Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 09/26/2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, September 26, 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 II, ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 22, 2000 ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ISSUES DISCUSSION This subject is a continuation of the discussion that took place at the August 22 Committee of the Whole meeting. Early 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 bringing 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 faciIitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT t00 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). "The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, per-[ormance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity." H:\GEN\Cow~Agenda\092600 COW Agenda.doe MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 22, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer, Dennis Prikkel, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran and Paul Hoefert. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker, Police Sergeant John Dahlberg, Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Mike Blue and Senior Planner Judy Connolly. I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from July 25, 2000. Motion made to approve the Minutes by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee Prikkel. Minutes were approved. Trustee Skowron abstained. Approval of Minutes from August 1, 2000 Special Committee of the Whole meeting. Motion made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee Prikkel. Minutes were approved. Approval of Minutes from August 8, 2000. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Trustee Prikkel requested a change in the language regarding the consensus recommendation from the Board concerning Community Center use for senior activities. Minutes were approved with the modification. II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. WISCONSIN CENTRAL/METRA NORTH CENTRAL COMMUTER LINE DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT-UPDATE Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village staff has been in discussions for at least five years with the Wisconsin Central and Metra representatives regarding the upcoming addition of a track line adjacent to the existing track that runs through the northeast portion of the Village. In the 1960s, the railroad owner at that time removed one of the tracks to make it a single line, however, with the purchase of the line by Wisconsin Central and the addition of commuter lines, traffic has increased to the point where an additional track is necessary to handle the traffic volume. Village staff has worked diligently to minimize the impact on the adjacent residents near the Prospect Heights station including the erection of a fence and location of the boarding platform. The second track will be located to the west side of the existing track with the platform in between and construction is slated to begin in September of this year. Construction drawings have been received and reviewed and are consistent with previous commitments made by Wisconsin Central and Metra. Staff has also worked to close the private crossing in the unincorporated area of Mount Prospect referred to as Morrison Avenue. The closing and relocation of the entrance to this private parcel will relieve the train engineers from blowing their whistle at this uncontrolled intersection in the future. Staff has also prepared cost estimates and purchase agreements to install quick- curb at Emmerson and Euclid if in fact the Federal Railroad Association (FRA) requires whistles to be blown at that intersection. Previous commitments from FRA have stated that if a physical device is installed to keep drivers from going around the gates, they would not require a whistle being blown. He stated the screening fence that is currently in place behind the residents adjacent to the existing platform will be removed during the construction process but reinstalled. it is his intention to put together a Resident Information Bulletin for home delivery this week to provide information to the residents along the track line. This item was for information purposes only and required no Board action. V. ROUTE 83 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT - UPATE Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided a progress report regarding the construction and stated that the Phase I portion of the project regarding the east side of the street is almost completed. There was a pouring of concrete all day today and another one will be scheduled for this coming Friday. He stated the bridge for the east of the road will be completed within two weeks and IDOT has approved overtime to make sure the bridge construction portion is brought back on schedule. He stated several factors including a labor strike, structural steel shortage and utility location issues have caused the project to fall slightly behind but two-way traffic is still expected by Thanksgiving and the traffic should be shifted to the newly paved east side within three weeks. He does not expect permanent traffic signals, right-of-way restoration and other final items to be completed until next spring. Police Sergeant John Dahlberg provided an overview of the Police activities during the construction process. He stated the Police Department has stepped up enforcement along Emerson and has written almost 250 citations for either speeding or Stop sign violations along Emerson. He stated that the Police and Village staff have spent substantial time addressing the traffic issues of not only Emerson but also adjacent streets in which traffic is found as an alternative to Route 83 during the construction. He stated that Public Wor~ has been very responsive in putting up additional signage within short turn-around periods to improve the flow of traffic through the area. He stated discussions with IDOT have been fruitful in altering the signal timing for the traffic lights and Police personnel have been located at strategic intersections in an effort to educate drivers during the process. He stated that currently Officers are assigned to Prospect and Emerson in the evenings to improve the flow of traffic at that intersection. He stated that even after the left turn from Prospect to northbound 83 was instituted with extensive signage and barricades, 12 citations were issued for people ignoring the signage and barricades. Public Works Director Glen Andler stated that he has retained a Traffic Consultant to assist the Village in suggesting alternatives to the ICC in reviewing the staff suggestions regarding the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Route 83 near the tracks. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: A number of Trustees stated that this project has been a model of cooperation between different agencies and have recognized the extensive staff commitment to make the project move along as smoothly as possible. John Kom, 301 North William, spoke. He referred to a recent article in the Daily Herald newspaper which referred to the construction being completed next year. He felt the article was not entirely accurate due to the fact that only restoration would be completed next year and it appears as if the construction process itself should be completed on time. He suggested Village staff correct these misstatements by the newspaper. VI. MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ISSUES DISCUSSION Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that there are three major issues that he is bringing forward this evening for general discussion and comment. Those items include lot coverage, tear downs and oversized garages. Lot Coverage This is defined as the amount of land covered by a structure or improvements to a piece of property and the ratios that are established in the current Ordinance are based on the various Zoning Districts. Several items impact lot coverage including storm water runoff and aesthetics to the property and neighboring properties. Some of the staff issues that arise with lot cover, age discussions include situations where lot coverage is exceeded