Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 01/23/2001 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, January 23, 2001 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 DECEMBER 12, 2000 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. POSTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT FOOD INSPECTION RATINGS This is an item from the 2000 Committee of the Whole Discussion Topics. The posting of restaurant and food store inspection ratings is becoming popular ~n jurisdictions throughout the Country. Rating systems were brought to the Country's attention when Los Angeles County began posting grades at food establishments in 1997. The rationale of the program was to encourage better compliance with food handling, storage and preparation mandates. Locally, the Village of Palatine has adopted a Code requiring the average annual sanitation score for an establishment be posted in a conspicuous location at eye level on the premises. This program became effective January 1, 2001. Trustee Corcoran expressed interest in exploring the implementation of a similar system in Mount Prospect. With the concurrence of the Village Board, the item was placed on the Committee of the Whole Topic Discussion list for 2000. · Staff has prepared a memorandum covering the most salient points of this topic including the history of such rating systems, how inspections are conducted, the focus of such inspections and the pros and cons of establishing a public rating program. Staff suggests that this initial discussion focus on achieving a greater understanding of: (1) how restaurant inspections are conducted; (2) the focus of those inspections; and (3) how that information can be translated into a meaningful and informative rating system. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTA CT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT '100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. If, after this initial discussion, there is consensus to proceed with development of a program, staff would then conduct additional research regarding same. It is also anticipated that it would be desirable to open a dialogue with those food establishments likely to be covered by such a program. The purpose of this dialogue would be to provide information, garner feedback and educate these establishments on the nuances of such a program. Thereafter, a detailed proposal would be presented to the Village Board for its consideration and eventual adoption. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to facilitate discussion and answer questions. V. FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DISCUSSION ITEMS Over the past several years, the Village Manager's Office has attempted to better manage the flow of information, which comes to the Village Board through the Committee of the Whole Agendas. As you know, Committee of the Whole meetings are designed specifically to allow for more extensive discussion of pending policy, finances, Code changes and various items of community interest. The Committee of the Whole also serves as a forum for discussion of items, which are unexpected, controversial, or of an emergency nature. Generally speaking, Committee of the Whole meetings consist of anywhere from two-four set items, which have been researched by staff and are presented for discussion and preliminary decision-making purposes. Included in the regular Committee of the Whole Agendas are such things as discussion of the Capital Improvement Program, Mid-Year Budget Review and the annual Budget Hearings. Another segment of discussion items are staff generated and have to deal with policy, projects or fiscal issues which require Board direction. Finally, over the course of the year, individual Trustees put forward issues and items for discussion. Again, this year staff would like to discuss and receive direction on a list of potential items for Committee of the Whole Agendas. It should be recognized from the outset that this is not an all-inclusive list and that items, both staff and Board generated, will come up during the course of the year. However, for purposes of managing staff time and putting limited resources to work in the most efficient manner, we would like to review, discuss and prioritize potential Committee of the Whole Agenda items. The evening's discussion will consist of reviewing suggested topics, discussing briefly the rationale and need for discussion and the potential timing for bringing such items forward. Board members, as well as staff, were asked to provide any suggested topics that they would like to have considered. These items are included in the accompanying package. In the past, the Village Board has engaged in a polling process, which identifies any subjects, which do have the support of the Board for research and review. Appropriate staff will be available to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VI. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VII, ANY OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT L I N PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). "The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity." MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 12, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:37 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Dennis Prikkel, Michaele Skowren and Irvana Wilks. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis and Assistant Village Manager David Strahl. I1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from November 28, 2000. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved. Trustee Corcoran abstained. II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD John Dislin, member of the St. John Lutheran Church, spoke. He wanted to bring to the attention of the Village Board the fact that staff has designated a building which the Church has owned for many years as a change of use group requiring extensive fire protection. The building in question is the old school building which has been used by the Mount Prospect Historical Society for many years but the Church is now in the process of rehabilitating the facility for Church activities. He stated the Church cannot afford the sprinkler system as required by staff and would request the Village Board review the situation to determine whether the staff interpretation of a change of use group is appropriate. Mayor Farley stated that the Church representatives will need to address this issue with staff primarily and the Village Board supports installation of sprinkler systems wherever appropriate in the Village. Village Manager Janonis stated that he has met with Fire representatives recently and expects to convene a discussion with representatives of the Church in the very near future so options can be reviewed. He stated the discussion regarding the change of classification can also be explored but will offer no assurances regarding possible change. IV. AMENDMENTS TO THE REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX ORDINANCE Village Manager Janonis provided an overview of the previous discussion regarding the Real Estate Transfer Tax. He stated the Tax has been in place since 1987 and is placed upon the buyer. Of the 70 towns that levy the Tax, 18 place the Tax on the buyer. At the October 10 Committee of the Whole discussion, there were numerous suggestions regarding cleaning up of the Ordinance itself to respond to several changes in the real estate market and still allow for collection of the Tax. There was significant discussion at that time regarding the change from the buyer to the seller and how such a change would impact potential revenue for the Village and possible relief for residents who have previously paid the Tax at the time they purchased a home in the community. Trustee Wilks requested reconsideration of the Village Board decision and this discussion will focus on whether the change should be made regarding levying the Tax on the seller instead of the buyer and possible implications of doing so. Earl Meeske, 918 South Elm, spoke., He stated that he is a long-term resident and feels that the justification for levying the Tax on the buyer is necessary because the previous residents paid for the improvements to make the community attractive for new residents. Such a Tax on the buyer is a down payment on the previous improvements paid for by existing residents. He is a real estate agent by trade and has never seen an issue at the time of the transaction regarding closure on a house impacted by the Real Estate Transfer Tax. He does not see this as an issue on the sell or turnover of homes in Mount Prospect. Richard Hendricks, 1096 Christy Lane, Twin Lakes, Wisconsin, spoke. He stated that he has concerns about the change in the Transfer Tax and feels that when the Village imposed the Tax in 1987, they were ahead of other communities at that time and not everyone saw the justification that Mount Prospect did at the time it was originally passed. Various comments by Village Board members included the following items: There was concem that the Real Estate Transfer Tax is a valuable revenue stream and if there were to be a switch, a consideration should be undertaken regarding possible rebate of the Tax paid when the individual resident was a buyer and then now are transferred to a seller. However, since there are no equitable options forthcoming, there is doubt whether such a change could be implemented without adversely impacting some residents. There were some comments regarding the difficulty of selling homes in Mount Prospect that could possibly make Mount Prospect single-family homes less attractive due to the Real Estate Transfer Tax. There was also a suggestion that the Real Estate Transfer Tax be removed all together and shifted to another revenue soume such as the Property Tax. Consensus of the Village Board was to implement the recommended housekeeping changes to the Ordinance as previously presented by staff but to leave the Transfer Tax as before whereby it is levied on the buyer. V, VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT None. VI, ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert suggested that staff look into making a revision to the Village Code requiring that the rough side or unfinished side of fences along major streets be altered so that there is a uniform appearance along the streets. Several Trustees commented about the turn out at the Holiday Parade and the crowd that was present. wk ~ Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/mc H:\GEN\Cow\Minutes\121200 COW Minutes.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development - Health Division MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JANUARY 18, 2001 SUBJECT: POSTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT INSPECTION RATINGS Background The posting of restaurant and food store inspection ratings is becoming popular in jurisdictions throughout the counWy. The inspection rating is usually posted at a conspicuous location such as the entrance and is Visible to the customer. The rating is typically a score from 0-100, a grade A-C, or a review from fair to excellent. These ratings are familiar to the public and accepted in the communities that are posting inspection ratings. The primary reluctance to post ratings is based on the inherent flaws of translating an inspection scoring system developed by the FDA to standardize the inspection process throughout the country to a rating that ideally indicates the food safety of an establishment. Using the inspection score or converting the score to a grade does not always give an accurate portrayal of the food safety of an establishment. To give the consumer a better reflection of the conditions of an establishment than a score or grade alone, jurisdictions are making the entire inspection report available on the Internet, at the local jurisdiction, or as a summary at the establishment. Jurisdictions have developed different models for accessing a rating to more accurately inform the consumer of the food safety of an establishment. Experience in other Jurisdictions Grading systems were brought to the country's attention when Los Angeles County began posting grades at food establishments in 1997 (Attachment 1). The focus of the program was to encourage better compliance. The effort was made in response to an investigation by the press of the food inspection program. The grades they use were originally converted from an inspection scoring system developed by the FDA and used throughout the country. During an inspection, a score of 0-100 points is given. The score is derived based on the points subtracted from 100 for each item violated. The score translates conveniently to grades used in education. In Los Angeles, a score of 90-100 is an "A", 80-89 is a "B", a 70-79 is a "C" and a score below 70 is posted (Attachment 2). The scoring system and inspection report have since been modified to emphasize those violations critical to the safe handling, storage and preparation of food (Attachment 3). The current report and scoring system differ greatly from the original system. The rating system has become widely accepted and is popular with the public. However, the grading system does not give a complete explanation of the conditions found during inspection. To provide better information to the consumer the actual inspection scores are available on the Los Angeles County web-site and the report file is available for review at the health department offices. Posting Food Establishment Inspection Ratings January 18, 2001 Page 2 Locally the Village of Palatine has adopted a code requiring the average annual score be posted in a conspicuous location as determined by the health department (Attachment 4). The code became effective January 1, 2001. It is still early to determine the successes and shortcomings of the program. The posted card lists the average annual score and as a reference lists the percentages of similar category operations (Attachment 5). If the consumer desires additional information, the phone number and web site address is listed on the card. The card is typically posted on the entrance door of restaurants and food stores. Only one card is posted at the establishment, regardless of the size and diversity of the operation only. As an example in a large food store separate inspectiOn cards and scores are not posted for the different departments such