HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. NEW BUSINESS 2/7/06
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
Paddock Publications, Inc.
Daily Herald
Corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of Illinois,
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that it is the publisher of the DAILY HERALD.
That said DAIL Y HERALD is a secular newspaper and has been circulated daily in the
Village(s) of Algonquin, Arlington Heights, Barrington, Barrington Hills,
Lake Barrington, North Barrington, South Barrington, Bartlett, Batavia, Buffalo Grove,
Burlington, Carpentersville, Cary, Deer Park, Des Plaines, South Elgin, East Dundee,
Elbum, Elgin, Elk Grove Village, Fox Lake,Fox River Grove , Geneva, Gilberts,Grayslake,
Gumee,Hampshire,Hainesville,Hanover Park,Hawthom Woods , Hoffman Estates, Huntley,
Invemess,Island Lake,Kildeer ,Lake Villa,Lake in the Hills,Lake Zurich,Libertyville,
Lincolnshire, Lindenhurst, Long Grove, Mt. Prospect, Mundelein, Palatine,
Prospect Heights, Rolling Meadows, Schaumburg, Sleepy Hollow, St. Charles, Streamwood,
Tower Lakes,Vemon Hills,Volo,Wauconda,Wheeling,West Dundee,Wildwood,Green Oaks
County(ies) of Cook, Kane, Lake, McHemy
and State of Illinois, continuously for more than one year prior to the date of the first
publication of the notice hereinafter referred to and is of general circulation throughout said
Village(s), County(ies) and State.
I further certify that the DAILY HERALD is a newspaper as defined in "an Act to revise
the law in relation to notices" as amended in 1992 Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 715,
Act 5, Section 1 and 5. That a notice of which the annexed printed slip is a true copy, was
published January 23,2006 in said DAILY HERALD.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, the said PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS, Inc.,
has caused this certificate to be signed by, this authorized agent, at Arlington Heights,
Illinois.
PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS, INC.
DAILY HERALD NEWSPAPERS
BY
, . <7 _I~ ../(1'..
/" f1 ~ .i r". _ . '" yo'/'
/t~0~::..JL_~::-" I~Y "~~,..- .;:-L,'( I:..-.Y '---..
- <8
Authorized Agent
Control# T3666998
. 0,;...... I..e-~. ...no;;~yc-v.,,;'\.~,,a Dalri ..1 ,._^,.~~~;Mntp~~Dio -:~..J..,.. ~:.~~;/u'~!~i~~~.v' -
jtv must be presented upon NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thot oJiTuesdav, Februarv 7,
receipt of specifications. 2oo6"at the hour of 7:00 p.m., the President ond Boord of
Each proposal shall be ac- Trust.ees ofthe Village of Mount Prospect will hold a Public
companied bv' a bid bond Heanng atthe Mount PraspectVlllage Hall, 50S. Emerson
certified check, cashiers Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois, to consider ond hear testi-
cheek, or bank draft In an monv regarding an ordinance authorizing the execution of
amount equal to five percent an A~nexation Agreement in regard to the annexation to
of the bid, pavable to the VII. th~ Ylllage of Jy.ount Prospect of a tract of property com.
lage of Palatine, as a guar.' Prlsmg approxlmatelv 27 acres of land, all pursuant to the
ontee that If the bid Is ac- provisions of 65ILCS 5111-15.1-1, et seq., as follows: '
cepted, the bidder will PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS' Northeast Corner
~f:~':J~~nf~~g~C;;n~ngs f~~t of Algonquin & Linneman Roads.
farth in the Proiect Docu-
ments. I n case the bidder
falls to file such contract
and bond, the amount of the
check or bid bond shall be
forfeited to the Vllloge of
Palatine as lIauidated dam-
ages. . ,
Sealed bids will be opened
and publlclv read aloud bv
the Village Clerk at 3:00
p.m., Tuesdov, Februarv 7,
2006, In Meetmg Room C,
Community Center, 200 E.
Wood Street, Palatine, illi-
nois 60067. Award of
Contract DPW-0611, If one Is
to be made, Is scheduled bv
the Village Council at their
regular meeting to be held
at 7:00 ,p.m., Mondav, Feb.
ruarv 13, 2006.
The letting of this contract
is subiect to Illinois Com-
plied Statutes 820 I LCS
130/1-12.
The Village of Palatine re-
serves the right to reiect
any or all bids, to wolve any
Infarmalltles In bidding, and
to accept any propasal'
which the Village Council
deems most favorable to the
interests of the Village.
Dated'thls 23rd day of Janu-
arv, 2006.
DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS
Andrew S. Ra~tski, P.E.
Director af Public Works
Published In Dallv Herald
Jan. 23, 2006 (3665767)N
PIN 1#: 08-23-200-049-0000,08-23-202.048-0000,
, 08-23.200.:050-0000, 08-23-202-049-0000
LEGAL,L Y DESCRIBED AS:
t~r'W11 t
e es 800 feet of Lot 2 (except the West 363 feet thereof)
in Linneman's Division of part of the Northeast 1/4 of Sec-
tion 23, TownShip 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third
Principal Meridian and part. of the Southeast 1/4 of Section
14, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Princi-
pal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded Sep.-
tember 10, 1953 as Document 15n6544.
~ 537 feet of the West 811.30 feet, as measured on
t~ ~~~fr~e rw~~ ~ef~~~'i,'f~~13t~m I\m~~~~gn~~g~
vlsian of the South 3/4 of the East 112 of the Northeast 1/4
and the West 112 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township
41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in
Cook County, Illinois.
rami fj .
o , ,14,15,16 and the Westerlv 141 feet of Lots 6 and 7
~~s~b':ll::l~f~nA~r~~~r~? L~~~'~~~~~~an~~gi~I~'IJn"m~~c~
~~rn9PaT~:tI~!~n~la~c':,r;.'~{n:~g?~e lJiaf~r~~l~:cJ~J~~
Februorv 20, 1967, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of
Cook County, Illinois os D,ocument 20409120, in Cook
County, illinois. '
PETITIONER: OPUS Brlarwaad, LLC
OWNER: OPUS North Corporation
Mike Yungerman
9~~e~.::.\~~t~fgd .
NATURE OF REQUEST:The Annexation Agreement pro.
vides;among other things, for annexation of the sublect
property, rezoning from RX Single Famllv District to I.
1 'limited Industrial District, variations (building
height and setbacks) and a final plat of subdivision
(create 2 lots of record I.-After the Public Hearing, the
Village Board will consider approval of the annexationl
Annexation Agreement, rezoning, variations and fino
plat of subdivision.
A draft of the proposed Annexation Agreement Is an file
and available for public inspection at the Office of the VII.
loge of Mount Prospect City Clerk, Mount Prospect Village
Hall, SO S, Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, illinois, dur-
ing normal business hours. All persons wishing to be heard
may appear and be heard at the Public Hearing or submit
written comments to the Mount ProspeCt Village' Board of
Trustees at 50 S. Emerson Street, Mount, Prospect, IL
60056, or via e-moll to Bcoanl1flllmountDros~.or~. Per-
sons havin_9 questions may ca tne Village 0 oun Pros-
pect at (847) 818-5328.
The Public Hearing may lie continued from tlnie to tiroe
w1thout, further notice, except as otherwise requiredbv the
illinois Open Meetings Act. The propased Annexation
Agreement may, be Changed, altered. modified, amended
or redrafted in its entirety after the Public Hearing. The
Village Board's decision Is final for this case.
Dated at Mount Prospect, illinois, this Mondov,JC;lnuarv
23, 2006
I rvana Wilks .
President, Village of Mount Prospect
Published In Dollv Herald, Jonuarv 23, 2006 (3666998)N
/4DV
~~
I
I
J
N
,~ i
~
Ii
MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
FEBRUARY 3, 2006
SUBJECT:
PZ-44-05 -
1) Rezone from RX Single Family to 11 Limited Industrial
2) Variations (building height, setbacks, landscaping)
3) Final Plat of Resubdivision (create 2-lots of record)
Northeast Comer of Algonquin & Linneman Roads
OPUS BRIARWOOD LLC - APPLICANT
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-44-05, a request to
construct two office/warehouse buildings and related zoning relief and plat approval as detailed in the attached
Staff Report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 26,2006 meeting.
The Subject Property is located at the northeast comer of Algonquin and Linneman Roads, and consists of a spill
over parking lot and an open space (recreation) area. The proposed development is consistent with the Village's
Land Use Map, which calls for the Subject Property to be developed as 'Industrial - Office'. The Petitioner is
seeking approval for the proposed Final Plat of Subdivision as well as relief from maximum building height and
interior side yard setback regulations.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's project at length at the January 26th meeting.
People who live and work near the proposed development stated their concerns regarding drainage, privacy, and
the anticipated amount of increased truck traffic. The Petitioner responded that storm water detention will be
provided, which may indirectly minimize the amount of water ponding on the adjacent properties; the site would
include a 6-foot board-on-board fence to screen the development from the adjacent residential buildings and the
office/warehouse building is not designed to accommodate offices on the second floor; and the Petitioner agreed
to implement site plan modifications and any other traffic modifications as required by the appropriate agency to
ensure a safe development.
The P&Z Commissions discussed with the Petitioner why 39' was necessary for the building height. The
Petitioner clarified that only portions of the building would be 39' which is necessary to screen roof-top
equipment and to provide architectural interest to the building. There was discussion on industry trends and
changes and how 'taller' buildings are needed to provide a minimum 30' clearance.
There was discussion on possible tenant composition, right-of-way dedication, and the Petitioner's long-term
involvement with the site. Several Commissioners stated their support for the project because OPUS was so
successful in developing the Kensington Business Center and because the company has a reputation for
.,G
PZ-44-05
February 3,2006
Page 2
constructing high quality developments. In addition, the P&Z found that the proposed use was appropriate for the
location and was designed in a manner that would have minimal impact on the adjacent residential development.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve:
1) a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial,
2) the Final Plat of Subdivision of Briarwood Business Center subject to the following:
a. revise the plat so the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 reads 363.04';
b. revise the plat so the legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6 read 141.11';
c. revise the plat to reflect a 10' wide public drainage and utility easement along the east side of the
property, along the north 737.42' of the west side of Lot 1, and on each side of the property line between
Lots 1 and 2; and
d. revise the plat to reflect a separate, 10' wide water main easement granted exclusively to the Village of
Mount Prospect along the east side of the Subject Property.
3) Variations to allow:
a. 39' building heights;
b. 10' side yard setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5,2006; and
c. relief from Sec. 14.2104.E to allow the landscaping as proposed for the area adjacent to residential
for the property located at the northeast comer of Algonquin and Linneman Roads, Case No. PZ-44-05, subject to the
following:
1. Village Board adopting the Annexation Agreement.
2. The site shall be developed in general accordance with the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5,2006.
3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Gary R. Weber
Associates, revision date January 9, 2006.
4. The site shall be developed in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements,
including, but not limited to: Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code
regulations, Building Code regulations, and Development Code regulations. This may require minor
modifications to the site to comply with all development requirements and traffic concerns detailed in
the Village Code and in the Engineering Division's review comments dated November 17, 2005.
5. The Petitioner understands that a change in use may require further review by the Village of Mount
Prospect, and that modifications such as, but not limited to, adding a deceleration lane may be required,
subject to obtaining the appropriate permit from the governing jurisdiction.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their
February 7, 2006 meeting. Staff will be present ~[any questions T~ted to this matter.
William J. Cooney, JI., ICP
Ijmc H:\PLAN\Plalming & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2006IMEJ Mcmos\PZ-44-05 ME] (OPUS - NEe Algonquin and Linncman).doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-44-05
Hearing Date: January 26,2006
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
NEC of Algonquin and Linneman Roads
PETITIONERS:
Michael P. Yungerman of OPUS North Corp.
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 11, 2006
PIN #:
08-23 -200 -049 -0000/0 8 -23 -200 -0 5 0-0000/0 8 -23 -202-048 -000010 8-
23-202-049-0000
REQUESTS:
1) Rezone from RX Single Family to I1 Limited Industrial
2) Variations (building height, setbacks, landscaping)
3) Plat of Resubdivision (create 2-lots of record)
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Marlys Haaland
Richard Rogers
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ronald Roberts
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director Community Development
Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Judy Arcieri, Betty Hopkins, Phyllis Zumph, Bill Johnston and Mike
Yungerman
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the
minutes of the December 22, 2005 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 5-0; Leo Floros abstained from the vote. At 7:35 p.m., Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-
44-05, requests for Rezoning from RX Single Family to I1 Limited Industrial, Variations including building
height, setbacks, landscaping and a Plat of Resubdivision modifying property lines to create 2-lots of record from
4 lots. She said that the Village Board's decision was final for the request.
Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She stated that the Subject Property is located on the north
side of Algonquin Road, between Linneman Road and Malmo Drive, and contains multiple lots of record. The
Subject Property is currently under Cook County jurisdiction and the Petitioner is seeking to annex the Subject
Property into Mount Prospect corporate limits. The Subject Property was acquired from United Airlines (VAL)
and was used by UAL as a spill over parking lot and a recreation area.
Ms. Connolly stated the Petitioner has submitted an Annexation Agreement for Village Board review and
approval. The Annexation Agreement does not require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
required Public Hearing will be held at a subsequent Village Board meeting. She said in an effort to streamline
the review process, Staff is presenting the Petitioner's zoning requests to the P&Z for their recommendation,
which will then be forwarded to the Village Board for their review and consideration after the Annexation
Arlene Juracek, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-44-05
Page 2
Agreement has been adopted. Ms. Connolly stated there are several zoning requests and she will go into detail on
each.
Ms. Connolly said the first request is to rezone the property. She explained that Illinois State Statutes require the
Subject Property be assigned the most stringent zoning classification upon being annexed into a municipality.
She stated that in Mount Prospect, the required zoning district is RX Single Family. Therefore, the Petitioner is
seeking approval of a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single Family to I1 Limited
Industrial to construct two industrial office/warehouse buildings.
Ms. Connolly stated the second request is for relief from Building Height limitations and Interior Side Yard
setback regulations. The Petitioner is seeking relief from zoning regulations to allow a 39 foot building height
when the Village's Zoning Ordinance limits the building height to 30 feet in the I1 District. She said the
additional building height is necessary to allow the Petitioner to construct an industrial distribution center that is
consistent with competing buildings in the O'Hare market. She stated in light of this request, Staff is evaluating
the I1 bulk regulations to ensure the Village's Code is consistent with current development trends and to
determine whether the Village's current 30 foot building height limitation remains adequate or should be
increased.
Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property abuts a multi-family development along a portion of its east lot line. The
Zoning Ordinance requires a more stringent setback when an industrial development is located next to a
residential use. Sec. 14.2104.E requires all buildings, structures, and parking lots to maintain a 40 foot setback
when abutting a residential property and that a fence and additional landscaping be provided. She stated that in
this case, the proposed office/warehouse building would meet the required 40 foot setback, but a portion of the
parking lot and the entire drive aisle for the proposed Lot 1 would encroach into the required 40 foot setback and
have a 10 foot side yard. She also said, due to the depth of the proposed landscape area, landscaping will not be
installed as required by the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 10 foot
setback for the parking lot when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40 foot setback, and to install landscaping as
shown on the Petitioner's landscape plan.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner proposes a 10 foot setback along a portion of the east lot line of the
proposed Lot 2. Lot 2 is south of Lot 1 and abuts outdoor tennis courts and industrial businesses that are located
in Cook County. She said that similar to Lot 1, the proposed office/warehouse building to be constructed on Lot 2
would comply with the Village's required setbacks, but a portion of the drive aisle would be located 10 feet from
the east lot line. She stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires parking lots to maintain a 10 foot setback when
not adjacent to residential; therefore, the proposed setback does not require relief from zoning regulations.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan shows two lots of record. Each lot would contain a 225,000+/- square
foot industrial office/warehouse building that meets the Village's required setbacks. A dry detention basin would
be centrally located between the two lots and serve both sites. She stated that several parking fields are indicated
on the plan, but the Petitioner intends to land bank certain spaces until a specific tenant is identified and it is
determined that the spaces are needed to meet the Village's parking regulations.
Ms. Connolly stated vehicles and trucks would access the site from Dempster Street, Linneman Road, or
Algonquin Road. Trucks and vehicles could enter and exit from any of the 3 access points, depending on their
point of origin and destination. She said the proposed loading docks would be located along the West elevation of
Building 1 and along the East elevation of Building 2. The docks would be situated away from the multi-family
development and there would be a cross access easement between the proposed Lots 1 and 2. She stated that the
Petitioner's plans do not include cross access for the existing VAL parking lot west of Lot 1 that will remain.
Ms. Connolly said road and infrastructure improvements will be made to accommodate the proposed
development. Dempster Street and Algonquin Road are not under the Village's jurisdiction and require permits
Arlene Juracek, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-44-05
Page 3
from Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) and Cook County Highway Department (CCHD). Therefore,
final design approval is not available at this time. She stated that the portion of Linneman Road that is adjacent to
the property would be annexed into the Village. The Petitioner will improve this roadway with a 3-lane
configuration and will upgrade the traffic signal at Linneman and Algonquin Roads per IDOT requirements.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner prepared a traffic study and based the directional distribution of the site
traffic on the existing traffic volume along the adjacent roadways. She said the intended users are not known at
this time and the Engineering Division has concerns that some of the proposed site improvements may not be
adequate for a more intensive user. Staff has met with the Petitioner to discuss concerns over traffic speed on
Algonquin Road, possible truck turning movements into the site that could create traffic conflicts, and internal
traffic patterns. The Petitioner has agreed to follow the requirements of the appropriate jurisdiction and make the
necessary improvements if a more intensive user were to occupy the site. She said it is important to note that a
cartage facility, which is a transportation facility relying on larger trucks typically to make deliveries, would
require a Conditional Use permit from the Village and that site and access improvements could be required as part
of the Conditional Use permit at that time. She stated that subject to Staff review during the building permit
process, minor modifications may be required to ensure a safe traffic circulation flow.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan indicates the site could accommodate 411 parking spaces; 290 on Lot
1 and 121 on Lot 2. The Petitioner does not intend to construct all the parking spaces at this time because tenants
for the buildings have not yet been finalized. She stated the Petitioner has agreed to provide parking in
accordance with Village Code, as required for the use.
Ms. Connolly stated that currently, there are a significant number of trees clustered along the southeast quadrant
of the Subject Property. The Petitioner submitted a tree survey, which documents the condition and form of the
existing trees. She said the report shows that only 3% of the trees were of above average condition and form and
received a rating of "2", with" 1" being the best. No trees were rated" 1" and less than 1 0% of the trees had either
an above average condition or an above average form. She stated that the area is marked by poor forestry
practices and a significant number of the trees are less than desirable species and in poor condition. She said
although the Petitioner has agreed to save as many trees as possible, the configuration of the site development
dictates removing many of the trees. Therefore, the Petitioner prepared a landscape plan that indicates a variety of
plant species and mature trees to be planted throughout the site.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner proposes to install a 6' board-on-board fence along the northern portion of the
east lot line to provide screening for the adjacent multi-family development. Multiple clusters of 6 foot tall
evergreen trees will be planted in this area as well as ornamental trees. She stated that the Petitioner's landscape
plan indicates that the fence will be located 5 feet from the lot line and that the landscaping will be installed on
both sides of the fence. However, Sec. 14.2104.E requires the fence to be located no less than 8 feet from the
property line and that a continuous 3 foot hedge be planted on the outside of the fence, facing the abutting
residential, to be maintained by the owner of the industrial property. She said the landscape plan submitted does
not indicate that this requirement will be met. She further stated that the depth of the proposed landscape area
limits the amount and location of the landscaping. Therefore, a Variation is needed for this aspect of the project
and this is the third zoning request from the Petitioner.
Ms. Connolly stated that the plan indicates that landscaping will be provided along the southern portion of Lot l's
east lot line, which abuts industrial business. In addition, a berm would be included along the west lot line to
screen the parking lot in Lot 2. She also said the berm will include landscape materials, as allowable by the
design, to provide an aesthetically pleasing view of the development from Algonquin Road.
Arlene Juracek, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-44-05
Page 4
Ms. Connolly showed the Petitioner's color elevations to indicate the general look of the proposed buildings. She
said the buildings may be modified to accommodate a specific user, which could include relocating windows
and/or adding windows. She stated that the buildings would be constructed from smooth painted precast concrete
panels with painted reveals and includes grey tinted glass windows. Aluminum coping and a canopy would be
incorporated into the building design to break-up the expansive fayade. She said the building materials and the
building construction would comply with Village regulations.
Ms. Connolly showed a table that summarized the required setbacks for the II District and lists the Petitioner's
proposed setbacks. She said the Petitioner attempted to create a development that was compatible with the
existing uses and complied with Mount Prospect's Village Code regulations. However, the shape of the Subject
Property has minor irregularities and portions of the property 'jog' at various points.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted a zoning request for a Final Plat of Resubdivision that creates 2-lots of
record. She stated that the Village has Home Rule authority and can to waive the requirement for a Preliminary
Plat and require only a Final Plat. She clarified that the difference between the two types of plats is that the
preliminary plat shows how the land functions, meaning topography and utility information is provided. In
comparison, the Final Plat illustrates just the lot lines or how the property will be divided. She stated that the
Petitioner has submitted information documenting the existing conditions, like the topography, utilities and will
meet all Village Code requirements. However, at the direction of Staff, the Petitioner prepared a Final Plat of
Resubdivision that creates 2-10ts of record. She reminded the Commission that as a Home Rule authority the
Village can waive this procedural requirement, and that the Petitioner will meet all Village Codes except for the
relief requested this evening.
Ms. Connolly said as part of the plat review process, the Engineering Division reviewed the proposed easements.
She stated that the Petitioner and the Village agreed that the Village will provide water to the Subject Property.
However, this issue was decided after the plat was submitted. Therefore, the plat must be modified to reflect a 10
foot separate water main easement granted exclusively to the Village of Mount Prospect. She said this easement
is in addition to the 10 foot wide public drainage and utility easement required along the east side of the property,
along the north 737.42 feet of the west side of Lot 1, and on each side of the property line between Lots 1 and 2.
The exclusive easement should only cover the public portion of the main; the small easement extensions for the
services should be deleted from the plat.
Ms. Connolly stated that the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 requires minor changes as does the
legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6.
Ms. Connolly said that currently, jurisdiction of Linneman Road belongs to Elk Grove Township. However, as
part of the annexation process, that portion of the Linneman Road right-of-way that fronts onto the Subject
Property will become part of the Village and under the Village's jurisdiction. She stated that through a series of
agreements, Linneman Road will be reconstructed and its centerline will be reconfigured. The final design and
configuration must be verified, which may require the Petitioner to dedicate an additional 14 feet along their west
property line, along the Linneman Road frontage, to create an 80 foot right-of-way at a later date.
Ms. Connolly stated that subject to making the revisions as presented, the plat was prepared in accordance with
the Development Code requirements. The plat requires signatures from the utility companies and the Petitioner is
in the process of obtaining them.
Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a map amendment as listed the Village Zoning Ordinance. She said
the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing multi-family residential development, outdoor tennis courts and
industrial office/warehouse buildings, and is across the street from the United Airlines headquarters building. The
proposed office/warehouse buildings would be in keeping with the existing industrial land uses and the Village's
Land Use Map. She stated that the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible
Arlene Juracek, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26,2006
PZ-44-05
Page 5
with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and the buildings have been designed and
landscaped to have minimal impact on the adjacent developments.
Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation as listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. She said the
project requires relief from Sections 14.2104.C to allow a 39 foot building height when the maximum height
permitted by Village Code is 30 feet. The Subject Property is across the street from the 8-story VAL office
headquarters and is adjacent to a 3-story multi-family development.
Ms. Connolly stated that the style of the proposed building is based on current design standards. Also, the 39 foot
building height is needed to screen roof equipment. The building height would not be out of character for the
neighborhood and the Petitioner has taken steps to design the building fayades so they do not adversely impact the
adjacent multi-family development.
Ms. Connolly said the project also requires relief from Sections 14.2104.E to allow the drive aisle to encroach into
the 40 foot setback. An aerial photo indicates the multi-family buildings are located approximately 65 feet from
their west lot line and that the parking lot and drive aisle for the multi-family development would abut the
Petitioner's proposed drive aisle.
Ms. Connolly stated that the shape of the Subject Property is somewhat irregular, and its size is uncharacteristic of
developments occurring in Mount Prospect within the last decade. She said the site plan mirrors the layout of the
multi-family development: drive aisle, parking, and then building. Therefore, the proposal would not be out of
character for the neighborhood and it would not adversely impact other properties. She stated that the requested
Variations are generally not applicable to other properties and the development is unique due to its size and the
diverse land uses adjacent to the Subject Property.
Ms. Connolly stated that based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission
recommend the Village Board approve the following motion:
"To approve:
1) a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial,
2) the Final Plat of Subdivision of Briarwood Business Center subject to the following:
a. revise the plat so the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 reads 363.04 feet;
b. revise the plat so the legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6 read 141.11 feet;
c. revise the plat to reflect a 10 foot wide public drainage and utility easement along the east side of the
property, along the north 737.42 feet of the west side of Lot 1, and on each side of the property line
between Lots 1 and 2; and
d. revise the plat to reflect a separate, 10 foot wide water main easement granted exclusively to the
Village of Mount Prospect along the east side of the Subject Property.
3) Variations to allow:
a. 39 foot building heights;
b. 10 foot side yard setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5, 2006; and
c. relief from Sec. 14.2104.E to allow the landscaping as proposed for the area adjacent to residential.
for the property located at the northeast comer of Algonquin and Linneman Roads, Case No. PZ-44-05, subject
to the following:
1. Village Board adopting the Annexation Agreement.
Arlene Juracek, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-44-05
Page 6
2. The site shall be developed in general accordance with the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5,
2006.
3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Gary R. Weber
Associates, revision date January 9, 2006.
4. The site shall be developed in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements,
including, but not limited to: Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code
regulations, Building Code regulations, and Development Code regulations. This may require
minor modifications to the site to comply with all development requirements and traffic concerns
detailed in the Village Code and in the Engineering Division's review comments dated November
17,2005.
5. The Petitioner understands that a change in use may require further review by the Village of
Mount Prospect, and that modifications such as, but not limited to, adding a deceleration lane may
be required, subject to obtaining the appropriate permit from the governing jurisdiction.
Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Chairperson Juracek thanked Staff for the comprehensive report and called for questions of Staff. Richard Rogers
asked if any portion of the Subject Property is adjacent to any land that is part of Mount Prospect. Ms. Connolly
confirmed that the multi-family properties to the East are part of Mount Prospect.
Mr. Rogers then asked about the possible right-of-way dedication requirement along Linneman Road. There was
discussion whether this requirement should be specifically listed as an additional condition to the request. Ms.
Connolly stated that this requirement is listed as part of the Engineering Report dated November 17, 2005, but
Staff could revise the list of conditions to include this requirement if that is what the Commission decides.
Chairperson Juracek stated that the Engineering comments sufficiently list the conditions and that should be
adequate for P&Z approval.
At the direction of Chairperson Juracek, Mike Yungerman, Real Estate Director for OPUS North at 9700 W.
Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL was sworn in. Mr. Yungerman gave a detailed presentation of the prospective
buildings and site layout. The presentation showed detailed building, parking, traffic, landscaping and green
space plans. He mentioned that great care was taken in planning the buildings and directing truck traffic as to not
impact the residential areas in the neighborhood.
Chairperson Juracek asked Mr. Yungerman about the great width of the proposed Building B; Mr. Yungerman
indicated that the proposed 225 foot depth of the building is actually on the shallow-end of the standards in the
O'Hare market area. He explained that the depth of the building was adjusted to accommodate car traffic on the
site.
Richard Rogers asked Mr. Yungerman about the requested variation to allow the 39 foot height of the buildings.
Mr. Yungerman replied that O'Hare market area demands the additional building height for current storage
conditions. He presented detailed information on required clearance, storage layouts, and other conditions typical
of new construction warehouse buildings.
Mr. Rogers then asked if OPUS North intends to maintain ownership of the building. Mr. Yungerman stated that
Opus North would construct, own and manage the property, which includes maintenance of site and buildings.
Chairperson Juracek stated that these are very large buildings and the Commission has concerns that these may sit
empty. She asked Mr. Yungerman for a brief history on the success of OPUS North. Mr. Yungerman stated that
Arlene Juracek, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-44-05
Page 7
OPUS North has been involved in commercial development for over 25 years in the Chicago area. Notable
projects in the area include Kensington Business Park and three additional business parks in the area
encompassing 1.5 million square feet of space.
Joseph Donnelly asked for clarification on the heights ofthe building. He stated that the elevation drawings show
a roof height of 34 feet, with only entry points having roof heights of 39 feet. Mr. Yungerman confirmed that this
is correct, that most of the building would be 34' from grade and that only portions of the building would need the
39' height.
Richard Rogers stated that OPUS North has an excellent reputation in this area and it is a pleasure to have them
back in the Mount Prospect area.
Keith Youngquist asked about parking for the site. He stated that the buildings are relatively similar in size;
however, there is a discrepancy in the number of parking spaces at each building. He asked how the parking
requirement would be met if one of the buildings were to sell, and the site did not have the required number of
parking spaces as required by Village Code. Mr. Yungerman stated the parking allotment for Building A allows
for a tenant that may require additional parking due to higher office space density. He said Building B has a
smaller office space area and would require less parking.
Joseph Donnelly asked if the buildings are one-story buildings. Mr. Yungerman said that the buildings are
intended to be single-story buildings, but there could be the possibility of second floor office space, but this
market place rarely demands the additional office space.
Leo Floros asked if OPUS North is intending for each building to have two tenants. Mr. Yungerman stated that
ideally, they would like to see one tenant in each building. He said it would be most likely that each building will
have two or three tenants.
Mr. Floros stated that he reflects Mr. Rogers sentiments and welcomes OPUS North back to the area.
At the direction of Chairperson Juracek, Resident Betty Hopkins of 535 Dempster, Mount Prospect, IL was sworn
in. Ms. Hopkins stated that she is concerned that if the windows of the proposed buildings are too high, the
tenants will be able to see into their apartments. Mr. Yungerman said the window height is 8.5 feet; however the
person in the office would not be able to see over the proposed fence. He also stated that the windows in the
upper areas of the buildings are for natural light into the warehouse space only and there would be no office space
at that height. He also stated that the glass areas above the entry are not vision glass and would be for aesthetic
purposes only.
Ms. Hopkins asked Staff about the 65 foot measurement from her building to the lot line. Ms. Connolly stated
that the 65 foot measurement was taken from the lot line of her property to her building. Ms. Hopkins asked for
clarification on how far her building would be from the proposed buildings on the Subject Property. The
Commission stated that as proposed, there would be over 100 feet between her building and the proposed OPUS
North buildings.
At the direction of Chairperson Juracek, Bill Johnston representing River Trails Tennis Club at 2831 Malmo,
Arlington Heights, IL was sworn in. Mr. Johnston thanked Staff for their cooperation in keeping the Tennis Club
apprised of the project. He stated that he has questions for the Petitioner.
Mr. Johnston asked about increased truck traffic on Elmhurst and Linneman. Mr. Yungerman stated that OPUS
North conducted a traffic study and they do not foresee any significant problems with traffic on Linneman. Mr.
Yungerman also stated that OPUS North would work with IDOT to address any problems that may arise.
Chairperson Juracek stated that Mr. Johnston could review the traffic study ifhe so desires.
Arlene Juracek, Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-44-05
Page 8
Mr. Johnston also asked about potential run off from the Subject Property. He stated that the Tennis Club
topographically sits approximately 6 feet below the Subject Property and they are concerned about drainage and
run off. Mr. Yungerman stated that OPUS North is adding curb and gutter to the Subject Property and that he
expects any drainage issues will actually be improved indirectly from current conditions. Mr. Johnston asked
about run off during construction. Mr. Yungerman stated that OPUS North will be diligent in working with the
Village and the neighbors to minimize the impact on the area during construction. Mr. Rogers stated that a silt
fence would be in place during construction, holding any water on the Subject Property to the site. He also stated
that the proposed detention ponds should greatly improve the current run off conditions.
Chairperson Juracek asked if there were any further questions or if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:21 p.m.
Richard Rogers made a motion to approve:
1) Rezoning from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial;
2) Variations to allow 39' building height as shown on the Petitioner's elevations, a 10' setbacks along the east lot
line as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5, 2006, and to allow landscaping as shown on the
Petitioner's landscape plan prepared by Gary R. Weber dated January 9,2006;
3) the Final Plat of Subdivision revised to address Staff's conditions as listed in the Staff Report,
subject to the conditions listed in the Staff Report for the property at the Northeast Comer of Algonquin and
Linneman Roads, Case No. PZ-44-05, Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
After hearing two additional cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 pm, seconded by Joseph
Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
H\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2006'Minutcs\PZ-44-05 Opus VAL,doc
CASE SUMMARY - PZ-44-05
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
LOCATION:
Northeast Corner of Algonquin & Linneman Roads
PETITIONER:
Michael P. Yungerman of OPUS North Corp.
OWNER:
OPUS Briarwood, LLC
PARCEL #s:
08-23 -200-049-0000/08-23-200-050-0000/08-23 -202-048-0000/08-23-202-049-0000
LOT SIZE:
27.04 acres
ZONING:
RX Single Family (after Annexation process is final)
LAND USE:
Parking lot and unimproved lot (vacant)
REQUESTS:
1) Rezone from RX Single Family to II Limited Industrial
2) Variations (building height, setbacks, landscaping)
3) Plat of Resubdivision (modify property lines to create 2-10ts of record from 410ts)
LOCATION MAP
em ster treet
!! ~ i
_. t. .1_ Village Boundary
o Oulofv;n.ge
~
CASE SUMMARY - PZ-44-05
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON
FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 19,2006
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 26, 2006
SUBJECT: PZ-44-05 - 1) REZONE FROM RX SINGLE FAMILY TOIl LIMITED INDUSTRIAL
2) VARIATIONS (BUILDING HEIGHT, SETBACKS, LANDSCAPING)
3) PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION (CREATE 2-LOTS OF RECORD)
NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALGONQUIN & LINNEMAN ROADS - OPUS
BRIARWOOD, LLC
BACKGROUND
A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 26, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review
the application by OPUS Briarwood, LLC (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at the northeast comer
of Linneman and Algonquin Roads (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking approval for a Map
Amendment (rezoning), Variations, and plat of resubdivision to construct two 225,000+/- sq. ft. warehouse
buildings. The P&Z hearing was noticed in the January 11, 2006 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In
addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted Public
Hearing signs on the Subject Property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Subject Property is located on the north side of Algonquin Road, between Linneman Road and Malmo Drive,
and contains multiple lots of record. The Subject Property is currently under Cook County jurisdiction and the
Petitioner is seeking to annex the Subject Property into Mount Prospect corporate limits. The Subject Property
was acquired from United Airlines (VAL) and was used by UAL as a spill over parking lot and an open space
(recreation) area.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Petitioner has submitted an Annexation Agreement for Village Board review and approval. The Annexation
Agreement does not require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the required Public Hearing will
be held at a subsequent Village Board meeting. In an effort to streamline the review process, Staff is presenting
the Petitioner's zoning requests to the P&Z for their recommendation, which will then be forwarded to the
Village Board for their review and consideration after the Annexation Agreement has been adopted. The
Petitioner's zoning requests and proposed development are discussed in more detail below.
Map Amendment: Rezone from RX District to I1 Limited Industrial
lllinois State Statutes require the Subject Property be assigned the most stringent zoning classification upon being
annexed into a municipality. In Mount Prospect, the required zoning district is RX Single Family. Therefore, the
PZ-44-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 26, 2006
Page 2
Petitioner is seeking approval of a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single Family to II
Limited Industrial to construct two industrial office/warehouse buildings.
Variations: 39' Building Height & Interior Side Yard Setbacks
In addition to the Map Amendment request, the Petitioner is seeking relief from zoning regulations to allow a 39'
building height when the Village's Zoning Ordinance limits the building height to 30' in the II District. The
additional building height is necessary to allow the Petitioner to construct an industrial distribution center that is
consistent with competing buildings in the O'Hare market. In light of this request, Staff is evaluating the II bulk
regulations to ensure the Village's Code is consistent with current development trends and to determine whether
the Village's current 30' building height limitation remains adequate or should be increased.
The Subject Property abuts a multi-family development along a portion of its east lot line. The Zoning Ordinance
requires a more stringent setback when an industrial development is located next to a residential use. Sec.
14.2104.E requires all buildings, structures, and parking lots to maintain a 40' setback when abutting a residential
property and that a fence and additional landscaping be provided. In this case, the proposed office/warehouse
building would meet the required 40' setback, but a portion of the parking lot and the entire drive aisle for the
proposed Lot 1 would encroach into the required 40' setback and have a 10' side yard. Also, due to the size
(depth) of the proposed landscape area, landscaping will not be installed as required by the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 10' setback for the parking lot when the Zoning
Ordinance requires a 40' setback, and to install landscaping as shown on the Petitioner's landscape plan.
The Petitioner proposes a 10' setback along a portion of the east lot line of the proposed Lot 2. Lot 2 is south of
Lot 1 and abuts outdoor tennis courts and industrial businesses that are located in Cook County. Similar to Lot 1,
the proposed office/warehouse building to be constructed on Lot 2 would comply with the Village's required
setbacks, but a portion of the drive aisle would be located 10' from the east lot line. The Zoning Ordinance
requires parking lots to maintain a 10' setback; therefore, the proposed setback does not require relief from
zoning regulations.
Site Plan
The Petitioner's site plan shows two lots of record. Each lot would contain a 225,000+/- square foot industrial
office/warehouse building that meets the Village's required setbacks. A dry detention basin would be centrally
located between the two lots and serve both sites. Several parking fields are indicated on the plan, but the
Petitioner intends to land bank certain spaces (spaces shown with dashed lines) until a specific tenant is identified
and it is determined that the spaces are needed to meet the Village's parking regulations.
Vehicles and trucks would access the site from Dempster Street, Linneman Road, or Algonquin Road. Trucks
and vehicles could enter and exit from any of the 3 access points, depending on their travel path (point of origin)
and destination. The proposed loading docks would be located along the West elevation of Building 1 and along
the East elevation of Building 2. The docks would be situated away from the multi-family development and there
would be a cross access easement between the proposed Lots I and 2. The Petitioner's plans do not include cross
access for the existing U AL parking lot west of Lot I that will remain.
Road and infrastructure improvements will be made to accommodate the proposed development. Dempster
Street and Algonquin Road are not under the Village's jurisdiction and require permits from Illinois Department
of Transportation (IDOT) and Cook County Highway Department (CCHD). Therefore, final design approval is
not available at this time. The portion of Linneman Road that is adjacent to the property would be annexed into
the Village. The Petitioner shall improve this roadway with a 3-lane configuration and will upgrade the traffic
signal at Linneman and Algonquin Roads per IDOT requirements.
PZ-44-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 26, 2006
Page 3
Traffic Study
The Petitioner prepared a traffic study and based the directional distribution of the site traffic on the existing
traffic volume along the adjacent roadways. The intended users are not known at this time and the Engineering
Division has concerns that some of the proposed site improvements may not be adequate for a more intensive
user. Staffhas met with the Petitioner to discuss concerns over traffic speed on Algonquin Road, possible truck
turning movements into the site that could create traffic conflicts, and internal traffic patterns. The Petitioner has
agreed to follow the requirements of the appropriate jurisdiction and make the necessary improvements if a more
intensive user were to occupy the site. It is important to note that a cartage facility, which is a transportation
facility relying on larger trucks typically to make deliveries, would require a Conditional Use permit from the
Village and that site and access improvements could be required as part of the Conditional Use permit at that
time. Subject to Staff review during the building permit process, minor modifications may be required to ensure
a safe traffic circulation flow.
Parking
The Petitioner's site plan indicates the site could accommodate 411 parking spaces; 290 on Lot 1 and 121 on Lot
2. The Petitioner does not intend to construct all the parking spaces at this time because tenants for the buildings
have not yet been finalized. The Petitioner has agreed to provide parking in accordance with Village Code, as
required for the use (based the use square footage and/or number of employees).
Landscape Plan
Currently, there are a significant number of trees clustered along the southeast quadrant of the Subject Property.
The Petitioner submitted a tree survey, which documents the condition and form of the existing trees. The report
shows that only 3% of the trees were of above average condition and form and received a rating of "2" (with "1"
being the best). No trees were rated "I" and less than 10% of the trees had either an above average condition or
an above average form. The area is marked by poor forestry practices (too many trees located too close together,
impeding healthy growth) and a significant number of the trees are less than desirable species and in poor
condition. Although the Petitioner has agreed to save as many trees as possible, the configuration of the site
development dictates removing many of the trees. Therefore, the Petitioner prepared a landscape plan that
indicates a variety of plant species and mature trees to be planted throughout the site.
The Petitioner proposes to install a 6' board-on-board fence along the northern portion of the east lot line to
provide screening for the adjacent multi-family development. Multiple clusters of 6' tall evergreen trees will be
planted in this area as well as ornamental trees. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that the fence will be
located 5' from the lot line and that the landscaping will be installed on both sides of the fence. However, Sec.
14.2104.E requires the fence to be located no less than 8' from the property line and that a continuous 3' hedge
be planted on the outside of the fence, facing the abutting residential, to be maintained by the owner of the
industrial property. The landscape plan submitted does not indicate that this requirement will be met. The depth
of the proposed landscape area limits the amount and location of the landscapeing. Therefore, a Variation is
needed for this aspect of the project.
The plan indicates that landscaping will be provided along the southern portion of Lot l's east lot line, which
abuts industrial business. In addition, a berm would be included along the west lot line to screen the parking lot
in Lot 2. Also, the berm will include landscape materials, as allowable by the design, to provide an aesthetically
pleasing view of the development from Algonquin Road.
PZ-44-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 26, 2006
Page 4
Building Elevations
The attached color elevations indicate the general look of the proposed buildings. The buildings may be
modified to accommodate a specific user, which could include relocating windows and/or adding windows. The
buildings would be constructed from smooth painted precast concrete panels with painted reveals and include
grey tinted glass windows. Aluminum coping and a canopy would be incorporated into the building design to
break-up the expansive fayade. The building materials and the building construction would comply with Village
regulations.
GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE
The following table summarizes the required setbacks for the II District and lists the Petitioner's proposed
setbacks.
It Minimum Requirements Proposed Lot 1 Proposed Lot 2
Building / Building /
SETBACKS: Parkin2 Lot Parkin!! Lot
Front 30' building /10' parking lot 85' /30' 50' /10 '
15' building /10' parking lot
Interior (40' for building and parking lot 70' East /10' East*
if lot line abuts residential) 135' West! 10' West 135' East /10' East
Exterior 30' building /10' parking lot n/a 135' West /10' West
Rear 20' building setback 40' 40'
LOT COVERAGE 75% Maximum 75% 75%
HEIGHT 30' (mid-point) 39' (Requires Variation) 39' (Requires Variation)
*East Lot Line abuts residential; requires Variation
The Petitioner attempted to create a development that was compatible with the existing uses and complied with
Mount Prospect's Village Code regulations. However, the shape of the Subject Property has minor irregularities
and portions of the property 'jog' at various points.
Plat of Resubdivision
The Petitioner prepared a plat of resubdivision that creates 2-10ts of record. As part of the plat review process,
the Engineering Division reviewed the proposed easements. The Petitioner and the Village agreed that the
Village will provide water to the Subject Property. However, this issue was decided after the plat was submitted.
Therefore, the plat must be modified to reflect a 10' separate water main easement granted exclusively to the
Village of Mount Prospect. This easement is in addition to the 10' wide public drainage and utility easement
required along the east side of the property, along the north 737.42' of the west side of Lot 1, and on'each side of
the property line between Lots 1 and 2. The exclusive easement should only cover the public portion of the main
(the main along the east and north property lines); the small easement extensions for the services should be
deleted from the plat.
In addition, the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 should read 363.04' (as the property line is
correctly dimensioned) instead of 363', and the legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6
should read 141.11' (as shown on the subdivision plat for Elmhurst - Algonquin Industrial Park Unit No.1)
instead of 141 '.
PZ-44-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 26,2006
Page 5
Currently, jurisdiction of Linneman Road belongs to Elk Grove Township. However, as part of the annexation
process, that portion of the Linneman Road right-of-way that fronts onto the Subject Property will become part of
the Village and under the Village's jurisdiction. Through a series of agreements, Linneman Road will be
reconstructed and the centerline will be reconfigured. The final design and configuration must be verified, which
may require the Petitioner to dedicate an additional 14' along their west property line, along the Linneman Road
frontage, to create an 80' right-of-way at a later date.
Subject to making the above revisions, the plat was prepared in accordance with the Development Code
requirements. The plat requires signatures from the utility companies and the Petitioner is in the process of
obtaining them.
MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS
The standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a
Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence
presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters:
· The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general
area of the property in question;
· The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed
zoning classification;
· The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed
zoning classifications; and
· Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and
the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village.
The Subject Property is adjacent to an existing multi-family residential development, outdoor tennis courts and
industrial office/warehouse buildings, and is across the street from the United Airlines headquarters building.
The proposed office/warehouse buildings would be in keeping with the existing industrial land uses and the
Village's Land Use Map. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with
existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and the buildings have been designed and
landscaped to have minimal impact on the adjacent developments.
VARIATION STANDARDS
The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include
seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of
these findings:
· 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;
. Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and
· Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character.
The project requires relief from Sections 14.2l04.C to allow a 39' building height when the maximum height
permitted by Village Code is 30'. The Subject Property is across the street from the 8-story UAL office
headquarters and is adjacent to a 3-story multi-family development.
PZ-44-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 26,2006
Page 6
The style or 'functionality' of the proposed building is based on current design standards. The 39' building
height is needed to accommodate the proposed loading docks and to screen roof equipment. The building height
would not be out of character for the neighborhood and the Petitioner has taken steps to design the building
fa9ades so they do not adversely impact the adjacent multi-family development.
The project also requires relief from Sections 14.2104.E to allow the drive aisle to encroach into the 40'setback.
The attached aerial photo indicates the multi-family buildings are located approximately 65' from their west lot
line (the east lot line of Subject Property) and that the parking lot and drive aisle for the multi-family
development would abut the Petitioner's proposed drive aisle.
The shape of the Subject Property is somewhat irregular, and its size is uncharacteristic of developments
occurring in Mount Prospect within the last decade. The site plan mirrors the layout of the multi-family
development: drive aisle, parking, and then building. Therefore, the proposal would not be out of character for
the neighborhood and it would not adversely impact other properties. The requested Variations are generally not
applicable to other properties and the development is unique due to its size and the diverse land uses adjacent to
the Subject Property.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village
Board approve the following motion:
"To approve:
1) a Map Amendment to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single Family to 11 Limited Industrial,
2) the Final Plat of Subdivision of Briarwood Business Center subject to the following:
a. revise the plat so the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 reads 363.04'
b. revise the plat so the legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6 read 141.11'
c. revise the plat to reflect a 10' wide public drainage and utility easement along the east side of the
property, along the north 737.42' of the west side of Lot 1, and on each side of the property line
between Lots 1 and 2,
d. revise the plat to reflect a separate, 10' wide water main easement granted exclusively to the Village of
Mount Prospect along the east side of the Subject Property.
3) Variations to allow:
a) 39' building heights;
b) 10' side yard setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5, 2006;
c) relief from Sec. 14.2104.E to allow the landscaping as proposed for the area adjacent to residential
for the property located at the northeast comer of Algonquin and Linneman Roads, Case No. PZ-44-05, subject
to the following:
1. Village Board adopting the Annexation Agreement;
2. The site shall be developed in general accordance with the Petitioner's site plan dated January 5, 2006;
3. The site shall be developed in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Gary R. Weber
Associates, revision date January 9, 2006;
PZ-44-05
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 26, 2006
Page 7
4. The site shall be developed in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements,
including, but not limited to: Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code
regulations, Building Code, and Development Code regulations, which may require minor
modifications to the site to comply with all development requirements and traffic concerns detailed in
the Village Code and in the Engineering Division's review comments dated November 17, 2005 before
approval ofthe site engineering plans can be given.
5. The Petitioner understands that a change in use may require further review by the Village of Mount
Prospect, and that modifications such as, but not limited to, adding a deceleration lane may be required,
subject to obtaining the appropriate permit from the governing jurisdiction, and
The Village Board's decision is final for this case.
I concur:
"
P, Director of Community Development
H:\PLAN\PIaoning &. Zoning COMM\P&Z 2oo6\510l1r i\lcmo\PZ-44.0S MEMO (NEe Algonquin and Unncmao Briarwood deveJopmcut).doc
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division
50 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Phone 847-818-5328
FAX 847-818-5328
Map Amendment Request
Mount Prospect
~
Z Case Number
e P&Z - - ----- _._...__..__....__._-_._.~-- "..--. .---.... ,. '_n.. .' .n. _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _.. -.... ..-.- ,..-.,..---_..___._..,._,_.___._____,~___.____.__,... 0._...
~
~ ;E: Development Name/Address
=
0
Q.l Date of Submission
r-. y
~ =
.....
~. 2-
[;IiI Hearing Date
~
.~
Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) .
Ne. <.ornc.r 0.( l.nn&MGPl 4nd A1sonq"utrl ROGd.s
Site Area (Ac.) Current Zoning l",po" ~ Proposed Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Proposed)
2.1.0"" R* J:-, '4-bo t q~ ?> ( '1. b tel" )
Proposed Development and Land Use
2 ;V\cI",!.h-,-" , offic.c. /WQV'CkOlA.$c, b'd~s
Setbacks (Prop.) Front Rear Side Side
~. 20 . IS' ,~t
Building Height Lot Coverage (%) # of Parking Spaces
Z I , .7.&% lq,
0 3q (Vorlt"(~ 1'&"
I-C
~ Tax 1.0. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s)
<
i OS" "2.3"200 - o'-lq J Of>-'2.3" '2.00 ... 050
0
f;r.c oe.. 22.-'2.0'1.- o'lt , 08- :l,.- ;1.01.- O'lCf
~
~ Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary)
t::
tI:l :)hCc.+ - tta.c."t:d
Name Telephone (day)
OO\l~ er\4rWOO cI LLC 84:1- "q1.-444'-{
J Corporation Telephone (evening)
t O~~f. Nor~ CoroorC'Aho(') -
~ ~
Street Address . Fax
1-10 Sl4\ k qoo
~e Cf100 w. ..hq t;\ h'\. S. ed, ~\.f 1- ~18" Ib 18
< Cl)
~ Q. City State Zip Code Email
g
oP-< Ros.e. tM V\. + IL boolB -
r.cl
~ Interest in Property
~ OW n t..r
Name Telephone (day)
0 M, c.h..~ I P. '( I.4nqerMlU'\ -B'l1 - ~18- J(~ 1 q
~ ~
~ ~ Corporation Telephone (evening)
U 0 OP\l~ Nor+" CorporA. h<>>'\ 841- b82-0S85
< 'p
'p
= Cl) Street Address Fax
P-<
I q,oo \AI. ..hg~ It'\S Rc( SCol.'~ qoe 8\11- 018 -lbb2
,
City State Zip Code Email
RoseM.OV\.T- IL. 60018 ,...u&<(. . )'''~9trN..\l~opL(S Il0rtlt.COfll
Developer
Name -.Of US Nort-h Coy p. Telephone (day) S'+ 7 - ,e; 2 - Cf '-/4./ L/
Address .Jaf'/ no w. HI8 <J ; It ~ eel Fax 8"1 7 -.(;:!j ~II -I , 1 9
~~CMoW\...{; I It 600lfl Email
Attorney O'Rourkf:, J..IO~Q.V\.I FbW'lc~. 0.." er Telephone(day) 312.-73Q -3Soo
Name
Address 10 S.. L.A S~d le S+. . Sc..1 k z q 0 0 Fax ~a l.... 7 3CJ - 353S'
..
CAfCA50, IL GOf>o3 Email W(~W Ie,. e ohfcJ /QW.COI1
Z Surveyor
0, Name SPA-c.E.CO, 'N" Telephone(day) 8'17- 691:, -1./0'0
E= <n
<(ii QS7S J../ , (j <; ,'n s Rod PJ'i' -1>96 "lfo'~
i.~ Address W. Fax
O~ ~O$C M...""t- I 't to 001 r w lo~fus e spo.C(COInc.cQ ~
~~ Email
~5 Engineer S fAc..Cc.o . IIJC A'I7-'l1' -l/06o
~ S
Name . Telephone (day) .