as existing and when a resident wants to come in to replace a deck, a patio or a driveway, they are informed they cannot replace such an improvement due to them exceeding the lot coverage. Unfortunately, many of the improvements to a large number of homes in the Village were either built in the County or built when Codes were substantially different. There are several options available for consideration including leaving the lot coverage ratios the same, or credit different amounts of coverages as a percentage of the total, or allow administrative flexibility in allowing residents to restore existing non-conforming coverage. Tear Downs This is defined as the removal or substantial rebuild of single-family homes. This is a significant reinvestment in the community and in the housing stock within the community. While the impact on the neighborhoods may be based on various judgmental differences, the phenomenon has occurred on a very limited basis in Mount Prospect to date. Other communities have taken different approaches to this single-family redevelopment. Oversize Garages Community Development Director E~ill Cooney stated it is quite typical that residents have submitted plans for significantly larger structures than current allowed by Code and the Zoning Board of Appeals is involved in considering all garages under 600 square feet. It has been very difficult to define hardship as required by the Code for a significantly larger garage than allowed by Code. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was a concern regarding the definition of hardship for Variation and whether such hardship is consistently used in Mount Prospect as other communities. There was also a suggestion that some consideration be considered for lot coverage related to a ratio of the lot size. Several Board members stated they did not necessarily see an issue with allowing replacement in-kind for structures that are currently non-conforming. There were also some comments regarding the consideration for the administrative option for allowing a percentage of Variation with certain conditions regarding replacement of existing structures. Generally, the Board members felt that additional study needs to be undertaken regarding tear down and rebuild of single-family homes. There was also a concern raised regarding retaining affordable housing within the community and whether the community is at any legal exposure. It was suggested that the ZBA be offered the opportunity to provide input regarding these subjects for the Board to consider. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT None. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer to move into Closed Session to discuss Personnel, Litigation and Property Acquisition. Meeting adjourned into Closed Session at 9:17 p.m. Meeting reconvened into open session at 10:29 p.m. IX. ADJOURNMENT No other business was transacted and the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL DS/rcc Assistant Village Manager H:\GEN\Cow'uMinutes~082200 COW Minutes.doc 5 MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 12, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:31 p~m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Richard Lohrstorfer and Dennis Prikkel. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker, Project Engineer Joel Michalik and GIS Analyst Leanne Brehob. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from August 22, 2000. Minutes were held due to the number of elected officials present at the meeting. II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. INFORMATIONAL UPDATE ON FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAPS Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker introduced Mike Hughes of Burns & McDonnell engineering firm that performed the fieidwork on behalf of the residents. Mike Hughes, Burns and McDonnell, spoke. He stated that his firm was hired to evaluate and appeal the 1997 proposed Floodplain Map and floodway designations for the northeast corner of the Village. The appeals have been very successful and they are currently in the process of getting a letter of Map revisions processed. Maps are expected to be effective November of 2000. He stated the success of the revisions is evidenced by the fact that 106 buildings were originally identified in the floodway. With the revisions, only one building is now in the floodway. He said there were also 297 buildings originally in the floodplain. Now that number is down to 122. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: It was pointed out the Village spent approximately $80,000 to benefit 190 homes and Trustees were very happy with the results and the funds expended on behalf of the residents to protect their investment. Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker stated that a study of Weller Creek would be considered in an additional Phase and staff continues to assist residents on a case-by-case basis regarding any Flood Map revisions necessary. V. DES PLAINES RIVER LEVEE 37 UPDATE Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker stated that this Levee is proposed for the west side of the Des Plaines River running from Euclid to Palatine Road and utilizing some Cook County Forest Preserve property. The Army Corps of Engineers has proposed a schedule which would begin construction in 2003 and the Village funding commitment could range from $855,000 to $1.5 million with a significant portion of the amount being reimbursed if the necessary funding becomes available. The available reimbursement would most likely be the difference between the $850,000 and the $1.5 million, however, the Village would have to front the money initially to participate in the process. He stated discussions are currently underway with IDOT in an effort to coordinate their proposed improvements along Milwaukee Road and some possible funding assistance. Once the Levee is constructed, it would be the responsibility of the municipalities of Mount Prospect and Prospect Heights to maintain. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Village Board members were very thankful to the staff for continuing to monitor this project and it was suggested that the Village consider utilizing Flood Control debt monies for the funding necessary for this project when it is necessary. VI. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) UPDATE GIS Analyst Leanne Brehob stated there are three main elements of the GIS system that are in development. These three elements are layer creation, database integration and GIS dissemination. She stated she is in the process of developing numerous layers that would overlay the existing maps to provide additional features, which can be studied and reviewed depending on the intended purpose. She stated there has been a recent completion of the property number identification to each property address and the layers are being integrated for use with the databases as they are being developed. She hoped that the GIS information will begin to be shared with other Departments beginning early next year. II. PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT UPDATE Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided an overview to the Village Board regarding the status of the Accelerated Street Program. He stated the Village is in year four of the ten-year program and significant savings has been realized with the ability of staff to do the design work in-house and there has been 19.8 miles resurfaced at $177,000 per mile and 12.8 miles reconstructed at $705,000 per mile. He stated in 2001, the final year of reconstruction, all streets should be completed and at that point, resurfacing would only be necessary thereafter. He stated the streets have all been rated by a consultant and continue to be evaluated. He stated the program is on schedule and on budget and staff has experimented with several innovative methods to determine whether the street life can be extended. Results are yet to be realized for those experiments but there may be additional differences in the near future. General comments from the Village Board members included the. following items: Board members were extremely complimentary in the efforts to communicate with the residents who are impacted by street reconstruction or resurfacing. VIII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Michael Janonis stated these items were provided to the Board for general information purposes and required no action but they are still critical in terms of advising the Board where various projects stand. IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. X. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc H:\GEN\Cow\Minutes\091200 COW Minutes.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, AICP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT~ DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO VILLAGE BOARD DISCUSSION ON ZONING ISSUES The Village Board discussed several zoning issues at the August 22, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting. A number of follow up questions resulted fi.om that session. This memorandum presents the findings and analyses that resulted fi.om additional research in response to those questions. LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) LIMITS Lot coverage and FAR ratios are two common methods used by municipalities to limit the amount of development that is possible on private property. Lot coverage specifically limits the amount of land that can be "covered" by any type of structure (buildings, driveways, patios, etc.) irrespective of the height of the structures. FAR addresses the gross square footage of buildings that may be constructed on a property and does not take into consideration other structures. The Village's Zoning Code applies lot coverage ratios to all of its zoning districts as well as other bulk regulations including setbacks, height limits and minimum lot sizes. Although FARs are not listed in our Code, a "defacto" FAR can be determined utilizing the above mentioned bulk regulations. Listed below are the bulk regulations for the RI and RA districts: R1 Zoning District Lot size: 8,125 sq. ft. (65' x 125') Setbacks: 30' front, 25' rear and 6.5' sides Buildable area: 3,640 sq. ft. (area within setbacks) Allowable lot coverage: 3,656 sq. ft. (45% of lot size) "Defacto" maximum FAR: .63 RA Zoning DisU-ict Lot size: 6,000 sq. ft. (50' x 120') Setbacks: 30' front, 25' rear and 5' sides Buildable area: 2,600 sq. ft. (area within setbacks) Allowable lot coverage: 3,000 sq. ft. (50% of lot size) "Defacto" maximum FAR: .75 The "defacto" FAR listed for each district was determined by designing site plans for single family homes and applying the other bulk regulations listed above. Assumptions were made for "typical" driveway widths, garage sizes, sheds and sidewalks in order to achieve this ratio; therefore, the actual FAR will vary slightly depending upon the assumptions used. Site plans for these typical sites are shown on the following pages. Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 2 RA Single Family District Single Family Home w/ Single Family Home w/ Detached Garage Attached Garage Garage · Driveway 120' 120' Home Home  [ Drive- way 50' 50' Figure 1 Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 3 RI Single Family District Single Family Home w/ Single Family Home w/ Detached Gararge Attached Garage Driveway , 125' 125' Home Home II , Drive- way 65' 65' Figure 2 Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 4 The site plans demonstrate the type of homes that could be developed under our current zoning codes in the RA and R1 districts. As the exhibits show, a key factor is whether the home has an attached or detached garage. A property owner could construct a 4,200 square foot home with an attached garage or an 1,800 square foot home with a detached garage in the RA district. In the R1 district, an owner could build a 5,500 square foot home with an attached garage or a 2,800 square foot home with a detached garage. The reason for the large variance in possible home sizes relates to the amount of land used for the driveway and detached garage. For every square foot of land occupied by the driveway and/or garage, two square feet of potential house is forsaken. It should be noted that these figures are maximums and that property owners typically would install additional patios, decks and ancillary sidewalks on their property, thereby reducing the possible size of the homes. Staff surveyed surrounding towns to determine what FAR limits they allowed, if any. Typical FARs for lots that would fall into the RA and Ri districts ranged from .35 to .5. The Village's "defacto" FARs of .63 and .75 were very generous when compared to surrounding communities. If the .5 FAR were applied, the homes with detached garages shown on the attached exhibits would not be affected. However, the homes with attached garages would be reduced to a maximum 2,880 square feet in the RA district and 4,000 square feet in the RI district. If the Village Board feels that the current bulk regulations leave too much potential for oversized homes, they may want to consider the .5 FAR figure. However, to date the current regulations have adequately controlled the potential impacts of new homes and large additions on adjacent properties. MINOR VARIATIONS Variations are considered by the Village in cases where property owners request relief from the strict standards of the zoning ordinance. The ordinance requires that a hearing be held before the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) to consider the merits of that request. The criteria by which the request is to be considered are contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Variations that do not exceed 25 percent of the required standards and those for fences are granted by the ZBA. Variations greater than 25 percent are granted by the Village Board. The process of application review and hearing can take up to 90 days for a variation. The processing fee for a single-family property is $100. Some requests for variation are relatively minor. They only slightly exceed the setback line or lot coverage limits. In many cases, the requests are for needed repairs to an existing condition that became a nonconformity due to annexation or a change in the zoning ordinance. In these cases, it may be appropriate to approve such minor variations through an administrative process. This process is used in nearby communities including Des Plaines, Palatine, Northfield, Libertyville, and Evanston. The purpose ora "Minor Variation" process is to address variations that have limited impact on the neighborhood in a manner that is quicker and easier for residents. Our research, including a review of minor variation procedures in other towns and discussions With the Village Attorney, indicates that a minor variation process for Mount Prospect could include the following elements: 1. Limited Number of Items to be Considered: The Minor Variation process is meant to address requests for relief from the zoning ordinance that are in keeping with the intent of the ordinance and reflect public policy. Therefore, the number of variations that should be issued under a minor variation procedure would be limited and the extent of relief granted would be only up to a certain percentage of the base standard. In Mount Prospect it would be most appropriate for Minor Variations to be heard for requests related to alterations or replacement of existing conditions on residential property. For example, .requests by residents to remove and replace an existing patio on a property that exceeds lot coverage could be considered for a Minor Variation; a request related to construction of a new home or major renovation of an existing home Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 5 would not be considered. In the case of commercial development, all variation requests would be heard by the ZBA, and Village Board if required. Minor Variations could be made available for situations such as: a. Replacement of existing sidewalks, patios, and driveways on properties that exceed lot coverage requirements by no more than 10 percent of the standard in residential districts. b. Replacement of existing accessory structures that encroach into side yards by not more than 40 percent of the standard or rear yards by no more than 10 percent of the s~mdard in residential districts. 