdivision is required. They noted that the porch and addition complied with zoning regulations and that the porch would have a concrete base and an overhang with the required structural supports. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 7-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of an unenclosed covered porch to encroach no more than five-feet into the front yard for the property at 109 N. Forest Avenue, Case No. PZ-26-03. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their August 5, 2003 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. '¢/illiam J. {2o~ney, Jr.,-~klCP MINUTES OF TI-W~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-26-03 Hearing Date: July 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Kevin & Elizabeth Griebenow 109 N. Forest Ave. PUBLICATION DATE: July 9,2003 PIN #: 03-34-316-027 REQUEST: Conditional Use for a porch MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Anne Walters, Community Development Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 26 meeting errata, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The June meeting minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions (Arlene Juracek, Joseph Donnelly and Keith Youngquist). At 8:13, Ms. Jurackek introduced Case No. PZ-26-03, a request for a Conditional Use to construct a porch that would encroach into the required front setback. She said that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the east side of Forest Avenue, between Thayer and Henry Streets, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered to the north, south, and east by the RA District and the RX District to the west. The existing home on the Subject Property is currently set back approximately 29-feet from the front lot line, 6.25-feet from the south side lot line, and 5.75-feet from the north side lot line. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's plans for improving the existing house and said that they would like to add one-story addition to the rear of the house and an unenclosed front porch. She said that the proposed porch, consisting of a concrete base/floor and wood colunms, would encroach no more than 5' into the required front yard. Therefore, the unenclosed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Ms. Connolly reported that the existing home is located on two parcels. She said that based on the property information in the Sidwell book, Forest Avenue from Gregory to Henry Streets was platted in an irregular manner and that t he 1 ots are comprised o f two parcels. Consequently, most i f not a 11 of the homes straddle the property 1 ine. Therefore, the Subject Property and surrounding properties currently do not meet zoning regulations. She said that consolidating the Subject Property to one lot of record will bring the site into compliance with zoning bulk regulations. She noted that the attached garage encroaches into the required 30-foot front yard, but that the minor encroachment is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain. Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for Conditional Uses as listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the specific findings lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-26-03 Page 2 that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She said that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 5-feet into the required front yard for the residence at 109 N. Forest Avenue, Case No. PZ-26-03, subject to resubdividing t he S ubj ect Property a nd consolidating i t t o create a s ingle 1 ot o f record. S he s aid t hat the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Kevin Griebenow, 109 N. Forest Avenue, was sworn in. He stated that he was the homeowner and that he and his wife were adding an addition on to the rear of the house, but wanted to update the front of the house as well. There was discussion regarding the porch and Keith Youngquist noted that the porch would have a concrete base. Richard Rogers added that the porch had to remain unenclosed and Mr. Griebenow confirmed that he understood this requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked if anyone in the audic~nce wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission about this case. Since there was no response, she closed the hearing at 8:16pm. Matthew Sledz made a motion to approve the requested Conditional Use to allow a porch to encroach no more than five (5) feet into the required front yard setback with the condition that the site be resubdivided and consolidated to one lot of record, for Case No. PZ-26-03, 109 N. Forest Avenue. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotten, Dormelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 10:59 p.m, Joseph Donnelley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Anne Walters, Community Development Intern Jfic~y Conn~¢/~ H:~PLANZPIa~ning & Zoning COM]V~P&Z 2003~Minutcs~PZ-26-03 I09 N Forest St..doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 26-03 LOCATION: 109 N. Forest Avenue PETITIONERS: Kevin & Betsy Griebenow OWNERS: Kevin & Betsy Griebenow PARCEL #: 03-34-316-027-0000 LOT SIZE: 0.18 acres (7,914.96 square feet) ZONING: RA Single Family Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: Conditional Use - Porch in front yard LOCATION MAP Thayer Street 119 120 117 118 115 116 113 114 111 112  110 108 106 10S 104 103 102 101 100 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 I11 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 100 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 109 108 107 105 104 103 102 101 I00 Street ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 18 Walnut Street Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 17, 2003 HEARING DATE: JULY 24, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ-26-03 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 109 N. FOREST AVENUE (GRIEBENOW RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the July 24, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Kevin & Betsy Griebenow (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 109 N. Forest Avenue (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a new porch in the front yard. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the July 9, 2003 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Forest Avenue, between Thayer and Henry Streets, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered to the north, south, and east by the RA District and the RX District to the west. The existing home on the Subject Property is currently set back approximately 29-feet from the front lot line (28.83'), 6.25-feet from the south (side) lot line, and 5.75-feet from the north (side) lot line. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exhibits outline the Petitioner's plans for improving the existing house. The proposed improvements include adding a one-story addition to the rear of the house and an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch, consisting of a concrete base/floor and wood columns, would encroach no more than 5' into the required front yard, thus requiring Conditional Use approval. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The existing home is located on two parcels. Based on the property information in the Sidwell, Forest Avenue from Gregory to Henry Streets was platted in an irregular manner and the lots are comprised of two parcels. Consequently, most if not all of the homes straddle the property line. Therefore, the Subject Property and surrounding properties currently do not meet zoning regulations. Consolidating the Subject Property to one lot of record will bring the site into compliance with zoning bulk regulations. However, the attached garage encroaches into the required 30-foot front yard. The minor encroachment is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal if it were one lot of record to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. Z-26-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 24, 2003 Page 3 RA Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 2g.83' 26.00' Interior 5' 5.75' north & no change 6.25' south 6' Rear 25' 55.66' 43.66' LOT COVERAGE 50% Maximum 30% 37% CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following list is a summary of these findings: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a COnditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 5-feet into the required front yard for the residence at 109 N. Forest Avenue, Case No. PZ-26-03, subject to resubdividing the Subject Property to a single lot of record. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: wi}iam r ireltor of Community Vevelopment VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional 'Use Approval 7- Case Number P&Z ~.-,~ Development Name/Address ~: ~ Date of Submission ~ Hearing Date Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 109 North Forest Avenue Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) 0,18 RA 1618* *Includes attached garage Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side 30 feet 25 feet 5 feet 5 feet Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces One story 20 Single car garage Adjacent Land Uses: - North South ]East [West Single lhmily home Single family home Single family home Single family home Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) 03-34-316-027-0000 Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) Lot 16 (except the South 26 feet thereof), Lot 17 (except the North 24 l~et thereof) in Block 20 in Prospect Manor Division, of part of the South % of the West ~A of the West V2 of Section 34, Township 42 North? Range I 1 ~ East of the Third Prlncinal Meridian, 7- Name Telephone (day) _O Kevin & Betsy Griebenow (312) 596-4436 < Corporation Telephone (evening) ~~ 2 (847) 392-0768 ~ ~ Street Address Fax . 109 North Forest Avenue ~ I City ] State Zip Code Pager Mount ProspectI IL 60056-2301 ~ Interest in Property Owners and residents Name Telephone (day) Kevin & Betsy Griebenow (312) 596-4436 Corporation Telephone (evening) (847) 392-0786 Street Address Fax: 109 North Forest Avenue City State Zip Code Pager Mount IL 60056-230 I Prospect DevelOper Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Architect Name Wendling Designs Telephone (day): (630) 985-3822 Address 7810 Green Valley Court Fax Darien, IL 60561 Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 roposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district) Section 14.1003.A - Unenclosed porch to front of a single family residence. Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) The proposed addition to the front of the house at 109 North Forest is an unenclosed six-foot wide porch running the length of the front facade. We have found Mt. Prospect to be a wonderful community to raise our family, and we are planning an addition to our small ranch to accommodate our needs for the future. This addition includes the front porch for which we seek the Conditional Use approval. We feel the porch will enhance not only our property but will be good for our neighborhood as well. We will use quality materials and feel the design will be neighborhood-friendly and will blend in nicely with the surrounding houses and neighborhood. The front porch, which will remain unenclosed, will give us an attractive place to enjoy the warmer weather and keep an eye on the kids as well. Our family room addition will improve the rear of our house; we also want to improve the front facade - for us and the larger community of Mt. Prospect. Hours of Operation As it is a place of residence, it is a 24/7 operation. Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 109 North Forest Avenue Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use 0.18 acres RA 2315 w/proposed room Porch - 216 Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side 26 5 5 25 Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking'Spaces I story 29 Single car garage Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals Mil not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staffso that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that jtll information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the]o~es~tof ~owledge. Applicant ~__...,~ Date ~ 7 ~.~> I f applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my 'agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 ffidavit of Ownership COUNTY OF COOK STATE OF ILLINOIS I, _Kevin Griebenow, under oath, state that I am X the sole ) an ) owner of the property an authorized officer of the ) commonly described as 1 fl0 Nlr~r~h Fnre~t Avenue, lMmmt Pm?cci, Il, 60056 and that such property is owned by Kevin and Betsy Griebenow as of this date. / Signature Subscribed and sworn to before me this ,~ ~ 'D~ ~lay of -Jk.~4:' ,20c/~3.. Notar~ Public ( IQII~BERL.Y & I)EWI$ ~ { _Nqtm. y Publk~, 8ta~ of Illlnot~ } ~ Oonirrdss~n Exph* o~7 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 100 South Emerson Street. Monnt Prosoect Illinois Fax 847.818.5329 PIMT OF SURVEY Anton ,4dams ~35.2810 Addtsotl, IIImoL~ 60101 Pho.e: ~708) 941-3214 Lot 16 {except the South 26 feet therefor), Lot 17 (except the North 2G CoeC thereof) in Bl~k 20, ~n PROSP~CI ~ANOR SUBDIVISION, of part of t~e South 3/~ of the We~t I[2 ~[ the ~eat 1/2 o~ Sectton 5q, Iownshlp ~2 IIorth, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, as per plat thereof recorded ~rch 6, 1926, as Doc~ent [mmber 9199191. C'OUNIY Of ~'OOK J '~ ,.tpan! aY poi.ts beJore building by same and at ont~, report atO' dif- We. ADAMS and ADAMS, Illinois Pmfe.~.domd Survr~ors hcre~w'ert{L~'thatwefiuve.~urvo'cdtheproper[vda~cribedaboveat; MOUNT ?ROSPIz'(7~ II.LINOIS. ~'~Y J} ~ __Al). Illinois l~ssional Land Surv<vor 42 42-11- 34. E 3,-34 1$,4~£LLA S.W. V4 Sec. 34-47_.-II WHEELING ST, ST. ' I H~.~lc~ K. ~LUMd- ~]~ 'T'AIL. ALL. ~ I I~RONT PORCH SECTION PLA T OF SURVEY OF Moutll Yrosl~ect. Illtt~OlS O(AD, Phone: (708) 255-3512 Anion Adams ~35-2810 421 Ardmore Terrace Addison. Illinois 60101 Phone: (708) 941-3214 Lot 16 (except the South 26 feet thereof), Lot 17 (except the North 2~ Cee: thereof) in Block 20, In PROSPECT MANOR SUBDIVISION, of part of the South .5/& of the West 1/2 of the West 1/2 of Section }~, Township &2 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, as per plat thereof recorded March 6, 1926, as Document Number 9199191. I. Co,.v'O. /t /,F ~'e"-6'T' 1/tIER: 3z 803 ; ). ~Po.8, /P&'..,./,,;~ Co,,'VC.~d'.Te'" th ":. 6 :Y~/z" i PAGE: /z7 ompore description itt this plat with your deed. abstrao or certificate ,mpan: all points b¢~>re building by same and al once report atO, dif- li, es.¥hown only where they are so recorded in the maps; otherwise abstract or Zoning board. 51'41't: OF II. I.INOIS ] ~ o,,coo,; 1"' Survey brought up to date improvv, mcnts on E,~gister~d Illinois ~(nd ADAMS and ADAMS, Illinois Professional Sun,ey'ors, hereby certi[.'[' that we b a ye surv<rcd tbe propeny described abe ye ar, the plat ben'on dra.'n t]i' a cern'ct repn:¥entation qf said .vun,ey. Measun'me~ all c'orrected to a standard of 68 degrees fahre>du'it. MOUNT PROSPE(71 ILLINOIS, /P/,4,y ~ fac. A.D. 19 Illinois ~. ~ssional Land Surveyor 42 42-11- 3OeE 3-34 WHEELING ISABELLA ~ rHAYEh Sr ~ ' 19-oo~ ~, . ,, , ~ /~ _o// Cz,') z~ 1o '9 17.., (~ .'F~'ONT PORCH SECTION ,. ,,,,:~;.:'.l~. :: ...... , ' , , kad 7/31/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY KNOWN AS 109 NORTH FOREST AVENUE WHEREAS, Kevin and Betsy Griebenow (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has filed a petition for a Conditional Use with respect to property located at 109 N. Forest Avenue, (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property) and legally described as follows: Lot 16 (except the South 26 feet thereof), Lot 17 (except the North 24 feet thereof) in Block 20 in Prospect Manor Division, of part of the South % of the West ½ of the West ½ of Sec. 34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, IL. PIN: 03-34-316-027-0000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use to construct an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than five feet (5') into the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Conditional Use being the subject of PZ Case No. 26-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th day of July, 2003, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 9th day of July, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support, of the request being the subject of PZ 26,03; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. Page 2/2 109 N. Forest Avenue SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch to encroach no more that five feet (5')into the required front yard setback, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSEDandAPPROVEDthis day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WtN\ORDINANC\C Use pz 26-03, 109 n forest ave, porch.doc Village of Mount prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AUGUST 1, 2003 PZ-24-03 - 999 N. ELMHURST ROAD: 1) AMEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL; 2) RELIEF FROM SIGN CODE REGUALTIONS; 3) RELIEF FROM ZONING REGULATIONS; AND 4) CREATE SIGN CRITERIA FOR THE RANDHURST MALL - RANDHURST/COSTCO, APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-24-03, a request to amend a Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval to allow a Costco warehouse store, relief from Sign Code regulations, relief from zoning regulations, and the creation of Sign Criteria for the Randhurst Shopping Mall, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request during their July 24, 2003 meeting. The Subject Property, Randhurst Shopping Center, is a regional mall and is generally located at the intersection of Rand, Kensington, Euclid, and Elmhurst Roads. As you may recall, the Village Board approved a similar Costco development project in April 2002. The previous proposal was never constructed; however, the Petitioner has submitted a revised proposal and is seeking additional relief from Village Codes as part of an effort to update a portion of the mall. The Petitioner's latest proposal requires review and approval by the Village Board due to the significant changes from the previously approved plan as well as additional requests for relief from Village Code that were not part of the previous Village Board approval. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's plans in great detail. The Petitioner clarified the sequence of events that led to revising the site plan and reviewed the efforts they are proposing to update and revitalize the Randhurst Shopping Center. There was discussion regarding the proposed parking lot lighting and the impact of using dropped lenses rather than recessed lenses. The Petitioner had revised the landscape plan after the P&Z received the staff memo and the new exhibit was reviewed in detail. There was further discussion on the impact of the mall losing three anchor stores and how a typical Costco store in its third year of operation would generate more revenue than the three former anchor stores combined. The P&Z considered each aspect of the Petitioner's request and voted in the following manner: 1) 7~0 to approve the three oversized wall signs (P&Z final); 2) 7-0 to approve the proposed Sign Criteria for the Randhurst Mall; 3) 7-0 to approve outdoor storage for two vehicles, but the vehicles could not be stored outside overnight; 4) %0 to approve the amendments to the Planned Unit Development (new site plan, new elevations for the mall and Costco, brighter and taller light standards, building height greater than 30') with all the conditions listed in the staff report except using recessed lenses; 5) 5-2 to deny the staff recommendation that Costco utilize recessed lenses instead of dropped lenses; the motion failed. Z-24-03: Costco/Randhurst Page 2 of 2 In addition, the Petitioner has submitted an updated Redevelopment and Economic Incentive Agreement (see attached) to reflect Costco's new construction timeline and anticipated opening date. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their August 5, 2003 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J! Cooney, Jri, ~& MINUTES OF TIlE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZO~G COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-24-03 PETITIONER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: Hearing Date: July 24, 2003 Mark A. Gershon for Rouse Randhurst Shopping Center, Inc. c/o Piper Marbury Rudnick & Wolfe 203 N. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60601 999 N. Randhurst PIN #: 03-27-401-261 / 03-27-401-262 / 03-27-401-264 / 03-27-401-265 03-27-401-266 / 03-27-401-040 REQUEST: Conditional Use to amend an existing Planned Unit Development to erect a Costco store, sign variations, create Exterior Signage Criteria, and variations for 999 N. Elmhurst Road MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Anne Walters, Community Development Intern Mark Gershon, Attomey for Rouse Chad Rinella Steve Brennan Margaret Lannen, Manager Randhurst Shopping Center Robert Cohen Tom McCabe, Seton Engineering Robert Fugman, Fugrnan Dakich & Associates Ben Kutscheld, SmithGroup JJR Ted Johnson, TJ Design Strategies, Ltd John Parapetti, Urban Retail Properties Michael Levin, Urban Retail Properties John & Marcy Czereckowicz Josephine Wojciuck Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 26th meeting errata, seconded by Merrill Cotton. The June meeting minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions (Arlene Juracek, Joseph Donnelly and Keith Youngquist). At 8:45, after hearing four cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-24-03, a Conditional Use request to amend a PUD approval for a Costco store to be constructed at the Randhurst Shopping Center and related requests. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the northeast comer of Rand and Elmhurst Roads, between Kensington Road and Euclid Avenue, and Planning and Zoning Commission PZ-24-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 contains a regional shopping mall with multiple out-tots. She said that the Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping PUD and is bordered by single-family, multi-family, and commercial districts. Ms. Connolly reported that the Village Board previously approved the Costco development proposal in April 2002. She said that the Petitioner has since revised the plan and it now includes a new building location and modified building elevations. Also, the mall owners are proposing changes to portions of the mall. She said that these changes involve ,demolishing a portion of the existing Ward's building, cmhancing an ex/sting mall ~trance, and relief fi.om Village Codes for the proposed parking lot lighting, sign regulations, and bulk regulations for the building height. She said that all of these requests require amending the previous PUD approval and relief from Village Codes. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner proposes to locate the store adjacent to the main mall building along the southeast comer of the existing mall building, in the general area of the former JC Penny and Kohl's areas. She said that the proposed Costco facility will contain only one customer entrance, and it will be located at the southwest comer of the store. The store's receiving docks will be located along the north elevation of the building, near the mall's existing customer and underground parking/delivery entrances. She said that in addition to the warehouse store operation, the Petitioner proposes to sell and install tires. The tire installation operation will be located along the southwest elevation of the building, with all tire installations completed inside the tire center. The Petitioner is also seeking relief from zoning regulations to allow taller light standards and brighter lights, as well as outdoor storage to promote the store's auto sales program. Ms. Connolly reported that the Village Board approved the fuel center/gas station as part of the previous Costco development proposal. She said that the Petitioner's current proposal for the fuel center is not significantly different from the previously approved design. The fuel center would be located on the former Wards Auto Center site, between the existing LaSalle Bank and Home Depot facilities. She said that the self-serve fuel center will have a Costco employee on-site 't6-/~ssist members with operating the fuel pumps, but the employee will not pump gas for the members or provide any type of maintenance assistance. Ms. Connolly said that the Costco building would be constructed from a combination of building materials including precast concrete panels, brick and EIFS. She said that the building's exterior will include a combination of beige and red colors, and have a flat roof of varying heights. She said that sections of the proposed building slightly exceed the 30-foot height limitation permitted in the B3 District. Ms. Connolly reviewed the site plan and reported that it indicates several new pedestrian links, including a sidewalk from the Costco building to the fuel center. In addition, a sidewalk would extend along the eastern edge of the fuel center site, connecting the mall's ring road and Kensington Road. Also, the area in front of the Costco entrance is designated as a pedestrian zone. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner is seeking approval of outdoor storage to allow the display of motor vehicles to help promote the store's vehicle purchase program. She said that the location of the proposed outdoor storage would be close to the Costco building entrance, on a brick paver/display area of the sidewalk. The Village's Zoning Ordinance permits seasonal outdoor storage, such as Christmas trees, but the petitioner's request to display vehicles year-round does not comply with zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner's photometric plan for lighting levels in the Costco area indicates that the maximum lighting levels exceed the 2.4-foot candle limitation and that the proposed light poles exceed the 30-foot height limitation. In addition, the Petitioner proposes to use a drop lens as opposed to a recessed lens. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's proposal includes redesigning the existing parking lot around the Costco store and having oversized parking spaces to accommodate Costco shoppers. She said that the traffic circulation is improved by eliminating several access points and creating new landscape islands, Planning and Zoning Commission PZ-24-03 Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 3 Ms. Connolly reported that the Petitioner proposes to provide 770 oversized parking stalls and 18 handicap stalls. She said that the ratio and number of handicapped stalls exceeds the minimum code requirements. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance w as recently c hanged t o allow for shared handicap access a isles, which i s not indicated o n t he Petitioner's site plan. She said that the Petitioner has the opportunity to revise the site plan to incorporate the shared access aisles and create additional parking if necessary. Ms. Connolly reported that the Petitioner proposes to install wall signs on each elevation of the Costco building as well as on the north and south elevations of the fuel station. She said that similar to the original Costco request, the Petitioner is seeking a variation to construct three wall signs that are larger than the 150 square feet permitted by the Sign Code. She said that the signs would be located on the north, south and west building elevations and each sign would be approximately 385 square feet, which is similar to the size of the previously approved wall signs. Ms. Connolly reported that the Petitioner proposes to install a second wall sign that measures 125 square feet over the Costco store entrance. The Petitioner is also seeking approval of a second wall sign on its north elevation to indicate the location of its receiving area. The proposed "Receiving" sign measures less than 25 square feet. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's plans call for locating the proposed tire center on the south elevation and that the Petitioner's plans indicate that two signs are needed for the tire center: one sign for the sales area and one sign for the installation area. Therefore, there would be a total of four signs on this elevati°n, but only one access point to the store and one access point to the tire center. She said that the Sign Code permits one wall sign per elevation and an additional wall sign for a distinct use, but only over its entrance. In this case, the Petitioner proposes a sign to indicate the tire center sales area, but that area cannot be accessed from the parking lot. Therefore, the request conflicts with the Sign Code regulations. Ms. C°nnolly reviewed the Petiti~)'ri~r's landscape plan and said that the loading dock Will be screened from view from the neighboring residential development using a combination of shrubs and shade trees. In addition, new parking lot landscape islands will be created to improve traffic circulation, beautify the Costco site, and break-up the 'sea of parking' commonly found at shopping malls. Ms. Connolly said that the landscape plan shows how one section of the south mall elevation, between Costco and the proposed new mall entrance, will be improved with the use of planting beds. She said that the Petitioner proposes to use a variety of plantings throughout the Costco site and will provide foundation plantings in addition to the perimeter/parking lot landscaping. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff would like to see another mall entrance in closer proximity to the Costco entrance than what is indicated on the Petitioner's plans, but that the proposed landscaping along the south elevation is intended to provide a transition/link between the mall and the new warehouse store. She said that although the Petitioner has attempted to create a "park" like facility in this area, Staff still believes that additional landscaping and screening would help to soften this port/on of the mall's exterior elevation. Ms. Connolty reviewed changes to the mall and said that the Petitioner's plans indicate a significant portion of the former Ward's s itc would be demolished a nd t hat the existing m all entrance, between A pplebee's and t he Ward's building, would be enhanced by constructing a new entrance feature. She said that in addition to the new mall entrance feature, a portion of the existing Ward's building will be maintained and that a new exterior facade would be constructed to compliment the proposed mall entrance feature. These proposed improvements are intended to update the exterior of the mall while also providing a primary focal customer entrance. Ms. Connolly reported that sections of the new mall faqade would exceed the 30-foot maximum building height permitted in the B3 District. Also, the proposed change to the southwest elevation includes new storefronts that have direct access from the parking lot. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Petitioner's elevations indicate a portion of the southern elevation measuring approximately 207 feet in length would have a new faqade and include new storefronts. She said that the exhibits indicate the conceptual elevation design, but noted that the location o fwindows and doors may b e modified once specific tenants are finalized. Ms. Connolly reported that the remaining 222' linear stretch of the southern elevation would not be improved like the other section of the mall. She said that although the elevations indicate that a new Planning and Zoning Commission PZ-24-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 storefront would be created within the area between the new_mall endurance feature/facade improvements and the proposed Costco facility, that this area, which measures 222' linear feet, will not contain any customer entrances to either the stores or the mall. She said that the Petitioner's landscape plan calls for landscaping/planting areas along this section of the mall building. Ms. Connolly said that as part of the PUD amendment, the Petitioner proposes Exterior Signage Criteria for the Randhurst Shopping Mall. She summarized the proposed criteria and said that they include 1) not requiring an amendment to the mall's PUD approval for any proposed exterior sign that is consistent with the Village's sign regulations; 2) allowing distinct types of signage like banners and painted surfaces that may not be permitted by the Sign Code, but are characteristic of a particular type of tenant; 3) creating Exterior Signage Criteria that create provisions for internal directory and directional signage that is not permitted by the Sign Code, but would be helpful to mall shoppers; and 4) the criteria would not apply to any outlot developments or mall tenants exceeding 30,000 square feet. Ms. Connolly clarified that the creation of signage criteria specifically for Randhurst will allow the mall owners and Village Staff to approve certain types of signage without having to go through the Conditional Use process to amend the PUD approval for a sign. Ms. Connolly reported that the Village's Comprehensive Plan designates the Randhurst Shopping Center for community commercial uses. The proposed warehouse, tire center, and fuel center are appropriate uses within this designation. She said that other departments reviewed the project and that the Fire Department requires an egress evaluation of the entire mall to determine the impact of the proposed changes to the mall. Also, the Petitioner is required t o provide documentation t hat t he existing fire main can produce sufficient fire flows a nd i s in adequate condition to accommodate changes to the mall. Furthermore, all construction is required to meet applicable Building and Fire Code requirements. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Public Works'D~partment comments. She said that they noted that the location of the new building shown on the current plan is in conflict with the fire loop, but in a location different from that shown on the plans submitted last year. The Petitioner's current plans show a different, smaller length of the existing fire loop to be relocated. She said that the new configuration leaves a portion of the existing fire loop to remain between the new tap from Elmhurst Road and the portion of the fire loop that is to be relocated. Also, the Public Works Department has concerns with the condition of the water main in this location and will require that the petitioner demonstrate that it meets Village standards or replace the main. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the amended PUD, the request has to meet the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the proposed Conditional Use would be located within the Randhurst Shopping Center, which is an existing PUD in the B-3 Community Shopping District. She said that the Petitioner proposes to demolish sections of the mall in order [o..bgi!.d a 0nerstory warehouse operation, create a new mall entrance and storefronts that have direct access to/from the parking lot, and create Exterior Signage Criteria specific to the mall. She noted that the proposed elevations, varying building materials, and requested changes to the Village's Sign regulations are consistent with other new commercial developments and trends in the Village. In addition, the new mall entrance, warehouse store and fuel operations would have minimal impact on the neighboring residential properties. The proposed Conditional Use would be in compliance will the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that in order to approve the sign variations, the requests have to meet the standards for a variation listed in the Sign Code. She summarized the standards and said that the basis for granting variations for larger wall signs in the past has been that the signs were placed on expansive front elevations set back behind g large parking lot. She said that in this case, the justification for the size of the proposed wall signs is consistent w/th the findings for the previous cases. In addition, there are out-lots that limit Costco's visibility, She reported that the proposed variation for oversized Costco wall signs is in keeping with the standards for sign variations. However, the number of signs proposed for the tire center does not meet the intent of the Sign Code because the sales areas cannot be accessed from the exterior and the Petitioner has an opportunity to identify the tire center in one location, such as the access point to Planning and Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-24-03 Page 5 the t ire installation area. S he stated t hat the wall s ignage for the tire center should b e modified s o t he s ales and installation information is incorporated into one wall sign. Ms. Connolly reported that in order to approve the requests for brighter lights, taller light poles, and outdoor storage, the requests have to meet the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the Outdoor storage area for the auto display is located in a pedestrian area. She noted that while the display may be attractive, the location is not conducive to this location and that the request fails to meet the standards for a variation because there is no hardship. As an alternative, Ms. Connolly suggested that the display be relocated to the inside of the store or in an area of the parking lot such as a designated parking space. Ms. Cormolly said that the Petitioner's request to permit taller light standards and brighter lights meets the standards for a variation because the light standards would be located in a regional mall, which is a unique condition, and that the area required to be lit to ensure shopper's safety is larger than most parking lots in Mount Prospect. She said that using a recessed lens instead of the proposed drop lens would limit the brighter lights' impact on the adjacent residential. The prOposed lights would not adversely impact the public welfare and could be designed so the lights would be angled away from the residential development east of the Subject Property so as to have a minimal impact on the neighborhood character. Based on this analysis, the proposed Costco Wholesale store, tire center, fuel center, enhanced mall entrance, proposed Exterior Signage Criteria for the mall, and relief from zoning regulations comply with the Conditional Use and Variation standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Cormolly said that the proposed wall sign size variations are in keeping with the Standards for Sign Variations. However, the proposed outdoor storage and number of tire center wall signs does not meet the standards for a variation and there are viable alternatives that would be in keeping with the Village's code requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission: 1) 2) 3) 4) Approve three (3) 385 square foot wall signs; the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this request; Deny two wall signs for the tire center; the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this request; Recommend that the Village Board deny the outdoor storage request; Village Board's decision is final; Recommend that the Village Board approve the requested Conditional Use amendment at 999 N. Elrnhurst Road, Case No. PZ-24-03, subject to the following conditions: A. Development of the site in conformance with the site plans prepared by Mulvanny Architects, revised July 8, 2003; B. Development of the site in conformance with the landscape plan prepared by Mulvanny Architects, revised July 11, 2003; C. Development of the site in conformance with the elevations prepared by Mulvanny Architects, revised June 4, 2003 and the elevations prepared by Fugman Dakich & Associates revised July 10, 20O3; D. Development of the site in conformance with the photometric plan prepared by T.E. Inc, dated June 10, 2003, but revised to indicate the site will use recessed lenses instead of dropped lenses; E. Prior to Village Board approval, all outstanding water main issues shall be resolved to the satisfaction of Staff; F. Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · Engineering s itc plans t hat address t he existing deficiencies in the b ack_flow prevention system for t he entire Randhurst site to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; · Inspection and approval by the Village of the disconnection of the existing water and sewer services prior to starting demolition; G. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: Planning and Zoning Commission PZ-24-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 6 · Egress evaluation of the entire mall; · Documentation that the existing fire-main can produce sufficient fire flows for the new facility or installing an additional water main to Elmhurst Road (already doing Elmhurst Rd main); · Replace and/or repair of the existing fire main as determined necessary by Village Departments if the new building encroaches upon the existing fire main; · Relocate existing fire hydrants, Fire Department connections, and post indicator valves as needed for Fire Department access. H. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. I. In lieu of providing a mall entrance adjacent to the Costco entrance, the petitioner will enhance the proposed landscaping and elevations along the Mall's south wall. The Petitioner must submit detailed plans of this area for staff review prior to final approval of the project. Ms. Connolly reported that the Petitioner would like a separate condition recommending approval of the proposed Exterior Signage Criteria regulations as part of the PUD approval. She said that Staff does not object to this request. She said that except for items otherwise noted, the case is Village Board final. The Commission asked Ms. C onnolly questions regarding t he removal o f a S TOP sign a s discussed i n t he Traffic Study. Ms. Connolly said that the Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the study, but did not comment on this recommendation. She said that the Petitioner could clarify whether they would keep this particular STOP sign since the issue was not addressed in their site plan. There were questions concerning the south mall elevation, in the area closest to the Costco entrance. Keith Youngquist asked whether any improvements would be made other than the proposed landscaping. Ms. Connolly said that the landscape plan indicates the level of proposed improvem_e._n_~_s, but that the Petitioner could provide more details. Mr. Youngquist stated his concern that access to the mall would be limited in the Costco entrance area. Ms. Juracek swore in the Petitioners who would speak about the case. The Commission discussed the traffic impact analysis on the shopping center, specifically the ring road near Home Depot. They also discussed the impact of the reduced number of mall entrances in great detail. The P&Z expressed concern that some parking areas would not be used because of their remote location from mall entrances, which may adversely impact the mall. Mark Gershon, Attorney for Rouse-Randhurst Center, said they are very pleased to bring Costco to the area to revitalize the center and the community. He complimented Staff on a great job of presenting the case. He said Randhurst had been in the community for thirty-nine years and is the largest contributor of sales and real estate tax in the Village. Many changes have occurred in those years and in the last six years the center has seen much underutilization with the closing of Wards and J. C. Penney. He said that it has been critical for Randhurst and the Village to work together to get to the point we are at today. He thanked Staff for their part in the process and said the success of Randhurst is integral to the success of surrounding retail stores. Mr. Gershon verbally reviewed the documentation and exhibits that had been submitted prior to the meeting, as part of their zoning application. Robert Fugrnan, Architect with Fugman Dakich and Associates, presented the structural changes that would be made to the Randhurst Mall. He said that JCPenny's, Kohl's, Wards, and part of the mall would be taken down and replaced with the Costco building, tire center, and a renovated part of the mall. He said that a fuel station would replace the former Wards tire center. Mr. Fugman noted that the Applebee's Restaurant would remain in the mall, and that new retail stores would open in the newly renovated part of the mall. He said that these new stores could possibly have exterior and interior mall doors and that the tenants will have the option of creating their own facade on the first floor of the mall. The new area of the mall is designed for possible use of a store on the second floor. Ted Johnson, President of Design Strategies, 2311 W. 22nd Street, Oak Brook, and Costco's Project Manager/Coordinator for the site, stated that he is a Planner as well as a Landscape Architect by trade. Mr. Johnson explained that the proposed Costco building would be the same size/square footage as the Village Board previously approved and that the store would contain the same comer entrance, except in a new location to the east. The fuel Planning and Zoning Commission PZ-24-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 7 center location did not change and it would remain in the same location as originally approved. He stated that the plans include providing an underground vault under the parking lot to handle storm water detention. Mr. Johnson discussed the proposed parking lot lighting and clarified that the lighting plan calls for 40-foot light standards with drop lenses. He said that drop lenses were chosen over recessed lenses because the drop lens does not produce hot spots that recessed lenses create. He said that drop lenses were also chosen because it would allow for fewer light standards in the parking lot. Mr. Johnson reviewed the Costco building materials and said that the main warehouse would be built out of pre-cast panels. He said that masonry will be used on the bottom 8-10ft of the building and the building will include architectural elements of masonry on the top portion of the building. He noted that EIFS would be used on the main canopy only as a design. Mr. Johnson stated that the Petitioners agreed to condense the two fires signs into one sign that reads 'Tire Center' and that they withdrew their request for the additional wall sign. The fuel center will be made out of the same masonry as the bottom of the main warehouse. The Commission presented their concerns on the parking lot design. Ms. Juracek suggested relocating the handicap stalls so they are closer to the Costco store entrance. She reminded the Petitioner that handicap stalls could share the same access aisle, which allows for more parking stalls. Mr. Rogers asked about the difference in parking stalls between Costco's proposed 10ft parking stalls and the adjacent parking stalls that are 9ft wide. Mr. Johnson responded that Home Depot owned the other parking area and it was not under Costco's control. Therefore, the Petitioner could not modify this area of the parking lot. He said that other parking areas designated as "mall" spots were part of the plans to be improved. Mr. Gershon informed the Commission that the Petitioner would not act on the recommendation to remove the STOP sign previously mentioned. Mr. Rogers expressed concern with the use of EIFS on the building. Mr. Johnson explained that EIFS would be used on top of a base material made of galvanized metal. Mr. Rogers suggested using stucco instead of EIFS and Mr. Johnson said he would explore that alternative. Ben Kutscheild, Senior Landscape Architect with Smith Group JJR, presented the landscape plan for the site. Mr. Kutscheitd said landscaping would be used to screen the parking 1-6C'and that there will be 36" shrubs planted along the ring road, with two trees in e ach parking 1 ot landscape island. H e s aid that landscaping would b e planted b y t he fueling center, but that other mall entrances would remain in their current state. Mr. Kutscheild said that plantings would highlight comers of the building and that some landscaping would be 'pulled back' from the building to create a ten-foot walkway. He said that the trees to be planted will be mature enough and that their limbs will be high enough so the landscaping does not create a safety hazard. Mr. Gershon concluded the Petitioner's presentation and reviewed the benefits of Costco on the Mount Prospect community and emphasized the project's positive economic impact. Leo Floros expressed his concern about the project and questioned why the project had been delayed since April 2002. He asked for clarification on why the revised proposal is different from the original proposal and what steps were in place to ensure that the project would be completed if the Village Board approves the requests. Mr. Gershon explained that there had been a significant amount of activity concerning the design of the store, but that the construction aspect of the project was not realized. He said that Kohl's choosing to leave Randhurst allowed the Petitioner to revise their plans and create a new mall entryway. He noted that Costco has stayed committed to the Randhurst site and has not sought another location while the internal negotiations were underway. He said that all legal issues with Ward's have been resolved and that the Petitioner is ready to move forward on the project. Michael Levin, President of Urban Retail Properties, explained that Kohl's left Randhurst because they were looking for a bigger store. He said that representatives from Costco and Randhurst tried to persuade Kohl's to stay at the mall, but they were unsuccessful. He said that the loss of Kohl's has allowed the Costco building to shift east and for the new mall entrance to be more visible. He stated that he does not doubt the mall's viability because a second entrance was lost in view of the fact that the new mall entrance will be nice looking. Chairperson Juracek opened the meeting to public discussion. John Czerechowicz, 1105 Wedgewood Lane, asked the Petitioners how adding Costco to the mall will offset the loss of three anchor stores in the mall. Mr. Levin explained Planning and Zoning Commission PZ-24-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 8 that the three anchor stores combined generated less than half of the average revenue of a Costco that has been in operation for three years. Mr. Levin stated that he believes that Costco will turn the Randhurst center around. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 10:08pm. Richard Rogers m adc a motion t o approve t he requested Exterior S ignage Criteria f or Case N o. P Z-24-03. K eith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotton, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Younquist and Juracek NAYS: None UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotton, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Younquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the requested Variation to permit outdoor storage for vehicles as indicated on the Petitioner's site plan for Case No. PZ~24-03. Merrill Cotton seconded the motion. There was discussion regarding amending the motion to limit the number of vehicles to no more than two and that the vehicles could not be stored overnight. Joseph Donnelly moved to amend the motion to include the conditions and Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotton, Donnelly, Rogers Sledz, Younquist and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 7-0. Keith Youngquist moved to approve a Variation to permit outdoor storage for no more than two vehicles in the location shown on the Petitioner's site plan and require that the vehicles be removed at night. Merrill Cotton seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotton, Donnelly, Sledz, Younquist and Juracek Motion was approved 6-1. NAYS: Rogers Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the requested Conditional Use permit to amend the Randhurst Planned Unit Development and grant Variations for 40-foot tall light standards for the Costco parking lot area, allow parking lot lighting readings that exceed 2.4 foot candles as shown on the photometric plan prepared by TE, [nc, dated July 10, 2003, allow a building height greater than 30-feet as shown on the Petitioner's submitted elevations, and all the conditions listed in the Staff Report except for the recessed lens recommendation for Case No. PZ-24-03. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Motion was approved 7-0. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve Variations to permit three (3) 385sq.ft wall signs as shown on the submitted Costco elevations for Case No. PZ-24-03. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. lanning and Zoning Commission PZ-24-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 9 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Younquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the use of recessed lenses for Case No. PZ-24-03. Merrill Cotton seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was denied 5-2. AYES: Rogers, Sledz NAYS: Cotton, Donnelly, Floros, Youngquist, and Juracek At 10:59 p.m, Joseph Donnelley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Anne Walters, Community Development Intern Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 24-03 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #s: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 999 N. Elmhurst Road - Randhurst Shopping Center Mark A. Gershon, attorney for Rouse~Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC 03-27-401-261/262/264/265/266/040 100 acres (approximately) B3 Community Shopping - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Regional Mall Conditional Use (Amend Planned Unit Development approval) LOCATION MAP ~nclid Av~n~ ~ Randhurst Mall Shopping Center Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JULY 17, 2003 HEARING DATE: JULY 24, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ-24-03 - CONDITIONAL USE (AMEND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) 999 N. ELMHURST ROAD (RANDHURST - COSTCO STORE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the July 24, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Rouse-Randhurst, LLC (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 999 N. Elmhurst Road (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested an amendment to the Planned Unit Development for the Randhurst Mall, which requires Conditional Use approval. The amendment includes constructing a Costco Wholesale store in a different location than previously approved, demolition of a Portion of the existing Ward's building to .construct additional retail space, enhancing an existing mall entrance, and relief from Village Codes for the proposed parking lot lighting, sign regulations, and bulk regulations. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the July 9, 2003 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located at the northeast corner of Rand and Elmhurst Roads, between Kensington Road and Euclid Avenue, and contains a regional shopping mall with multiple 0utlots. The Subject prOperty is zoned B3 Community Shopping PUD and is bordered to the north by single-family residential (Prospect Heights), to the east by the RX Single Family District, to the west by the RX & R1 Single-Family Districts and the B4 Corridor Commemial District, and to the south by the B3 & B4 Commercial Districts and the RX Single Family District. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL Approval Process The Subject Property is a Planned Unit Development (PUD) in the B-3 Community 'Sh0pping District. The Village Board previously approved a Costco development proposal in April 2002; however, the Petitioner's revised proposal (including a new building location and modified elevations) requires amending the previous PUD approval. The PUD amendment process requires a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission followed by final review and action by the Board of Trustees. Costco - Warehouse Store As you may recall, the warehouse store is a membership facility. The Petitioner proposes to locate the store adjacent to the main mall building (along the southeast corner of the existing mall building), in the approximate location of the existing JC Penny and Kohl's buildings. The proposed Costco facility will contain only one customer entrance, which will be located at the southwest corner of the store. The store's receiving docks will be located along the north elevation of the building, near the mall's existing customer and underground parking/delivery entrances. In addition to the warehouse store operation, the Petitioner proposes tO sell and install tires. The tire installation operation will be located along the southwest elevation of the building (near the store's PZ-24-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 24, 2003 Page 3 main entrance), with all tire installations completed inside the tire center. The Petitioner is also seeking relief from zoning regulations to allow taller light standards and brighter lights, as well as outdoor storage to promote the store's auto sales program. Costco - Fuel Center The Village Board approved the fuel center (gas station) as part of the previous Costco development proposal. The Petitioner's current proposal does not significantly differ from the previously approved design; however, the self-serve fuel center will have a Costco employee on-site to assist members with operating the fuel pumps. The Costco employee will not pump gas for the members or provide any type of maintenance assistance, but will assist members with the required key card operation needed to access the pumps. It should be noted that the proposed fuel center would be open to Costco members only and not the general public. Costco - Site, Structure and Elevations The one-story warehouse building will generally be located where the existing JC Penny and Kohl's buildings currently sit. The loading dock area would be located along the north elevation of the building and the tire center would be located along the southwest elevation (near the store's customer entrance). As noted previously, the proposed store will have a single customer entrance that will be located at the southwest corner of the proposed building (almost parallel to the Kensington Road frontage). The Costco building would be constructed from a combination of building materials including precast concrete panels, brick and EIFS. As you may be aware, EIFS is permitted by the Village's Building Code as long as the amount being used does not exceed 20% and it is installed no less than eight-feet above grade. The building's exterior will include a combination of beige and red colors (as indicated on the Petitioner's color rendering). The attached elevations show that the Petitioner proposes the Costco store to have a flat roof of varying heights. Sections of the proposed building slightly exceed the maximum height permitted in the B3 District, which is feet. The fuel center would be located on the former Wards Auto Center site, between the existing LaSalle Bank and Home Depot facilities. It would have three pumps and be open to Costco members only. An attendant, a Costco employee, would be on-site to assist with the key card operation that is needed to access the pump. The site plan shows several new pedestrian links, including a sidewalk from the Costco building to the fuel center. In addition, a sidewalk would extend along the eastern edge of the fuel center site, connecting the mall's ring road and Kensington Road. Also, the area in front of the Costco entrance is designated as a pedestrian zone. The Petitioner is seeking approval of outdoor storage to allow the display of motor vehicles. This vehicle display is designed to help promote the store's vehicle purchase program. The location of the proposed outdoor storage would be close to the Costco building entrance, on a brick paver/display area of the sidewalk. The Village's Zoning Ordinance permits seasonal outdoor storage (such as Christmas trees), but the petitioner's request to display vehicles year-round does not comply with current zoning regulations. The Petitioner submitted a photometric plan that indicates lighting levels for the Costco area. The plan indicates that the maximum lighting level exceed the 2.4 foot candles limitation and the proposed light standards exceed the 30-foot height limitation. In addition, the Petitioner proposes to use a drop lens as opposed to a recessed lens. Costco - Traffic Impact The Petitioner's proposal includes a redesign of the existing parking lot around the Costco store and includes oversized parking spaces to accommodate Costco shoppers. Traffic circulation around the Costco store is improved by eliminating several access points and creating new landscape islands. PZ-24-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 24, 2003 Page 4 The Petitioner proposes to provide 770 oversized parking stalls and 18 handicap stalls, resulting in a ratio for the Costco store of approximately 5.24 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet. The ratio and number of handicapped stalls exceeds the minimum code requirements. The Zoning Ordinance was recently changed to allow for sharing the handicap access aisles, which is not indicated on the Petitioner's site plan. Therefore, the Petitioner has the opportunity to revise the site plan to incorporate the shared access aisles and create additional parking if necessary. Costco - Signage The Petitioner proposes to install wall signs on each elevation of the building as well as on the north and south elevations of the fuel station: The proposed building signage exceeds the maximum number and size of wall signs permifted by the Sign Code. Similar to their original request, the Petitioner would like to install multiple wall signs and is seeking a variation to construct three wall signs that are larger than the 150 square feet permitted by the Sign Code. The signs would be located on the north, south and west building elevations and each sign would be approximately 385 square feet (which is similar to the size of the previously approved wall signs). In the past, the Village's Sign Review Board and Zoning Board of Appeals reviewed requests for code relief from the Sign Code and granted Variations for larger wall signs when businesses were located a significant distance from the right-of-way and had large front elevations (signable areas). The following table shows variations for wall signs that were approved since 1993. Size of Sign Business (Square Feet) Signable Area Home Depot 290 2,050 sq. ft. Bally's 268 480 sq. ft. Jewel 392 960 sq. ft. Menards 300 1,044 sq. ft. K-Mart 366 2,200 sq. ft. Sportmart 283.5 504 OfficeMax 294 2,286 sq. ft. Hobby Lobby 250 1,657.5 sq. ft. Brunswick 323 1,496.5 sq. ft. Fiesta Market 209.4 459 sq. ft. Skil Bosch 196 1,541.6 sq. ft. In addition to the oversized wall sign on the south elevation, the Petitioner proposes to install a second wall sign that measures 125 square feet over the Costco store entrance. The Petitioner is also seeking approval of a second wall sign on its north elevation to indicate the location of its receMng area. The proposed "Receiving" sign measures less than 25 square feet. The Petitioner's plans call for locating the proposed tire center on the south elevation. The Petitioner's plans indicate that two signs are needed for the tire center: one sign for the sales area and one sign for the installation area. Therefore, there would be a total of four signs on this elevation, but only one access point to the store and one access point to the tire center. The Sign Code permits one wall sign per elevation and an additional wall sign for a distinct use, but only over its entrance. In this case, the Petitioner proposes a sign to indicate the tire center PZ-24-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 24, 2003 Page 5 sales area, but that area cannot be accessed from the parking lot. Therefore, the request conflicts with the Sign Code regulations. Landscape Plan The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that the loading dock will be screened from view from the neighboring residential development using a combination of shrubs and shade trees. In addition, new landscape islands will be created to improve traffic circulation, beautify the Costco site, and break-up the 'sea of parking' commonly found at shopping malls. The landscape plan shows how one section of the south mall elevation, between Costco and the proposed new mall entrance, will be improved with the use of planting beds. The Petitioner proposes to use a variety of plantings throughout the Costco site and will provide foundation plantings in addition to the perimeter/parking lot landscaping. Although Staff would like to see another mall entrance in closer proximity to the Costco entrance than what is indicated on the Petitioner's plans, the proposed landscaping along the south elevation is intended to provide a transition/link between the malt and the new warehouse store. Although the Petitioner has attempted to create a "park" like facility in this area, Staff still believes that additional landscaping and screening would help to soften this portion of the mall's exterior. Mall - New Entrance/Access The Petitioner's plans indicate that a significant portion of the southern part of the existing mall (former Ward's site) will be demolished and that the existing mall entrance (between Applebee's and the Ward's building) will be enhanced by constructing a new entrance feature. In addition to the new mall entrance feature, a portion of the existing Ward's building will be maintained and a new exterior faCade will be constructed to compliment the proposed mall entrance feature. These proposed improvements are intended to update the exterior of the mall while also providing a primary focal customer entrance. Sections of the new mall facade will exceed the 30-foot maximum height permitted in the B3 District. Also, the proposed change to the southwest elevation includes new storefronts that have direct access from the parking lot. Currently, the mall may be accessed from the parking lot via mall entrances and major anchor stores. Mall - South Elevation The Petitioner's elevations indicate that a portion of the southern elevation (approximately 207 feet in length) will have a new faq:ade, including new storefronts. The attached exhibits indicate the conceptual elevation design, but the location of windows and doors may be modified once specific tenants are finalized. The remaining 222' linear stretch of the southern elevation will not be improved like the other section of the mall. Although the elevations indicate that a new storefront will be created within the area between the new mall entrance feature/fagade improvements and the proposed Costco facility, this area will not contain any customer entrances to either the stores or the mall. The Petitioner's landscape plan calls for landscaping/planting areas along this section of the mall building. Mall - Signage Request As part of the PUD amendment, the Petitioner proposes Exterior Signage Criteria for the Randhurst Shopping Mall. These proposed criteria include the following (please refer to the attached exhibit for the specific amendments to the Village's Sign Code): Any proposed exterior sign that is consistent with the Village's signage regulations would not require an amendment to the mall's PUD approval. · Distinct types of signage like banners and painted surfaces that may not be permitted by the Sign Code, but are characteristic ora particular type of tenant, would be allowed. · The Exterior Signage Criteria will create provisions for internal directory and directional signage that is not permitted by the Sign Code, but would be helpful to mall shoppers. PZ-24-03 Ptamfing & Zoning Commission meeting July 24, 2003 Page 6 · The criteria would not apply to any outlot developments or mall tenants exceeding 30,000 square feet. The creation of signage criteria specifically for Randhurst will allow the mall owners and Village Staff to approve certain types of signage without having to go through the Conditional Use process to amend the .PUD approval for a sign. Comprehensive Plan Designation The Village's Comprehensive Plan designates the Randhurst Shopping Center for community commercial uses. The proposed warehouse, tire center, and fuel center are appropriate uses within this designation. Review by Other Village Departments The Fire Department reviewed the proposal and found that an egress evaluation of the entire mall is necessary to determine the impact of the proposed changes to the mall. Also, the Petitioner is required to provide documentation that the existing fire main can produce sufficient fire flows and is in adequate condition to accommodate changes to the mail. Furthermore, all construction is required to meet applicable Building and Fire Code requirements. Public Works reviewed the project and foUnd that the location of the new building shown on the curreut plan is in conflict with the fire loop, but in a location different from that shown on the plans submitted last year. The Petitioner's current plans show a different, smaller length of the existing fire loop to be relocated. The new configuration leaves a portion of the existing fire loop to remain between the new tap from Elmhurst Road and the portion of the fire loop that is to be relocated. The Public Works Department has concerns with the condition of the water main in this location and will require that the petitioner demonstrate that it meets Village standards or replace the main. REQUIRED FINDINGS Conditional Use Standards The standards for conditional uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a conditional use. These standards relate to: · The conditional use will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The conditional use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the conditional use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The proposed conditional use would be logated ~i~hip t~h~ Ran4hurs[ Shopping Center, which is an existing PUD in the B-3 Community Shopping District. The Petitioner proposes to demolish sections of the mall in order to build a one-story warehouse operation, create a new mall entrance and adjacent storefronts that have direct access to/from the parking lot, and create Sign Criteria specific to the mall. The proposed elevations, varying building materials, and requested changes to the Village's Sign regulations are consistent with other new commercial developments and trends in the Village. In addition, the new mall entrance, warehouse store and fuel operations would have minimal impact on the neighboring residential properties. The proposed conditional use would be in compliance will the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. PZ-24-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 24, 2003 Page 7 · Variation Standards -Wall Signs Required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate to: The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; · The hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the Petitioner, and is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; · The variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; · The variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. The basis for granting variations for larger wall signs in the past has been that the signs were being placed on expansive front elevations set back behind a large parking lot. In this case, the justification for the size of the proposed wall signs is consistent with the findings for the previous cases. In addition, there are out-lots that limit the store's visibility. The proposed variation for oversized wall signs is in keeping with the Standards for Sign Variations listed in Section 7.725.A. l-7. However, the number of signs proposed for the tire center does not meet the intent of the Sign Code because the sales areas cannot be accessed from the exterior and the Petitioner has an opportunity to identify the tire center in one location, i.e. over the access point to the tire installation area. Wall signage for the tire center should be modified so the sales and installation information is incorporated into one wall sign. Variation Standards - outdoor storage & parking lot lighting Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203C.9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate to: · a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · intent of variation is not to increase financial gain; and · protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The outdoor storage area (auto display) is located in a pedestrian area. While the display may be attractive, the location is not conducive to this location and the request fails to meet the standards for a variation because there is no hardship. As an alternative, the display could be relocated to the inside of the store (store entrance area) or in an area of the parking lot, i.e. a designated parking space. The Petitioner's request to permit taller light standards and brighter lights meets the standards for a variation because the light standards would be located in a regional mall, which is a unique condition, and the area required to be lit to ensure shopper's safety is larger than most parking lots in Mount Prospect. Using a recessed lens instead of the proposed drop lenses would limit the brighter lights' impact on the adjacent residential. The proposed lights would not adversely impact the public welfare and could be designed so the lights would be angled away from the residential development east of the Subject Property so as to have a minimal impact on the neighborhood character. RECOMMENDATION Z-24-03 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting July 24, 2003 Page 8 Based on the above analysis, the proposed Costco Wholesale store, tire center, fuel center, enhanced mall entrance and relief from zoning regulations comply with the Conditional Use and Variation standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed wall sign size variations are in keeping with the Standards for Sign Variations. However, the proposed outdoor storage and number of tire center wall signs does not meet the standards for a variation and there are viable alternatives that would be in keeping with the Village's code requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission: 1) Approve the three, 385 square foot wall signs; the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this request; 2) Deny two wall signs for the tire center; the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision is final for this request; 3) Recommend that the Village Board deny the outdoor storage request; Village Board's decision is final; 4) Recommend that the Village Board approve the requested Conditional Use amendment at 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ-24-03, subject to the following conditions: A. Development of the site in conformance with the site plans prepared by Mulvanny Architects, revised July 8, 2003; B. Development of the site in conformance with the landscape plan prepared by Mulvanny Architects, revised July 11, 2003; C. Development of the site in conformance with the elevations prepared by Mulvanny Architects, revised June 4, 2003 and the elevations prepared by Fugman Dakich & Associates revised July 10, 2003; D. Development of the site in conformance with the photometric plan prepared by T.E. Inc, dated June 10, 2003, but revised to indicate the site will use recessed lenses instead of dropped lenses; E. Prior to Village Board approval, all outstanding water main issues shall be resolved to the satisfaction of Staff; F. Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · Engineering site plans that address the existing deficiencies in the backflow prevention system for the entire Randhurst site to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; Inspection and approval by the Village of the disconnection of the existing water and sewer services prior to starting demolition; G. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · Egress evaluation of the entire mall; · Documentation that the existing fire-main can produce sufficient fire flows for the new facility or installing an additional water main to Elmhurst Road; · Replace and/or repair of the existing fire main as determined necessary by Village Departments if the new building encroaches upon the existing fire main; · Relocate existing fire hydrants, Fire Department connections, and post indicator valves as needed for Fire Department access. H. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. I. In lieu of providing a mall entrance adjacent to the Costco entrance, the petitioner will enhance the proposed landscaping and elevations along the Mall's south wall. The petitioner must submit detailed plans of this area for staff review prior to final approval of the project. William J. Cooney,/A}Cm, Direct'or o} Community Development VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT CO.MMU:~xflTY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Platming Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Case Number P&Z Development Name/Address ~ i Date et'Submission Hearing Date .... Addre"ss(es) (Street Namber, S~'eet) 999 Elmhurst Road Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site)** Ap?gx. lO0 Acres B-3 PUD Schedule C Setbacks: * Front - 83 P. ea~- E. Prop. line Side- Kensington Side- Euclid 0 363 334 594 1286 I.