08- '/S 7!"' . t<c/
~~ W. 1-/'5j U\.S at! 7-'96 - 'I06S
~ Cl) Address Rose M on. ~, 6ooJl1 Fax
uQ Il
< I III J~s e.sD4leeo lit (: ~t.
= Email
Architect o PU.s /lI/E R~7.. 6,)'-'l-4I.1Y
Name Q70Q W. J-/'8j in.s !<.d Telephone (day):
8'1.1- 3t8-,"It!
Address ~OSt.MO"+J IL (Pool & Fax
Email
Landscape Architect G4fJ..'1 R. weber lwe 630 - ~"a .. "7,q 7
Name j Telephone (day):
22,-# S. M Q;t1 ST. 630 .. ~8" q"q 3
Address Wlaeq:f-ol'll IL Fax
Email
IH
Mount Prospect Department of Community Development
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois
2
Phone 847.818.5328
Fax 847.818.5329
TDD 847/392-6064
Proposed Zoning Change
f;. -10 I-I
Describe the Justification for the Proposed Map Amendment
S;4-c \s bCl~n9 aV\n~J(td 41tlh, V',llaa(, l1l'\d as ~eslck.nh~1 Zono..,s_
-pu- orcl\.'t'\Q.nce.. fl\.oOp~..c:l clt"c.loptr\u..:t ou-~,. jftd~ of:.hce I
""Qt..",O\A.~ . Rtt\4CS kcl Z.t\ll\ j is ConSts h.~ of- '" : 1--1.- SCAr'roc.tnd ;"j s;k c.c..sc
~
r;;;( Clnd VdI4S'S IJI.Yls
r-.~ .
Or;;;(
If Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed (attach additional sheets if necessary)
fI.)~
~ -PreC"O$+ c.ons1:l:Y.d-1on wa.J..h al\A.Mtnu.m and-alClSS ~ Of:.f1ce Q.rta&.
~
~;ldl~9S w~,1I be Qffic.e.jwD.r<.hov.se. ti.(.d~hes) w:+~ docKs
. o~ -f..h... b",,~ \ Jlft 9
I" 't-h.Cl rf4W'"
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 will not be accepted. It is strongly
suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so 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 all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
,
AppHcant )..J...R P. &-
If applicant is not property owner:
Date
ID/ Z~ los-
. .
I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this
application and sociated supporting material.
Date /0/27 los
, ,
Property Owner
Mount Prospect Department of Community Development
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois
3
Phone 847.818.5328
Fax 847.818.5329
TDD 847/392-6064
Exhibit A ~- Legal Description and General Depiction of Real Property
Parcell:
The West 800 feet of Lot 2 (except the West 363 feet thereof) in LiImeman's Division of part of
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23; Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal
Meridian and part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township 41 North, Range 11, East ofthe
Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded September 10, 1953 as
Document 15716544;
Parcel 2:
The North 537 feet of the West 811.30 feet, as measured on the West and North lines thereof, of
Lot 3 (except the North 120 feet of the West 363 feet of said Lot 3) in Linneman's Division of
the South 3/4 of the East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and the West 1/2 ofthe Northeast 1/4 of Section
14, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, lllinois.
Parcel 3:
Lot 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and the Westerly 14] feet of Lots 6 and 7 in Elmhurst Algonquin
Industrial Park, Unit No.1 being a resubdivision of part of Lot 3 in Linneman's Division in
Section 23, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the
plat thereof recorded February 20, 1967, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County,
Illinois as Document 20409120, in Cook County, Illinois.
Page 31 of33
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division
50 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Phone 847-818-5328
F~ 847-818-5329
Plat ofResubdivision Application
Mount Prospect
~
~ Case Number
0 PZ - -
....
i- Subdivision Name/Address
b
a
00
~ ~ Date of Submission
Ze
>;B .
f;Iil Hearing Date
~
....
~
....
i
e
Z
....
Q
~
~
U
-<
=
Petitioner - Name
hiP.
Corporation
OP~s N()~TJ../ CoILPo/ILl4noAl
Street Address
Q700 W.
City
Ro.s S}tON'"
Interest in Property: circle one
Telephone (day)
8 "17 - 318. /1,79
Telephone (evening)
e"l7- 682- oS8S
Fax
&&'/7 .... aJ~ - /6'2
Pager
J.h6-GIIV$ I<D
State Zip Code
IL ~oo/6
Property Owner - Name
OPUS RWoo.o
Corporation
oPu6 NtJe.rn lDu.
Street Address
Q700 W. UI6-GI NS
City State
RosE. MO/IJ r IL
Telephone (day)
Telephone (evening)
Fax:
Ilc
Zip Code
"ootS
PagerlMobile
Surveyor/En@neer
Name SPACEC. 0
Address ...9S7S W. I-I'GG-'N S RO. s""k 100
R.~eMot.JT. IL. 600/&
Telephone (day) 8'17-Ill' "'I~o
Fax a"/ 7 -69' - I.J 0 hS-
e I Mh\lY'.st- Algo'''l''.'' I ncl"""h-~&I P....fc Q.....d Lt"lOc..MG.,,'3 .
SUBDIVISION NAME D"")'o,,,
REALESTATEINDEXNO.:...Q....8- -.z. L ---Z. 2-0_ -- -I2 ~ +-950
REALESTATEINDEXNO.:~ ~ __ ~ ~ - 2. 0 z.. _ _ ..!!...~8~'~4~
LOCATION OR ADDRESS: lYe c.olbl!:~ Of:. AL(;.ON Q\lIN fi.lJ Qncl LII)r)c.mtln RD.
LAND USE: EXISTING VAGArJI PROPOSED: 2 ;ndus-h-iA/ bLI.IJd'''9S
ZONING: EXISTING I-.1 PROPOSED: r-I
TOTAL ACREAGE: '17.04 GROSS
TOTAL # OF LOTS:
Number of dwelling units: JL Single Family: Multifamily TWNHS_
If requesting an exception to Development Code requirements, list request and explain why it is necessary:
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 will not be accepted. It is strongly
suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff to review the process and so 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 all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge. .
Applkant ~ P. &--
If applicant is not property owner:
Date
" . 2 ,. 0 S
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 ~eriali\r /1
Property Owner ~ Date /1'" 2 ,... oS'
V, f G..IIl>..,.. ( ~.c..~ ~
2
Phone 847.818.5328
Fax 847.818.5329
TDD 847/392-6064
Mount Prospect Department of Community Development
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division
50 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Phone 847.818.5328
FAX 847.818.5329
Variation Request
The Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations
and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's
Zoning Ordinance.
PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW Village Board Final
Z Case Number
0 PZ- -05
....
~
-<-- Development Name/Address
~.c
~ I:
00
r. 8 Date of Submissi()n
Ze
....0
x'-'
~ Hearing Date
~
....
Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street)
Tax LD. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s)
Z 08 . L 3 - 2. 00 - 0'+ C\ ) 08. 2:'- 200" 050
0 0&-2)" 20'2. -0"18, o i. '1.'3 .. '2.01.. - 0 ~,
....
~
-< Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary)
~
~ AITAC.I..U! D
0
r.
Z
....
~
~
....
00
Z Name Telephone (day)
0 m leh4.e..l P. YLtnQerm4n 8'17-3/8- 1(.7q
....
~
-< Corporation Telephone (evening)
~
~I OPUS No~T'H (..QfU>OR,fa. nON e"'1"'~8L-05e5
0....
r. !::: Street Address Fax
Z ~
.... .- 9'1 00 W. 141G-G-'N S RD. 8't1- i~).~I&-1 b'=>>2.
co.
Z~
5' City State Zip Code Pager
~ RoSE' M Q"" 'T lL 600\ .
c.?
~ Interest in Property
U
-< Ow \'\elt"
=
Z Name )-\,c..~Q.e\ P. 'f\.A.naUMAV\. 4~ 4~U\t Telephone (day)
0
- (j pu S I) RiAftW CoD ~\{1- b<tl-\.f'4'-ty
Eo- L-LC.
<
~I Corporation Telephone (evening)
l:li: ...
o g &'i1- "g2-oSiS
r. ~ Op\AS N'oCln\ Coi\.PO p..AOo1"l
zo
Q€ Street Address Fax:
Z 0
;;Je ~1co W. ~l&G-IN'S RD. 8'+1- ~'8- Hob 2.
~~
~I City State Zip Code Pager
~
U Ro~t1orJ'- U...., ~O 01 <6
<
=
Developer DPuS COLPoQ.f4n ON
Name /'JOlt""'" Telephone (day) tq 1 - "q '2.- 'f44L.J
Address Q100 w. H\ ~I"'S R.D Fax MJ-318- 110..'2..
Su 'TE Cfoo
RO~MONr, IL 6001 8
Attorney I
Name a Ro~IUCE ~ t-IOGQ,v. FowLerc , .. QW"fEA. Telephone (day) 312- 1 3q- '3SOo
.
Address 10 s. c..A~A-L.L€ SaT" , S\ltre ~qoo Fax 3' 2- 1'l'l" ~S3S
C,,", 'C.AG-o I IL 60&0'3
Surveyor SPAc.eCO 8"1-bq~ -"f Q60
Z Name lNC. Telephone (day)
91 -9515 w. HIG4,NS 817- &<;& - '10'-5
Eo- '" Address Rb. Fax
<'ta
~ .~ S\.t lTe -'00
o~
r. 0 ROSeI'10NT, 1'- 600'8
z ...
-~
Qc Engineer
Z 0 5fA-CE: CO, I r-I G l't 1-"Q to - -10'0
;;J a Name Telephone (day)
o go
='V Address QS1S W. 1-41 "~'NS (l..b Fax i~7" '=',,, - '-/O'S
~ 6
uO S\.4. tTc 700
<'
= ~o,:U~l'1oNr , IL. 600/8
Architect oPUS ,,+e Telephone (day): S'l7'" bli2. -'-It/'1Y
Name
Address 9100 VI. ...' GG'~S PJ) . Fax 8'#7 ~ I '1. lie Ii
S"" TE Cfo 0
~os.e KONT'" 'L SooIS
Landscape Architect ,-30" '~8-1'~1
Name GAa...., R. We~€f\. A~~OC. 'NC, Telephone (day):
Address 21."" 5. MAIN sr Fax b'\O.. 'ID& -,,~ <<\3
'N\oleA11>N, 'L- .-
Mount Prospect Department of Community Development
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056
2
Phone 847.818.5328
Fax 847.818.5329
TDD 847.392.6064
Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested
1'"1.210'+: 8\Alk Reg",l~+'o"s: C .6\(',ld,'n.s ~(;Shf.: E. Tr4n$lb.",,1 Sd{,..d(&
Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variations
,. Ocvc.lOfct seekS VC"UU\Cc,... Q,.\Jo w .r.... . M4~;~~_ b"'~'d.'''8 ",C:'9h" o-r ~q
fu.t. -P\ p~,val a~ +tu... "~,u.f..s. ~uLY~~'..n(.€. w~H 4: Uo\.~ +he. c:k"e.I~fC?r +0
C01"i~h-t4et- Qt\. ....c:lu..s.-n.;cd ~,b~-hon (!e.Y\.kV-+""+ t~ .
c..o,,!.,shlt\+ \N,"'''''
= cONopclil'\Cj b".ldi"'9S i", ~c. 0'1.1.., M..W'Ic~t.
r;.il
r-.~
Or;.il
>00
ClI:O' 2. Ot"~I\J'f." S tc.lC.s VAY'I4y\U. h ..n."" 40,. p~,.k,n3 C\'\cl cl",vc. Q;slc. ""if";., -H,c.
<:r;.il
~ClI:
~~ '4-0' \"~"\l~~.d tr."5I'ho".1 s(n~Qc:.k. 14'9~ d,n',~ t 1&,dt"'.J;_ \ ap4r+-M.tnts
00
{I:l- Q\.\A.+ o.~'o"\"",,k'., ~OO k~+ 0+ +k ~~t~+ GoC'AC,.. o~ i-\"c. $~1o.)4<.i- SI k
~
u
<: D"c. '" +-~ \r.,.c.~\l\Cl'" Q)1\"'~\l1tLhon 0" Hu. I.t) a. vo.r\."Cc. h ..c.t\4&~k.l "'-
c."' \""d. 0. b~,\c1\k' "'~+\, -'-'V1o.rcl d;M.c"ho,",s . PC\r'k\\'\C) Q.W\,cl c:l~,,,c 4~"CS
V41~;'" +'-'c. $c.~'oflc.k w\ 1\ \Dc ~~<<d ".:.y 4~\-oMobl'fS only. ~ a.dio.(c"'''-P4Y~
l.t is bordc.r~d b~ p<\Y"";t'\g Cl\oas ""'S W(~+ "rop("~ \~~ ' . .
<<\low,ng for ,dc&'\hCQ'
," 1.4$&5 Q.lot\.9 -I-\u ","'bJ~d'" propeY'~ ,"C.
Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials
have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the
appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to 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 all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and
accurate to the best of my knowledge.
,
Applicant ~~ Date~ 2.('0,105
If 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 I.. /2., 105'
Mount Prospect Department of Community Development
50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056
3
Phone 847.818.5328
Fax 847.818.5329
TDD 847.392.6064
Exhibit A -- Leeal Descril>tion and General Del>iction of Real Property
Parcell:
The West 800 feet of Lot 2 (except the West 363 feet thereof) in Linneman's Division of part of
the Northeast 1/4 of Section 23, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal
Meridian and part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 14, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the
Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded September 10, 1953 as
Document 15716544;
Parcel 2:
The North 537 feet ofthe West 811.30 feet, as measured on the West and North lines thereof, of
Lot 3 (except the North 120 feet of the West 363 feet of said Lot 3) in Linneman's Division of
the South 3/4 ofthe East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and the West 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section
14, Township 41 North, Range 11 East ofthe Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois.
Parce13:
Lot 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and the Westerly 141 feet of Lots 6 and 7 in Elmhurst Algonquin
Industrial Park, Unit No.1 being a resubdivision of part of Lot 3 in Linneman's Division in
Section 23, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the
plat thereof recorded February 20, 1967, in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County,
Illinois as Document 20409120, in Cook County, Illinois.
Page 31 of33
~ KIENIG, L~N[)GREN, O'HARA, ABOONA, b"c~
[f!. 9575 W. Higgins Road" Suite 400
Rosemont, Illinois 60018
(847) 518-9990 · Fax (847) 518-9987
email: kloa@kloainc.com
MEMORANDUM TO:
Michael P. Youngerman
Opus North Corporation
FROM:
Michael A. Werthmann, PE
DATE:
October 18, 2005
SUBJECT:
Traffic Impact Study
Warehouse/Distribution Development
Mt. Prospect, Illinois
This memorandum summarizes the results of a traffic impact analysis conducted by Kenig, Lindgren,
O'Hara, Aboona, Inc. (KLOA, Inc.) for a proposed warehouse/distribution development to be located
in Mt. Prospect, Illinois. The site of the development, which is 27.04 acres in size, is generally located
on the east side of Linneman Road bounded by Algonquin Road on the south and Dempster Street on
the north. As proposed, the development is to consist of approximately 456,400 square feet of
warehouse/distribution space with access to be provided via Algonquin Road, Dempster Street, and
Linneman Road.
This study was conducted to assess the impact that the proposed development will have on traffic
conditions in the area and to determine any roadway and access improvements necessary to
accommodate future traffic volumes. The scope of this traffic analysis included the following items.
1. Data Collection. This preliminary phase of the analysis included a reconnaissance of the site and
its environs to determine the physical and operational characteristics of the existing road network.
Weekday morning and evening peak period traffic counts were conducted at several intersections
within the site vicinity.
2. Directional Distribution Analysis. The directional distribution of traffic approaching and departing
the development was estimated based on the existing travel patterns as determined from the traffic
counts.
3. Traffic Generation Analysis. Peak-hour traffic volumes that will be generated by the development
were estimated based on its size and use and surveys published by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE).
4. Site Traffic Assignment. The site-generated traffic volumes were combined with through (nonsite)
traffic volumes and assigned to the adjacent road network according to the directional distribution
analysis. Also included in these assignments were the increases in traffic resulting from other
growth in the area. These assignments were used to analyze the impact that the development will
have on traffic conditions in the area.
KLOA, Inc. Transportation and Parking Planning Consultants
5. Evaluation and Recommendations. Based on the analyses described above, the traffic impacts of
the development were evaluated and recommendations were determined with respect to roadway
improvements and site access needs.
Existing Conditions
Transportation conditions in the site area were inventoried to obtain a database for projecting future
conditions. Three general components of existing conditions were considered: (1) the geographical
location of the site, (2) the characteristics of the roadways and traffic control devices in the site area,
and (3) the traffic volume on these roadways.
Site Location
The site is generally located on the east side of Linneman Road bounded by Algonquin Road on the
south and Dempster Street on the north. Land-uses in the area generally consist of residential
developments to the north, warehouse, light industrial, and manufacturing developments to the east and
south, and the United Airlines facility to the west. Commercial developments are located further east
of the site along IL 83.
Site Accessibility
The principal roadways in the vicinity of the site are illustrated in Figure 1 and described in the
following paragraphs.
Algonquin Road (IL 62) is generally a southeast-to-northwest arterial roadway that has a five-lane cross
section. Separate left-turn lanes are provided on Algonquin Road at most intersections, including its
signalized intersection with Linneman Road. Algonquin Road has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and
is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT).
Dempster Street is a east-west arterial roadway that generally has a four-lane undivided cross section.
Separate left-turn lanes are provided on Dempster Street at its signalized intersection with Linneman
Road. Dempster Street has a posted speed limit of 40 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Cook
County Highway Department.
Linneman Road is a north-south collector road that generally has a two-lane cross section. At its
signalized intersection with Dempster Street, Linneman Road its widened to a five-lane cross section
providing two lanes in each direction and separate left-turn lanes. Linneman Road has a posted speed
limit of30 mph and is under the jurisdiction of the Elk Grove Township south of Dempster Street and
the Village ofMt. Prospect north of Dempster Street. Lastly, Linneman Road has a posted weight limit
of six tons north of Dempster Street.
2
IV'
m
r"
~~t1 ~ : [lIl
... ::a I C II _(II~..
<... !. ~ !!I l ~ -: "
::a !a dlt:on,..J!Bg, !e
\ GC I..F J 0 ~ ~ lro; I:' =-
d I( I II L Norma
~ ~ ~ I - DuI.cRd
~ ~ K
W sh r Debra Dr !l: 0
-.I ( ~ Weabnere Rd I!:- ~
" m. L ,< ....CO' ~ :~
I \ lJ.-.l \ III - I
i ~> , Lance Dr ""
) (
Demftster "t
1
1 ,
~:i
I
\
~
o
~
~
"' W unsa Rd
'"
m
...
III
!
o
...
...
"
-(II
:IE
~
:!.
W Glenn Ln
-
\/I Thornwood Ln ~
~
cO
"
co
C
W~rnDr __
-
-
W Locust Ln
(II
III
if
:r
c
..
III
~
...
..
~
~
~
7::-
,.....~
vaLn
III
:z:
~
\.nL
W Catalpa Ln
WW owLn
UJ ;
o
.. ...
Q. C . Pheasant Trl
! j ! i tL:
N ;II III :::..:-
) _~ _It
L,---- ~ Igl
~ I~ Demoster5t
~ ~o.,,) ". i
I l 'r~, ~ SITE
~( ~~ ~ J
-~~
I.J
n
W Magnola Ln
A
1---
~....
~~
r<
!agnlDr
-Mansard Ln James Dr
r
Is \
~ Vlcttrla" W_DR
;C
D.~......J
l'
-
Addison Ct
-
I
-
III n - .....
...
<" i1 (II' ^
~ ..
..
lD " ..
~ ~ .. III
.. C IJ
.. ..
ill ..
~ ..
.. loAM TON ST ~
5 Terminal Dr
II <
..
\
..
!r
~
I
~~
g ~,,~ ~
i ~~
~
J
Bru Inmel Dr
Howard 5t
Howard 5t
SITE LOCATION
3
Ui El nnq~l~ ~ I
c
:i (I)
III m
3' (II
E5 nsel d !e III
(II
~
! I
1-
1;
Ambleslde Rd
"""' Oem," ar 5t
1.] - u
...
~ '0
f-' E
<(
!'J
~ HOliDay
_I
I
I I
Klnft Ln
Mun Pe Clr S
WaIn
Ave
J
I KInkaid Cl ~
I Fiori h Dr /I
~fl -:z:!ll-
f 55 It II. I
~ ~ 1; ~ ~
co CI
..
I
W~gRd
I Morray Ct I I
JIiICt
(II
C
::
"
c
"r
!l:
!
1;
'~
\.
-
III
Z
1
n
~
~
i;"
5"
Cl
..
.....r~
~
'fl
~ .
~ I I
Cordial Dr
-m
r"
!
c
::a
~
i!l
Courtesy Ln
Lincoln Ln
Dover Dr
(Il
::r
o
~
(
...
-
"Ieasant Lr
W Oaklon 5t
"lTaKtOn 5t
-
~~
-,..
WilleRd
~
FIGURE 1
Ida Court is a residential roadway that extends in a U-shape along the north side of Dempster Street.
The road has a two-lane cross section that is under stop sign control at its intersections with Dempster
Street. Ida Court has a posted weight limit of six tons. The western leg ofIda Court is aligned opposite
an existing access drive that serves one of the United Airlines facility's parking lot. It should be noted
that access between the Dempster Street access drive and the parking lot is currently prohibited via a
barrier.
Proposed Roadway Improvements
As part of the proposed development, Linneman Road is proposed to be widen from a two-lane to a
three-lane cross section along the development frontage. In addition, the north leg of the Algonquin
Road with Linneman Road intersection would also be widened to provide one northbound lane and
two-southbound lanes. The southbound lanes would be striped to provide a separate left-turn lane and
a separate right-turn lane.
Existing Traffic Volumes
Manual peak hour traffic counts were conducted by KLOA, Inc. at the following intersections.
· Linneman Road with Algonquin Road
· Linneman Road with United Airlines facility's main access drive
· Linneman Road with Dempster Street
· Dempster Street with Ida Court (western leg) and the United Airlines facility's access drive
The traffic counts were conducted in September 2005 during the weekday morning (7:00 to 9:00 A.M.)
and evening (4:00 to 6:00 P.M.) peak periods. Based on the results of the traffic counts, it was
determined that the morning peak hour of traffic occurs from 7: 15 to 8: 15 A.M. and the evening peak
hour of traffic occurs from 4:30 to 5:30 P.M. The existing peak-hour traffic volumes are illustrated in
Figure 2.
Development Traffic Characteristics
In order to evaluate future traffic conditions at the proposed access drives of the development, it was
necessary to determine the traffic characteristics of the development, including the directional
distribution and the volumes of traffic that will be generated.
Directional Distribution
The directional distribution of future site-generated trips on the external roadways is a function of
several variables, including the operational characteristics of the roadway system and the ease with
which drivers can travel over various sections of the road system without encountering congestion. The
directional distribution for the proposed development was based on the existing travel patterns, as
determined from the existing traffic counts. Table 1 illustrates the results of the directional distribution
analysis.
4
DEMPSTER
STREET
UNITED AIRLINES
FACILITY
z
c( Q
:i: c(
w 0
Z a:
....................2
~~:e::i
...............
1ft 00
....cncn
.l!l.
25 (85) J
610 (680)-+
60 (15) -.
ifte_
.....Iftlft
1ft;.....,
C'I)_
--
.l!l.
10 (215) J
20 (320).
NOT TO
SCALE
LEGEND
S = EXISTING SIGNAL
00 = 7:15 TO 8:15 AM
(OO) = 4:30 TO 5:30 PM
PROJECT:
OPUS DEVELOPMENT
MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
- -
1ft 0
C'l)TIft
!!.....e
~'W
.l!t.
110
10)'0 (S'S')
10 JI1)'j;)........
fl') ...~
.'\
TITLE:
~ 30 (115)
+-500 (660)
.- 100 (25)
ifr
meses
NcoC'l)
!!--e
1ft~0
_ N
IL - (5)
. - (35)
ifr
--
Iftl-
..........!.
1ft.....
lDlftO
-..,.-
c( Ii:
Q :;:)
- 0
U
-
0-
_1ft
..........
Olft ~ - (5)
-
)1. +- 620 (790)
.- -(-)
r-"-"_"sn(5in_.:;_. nil r
i 715 (875)-+ i __
i - H -. i ..L...!.
i i I I
! j
i i
! i
! !
. i
i
i
r-..-..-..-..-..-..---..-..-.._.._n.i
SITE
~ L_
.-...S'tio"'O(B$:
.......... 10 (10)'. 'J
...... ('J ~
ifr ........................
....
...4,.....
............
....
o.....ift
e...L.......
1ft ,0
- -
EXISTING PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
5
PROJECT NO: 05-309
KLOA INC.
FIGURE NO: 2
Table 1
ESTIMATED DIRECTIONAL DISTRIBUTION
Route
Percent
To and from the north on Linneman Road
To and from the east on Dempster Street
To and from the west on Dempster Street
To and from the southeast on Algonquin Road
To and from the northwest on Algonquin Road
Total
5%
15
20
35
25
100%
Site-Generated Traffic
The traffic generation characteristics of any development are based on the magnitude and character of
its land-use. As proposed, the development is to contain approximately 456,400 square feet of
warehouse/distribution space. The estimate of the peak-hour traffic that will be generated by the
proposed development was based on the rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 7th Edition. Table 2 shows the estimated number of peak-hour trips
estimated to be generated by th e proposed development.
Table 2
ESTIMATED SITE-GENERATED TRAFFIC VOLUMES
Morning Peak Hour
Evening Peak Hour
Inbound
Outbound
Inbound
Outbound
Warehouse (456,400 square feet)
170
35
55
160
Future Growth
To evaluate the impact that site-generated traffic will have on the area roadways, the peak-period traffic
volumes at the site access drives and critical intersections had to be estimated for the year the site is to
be completely developed, which is assumed to be two years. Based on the potential growth in the area,
an ambient growth factor of two percent per year was considered appropriate for this traffic analysis.
Therefore, a four percent ambient growth factor was applied to the through.movements on Algonquin
Road and Dempster Street.
