Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 08/22/2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, August 22, 2000 50 South Emerson Street 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Dennis Prikkel Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Irvana Wilks I1. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF JULY 25, 2000, SPECIAL MEETING OF AUGUST 1, 2000 AND AUGUST 8, 2000 II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. WISCONSIN CENTRAL/METRA NORTH CENTRAL COMMUTER LINE DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT-UPDATE Since 1995, when the Metra North Central Commuter Line began preparation for its start-up operations, the Mayor, Board of Trustees and staff have devoted hundreds of hours of time working with nearby residents, neighboring towns, transportation agencies and State and Federal Legislators to minimize the impact of rail operations (both freight and commuter) on the immediate community. These efforts have borne fruit with substantial changes being made to the original Double Tracking Plan. On April 5, 1999, Metre agreed to a Mitigation Plan (attached) which included among other things, the installation of the second track on the west side of the existing track, the extension of screening fences proportionately within the extension of the Prospect Heights' Station platform, closing the private rail crossing at Morrison Avenue and taking other steps that would minimize any requirement for whistle blowing at existing railroad grade crossings within the Village. All of these promises were incorporated into the engineering plans which were recently submitted to the Village for review. The Village has been informed by representatives from Metra that initial construction; i.e., roadbed grading, structure modifications and grade crossing reconfigurations will begin in September of this year (2000). At this time, staff is in a position to provide the Village Board with a detailed status report of the construction project, including implementation of the Mitigation Plan. The update will consist largely of an oral report made by appropriate staff. Once the status report is delivered to the Village Board, a Resident Information Bulletin (RIB) will be prepared and distributed to residents adjacent to the Wisconsin Central Railroad right-of-way. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion .NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTiClPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T I00 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. V. ROUTE 83 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - UPDATE Since the detour went on line April 21 of 2000, progress has been steady with the work, however, as with most construction projects, there have been a number of things that have come up during the process. As of this point, the project is considered on schedule and two-way traffic, at least one lane of two-way traffic, is expected to be in place by Thanksgiving based on the current pace of construction. The project is approximately two weeks behind on paving for the east side of the street and two weeks ahead on the west side of the street with the bridge currently being four weeks behind due to steel shortage and structural concrete shortage issues. IDOT has authorized overtime for the construction crews to complete the bridge on schedule once the necessary steel is in place. The permanent traffic signal installation, tree replanting and parkway restoration will likely not be completed this season but will promptly begin early next year. Overall, the communications with the residents along Route 83 has been very positive. There have been very few issues which have arisen with the residents themselves to date. A reconfiguration of the southbound merge has been instituted at the request of the ICC. One-way southbound now is in place north of Northwest Highway to reduce the number of lanes of traffic crossing the tracks on southbound Route 83. However, this reconfiguration still allows for right tums and left turns on Northwest Highway from southbound Route $3. A summary of the construction progress will be provided by Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker. As with the construction and traffic issues related to southbound Route 83, the Police Department has been heavily involved in traffic enforcement throughout the streets that have been affected by the detour. The Police Department has instituted extensive traffic enforcement along Emerson and other streets where traffic has been found to be cutting through the neighborhood. The traffic detail at Central and Northwest Highway has been cut back and some of the Officers have been reassigned to assisting traffic flow at Emerson and Prospect/Route 83. As one might imagine with the closing of the left turn from Prospect on to northbound 83, some traffic has shifted to Emerson and Police Officers have been involved in assisting in efficient traffic flow at the intersection. The Village Board has been receiving a weekly summary of traffic enforcement efforts along Emerson Street and the ancillary streets near the construction zone detailing the number of tickets and what the tickets were issued for. Sergeant John Dahlberg will be available to provide an overview of the Police enforcement efforts during the Route 83 construction to date. VI. MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ISSUES DISCUSSION Eady each year, staff polls Village Board members regarding topics the Board would like to discuss at Committee of the Whole meetings. One topic that generated substantial interest was the recent phenomenon of "residential tear downs." This redevelopment practice involved the purchasing of older, smaller homes in well-established neighborhoods and thereafter the homes were either demolished or completely engulfed with a substantially larger single family residence. While the Village has not yet experienced a significant "tear down" problem, a number of Chicagoland communities had and were studying the implementation of appropriate controls so that the essential character of existing neighborhoods was not detrimentally altered. Over the course of 2000, additional concerns regarding lot coverage restrictions and the size of garages also came to the forefront. Since each of these items relate to the redevelopment or improvement of existing structures, and in many cases are interrelated, staff is bdnging forward these issues for discussion as a group. Community Development Director Bill Cooney and his staff have prepared a memorandum outlining the salient points that should be considered with each of these subjects. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (2). "Collective negotiating matters between the public body and its employees or their representatives, or deliberations concerning salary schedules for one or more classes of employees." LITIGATION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (11 ). "Litigation, when an action against, affecting or on behalf of the particular public body has been filed and is pending before a court or administrative tribunal, or when the public body finds that an action is probable or imminent, in which case the basis for the finding shall be recorded and entered into the minutes of the closed meeting." PROPERTY ACQUISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body." H:\GEN\Cow~Agenda\082200 COW Agenda.doc MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JULY 25, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:32 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Dennis Prikkel and Irvana Wilks. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran and Michaele Skowron. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth, Community Development Director William Cooney, Public Information Officer Maura Jandris, Senior Planner Judy Connolly and Human Services Director Nancy Morgan. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from June 27, 2000. Motion was made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved unanimously. II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Jerry Sodaro, of Crystal Lane, spoke. He stated that he feels the Village Board should go to Referendum for the Village Hall. Mike Blackshere, Seven North Emerson, spoke. He wanted to inquire whether the left-turn prohibition from Prospect on to northbound Route 83 was permanent. He felt that this prohibition is forcing more traffic on Emerson and there are current traffic problems on Emerson regarding vehicles not obeying the speed limit. IV. VILLAGE HALL/SENIOR CENTER DISCUSSION Mayor Farley stated this is the beginning of a dialogue regarding the Village Hall and the future of the Village Hall. He stated there are several meetings that have been set aside to gather input from citizens but wanted to point out that there has been some discussion regarding the future of the Village Hall underway for some ten years. Other priorities have pushed the Village Hall question back in terms of priorities. However, with the current downtown redevelopment underway, the time has come for a final resolution regarding the Village Hall Village Manager Janonis stated that several studies have been undertaken to determine whether utilizing the existing structure is a viable possibility. The studies have all consistently stated there are significant space limitations and parking issues, which limit the functionality of the existing structure. The current Village Hall has redevelopment potential and there is a pumhase option currently attached to the property. He stated the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee report recommended redevelopment of the site and the existing TIF is set to expire in 2008 and will not be extended by vote of the Village Board. The Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee recommended several options for the Village Board to consider as part of its deliberations regarding the future of the structure. The Village Board needs to decide the next step including space planning and design and even if the decision were made today, the conclusion of a new structure would not be complete for several years. There is also a question regarding whether the Village Board should entertain a Referendum option. Mayor Farley stated that the Village Board has been provided a copy of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee recommendations and he anticipates the Village Board will explore each recommendation. Jerry Sodaro, of Crystal Lane, spoke. He stated that because of the size of the project, he feels the Village Board should go to a Referendum since other taxing bodies have used Referendums in the past. He also questioned whether the Village has considered leasing space at another location. Retired Brigadier General Charles Corcilius, 1809 Andoa Lane, spoke. He stated that he has recently used the Senior Center after his retirement and was appreciative of the services that are provided there. He also felt the Village Board should consider going to a Referendum and the two buildings should be tied together. Dave Toeppen, of 409 South Hi-Lusi, spoke. He suggested the Village Board approach Norwood to utilize space for Village services and that any new building not be constructed on the existing Village Hall site. Joan Harcharick, of 102 Stevenson, spoke. She is concerned that a decision regarding where the seniors were going to go should be formulated before any decision regarding tearing down the existing Senior Center is undertaken. Village Manager Janonis stated that previous discussions among the Village Board and staff have always focused on a combined Village Hall/Senior Center. He stated the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee was charged with formulating recommendations based on community needs. He highlighted the fact that a stand alone Senior Center would be an additional expense. He also stated that at no point has it been considered that Human Services Department and senior services be eliminated from the services provided by the Village. Staff has reviewed how other senior centers operate and there will not be any removal of the existing Senior Center until a substitute location is in place. Virginia Mulvey spoke. She suggested that the Senior Center be left alone and build a new Village Hall somewhere else and also go to Referendum to determine that expenditure. Jackie Hinaber, of the Mount Prospect Public Library, spoke. She asked whether there had been any review of Senior Centers that were part of any existing Village Halls in the area. She also stated that she felt it was important that Human Services and senior activities continue in some fashion. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: Several Board members acknowledged the fact that senior services would continue and the Board would not turn their back on the seniors. There was also a comment that there is a need to take advantage of the rising property values in the downtown by redeveloping the Village Hall site. It was noted that the Senior Center and Village Hall have significant limitations and the fact that the Senior Center does provide some services beyond just recreational activities. While the Park District could undertake some of the services currently provided, it may not be feasible for all services to be transferred to one of the Park Districts. There was some concern regarding parking and access in addition to proposed green space. Some concern was raised regarding a multi-story parking garage in the center of downtown and there was some discussion regarding the possibility of a community center on the third floor of the Public Library site. It was acknowledged that there is a shortage of parking in the downtown area including the Village Hall and the current Senior Center. There was also some discussion regarding the use of the Bank One parking lot. Virginia Tyler spoke. She suggested that parking should be attached to the building and any possible evacuation plans include direct exit on to the parking level without utilizing stairwells. Mary Johnson, 215 South Emerson, spoke. She stated that according to the CIP document, the anticipated cost does not match up with the debt retirement schedule as outlined. She also was wondering why the project is being considered at 45,000 square feet and what the projected costs would be at that amount of square footage. Village Manager Janonis stated the financing review options are provided as general information to consider as debt capacity is obtained through retirement of previous bonds. He stated that Property Tax has been used to finance public buildings in the past, however, other large projects have utilized other revenue sources. Depending on the decision of the Board in terms of timing for construction, it may be necessary to bridge the gap between when bond capacity becomes available and when it is necessary for the funds to start construction. He stated the Village would look at Grants to assist in the financing of any project. He stated it is critical that everyone realize that the Village is in competition with other towns in the area and it is important to be able to provide services in a manner consistent with other communities. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that in order to get the Whistle Order temporarily lifted, it was necessary to prohibit left-turn lanes from eastbound Prospect on to northbound Route 83. Staff and ICC are in discussions regarding possible long-term solutions for the intersection. He also stated that as of this evening, MPTV is now being broadcast over the Ameritech Cable system in addition to AT&T. VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert inquired regarding the development proposal at the corner of Rand and Louis which is currently under discussion. He stated that there have been some statements which have been forwarded to him regarding comments from real estate agents stating the Village staff rejected residential projects on this site. Community Development Director William Cooney stated there have been no residential proposals presented to staff for this site. Trustee Prikkel inquired regarding the status of the construction around the railroad right-of-way in the downtown portion of the Village. Village Manager Janonis stated that he is not entirely clear as to how much longer the process will take but it is being monitored by appropriate staff to ensure compliance with appropriate Village Codes. II. ADJOURNMENT No other business was transacted and the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/mc H:\GEN\Cow\Minutes\072500 COW Minutes.doc MINUTES SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING August '1, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 8:47 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Dennis Prikkel, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Will~s. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth, Community Development Director William Cooney, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Clerk Velma Lowe and Human Services Director Nancy Morgan. I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no Minutes to be approved. Ill. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. VILLAGE HALL/SENIOR CENTER DISCUSSION Mayor Farley stated that he would welcome any speakers who would like to present comments regarding this topic if they are new speakers and have not come forward during the previous meeting. John Korn, Chairman of the Finance Commission, 301 North William, spoke. He stated the Finance Commission has voted unanimously to move forward with the new Village Hall/Senior Center without utilizing a Referendum. He stated the timing is appropriate to move forward at this time and all members endorse the recommendation. Carol Tortorello, 223 South Elmhurst, spoke. She stated that she has a vision of a strong downtown anchored by a Village Hall and suggested putting parking on the Bank parking lot and find community space through the Park District for the recreational services currently provided at the Senior Center. She stated the Village Board has previously utilized tax dollars for flood and road improvements without Referendum and does not feel it is necessary that a Referendum be undertaken in this instance. Allen Enberg, 1801 Hopi Lane, spoke. He stated the Board is not considering the proper issues and felt the question that should be undertaken is how will services be provided over the next 50 years. He stated the Board and staff should see themselves as service providers and felt the Village has jumped ahead into the predesign phase without doing proper analysis. He stated there should be some review of how the private sector utilizes Internet services for multi-functional rooms and employees. He stated it is possible to conduct all business remotely and allow employees to work from home and reduce the projected 25,000 square foot footprint. Jim Bornhoeft, spoke. He suggested building a second floor in the Mount Prospect Public Library for the Village Hall and leaving the Senior Center alone. He stated that the Village of Barrington has currently undertaken a citizens' survey to see what residents want and felt that Mount Prospect should do the same to determine what the residents want. He also stated that he owns an apartment building in the community and has refused to turn the building into single family homes. Ruth Haut, 400 East Berkshire, spoke. She stated that some seniors feel the decision is cut and dry and has grave concerns about the access to the ground floor for the seniors. Why not keep the Senior Center where it is and have the Village Hall be built somewhere else. Rita Waters, 109 South Maple, spoke. She stated she is a newer resident and is concerned about putting seniors on a floor that is not on the ground level. Corinne Rusteberg, 509 Deborah Lane, spoke. She stated that she would prefer that the Senior Center be a stand-alone facility and not be in conjunction with a Village Hall or the Public Library. Hal Dietsche, 201 East Berkshire Lane, spoke. He stated that he has concerns about combining the Village Hall with the Senior Center and there could be disruptions to Senior Center activities during the construction as proposed. Leo Floros, 111 North Emerson, spoke. He stated this is a critical issue and it is necessary to get this project moving without a Referendum. He stated one example was when the Village took a bold step when it undertook Lake Michigan water without a Referendum. He also stated that the Village should discuss with the Library the need to finish the second floor at the facility because he feels that if it is not done now, it will never get done. He stated this topic has been under discussion long enough and it is necessary to move forward and it is important for the community to complete. Bill Blaine, '119 North Emerson, spoke. He supports the comments that Leo Floros had made. He stated that as a member of District 214, he has noticed a positive integration of youth and seniors through the Community Education Program and would suggest the Board consider a community center approach. He stated that it is important to include all segments of the population. He would also suggest that green space be protected as much as possible. He stated he does not feel it is necessary for a Referendum. Mayor Farley stated that the Village Board would consider the recommendations from the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee report and comments from residents. Village Manager Janonis stated there has been discussion on the Village Hall for at least ten years and previous studies have shown the current Village Hall as inadequate and the expense to bring it up to date will not solve all the issues that current exist. He stated it is a policy decision regarding whether the Senior Center activities should be combined with the Village Hall. He stated that ultimately a space study and needs analysis will need to be undertaken so that some narrowing of options is considered and decisions can be made from those options. He stated as we stand today, it is at least 18 to 24 months before construction would start and nothing will happen to the Senior Center until an alternative site has been identified. He stated there are three financing options since the Village does not have the available cash on hand to construct a Village Hall/Senior Center. One option is that once the bonds are paid off in 2006 for the Police and Fire building and Public Works facility, approximately $9 million will be available in terms of debt capacity. Another option would be to raise Property Tax to cover the debt service costs until 2006 when the debt capacity becomes available. The final option would be to structure the debt issue and capitalize interest until the debt capacity becomes available which would increase the cost of the project. He stated a good benchmark to keep in mind is that for every $100,000 in annual debt service the acceptance the Board is willing to assume equates to approximately $1 million in debt funds available for use. He stated in order to bridge the gap until the debt capacity becomes available, it would be necessary to increase the Property Tax by two cents as a one-time increase to cover the cost until the debt capacity becomes available. He stated that more discussion regarding financing is yet to come but would suggest placing sufficient funds in the 2001 Budget to engage professionals to formulate the necessary plans in preparation of construction. Village Manager Janonis suggest that the Village Board undertake the discussion of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. The first recommendation from the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee was to build the Villa-oe Hall on Parcel B in the downtown. Consensus of the Village Board was to construct a new Village Hall in the downtown utilizing Parcel B which is the current site of the Senior Center. Recommendations 3 and 7 deal with green space. The recommendation is to maximize the use of _oreen space in Parcel B and to create a footprint which enhances green space on the pamel. Consensus of the Village Board was to support these recommendations. Recommendation 9 was that an.v future Villa_oe Hall buildin_o should not adversely impact an.v future Mount Prospect Libra~ expansion. Consensus of the Village Board was to support this recommendation. Recommendation 11. Pamel C. the current site of the Village Hall. should be redeveloped and added to the tax roles. Consensus of the Village Board was to support this recommendation. Discussion re_eardin-o Recommendation 4 regardin-o an.v parking that may be considered for Parcel B should be below grade. General discussion from the Village Board members included the following items: it was suggested that one grade below and two levels above for parking be considered. It was also suggested that parking not be above ground on the parcel to enhance curb appeal of the building. There was also some concern about a parking deck in the center of the downtown. A discussion regarding the possible use of the Bank One parking lot and its ability to be redeveloped as a parking structure was discussed. Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the parking needs for the Village Hall have been estimated at approximately 150 spaces plus an additional 75 to 100 spaces for the Bank parking if it were to be relocated from across the street. Metra and commuter parking would account for approximately 100 spaces and remaining spaces would be available for Library and business parking for the downtown. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider one grade below and three levels of parking above grade for Parcel B. The consensus was not unanimous and additional discussion has been suggested to further delineate the parking needs for the site. 4 Laura Luteri, President of the Mount Prospect Library Board, spoke. She stated that she is appreciative of the Village Board regarding inclusion of any Library parking so it does not compromise dock loading/unloading needs for the Library. Discussion of Recommendation 5 that states no space should be reserved for recreational droD-in activities in a new Village Hall. Jeff Bruner, Chairman of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee, spoke. He defined the recommendation regarding the recreational drop-in as space specifically reserved for recreational activities in an administrative facility. There was extensive discussion regarding the various activities of the Senior Center and how those elements related to a Village Hall and whether an appropriate use of the Village Hall should include reserved recreational space. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider this option more fully at its next meeting on August 8 and attempt to dispose of the Referendum question at that meeting. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT None. VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. Closed Session Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to move into Closed Session to discuss Personnel and Property Acquisition. Committee of the Whole recessed into Closed Session at 10:28 p.m. being reconvened into Open Session at 11:00 p.m. VII. ADJOURNMENT No other business was transacted and the meeting was adjourned at 11:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted,, ~ DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/mc H:\GEN\Cow~Minutes\080100 Special COW Minutes.doc 5 MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 8, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:36 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Dennis Prikkel, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Police Chief Ronald PavIock, Deputy Police Chief Ron Richardson, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, Deputy Human Services Director Jan Abernethy, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Blue, Fire Chief Michael Figolah and Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm. I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Acceptance of Minutes from July 25, 2000 and acceptance of Minutes from August 1,2000 Special Committee of the Whole meeting were deferred because they are not available at this time. II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Carla Kozak, 227 North William, spoke. She stated she is a long-term resident and had lawn decorationss recently stolen from her front property. She stated she is concerned that people do not have respect for personal property and has been forced to chain lawn objects down to keep them from being stolen. IV. VILLAGE HALL/SENIOR CENTER DISCUSSION Mayor Farley stated that he wanted to correct some discussion that was undertaken last week regarding the Senior Center and senior activities. He stated there will be some type of Senior Center in the Village as far as he is concerned. Frank Vlazny, 2103 Jody Court, spoke. He stated that he is currently in the Arlington Heights Park District and is taxed for the Arlington Heights Senior Center. He stated that there should be some discussion regarding multiple taxing bodies and if he is to be taxed again for the Mount Prospect Senior Center, he feels that such taxation is excessive. Village Manager Janonis suggested the discussion continue regarding the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. He provided a general overview of the previously discussed recommendations. The outstanding items yet to be discussed are the combination of the Village Hall/Mount Prospect Public Library, combination of Village Hall/School District 57 Administrative Offices and space for senior activities. Recommendation # 1-Discussion of Combination Village Hall/Mount Prospect Public Library_ Frank Vlazny, 2103 Jody Court, spoke. He stated that he has concerns about supporting School District 57 Administrative building when he lives in School District 59. Trustee Prikkel clarified the point that District 57 would pay its fair share for space if, in fact, they were to utilize the space and it is required that any Administrative Offices remain within the respective School District boundaries. Hal Ettinger, 415 North Maple, spoke. He stated that he was a participant in the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee meeting and feels that there are some efficiencies that can be built into a Library and there should be some consideration about expanding the Library to the south to include a Village Hall. Don Harmon, 16 North William, spoke. He stated the Village Hall building should be a stand-alone building and School District 57 and the Library should maintain their own facilities. He also stated that he felt the Senior Center should be a separate facility and the respective Park Districts should maintain senior activities. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was some concern regarding the combination of functions of the Library and the Village Hall operating under the same roof. It was also stated there are some economies of construction and dual utilization of meeting spaces depending on amhitectural considerations. There was also some discussion regarding priodtization of preferred floor locations within the building acknowledging the fact that the majority of users want to use the first floor of any structure. Consensus of the Village Board was to not include the Village Hall as part of the existing Mount Prospect Public Library structure. Consensus was unanimous. 2 Recommendation #2-Consideration of Village Hall and District 57 Administrative Space Village Manager Janonis noted that District 57 would be required to pay its fair- share if, in fact, it were to participate in the process. Mary Johnson, 215 South Emerson, spoke. She wanted to know whether District 57 even has the money currently to purchase administrative space without a Referendum. Mary Lynn Bower, One East Lonnquist, spoke. She is a member of the School District 57 Board. She stated the School Board is currently discussing whether to put a Referendum question on the Ballot for November or not. She stated there is a need to address the administration needs of the School District in the near future. She also stated there is a general assumption that paying for a part of the Village Hall would be less expensive than building their own stand- alone building and leasing would be more expensive in the long run based on their analysis. She also stated there have been provisions that have been discussed regarding the use of a loading dock at another School District facility. She also stated the School District would be interested in combining meeting space if it were available with the Village. Ann Smilanic, 409 CanDota, spoke. She voiced some concerns regarding the parking needs of School District 57 in relation to the parking needs of the Village. Village Manager Janonis stated that discussions with School District 57 could continue to clarify additional issues whereby an informed decision could be made by both the School Board and the Village Board regarding a combination facility. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider exploring a shared facility with School District 57 and the Village Hall. Consensus was unanimous. Recommendation #3-Inclusion of Recreational Drop-In Activities in a New Village Hall. Village Manager Janonis stated the Downtown Ad Hoc Committee had recommended combining the Village Hall with the Senior Center and the Village staff has followed that lead in all of its previous discussions. Ultimately, it will be a function of design whether the Senior Center is attached or included within the Village Hall space itself. Virginia Tyler, a member of the Senior Advisory Council, spoke. She stated the Senior Center is more than just recreational services. There are numerous seniors that assist as volunteers to provide services along with Human Services staff. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that it is important to consider what functions should be considered for the first floor of a new facility and the square footage necessary per floor. While it makes sense that seniors should have first-floor access for some services, theirs may be a need to put additional services on different floors. Ann Smilanic, 409 CanDota, spoke. She provided a definition of recreational drop-in activities as space for individuals to undertake recreational activity in space that is reserved solely for recreational purposes. She stated the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee did acknowledge theirs are other services provided by Human Services beyond just senior recreational services. She stated the Village Hall provides services for all residents and recreational services airs provided by another entity. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Theirs was a brief discussion regarding possible compromise in terms of definitions regarding a community-wide activity center versus a senior center. Theirs was also some discussion by Trustees that felt a senior center would evolve into a community center regardless of the title that was put on the structure. It was also acknowledged that the charge of the various Park Districts in the community is recreational activities not the Village's responsibility, however, due to the many different Districts in the community, theirs has been an understanding that a central consolidation be considered. It was also stated the building must be functional and the consideration for recreational services should not diminish the functionality of the structure that is necessary to provide services to the overall Village. Consensus of the Village Board was to continue to pursue the opportunity to include senior activities as part of a new Village Hall and discuss further how the incorporation of such a facility would be handled with administrative offices and needs of a Village Hall. Hal Ettinger, 4'15 North Maple, spoke. He stated that he has concerns that if a 50-year building is to be constructed, he questions why it is necessary to duplicate some services that airs provided elsewhere; i.e., recreational services. He stated that he is concerned that such an undertaking will be extremely expensive and the parking and the senior activities will drive the site not the primary objective of administration. He also felt the dynamics of senior activities will change over time and constructing a facility to incorporate existing recreational services will limit the future flexibility of the structure. Recommendation #-4-Undertake a discussion with the Village Board and Mount Prospect Public Library. Board to determine whether the Public Library_ expansion can be concluded at approximately the same time as the Village Hall. Village Manager Janonis stated the Library Board will have to decide on progress of their facility on their own. In terms of the Referendum question issue, Mr. Janonis suggested that it will be 18 months minimum before ground is even broken for a new facility. Therefore, it may not be necessary to consider a Referendum question for November 2000. Until more design and review work is undertaken, it will be very difficult to discuss a Referendum issue without knowing the parameters of the expense. Consensus of the Village Board was to defer the Referendum question at this time. However, the Board did direct the Village Manager to undertake the necessary steps to conduct a space plan and possible architectural renderings as part of the 2001 Budget year. V. 2000 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW Finance Director Doug EIIsworth provided an overview of Revenues and Expenditures through June 30 and stated the Village is in a good financial position because predictions are approximately on target. Revenues are expected to come in slightly above projections primarily due to Sales Tax revenues being much stronger than anticipated, however, by the end of the year, he feels the Sales Tax revenues will likely flatten out to incorporate a 7% Sales Tax increase for the year. He also mentioned pending litigation regarding the Infrastructure Maintenance Fee with some wireless providers, the City of Chicago and the Village of Skokie. If such a revenue source were to be removed from the Village, the Village would lose approximately $130,000. He also highlighted several areas which will likely come in over Budget including the additional $25,000 the Village Board has previously authorized for the increased cost of the Village Newsletter for the rest of the fiscal year. He also stated the Public Works Department Budget is over budget by some $200,000 primarily because of the storm clean up from the May windstorm. He also stated the Sister Cities' expenses were $8,500 higher than the approved budget, however, approximately $7,600 of unbudgeted revenue will help offset this expenditure. VI. 2001 BUDGET FORECAST Finance Director Doug EIIsworth stated that he expects revenues to come in slightly ahead with minor increases in expenditures very close to previous predictions. He is anticipating a Police Pension cost increase as mandated through legislation which will amount to an additional $100,000 in cost to the Village. He stated the original 2001 Forecast did not include new personnel but as of this point, there are likely requests for additional personnel for the Village Board to consider. He also highlighted the worksheet where Village Board members could request items to be considered for the upcoming Budget year. Village Manager Janonis stated that the new personnel that are anticipated to be brought before the Board are a Human Resources Director and additional Fire Department personnel as outlined in the Five-Year Plan of the Fire Department. He also stated there is a pending policy question about the frequency that the State and County mow area rights-of-way throughout the community. The frequency of the mowing is such that the grass gets excessively long; therefore, the Public Works Department surveyed the various rights-of-way and found that 31 locations should be considered for mowing at an additional cost of $10,000 which would be covered under a contractual basis. He suggested this item be considered by the Village Board as part of the 2001 Budget. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis reminded the television audience and Village Board that an upcoming Coffee with Council is scheduled for August 12 from 9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. at the Village Hall. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert asked whether there are regulations regarding fences that face major streets primarily Central Road since some fences show the smooth side and some show the post side. Village Manager Janonis stated he would follow-up on that item. CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Prikkel to move into Closed Session. Meeting adjourned into Closed Session at 10:03 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 11:58 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT No other business was transacted and the meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc H:\GEN\Cow~Minutes\080800 COW Minutes.doc METRA NORTH CENTRAL LINE DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT REVISED MITIGATION PLAN APRIL 5, 1999 In conjunction with Metra's plan to add a second track along the WisconSin Central Right-of-Way, the following Mitigation Plan has been proposed: Metra will: · Install the second track on the west side of the existing track. · Extend the platform screening fence proportionately with any extension of the Prospect Heights station platform. · Close the private rail crossing at Morrison Avenue. · Install non-movable barriers at all grade crossings between Kensington Road and Willow Road. (The latter two items should help to substantially reduce the incidence of whistle blowing.) With the west side second track placement, Metra will no longer offer to install privacy fencing or landscaping along the rear property: lines of homes abutting the Wisconsin Central Right-of-Way. OFFICE: MAILING ADDRESS: One O'Hare Centre P,O. Box 5062 6250 North River Road Rosemont, IL 60017-5062 Suite 9000 Rosemont, IL 60018 Tel, (847) 318-4600 Date: March26, 1999 File: Mt. Prospect, IL Mrl J. Patrick McAtee Sr., Dir., Plan. & Development METRA Real Estate & Planning 547 W. Jackson Blvd Chicago, IL 60661 RE: Second track through Mt. Prospec~ Dear Mr. McAtee: WCL has reviewed preliminary plans indicating the new second track on the WCL property through Mt. Prospect installed Westerly of the existing WCL track and is agreeable to this plan. WCL understands why this West side alignment is necessary and agrees that the plan will work from a railroad standpoint. WCL will agree to remove the mandatory whistle blowing requirement at Morrison Avenue if the crossing is removed. The current WCL timetable does not have mandatory whistle blowing from Forest Park to Camp McDonald Road with the exception of Morrison Avenue. Sincerely, Vice President - Engineering Ed Terbell Vice President - General Manager P:\WPFILES\MCATEE.LTR/gj k.dsk2 MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMAL MEMORANDUM CHF 00-81 CONTROL NUMBER FROM: CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD W. PAVLOCK DATE: 17 AUGUST 00 SUBJECT: ROUTE 83 RE-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT This is a brief summary of the Route 83 m-construction project focusing on the police department's efforts to maintain an orderly traffic flow since the project onset thru today's date. · Start Date-April 21, 2000 · 5 officers are assigned on an overtime basis to direct traffic at the intersection of Central Road and Route 14. It is projected that the intersection will need these officers during morning and evening rush hours throughout the six month long project. · Sergeant John Dahlberg closely monitored the re-construction project and he started to attend weekly project meetings with various Village departments and construction superintendent. · Plans are formulated to assign at least two officers to patrol and aggressively enforce traffic violations in and around the construction zone. During both 7-3 and 3-11 shifts emphasis is placed on controlling the use of side streets by large trucks associated with the re-construction project. · Officers issue warnings to motorists in initial phase of enforcement in an effort to get them to comply with traffic laws and adhere to posted detour. · Change in traffic direction hours- April 27, 2000 · After re-evaluation traffic direction hours are changed from 7:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. New hours 7:15 a.m. - 9:15 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. to better reflect rush hour times. · Enforcement efforts continue as complaints surface via hotline, mainly from residents over increased traffic and motorists violations. · S.M.A.R.T. (speed monitoring) trailer permanently assigned to Emerson street south of Prospect Avenue. A marked squad (drone) is equipped and permanently assigned to problem intersections. · Gas main ruptured by construction crews- May 23, 2000 Page 1 of 3 MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT CHF00-81 FORMAL MEMORANDUM CONTROL NUMBER · Construction crews ruptured a gas main at Route 83 and Sunset Road intersection: Route 83 shut down completely from 11:45 a.m.- 4:00 p.m. for repair. · Officers are assigned to Golf Road and Route 83, Prospect Avenue and Route 83 during shut down to re-route traffic. · Train vs. auto accident- June 14, 2000 · A train vs. car accident occurred at Prospect Avenue and Route 83. Driver, an elderly female is slightly injured as she turned left from Prospect Avenue to northbound Route 83. It is determined through witnesses that she drove around downed railroad gates. · It is not felt that Route 83 project contributed to accident. · Train vs. auto accident-July 12, 2000 · Nearly identical train vs. auto accident (June 14, 2000) occurred at Prospect Avenue and Route 83. A 51-year-old female drove her vehicle around downed gate and is struck by eastbound Metra train. Woman is fatally injured. · Reduction of police officers - July 13, 2000 · A decision was made to reduce the number of officers assigned to Central Road and Route 14 intersection to a total of 3. This was due to a reconfiguration of the traffic light intervals thereby reducing traffic back-ups at the intersection. This allowed the fourth officer to be assigned to general enforcement in the area of Route 83 and Prospect Avenue. · The week following the July 12, 2000 train vs. auto accident, the I.C.C. initiated a whistle blowing program at all crossings in Mount Prospect. · The I.C.C. along.with Mount Prospect officials stdke a compromise to shut down the left turn lane from Prospect Avenue to northbound Route 83 where two recent accidents occurred. Officers are assigned to direct traffic at the intersections of Emerson Street and Prospect Avenue and Route 83 and Prospect Avenue to control traffic flow. Traffic direction is done from morning rush hour through evening rush hour for approximately one week. · Left turn lane at Prospect Avenue to northbound Route 83 shut down on a permanent basis. Constant daily monitoring and enforcement of no left turn remains in place. Zero tolerance for violations adhered to by assigned officers. · Reduction of police officers - July 24, 2000 · A decision is made to reduce traffic direction at Central Road and Route 14. One officer continues to monitor and direct traffic as needed. Two remaining officers assigned to patrol construction area for traffic enforcement. Page 2 of 3 MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT CHFO0-81 FORMAL MEMORANDUM CONTROL NUMBER · Officers from day shift and evening shift are permanently assigned to monitor the left turn lane at Prospect Avenue and Route 83. · Gas main ruptured by construction crews- August 16, 2000 · Construction crews ruptured a gas main at Milburn Avenue and Main Street. Route 83 shut down completely from 2:30 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. · Officers are assigned to Golf road and Route 83, Prospect Avenue and Route 83 during shut down to re-route traffic. In conclusion, during the period from 24 April to the present there has been continual monitoring of the Route 83 re-construction project. On occasions, Route 83 has been closed to allow for concrete pouring etc. During these periods, Sergeant Dahlberg has been assigned to coordinate department efforts. In addition, all citizen complaints and concerns have been addressed. Strategy sessions have been held with other outside agencies and Village departments to provide the best service during this large construction project. RWP/cjr Page 3 of 3 Illinois Department of Transportation Informal Transmittal 201 West Center Court Schaumburg, IL 60196-1096 To: Dave Strahl From: Jeffrey J. Juliano Bureau: Village of Mount Prospect Bureau: Traffic Attn: Temporary Traffic Control Subject: Revised Traffic Staging for IL 83 Date: I8/17/00 I and US 14 Please check appropriate box below: [] Take Necessary Action [] For Your Information [] Reply [] For Your Comments [] See Me About the Attached [] Return [] Per Your Request [] Draft (Letter)(Memo) For [] Route [] For Your Approval My signature [] File Message:',,,,, . , '.. ,,":" ' ',. , , . .' ..., .. ...'..' i would like to thank everyone for attending the field meeting on 8/10 at IL 83 and US 14. With all the helpful comments from everybody I think we have come up with a simple but very effective solution to the situation. Attached is a small plan of the changes we have made. If there are any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (847) 705-4093. Thanks Again, Jeffrey J. Juliano Response Signature transrnem - Revised 2/19/98 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN DATE: AUGUST 14, 2000 SUBJECT: EMERSON STREET TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT Due to the numerous complaints that were heard from residents at the June l0th Coffee with Council, the Village Administration and Police Department cooperated to increase traffic enforcement on Emerson Street and the surrounding area. The fast table below highlights the enforcement efforts that has occurred on South Emerson Street between Golf Road and Prospect Avenue for the week of August 7, the second table is a total of all nine weeks. For greater detail concerning enforcement efforts refer to the attached spreadsheet. Due to recent complaints from citizens concerned with increased traffic on surrounding streets from motorists avoiding the police enforcement onEmerson, Police have increased enforcement efforts on the surrounding streets. The spreadsheet from the week of August 7 will reflect the increased effort in the column named "surrounding are~" The focus of this report as previously stated is South Emerson St., however enforcement efforts are also occurring at other areas that have become alternate routes due to the Route 83 construction. Week of 8/7 to 8/13 Total No. of No. of tickets No. of tickets No. of tickets No. of verbal No. of tickets tickets issued for issued: speeding issued: 15+mph issued: stop sign warnings issued issued to Mount traffic violations 10-14mph over over limit violation Prospect limit residents 16 0 6 l0 0 6 Total of ail five weeks 6/13 to 8/7 Total No. of No. of tickets No. of tickets No. of tickets No. of tickets No. of No. of verbal No. of tickets tickets issued issued: speeding issued: issued: stop sign issued: Traffic warnings issued to for traffic 10-14mph over 15+mph over violation improper signal issued Mount violations limit speed limit passing violations Prospect residents 198 17 59 119 2 1 37 109 The traffic enforcement will continue and the table above and attached spreadsheet will be changed to reflect the progress of the traffic enforcement. If you have any questions please contact the Village Manager's office. JASON H. LEIB H:\GENkRoute 83kEmerson Street Traffic Enforcement Memo.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM COONEY, JR., AICP, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL BLUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING ISSUES FOR VILLAGE BOARD DISCUSSION Recently, several residential zoning issues before the Village Board have raised questions about how our Zoning Code addresses certain situations. This memorandum describes issues raised by 1) lot coverage in residential areas, 2) tear downs and additions, and 3) oversized garages. The memo has been prepared as background information for a Village Board Committee of the Whole meeting to be held on August 22, 2000. LOT COVERAGE Lot coverage is the portion of a property covered by some type of structure. The structures included in the calculation are defined though a municipality's zoning ordinance. In Mount Prospect, the standard of lot coverage includes items that are considered as impervious surfaces - those that do not allow water to flow through them. "Impervious Surface" is defined in both the zoning ordinance and development code as follo~vs: "A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by storm water. Such surfaces include hard pavements, such as concrete, asphalt, brick, slate, gravel and boulders; wood decks and structures." Each zoning district in the Mount Prospect zoning ordinance includes permitted lot coverage. Text of the districts typically notes that no lot shall be developed with a total impervious surface exceeding the set ratio. Those ratios are: CR - Conservation Recreation 25% B 1 - Business Office 75% RX - Single Family Residence 35% B2 - Neighborhood Shopping 75% R1 - Single Family Residence 45% B3 - Community Shopping 75% RA - Single Family Residence 50% B4 - Corridor Commercial 75% R2 - Attached S/F Residence 50% B5 - Central Commemial 100%: R3 - Low Density Residence 50% O/R- Office/Research 80% R4 - Multi Family Residence 50% I 1 - Limited Industrial 75% R5 - Senior Citizen Residence 75% Why is lot coverage a concern? Lot coverage is regulated through Village codes for two reasons: 1) to limit stormwater runoff from any given site onto adjacent properties and 2) for aesthetic reasons, to limit the impact on a neighborhood or commercial area of excessive parts ora lot being covered by buildings and hard surfaces. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 2 Stormwater management is a longstanding issue in the Village. For obvious reasons, residents and property owners are very concerned about potential storm water impacts created by adjacent properties. Stormwater runoff is controlled by both the zoning and development codes. In short, water that arrives on a site (rainfall) must be contained on site or conveyed to part of the Village's stormwater management system - storm sewers, creeks, detention ponds, etc. Other regulations that control the impact of stormwater flow from one property to the next include requirements to point residential downspouts away from neighboring properties and requiring a permit for site work that changes the grade of a property. The Engineering Division in the Public Works Department generally addresses these regulations, and their related inspections. The relationship of aesthetics to lot coverage is somewhat more subjective. However, the intent of lot coverage in this regard is to limit a property from being covered excessively with pavement and/or accessory structures. The thought of a residential front yard paved completely, or a rear yard completely covered by a shed, patio, deck, etc. makes for an extreme example, but does give a clear idea of why the regulation is needed. Likewise, the appearance of a commercial parking lot covered property line to property line with asphalt creates a negative streetscape along our commercial corridors. In most zoning ordinances, including ours, commercial parking lots must provide perimeter and interior landscaping. Residents' Needs Recent zoning cases and requests at the Building Division Customer Service Counter show tl~at resident requests regarding lot coverage are: 1) requests to "remove and replace" existing patios, sidewalks, decks, etc. that are nonconforming with zoning requirements and 2) addition of new or larger patios, decks, etc. that bring the total lot coverage ratio over the maximum allowed. These rather frequent requests indicate that there is a common desire to increase the lot coverage ratio, or at least permit exceptions for inquiring residents. Properties that were developed in unincorporated areas and then annexed to the Village are often nonconforming as they relate to lot coverage, Likewise, some properties may have been developed prior to the establishment of current zoning standards. In any case, the existing conditions are permitted to remain as nonconforming structures per the zoning ordinance (Section 14.402). That section allows these nonconforming patios, driveways, and sidewalks to be replaced in their same location - even if they do not comply with setback regulations. However, they must meet applicable lot coverage requirements (14.402.B). This requirement has prevented a number of residents from removing patios, driveways, and sidewalks, and replacing them in the same location. In some cases the replacement is to correct an area that is severely cracked, sometimes to the point of being a trip hazard. Property owners seeking to install new or enlarged patios, sidewalks, or driveways, decks, etc. also run into the maximum lot coverage ratio - even when the improvements conform to setback requirements. While the code is clear in defining the standard, residents are often disappointed that desired improvements to their property are limited. Where the desired lot coverage ratio is close to the permitted level and a hardship can be identifted, residents occasionally pursue a zoning variation to allow them to exceed the standards. It should be noted that the same types of lot coverage issues arise for commercial development - even though in those cases the lot coverage ratio is higher to allow for needed parking and loading dock areas. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Neighboring Communities - Other communities address the question of lot coverage in a similar manner. However, they typically include buildings, accessory structures, and decks while excluding driveways, patios and sidewalks. This approach can be thought of as a "building coverage ratio". Those ratios in adjacent communities Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 3 range from 25% to 40%, depending on lot sizes. A survey summary and copy of survey questions are included in Attachment A: Credits for Certain Materials - Giving a credit for what might be called a "semi-pervious" surface has been suggested as a way to allow residents to exceed the lot coverage ratio. As an example, while the square footage of a concrete patio might be applied completely to the lot coverage ratio, only 80% of the square footage of a brick paver patio would be applied. This approach has merit in regard to the aesthetics issue of lot coverage, but would require consensus on how to set the ratios. However, this would be a subjective process and one that has room for many variations. For example, assume the Village decided that brick pavers are more attractive than concrete and should be considered at 80% of their square footage for sidewalks, patios and driveways in regard to lot coverage. This would create legitimate questions regarding the aesthetic value of concrete that can be dyed and/or stamped to resemble brick pavers and like materials. It would also create the problem of tracking and regulating any future requests to go from a brick patio or sidewalk that received the credit back to concrete, which would require that less surface be installed. From the perspective of stormwater management, assigning a credit to seemingly less pervious surfaces is not an acceptable alternative for several reasons. 1. Moderate to severe storms are analyzed in determining storm sewer sizes and detention basin designs. These storms are characterized by short durations and high intensities. The rate at which water will infiltrate into even a permeable surface is so slow as to be insignificant when compared to the rate that stormwater accumulates and runs off. For example, concrete is actually permeable - it soaks up water. However, the rate at which water soaks into concrete is too slow to have any impact on analyzing stormwater runoff. While the other materials defined as impervious absorb water quicker than concrete, the rate is still too slow to have a significant impact. 2. Water moving through and/or under a pervious pavement will undermine the pavement by washing away the fine particles in the base. Also, water acting in the freeze-thaw cycle can break up pavement. Consequently, all pavement types are installed in such a way as to minimize the amount of water infiltrating the pavement. Even the base below and aggregate bet~veen brick pavers is compacted (in part) to prevent the movement of water. 3. In many cases, an impervious layer is installed below the surface in question. For example, one common method of installing brick pavers is to place them over concrete to keep them level and in place. Another example is the installation of a layer of plastic below wood decks to prevent nuisance plant growth. Thus the level of impermeability is greater than would appear from the surface. Remove and Replace - Amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit residential property owners to remove and replace certain nonconforming structures would let them make in-kind replacements of existing patios, driveways, sidewalks, and decks that met all zoning standards except for lot coverage. As written now, the zoning ordinance prohibits residents from replacing those existing structures that are dilapidated and perhaps even unsafe. As for sidewalks and driveways, they could constitute a larger square footage over the standard and could be capped - for example allowed to exceed the permitted lot coverage ratio by no more than five percent. The standards under which these requests for small lot coverage variations were approved could be defined in the zoning ordinance or handled administratively through a "minor variation" process. Zoninglssues August 15, 2000 Page 4 TEAR DOWNS AND ADDITIONS The occurrence of "tear downs" and major additions in residential areas is becoming more and more common in the Chicago area. The reasons for this type of development are very straightforward. As a community becomes more desirable and has less land is available for residential development, residents begin to invest in large additions and even tear down smaller, less desirable homes to construct new (often much larger) homes. Background Although part of tbe recent interest in major home investments clearly can be attributed to tile strong economy, this practice was prevalent prior to current economic conditions, and can be expected to continue independent of the economy. The reason is that the aspects ora community that attract residents are generally independent of the economy. Proximity to transportation, access to downtown Chicago and other regional hubs, quality schools, and desirable recreation facilities continue to be key draws. When the value of these considerations relative to other communities exceeds property costs, tear downs and major additions can be expected. While generally considered the sign of a very desirable commnnity, this phenomenon also presents potential negative impacts on tbe residential character of the neighborhoods in which the tear downs and additions occur. Anyone who has driven through a neighborhood that has experienced tear downs bas seen one or more large modern homes tucked in the middle of a block of older and smaller homes. In addition to difference in size, tile homes are often constructed of different materials than the older structures (brick versus siding). These changes alter what designers refer to as the "rhythm" of street, giving the neighborhood character a different feel. The attacbed pictures (Attachment B) give an idea of some of these impacts as relate to building sizes and aesthetics. Mount Prospect's Experience The characteristics described above as making communities attractive to tear downs are present in Mount Prospect. Of late, the Village has seen very few tear downs. Over the last 18 months, building permits have been issued for about 14 new single family homes (this does not include permits issued or under review for 22 townhomes at Dearborn Villas and five townhomes behind Mrs. P & Me). Of these 14, two were tear downs - one with a construction value over $500,000. Home additions make up a considerable portion of the residential construction activity in the Village. Permits were issued for 53 additions in 1999 and 46 for 2000 just through the end of June. Nearly 30 percent of those (27 of 99) were for second story additions. The additions, in some cases placed on rather modest homes, can reach well above $100,000 in cost. This level of investment can be seen as an indicator that the value of Mount Prospect's amenities is gaining on (or may have reached) land values. A summary of major residential home improvements in Mount Prospect since January, 1999 is provided in Attachment C. The location of homes building major additions is also interesting. Approximately three-quarters of all the residential additions built in the last 18 naonths are located within one mile of the downtown (by contrast new home construction is seen wherever vacant property can be found in tile Village). This is understandable since that area includes homes that are typically smaller, older, and lacking modern amenities. Discussions with residents putting on additions and porches show the), are often families with children who bare been in the Village for years and very much want to stay, but whose homes don't meet their needs. Residents Needs Some reasons for enlarging and/or remodeling homes include: Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 5 More space -Those with smaller homes need more space to accommodate growing families. They may build an addition or another rehab project, such as a finished basement or three-season room. Modern Space - People are adding modem amenities to older homes. Since the beginning of 1999, permits have been issued to remodel 48 bathroom and 55 kitchen projects. Aesthetics - While not a primary motivation for undertaking an addition, aesthetics do come into play. A number of those building additions included a front pomh to help "tie together" the existing house and addition. Approaches to Addressing the Issue By amending the zoning ordinance to include front porches extending into the front yard as a conditiuna] use, Mount Prospect has begun dealing with the issue of how additions impact neighborhood character. This approach allows each porch to be reviewed by Village officials on a case by case base. Furthermore, it has specific standards by which to approve the conditional use (one of which is impact on the neighborhood) and allows conditions to be placed on the approval. At the time of the amendment both the Zoning Board and Village Board expressed their desire to review these items on a case by case basis to allow for consideration of possible impacts on neighborhood character. Other communities have tried various methods to bring this tear down craze under control. While tear downs have not become common in the Village, all the ingredients are in place for them to occur. Also, many of the same neighborhood impacts created by tear downs can also result from large additions. Some of the alternatives for addressing those issues, as used by other communities are described below: Neighboring Communities ' The attached survey of adjacent communities shows that tear downs have not been a big issue in other towns, except for Park Ridge (which had 67 last year) and to a lesser extent Des Plaines. Most other towns in the survey had fewer additions than Mount Prospect (some could not separate out data as to how many residential permits were specifically for additions). Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Most zoning ordinances in adjacent communities include a floor area ratio (FAR) standard. Similar to lot coverage, FAR limits the square footage of structures as a function of lot size. It differs from lot coverage in that FAR includes total square footage of all floors of a structure, but does not necessarily include accessory structures like sheds or garages. The intent of this approach is to limit the size of new structures so that they are more in character with the surrounding neighborhood. It does not prevent a larger new house from going up in an area, but can limit how much larger it is than other homes. Architectural Review - The concern of new homes and/or additions can be addressed through the process of amhitectural review, either through zoning standards or formal review. Park Ridge uses an Architectural Review Board to review and approve tear downs and additions that are visible from the street. Last year, that group reviewed all 67 tear downs and about half of the City's 200 additions. This is a controversial aspect of development review. It can add time and cost to a residential project and some feel it is not within the purview of a local municipality to regulate appearance. Where applied best, the architectural review process is based on clearly identifiable standards and avoids subjective consideration of what is considered attractive. Plane of Light - To address the problem of large and tall homes seeming more "massive", a few communities employ a "Plane of Light" standard. This requirement controls the height of the building by extending an imaginary line at a predetermined angle from the property line - as shown in the figure. This control requires that the front of the house "step back" to minimize the impact of height. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 6 OVERSIZED GARAGES The typical garage is more than just a home for cars. They are used for storage of household items, childreu's toys, and recreational vehicles from bicycles to boats. This expanding use of garages has, not surprisingly, has led to residents' needs for larger garages. In mostly built up communities like Mount Prospect, existing garages are often replaced with larger ones. In addition, many homes built without garages are adding them (along with a driveway). These new and potentially large garages often occur on smaller lots and raise questions of how to balance residents' need for extra space with potential impacts on the neighbors. Background The Village Zoning Ordinance allows construction of detached garages up to 600 square feet on residential properties. The garages must also meet yard setback requirements of five feet from interior side or rear lot lines (three feet for lots that are equal to or less than 55 feet wide). Detached garages designed to house more than two motor vehicles must be approved as a conditional use in the single family zoning districts (attached three car garages are permitted in the residential districts). The intent of these collective controls is to minimize the potential impact of large garages on adjacent residences. New garages have been a very common home improvement in Mount Prospect. Since the beginning of 1999, forty-nine permits have been issued for new garages (half of them in the last six months). Over the past two years the Village has received four variation requests for oversized garages. Those requests have ranged in size from 672 square feet to 768 square feet. The applicants have cited the need for additional room in the garage for storing household items and recreational vehicles, or having space for a workbench. Each of the four variation requests was ultimately approved - although in two cases the approval was for less square footage than requested. Recent cases are summarized in the chart below. In each case, the Zoning Board and Village Board took note of site specific conditions in considering their findings and determining the appropriate size for the garage. Recent Oversized Garage Requests Cases Size Requested Size Approved Notes ZBA 30-97 748 748 Approved as ZBA final ZBA 12-99 768 720 Approved by Village Board ZBA 35-99 720 672 Approved by Village Board ZBA 10-2000 672 672 Approved by Village Board on Appeal ZBA 22-2000 832 720 Approved as ZBA final Issues with Oversized Garages As the Village's experience in approving garages has shown, it is hard to define a "typical" garage. However, some industry standards are useful for this discussionl A basic two-car garage about 528 square feet - 22 feet wide by 24 feet d6ep (a 22 foot deep garage is possible but not as desirable by most). At 600 square feet, the two car garage provides room adjacent to the vehicles for limited storage. Garages over 600 are large enough to accommodate three cars at sizes as small as 22x28 (616 square feet), with 24x30 (720 square feet) more desirable. Amount of room needed for vehicles and storage aside, how big a structure to allow is a basic zoning issue with garages. The permissible size of a garage will also be affected by bulk standards like yard set backs and lot coverage ratio. How the garage fits on a property is also a function of lot size. Even with these controls, it is possible to construct a garage that may be considered out of scale with the existing home and/or neighborhood. Another zoning issue related to large garages is that they create a greater opportunity to operate a home occupation, although it could certainly be a problem with a garage of 600 square feet or less. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 7 Answering the question of "What is too big?" must also be understood to also have a subjective component. Of the zoning cases listed above, minutes indicate few objections from adjacent property owners. Those that did object were concerned about stormwater runoffrather than the size of the garage. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Other Communities - The survey of surrounding communities shows a maximum garage size of between 700 and 720 square feet. In some instances, that maximum includes a limit on the total percent of lot or rear yard coverage. Some communities have other controls on use of the garages that include not operating a business out of that garage, no bathrooms, no phones or machinery, and no living space. With a 600 square foot maximum, the Mount Prospect standard is generally smaller than nearby communities by about 100 square feet. Variations - Less than ten percent of all building permits for garages go through the variation request process. Those requests for oversized garages have been considered by the ZBA and Village Board based on the conditions of the specific property and the potential impact on the neighborhood character and adjacent properties. As noted earlier, those specific site conditions have in some cases led to approval of a smaller garage structure than was requested. Should it so choose, the Village Board/ZBA could continue to address the oversized garage requests in this manner. The disadvantage to this process (as addressed last year with front porches encroaching into the front yard) is that the standard for variation requires a specific finding of hardship. As such, oversized garage requests typically receive a denial recommendation from staff and leave the ZBA/Village Board looking to identify that particular hardship on the site. Oversized garages below a certain size could also be treated as minor variations and handled administratively - as described in the lot coverage discussion. Conditional Use - Oversized garages could be treated as Conditional Uses. This is how the Village addresses detached garages that are specifically designed for more than .two cars and for unenclosed porches in the front yard setback. This approach would follow essentially the same zoning process (from the applicant's perspective) as a variation, but would allow the standard of approval to be based firmly on the character of the area and potential impacts on neighbors. As with three car garages and porches, the emphasis would be on the case by case consideration of the request. CONCLUSION .This memorandum has provided a summary of current zoning issues that face the Village and provides alternative methods to address them if so desired by the Village Board. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to nd the Village Board for their review and consideration at their August 22 Committee of the WhOle meeting. Staff will be present at this meeting to further discuss this matter. Attachment B Tear Down Examples - Building Size Attachment B Tear Down Examples - Building Aesthetics Zoninglssues August 15, 2000 :;'~. Page 11 Attachment C Residential Construction in Mount Prospect Since the start of 1999 the Village's Building Division has maintained detailed records regarding building permit applications requiring plan review (as opposed to those done as walk-through permits). A summary of major residential construction and remodeling permits for the past 18 months is shown below. Type of Permit 1999 2000 (through June) Additions 53 46 Bathrooms 30 18 Basements 9 15 Decks 36 32 Garages 25 24 Kitchens 33 22 Lawn sprinklers 33 l 0 New Homes 18 17 Pools 9 12 Sun rooms 14 9 Additional Materials 1. Daily Herald Article about trends in suburban tear downs (7/14/00) 2. Mount Prospect Residential Zoning District Standards for RX, RI, and RA. \\VI~V02\DEPTxCOMDEV~GEN~PLNG~zoningcowmemo.doc co ozoneTear down trend deeper into Chicago and area suburbs [s the home you're living in a can- and is like[y to be torn down." especially in more upscale com. didate for demolition? Some homes escape total demo- munities, and they may not b Whether they are too dilapidated litton because they have enough worth much more than the value of or too small to suit contemporary appeal to merit major remodelings the lot on which they stand. tastes, thousands of homes across as new owners seek to add square · Existing local zoning laws per- the Chicago area are on the en- footage and luxury features to yes- mit a home of at least 3,500 square dangered list as a result of the cur- teryear's modest dwellings, feet to be built on your lot. The big- rent housing boom. "In Chicago's Lincoln Park com- gar the home allo~,d by code, the Demand for properties that can munity, I've seen buyers pay more tempting ti, site is to a be torn down to make way for new $600,000 for an did house, and then builder. home construction has been well do a gut rehab,' says Roger Lautt · The house is a ranch, Cape documented over the last few years of RE/MAX Exclusive Properties Cod or of a nondescript style. in such communities as Hinsdale, on theNear North Side. Homes built from the 1930s Winnetka, Glencoe, Lincoln Park "In Western Sp~ings, many small- through the 1960~ often fall in this apd Lake View. er homes are being torn down, but category and are viewed as tear- Now, according to an informal in LaGrange, you see more rehab- down candidates. Many lack the survey oftep REfM. AX sales assooi- bing," says Gary Barnes of design appeal and interior detailing ates in the Chicago area, the phc- RE/MAX Properties, Western that a comparable home built in nomenon has spread, engulfing ar- Springs. 1910 might offer. cas such as Arlington Heights, "In LaGrange you find more · The house has an exterior of Deerfield, Skokie, Flossmoor and homes with brick or stone exteriors siding or stucco, rather than brick LaGrange, along with a large area and architectural interest. In West- or stone, Brick or stone homes are of Chicago itself em Springs. there are more frame good candidates for rehab and For example, Kathy Barkulis of and stucco houses that don't hold expansion, rather than demolition. RE/MAX Suburban, Arlington up as well if they are not main- Frame and stucco houses face Heights, says, "We find builders tained over time. We're seeing tear more uncertain futures. are looking aggressively for homes downs in Western Springs that are · The home is in a highly' desir- that they can purchase and demol- selling in the range of $275.000 to able location, such as within walk- ish. In our community right now, a $375,000." lng distance of a commuter train tear down can be any home priced Much the same is true in the city, station or in a very upscaie neigh- reliable ~roll design under $225,000, and they are being says Lautt. There, brick homes or borhoed, If so, and if its size or con- replaced by much larger homes two-fiats, no matter what their con- dition doesn't measure up to a typi- selling for $750,000 or more. Typi- dition, are usually spared demoii- cal home in the area, someone may :d, stamped envelope to rally, these new homes are about tion even ff the interior is a mess. see it as a tear-down candidate. ,ulley, c/o Daily Herald, 3,500 square feet with four bed- Rundown frame structures, on the · The house has a serious struc- ~lgreen Drive, Cincinnati, rooms, three baths and a three-car other hand, tend to attract bulldoz- rural problem. If it does, the cost of or download at www.dul- garage." ers. repairing the situation mav be such Along the North Shore, the de- How can you tell if your old and that a tear-down makes ~olid eco- ~s considering buying a mand for tear downs is even more relatively modest house is a tear- nomic sense. ssage chair instead of intense, according to Allyson Hoff-. down candidate? Check for these · Vacant lots are in short supply' ; the money at the mas- man of RE/MAX North, North- signs: in the area. In some hot real estate ~apist. Those chairs seem brook. · More than one home has been market:~, like Chicago's Near South lot of motors in them. Do "The tear-down phenomenon has torn down and rebuilt within four Side and Ravenswood area, old a lot Of electricity to oper- been going on along the North blocks in the last year. This may industrial and commercial sites ~zi G. Shore for a long time, but there has indicate that builders are seeking have been available to satisfy the t0 per hour for a therapist, been a radical increase in the last tear-down candidates in your demand for new construction. nassage chair can quickly three to five years as the prices of neighborhood. Other areas in both city and sub- ts initial cost. As you men- houses andlots has soared. · The house is under 2,000 urbs lack the safety valve tha.'. ~ese real massage chairs Recently a house on a one-acre square feet in size. Homes that vacant land provides, which. .ny motors for a true mas- lot in Deerfield sold for $1 million small tend to have limited appeal, encourages tear downs. just vibrators to relax. m Interactive Health mas- :r and it uses only 60 watts ciD'. This costs less than a · r hour used. The "human hnotogies" (HTT~ use sev- )rs and electronics inside It's the Sm. attest ide various massage James Dulley c/o the · raid. 6:)06 Royalgreen toWn , I mortgage . 14.801 14.802 ARTICLE VIII R-X SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT SECTION: 14.801: Purpose 14.802: Permitted Uses 14.803: Conditional Uses 14.804: Uses Permitted In Limited Circumstances 14.805: Bulk Regulations 14.801: PURPOSE: The purpose of the R-X Single-Family Residence District is to provide areas for Iow density, single-family residential development and other compatible uses on large lots. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) 14.802: PERMITTED USES: A. In the R-X Single-Family Residence District, the only uses which may hereafter be established are: Accessory uses and structures. Family community residence, with no more than five (5) unrelated persons with disabili- ties and support staff. Operator must be licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Family community residence with no more than eight (8) unrelated persons with disabilities, and support staff. Such residence shall be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. Operator must be licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Foster care homes, Home occupations. Limited daycare. Single-family detached dwellings, including dwellings with an attached three (3) car garage. Village of Mount Prospect 14.802 14.804 Wireless service facilities shall be permitted as set forth in subsection 14.313E of this Chapter. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993; Ord. 4925, 4-21-1998) 14.803: CONDITIONAL USES: A. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use issued in accordance with th~ provisions of subsection 14.203F of this Chapter: Colleges and universities. Cultural institutions, libraries and museums. Daycare homes. Detached garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles. Family community residence, where operator is not licensed or certified by an appropri- ate agency, and where residence of no more than eight (8) unrelated persons with disabilities is not located one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community resi- dance. Group community residence. Such residence shall be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. More than one garage. Rehabilitation homes. Residential planned unit developments, subject to Article V of this Chapter. Unenclosed front porches attached to single-family residences, with an approvec certificate of occupancy as of May 18, 1999, encroaching up to five feet (5') into fronl setbacks. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993; Ord, 4826, 10-1-1996; Ord. 5023, 5-18-1999) 14.804: USES PER:'vIITTED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES: A. The following uses shall be permitted uses: Churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship. Municipal buildings,: parks, libraries or museum buildings provided no commercia enterprises are conducted on the premises. Village of Mount Prospect 14.804 14.805 Public schools, elementary and high, private or parochial schools without dormitory accommodations and having a curriculum equivalent to a public, elementary or high school. B. Except that a conditional use shall be required if the following circumstances apply: 1. A residential dwelling unit is being converted for one of the uses set forth in subsec- tion A of this Section as the principal use of the structure; or 2. A new building or structure is to be constructed on property not then in use pursuant to subsection A of this Section on a lot of less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) 14.805: BULK REGULATIONS: A. Lot Size And Area Requirements: The minimum lot area for any permitted or conditional use in the R-X District shall be seventeen thousand five hundred (17,500) square feet with a minimum width of eighty five feet (85'). B. Yard Requirements: Any building or structure hereafter constructed or relocated in the R-X District shall maintain minimum yards as follows: 1. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: Front yard 40 feet Interior side yard 10 percent of lot width or 10 feet whichever is less Exterior side yard 25 feet Rear yard 30 feet 2. All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential: Front yard 40 feet Interior side yard 10 feet minimum, but not less than 1/2 the height of the principal building Exterior side yard 25 feet Rear yard Shall be equal to the height of the principal build- in9 or structure but not less than 30 feet C. Lot Coverage. No lot in the R-X District shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: 1. All permitted and conditional uses for residential 35 percent Village of Mo~znt Prospect 14.805 14.805 2. All permitted and conditional uses (' for nonresidential 75 percent D. Height Limitations: The following height limitations apply to principal buildings construct- ed in the R-X District: 1. Residential Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed thirty five feet (35') or three (3) stories, whichever is less. 2. Exceptions: The following shall be excluded from the height limitations contained in this subsection D: .- a. Chimneys. b. Flagpoles. c. Steeples. d. Radio and television antennas attached to the principal structure. (Ord, 4590, 9-21-1993) Village of Mount Prospect 14.901 14.902 ARTICLE IX R-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT SECTION: 14.901: Purpose 14.902: Permitted Uses 14.903: Conditional Uses 14.904: Uses Permitted In Limited Circumstances 14.905: Bulk Regulations 14.901: PURPOSE: The purpose of the R-1 Single-Family Residence District is to provide areas for Iow density, single-family residential and other compatible uses on standard sized lots. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) 14.902: PERMITTED USES: '' A. In the R-1 Single-Family Residence District, the only uses which may hereafter be established are: Accessory uses and structures. Family community residence, with no more than five (5) unrelated persons with disabili- ties and support staff. Operator must be licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Family community residence with no more than eight (8) unrelated persons with disabilities, and support staff. Such residence shall be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. Operator must be licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Foster care homes. Home occupations. Limited daycare. Sin'gle-family detached dwellings, including dwellings with an attached three (3) car garage. Village of Mount Prospect 14.902 14.904 Wireless service facilities shall be permitted as set forth in subsection 14.313E of this Chapter. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993; Ord. 4925, 4-21-1998) 14.903: CONDITIONAL USES: A. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use issued in accordance with the provisions of subsection 14.203F of this Chapter: Colleges and universities. Cultural institutions, libraries and museums. Daycare homes. Detached garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles. Family community residence, where operator is not licensed or certified by an appropri- ate agency, and where residence of no more than eight (8) unrelated persons with disabilities is not located one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community resi- dence. Group community residence, where operator is licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Such residence shall be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. More than one garage. Rehabilitation homes. Residential planned unit developments, subject to Article V of this Chapter. Unenclosed front porches attached to single-family residences, with an approved certificate of occupancy as of May 18, 1999, encroaching up to five feet (5') into front setbacks. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993; Ord. 4825, 10-1-1996; Ord. 5023, 5-18-1,999) 14.904: USES PERMITTED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES: A. The following us~s shall be permitted uses: Churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship. Municipal buildings, libraries or museum buildings provided no commercial enterprises are conducted on the premises. Village of Mount Prospect 14.904 14.905 Public schools, elementary and high, private or parochial schools without dormitory accommodations and having a curriculum equivalent to a public, elementary or high school. 13. Except that a conditional use shall be required if the following circumstances apply: 1. A residential dwelling unit is being converted for one of the uses set forth in subsec- tion A of this Section as the principal use of the structure; or 2. A new building or structure is to be constructed on property not then in use pursuant to subsection A of this Section on a lot of less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) 14.905: BULK REGULATIONS: A. Lot Size And Area Requirements: The minimum area and width for any {ot in the R-1 District shall be as follows: Interior lot 8,125 square feet 65 foot minimum width Corner lot 9,375 square feet 75 foot minimum width B. Yard Requirements: Any building or structure hereafter constructed or relocated in the R-1 District shall maintain minimum yards as follows: 1. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: Front yard 30 feet Interior side yard 10 percent of lot width or 10 feet whichever is- [ess Exterior side yard 20 feet Rear yard 25 feet 2. All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential: Front yard 30 feet interior side yard 10 feet minimum, but not less than ~/2 the height of the principal building Exterior side yard 20 feet Rear yard Shall be equal to the height of the principal build- ing or structure but not less than 25 feet C. Lot Coverage: No lot in the R-1 District shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: Village of Mount Prospect 14.905 14.905 1. All permitted and conditional uses for residential 45 percent 2. All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential 75 percent D. Height Limitations: The following height limitations apply to principal buildings construct- ed in the R-1 District: 1. Residential Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty eight feet (28') or two (2) stories, whichever is less. 2. Exceptions: The following shall be excluded from the height limitations contained in this subsection D: a. Chimneys. b. FJagpoles. c. Steeples. d. Radio and television antennas attached to the principal structure. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) Village of Mount Prospect 14.1001 14.1002 ARTICLE X R-A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT SECTION: 14.1001: Purpose 14.1002: Permitted Uses 14.1003: Conditional Uses 14,1004: Uses Permitted In Limited Circumstances 14.1005: Bulk Regulations 14.1001: PURPOSE: The purpose of the R-A Single-Family Residence District is to accommodate existing single-family residential development in older, established sections of the Viltage. These neighborhoods are characterized by smaller lots than required in the R-1 District. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) 14.1002: PERMITTED USES: A. In the R-A Single-Family Residence District, the only uses which may hereafter be established are: Accessory uses and structures. Family community residence, with no more than five (5) unrelated persons with disabili- ties and support staff. Operator must be licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Family community residence with no more than eight (8) unrelated persons with disabilities, and 'support staff. Such residence shall be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. Operator must be licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Foster care home. Home occupations. Limited daycare. Single-family detached dwellings. Village of Mount Prospect 14.1002 14.1004 Wireless service facilities shall be permitted as set forth in subsection 14.313E of this Chapter. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993; Ord. 4925, 4-21-1998) 14.1003: CONDITIONAL USES: A. The following uses may be allowed by conditional use issued in accordance with the provisions of subsection 14.203F of this Chapter: Colleges and universities. Cultural institutions, libraries, museums. Daycare homes. Family community residence, where operator is not licensed or certified by an appropri- ate agency, and where residence of no more than eight (8) unrelated persons with disabilities is not located one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community resi- dence. Garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles. Garages for parking of commercial vehicles and/or commercial trailers with a licensed weight of more than eight thousand (8,000) pounds. Such garage for commercia~ vehicles shall not exceed the accessory building standards of Section 14.306 of this Chapter. Group community residence where the operator is licensed or certified by an appropriate agency. Such residence shall be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. More than one garage. Rehabilitation home. Residential planned unit developments, subject to Article V of this Chapter. Unenclosed front porches attached to single-family residences, with an approved certificate of occupancy as of May 18, 1999, encroaching up to five feet (5') into front setbacks. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993; Ord. 5023, 5-18-1999) 14.1004: USES PERMITTED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES: A. The following uses shall be permitted uses: Village of Mount Prospect 14.1004 14.1005 Churches, synagogues, mosques and other houses of worship. Municipal buildings, libraries or museum buildings provided no commercial enterprises are conducted on the premises. Public schools, elementary and high, private or parochial school without dormitory accommodations and having a curriculum equivalent to a public, elementary or high school. B. Except that a conditional use shall be required if the following circumstances apply: 1, A residential dwelling unit is being converted for one of the uses set forth in subsec- tion A of this Section as the principal use of the structure; or 2. A new building or structure is to be constructed on property not then in use pursuant to subsection A of this Section on a lot of less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet, (Ord, 4590, 9-21-1993) 14.1005: BULK REGULATIONS: A. Lot Size And Area Requirements: The minimum area for any lot in the R-A District shall be six thousand (6,000) square feet with a minimum width of fifty feet (50'). B. Yard Requirements: Any building or structure hereafter constructed or relocated in the R-A District shall maintain minimum yards as follows: 1. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: Front yard 30 feet Interior side yard 5 feet Exterior side yard 20 feet Rear yard 25 feet 2. All other permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential: · Front yard 30 feet Interior side yard 10 feet minimum, but not less than 1/2 the height of the principal building Exterior side yard 20 feet Rear yard Shall be equal to the height of the principal build- ing or structure but not less than 25 feet C. Lot Coverage: No lot in the R-A District shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: Village of Mount Prospect 14.1005 14.1005 1. All permitted and conditional uses for residential 50 percent 2. All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential 75 percent D. Height Limitations: The following height limitations apply to principal buildings construct- ed in the R-A District: 1. Residential Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty eight feet (28') or two (2) stories, whichever is less. 2. Exceptions: The following shall be excluded from the height limitations contained in this subsection D: a. Chimneys. b. Flagpoles. c. Steeples. d. Radio end television antennas attached to the principal structure. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) L Village of Mount Prospect MAYOR ~ Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES T,mothyJ.paul Wm. Oorcor n. oef Village of Mou nt P r ospect VILLAGE CLERK Velma Lowe Richard M. Lohrstorfer Dennis G. Prikkel Community Development Department Phone: 847/818-5328 Michaele W. Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 kwna K. Wilks 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Tnn: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Senior Center Thursday 50 South Emerson Street August 24, 2000 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of July 27, 2000 1. ZBA-05-2000 / Text Amendments to the Zoning Code 2. ZBA-22-2000 / Hejduk Residence / 604 Wilshire St. 3. ZBA-23-2000 / Zabest Commercial Group / 791 Rand Road 4. ZBA-24-2000 / Citgo Station / 630 W. Rand Rd. IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. ZBA-26-2000 / Urban Retail Construction / 1740 Dempster Street / Conditional Use and Variations to construct a 7-11 and Citgo Station. · .. ITEM DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 14, 2000 MEETING. Bi ZBA-27-2000 / Shell Gas Station / 2 E. Rand Road / Variation to construct a canopy in a portion of the setback. WITHDRAWN C. ZBA-28-2000 / Femandes Residence / 1104 W. Central Rd. /Variation to construct a 6' fence. Note: This Case is ZBA Final D. ZBA-29-2000 / Clevenger Residence / 521 N. Eastwood / Conditional Use for a covered front porch to encroach into the front setback NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final E. ZBA-30-2000 / AutoBam / 333 W. Rand Rd. / Variations to remodel the building. ITEM DEFERRED TO SEPTEMBER 14~ 2000 MEETING. F. ZBA-31SR-2000 / CVS Pharmacy / 1 E. Rand Rd. / Variation for multiple wall signs. Note: This Case is ZBA Final G. ZBA-32-2000 / Murray Residence / 411 N. Emerson St. / Conditional Use for a front porch to encroach into the front setback. NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. C:/TM P~g-24-2000 doe MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-05-2000 Hearing Date: July 27, 2000 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: July 12, 2000 DAILY HERALD REQUEST: Text Amendments to the CR Conservation Recreation Zoning District MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting were approved, Merrill Cotten and Richard Rogers abstained from voting. At 7:35, Ms. Juraeek opened Case ZBA-05- 2000, proposed Text Amendments to the CR Conservation Recreation Zoning District, and stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that punic notice had been given, and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, Text Amendments to the CR Conservation Recreation Zoning District. She explained that this text amendment had been heard by the ZBA prior to another text amendment that changed the noticing requirements for public hearings. This case has been re-noticed according to those requirements and is being submitted for the ZBA's review. Ms. Connolly then summarized the text amendment, and noted that local Park Districts had input on the CR District. When originally drafted in 1993, the CR District section did not take into consideration the existing equipment and structures, which made it difficult for Park Districts to meet required setbacks. The text amendment clarifies and reorganizes structure definitions, addresses permitted uses, and creates Conditional Uses for lighted ball fields. The lot coverage requirement is not changed and building height limit is not changed. It makes provision for other structures, i.e., light poles, backstops, etc., to be up to 60' in height. Permitted obsWactions include bike paths, sidewalks, jogging trails, and similar facilities up to 10' in width (which is wider than current code requirements). The proposed amendments apply to all CR parcels and are consistent with the purpose of the CR District. It minimizes existing non- conformities and does not create new non-conformities. The proposed changes meet standards for text amendment, therefore staff recommends approval. Arlene Juracek asked if this Text Amendment contained any changes from the previous proposal. Ms. Connolly said no, there had been discussion about the 10' sideyard setback by the Village Board and that staff reviewed possible changes and discussed then with Park District representatives. She said it is staffs understanding that ball fields are built after internal review by the Park District to have no impact on adjacent properties. Ms. Connolly said there are no plans to change existing parks and bail fields. Ms. Juracek asked if Zoning Board members had questions for Judy. She also asked if any audience members had come to address the Board in this mat~er. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-05-2000 . Arleno.,Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 At 7:40, Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for the proposed Text Amendments. Elizabeth Luxem seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 10:06 p.m., Merrill Cotten made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secreta-~ /~udy Con'n ~ol),~e~fi'or'~lanner ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-22-2000 Hearing Date: July 27, 2000 PETITIONER: Fred & Celest Hejduk PUBLICATION DATE: July 12, 2000 DAILY HERALD REQUEST: Variation to construct an oversized detached garage MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Celeste & Fred Hejduk Michael Nelson Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting were approved, Merrill Cotten and Richard Rogers abstained from voting. At 7:40, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-22- 2000, a request for a Variation to construct an oversized detached garage. Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a request for a Variation to construct an oversized detached garage. Ms; Connolly then summarized the stuff memo for this case. She stated that the subject property is an existing home located on a 68' X 130' (8,840 square feet) single-family lot on a residential street and the home currently has an existing two-car, detached garage. Ms. Cormolly explained that the petitioner is seeking to construct an 832 square foot garage to replace the existing garage and that Section 14.306.B.1 sets the maximum size for detached garages at 600 square feet. She said that, in order to accommodate his proposed garage, the petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow the proposed garage to exceed the 600 square foot maximum size requirement. She also stated that the site and the proposed garage would meet all other Zoning Code bulk regulations. Ms. Connolly reported that staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. She described the subject parcel as an 8,840 square foot parcel that is relatively level, out of any flood ~one and rectangular. She noted that the parcel is developed with a single family home and a detached garage and that the applicant proposes to construct an oversized garage to park cars, and store a boat and yard equipment. Ms. Counolly said the reasons for the proposed Variation are primarily for the convenience of the petitioner, rather than financial. The petitioner proposed the oversized garage to accommodate vehicles and additional storage area and no particular condition of the lot makes the proposed Variation for a 832 square foot garage necessary - the petitioner simply would like to have a larger garage than is permitted by code. Ms. Cormolly reminded members that the Zoning Board of Appeals has considered four requests for detached, oversized garages in the past three years and said that, although requests that went before Village Board were ultimately approved, in two instances the size of the garage was reduced. The maximum size recommended for approval by the Zoning Board was 748 square feet and the maximum size approved by the Village Board was 720 square feet. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-22o2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that, although the proposed Variation would not have a significant effect on the public welfare or neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. She further stated that, based on those findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA deny the proposed Variation to permit an 832 square foot garage for the residence at 604 Wilshire Drive, Case No. ZBA-22-2000. She reminded the ZBA that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked if the petitioner wished to address the Board. Fred Hejduk was sworn in and testified he has lived in his house since 1977, that his garage gets water in the northwest corner because it is 1-1/2' below ground level and the garage needs to be replaced. He said he wants to build a new garage large enough to accommodate his 32' boat with trailer, truck and other vehicles. Elizabeth Luxem asked what was the size of the house. Ms. Cormolly responded the house was approximately 1,100 s.f. Mr. Floros asked what was the standard size of a 3-ear garage and what were the dimensions of the requested garage. Mr. Blue responded that 600 s.f. would be the smallest size for a 3-car garage, with 720 s.f. being the typical maximum. Ms. Cormotly informed Mr. Floros that the requested garage dimensions were 26' x 32'. She also said the overall height of the proposed garage meets code requirements. Michael Nelson, 409 E. Highland, was sworn in and said he supported the Hejduk's request for the oversize garage and had no problem with the plan. He said he thought the garage would be an improvement to the neighborhood as the neighbors presently complain about the boat being outside. Keith Youngquist asked what the size of the garage door would be. Mr. I-Iejduk responded that the door would be 18' wise and 8' high. Mr. Youngquist pointed out that the large size of the garage would prevent Mr. Hejduk or a furore owner from enlarging the house size. Richard Rogers asked Mr. Hejduk if he would be satisfied with a 720 s.f. garage if the Board approved that. Mr. Hejduk said he would give that some thought as he did not want to come for another hearing. Most Board members said they would support a request of a 720 s.f. but Ms. Luxem said she could not support even that size, as that would still be more than ½ as large as the house. At 7:55, Chairperson Juracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for discussion from the Board. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval of the request for Variation for a detached garage not to exceed 720 s.fi of any configuration to meet the petitioner's needs. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist,, and Juracek NAYS: Luxem Motion was approved 5-1 and is ZBA final because the size of the garage m less than 25% of the maximum size permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. At 10:06 p.m., Merrill Cotten made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The morion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary '-~'~'~{~d'y~C on~ o//ffy,t/S eni~r p l'anne r (' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-23-2000 Hearing Date: Suly 27, 2000 PETITIONER: Steve Nikolas / Larry LcMieux Zabest Commercial Group, Inc. 16800 W. Greenfield Ave. Brookfield, WI 53005 PUBLICATION DATE: July 12, 2000 DAILy HERALD REQUEST: MaP Amendment from R-1 to B-3 MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Leo FlOros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith yoUngquist Arlene Suracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Sudy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INT/~RESTED PARIII£S: Frank & Joan Auer Scott Burgess D. R. Cannon Zenon & Susan Golba Jerry & Nancy Howard-Wallis Marion Hesch Iver Iverson Mr. & Mrs. Doug Johnson Ingrid Klingbeil Carlotta Kozak Larry LeMieux Phyllis Libreri Robert Lucas Mr. & Mrs. Raymond Lundin Mr. & Mrs. James Mahon Steven Nikolas Robin Rose Phil & Cheryl Santoro Jennifer Schraoldt Paul Spiewak Joe & Joyce Usery Shirley Weaver George & Patricia Ziegler Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting were approved, Merrill Cotten and Richard Rogers abstained from voting. At 8:20, after hearing three other cases, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-23-2000, a request for a Map Amendment from R-I to B-3, saying that staff and ZBA Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-23-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 members had received many letters expressing neighboring property owners' ooncems regarding this case. She asked that several people act as spokaspersons for the group to expedite the hearing. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case, a request for a Map Amendment from R-I to B-3. Ms. Cnnnolly then informed the Zoning Board that the case would be Village Board final. Ms. Connolly summarized the case by reporting that the subject property is a triangular-shaped vacant lot that fronts onto Rand Road. She said the site has never been developed and abuts a car dealership to the south, a hair salon to the north, and is across Louis Street from single family residences. She said that the site is across Rand Road from commercial uses: Menard's, a fast food restaurant, and a bowling alley. She explained that the applicants propose to consolidate two lots to construet a 23,000 square foot commercial development that would meet all Zoning and Development Code requirements. She said Louis Street and Rand Road would be fully improved, which included dedicating right-of-way where applicable, installing sidewalks, streetlights, and interior parking lot lights per Village code. She noted that a plat of resubdivision oonsolidating the site into a one-lot subdivision would be prepared and reviewed by the Plan Commission and have to be approved by Village Board. She noted that the oommercial development does not provide vehicle access from Louis Street. She said the parking lot is designed to allow access to the south property should that property be redeveloped and that the Louis Anthony Hair Salon parking lot is connected to the proposed parking lot from the north. She said a sidewalk running parallel to the building is linked to the sidewalk on Thayer Street to provide pedestrians access to the commercial development. She explained that the petitioner does not propose a drive-through for the site and the site plan will not require Variations. Ms. Connolly further stated that the proposed structure would be constructed of red brick and gray split-face block. It includes a flat roof on the ends of the building and a mansard roof over the middle section of the building. She said the building would be accented with decorative light fixtures and have a cream-colored metal band around the top of the building. She explained that it meets the intent of the ZBA and Village Board's policy of requiring masonry construction and architectural elements that provide a high quality, attractive building. Ms. Connolly said the applicant has submitted a preliminary Landscape Plan for the property that shows approximately 28% of the proposed site is devoted to green space. She also said that the size of the proposed perimeter and parking landscape areas meet code requirements. She pointed out that the petitioner has made every effort to minimize the impact of the center on the residential properties across Louis and Thayer Streets using a combination of landscaping, berms, and varied building materials. The landscape plan shows a three-foot tall berm, trees, and plantings along the rear and side of the property, in addition to a continuous row of bushes along the side yard. Ms. Connolly said the site is adjacent to residential properties and therefore, the proposed building is set back 30' from Louis and Thayer Streets. The parking lot is setback 12' fi'om Rand Road and, after consolidating the two lots into a one-lot subdivision, the site will meet all required setbacks. Ms. Connolly said that, as proposed, the site would consist of a 23,000 sq. ~. commercial development and 123 parking spaces, which provides the petitioner with some flexibility to arrive at an appropriate tenant mix. She said that the petitioner would need to fred a combination of tenants and businesses that will require no more than this mount of parking or seek a variation. She said the applicant has also agreed to provide cross-access between the properties and that this agreement would be recorded with the subdivision plat. Ms. Connolly said the proposed Map Amendment will meet the Map Amendment standards of the Zoning Ordinance, when the conditions of approval listed by staff have been met and, based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend approval of the proposed Map Amendment to permit the establishment of a commercial development without a drive-through at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. ZBA-23-2000. Chairperson Juracek said that this parcel is mentioned several times in the Rand Road Corridgr Plan and asked Ms. Connolly to give staffs interpretation of desired plans for this property. Zoning Board of AppealS ZBA-23-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Judy Connolly said that the Rand Road Corridor Plan was prepared by the Plan Commission several years ago. She said that the plan provides a history of Rand Road, documents conditions as existed while the plan was being drafted, and includes long ranges plans for the corridor. She said that the plan has a narrative section but the policy direction comes from the last section of the plan, "Issues and Action Steps". She said that although the nan'ative section of the plan includes residential development of the site in question as an alternative to commercial, the Action Steps call for commercial usage. She said that residential development of the site is not part of the Action Steps. Ms. Juracek asked if it could be inferred that commercial use would be preferred over residential in the study. Ms. Connolly responded affirmatively. Ms. Suracek asked how long Ms. Connolly had worked for the Village and, in that time, had anyone approached staff regarding building residential buildings on this parcel. Ms. Conno[ly said, to her knowledge, there had been no opportunity to turn down residential plans for this parcel in the three years she had worked for the Village. Elizabeth Luxem asked about parking requirements for the site and how the shared parking with the hair salon would affect the amount of parking for the proposed development. Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Planning, said parking needs change according to use. Retail use has different parking requirements than restaurants and fast food restaurants also have different requirements. If extra spaces are available they might help alleviate the Louis Anthony parking situation. Ms. Luxem agreed with Mr. Blue's assessment and stated her concern that solving the beauty shop parking deficiency was important. She asked Ms. Connolly if the owner of the beauty shop had approached the Village about buying the parcel. Ms. Connolly said not to her knowledge. Mr. Rogers asked about the lawsuit pertaining to the development of this property. Ms. Connolly said there had been a t973 lawsuit with a judgement allowing the construction of a tile store on the subject property without re-zoning the site or obtaining the Village's approval for the use. The judgement is still in effect today. Ms. Juracek said that the hair salon had once been a gas station and asked if the land was zoned R1 (residential) when it was annexed by the Village. Mike Blue said state law requires land to be annexed in at the most restrictive zoning. Steve Nikolas and Larry LeMieux of the Zabest Commercial Group in Brookfield, Wisconsin, were sworn in. Mr. Nikolas thanked the ZBA for consideration of their request for rezoning to build retail stores at the Rand Road location. He said they had considered purchasing the property since May of 1999 and that they have been working with Village staff to meet all code requirements. They are now requesting rezoning to construct a commercial development. Ms. Juracek asked Mr. Nikolas to walk the ZBA through the project and detail the back elevation oftha building. Mr. Nikolas went to the easels and pointed out the various components of the project, the building materials, the landscaping materials, and access to the development. Ms. Juracek asked, since they were from out-of-state, if they had done market analyses of the area and had they been involved in similar developments. Mr. Nikolas said they had not done a full marketing study but that he had lived in this area until recently and was very familiar with the local market demands. He said that they have been involved in successful developments in Brookfield, Kenosha and Rochester, Minnesota. After more discussion by ZBA members, Ms. SUracek asked for speakers from the audience. Chris Lenz, 214 Louis; Laurie Camp, 216 N. Louis; Patty Ziegler, 112 N. Louis St.; Frank Shomberg, 105 Louis St.; Hedwig Lundin, 200 N. Louis; Nancy Howard Wallace, 218 N. Louis; Joe Usery, 222 N. Louis; Zenon Golba, 115 N. Louis; Clifford Urisa, 109 Louis; Marion Hesch, 210 N. Louis; Robin Rose, 217 N. William; spoke against the proposed development. Their concerns with the proposed development were: outdoor smoking by employees; parking oning Board of Appeals ZBA-23-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 on Louis Street; traffic congestion; odors from restaurants, bakeries and liquor establishments; 24-hour business uses; garbage, dumpsters and garbage trucks; noise from HVAC system; drainage; unsightly views and/or view of concrete wall from their living room windows; lowered property values; delivery trucks, semis and emergency vehicles accessing the site; ingress and egress of traffic; and the viability of the development with the number of existing strip malls in the area. Paul Spiewak was sworn in. He said that his father and his fathers partner have owned the property for the past thirty years. He said that although the neighboring residents had concerns with a retail development in their neighborhood, he said that other citizens of Mount Prospect would benefit from this development. He cited an increase in propeay taxes and sales tax paid to the Village and subsequently paid to the sebool districts. He said that in the years that his father has owned the property, only one prospective multi-family builder approached them. The project was not pursued because the shape of the lot and the Rand Road traffic created challenges in arriving at a financially feasible residential development with respect to the cost of the land and the overall project. Mr. Spiewak said that the Zabest commercial proposal was the highest and best use of the land. At 9:50, Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for discussion from the Board. There was discussion among the members. In general, ZBA members empathized with the residents' concerns and voiced concerns about having another shopping center. There was discussion about the viability of another commercial development, as some existing commercial sites are currently vacant. Leo Floros said that although he was opposed to this proposal, he wanted residents to realize that development would soon be coming to this parcel. Merrill Cotton expressed similar sentiments. At 9:50, Chairperson Juracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for d!scussion from the Board. Elizabeth Luxem made a motion to recommend approval of the request for a Map Amendment. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. Chairperson .Iuracek reminded members that a No vote would be a vote against the proposed rezoning and a Yes vote would allow the proposed rezoning. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Luxem and Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Motion was denied 4-2 and requires a super majority for the Village Board to approve the request because the ZBA did not make a positive recommendation. At 10:06 p.m., Merrill Cotton made motion to adjourn seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-24-2000 Hearing Date: July 27, 2000 PETITIONER: Pete & Koula Louras PUBLICATION DATE: July 12, 2000 DAILY HERALD REQUEST: Conditional Use to construct a Citgo station and a Variation to construct a canopy, which would extend into a setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Marjorie Bajgabek Dan Duranso Sal & Connie Rizzo Lester Kelley A. Rogers Burton Von Wetering Joe & Helen Zirko Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Minutes of the June 22, 2000 meeting were approved, Merrill Cotten and Richard Rogers abstained from voting. At 8:00, after hearing two other cases, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-24-2000, a request for a Conditional Use to construct a Citgo station and a Variation to construct a canopy that would encroach into a setback Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a Conditional Use to construct a Citgo station and a Variation to construct a canopy that would extend eight-feet into a 30-foot setback. Ms. Connolly then informed the Zoning Board that the case would be Village Board final. Ms. Connolly summarized the case. She stated that the subject property is a vacant gas station at the southeast corner of Rand and Euclid Roads, south of the Creekside condominium development, adjacent to single family residential and across the street from a Mobile gas station. She said that the petitioners plan to raze the existing structure and construct a 3,250 square foot Citgo convenience store and gas station with six gas pumps. She said that the site is currently accessed from two drivew~/ys on Rand Road and two driveways on Euclid Road. The petitioners plan to eliminate one driveway from each street frontage and locate the new driveways away from the intersection of Rand and Euclid Roads, towards the middle of the property. Ms. Connolly explained that the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow the canopy, which covers the gas pumps, to encroach into the required 30-foot setback along Rand Road by 8 feet. The petitioners said that the irregular shape of the lot is a hardship that makes it difficult to keep the canopy within the required 30-foot setback and provide shelter while people are getting gas. She said that staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-24-2000 Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly reported that the proposed structure would be constructed of brick and concrete block with a fiat roof. large windows, and pre-finished metal panels above tile windows at the top of the building. Sile said the proposed building is brick on three sides and concrete block on one side. She said that, while this fulfils the ZBA and Village Board policy of requiring masonry construction for new buildings in the Village, the concrete block elevation is across from the backyards of singIe family residences. Ms. Connolly described the parcel for the proposed Conditional Use as a vacant Shell gas station along a commercial corridor. She said that the applicant proposes to establish a new Citgo convenience store and gas station similar to the previous use. She noted that revising the landscape pIan to provide an enhanced buffer for the adjacent residences should allow little or no negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets in the area. She said that the proposed Conditional Use would comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements with the exception of the canopy. She pointed out that tile Rand Road Corridor Plan calls for eliminating curb cuts where possible to improve the safety and flow of traffic. The petitioners' proposal includes this provision and the proposed ConditionaI Use and Variation would not have any significant effect on the public welfare: Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed Conditional Use and Variation will meet the required standards listed in tile Zoning Ordinance, when the staffs recommended conditions of approval have been met. She said that, based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend approval of the proposed Conditional Use to permit the establishment ora Citgo convenience store and gas station, and variation to Iocate a canopy 8-feet into the required 30- foot setback at 630 W. Rand Road, Case No: ZBA-24-2000. Ms. Juracek asked Judy if the 25~ setback on the east side of the property is the legally mandated setback and if the)' are building right up against it. Ms. Connolly responded it was and that when commercial properD, abuts residential the commercial development must adopt the more stringent setback. Richard Rogers asked if the old tanks had been removed. Ms. Connolly said they had been removed but she did not know if the soil had been cleaned-up. Merrill Cotton asked if the curbcuts would be the same as the existing ones. Ms. Connolly said they were different; they are narrower and allow for better ingress/egress to the site. The petitioner will need to obtain ][DOT approval for the curbcuts. John Kouchoukos, 3518 S. Sunnyside in Brookfield, was sworn in and said that he was the architect for the project, representing the owners Pete and Koula Louras. He said that they did the best they could to design the site according to code requirements, but they had a problem conforming to the 25' setback. They tried to do everything possible to make the site attractive and he presented the landscape plan. Since there are residential neighbors behind them, they placed the building where it would block the canopy light. Also, there will be a 6' fence and landscape screening to provide a buffer. The owners will manage the station with their family and want to be good neighbors. Ms. Juracek said this was probably the best-landscaped gas station the ZBA has seen and that the only Variation appears to be a comer of the canopy. John Kouchoukos said they are asking for a little less than eight-foot setback variation because-there is not much building space and they are striving for better function and an overall aesthetically pleasing'development. Ms. Juracek asked how high the canopy would be and Mr. Kouchoukos said that it would be 14' - 18' in height. Mr. Kouchoukos said there would be a mini-mart and a coffee area with donuts inside the building. Mr. Rogers asked about the construction of masonry, metal panels, and asked if Dryvit would be used on the building. Mr. Kouchoukos said no Dryvit would be used. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-24~2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Mr. Rogers asked if underground tanks had been removed. Mr. Kouchoukos said they were and remediation of the soil was done. Mr. FIoros said the setback variation for the canopy was a minimal request and should be approved. Burton Van Weddering, 710 Creekside Dr., Unit 504, was sworn in. He stated that he lived north of the property on the fifth floor. In past experience, he said that a searchlight shone in his bedroom window from the time he moved in until the station close& He said he wanted assurances that there would be no lighting sprawl into their bedroom and asked if this would be a 24-hour operation~. John Kouchoukos said they would use canopy lights and that those lights would not throw light past property lines, as required by the Village's revised lighting ordinance. They will not be a 24-hour operation at the beginning, but this may change later and become a 24 hour operation, depending on the level of business. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval of the request for Variation and Conditional Use with the conditions listed in the staffmemo. Leo Floros seconded the motion. At 8:15, Chairperson Juracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for discussion from the Board. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 10:06 p.m., Merrill Cotten made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary J~dy-~$r3~l~'y, Senior Planner ,~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 24, 2000 HAS BEEN CANCELLED VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSECT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 JOINT REVIEW BOARD ORDER OF BUSINESS SPECIAL MEETING Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Village Hall Wednesday, August 23, 2000 100 South Emerson Street 3:00 P.M. Second Floor Conference Room 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 i. Call to Order ii. Roll Cai! III Appointment of'Public Member IV Selection of Chairperson V Update on the Downtown Redevelopment Proiect VI, Discussion Regarding the 1999 Annual TIF Report VII. Discussion Regarding the Current TIF Financial Pro-Forma VIIi. Other Business iX Adjournment Any individual with a disability who would like to attend this meeting should contact the Village's Director of Finance at 100 South Emerson St., (847) 392-6000, TDD (847) 392-6064 T:! .',.:]m:n JP,.B 2000 .~gcnda doc