- Building Height ** Lot Coverage (%) * * Number of Parking SPaces ~ 36' (64; dome) 22% Schedule C O Adjacent Land Uses: ,,. . z: North South East West ~ Cona~ercial/Resid. Commercial/Resid. Commercial/Resid. Corr~ercial .~ Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) ~i~ 03-27-401-261, 03-27-401-262, 03-27-401-264, 03-27-401-265,,,, 03-27-401-266,, 03-27-401-040 ~" Legal Description (attach additiowil sheets if neceSsary) See Schedule A attached heretO · Based on Demolished/to be developed parcel · '*Based on entire shopping center Nme Telephone (day) Mark A. Gershon, as attorney for (312) 368-2127 Corporation Telephone (evening) Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC (312) 3§8-2127 Street Address Fax ~ ?riper Rudnick morth La.~alle $treqt (312) ~30-53~8 City State Zip Code Pager Chicago IL 60601 Interest in Property . Ground Lessee/Owner of Shopping Center Name Telephone (day) : See Schedule ~ attached hereto S~eet Ad~e~ Ci~ State Zip ~de Pager DeC,loper N~ Tel~hone (~y) Ad~s A~oruey N~ Tel~hone (~y) Ad~e~ Su~eyor N~ Tel~ne (~y) Ad.ess F~ Ad~e~ ~t N~ T~I~ (~7): Ad~* Nm Tel~hone Ad~ Mount Prospect Depattmem ofCtaaa~,mky Developm~t 100 South En~rson Street, Mount Prospect Nlinois www.mountprospeet, org Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.8 ! 8.5329 "FDD 847.392.6064 Proposed Conditional Usc (as listed in the zoning district) Amendment to, Randhur~t B~3 Planned Unit,Oevelopment Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Pr0P°g~d and HOW the Proposed Use Nleets the Auached Standards t'or Conditional Use Approval (attach additional she,:ts ii' necessary) See Schedule B Attached her. eto -,-'-7--.. Hours of Operation See Auplidation Binder "Address(es) (Streei Number, Street) 999 Etmhurst Road ~ ~ Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning To~i' Building Sq. Ft. (Ske) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed U: ~ Approx. 100 Acres B-3 pUD ....... Schedule C Schedule C hO :: Setbacks: * - See Plan,~ for fuelinq center setbacks C ~ Front - B3 Rear - E. Prop. lin.~ Side - Kehsington Side - Euclid ~ 528 664 315 1351 "--" "Building Height ** Lot Coverage (%) ** Number of Parking Spaces 42' (64' dome) 20~ Schedule C Please note that the application w/Il not be reviewed until tiffs petition has been hlly completed and all required plans and other materia have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be aq:cepted. It is strongly suggested that petitioner schedule an appo kntment with the appropriate Village staffso that rnatefials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at time of submittal. In com/derafion of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be giv, to this request. The applicant is Cae owner or authorized representative of the ow'ncr of the property. The petitioner and the owner oft/ property grant employees of the Village of'Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter c.'n the property during reasonable hours f visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in al! materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. A PI'LICANT: Rand Office R~4l~y I IoMing Comp=nv. {tic.. as to Lnt 3 ;/. ::,::., Uy:,,, . '''~: "~' c-.. (' ~: :~ _. .-"' Phone 847.3 t 8.53 '/ Fax 847.81S.53 TDD $47.392.6C SCHEDULE B TO APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AMENDMENT TO RANDHURST B.3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (NEW MAIN ENTRY, RETAIL AND COSTCO) SUMMARY OF ACTIONS REQUESTED Summary The Applicant, Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC, hereby requests amended Conditional Use Approval for a PUD Amendment to the Randhurst B-3 Planned Unit Development as identified in this Application for Conditional Use Approval and the plans, documentation and other information submitted as part of this application (collectively the "PUD Amendment"). The proposed PUD Amendment would allow for development of (a) a new entrance and mall sign; (b) exterior-oriented retail stores; and (c) an approximately 153,000 square foot membership warehouse club, including accessory tire sales and installation center and accessory gasoline fueling facility, all as described in greater detail in the plans and documents submitted to the Village pursuant to this PUD Amendment application. The Costco store was previously approved by Village Ordinance No. 5238 and is proposed to be amended to reflect modifications based on the opportunity to reconfigure the store location due to current site status. While the Applicant generally seeks all approvals necessary to modify the existing B-3 Planned Unit Development in accordance with the plans and documentation submitted pursuant to this PUD Amendment application, we also identify for your reference, specific requests, as part of the PUD Amendment, to construct, operate, use and maintain: (i) signage for the new exterior- oriented stores so long as in compliance with the proposed signage criteria; (ii) a warehouse store in excess of 32 feet in height; (iii) outside display for sale of motor vehicles; (iv) signage for the warehouse store as identified on the submitted plans and documentation; (v) light poles in excess of 30 feet and lighting at the levels identified on the enclosed photometric plans; and (vi) such other amendments, variations and waivers as are necessary in order to allow redevelopment of the site in the manner identified on the PUD Amendment. Standards for Conditional Use Approval Response of the Applicant, Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC to the Village of Mount Prospect's standards for a conditional use for an amendment to the B-3 District Planned Unit Development for Randhurst Shopping Center are provided below and are intended to be supplemented by plans, other submissions and testimony presented to the Village. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare. Randhurst has bee~ a critical part oft/tis communio'for approximately 39 )'ears as the largest generator of combined sales aJzd real estate tax B-1 -CHGO2:2012194:-.~ I revenue within the Village. Randhurst has during that period also enhanced the development and commercial viability of other Village revenue-generating enterprises located near Randhurst. These revenues are a critical part of ensuring the ability of municipal and other governmental services to protect the public health, safel)', morals, comfort and general welfare. The proposed improvements will significantly improve the economic viability of Randhurst and its inherent benefits to the community by attracting sound and stable commercial growth within Randhurst and surrounding properties. The proposed improvements meet or exceed standards set by existing improvements at the retail center. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially dimi'nish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located. By improving and upgrading the existing retail operations at Randhurst Shopping Center, the PUD Amendment will benefit the use and enjoyment of other properties in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted. As a conth~uation of retail use at the shopping center, it is not anticipated that the PUD Amendment will diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is located. Further, given the direct connection between Randhurst Shopping Center and the neighborhood in which it is located, we anticipate that the improvements will enhance the value of this area-b-y helping to secure the economic viability and stability of Randhurst, while at the same time improving revenues to the Village, schools and other entities which serve the area in which Randhurst is located. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Dur#~g its approximately 39 year history, the area surrounding Randhurst has seen significant development and improvement. As a continuation of retail uses at Randhurst, the PUD Amendment should have no adverse impact on the normal and ordered development and impro:,..ement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. Furt/~er, the PUD Amendment, by enhancing Randhurst, has the opportunity to also help to secure and enhance existing development surrounding Randhurst. That adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. The PUD Ame~dme~t will utiliz, e existit~g b~frastrt~cture and facilities at Randhurst, as well as include additional improvements, all as identified on the preliminary e~gineering plans submitted as part of the PUD Amendment. B-2 ~CHGO2:20121944xi That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets. The PUD Amendment will utilize exist#zg, previously approved #zgress and egress for Randhurst as well as ,incorPorating additional improvements as identified in the PUD Amendment. That the proposed conditional use is not contrary to the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The Comprehensive Plan for the Village specifically encourages the improvement of the condition of older existing commercial buiMings and areas. It specifically recommends that Randhurst should be "continually upgraded in physical condition, appearance and tenant mix to maintain their competitive positions in the region and community and to ensure their continued economic contribution to the Village." The PUD Amendment meets these objectives by upgrading the physical condition of a portion of Randhurst, improving the appearance of buildings, parking and landscaping, improving tenant mix based on market demand to make Randhurst more competitive and thereby helps to ensure Randhurst continued economic contribution to the Village, schools and other taxing districts. The PUD Amendment directly contributes to meeting objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. That the conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the Zoning Board of Appeals. The PUD A~nendment conforms to the applicable conditions of the B-3 Zoning District with mod¢'cations as identified on the PUD A;nendment. B-3 -CHGO2:20I 21944.~ 1 SCHEDULE C TO APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AMENDMENT TO RANDHURST B-3 PL~D U~T DE~'LOPMENT (NEW ~ ENTRY, ~TAIL ~ COSTCO) GROSS LEASABLE AREA AND pARKING Existing Areas Proposed Areas Small Store GLA 307,330' 308,942 Carson Pirie Scott 241,113 241,113 J.C. Penney 197,933 0 Kohls 71,896 0 Wards 212,051 0 Circuit City 36,420 36,420 Borders 25,000 25,000 Bank One 65,202 65,202 General Cinema 56,450 56,450 Steak 'n Shake 3,748 3,748 Jewel Osco 65,230 65,230 Home Depot 122,750 122,750 Wards TBA I 1,307 0 LaSalle Bank 5,904 5,904 Egg Factory 6,922 6,922 Costco 0 148,735 Total 1,429,256 1,086,416 Parking 6,245 6,003 All area is estimated based on gross leasable square footage. C-1 -CHGO2:20122002.vl SCHEDULE D TO APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AMENDMENT TO RANDHURST B-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (MAIN ENTRY RETAIL AND COSTCO) BACKGROUND INFORMATION OWNERSHIP & DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS RANDHURST DEVELOPMENT TEAM Development Manager Michael S. Levin President - Development Group Urban Retail Properties Co. 900 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 P: (312) 915-3352 F: (312) 915-3377 E: levinm~urbanrctail.com Project Manager John Parapetti Vice president Development Group Urban Retail Properties Co. 900 North Michigan Avenue Chicago, IL 60611 P: (312) 915-3366 F: (312) 915-3377 E: parapetj ~urb anrctail.com Local Counsel Mark Gershon Piper Rudnick 203 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60601 P: 312-368-2127 F: 312-630-5338 E: mark.gershon~pipermdnick.com Architect Robert Fugman-- Fugman Dakich & Associates 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 352 Chicago, IL 60604 P: 312-939-2233 F: 312-939-2199 E: fugdak~aol.com , Civil Engineer/Surveyor Thomas McCabe Seton Engineering 100 N. Brockway St. Palatine, IL 60067 P: 847-776-7200 F: 847-776-7239 E:TmcCabe~setoncivil · Landscape Architect Ben Kutscheid, ASLA SmithGroup JJR 30 West Monroe Suite 1010 Chicago, IL 60603 P: (312) 641-6757 F: (312) 641-6728 --CHGO 1:3009583 l.v2 Randhurst Mall Manager Margaret Lannen Manager Randhurst Shopping Center 999 Elmhurst Road ~ Suite 120 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 P: (847) 259-0500 x7010 F: (847) 259-0228 E: lannenm~urbanretail.com .COSTCO DEVELOPMENT TEAM Development Manager Peter Kahn Costco Wholesale 999 Lake Drive Issaquah, WA 98027 P: 425.313.6052 F: 425.313.8105 E: pkahn@costco.com Landscape Architect Ben Kutscheid, ASLA SmithGroup J JR 30 West Monroe, Suite 1010 Chicago, IL 60603 P: (312) 641-6757 F: (312) 641-6728 E: ben.kutscheid @ smith~roup.com Civil Engineer/Surveyor Mike DenBleyker V-3 Consultants 7325 Janes Avenue, Suite 100 Woodridge, IL 60517 P: 630.724.9200 F: 630.724.9202 E: mdenblevker@ v3consultants.com Planner/Development Manager Ted Johnson TJ Design Strategies, Ltd. 2311 W. 22nd Street, Suite 208 Oak Brook, IL 60523 P: 630.368.0840 F: 630.368.0845 E: tiohnson @tidesio, nltd.com · Traffic Mark De La Vergne Metro Transportation Group 1300 Greenbrook Boulevard, 3rd Floor Hanover Park, IL 60103-5482 P: 630.213.1000 F: 630.213.3227 E: mv @ met,'otransportation.com Architect Tim Fleisher Jerry Quinn Lee Architects 1110 112th Avenue NE, Suite 500 Bellevue, WA 98004 P: 425.463.1514 F: 425.463.2002 E: timf@mulvannv~2.com 2 D-2 ~CHGO_._01___17. I APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AMENDMENT TO RANDHURST B-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (NEW MAIN ENTRY, RETAIL AND COSTCO) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST For approximately 40 years, Randhurst Shopping Center has held a key position providing retail, service and economic opportunities to the community. The Mall is the largest generator of combined sales and real estate tax revenue within the Village of Mount Prospect, providing significant benefits to the Village, schools and numerous other taxing districts serving the community. In addition, the commercial traffic generated by Randhurst also enhances the development and commercial viability of other revenue generating enterprises serving and supporting the community. Randhurst is pleased to present the proposed new main entry, exterior-oriented retail stores and Costco as the next phase in our effort to enhance the economic development of Randhurst and its benefits to the community. The Applicant, Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, hereby requests amended Conditional Use Approval for a PUD Amendment to the Randhurst B-3 Planned Unit Development as identified in this Application for Conditional Use Approval and the plans, documentation and other information submitted as part of this application (collectively the "PUD Amendment"). The proposed PUD Amendment would allow for development of (a) a new entrance and mall sign; (b) exterior-oriented retail stores; and (c) an approximately 153,000 square foot membership warehouse club, including accessory tire sales and installation center and accessory gasoline fueling facility, all as described in greater detail in the plans and documents submitted to the Village pursuant to this PUD Amendment application. The Costco store was previously approved by Village Ordinance No. 5238 and is proposed to be amended to reflect modifications based on the opportunity to reconfigure the store location due to current site status. While the Applicant generally seeks all approvals necessary to modify the existing B-3 Planned Unit Development in accordance with the plans and documentation submitted pursuant to this PUD Amendment application, we also identify for your reference, specific requests, as part of the PUD Amendment, to construct, operate, use and maintain: (i) signage for the new exterior-oriented stores so long as in compliance with the proposed signage criteria; (ii) a warehouse store in excess of 32 feet in height; (iii) outside display for sale of motor vehicles; (iv) signage for the warehouse store as identified on the submitted plans and documentation; (v) light poles in excess of 30 feet and lighting at the levels identified on the enclosed photometric plans; and (vi) such other amendments, variations and waivers as are necessary in order to allow redevelopment of the site in the manner identified on the PUD Amendment. ~CHOO2:20I 21 (~09.~ I We appreciate the Village's review and consideration of the proposed conditional use for a PUD Amendment to the Randhurst B-3 Planned Uni[ Development. As always, we are available to respond to any questions or comments you may have with respect to' this application. II. RANDHURST ENTRANCE/RETAIL IMPROVEMENTS With the arrival of the new Costco facility, Randhurst Mall will further enhance the property by converting the former Wards department store building into new exterior- oriented retail stores and creating an adjacent, highly visible entry to the interior mall. Opposite the primary Elmhurst Road vehicular entrance t9. ~_e shopping center, the strategic location of this new retail and mall entry will add easier access, visual interest and an enhanced shopping experience for the arriving customer. Portions of the former Wards building will be removed and converted into additional parking with the remainder converted to a multi-tenant two-stow building. Some of these new stores will be facing the enhanced parking field and the new Costco facility. In each case, the exterior storefronts and entrances will be individualized to match the personality of the individuaF~rore and their respective signage controlled through the use of the proposed Exterior Signage Criteria ( attached as part of this application binder). The new glass entry tower will become the main entry to the interior portions of the mall. In contrast to the existing understated entrances, this entry when combined with new landscaping, lighting and amenitieS will present a strong visual statement both during the day and night. B. URBAN Based in Chicago, Illinois, Urban Retail Properties was formed more :hah 30 years ago and is one of the nation's leading retail third party manager. Urban Retail's portfolio of managed properties includes more than 40 million square feet of regional malls, community centers, office buildings, and government real estate. As a vertically integrated company, Urban Retail serves a wide range of clients and is recognized as an industry leader in all aspects of property management. At Randhurst Shopping Center, Urban provides management, marketing, leasing, and development services. -CHGO2:20121609~ 1 III. COSTCO A. COMPANY PROFILE Costco Wholesale Corporation (Costco) headquartered in Issaquah, Washington has been in business for more than two decades, with a current base of nearly 20 million loyal members. As of December, 2002 Costco operated a chain of 391 cash and carry merchandising outlets in 36 states and 9 Canadian provinces. The Company also has established markets in Mexico, the United Kingdom and Pacific Rim. Costco's business concept is premised on achieving rapid inventory turnover and high sales volume by offering a limited assortment of nationally-branded, first-quality products in a wide variety of categories, at very competitive prices. A significant portion of Costco's customer base is small and medium size businesses which purchase for commercial use and also individuals who are members of qualifying groups. The product line consist of typical department store merchandise, such as wearing apparel, dry goods, appliances, furniture, hardware and auto accessories; as well as a broad range of grocery store items, including fresh baked goods, meats, and produce. Costco also offers tire installation, pharmacy, film processing and optometry services. A typical Costco store employs approximately 175-200 full-time and part-time people. B. PROJECT PROFILE Costco is seeking a PUD amendment to permit the construction of a 148,663 square foot warehouse retail building that includes a 5,200 square foot accessory tire center. Th~ freestanding fueling facility depicted on the plans has already been approved by the Village as part of the last amendment. The proposed development will be located in the southeast portion of Randhurst Mall where the vacant JC Penney building and currently occupied Kohl's building exist. Assuming a building pad is delivered to Costco by April 1,2004, it is anticipated that the facility will be open for business in August, 2004.- Store hours are 10:00 a.m. - 8:30 p.m. Weekdays, Saturdays 9:30 am. - 6:00 p.m. and Sunday 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. Receiving hours for the warehouse are 5:30 a.m. - 12:00 noon Monday thru Saturday. Fueling facility hours are 6:00~a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Weekdays and 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Weekends. -CHGO2:2()[ 2160g~ [ I:~NDHLIRST / COSTCO DEVELOPMENT PLAN EXISTING SITE PLAN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS COSTCO Store Randhurst Mall Mount Prospect, Illinois Prepared for: COSTCO Wholesale Updated June 11, 2003 Prepared by METRO TRANSPORTATION -~ROUP, INC. 1300 Greenbrook Boulevard Hanover Park, Illinois Phone (630) 213-1000 Fax: (630) 213-3227 Traffic Impact Analysis COSTCO Randhurst Mall Mount Prospect, Illinois EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Metro Transportation Group, Inc. (Metro) was retained by the COSTCO Wholesale Company to evaluate the traffic impacts of the proposed construction of a new COSTCO Wholesale Store within Randhurst Mall in Mount Prospect, Illinois. The proposed Costco building will be located upon the site of existing retail, which includes the former Penney's, Kohls, and small shop retail uses. The existing Montgomery Wards store will also be removed and a portion has been replaced by small shop retail uses. The location of the COSTCO store can be further described as being .in the southwest quadrant of the mall, and close to the Elmhurst Road (IL 83) and Kensington (Foundry) Road intersection. The purpose of this evaluation was to determine the impact on traffic flow and roadway operations as a result of the proposed project and identify any roadway improvements necessary to support future project-related traffic volumes. A brief summary of the study findings is provided below. Proiect Description The proposed project at full development includes the construction of a new COSTCO Wholesale store, totaling 148,663 square feet (including a 5,200 square feet accompanying gas sales area), and 30,338 square feet of additional retail space at the former Wards. The COSTCO gas sales area is located in the northeast corner of the · . Kensington (Foundry) Road primary entrance to the mall, and is separated from the COSTCO store by the mall ring road and surrounding parking stalls. The proposed Costco store and additional retail, will replace the existing ?enney's store, which totaled approximately 197,933 square feet, the 71,896 square foot Kohl's store, the Ward's store which was 212,051 square feet in size, the Wards Tire and Battery store which was 11,307 square feet, and 28,726 square feet of additional retail. This results in a net loss of approximately 342,912 square feet within Randhurst mall. The existing mall stores, such as Carson Pirie Scott and Circuit City, will remain in place. The proposed number of parking spaces for the COSTCO store is 788 spaces (including 18 handicapped stalls), corresponding to a parking rate of 5.24. While the gross leasable area has been reduced by 342,912 square feet, the overall parking for the mall has only been reduced by 242 parking spaces. Metro Transportation Group, Inc. page 2 Traffic Impact Analysis COSTCO Randhurst Mall Mount Prospect, Illinois Adiacent Roadways Kensington (Foundry) Road is under the jurisdiction of the Village of Mount Prospect, while EImhurst Road (IL 83) is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Kensington Road is a 4-lane collector roadway with a posted speed limit of 35 mph and no exclusive turn lanes in the vicinity of Randhurst Mall. Elmhurst Road is a 4- lane arterial roadway, with a posted speed limit of 40 mph, and has exclusive left and right turn lanes into the site. Two main full access signalized driveways will provide direct access to the site; one from Elmhurst Road; one from Kensington Road. Additional access locations are located at the signalized driveway at Euclid and unsignalized driveways on Kensington Road and Euclid. Existinq Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes were collected along along Kensi.ngton (Foundry) Road and Etmhurst Road adjacent to the site during January 2002, with the daily traffic volumes along the roadways being approximately 7,000 and 17,200 vehicles per day, respectively. The results of manual turning movement traffic counts conducted at adjacent intersections indicate that the heaviest traveled hour occurs on a weekday evening from 4:30 P.M. to 5:30 P.M. Site-Generated Traffic Volumes The estimates of traffic to be generated by the site are based upon the proposed land use type and size. To obtain estimates for the volumes of traffic generated by the COSTCO store, Metro referenced the ITE report titled Trip Generation, 6~h Edition. The ITE report is a compilation of national traffic data surveys utilized to estimate traffic volumes for various land use types. Table 1 lists the value of trips estimated to be generated by the developm=,nt for an entire weekday and during a typical weekday evening peak traffic period. The Costco fuel center does not serve as a typical gas station. Its use is restricted to COSTCO members and it only supports gas sales via a debit card system. Unlike a typical gas station operation, there is no associated building for the sale of convenience- type items. Experience from other COSTCO sites indicates that approximately 75% of the gas sales are made in conjunction with a linked shopping trip into the COSTCO store. Therefore, for trip generation purposes the typical ITE rate was reduced by 75%. Metro Transportation Group, Inc. Page 3 Traffic Impact Analysis COSTCO Randhurst Mall Mount Prospect, Illinois Table 1 Trip Generation - COSTCO Wholesale Store and Additional Retail Weekday PM Peak Hour Land Use Daily Trips IN OUT TOTAL COSTCO Store (148,663 sf) 6,215 275 290 565 Fuel Center 675 30 30 60 I (16 fuel stations) .... Retail (30,338 sf) 1,300 55 60 115 SITE TOTAL 8,190 360 380 740 Table 2 summarizes the trip generation.for the previous land use conditions containing the Ward's, Kohl's, Penney's, and additional retail stores within the mall. As shown in Table 2, the current proposal for COSTCO is expected to generate approximately 14,350 fewer daily trips and 1,240 fewer P.M. peak hour trips than under the previous land uses on this site. Table 2 Trip Generation Comparison PM peak H6Q~ Land Use Daily Trips IN ' OUT TOTAL Ward's Store (220,000 sf) 9,445 405 420 825 Ward's Tire&Battery Store 280 20 25 45 (11,307 sf) -* Penney's Store (197,933 sf) 8,495 360 375 735 Kohl's Store (71,896 sf) 3,085 130 140 270 Retail (28,726 sf) 1,235 50 55 * 105 SUB-TOTAL 22,540 965 t015 1,980 COSTCO Development 8,190 360 380 740 DIFFERENCE -14,350 -605 -635 -1240 Metro Transpor~ation Group, Inc. Page 4 Traffic Impact Analysis COSTCO Randhurst Mall Mount Prospect, Illinois Recommended Improvements While the proposed project will have minimal impacts to traffic operations on the adjacent streets and intersections, a comprehensive approach has been taken to address traffic issues. Specific recommended improvements that should be in place upon project completion include: Site Improvements · Re-striping of the entrance pavements to delineate the travel lanes, and replace/install several traffic control signs at the COSTCO entrance driveways. Off-Site Improvements · Remove the existing STOP sign for entering traffic at the Elmhurst Road entrance and the ring road. This will prevent vehicular stacking from extending onto the street Conclusions With the implementation of the recommended improvements, the site generated vehicle trips from the COSTCO development can be effectively accommodated within the adjacent roadway network. Metro Transportation Group, Inc. Page 5 AMENDMENT TO APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AMENDMENT TO RANDHURST B-3 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT: (NEW MAIN ENTRY, RETAIL AND COSTCO) EXTERIOR SIGNAGE CRITERIA As indicated in the referenced Application for Conditional Use Approval for an Amendment to the Randhurst B-3 Pl~ed.