6
Traffic Assignments
The estimated peak-hour traffic volumes that will be generated by the proposed development were
assigned to the various roadways serving the site access drives in accordance with the previously
described directional distribution. Figure 3 illustrates the morning and evening peak hour traffic
assignments for the subject development. The total traffic volumes are illustrated in Figure 4, which
inc1udeexisting traffic plus development-generated traffic plus traffic generated by the other area
growth.
Evaluation and Recommendations
In order to evaluate the impact ofthe anticipated traffic volumes, the site access facilities and adjacent
intersections were analyzed based on the estimated volumes of existing and future through and site-
generated traffic on the roadway system serving the site. From this analysis, recommendations were
developed for site access facilities and roadway improvements.
Site Access
Access to the development is proposed to be provided via a full access drive on Algonquin Road,
Linneman Road, and Dempster Street. The following describes the design and location of the access
drives.
The Algonquin Road access drive is proposed to be located on the north side of the road at the eastern
end of the development (approximately 660 feet southeast of Linneman Road). 1bis access drive
should provide a three-lane cross section with one inbound lane and two outbound lanes. The outbound
lanes should be under stop sign control and striped to provide a separate left-turn lane and a separate
right-turn lane. In addition, a separate left-turn lane should be provided on Algonquin Road serving this
access drive. A 100 to 150 foot left-turn lane can be accommodated with the Algonquin Road median
without encroaching on the existing left-turn lane on the east approach of the Algonquin Road and
Linneman Road intersection.
The Linneman Road access drive is proposed to be located on the east side of the road approximately
740 feet north of the centerline of Algonquin Road. 1bis access drive should provide a three-lane cross
section with one inbound lane and two outbound lanes. The outbound lanes should be under stop sign
control and striped to provide a separate left-turn lane and a separate right.turn lane. As part of the
proposed development, Linneman Road is proposed to be widened from a two-lane to a three-lane cross
section along the development frontage that will include a separate left-turn lane on Linneman Road
serving this access drive.
7
z
c:c c
:Ec:c
w 0
Z a:
Z
_:::::i
...!..
o
...
! 4-5 (15)
20 (5)--+ ~ i "
15 (5). I I
iftoift
~!:.......
an I I
DEMPSTER
STREET
UNITED AlRUNES
FACILITY
NOT TO SCALE
LEGEND
S = EXISTING SIGNAL
00 = 7:15 TO 8:15 AM
(00) = 4:30 TO 5:30 PM
PROJECT:
TITLE:
OPUS DEVELOPMENT
MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
c:c ~
C :;)
- 0
U
.-20 (10)
",.u."."."-:-(sj-::;' "1 'j r
20 (5). i iftC'
i!:.!1
! an an
!
!
!
!
r-"-"."."."."."."."."."."
i
~
lEI ~ 5 (30)
I.. .10 (50)
.j
o
c
an
C'f)
SITE
an an
.Jl. ! ~
~o,$. ! ~ 18'1,i
11(J9........ ...... 8' ~'S'J
~'A ..........:..u ~ C'ift
........ !::!.!:!
........ an an
................ .J l.
~ ........~ \.
(10J .......~:! II$.
......... ...;! ~~ 9
',!.i!} ,
1Iii;............. i
........;
--
00
NC'f)
--
SITE-GENERATED PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
~
PROJECT NO: 05-309
KLOA INC.
fiGURE NO: 3
2
c( Q t:
:E
w ~ ~ ::)
Z a:: - 0
........-.__2 0
anOo-
e!!e.... -
0-
...an
ango --
JrC '- 30 (115) oan '- - (5)
...
+--525 (700) .Jl. +-- 645 (830)
DEMPSTER .- 100 (25) .- 20 (10)
STREET 25 (85) .J ifr ,..-.........-.---....-.......- ..-
655 (710)-+ ! 6 (5) J Ii ('
75 (20) -. - - 740 (905)--+
i-an !.....c;-
iain-..... C'\jfeCO) 20 (5) -. i.!.~
............z::. ! Ian
--!!!.e 000 i
~il NNN i
........ '- - (5)
.J!t. . - (35)
-
an_
CDan
~-
,tf3
....
!t.
ifr
a~:r:
an-
l!o$!
an
!-..-....................-............1
i
i
i
i
! '- 5 (30)
i .10 (50)
10 (215) J
20 (320f.
UNITED A1RUNES
FACILITY
ir
-
0_
NO
........
--
oan
1ft CO)
N
SITE
in 0'
lQTl!
---
IftIO
.. ::::
l .J!t.
118:0 (6'0
10 11o<X,
(lIJ 'J ~
l
ii
--
1ft 1ft
NOT TO SCALE
anlo
... ....
LEGEND
S = EXISTING SIGNAL
00 = 7:15 TO 8:15 AM
(00) = 4:30 TO 5:30 PM
PROJECT:
TITLE:
PROJECT NO: 05-309
OPUS DEVELOPMENT
MT. PROSPECT, ILLINOIS
TOTAL PEAK HOUR VOLUMES
KlOA INC.
FIGURE NO: 4
9
Access from Dempster Street will be provided via the existing driveway that servers the United Airlines
facility's parking lot. (Currently access between the Dempster Street access drive and the parking lot
is prohibited via a barrier.) As part of the proposed development, access between the parking lot and
the access drive will be permanently eliminated with the access drive serving only the proposed
development. This access drive, which is located opposite the western leg of Ida Court, currently
provides one inbound lane and two outbound lanes. The outbound lanes should be under stop sign
control and striped to provide a separate left-turn lane and a separate right-turn lane. It should be noted
that no separate left-turn lane is provided on Dempster Street serving this access drive. Based on the
following, it is our opinion that a separate left-turn lane will not be required on Dempster Street serving
the proposed development.
· The development is estimated to generate a very minimal volume ofleft-tum traffic from eastbound
Dempster Street to the proposed development.
· Given the proximity of the 1-90 interchanges, it is anticipated that the majority of the truck traffic
will travel to and from the development via Algonquin Road as opposed to Dempster Street. As
such, a very minimal volume, if any, truck traffic is expected to be making a left-turn from
eastbound Dempster Street to the proposed development.
· Dempster Street currently has a four-lane cross section with two lanes in each direction. Therefore,
westbound Dempster Street through traffic will be able to bypass any left turning vehicles via the
outside westbound through lane.
Intersection Capacity Analyses
Capacity analyses were conducted at critical intersections in the vicinity of the site under both existing
and total projected traffic volumes. Table 3 summarizes the levels of service and delays for the critical
intersections. A summary of the levels of service and the corresponding vehicular delay range for both
signalized and unsignalized intersections are provided in the Appendix. The roadway improvements
proposed to Linneman Road as part of the development were assumed for the future capacity analyses.
All of the intersections in the study area are operating at a good level of service. Assuming the total
traffic volumes all the intersections are proj ected to operate at approximately the same levels of service.
All of the intersections have sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the site-generated traffic and
other growth projected in the area. As such, other than the improvements proposed to Linneman Road,
no other improvements are required to accommodate the development-generated traffic.
It should be noted that during the evening peak hour, the left-turn movement from the Ida Court to
Dempster Street is currently operating at a Level of Service E. This is due to the higher volume of
through traffic on Dempster Street and the reduced number of gaps available for vehicles to enter this
traffic stream. Traffic will be able to exit onto Dempster Street. However, during the evening peak
hour, this traffic may experience delays longer than what is considered desirable. This is not an
uncommon situation, particularly for stop sign controlled intersections along higher volume roads such
as Dempster Street.
10
Table 3
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY
Morning Peak Hour Evening Peak Hour
Level of Delay Level of Delay
Service (seconds) Service (seconds)
Existing Traffic Volumes
Algonquin Road with Linneman Road] B 14.2 C 25.4
Dempster Street with Linneman Road] B 18.1 C 22.0
Linneman Road with United Airline
Facility Main Access Drive2 C 15.7 C 15.7
..P.:~p..~~~~.~~~~~.~~.~.~.~~..~~~...................................~.....................~.~:~........_......._..........~.....................~.!:.?.........
Total Traffic Volumes
Algonquin Road with Linneman Road] B 14.4 C 20.9
Dempster Street with Linneman Road] B 18.4 C 22.4
Linneman Road with United Airline
Facility Main Access Drive2 C 16.2 C 16.5
Dempster Street with Ida Court and
the Access Drive2 D 32.7 E 47.4
Algonquin Road with Access Drive2 C 21.7 D 32.8
Linneman Road with Access Drive2 B 11.1 B 12.1
1. Signalzied Intersection
2. UnsignaIized Intersection
Conclusion
The proposed site is well situated with respect to the local roadway system with access from two
arterial roadways (Algonquin Road and Dempster Street) and one collector road (Linneman Road).
With the proposed improvements to Linneman Road and the access improvements, the existing
roadway system has sufficient reserve capacity to accommodate the additional traffic that will be
generated by the proposed development. Lastly, the access system will provide safe and efficient access
to/from the development with minimal interruption to the through traffic.
11
Appendix
12
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA: UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Delay per Vehicle (seconds)
::;10.0
10.1-15.0
15.1-25.0
25.1-35.0
35.1-50.0
>50.0
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000
LEVEL OF SERVICE CRITERIA: SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Level of
Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Interpretation
Very short delay, with extremely favorable progression. Most
vehicles arrive during the green phase and do not stop at all.
Good progression, with more vehicles stopping than for Level
of Service A, causing higher levels of average delay.
Light congestion, with individual cycle failures beginning to
appear. Number of vehicles stopping is significant at this level.
Congestion is more noticeable, with longer delays resulting
from combinations of unfavorable progression, long cycle
lengths, or high V IC ratios. Many vehicles stop, and the
proportion of vehicles not stopping declines.
Limit of acceptable delay. High delays result from poor pro-
gression, high cycle lengths, and high V IC ratios.
Unacceptable delays occurring, with oversaturation.
Source: Highway Capacity Manual, 2000
13
Delay per Vehicle
(seconds)
~10.0
10.1-20.0
20.1-35.0
35.1-55.0
55.1-80.0
>80.0
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN ANNEXATION
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND
OPUS BRIARWOOD, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
WHEREAS, Opus Briarwood, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
(hereinafter the "Owner") is the owner of the real estate described in Exhibit A of the
Annexation Agreement referred to below (hereinafter the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Owner desires to enter into an Annexation Agreement (hereinafter
the "Annexation Agreement") concerning the Property, and is ready, willing and able to
enter into said Agreement and to perform the obligations as required thereunder; and
WHEREAS, a true and correct copy of such Annexation Agreement is attached
hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook
County, Illinois, did hold a public hearing on February 7, 2006, to consider the
Annexation Agreement for the annexation of the Property, which is not presently within
the corporate limits of any municipality but is contiguous to the Village of Mount
Prospect, and
WHEREAS, the statutory procedures provided in Chapter 65 ILCS 5/11-15.1-1
through 5/11-15.1-15, as amended, for the execution of said Annexation Agreement
have been complied with; the public hearing on said Agreement having been held
pursuant to proper notice; and
WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook
County, Illinois, have determined that it is in the best interests of the Village of Mount
Prospect that said Annexation Agreement be entered into by the Village of Mount
Prospect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY,
ILLINOIS, ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS:
SECTION 1: The Preambles hereto are hereby made a part of, and operative
provisions of, this Ordinance as fully as if completely repeated at length herein.
SECTION 2: The Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect hereby
find that it is in the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect and its residents that
the aforesaid "Annexation Agreement" be entered into and executed by said Village of
Mount Prospect, with said Agreement to be substantially in the form attached hereto as
Exhibit A.
SECTION 3: The Mayor, for and on behalf of the Village of Mount Prospect, is
hereby authorized within her discretion to execute the Annexation Agreement.
E:
SECTION 4: The Mayor and Village Clerk, for and on behalf of the Village, are
hereby authorized to execute any documents and to perform any acts necessary to
effect the fulfillment of all the terms and conditions of the Annexation Agreement.
SECTION 5: This Resolution shall be effective immediately from and
after its passage by two-thirds of the Corporate Authorities and approval.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
by two-thirds of the Corporate Authorities on a roll call vote as follows:
,2006,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Briarwood - resolution Annexation AgreementFEB2006.DOC
Briarwood - resolution Annexation AgreementFEB2006 2
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
Briarwood - resolution Annexation AgreementFEB2006 3
ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
(BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT)
This Annexation Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the "Annexation Agreement"
or "Agreement") is made and entered into this _ day of , 2006, by
and between the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, an Illinois home rule municipal
corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Village"), and Opus Briarwood, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company (hereinafter referred to as "Owner") (sometimes collectively
referred to as the "parties").
WIT N E SSE T H:
WHEREAS, Owner is the owner of record or certain real estate, the legal description
of which is set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof (hereinafter
referred to as "Annexation Realty") ; and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Realty constitutes territory which is contiguous to the
corporate limits of the Village and may be annexed to the Village as provided in Article VII
of the Illinois Municipal Code (Chapter 65, Illinois Compiled Statutes, 2004, as amended);
and
WHEREAS, the Village desires to annex and the Owner desires to have the
Annexation Realty annexed to the Village and each of the parties desires to obtain
assurances from the other as to certain provisions of the zoning and other ordinances of
the Village for the Annexation Realty when the Annexation Realty has been annexed and
to other matters covered by this Agreement for a period of twenty (20) years from and after
the execution of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Annexation Realty is an approximately twenty-seven (27) acre
parcel of land and there are no electors residing thereon; and
WHEREAS, all owner(s) of record of the Annexation Realty have signed a Petition
for Annexation of the Annexation Realty to the Village (hereinafter referred to as the
"Annexation Petition"); and
WHEREAS, an application has heretofore been filed with the Village Clerk for
zoning of the Annexation Realty and for the granting of certain variances; and
WHEREAS, said application was forwarded to the Planning and Zoning Commission
of the Village; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 26, 2006, for the purpose of
considering whether, upon its annexation, the Annexation Realty should be granted certain
variances and rezoned from the R-X Single Family Residence District to the 1-1 Limited
Industrial District under the Village Zoning Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Zoning
Ordinance"), and the Planning and Zoning Commission have submitted to the Corporate
Authorities of the Village (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporate Authorities") the
Planning and Zoning Commission's findings of fact, recommendations and decision, where
appropriate, with respect to said application; and
WHEREAS, on January 7, 2006, the Village, after notice in accordance with Section
5/11-15.1-3 of the Code, held a public hearing concerning this Annexation Agreement;
WHEREAS, the parties wish to enter into a binding agreement with respect to said
annexation, zoning and development and for other related matters pursuant to the
provisions of Division 15.1 of Article 11 of Act 5 of Chapter 65 of the Illinois Compiled
Statutes, and upon the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement; and
2
WHEREAS, all public hearings and other actions required to be held or taken prior
to the adoption and execution of th is Agreement, in order to make the same effective, have
been held or taken, including all hearings and actions required in connection with any
variations from, amendments to and classifications under the various sections of the
Codes, regulations and Ordinances of the Village ("Village Municipal Code"), including the
Zoning Ordinance, such public hearings and other actions having been held pursuant to
public notice as required by law and in accordance with all requirements of law prior to
adoption and execution of this Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village and the Owner deem it to be to
the mutual advantage of the parties and in the public interest that the Annexation Realty be
annexed to and developed as a part of the Village as hereinafter provided; and
WHEREAS, the development of the Annexation Realty as provided herein will
promote the sound planning and development of the Village as a balanced community and
will be beneficial to the Village and its current and future residents; and
WHEREAS, the Owner has proposed to develop the Annexation Realty as an
office/warehouse development; and
WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities of the Village have examined the proposed
uses by Owner and have determined that said uses and the development of the
Annexation Realty in accordance with this Agreement comply with the Comprehensive Plan
of the Village; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission have recommended that certain
variances be granted from the Village Municipal Code, and that the Annexation Realty be
rezoned to the 1-1 Limited Industrial District, as provided in this Agreement; and
3
WHEREAS, the Owner desires to have the Annexation Realty rezoned to the 1-1
Limited Industrial District under the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities have determined that entering into this
Agreement is in the best interests of the Village.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and of the mutual covenants
and agreements herein contained, it is hereby agreed by and between the Village and
Owner as follows:
1. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS. The Village and Owner agree that the foregoing
recitals are incorporated in this Agreement as if fully recited herein.
2. ANNEXATION
Subject to the provisions of Article 7 of Act 5 of Chapter 65 of the Illinois Compiled
Statutes, the parties agree to do all things necessary or appropriate to cause the
Annexation Realty to be duly and validly annexed to the Village. The Village shall annex
the Annexation Realty, subject to the applicable provisions of statutes and the terms and
conditions set forth in this Annexation Agreement.
3. ZONING
Upon annexation of the Annexation Realty, the Annexation Realty, as depicted on
the Final Plat of Subdivision, dated January 5,2006, and attached as Exhibit "B," shall be
rezoned from R-X Single Family District to 1-1 Limited Industrial District, with the following
Variances granted to the Village Municipal Code:
(i) Height: a variation from Section 14.2104(C) of the Zoning Ordinance,
increasing the maximum height from 30 feet to 39 feet
4
(ii) Transitional Setback: a variation from Section 14.2104(E) of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit parking lots and drive aisles within the interior side yard, along
and adjacent to the north 618 feet of the east property lot line of the Annexation
Realty.
4. SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
To the extent a Final Plat of Subdivision as defined in the Village Municipal Code is
not approved simultaneous with this Agreement, the Village shall approve the Final Plat of
Subdivision, attached as Exhibit B," within twenty-one (21) days of the annexation of the
Annexation Realty.
5. DEVELOPMENT
The Annexation Realty shall be developed in accordance with the Conceptual
Landscape Plan prepared by Gary R. Weber Associates, dated January 9, 2006, attached
as Exhibit "C."
There will be developed and constructed on the Annexation Realty two
office/warehouse buildings in accordance with the Site Plan dated January 5, 2006,
prepared by Opus North Corporation, attached as Exhibit "D." The building facades,
architectural style and details shall be as shown on the elevations attached as Exhibit "E."
6. PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Upon annexation of the Annexation Realty and the approval of the Final Plat of
Subdivision, the Village shall issue all necessary permits and approvals for development of
the Annexation Realty in accordance with this Annexation Agreement, the Ordinance
granting Zoning and Variances and the Codes and other regulations of the Village and any
other governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the property.
5
7. EASEMENTS.
To the extent the Final Plat of Subdivision, attached at Exhibit "8," does not provide for the
Village required easements on or within the Annexation Realty, Owner shall provide all
easements on or within the Annexation Realty, which may be reasonably required by the
Village to enable the Annexation Realty to be properly drained and to receive water,
sanitary sewer, electric, telephone, gas, and cable television service, with the Village being
a named grantee in all said easements along with the applicable utility companies and
cable television operator. The location for all public improvements shall be as approved by
the Village and as shown on final engineering plans reasonably approved by the Village.
8. FEES/CHARGES/ST ANDARDS
Owner agrees to pay all building permit fees and similar permit fees, including
applicable water main connection charges, as required by the Village Municipal Code at
the time of the application for respective permits. The Village shall not impose any fee or
charge upon the Annexation Realty, which is not required by the Village Municipal Code as
of the date of this Annexation Agreement. Any ordinance, resolution, or motion of the
Village imposing any new permit fees or increasing the amount of the existing permit fees,
plan review and inspection fees, license fee not otherwise set by this Annexation
Agreement, or any other fees imposed by the Village that are applicable to or required to
be paid by the Owner, contractors, subcontractors, material suppliers, or others performing
the work or supplying materials in connection with any part of the development of the
Annexation Realty shall not take effect regarding Annexation Realty for a period of six (6)
months after the passage of the increase. If, during the term of this Annexation
Agreement, any such fees applicable to any area in the Village or any particular type of
6
work are reduced, the fees applicable to the Annexation Realty and to the type of work
being done on the Annexation Realty shall be reduced accordingly.
If, during the term of this Annexation Agreement, any existing, amended, modified,
or new ordinances, codes, or regulations affecting the Zoning, Variances, subdivision,
development, construction of improvements, buildings, or appurtenances, or any other
development of any kind or character on the Annexation Realty are amended or modified
in a manner to impose less restrictive requirements, such requirements shall inure to the
benefit of the Owner and the Annexation Realty, and anything in this Annexation
Agreement to the contrary notwithstanding, the Owner may elect to proceed with respect to
the development of or construction on the Annexation Realty on the less restrictive
amendment or modification applicable generally to all properties within the Village.
9. CONTRIBUTIONS.
Owner shall not be required to make any land, cash and/or other donation to any school,
park/recreation, fire, police or library district or unit or any other governmental entity during
the term of this Agreement, provided nothing herein shall limit Owner's obligation to pay ad
valorem real estate taxes uniformly applied to any property within the Village, District or
unit.
10. FIRE DISTRICT
It is the Village's and the Owner's intent that, by operation of law and in accordance
with Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 70, Section 705/20, the Annexation Realty shall,
upon its annexation to the Village, be disconnected from the fire protection district in which
it is located at no cost to the Village. The Village agrees to cooperate with the Owner in
said disconnection. Owner and/or the successor owner of any lot platted within the
7
Annexation Realty shall be responsible for the disconnection and shall reimburse the
Village for any funds expended by the Village, including, but not limited to, any payments
required by 70 ILCS 705/20(e), and any legal fees and litigation costs, relative thereto. The
Village shall provide notice to the fire protection district in the manner required by law.
11. ROAD IMPROVEMENTS
The Village shall take such steps necessary to cause the transfer of dedication of
Linneman Road, from the Township of Elk Grove to the Village or any agency designated
by the Village, all as shown on the Final Plat of Subdivision attached as Exhibit "B."
The Owner shall pay the actual costs to improve the portions of Algonquin Road (as
required by the Illinois Department of Transportation), Linneman Road (as required by the
Village), and Dempster Street (as required by the County of Cook) contiguous to the
Annexation Realty, all in accordance with engineering plans reasonably approved by the
Village and, as applicable, the Illinois Department of Transportation and the County of
Cook (collectively, "Road Improvements"). Said improvements shall include those required
pursuant to Section 15.402, Development Requirements, of Article IV, Development
Procedures and Regulations, of the Village Municipal Code.
12. LIST OF ALL CONTRACTORS ON EACH DEVELOPMENT SITE. The
Owner shall have the continuing responsibility for maintaining and supplying the Village's
Chief of Police with a current and accurate list of all contractors and major subcontractors,
and their after-hours telephone numbers, while they are undertaking construction of
improvements on the Annexation Realty.
13. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. Except for (i) those overhead utility lines along
Algonquin Road, and (ii) the existing overhead utility lines (but not any newly constructed
8
utility lines) along Linneman Road that Owner shall have the right to raise in accordance
with the requirements of the utility owning such overhead lines (in the instance of clauses
(i) and (ii), "Excepted Above Ground Utilities"), all other utilities on the Annexation Realty
(including all ROWand utility easements adjacent thereto, excluding the Excepted Above
Ground Utilities) or newly constructed off-site thereof to service the Annexation Realty,
including but not limited to, all electrical, telephone, cable television and natural gas
distribution facilities (excluding temporary services during development and electrical
transformers and meters for natural gas and electricity), shall be installed underground or
located within buildings at the time of development of the Annexation Realty.
14. WATER AND SANITARY SEWER.
A. Water. In accordance with the Village Municipal Code, Owner shall
cause, at Owner's sole cost and expense (except as hereinafter provided in
this Section 14A), the extension of the Village's 16 inch water line from the
southeast corner of Hawthorne Circle and Dempster Street to the northeast
corner of the Annexation Property (hereinafter referred to as the "Water Line
Installation"). When the Water Line Installation is accepted by the Village,
Owner shall deliver to the Village a reasonably detailed invoice containing
necessary back-up materials ("Invoice") of all of the actual, out-of-pocket
costs and expenses incurred by Owner for the completion of the Water Line
Installation ("Installation Costs"). Promptly after the Village's receipt of the
Invoice, the Village shall pay to Owner the lesser of $225,000.00 or all of the
Installation Costs.
9
B. Sanitary Sewer. The Village consents to Illinois American Water
Company ("IAWC"), as opposed to the Village, being the utility provider of
sanitary sewer service to the Annexation Realty. At no out-of-pocket cost of
expense to the Village, the Village agrees to reasonably cooperate with
Owner and IAWC to permit such sanitary sewer service to the Annexation
Property.
15. REASONABLENESS OF FEES AND CHARGES. Owner further agrees that
the charges, fees and easements required by this Agreement are reasonable in amount,
where applicable, and are reasonably related to and made necessary by the development
of the Annexation Realty.
16. REQUIRED FUTURE FINAL SITE PLAN AND FINAL ENGINEERING
IMPROVEMENT PLAN APPROVALS. All approvals for final site plans and engineering
improvement plans shall be submitted to the Village Administration, Boards and
Commissions for recommendations, review and approval in accordance with Village
procedures. Notwithstanding any other language of this Annexation Agreement or any
other documents, regulations or claims to the contrary, the Owner shall be required to
submit Final Site Plans to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a public hearing and
Site Plan approval, if requested to do so by the Director of Community Development. The
public hearing shall not be for the purpose of determining the appropriateness ofthe use or
the application of the standards for re-Zoning or Variances approval as found in the Zoning
Ordinance. Rather, the public hearing and consideration of the Site Plan shall be for the
purpose of determining the capability of the applicant to execute the proposed plan, and
the appropriateness of the proposed planning, engineering and design for the site.
10
Because of the potential traffic generation, particular attention shall be given to the traffic
engineering and the Owner shall comply with all requirements of the Village's traffic
engineering consultant.
17. FAILURE TO COMPLETE WORK OR MAINTENANCE. The work of
constructing any building, utility, road, and site and landscape improvements shall be
prosecuted diligently from its commencement through completion. Unless otherwise
specifically authorized in writing by the Village, the construction of buildings and installation
of utility, site and landscape improvements shall be completed in accordance with a
schedule approved by the Village Staff, including any modification thereto resulting from
acts of God and Owner's commercially reasonable assessment of market conditions
affecting the Annexation Realty and the improvements thereon (hereinafter the "market
con d itions").