2. Notice: There is a notice requirement for Minor Variations, but it need not be as extensive as for regular variations. Common practice is that notices be mailed or a sign be posted on the property. Rather than mailing to all residents within 250 feet of the subject property, an acceptable alternative is to send notices to all adjacent property owners. To ensure control of the process, the Village would mail notices. The notice would include a defined period for public review and comment on the application - two weeks is appropriate. 3. Hearings: Holding a small, but official hearing before a Hearing Officer is common for Minor Variations - although Evanston allows an administrative decision with no hearing in some cases. Another acceptable alternative is to waive a hearing in the case of requests that do not receive formal objection by the end of the notice period. Hearings for Minor Variations in Mount Prospect could be held by the Director of CommuniW Development serving as the Hearing Officer. The hearings would be held at a set time(s) each month and allow for comment and discussion by residents. There might also be situations (such as when there are no formal complaints from neighbors) under which the hearing step could be waived. Applicants or others would be able to appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer to the ZBA. 4. Benefits to Residents: The benefit to residents requesting the variation is a shorter turnaround time for the process and a less onerous application process (for eXample, they would need fewer copies of application materials). Likely users of the Minor Variation process are those discouraged from undertaking projects by the rigor of the standard variation process. The Planning and Building Divisions occasionally discuss projects that will require formal hearings for very minor variations with residents who decide the process is not worth the effort. 5. Impact on ZBA or Staff: It is difficult to say how many Minor Variations would be heard - Des Plaines averages two Minor Variations each month. Few ofthe ZBA cases heard recently could have been addressed through this administrative process and, as noted above, some with very minor requests chose not to pursue variations. SLIDING SCALE FOR GARAGE SIZE As described in a previous memorandum (dated August 15, 2000 and presented to the Village Board on August 22, 2000) there have been several variation requests to allow garages larger than the 600 square feet permitted by the Village Zoning Ordinance. Given the potential impacts of larger garages, there was discussion regarding the potential for a sliding scale for garage sizes, with a maximum standard set. There are several possible ways that such a sliding scale could be incorporated. Our research shows that such a scale could be based on the size of the lot, the size oftbe house, or the amount of the rear yacd to be covered. Zoning Issuas - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 6 Garage Size as a Function of Lot Size Minimum lot sizes in Mount Prospect single family zoning districts range from 8,000 to 17,500 - as shown below. Note that while single family detached homes are permitted in all the districts listed here, they are most common in the RX, R1, and Zoning District Minimum Lot Size RX 17,500 R1 8,125 (9,375 on a coroer lot) RA 6,000 PO. 8,125 R3 8,000 Recent zoning cases have approved 720 square foot garages in both the R1 and RA zoning districts on lots of 8,544 and 8,840 square feet. Garages of 672 square feet have been approved on lots of 10,124 (R1) and 11,775 (FA). In these cases the approved garage size was a function of the request by the resident and the site characteristics. Although counterintuitive to the idea of a sliding scale, the larger garages were permitted on the smaller lots. This experience indicates that using a sliding scale for garage size based on required or actual lot size would not necessarily be reflective of the potential impacts ora new garage. Garage Size as a Function of the Rear Yard Establishing a limit on the amount of a rear yard that could be covered by a detached garage presents difficulties similar to those with a lot size standard. The main problem would be that the use of rear yards varies from home to home. The simple area calculation also does not take into account factors such as amount of yard covered with other structure (patios, sheds, etc). In addition, having a larger rear yard does not justify having a larger garage that could be the same distance from an adjacent property as a smaller garage. Therefore, as with lot size, the setting a standard based on required or actual yard size would not be the def'mitive control. If used, it would have to be part of a calculation considering such factors as side and rear yard setbacks, and lot coverage. Garage Size as a Function of the House Size There is reasonableness in using house size as a way to determine garage size. It makes sense from an aesthetic standpoint that a home not be dwarfed by a garage on the lot. However, this approach also presents a number of problems. Not the least of which is that house sizes change. We are seeing many additions in the Village that double the size of home. Would a garage on that lot also be allowed to double in size? Also, since a prime conearo regarding large garages is impact on neighboring properties, using house size as a standard for garage size would allow the largest house on the block (and perhaps the most imposing or out of character) to have the largest garage. For these reasons, using huns~ size as a standard on which to base a sliding scale would only work as a secondary consideration. Summary The Village's recent experience indicates that it is impractical to create a sliding scale based on fixed items such as lot or yard size to control the size of garages. Consideration of such sliding scales indicates that using any one of the standards considered above is not suffieiant. The best standard would have to be a combination of factors. This would create a complex analysis that would be cumbersome and difficult for residents to understand. The benefit of additional regulation in controlling potential adverse impacts would be limited. This is because garages are designed and constructed in increments - the most common being 600 (24 x 25), 672 (24 x 28), and Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 7 720 (24 x 30). While 22 feet deep versions of these increments are possible (550, 616, and 660) they are not as desirable since they have less storage space for household goods. Therefore, even a sliding scale standard will ultimately result in garages based on the commonly available garage size. In any case, the differences between these are relatively minor in regard to their potential impact on neighboring properties. For example, the difference between the 672 and 720 square foot garage is only two feet of additional width. Controls to protect against potential impacts of garages coming too close to neighboring properties (being too tall or covering too much of the lot) are already in place in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. There is no evidence in the Village's recent review and approval of oversized garages that fixed standards (lot, house, or yard size) as the basis for a sliding scale would be a better approach. Likewise, it does not seem likely that such an approach would diminish potential impacts on adjacent properties or reduce the number of variations requested. A simple and clearly understood garage size, which would be further controlled by existing lot coverage ratios and setback requirements, will continue to serve the Village well. If there is desire to increase the current standard, information on common garage sizes indicates that either 672 or 720 square feet are appropriate options. TEAR DOWN (DESIGN REVIEW) ORDINANCES Tear down ordinances have been collected and reviewed from four communities that addressed this issue. They are Park Ridge, Lake Forest, Winnetka, and Hinsdale. The intent and application of those ordinances are summarized below. It is interesting to note that Hinsdale, Winnetka, and Lake Forest regulate the ability to simply demolish residential structures. Park Ridge - Construction of a new home or major renovation in Park Ridge requires review and approval by an Architectural Review Board. Detailed residential design guidelines relate to architectural style, site layout, proportion/massing/scale, roofs, windows and doorways, exterior architectural elements, and surface materials and colors. The City's zoning ordinance also includes FAR, height, and setback requirements. Hi~sdale - Notice of properties within 250 feet is required as part of any residential demolition permit so as to advise adjacent residents of the activity. The newly built homes are controlled by the FAR and setback standards in the zoning ordinance. Winnetka & Lake Forest- Control of tear downs in Winnetka and Lake Forest are related to protecting historic landmarks. The Winnetka ordinance primarily allows the village to delay demotion of a historic structure. The Lake Forest ordinance requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for any landmark or structure in a landmark district to be demolished or replaced, or for construction on a vacant lot in a historic district. A hearing is required before Lake Forest Preservation Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Standards for new homes include building height, design, and s~ale in relationship to surrounding areas. NaperviHe - Naperville has established a Teardown Taskforee, which is currently studying the issue of teardowns. The emphasis of their work is on the bulk and size of new homes, rather than the appearance. Please pass this memorandum on to the Village Board for their review and consideration at the September 26, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Community Development Staff will be in attendance to present these findings and answer any questions. 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 hoxv our Zoning Code addresses certain situations. This memorandum describes ~ssues 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 developmem code as follows: "A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highl) resistant to infiltration by storm water. Such surfaces include hard pavements, such as conc~rere, asphalt, brick, slate, gravel and boulders: ~vood 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 ratic Those ranos are: CR - Conservation Recreation 25% B 1 - Business Office 75% RX - Single Family Residence 35% B2 -Neighborhood Shopping 75% RI - 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 Commercial 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 I 75% Why is lot coverage a concern? Lot coverage is regulated through Village codes for two reasons: 1 ) to limit stormwater rnnoff 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 of a lot being covered by buildings and hard surfaces. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 2 Stormwater management is a longstanding issne 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 reqnirements to point resideutial downspouts away from neighboring properties and requiring a permit for site work that changes the grade of a property. Tile 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 strnctures. 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 tile 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 that 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 nonconforn~ing as they [~late to lot coverage. Likewise, some properties may have been developed prior to tile establishment of current zoning standards, lin any case, tile existing conditions are permitted to remain as_noncon~m~ing 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 mnst meet applicable lot coverage requirements (14.402.B). This requirement has prevented a uumber of residents from removing patios, driveways, and sidewalks, and replacing them in tile same location. In some cases the replacement is to correct an area that is severely cracked, sometimes to the poiut of being a trip hazard, Property owners seeking to instal[ new or enlarged patios, sidewalks, or driveways, decks, etc. also run into the maximum lot coverage ratio - even when tile inlprovements conform to setback requirements. While tile code is clear in defining tile standard, residents are often disappointed that desired improvements to tbelr property are limited. Where tile desired lot coverage ratio is close to the pem~itted level and a hardship can be identified, residents occasionally pursue a zoniug variation to alloxx them to exceed the standards. It should be noted that tile same types of lot cox erage issues arise for commercial development - even though itl those cases the lot coverage ratio is higher to allow for needed parking and loading dock areas. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Nei;4hfloring Communities - Other communities address tile question of lot coverage itl a similar manner. However. they lypically include buildings, accessory stru,:tures, and decks while excluding drix ewuys, patios and sidewalks. 'l-}~is approach can be thought of as a "buildi~'~g coverage ratio". Those ratios in adjacent communities Zouiug Issues August 15, 2000 Page 3 range from 25% to 40%. depending on lot sizes. A survey summary attd 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 alloxv 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 tn 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 rite 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, assignmg a credit to seemingly less pervious surfaces ts 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 actuall) 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 sxgnificant impact. 2. Water moving th.rough and/or under a pervtous pavement will undermine the pav_ement b.y 3vashin~g 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 ag~egate betxveen brick pavers is compacted (in part) to prevent the movement of water. 3. In many cases, an impervious laver 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 certatn 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 uow, 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 uuder 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. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 4 TEAR DOWNS AND ADDITIONS Tile occul'rellce of"tear downs" and ma. jor additions itl residential areas is becomiug lllore and more COllllllOll ill 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, resideuts begin to iuvest in large additions and even tear down smaller, less desirable homes to constract new (often much larger) homes. Background Although pm~ of the recent interest in major borne investments c/earlF can be attributed to the 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 anract residents are generally independent of the economy. Proximity to transpo~ation, 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 propet¢y costs, tear doxxns aud major additions can be expecte& While generall> considered the sign of a xery desirable communit>, this phenomenon also presents potential negative impacts on the residential character of the neighborhoods in which the teat' downs and additions occur. Anyone xvbo has drixen through a neighborhood that has experienced tear downs has seen one or more large modern homes tucked ia the middle of a block of older and smaller homes. In addition to dift~rence in size, the homes are often constructed of different materials than the older stractures (brick versus siding). These changes alter what designers refer to as the "rhythm" of street, giving the neighborhood character a different feel The attached pictures (AUacmnent B) gtve an idea of some of these impacts as relate to building sizes and aesthetics. Mount Prospect's Experience The characteristics described aboxe as making communmes arrracr~xe to tear downs are present ~r Mount Prospect. Of [ate. the Village has seen very fexv tear doxxns. Over the asr 18 mouths, building oermits }~ave been issued for about 14 nexx single famil3 homes tthis does not include permits issued or under review for 22 townhomes at Dearborn Villas alqo five townhomes behind Mrs. P & Me'~. Of these 14. txxc x~ere tear downs - one with a construction x a/ue over 5500.000 Home additions, make up a considerable poaiou of the residentml construction activity ir the Village Permits were ~ssued for 53 additions in 1999 and 46 for 2000just through the end of June. Nearly 30 percent of those of 99, were for second story additions. The additions, m some cases Dlnced otq rather modest homes, can reach wel above $100.000 m cost. This level of investment can be seen as an indicator that the value of Mount Prospect's amenities ~s gaming on ~or ma> nave reached~ land xalues. A sumnqary of m~jor residential home improvements m Mount Prospect since January. 1999 is provided m Auachment C. The location of homes braiding m~lor additions is also interesting Approximatel3 three-.~mrters of au thc residential additions buih m the ~asr 18 months are located within one mile of the doxvntoxk n thy contrast new home construction is ~ee~q xsherexer x'acam m'opcrty can be [bund t: the VillagcL I'his ,. understandable since thai area hlcludes [~o~c5 IIUtt arc u'picaIl> stlla[]er, ldor. and ac~mg modern nmenlitcs Dmcuss~ons will residents putting on additiums and porches show the} are olden I)m~ilios with children who haxc boon in thc Vi[Iago i}>T' year's and x crx Illtlch XXalll tO sla}, but xxhosc homes doll'l :~cct dleir needs. Residents Needs 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 modern 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 dc come into play. A number of those building additions included a front porch 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 conditional 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 ro occur. Also, many of the same neighborhood impacts created by tear downs can also result from large additions. Some of tl~e alternatives for addressing those issues, as used by other communities are described below: Neighboring Comntunities -The attached survey of adjacent communities shows tbat 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 tsome could not separate out data as to how many residential permits were specifically for additions~. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Most zoning ordinances tn adjacent communities include a floor area ratio- (FAR) standard. Similar to lot coverage, FAR limits the square footage 6f 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 strucmres like sbeds 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 bomes and/or additions can be addressed tbrough the process of architectural review, either through zoning standards or formal review Park Ridge uses aa Architectural Review Board to review and approve tear downs and additions that are visil:te 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 tal 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 "ste[: back" to mtmmize the impact of height. Zoninglssues Augustl5,2000 Page 6 OVERSIZED GARAGES The typical garage is more than just a home for cars. They are used for storage of household items, children's toys, and recreational vehicles from bicycles to boats. This expanding use of garages bas, not surprisingly, has led to residents' needs for larger garages. In mostly built up communities like Mount Prospect, existing garages are often replaced with Iarger 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 resldents~ 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 Iarge 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 xvas 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 Reqc~ested Size Approved Notes ZBA 30-97 748 748 Approved as ZBA final ZBA i2-99 768 720 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 discussion. A basic two-car garage about 528 square feet - 22 feet wide by 24 feet deep (a 22 toot 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 xehicles 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 bb' bulk standards like yard set backs and lot coverage ratio. Ftoxv 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 ~xith the existing home and/or neighborhood. Another zoning issue related to large garages is that tbe.x 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 oxvners. Those tliat did object were concerued about stormwater runoff rather than the size of the garage. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Other Communities - The survey of surrounding communities shows a maximum garage size of betweeu 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 machineD', and no living space. With a 600 square foot maxirnum, 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 througli 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 neighbortiood 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 t~vo cars and for uneuclosed porches in the front' yard setback. Tbis 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 emphasi-s would be on the case by case consideration of the request. CONCLUSION This memorandum has provided a summary of cur/'ent 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 the Village Board for their review and consideration at their August 22nd Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff will be present at this meeting to further discuss this matter. ,.Xt~:~ch memt B Tear l)m~n Extra,pies- B I~ lng .%ize Attachment B Tear Do~ n Examples - Building Aesd~edcs Zoning Issues 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 ~alk-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 Kitcliens 33 22 Laxvn sprinklers 33 10 Nexv Homes 18 17 Pools 9 12 Sun rooms 14 9 Additional Materials I. Daily Herald Article about trends in suburban tear downs (7/14/00) 2. Mount Prospect Residential Zoning District Standards for RX, RI, and RA. /mb \\V H~V02\DEPTxCOMDEV~G EN~P LNG~zon ingcowmemo.doc ozone down trend mo ng deeper into and sub bs Is the home you're living in a can- and is likely to be tom down.'! especially In move upsca.e cern didate for demolition? Some humes escape total demo- munities, and they may not b Whether they are too dilapidated lition because they have enough worth much more than the vahie o 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 eh- foot. age and luxury features to yes- mit a home of at least 3.500 squart dangered list as a result of the cur- teryear's modest dwellings, feet to be built on ~our lot. The big rent housing boom. "In Chicago's Lincoln Park corn- gev the home allok,,d by code, th~ Demand for properties that can munity, I've seen buyers pay more tempting ti, site is to ~ be tom down to make way for new $600,000 for an old house, and then builder. home construction has been well do a gut rehab," says Roger Lautt · The house is a ranch. Cap~ dooumented over the last few years of RE/MAX Exclusive Properties Cod or of a nondescrip: style in such communities as Hinsdale, on theNear NorthSide~ Homes built from the 1930 Winnetka, Gleneee, Lincoln Park "In Western Spring. s.. many small- through the 1960s often fall in th[ and Lake View. er homes are being ~ora down, but category and are viewed as tea~ ~Now, according to an informal in LaGrange, you see more rehab- down candidates. Many !ack th survey of t0p RE/MAXsalesassoei- bing," says Gary Barnes of design appeal and interior detailin ales in the Chicago area, the phc- RE/MAX Properties. Western that a comparable home built i nomenon has spread, engulfing ar- Springs. 