~nit. Development (the "Randhurst PUD"), the following are proposed as exterior signage criteria for Randhurst Shopping Center (the "Signage Criteria"). I. Scope. 1. All signs in existence as of July 24, 2003 on the approximately 100 acre property which is subject to the Randhurst PUD (the "Property") are hereby approved and shall be considered to be permitted signs pursuant to Chapter 7, Sign Regulations, of the Village Municipal Code ("Chapter 7") and the Randhurst PUD. 2. With the exception of Paragraph 1.1. above, the Signage Criteria shall be applicable only to all exterior signs on or adjacent to the main mall area in the Randhurst PUD and adjacent parking areas and shall not apply to outlots and tenants occupying gross leasable areas in excess of 30,000 square feet (the "Subject Property"). II. General Provisions. 1. All new exterior signs to be erected after July 24, 2003 which do not meet the requirements of Chapter 7, in effect as of the date hereof, as modified herein, may be approved pursuant to the procedures for an amendment to the Randhurst PUD. ~ 2. All new signs erected from and after July 24, 2003, which meet the requirements of Chapter 7, in effect as of the date hereof, as modified herein, shall be permitted on the Subject Property subject only to obtaining a sign permit pursuant to the provisions of Article VI of Chapter 7. III. Modifications To The Sign Regulations With respect to those signs which are within the scope of these Signage Criteria, the provisions of Chapter 7 are hereby amended and modified as follows: Section 7.301 E. is hereby amended and restated in i;'s entirety as follows: E. Painted Surfaces: Any sign painted directly on exterior of building surfaces, except when an integral part of the store facade design. 2. Section 7.305 B.6. is amended and restated in its entirety as follows: Height: The maximum height of a wall sign shall not exceed the building roof line. follows: Section 7.305 C., Projecting Signs, is amended and restated in its entirety as c. Projecting Signs: 1. Number: One projecting sign per seventy-five (75) lineal feet of exterior facade per street frontage per tenant establishment shall be permitted. (e.g. a tenant with 1 O0 lineal feet o f s treet frontage o n o ne road c ouM h ave 2 signs and a tenant with 30feet of frontage on 2 roads could have 2 signs, one on each frontage). 2. Height: No projecting sign shall extend above the roof line of the building on which it is located or twenty feet (20')from finish grade, Whichever is less. 3. Projection: No projecting sign shall project from the building wall more than four feet (4 '). 4:- Clearance: Projecting signs shall be located-such that a clearance of eight feet (8 ') is maintained from finished grade to the lower edge of the sign face. 4. Section 7.305.E.2. is amended to provide that the area of such canopy sign shall not exceed sixteen (16') square feet. 5. Table 2.2 of Section 7.315 is amended to provide that projecting signs facing major arterial streets are permitted and that free-standing signs may be located on a perimeter beam. 6. Section 7.325 A. shall be amended and restated in its entirety a.~s follows: A. Mall Directory Signs: Directory signs which identify only the names and locations of occupants or uses within the Randhurst PUD shall be permitted in addition to other signs permitted by these regulations. 1. No Mall Directory Sign shall exceed twenty (20) square feet in area or eight feet (8 '.) in height from finished grade. hazard. No Mall Directory Sign shall be located so as to cause a traffic -42HGO2:20126308.v2 2 follows: 3. Mall Directory Signs may include store logos and descriptions. Section 7.325 G. 1.a. is amended and restated in its. entirety as follows: a. No more than one (1) temporary sign shall be displayed per seventy-five (75) lineal feet of exterior fagade per street frontage per tenant establishment. Section 7,325 H.l.b. and c.. are hereby amended and restated in their entirety as b. The sign does not exceed twenty-five (25) square feet in area or six feet (6') in height from finished grade for freestanding signs or fifieen feet (15feet) in height from finished grade for wall signs. c. No more than fifty percent (50%) of the area of the sign is used to identify any product or service. 9. Section 7.325 is hereby amended to add the following as permitted Special Signs: J. Banners: Banners are permitted as permanent or temporary signs so long as substantially in the form identified o n the attached drawings. Banner shall b e securely attached to the wall of the building, free standing or.. on light poles on the Property. Banners may be used to decorate or attract attention to the mall, individual retailers, events, mall promotions or other activities related to the property. The text on Banners shall cover no more than 50% of each face of the Banner, may generally identify the mall, tenants, mall or tenant logo& and similar matters related to the Property and may be seasonal, promotional, non- promotional or decorative. Banners satisfying the foregoing-requirements shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 7.205. G. of the Village Code. Banners shall be permitted in addition to other signs permitted by these Chapter 7 and these Signage Criteria. 1'0. Section 7.701 is amended to provide that an appeal from a staff decision made in interpreting, applying and/or enforcing Chapter 7 and these Signage Regulations, may be taken in the manner provided in Chapter 7 or pursuant to the procedures for an amendment to the Randhurst PUD. .4~2 HGO2:20 !. 26305.v2 3 Janonis, Mike From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Gershon, Mark A. - CHI [Mark.Gershon@piperrudnick.com] Wednesday, July 30, 2003 10:58 AM Cooney, Bill Connolly, Judy; 'parapetj@urbanretail.com'; Janonis, Mike Randhurst PUD Amendment Dear Bill, To follow up on our previous discussions, this will confirm that, on behalf of the applicant, we.are reGuesting waiver of first rea~,inq by the Village Board of Trustees ~ its consideration of the referenCed matter which is scheduled for consideration on August 5, 2003. It is my understanding that consideration of the Redevelopment Agreement does not require a second reading. In the event that understanding is not correct we also request waiver of second reading on that matter. In the event you require additional information in connection with this request please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Mark Mark A. Gershon Piper Rudnick 203 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601 Mark.Gershon@PiperRudnick.com Phone: 312-368-2127 Fax: 312-630-5338 , [ The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. The information contained in this communication may be confidential, is intended only for the use of the recipient named above, and may be legally privileged. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please re-send this communication to the sender and delete the original message and any copy of it from your computer system. Thank you. For more information please visit us at http://www.piperrudnick.com ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 5238 GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) AND VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 999 NORTH ELMHURST ROAD (COSTCO) WHEREAS, Mark Gershon, Atty., agent for Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center (hereinafter referred to as "Petitionet'~ has filed a petition, to amend the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 5238, approved April 2, 2002, for a Conditional Use permit and Variations with respect to property at 999 North EImhurst Road (hereinafter referred to as the "SubjeCt Property'S, and legally described as follows: Lots 1, 2 and 3 in Randhurst Shopping Center Resubdivision No. 1, being a resubdivision of Lot 1 in Randhurst Center, being a subdivision of part of the southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section 27, Township 42 NOrth, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois; and WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks an amendment to the Planned Unit Development being the subject of Ordinance No. 5238 to allow the construction of a wholesale store on the Subject Property and to allow the demolition of several strUctuCes On the subject property; and WHEREAS, Petitioner seeks Variations to Section 14.311.A of the Village Code to allow the outdoor display of two vehicles that cannot be stored 0vemight, to Section 14.2219.A to allow forty-foot (40') light standards and brighter lighting levels than permitted by Code, and to Section 14.1704.B to allow a building height in excess of thirty-feet (30'); and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the requests being the subject of PZ-24-03 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th of July, 2003, pursuant to t~roper legal notice having been published in the ~ ToPics newspaper on the 9 day of July, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings on the proposed amendment to a planned Unit Development to the President and Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount ProSpect would be attained by granting the requests in PZ-24-03. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINoIs: COSTCO Page 2/3 ¢zF_.J2~tCJ~Q~ The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. ~EC~LOJ~:LT~YJ~: That Ordinance No. 5238 granting a Conditional Use permit, passed and approved on April 2, 2002, is hereby amended by granting a Conditional Use permit to allow the construction of a wholesale store as shown on the attached Site Plan, dated July 30, 2003 and building elevations for the warehouse store dated July 29, 2003, and the new mall entrance elevation dated July 10, 2003, copies of which are attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B," and to allow the demolition of several structures on the subject property. SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations, as provided for in Section14. 203.C.7 of the Village Code to allow the outdoor display of two vehicles, to allow taller and brighter light standards than permitted by Code, and to allow a building height in excess of thirty-feet (30'); and ~: This amendment being the subject of this Ordinance is subject to the following conditions: Development of the site in conformance with the following plans: A. 1) Packet titled, "Randhurst Mall/Costco Development Application Village Board Submittal - August 5, 2003" which includes the following information: · Site Plan Sheet DD1.2-27, revision date July 30, 2003 · Overall Landscape Plan Sheet L-l, revision date July 28, 2003 · Mall Entrance & Retail Perspectives · Elevation - South Wall Perspective Sheet A2.1 prepared by Fugman Dakich & Associates, revision date July 10, 2003 · Elevation- New Entrance Sheet A2 prepared by Fugman Dakich & Associates, revision date July 10, 2003 · Landscape - South Wall Sheet 1, revision date July 28, 2003 · Costco Warehouse Perspectives · Costco Fueling Facility Perspectives · Warehouse Elevations Sheet DD3.1-15, revision date July 29, 2003 · Fueling Facility Elevations Sheet DD4.1-04, revision date June 9, 2003 Technical Submittal; 2 Concept Site Plan prepared by Mulvanny G2 Architecture, revision date July 30, 2003; 3 Concept Elevations prepared by MulVanny G2 Architecture, revision date July 29, 2003; 4 Landscape Plan prepared by Smith Group J JR, revision date July 28, 2003; 5 Photometric Plan Sheet SE-1 prepared by T.E. Inc., revision date June 4, 2003. COSTCO Page 3/3 B. Submittal and approval of final Engineering Plans meeting all Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · Engineering site plans that address the existing deficiencies in the backflow prevention system for the entire Randhurst site to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works; · Inspection and approval by the Village of the disconnection of the existing water and sewer services prior to starting demolition; C. Submittal of final building plans meeting all applicable Building Code and Fire Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · Egress evaluation of the entire mall; · Documentation that the existing fire-main can produce sufficient fire flows for the new facility or installing an additional water main to EImhurst Road; · Replace and/or repair of the existing fire main as determined necessary by Village Departments if the new building encroaches upon the existing fire main; · Relocate existing fire hydrants, Fire Department connections, and post indicator valves as needed for Fire Department access. D. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. ~.E.CZJ~2[~C_ELV~: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVEDthis day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\OR01NANC/Amend Con Use. PUD,Var. COSTCO,Aug,03.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 64-01 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND ROUSE-RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER, INCll A MARYLAND CORPORATION WHEREAS, on December 18, 2001, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect (hereinafter referred to as "the Village'~ determined that it was in the best interests of the Village to enter into an Economic Incentive Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") with Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Rouse-Randhurst") for the redevelopment of a certain portion of Randhurst Shopping Center in the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the Agreement, as approved was to become null and void if Tenant did not occupy the Store by January 1, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities have determined that it is in the best interests of the Village and its residents to extend the occupancy date and to make certain other changes in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, said Agreement, as amended, is a direct benefit to the Village of Mount Prospect and its residents by providing the basis for attracting a major new anchor tenant to the Randhurst Shopping Center. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: &E_GZLO~LQ~ The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect are hereby authorized to execute the amended Redevelopment and Economic Incentive Agreement with Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, Inc., attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit "A." VOMP/Randhurst/COSTCO Page 2/2 2~.;~tOJA~35LQ: That this ReSolution Shall be in full fOrce and effective from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO~fiies\WlN\RES~Amend COSTO Agrrnt,Sept 03,doc [SSL 7/11/03] REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN ROUSE-RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation August ,2003 -CHGO2:20025687.vl I REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AGREEMENT This REDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC INCENTIVE AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") is entered into as of the __ day o£ August, 2003 by and among, ROUSE- RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company ("Developer"), and the VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation (the "Village"). Developer and the Village are hereinafter individually sometimes referred to as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties." RECITALS A. JP Morgan Chase Bank, as Trustee under Amended and Restated Declaration of Trust, dated November 13, 2001, as amended, for its Commingled Pension Trust Fund (Strategic Property) ("Owner"), is the owner of fee simple title to the real property located generally at the northeast comer of the intersections of Elmhurst and Rand Roads in the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, which real estate is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Property"). B. Developer is the ground lessee of the Property and owner of the regional shopping center commonly known as Randhurst Shopping Center ("Randhurst") located on the Property. Developer is the landlord for all retail leases at Randhurst and manages and operates Randhurst. For the purposes of this Agreement, the Property and Randhurst exclude the adjacent office building parcel located at the southeast comer of Euclid and Elmhurst Roads in the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois. C. Randhurst is the largest generator of combined sales and real estate tax revenue within the Village and provides a significant portion of the Village's revenues The commercial traffic generated by Randhurst also enhances the development and commercial viability of other Village revenue-generating enterprises located near Randhurst. D. Over the last four years or more, Randhurst has been significantly underutilized as evidenced by increasing vacancies and the stagnation in revenue generated by retail sales at Randhurst and a resulting reduction in sales tax revenues from Randhurst to the Village. E. As with most regional shopping centers, the economic strength and commercial viability of Randhurst are directly related to the strength, viability, traffic and sales generated by its primary anchor tenants. In the last two years, Montgomery Ward & Co., Incorporated, an Illinois company ("Ward"), and J. C. Penney Company, Inc. closed their respective anchor tenant stores at Randhurst (and Kohl's Corporation has indicated that it intends to close their store at Randhurst), causing significant impact on both the commemial viability o f Randhurst and the revenues generated by Randhurst. These closings resulted in direct loss of Sales Tax revenue to the Village. The c losing of these anchor stores also creates the possibility for additional and more significant detriment to Randhurst, and, therefore, to the Village, based on the rights of other key tenants at the center to terminate leases or to reduce rents based on reduced anchor tenant occupancy and reduced sales at Randhurst. ---CHGO2:20025687.v 11 F. Costco Wholesale Corporation, a Washington corporation ("Tenant"), subject to the execution of this Agreement, desires to lease from Developer (the "Lease") approximately 15 acres of the Property (the "Tenant Parcel") identified on the preliminary site plan attached hereto as Exhibit B (the "Site Plan") for construction and operation of the Store, as defined herein. The Store w ill b e constructed i n a manner generally consistent with t he Site P lan a nd a 11 exterior portions of walls of the Store exposed to public roadways Will be constructed of a combination of high quality architectural pre-cast concrete and masonry materials (e.g. concrete masonry units or similar). G. The Store is anticipated to provide a dramatic increase in commemial activity and revenues both directly through significant retail Store sales and indirectly by enhancing commercial activity at Randhurst and adjacent properties. These increased sales will also reduce the risk of further vacancies or rent reductions at Randhurst. H. Randhurst is currently improved with structures which, while generally monitored and updated to address life safety concerns, are otherwise older structures built Under prior building codes and therefore no longer comply with the Village's current building codes. The parking lot, storm drainage, parking lot lighting and other improvements require some demolition, repair and replacement if the Tenant Parcel is to be redeveloped. I. Construction and operation of the Store involves numerous extraordinary costs, including without limitation, (1) asbestos abatement and other modifications due to existing improvements not complying with current building codes; (2)demolition of the Kohl's and J.C. Penney stores and most of the existing Wards' store, including removal of related basements; (3) demolition of existing m all stores and common areas t o accommodate t he S tore; (4) upgrade o f design a nd materials to satisfy the Village's development requirements; (5) buyout of potential exchsionary use rights which may conflict with the Store use; (6) economic costs related to establishing the Store in this marketplace; and (7) infrastructure improvements at Randhurst, such as parking lot and public and private utility improvements. As a result of these extraordinary costs, Developer and Tenant cannot complete t he Project without t he economic incentives provided for i n t his Agreement. J. The Village, based on the approximately 40 year history of Randhurst in the Village, has found that it is important to the economic and social welfare of the Village to maintain and to enhance the economic viability and benefits of Randhurst and to thereby assure opportunities for development and redevelopment by attracting sound and stable commercial growth within and surrounding Randhurst. K. The Village's corporate authorities have determined and made the following findings: (1) The buildings on the Property have been significantly underutilized for a t least two (2) years and, while generally monitored and updated to address life safety concerns, are otherwise older structures built under prior building codes and therefore no longer comply with current building codes; (2) The Project, as defined herein, is expected to create and to retain job opportunities within the Village; 2 -,CHGO2:20025687.v 1 ! (3) The Project will serve to further development of areas adjacent to the Property; (4) Without this Agreement, the Project would not be possible; (5) The Developer meets high standards of creditworthy and financial strength as demonstrated by specific evidence of equity financing for not less than ten percent (10%) of the total Project cost; (6) The Project will strengthen the commercial sector of the Village; (7) The Project will enhance the tax base of the municipality; (8) This Agreement is in the best interest of the Village; and (9) The powers being exercised hereunder by the Village are in furtherance of and essential to the public interest. L. The Village seeks to encourage completion of the Project and, in order to make the Project economically feasible, the Village has agreed to reimburse Developer for certain costs of Developer and Tenant related to the Project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals, the covenants and agreements hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows: ARTICLE 1. RECITALS. The recitals set forth above are accurate and are expressly incorporated into this Agreement by this reference thereto as if fully set forth in this Article 12 ARTICLE 2. AUTHORITY. This Agreement is entered into by the Village pursuant to all or any of the following: (i) applicable provisions of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, including, without limitation, the "Intergovernmental Cooperation" and municipal debt provisions of Article VII, §10(a) and §7(5) respectively; (ii) 65 ILCS 5/8-11-20; (iii) the Village's authority as a home rule unit of local government and (iv) the Village's police power. ARTICLE 3. DEFINITIONS. (1) Annual Payment. Fifty percent (50%) of all Sales Taxes after a base amount of $3,500,000 of Sales Taxes in any Sales Tax Year is reached. (2) Commencement Date. The first day of the first full month following the date all of the following conditions are satisfied (i) construction of the Store is completed (as determined by the Village's issuance of a certificate of occupancy therefor), (ii) the Store is opened for business and (iii) retail sales activities commence therein. (3) Department. The Illinois Department of Revenue, or any other governmental entity responsible for distribution Of Sales Tax revenues2 3 -,-CHGO2:20025687.vl 1 (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (lO) (11) Director. The Village's Director of Finance, or in his absence, the Village Manager. Force Maieure. Fire or other casualty, condemnation of a portion of the Property which materially affects retail sales at Randhurst, strike, lock-out, civil disorder, war, terrorist acts directly against the Property, acts of GOd, unforeseeable adverse weather conditions, any temporary or permanent injunction or other court order or other cause beyond any Party's reasonable control. Payment Date. Each July 31St after the Commencement Date until the Termination Date. Proiect. The asbestos abatement and demolition of the Kohl's, J.C. Penney's and most of the Ward's Store and a portion of existing mall stores and common areas, including removal of related basements, shoring up of portions of remaining Randhurst improvements, closing the building openings left by the demolition, backfill and compaction, construction and build out of the Store, new mall entry, retail and infrastmcture improvements, such a s parking 1 ots, private and public utility improvements, economic incentives-to offset possible conflicting exclusivity rights, upgraded design and features for t he S tore, execution o f t he Lease and commencement of operation of the Store at Randhurst. Reimbursement Amount. The sum of $5,000,000.00 plus Simple interest figured at a rate of four and one-half percent (4.5%) annually on the unpaid balance, including any accrued interest. Reimbursement Period. The period of time from the Commencement Date to the Termination Date, provided that such period shall be extended for such period of time as the Store or a portion of Randhurst sufficient t© materiallY affect retail sales at Randhurst is closed as a result of an occurrence of Fome Majeure. Sales Tax Year. The first Sales Tax Year shall be fi.om the Commencement Date through the next June 30th. The next 14 Sales Tax Years (if necessary) shall be from the next July 1st to June 30th. The last Sales Tax Year shall be from the next July 1st through the 15th anniversary of the Commencement Date. For the first and last years the base amount of $3,500,000 shall be prorated in direct proportion to the number of days in those Sales Tax Years. Sales Taxes. The combination of: (i) that net portion of taxes imposed by the State and collected from Randhurst for distribution to the Village pursuant to the Illinois Retailers' Occupation Tax Act or the Service Occupation Tax Act (collectively the "Tax Acts") as said acts may be amended or any other so-called "sales tax" or similar tax in the event such taxes are no longer collected and distributed pursuant to the Tax Acts and which are collected by the State (currently such n et portion i s 1% o f t he t oral a mount o f g ross sa les within t he Village which are subject to the Tax Acts); and (ii) the taxes now or which may hereafter be imposed by the Village as a home rule unit of local government and 4 · 42HGO2:20025687.v I 1 collected from Randhurst (up to the one-half of one percent (1/2%) level on the sale of respective items as now imposed by the Village) as a retailer's occupation tax, a service occupation tax, a use tax, or a service use tax; specifically excluding local Food and Beverage and Local Motor Fuel Tax. If the Village's tax under (ii) above is less than one-half of one percent (1/2%), then the amount due to Developer under (ii) above shall be reduced accordingly. However, under no circumstances shall the amount due for the local sales tax, as stated above, exceed half of one percent (1/2%) even if that percentage is raised by the Village. If the percentage of Sales Taxes collected under (i) and (ii) above is decreased below the current rate of one and one-half percent (1.5%), then the Reimbursement Period and Termination Date shall be extended by a time period equal to the percentage of such decrease, subject to force majeure and final accounting and payment as otherwise provided herein. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL SALES TAXES, INCLUDE ANY TAXES COLLECTED FROM ANY AREA OTHER THAN RANDHURST. (12) State. The State of Illinois. (13) Store. The approximately 150,000 square foot membership warehouse club and related tire, battery and automobile accessory sales and installation center and fueling facility and related parking Developer intends to construct or cause to be constructed on the Tenant's Parcel and any additions to such store. (14)' Termination Date. The date which is the earlier off (1) the date the Director makes final distribution of the full Reimbursement Amount, including all interest due Developer, and (2) the date Tenant ceases commercial operations at the Store for a period of one-hundred and eighty (180) consecutive days, subject to Force Majeure; and (3) Fifteen (15) years from the Commencement Date plus any time necessary for the Village to undertake final accounting and payment to Developer after such 15 year period. ARTICLE 4. REIMBURSEMENT TO DEVELOPER. A. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, the Village agrees to reimburse Developer for certain of Developer's and Tenant's costs of completion of the Project in an amount equal to the Reimbursement Amount. The Reimbursement payments shall be sent to the Developer at the address set forth in Article 11. B. No later than July 31st of each year after the Commencement Date, and thirty (30) days after receipt of Sales Taxes and related tax information provided by the Department for the final Sales Tax Year, the Director shall (1) remit to the Developer the Annual Payment for the prior Sales Tax Year; and (2) deliver to Developer (with a copy to Tenant) a written statement (a "Remittance Statement") setting forth the amount of remitted sales tax and the calculation of the amount received from the Department and the balance of funds remaining to be paid. If at any time the State changes its policy with respect to providing information to the Village that is sufficient to allocate a portion of its Sales Tax receipts to Randhurst, the burden of securing this information shall be shared by Village and Developer. If for any reason the necessary 5 --CHGO2:20025687.v I 1 information is not received from the State prior to June 30th of each year, the Payment Date shall be extended by the number of days such information is late. C. For every Sales Tax Year commencing with the first Sales Tax year, and until the Termination Date, the Village shall make disbursements of Sales TaXes received from the Department in accordance with the following provisions: (2) (i) All monies paid to Developer by the Director shall be applied first to the payment of interest then due and the remainder shall be applied to reduce the balance of the ReimbUrsement Amount then remaining unreimbursed. (ii) On the Termination Date, any portion of the Reimbursement Amount which remains unpaid shall be deemed forever forgiven by Developer, absent default by Village hereunder. (iii) The Village shall have the right to prepay from any source the Reimbursement Amount in any amount or amounts at any time or times without penalty. DEVELOPER SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT SHALL BE PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE SALES TAXES COLLECTED AND REMITTED TO THE VILLAGE AS A RESULT OF SALES OCCURRING AT RANDHURST DURING THE REIMBURSEMENT PERIOD. DEVELOPER FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE VILLAGE'S OBLIGATIONS TO PAY THE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNT SHALL CONSTITUTE LIMITED OBLIGATIONS OF THE VILLAGE AND THAT SAID OBLIGATIONS DO NOT NOW AND SHALL NEVER CONSTITUTE A GENERAL INDEBTEDNESS OF THE VILLAGE WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY STATE OF ILLINOIS CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY PROVISION, AND SHALL NOT CONSTITUTE OR GIVE RISE TO A PECUNIARY LIABILITY OF THE VILLAGE OR A CHARGE AGAINST ITS GENERAL CREDIT OR TAXING POWER. ARTICLE 5. [INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]. ARTICLE 6. DOCUMENTATION OF SALES. A. The Village shall use its best efforts to secure an accounting, pursuant to the provisions of Section 5/8-11-16 of the Illinois Municipal Code 65 ILCS 5/8-11-16 (2000), to cause the Department to disclose to the Village the aggregate amount of Sales Tax collected on behalf of the Village from Randhurst. To the extent permitted by law, the Village shall disclose such amount t o Developer. T he Parties acknowledge, for purposes o f s aid Section 5/8- I 1-16, t hat Randhurst is a "shopping center" as defined in said Section, with 50 or more persons registered with the Department to pay Retailers Occupation Tax, and that this Agreement provides for provision of economic development and other services for the Village by Developer in exchange 6 --CHGO2:20025687.v I I for payments based on retailers occupation tax collected on behalf of the Village from persons within Randhurst. B. Developer shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to cause certified.copies (i.e. certified by an officer of Tenant) of all ST-1 and/or ST-2 sales tax reporting forms, or any successor reporting forms filed with the Department relating to the operation of the Store, to be filed with the Director. C. At all times during the Term of this Agreement, Developer shall use its commercially reasonable efforts to cause Tenant to permit independent verification by the Director of the ST-1 and/or ST-2 reports filed with the Department, certified copies of which are to be submitted to the Director pursuant to Paragraph B above, including executing a suitable waiver permitting the Director to release to the Village the actual dollar amounts of Sales Taxes remitted on an individual basis. The Parties shall cooperate with each other and take all other reasonable actions to ensure accurate calculation of the Annual Payment. D. To the extent permitted by law, the Village shall endeavor to maintain the confidentiality of the information contained in the ST-1 and/or ST-2 reports filed with the Department and the Sales Tax revenue generated by Randhurst, but shall be permitted to disclose such information to such Village employees and consultants as the Village, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate in order to monitor compliance and audit this Agreement. The Village shall also disclose such information pursuant to the provisions of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act or similar statute unless it determines the request is exempt. E. Following the close of each fiscal year of the Village, the Village shall provide a certified copy of an accounting of the receipts of Sales Taxes and payment to the Developer. F. The Developer shall provide to the Village, not later than the Commencement Date, an accurate list of all retailers located within Randhurst. This list shall be updated monthly. To the extent (i) retail tenants at Randhurst provide their tax registration numbers, assigned to them by the Department, to Developer and (ii) Developer is permitted to disclose such numbers to Village, Developer will include such numbers with the list of retailers provided pursuant to this subparagraph. ARTICLE 7. TERM. On the Temfination Date, this Agreement, subject to the provisions below, shall be and become null and void and of no further effe~wh~t.~o~zer, without further action on the part of the Village or any other person, firm or corporation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement shall remain in effect for purposes of audit, final accounting, and payment and for purposes of enforcement actions hereon. ARTICLE 8. JEWEL RESTRICTIVE COVENANT. The Parties understand that the Tenant Parcel is arguably burdened by a restrictive covenant in favor of the Jewel Food Store located within Randhurst prohibiting the operation of any other food store and/or the sale of grocery products from any other store, within Randhurst. This Agreement shall be valid only if the Village is provided with evidence satisfactory to the 7 -~CHGO2:20025687.vl 1 Village Attorney prior to the Commencement Date that the restrictive covenant has been modified, waived, terminated, released or that the Store otherwise is permitted to operate notwithstanding such restrictive covenant. It is also understood that in order to obtain from the Owner of the Jewel Store the right for the Store to operate, the Developer is being required to forego its right to receive a portion of rental from the Jewel Food Store. This Agreement to forego such rent from the Jewel Food Store is of the essence of this Agreement as it forms the basis of a portion of the Village's justification of its sales tax revenue sharing determination. The execution of this Agreement is the Developer's covenant that such waiver of a portion of rent has occurred and must be honored until the end of the Reimbursement Period. ARTICLE 9. INDEMNIFICATION. A. Developer covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Village, and the Village officials, agents, employees, and representatives, from all costs, including expert witness and attorneys' fees, that may be incurred in defending all claims contesting the validity or legality of this Agreement (other than claims brought by or through the Village Board of Trustees, or Village officials or employees, or arising from the willful misconduct or negligence of the Village or Village officials, employees or anyone acting on their behalf); provided that Developer reserves the right, at Developer's option and cost, to assume the defense of such claim or action (including, but not limited to, the right to settle or compromise any claim or action for which Developer has assumed the defense) with counsel of Developer's choosing and the Parties expressly agree that, for so long as no conflicts of interest exist between them, the same attorney or attorneys may simultaneously represent the Village and Developer in any such prOceeding and that in such event the Village shall take reasonable direction from the att°rneys selected by Developer to defend the respective Parties. B. The Village covenants and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless Developer, and Developer's agents, employees, and representatives, from all costs, including expert witness and attorneys' fees, that may be incurred in defending all claims challenging the validity or enfomeability of t his Agreement brought b y t he Village's attorney, o r any Village o ~cial o r employee, or claims arising from the willful misconduct or negligence of the Village Board or the Village officials and employees, or anyone acting on their behalf, including all costs of defense and attorneys' fees; provided that the Village reserves the right, at the Village's option and the Village's cost, to assume the defense of such claim or action (including, but not limited to, the right to settle or compromise any claim or action for which the Village has assumed the defense) with counsel of the Village's choosing and the Parties expressly agree that, for so long as no conflicts of interest exist between them, the same attorney or attorneys may simultaneously represent the Village and Developer in any such proceeding and that in such event Developer shall take reasonable direction from the attorneys selected by the Village to defend the respective Parties. ARTICLE 10. MUTUAL ASSISTANCE. The Village and Developer agree to do all things necessary or appropriate to carry out, and to aid and assist each other in carrying out, the terms of this Agreement and in implementing the Parties' intent, as reflected by the terms of this Agreement, including, without limitation, the giving of such notices, the holdings of such public hearings, the enactment by the Village of such 8 42'HGO2:20025687.vl 1 resolutions and ordinances and the taking of such actions as may be necessary to enable the Parties compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement and as may be necessary to give effect to the terms and provisions of this Agreement and the Parties intention} as reflected by the terms of this Agreement. No waiver of Village regulations shall be inferred from this Agreement, except as specifically set forth. ARTICLE 11. NOTICES. Any notice to be given or served hereunder or under any document or instrument executed pursuant hereto shall be in writing and shall be (i) delivered personally, with a receipt requested therefor; or (ii) sent by telecopy facsimile; or (iii) sent by a recognized overnight courier service; or (iv) delivered by United States registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid. All notices shall be addressed to the Parties at their respective addresses set forth below, and the same shall be effective (a) upon receipt or refusal if delivered personally or by telecopy facsimile; (b) one (1) business day after depositing with such an ovemight courier service or (c) two (2) business days after deposit in the mails, if mailed. A Party may change its address for receipt of notices by service of a notice of such change in accordance herewith. All notices by telecopy facsimile shall be subsequently confirmed by U.S. certified or registered mail. All notices to the Village shall be sent to: Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Attn: Village Manager With copy to: Everette M. Hill, Jr. Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins Ltd. 20 North Wacker, Suite 1660 Chicago, Illinois 60606 All notices to Developer shall be sent to: Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC 10275 Little Patuxent Parkway Columbia, Maryland 21044-3456 Attn: General Counsel 9 -~-CHGO2:20025687.v I 1 With copies to: Costco Wholesale Corporation 999 Lake Drive Issaquah, WA 98027 Attn: Gail Tsuboi Director of Property Management J.P. Morgan Investment Management, Inc. 522 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10036 Attn: Sheryl M. Crosland Vice President and Mark A. Gershon, Esq. Piper Marbury Rudnick and Wolfe 203 North LaSalle Street Chicago, Illinois 60601-1293 ARTICLE 12. DEFAULT/REMEDIES. The failure of a Party to materially comply with its obligations under this Agreement or the material breach of any representation or warranty of a Party hereunder shall constitute a default by such Party. The Party claiming the occurrence of such default shall notify the other Party of same and shall demand performance by giving the defaulting Party a thirty (30) day written notice specifying the default and this Agreement shall, at the election of the non- defaulting party, after such thirty (30) day period, automatically terminate or the non-defaulting Party may file an action for specific performance unless, within such thirty (30) day period (a) the defaulting Party, (i) cures such default, or (ii) commences action to cure such default and completes the curing of such default within a reasonable time or Co) the Party claiming default, by written notice to the defaulting Party, either waives the default or grits the defaulting Party a longer period to cure. In the event: (i) the Village fails to make paYments due to Developer or to materially perform its non-monetary obligations as and when herein provided; and (ii) within thirty days after the occurrence of such default the Village failS to cOmmence PerfOrmance, Developer may seek to compel the Village to perform such obligations and/or to make such payments or, with respect to any monetary obligation, to seek damages for breach of contract limited to an amount equal to the amounts due to Developer hereunder. 10 ---CHGO2:20025687.v I 1 ARTICLE 13. MISCELLANEOUS. (a) Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Illinois. (b) Integration. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. All prior agreements, negotiations, and understandings are expressly merged herein and superseded hereby. All exhibits of this Agreement are expressly incorporated herein by this reference thereto. (c) Severabilitg. Each section of this Agreement, and each sentence, clause or phrase contained in such section, shall be considered severable and if, for any reason, any section, or any sentence, clause or phrase contained in such section, is determined to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not impair the operation or affect enforceability or validity of the remaining portions of this Agreement. (d) Amendment. This Agreement may be amended by, and only by, a written instrument authorized in accordance with law and signed by both Parties. (e) Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon: (i) the Village and any successor corporate authorities of the Village; and (ii) Developer and its successors and, only if and when expressly designated in writing as such by Developer in its sole discretion, Developer's grantees, lessees and assigns. If Owner, or any affiliate of Owner, succeeds to all or substantially all of Developer's interest in Randhurst, then Owner, or such affiliate, as the case may be, or any successor to the foregoing, shall receive the benefits of and be bound by the terms of this Agreement. Any right of assignment by the Developer that is contemplated in this subparagraph shall, absent written approval by Village, be subject to the following restrictions: (i) Any assignment shall be to a party or entity acquiring all or substantially all of Developer's interest in Randhurst or to Owner (Developer agrees to use commercially reasonable efforts to give Village sixty (60) days prior written notice of such assignment and to coordinate a meeting between the Village and such assignee); and. (ii) Randhurst shall at all times continue to be operated as a "Retail Shopping Center" ("Retail Shopping Center" shall mean a regional retail center similar to Randhurst, but shall specifically not include a retail center where a majority of retail sales are based on resale of used goods or sale of salvaged goods). 11 ,-CHGO2:20025687.v I 1 (f) Construction. Section or other headings contained in this Agreement are for reference purposes only and shall not affect in any way the meaning or interpretation of this Agreement. (g) Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every provision hereof. ARTICLE 14. COSTCO. This Agreement shall become null and void if Tenant does not occupy the Store by July 1, 2005. 12 ,42HGO2:20025687.v 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the dates set forth below their respective signatures, to be effective as of the Effective Date. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation By: ROUSE-RANDHURST SHOPPING CENTER, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company By Gerald L. Farley, Village President Name: Its: ATTEST By: Velma M. Lowe [SEAL] 13 --CHGO2:20025687.vl I STATE OF ) COUNTY OF ) I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that ., of Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company, who is personally known to me to be the of said corporation, appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that he/she signed and delivered the foregoing Redevelopment and Economic Incentive Agreement as his/her own free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act of said corporation for the purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and official seal this __ day of ,2003. Notary Public 14 ,--CHGO2:20025687.v 11 STATE OF ILLINOIS COUNTY OF COOK ) ) ss. ) I, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the County and State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Gerald L. Farley and Velma W. Lowe, personally known to me to be the Village President and Village Clerk, respectively, of the VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, and personally known to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing Redevelopment and Economic Incentive Agreement, appeared before me this day in person and severally acknowledged that as such Village President and Village Clerk, they signed and delivered said Agreement as such Village President and Village Clerk, and caused the corporate seal of said Village to be affixed thereto, pursuant to authority given by the Board of Trustees of said Village, as their free and voluntary act and as the free and voluntary act and deed of said Village, for the purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and official seal, this __ day of ,2003. Notary Public 15 -CHGO2:20025687.v I I EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Lots 1 and 2 in Randhurst Center Resubdivision No. 1 (less any portion previously taken for state highway purposes), being a resubdivision of Lot 1 in Randhurst Center, being a resubdivision of part of the Southeast ¼ of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, and the North seventy (70) feet of the West seventy (70) feet of the South one hundred twenty (120) feet of the East half (1/2) of the South East Quarter (1/4) of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, all in Cook County, Illinois. A-1 .q2HGO2:20025687.vl I EXHIBIT B PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN B-! -,-CHGO2:20025687.v I 1 · PP~LI#.TNARY SZTE PLAN ' ."' . ~ll ~( ~ ~- '":'"'/ L VWL 8/1/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING RELIEF FROM CHAPTER 7 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 999 NORTH ELMHURST ROAD WHEREAS, Mark Gershon, Atty., agent for Rouse-Randhurst Shopping Center (hereinafter referred to as "Petitionet~ has filed a petition for relief from Chapter 7 (Sign Code) to create exterior signage criteria with respect to property located at 999 North Elmhurst Road, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lots 1, 2, and 3 in Randhurst Shopping Center Resubdivision No. 1, being a resubdivision of Lot 1 in Randhurst Center, being a subdivision of part of the southeast Quarter (1/4) of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks relief from the Sign Code to create exterior signage criteria not currently permitted by said Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for relief from Chapter 7 (Sign Code) of the Village Code to create exterior signage criteria being the subject of Case No. PZ-24- 03 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th of July, 2003, pursuant to pro.tPher legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 9 day of July, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and a positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-24-03; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proPOsed relief from the Sign Code to create exterior signage criteria would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of MOunt Prospect. RANDHURST Page 2/2 SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant relief from Chapter 7 (Sign Code) of the Village Code to create exterior signage criteria for the Subject Property as specified in the attached exhibit titled "Exterior Signage Criteria"; and SECTION THREE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provicied by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\filas\WIN\ORDINANC\SignCodeRelief, Randhurst,Aug,03.doc Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TIW~ CITY USA VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER JULY 28, 2003 SU BJ EC'I': .IUI,Y SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING REQIJEST FOil PARKING RESTRICTIONS AROUND SCItOOL PROSPECT HIGH 'l'hc SaI~ety Commission transmits their recommendation to approve parking restriction on various streets surrounding Prospect High School. In September 2001, the Village enacted parking restrictions on the 500-700 blocks of Fairview Avenue and Prospect Manor Avenue in an effort to address concerns raised by residents due to student parking. Services including mail delivery, garbage pick-up, street sweeping, leaf pick-up and snow plowing were affccted because of the significant amount of students parking on these streets. Other issues such as rude behavior by students, cars blocking driveways and fire hydrants, and littering were also cited by residents. In response, the Village installed No Parking lOam-llam & 1pm-2pm School Da3.'s signs to discourage students from parking on these streets. The parking restrictions enacted in 2001 addressed the problem for those streets. However, students hogan to look t'or other locations around campus to park. Since 2001, the Village of Arlington Heights has enacted parking restrictions that bare forced students to consider other alternatives including parking on Mount Prospect streets. A total of approximately 50 student cars are now parking on Village streets on schou] days. Most of the cars are seen on the 400 blocks of Dale Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Oak Street and Forest Avenue. Similar problems as experienced on Fairview Avenue are nov,, seen in this c~cighborhood. In March 2002, Village Staff met with school officials to discuss ways of getting students to park in the scbool lot rather than on Village streets. At the time, a school renovation project had just gotten underway which included constructing a new 100-space parking lot. This parking lot is expected to be open in September 2003. Even witln this new parking lot, it is Staff's concern that parking problems may still be evident on Village streets this Fall. Band practice in the lot, high parking permit fees, a lottery that doesn't guarantee 1>ermils to everyone and rescinded permits for bad behavior will all contribute to off-campus parking. StalT has brought this issue for discussion now in hopes that with the support of the Safety Commission and Village Board, parking restriction signs will be in place before school resumes. Staff recognizes that some oi' the streets involved may not be experiencing parking problems now. However, we anticipate Ihat some students xvill attempt to find other streets to park on. By extending the parking restrictions to ac(iaccnl streets, it is om' hope students will find it inconvenient to park on Mount Prospect streets and choose other alternatives. When school does begin, Staff will monitor the effectiveness of the signs and uly Safety Commission .luly 28, 2003 evaluate other Village streets to determine if additional parking restrictions are necessary. If so, Staff will act quickly to address any new problems. The Village Manager may authorize Staff to install parking restriction signs on additional streets prior to Safety Commission and Village Board approval if necessary. Should this occur, the Safety Commission and Village Board would be notified. As a bit of clarification, the request is for No Parking lOam-llam & lpm-2pm School Days except for the east side of Fairview Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street. The east side of this block from Gregory Street to a point 300' north currently is posted No Stopping, Standing, Parking 8am-4pm School Dr0,s to address traffic congestion around Fairview Elementary School. In order to be consistent, Staff prefers to have the east side of the street along the entire length of the block identical parking restrictions. Enacting No Parking ]Oam-llam & lpm-2pm School Days would not be as restrictive and not address the traffic issues evident around the elementary school. Therefore, it has been recommended by the Safety Commission that the parking restrictions stating No Stopping, Standing, Parking 8am-4pm School Days be extended to Memory Lane. This issue was discussed at the July 14, 2003 Safety Commission Meeting. There were approximately 10 people in the audience to speak on this issue. A majority of those in attendance as well as the letters Staff received on this issue are in favor of the parking restrictions. By a vote of 5-0, the Safety Commission recommends to approve: No ParMng lOam-llam & lpntl2pnl School Days signs for: East side of Dale Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street · MacArthur Boulevard from Memory Lane to Gregory Street · Oak Avenne from Memory Lane to Gregory Street · Forest Avenue fi'om Memory Lane to Gregory Street · west side of Fairview Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street · Prospect Manor Avenue trom Memory Lane to Gregory Street · Gregory Street from Dale Avenue to Forest Avenue · south side of Gregory Street from Forest Avenue to Prospect Manor Avenue · Gregory Street from Prospect Manor Avenue to Eastwood Avenue · Memory Lane trom Prospect Manor Avenue to Eastwood Avenue (Section 18.2005 of the Village Code) No Stopphtg, Standing, ParMng 8am-4pm School Days signs for: · east side of Fairview Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street (Section 18.2009 of the Village Code) repeal No Stopping, Standing, ParMag 8am-4pm School Days' signs for: · east side of Fairview Avenue from Gregory Street to a point 300' north (Section 18.2009 of the Village Code) Please include this item on the August 5th Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed are the Safety Commission Minutes from the meeting as well as a location map for your reference. Matthew P. Lawrie cc: Deputy Village Clerk Kim Dewis x :\files\engineer\tra ffic\sa fecomm\recs&min\j uly03rec.doc GROVE ST ORIOLE LN KENSINGTON RD PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL EXISTING NO PARKING lO-11AM, 1-2PM SCHOOL DAYS NO PARKINGDURINGSCHOOLHOURS .t~l ~t~I I~I I~1 I~/ .o _, _,...._. '"-" '"UUEII/ 8AId-4PM SCHOOL DAYS '" '" NO STOPPING, STANDING, PARKING ANY TIME NO STOPPING, STANDING, PARKING 8AM-SPM SCHOOL DAYS NO PARKING DROP-OFF/PICK-UP SCHOOL DAYS .*U-,mM HIGHLAND ST PROPOSED NO PARKING IO-11AM, 1-2PM SCHOOL DAYS NO STOPPING, STANDING, PARKING 8AM-4PM SCHOOL DAYS FAIRVlEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ST VWL 7/30/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XX OF CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2009 of "SCHEDULE IX-PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of MoUnt Prospect, as amendedl is hereby further amended by adding, in alphabetical sequence, fOllOwing: "Name Side Between of Street of Street Hours of Description Dale Avenue East School days 10am- 11 am and I pm-2 pm Btw. Memory Lane. and Gregory Street MacArthur Blvd. East and West School days 10am- 11 am and 1 pm -2 pm Btw. Memory Lane and Gregory Street Oak Avenue East and West School days 10am- 11 am and 1 pm to2 pm Btw. Memory Lane and Gregory Street Forest Avenue East and West SChool days 10am- 11 am and 1 pm - 2 pm Btw. Memory Lane and Gregory Street Fairview Avenue West School days 10am- 11 am and 1 pm -2 pm Btw. Memory Lane and Gregory Street Prospect Manor Avenue East and West School days 10am- 11 am and 1 pm-2 pm Btw. Memory Lane and Gregory Street Gregory Street North and South School days 10am- 11 am and 1 pm -2 pm Btw. Dale Avenue and Forest Avenue Gregory Street South School days 10 am - 11 am and 1 pm - 2 pm Btw. Forest Avenue and Prospect Manor Avenue Ch. 18, No parking Page 2/2 "Name Side Between of Street of Street Hours of Description Gregory Street North and South School days 10am- 11 am and I pm- 2 pm Btw. Prospect Manor Avenue and Eastwood Avenue Memory Lane North and South School days 10 am - 11 am and 1 pm- 2 pm Btw. Prospect Manor Avenue and Eastwood Avenue." SECTION TWO: That Section 18.2009 of "SCHEDULE IX- PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS "of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of M°unt Pr0$pect, as amended, is herebY further amended by adding, in alphabetical sequence, following: "Name Side Between of Street of Street Hours of Fairview Avenue East School days 8 am - 4 pm Description Btw. Memory Lane and Gregory Street." SECTION THREE: That Section 18.2009"SCHEDULE IX- PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the following: "Name Side of Street of Street Description Fairview Avenue East From a point 300 feet north of Gregory Street to 300 feet south of Isabella Street." SECTION FOUR: This this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of . ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:/CLKO\~ile$/WIN\ORDINANC'/Ch ~8,No parking stoppir~g, star~dir~9, school hfs.doc k@d 0?30/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2009 of "SCHEDULE IX- PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following: "Name of Street Side of Street Fair'view Avenue. East Description Memory Lane to Gregory". SECTION TWO: That Section 18.2009 of "SCHEDULE IX- PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the following: "Name of Street Side of Street Fairview Avenue East Description From Gregory Street to a Point 300' north." SECTION THREE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2003. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:!CLKO\files\W~N/ORDINANC\CH 18~2009 Prospec~ School parki~g doc ount Prospect Public WOrks Departi ient INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: SUBJECT: JULY 28, 2003 JULY SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MEMORY LANE AND PINE STREET The Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Yields signs on Pine Street at MemorY Lane. Ms. Kristina Blatt, 501 N. Pine Street, lives at the northeast corner of the intersection and is concerned for the safety of motorists and residents in the neighborhood since this is the only uncontrolled intersection in the area. She contacted the Village after an accident occurred on June 19, 2003. In June 2003, Staff performed a traffic study of the intersection. Results show there has been one accident at the intersection over the past five years. Also, there are approximately 1050 vehicles per day (550 on Pine Street and 500 on Memory Lane) that enter the intersection. Average recorded speeds along both streets are at the 25mph speed limit. Finally, there is an evergreen tree and bush at the northwest corner of the intersection that may be a sight obstruction for motorists. Also, landscaping near the homes and even the homes themselves are close to the corners and may make it difficult for motorists to react to a vehicle approaching on the cross street and avoid a collision. Staff sent out 20 surveys to residents who live within 200' of the intersection per the Notification Policy. 13 surveys were returned and all favored either Stop or Yield signs because of speeding motorists along both streets and the concern for possibly more accidents at the intersection. This issue was discussed at the JulY 14, 2003 Safety Commission Meeting. There were two residents in the audience to speak on this issue. By a vote of 5-0, the Safety Commission recommends to install Yield signs (Section 18.2004B of the Village Code) for northbound and southbound Pine Street at Memory Lane. Please include this item on the August 5th Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed are the Safety Commission Minutes from the meeting as well as a location map for your reference. Matthew P. Lawrie cc: Deputy Village Clerk Kim Dewis x :'d~les'~engineer\trafficXsa fecomrn\recs&min~,j uly03rec.doc kad ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE tT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2004.B of"SCHEDULE IV- STOP AND YIELD SIGNS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding thereto in proper alphabetical sequence "Pine Street - North and southbound - Memory Lane" so that hereinafter said Section 18.2004.B of the Village Code of Mount Prospect shall include the following: "Name of Street Pine Street SECTION TWO: Direction of Traffic Movement North and Southbound At Intersection With Memory Lane." after its passage, provided by law. That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:~CLKO\files',WINiORDINANC\CH 18,YIBLD SIGNS au§ 03.doc Glen ~ ~ndler DepuW Director Sea~ ~ O0rse, Vi,age Engineer Jeffrey A Wulbecker Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa An§e, Phome 847/870-5640 Roderick T O'D0noven Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 w. Central Road, Mount Pros~eoc, inois E)OO56-~m229 Fax 847/253-9377 Streets/Buildings Superintendent Pau C. 8ures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra IV Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E. Guenther TDD 847/392-1235 MINUTES OF TI-IE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July 14. 2003. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Chuck Bencic John Keane Carol Tortorello John Dahlberg Chris Truty Jeff Wulbecker Absent: Joan Bjork Matt Lawrie Others in Attendance: See attached sheet. Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Police Department Fire Department Public Works Commissioner Public Works/Eng~neenng Division APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commmsloner Tortorello, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on June 9, 2003. The minutes were approved by a vote of 4-0. Deputy Chief Dahlberg and Lieutenant Truty abstained as they were not present at the previous meeting. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No citizens came forth to discuss any top~cs that were not on the current agenda. Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink OLD BUSINESS No old items were discussed by the Commission. NEW BUSINESS A) REQUEST FOR PARKING REST~C!!QNS SOUND PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL Background Information In September 2001, the Village enacted parking restrictions on the 500-700 blocks of Fairview Avenue and Prospect Manor Avende in an effort to address concerns raised by residents due to student parking. Services including mail delivery, garbage pick-up, street sweeping, leaf pick-up and snow plowing were affected because of the significant amount of students parking on these streets. Other issues such as rude behavior by students, cars blocking driveways and fire hydrants, and littering were also cited by residents. In response, the Village installed No Parking !Oam- ! lam & !pm-2pm School Days signs to discourage students from parking on these streets. The parking restrictions enacted in 2001 addressed the problem for those streets. However, students began to look for other locations around campus to park. Since 2001, the Village of Arlington Heights has enacted parking restrictions that have forced students to consider, other alternatives including Parking on Mount Prospect streets. A total of approximately 50 student cars are now parking on Village streets on school days. Most of the cars are seen on the 400 blocks of Dale Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Oak Street and Forest Avenue. Similar problems as experienced on Fairview Avenue are now~segn !n this neighborhood. In March 20021 Village Staff met with School officials t.9 ~iscuss ways of getting students to park in the school lot rather than on Village streets. At the time, a school renovation project had just gotten underway which included constructing a new 100-space parking lot. This parking lot is expected to be open in September 2003. Even with this new parking lot, it is Staff's concern that parking problems may still be evident on Village streets this Fall. Band practice in the lot, high parking permit fees, a lottery that doesn't guarantee permits to everyone and rescinded permits for bad behavior will all contribute to off- campus parking. Staff has brought this issue for discussion now in hopes that with the support of the Safety Commission and Village Board, parking restriction signs will be in place before school resumes. Staff recognizes that some of the streets involved may not be experiencing parking problems now. However, we anticipate that some students will attempt to find other streets to park on. By extending the parking restrictions to adjacent streets, it is our hope students will find it inconvenient to park on Mount Prospect streets and choose other alternatives. When school does begin, Staff will monitor the effectiveness of the signs and evaluate other Village streets to determine if additional parking restrictions are necessary. If so, Staff will act quickly to address any new problems. The Village Manager may authorize Staff to install parking restriction signs on additional streets prior to Safety Commission and Village Board approval if necessary. Should this occur, the Safety Commission would be notified. 2 2~ 3) As a bit of clarification, the request is for No Parking ]Oam-llam & lpm-2pm School Days except for the east side of Fairview Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street. The east side of this block from Gregory Street to a point 300' north currently is posted No Stopping Standing, Parki~g 8am-4pm School Days to address traffic congestion around Fairview Elementary School. In order to be consistent, Staff prefers to have the east side of the street along the entire length of the block identical parking restrictions. Enacting No Parking lOam-llam & Ipm-2pm School Days would not be as restrictive and not address the traffic issues evident around the elementary school. Therefore, it would be recommended that the parking restrictions stating No Stopping, Standing Parking 8am-4pm School Days be extended to Memory Lane. Staff Study During the previous school year, Staff observed approximately 50 student vehicles parked on those Village streets included in the proposed parking restrictions on any given school day. The Village received complaints from residents throughout the school year about services being affected such as garbage pick-up, leaf pick-up and mail delivery as well as rude behavior by students. Each of those homes affected by the proposed parking restrictions were notified this issue would be discussed at the July Safety Commission Meeting. Recommendations Based on the latest student parking problems experienced around Prospect High School, The Village Traffic Engineer recommends: approval of No Parking lOam-llant & lpm-2pm School Days signs for: · East side of Dale Avenue fromMemory Lane to Gregory Street · MacArthur Boulevard from Memory Lane to Gregory Street · Oak Street t.rom Memory Lane to Gregory Street · Forest Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street · west side of Fairview Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street · Prospect Manor Avenue from Memory Lane tO Gregory Street · Gregory Street from Dale Avenue to Forest Avenue · South side of Gregory Street from Forest Avenue to Prospect Manor Avenue · Gregory Street from Prospect Manor Avenue to Eastwood Avenue · Memory Lane from Prospect Manor Avenue to Eastwood Avenue approval of No Stoppbtg, Standing, Parking 8am-4pm School Days signs for: · East side of Fairview Avenue from Memory Lane to Gregory Street The Village Traffic Engineer also requests that the Safety Commission support action by the Village with authorization from the Village Manager of enacting additional parking restrictions on surrounding streets should immediate action be necessary after school resumes this Fall. 4) Discuss ion Village Engineer Wulbecker provided an overview of the report to the Commission. Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the commission members and audience. Jean Kiner, 516 S Dale Avenue of Arlington Heights, is in favor of the parking restrictions. Bernice Elia, 410 Prospect Manor Avenue. questioned what allowances there ~vould be for visitors. Deputy Chief Dahlberg stated that the police officers are aware the parking restricnons are meant to deter student parking. Officers will check license plates to determine whether any action ts necessary. No parking tickets to visitors have been issued on the surrounding streets that currently have parking restrictions in the past two years. Zoe Mather, 409 MacArthur Boulevard. provided written comments to the Commission. She said that she worries about congested streets and supports the parking restrictions but xvould like relief from the restrictions for residents. Deputy Chief Dahlberg explained that the Village does not provide a sticker system for residents but that the officers will be professional about reviewing each situation before issuing a ticket. Nancy Fritz, 103 MacArthur Boulevard, has attempted to work with District 214 to address the parking problem and is bothered by their response. She is appreciative of the Village's efforts. Commissioner Keane drove the streets on Saturday and vehicles were parked on both sides of the street near the high school. Commissioner Tortorello mentioned that one of the resident letters showed concern about evening and weekend soccer parking. Nancy Fritz said that the soccer league does ask that parents park in the lot adjacent to the school, There was some additional comments and discussion.qn t.his is, sue: Commissioner Kegne, seconded by Commissioner Tortorello, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. 2~ REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF MEMORY LANE AND PiNE STREET Backgound Information Ms. Kristina Blatt, 501 N. Pine Street, lives at the northeast corner of the intersection and is concerned for the safety of motorists and residents in the neighborhood since this is the only uncontrolled intersection in the area. She contacted the Village after an accident occurred on June I9, 2003. Ms. Blatt claims r~vo previous petitions for Yield/Stop signs were denied. hoxvever, Staff has no record of such a request for this intersection. All residents within 200 feet of this intersection including Ms. Blatt were informed that this would be discussed at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, July I4. 2003. at the Public Works Department. Sta£f Study a ~ Accidents A search of the accident reports indicated: Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (July) Number of Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 1 b/ c) Speed Study Representative speed surveys were performed at the intersection bet~veen June 23rd and 27~'. The average and 85t}' percentile speeds are as follows: Average 85~h % Northbound Pine Street 25 mph 31 mph Southbound Pine Street 25 mph 31 mph Eastbound Memory Lane 24 mph 29 mph Westbound Memory Lane 25 mph 30 mph The speed limit on Pine Street and Memory Lane is 25mph: Based on the results, there doesn't appear to be an overall speeding problem. However, the data *did show some motorists did drive above the speed limit as is evident on most residential streets. Traffic Volume Traffic volume data was gathered in June. Based on the results, there are approximately 1050 vehicles per day that enter the intei'section. 550 vehicles travel on Pine Street and 500 vehicles on Memo,T Lane. The peak hour of the day (typically 5pm-6pm) experiences approximately 105 vehicles that enter the intersection. 3) d) Survey Results A total of 20 surveys were sent out on June 30th to collect the residents' comments 9n this request. 13 responses were received. Many comments cited speeding a concern and all supported either stop or yield signs to improve safety at the intersection. e) Existing Traffic Control Signs Traffic control signs adjacent to the intersection are as follows: Pine Street & Highland Street (north) - 4~way Stop signs Pine Street & Gregory Street (south) - 2-way Stop signs on Pine Street Memory Lane & Wille Street (east) - 2-~vay Yield signs on Wille Street Memory Lane & Russel Street (west) - 4-way Stop signs · t) Sight Obstructions Based on an inspection of the intersection, there is landscaping (bush and an evergreen tree) at the northwest comer that appears to be a sight obstruction for motorists. Since this is an uncontrolled intersection, there is to be sufficient stopping sight distance for all four legs of the intersection. Stopping sight distance is the distance a vehicle travels from the point when a motorist sees an approaching vehicle on the cross street, reacts and comes to a full stop. A motorist should have enough clear vision to be able to stop, if necessary, before reaching the intersection. Landscaping near the homes and even the homes themselves at the intersection do not provide sufficient stopping sight distance for motorists. Therefore, Stop or Yield signs would assist in clarifying the righT-of-way and possibly reduce the potential for an accident. Recommendations 4-Way Stop Signs_ 4-way Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where there is a condition of severely restricted view, accidents or a significant amount of vehicles and pedestrians. There has been 1 accident over the past 5 years. In order to meet the criterion for a multiway stop sign installation, there isto be 5 accidents in a 12-month period. Finally, the peak hour of the day experiences approximately 105 vehicles entering the intersection. In order to meet the criterion, the volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches (total of both approaches) is to average 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day and 200 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours from the minor street approaches. Based on the data, 4-way Stop signs are not warranted at this intersection. 2-Way Stop Signs 2-way Stop signs are nom~ally xvan'anted at intersections where the criteria for a 4-way Stop sign installation is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-xvay. As stated above, there is a private property bush located at the northwest comer of the intersection. Should the homeowner trim or remove the bush, this will ~mprove the slghl distance for motorists. Also. there is not a s~gnificant amount of traffic on either street during the day. A routine motorist may become accustomed to not seeing any traffic on the cross street when approaching the intersection. This, in turn, may result in disobedience of a full stop by motorists creating a potential safety concern for other motorists and pedestrians. Finally, the accident history at this intersection shows that there doesn't appear to be a significant problem and a full stop may not be necessary. Based on the existing conditions, 2-way Stop signs are not recommended at this intersection. Yield Signs At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all rimes, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as Yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-xvay to traffic when the normal right~or-way rule appears to not be effective. I accident in the past 5 years reveals an uncontrolled intersection may be acceptable. However. the speed data shows that because of the proximity of the homes and landscaping to the intersection, motorists may not have enough time to see other vehicles on the cross street, react and stop before reaching the mtersecnon. Motorists controlled by Yield signs would need to slow down before reaching the intersection resulting in a shorter distance to come to a full stop if necessary. Since the traffic volume is similar on both streets, Staff reviewed the traffic control signs on adjacent intersections and the recorded speeds on both streets to determine the appropriate street to be given the right-of-way. Based on this information, Yield signs on Pine Street are recommended at this intersection. The Village Traffic Engineer recommends: approval of Yield signs on Pine Street at Memory Lane. Discussion Village Engineer Wulbecker provided an overview of the report to the Commission. Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the commission members and audience. Mark Martgrano. 505 N. Pine Street, said there have been 5 or 6 near m~ss accidents at this intersection. He mentioned that speeding and cut through traffic is worse during the school year because of the number of student drivers. He supports yield signs. Theresa McKenna, 418 N. Pine Street, supports yield signs but would prefer stop signs. She complimented the Police Department on their efforts. Deputy Chief Dahlberg stated that ~varrants need to be met for stop signs and that there can be a high level of disobedience at intersections ~vhere stop signs are not warranted. He further explained the importance of speed"enforcement to address speeding concerns Commissioner Keane questioned why yield signs were recommended on Pine Street rather than on Memory Lane. Village Engineer Wulbecker said that traffic volume was approximately equal on both streets and given the long blocks on Pine Street and the existing traffic control at the ao.~acent intersections along Memory Lane. Staff believes it appropriate to install the slgrls on Pine Street. There was some additional comments and discussion on this issue. Commissioner Tortorello, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer. The motion was approved by a vote of 5-0. COMMISSION ISSUES No other Safety Commission items were brought forth at this time. ADJOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 5-0 to adjourn ar 8:15 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Keane. Commissioner Tortorello seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey A. Wulbecker. P.E. Village Engineer COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA II. Iii. IV. Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, July 8, 2003 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMI3-1'EE OFTHE WHOLE MEETINGS OF ' APRIL 22, 2003 AND MAY 13,2003 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD 2004-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN In 1997, the Village Board formally adopted its first comprehensive 5-year Capital Improvements Pfan (CIP). In previous years, the Village used a number of separate documentS in its Capital projects planning. While'each of these documents was useful in its own right, none offered an overaii picture of the Village's capital needs. The establishment of a 5-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) provides a comprehensive view of the Village's capital needs for consecutive rolling five-year windows. The proposed 2004-2008 CIP is generafly comprised of projects which involve the purchase or construction of long-lived, tangible assets at a cost of $25,000 or more, The total cost of all requests for all years included in the plan is approximately $44.4 million. Many of the requests in the plan are simply continuations of established projects. Others are projects not currently in progress but have been discussed by the Village Board'on previous occasions. Some requests are being presented for the first time through the CIP. Given that the CtP is intended to afford a comprehensive view of the Village's capital needs, it is tiffing that all of these project requests be included in the proposed plan. Ofthe $44.4 million of project requests included in the proposed CIP, about $33.1 million (or 74%)'is for the 'COntinuation of established projects including approximately $15.1 million for street resurfacing. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WI~Q.WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS.MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, $1~OULD CONTACT THE VILL;4GE'MANAGER'S OFFICE A T fO0 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 6 0056, 8 47/392-6000, EXTENSION 5 327, T DD ~t847/392-6064. A project's inclusion in the CIP does not guarantee its funding and accomplishment. The CIP is a p!anning document. As such, it is subject to change. The ClP is reviewed and updated on an annual basis. The next CIP will cover the years 2005 through 2009. Special attention should be given to the projects requested for 2004. Those are the projects, which would potentially be included in the Village's next annual operating budget. Although the Village Board may decide not to fund a 2004 project request included in the final 2004-2008 CIP, the CIP should serve as a "pre-budget" for capital items. The 2004 project requests included in the proposed CIP amount to $13.2 million. Of this amount, $11.4 million (or 86%) is for the continuation of established projects including $3.2 million for the Street Program and $5.2 million for completion of the new Village Hall/Community Center and municipal parking deck. It should be noted that over $'1.6 million in capital projects originally scheduled for 2004 has been deferred to out years while the Village Board and Administration work to develop a long-range financial plan that will, among other things, identify a permanent funding source for such projects. The proposed 2004-2008 CIP was distributed on June 6, 2003 to the Finance Commission and the Village Board. The Finance Commission held a meeting on June 19, 2003 to review the proposed document. Copies of the draft minutes from the Commission's meetings will be provided separately. Once the Commit[ee of the Whole completes its review of the proposed 2004-2008 CIP, it will be presented to the Village Board for formal acceptance on July 15, 2003. ,COMMUTER PARKING FEE INCREASE Dudng this year's long-range financial planning process, staff looked at various fees and fines currently being charged by the Village. A number of recommendations will be forthcoming suggesting modest increases in certain fees and fines ~9 bring them into line with the going rate in other communities. Included on the July 8, 2003 Committee of the Whole Agenda is a proposal to increase parking fees for the Village's downtown commuter lots. The current fee of $1.00 per day h as been in place for over 15 years. A survey of wh at other communities are charging along various commuter rail lines indicates that $1.00 per day is below the average. Staff would propose, at a minimum, that the fee be raised to $1.25 per day and that serious consideration be given to increasing the fee to $1.50 per day. The attached memorandum and supporting documentation from Public Works Administrative Analyst Jason Leib details the levels of new revenue that would be generated by an increase. As you will note, we are obligated to share a portion of this revenue with the Union Pacific Railroad as part of our lease agreement covedng the Northwest Highway commuter lots and train station. The additional revenues are necessary to ensure proper long-term maintenance of our downtown parking facilities. The daily rate also serves as a benchmark for anticipated parking lease arrangements for the existing Wi]le Street lot and the new Parking Deck. Revenues generated from Village-owned lots and structures will be used to create a sinking fund to cover long-term maintenance items for these parking assets. This discussion will also provide staff with an opportunity to preview the automated fee collection system that is currently being installed in the existing commuter lots. This automated system will make collection and accounting of revenues easier and more accurate. The system also allows for the issuance of debit cards which customers can · utilize instead of cash. The Finance Department would handle the sale of debit cards. Appropriate staff will beon hand.to answf~r questions and facilitate discussion. VI. VII. VIII, IX. MAYORPROTEM PROTOCOL The Village Code currently provides for the selection of a Mayor Pro Tem to serve in the official capacity of the Mayor in times of his/her absence or disability. The current protocol requires official action by the Village Board at one of its regular business meetings. Historically, the Mayor Pro Tern position has been established in the narrow circumstance of presiding over official meetings of the Village Board. Once the meeting has concluded, the status of Mayor Pro Tem is extinguished. in this day and age of extended travel capabilities, homeland securing issues and the potential suddenness with which the need for a Mayor Pro Tem may arise, staff would propose that the Village Board revieTM the current protocol and consider an expanded and more definitive protocol to cover not only official Village meetings but also those pedods where the current Mayor may be out of town and unavailable for extended pedods of time. Attached is a recent survey of Northwest Municipal Conference communities and how they handle Mayor Pro Tern protocol. It appears that the protocol is somewhat unique to the culture of each community's philosophical viewpoint. In some cases, the Mayor has the ability to appoint a Stand-in. In other cases, the Village Board must act on a case-by-case basis (as does Mount Prospect). In the Case of Hoffman Estates, a semi-permanent Mayor Pro Tern is established from among Village Board members and serves a set term. The purpose of Tuesday evening's discussion is to engage in an initial philosophical discussion that will, hopefully, provide some direction to staff as how to proceed or not to proceed, as the case may be with drafting a new protocol. Appropriate staffwill be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT ANY OTHER BUSINESS ADJOURNMENT. II. III. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JULY 8, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley, in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Irvana Wilks. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Chief Michael Figolah, DepUty Fire Chief John Malcolm, Police Chief Richard Eddington, Deputy Police Chief Ronald Richardson, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Administrative Analyst Jason Leib and Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from April 22, 2003. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Approval of Minutes from May 13, 2003. Motion made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. 2004-2008 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Village Manager Michael Janonis introduced the topic by providing an overview of the Capital Improvements Plan program process. He stated this is a planning document and an acceptance of the ClP plan does not guarantee funding in the appropriate budget year. He stated there is approximately $1.6 million in projects slated for 2004 which have been delayed due to the budget situation of the Village. He stated the Plan had been provided to the Finance Commission on June 19 for their input and the Minutes of that meeting have been included for the Village Board's information. He said the focus this evening will be on 2004 and any change in scope or the various projects that have previously appeared. He stated the 2004 Financing Plan which the Village Board has tentatively approved includes a permanent funding source for CIP projects into the future. Assistant Village Manager David Strahl provided information on the various projects slated for Village Administration including funds for completion of the TV studio for the new Village Hall. He also highlighted the potential for a new phone system in 2007 and a new financial software package within the next four years. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that any video conferencing money be carefully sCrutinized to make sure there is appropriate benefit prior to expenditure. It was also pointed out that the projected replacement cost for the Village phone system is likely too Iow based on current experience. Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided an overview of the various projects related to Community Development. The bulk of the funding that he highlighted includes the completion of the Village Hall/Parking Deck in addition to streetscape costs associated with the completion of the civic block including the Library. Fire Chief Michael Figolah provided a summary of the projects slated for the Fire Department. Among those is the seed money for the study of a new Fire Station location on the north side. He also stated there is money in for a diesel exhaust system which is considered a safety item. He said there is money set aside for thermal imaging cameras for 2005, however, the Department has submitted a Grant application for the diesel exhaust system. If the Grant is looked upon favorably, the money that would normally be allotted for the diesel exhaust system would be covered by a Grant and the thermal imaging cameras would be moved into 2004 with the savings from the diesel exhaust system. Police Chief Richard Eddington highlighted the recommended purchases for the Police Department. Among those items are six laptops for the Investigation Unit. He also stated that the Department is in the process of applying for a Grant to help cover the cost of the purchase. He stated the two most critical items for 2004 are the digital surveillance equipment to monitor the jail cells and the update to the shooting range to eliminate bullets coming back at the Officers during shooting practice. Public Works Director Glen Andler highlighted the various projects that he is anticipating. Among those is the McDonald Creek program scheduled for 2008. He stated this money is intended to address similar issues that had been present at Weller Creek and to rectify them in a similar manner. H e a Iso highlighted t hat t he increase i n t he S hated Cost Sidewalk Program is now closer to the real 50/50 split cost. He stated the change in the bridge rehabilitation cost is based on recent experience with the repair of the William Street Bridge. He stated there is money in for Busse Road improvements assuming there is some movement by Cook County for planning of this road improvement. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a question and discussion regarding Central Road resurfacing and reconstruction and the option of jurisdictional transfer. John Korn, Chairman of the Finance Commission, spoke. He stated the Commission is supportive of the CIP program as presented and encourages the shift of funding based on Grant monies being available for the Fire Department. Consensus of the Village Board was to present the CIP Plan to the Village Board for approval in the near future. COMMUTER PARKING FEE INCREASE Village Manager Janonis stated that staff has been discussing the potential for a fee increase as part of the overall Financial Plan. He stated that based on projections of maintenance, the current fee cannot sustain the cost of maintaining the lots long term. 2 VI. Public Works Administrative Analyst Jason Leib provided a presentation to the Village Board illustrating the projected cost of maintaining lots in the future and. how the revenue stream is impacted by the current charge. He stated the fee per day has not changed in at least 15 years and based on the analysis of parking fees up and down the Northwest line, the average is slightly higher than the current charge by Mount Prospect. Public Works Director Glen Andler a Iso stated that staff is undertaking an automated collection system to improve the collection of the parking fees in addition to improving the accounting for the fees. He stated the system should be operational by September. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was recommended that there be~ some Comparison of costs of private lot parking compared the current Village parking rate. There was also a discussion regarding the projected life of the swipe card along with possible savings associated with bank fees processing the cash. Dale Draznin, 220 South Hatlen, spoke. She stated that raising the commuter fees 50% is a large increase. She stated the cost of parking should track actual costs not additional costs or future costs. She also suggested a separate fee for residents and non-residents. Consensus of the Village Board was to raise the daily parking to $1.50 and review the cost of maintenance to determine what impact inflation has on the overall fund. MAYOR PRO TEM PROTOCOL DISCUSSION Village Manager Janonis stated that he feels that the Mayor Pro Tern function is covered for meetings and for emergency situations. However, he feels it would be worthwhile for the Village Board to consider a de facto Mayor Pro Tern to sign documents in the event the Mayor is unavailable and between meetings. He stated that such an appointment for a Mayor Pro Tem to serve a specific period does not require a change in government. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was general support for a standing Mayor Pro Tern for a specific period of time. It was also suggested that the Mayor Pro Tem be considered for removal based on a possible super majority vote. It was also suggested that the Mayor Pro Tem designation be made prior to actual need. Consensus of the Village Board was to request that staff continue some additional research and provide a draft Ordinance based on the comments of the Village Board. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that the weekend storms had very little overall physical impact on the Village, therefore, requiring little clean up of damage. He also stated that the next Coffee with Council is scheduled for July 12 at Village Hall from 9:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. III. IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Michaele Skowron wanted to thank the support of the Village employees for the outstanding job they do in coordinating the annual 4th of July Carnival. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . ,-/O DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc 7/31/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Section 1.104 entitled "President Pro Tem" of Chapter 1 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be deleted in its entirety and a new Section 1.104, entitled "Designated President Pro Tem" shall be added to Chapter 1 of the Mount Prospect Village Code which shall be and read as follows: Sec. 1.104. Designated President Pro Term A. Creation of Office: Powers and Duties. There is hereby created the office of Designated President Pro Tem. The person appointed to such office shall be authorized to lawfully perform all functions and duties the Village President is empowered to perform, but only when the Village President is unable to perform those duties as a result of disability of the Village President or unavailability due to absence from the Village. If the Village President=s absence is unexplained the Designated President Pro Tem shall not act until a reasonable effort to locate the Village President has been made. B. Qualifications. No person shall be appointed to the office of the Designated President Pro Tern unless he or she is a duly elected or appointed trustee of the Village of Mount Prospect. C. Appointment. The Designated President Pro Tem shall be appointed by a majority vote of the President and Board of Trustees voting jointly. D. Term of Office. The initial term of office of the Designated Pro Tem shall commence on the day of appointment and terminate April 30 of 2004. Thereafter, the Designated President Pro Tern shall be elected at the first regular meeting in March, take office on May 1st and serve until April 30th of the following year, unless the office is vacated by removal. In no event shall the term of the Designated President Pro Tern extend beyond the term of office of the Village President. The Designated President Pro Tern may be removed at any time by the affirmative vote of four trustees. E. Acting Village President, Vacancy. If a vacancy occurs in the position of Village President, the Designated President Pro Tern, shall, for purposes pursuant of 65 ILCS 3-5:1, serve as Acting Village President until such time as a successor to fill the vacancy has been duly elected and has qualified. F. Bond; Oath. The Bond and Oath shall be the same as that reqUired for the Village President. SECTION 2: A new Section 1.105, entitled "President Pr° Tem" shall be added to Chapter 1 of the Mount Prospect Village Code which shall be and read as follows: Sec. 1.105. President Pro Tern. During the temporary absence or disability of both the Village President and the Designated President Pro Tern, the Board of Trustees shall elect one of its members to act as President Pro Tem, who during the absence or disability of the President and the Designated President Pro Tem shall perform the duties pertaining to the office. SECTION 3: Section 8.701 "Succession in the Event of Emergency" of Article VII entitled "Succession of Officers" .of Chapter 8 shall be amended as follows: 8.701: SUCCESSION IN THE EVENT OF EMERGENCY: If during an emergency or natural disaster, the Village Manager dies or is rendered incapable, by absence or otherwise, of performing the duties of the office, the office shall be filled without the necessity of action of the Board of Trustees in the following order of preference until such time as a successor is named and takes office in the manner provided by law: The coordinator of the Mount Prospect Department of Emergency Services and Disaster; then 2. Assistant Manager; then 3. Chief of Police; then 4. Director of Finance. If during an emergency or natural disaster, the Village President dies or is rendered incapable, by absence or otherwise, of performing the duties of the office, the office shall be filled without the necessity of action by the Board of Trustees in the following order of preference until such time as a successor is named and takes office in the manner provided by law. I. The Designated President Pro Tem; then 2. The remaining members of the Board of Trustees in order of seniority as determined by the most current continuous months of service and if two (2) or more are of the same seniority, the order of succession shall be determined by alphabetical order until the position has been filled. If neither the Village President nor the Designated President Pro Tem is able to serve, then at the earliest possible time a quorum of the Board of Trustees is able to meet, that Board shall, by a majority vote, appoint any one of its members to fulfill the duties of the Village President until the Village President or Designated President Pro Tern is once again able to fulfill those duties or until such time as a successor is named and takes office in the manner provided by law. SECTION 4: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect fi.om and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma Lowe, Village Clerk C \MyFiles~Mp\ORDS\$e¢ 1.104 Designat edPr oTcmlNcwOrd w pd