In the event the Owner fails to comply with the provisions of this Paragraph 17,
pertaining to completion of work or maintenance obligations, the Village shall in its sole
discretion serve notice on the Owner of such non-compliance in writing. If the Owner fails
to commence the performance of such work within the allocated time (which shall be not
less than 30 days after receipt of notice of non-compliance) and thereafter diligently pursue
the completion thereof (subject to acts of God and the aforesaid market conditions), the
Village may perform or cause to be performed any and all necessary work and submit all
costs and expenses to the Owner for prompt payment. If the Owner fails to reimburse
Village for the costs and expenses within 60 days after rendition of an reasonably detailed
invoice therefor, the Village may exercise its right to file a lien on the Lot or Lots on which
the incomplete or unmaintained use or structure is located. Promptly after the Village's
11
receipt of a written request from the Owner(or its successor(s)), the Village agrees to
deliver to Owner (or its successor(s)) a statement of whether there are any such unpaid
costs or expenses, and if so, the amount thereof.
18. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. As part of the application to the
Village for a building permit for the Annexation Realty, the Owner shall provide the Village
with a Construction Management Plan, subject to reasonable approval by the Village, that
specifies the plan for all means of ingress and egress (including that for emergency
vehicles) to and from the Annexation Realty. The plan shall also include the location of all
temporary structures, trailers, signs and restrooms and areas designated for parking for
construction employees. Except for signs, all temporary structures shall be placed as
inconspicuously as possible, but to nonetheless allow for view from a police or fire vehicle.
The required placement of temporary structures shall not cause inconvenience to Owner
or its contractors or to the owners and occupants of adjoining property. The plan shall
contain the following statement: "Temporary buildings, structures, signs and trailers shall
be permitted for construction purposes only, and shall only be permitted during the
construction of a permanent building or other improvements. The temporary structures
shall be removed prior to the time a Temporary or Final Certificate of Occupancy is issued."
19. EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION SITE. All construction equipment used
in clearing, excavating, grading or constructing a structure shall be loaded and unloaded
only within the boundary lines of the building site. During clearing, excavating, grading or
constructing, the Owner and its contractors shall cause the roads bordering the Annexation
Realty to be kept clear of all dirt and debris. Any debris or soils spilled on any offsite
roadway within the Village of Mount Prospect shall be cleaned by the Owner within one
12
hour of the spill. Upon completion of any construction, the Owner and its contractors shall
cause all such roads, private drives, parking areas and adjoining roads to be "broom clean"
of all debris and dirt caused by such construction.
20. IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULES. UNCOMPLETED BUILDINGS. ROADS.
PARKING AREAS. LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITIES. If in the event
construction of any building, road, parking area or installation or any necessary utility has
been commenced and ceases for a period of six (6) months, or falls behind the approved
schedule (except for events caused by acts of God) by one (1) year, the Owner, upon
written demand by the Village, shall raze and remove any uncompleted building, and
landscape the affected area in a sightly manner. Installation of the required road, utility
and storm water management system shall be completely installed and operational
according to the subject schedule.
21. TAX RELIEF 6(8). For each qualifying tenant of any portion of the
Annexation Realty, the Village agrees to support Owner, its successor(s) or any such
tenant in any petition for Cook County Class 6(8) real estate tax relief pursuant to the
Resolution to be adopted by the Village, as set forth on Exhibit uF."
22. SUPERSEDING GOVERNMENTAL REQUIREMENTS. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained in this Annexation Agreement, if Federal, State or
County regulations are more stringent than the requirements of the Village and the more
stringent standards preempt the Village's standard and are required by law to be applied to
the Property, then the Village shall have the right to apply the more stringent standards.
23. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ROAD. Owner agrees to maintain the
surface of any temporary construction road, and keep the road clear of snow, construction
13
debris and materials, and construction and employee vehicles at all times so that it is
accessible by public safety and other emergency vehicles.
24. COMBUSTIBLE MATERIALS. Except that necessary for the refueling of
construction equipment, no combustible materials may be delivered to the site of any
construction on the Annexation Realty until water and all fire hydrants are available on the
Site.
25. DECLARATION. Any declaration, covenants and restrictions required to be
placed of record by the Owner shall be subject to the reasonable approval of the Village
Attorney to insure compliance with this Annexation Agreement and all applicable Village
codes and ordinances. Such documents shall include a provision by which the Village has
the right, but not the obligation, to enforce the covenants and obligations of parties or
property encumbered thereby. At the cost and expense of the association or owner or
owners so encumbered, the Village shall have the further right, upon thirty (30) days written
notice specifying the nature of the default, to enter on common open spaces and cure or
cause the cure ofthose defaults that had not been commenced within thirty (30) days after
receipt of such notice and that thereafter have not been diligently prosecuted to
completion. The Village shall also have the right to charge or place a lien on the applicable
portion of the Annexation Realty for the repayment of such costs and expenses, including
reasonable attorneys' fees, for enforcing such obligations. Promptly after the Village's
receipt of a written request from the Owner (or its successor(s) or assign(s)), the Village
agrees to deliver to Owner (or its successor(s) or assign(s)) a statement of whether there
are any such unpaid costs or expenses, and if so, the amount thereof.
26. RIGHT TO SELL, TRANSFER AND ASSIGN
14
It is specifically agreed that Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer, lease,
encumber and assign all or any part of the Annexation Realty or interest therein to other
persons, firms, corporations or entities for building or development purposes (as well as for
occupancy or use), and that such persons, firms, corporations or entities shall be entitled to
the same rights and shall have the same obligations (but applicable only to the subject
portion of the Annexation Realty) as Owner has under this Annexation Agreement.
27. SEPARABILITY
The provisions hereof shall be deemed to be separable, and if any section,
paragraph, clause, provision or item herein shall be held invalid, the invalidity of such
section, paragraph, clause, provision, or item shall not affect another provision hereof,
provided, however, the Village shall under no circumstances be required to incur any
liability or loss or incur any expense for any reason in the event that any such section,
paragraph, clause, provision or item is held invalid.
28. NOTICE
Unless otherwise notified in writing, all notices, requests and demands shall be in
writing and shall be delivered to or mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, as
follows (such notices mailed shall be considered as served on the date of the postmark):
If to OWNER:
Opus Briarwood, LLC
c/o Opus North Corporation
9700 Higgins Road
Rosemont, Illinois 60018
Attention: James B. Heller
With a copy to:
Opus Corporation
10350 Bren Road West
Minnetonka, Minnesota 55343
Attention: Legal Department
15
If to VILLAGE:
Village of Mount Prospect
Department of Community Development
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
With a copy to:
Mr. Everette M. Hill, Jr.
Klein, Thorpe & Jenkins, Ltd.
20 N. Wacker Drive
Suite 1660
Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903
or to such other address as any party may from time to time designate in a written
notice to the other parties.
29. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
A. Facilitation Of Development. It is understood and agreed that the successful
consummation of this Agreement and the development of the Annexation
Realty is in the best interests of Owner and the Village requires their
continued cooperation. Subject to the terms of this Agreement, Owner
hereby evidences its intention to fully comply with all the Village requirements
and its willingness to discuss any matters of mutual interest that may arise,
as well as, its willingness to assist the Village to the fullest commercially
reasonable extent possible. The Village does hereby evidence its willingness
to, when reasonably requested, cooperate in the resolution of mutual
problems, and its willingness to facilitate the development of the Annexation
Realty, as contemplated by the provisions of this Agreement, including but
not limited to cooperating with Owner as an applicant or otherwise to enable
Owner to obtain all govern mental approvals or permits reasonably necessary
for the development of the Annexation Realty in accordance with this
Agreement from all federal, state, county and other governmental or quasi-
16
governmental entities, including but not limited to the Federal Highway
Department, the Illinois Department of Transportation, the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency, the Elk Grove Township Highway
Department and/or the Army Corps of Engineers. The Village and Owner
shall do all things necessary or appropriate to carry out the terms and
provisions of this Agreement and to aid and assist each other in carrying out
the terms and objectives of this Agreeme~t and the intentions of the Village
and Owner as reflected by said terms, including, without limitation, the giving
of such notices, the holding of such public hearings, the enactment by the
Village of such resolutions and ordinances, and the taking of such other
actions as may be necessary to enable the Village's and Owner's compliance
with the terms and objectives of this Agreement and the intentions of the
Village and Owner as reflected by said terms.
B. Continuity of Obliaations:
(i) The provisions of this Agreement shall be binding upon the
successors and assigns in fee title to the Owner, except as otherwise
provided herein.
(ii) In the event of any conveyance by Owner of fee title to the
Annexation Realty or any portion thereof, Owner shall notify the
Village in writing, within ten (10) working days after the closing of such
conveyance, of any and all successors and assigns in fee title to all or
any portion of the Annexation Realty. Such written notice shall
include identification of the name(s) of such successor(s) and
17
assigns, the date of such conveyance; and a copy of the title
commitment identifying the grantee, the real estate conveyed, and
such other information as is usually and customarily included in a title
commitment for the conveyance of fee title to real estate. Failure to
give timely notice shall not constitute a default hereunder, but shall be
governed by the remaining provisions of this Paragraph 29B.
(iii) Upon the condition that the requirements of this Paragraph 29B have
been met, this Agreement shall be binding upon Owner's successors
and assigns, but only those benefits specifically assig'ned by Owner in
writing to any successor owner or assign shall inure to the benefit of
such successor owner or assign, Further, this Agreement shall be
binding upon the Village and the successor Corporate Authorities of
the Village and any successor municipality. Notwithstanding any
provision of this Agreement to the contrary, in the event that the
requirements of this Paragraph 29B have not been met, this
Agreement shall be binding upon, but shall not inure to the benefit of
Owner's successors and/or assigns in fee title in any manner until
such time as Owner has given the Village the notice required by this
Paragraph 29B.
(iv) Notwithstanding any provision of this Agreement to the contrary
(except as provided below in this Paragraph 29(B}(iv}), including but
not limited to the conveyance of all or any part of the Annexation
Realty by Owner in accordance with Paragraph 29B above, the
18
Owner shall at all times during the term of this Agreement remain
liable to the Village for the faithful performance of all obligations
imposed upon Owner by this Agreement until such obligations have
been fully performed, or until the Village, at its sole option, has
otherwise released Owner from any or all of such obligations, or as
otherwise set forth in this Paragraph 29(B)(iv). By the delivery of the
notice to the Village required by Paragraph 29(B)(ii), the Owner, if not
in default of any of its obligations under this Agreement, shall be
released from the obligations under this Agreement that (1) pertain to
the portion of the Annexation Realty for which fee title is conveyed,
and (2) that accrue or arise on and subsequent to the date such
. notice is received by the Village, except that, Owner shall remain
obligated, as follows:
a. To complete the construction of the Road Improvements
. described in Paragraph 11; and
b. To reimburse the Village pursuant to Paragraph 10, except that
Owner may be released from such obligation, as to any portion
of the Annexation Realty for which fee title is conveyed, if
Owner provides the Village, in a form satisfactory to the
Village, proof that it has given notice to its successors or
assigns in fee title to any portion of the Annexation Realty of
their obligations pursuant to Paragraph 10, and sets forth the
19
"~"'''''''=,''k"",_~,,,,,,,,~'-~--''---__~_e,,,"^''''''",,,,,,~\,:';m="~_'l,.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.'~~__'_"~__'_"_._"~~."".".=""_______
manner in which such successors or assigns will reimburse the
Village, including their prorata share of any such obligations.
(v) Owner's successors and assigns in fee title to any portion of the
Annexation Realty shall be obligated under this Agreement, but only
as it pertains to its portion of the Annexation Realty, except as
otherwise provided herein.
(vi) Except as otherwise provided in this Paragraph 298, all the terms and
conditions of this Agreement shall constitute covenants running with
the land.
C. Court Contest. In the event the annexation of the Annexation Realty, the
classification of the Annexation Realty for zoning purposes or other terms of
this Agreement are challenged in any court proceeding, the period of time
during which such litigation is pending shall extend the term of this
Agreement day-for-day from the date of the filing of such action to and
including the date of any final nonappealable order.
D. Remedies. The Village and Owner, and their successors and assigns,
covenant and agree that in the event of default of any of the terms,
provisions or conditions of this Agreement by any party, or their successors
or assigns, which default has not commenced to be corrected within thirty
(30) days after written notice to any party to such default and thereafter
prosecuted with diligence to completion, the party seeking to enforce said
provision shall have the right of specific performance and if said party
prevails in a court of law, it shall be entitled to specific performance. It is
20
further expressly agreed by and between the parties hereto that the remedy
of specific performance herein given shall not be exclusive of any other
remedy afforded by law to the parties, or their successor or successors in fee
title; provided, however, the parties hereby waive the right to consequential
and punitive damages, except in the instance of the willful act(s) of the
defaulting party.
E. Dedication of Public lands. In no event, including (without limitation) the
exercise of the authority granted in Section 5/11-12-8 of Division 11 of Act 5
of Chapter 65 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes, shall the Corporate
Authorities of the Village require that any part of the Annexation Realty be
designated for public purposes, except as otherwise provided in this
Agreement or except as may be consented to in writing by Owner.
F. Survival of Representations. Each of the parties agrees that the
representations, warranties and recitals set forth in the preambles to this
Annexation Agreement and in this Paragraph 29 are material to this
Agreement and the parties hereby confirm and admit their truth and validity
and hereby incorporate such representations, warranties and recitals into this
Agreement and the same shall continue during the period of this Agreement.
G. Captions and Paragraph Headings. The captions and paragraph headings
used herein are for convenience only and are not a part of this Agreement
and shall not be used in construing it.
H. Reimbursement of Village for legal and Other Fees and Expenses.
21
(i) To Effective Date of Agreement: The Owner, concurrently with
annexation, zoning and issuance of the Variances of and for the
Annexation Realty, shall reimburse the Village for the following
expenses incurred to the effective date of this Agreement in the
preparation and review of this Agreement, and any ordinances, letters
of credit, plats, easements or other documents relating to the
Annexation Realty:
(a) the costs incurred by the Village for engineering services;
(b) all reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the Village in
connection with this Annexation Agreement and the
annexation and zoning of the Annexation Realty; and
(c) miscellaneous Village expenses, such as legal publication
costs, recording fees and copying expense.
(ii) From and After Effective Date of Agreement:
(a) Except as provided in this subsection, upon demand by the
Village made by and through its Mayor, Owner from time to
time shall promptly reimburse the Village for all reasonable
expenses and costs incurred from and after the effective date
of this Agreement by the Village in the administration of this
Agreement, including engineering fees, attorneys' fees and
out-of-pocket expenses involving various and sundry matters
such as, but not limited to, preparation and publication, if any,
of all notices, resolutions, ordinances and other documents
22
required hereunder, and the negotiation and preparation of
letters of credit and escrow agreements to be entered into as
security for the completion of public improvements.
Such costs and expenses incurred by the Village in the
administration of the Agreement shall be evidenced to the
Owner upon its request, by a sworn statement of the Village;
and such costs and expenses may be further confirmed by the
Owner at its option from additional documents designated from
time to time by the Owner relevant to determining such costs
and expenses.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner shall in no event be
required to reimburse the Village or pay for any expenses or
costs of the Village as aforesaid more than once, whether such
are reimbursed or paid through special assessment
proceedings, through fees established by the Village
ordinances or otherwise.
(b) In the event any third party or parties institute any legal
proceedings against the Owner and/or the Village, which in any
way relate to the carrying out of the terms of this Agreement,
then, in that event, except for legal proceedings pertaining to a
breach of the Village representations, warranties and recitals
set forth in the preambles to this Annexation Agreement and in
this Paragraph 29, on written notice from the Village, the
23
---""---'--,"",""""""~"",,",=""'.'''''<<''''=---'--~----~~=,,W~\.'W5,~Y:'''"""".'_"---'^~----""""""'=~\"''lt''~'''P'"--"",~"",..,.,...~---"----,."""""",="""""""""=,,,,.-'7!'r"'~""'~-'-----"
Owner shall assume, fully and vigorously, the entire defense of
such legal proceedings and all expenses of whatever nature
relating thereto; provided, however:
1. Owner shall not make any settlement or
compromise of the legal proceedings, or fail to
pursue any available avenue of appeal of any
adverse judgment, without the approval of the
Village.
11. If the Village, in its sole discretion, determines
there is, or may probably be, a conflict of interest
between Village and Owner, on an issue of
importance to the Village having a potentially
substantial adverse effect on the Village, then
the Village shall have the option of being
represented by its own legal counsel. In the
event the Village exercises such option, then
Owner shall reimburse the Village, from time to
time, on written demand from the Mayor of
Village and notice of the amount due, for any
expenses, including but not limited to court
costs, reasonable attorneys fees and witnesses'
fees, and other expenses of litigation, incurred
by the Village in connection therewith.
iii.
IV. In the event the Village institutes legal
proceedings against Owner for violation of this
Agreement and secures a judgment in its favor,
the court having jurisdiction thereof shall
determine and include in its judgment against
Owner all expenses of such legal proceedings
incurred by the Village, including but not limited
to the court costs and reasonable attorneys'
fees, witnesses' fees, etc., incurred by the
Village in connection therewith (and any appeal
thereof). Owner may, in its sole discretion,
appeal any such judgment rendered in favor of
the Village against Owner.
v. iv. In all instances that, through Owner's
counsel, the Village is being represented in any
such legal proceedings, the Village agrees to
24
fully and timely cooperate with such Owner's
counsel. .
I. No Waiver or RelinQuishment of Right to Enforce Agreement. Failure of any
party to this Agreement to insist upon the strict and prompt performance of
the terms, covenants, agreements and conditions herein contained, or any of
them, upon any other party imposed, shall not constitute or be construed as
a waiver or relinquishment of any party's right thereafter to enforce any such
term, covenant, agreement or condition, but the same shall continue in full
force and effect.
J. Village Approval or Direction. Where the Village approval or direction is
required by this Agreement, such approval or direction means the approval
or direction of the Corporate Authorities of the Village, unless otherwise
expressly provided herein or required by law, and any such approval may be
required to be given only after and if all requirements for granting such
approval have been met, unless such requirements are inconsistent with this
Agreement.
K. Recording. A copy of this Agreement and any amendments thereto shall be
recorded by the Village at the expense of the Owner.
L. Authorization to Execute. The duly authorized individual, on behalf of
Owner, executing this Agreement warrants that he has been lawfully
authorized, pursuant to Owner's organizational documents, including
Owner's Operating Agreement, to execute this Agreement on behalf of said
Owner. The Mayor and Clerk of the Village hereby warrant that they have
25
-----...,.,...,"~""'9i.",'===_~._-_.O"'.~~="'_"'.,""=~.,_~___"___ -_.~="_,,=-':',,'~"''''''m..==_____
been lawfully authorized by the Village Council of the Village to execute this
Agreement. The Owner and the Village shall deliver to each other, upon
written request, copies of all bylaws, joint venture agreements, resolutions,
ordinances or other documents required to legally evidence the authority to
so execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective entities.
M. All Action Taken. The Village hereby represents and warrants to Owner that
it has the authority to enter into this Agreement as a valid and legally binding
agreement and that it has taken all action required by law, including the
holding of such public hearings as may be required, to bring about the
amendments and exceptions to the Zoning Ordinance, and other related
ordinances, and the adoption of such other ordinance amendments,
exceptions and variances, as may be necessary or proper in order to zone
and classify the Annexation Realty, so as to enable the same to be used and
developed as contemplated herein and to enable the Village and Owner to
execute this Agreement and fully carry out all the covenants, agreements,
duties and obligations created and imposed by the terms and conditions
hereof.
Owner hereby represents and warrants to Village that it has the
authority to enter into this Agreement as a valid and legally binding
agreement and that it has taken all action required by law as may be
necessary or appropriate to bind the Owner and to enable the Village and
Owner to execute this Agreement and fully carry out all the covenants,
26
agreements, duties and obligations created and imposed by the terms and
conditions hereof.
N. Amendment. This Agreement sets forth all the promises, inducements,
agreements, conditions and understandings between the Owner and the
Village relative to the subject matter thereof, and there are no promises,
agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or written, express or
implied, between them, other than are herein set forth. Except as herein
otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or
addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, unless
authorized in accordance with law, reduced in writing and approved by
Owner or any successor designated in writing by Owner and the Village.
O. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two (2) or more
counterparts, each of which taken together, shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
P. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto are made a part hereof.
Q. Conflict Between the Text and Exhibits. In the event of a conflict in the
provisions of the text of this Agreement and the Exhibits attached hereto, the
text of the agreement shall control and govern.
R. Term of Aoreement. The Agreement shall be in full force and effect for a
term of twenty (20) years from and after the effective date of this Agreement.
S. Effective Date of Annexation. The annexation of the Annexation Realty to
the Village shall become effective immediately upon the adoption by the
27
Village of an ordinance approving annexation ofthe Annexation Realty to the
Village and approving this Agreement.
T. Definition of Villaoe. When the term the Village is used herein it shall be
construed as referring to the Corporate Authorities of the Village unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise.
u. Execution of Aoreement. This Agreement shall be signed last by the Village
and the Mayor of the Village shall, on Page 1 hereof, affix the date on which
she signs this Agreement, which date shall be the effective date of this
Agreement.
v. Venue. The parties hereto agree that for purposes of any lawsuit(s) between
them concerning this Agreement, its enforcement, or the subject matter
thereof, venue shall be in Cook County, Illinois, and the laws of the State of
Illinois shall govern the cause of action.
w. Conflict Between Ordinances and Aoreement. In the event of a conflict
between any of the Municipal Codes applicable to the Annexation Realty,
including the Zoning Ordinance, and the terms of this Agreement, the terms
of this Agreement shall control.
[THE BALANCE OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]
28
Signed and sealed by the parties hereto as of the date first written above.
Opus Briarwood, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By:
Name:
Its:
Village of Mount Prospect
By:
ATTEST:
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk
29
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
COUNTY OF COOK )
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for the County and State aforesaid, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that Irvana K. Wilks, personally known to me to be the Village
President of the Village of Mount Prospect, and M. Lisa Angell, personally known to me to
be the Village Clerk of said municipal corporation, and personally known to me to be the
same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before
me this day in person and severally acknowledged that as such Village President and City
Clerk, they signed and delivered the said instrument and caused the corporate seal of said
municipal corporation to be affixed thereto, pursuant to authority given by the Board of
Trustees of said municipal corporation, as their free and voluntary act, and as the free and
voluntary act and deed of said municipal corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set
forth.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal, this
day of
,2006.
Commission expires
Notary Public
30
STATE OF ILLINOIS )
)SS
COUNTY OF COOK )
I, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for the County and State aforesaid, DO
HEREBY CERTIFY that the above-named
is
personally known to me to be the
of OPUS BRIARWOOD,
L.L.C. and also personally known to me to be the same person whose name is subscribed
to the foregoing instrument as such
and respectively, and that
he/she appeared before me this day in Person and severally acknowledged that as such
he/she signed and delivered the said instrument, pursuant to
authority given by the limited liability company as he/she free and voluntary act, and as the
free and voluntary act and deed of said limited liability company, for the uses and purposes
therein set forth.
GIVEN under my hand and official seal, this
day of
,2006.
Commission expires
Notary Public
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION REAL TV
LOT 1
THE WEST 800 FEET OF LOT 2 (EXCEPT THE WEST 363 FEET THEREOF) IN
LINNEMAN'S DIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER OF SECTION
23, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10,
1953 AS DOCUMENT 15716544;
ALSO
THE NORTH 537 FEET OF THE WEST 811.30 FEET, AS MEASURED ON THE
WEST AND NORTH LINES THEREOF, OF LOT 3 (EXCEPT THE NORTH 120 FEET
OF THE WEST 363 FEET OF SAID LOT 3) IN LINNEMAN'S DIVISION OF THE
SOUTH 3/4 OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER AND THE WEST
HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH,
RANGE EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART
LYING SOUTH AND WEST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND
A LINE LYING 120.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST
ALONG AN ASSUMED BEARING, BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 A
DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH-89
DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST 360.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00
DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST
DESCRIBED LINE 190.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43
SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE 854.93
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 103.54
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET OF SAID LOT 3
(AS MEASURED ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF), SAID POINT BEING 525.59
FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 (AS MEASURED ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET) SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF
TERMINUS, IN COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS.
LOT 2
LOT 12,13,14,15,16 AND THE WESTERLY 141 FEET OF LOTS 6 AND 71N
ELMHURST ALGONQUIN INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT NO.1 BEING A
RESUBDIVISION OF PART LOT 3 IN LINNEMAN'S DIVISION IN SECTION 23,
32
TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1967, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS
DOCUMENT 20409120,
ALSO
THAT PART OF THE NORTH 537 FEET OF THE WEST 811.30 FEET, AS
MEASURED ON THE WEST AND NORTH LINES THEREOF, OF LOT 3 IN
LINNEMAN'S DIVISION OF THE SOUTH 3/4 OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH
EAST QUARTER AND THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, LYING SOUTH AND WEST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND
A LINE LYING 120.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST
ALONG AN ASSUMED BEARING, BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 A
DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89
DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST 360.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00
DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST
DESCRIBED LINE 190.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43
SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE 854.93
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 103.54
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET OF SAID LOT 3
(AS MEASURED ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF), SAID POINT BEING 525.59
FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 (AS MEASURED ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET) SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF
TERMINUS, IN COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS.
Prepared December 9, 2005
Revised January 18, 2006
Spaceco, Inc., cbl
33
EXHIBIT B
FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION
34
EXHIBIT C
CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
35
EXHIBIT D
SITE PLAN
36
EXHIBIT E
ELEVATIONS
37
EXHIBIT F
RESOLUTION
COOK COUNTY CLASS 6(B) TAX RELIEF
38
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING CERTAIN TERRITORY
TO THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
(BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT NORTHEAST
CORNER OF ALGONQUIN AND LINNEMAN ROADS)
WHEREAS, a written petition, signed by Opus Briarwood, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the legal owner of record of all land within the territory
hereinafter described, and there being no electors residing thereon, has been filed with
the Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, requesting that
said territory be annexed to the Village of Mount Prospect; and
WHEREAS, said territory is not within the corporate limits of any municipality, but
is contiguous to the Village of Mount Prospect; and
WHEREAS, all notices of said annexation, as required by Chapter 65 ILCS 5/7-
1-1, have been given to the appropriate parties in a timely manner as required by
Statute (copies of said Notices being attached hereto as Exhibit A, and made part
hereof); and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the Village of Mount Prospect that said
territory be annexed thereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS:
SECTION 1: That the territory described in Section 2 below be and the same is
hereby annexed to the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, pursuant to
Chapter 65 ILCS 5/7-1-8.
SECTION 2: This ordinance is limited and restricted to the property indicated on
the attached Plat of Annexation, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit B,
and located at the northeast corner of Algonquin and Linneman Roads, Mount Prospect,
Illinois, containing approximately twenty-seven (27) acres more or less, the legal
description of which is set forth in Exhibit B.
SECTION 3: The new boundary of the Village of Mount Prospect shall extend to
the far side of any adjacent rights-of-way, and shall include all of every right-of-way
within the area annexed hereby.
SECTION 4: The Village Clerk is hereby directed to record with the Recorder of
Deeds and to file with the County Clerk, a certified copy of this Ordinance and the
original Plat of Annexation.
SECTION 5: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage and approval as required by law.
~
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
by a majority of the Corporate Authorities on a roll call vote as follows:
,2006,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Briarwood Annexation ordinancefeb2006. DOC
Briarwood Annexation ordinancefeb2006
2
Briarwood Annexation ordinancefeb2006
EXHIBIT A
NOTICES OF ANNEXATION
3
Briarwood Annexation ordinancefeb2006
EXHIBIT B
PLAT OF ANNEXATION
4
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A MAP AMENDMENT (REZONING)
TO THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING ORDINANCE
(BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT NORTHEAST
CORNER OF ALGONQUIN AND LINNEMAN ROADS)
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect has heretofore adopted the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance,
otherwise known as Chapter 14 of the Village Code of the Village of Mount Prospect,
Illinois; and
WHEREAS, an application has heretofore been filed requesting a map
amendment for the purpose of rezoning the property described in Section 2 hereto from
the R-X Single Family Residence District to the 1-1 limited Industrial District; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing thereon has been conducted by the Village of
Mount Prospect Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 2006, pursuant to
appropriate and legal notice; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees approve and adopt the findings
and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and incorporate such
findings and recommendations herein by reference as if they were fully set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: AMENDMENT: That Chapter 14 of the Village Code of the Village
of Mount Prospect, Illinois, commonly known as the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning
Ordinance, be and is hereby amended so. as to rezone the property described in
Section 2 hereof from the R-X Single Family Residence District to the 1-1 limited
Industrial District.
SECTION 2: PROPERTY AFFECTED: This ordinance is limited and restricted
to the property described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein,
said property being generally located at northeast corner of Algonquin and Linneman
Roads, Mount Prospect, Illinois, containing twenty-seven (27) acres more or less.
SECTION 3: OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CHANGE: That the official zoning
map of the Village of Mount Prospect be changed in conformance with the provisions of
this Ordinance.
SECTION 4: EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and
effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
by a majority of the Corporate Authorities on a roll call vote as follows:
,2006,
~
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Briarwood map amendmentfeb2006.DOC
Briarwood map amendmentfeb2006
2
,/
EXHIBIT A
PLAT OF ANNEXATION AND LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Briarwood map amendmentfeb2006
3
ORDINANCE NO
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING CERTAIN VARIATIONS
(BRIARWOOD DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT NORTHEAST
CORNER OF ALGONQUIN AND LINNEMAN ROADS)
BE IT ORDAINED by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, Acting in the Exercise of their Home Rule
Powers:
SECTION 1:
A. That on January 26, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the
Village of Mount Prospect held a hearing to consider a request for the approval of the
variations set forth below.
B. That on January 26, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommended the approval of the variations set forth below to the President and Board
of Trustees.
C. That the President and Board of Trustees approves and adopts the
findings and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission, and
incorporates such findings and recommendations herein by reference as if they were
fully set forth herein, and further finds that the variations are only appropriate in light of
the proposed development on the property described in Section 2.
SECTION 2: That the following variations are hereby approved for the Subject
Property, being as described in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as if fully set forth:
A. HeiQht: a variation from Section 14.2104{C) of the Zoning Ordinance,
increasing the maximum height from 30 feet to 39 feet; and
B. Transitional Setback: a variation from Section 14.2104(E) of the Zoning
Ordinance to permit:
jl a ten foot (10') side yard setback for a drive aisle along and adjacent to
the northern portion of the east property lot line of the Subject Property, in
accordance with the Site Plan, prepared by Opus North Corporation and
dated January 5, 2006, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein
as Exhibit B; and
2) landscaping and the installation of a six foot (6') board-on-board fence
along the northern portion of the east lot line of the Subject Property, in
accordance with the Landscape Plan, prepared by Gary R.. Weber
Associates, revision date January 9, 2006, which is attached hereto and
incorporated herein as Exhibit C.
\-\-
SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage and approval as required by law.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
by a majority of the Corporate Authorities on a roll call vote as follows:
,2006,
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Briarwood variationsannexationfeb2006.DOC
Briarwood variationsannexationfeb2006
2
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Briarwood variationsannexationfeb2006
3
EXHIBIT C
LANDSCAPE PLAN
Briarwood variationsannexationfeb2006
5
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION FOR THE BRIARWOOD
BUSINESS CENTER, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF ALGONQUIN AND
LINNEMAN ROADS.
WHEREAS, Opus Briarwood, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Owner"), is
the owner of the real estate located at the northeast corner of Algonquin and Linneman Roads,
Mount Prospect, Illinois (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of
Mount Prospect held a hearing, designated as PZ-44-05, to consider a request for the approval
of the Final Plat of Subdivision for the Property (the "Final Plat"), to review and comment on the
Final Plat, and to consider the comments of the Owner, the Village staff, and the public relative
to said Plat; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2006, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of the Final Plat to the Village Board; and
WHEREAS, on February 7,2006, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of
Mount Prospect reviewed the Final Plat and the Planning and Zoning Commission's Report and
Recommendation in PZ-44-05; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have
determined that it is in the best interests of said Village of Mount Prospect that said Final Plat be
approved pursuant to Sec.15.304 of the Village of Mount Prospect Village Code, and that,
pursuant to its home rule powers, said approval shall also approve the Final Plat as the
Preliminary Plat, waiving any and all requirements of Sec.15.303 of the Mount Prospect Village
Code for prior or further review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the
President and Board of Trustees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, A
HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The Preambles hereto are hereby made a part of, and operative provisions
of, this Ordinance as fully as if completely repeated at length herein.
SECTION 2: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
approve the attached "FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION FOR THE BRIARWOOD BUSINESS
CENTER" prepared by Spaceco, Inc. and dated October 27, 2005, 2005 (See Exhibit "An),
which is also considered the Preliminary Plat of Subdivision for the Briarwood Business Center,
and authorize and direct the Village President, Clerk, Planning and Zoning Commission Chair,
and Village Collector and any other necessary Village official, or their designees, to sign the
attached FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION FOR THE BRIARWOOD BUSINESS CENTER subject
to the following:
A. revise the plat so the legal description for the exception in Parcel 4 is the same as the dimension
listed on the Final Plat;
I
B. revise the plat so the legal description for the portions of Lots 6 and 7 in Parcel 6 is the same as
the dimension listed on the Final Plat;
C. revise the plat to reflect a 10' wide public drainage and utility easement along the east side ofthe
property, along the north 737.42' of the west side of Lot 1, and on each side of the property line
between Lots 1 and 2; and
D. revise the plat to reflect a separate, 10' wide water main easement granted exclusively to the
Village of Mount Prospect along the east side of the Subject Property, subject to the Village of
Mount Prospect providing water to the site;
E. The site shall be developed in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements,
including, but not limited to: Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code
regulations, Building Code, and Development Code regulations, which may require minor
modifications to the site to comply with all development requirements and traffic concerns
detailed in the Village Code and in the Engineering Division's review comments dated November
17, 2005 before approval of the site engineering plans can be given; and
F. The Petitioner understands that a change in use may require further review by the Village of
Mount Prospect, and that modifications such as, but not limited to, adding a deceleration lane
may be required, subject to obtaining the appropriate permit from the govemingjurisdiction.
SECTION 3: A certified copy of this Ordinance and the original of the attached Final
Plat of Subdivision for the Briarwood Business Center shall be recorded with the Office of the
Cook County Recorder of Deeds by the Village, at the cost and expense of the Owner, after all
of the required signatures are placed on the Plat.
SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage
and approval in the manner provided by law.
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
majority of the Corporate Authorities on a roll call vote as follows:
, 2006, by a
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this
day of
,2006.
Irvana Wilks, Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk
2
Briarwood - Ordinance re Appr Final Plat of Subdivision- Briarwood Business
EXHIBIT "A"
FINAL PLAT OF SUBDIVISION FOR THE BRIARWOOD BUSINESS CENTER
3
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION 'IN SUPPORT OF OPUS BRIARWOOD, LLC
MAKING APPLICATION FOR COOK COUNTY CLASS 6B TAX ABATEMENT FOR
601 DEMPSTER STREET. MOUNT PROSPECT. COOK COUNTY. ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect encourages community developmentto provide
for economic growth and career opportunities; and
WHEREAS, through property tax incentives offered by Cook County, various opportunities
exist for new businesses to become established in the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook
County; and
WHEREAS, without the Cook County property tax incentives, the Village of Mount
Prospect is at a competitive disadvantage with the neighboring counties of Lake and
DuPage in attracting industrial development; and
WHEREAS, Opus Briarwood, LLC, has requested the Village of Mount Prospect to support
its application for a Class 6B Real Property Classification at 601 Dempster Street, Mount
Prospect, Cook County (the "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect believe that this
request is in the best interest of the economic development in the Village of Mount
Prospect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE PRESIDENT AND BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION ONE: That the Village President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect do hereby support and consent to the application of Opus Briarwood, LLC, for a
Class 6B Property Classification from Cook County, which allows a 16% assessment level
for the first 10 years, 23% in the 11th year and 30% in the 12th year for the Subject Property
located at 601 Dempster Street, and legally described as follows:
LOT 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 AND THE WESTERLY 141 FEET OF LOTS 6 AND 7 IN
ELMHURST ALGONQUIN INDUSTRIAL PARK, UNIT NO.1 BEING A
RESUBDIVISION OF PART LOT 3 IN LINNEMAN'S DIVISION IN SECTION 23,
TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED FEBRUARY 20, 1967, IN THE
OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS
DOCUMENT 20409120,
ALSO
THAT PART OF THE NORTH 537 FEET OF THE WEST 811.30 FEET, AS
MEASURED ON THE WEST AND NORTH LINES THEREOF, OF LOT 3 IN
LINNEMAN'S DIVISION OF THE SOUTH 3/4 OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH
EAST QUARTER AND THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF
SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, LYING SOUTH AND WEST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
IJ
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND
A LINE LYING 120.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST
ALONG AN ASSUMED BEARING, BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 A
DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89
DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST 360.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00
DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST
DESCRIBED LINE 190.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43
SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE 854.93
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 103.54
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET OF SAID LOT 3
(AS MEASURED ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF), SAID POINT BEING 525.59
FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 (AS MEASURED ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET) SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF
TERMINUS, IN COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS.
and further identified by Permanent Index Numbers part of 08-23-200-049 and part of 08-
23-200-050.
SECTION TWO: That the Village of Mount Prospect supports industrial growth, increased
employment and economic development and this proposed development is in furtherance
of this goal. The Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect further finds that this
incentive is necessary for development to occur on the Subject Property.
SECTION THREE: That development ofthe Subject Property is subject to compliance with
all requirements of the 1-1 limited Industrial District.
SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and approval in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2006.
Irvana K. Wilks, Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk
C:\Win2kProfiles\LAngeII\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK71\Briarwood 6b resolution for 601 Dempster.doc
Briarwood 6b resolution for 601 Dempster
2
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF OPUS BRIARWOOD, LLC
MAKING APPLICATION FOR COOK COUNTY CLASS 6BTAX ABATEMENT FOR
1400 ALGONQUIN ROAD. MOUNT PROSPECT. COUNTY OF COOK. ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect encourages community development to provide
for economic growth and career opportunities; and
WHEREAS, through property tax incentives offered by Cook County, various opportunities
exist for new businesses to become established in the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook
County; and
WHEREAS, without the Cook County property tax incentives, the Village of Mount
Prospect is at a competitive disadvantage with the neighboring counties of Lake and
DuPage in attracting industrial development; and
WHEREAS, Opus Briarwood, LLC, has requested the Village of Mount Prospect to support
its application for a Class 6B Real Property Classification at 1400 Algonquin Road, Mount
Prospect, Cook County (the "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect believe that this
request is in the best interest of the economic development in the Village of Mount
Prospect.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS,
ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS:
SECTION ONE: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
do hereby support and consent to the application of Opus Briarwood, LLC, for a Class 6B
Property Classification from Cook County, which allows a 16% assessment level for the
first 10 years, 23% in the 11th year and 30% in the 12th year, for the Subject Property
located at 1400 Algonquin Road, and legally described as follows:
THE WEST 800 FEET OF LOT 2 (EXCEPT THE WEST 363 FEET THEREOF) IN
LINNEMAN'S DIVISION OF PART OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER OF SECTION
23, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL
MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED SEPTEMBER 10,
1953 AS DOCUMENT 15716544;
ALSO
THE NORTH 537 FEET OF THE WEST 811.30 FEET, AS MEASURED ON THE
WEST AND NORTH LINES THEREOF, OF LOT 3 (EXCEPT THE NORTH 120 FEET
OF THE WEST 363 FEET OF SAID LOT 3) IN LINNEMAN'S DIVISION OF THE
SOUTH 3/4 OF THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER AND THE WEST
HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH,
RANGE EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ALSO EXCEPT THAT PART
LYING SOUTH AND WEST OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE:
1 K
------~~,..~.M~----___'"'=,'='"'"_~"''''~>);'''''l:7''.'''=~''.!,P:~,''','"._.,.,,__~
COMMENCING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 AND
A LINE LYING 120.00 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH LINE
OF SAID LOT 3; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST
ALONG AN ASSUMED BEARING, BEING THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 A
DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 89
DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43 SECONDS EAST 360.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00
DEGREES 46 MINUTES 17 SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST
DESCRIBED LINE 190.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89 DEGREES 13 MINUTES 43
SECONDS EAST PERPENDICULAR WITH THE LAST DESCRIBED LINE 854.93
FEET; THENCE SOUTH 49 DEGREES 19 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST 103.54
FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET OF SAID LOT 3
(AS MEASURED ALONG THE WEST LINE THEREOF), SAID POINT BEING 525.59
FEET EAST OF THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 3 (AS MEASURED ALONG SAID
SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 537 FEET) SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE POINT OF
TERMINUS, IN COOK COUNTY ILLINOIS.
and further identified by Permanent Index Numbers 08-23-202-048, 08-23-202-049 and
part of 08-23-200-050.
SECTION TWO: That the Village of Mount Prospect supports industrial growth, increased
employment and economic development and this proposed development is in furtherance
of this goal. The Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect further finds that this
incentive is necessary for development to occur on the Subject Property.
SECTION THREE: That development of the Subject Property is subject to compliance with
all requirements of the 1-1 limited Industrial District.
SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage and approval in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2006.
Irvana K. Wilkes, Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk
C:\Win2kProfiles\LAngell\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK71\Briarwood 6b resolution for 1400Algonquin.doc
Briarwood 6b resolution for 1400AIgonquin
2
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
~l:). U~
2.1 ') 10(,;
TO:
DATE:
FEBRUARY 3, 2006
DOWNTOWN TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT - AMEN
SUBJECT:
A public hearing is scheduled for the February 7, 2006 Village Board meeting to consider Amendment
#3 to the Downtown Tax Increment Financing District (TIF). This amendment would extend the
physical boundaries of the District to include two properties (Central Plaza Shopping Center and the
Chase Bank office building) and would modify the Redevelopment Plan to incorporate recommended
changes from the Ad Hoc Committee.
This public hearing is one of several steps required by State Statutes when a municipality proposes
amending a TIF. The Village has also held a public meeting to advise interested parties of the
proposed amendment (10/26/05), conducted a Joint Review Board meeting with other taxing districts
(1/4/06) and has sent certified notifications to all property owners within the TIF District and to property
owners within 750' of the District advising them of the February th public hearing.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and
consideration at their February 7th meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this
matter.
~~l.'~:A'CP
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN TIF NO.1
Public Hearing Agenda
February 7, 2006 -7:00 p.m.
Village Hall
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois
I. Open Public Hearing (Village President)
II. Summary of Public Notices and Conformance toTIF Act
III. Report of Joint Review Board (Summary of JRB Meeting)
IV~ Introduction of Written Comments (Village Clerk)
V. Summary ofTIF Plan Amendments (Village Staff)
VI. Public Comments and Discussion
VII. Close of Public Hearing
MINUTES OF THE JOINT REVIEW BOARD MEETING FOR THE
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO DOWNTOWN TIF NO.1
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
DATE:
January 4, 2006
TIME:
3:15 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Honorable Irvana K. Wilks
Debra Parenti, Arlington Heights High School District 214
Laura Luteri, Mount Prospect Public Library
MEMBERS ABSENT:
James A. Graves, Mount Prospect Park District
Dr. Robert L. Breuder, Harper Community College No. 512
Jacqueline Harder, Cook County
Susan Ramstedt, Mount Prospect School District No. 57
Richard M. Hall, Elk Grove Township
Dr. Michael Schroeder, Wheeling Township
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
William J. Cooney, Director of Community Development
Jason R. Zawila, Long Range Planner
Robert Rychlicki, Kane, McKenna and Associates
Jill Baty, Planning Intern
Christina Park, Planning Intern
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Frank Corry (Mount Prospect Public Library), George Clowes
(Resident, 604 S. Elm), Michelle Bruch (Mount Prospect
Journal)
Mayor Irvana K. Wilks called the meeting to order at 3: 15 PM. William J. Cooney called roll. Since a majority
of the Joint Review Board (JRB) Members was not present, a quorum was established for the members that
were present. First and second motions were made to establish a quorum consisting of members present and
this was approved by voice vote. Debra Parenti was then selected as chairperson for the meeting and approved
by voice vote. Everybody present at the meeting then introduced themselves following her selection.
Mr. Cooney introduced Robert Rychlicki from Kane McKenna and Associates, the Village hired consultant
who has been guiding the Village through the TIF amendment process to ensure that all statutory requirements
are addressed. Mr. Rychlicki then explained the (JRB) procedures and duties. He mentioned that this meeting
was being held as part of the statutory requirements for the TIF amendment process and that the JRB members
should have received a copy of the redevelopment plan amendments through certified mail. The JRB' s role is
advisory and non-binding in relation to Village Board actions. The JRB then has 30 days from this meeting to
give their recommendation for the approval of the TIF amendment to the Village Board. Mr. Rychlicki
explained that the JRB has three options for their recommendation: 1) vote positively to recommend, 2) vote
negatively, or 3) the reach no agreement. Ifno agreement was reached the TIF Act states that the Village Board
would consider this equivalent to a positive recommendation. If the JRB voted negatively, the Village would
have another 30 days to make their case for the JRB to positively recommend the amendment to the TIF
District. If the JRB still gives a negative recommendation to the Village Board for the amendment to the TIF
District, the Village Board would need 3/5 majority to pass the ordinance authorizing the Amendment #3 to the
TIF District.
Mr. Cooney reviewed the Redevelopment Plan and Project amendments to the TIF District. He explained that
the Village first approached the taxing districts about these amendments in April when the Village moved
forward with extending the life of the TIF district for additional 13 years. He then identified the current
boundaries of the TIF district and where the amendment areas were located: I) Central Plaza, and 2) the Chase
Building. Mr. Cooney also explained that the redevelopment plan was slightly modified to include: 1) changing
the land use for the area immediately east of Village Hall and the Library from governmental office to low
density residential; and 2) changing the area located immediately east of Village Hall, commonly known as the
"small triangle", from "commercial services" to "mixed use".
Ms. Parenti inquired if this was the third amendment to the TIF district. Mr. Cooney replied that this was the
third amendment and the previous two occurred in 1992 and 1988. Ms. Parenti also asked if the JRB would be
voting on the amendment today. Mr. Cooney replied that the JRB could vote today, but would also have 30
days to make their recommendation. Mr. Rychlicki further stated again that this was a statutory requirement for
the TIF amendment process. Ms. Parenti then asked if there were any additional questions about the TIF Plan
amendments. There were no further questions.
Mr. Rychlicki reviewed drafts of ordinances that would be reviewed by the Village Board subsequent to the
February 7th public hearing for the TIF amendments. When passed by the Village Board, the three ordinances
would 1) designate the Amendment #3 to the Downtown TIF No. 1 Plan, 2) amend the tax increment
redevelopment plan and redevelopment area for the Downtown TIF No. 1 Redevelopment Project Area, and 3)
confirm tax increment allocation financing for the Downtown TIF No. 1 Redevelopment Project Area. The
review of these three ordinances by the JRB is also part of the TIF Act requirements.
Ms. Parenti asked the individuals present if there were any questions or comments. George Clowes, resident of
Mount Prospect, commented that he is concerned that residents and business owners in the TIF currently get a
tax bill that does not reflect where their property taxes are being allocated. He believes that residents and
business owners in the TIF should get a tax bill outlining the allocations of tax collected - for example the
amount that the Village is receiving for redevelopment. He mentioned that other counties in the region, such as
Lake and DuPage, currently do this. Mr. Rychlicki mentioned that Cook County has been looking at doing this
for at least the last 2 years. Mayor Wilks asked if the County would need some "prodding" on this issue. Ms.
Parenti suggested that the JRB should send a letter to the County Clerk. Laura Luteri motioned that the JRB
should send a letter to the Cook County Clerk, David Orr, requesting that the county look into acquiring
software for itemizing the allocation of taxes on individual tax bills. Mayor Wilks seconded the motion. The
motioned was approved by voice vote.
Ms. Parenti then opened up discussion for consideration of a recommendation to Village Board. A draft of a
resolution and recommendation of the Joint Review Board was handed out to all individuals present. Ms. Luteri
asked if the first paragraph of the resolution should be changed to reflect the members of the JRB present at the
meeting. The rest of the document was also checked and it was identified that paragraphs 2,3,4, and 5 should
also reflect the members of the JRB present at the meeting. The resolution and recommendation of the Joint
Review Board was approved by voice vote, pending changes to reflect the members of the JRB present at the
meeting.
Mr. Rychlicki then reviewed the time table for the TIF amendment and the next steps in the process. He said
that the Village will be holding a public hearing for the proposed TIF District amendments on February 7th.
Then no earlier than 14 days after the public hearing, the Village Board may introduce and adopt the three
ordinances presented to the JRB today. This could occur on February 21, 2006.
Mr. Clowes inquired who the public member was and since he was not present did the first paragraph of the
resolution and recommendation of the Joint Review Board, need to reflect this. Mr. Rychlicki replied the public
member was Daniel Lee, a resident living witllln the TlF boundaries, and that the changes recommended earlier
in the meeting would take care of this.
Ms. Luteri commented that she received her notice to attend this JRB meeting on December 22nd and that
representatives from the school district may not have received their notices, since school was currently not in
session. She recommended that maybe a notice should be given more ahead of time so that those
representatives were better aware of future meetings. Mayor Wilkes asked when the next JRB meeting would
meet. :Mr. Cooney replied in the summer. Mayor Wilkes then thanked everybody for attending.
Ms. Parenti made the fIrst motion to adjourn. This motioned was seconded by Ms. Luteri. The meeting
adjourned at 4:50.
-- -...--------~---~~""'=:::.=".~""....,""""","'''~=_''''<''','"~~~__.~'--~"'.~.","_."""~.""'."'=""','..,=.=_:"'~."'.-C":C"'._"'_,,=,,"'~__~,.___'~._.._..~.~_.___________~._.____._..___
RESOLUTION AND RECOMMENDATION OF JOINT REVIEW BOARD
CREATED AND CONVEYED PURSUANT TO ILLINOIS TAX INCREMENT
ALLOCATION REDEVELOPMENT ACT 65 ILCS 5/11-74.4-1 et. seo. (THE "ACT")
To: Village President and Board of Trustees
Village of Mount Prospect
SO S. Emerson St. Avenue
Mount Prospect, lllinois
WHEREAS, the Joint Review Board convened pursuant to the Act did meet on January
4, 2006 at the Village Hall, 50 S. Emerson St., Mount Prospect, Illinois, and was attended by and
comprised of representatives from the Village of Mount Prospect, The Mount Prospect Public
Library, and Arlington Heights High School District 214, as affected taxing districts; and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned taxing districts voted proceed as a quorum consisting of
the board members present; and
WHEREAS, a public member of the Joint Review Board was willing to serve and had
been previously selected by a majority vote of all Joint Review Board members, and a
chairperson had been selected by the Joint Review Board by majority vote of all other Joint
Review Board members present at the January 4, 2006 meeting; and
. WHEREAS, the Joint Review Board members did carefully review and consider the
public record, planning documents and the proposed ordinances amending the Village of Mount
Prospect Downtown - TIF No. I Project Area, the Downtown - TIF No. 1 Redevelopment Plan
and Redevelopment Project, and the ordinance confirming Tax Increment Financing to be
adopted.by the Village. The Joint Review Board also reviewed the Village of Mount Prospect
Downtown - TIF No. 1 Amended Plan and Project, Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois,
including the Downtown - TIF No. 1 Amended Eligibility Study for the Redevelopment Project
and Plan, prepared by Kane, McKenna and Associates, Inc. After considering all of said matters
did agree by a majority vote of the members of the Joint Review Board present that the proposed
Village of Mount Prospect Downtown - TIF No. 1 Amendments to the Redevelopment Plan and
Project, Village of Mount Prospect, lllinois be approved and that the Village of Mount Prospect
Downtown - TIF No. 1 Redevelopment Project Area satisfies the eligibility criteria defined in
the Act and the Village of Mount Prospect Amendments to the Downtown - TIP No.1
Redevelopment Proj ect Area qualifies as a conservation area, as such term is defined in the Act.
Further, the Redevelopment Project and Plan as presented are conformant with the requirements
of the Act.
As such, the majority of the Joint Review Board members present and voting did direct
the chairperson of the Joint Review Board to prepare and submit to the President and Board of
Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, lllinois, its recommendation so finding.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the majority of the members present of
the Joint Review Board, that the Joint Review Board does hereby submit its advisory, non-
binding recommendation to the Village of Mount Prospect, nlinois that the proposed Village of
Mount Prospect Amended Downtown - TIF No. 1 Redevelopment Plan and Project, Illinois be
approved, and that the Village of Mount Prospect Downtown - TIF No. 1 Amended
Redevelopment Project Area satisfies the requirements of the Plan and fulfills the objectives of
the Act.
DATED this 19th day of January, 2006
Representative of the Village of Mount Prospect
~ ,;: ~ 14j,...
Representative of Arlington Heights High School Dist. 214
{)d~~,JA. ~'7."/ 4-...,p ~<r
Representative of the Mount Prospect Public Library
~~ ck~. ~
,
CERTIFICATE OF PUBLICATION
Paddock Publications, Inc.
Daily Herald
Corporation, organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of minois,
DOES HEREBY CER'l1FY that it is the publisher of the, DAILY HERALD.
, ThatsaidDAILYBERALDp, isasecularnewspaper and has been circulated daily in the
ViIlage(s) of Algonquin, Arlington Heights, BarriDgton, Barrington Hills~
Lake Barrington, North Barrington, South Barrington, Bartlett, Batavia, Buffalo Grove,
Burlington, Carpentersville, Cary, Deer Park, Des Plaines, South Elgin, East Dundee,
Elbum, Elgin, Elk Grove'ViIlage, Fox Lake,Fox River Grove, Geneva,' Gilberts,Grayslake,
Gumee,Hampshire,Hainesville,Hanover Park,Hawthom Woods,Hoffman Estates,' Huntley,
Invemess,Island Lake,Kildeer,Lake Villa, Lake in the HiIls,Lake Zurich,Libertyville; ,
Lincolnshire, Lindenhurst,' Long Grove, Mt. Prospect, Mundelein, Palatine,
Prospect Heights,;Rolling ~~dows, Schaumburg,.Sleepy Hollow, ,St. Charles, Streamwood,.:
Tower.Lakes,Vernon Hills,Volo,Wauconda,Wheeling,West Dundee,Wildwood,Green Oaks
, ,
Gounty(jes) of . Cook, Kane, Lake, McHenry . , . . .
and State of Illinois, continuously for more than one year prior to the date of the: first
p~blication of the notice hereinafter referred to and is o( general circulation throughout said
ViIlage(s), County(ies) and State. '
I further certify that the DAILY HERALD is' a newspaper as dermed in "an Act.to revise
the law in relation to notices" as amended in 1992 Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 715,
Act 5, Section 1 and 5. That a notice of which the annexed printed slip is a true copy, was
published in said DAILY HERALD.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, the said PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS, Inc.,
has caused this certificate to be signed by, this authorized agent, at Arlington Heights,
Illinois.
PADDOCKPUBUCATIONS, INC.
DAILY HERALD NEWSPAPERS
BY ~ ~ck
'Authorize Agent ,
Control # T3664874
<1
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
Mount Prospect
MEMORANDUM
. TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
FEBRUARY 3,2006
SUBJECT:
PZ-01-06 - TEXT AMENDMENT (LIGHTING REGULATIONS)
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-O 1-06, a request to
amend the Zoning Ordinance to require only flat lens fixtures be used in addition to specifically stating that wall
pack lights must be fully shielded, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning
Commission heard the request at their January 26,2006 meeting.
The Village Board discussed modifications to the Village's outdoor lighting regulations at the September 27,
2005 Committee of the Whole meeting. Based on this discussion and further staff research, amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance were drafted that would be applicable on a community-wide basis and to residential and
commercial properties.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the changes and questioned whether the changes would adversely
impact public areas and parking lots by reducing the light levels. Staff clarified that light levels or the amount of
brightness allowed would not be changed due to the proposed text amendments, but rather the types of light
fixtures would be changed. The new fixtures would better illuminate the groundandJor area of activity and would
minimize light pollution. Staff confirmed that the Village's Crime Prevention Department reviewed the changes
and supported the proposal. There was discussion on improper lighting and how more light does not necessarily
make an area safer because dark areas can be created as well as impair a person's ability to see into an area if the
light source is exposed and creates glare.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the text
amendment request for changes to the lighting regulations so Sec. 14.314.B reads:
B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in nonresidential locations must comply with the following
limitations:
1. Full Cutoff Luminaries: Full cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety degrees
(900) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles greater than ninety
degrees (900) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries upon submission of information
conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adjacent properties.
2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including, but not limited to, luminaries mounted
on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be full cutoff.
3. Flat lens are required for allli2htin2 fixtures.
4. Wall pack li2hts. where used, shall be full cut-off and fully shielded.
""
pz-o 1-06
February 3, 2006
Page 2
5. Task focused li2htin2 is permitted at 2as stations, ATM drive-thrus, and similar uses as approved bv
the Director of Community Development, and must include an internal louver so the li2ht focuses
directly on the task area and does not spill onto the pavement.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their
February 7,2006 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter.
~th7.~o~
H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2006'u\.1EJ Mcmos\PZ-OI-06 MEJ MEMO (text amend ~ lighting rcgs).doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-OI-06
Hearing Date: January 26,2006
PETITIONER:
Village of Mount Prospect
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 11,2006
REQUEST:
Text Amendment to the Outdoor Lighting Code
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Marlys Haaland
Richard Rogers
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ronald Roberts
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the
minutes of the December 22, 2005 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 5-0; Leo Floros abstained from the vote. After hearing one previous case, Chairperson Juracek
introduced Case No. PZ-OI-06, text amendments to the Village's Outdoor Lighting Code at 8:23 p.m. She said
that the Village Board's decision was final for the request.
Judith Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Village Board discussed modifications to
the Village's outdoor lighting regulations at the September 27, 2005 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that
time, Staff recommended modifying the Zoning Ordinance to require only flat lens fixtures be used. In addition,
she stated the Zoning Ordinance could further be modified to specifically state that wall pack lights must be fully
shielded. She said the purpose of these changes is to minimize glare as much as possible.
Ms. Connolly stated that Staff also suggested allowing 'task focused lights' when requested for gas stations,
banks, or similar uses. She said the fixture will extend past the plane of the canopy; however it will be directed in
a manner that would not create light spillage or glare. She stated this allows for providing additional lighting
without creating adverse impacts on the environment, such as light pollution, or to adjacent properties such as
glare.
Ms. Connolly provided exhibits including a draft of the ordinance Staff presented to the Village Board. She
stated that review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission is required before the Village
Board may approve the text amendment.
Ms. Connolly said the proposal to amend the Village's existing outdoor lighting regulations would be applicable
on a community-wide basis. As property owners update their outdoor lights, they would be required to use a flat
lens, or install a fully shielded wall pack fixture, or use task lighting as the regulations apply to their project. She
further stated the proposed changes are consistent with the Village's current outdoor lighting regulations, but
reflect changes in technology that improve overall site lighting.
Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-O 1-06
Page 2
Ms. Connolly summarized by stating the proposed text amendment meets the standards contained in Section
14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning
Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the following motion:
"To approve Case No. PZ-01-06, a Text Amendment to modify Sec. 14.314.B to read:
B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in nonresidential locations must comply with the following
limitations:
1. Full Cutoff Luminaries: Full cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety degrees
(900) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles greater than ninety
degrees (900) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries upon submission of information
conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adjacent properties.
2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including, but not limited to, luminaries mounted
on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be full cutoff.
3. Flat lens are required for allli2htin2 fixtures.
4. Wall pack 1i2hts. where used. shall be full cut-off and fullv shielded.
5. Task focused li2htin2 is permitted at 2as stations, ATM drive-thrus. and similar uses as approved bv
the Director of Community Development, and must include an internal louver so the 1i2ht focuses
directlv on the task area and does not spill onto the pavement."
Chairperson Juracek thanked Staff for their report and stated that the proposed changes seem to be in line with the
other changes to lighting regulations.
Leo Floros asked Staff how this would affect shopping centers such as Randhurst by darkening parking lots. Ms.
Connolly stated that uniformly lighting areas actually eliminates any dark spots. Mr. Floros asked about the
reduced amount of light in parking areas. Ms. Connolly replied that the proposal does not reduce the lighting
levels, but the type of fixture required. The proposed lighting fixtures direct the light in a more useful way,
eliminating glare. She also stated that the Police Department reviewed and supports the proposed changes.
Richard Rogers asked how the changes would affect existing lighting fixtures for places like Randhurst Shopping
Center. Ms. Connolly stated that the changes Staff is proposing would be as existing fixtures are changed out.
Another section of the code takes effect January 1, 2006 and the Village Attorney is reviewing the code to
determine whether situations that would be addressed on a nuisance/complaint basis.
Chairperson Juracek asked if the fully shielded wall pack lighting offers sufficient lighting for a task area or path.
Ms. Connolly stated that the wall pack lighting does provide adequate lighting for task/path areas. She stated that
the proposed changes fall in line with the lighting requirements of surrounding communities, and is up-to-date
with current technology.
Chairperson J uracek asked if there were any further questions or if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m.
Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments as presented, Case No. PZ-01-06;
Richard Rogers seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek
NAYS: None
Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-OI-06
Page 3
Motion was approved 6-0. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration
After hearing one additional case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 p.m., seconded by Joseph
Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
lit H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning CQMM\P&Z 2006\M:inutcs\PZ.Ol.06 Outdoor Lighting Text Amendmenldoc
MEMORANDUM
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON
JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
FROM:
DATE:
JANUARY 19,2006
JANUARY 26, 2006
HEARING DATE:
SUBJECT:
PZ-OI-06 - TEXT AMENDMENT (OUTDOOR LIGHTING)
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT
BACKGROUND
A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 26, 2006 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review
the application by the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Petitioner") regarding proposed amendments to the
Village's existing outdoor lighting regulations (Section 14.314 of the Village Code). The P&Z hearing was
properly noticed in the January II, 2006 edition ofthe Journal Topics Newspaper.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The Village Board discussed modifications to the Village's outdoor lighting regulations at the September 27,
2005 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that time, Staff recommended modifying the Zoning Ordinance to
require only flat lens fixtures be used. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance could further be modified to specifically
state that wall pack lights must be fully shielded. The purpose of these changes is to minimize glare as much as
possible.
Staff also suggested allowing 'task focused lights' when requested for gas stations, banks, or similar uses. The
fixture will extend past the plane of the canopy; however it will be directed in a manner that would not create light
spillage or glare. Therefore, additional lighting may be provided without creating adverse impacts on the
environment (light pollution) or adjacent properties (glare).
The attached Exhibit A is a draft of the ordinance Staff presented to the Village Board. However, review and
recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission is required before the Village Board may approve the
text amendment.
STANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS
Section 14.203.D.8.b lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. The
standards relate to:
· The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel;
· Consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan;
· The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity;
· The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; and
PZ-O 1-06
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting January 26,2006
Page 2
. Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings.
The proposal to amend the Village's existing outdoor lighting regulations would be applicable on a community-
wide basis. As property owners update their outdoor lights, they would be required to use a flat lens, or install a
fully shielded wall pack fixture, or use task lighting as the regulations apply to their project. The proposed
changes are consistent with the Village's current outdoor lighting regulations, but reflect changes in technology
that improve overall site lighting.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed text amendment meets the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to
the Village Board to approve the following motion:
"To approve case no. PZ-OI-06, a Text Amendment to modify Sec. 14.314.B to read:
B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in nonresidential locations must comply with the following
limitations:
I. Full Cutoff Luminaries: Full cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety degrees
(900) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles greater than ninety
degrees (900) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries upon submission of information
conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adjacent properties.
2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including, but not limited to, luminaries mounted
on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be full cutoff.
3. Flat lens are required for all liehtine fixtures.
4. Wall pack Iiehts. where used. shall be full cut-off and fully shielded.
5. Task focused Iiehtine is permitted at eas stations. ATM drive-thrus. and similar uses as approved bv
the Director of Community Development. and must include an internal louver so the lieht focuses
directly on the task area and does not spill onto the pavement."
The Village Board's decision is fmal for this case.
I concur:
Exhibit A
Proposed Text Amendment to Sec. 14.314 shown in bold text
14.314: OUTDOOR LIGHTING REGULA nONS:
All outdoor lighting, except for streetlights, shall be subject to the following general requirements (Note:
Additional regulations for parking lot lighting are included in section 14.2219 of this chapter):
A. Glare Onto Adjacent Properties: Electric lighting used to illuminate outdoor areas shall be directed in
such a way as to prevent light trespass or direct glare onto adjacent properties and rights of way.
B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in nonresidential locations must comply with the following
limitations:
1. Full Cutoff Luminaries: Full cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety
degrees (900) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles
greater than ninety degrees (900) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries upon submission
of information conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adjacent
properties.
2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including, but not limited to, luminaries
mounted on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be full cutoff.
3. Flat lens are required for alllie:htiD!! fixtures.
4. Wall pack lie:hts. where used. shall be full cut-off and fully shielded.
5. Task focused lie:htine: is permitted at e:as stations. ATM drive-thrus. and similar uses as
approved by the Director of Community Development. and must include an internal louver
so the lie:ht focuses directly on the task area and does not spill onto the pavement.
C. Light Intensity Levels At Property Lines: The light intensity level measured at a property line shall not
exceed 0.5 foot-candle. All illumination level readings shall be taken at ground level. The
requirements of this subsection shall not apply to property lines within the B5 and B5C zoning
districts, except for those property lines that abut a zoning district other than the B5 and B5C districts.
D. Maximum Illumination Levels: The following table summarizes the maximum average illumination
levels for a variety of uses:
IType Of Use IIMaximum Average IES Illumination Level (Foot-Candles) I
ICanopy lighting II 30 I
IAuto dealerships (display areas only) II 50 I
IBusiness districts II 5 I
IPark, school, institutional, and industrial uses I I 5 I
ILoading/unloading platform (dock) II 20 I
IOutdoor sports lighting II 40 I
PZ-01-06 - Text Amendment (Outdoor Lighting)
Exhibit A
Page 2/2
Lighting for uses other than those listed in the above table shall be reviewed by the Community
Development Director to ensure the proposed illumination levels are appropriate for the property and
surrounding area.
E. Lighting Plan Required: The building permit submission for any nonresidential development or multi-
family residential development shall include a lighting plan signed and sealed by a professional
engineer and including, at a minimum, the following:
1. All property lines, building locations, dimensions of paved areas, and location of all curbs;
2. Fixture locations;
3. Fixture details and height;
4. Photometric data for all paved areas at a spacing of not greater than twenty feet (20') and not
greater than six inches (6") above the pavement surface;
5. Photometric data at all property lines at a spacing of not greater than fifty feet (50') and not greater
than six inches (6") above grade;
6. Scale of not less than one inch (1 ") to fifty feet (50');
7. Details of the proposed light poles and foundations;
8. Existing and proposed utilities on the subject property and in rights of way adjacent to the subject
property;
9. Other information, as required.
F. Hours Of Operation: All lighting shall be reduced to security levels, as recommended in the
"Illuminating Engineering Society Of North America's Lighting Handbook", during hours of
nonoperation ofthe principal use on a property.
G. Nonconforming Lighting: Any lighting that does not conform to the regulations outlined above shall
be made to conform by means of alteration no later than January 1,2006. (Ord. 5380, 11-4-2003)
..
Task Lighting Fixture - shown with required Internal Louver
Full cut-off, fully shielded wall pack lighting fixture
Flat lens lighting fixture
H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&z 2006\SlaffMcmo\PZ-Ol-06 MEMO Exhibit (Te.xt Amendment outdoor Iighting).doc
Gw
2/3/06
mla
2/1/06
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING)
OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE
WHEREAS, the Petitioner (the President of the Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an application for
certain text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend
various regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks amendments to Section 14.314 of the Village Code, entitled
"Outdoor Lighting"; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject of PZ-01-06,
before the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 26, 2006 pursuant to due and proper legal
notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 11th day of January
2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to
the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of
Trustees of the Village have considered the requests being the subject of PZ-01-06; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees approve and adopt the findings and
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and incorporate such findings and
recommendations herein by reference as if they were fully set forth; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees finds that it is in the best interests of the Village of
Mount Prospect and its residents to approve the proposed amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACTING IN THE EXERCISE
OF THE THEIR HOME RULE POWERS:
SECTION ONE: That Subsection B of Section 14.314, entitled "Outdoor Lighting Regulations" of
Chapter 14 of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting Subsection
14.314B in its entirety and replacing said Subsection with the following text to be read as follows:
14.314B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in nonresidential locations must comply with
the following limitations:
1. Full Cutoff Luminaries: Full cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety
degrees (900) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff
angles greater than ninety degrees (900) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries
upon submission of information conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not
cause glare on adjacent properties.
2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including, but not limited to,
luminaries mounted on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be full cutoff.
3. Flat lenses are required for all lighting fixtures.
/-
4. Wall pack lights, where used, shall be full cut-off and fully shielded.
5. Task focused lighting is permitted at gas stations, ATM drive-thrus, and similar uses as
approved by the Director of Community Development, and must include an internal louver so
the light focuses directly on the task area and does not spill onto the pavement.
SECTION TWO: 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.
PASSED and APPROVED this th day of February, 2006, by a majority of the Corporate Authorities
on a roll call vote as follows:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this th day of February, 2006.
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Ch 14,Outdoor lighting,february 2006.doc
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
Mount Prospect
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
b.~
201" (Ob
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
JANUARY 27, 2006
SUBJECT:
PZ-02-06 - TEXT AMENDMENT (CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY STANDARDS
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-02-06, a request to
amend Chapter 14 of the Village's Code, concerning circular driveway standards for residential zoning districts.
The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their January 26, 2006 meeting.
The text amendments are applicable to the R-X, R-l, R-A, and R-2 single family residential districts. Staffis
recommending additional standards for applicants to follow when applying for circular/dual frontage driveways in
the Village. The standards would require 1) a minimum turning radius of 15 feet, 2) a minimum 12 foot width for
the circular portion of the driveway, and 3) a minimum 75 foot lot width for a circular/dual frontage drive to be
conditionally approved.
The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the text
amendment requests for changes to the standards for circular driveways, Case No. PZ-02-06, which was reviewed
by the Village Attorney and revised from the original request, as noted below:
To establish standards for approving circular and dual frontage driveways, Staff recommends:
Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District), Section 14.903 -
Conditional Uses (R-l Single Family Residence District), Section 14.1003 - Conditional Uses
(R-A Single Family Residence District), and Section 14.1103 - Conditional Uses (R-2 Single
Family Residence District) be amended to include:
Circular/dual frontage driveways that meet the minimum requirements set forth in
subsection 14.2215.A.l ofthis chapter.
And Section 14.2215 - Driveways is changed to the following:
14.2215: DRIVEWAYS
A. Residential: Residential driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2 districts shall conform to the
following requirements:
1. Number: Only one driveway may be permitted per lot, with a maximum of one curb cut
to the street pavement. Except that circular/dual frontage driveways or circular/dual
frontage (corner lot) driveways with two curb cuts to the street pavement, as depicted on
Figures 2 and 3 respectively, as well as other alternative designs for similar types of
PZ-02-06 - Text Amendment (Circular Driveway Standards)
Page 2
driveways may be permitted, but only by conditional use and in compliance with the
following minimum requirements:
a. Minimum Turning Radius: The circular portion of the driveway shall have a minimum
turning radius of 15 feet (15');
b. Width: The circular portion of the driveway shall have a minimum width of 12 feet (12');
c. Lot Width: Circular/dual frontage driveways or circular/dual frontage (corner lot)
driveways with two curb cuts to the street pavement, as well as other alternative designs for
similar types of driveways shall be allowed only on lots 75 feet (75') or greater in width.
[Figure 2 and 3 Illustrating Minimum Requirements] (ATTACHMENT 1)
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their
February 7th meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter.
H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2006\MEJ Mcmos\PZ-02-06 MEJ ?v1EMO (tcx1 amendment ~ circular driveway standards).doc
ATTACHMENT 1: FIGURE ILLUSTRATING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
1
I...
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
i ._._.-1-._.
STREET
Minimum Width of 75'
..
~
I
1
1
I
I
1 I ~
I . ~
'-r.-1-~_._.
I~
.:J
I~
.0::
FIGURE 2 - CIRCULAR/DUAL FRONTAGE DRIVEWAY
Minimum Width of 75'
Max. 26' I
I
I
I
._._.--1.
I
STREET
FIGURE 3 - CIRCULAR/DUAL FRONTAGE DRIVEWAY
(CORNER LOT)
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-02-06
Hearing Date: January 26, 2006
PETITIONER:
Village of Mount Prospect
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 11, 2006
REQUEST:
Text Amendment regarding Circular Drives
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Marlys Haaland
Richard Rogers
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Ronald Roberts
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the
minutes of the December, 2005 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved
5-0 and Leo Floros abstained from the vote. After hearing two previous cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced
Case No. PZ-02-06, text amendments to the Village Code regarding circular driveways. She said that the Village
Board's decision was final for the request.
Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, summarized the case. He stated that the Village has received an increased
number of requests for circular driveways in the past several years. The majority of these requests have been in
conjunction with residential tear down and top-off projects that are occurring throughout town. The Village's
current regulations require that property owners obtain a conditional use permit prior to constructing a circular
driveway. He said historically, the requests that were approved by the Village have been primarily for properties
where there was a safety issue the circular driveway resolved.
Mr. Zawila said the Planning & Zoning Commission discussed circular driveways at their August meeting. He
stated the Commission found that: circular drives should continue to be a Conditional Use, lot width should be
considered when approving the request, landscaping in the front yard should be required; and circular driveways
should be constructed of decorative materials. He further stated that the Commission also raised the issue of
whether to restrict overnight parking or the number of vehicles parked on the circular drives, but there were
concerns on how these regulations could be practically enforced.
Mr. Zawila stated this issue was then discussed at the Committee of the Whole (COW) Meeting on September
27th. He said Staff prepared exhibits that depicted circular driveways on various lot widths. The exhibits were
intended to illustrate the impact of circular driveways and to help identify situations where a circular driveway
would and would not be appropriate. He said the objective was to ascertain whether new standards for approving
circular driveways should be used when reviewing requests.
Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26,2006
PZ-02-06
Page 2
Mr. Zawila further stated that the Village Board asked Staff to revise the scenarios that were presented to include:
1) circular drives with a 12 foot width, instead of 9 feet; 2) turning radii that met industry standards; and 3)
visualizations with vehicle placement. The consensus from the September COW Meeting was that circular
driveways requests: 1) should not be required to provide landscaping, or 2) should not be constructed of
decorative materials, 3) but should continue to be a Conditional Use that would require Village Board approval.
Mr. Zawila said at the December 9th COW meeting, Staff presented the Village Board with new scenarios that
illustrated when circular driveways could be feasible and practical in residential zoning districts. He stated these
illustrations demonstrated that if the front and side yard lot coverage ratio were increased to 50%, circular
driveways could be constructed on lots that are 75 feet wide or greater. These driveways could be 12 feet wide
and would meet the industry minimum standards for typical vehicle turning radii. He said although circular
driveways with reduced widths could fit on smaller lots, they would create the potential for numerous curb cuts
along local roadways and would leave little room for additional improvements on these properties.
Mr. Zawila stated that the scenarios did not take into consideration service walks, front steps, or entryways that
can add to the lot coverage in the front and exterior yards. He said Staff originally suggested that a 50% front and
exterior side yard coverage ratio would provide sufficient flexibility for property owners to appropriately locate
these improvements. Staff conducted further analysis to identify the minimum lot width for a circular/dual
frontage driveway to comply with both the minimum bulk regulations for interior lots in RX, Rl, RA, and R2
zoning districts and the minimum industry standards for vehicle turning radii. He stated that the findings of this
analysis determined that the existing front and exterior side yard maximum coverage ratios currently in the zoning
code appear adequate for circular/dual frontage driveways and do not create conditions that completely limit the
construction of circular/dual frontage driveways. The front and exterior side yard maximum coverage ratios do
not have to be increased to 50% as recommended by Staff at earlier Planning and Zoning and Committee of the
Whole meetings.
Mr. Zawila stated that the consensus from December 9th COW Meeting was that Staff should further research the
impact of the proposed limitation on comer lots, provide real-world examples of pictures to the Village Board for
illustrative purposes, and Staff should make available illustrations for homeowners to consider when they
undertake such a project. Mr. Zawila provided the Commission with photographs of circular and dual frontage
drives currently in the Village
Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed text amendment would affect several sections of the Village Code:
· Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.903 - Conditional Uses (R-l Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.1003 - Conditional Uses (R-A Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.1103 - Conditional Uses (R-2 Attached-Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.2215 - Driveways (Off Street Parking and Loading)
He said the Village Code already has provisions that would permit the construction of circular or dual frontage
driveways by Conditional Use in section 14.2215: DRlVEW A YS. He said Staff is recommending additional
standards for applicants to follow when applying for circular/dual frontage driveways in the Village. He stated
that the standards would require a minimum turning radius and width for the circular portion of the driveway.
The minimum turning radius of 15 feet and a width of 12 feet for the circular portion of the driveway are based on
the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials minimum turning path for passenger
cars.
Mr. Zawila stated that the standards would also require a minimum lot width for a circular/dual frontage drive.
The minimum lot width of75 feet was determined by Staff as a width that would be adequate for the placement of
Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2006
PZ-02-06
Page 3
a circular/dual frontage drive and minimize the frequency of curb cuts that could occur in residential districts
throughout the Village.
Mr. Zawila said as requested by the Village Board, the text amendment will provide illustrations depicting
minimum industry and Village standards for homeowners to consider when they undertake such a project on
interior and corner lots.
Mr. Zawila further stated that in order to establish standards for approving circular and dual frontage driveways,
Staff recommends Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District), Section 14.903 _
Conditional Uses (R-l Single Family Residence District), Section 14.1003 - Conditional Uses (R-A Single
Family Residence District), and Section 14.1103 - Conditional Uses (R-2 Single Family Residence District) be
amended to include:
"Circular or dual frontage driveways that meet the minimum requirement set forth in
subsection 14.2215.A.l of this chapter."
Mr. Zawila also stated that Section 14.2215 - Driveways would be changed to the following:
14.2215: DRIVEWAYS
A. Residential: Residential driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2 districts shall conform to the
following requirements:
1. Number: Only one driveway may be permitted per lot, with a maximum of one curb cut to the
street pavement. Except that Circular/Dual Frontage Driveways or Circular/Dual Frontage
(Corner Lot) Driveways with two curb cuts to the street pavement, as depicted on Figures 2 and 3
respectively, as well as other alternative designs for similar types of driveways may be permitted,
but only by conditional use and in compliance with the following minimum requirements:
a. Minimum Turning Radius: The circular portion of the driveway shall have a
minimum turning radius of 15 feet (15');
b. Width: The circular portion of the driveway shall have a minimum width of 12 feet
(12');
c. Lot Width: Circular/Dual Frontage Driveways or Circular/Dual Frontage (Corner Lot)
Driveways with two curb cuts to the street pavement, as well as other alternative
designs for similar types of driveways shall be allowed only on lots 75 feet (75') or
greater in width.
Mr. Zawila summarized, stating that the proposal to amend the Village's residential driveway regulations would
be applicable to the RX, Rl, RA and R2 residential zoning districts in the community on lots 75 feet or greater,
which is approximately 25% of the lots in these districts. He said that previously it has been Staff policy to
support requests for circular driveways when the subject property fronts on an arterial street and/or the traffic
volume is such that a circular driveway is necessary to resolve a safety conflict. He stated that the proposed
changes would allow a circular or dual frontage driveways providing it meets the existing bulk regulations of the
zoning code, the minimum requirements established by this text amendment, and the standards for conditional use
listed in Section 14.203.F.8.
Mr. Zawila said the proposed text amendments meet the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the
Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a
Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26,2006
PZ-02-06
Page 4
recommendation to the Village Board to approve the text amendments as presented for case PZ-02-06. He stated
that the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Keith Youngquist asked for clarification that the Village Board is not requiring landscaping or the use of
decorative materials with the amended text. Mr. Zawila stated this is correct.
Joseph Donnelly asked for clarification on how the measurement for lot width is taken for a corner lot. Mr.
Zawila stated the measurements were taken at the front of the house and that the text amendment does not change
the bulk regulations regarding lot coverage. Mr. Donnelly also asked if this text amendment addressed the
possibility of a property having both a circular drive and a separate drive to the garage. Mr. Zawila stated that this
text amendment, as written, would only allow one type of driveway or the other.
Chairperson Juracek asked if other sections of the Zoning Ordinance still specify the 50% lot coverage limitation.
Mr. Zawila stated the lot coverage requirements will remain unchanged in the Code, and that lot coverage is
specified for each district as noted in the Zoning Ordinance.
Joseph Donnelly asked if all of the examples presented to them would meet the Village Code with the new text
amendment. Mr. Zawila stated that all of the examples would comply with the amended text. Chairperson
Juracek said the exhibits provided to the Commission do provide dimensions and appear to meet the regulations
as stated in the amended text.
Richard Rogers asked if Conditional Use approval would still be required for Circular Driveway; Staff replied
yes. Chairperson Juracek noted that the proposed text amendment would reduce the number of cases heard for
circular drives by establishing minimum lot width requirements.
Joseph Donnelly said that this text amendment will not eliminate the smaller lots with a safety concern from
requesting a Conditional Use. Chairperson Juracek stated the text amendment will provide guidelines for the
Commission when evaluating these cases.
Marlys Haaland thanked Staff for a comprehensive presentation.
Chairperson Juracek asked if there were any further questions or if anyone wished to address the Commission.
Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:00 p.m.
Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments as presented, Case No. PZ-02-06; Keith
Youngquist seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration
Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:04 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
lit H\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&z 2006\M:inutes\PZ.02-06 Circular Drive Text Amendment.doc
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
Mount Prospect
MEMORANDUM
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON
FROM: JASON R. ZA WILA, LONG RANGE PLANNER
DATE: JANUARY 19, 2005
HEARING DATE: JANUARY 26, 2005
SUBJECT: PZ-02-06: TEXT AMENDMENTS (CIRCULAR DRNEW A Y STANDARDS)
Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District)
Section 14.903 - Conditional Uses (R-1 Single Family Residence District)
Section 14.1003 - Conditional Uses (R-A Single Family Residence District)
Section 14.1103 - Conditional Uses (R-2 Attached-Single Family Residence District)
Section 14.2215 - Driveways (Off Street Parking and Loading)
A public hearing has been scheduled for the January 26, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review
the application by the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Petitioner") regarding proposed amendments to Chapter 14
of the Village's Code, concerning circular driveway standards for the residential zoning districts. The P&Z
hearing was properly noticed in the January 6, 2005 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper.
BACKGROUND
The Village has received an increased number of requests for circular driveways in the past several years. The
majority of these requests have been in conjunction with residential tear down and top-off projects that are
occurring throughout town. The Village's current regulations require that property owners obtain a conditional
use permit prior to constructing a circular driveway. Historically, the requests that were approved by the Village
have been primarily for properties where there was a safety issue the circular driveway resolved. Safety issues
include a need to exit onto a major arterial road or where there was a substandard street width that made it
difficult to negotiate exiting onto the street.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed circular driveways at their August meeting. The Commission
found that:
· Circular drives should continue to be a Conditional Use;
· Lot width should be considered when approving the request;
· Landscaping in the front yard should be required; and
· Circular driveways should be constructed of decorative materials.
The Commission also raised the issue of whether to restrict overnight parking or "the number of vehicles parked on
the circular drives, but there were concerns on how these regulations could be practically enforced.
This issue was then discussed at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on September 27th. Staff prepared exhibits
that depicted circular driveways on various lot widths. The exhibits were intended to illustrate the impact of
PZ-02-06
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2005
Page 2
circular driveways and to help identify situations where a circular driveway would and would not be appropriate.
The objective was to ascertain whether new standards for approving circular driveways should be used when
reviewing requests.
The Village Board asked Staff to revise the scenarios that were presented to include: 1) circular drives with a 12
foot width, instead of 9 feet; 2) turning radii that met industry standards; and 3) visualizations with vehicle
placement. The consensus from the September COW Meeting was that circular driveways requests should: 1) not
be required to provide landscaping, or 2) be constructed of decorative materials, 3) and should continue to be a
Conditional Use that would require Village Board approval.
At the December 9th COW meeting, staff presented the Village Board with new scenarios that illustrated when
circular driveways could be feasible and practical in residential zoning districts. These illustrations demonstrated
that if the front and side yard lot coverage ratio were increased to 50%, circular driveways could be constructed
on lots that are 75' wide or greater. These driveways could be 12' wide and would meet the industry minimum
standards for typical vehicle turning radii. Although circular driveways with reduced widths could fit on smaller
lots, they would create the potential for numerous curb cuts along local roadways and would leave little room for
additional improvements on these properties.
The scenarios did not take into consideration service walks, front steps, or entryways that can add to the lot
coverage in the front and exterior yards. However, Staff suggested that a 50% front and exterior side yard
coverage ratio would provide sufficient flexibility for property owners to appropriately locate these
improvements. The overall lot coverage ratio in each zoning district would change under this proposal therefore,
any improvements made as part of a circular driveway project would limit additional construction on the overall
property. During this meeting staff also recommended that the Village Board approve modifying the Zoning
Ordinance to allow circular driveways within the following parameters: 1) on lots that are 75-feet or greater in
width; 2) no greater than 50% front and exterior side yard coverage; and 3) remain a Conditional Use that would
require Village Board approval. The consensus from December COW Meeting was that Staff should 1) further
research the impact of the proposed limitation on comer lots, 2) provide real-world examples of pictures to the
Village Board for illustrative purposes, and 3) Staff should make available illustrations for homeowners to
consider when they undertake such a project. Photographs of circular or dual frontage drives in the Village are
attached (Exhibit A).
Staff conducted further analysis to identify the minimum lot width for a dual frontage driveway to comply with
both the 1) minimum bulk regulations for interior lots in RX, Rl, RA, and R2 zoning districts and the 2)
minimum industry standards for vehicle turning radii (Exhibit B and C). The findings of this analysis determined
that the existing front and exterior side yard maximum coverage ratios currently in the zoning code appear
adequate for dual frontage driveways and do not create conditions that impair construction of circular and dual
frontage driveways. The front and exterior side yard maximum coverage ratios do not have to be increased to
50% as recommended by Staff at earlier Planning and Zoning and Committee of the Whole meetings.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The proposed text amendment would affect several sections of the Village Code:
· Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.903 - Conditional Uses (R-I Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.1003 - Conditional Uses (R-A Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.1103 -Conditional Uses (R-2 Attached-Single Family Residence District)
· Section 14.2215 - Driveways (Off Street Parking and Loading)
PZ-02-06
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2005
Page 3
The Village Code already has provisions that would permit the construction of circular or dual frontage driveways
by Conditional Use (see Section 14.2215.A.l below).
14.2215: DRIVEWAYS
A. Residential: Residential driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2 districts shall conform to the
following requirements:
1. Number: One driveway may be permitted per lot, with a maximum of one curb cut on to th~
street pavement per driveway. Circular or dual frontage driveways may be permitted only by
Conditional Use.
Staff is recommending additional standards for applicants to follow when applying for dual frontage driveways in
the Village:
· The standards would require a minimum turning radius, circular driveway width, and lot width for a
circular or dual frontage drive to be conditionally approved.
· The minimum turning radius and circular drive width are based on the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials minimum turning path for passenger cars (Exhibit C).
· The minimum lot width of 75 feet was determined by staff as a width that 1) would be adequate for the
placement of a dual frontage drive and 2) minimizes the frequency of curb cuts that could occur in
residential districts throughout the Village.
· As requested by the Village Board, the text amendment will provide illustrations depicting minimum
industry and Village standards for homeowners to consider when they undertake such a project on interior
and comer lots.
To establish standards for approving circular and dual frontage driveways, Staffrecommends:
Section 14.803 - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence District), Section 14.903 _
Conditional Uses (R-l Single Family Residence District), Section 14.1003 - Conditional Uses
(R-A Single Family Residence District), and Section 14.1103 - Conditional Uses (R-2 Single"
Family Residence District) be amended to include:
Circular or dual frontage driveways that meet the minimum requirement set forth in
subsection 14.2215.A.I of this chapter.
And Section 14.2215 - Driveways is changed to the following:
14.2215: DRIVEWAYS
A. Residential: Residential driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2 districts shall conform to the
following requirements:
OtJL i utJt/
1. Number: phe driveway may B"f' . _~6Md be permitted per lot, with a maximum of one curb
cut to the street pavement per driveway. Circular or dual frontage driveways may be
permitted only by conditional use and must meet the minimum requirements:
a. Minimum Turning Radius: The circular drive portion of the driveway shall have
a minimum turning radius of IS feet (IS');
PZ-02-06
Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 26, 2005
Page 4
b. Width: The circular drive portion of the driveway shall have a minimum width of
12 feet (12');
c. Lot Width: Circular or dual frontage driveway shall be allowed on lots 75 feet
(75') or greater
[Figure 1 Illustrating Minimum Requirements] (EXHBIT D)
STANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS
Section 14.203.D.8.b lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. The
standards relate to:
· The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel;
· The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity;
. The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive;
· Consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; and
. Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings.
The proposal to amend the Village's residential driveway regulations would be applicable to the RX, RI, RA and
R2 residential zoning districts in the community on lots 75 feet or greater, which is approximately 25% of the lots
in these districts. Previously it has been Staff policy to support requests for circular driveways when the subject
property fronts on an arterial street and/or the traffic volume is such that a circular driveway is necessary to
resolve a safety conflict. The proposed changes would allow a circular or dual frontage driveways providing it
meets the existing bulk regulations of the zoning code, the minimum requirements established by this text
amendment, and the standards for conditional use listed in Section 14.203.F.8.
RECOMMENDATION
The proposed text amendments meet the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to
the Village Board to approve the text amendments as outlined above for case PZ-02-06. . The Village Board's
decision is final for this case.
I concur:
~l(
William J. Coney, AICP, D rector of Community Development
H:IPLAN\TcarDowns and TopOmlCircular Driveway Sc",ui..IPz,.XX-06 MEMO (text alUcndmall - circ.1lir driveway _dards).dcc
EXHIBIT A: PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY CASES
PZ-Ol-03 1002 Meadow Lane R-X 100.00 12 12 29.0 26.0
PZ-02-03 904 Ed ewood Lane R-X 99.88 20 12 40.0 12.0
PZ-06-02 805 E Pros ect R-A 140.00 17 12 15.0 29.0
PZ-27-02 115 S Busse Road R-X 100.00 22 25-12 22.0 13.7
ZBA-29-01 303 S. Dou las R-1 125.00 27 27-23 21.9 < 35.0
ZBA-16-01 305 S. Do las R-1 136.47 10 12 26.9 34.9
ZBA-17-01 1006 Isabella R-1 114.89 32 10 26.5 23.0
Other Examples of Circular Driveways in Mount Prospect
N/A
N/A
N/A
505 Man A Wa
514 Wa Pella
1460 Lonn uist
R-A 106.00 23.5
R-A 101.00 20
R-X 123.00 11
12.5
16
20
31
23.5
28
37
33.5
31
1002 Meadow Lane
904 Edgewood Lane
805 E. Prospect
115 S. Busse Road
303 S. Douglas
305 S. Douglas
1006 Isabella
505 Man A Wa
514 Wa Pella
1460 Lonnquist
EXHIBIT B: MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ANALYSIS
Front and Exterior Yard Calculations (Figures 1- 4)
Front Exterior
Front Main Circular Turning Yard Total Yard Total
Yard Exterior Side Driveway Drive Radius Area Pavement Percentage of Area Pavement Percentage of
Setback Yard Setback Max Width Width* Minimum (FYA) Area in Pavement in (EYA) Area in Pavement in
Scenario Lot Width (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (Feet) (SF) FYA (SF) FYA (SF) EY A (SF) EYA
75' Interior (Figure 1) 75 30 - 20 12 15' 2,250 988 44% - - -
100' Interior (Figure 2) 100 40 - 20 12 15' 4,000 1,193 30% - - -
75' Comer (Figure 3) 75 30 20 20 12 15' 2,250 360 16% 1,300 464 36%
100' Comer (Figure 4) 100 40 25 20 12 15' 4,000 480 12% 1,252 526 42%
Front and Exterior Yard Coverage Limitations
Front &
Exterior Interior Lot
Minimum Lot Side Yard Width
Zonin2 District Width Coverage Minimum**
R-X 85' 35% 85'
R-l 65' (I), 75' (C) 45% 73'
R-A 50' 50% 65'
R-2 65' (I), 75' (C) 50% 65'
(I) - INTERIOR LOT
( C ) - CORNER LOT
*Width of the dual frontage drive is 54 feet, measured at the outer radius of both frontages.
**Further analysis was conducted by Staff to identify the minimum width that a lot in each residential district would have to measure in order for the dual frontage driveway, as
shown in figures 1 and 2, to comply with both the 1) minimum bulk regulations for interior lots in the residential district and the 2) minimum architectural standards for vehicle
turning radii.
EXHIBIT B: MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ANALYSIS
,'-'-'-'--;-'-'
'-'-'-'-'-'-'-'~'-'-'I
................................ ........................................................................... .e...........................
.;::
:2
.~
.C
.;::
'(f)
.m
.iiJ
')>
.()
.;>;
.<;>
'0
....-
"'-l
01
';::
:2
.~
'C
.;::
'(f)
'm
.-1
.~
.()
.;>;
.~
.'"
.~
Total Pavement Area in FY A:
988/2,250 SQ FT (44%)
(f)
-I
;0
m
m
-I
(f)
6
m
~
r
;>;
I ................ .:..................................... .:..............
. MINIMUM SETBACK (7.5') : :
L._._._.~._. ._._._._._._._.~._._.~
PROPERTY LINE
~._._._._._~_._.- _._._._.~._._._.~
I......................;.......... .
. .;::
I :~
.;::
.c
.;::
.(/)
.':']
'OJ
.)>
.()
.;>;
'"
6
m
~
r
;>;
....
:3
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : ;: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:2
.~
.c
.;::
.'"
.m
.-1
.~
.()
.;>;
.<;>
'0
....-
o
q
I'V
o
~
Total Pavement Area in FYA:
1,1 3/4,000 SQ FT (3P%)
1~1I:~I~~~~~;iA~K(1~')"""" ~...........
L._._._._._~_._._._._._._.~._._._.~
PROPERTY LINE
Figure 1
Figure 2
EXHIBIT B: MINIMUM LOT WIDTH ANALYSIS
r'-'-'-;-'-'-'-'-'-'-'-';'-'-'
MINIMUM SETBACK (7.5') . .
I.. '"...... '"... '". '" -0-. '". '"... '" '"... '".... '"... '"........... "0" '".... I '" '"......
I
I
I
I
I
I
. '"'
o
.'"
.;<
. <.J
, ..:
. ~
. w
. (/)
. ::;;
. =>
: ~
. ~
Total Pave~nt Area in FYA:
360/2,25Q sa FT (16%)
12'
R = 15'
L._._._.:
"f;;'
. '"
,;<
'<.J
. ..:
. ~
.w
.(/)
. ::;;
. =>
. ::;;
. z
. ~
. . . . . . .M~N!,,!U.M.S.E;B.A~~(:~').:. . . . . . . . . . . .
Total Pavement Area in EYA:1'
464/1,300 sq FT (36%) .
SIDEWALK
STREET
~._._._._~_._._._._._.~._._. ,
I ~I~I~~M.S.E:B~~~(!O:...... .:. .. , , ., .. .. .. ........... .:. ....... .. .. ,. I
.. :~ :g-..
I :i :i I
. :~ :~.
I :m :~ I
.::;; .::;;
.. .~ .i..
I : ?; :?; I
.::;; .::;;
, .
I I
, .
I I
. .
I Total Pavement:Area in FYA: I
,480/4,000:(12%) .
I I
12'
R= 15'
MINI~~~ :E.T~A.C~ ~2:').~. . . . . . . . . . . . .. I
Total Pavement Area i EY
526/~ ,252 sa FT (42fo)
12'
SIDEWALK
STREET
w
z
::;
~
w
a.
o
0::
a.
75'
100'
Figure 3
Figure 4
EXHIBIT C: INDUSTRY STANDARDS FOR PASSENGER VEHICLE TURNING RADIUS
MSHTO-Geometnc DesIgn of HIghways a,uJ Streets
US' Customary
Conven-
tional Largel
Dulsn Pu- Slngla- City SChool Schaal Jmennlld- Innned-
Vehicle ..n..... Unit Intercity Bu. Transit Bus (15 B.. (~: ArtIcu- late Saml- late .....1
Tva. Car Truck IMotor COBb) au. _., ..... lated Bua trallar trailer
S~boI p SU BU~O BUS-4S CITY-BUS S-BUS38 S-BUS40 MUS WB-40 WB-50
Minimum
DnJgn
Turning 24 42 45 45 420 389 394 398 40 4S
Radlu8
(ftl
Center-
line'
Tumlng 21 38 408 408 378 349 354 355 38 41
Radius .
I ICTR\ Ift\
Minimum
Inside 144 283 276 255 245 238 254 213 193 170
RadiUS .
Iftl
Turnpike FII'IIII
"Doub18 Tripi_ Double . Motor
Design Bottom" Semi- laml- Car and C. and Home . Tractor
V=_ InIeratate Camblna- trallerf trall_d Motor Camper Boat and Boat wlOne
8emItni11er tlon tndIera trailer Home Trallar Trailer' Tl'llller Waaon
Symbol WB-82" WB-85" WB-67D WB-100T WB-109D. MH PIT PIB MH/B TRIW
orWB-67
MIOImum .
DeSIgn
Tumlng 45 45 45 45 60 40 33 24 50 18
~us
Center-
line'
Tumlng 41 41 41 41 58 36 30 21 48 14
I (~~':t,
Minimum
Il18lde 79 44 193 99 149 259 174 80 351 105
RaI~IUS
ft\
.
=
DMagn vehICle WIth 48-ft lnlder 88 adopted In 1982Surfac:e Transportabon AssIStance. Act (STAA)
De8lgn vehicle WIth 53-ft trailer 88 grandfath8l'8d In With 1982 Surface Transportabon As8l8tance Ad. (STM)
The tum.ng radiUS 8ll8Umed by a deSigner when mvestalllltlng possible turning paths and IS 88t at the centerline of
IheJront axle of e vehicle If the mll1lmum turning path's a88Umed, the eTR approximately equBl8the mlmmum
deSign turmng radiUS mlnusone-half the front width of the vehicle . . . .
SchoQI bu888 are manufactured frum 42-psasanger. to 84-pl8seng&r SIzes TIlls corresponds to whilelbase
lengths of 110ft to 20 0 It. respectively For .these dlfferant 81Zf1S, the minimum design turning radii vary frum
28 8 ft to 394ft and the mlmmum InBldared.. Vir/ frum 140ft to 254ft
Turning radlus I. for 150-200 hp tractor: WIth one 185ft long ngon attacnea to hitch pOint Front wheel drlV8 IS
dIsengaged and .Wlthout brakes being applied
.. =
=
2
=
:t
-
Exhibit 2-2. Minimum Turning RadU of Design Vehicles (Continued)
20
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
~.
r
i
DesIgn Controls and CrlterlQ
1.52m
[5 ft]
5.79m
(19 ftJ
o . 5 It
~I
o 1m
scale
3.35m
(11 ftJ
10 It
I
2.5m
Path of left
.....
......
........ Path of front
''''''~
...
,
"
...
,
,
...
o 5ft
elirl
o 1m
lCBIe
10ft
I
I
2.5m
Path of right
rear
o 0
I 2.13m.1
.(71]
· As8umed steering angle IS 31.6 0
. eTR = CenterlIne turning
radius at tant axle
Exhibit 2-3. MInImum TurDfng Path Cor Passeager Car (P) Design Vehiele
21
~---"~""r'!==.:::s:r,~_"'n~'-";'~i"T.7"""~=%~==,,,..,,=.". -_'_~_'___>_"_'_'"=''=_=~~~"'1$='''''';''''''''''''''''':<l<=-~_._'___________'''
EXHIBIT D: FIGURE ILLUSTRATING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
I
._._.-1-._.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I 1 ~
I . ~
.!.-1-i1;_._.
1
...1
1
I
I
I
1
....
Minimum Width of 75'
I~
.;:j
I~
.0:::
STREET
CIRCULAR/DUAL FRONTAGE DRIVEWAY
Minimum Width of 75'
Max. 26' ~
1
I
1
._._...1.
I
STREET
CIRCULAR/DUAL FRONTAGE DRIVEWAY
(CORNER LOT)
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING)
OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, the Petitioner (the President of the Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an application
for certain text amendments to Chapter 14 (ZONING) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to
amend various regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks amendments to the following sections of the Village Code:
Section 14.803
Section 14.903
Section 14.1003
Section 14.1103
Section 14.2215
CONDITIONAL USES (R-X SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
CONDITIONAL USES (R-1 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
CONDITIONAL USES (R-A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
CONDITIONAL USES (R~2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT)
DRIVEWAYS; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject of PZ-02-
06, before the Planning and Zoning Board Commission on January 26, 2006, pursuant to due and
proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 6th day
of January, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and
recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and
the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have considered the requests being the subject
of PZ-02-06; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees approve and adopt the findings and
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and incorporate such findings and
recommendations herein by reference as if they were fully set forth; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees finds that it is in the best interests of the Village
of Mount Prospect and its residents to approve the proposed amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACTING IN THE
EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS:
SECTION ONE' Section 14.803A - Conditional Uses (R-X Single Family Residence
District), Section 14.903A - Conditional Uses (R-1 Single Family Residence District),
Section 14.1 003A - Conditional Uses (R-A Single Family Residence District), and
Section 14.11 03A - Conditional Uses (R-2 Single Family Residence District) as
amended, are hereby amended to insert the following text in alphabetical order into the
list of conditional uses, to be and read as follows:
Circular/dual frontage driveways that meet the minimum requirements set forth in
subsection 14.2215.A.1 of this Chapter.
M
SECTION TWO' Section 14.2215 entitled "Driveways" of Chapter 14, of the Village Code
as amended is hereby further amended to delete subsection 14.2215.A.1 in its entirety and
replace said section with the following text to be and read as follows:
A. Residential: Residential driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-1, R-2 districts shall
conform to the following requirements:
1. Number: One driveway may be permitted be permitted per lot, with a
maximum of one curb cut to the street pavement per driveway. Circular or dual
frontage driveways may be permitted only by conditional use and must meet the
minimum requirements:
a. Minimum Turning Radius: The circular drive portion of the driveway
shall have a minimum turning radius of 15 feet (15');
b. Width: The circular drive portion of the driveway shall have a minimum
width of 12 feet (12');
c. Lot Width: Circular or dual frontage driveway shall be allowed on lots
75 feet (75') or greater
[Figure 1 Illustrating Minimum Requirements]
SECTION THREE: 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 7'h day of February, 2006.
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDfNANC\Text Amend Ch 14circular drivewaystandardsfeb2006.doc
ATTACHMENT 1: FIGURE ILLUSTRATING MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
._._.-L._.
~
I
I
I
I
I
I I ~
I . ~
'-r.-L~_._.
I
...1
1
I
I
I
I
...
Minimum Width of 75'
I~
.::J
I~
.0::
STREET
FIGURE 2 - CIRCULAR/DUAL FRONTAGE
Minimum Width of 75'
Max. 26' I
I
I
I
._._.-1.
I
STREET
FIGURE 3 - CIRCULAR/DUAL FRONTAGE DRIVEWAY
(CORNER LOT)
RESOLUTION NO. -06
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
EMPLOYEE LAURA FOWLE TO PURCHASE SERVICE CREDITS
THROUGH THE ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND
WHEREAS, Laura Fowle, ("Village employee") has been a full-time employee of the Village of
Mount Prospect Public Works Department since March 9, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the Village employee took Family Medical Leave (FMLA) from September 7,2005
until November 30, 2005; and
WHEREAS, from November 1 through November 30, 2005 the Village employee did not
receive any compensation in the form of wages from the Village, nor were any contributions
made to the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (IMRF) for service credits in November 2005;
and
WHEREAS, the Village employee has met the requirements of IMRF authorizing the purchase
of service credits; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect grants approval to allow the Village employee to
purchase IMRF service credits for the month of November 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect will pay the additional IMRF contribution of $493.59
for the service credits for the month of November 2005.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE' That the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
authorize Village employee Laura Fowle to purchase Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund Service
Credits for the month of November 2005.
SECTION TWO' 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 February, 2006.
Irvana K. Wilks
Mayor
ATTEST:
M. Lisa Angell
Village Clerk
H:\CLKO\files\WI N\RES\IMRFpurchasablecredithoursauthorizationfeb2006.doc
/'I