as bakery, deli, catering, meat department, etc. The DuPage County Health Department is considering a program to post a star rating for each food establishment on their web-site. The program is in development and review and is not final. The system includes a rating from 1-5 stars that would be based on a count of the number of times high-risk violations are recorded during an inspection. The scoring system being considered would be a modified version of the FDA scoring model. The ratings would not be posted. Food Inspection Process A basic understanding of the food inspection system is necessary to evaluate a rating system. Food establishments are inspected using a form and guidelines suggested by the FDA. The form was developed to encourage consistency of inspections, set priorities for the operator and inspector, and as a standardization tool within and between jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions adopt and modify the process to fit their needs. The inspection form has 45 items (Attachment 6). Each item has a weighted value from 1 - 5 points. The more critical items have a higher point value. For each item that is violated the point value is subtracted from 100 points. Immediate correction is required for items of a five-point value or a final score below 60. The inspection itself is a pass/fail process. Regardless of the score, the local jurisdiction can take the following actions to ensure the safety of the food: Remove product that is contaminated or has been abused and is no longer safe. · Seize the product that is contaminated or has been abused and is no longer safe. · Embargo the product that is contaminated or has been abused and is no longer safe. · Make an emergency closure of the establishment until the operation is safe to prepare, serve and store food. · Suspend or revoke the permit or license to serve and prepare foods if an operator does not maintain the operation in a manner that food can be stored, prepared and served safely. An establishment that is not safe may have the product destroyed, the operation closed, or the license suspended or revoked. The scores that occur during these extreme actions can be throughout the scoring range and can include what may translate to a "A or B" grade (Attachment 7 and 8). This has been a criticism of the rating systems. Violations ora serious nature can occur at establishments with high scores and a low grade can be received for numerous minor violations that have little or no direct impact on food safety. The grade or score is still an indicator of food code compliance. Posting Food Establishment Inspection Ratings January 18, 2001 Page 3 Variations in Scores Scores for an establishment can vary for the following reasons: Inspections made during periods of food preparation. During times of food preparation, there are more opportunities for violations of a higher point value to be observed. Inspection scores are generally during periods of food preparation. * Older establishments with existing non-conforming violations have lower scores. The non- conforming item is noted and debited during each inspection. These are items of a non-critical nature. These are items generally related to the durability and ease of cleaning of surfaces not in contact with food. They do not pose a risk to the consumer but can require more maintenance and diligence by the operator to keep those surfaces clean. · Inspections made during inspector training and standardization exercises. There are two inspectors during these exercises and more violations may be observed. Overcoming Shortcomings of the Scoring System The inspection scoring system does indicate some level of compliance, however more information must be provided to better portray the food safety of an establishment. To overcome the shortcomings of a grade or a score, jurisdictions have implemented the following programs: · Providing the inspection report and explanation of the inspection process on their web site (Attachment 9). · Indicating the inspection report is available by contacting the jurisdiction on the grade or score placard (Attachment 4). · Indicating the establishment was closed during the past year on the grade or score card (Attachment 2). · Posting an inspection summary in place of a score or grade. The summary lists the critical items that have been cited (Attachment 10). · Developing alternative criteria to rate a restaurant based on compliance history. · Developing alternative scoring systems to account for repeated violations of critical items. (The current system does not allow for multiple debiting of an item. e.g. Meats cheeses, dairy products must be stored at proper temperatures. It is a five-point deduction whether one item food was out of temperature or twenty items~) DuPage County uses such a system. · Modifying the original FDA inspection form to emphasize critical violations to food safety. The original Los Angeles system has been extensively modified to include 100 items with values from 0- 6 points (Attachment 3). · Permitting a new inspection when a grade or score unsatisfactory to the establishment is received (Attachment 2). A score or grade can be lower than the establishment desires. A lower score can occur when inspections are done during rush periods and joint training inspections. The score is typically lower because there is more opportunity for violations to be observed. Posting Food Establishment Inspection Ratings January 18, 2001 Page 4 Pros and Cons of Posting a Rating · Posting of scores or grades gives the consumer more information to make better choices and encourages compliance. · The rating systems are widely accepted by the public in areas where they are in use. · The loss of business to neighboring communities not posting grades or scores. · Creating an adversarial relationship between business and government. · The scores and grades not being a reflection of the actual safety of an establishment. Chief criticism of the grades and scores is that the score or grade does not represent a level of safety. A good grade is not necessarily an indicator that there are no serious problems, and a low grade can be an indicator that there are many minor problems not directly related to food safety (Attachment 11). For these reasons, jurisdictions at least make the inspection report available to the public. A few jurisdictions have developed alternative methods to develop a rating based on critical violations or posting an inspection summary rather than a rating. Impact on Mount Prospect The posting of grades in Los Angeles was developed in response to an investigative story on inspections and food safety (Attachment 1). Currently Mount Prospect's inspection program is not under investigation. Mount Prospect has supported an active food inspection program for many years. The inspection program requires immediate correction of violations critical to food safety, and in the event an establishment is unsafe it is closed, or if an owner of an establishment repeatedly violates the food code their license may be suspended or revoked. Actual suspensions or revocations are rare in Mount Prospect. Hearings to consider suspensions and revocations have been held. Generally, these actions encourage an owner to close, sell, or improve the operation before an actual suspension or revocation hearing is held. To ensure quality service the Environmental Health division has sought out critical review of the program by outside agencies such as the county and state. The Mount Prospect inspection program has an established history of encouraging compliance. As an example, using the original Los Angeles grading system we have summarized the scores and computed the grades for the last six-month's inspections. The Environmental Health Division could have posted the following grade or scores: Number of establishments Grade Score 145 A 90-100 59 B 80-89 10 C 70-79 1 Score less than 70 60-69 0 Score less than 60 <60 Los Angeles has modified the original scoring system to emphasize those violations that pose a greater risk. The form differs greatly from the State of Illinois, Cook County, and Mount Prospect forms. Communities such as Los Angeles and DuPage County have revised the inspection forms using data from the very large numbers of inspections to justify modifications to the form. The numbers of osting Food Establishment Inspection Ratings January 18, 2001 Page 5 inspections in Mount Prospect are relatively small and it would be difficult to justify substantial changes to the inspection form. In addition, changes in the inspection form or process that differ with the State Code will require operators to train staff to satisfy the local code requirements. The changes could make it more difficult for food chains to operate in Mount Prospect. In the event grades or score are posted, we recommend the inspection report is available for review. The inspection report can be reviewed by contacting our office. This would give the consumer more complete information. Currently the reports are public record and can be obtained by completing a Freedom of Information Act request. Summary The posting of restaurant ratings is widely accepted by the public, and does encourage food code compliance. Reservations regarding posting of ratings are the possible loss of business, fairness of the rating, and inaccurately bolstering consumer confidence. To ovemome these reservations jurisdictions have made the inspection scores, history of closings, the inspections reports, and inspection summaries available, and allowed for new inspections when a rating is not acceptable. A few jurisdictions have devised alternative rating systems based on the history of compliance or the number of serious violations noted. The popularity of these programs is spreading. They are prevalent in the western and eastern United States. Palatine is the only community in the immediate area that requires a score to be posted. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and discussion at their January 2fd Committee of the Whole meeting. Staffwill be present at this meeting to further discuss this matter and answer questions from interested parties. /mw H:\GEN~NVI rLTH~Posfing Food Inspection Ratings.doc Channel 2000 - Dirty Restaurant Ordinance Passed by Board Page 1 of 3 SEAgCH EMAII. ~lOlilE SITE HAP ~ IB-M~I~ 8YO I1~ TO I[ leSlIE~ I Personal Fi CBS 2 News Team /nsurance Commitment 2000 Special Dirty Restaurant Ordinance Passed by Board ,oa.$ Assignment Provided by Your News E-Mall Alerts Digital Daily Health LOS ANGELES, Posted 7:00! Newsstand p.m. December 09, 1997 -- Business News The vote was unanimous. News Tips Maps & Directions The Los Angeles County ~ a,,,,s Board of Supervisors Tuesday passed one of the most sweeping health code reforms ¢ t~r in the nation, all because of CAREER C i:' ~ stainment problems CBS 2 News' I-team .~.otiobs.co ,, s uncovered in a recent official ::.o~, e :~ ~o. investigation. AUTOMO ~>:i~at's on What this new law means to consumers is that Los Angeles will ,,e~c~s cbs2 news soon have much cleaner restaurants, said CBS 2 News' Joel Graver. SHOPP The new ordinance will overhaul the county's restaurant inspection ~e~:n system from top to bottom. :~:~ YELLOW m~>r~ inside Until now, consumers never knew what was going on behind the scenes at their favorite restaurants. But that's about to change. :,:'~, ~ :' ~: ~<:~v "It's critical that the public have a right to know what's going on in REAL ES "~ these restaurants," Zev Yaroslavsky, chairman of the board, said at a .:~: ;~t recent hearing. ,' ~cati~n a recent investigation, ~,~ cams CBS' I-team found thousands '~ "~: ~ ~"~'~ ::,~I es~te r failed health 'r.V qu des inspections. the new law will create a letter-grading system for ~ Attachment 1 http://www.channe12000.com/news/stories/news-971209-205023.html 1/4/01 Channel 2000 - Dirty Restaurant Ordinance Passed by Board Page 2 of 3 said Grover. A the score of a must be posted near the entrance. IThe county will also require restaurants to provide copies of their inspections to customers. Restaurants will have to post a red tag on the door if an inspector has closed them. "We see this not as an opporttmity to buffup one part, but a chance to completely redo our restaurant inspection program," remarked Los Angeles County Department of Health Services Director Mark Finucane recently. The ordinance now requires mandatory food safer for restaurant workers. And restaurants will have to have a least one certified food handle on the premises at all times. The county also has a new policy for dealing with restaurants that fail inspection more than once, said Grover. From now on, if a restaurant fails two inspections in a row, they'll lose their license. Under county rules, the board of supervisors must take a second vote on the new law next week. It's expected to pass unanimously again, and then officially becomes law a month later, said Grover. "So sometime in mid-January, yoffll probably start seeing those letter grades in the windows," he said. From our archives: · Nov. 27: Mayor's Restaurant Closed After Inspection · Nov. 25: Health Dept. Head Grilled Over Restaurants · Nov. 25: Restaurant Probe: CBS 2 News Honored · Nov. 24: L.A. Inspection Woes: No Secret · Nov. 23: Lawsuit Claims Inspection Funds Went Astray · Nov. 22: Restaurant Investigation: 46 Eateries Closed · Nov. 20: _Jerry's Deli Closed After CBS Investigation · Nov. 19: Restaurant Probe: Officials Shocked More information: · Watch CBS 2 News for updates on this story. · L.A. County Department of Health Hotline (800) 427-8700. · Is Your Restaurant Safe? How to Tell Talkback: http://www.channe12000.com/news/stories/news-971209-205023.html 1/4/01 ,,New Requirements for Retail Food Establishments Page 1 of 2 SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH PROGRAMS AND SERVICES ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 2525 Corporate Place, Rm. 150, Monterey Park CA 91754 POSTING REQUIREMENTS ADVISORY BULLETIN RETAIL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS This bulletin is to inform you of the new requirements for all retail food establishments including restaurants, markets, bakeries, and bars. The following will be effective beginning January 16, 1998: POSTING REQUIREMENTS The following postings will he provided by Environmental Health and must be posted in an area clearly visible to patrons/public, as determined by the inspector: · Grade/Score Cards · Public Notification · Notice of Closure Grade/Score cards A grade (A, B, C) card will be issued to each establishment at the end ora routine inspection. The grade issued will be based upon the score received on the Food Official Inspection Report. The grading is as follows: · A a score of 90-100% · B a score nf80-89% · C a score of 70-79% · An establishment receiving a score less than seventy (70%) will be issued a score card and not a grade card. The score card will indicate the actual score received. The grade/score cards must remain posted until the next routine inspection, at which time the inspector will issue a new grade/score card. FoOd establishments that score below sixty percent (60%) more than twice within a twelve (12) month period are subject to closure and the filing of a court case. Public notification Public notification is a sign which will provide the address and phone number for the local Environmental Health Office. The sign will state: "All public health questions/concerns regarding this food establishment should be directed to the local Environmental Health Office." The sign must remain posted at all times. Notice of closure A notice of closure is a sign posted by the inspector after a food establishment has been ordered closed. The sign will be posted on the entrance door and will state the reason(s) for closure. The sign must remain posted until thc establishment is reopened by the inspector. AVAILABILITY OF INSPECTION REPORT(S) Food establishments must maintain the routine inspection report and all subsequent reports at the establishment until the next routine inspection report is issued. The inspection report(s) must be available for review by the public if requested. CERTIFIED FOOD HANDLER(S) m Attachment 2 http://www, dhs.co.la.ca.us/dhsps/restclos/nrfood.htm 1/4/01 New Requirements for Retail Food Establishments Page 2 of 2 Effective January 16, 1999, all food service operations which prepare any potentially hazardous food on the premises must have at least one certified food handier present during hours of operation. These food operations include restaurants, markets, bakeries, mobile food preparation units, commissaries, and food processing establishments. Additional information will be provided in the near future. If you have any questions, please contact the County of Los Angeles, Food Handler Certification Program at (213) 881-4117. For questions/complaints, contact Environmental Health at (888) 700-9995 http://www.dhs.co.la.ca.us/dhsps/restclos/nrfood.htm 1/4/01 (F~nt Value - 6 Ix~nts for violatiofis in each ca~ ht Sect~o~ I - max~um points dedscti~le 36) ~,otding - k~modiute risk I mu~le items or senm~s Rodents - immediate r[sk PHF 2. ~ooled Sdsged Eggs * unapprovod temperature 1C ~ocb'oaches - immediate risk 4 ~e"~'in;~ WATER I BNOTIZiN6 ., EIIPI. OTEE PEACTICI~ SEWAGE (Point Value - 4 points fa' violatkms in each cateflay hi Section.ii :~:Fraxim um points ~ 28) / 17 .Iok:~ofPHF-moderatefisklmuflipleitemsa-se~ngs 28~ i=:!i!? ;oap '~e-d~oe~y 18 .lutdin~ of PHF - sidle servin~ 2g~ ~i azardous Mb,tetris Chefnic~t~ - ut a'a~e I use 19 ~heli Eggs .==[:=[ ~ !mployee Pract~i~ tobacco I eatin~l I other FO~O PREPARAIlOfl ?='~ [iii::iiii i~ ~ E~(dIpM~ ~ 8Hn mN~ J C,A~INE18 ~0 )iligent Prpparation 31'.::?[~hproi~ty Clean,~ ~: Nut Mainfai~ed Clean 21 thawing - im~rol~r method 32_ ::~t~zinfl - kit¢h~rf utensils I food-contaut surfaces 22 {i~k for Contamination - food ix'epa'ed in unapl3'Oved ~ ? .:... PLUI ,B~., ] FIXTURES food prepared or handled with bare harlds I o~her : ....." .33 }ackfi~v4::Back Siphona~e :'~ :ritical Sir~! ~e (hgndwashing I utensil washing / food 23 :oodSorafle-impmper¥cova'~i~,~,~elevated :~i i!~ i '-missin~:i~t~i~linaccessiblehandsink ~,eady-Tc-Eat Food - mq:xmed t(~'~ib~e ~ion from 'i ~UlIER pROT~# 1 1RUllI.IN41ENU 24 raw meats I ~ultr}' ~!fish I~l~s ~! I~ 36 d~re~esentation - advertised food 26 Jnaooroved Source ;: ~i':[ii[iiiiii? 37 :)'~ter Wamin~ S~ns ~ Pure F~ I Sp~e 5g ~odsnts - no active popu~ion I rodent proofing 4~ Customer Seff~vice Uteft,~§ 6~ ~oc~oaches - k)w risk I hadxxa~e areas 41 Refrozen Food~!ili ! ~[i:: ::::~ iili[' 61 :)ther Inseuts - Iow risk OPE3~TIOf~ PLUMBING I FIXTURES I EQUIPMENT DRAINAGE 44, Hai~ Resters I Outer Garments I Nails I Rin~ - leaki~ I ~t clean I d~e~air I una~proved 45, Shutlflsbi~Ta~s Records 64. Drain Line I Supply Line 47; !i~[i I~ Premises - improper stora~ I linqn I castoff I tools 65. Io Hot Ware- - no immed~e risk 4~ Spoils Azea VE#TILATIO# 51, Cor~tion - d~eoai~ 69. i~Min~ I Light Shelds 52. $1crage TOg. ETS I TOg. ET R(~S I DRESSING ROOMS Containers -- Attachment 3 SUMMARy OF THE CORRESPONDING LAWS AND REGULATIONS FOR THE VIOLATIONS USTED ON THE FRONT SIDE OF THIS FORM. THIS ,SUMMARY PAGE UST~ THE GENERAL REQUIP~EMENTS FOR EACH ITE~ THE DEPARTMENT MAY CITE ADDITIONAL SECTIONS, AS NEEDED, FOOD TEMPERATURE 28, 43, Handwashing soap and t~els or dryir).q device sl~el~ be provided in (114040) 37 (114080) nuisance. (114035) 49. No sleeping accommo~lations shall be in any room where food is ;'4. Tl~e exterior premises of each foo~ lacility Ghall be kept olean and prepared, stored or sokl. (114175) free of litter and rubbish. (1140405 FOOD OFFIGt~. INSFEGTION R~PORT COI.,~fY OF LOS ANGEL~S * DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SI~VICES SECTION IV SECTION V SCORE I GRADE DOCUMENTATION I COIIIMEN'IS change m your grade. C(xt;~lt;I y(~lJr if~spector to detem, lhte your elicjibillty ' 81/82/2881 13:41 847-359-9848 VILLAGE OF PALATINE PAGE 85 the applicant or licensee or permittee in the same manner as provided in section 11-15 thereof. The decision of the Village Council on such appeal shall be final. Judicial review of said final decision shall be pursuant to the Administrative Review Act. Sec. 11-17. Posting required. It shall be the duty of every person conducting a licensed business in the village to keep his license posted in a prominent place on the promises used for such business at all times. (Ord. No. O-17-75, 2, 2-10-75} The annual average score, including the present inspection score, results must be displayed in a prominent location and in plain and unobstructed view within the establishment within a reasonable proximity of the front door of the establishment at a height that meets an adult's eye level, at a location approved by the Department of Environmental Health, effective 200_." SECTION 2: That the Code of Ordinances, as amended, be hereby further amended by deleting Sections 11-67, 11-68, 11-69, of Chapter 11 in their entirety and by substituting new Sections 11~67, 11-68, 11-69, which shall be and read as follows: ~Sec. 11-67. License Permit -- Required; feee. It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of food dealer in the village without first having secured a business license therefor. No such business liCenSe shal{ be issued or transferred unless a food dealer's permit has first been issued to such food dealer. Applications for such food dealer's permit shall be made In compliance with this chapter, Each of the following classifications shall require a separate annual license fee as provided in the fee schedule supplement to the Palatine Code of Ordinances: Food or beverage vending machine; Ice machine not ancillary to primary use; Machines vending general merchandise; Milk vendor, including machine, not ancillary to primary bus[ness; Mobile food dispensing units and roadside stands; Vehicles used for the delivery of perishable or unwrapped foodstuffs: To individual residences, To retail establishments. ~ Attachment 4 81-02-0[ 14:42 TO:MT.PROSPECT CLERK&HEALTH DEPT. FROM:847 359 cjo4G 1'05 ~ ~ w ~. ~8 39Vd 3NI1999~ ~0 39999I~ Ot~OG-Gq~-£t~@ ES:EI I005/9I/I0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Q Food Service Estabtishmem C] Original Inspection COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT [3 Retail FOod Store SEWAGE ITEM REMARKS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORRECTIONS I II -- Attachment 6 Sanitation Score ~ 100 Minus Dements Pageof YOU ARE HERE NOTIFIED TO REMEDY THE CONDITIONS AS STATED ABOVE WITHIN _ HOURS/DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. WRAL OnLine - Rating the Restaurants: Can They Make the Grade? Page 1 of 3 iRating the Restaurants: Can They Make the Grade? SANtT iON * Check recent~ " resta~t ' ~" ~-' , ~"~' ...z ' co~ties,ratings for 10 '-" ~.- r "".' '~.~ ~ ~ including % "' ,.r [ L~-' ' '-, Wake, ' .... 1 } t, .:1 ~ ~..~*...c.d..~. D~hm ~d ....... - .......... . / C~berland. ~,,..,~ · ......x,,. ~.,'~ ~'" database bx ' ~"~ ' ' " ~,~~...~r~*$~ a.~a,~ .,-. . i]il:lflO or Zip ~~* ....... ";' ' ' ' ' COde. Do you ever pay a~ention to the At the McDonald's on Poole Roa& in March of sanitation grade in last year inspectors found maggots in an unnsed a restaurant? If you ice cream machine. The restaurant's inspection did, you might feel grade at that time? 'A". reassured if its an "A", but W~L- TV5 Investigative On December 30. inspectors temporarily closed ~epoaer Stu~ Church's clficken on New ~rn Avenue when Watson found that sewage backed up on the restam'ant floor. It still 97 percent of all got an 'A'. Wake County restaurants Last month inspectors fbund rats for the second includin~ some with potentially time in the dumpster behind the B~iangles on hazardous fbod New Bern Avenue. Grade "A" conditions still got graded"A". ~ Attachment 7 http://search.wral-tv.com/news/wral/5investigates/1997/1124-restaurants~part 1 / 1/4/01 WRAL OnLine - Rating the Restaurants: Can They Make the Grade? Page 2 of 3 Maggots. Sewage. Rats. Sounds disgusting, but they're not really as hazardous or as tyPical as the Thc average score conditions inspectors cited in dozens of Wake 70, st) "A' County restaurants that still received grades of t[Ocf3ll ? n?tean "m". excellent in sanitation grades, it: Raw chicken is enough to make yon sick -- lnealls average and. s = s literally. That's why health inspectors tell below average, restaurants to keep the .juice from raw meat away - from cooked food. Inspectors also check temperatures repeatedly to make sure cooked : food is hot enough and chilled ~bod is cold enough.. Preventing contmnination fi'om ~bods like raw ~~ chicken and checking temperatures m'e two critical parts of a restanrant inspection. It may not sound as sickening as maggots or rats but it's Iai' h~spectors say the only more common, and the health department takes it ',xa5 m tim] om what much more seriously. Robert Origston is a was t'om~d in a supervisor for state sanitation inspectors. He says rcsta'arant inspection is bacteria is the culprit. ~x"q Listen to au or Real Audio :file. But With the state's own data. Watson found that dozens of restaurants cited with serious temperature violations or the potential ~br contamination still received A ~rades. Inspectors tbund problems pmwasive enough in m~pe~Io~s sa) mc~ 43 Wake County restaurants that they took off most dangerous five points --the maximm~ lmmber allowed by comammant round i~ taw, but under North Carolina s 100 point system, r'esram'm~/s, the restaurants still have another five-and-a-half points to spm-e before scoring below 90 to receive a "B" grade. Grigston says he considers this one of the weaker points of the inspection system. ~x'q Listen to au or Real Audio file. The sanitationo~rade doesnt· ' tell a customer [[',spectocs check fl~e milch. Environ~-~¢nta[ [ tealth specialists - iczi~pcmturcs td hot m~d inspectors - sa), the rcport listing the reason.s' a :oki foods t,o malqe sure restaurant lost points is far more telling than tho ~i~::,,'~:, !,~:~ s;~[} ingrade. http ://search.wral-tv.com/news/wral/5 investigates/1997/1124-restaurants-part 1 / 1/4/01 · WRAL OnLine - Rating the Restaurants: Can They Make the Grade? Page 3 of 3 restam'ants, So what can you do if you really want to know. short of asking tbr an inspection report every time you go out to eat? gott can search the scores and inspectors' comments for all 1,300 Wake County restaurants on WRAL OnLine. The OnLine report even lists State Sanitation school cat~eterias that have been inspected in the h~speclor S~q)ervisor last six months. t{oberr Grigslon says h¢ thinks fl~c grading is the weakes~ part of the Next Page Reporter: Stuart Watson Photographer: Richard Adkins OnLine Producer: Md AinsleF Home News l Triangle i 5 Investigates advertise? http://search.wral-tv.com/news/wral/5investigates/1997/1124-restaurants-part 1 / 1/4/01 ~ ' . K~eallh inspections:' There is no fail' (10/03/1999) Page 1 of 3 BUSINESS Home >> News >> Restaurant inspections EDITORIAL Updatea SUNDAY October 3, 1999 ENTERTAINMENT PlOW WE LIVE ~]t1~1 MARKETPLACE Health inspections: 'There is no fail' SPORTS r~ u s~N E ss Wichita's lowest restaurant rating -- C -- covers a wide , ,.~ ..: ,~, range; grades often bounce up and down. .r .,, ,,, By Joe Stumpe ~ ............. ~ The Wichita Eagle THE EAGLE ~ ,~rc ~"~',:es Talk about grading on the curve. , ~:¢e~!~ack In Wichita, where the city assigns grades to restaurants based on their ~ ~,~ ,,:? health inspection scores, there are three possibilities - A, B or C. · ~ ........ "There is no fail," said Roger Smith, supervisor of the Wichita-Sedgwick ,~ .:~.~ x...~ ~ County Department of Community Health's environmental services ~' .......... division ',' ~, ..... A's are awarded for scores of 85 (out of a possible 100 points) and above, ~.:~,,~ ~, B's for 75 and above, and C's for everything else. ,., 0 ~,,AL ...~,,,, ...., ,,~,, Even the department's inspectors sometimes have trouble getting a ~ ~ ....... handle on the system, writing "F" or "fail" on some inspections with ._,,q .... ~ ~,,r~,~':~:t~ ~ scores in the 40s, 50s or low 60s, Smith said those notations are errors. ~ !~ :~ "~:, But A's are most common, earned on 90 percent of inspections since the , ¥, ~ :~,~::e:~ beginning of 1998. Six percent rated B's, and 4 percent garnered C's. ~, (;c~ .. :~, Wichita is the only city in KanSaS that aSsigns grades to restaurants, and it has done so for decades. By city ordinance, cards with the grades on · ~!,.,o ~ts them must be posted in a prominent place. .......... "Those on the technical side (of the health department) will tell you it's '~ ,, of little value," Smith's boss, Jack Brown, said. "But we just get very , ,~ ~ ,. strong comments from the public that they like the grading system. If they see an A, they feel safe about eating there." .~,.~v.., .,~i !.?~i! But should they? Department records show that some restaurants ~"~r perform poorly on unannounced inspections, then improve dramatically on follow~up inspections that are typically made a short time later. The pattern is repeated the next time an inspector shows up unexpectedly. Consider these examples: · Hud Xing, 1415 W. Pawnee, scored a 58 for a C during an unannounced inspection last Oct. 7; nine days later it raised its grade to an A. On Jan. 1 I, it earned a 56 for a C; 10 days later, it raised that to an A. On April 15, it got a C; six days later, it http://www.wichitaeagle.conffnews/local/restaurants/nofaill003.htm ~ Attachment 8 /4/01 · ~ It~al~h inspections:' There is no fail' (10/03/1999) Page 2 of 3 MARKETPLAGE improved to an A. ,}. e~ r.s~r,~ So for all but 25 days of the six months those iuspections covered, ,:; :.~ ~.>::s the restaurant was able to post an A-grade card on its wall. · The Beacon Restaurant, 909 E. Douglas, scored a 53 for a C on Jan. 7, 1998, raising that to an A two days later. It earned a 73 for a C on May 19, 1998, upping that to an A two days later. And it got a 72 for a C on Feb. 9, improving to an A three days later. ~:-~ :o~,~ So for ail but seven days of the 13 months covered by those inspections, _, :~:,.,~:::~ the Beacon was able to post an A on its wail. "I don't think the gr~ing system is indicative of the risk the consumer has," said Jerry Vomholt, environmental health consultant for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment. : · > But if Wichita's system is flawed, diners around the rest of the state are offered even less information. State officials say the public can presume that any restaurant that is open meets minimum health standards, or at least did so during its most recent inspection. Because the state went to a new inspection system that does away with points in August, new criteria for assigning grades in Wichita will have to be developed. Smith said it may be based on the number of critical violations for which an establishment is cited. Contributing: Hurst Laviana ... i~The Wichita Eagle II Return to top Wichita Eagle,corn 825 E. Dougtas Wichita. Kan. 67202 3'i6.268.6614 The Wichita Eagle newspaper 825 E. Douglas W~chita, Kan. .37202 http://www.wichitaeagle.com/news/local/restaurants/no fail 1003.htm 1/4/01 ,~ ' ~H~alth inspections:' There is no fail' (10/03/1999) Page 3 of 3 316~268.6000 http://www.wichitaeagle.com/news/local/restaurants/nofail 1003 .htm 1/4/01 ,~,. ,R¢~/~aurant Grades Page 1 of 3 Buncombe County Health Center: Environmental Health Services 35 Woodfin Street Asheville, NC 28801-3075 (828) 250-5016 Recent Restaurant & Foodstand Inspection Results (07/01/2000 -10/31/2000) N~s'th ~.,~"e, lina PublicHea~h Return to Main Environmental Health Pa2e Enter the First Few Letters of the Establishment You Wish To View & Then Press the "Search Records" Button to Execute Your Selection North Carolina Public Health Links Explanation of' Grades Page 1 of 29 (Click on the Establishment's Name to see a detailed report of their grade.) 1 ~I H HOLE-BLK. MTN. 7 ROSS STREET BLACK 28711 669-9372 8/21/00 90 GOLF COURSE MOUNTAIN ~. CULINARY 1340 VICTORIA ASHEVILLE 28801 254 1921 9/18/00 96. KITCHEN ROAD BARA'B'TECH SNACK 340 VICTORIA RD ASHEVILLE 28801 254-1921 9/18/00 94. 3935 SWEETEN 28704 684-5737 8/10/00 96. ACROPOLI, TtlE CREEK ROAD ARDEN 1636 28803 232-0316 9/7/00 94. AMERICAN BISTRO HENDERSONVILLE ASHEVILLE ROAD 3 SOUTH TUNNEL 28805 298-8082 10/13/00 92. ANA BELLEIS ROAD ASHEVILLE HIGHWAY 74, 28730 628-4031 8/1/00 95 ANGELO'S EAST FAIRVIEW 2270 28704 684-7484 8/7/00 ANGELO'S PIZZA HENDERSONVILLE ARDEN ROAD 95 · ~ ~, 485 28803 274-3582 8/23/00 94 A[ OLLO FLAME HENDERSONVILLE ASHEVILLE PIZZA ROAD 1655 28803 274-9194 9/7/00 94. APPLEBEE'$ HENDERSONVILLE ASHEVILLE ROAD APPLEI3EE'S 11115 TUNNEL ROAD ASHEVILLE 1128805 t1295-9194 1110/31/00 1194. 1350 TUNNEL ASI-IEVILLE 28805 298-8804 8/9/00 96. ARBY'S (I) ROAD ARBY'S (2~ h°~NDERSONVILLE ASHEVILLE 28806 274-1666 I0/10/00 96 ROAD 900 PATTON ASHEVILLE 28806 258-1557 8/10/00 93. A R B Y'S # I 013 {3 ) AVENUE http://www.buncombe.org/ehgrades/RestaurantGrades.asp ~ Attachment 9 1/4/01 Re~taurant Grades Page 2 of 3 IBLVD)ARBY'S(4)(W EAVER 87 WEAVER BLVD,[ wEAVERVILLE 28787 658-1504 10/6/00 95. ARBYS (5) 1136 TUNNEL RD. I/Asn~wt~LE 1128S08 11251-2791 illOaZ/oo 1190. CTR. CONCESS. 28801 259-5766 9/6/00 95 CO. 28804 254-1281 9/14/00 96 MARKET 28801 253-0060 10/27/00 98 GRILL ?~NyD. ERSONVILLE ASHEVILLE 28803 277-1558 9~27~00 90. Explanation of Grades The North Carolina Rules Governing The Sanitation of Restaurants And Other Foodhandling Establishments provide for a numerical value to be assigned to establishments as a result of quarterly inspection. These values have a corresponding letter grade. As stated in section .2606 of these rules, "(a) The sanitation grading of all restaurants, food stands, and drink stands, shall be based on a system of scoring wherein all establishments receiving a score of at least 90 percent shall be awarded Grade A; all establishments receiving a score of at least 80 percent and less than 90 percent shall be awarded Grade B; all establishments receiving a score of at least 70 pereent and less than 80 percent shall be awarded a Grade C. Permits shall be revoked for establishments receiving a score of less than 70 percent." Establishments receiving less than a grade of 90 may request a reinspeetion to be conducted no less than 15 calendar days from the date of request. It is possible, therefore, that the most current grade for an establishment may not be reflected in this posting. North Carolina Public Health Links Environmental Health Services Food Saaitation Pro~ram Links Rules Governing the Sanitation of Restaurants and other Foodhandling Establishments Return to Main Environmental Health Page Visitors Since May 10,2000:163 http://www.buncombe.org/ehgrades/RestaurantGrades.asp 1/4/01 ~, ,.~egtaurant Grades Page 3 of 3 Send comments to webmaster(a')co.buncombe.nc.us © 2000 County of Buncombe, North Carolina. All rights reserved. Official Buncombe County Government Site http://www.buncombe.org/ehgrades/RestaurantGrades.asp 1/4/01 ,. . ~hanne12000 - Long Beach Adds Eatery Grading System Page 1 of 3 SEARCH EKAIL HOHE SITE NAP Retire f~" I~1~ $~ORY TO A FIIIEN~ I Plan Your Fu CBS 2 News Team Commitment 2000 special Long Beach Adds Eatery Grading System shop Retirem Assignment Accounts Your News E-Mail Alerts Restaurants To Post Inspection Summaries, Not Letter Financial Pla Digital Daily Health Grades Center Newsstand Business News NeWs Tips Maps & Directions TalkBack Eat n.q Out: Grades Or Summaries? ~e~'~'s LONG BEACH, Posted 7:10 p.m. January 27, 1999 -- Nine food inspectors today began ~ i~r the task of visiting 2,000 Long : ~::~'~,nmem Beach eateries. Their mission? ~ <:cr~; To ensure what we eat is ~ ,,oD e~s ~ol acceptable. c~s2 on TV ~vhat's on Following a 1997 undercover ci, s2 news CBS 2 News series, Los CAREER C Angeles County inspectors cea m implemented a restaurant grading system. (Full story) The bold letter grades have now become ~ot~o~ part of the county's urban landscape, said CBS 2 News' Lonnie AUTOMO r~,'~' Last year, the county Board of Supervisors began urging local cities to post cleanliness grades at area eateries. SHOPP ~: ~:~r~; c But Long Beach has recently designed its own method of restaurant (:: ~ca t ion review. No grades, but a detailed summary will be posted in plain YELLOW , .~: <:ams sight allowing you to see what s been red flagged at your favorite ,, ,..i,-, ,~; spot, said Lardner. .::,,: ~, uioes According to Lardner, .:..:. · ~ c q c ', find this information ~ Attachment 10 http://www.channe12000.com/news/stories/news-990127-203953.html ' 1/4/01 . I3.h~e12000 - Long Beach Adds Eatery Grading System Page 2 of 3 ~r -.n~lla~a"If I see a sign that says a Lawomce ~'"O~ ~ ~/bunch of stuff, I'I1 mm around  I~r ~and go someplace else," ~ ~restaurant customer John · ~ ~Himga told Lardner. "As a P~aFICl~BELL. ~ lillM lmatteroffact,whanwesaw ~ ..... ~ ~vou guys filming we decided maybe this place was a frequent violator and we would go eat someplace else." Inspectors will check Long Beach restaurants for food temperatures, cleanliness, storage conditions, food preparation, plumbing and pest control. "If you really want to know the details (of the inspection), you can pull the file. All you need to do is ask," Health Supervisor Nelson Kerr told Lardner. Some restaurants however ......... aren't so keen on the city's latest idea. They say the new ~ ...... t~h &~ system Could cause them to ~ ~ ~, lose business. ~ .......... ~ ...... "I think it's terrible because I : think it's easier with the A B ...... ~ ' ' C, D Hamabe restaurant ...... spokeswoman Hiromi Marder · told Lardner. "BeCause with ~ "~'"~'~ ~' the A, B, C, D, customers won't ask the details." The health department hOpes that because the notices are now being made public, it will inspire restaurant owners to fix what needs fixing, Lardner said. The health department is also requiring all restaurant owners and managers to undergo health and safety training within the next year. TalkBaek! · Eating Out: Grades Or Summaries? Give us your opinion. More information: · New requirements for retail food establishments · Food establishment rating list · Weekly restaurant closures · L.A. County Department of Health Hotline (800) 427,8700. From our archives: · Oct. 19, 1998: To~ugher Restaurant Grading System In Place · Oct. 17, 1998: L.A. Rethinks Restaurant Grading~System · Oct. 13, 1998: L.A. Rethinks Restaurant Grading_System · Oct. 5, 1998: 'D' Grade Added To Restaurant Inspections? http://www.chaune12000.com/news/stories/news-990127-203953.html 1/4/0 ~ ~ ~C ~h~mel 2000 - Long Beach Adds Eatery Grading System page 3 of 3 · July 1, 1998: Restaurant Grades Mede Harder To Steal · June 26, 1998: Restaurant Thieves Target 'A' Grades · March 31, 1998: Restaurants Inspections: A Second Chance · Feb. 17, 1998: L.A. Restaurants: Forced to Post Grades? · Feb. 3, 1998: Cities Urged To Post Restaurant Grades · Jan. 31, 1998: Restaurant Ratings NOw Posted on 'Net · Dee. 9, 1997: Dirty Restaurant Ordinance Passed by Board · Nov. 27, 1997: Mayors Restaurant Closed After Inspection · Nov. 25, 1997: Health Dept. Head Grilled Over Restaurants · Nov. 25, 1997: Restaurant Probe: CBS 2 News Honored · Nov. 24, 1997: L.A. Inspection Woes: No Secret · NOv. 23, 1997: Lawsuit Claims Inspection Funds Went Astray · Nov. 22, 1997: Restaurant Investigation: 46 Eateries Closed · Nov. 20, 1997: Jerry's Deli Closed After CBS Investigation · Nov. 19, 1997: Restaurant Probe: Officials Shocked Special Assignments: · March 2, 1998: Back Behind The Kitchen Door, Part III · Feb. 9, 1998: Back Behind The Kitchen Door, Part II · Feb. 8, 1998: Back Behind The Kitchen Door, Part I Garmen Shiu, Channel 2000 Staff Writer ~sponsored by. by name ,~ daily extras Travel Deals: Italy, Africa, Vegas ~Eminem, Madonna Nab Grammy Nominations Country Singer Breaks Leg While Hunting New Fox Series Criticized As Shameless Why is Matt Damon Homeless? ~"~ See our privacy policy, terms of use, ad rates and [_eg a I notices. Voted best news site in California and Nevada by the Associated Press Television and Radio Association. Entire Site © 2001, Internet B ro ad ca s t in g~Sy._s t~ep~s, Inc.. http://www.channe12000.com/news/stories/news-990127-203953.html 1/4/01 · - "'Channel 2000 - So. Pasadena Nixes Restaurant Grades Page 1 of 3 SEARCH EHAIL HOHE SITE HAP [~ E-MAIL STORYTO A I~IEI~ 1 Personal Fi CBS 2 News Team Insurance Commitment 2000 Special So. Pasadena Nixes Restaurant Grades coa.s Assignment provided by Your News E-Mail Alerts Says It 'Gives Customers False Sense Of Security' Digital Daily Health Newsstand Business News News Tips SOUTH PASADENA, Calif., Maps & Directions Posted 6:45 p.m. May 20, -- 1999 -- There's been a restaurant revolt in South Pasadena. '~'~'~: Wednesday night, the City CAKEEK C .~: :~:~',e~ Council voted 3-2 to toss out an 8-month-old law requiring' .... : :, ._~c,~ eateries to post letter grades AUTOMO ..... .,_~ ~;~ TV following health inspections. AutoYrade ~.,~, r ~ a,~ It's the first city in the county SHOPP ....... , to do so. "Grades give customers a false sense of security," Councilwoman YELLOW Dorothy Cohen said in remarks reported by the Pasadena Star-News. · ~: o~.c~ ir~side "An error can be corrected in minutes, but the grade can be there for months." REAL ES Many of the roughly 70 restaurant owners in the city complained -, ..... that "B" and "C" ratings were putting them at an economic : ' disadvantage, said CBS 2 News' Lance Orozco. e owners say ':' ";:: diners would rather travel to places like neighboring Pasadena or San LEGAL CE  "I don't believe that the letter grades are a necessary insignia ~. ~ ~r to have on your restaurant," ice cream shop owner Michael qMiller told Orozco. "If you do ~%:,:/.~:.'.L?~-?;,~'; ~li~. a good job and you're ~ Attachment 11 http://www.channe12000.com/news/stories/news-990520-203508.html 1/4/01 · -... 'C~anne12000 - So. Pasadena Nixes Restaurant Grades Page 2 of 3 the Board of Health i [ come in and give you a ; grade." pAc~p~clem.L, get a and it  c ould hurt their business incredibly," coffee shop manager Tiffany Parker added. But down the block at Papa John's Pizza, the assistant manager called the move a mistake and said the letter grades are working well. Many customers CBS 2 News spoke with agreed. "If it's a 'C' or below I usually don't go in," said one woman. "I'd rather know ifI walk into 'C' restaurant or a'D' _ ~ restaurant," remarked another customer. "Then I know if I want to walk fight back out." The South Pasadena City Council originally approved the letter-grade ordinance on a 3-2 vote in August, reported The Associated Press. Although the grading system had gone into effect in Los Angeles County nearly a year before, individual cities had to pass their own law to make the grade-posting policy enforceable. "It's absurd to have a public policy -- which has been very effective in infonning the public of a public health issue -- to be rejected because its been successful," Supervisor Mike Antonovich. A CBS 2 News Special Assignment report exposed dirty restaurant conditions throughout the county, leading to the grading system. As of last month, 52 cities had grade-posting ordinances while 21 had none. Related stories; · May 11, 1999: Restaurant Ratings Simmering In O.C. · Jan. 28, 1999: Long Beach Adds Eatery Grading System · Dec. 22, 199g: Inspector Arraigned On Bribery Charges · Nov. 10, 1998: CBS Restaurant Probe Leads To Arrest · Nov. 10, 1998: Grade 'A' Bribery, Part II · Nov. 9, 1998: Grade 'A' Bribery · Oct. 19, 1995: .Tougher Restaurant Grading System In Place · Oct. 13, 1998: L.A. Rethinks Restaurant Grading System · Oct. 5, 1998: 'D' Grade Added To Restaurant Inspections'?. · July l, 1998: Restaurant Orades Made Harder To Steal · June 26, 1998: Restaurant Thieves Target 'A' Grades · June 12, 1998: L.A. Restaurant Inspection Woes: No Secret · June 12, 1998: Restaurant Probe: CBS 2 News Honored http://www.channe12000.com/news/stories/news-990520-203508.html 1/4/0l Channel 2000 - So~ Pasadena Nixes Restaurant Grades Page 3 of 3 June 12, 1998: Health Dept. Head Grilled Over Restaurants · June 12, 1998: Dirty Restaurant Ordinance Passed by Board · June 12, 1998: L.A. Eateries Begin Posting Letter Grades · June 12, 1998: Restaurant Ratings Now Posted on qqet · June 12, 1998: Cities Urged to Post Restaurant Grades · June 12, 1998: L.A; Restaurants: Forced to Post Grades? · June 12, 1998: Back Behind The Kitchen Door, Part III · June 12, 1998: Back Behind The Kitchen Door, Part II · June 12, 1998: Back Behind The Kitchen Door · April 1, 1998: Restaurants Inspections: A Second Chance Erik Nelson., Channel 2000 Staff Writer ,sponsored by i by type C' by name ~ daily extras Travel Deals: Italy, Africa, VeRas · ~3~Eminem, Madonna Nab Grammy Nominations Country SinRer Breaks Leg While Hunting New Fox Series Criticized As Shameless Why Is Matt Damon Homeless? ~'~See our privacy policy, terms of use. ad rates and legal notices. Voted best news site in California and Nevada by the Associated pr~t=,s Television and Radio Asseciation. Entire Site O 2001, lnternet Broadcastin~ SYstems, inc., 1 http://www.channe12000.com/news/stories/news-990520-203508.html 1/4/0 l SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE TIME FRAME FOR ~00 1 OONOLUSION: I concur that thera should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstod'er: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form,doc Date: I//7 1 SUGGESTIONSIPOSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: I concur that thero should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Pdkkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN~Cow\COW items Form.doc 1/i8/200i i0:34 84725635ii WEINSTEIN FAMIY SERV PAGE 83 Date: SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: ~'~-/L.~,J~4_z,~T- (J'}4"J~"~4 ~..,,\~' ...~"~.'¥'~ t j BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE. IF APPLICABLE ..... RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME F~ME FOR CONCLUSION: concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: P~ikkel; Corcoran; Skowton: Hoefert: WilY. s: Lohrstorfer: 01101 H:\GEN',Cc~COW llama Fom~do~ i/i8/200i 18:34 8472§63§11 WETHSTEIN ~NIY SERV PAGE 0~ SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMrrI'EE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS BRIEF DESCRIPTION ~)4L~3~ I, {/,..~.~--~ ~-G, k ~eJ,.~ OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE lJ/)~ ~t~ ~ll~.t~--._ t~ , CODE REFERENCE, ' IF APPLICABLE ....... RESOLUTION/CHANGE ........ SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter:. Yes No Yes No Farle~ Prikkel: · <': Corcoran: ~ Skowron: .._ Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN~.:ow~COW itllm~ Form.dec 1/i8/2001 18:34 8472563511 WEINSTEIN FAMIY SERV PAGE 01 D~te: SUGGESTIONS/PO881BLE DISCUSSION i iEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE SOUGHT: ' TIME FRAME FOR Elected O~c't~l~ff ~ I ~oncur that them should be discussion of the above-listed subject matte~. Yes No Yes No Farley: Pfikkel: Corcoran: Bkowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstoder: 01101 H~GI~N',Cow~COW Item~ Fam~LdO~ Date: ~. SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS OF ISSUE/PROBLEM IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: ~ :~ ~,~ Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkeh Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Oow\OOW Items Form.doc Date: ~;;/,~/~.//~', SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR //~l~_~/~, CONCLUSION: '~-/-~/ ~/,~' - / '~-"E~ected Official/Staff~ -~ concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01101 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form.doc Date: //~7/¢/ SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM _ IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkeh Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow~COW Items Form.doc RN-16-21~1 1~: 18 P. 82/84 SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Pril<kel: Corcoran: Skowmn: Hoetert: ,, Wilks: Lohrstoder: 01/01 P. SUGGESTIONS/POS81BLE DISGUS$10N ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: OU~"' OF ISSU~PROBLEM . , ~ ~SOLUT~O~C~GE ~ ~g~ ~ ~~, 0~ O~c Ele~ O~allS~ I ~n~r ~at ~em shou~ ~ dis~ion of the abov~l~ted sub~ mawr: Yes No Yes No Farley: Pdkk~: ~r~mn: Sko~n: H~fe~: ~ Wil~: ~hm~ 01/01 P.04/04 SUGGES'FIONS/PO~ISIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE . ~1~ COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS ~DE ~FERENCE, t , j I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter:. Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: __ Comoran: Skowmn: Hoe fed;: Wilks: 01101 TOTRL P, 04 SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMrI'rEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS INCLUDING VILLAGE IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE 4. _qC.-~/~/ /'-~.zx','~txJ 0~-- ~. SOUGHT: TIME F~ME FOR N-: ~ ~S CONCLUSION: ~ ~ ~l/Staff concur that there shodld be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrsterfer: 01/01 H:~GEN~Cow~COW Items Form.doc Date: I/J~/~? I SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS OF ISSUE/PROBLEM CODE REFERENCE, SOUGHT: ~£~_~ ~z../~.~ TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: ,,~_~ ~ r,~4eet, e~al/Staff I concur that thera should be discussion of tt~e above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrsterfer: 01/01 H:~GEN~Cow~COW Items Form,doc SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VIL~GE CODE REFERENCE, F APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: E~l/Staff I concur that thers should be discussion of tl~e above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Pdkkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer.' 01/01 H:\GEN~Cow\COW Items Form.doc Date: /- I~,-c~ / SUGGESTIONSIPOSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS BRIEF DESCRIPTION Of ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VIL~GE CODE REFERENCE, F APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: ~_~. ~/[, /9.~CXZ)) Elected Official/Staff I concur that thers should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow~COW items Form.doc Date: I - I ::2 - ¢, ) SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VIL~GE CODE REFERENCE, If APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: ~ ~ . J! ~ ,,3,.c:~c, ( Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form.doc Date: SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: '~.~..;/..'fl'. ,,2.~, ~ Elected Official/Staff concur that thera should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Fadey: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form.doc Date: ,/ - 1 ,~, "~ ] SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITrEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS BRIEF DESCRIPTION Of ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE ,~~, ~-'~--.~2~:~,,,~._.'7-- SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: Elected Official/Staff I concur that thers should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form.doc Date: ,/~-/¢,¢o J SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIMEFRAME FOR / CONCLUSION: T~-~ ~) Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Pdkkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 Date: SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: BRIEF DESCRIPTION L~zP~9-~--~ "~ 'v'/~.,-.-,,WG,,¢--- '¢-~,=::,¢~O Of ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE ~,,~ ~ '~.,~¢~.-~.-s ,~-- '"/~,/~ CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE ~~ ,~ / ~~ RESOLUTION/CHANGE ~/c.c.,,~c~¢ ~-~,o -7-c, ~.~op~,4. SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: ~ . ~'~ ~' , ~ ~ Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form.doc SUGGESTIONSIPOSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMrI-DEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT~ t~ ~ ~ ~_// BRIEF DESCRIPTION' OF ISSUE/PROBLEM CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE -'~'0 (~_£ ~ ~c'~t.C~ ~ SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: /~'~ Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Fadey: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow~COW items Form.doc Date: SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS OF ISSUE/PROBLEM CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: ~ Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstoffer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW items Form.doc Date: SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS OF ISSUE/PROBLEM CODE REFERENCE, RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: ,~ Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form,doc Date: SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: OF ISSUE/PROBLEM CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: -'~'P~/~, ~/~'"/~. Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefer[: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN~Cow\COW items Form.doc Date: SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: ~1 10~J .~,-1~[ l .,"J~/:)C...C___~T"t.%~ BRIEF DESCRIPTION Of ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR CONCLUSION: Elected Official/Staff I concur that thers should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN~Cow~COW Items Form.doc Date: !! I~"!~)1 SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: ~ BRIEF DESCRIPTION 5 OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME F~ME FOR CONCLUSION: Elected Official/Staff I concur that them should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Fadey: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefer[: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow\COW Items Form.doc Date:~,~_ SUGGESTIONSlPOSSlBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, IF APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE SOUGHT: TIME F~ME FOR CONCLUSION: Elected Official/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:\GEN\Cow~COW Items Form.doc Date:a~~ SUGGESTIONS/POSSIBLE DISCUSSION ITEMS FUTURE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS SUBJECT: ~L~~~~~... BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF ISSUE/PROBLEM INCLUDING VILLAGE CODE REFERENCE, If APPLICABLE RESOLUTION/CHANGE ~ . SOUGHT: TIME FRAME FOR i _ _ ~ . CONCLUSION: Electe(~ Offic~'al/Staff I concur that there should be discussion of the above-listed subject matter: Yes No Yes No Farley: Prikkel: Corcoran: Skowron: Hoefert: Wilks: Lohrstorfer: 01/01 H:~GEN\Cow\COW Items Form.doc MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING DECEMBER 12, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by 6:07 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Present at the meeting were: Mayor Gerald Fadey, Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Dennis Prikkel, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Staff present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Village Attorney Everette Hill, Attorneys Terry Eckl and Jim Sotos. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to move into Closed Session to discuss Litigation. The meeting was moved into Closed Session at 6:08 p.m. II1. CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to move into Closed Session to discuss Litigation. Motion was approved. Meeting moved into Closed Session at 6:08 p.m. IV. CLOSED SESSION ADJOURNMENT The Closed Session adjourned at 7:25 p.m. and moved into Open Session_. V. SPECIAL MEETING ADJOURNMENT The Special Meeting was adjourned at 7:26 p.m. DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, January 25, 2001 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2n~ Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of October 26, 2000 Meeting of November 2, 2000 III Discussion Regarding Proposed 2001 Work Plan IV Other Business V Chairman's Report VI Finance Director's Report VII Next Meeting: Thursday, February 22, 2001, 7:00 p.m. VIII Adjournment 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 October 26, 2000 Village Hall Building I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Commissioners Charles Bennett, Vince Grochocinski, Tom Pekras, and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Chairman John Korn and Commissioners George Busse and Betty Lanner were absent. Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to appoint Commissioner Vince Grochocinski as acting chairman. The Commissioners unanimously approved. II. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked for clarification of Section III paragraph 3 that stated life insurance was included in the insurance figure in the past years budget. Commissioner Smilanic wanted to clarify that the figure was included in the medical insurance figure. Commissioner Charles Bennett moved to approve the October 12, 2000 minutes as amended with Commissioner Tom Pe!cras seconding the motion, all Commissioners were in favor. III. Review of the Proposed 2001 Village Budget PUBLIC WORKS Public Works Director Glen Andler began his presentation of the Department's proposed 2001 Budget by introducing Sean Dorsey the Deputy Director of Public Works. Mr. Andler then discussed the 2000 accomplishments of the Department. During his discussion, he noted the May 18, 2000 windstorm that resulted in $359,000 worth of damage and clean up costs. Mr. Andler stated that Public Works has applied for and received an $84,000 grant from the state to offset the monies spent on clean up. Mr. Andler further stated that there were 163 trees removed and 1,344 Village-owned trees damaged in the storm. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked Mr. Andler if there would be trees planted to replace the 163 that were lost. Mr. Andler said that Public Works has already requested additional funds and the Village Board has approved a slight increase. Mr. Andler also summarized the Route 83 Reconstruction Project, the Villages' Street Resurfacing/Reconstruction Program, the FEMA Floodplain Map Revisions and the acquisition of various state and federal grants obtained by the Village. Mr. Andler advised the Commissioners that the Public Works staff was successfully involved in the appeals process to change the proposed FEMA Maps. With the help of a consultant, staff was able to greatly reduce the number of buildings in Floodways and Floodplains. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if restripping of the streets is included in the Resurfacing/Reconstruction program. Mr. Andler stated that restripping is included in the program and that half of the Village is done every other year. The members of the Finance Commission also congratulated Public Works for their work in obtaining the various grants given the Village. Mr. Andler concluded his portion of the presentation with a summary of the Public Works Departments 2001 Proposed Budget highlights. In summary, Public Works budget will increase by 3.7 % (excluding the Capital Improvements and Vehicle Replacement Funds). Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey presented a summary of several of the 2001 Proposed Budget highlights. Mr. Dorsey divided his presentation into several categories: Streets/Buildings/Parking, Forestry/Grounds, Engineering, Water/Sewer, Refuse Disposal, Vehicle Maintenance, Capital Improvements and Community Development Block Grants. Streets/Buildings/Parking · Training account was increased from $1,700 to $8,500 to provide for an outside consultant to develop a written safety procedure document. The increase will also provide additional safety training for Public Works personnel. · Cleaning Services account was increased from $69,000 to $90,000 which reflects the cost of a new contract and an increase in custodial services for the Police and Fire Building. · Sidewalk Cost Share Program was increased from $75,000 to $100,000 to keep up with the demand from residents interested in the program. · Snow Removal - Contractual account was increased from $10,000 to $15,000 to allow for a new contractor to plow the numerous cul-de-sacs throughout the Village. · New line item of $3,500 for School Crossing Signs. The account will fund the start of a three- year program to install new fluorescent signs near schools. Commissioner Tom Pekras asked about the automated revenue collection system that was listed in the Parking Lot Improvements Fund, and Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if the system was for all public lots. Mr. Andler stated that the system would be for all lots and that currently the system for collecting money is manual and is very labor intensive. Funding is being requested to install an automated system that would use a machine to gather and keep track of the money. Charles Bennett suggested that the residents be able to voice their opinion on what type of system would work best. Forestry/Grounds · Ground Maintenance account increased from $38,690 to $55,000 to fund the addition of several state and county areas added to our mowing contract. · Streetscape Maintenance account increased from $5,000 to $i0,000 to keep up with the cost of maintaining the additional streetscape areas. Engineering · New Right of Way Restoration account with funding requests of $16,000. The funds are needed to offset costs incurred by the Village when utility companies do not complete work in a timely manner and the Village has to step in and complete the job. Revenues collected from the utility companies will offset this dollar amount. 2 · Electricity-Streetlights account has increased from $132,830 to $165,000 to offset the increased cost of energy costs and the addition of 200 new streetlights. · Addition of new Traffic Signal Electricity account with funding requests of $55,000. The account was created because the expense is eligible for Motor Fuel Tax. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if the $55,000 was an estimate and Mr. Andler stated it was and that the Village gets billed separately and will know exactly how much is spent. Water/Sewer · Stand-By Pump Repair account decreased from $I10,000 to $0. All four of the stand-by pumps have now been repaired; therefore the program has been discontinued. · Booster Pump/Panel Replacement account increased from $95,000 to $160,000. The increase includes funds needed to replace the Motor Control Center at Booster Pumping Station 17. Also included in the increase is $50,000 for designing a new SCADA System. · New Other Equipment account with funding requests of $35,000 for the purchase of a new closed circuit sewer inspection camera that is 10 years old. Commissioner Tom Pekras asked if we would discard the old camera or use it as a spare. Mr. Andler stated that it would either be used as a trade-in or as a spare. Capital Improvements · $660,000 for Train Station improvements offset completely by grant money. · $40,000 Parking Lot Improvements for the Police and Fire facility. · $1,922,047 for Residential Streetlights with the majority of the amount offset by grants and contributions. · $75,000 for new Storm Sewer Inventory & Maps. Mandated by the EPA and must be completed by 2003 in order to receive the NPDES permit. · $3,059,000 for Resurfacing and Street Reconstruction. Final year for resurfacing. · $50,000 for Village's share of the Northwest Highway Resurfacing project funded by IDOT. · $467,800 for Replacement of Public Works Vehicles scheduled to be replaced in 2001. Community Development Block Grants · $50,000 for Sidewalk Repairs account to repair uneven or hazardous sidewalks. After the conclusion of the Public Works presentation several questions were raised. Commissioner Tom Pekras asked why the Forestry Technicians salary was increased from $32,000 to $41,000. Finance Director Doug Ellsworth stated that the large increase was due to a market adjustment approved by the Village Manager. Mr. Pekras also asked why unaccounted water in the performance measures have been 0 % for the past two years and are now projected at 1%. Mr. Andler stated that they expect the figure to be 0% but were being conservative in stating 1%. NON-DEPARTMENTAL Director of Finance Doug Ellsworth presented the Non-Departmental Proposed Budget for the year 2001. 3 Mr. Ellsworth summarized the total outstanding debt of $29,294,778 as of January 1, 2001. Mr. Ellsworth stated that although the amount of debt may look high the Village has a low debt burden. Also summarized was the Proposed 2001 Budget for Pensions totaling $3,668,508, which is an increase of 12.3 % over the 2000 Budget. Finally, Mr. Ellsworth summarized the Risk Management and Insurance Proposed Budget for 2001. The total proposed budget of $3,472,095 reflects an increase of 8.4% over last year's budget of $3,203,843. Mr. Ellsworth stated that health insurance is expected to increase approximately 10% in the year 2001. At the conclusion of the Public Works and Non Departmental presentations, the members of the Finance Commission made the following recommendations based on the presentations they have heard at the October 19 meeting: · The Finance Commission voted in favor of recommending approval of the Fire Department's proposed budget by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 opposed. The Commission also voted to support the hiring of three lieutenants in the Fire Department. Furthermore, the Commission said they would expect to see a decrease in overtime in future budgets by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 opposed. · The Finance Commission voted in favor of recommending approval of the Community Development proposed budget by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 opposed. The Commission also voted to recommend that any additional revenues collected in permit fees should be allocated to hiring additional staff members by a vote of 4 in favor and 0 opposed. IV. Other Business There was no other business discussed. V. Chairman's Report Acting Chairman Vince Grochocinski had no report. VI. Finance Director's Report Mr. Ellsworth had no report. VII. Next Meeting: November 2, 2000 Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to adjourn and Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded. All members were in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 9:45 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for November 2, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant 4 FINANCE COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MEETING NOVEMBER 2, 2000 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING I. CALL TO OR~E~ 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 and Betty Launer. Also present were Village Manager Mike Janonis, Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Finance Commissioners Ann Smilanic and Tom Pekras were absent. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The minutes of October 19, 2000 were accepted as presented. III. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED 2001 VILLAGE BUDGET Public Works Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to approve Public Works budget as presented. Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded with all commissioners in favor. Debt Service and Risk Management/Insurance Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to approve the Debt Service Non-Departmental budget as presented. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded with all commissioners in favor. Commissioner George Busse asked Mr. Ellsworth if we have a way of reviewing our insurance programs. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the Village contracts a consultant to coordinate requests for proposals and submits these proposals to insurance brokers. As part of this process, coverage is reviewed and amended as appropriate. Community Development Commissioner George Busse would like to recommend modifying the Commission's Building Division recommendation to say that any additional revenues collected in permit fees should be allocated to hiring additional staff members. Commissioner Busse stated he would like to have the Building Division reevaluate some of the required permits with the possibility of eliminated some of these permits. After further discussion the commission unanimously agreed to recommend that the Building Division conduct a study of fees. If fees are raised and those fees derive enough money the Finance Commission would support the money being used to hire a new inspector, if necessary. Chairman John Korn stated he would present the recommendation to the Board. Commissioner George Busse motioned to approve the budget of Community Development as presented. Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded with all commissioners in favor. Commissioner George Busse introduced a discussion regarding the Community Development Block Grant program. The Commission would like to recommend to the Board that to the extent within legal guidelines the Planning Commission should look at giving village-sponsored programs priority over non-village activities. IV. OTHER BUSINESS. There was no other business discussed. V. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Mr. Korn had no report. VI. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth noted that the Village Board would be revisiting the discussion on changing the liability of the real estate transfer tax from buyer to seller at the next Committee of the Whole Meeting. Mr. Ellsworth asked if the Commission would like to make a recommendation to the Village Board. There was a discussion on the value of moving from the buyer to the seller. Several commissioners posed the question as to whether there is an advantage to the Village or the residents in changing the liability. Commissioner George Busse motioned that the Finance Commission recommends to the Village Board to switch the liability from the buyer to the seller without providing a rebate. Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded with all commissioners in favor. Mr. Ellsworth further discussed the Finance issues being addressed at the next Board Meeting on December 8m. Mr. Ellsworth stated he would ask the Board to amend the 2000 Budget and will further make a recommendation to accept Crowe, Chizek and Company as the new auditors. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski asked Mr. Ellsworth how the new auditor's fees compare to those of the previous auditors. Mr. Ellsworth stated that their fees are comparable. VII. NEXT MEETING: DECEMBER 7, 2000 Commissioner George Busse motioned to adjourn and Commissioner Betty Launer seconded with all commissioners in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 7, 2000 at 7:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department MAYOR ~ Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES TimothyJ. Corcoran Village of Mou t P ospectV L OECLE Paul Win- Hoefer~ n r Velma W. Lowe Richard M. Lohrstor fer 0. Community Development Department 847/818-5328 Michaele W. Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 Irvana K. Wilka 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392-6054 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Senior Center Thursday 50 South Emerson Street January 25, 2001 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of November 9, 2000 1. ZBA-40-2000 / 350 E. Kensington 2. ZBA-41SR-2000 / 600 E. Rand Road 3. ZBA-43-2000 / 1201 Feehanville iV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. ZBA-01-01 / 2440 E. Rand Road / Metro Federal Credit Union / Map Amendment and Conditional Use to allow construction of a drive-thru banking facihty. NOTE: This case is Village Board final. B. ZBA-02-01 / 2105 W. Prendergast / Panzarino Residence / Variation to enclose a structure in the rear yard setback. NOTE: This ease is Village Board final. C. ZBA-03-01 / 609 Eastman / Krueger Residence / Variation to construct an unenclosed porch in the exterior side yard setback. NOTE: This case is ZBA final. D. ZBA-04-01 / VOMP / Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. NOTE: This case is Village Board final. 1. Sections 14.203 and 14.2401: Create a minor variation process and related changes and provisions to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Sections 14.306.B.1, 14.803.A, 14.902.A, 14.1003.A: Increase the maximum size of detached garages to 672 square feet and eliminate Conditional Use requirements for garages designed to house more than two motor vehicles. 3. Section 14.306.A.5: Limit the number of accessory structures to two structures. 4. Sections 14.805, 14.905, 14.1005, 14.1105, 14.1205, 14.1304, 14.2401: Create Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and related definitions. 5. Section 14.2217: Clarify setback requirements for parking lots. 6. Section 14.304.D.2.b: Eliminate provisions that allow the unfinished side of a fence to be exposed along arterial streets. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VI. 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. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-41SR-2000 Hearing Date: November 9, 2000 PETITIONER: Northwest Electric PUBLICATION DATE: October 25, 2000 DAILY HERALD REQUEST: Special use for an electronic message board sign at 600 E. Rand Road MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Iuracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Comn?unity Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Tom Reindl Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 26 meeting, seconded by Leo Floros, and the minutes were unanimously approved. At 8:17, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-41SR-2000, a request for a special use approval for an electronic message board sign at 600 E Rand Road~ Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been published in the newspaper as required by the Sign Code and introduced the staffmemorandum for the item, a request for a special use approval for an electronic message board sign at 600 E. Rand Rd. for Northwest Electric. Ms. Connolly said Northwest Electric is in the process of relocating the business to this site and is installing all new signs. The applicant would like to include an electronic message center as part of the new free standing sign along Rand Road. This requires Special Use approval and is final at the Zoning Board level. She said the property is zoned B3 and will be used as a lighting store. The proposed sign includes two brick columns and is designed to match the new Northwest Electric Supply Store building by including bricks and a sign face similar to those signs included on the structure. Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed freestanding sign meets applicable sigx~ code requirements but requires special use approval because it has an electronic message board. The sign face is 67 square feet, which includes the electronic message center. The proposed electronic message board will be 20 square feet and have two lines of text to provide time, temperature, and public service announcements. The sign measures 11-feet from grade to the top of the sign. She said the ZBA may approve Special Uses if the proposal meets the conditions listed in the Sign Code, which she read to the Zoning Board. Ms. Connolly said the proposed Special Use is positioned on a freestanding sign along a major arterial road, adjacent to commercial use and park district property. The sign is located over 100' from the nearest residential property, which is across Rand Road. The proposed design and materials are consistent with the building and other signs in the area. She said Special Use signs are generally appropriate for most commercial and/or arterial road locations, but may present situations that need special consideration and/or control. Special Use approval for an electronic message center is intended to ensure that the sign meets safety and aesthetic concerns of the Village. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-41SR-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said, based on review of the Special Use standards and the proposed sign, Staff recommends that the ZBA approve the proposed Special Use permit for an electronic message center on the freestanding sign at the Northwest Electric Supply Store, 600 E. Rand Road, with the condition that the electronic message center meet the requirements of Section 7.720. A, which are the standards for a Special Use, at all times. The Village may revoke the Special Use permit for violations of those requirements. An example of a reason to remove the message center or revoke the Special Use permit could be that traffic is adversely impacted by the sign, causing accidents. Chairperson Juracek asked Zoning Board members if they had questions for Ms. Connolly. Richard Rogers asked for assurance there would be no "cartoon" movement on the sign. Ms. Connolly said the applicant could confirm the design of the sign. Tom Reindl, 9817 Arthur, Algonquin, and co-owner of Northwest Electric, was sworn in. He stated that the sign does not have the capability of moveable characters. Non-moving graphics would be possible on this sign, but that is not Northwest's intended purpose, just text. There will be two lines of 8" text. Hal Ettinger asked if the sign could be moved further southeast along Rand Road. Mr. Reindl said the position of the sign was chosen as a centerpiece for the store to coordinate with the entrance and also because of the limitations between the sidewalk and the parking curb and setback requirements. To place it any further to the northwest the sign would lose visibility due to the Park District property screening. Mr. Ettinger said he had concerns that the sign would distract motorists. Mr. Reindl explained that, as motorists reach a point perpendicular to the sign, it can no longer be read by them and would not be a distraction. Elizabeth Luxem asked about the landscaping plan for the sign request and was told the landscaping had been approved as part of the original Zoning Board case. Mr. Floros remarked on the attractive appearance of the building. Ms. Luxem also complimented Mr. Reindl on the building and the sign. Mr. Cotten and Mr. Ett'mger reiterated their opposition to moving signs. Chairperson Juracek asked if anyone from the audience was present who wanted to address the ZBA about this case. As there was no response, the public heating was closed at 8:30pm and Ms. Juracek asked for a motion. Richard Rogers made a motion to grant the request for a special use for an electronic message board sign at 600 E. Rand Road with the condition that the sign always meets requirements of Section 7.720.A. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Ettinger Motion was approved 5-2. At 9:13 p.m., Elizabeth Luxem made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ludy Connolly, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-43-2000 Heating Date: November 9, 2000 PETITIONER: Peter Jankovic, for AT&T Broadband 1201 Feehanville Road PUBLICATION DATE: October 25, 2000 DAILY'HERALD REQUEST: Variation for Multiple Ground Mounted Satellite Dishes at 1201 FeehanVille Road - AT&T Broadband MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger 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 Judy Counolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Peter Jankovic Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 26 meeting, seconded by Leo Floros, and the minutes were unanimously approved. At 8:35, after healing two cases, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-43-2000, a request for a variation for multiple ground mounted satellite dishes at 1201 Feehanville Road. Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item. She explained that the Zoning Code permits one ground-mounted dish on a zoning lot. The applicant received a variation in 1996 to install a total of eight dishes. The applicant had six existing dishes that were installed before the code changed to allow one dish per property. They requested and received a variation to install two more dishes. The Village approved the request because the multiple dishes would not have a negative impact on the public welfare, other property, or neighborhood character. The petitioner is now seeking a variation to have a total of 14 ground- mounted dishes on their property. Ms. Connolly described the subject property as an existing office building in the Kensington Business Center, which is a light industrial park. Two of the proposed dishes would be the same size as the existing dishes, measuring 16-feet from grade to the top of the dish. They would be located within the existing brick enclosure that currently screens the existing dishes in this area of the property. The other three dishes would be located outside of the brick enclosure, where the dumpsters are currently located and would have a larger diameter. They would be almost 27-feet in height. Ms. Connolly said the proposed dishes exceed the maximum number, height, and diameter permitted by code. The petitioner proposes to screen the base of the strUctures in a manner that will not impact the signals to/from the dishes. In addition, the applicant proposes to install additional landscaping to provide a uniform, well-kept landscape screen that will minimize the visual impact of the new structures on the adjacent properties. Changes to the existing berm landscaped area are proposed to eliminate the service disruptions that some subscribers currently experience, but the changes are not part of this application. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-43-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 The existing 230' tower will not be modified and will continue to be used as pm of the applicant's business. The new dishes will be located in close proximity to the tower and the base of the proposed dishes will not be visible from the adjacent residential properties because of the berming to the south. The dishes outside the brick enclosure will be buffered from adjacent commercial property to the east by a landscape screen to be installed. Ms. Coimolly reported that staff reviewed the petitioner's submitted information and visited the subject site. She related the standards that must be met in order for the proposal to be approved. The proposed variations are requested to provide a better level of service to the applicant's subscribers. The overall height of the proposed dishes will not exceed the height of the existing light standards in the parking lot and will be significantly less than the height of the existing tower. Therefore, the proposal would have no more effect on public welfare, other properties, or neighborhood character than the existing conditions of the site, meeting Zoning Code requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that the petitioner could modify the existing tower and locate multiple dishes on the tower. Although this option would not require a variation, it would impact the adjacent properties and the dishes would be more visible from a greater distance. The proposed ground-mounted locations and additional landscape screening are more supportive of having a lesser impact on other properties and neighborhood character, as listed in the variation criteria. Based on these findings, and the fact that the Village previously approved a variation for additional ground-mounted satellite dishes, conditions which still hold, Ms. Connolly reported that staff recommends the ZBA make a recommendation of approval of the proposal to install additional satellite dishes for a total of 14 ground-mounted satellite dishes that do not exceed 27-feet in height and be screened as shown on the attached exhibit for 1201 Feehanville, Case No. ZBA-43-2000. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Hal Ettinger asked if the large dishes, 26.9', would only be screened by the dogwood trees to the east. Ms. Connolly said the dogwoods would be along the property line adjacent to the commercial property that is presently a vacant lot. Mr. Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development added that the property would be screened to south by the berm and swale. Zoning Board members were concerned that dogwood trees might not provide sufficient coverage for the dishes. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner could elaborate on the proposed landscaping plan. Peter Jankovic, Hawthorne St., Elgin, IL, was sworn in. He stated they are only permitted for two dishes inside the brick wall at present. When they discovered they were over their limit, they tried predicting their future needs for the next five years and hoped to accomplish that with this request for five additional dishes. He said that their digital transmission is affected more by rain than previous transmissions and a larger size dish would cut down on the effect on the digital channels. They would like to have the ability to go to a larger dish if needed when they hook-up to another satellite, rather than come before the Zoning Board each time they need a larger dish. Ms. Juracek clarified the request: a total of fourteen dishes, including several smaller and several larger dishes, would be installed at some point in the future, but the intent is to install the small dishes right now, and install the larger dishes in the future if they are necessary. Mr. Jankovic agreed with that summation, saying they just need the two smaller dishes this year and might need a larger dish next year. Mr. J'ankovic stated that the cost of the larger dishes is extraordinary, and they won't proceed recklessly with the installation of large dishes. Ms. Suracek asked Mr. Sankovic to discuss landscaping for the site. Mr. Jankovic said his landscape architect said dogwoods would provide a good screen as they grow to be tall and wide. Mr. Youngquist asked if they could install the dogwoods now, before installing a large dish next year. The ZBA also asked if the dogwoods were adequate. Mr. Blue said that the Zoning Board could require the petitioner to provide a substitute to the dogwood ifa different planting is preferable. Ms. Juracek said it would not be necessary to have a 27' tall screen to cover a 27' dish and that the Zoning Board could consider that landscaping be installed immediately as a condition of approval. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-43-2000 Arlene Suracek, Chairperson Page 3 Ms. Luxem noted that the site was next to an industrial park and not residential. She asked if the Mount Prospect site just serves Mount Prospect. Mr. Jankovic said that it covers the north suburban area. Ms. Luxem said she appreciates that the petitioner is looking to projected needs for expansion. Ms. Juracek said ground dishes are preferable to the dishes being installed on the tower. Mr. Rogers agreed. Mr. Floros said he could not support this request. He said that the cable industry makes no contribution to the aesthetics of the community. Mr. Cotton said the size of dishes will diminish in the future and that AT&T and other companies are trying to minimize the size of the dishes and other equipment. He said that in 25 years we will be getting reception from a golfoall size gadget. Mr. Youngquist said he prefers that the equipment be located in one site, rather than small dishes clustered all over homes in the area. At 9:08, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion. Elizabeth Luxem moved to recommend approval of the proposed variation for mukiple ground mounted satellite dishes at 1201 Feehanville Road with two conditions (1) that the proposed landscaping be installed upon approval of the request, in a manner acceptable to staff and (2) of the fourteen total dishes, there be no more than three 27-foot tall dishes. The motion was seconded by Keith Youngquist. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Luxem, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Floros Motion was approved 6-1. At 9:13 p.m., Elizabeth Luxem made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-40-2000 Hearing Date: November 9, 2000 PETITIONER: Terrence Roswick, Architect for Home Depot Greenberg Farrow Architecture 3455 Salt Creek Lane, Suite 100 Arlington Heights, IL 60005 PUBLICATION DATE: October 25, 2000 DAILY HERALD REQUEST: Amend Conditional Use Permit and Variations to Construct a Tool Rental Center and Outdoor Storage Area at 350 E. Kensington MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Flores 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: Terry Roswick James McPhael Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 26 meeting, seconded by Leo Floros, and the minutes were unanimously approved. At 7:40, Ms. Juracek opened Case ZBA-40-2000, a request to amend a conditional use permit and variations to construct atool rental center and outdoor storage area at 350 E. Kensington Judy Connolly~ Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, The petitioner is seeking to amend the Conditional Use permit that estabhshed Home Depot, and would like to construct a tool rental center and outdoor storage and racking area along the west elevation of the existing stmeture. The original ordinance was approved in 1994; the tool rental center, outdoor storage area, and outdoor racking proposal were not part of the original approval for the home improvement center. Therefore, the proposed modifications require amending the original Conditional Use permit through approval by the Village Board, following a public heating with, and recommendation by, the Zoning Board of Appeals. Ms. Connolly described the proposed changes, which are to the west elevation of the building. The tool rental center is 20'x100'; the outdoor storage is adjacent to that and would occupy 20'x35', while the racking area would be closer to the roll-up door and use 20'x32'. The racking area would be used to store merchandise outside overmght and then be loaded into the store the next day or onto trucks. The petitioner proposes to screen the racking area with a 20' fence and then use a 10' fence for the outdoor storage: The fence would be green, vinyl coated chain link fence with green slats to screen and secure the area. The Zoning Ordinance allows fences up to 8' in height to screen commercial districts. The fence must be wood when it is adjacent to residential. Ms. Connolly explained the petitioner currently uses the subject area to unload and store merchandise before it is put in the storeroom and shelved. Overnight storage is not allowed in that area and the petitioner is required to keep the Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA40-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 area clear of any debris. Installing the racking area and allowing outdoor storage overnight would help the petitioner maintain the west area of the facility in an orderly manner. The tool rental center would have an overhang and the fence would define each area. Except for the fence, there are no alterations proposed to the existing building. Ms. Connolly read the Conditional Use Standards, which require that specific findings be made in order to approve a conditional use. She said the proposed conditional use would be located within the Randhurst Shopping Center, which is an existing PUD in the B-3 Community Shopping District. No changes to the exterior of the structure or site other than for the tool rental center are proposed. The proposed modification is located away from the residential area. The development would have limited impact on the adjacent neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. The proposed conditional use would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The proposed use would allow the petitioner to better store and screen merchandise at their site. Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed fence also requires approval of a variation and that the fence variation is final at the ZBA level. To approve the proposed 10'-20' chainlink, slat fence the ZBA has to find that the fence is necessary because of a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property and is not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property. Ms. Counolly reported that the subject area is located along Kensington Road, a major thoroughfare in the area. The proposed fence would be visible from the road and to the adjacent commercial businesses. The proposed 10' and 20' height is intended to secure the merchandise stored outside, but is not consistent with the height or material of the existing fence used in the garden area. The garden area has outdoor storage, but is secured by a 14' wrought-iron type fence, which was approved as part of the original PUD. Ms. Counolly stated that the petitioner is permitted to install an 8' fence and presents no justification for needing a higher fence. A wood fence could secure and screen the area in a more effective manner than a chain link fence with slats because a wood fence requires less maintenance and can be constructed in a more solid manner than chain link to better secure merchandise stored outdoors. The proposed fence does not meet the standards for a variation and would have a significant effect on public welfare and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly said the proposed tool center, outdoor storage, and racking area would comply with the Conditional Use standards established by the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed fence height and materials do not meet the standards for a variation and there is a viable alternative that meets code requirements. Therefore, Staff recommends that the ZBA deny the fence variation but make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the requested Conditional Use amendment to construct a tool rental center and outdoor storage area at 350 E. Kensington Road with the following conditions: 1) The area along the west elevation is screened with an 8' wood fence; so as to minimize the impact on the adjacent properties, 2) the rental center hours of operation cannot exceed the hours of operation of Home Depot; 3) the racking area cannot be used after 10 p.m.; 4) and the entire area must remain clear of any debris and be well maintained. Arlene Juracek asked why the racking area could not be used after 10pm. Ms. Connolly said the intent of the 10pm restriction is so there is no noise for the neighboring residences. She also said it was her understanding that, due to the high volume of deliveries received, there is no time to unload and shelve the delivered merchandise in the store and contractors make pick-ups in the a.m. from the pallets. Richard Rogers asked why the recommendation was for a wood fence rather than masonry. Ms. Connolly said, per Code, a wood fence is required on commercial property that is adjacent to residential. She said the Board could require masonry as a condition of approval. Ms. Juracek said the location is not adjacent to residential and Ms. Counolly clarified that the area would be visible from the residential area and the character of the area would be consistent with having a wood fence; to have a 20' chainlink fence with green slats would not be typical of what is Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-40-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 found in that commercial district. Hal Ettinger asked where the fence would be and Ms. Connolly replied it would be along the west elevation, to secure the merchandise. She said Ward's Automotive would be on the other side of the fence. Ms. Connolly also stated that there is a masonry fence by the garden center on the east elevation, adjacent to the condominiums. Jim McPhael, 219 S. Pine Street in Mount Prospect, Real Estate Manager for Home Depot in the Chicagoland area, was sworn in and said the tool center is part of the upgraded remodel facility that they would like to attach to the current facility at the Randhurst Mall. Currently, customers doing remodeling projects do not want to purchase the necessary tools for one project, they want to just rent them. Home Depot would, at the same time, like to put up racking to clean up the housekeeping issues in the area and pointed out that they have begun painting the facility. He introduced the Site Development Coordinator, Terry Roswick, to demonstrate the physical aspects of the project. Mr. Roswick was sworn in and set-up easels to show the overall site plan. He described the area and explained their proposed remodeled facility Hal Ettinger asked how the materials received through the overhead door differed from the materials received by truck. Mr. McPhael said they receive their plumbing materials through the truck dock, whereas the materials received on the west side were lumber materials and are delivered off of a flat bed. These materials require "maneuvering" room for forklifts. Mr. Ettinger asked if the tool rentals are done inside the store. Mr. McPhael said yes, the transactions occurred inside the store. Mr. Rogers asked if the tool center was just a fence around the area. Mr. McPhael said the tool center is a block structure built to match the current Home Depot store and is basically an appendage to the facility. It is a masonry structure with a roof and is the typical size used in nine other Home Depot facilities in the area. The fenced-in area in back is used to store scaffolding and other large items. Keith Youngquist asked if there is a fence around the racking area and was told no, the fencing is adjacent to the outdoor racking area. Ms. Juracek said the drawings show a 10' high galvanized security fence and a 16' high fence with a 12' high gate. She asked petitioner to explain the two fenced-in areas again. Mr. Roswick described the tool rental center as an appendage to the existing store, an enclosed space with a roof; right behind that is a 20' x 35' outdoor enclosed area with no roof for storage for the tool rental products, surrounded by a 10' high fence with a gate to secure the large outside storage of tools. The proposed pro-initiative area for contractors to pick-up materials is further south of the tool rental area; that area is 32' x 20', is enclosed, and has a roof over it; the racking area is adjacent to that. Ms. Juracek said the Home Depot representative stated they would be amenable to a wooden fence as proposed by staff. Would they also be amenable to an 8' height for both the 10' and 16' sections. Mr. McPhael said they would prefer a taller fence for security but would agree to a 10' to 12' foot section and would accept a solid screening of wood to whatever fits the character of Mount Prospect. Ms. Suracek asked if the taller height was requested for security or screening. Mr. McPhael said Home Depot wanted the higher fence for security and the Village wanted the wooden fence for screening. Ms. Juracek asked why a 16' fence with a gate is necessary for the contractors' pick-up area. Mr. McPhael said it was for security for the overnight storage of items to be picked-up. Arlene Nissen, 412 Cvanvood, was sworn in and asked about automobile and truck access to the new rental area. She said there had been problems in the past with 5:30 a.m. start time for forklifts and the noise and gasoline odor from trucks. Ms. Nissen said Home Depot was a good neighbor and had been very responsive to her concerns. Mr. McPhael said off-loading of tracks would not occur before 8:00a.m. Ms; Juracek said the Village appreciates that Home Depot is a good corporate citizen in our Village. At 8:05, Ms. Juracek closed the heating and asked for discussion. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-40-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Ms. Luxem said she applauds Home Depot for being a good neighbor but is opposed to the building being any larger and longer than it is at present. Mr. Youngquist expressed concern that a fence would not enclose the racking area, although he could understand why it would be difficult to have a fence in that area. Ms. Jumcek said the scaffolding is probably stacked on the ground now and the racking is meant to provide interim storage so it is more of a working area than a storage area. Mr. McPhael said the fenced area would have overnight storage and lumber would be kept in the racking area. Mr. Ettinger said he would be in favor of a higher fence to ensure security. Mr. Youngquist said 10'-12' would push the limits of a wood fence, any higher would need to be a chain link fence ~vhich he would oppose. Mr. Ettinger asked if an 8' fence would cover all the products that they plan to store. Mr. McPhael said Home Depot would need to modify the intent of the fenced area and not stack above that 8'. At 8:15, Ms. luracek summarized the Board Members' comments and asked for a motion. She suggested approval be subject to the conditions imposed by staff. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval of the Conditional Use for the tool center but limit the two storage areas to an 8' high wooden fence with the conditions listed in staffs memo for Case No. ZBA-40-2000 at 350 E. Kensington Road. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Luxem, Rogers, Motion was approved 5-2. At 9:13 p.m., Elizabeth Luxem made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Erdnger. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner