Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2026 PZ-12-26 / 1600 Bishop Court / CU: Major PUD Amendment1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-12-26 Hearing Date: July 10, 2026 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1600 Bishop Ct PETITIONER: Wingspan Development Group LLC 1001 Feehanville Dr Mount Prospect IL 60056 PUBLICATION DATE: June 24, 2026 REQUEST: Conditional use approval to amend an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a light industrial warehouse / office building and complete related site modifications at the subject property MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly William Beattie Ewa Weir Donald Olsen Richard Rogers Michael Fricano MEMBERS ABSENT: Wa lte r Szym cza k Fay Costa STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Antonia Lalagos — Development Planner Jason Shallcross — Director of Community Development Charles Hogan — Development Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: 8th Street Partners LLC 1600 Bishop Partnership LLC Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at7:01 PM. Chairman Donnelly moved on to Item Two, Approval of Minutes. Commissioner Weir made a motion seconded by Commissioner Beattie to approve the minutes of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on June 25, 2026. The minutes were approved 6-0. After introducing one item of new business, Chairman Donnelly introduced case number PZ-12-26, 1600 Bishop Court, a request for a conditional use to amend an existing Planned Unit Development (PUD) to construct a light industrial warehouse / office building and complete related site modifications at the subject property. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 Ms. Lalagos reviewed the existing conditions at the property, located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Kensington and Wolf Roads. The Subject Property is zoned 1-1 Limited Industrial District and is part of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that was established in 1987 and amended in 1989. She described the existing improvements - a vacant 96,000 square foot office building, and the current vehicular access to the site - an existing curb cut at the east end of Bishop Court and cross -access points between the Subject Property and the adjacent property to the south. Ms. Lalagos shared the proposal to demolish the existing office building and construct a 97,000 square -foot industrial warehouse facility and related site improvements. She explained that the submission includes an alternate site plan to accommodate a prospective tenant that has expressed interest in the property but has not finalized their site selection. Ms. Lalagos described the proposed primary site plan, including the elimination of one cross -access point, building setbacks, parking lot setbacks, a fire lane, truck docks, and total lot coverage. She stated that the Public Works Department is requesting that the southeast cross -access point be closed to further segregate car and truck traffic on the site. Ms. Lalagos explained that there is an existing cross - access agreement between the two properties and that this closure may not be possible. She noted this request will be reflected in the conditions of approval. Ms. Lalagos reviewed the alternate site plan, which resembles the primary site plan, but with a smaller building, more parking, and a new curb cut onto Kensington Road for use by employee passenger vehicles. She stated that the alternate building would be roughly 92,000 square feet and described the building setbacks, parking lot setbacks, truck docks, and total lot coverage. Ms. Lalagos showed a table comparing the required setbacks and lot coverage for the primary and alternate site plan, and noted that the parking lot encroachment on Wolf Road is due to the fire Lane, not from standard parking bays or drive aisles. Ms. Lalagos described the proposed elevations and floorplans. She stated that the building shell for the primary site plan is 89.5% warehouse use and 10.5% office use. Ms. Lalagos noted that the primary fapade material is painted precast concrete, with punch windows and second -floor glazing at the corner storefronts, and brise-soled awnings consisting of fabricated architectural steel. She stated that the building will utilize internal downspouts, and no exposed roof drains will be located along Wolf or Kensington Roads. Ms. Lalagos explained that the proposed building shell for the alternate site plan has the same split between warehouse use and office use, and that the elevations and materials proposed for the alternate building would be consistent with the primary building proposal. Ms. Lalagos reviewed the traffic and parking for the primary site plan, including 92 parking stalls and up to 20 truck docks. She noted that vehicular traffic would access the site at the Bishop Court curb cut, with passenger vehicles directed to the west and north side of the site, and trucks directed to the south side of the site. Ms. Lalagos described proposed modifications for the Bishop Court island to accommodate truck access to the site. She stated that the primary site plan would route vehicular traffic into the Kensington Business Center in a manner consistent with existing traffic patterns and at a level acceptable for a mixed -use business and industrial park. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 Ms. Lalagos reviewed the alternate site plan, including 150 parking stalls and up to 10 truck docks. She explained the new curb cut on Kensington Road would allow right -in right -out access to the site and is intended for employee use only. Ms. Lalagos asserted that this stretch of Kensington Road is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation and a new curb cut would ultimately be subject to the approval of IDOT. She shared that the Village will accept the alternative site plan with access to Kensington under the following conditions: 1) the Subject Property may only be utilized for a pharmaceutical user; and 2) the Kensington Road access will be restricted to employee use only. Ms. Lalagos shared the proposed landscape plan, including removal of 29 trees, preservation of the existing mature berm landscaping, and continuous evergreen landscaping on the south lot line to screen the loading docks from view. She reported that a fully compliant landscape plan would be required at permit submittal. Ms. Lalagos provided additional Staff comments on the proposal. She noted that approval of the PUD amendment does not constitute automatic approval of a future occupant, and that Staff would review a business license and building permit application to determine if the user is a permitted or conditional use. If a conditional use, the user would be required to go through zoning approval. Ms. Lalagos asserted that users are required to meet minimum performance standards related to noise, vibrations, smoke, fire hazard, toxic matter, odorous matter, and glare. She shared comments from the Public Works Department, including preservation of the Bishop court island, required IDOT approval for a Kensington curb cut, and the request to remove the southeast cross - access driveway to further segregate truck and passenger vehicle traffic. Ms. Lalagos summarized the public comment received prior to the hearing, which consisted of 7 written comments and 1 phone call. She stated that the most cited concern is increased truck traffic on Wolf and Kensington Roads, including concern for the safety of pedestrians and vehicles on Wolf, Kensington, and within the Kensington Business Center (KBC). Ms. Lalagos shared requests for pedestrian safety improvements on Wolf and Kensington Roads, and within the KBC, and requests for traffic and safety studies conducted in this area. Commenters asked how new access to Kensington would affect traffic patterns and queuing at Wolf Road. Ms. Lalagos shared concerns about the history of nuisances (odor, noise, emissions, traffic) from industrial users in the area, and requests for more information on how future users would be evaluated and held to minimum performance standards. She noted a comment about removing landscaping on the property and how it might impact noise and appearance. Ms. Lalagos shared a request to secure right-of-way for a multiuse path to connect the KBC trail to the Prospect Heights bike path and Des Plaines River Trail. Ms. Lalagos concluded the presentation with a request that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt Staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend approval of the following motion as written in the Staff report, with added conditions regarding the cross -access points. Ms. Lalagos stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Commission is approving the primary or alternate site plan, or if they approve the motion, is the Commission approving both site plans. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 Ms. Lalagos explained that the motion is written to approve both site plans but with the condition that the alternate site plan is only acceptable if the future tenant is a pharmaceutical user that meets all of the conditions as written. Chairman Donnelly asked why it is required to be a pharmaceutical user. Mr. Shallcross explained that the developer is proposing to build a speculative warehouse without a user identified, and at the same time they are pursuing a build -to -suit opportunity and are directly negotiating with a user seeking the alternate site plan. The user has not signed any formal agreements or leases but has made specific requests for a preferred site plan. The Village supports the alternate site plan as long as it is for a pharmaceutical user. Chairman Donnelly asked if it would be pharmaceutical distribution or manufacturing. Mr. Shallcross replied that he does not have an interior build out application at this time, and it is an ongoing negotiation between the developer and a potential tenant. Commissioner Beattie noted that the primary site plan has a slightly bigger building with up to 20 truck stalls, which means it is designed for more truck traffic, versus the alternative site plan with 10 truck stalls which may lessen the concern over truck traffic for people in the neighborhood. He reiterated that none of the uses would have trucks entering off Kensington or Wolf Road, but thought the developer should pick one design. Mr. Shallcross stated that the user pursuing the built -to -suit option will not agree to anything until they have an approved building. He indicated that the user will not sign anything that will obligate them to a lease if their building can't be built. Commissioner Beattie replied that would be an issue for the builder either way, since the speculative building doesn't have a user yet either. He said it was unclear why they were requesting approval for two different structures, with two different types of uses, and perhaps two different Levels of intensity. Commissioner Beattie thought the user should be identified first so that neighborhood concerns could be better addressed. Ms. Shallcross reiterated that the primary site plan is fora speculative industrial warehouse building, which is a permitted use in the zoning district. He explained that the Petitioner is not proposing to change the zoning district and that this type of building is allowed by right in the district. Ms. Shallcross noted we have had several speculative warehouses constructed in the Village, most recently at 1305 Algonquin Road, and it did not require zoning relief. He stated that when the 1305 Algonquin user applied for an interior build out permit, the Village verified that it was a permitted use and issued the permits and ultimately the certificate of occupancy for that use. Mr. Shallcross pointed out that this approval is narrow because the alternate site plan is only for a pharmaceutical use. If a potential user is interested in the speculative warehouse, it would be on Staff to determine if the use is permitted, conditional, or prohibited, and the developer and user may have to seek additional zoning relief. Commissioner Beattie asked if the developer only wanted to build the primary site plan, would they need to appear before the Commission. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 Mr. Shallcross clarified that yes, zoning relief is required because the property is in a Planned Unit Development. He explained that the Petitioner needs to amend the PUD that created the current dual office campus because they are proposing to substantially alter the character of the PUD, which requires Village Board approval subject to the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Donnelly summarized that the Petitioner is requesting approval of both site plans with some relief from zoning requirements, and then they can move forward with either building they choose. Mr. Shallcross confirmed that the developer can either land the pharmaceutical user and pursue the build -to -suit opportunity, or they build the speculative warehouse building on what is now 100% vacant office building. Chairman Donnelly asked if there was a list of requested zoning relief or exceptions. Mr. Shallcross stated that the non -conformities are lot coverage and parking lot setbacks. He reiterated that the parking lot nonconformity is largely driven by the fire lane on the east side of the building. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Fire Department required the fire lane. Mr. Shallcross replied yes. Chairman Donnelly asked if Public Works had any concerns regarding lot coverage. Mr. Shallcross replied no. He explained that the KBC operates on a series of connected stormwater ponds that the Village maintains. Ms. Shallcross asserted that any additional stormwater capacity triggered by the redevelopment of the site would need to be factored into the engineering plans as part of the building permit phase. He noted that the developer is aware and has committed to meet all stormwater requirements. Commissioner Beattie asked where stormwater would be stored. Mr. Shallcross replied that the detention structures are underground and the water is then piped to the ponds. Commissioner Weir confirmed that one of the conditions of the permit is to update the detention for the additional impervious surface area. She asked but for the fire lane, would they meet the lot coverage requirement. Mr. Shallcross did not have the answer on hand but believed the site without the fire lane would still be over the maximum by a small percentage. Commissioner Weir stated that the KBC is an internal circulated business park, and asked if the only exception is the Police Department parcel that exits onto a public road. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 Mr. Shallcross said yes but it depends on whether you consider 350 Wolf Rd a part of the KBC, even though it doesn't have any internal access to the business park. Commissioner Weir asked if there was concern that this is setting a precedent for other lots in the KBC opening to the right of way. Ms. Shallcross replied no, everything is considered on a case -by -case basis. He stated that Village policy has been to prohibit exterior access, but he couldn't say it would never happen. Commissioner Weir discussed the lighting on another industrial building that is adjacent to a residential area. She noted that the developer took steps to minimize the light at the property line, however there is still a visibility issue, in that if you look out your window at night you can see the Light source. Commissioner Weir asked where the lights will be on the subject property and at what elevation. Mr. Shallcross deferred to the Petitioner. He noted that the subject property is not adjacent to any single-family residential neighborhoods; to the east is the water commission, to the north is a church, and to the west and south are other industrial businesses in the KBC. Chairman Donnelly asked if there are plans to expand Kensington in this area from a two- to a four - lane road. Mr. Shallcross replied no, and stated that Staff did not require a traffic study because they did not believe it would change or harm the level of service on Kensington Road. He reported that Kensington Road has an average of 8,000 vehicles per day, and Wolf Road is close to 17,000 vehicles per day. Mr. Shallcross emphasized that Staff did not believe a pharmaceutical use would warrant any further improvements to Kensington. He reiterated that the Kensington design is subject to IDOT approval. Commissioner Weir asked if Staff had reviewed the turning exhibits for the Bishop Court entrance. She asked if it met the turning radius requirements for trucks. Mr. Shallcross confirmed that the Petitioner widened the entrance in response to Staff's concerns on the turning radius. Commissioner Beattie asked if there is anything unique about the project that this wouldn't set a precedent for other office buildings to be redeveloped into warehouses. Mr. Shallcross stated that it is not setting a precedent because it is tied to a specific use going in. He noted that the speculative warehouse site plan is not proposing access to Kensington. If another developer came along and asked for access to Kensington, Wolf, or Wheeling Road, the response would be that we approved this specific site plan for a specific use and access is not automatically granted for any other potential users. Commissioner Beattie asked if both proposed uses would be required to amend the PUD, with or without the access to Kensington. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 Mr. Shallcross replied yes. Commissioner Beattie asked if this is going to prompt more builders to request warehouses, when they see that a warehouse was approved in this location. Mr. Shallcross replied that the informal policy has always been to deny external access from KBC parcels. He reiterated that the Village is evaluating this for a very specific use as they pursue a build -to -suit opportunity for this property. Mr. Shallcross asserted that external access has not been granted for any other use in the KBC except the Village's police station. He emphasized there is no code prohibiting access to Kensington Road, it is just a long-standing policy that has been in place since the annexation of the KBC parcels in the 1980s. Commissioner Beattie clarified that he was not questioning the Kensington access but whether or not they need the PUD amendment to tear down the office and build a warehouse. Mr. Shallcross stated that there are several warehouses in the KBC. He conveyed that the Petitioner is proposing a speculative industrial building shell, without a user identified. Ms. Shallcross explained that the Petitioner could show the space to potential tenants and discuss customization of the interior layout. He noted that the building may end up having more than one user. Commissioner Beattie clarified that he is wondering if this promotes the replacement of uses with Less intense traffic with uses that have more intense traffic. Commissioner Weir added that when KBC was originally developed, that area was the "front door" of the business park and they purposefully put office buildings there and an appealing front fagade with all the distribution behind it. She noted that now KBC is proposed to be flanked by two industrial buildings, one on the south that wasn't originally in the park but by default feels like it, and now an industrial building on the north end. Commissioner Weir asked if we were changing the overall master planning and intent of the KBC by changing the use at its "front door." Mr. Shallcross said he wished the average vacancy rate for the suburban office market was not pushing 30%. He reported that the subject property is fully vacant, and the adjacent office buildings at the "front door" have substantial vacancies. Mr. Shallcross pointed out that 500 W Central Rd near downtown Mount Prospect is a fully vacant office building being converted into residential units. He said if there was a solution to make office uses viable, he would pursue it. Mr. Shallcross conveyed that Staff believes the proposed use is permitted by right, the property is zoned industrial already, and it is replacing an office building that is 100% vacant and deteriorating. Mr. Shallcross reiterated that if not this, then what becomes of all the vacant suburban office buildings. Chairman Donnelly asked about the bike trail public comment. Mr. Shallcross replied that Public Works reviewed the request against the bike network plan and does not support a connection on this property. Public Works noted that there are existing planned Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 improvements for the corridor and identified other more suitable parcels to make bike network connections in this area in the future. Chairman Donnelly swore in a representative for the Petitioner, Jack DiNardo of 8t" Street Partners LLC, 406 W 8t" St, Hinsdale. Mr. DiNardo explained that the primary site plan is a speculative industrial building that is meant to be flexible and suit multiple uses. He stated that the level of parking provided is adequate in their experience. Mr. DiNardo said they designed it for a single or potentially multi -tenant use. He conveyed that at an early stage they identified a potential user that has a more bespoke requirement, so they reduced the truck loading, increased the parking and shrunk the building to meet the user's needs. Mr. DiNardo stated that the timing is why they are asking for approval of both plans; so they can meet the market for a speculative product but also be able to pivot to the other design if they are able to secure commitment from the user. There was a brief pause in the proceedings as Commissioner Rogers left the hearing. Mr. DiNardo asserted that they were thoughtful about the look and feel of the building as an entrance point to the business park. Mr. DiNardo indicated that the location can serve a variety of uses and will be attractive to companies who want a high profile, higher visibility location like Mount Prospect. He noted that they incorporated design features and an extensive landscape plan to aid in screening as well as the overall aesthetic of the development. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Kensington access is not approved, is the deal gone. Mr. DiNardo stated that he could not answer; the Kensington access is a specific design characteristic that has been discussed with the user, that he would like to provide and the user would like to utilize for their employees. Commissioner Beattie stated that the Kensington entrance would only be used for cars. He asked if the only entrance and exit for cars would be on Kensington or if they could use the Bishop Court entrance. Mr. DiNardo replied yes, cars can also use the Bishop Court access. Chairman Donnelly noted some concerns about turning left into the site from Kensington: it is a two-lane road, speed limit is 45 miles per hour, and the access is not far from the Wolf intersection. Mr. Shallcross clarified that the Kensington access would be restricted to right in, right out only. Chairman Donnelly asked how they will prevent people from cutting through the site to avoid going to the intersection. Mr. DiNardo replied that has not been considered yet, but they can look into it. He noted that security is of high concern for that user and it would be addressed by both the developer and user if they move forward. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 Chairman Donnelly suspected that not a lot of people will be attempting to access the site driving eastbound on Kensington; most would be traveling on Wolf or westbound on Kensington. He noted that most people would want to avoid the Rand / Kensington / Elmhurst intersection so the easiest entry point would be from the interior of the business center. Mr. Shallcross added that people traveling east have the opportunity to enter the park at Wheeling Road, which is a signalized intersection. Chairman Donnelly suggested that people traveling on Euclid would be more likely to enter the park from Wolf Road, not Wheeling Road, which is slower. He did not think the Kensington access would be needed because it would not be used much. Commissioner Weir asked what the anticipated hours of operation are for both building options. Mr. DiNardo replied that they do not know; they do not have details from the potential user and similarly for the speculative option they do not have a user identified yet. Commissioner Weir asked if there are restrictions on hours of operation. Mr. Shallcross replied that the Village does not have code restricting business hours of operation. Commissioner Weir asked if the build -to -suit option is for employees or the public as well. Mr. DiNardo said to his knowledge there will not be a large visitor component. Commissioner Weir said the lighting is three poles and lights on the building, and asked if he had additional information. Mr. DiNardo replied they are designing the lighting to meet code, but they are still at a conceptual phase. Commissioner Weir asked if the lights would always be on. Mr. Shallcross replied that they would likely be required to be on at all times by Village code, especially if there is a business operating there. He stated the Village has minimum lighting requirements for parking lots. Mr. Shallcross noted that the nearest residential properties are southeast in Des Plaines, and the Petitioner is proposing continuous six-foot evergreen screening along the south and southeastern perimeters. Commissioner Beattie noted concerns about additional traffic and asked what a typical occupant Looks like for one of these buildings. Mr. DiNardo replied they are designing the building for a variety of options, such as distribution, Light assembly, or e-commerce fulfillment. He suggested that the corner location in an existing business park typically lends itself to higher profile businesses than just a warehousing operation; there is potential for a user that needs both warehousing space and an office component. He said it Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 10 is difficult to speculate on the additional traffic that will be generated but in their experience this design creates flexibility for a user with some truck loading and some car parking. Commissioner Beattie asked what historically has gone into their other developments. Mr. DiNardo replied that these are the types of users on the market actively looking for space. He reported 92 parking spaces in the plan, and with 17,000 cars per day on Wolf Road and 8,500 on Kensington, 90 cars is not a lot of added traffic. Commissioner Beattie clarified that the concern is about semi -truck traffic increasing in the area, even though the trucks would not be accessing the site on Kensington. He asked if they anticipate a Lot of truck traffic for the speculative option. Mr. DiNardo replied that they have 18 truck -level docks in the plan, but they will have equipment for only 10 docks on day one. He reiterated they are not trying to overbuild with 18 docks on day one and then have a user come in that only has a couple of trucks per day. Mr. DiNardo pointed out the plans do not contain any trailer storage; often if you are a heavy truck volume user you will look for a larger site with overnight trailer storage in addition to the dock areas. He said at this stage they are trying to design a flexible building that meets a lot of different needs. Chairman Donnelly asked if they are ok with closing the southeast entrance. Mr. DiNardo replied yes, they need to study it with the engineering and design team, but it seems consistent with their intent to separate car from truck traffic. Erin Cullen of 1513 E Jeffrey Dr, Mount Prospect was sworn in. She asked if there were any traffic calming measures that could be implemented before a new user is approved. Ms. Cullen reported that within KBC there is a pedestrian path, sidewalks, and a crosswalk next to the Bishop Court entrance. She and other nearby residents are not just concerned about traffic on Kensington and Wolf, but also about traffic within the KBC and the increase in truck traffic from industrial buildings being constructed. Ms. Cullen did not believe there were any new traffic studies conducted in the Last few years, and she thought studies would be helpful before approving more large industrial buildings in the area that impact pedestrians. She noted that children are harder see from higher trucks, children on bikes may not be as attentive, and children cross the KBC entrance at Wolf frequently. Ms. Cullen acknowledged there is a light at the KBC entrance but there have been accidents and asked if we have studied the traffic impacts enough to address the current petition. Chairman Donnelly noted that the request is Village Board final so there are more opportunities to get additional information. He thought this would be a request for Staff since it has to do with the KBC asawhole, not the particular property. Chairman Donnelly noted there have been numerous recreation and sports conditional uses approved in the KBC over the years, so we are not seeing as many trucks as when the buildings were originally designed. Mr. Shallcross replied that right of way improvements would be a Village responsibility, and projects on state roads would require state bid letting. He explained that municipalities do partner with IDOT on some improvements and the Village may be able to make improvements on these rights of way if something is identified. Mr. Shallcross reported that Staff is currently pursuing bike Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 11 Lane improvements on Kensington. He explained that if there are concerns about safety at specific intersections or at certain segments, we have a Traffic Safety Commission that orders studies. He offered to share specific concerns with the commission. Ms. Cullen asked if more information could be shared about the potential user for the alternate site plan, in terms of operating hours, emissions, noise, etc. so that nearby residents could know what to expect. Mr. Shallcross replied that they do not have a signed lease yet and the Village has not received a formal petition or an interior buildout plan, because the building has not yet been entitled. Chairman Donnelly noted that the user has requirements that need to be met. He asked if the property is zoned to do manufacturing. Mr. Shallcross replied he does not have information on what exactly the pharmaceutical user wants to do. Chairman Donnelly stated that there are limits to what can be done on the property, and no heavy manufacturing is allowed. Mr. Shallcross confirmed yes and clarified that light manufacturing is permitted. Ms. Cullen asked if it would be possible not to approve both proposals at the same time. Chairman Donnelly stated it is not practical because they are approving the conditional use fora facility and all they are doing is asking for two different layouts. He noted there is no difference between the relief asked for in both proposals. Mary Pat Donohue of 1411 Callen Ln, Des Plaines was sworn in. She said her main concerns were quality of life and safety of the community. Ms. Donohue said that her child was hit by a car close to where OnTrac was built, and later there was another accident at the same location, near Lowden and Wolf. She explained that there are many pedestrians in the area even though you do not see them all the time. Ms. Donohue shared that she was not sure why there have to be two warehouses on Wolf Road. She pointed out that across from the subject property is a church and Sycamore Trails Park, and there is a daycare center on the opposite corner. Ms. Donohue felt she needed to come forward to speak on behalf of the working parents who can't come to the meetings to voice their concerns. She reiterated that quality of life and safety are important for retaining residents in Illinois and in Mount Prospect. She believed that the warehouse isn't in the best interest of the community. Victoria Karalis of 1809 E Euclid Ave, Mount Prospect was sworn in. She stated that she dislikes the plan but understands the approach, "build it and they will come." Ms. Karalis said that she loved that the Petitioner wants to bring business to Mount Prospect, because nobody likes a vacant building. She pointed out that the proposal is roughly 90% warehouse, and roughly 10% office, and questioned why the corner anchor at a major intersection is going to be a warehouse and not an approachable building. Ms. Karalis suggested that even though the site is zoned industrial, with high landscaping, and with the Police Department nearby, a corner warehouse at a prominent Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 12 corner signals this is an industrial location and will attract any crime that comes with an industrial operation. Sylvia Luchez of 1615 Ironwood Dr, Mount Prospect was sworn in. She frequently walks around the area with her 14-month-old and lives across the street from the site. Ms. Luchez stated she supports economic development and warehouses, but she questioned why this location. She shared that her child will start attending Parkview Montessori in the KBC next month and she will be walking to the daycare with her child. Ms. Luchez questioned to what extent does the project fit the original intent of the Kensington business park — she asserted it is a park, with a trail and animal Life. Ms. Luchez explained that she walks there for pleasure, and it is important to her that the area is safe. She felt that the community southeast of the site has been considered but her neighborhood has been overlooked. Ms. Luchez wanted to know how this project would benefit her and her neighbors that live in the Camelot area. She expressed concern about light and air pollution, and aesthetics, and hoped that her community would be considered as well. Chairman Donnelly asked if the subject property will have less light trespass than the police station because it has far more berm landscaping. Mr. Shallcross replied yes, substantially. He noted that the Village has minimum light levels at property lines. Chairman Donnelly and Commissioner Beattie agreed that the police station is very bright at night. Chairman Donnelly asked if the Village would confront the warehouse if it was as bright as the police station. Mr. Shallcross replied yes. Chairman Donnelly stated that a fence could be proposed to address crime. Mr. Shallcross replied that this is one parcel of a large business park and to his knowledge the park has no existing crime issues. Commissioner Beattie stated that he would be more concerned about a vacant building. Mr. Shallcross agreed. Chairman Donnelly asked if the park is mostly comprised of warehouses, except for the two office buildings. Mr. Shallcross confirmed there are two office buildings, and there are other office uses in the park. He noted that the park is a mix of industrial, commercial, and institutional uses. Chairman Donnelly discussed how the Commission had initially been reluctant to approve sports training facilities in the KBC, but he found that it was beneficial to have all these uses there and believed it was a good use of the facilities. He felt that the project would bring back warehouse space to KBC after so much warehouse had been converted to other uses. Chairman Donnelly asked if the traffic for the warehouse would be less than the other uses. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 13 Mr. Shallcross replied that Staff is comfortable with the existing road network and pointed out that all of the entrances to and from the site are controlled from signalized intersections, except the right in right out proposed for Kensington Road. He stated that if a traffic issue arose, Village Staff would respond accordingly. Chairman Donnelly stated that pedestrian safety is addressed with the Transportation Safety Commission. Mr. Shallcross affirmed this, and said that the Commission could study the pedestrian crossing at Bishop and Feehanville to identify safety improvements such as separation, signage, reflectors, etc. He emphasized that they would want to study the intersections first. Chairman Donnelly asked if Police, Fire, and Public Works all agreed to the plan, except for the request from Public Works to close off the southeastern cross -access. Mr. Shallcross replied yes, with the understanding that there is an existing rights and easement agreement that is in place from when the original PUD was created and we cannot create a conflict with those private agreements. Chairman Donnelly asked if this request needs to be added to the conditions. Mr. Shallcross stated the new condition, "the closure of the southeastern cross -access point should be evaluated prior to the issuance of a building permit." He added that the design shall be subject to final approval of the Village Engineer. Commissioner Beattie discussed the hours of operation. He recalled an old request involving the expansion of a trash collection facility and how residents across the street were concerned about trucks coming in the middle of the night. Commissioner Beattie asked if there are any controls or guarantees that whatever occupant goes into the subject property, it will not be doing business at 12:30AM with bright lights on. Mr. Shallcross replied that the use is not identified for the site, and controls would be identified when the Village receives a proposed build out. If the proposed user is a conditional use, then it would be appropriate to condition the hours of operation at the time of zoning approval. If itisa permitted use, allowed by right, then no, the Village does not have business hour restrictions. Commission Beattie asked if there are other opportunities for residents to voice their concerns over hours of operation. Mr. Shallcross said you could apply restrictions without knowing the user, but he felt that it would be premature and is not something that the Village has done to other businesses unless it was a conditional use. Commissioner Beattie clarified that it does not have to be decided tonight but if it does become an issue in the future, the conditional use process is the avenue to address it. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 14 Mr. Shallcross replied that is correct if the proposed use is a conditional use. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were restrictions on OnTrac. Mr. Shallcross replied no, it is a permitted use. Chairman Donnelly asked if OnTrac can operate 24/7. Mr. Shallcross replied yes. Mary Beth Stillmaker of 676 Middleton Ln, Des Plaines was sworn in. She stated she lives across the street from OnTrac, and it has been a nightmare since it was built. Ms. Stillmaker noted that municipalities have nighttime quiet hours from 10PM to 7AM, and asked if these hours also apply to businesses or only residents. Mr. Shallcross stated that there are two topics at hand: business operational hours, and noise. He explained that business operational hours are not restricted but noise is; for example, construction hours are from 7AM to 7PM. Mr. Shallcross said that if there are noise concerns reported to Village Staff, the Village inspects and follows up, but that is separate from a business operating overnight. Ms. Stillmaker asked if a semi -truck comes in at 3AM and makes noise, are they not restricted because they are a business operation. Mr. Shallcross observed that semi -trucks routinely drive on Wolf, Kensington, and throughout the KBC and they are allowed to drive on right-of-way. Ms. Stillmaker clarified she meant trucks unloading loudly and making beeping noises. Mr. Shallcross stated that the Village has pursued OnTrac regarding noise and the machine that was the source of the beeping complaints was taken off site. He reiterated that the Village pursues violations if they take place. Ms. Stillmaker asked if the Village still has zoning requirements for noise. Mr. Shallcross confirmed yes, there are noise performance standards. Ms. Stillmaker asked if the Village would address noise issues if generated by the proposal. Mr. Shallcross replied yes, they would address noise generated on site, and clarified that the noise performance standards apply to properties zoned 1-1. Peter Prokopowicz of 9214 Knight Ave, Des Plaines was sworn in. He stated he does not live near the structure, but his sister does. He asked if the six-foot evergreens would be sufficient to shield the lights, and asked how high up the lights would be. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 15 Chairman Donnelly said there are minimum standards for landscaping and lighting. He offered a comparable situation where the lights are on the third floor of the parking garage at Randhurst but cannot be seen from Boxwood. Commissioner Beattie added the lights are required to be cut-off, so the light goes down, not out. Mr. Prokopowicz asked if the other businesses in the park had been asked for their opinion about a Large warehouse as the face of the park and would this building cause businesses to leave because they don't want to be fighting with a new user. Chairman Donnelly said that the Village would not recommend approval if they believed the proposal would cause tenants to leave. Mr. Prokopowicz asked if the users of these speculative buildings tend to use local trucks and Locally sourced materials where the drivers know the correct way to navigate in and out of the park, or will it be long-distance shipping with greater potential to have trucks circling the area to find the entrance. Commissioner Beattie reiterated that in either scenario, the only truck entry to the site will be through the interior of the park, far away from the residential areas. Mr. Prokopowicz asked if there is a specific route the trucks are coming from. Chairman Donnelly replied that Wolf Road is the truck route and trucks tend to come in to the KBC through the Wolf Road entrance. Mr. Prokopowicz emphasized that the truck drivers might have some trouble navigating if they are not familiar with the area. Hearing no further comments or questions, Chairman Donnelly closed the hearing and asked for a motion to approve the conditions as noted in the Staff report, plus two additional conditions relating to the closure of the southeastern cross -access point and methods to discourage cut through traffic [in bold]: "A conditional use to amend Ord. 3777and Ord. 4067 of the Planned Unit Development at the Northwest Corner of Wolf Road and Feehanville Drive in Kensington Center to redevelop the property located at 1600 Bishop Court, Case No. PZ-12-26, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Subject Property shall be developed in substantial conformance with the approved development plans which consist of the following (collectively the "Approved Plans"): a) The Primary Site Plan, titled "Conceptual Site Plan," prepared by Ware Malcomb and dated June 25, 2026, depicting a speculative industrial building containing approximately 97,605 square feet of gross floor area; b) "Concept Elevations," prepared by Ware Malcomb and dated June25, 2026; and c) "Overall Landscape Plan - Sheet L1.0," prepared by Kathryn Talty Landscape Architects and dated June 6, 2026; Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 16 2. The building wings or a precast wall shall extend at least as far south as the length of the truck docks to screen the dock area from Bishop Court and Wolf Road; 3. Continuous 6' evergreen landscaping shall be installed on the south lot line and the southernmost 75 feet of the east lot line to screen the loading docks from Wolf Road; 4. The Petitioner shall make every effort to have minimal impact on the existing mature landscaping along Kensington Road and Wolf Road; 5. The Bishop Court island shall be preserved as much as possible maintaining the counterclockwise traffic pattern, with final design subject to the approval of the Village Engineer; 6. The Petitioner shall evaluate the closure of the southeast cross -access point between 1600 Bishop Court and 1660 Feehanville Drive to better separate trucks from personal vehicles, with final design subject to the approval of the Village Engineer; 7. The Alternate Site Plan, titled "Conceptual Site Plan," prepared by Ware Malcomb and dated June 25, 2026, depicting a speculative industrial building containing approximately 92,343 square feet of gross floor area, may be implemented instead of the Primary Site Plan, provided the following additional conditions are satisfied: a) The Subject Property may only be utilized for a pharmaceutical distribution center, pharmaceutical fulfillment center, pharmaceutical logistics facility, or another use primarily involving the warehousing and distribution of prescription medications and related health care products; b) The Petitioner shall design and construct the Kensington Road entrance to restrict its use to employees only, prevent vehicle stacking onto Kensington Road, and discourage cut -through traffic. The access control measures shall be subject to the approval of the Village Engineer and may include, but are not limited to, fencing, gates, signage, or other traffic control measures; c) The Petitioner shall make every effort to minimize parking lot encroachment on Kensington Road landscaping, including utilizing a retaining wall to maintain berm heights consistent with adjacent parcels along Kensington Road; d) Prior to issuance of building permit for development pursuant to the Alternate Site Plan, the property owner or applicant shall submit documentation satisfactory to the Director of Community Development demonstrating that the proposed principal occupant will utilize the facility for one of the permitted uses identified herein; e) Upon written determination by the Director of Community Development that the proposed occupant satisfies the requirements of this Section, development in accordance with the Alternate Site Plan shall be deemed consistent with this Planned Unit Development and may proceed without further amendment to this Ordinance; and f) If the proposed occupant does not qualify as a pharmaceutical -related user, development of the property shall occur only in accordance with the approved Primary Site Plan unless a Planned Unit Development amendment is approved in accordance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance; 8. The Petitioner shall address all comments included in the Village Review Letter dated June 18, 2026 prior to permit submittal; 9. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following plans shall be in full compliance with the Village Code: a) Photometric plan; b) Landscaping plan; and Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26 17 c) Sign plan; and 10. The development shall comply with all applicable development, fire, building, and other Village Codes and regulations. 11. Except for the amendment to the planned unit development request granted herein, all other applicable Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois ordinances and regulations shall remain in full force and effect as to the subject property." Commissioner Beattie made a motion and Commissioner Weir seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL AYES: Beattie, Fricano, Donnelly NAYS: Weir, Olsen ABSENT: Rogers The Planning and Zoning Commission gave a positive recommendation (3-2) to the Village Board for the July 21, 2026 meeting. Chairman Donnelly asked if there were any citizens to be heard. Hearing no further discussion, Commissioner Beattie made a motion seconded by Commissioner Weir and the meeting was adjourned at 8:37 PM. b, adry mow., ^ M Antonia Lalagos, Development Planner Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting —July 9, 2026 PZ-12-26