Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pud Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks PUD amendment in West Chicago to allow small warehouses on Prairie Center lots
Summary
Earhart Construction proposed amending the Prairie Center Unit B planned unit development to permit five small warehouse/production units (about 11,000 sq ft each) with roughly 85% warehouse/15% office space on Lots 3 and 4; staff said a traffic study and public hearings will be required before any change is approved.
A developer told the West Chicago City Council on Monday evening that he plans to seek an amendment to the Prairie Center Unit B planned unit development to allow small warehouse and light-production uses on two vacant lots off East Roosevelt Road.
Corey Earhart, owner of Earhart Construction, said the plan for Lots 3 and 4 would replace an earlier office-focused approval with five units of about 11,000 square feet each and about 1,500 square feet of office per unit — a program he described as approximately 85% warehouse and 15% office. “We need storage and production space in the market that is not being met,” Earhart said, arguing the concept is aimed at small local contractors and service businesses rather than large distribution centers.
Planning staff told the council the property at 46470 East Roosevelt Road is currently zoned ORI (office/research/light industrial) and that the original PUD and final PUD approvals date to 2002 and 2004. Staff said the city’s future land use map designates the area for multifamily residential, and that any deviation from the PUD’s current ORI-only condition would require an explicit amendment to the PUD and follow the usual public process: a public hearing before the planning commission, commission recommendation, and required notification to property owners within 250 feet. “Two things would have to be amended,” the planning staff member said, describing both a revised site plan and language that would change the permitted-use restriction in the PUD.
Council members pressed the developer on operations and neighborhood impacts. Earhart said the design can meet dimensional standards and parking requirements, and that the project could include an eight-foot fence and landscaping to buffer adjacent apartments. On traffic, Earhart suggested the small-unit concept would generate less traffic than the two office buildings originally approved; planning staff interjected that a traffic study is a requirement for the amendment process. “If it’s a requirement, it’s a requirement,” Earhart said, and later confirmed he would perform the traffic study if required.
Members also asked about loading, outside storage and fire-protection systems. Earhart said the west side of the proposed buildings would accommodate large doors or a small loading area and that new construction would be required to meet fire suppression standards. Staff noted that the PUD amendment would need to clearly list permitted and prohibited uses — including whether outdoor storage would be allowed — and include screening or other controls where appropriate.
Council members who spoke during the discussion generally signaled conceptual support for moving forward to the formal application stage if the developer elects to prepare full plans. The chair asked for an unofficial show of interest and council members indicated conceptual interest in pursuing the amendment and further staff review.
Votes at a glance: The council approved the minutes from the Nov. 10 meeting as moved and seconded at the start of the session and later voted to adjourn; the clerk recorded affirmative responses for those items.
What’s next: If Earhart files a formal application, staff said the PUD amendment will advance through public hearings and the planning commission process, including mailed notice to nearby property owners and any studies required by municipal code.