1910 might offer. eas such as Arlington Heights, "In LaGrange you find more · The house has an exzerior ( Deerfield, Skokie, Flossmoor and homes with brick or stone exteriors siding or stucco, rather than bric LaGrange, along with a large area and architectural interest. In West- or stone. Brick or stone homes ar of Chicago itself era Springs. there are more frame good candidates for rehab an For example, Kathy Barkulis of and stucco houses that don't hold expansion, rather than demolitio~ RE/MAX Suburban, Arlington up as well if they are not main- Frame and stucco houses fac Heights, says, "We find builders rained 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 higI~ay des[ that they can purchase and demol- selling in the range of $275,000 to able location, such as wita~an waL ish. In our community fight now, a $375,000." lng distance of a commuter tva! reliable scroll design ) tear down can be any home priced Much the same is true in the c[~', s~ation or in a 'very ups~a~e ne[g; under $225,000, and they are being says I~utt. There, brick homes or borhoodi If so and if its size or co: replaced by much larger homes two-flats, no matter what thei~ con- dition doesn't measure up to a fyi: selling for $750,000 or more. Typi- dillon, are usually spared demoli- cai home in the area, some(me mt .d. stamped envelope to cally, these new homes are about lion even i/the interior is a mess. see it as a tear-down candidate. ullev, c/o Daily Herald, 3,500 square feet with four bed- Rundown fi'amc structures, on the · The house has a serious stru slgre'en Drive, (~incinnati. rooms, three baths and a three-car other hand. tend to attract bulldoz- turaI problem. Lf it does. tko cost or download at w,,vw.dul- garage." ers. ' repak~ng the ~.tuatibn may be su~ Along the North Shore, the de- How can you tell if your old and that a tear-down makes solid ec ~s considering buying 'a mand for tear downs is even more relatively modest house is a tear- nortg, c sense. ssage chair instead of intense, according to Allyson Hoff- down candidate? Check for these · Vacant lots are in sho~ sup! ,~ the money at the mas- man of RE/MAX North, North- ' signs: in the area. In some hot real est~ 'ap[st. Those chairs seem brook · More than one home has been markets, like Chicago's Near Sot lot of motors in them. Do "The tear-down phenomenon has torn down and rebuilt within four Side and Ravenswood area, c a lot of electricit'v to oper- been going on along the North blocks in the last year. This may industrial and commercial sit ~zi G. Shore for a long time, but there has indicate that builders are seeMng I -= i ;0 per hour for a therapist, been a radical increase in the last tear-down candidates in your nassage chair can quickly three to five years as the prices of neighborhood. Other areas in both city and s~. zsinitialoest. Asvoumen- houses andlots has soared. · The house is under 2.000 urbs lack the safety ~,'alve ti' ~.ese real massage chairs Recently a house on a one-acre square feet in size. Homes that vacant land provides, whi ? motors for a true mas- lot in Deerfield sold for $1 million small tend to have limited appeal, encourages tear downs. just v~b~tors to relax. m Interactive Health mas- :r and it uses only 60 watts ..'itx' This costs less than a · r hour used. The "human nnoiogies" ~HTT~ use sew It'sthe Smartest tOe various massage lames Dulley c.o the ruld. 6!111~i P,.oyalgreen m'mnati. OH 15214. · , ............... m0rt.qa.qe town. 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 appropriat 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 3fount 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 th6 (. 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 then eight (8) unrelated persons with disabilities is not located one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community resi- dence. Group community residence. Such residence shall be located no closer than on6 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. 4825, 10-1-1996; Ord. 5023, 5-18-1999) 14.804: USES PERMITTED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES: ~'5 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 principaf 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 Requiremen'[s: 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 fe~t whicl~ever 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 :/2 the height of the principal building Exterior side yard 25 feet Rear yard Shall be equal to the height of the principal build- ing 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 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 Buildiags: 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: k. a. Chimneys. - b. Flagpoles. c. Steeples. d. Radio and television antennas attached to the principal structure, (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) 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 appropriat~ aCency: ' 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. 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 setbacksl (Ord. 4590, 9~21-1993; Ord. 4825, 10-1-1996; Ord. 5023, 5-18-1999) 14.904: USES PERMITTED IN LIMITED CIRCUMSTANCES: A. The following uses 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. B. Except that a conditional use shall be required if the followin9 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 lot 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 buildin9 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 " less 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 fess than ~/2 the height of the principal buiidin9 Exterior side yard 20 feet Rear yard Shall De equal to the height of the principal build- lng or structure but not less than 25 feet C. Lot Coverage: No lot in the R-1 District shall be developed with total ~mpervious surfaces exceeding: 14.905 14.905 1. All permitted and conditional uses for residential 45 percent 2. Ail 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. Flagpoles. c. Steeples. d. Radio and television antennas attached to the principal structure. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) L Vzllage of Mot~nt 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: ?URPOSE: The :uroose of tne R-A Single-Family Residence District is to accommodate ex~sting single-family ,esidentia! develoomem in oK]er, established sections of the Village. These ne~gnoorhoods are characterized Dy smaller lots than reqmred in the R-1 District. (Ord. 4590 9-21-1993) 14.1002: PERMITTED USES: A. In the R-A Single-Famiy Residence District tne only uses which may nereafter be established are: Accessory uses and structures. Family community residence w~th no more tnan five (5) unrelated 3ersons wt~n disabili- ties and support staff OperaTor must De icenseo or certified Dy an aDDroonate agency. Family communny res~aence w~th no more man eigm f8 unre~atea persons w~tn disabilities, and sueoort staff. Such residence snal ee located no c~oser man one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. Ooerator must be licensed or certified by an approonate agency Foster care home. Home occupations. Limited daycare. Single-family detached dwellings. 14.1002 14.1004 Wireless service facilities shall be permitted as set forth in subsection t4.313E 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. institutions, libraries, museums. Cultural 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 commercial 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,p00') from another family community residence. More than one garage. Rehabilitation home. Residential planned unit developments, subject to Arlicle 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: Prospect 14.1004 14.1005. Churcnes synagogues, mosques and other houses of worst p. Municipal buildings, libraries or museum buddings provided no commercial enterprtses are conducted on the premises. Public scnools, elementary and high, private or parochial school without dormitory accommodations and having a cumculum eduivalent to a public, elementary or high school. B. ExcePt that a conditional use shall be required if me following circumstances apply: 1. A residential dwelling unit is being converted for one of me uses set forth in su9sec- tion A of this Section as the princtpal use of the structure; or 2. A new building or structure ~s To be constructed on prcDer~y not ther. in use pursuant to subsection Aofthis Section on a ct of less than forty thousand (40,000~ square feet. (Ord 4590, 9-21-1993) 14.1005: BULK REGULATIONS: A. Lot Size And Area Recuirements: The minimum area for any lot m the R-A District shal 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 '/2 the height of the principal building Exterior side yard 20 feet Rear yard Shall be equal to the height of the principal build- in9 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 3fount 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 and television antennas attached to the principal structure. (Ord. 4590, 9-21-1993) L Village of .~£ount Prospect VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA - Thursday, September 28, 2000 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2~ Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - July 27, 2000 III Discussion Regarding Building Inspection Process IV Discussion Regarding Purchasing Policy and Procedures V Chairman's Report VI Finance Director's Report VII Other Business VIII Next Meeting: October 12, 2000 NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION Minutes of the Meeting July 27, 2000 Village Hall Building I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and Commissioners Charles Bennett, George Busse, Vince Grochocinski, Betty Launer, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Village Manager Michael Janonis, Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth and Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer. II Aporoval of Minutes The minutes of June 22, 2000 were approved as submitted with a notation from Commissioner Ann Smilanic of a typographically error on page five. There was a discussion regarding excused absences and non-excused absences be'rog reflected on the minutes. Upon further review, the Finance Commission unanimously decided that the minutes would not reflect an excused versus non-excused absence. III Review of 1999 Comprehensive Annual Financial Rer~ort Finance Director Doug Ellsworth began by stating that the Financial Statements were audited by FERS and have received an unqualified opinion. Mr. Ellsworth also stated that generally the Village is in very good financial shape. Revenues in the General Fund for the yezr 1999 were $26,440,459. Revenues exceeded projections by 3.61% or $921,316. Furthermore, General Fund expenditures of $24,783,822 came in at $208,768 under budget. IV Mid-Year Budget Review Finance Director Doug Ellsworth began by discussing the Vii/age's fiscal position six months into the year. The review allows the Village to identify variances and make corrections and decisions for the balance of the current year as well as provide valuable information as we begin planning the 2001 Budget. Mr. Ellsworth also discussed concern over the Infrastructure Maintenance Fee, which is a revenue source that provides approximately $420,000 each year. Currently, the wireless based communication companies are in court suing over the validity of the maintenance fee. The wireless- based companies provide approximately $150,000 of the $420,000 collected each year. Commissioner Ann Smilardc asked Mr. Ellsworth if we still have Franchise Agreements with any of the companies, and if we would sti/1 be able to collect monies in case the court ruled the maintenance fee invalid. Mr. Ellsworth stated that we do have some agreements with the larger companies. Chairman John Kom asked Mr. Ellsworth about the possibility of changing the Real Estate Transfer Tax from a buyer's charge to a seller's charge. Mr. Ellsworth suggested Village Manager Michael Janonis address the issue. Mr. Janonis stated that the Village is presently researching the subject and is looking to make a recommendation. Commissioner George Busse stated that taxing the buyer is not a very welcoming message to new residents. Mr. Busse suggested the Finance Commission review the ordinance and make a recommendation. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked why the blood donor program has asked for additional funds. Mr. Ellsworth stated that their expenses have exceeded the $500 allowed for the year. Commissioner Charles Bennett said that he believes this is a program that should be supported and that it is to the Villages' benefit to continue the program. Commissioner George Busse stated that money could be raised by volunteers instead of getting all the money directly from the Village. There could be fundraisers or benefits and additional volunteers could be found. Finance Director Doug Ellsworth began discussing the General Fund Expenditures. To date there has been 47% expensed this year. Furthermore, the Village will be over budget approximately $200,000 because of the recent windstorm. The Village has applied for Federal and State funds to offset the additional expenses the Village has incurred. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked why the money for the storm is reflected under miscellaneous expenditures and not under Public Works. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the contingency account holds miscellaneous amounts and that the contingency account is an unbudgeted account. Lastly, Finance Director Doug Ellsworth stated that there are no major expenditure variances. Expenditures are coming in fairly close to the forecasts. V Chairman's Report Chairman lohn Korn began by discussing various topics discussed at recent Village Meetings. Chairman Kom further discussed with the Commission changing the membership from nine members to seven members. Mr. Korn stated he recommended that the commission continue on as a nine- member board. However, Mayor Farley suggested the commission be reduced to seven members. Commissioner'S George Busse and Charles Bennett voiced opinions that a seven-member board would be acceptable as long as the commission has diversity. Commissioner Ann Smilanic stated that she felt comfortable with a nine-member commission. Commissioner Vince Grochocinsld motioned to concur with the Mayors recommendation and Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded the motion. Six members were in favor and one member opposed. Chairman John Kom asked the commissioners to review the agenda for the remainder of the year and let him know if any members will not be present at future meetings. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the August 244 meeting could be changed to September 28~, since Community Development would like more time to prepare their material. Commissioner George Busse makes a motion to cancel the August meeting and move the August items to September and Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded the motion. Six members were in favor and one member opposed. Chairman lohn Korn mentioned that the Finance Commission member's terms are not staggered. Currently, four members' terms will expire in 2003. Commissioner George Busse suggested the members be allowed an extension to their term. Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that under the new ordinance, extensions will be allowed. Lastly, Mr. Korn stated Commissioner Vince Grochocinski's term has expired and he needs to be reappointed. I Finance Director's Report Finance Director Doug Ellsworth distributed the Capital Improvements Plan, which was approved by the Board on July 18~. VII Other Business Chairman Korn began an open discussion on the new Village Hall Proposal_. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked why we needed to have a referendum, Commissioner Smil~ic also stated that the Village has issued a total of $38,000,000 of debt without referendum in the past. Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that there are no legal requirements for a referendum and that a referendum is not binding. It is only advisory. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski asked what the deadline is to hold a referendum. Mr. Janonis stated that in order to go to a referendum the Board has to make a decision by August 22 in order to have it appear on the November ballot. Commissioner Ann Smilanic made a motion stating that the Finance Commission recommends that the Village Board make a decision on a Village Hall without going to referendum. Commissioner George Busse seconded. Commissioner Betty Launer suggested the Finance Commission recommend to the Village Board that they make an independent, informed decision regarding a new Village Hall/Senior Center with out going to referendum. Commissioner Smilanic agreed with and accepted the modification to her original motion. Commissioner Busse stated the members should vote on the motion as presented. All members were in favor. Chairman John Korn will present a written recommendation to the Village Board from the Finance Commission at the meeting on July 27~, 2000. VIII Next Meeting: September 28. 2000 Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to adjourn and Commissioner Betty Launer seconded. All members were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for September 28, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant