Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVB Agenda Packet 02/20/2001 Next Ordinance No. 5172 Next Resolution No. 9-01 ORDER OF BUSINESS REGULAR MEETING Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday 50 South Emerson Street February 20, 2001 Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald "Skip" Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Dennis Prikkel Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Irvana Wilks Ill. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Trustee Lohrstorfer IV. INVOCATION: Trustee Wilks V. APPROVE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 6, 2001 VI. WAPPROVE BILLS AND FINANCIAL REPORT (To be considered under Consent Agenda) VII. MAYOR'S REPORT A. 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 (ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS) OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE (Exhibit A) This ordinance deletes the Class "E" liquor license issued to Mr. Peter's Banquets, 1018 Mount Prospect Plaza, which has closed. ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT I00 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, 847/392-6000, TDD 847/392-6064. B. Appointments VIII. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IX. CONSENT AGENDA *All items listed with an asterisk are considered routine by the Village Board and will be enacted b.Y one motion. There will be no separate discussion of those items unless a Board member, or resident from the audience, so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered in its normal sequence on the agenda. X. OLD BUSINESS A. ZBA 02-01, 2105 W. Prendergast Lane, Residence 1s= reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2105 WEST PRENDERGAST LANE (Exhibit B) This ordinance grants a variation to allow the construction of an enclosed patio which would encroach into the required 25' rear yard setback. The Zoning Board of Appeals has recommended denial by a vote of 2-4; the ordinance requires a super majority vote for approval. (At the petitioner's request, this case was deferred from the February 6 Village Board meeting). Xl. NEW BUSINESS A. ZBA 04-01, Text Amendments, Village of Mount Prospect 1st reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE VILLAGE CODE (Exhibit C) This ordinance amends various sections of Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals has recommended approval of amendments related to establishing a minor variation process, creating Floor Area Ratio standards in residential districts, limiting the permitted number of accessory structures and requiring that the finished side of fences face outward on arterial roadways by a vote of 6-0. The ZBA has recommended approval of an amendment to increase the maximum size of detached garages from 600 to 672 square feet by a vote of 5-1, and approval of an amendment allowing parking lots to be located within ten feet (10') of a lot line when adjacent to non-residential property by a vote of 4-2. B. *Request for Village Board approval and acceptance of private improvements at Dearborn Villas, 1449 -1500 Dearborn Court (Algonquin Road) Xll. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT A. *Bid results: 1. Parkway tree trimming contract 2. Parkway tree removal contract 3. Contract for furnishing and planting of parkway shade trees B. *Request to waive bidding procedure and award contract to Natural Path Forestry Consultants, Inc. for professional services for review of the tree risk management program. C. *Request for Board ratification of expenditures relative to the demolition of the rear portion of Ye Olde Town Inn, 18 West Busse Avenue. D. Request authorization to retain the services of a professional recruitment firm to assist in filling the Chief of Police vacancy. (Background material for this item will be distributed at the Village Board meeting) E. Status Report Xlll. ANY OTHER BUSINESS XlV. ADJOURNMENT H :\C L KO/G EN\files\WIN~AG E N DA~Feb 20.2001 .doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT February 6, 2001 CALL CALL TO ORDER TO ORDER Mayor Gerald Farley called the meeting to order at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Gerald Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Dennis Prikkel Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Irvana Wilks PLEDGE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Trustee Hoefert led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION INVOCATION Trustee Prikkel gave the invocation. MINUTES APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee Wilks seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held January 16, 2001. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran. Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel. Skowron. Wilks Nays: None Motion carried E~ILLS APPROVE BILLS Mayor Farley stated that the next item on the agenda, "APPROVE BILLS & FINANCIAL REPORT" was shown with an asterisk, and that ali items further noted in that manner ~)e considered with one vote under as "IX. CONSENT AGENDA." MAYOR'S P, EPORT: MAYOR'S REPORT RONALD W. Mayor Farley presented retired Police Chief Ronald W. PavIock with a proclamation PAVLOCK recognizing his contributions during his 19 years with the Village. The oroclamation PROCLAMA- declares February 23. 2001 as Ronald W. Pavlock Day in the Village of Mount Prospect TION Village Manager Michael Janonis announced that a retirement dinner will be held in honor of Chief Pavlock on February 23 at Bristol Court Banquets APPOINT- The Mayor had no recommendations for board or commission appointments. MENTS CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. CONSENT CONSENT AGENDA Trustee Lohrstorfer, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved for approval of the following AGENDA: items of business: BILLS 1. Bills, dated January 31, 2001 RES. NO. 4-01 2. RESOLUTION NO. 4-01: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION VOMP/IDOT OF A REVISED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT REVISED PROSPECT AND THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AGRMT, RELATIVE TO STREET LIGHT IMPROVEMENTS ON ROUTE 83 RT. 83 LIGHTS 3. RESOLUTION NO. 6-01: A RESOLUTION FOR IMPROVEMENT BY MUNICIPALITY UNDER THE ILLINOIS HIGHWAY CODE (MFT) RES. NO. 6-01 MFT FUNDS 4. RESOLUTION NO. 7-01: A RESOLUTION FOR MAINTENANCE OF STREETS AND HIGHWAYS BY MUNICIPALITY UNDER THE ILLINOIS HIGHWAY CODE RES. NO. 7-01 (MFT) MFT FUNDS 5. Request for Board approval to accept a proposal from KAM Engineering, Inc. for KAM ENG., construction engineering for the Route 83 street light project INC. RT. 83 LIGHTS 6. Request for Board approval to accept proposal from Ciorba Group, Inc. for engineering services for Phase 1 bridge rehabilitation throughout the Village. CIORBA 7. Request for Board approval for the purchase of computer software upgrades GROUP, from Insight, Inc. BRIDGE REHAB. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None INSIGHT, INC; Motion carried. COMPUTER SOFTVVARE OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS PC 09-2000 A plat was presented for consideration, which would consolidate multiple lots and create BRENTVVOOD a one-lot subdivision for the construction of a new parking lot for an existing retail center. SQUARE PLAT The Plan Commission had recommended approval by a vote of 5-0. Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer, moved to approve Case PC 09-2000, authorizing the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest his signature on the Brentwood Square Consolidated Plat of Resubdivision. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corooran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 01-01 REZONE An ordinance was presented for first reading, to allow property at 2440 East Rand Road 2440 E. RAND to be rezoned from R-X (Single Family Residence) to B-3 (Community Shopping District). ROAD The petitioner, Metro Federal Credit Union, has requested the rezoning for the construction of a drive-through banking facility. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved the request, by a vote of Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corooran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. 2 Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Corcorar: moved for approval of Ordinance ORD. No. 5167: NO. 5167 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY FROM R-X TO B-3 (COMMUNITY SHOPPING) DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2440 EAST RAND ROAD Upon rollcall: Ayes: Corcoran. Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron. Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 01-01 An ordinance was presented for first reading, which would grant a Conditional Use permit 2440 E. RAND for the construction of a drive-through banking facility at 2440 East Ranci Road. The ROAD Zoning Board of Appeals had recommended approval of the petitioner's (Metro Federal METRO CREDIT Credit Union) request by a vote of 6-0. UNION Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon rollcall: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried ORD. Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. moved for approval of Ordinance NO. 5168 No; 5168: AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2440 EAST RAND ROAD Upon rollcall: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefed, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel. Skowron. Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 02-01 ZBA 02-01,2105 West Prendergast Lane DEFER At the request of the petitioner, this ordinance, to grant a variation to allow the 2105 WEST construction of an enclosed three-season room, was recommended for deferral to the PRENDERGAST next meeting date. LANE Trustee Skowron, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to defer Case No. ZBA 02-01 to the February 20, 2001 Village Board meeting. Upon rollcalt: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None REVISEAGRMT. Motion carried. BTWN. VOMP & A resolution was presented which replaces Resolution No. 32-00, approved on IDOT October 3, 2000, an agreement between the Village and the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) for the resurfacing of Northwest Highway. Since that time, the Village has determined that additional improvements should be included in this project, resulting in the presentation cfa revised resolution to replace Resolution 32-00. RES. NO. 5o01 Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved for approval of Resolution No. 5-01: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A REVISED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RELATIVE TO SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS ON NORTHWEST HIGHWAY Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. 3 An ordinance was presented for first reading, which would amend Chapter 18 (Traffic) of AMEND the Village Code. This ordinance creates a new Section 18,1328 stating that all cars CH. 18: parked on Northwest Highway must be parallel with the adjacent curb on Northwest PARALLEL Highway. This ordinance is required as a condition of Resolution 5-01, authorizing an PARKING ON agreement for Northwest Highway Surface improvements. NW HWY. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ORD. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved for approval of Ordinance NO. 5169 No. 5169: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC) OF THE VILLAGE CODE Upon roil call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. PROHIBIT An ordinance was presented for first reading to prohibit the discharge of sanitary waste or WASTE industrial waste water into any storm sewer or drainage facility, which is part of the DISCHARGE, Northwest Highway surface improvements. This ordinance was required as a condition NW HWY. of Resolution No. 5-01, approving the agreement with IDOT for Northwest Highway surface improvements. Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ORD. Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved for approval of Ordinance NO. 5170 No. 5170: AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING THE DISCHARGE OF SANITARY AND iNDUSTRIAL WASTE INTO ANY STORM SEWER OR DRAINAGE FACILITY CONSTRUCTED AS PART OF THE NORTHWEST HIGHWAY SURFACE IMPROVEMENTS Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. PROHIBIT An ordinance was presented for first reading, as a condition of Resolution No. 5-01 for ENCROACH- the Northwest Highway surface improvements, to prohibit structural encroachments MENTS, within that right-of-way. NW HWY. Trustee Skowron, seconded by Trustee Wilks, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. 4 ORD. Trustee Prikkel, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved for approval of Ordinance NO. 5171 Ne. 5171: AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING ENCROACHMENTS WITHIN TH E STATE OF ILLINOIS RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG NORTHWEST HIGHWAY AS PART OF THE NORTHWEST HIGHWAY SURFACE IMPROVErvl ENTS Upon rollcall: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert. Lohrstorfer, Prikkel. Skowron Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. AGRMT: A resolution was presented authorizing tne Village to enter into an agreement with Mount VOMP Prospect School District 57 for the television production of school district activities ana (MPTV)& programs. SCHOOL DISTRICT 57 Ross Rowe, Cable Production Coordinator for the Village, explained that he has extended the offer for all of the school districts that serve Mount Prospect to utilize the Village's government access channel for televising their programs, and expects other districts to eventually take advantage of this opportunity. The agreement with District 57, for a term from February 1. 2001 mrougn January 31, 2002, stipulates that District 57 will contribute a total of $9,336.25 in funding assistance, the same as that currenuy contracted with Ihe Mount Prospect Public Library, and the Mount Prospect Park District RES. NO. 8-01 Trustee Wilks, seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved for approval of Resolution No. 8-01: A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH MOUNT PROSPECT SCHOOL DISTRICT 57 FOR GOVERNMENT ACCESS CABLE TV SERVICE PRODUCTION Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert. Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron. Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. VILLAGE MANAGER'S VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT REPORT: Village Manager Michael Janonis announced the upcoming Coffee With Counci scheduled for Saturday, February 10, 2001. from 9:00 - 11:00 a.m. Trustee Hoefert asked if staff had followed up on his recent inquiry regarding the sidewal lighting at the new CVS Pharmacy on Rand Road; Mr. Janonis stated that light shields have been ordered. Trustee Prikkel asked that staff be directed to invest[gate the possibility of improvements to the southeast corner of Golf Road at Busse Road, noting that he has suggested the same previously. He suggested that curbs be alaced on the property, along with grass and/or trees. Trustee Wilks expressed thanks to the Special Events Commission for sponsoring another successful Celestial Celebration, which was held February 3 at Bristol Court Banquets. ADJOURN ADJOURNMENT By unanimous vote, the February 6, 2001 meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk 5 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT CASH POSITION 15-Feb-01 Cash & Invstmt Receipts Disbursements Other Cash & Invstmt Balance 02/01/01 - Per Attached Credits/ Balance 02/01/01 02/15/01 List of Bills Debits 02115101 General Fund 7,214,958 1,116,243 494,695 7,836,506 Special Revenue Funds Refuse Disposal Fund 1,447,211 37,110 114,761 1,369,580 Motor Fuel Tax Fund 2,093,436 145,302 26,234 2,212,504 Local Law Enfrcmt BIk Grant Fd 1997 18,617 18,617 Community Development BI k Grant Fund 10,392 370 10,022 Debt Service Funds 2,328,618 1,880 2,330,499 Capital Proiects Funds Capital Improvement Fu nd 3,174,843 10,541 3,164,302 Police & Fire Building Construction Fund 4,123 4,123 Capital Improvement Construction Fund 187,655 187,655 Downtown Redevelopment Const Fund 14,479 11,569 5,134 20,914 Street Improvement Construction Fund 3,214,541 173,913 3,388,454 1998A Flood Contral Construction Fund Flood Control Construction Fund 2,998,145 153,876 6,535 3,145,486 Enterprise Funds Water & Sewer Fund 2,974,656 233,178 347,812 2,860,022 Parking System Revenue Fund 724,592 6,699 4,006 727,284 Internal Service Funds Vehicle Maintenance Fund 214,163 27 22,198 191,991 Vehicle Replacement Fund 5,525,551 491 5,525,060 Computer Replacement Fund 335,465 5,280 330,185 Risk Management Fund 2,724,127 11,755 32,104 2,703,777 Trust & Agency Funds Police Pension Fund 31,073,777 18,036 315 31,091,499 Fire Pension Fund 32,240,935 13,110 225 32,253,820 Fiexcomp Trust Fund 24,709 8,307 28,612 4,404 Escrow Deposit Fund 1,523,893 25,634 16,288 1,533,239 Benefit Trust Funds 78,046 8,752 86,799 100,146,932 1,965,391 1,115,601 100,996,722 .REPORT: AENOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY REBiL01 14:59 PAGE 1 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FR~ FEBRUARY 0I 200t TO FEBRUARY t5 200t REPT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAME IiqVOICB DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 001 02557 ABM, INC. TONER 35.00 01071 ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO. BLDG F/TLS I63.09 BLDG MATLS 70.66 BLDG~TLS 111.36 345.11 01335 AL~IAM BROTHERS NEDICAL CENTR CPR TRAINING CLASS 125.00 01561 AMERICAN CHARGE SERVICE TAXI RIDES 203.20 05222 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL UNIFORE/CLEARiNG 116.47 UNIFOI~i RENTAL 499.85 616.32 01830 ANDERSON ELUATOR CO. IiAINT.OF ELEVATOR 160.63 03327 ANDERSON, PETER TAI-CHI CLASS 282.50 02111 ARLINGTON RENTAL INC. SPECIAL EVENTS 70.00 02138 A~OR SYSTL~S CORPO~TION SERVICES 8!.16 02167 AREONKOAD CONSTRUCTION COLD PATCH 1850.40 02270 AT&T AC?~0207244120002 2.62 ACT~0207244120002 8.73 ACT~0207244120002 17.46 ACT~0207244!20002 8.73 ACT#0207244120002 33.10 ACT~0207244120002 8.73 ACT~0207244120002 13.09 ACT~0207244!20002 22.70 ACT~0207244120002 6.90 ACT~0207244120002 6.98 ACT~0207244120002 31.43 ACT~0207244120002 177.22 ACT~0207244120002 173.72 ACT~0207244120002 1!1.74 623.31 05044 AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTLM TAC UNIT LEASE 34.82 ' 02405 B & H RE~O/VIREO DVCk~RECORDER 7124.60 SUPPLIES 783.70 7908.30 024~Z BARATiAIER, iRENE HDM-RSIMB 33.00 02290 BALLOONS, RE§NY BURNS BALLOONS 496.25 REPORT: AEBOARNR~ GRNE~TED: 1 SEE O0 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FEBI501 14:59 PANE 2 RNLEAUE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT RNOSFECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FRO~ FEBRUARY 0I 2001 TO FEBEUARY 15 2001 DE~T VENDOR NHR VENDOR NAflE I~OICE DESCRIPTION ~OUNT 02602 NAZAN, LEOANRD W, HDM-RNIMB 16.00 00455 BEYER, ANDREW REIMBURSEMENT 50.00 02921 BLUE, MICHAEL ADVANCE REQ. 90.00 02924 HDOA INTERNATIONAL INC. REFERENCE ~TERIAL 85.50 PI~IN REVIEW FO~4S 57.00 !42.50 05339 BOUND TREE CORF SUPPLIES 227.88 00470 BRNHOB, LEANNE ADVANCE REQ 63.00 02945 BRISTOL COURT CELESTIAL DINNER BAA 18205.00 05644 BUCHE', TIM CELESTIAL-ENTRNTAI~ENT 500.00 01008 BUSSE'S FLOWERS & GI~S FLO~RS 2437.50 FLOWERS 185.00 2622.50 01518 CANON BUSINESS SOLNTIONS-CENTNAL HAL~EN ~P 115.02 M~I NTEN~.NUE !200.00 ~iNTENANCE !200.00 2515.02 01049 CDW ~VERN~ENT, IRC CARTRIDGE 456.55 01056 CENTIIL CONTINENTAL BAKERY S~AA-!N CER~DNY 25.92 MEETING EXPENSE 8.64 34.56 01062 CERTIFIED REPORTING COMPANY HEARING TkANSCRIPTS 510.00 COURT REPORTER FEES 540.00 i050.00 05691 CHANDICK INSTITUTE SERVICE 45.00 01084 CHICAGO TRIBUNE AD 804.00 01103 CITIZENS WATER RESOURCES SERVICE 1!3.6i 04669 CLASSIC PHOTOGRAPHY INC. PHOT.~klPHY 250.00 01118 CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT PAYROLL FOR - 020801 700.00 PAYROLL FOP, - 020801 190.00 00309 COORBY, WILLIAM J. REIMBURSE i6!.75 REPORT: AREOARDRPT G~ERATED: i REP 00 07:17 RUN: TDURSDAY FEB1501 I4:59 PAGE RELEASE ID VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF DILLS PABSABTED TO TEE BOA~ OF TR~TEES F~O~ FEBRUARY 01 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 DEPT VE2IDOR NBR VENDOR NAMZ INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 04543 CORFU~ATE EXPRESS OFFICE SUPPLIES 267.04 05574 COSTELLO, ELAINE SERVICE 175.00 01223 DAILY OFFICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 80.72 05524 DEAREOAB VILLAS REFUND 125.00 01253 DES PLAINES GLASS COMPANY MATERIAL & LABOR 2360.00 MATERIAL & LABOR 729.00 3089.00 01257 DESIGN STORAGE PARTS 4000.00 01279 DISTINCTIVE BUSINESS PRODUCTS QUARTERLY MAINT. 227.70 QUARTERLY MAINT. 227.70 455.40 05702 DRAMEL ACCESSORIES TOOL STORAGE CASE 58.15 01329 EL-DINARY, SAID HDM-~IMB 24.00 05127 ELL~ENT K JOU~ALS WINDOWS PHOFESSIOWAL 268.00 01339 ELTOW CORPORATION VACUL~ 207.83 01377 REDERAL EXPRESS CORP SHIPPING CHARGES 9.57 AIREILL 33.93 43.50 00331 F!GOLAN, MICRAEL MATERIAL 28.60 01390 FILE MART SUPPLIES 311.00 Fine LABELING SUPPLIES 235.00 546.00 00102 FIAB PENSION FUND PAYROLL FOR - 020801 i2579.31 01417 5OROS, 5ILLIAN M!SC.EXPENSES 23.82 00335 FOLEY, APRIL B. REiMB-SEPiIRAR 45.00 04962 FRIEDRICHS, JILL NAME TAGS 86.58 01488 GILLIGAN, FMANK EDM-REIMB 6.00 01495 GLEN, JOHN AND MARGE H~-REIMB 21.00 01516 GOVRk~..BN? FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOC. PUBLICATION 198.00 01576 HELLER LOWBER CO. PLNOOD 19.8i 01578 HENDRPCKSEN, ROBERT W. TRIM Pk~'~Y TREES 1390.00 ~RT: APBOARDR~ GENE~TED: i SEP 00 07:17 R~: THURSDAY FEBI501 I4:S9 PAGE 4 R~LEASE ID VILLAGE OF ~O~T PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF T~$TEES ~RU~Y 01 2001 TO FEBRUarY 15 200I DE~ VENDOR NBR VENDOR N~E INVOICE DESCRIPTION ~OUNT 01603 HOE~T, LINDA 5E~ND 88.02 01605 HOEG, ~NALD HDM-REIMB 33.00 04360 HOLTZ, ~Y HDM=~IMB 27.00 01609 HOLY F~ILY ~DICAL CE~ER PRE-~PLO~ENT PHYSICALS 417.00 01610 H~E DEP~ i~g302!486 !5.29 01645 iAFSM W~LRSCKER/LINDELOF 250.00 01648 IBB~SON HEATING CO. RS~ND 30.00 01650 I~A NENSLETTER AD 373.!0 00107 !C~ ~TI~T TRUST - 457 PAYROLL FOR - 020801 17459.22 04671 !LCA REG!STkAT!ON 375.00 M~BERSHiP DUES 305.00 00108 iLLiNOIS DEPARTMENT O~ ~EVENUE PAYROLL EOR - 020801 17285.g3 PAYROLL FOR - 021301 2883.88 20!69.8! 01675 iLLiNOIS DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL 200i DUES-AICP 125.00 01681 ILLINOIS FI~CHIEFS ASS~. ~GiSTP~T!ON 90.00 01701 iLLINOiS PAPER CO. PAPER-FIRE 529.~0 PAPER-POLiCE I05~,60 1589.40 01711 iLLINOIS S~ETY OF EI~ SERV. M51BERSH!P 35.00 01122 ILLINOIS STATE DISBU~ENT UNIT PAYROLL PO~ - 020801 5!9,23 PAYROLL FOR - 020801 !95.50 PAYROLL FOR - 020801 i26.00 PAYROLL FOR - 020801 60.00 pAYROLL FOR- 020801 520.75 142!.48 01748 INTERNATIONAL S~IETY OF FIRE M~MBE~Hi8 75.00 01896 J.C. LICHT C~PANY . PAINT SUPP 55.95 00353 JANONIS, MICHAEL E LUNCH ~:TG. 01774 JikAK, JIM HDM-~!MB 36.00 05690 K.D. ENGINEERING BOND~ND 50.00 ~PONT: ARBOARDRPT GENERATED: I HEP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FRB1501 14:59 PAGE 5 RELEASE ID : VIL~GE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OR TRUSTEES FROM FRBRUARY 012001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 DEPT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NA~4E INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 01792 EASXP~, BILL M.P. DRAGS ENSSXBLE 350.00 01827 KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS,LTD. SERVICE 17863.65 05697 LANG HOME MEDICAL EQUIP. SUPPLIHS 133.04 01872 L~TTOF CHEVROLET, INC. ABTONOTIVE PARTS & SERVICE 18.00 00374 LAWRIE, M.%TT REIM~UREENENT 42.85 ADVANCE ENQ. 83.00 125.85 05678 LEIB, JASON ADVkNCE ENQ. 314.40 01915 LUNDIN, RAY ..... <"~"~(OVA5 382.50 00384 LNTENI, DONNA 05682 EABAS DIVISION I! P~GiS?RATioN !50.00 04014 MAILBOXES ETC. BPS SHIPPING 43.90 01941 MALCOLM, JOHN MSB?!NG 01950 MANN, DEZ~ HCM-EiMB 2].0U 01957 EARENETER VIDEO SUPPLY VIDEO SUPPLIES 393.99 01989 MCREENk% DOROTHY HDM-REIMH 30.00 02241 MCLEOD USA/ORE SDO~ CD,UNICA?IONS AC?~!50l~1)0i447 3!7.47 ACT~!50030001447 597.35 APT~i50030001447 16.78 ~CT~15003000144 ACT~150030001447 26.90 %CT~150030001447 89.67 ACT~150030001447 179.34 ACT~150030001447 89.67 ACTglS0030001447 340.7~ ACT~150030001447 89.87 k0T~!50030001447 ACT~!50030001447 233.i4 ACT~!50,33000!447 7?3 ACT~lS0030001447 71.73 ATT~150030001447 322.8! ACT~lS0030001447 1880.27 ACT~lSO030001447 1784.4i ACT~!50030001447 !h - 7350.73 00116 METRO FEDERAL CR£~iO ONION PAYROLL 20~ - 020801 830.00 00117 METROPOLITAN ALLIANCB - POLICE PAYROLL FOR - 020801 56!.00 REPORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FEH1501 14:59 RAGE 6 RELEASE ID : VIL~GE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PR~SENTNW TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FRO~ FEBRUARY 01 2001 TO ~EREUARY 15 2001 DEPT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NME Ii;VOICE DESCR!~TION ................................................................................................................................... 02046 MOBILE PRINT INC. MNWO PADS 195.9I SUPPLIES 83.99 279.90 02047 MOHAPP, DORIS HAM-REIMS 9.00 02067 MOUNT PROSPECT HISTORICAL SOC. JAR/KEB PYMTS 6666.66 05459 MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT TABACCO Gk~T 900.00 02074 MOUNT PROSPECT SPECIAL EVENTS TICKETS FOR MAYOR !20.00 05696 NT.PROSPEET J~NIOR WOM~'S CLUB SEUiCE 70.00 05684 MUk~Y, MR.&MRS. REAL ESTATE T.tI REBATE 550.00 05698 NAT'5 SOC.OF EXEC.FIREOFFICERS ML!SERSBiP 35.00 02129 NATIONAL HEAT AND POWER CORP. REPAIR 794.80 00123 NATIONWIDE PAYROLL FOR - 020801 16831.62 02140 NEOPOST CARTRIDGE 52.50 CHARGES 68.00 !L7.50 02155 REXTEL CO{~{UNICATIONS i/10/0i-02/17/01 220.79 !/!0/0!-02/!7/01 662.37 1/18/01-02/17/01 390.18 1/i9/01-02/!7/01 ii0.39 1/!8/0i-02/17/01 i07.55 i/!8/01-02/17/01 555.82 1/18/0!-02/!7/0i 1/19/0!-02/!7/0I !52.73 !/18/0i-02/17/0! 152.73 i/!8/01-02/17/0! 494.23 3237.94 05236 NFPA HEMSSR/H20208 128.00 05206 MICOR GAS 8EUICE 10444.44 02181 NORTHEASTB~I ILLINOIS PLNG.C~ DUES-200! 4000.00 02189 NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH SYS SEUiCE 28122.33 SERVICE 7038.59 35112.92 n2193 RORTH~ST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 73.63 02207 NSI SIGNS, INC L.~PS ST.LiGNTE 02.40 REPL E.~\!P$ 428.80 ~PORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 SEP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FEPIL01 14:59 PAGE 7 RELEASE ID VILLAGE OF MO~ PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS P~SBNTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ~OMFEBRUARY Oi 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 200I DE~T VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 491.20 02230 OFFICL~AXCREDIT PLAN OFFICE SUPPLIES 43.56 02230 ON TIME MESSENGER SERVICE SERVICE 53.25 02239 ONE HOUR MOTO PHOTO SERVICE 39.90 05497 ORCKENT~A THIRTY-THeE C.C.ORCHRSTRA 3000.00 02249 OTTOSEN T~VARTHEN BR!TZ KELLY & PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 14.00 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 560.00 PROFEXSIONALSERVICRS 75.00 649.00 05695 PA~ETTOKE, LORSTO BOND KE~ND 100.00 02285 PEDERSEN & HOUPT SERVICES 811.70 02301 PETTY CASH - FiNA~CE DEK. MISC.EXPEXSES 11,86 MISC.EXPENSES 146.08 MISC.EXPEXSES 6.52 MISC.EXPENSES 76.37 MISC.EXFEHSRS 12.00 MiSC.EXPENSES 40.01 MISC.EXFENSES 23.30 MISC.EXFENSES 32.00 MISC.EXFENSES 34.58 MISC.EXP~SES 6.60 MISC.EXFENSES 12.00 MISC.EXEXNSES I5.00 MISC.EXP~SES 46.44 MISCELLAKEUS EXPENSES 100.00 562,76 02303 PETTY CASH - FiRE DEPT. KE~TPNG TRAINING SUPPLIES i1.73 MEETING TRAINING SUPPLIES 3.24 MEETING TRAINING SUPPLIES 3,24 ~ETING TRAINING SUPPLIES 57.29 MEETING T~INING SUPPLIES !.40 ~EETING TkAINING SUPPLIES ME~ING TRAINING SUPPLIES 4.!8 MEETING TRIN!NG SUPPLIES 32.47 METING TRAINING SUPPLIES !9.96 MEETING T~INING SUPPLIES . 32.6i MEETING TRAINING SUPPLIES 13.73 184.16 02304 PETTY CASH - POLICE DEF. MISC EXPENSES 111.44 MtSC ~XFENSES 21.30 MISC EXPENSES 30.30 MISC EXPENSES 32.00 195.04 REPORT: AFBOARDKPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FRE150I 14:59 ?NEE RELEASE IQ : VILLAGE UT MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM VEBRUARY 01 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 DENT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 00124 POLICE PENSION ~3ND PAYROLL FOR - 020801 18036.10 04921 POPE, ELIZABETH A. PAYROLL FOR - 020801 923.08 02334 POSTMASTER POSTAGE 220.00 POSTAGE STAMPS 340.80 560.00 02339 REC~L, ARLENE HDM-REtMB 39.00 02388 RAINBOW REFRESHMENTS, INC. POP ~3~OMINE SUPPLIES 21!.20 02408 REID AND AREDOIAVES, JOHN E. POLYGRAPH EXANS 525.C0 00414 RICHARDSON, RONALD REIMSUBSEMENT 70.00 05152 ROBERTS, TOBY REIWEURELMENT 69.!0 02008 RDOER MEYER & SON SNOW HAULING CHARGES 7680.00 02465 ROTARY LUNCH CLUB OF MOUNT PROSPECT MLMBER/FiooLAE 288.80 04673 SAN BEREARDINO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS PAYROLL FOR - 020801 92.30 05685 SCAM/NATOA M3.RRETI NG ~KTERIALS 280.80 02515 SCHWEPVE & SONS LUNCHROOM SUPPLIES 218.59 02522 SEA LION DIVE CENTER REGISTRATION 30.00 00125 REID LOCAL 73 PAYROLL FOR - 020801 456.00 02536 SEVENTEEN SPECIALTIES INC. SERVICE 688.54 T-SHIRTS 633.50 !242.04 02542 SREPP PEST CON'~ROL PEST CONTROL SERVICE 295.00 05683 SOCIETY OF THE DIVINE WORE DONATION 80.00 04139 NTANARD & ASSOCIATES SERVICE 1050.00 02632 STERLING CODiF!ERE, INC. ZONING BOOKLETS i;4 ~9 00441 STRAHL, DAVID LUNCH/MEETING 48.60 04058 SZANTOR, JIM BDM-REIMB 27.00 05692 THE NEALMARER$ SUBSCRiPTiON 274.00 05681 THE OHiO AQUATIC COUNCIL,LTD. LACZ/ROBERTS 460.00 05705 TRAPANI, BENNETT REPLACE WALK 2505.00 REPORT: AFBOARDRPT GENERATED: i REP 00 07:17 RUN: TBURSD~iFEB1501 14:59 PAGE 9 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF ~OUNT PROSPECT i LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 01 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 DE~T VENDOR NBR VENDOR NA~E IN'~OICE DESCRINTION kMOENT 02719 TREETOP PROMOTIONS, INC. GIFT CERTIFICATE CATALOGS 181.09 02735 U.S. FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP FARTS 251.18 05686 ULtNE INC DOORKNOB BAGS 36.I9 02748 UNISYS CORPORATION CONTRACT 5629.68 05699 UNITED STATES CONFERENCE M~BE~NIP !00.00 02756 DNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE POSTAGE 2809.07 ACT 0693947 3000.00 5809.07 00127 UNITED WAY PAYROLL FOR - 020801 311.85 05004 VERIZON WIRELESS RAGER RENTAL 155.57 00128 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT RESE~;ATIONS !80.00 PAYROLL FOB - 020801 16692.04 PAYROLL FOR - 020801 29.96 RESERVATIONS 90.00 16992.00 04314 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - PAYROLL WIRES PAYROLL FOR - 020801 142169.73 PAYROLL FOR - 020801 16435.59 D V A,RO~ FOR - 020801 13350.16 PAYROLL FOR - 021301 i9947.5! PAYROLL FOR - 021301 2250.03 PAYROLL FOE - 021301 1827.59 195980.61 05700 VILLAGE PROFILE AD !495.00 02821 VON BR!ESEN,P~NTELL&ROPER, S.C. SERVICE 7641.75 02855 WAREHOUSE DIREST MISS.OFF!CE SUPPLIES 747.14 02848 WAVE PRINTING SUPPLIES 552.00 02844 WEARGDARD C~O.9ING ~u.~LI~S 156.94 05676 WHEELING TO~%]SHIP REPJND 30.00 00461 WIDMER, CAROL GFOA DEPOSi~ 150.00 04189 W!TTENBURG, RUTH H~-RE!MB 24.00 02896 WORLD WINDOW CLONING CO INTERIOR WiNDOW TLTm:~I!NG i42.00 ~ ~ ACT 52-0068039 113.97 05410 WORLDC~ W.REL~SS, INC. · ACT 82-00059533 80.70 ACT 52-00868911 81.15 ACT.5200036154 36.26 REPORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 SEE 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY ~H!50! I4:59 RAGE i0 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BIIiS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FR~ FEBRUARY 01 200i TO FEBRUARY 15 200I DEPT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 312.08 04226 WOSICK, CL~ HDM-REIMB 42.00 02903 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 58.00 TOTAL 494684.62 030 01639 AMERICAN NATIONAL BA~K TIPPING FEES 73094.12 FIXED COSTS {i597.20 114691.32 02270 AT&T ACT~0207244120002 3.49 02241 MCLEOU USA/ONE STOP CO~f, JNIC~iONS ACT~!5003000!447 35.87 05680 SWAMA -LAMD OF LICOLN CHAPTER REGISTRATION FEE 3C.00 TOTAL 114760.68 050 05260 CADE INDUSTRIES CALCIL~M CHLORIDE 3!42.85 01147 CO~Oi~EALTB EDISON STREET,N~'f,T~AE.S!G 2972.47 05614 DETROIT SALT CO. ROAD SALT 14942.i8 01720 IMS INC. SO,WANE RA!NT. 2400.00 04640 SICALCO LTD. CBLCi~ CHLORi~E 2777.!5 TOTAL 26234.35 070 01377 FEDERAL EXPL=SS CORE AIRSILL 17.56 00335 FOLEY, APRIL B. REiNSURSEMENT 1!.90 05679 ROBERTS, NDOOLE CONF ADVANCE 348.58 TOTAL 368.86 510 01071 ADDISON BUILDING RATERiAL CO. SLUG RATLS 72.16 02405 S & H PHOTO/VIDEO VIDEO MONITOR 6!36.50 CASSETTE DECK 557.90 6694.40 01037 CARPET CLSHiONS & SUPPL, INC SUB?LiES 62.39 01049 CDWGOVE5%IENT, INC SUPPLIES 830.42 ~DORT: APBOANDRPT GENERATED: 1 SEP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FEBiLOI 14:59 PAGE 1I REL~SN ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PENSENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 01 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 DE~ VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 01610 HOME DEPOT INVL011052 26.18 01096 J.C. LICET COMPANY PAINT SUPP 31.29 02084 MUNDIE & CO. SERVICES 2250.00 02515 SCH~PPE & SONS COFFEL~AKER 553.85 TOTAL 10540.69 550 01083 CHICAGO TITLE INSUD~CE CO. CLOSING COST 27.00 01184 COOK COUNTY COLLECTOR PROPERTY TA~( BILL 5107.34 TOTAL 5134.34 05509 PETER F.OLESEN AND ASSOC. SERVICE 6535.30 TOTAL 6535.30 01071 ADDISON BUILDING M~.FERIAL CO. BLDG MATLS 5.60 04391 ALEXANDER CHEMICAL RENTAL OF CYLINDER 180.00 01568 AMERICAN COMPUTER & CC~KON.INC AMNUAL ~INTENANCE 149.00 05222 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL UNIFOAM/CLEANING 116.48 HNIFOR~ CLEANING 499.85 616.33 01780 AMERITECH PHONE DILL 47.50 01833 ANDERSON LOCK COMD/~Y KEYS I7.04 02270 AT&T ACT~0207244120002 233.09 01147 C~IONWRALTH EDISON ACCT%44757~,0000 !7.60 ACCT,4475770000 88.56 !06.16 01257 DESIGN STORAGE PARTS 2630.40 01377 FEDERAL EXPRESS CODP COURIER C~.RGES 51.19 COURIFR CHARGES 72.80 123.99 01729 INSITUFO~4 TECH., INC. SERVICES 100179.45 01787 J~LIE, INC. SERVICE 117.60 01965 MAMTAN OONSTRUCTIUN WATEREAIN ~PAIR 4515.74 REPORT: APHO~DRPT GENE~TED: 1 8EP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FEB150I 14:59 PAGE !2 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUN? PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS P~ESENTED TO THE BOARV OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY Oi 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 RE~T VENDOR NRR VENDOR NAME I~OICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 02241 MCLEOD USA/ONE STOP CO~T~]NICATIONS ACT#100030001447 1625.83 ACT~i50030001447 2394~15 4019.98 02155 NEXTE5 CO~UNICATIONS 1/18/01-02/17/0I 483.14 05256 NDCOR GAS SERVICE 1000.I5 00688 NIZIOLEK, IRENA WATER-REFUND 12.00 WATER-RE,ND 1.31 13.36 02193 NORTH~ST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 404.43 02301 PETTY CASH -FINAMCE DEPT. MiSC.EXPENSES 6.80 02672 SYST~S DOGS, !NC. SERVICE REQUEST 447.77 04838 THIRD MILLENNIUNASSDO.INC. UTILITY BILLING 835.76 02773 U.S. BANK TRUST WATER 118661.00 PO~R 2054.00 O & M 14211.00 FIXED 94374.00 229300.00 02001 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS MISC.OFFICE SUPPLIES 90.88 02835 WAREHOUSE DIRECT MISC.OFFICE SUPPLIES 669.12 00694 ~iTE, JEAN M. RELND 3.35 RE.,~RV 0.38 3,70 02914 ZIEBELL WATER SERVICE PRODUCTS PARTS 902,55 REPAIR 704.00 1606.85 TOTAL : 347811.54 630 01147 CO~ON~EALTH EDISON ACCT#4475770000 429.66 05256 NICOR GAS SERVICE 1384.06 02754 UNION PACIFIC ~AILROAU D~D LEASE-JAM 2192.69 T~AL : 4006,4! 660 01071 ADDISON BUILDING MATERIAL CO. 8LDGMATLS 38.90 REPORT: AREOARERPT GENERATED: 1 SEP 00 07:17 RONi ~HURSDAY REB150t 14:59 PAGE 13 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF RILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES REOM REBRUARY 01 2001 TO REBREARY t5 2001 DE~T VENDOR NBR VENDOR N~ I~VOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 01187 AETNA TRUCK PARTS SERVICE 154.08 01833 ANDERSON LOCK COMPANY KEYS 92.50 01937 ANTIOCH TIRE, INC. PARTS 40~00 02270 AT&T AOT~0207244120002 13.09 02318 AUTO CLNTCH PARTS 129.68 02938 BOW%faN DISTRIBOTION CENTER SUP?LIRS 1500.66 01058 CF~4~URY LABS, INC SUPPLIES 15.00 SUPPLIES 85L 49 572.49 01066 CHARTEKEORS~ PUB=~SHING CO. SUPPLIES 37.47 04579 CUSTOM VEHICLE SYOT~S, INC. UPG~DES 1884.95 01236 DAVE & JIM'S AUTO BODY, iNC. ~qEEL ALIGNMENT 35.00 01649 ~CI DUL~X PAINT C=NT~RS PAINT 203.70 01872 LATTOF CHEVROLET, INC. AUTOMOTIVE PARTS & SERVICE 1009.90 AUTOMOTIVE P~qTS & SERVICE 724.00 1733.90 02241 MCLEOD OSA/O~ STOP CO}~f~]NICATiORS ACTP!50030001447 !34.50 02010 MIDWAY TRUCK PARTS HARTS 58.25 02041 MINUTL~I~N SUPPLIES 292.51 02058 MORTON GROVE AUTOMOTi~ PARTS & L~OR 783.00 02155 NEXTEL C~NICATIORS 1/I8/01-02/17/0! 193.02 02193 NORTWNRST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 340.89 02250 OVERHEAD ~ATERIAL BANDL!NG INSPECTION ~.8.00 02374 QUALITY DISCOUNT AOTO PARTS REPAIK PAKTS 470.50 02569 R.G. SMITH EQUIPMENT CO. BINGE ASS~BLY 718.32 05675 RUBBER INC. KEPAIR 258.5! 02581 DOLVE~IT SYST~qS i~'L. !NC. RERVICE 204.00 02610 ST~DAND EQUIPMENT CC~ih.'-Kq'f PIVOT PIN 8.06 SUPPLIES 9~6 62 PILTER/GAUGE 198.19 REPORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 REP 80 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FEB1501 I4:59 PAGE 14 RELEASE ID VILLAGE OF MO]NT PROSPE~ LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES ~ROM FEBRUARY 0t 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 DER VENDOR NRE VENDOR NANE INVOICE DESCRIPTION ANOUNI' 1192.87 02684 TERRAOM SUPPLY COMPANY GAS CYLINDER RENTA~ 6.00 04472 TEXOR PETROLE~ CO GASAHOL 9621.61 02722 TRI-STATE ELECTRONIC CORP ELEC SUPP 2!.90 ELEC SURF 23.87 45,77 04578 TRIANGLE FANRICATION CYLINDER 226.i6 02769 UPTO{9~ AB'TO SUPPLY REPAiR-RERTS !52.38 02791 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PRO~%~ ELEC PARTS 63i.04 05004 VRAIZOH W!~LRES PAGING SERVICE 90.02 TOTAL 22197.77 670 02525 SECRETARY OF STATE RENEWALS STICKER 95.00 02791 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PROG;~M ELEC ?ARTS 396.23 TOTAL 49i.23 680 01469 GATEMAY CO~PA.NIES iNC. COMPUTER SUPPLIES 1760.00 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 1760.00 COMPUTER SUPP 1760.00 5230.00 TOTAL 5260.00 690 01102 CITIB~K, N.~. FMT INS CLAIMS-GAN 3526.81 PMT !NS CLAiMS-GAS 550.00 4076.8! 01223 DAILY OFFICE PRODUCTS PRESCRIPTION CARD CLAIMS 12723.96 05579 EI~J, HUEST LINCOLN MERCURY BODY ~RAIRS i~69.90 01451 GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC. ,ACT PROGk~ RE 1829,00 01966 MARTIN UOYER COMPANY,INC RERViCE FEE 4400.00 WORKERS C~I? CLAIMS 8847.40 02198 NORTHWBST RADIOLOGY ASSOC.S.C. SERVICE 25.00 02425 REYNOLDS ANTCGLASS CO., INC. SERVICE S-31/!-24 8i0.00 REPORT: APROARORPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: TUUNSDA¥ FEBI501 14:59 PAGE t5 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS P~,ESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TEUSTEES FRUN FEBRUAMY 01 2001 TO ~EBRUARY 15 2001 DEFT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 05211 STATE TREASURER W/C RATE AD~ST~ENT FUND 1612.41 05677 ~STERE WORLD INSURANCE CO. DEDUCTIBLE 250.00 TOTAL : 32104.48 710 05037 LASALLE BANK NA POLICE-4QOO PROC.RE 225.00 02565 SKLODOMSKI,PUCHALSKI & REIMRE LEGAL EXPENSES 90.00 TOTAL 315.00 720 05037 LASALLE BA~K NA FINE-4QOO PROC.FEE 225.00 TO~AL 225.00 770 02513 REERNETHY, JANET T. FLEX COMP 211.85 02941 ACRERMAN, DAMIEL R. FLEX COMP 2252.33 01042 ADA~CZYK, TED D. FLEX COMP 240.00 02667 BEHUN, DAVID FLEX COMP 21.63 FLEX COMP 21.63 FLEX COMP 93.00 I2B.26 02921 SLUE, MICHAEL FLEX COMP 95.00 FLEX COMP 416.68 511.68 02940 BROMBER, ILANA FLEX COMP 229.00 02949 BHOHSSHA{], AROREW J. FLEX COMP 1254.00 03760 EURES, HAUL FLEX COMP 35.16 01035 CARNEY, FADREEN FLEX COMP-2000 117.14 05706 C(;NNINGHAM, TIMOTHY FLEX COMP 2000.00 01224 DALEY, JANICH A. FLEX COMP 467.00 01241 DAWSON, HENRY C. FLEX COMP 2483.77 01381 FELSKI, ARTHUR W. FL~ COMP 435.73 01405 FI~T OC~9~ONWEALTH EMP DENTAL pLAN 1776.00 01520 GOY, MICHAEL J. FLEX C~F 382.02 REHORT: APBOAP, DRST GENERATED: 1 HEP 00 07:t7 RUN: THURSDAY FRB1501 I4:59 PAGE 16 RELDSE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSFECT LIST OF BILLS PRSSENTED TO THE DOAND OF TRUSTEES FROM ~BRUARY 01 2001 TO FEBRUARY 15 2001 DEPT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NiXiE INVOICE DESCRIPTION A~OU~ 01560 HANKEN, DONALD E. FLEX COMP 430.98 04731 HUNT, JEFFERY FLEX COMP 453.00 FLEX COMP 340.00 793.00 04729 tPSEN, BRIAR FLEX COMP 229.00 01781 JONES, DANIEL G. FLEX COMP 268.06 01809 K~DY, BRSNDAN M. FLEX COMP I400.16 01844 KRUPA, FI~K M. FLEX COMP 14.00 01884 LEE, KENNETH R. FLEX COMP I949.80 01809 LEOMARD, HTNVEN FLEX COMP 504.I2 06362 LO~BARDO, CY~HIA FLEX COMP 49.87 FLEX COMP 49.87 ~EX COMP 050.08 FLEX COMP I099.50 2049.24 01908 LUEASH, DOUGLAS D. FLEX COMP 271.46 02433 RICKER, JEFFREY FLEX COMP 177.00 FLEX COMP !00.00 277.00 02458 ROHAY, J~S S. FLEX COMP 308.00 02473 ROMORS, CINDY JO FLEX COMP 295.00 02480 RZEPECMI, ROBERT L. FLEX COMP 730.00 02530 SF24K!U, MICHAEL J. FLEX COMP 959.50 FLEX COMP 23.00 982.50 04100 SKIHDZNGSRUDE SCOTT FLEX COMP 8.00 02631 STEPHBNSOM, MICHAEL R. FLEX COMP !15.00_ · 02635 STEWARD, DALE R. FLEX COMP Ii5.81 02644 STHAHL, DAVID FLEX COMP 456.83 02646 STkAUB, KURT 5EX COMP 69.42 02710 TRACY, RICHARD n. FLEX CO~P 13i.84 5EX COMP 904.12 REFORT: APROARDRPT GENERATED: 1 SEF 00 07:17 RUN: TBURSRAY FEB150t 14:50 RAGE 17 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS DR~RE~TED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM REBRUA~Y 0i 2001 TO ~ERUARY 15 200t DEFT VENDOR NBR VENDOR Nk~E INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOONT 1035.96 02729 TR~Y, CNKIS J. ~LEX COMP 453.00 02825 WADE, ~ARILYN F~EX COMP 44.00 02853 WERDERITCH, RANDALL C. FLEX CC~P 1834.21 02880 WILLMING, THOMAS M. ~LEX COMP 1200.00 02901 NVLBECRER, OEFFREY a. ~EX COMP 256.29 TOTAL 28611.98 790 05703 ROR[~AN, KI~E~Y OVERPNT VEN LICENSE 18.00 00321 DRAFFUNE, RICRARD SAVINGS BONDS OVERM~T 50.00 05689 EGG FACTORY, INC. REFUND 35.00 00121 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CHICAGO SAVINGS BONDS 300.00 05704 KEELEL JANICE F. OVERPNT VEH LICENSE 2.00 00424 RUNDELL, ROBERT SAVINGS BONDS 25.00 02689 THIRD DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT BOND MONEY 1975.00 BOND MONEY 500.00 BOND MONEY 2250.00 BOND MONEY 1817.00 BOND MONEY 666.00 7208.00 05693 TROY, GLENN RECAPTURE AGREEMEHT 4013.92 02008 VILLAGE OF MOUNT FROSRECT DISEU.RS~ENT 3600.00 05701 YOUTH FOR CHRIST BOXNDOD BASH 1000.00 05687 ZLO~OWSKI, JSRO}f OVERPAYMENT 36.00 TOTAL 16287.92 GIL~=N D TOTAL 1115601.27 GENERATED: 1 SEP 00 07:17 RUN: THURSDAY FEB1501 14:59 PAGE 18 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS P~ESENTED TO THE ~OARD OF TRUSTEES F~ F~BRU~Y 01 2001 TO FEMANA~Y 10 2001 Sl~9~A~Y BY FUND 001 GENEk~L FOND 494694.62 030 REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND 114760.68 050 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND 26234.35 070 CC~9~UNITY DEV~L~MNT BLOCK G~NT 369.96 510 CAPITAL ~PROV~ENT ~UND 10540.69 550 OCANTOAN REDE~PANT CONNT 5134.34 590 FLOOD CONTROL COHST FUND 6535.30 610 WATEE AND SEWER FUND 347811.54 630 ?&ILKING SYSTEM ~VANUE ~JND 4006,41 660 VEHICLE }~AINTENANCE FOND 22197.77 670 VEMICLE ~EPLACEMENT FOND 491.23 680 COMPUTER ~PLACEMENT FOND 5200.00 690 RISE NANAGANBNT FUND 32104,48 710 POLICE PENSION FOND 315.00 720 FI~E PENSION FOND 225.00 770 FLANCUNP ESCROW FUND 28611.98 790 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND 16287.92 TOTAL: 1115601.27 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BUDGET REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE SUMMARIES January l-January31,2001 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ~ Month ( 8.3~) c~p~eted 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining Budget Revenue Summary 01/01/01 ~ 01/31/01 Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Budget Balance Percent o2/o8~2oo~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT i Month ( 8.3~ ) Completed 11:59:59 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining Budget Revenue Summary Ol/Ol/01 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Budget Balance Percent VEHICLE REPLACEMENT ~UND 94,398 94,398 1,139,840 1,045,442 91.7 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND 11,491 11,491 132,099 120,608 91.3 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 311,157 311,157 3,780,640 3,469,483 91.8 POLICE PENSION FUND 158,539 158,539 2,929,601 2,771,062 94.6 FIRE PENSION FUND 215,Sll 215,511 3,022,180 2,806,669 92.9 BENEFIT TRUST ~2 FUND 378 378 5,000 4,622 92.4 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND 2.741 2,741 0 -2,741 SSA #1 PROSPECT MEADOWS B&I 0 0 0 0 SSA ~6 GEORGE/ALBERT R&I 192 192 39,625 39,433 99.5 Total All F~ds 3,552,764 3,552,764 81,232,945 77,680,181 95.6 2 o2/08/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 12:01~:51 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Re~ining FRRBRR03 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT · SUM021 Budget Revenue by category within Fund Summary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cui MO Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Budget Balance Percent GENERAL FUND 40 PROPERTY TAXES 86,391 36,391 7,011,234 6,974,843 99.5 41 OTHER TAXES 835,387 835,387 10,876,000 10,040,613 92.3 42 LICENSES, pERMITS & FEES 135,609 135,609 2,848,900 2,712,891 95.2 43 INTER~1r~RMENT REV. 389,227 389,227 5,209,440 4,820,213 92.5 44 CHARGES FOR SERVICE 67,534 67,534 673,652 606,118 90.0 45 FINES AND FORFEITS 47,724 47,724 510,000 462,276 90.6 46 INlrESTMENT INCOME 36,100 36,100 435,000 398,900 91.7 47 REIMBURSEMENTS 16,233 16,233 298,309 282,076 94.6 48 OTHER REVENUE 39,544 39,544 138,675 99,131 71.5 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,603,749 1,603,749 28,000,810 26,397,061 94.3 REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND 40 PROPERTY TAXES 12,605 12,605 2,431,590 2,418,985 99.5 44 CHARGES FOR SERVICE 80,382 50,382 878,250 824,868 94.2 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 8,494 8,494 60,000 51,506 85.8 48 OTHER REVENUE 0 0 0 0 TOTAL REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND 71,481 71,481 3,366,840 3,295,359 97.9 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND 43 INTERGOVERMENT REV. 127,946 127,946 1,591,000 1,463,054 92.0 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 10,921 10,921 50,000 39,079 78.2 47 REIMBURSEMENTS 38 38 150 112 74.7 TOT~2~MOTOR FUEL TAX FUITD 138,905 138,905 1,641,150 1,502,245 91.5 LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GPJtNT 43 INTERGOVERMENT REV. 0 0 0 0 46 I59;ESTMENT INCOME 0 0 0 0 02/08/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 12:01:52 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRBRR03 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT . SUM021 Budget Revenue by Category within Fund Suaunary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Budget Balance Percent TOTAL REFOND 87B & 91A B&I 1993B 4,324 4,324 565,866 561,542 99.2 G. O. SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 0 0 10,400 10,400 100.0 49 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 2,273,500 2,273,500 100.0 TOTAL G. O. SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 2,283,900 2,283,900 100.0 DOWNTOWN RBDEVLOPMNT B&I 1993A 41 OTHER TAXES 11,951 11,951 370,000 358,049 96.8 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 1,533 1,533 21,635 20,102 92.9 49 OTNER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 TOTAL DOWNTOWN REDEVLOPMNT B&I 1993A 13,484 13,484 391,635 378,151 96.6 DOWNTOWN REDEVLOPMNT B&I 1994B 02/08/2001 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Cow~leted 12:0~:s2 11 Months ( 91,6% ) Remaining FRRBRR03 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT · SUM021 BUdget Revenue bY category within Fund Summary 01/01/01 01/31/01 Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Budget Balance Percent TOTAL REFUNDIN~ FLOOD 91A B&I 1993B 17,254 17,256 285,899 268,665 94.0 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1994A 41 OTHER TAXES 10,430 10,430 165,000 154,570 93.7 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 311 311 4,772 4,461 93.5 TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1994A 10,741 10,741 169,772 159,031 93.7 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1996A 41 OTHER TAXES 12,715 12,715 205,800 193,085 93.8 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 358 358 5,652 5,294 93.7 TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1996A 13,073 13,073 211,452 198,379 93.8 FLOOD CONTROL - 1998A B & I 41 OTHER TAXES 3,993 3,993 68,000 64,007 94.1 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 71 71 1,609 1,538 95.6 49 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL - 1998A B & I 4,064 4,064 69,609 65,545 94.2 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOP 1998C B & I 41 OTHER TAXES 4,919 4,919 152,300 147,381 96.8 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 191 191 3,318 3,127 94.2 TOTAL DOWNTOWN REDEVELOP 1998C B & I 5,110 5,110 155,618 150,508 96.7 EPA FLOOD LOAN B&I 41 OTHER TAXES 30,405 30,405 697,000 666,595 95.6 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 497 497 6,761 6,264 92.6 TOTAL EPA FLOOD LOAN B&I 30,902 30,902 703,761 672,859 95.6 FLOOD CONTROL 2000 B & I 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 1,179 1,179 9,868 8,689 88.1 49 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL 2000 B & I 1,179 1,179 9,868 8,689 88.1 STREET IMPROVEMENT B&I 1994A 41 OTHER TAJfES 23,300 23,300 516,000 492,700 95.5 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 1,802 1,802 22,778 20,976 92.1 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENT B&I 1994A 25,102 25,102 538,778 513,676 95.3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS B&I 1996A 41 OTHER TAXES 4,934 4,934 106,717 : 101,783 . 95.4 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 220 220 4,291 4,071 94.9 02/08/2001 I Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 12:01:$2 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRBRR03 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ~ SUM021 Budget Revenue by Category within Fund Summary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 C~r MO Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Budget Balance Percent STREET IMPROV B & I 1998A 41 OTHER TAXES 6,990 6,990 394,000 387,010 98.2 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 262 262 10,647 10,385 97.9 TOTAL STREET IMPROV B & I 1998A 7,252 7,252 404,647 397,395 98.2 STREET IMPROV CONSTR 1998A 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 0 0 0 0 TOTAL STREET IMPROV CONSTR 1998A 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 43 INTERGOVERNENT REV. 0 0 1,753,350 1,753,390 100.0 46 Ik~VESTMENT INCOME 16,918 16,918 60,000 43,082 71.8 47 REIMBURSEMENTS 0 0 208,197 208,197 100.0 48 OTHER REVENUE 0 0 40,500 40,500 100.0 49 OTEER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 641,970 641,970 100.0 TOT~-LCAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FLrND 16,918 16,918 2,704,017 2,697,099 99.4 POLICE & FIRE BLDG CONST FUND 46 INYESTMENT INCOME 149 149 0 -149 TOTAL POLICE & FIRE BLDG CONST FUND 149 149 0 -149 SERIES 2001 PROJECT FU~D 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 0 0 62,000 62,000 100.0 49 OTNER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 13,151,500 13,151,500 100.0 TOTAL SERIES 2001 PROJECT FU~D 0 0 13,213,500 13,213,500 100.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONST FUND 43 INTERGOVERMENT REV. 0 0 0 0 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 936 936 4,600 3,664 79.7 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONST FUND 936 936 4,600 3,664 79.7 DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMNT CONST 41 OTHER TAXES 0 0 0 0 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 510 510 24,000 23,490 97.9 47 REIMBURSEMENTS 0 0 0 0 48 OTHER REVENUE 0 0 0 0 49 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 925,000 925,000 100.0 TOTAL DOWNTOW~ REDEVLPM~T CONST 510 510 949,000 948,490 99.9 STREET IMPROVEMENT CONST FUND 41 OTHER TAXES 43,793 "43,793 1,955,933 1,912,140 97.8 42 LICENSES, PERMITS & FEES 1,186 1,186 232,000 230,814 99.5 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 16,933 16,933 130,000 113,067 87.0 TOTAL STREET IMPROVEMENT CONST FUND 61,912 61,912 2,317,933 2,256,021 97.3 o2/08/2OOl i Month ( 8.3% ) C~pleted 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining i~:o~:88 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FRRBRR03 .SUM021 Budget Revenue by category within FUnd Summary os/os/os os/3s/os Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Budget Balance Percent FLOOD CONTROL CONST 1998A 46 INIFESTMENT INCOMM 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL CONST 1998A 0 0 0 0 FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 41 OTMER TAXES 115,706 115,706 67,200 -48,506 -72.2 43 INTERGOVERMENT REV. 0 0 1,000,000 1,000,000 100.0 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 14,742 14,742 45,000 30,258 67.2 49 OTMER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 0 0 TOTAL FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 130,448 130,448 1,112,200 981,752 88.3 WATEEA~DSEWER FUND 41 OTHER T~tXES 7,878 7,878 1,545,300 1,537,422 99.5 44 C~L~RGES FOR SERVICE 436,076 436,076 6,092,050 5,685,974 92.8 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 14,067 14,067 151,000 136,933 90.7 47 REIMBURSEMENTS 0 0 0 0 48 OTHER REVENUE 346 346 25,000 24,654 98.6 TOTAL WATER AND SEWER FUND 458,367 458,367 7,815,350 7,354,983 94.1 PARKING SYSTMM REVENUE FUND 42 LICENSES, PERMITS & FEES 300 300 5,400 5,100 94.4 43 INTEEGOVERMENT REV. 0 0 660,000 660,000 100.0 44 CHARGES FOR SERVICE 14,792 14,792 176,000 161,208 91.6 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 3,775 3,775 36~000 32,225 89.5 TOT;~LPARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND 18,867 18,867 877,400 858,533 97.8 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FUND 44 CHARGES FOR SERVICE 96,106 95,106 1,141,301 1,046,195 91.7 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 996 996 8,000 7,004 87.6 TOTAL VEHICLE ~AINTENANCE FUND 96,102 96,102 1,149,301 1,053,199 91.6 ~EICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 44 CHARGES FOR SERVICE 66,654 66,654 799,840 733,186 91.7 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 27,744 27,744 280,000 252,256 90.1 49 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES 0 0 60,000 60,000 100.0 TOTAL~HICLE REPLACEMENT FLTN~ 94,398 94,598 1,139;840 1,045,442 91.7 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND 44 CHARGES FOR SERVICE 9,799 9,799 117,599 107,800 91.7 46 INIrESTMENT INCOME 1,692 1,692 14,500 12,808 88.3 02/00/2001 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 12:01:52 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Re~aining FRRBRR03 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SUMo21 Budget Revenue by Category within Fund Summary Ol/Ol/01 - Ol/31/Ol Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unreceived Unreceived Received Received Sudge~ Balance Percent 47 REIMBURSEMENTS 1 624 1.624 60,000 58,376 97.3 48 OTNER REVENUE 49 932 49.932 578,352 528,420 91.4 TOTAL RISR MANAGEMENT FUND 311,157 311,157 3,780,640 3,469,483 91.8 POLICE PENSION FUND 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 100,693 100,693 1,760,000 1,659,307 94.3 48 OTHER REVENUE 57.846 57,846 i,169,601 1,111,755 95.1 TOT~FOLICE PENSION FD~ID 158,939 158,539 2,929,601 2,771,062 94.6 FIRE PENSION FUND 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 162.996 162,996 1,900,000 1,737,004 91.4 48 OTHER REVENUE 52,515 52,515 1,122,180 1,069,665 95.3 TOT~ FIRS PENSION FL~TD 215,511 215,511 3,022,180 8,806,669 92.9 BENEFIT TRUST #2 FUND 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 378 378 5,000 4,622 92.4 TOT~LBENEFIT TRUST ~2 FL~D 378 378 5,000 4,622 92.4 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 2,741 2,741 0 -2,741 TOTAL ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND 2,741 2,741 0 -2,741 SSA #1 PROSPECT MEADOWS B&I 41 OTHER TAXES 0 0 0 0 46 INVESTMENT INCOME 0 0 0 0 TOTAL SSA #1 PROSPECT MEADOWS B&I 0 0 0 0 SSA #6 GEORGE/ALBERT B&I 41 OTHER TAXES 69 69 38,125 38,056 99.8 46 IA~;ESTMENT INCOME 123 123 1,500 1,377 91.8 TOT~SSA ~6 OEORGE/ALEEET E&I 192 192 39,625 39,683 99.5 MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND 49 OT~ER FIN~%NCIMG SOURCES 0 0 4,573,000 4,573,000 100.0 TOTAL MOUNT PROSPECT LIBP~%RY ~ 0 0 4,973,000 4,573,000 100.0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT i Month C 8.3%~ co~l.t~d 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Ren~ining Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Une~pended Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent EXPENDITURE BY CLASSIFICATION PERSONAL SERVICES 1,515,052 1,515.052 18,834,100 17,319,048 93.0 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 313,405 313,405 8,202,344 4,888.939 94.0 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 24.990 24,990 357 900 332,910 93.0 PENSION BENEFITS 285.180 285.180 3,661 958 3,376,778 92.2 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,085,966 1.085,966 13,534 012 12,448.046 92.0 UTILITIES 50,984 50,984 573.350 522.366 91.1 INSURANCE 266,814 266,814 3,780,667 3,513,853 92.9 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 172,002 172,002 1,341,520 1,169,518 87.2 OTHER EXPENDITURES 12,038 12,038 935.106 923.068 98.7 LAND IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 100,000 100,000 100.0 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 14,498 14.498 1,623,000 1,608,502 99.1 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 10.855 10.855 394,497 383,643 97.2 MOBILE EQUIPMENT 61,649 61,649 1,330,000 1,268,351 95.4 OTHER EQUIPMERT 144,795 144 798 542,898 398,103 73.3 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 99.456 99 456 543.700 444,244 81.7 INFP,~STRHCTURE 138,671 138,671 11.101,660 10 962,989 98.8 BOND PRINCIPAI 31~441 31.441 3,201,880 3 170,439 99.0 INTEREST EXPENSE 182 534 182,534 1,251.762 1,069,228 85.4 BANK A}~D FISCAL FEES 300 300 10,830 10,530 97.2 INTERFUND TRANSFERS 0 0 641,970 641,970 100.0 Total All Ft~nds 4,410,630 4,410,630 68,963,154 64,552,524 93.6 EXPENDITURE BY FUND GENERAL FUND 2,222,289 2,222,289 27,998,589 25,776,300 92.1 REFUSE DISPOSAL FI/ND 334,385 334,385 3,329,591 2,995,206 90.0 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND 72,233 72,233 2,249,363 2,177,130 96.8 LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT 0 0 14,863 14,863 100.0 COMMUNITY DEVELPMNT BLOCK GP~NT 7,618 7,618' 499,376 491,758 98.5 LOCAL LAW ENR BLOCK GPJtNT 1996 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC WORKS FACILTY B&I 1987A 47,000 47,000 47,000 0 PUBLIC WORKS FACILTY B&I 1987B 0 0 0 0 POLICE & FIRE BI~G B&I 1991A 0 0 0 0 REFUND 87B & 91A B&I 1993B 0 0 589,543 589,543 100.0 G. O. SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 DOWNTOWN REDEVLOPMNT B&I 1992B 0 0 0 0 DOWNTOWN REDEVLOPENT B&I 1993A 0 0 430,292 430,292 100.0 DOWNTOWN REDEVLOPF~T B&I 1994B 0 0 0 0 DOWNTOWN REDEVLOPENT B&I 1996B 0 0 163,388 163,388 100.0 DOWNTOWN REDEVL B & I 1998B 0 0 54,588 54,588 100.0 DOWNTOWN RSDSVL B & I 1999 147,331 147,331 511,163 363,832 71.2 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1991A 0 0 0 0 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1992A 0 0 0 0 REFL~NDING FLOOD 9lA B&I 1993B 0 0 309,624 309,624 100.0 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1994A 0 0 179,710 179,710 100.0 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1996A 0 0 212,188 212,188 100.0 FLOOD CONTROL - 1998A B & I 0 0 66,908 66,908 100.0 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOP 1998C B & I 0 0 152,970 152,970 100.0 EPA FLOOD LOA~ B&I 18,644 19,644 603,854 584,210 96.7 FLOOD CONTROL 2000 B & I 300 300 112,498 112,198 99.7 STREET IMPROVEM~A~T B&I 1994A 0 0 621,753 621,753 100.0 o2/o8/=OOl VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 11:59:34 11 Months ( 91.6% } Remaining Budget Expenditure Summary o!/ol/os o~./~./ol Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended E~ended Expended Budgec Balance Percent CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS B&I 1996A 0 0 156,688 156,688 100.0 STREET IMPROV B & I 1998A 0 0 102,900 102,900 100.0 STREET IMPROV CONSTR 1998A 0 0 0 0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND 60.663 60~663 3,528,418 3,467,755 98.3 POLICE & FIRE BLDG CONST FUND 25.990 25,990 0 -25,990 SERIES 2001 PROJECT FUND 0 0 960.000 960,000 100.0 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONST FUND 0 0 190,666 190,666 100.0 DOWNTOWN REDEVLPWNT CONST 52,433 52~433 1,453,792 1,401,359 96.4 STREET IMPROVEMENT CONST FUND 34,858 34 858 3,059,460 3,024,602 98.9 FLfX)D CONTROL CONST FUND 14,654 14 654 2,807,700 2.793,046 99.8 WATER AND SEWER FUND 666, 334 666 334 7,811,364 7,145,030 91.5 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND 12 648 12 648 940.895 928,247 98.7 VEHICLE M3%INTEWANCE FUND 104 793 104 793 1,137,389 1,032,596 90.8 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 61 649 61 649 1,400,000 1,338,351 95.6 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND 0 0 46,075 46,075 100.0 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 241 921 241.921 3.530,903 3,288,982 93.1 POLICE PENSION FUND 138 900 138,900 1.813,738 1,674,838 92.3 FIRE PENSION FUND 142 027 142,027 1,798.075 ~,656,048 92.1 BENEFIT TRUST ~2 FUND 2,960 2,960 35,525 32,565 91.7 SSA ~1 PROSPECT MEADOWS B&I 0 0 0 0 SSA #6 GEORGE/ALBERT B&I ] 0 42.305 42.305 100.0 Total All Funds 4,410,630 4,410,630 68,963,154 64,552~524 93.6 02/08/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2~o~,:o6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT11 Months( 91.6%) Remaining FRRDBR01 .SUMO31 DePartment Budget Expenditure Summary os/o~/os - os/~s/os Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Une~pended Unex~pended PUBLIC REPRESENTATION ~ended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTA~S 02 MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES 9,780 9,780 91,870 82,090 89.4 03 ADVISORY EOARDE & COMMISSIONS 904 904 15,136 14,232 94.0 Totals 10,684 10,684 107,006 96,322 90.0 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 2,475 2,479 32,339 29,884 92.4 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 344 344 4,438 4,094 92.2 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 0 0 200 200 100.0 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,673 7,673 60,034 52,361 87.2 55 UTILITIES 85 8S 425 340 80.0 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 107 107 9~550 9,443 98.9 Totals 10,684 10,684 107,006 96,322 90.0 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FUND 10,684 10,684 107,006 96,322 90.0 Totals 10,684 10,684 107,006 96,322 90.0 02/08/2001 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2,o~:06 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 ' SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 unexpended Unexpended VILLAGE MANAGER ' S OFFICE Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGP-~M TOTALS 01 VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE 26,401 26,401 357,431 331,030 92.6 02 LEGAL SBRVICEB 17 919 17.919 212,100 194,181 91.6 03 PERSONNEL SERVICES 4 677 4,677 278,903 274,226 98.3 04 MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYSTEMS 8 958 8,958 172,832 163,874 94.8 05 PUBLIC INFORMATION 29~144 29,144 160,694 131,550 81.9 Totals 87,099 87,099 1,181,960 1,094,861 92.6 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 28,968 28,965 553,310 524,845 94.8 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 7,677 7,677 113,842 106,165 93.3 52 OTRER EMPLOYEE COSTS 1,065 1,065 41,300 40,235 97.4 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 81,850 31.850 412,768 380,918 92.3 55 UTILITIES 451 451 5,220 4,769 91.4 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 17.091 17,091 36,450 19,359 53.1 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 0 19,070 19,070 100.0 Totals 87~099 87,099 1,181,960 1,094,861 92.6 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FI/ND 87,099 87~099 1,181,960 1,094,861 92.6 Totals 87,099 87,099 1,181,960 1,094,861 92.6 02/08/2001 I Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2:o~:06 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ~ 9z.6~ ) Re~inin~ FRRDBR01 ,SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 unexpended Unexpended TV SERVICES DIVISION Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGP~%MTOTALS 02 TELEVISION SERVICES 22,235 22,235 165,863 143,628 86.6 03 OTHER SERVICES 0 0 0 0 Totals 22,238 22,288 165,868 143,628 86.6 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 8,107 8,107 78,610 67,503 89.3 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,213 2,213 23,742 21,529 90.7 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 435 435 3,650 3,215 88.1 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,030 1,030 17,961 16,931 94.3 55 UTILITIES 705 705 5,800 5,095 87.8 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 0 0 8,600 8,600 100.0 67 OTHER EQUIPMENT 9,745 9,745 30,500 20,755 68.0 Totals 22,235 22,235 165,863 143,628 86.6 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FLTND 22,235 22,235 165,863 143,628 86.6 Totals 22,239 22,235 165,863 143,628 86.6 3 o2/08/2ool i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed i2,o~:o6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 ~ SUMo31 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/Ol/Ol - Ol/31/Ol Cur MO Y-T~D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended VILLAGE CLERK ' S OFFICE Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 02 VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE 12,443 12,443 143,370 130~927 91.3 Totals 12,443 12,443 143,370 130,927 91.3 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 6,001 6,001 82,467 76,466 92.7 51 EMPLOYEE BEMEFITS 1,924 1,924 24,884 22,960 92.3 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 109 109 2,300 2,191 95.3 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,348 3,348 24,919 21,571 86.6 55 UTILITIES 309 309 1,600 1,291 80.7 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 752 752 7,200 6,448 89.6 Totals 12,443 12,443 149,370 190,927 91.3 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FUND 12,443 12,443 143,370 130,927 91.3 Totals 12,443 12,443 143,370 130,927 91.3 02/08/200~ i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2=o~:06 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months C 91.6~ ) Re~inln~ FRRDBR01 $UM031 Department Budget Expenditure SuamLary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended FINANCE DEPARTMENT Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 01 FINANCE ADMINISTRATION 18,622 18,622 219,235 200,613 91.9 02 ACCOUNTING 22,214 22,214 297,268 275,054 92.5 03 DATA PROCESSING 22,214 22 214 208,720 186,806 89.4 04 DUPLICATING SERVICES 0 0 11,700 11,700 100.0 05 INSURANCE PROGRAMS 19,489 19.489 237,398 217,909 91.8 06 CUSTOMER SERVICES 27.566 27,566 311,297 283,731 91.1 07 CASN MANAGEMENT 2,782 2,782 35,752 32,970 92.2 Totals 112,887 112,887 1,321,370 1,208,483 91.5 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 55,336 55,336 741,152 685,816 92.5 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 15,239 15,239 194,277 179,038 92.2 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 1,696 1,696 10,250 8,554 83.5 84 CONTRACTUAL EERVICES 23,078 23,078 149,485 126,407 84.6 55 UTILITIES 1,044 1,044 5,150 4,106 79.7 56 INSUR~CE 15,186 15,186 182,231 167,045 91.7 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 1,308 1,308 30,550 29,242 95.7 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 0 8,275 8,275 100.0 Totals 112,887 112,887 1,321,370 1,208,483 91.5 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FUND 112,887 112,887 1,321,870 1,208,483 91.5 Totals 112,887 112,887 1,321,370 1,208,488 91.5 5 02/08/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~=:o~:06 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months( 91.6% ) Re~inlng FRRDBR01 ' SUMOSl Department Budget Expenditure Sunanary os/os/os - os/3s/os Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended COMM~/RITY DE~-ELOPMENT Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOT~-LS 01 CO~4L~ITY DEVELOPMEb~f ~DMIN 14,449 14,449 186,518 172,069 92.3 02 PI~ING & ZONING 15,305 15,305 250,517 235,212 93.9 03 ECONOMIC DEVELOPME~ 8,214 8,214 72,244 64,030 88.6 0E BUILDING INSPECTIONS 46,428 46,428 649,910 603,482 92.9 06 HOUSING INSPECTIONS 20,771 20,771 261,101 240,330 92.0 07 ESA~TB INSPECTIONS 7,720 7,720 101,881 94,161 92.4 Totals 112,887 112,887 1,522,171 1,409,284 92.6 EXPE~DIT~IRH CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 67,077 67,077 1,031,540 964,463 93.5 51 EMPI~YEE BENEFITS 21,674 21,674 291,544 269,870 92.6 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 5,562 5,562 21,045 15,483 73.6 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14,605 14,605 136,987 122,382 89.3 55 UTILITIES 1,909 1,909 25,310 23,401 92.5 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 2,060 2,060 15,745 13,685 86.9 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 0 0 0 Totals 112,867 112,887 1,522,171 1,409,284 92.6 SOLrRCE OF FLrNDS 001 GENERAL FLq~D 112,887 112,887 1,521,121 1,408,234 92.6 550 DO~NTOWN REDEVLPM/qT CONST 0 0 1,050 1,050 100.0 Totals 112,887 112,887 1,522,171 1,409,284 92.6 02/08/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2:o~:o6 VILLAGE OF ..--..-~rr~P PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 SUM031 DePartment Budget EXPenditure Sua~ary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Une~q)ended COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - CDBG Ex~ended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 04 CDBG ADMINISTRATION 672 672 20,976 20,304 96.8 05 CDBG COMMUNITY PROGRAMS 1,170 1,170 53,400 52,230 97.8 06 ACCESSIBLTY & NEIGHBRRD IMPRV 2,000 2,000 285,000 283,000 99.3 07 CDBG RESIDENTIAL REHAB 3,776 3,776 140]000 136,224 97.3 Totals 7,618 7,618 499,376 491,788 98.5 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION $0 PERSONAL SERVICES 585 585 13,340 12,755 95.6 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 76 76 2,906 2,830 97.4 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 0 0 1,040 1,040 100.0 54 CONTRACTUA~ SERVICES 1,181 1,181 55,740 54,559 97.9 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 0 0 1,350 1,350 100.0 59 OTHER EXPENDITURES 3,776 3,776 140,000 136,224 97.3 64 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 2,000 2,000 85,000 83,000 97.6 69 INFRASTRUCTURE 0 0 200,000 200,000 100.0 Totals 7,618 7,618 499,376 491,798 98.5 SOURCE OF FUNDS 070 COMMUNITY DEVELPMNT BLOCK G~NT 7,618 7,618 499,376 491,758 98.5 Totals 7,618 7,618 499,376 491,758 98.5 02/08/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ] Completed 12:o~=o6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/01 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unex~pended Unexpended HUMAN SERVICES Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 01 HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 10,622 10,622 168.643 15~,021 93.7 02 SOCIAL SERVICES 21,299 21,299 326.845 305,546 93.5 03 NURSING.tBEALTH SERVICES 6,605 6,605 95,361 88,756 93.1 04 SENIOR PROGRAMS 5.986 5,956 81,961 76,005 92.7 Totals 44,482 44,482 672~810 628,328 93.4 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 30,430 30 430 426,425 395,995 92.9 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 7,944 7,944 103,698 95,754 92.3 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 232 232 5,300 5.068 95.6 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,038 3,038 90,942 87,904 96.7 58 UTILITIES 1,181 1,181 7,280 6,099 83.8 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 1,657 1.657 33,968 32,308 95.1 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 0 2,000 2,000 100.0 67 OTNER EQUIPMENT 0 0 3,200 3,200 100.0 Totals 44,482 44,482 672,810 628,328 93.6 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL Fl/ND 44~482 44~482 672 810 628,328 93.4 Totals 44,482 44,482 672,810 628,328 93.4 02/08/2001 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2:0~:o6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 SUM031 Department Budget EXpenditure Summary o /os/o os/3s/os CUr MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended POLICE Expended EXpended Budget Balance Percent PRO~P~MTOTALS O1 POLICE ADMINISTRATION 161,280 161,280 1,926,216 1,764,936 91.6 02 PATROL & TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 443,441 443,441 5,620,509 5,177,068 92.1 03 CRIME PREVTN & PUBLIC SERVICES 19,066 19,066 213,129 194,063 91.1 04 INVESTIGATIVE & jUVENILE PRGM 77,258 77,258 1,020,092 942,834 92.4 0S CROSSING GUARDS 2,133 2,133 23,978 21,845 91.1 06 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 48,673 48,673 626,364 577,691 92.2 Totals 751,851 751,881 9,480,288 8,678,437 92.0 EXPENDITURE CLJ%SSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 555,014 555,014 6,273,395 5,718,381 91.2 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 88,899 88,899 1,714,133 1,625,234 94.8 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 1,899 1,899 83,065 81,166 97.7 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90,286 90,286 1,166,142 1,075,856 92.3 55 UTILITIES 5,780 5,780 58,000 52,220 90.0 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 8,600 8,600 82,715 74,115 89.6 59 OTNER EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 23 23 31,313 31,290 99.9 67 OTNER EQUIPMENT 1,350 1,350 21,525 20,175 93.7 Totals 751,851 751,891 9,430,288 8,678,437 92.0 SOUBCE OF FDIgDS 001 GENERAL FUND 751,851 751,851 9,415,425 8,663,574 92.0 060 LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT 0 0 14,863 14,863 100.0 090 LOCAL LAW ENF BLOCK GRA~T 1996 0 0 0 0 Totals 751,851 751,851 9,430,288 8,678,437 92.0 02/08/2001 1 Mo~th ( 8.3% ) Completed 2~o~:o~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% > Remaining FRRDBR01 ~ SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary Ol/Ol/Ol - 01/31/01 Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended FIRE Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PRO~RAM TOTALS 01 FIRE ADMINISTRATION 68,762 68,762 1,593,036 1,524,274 95.7 02 FIRE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS 408,975 408,975 5,047,484 4,638,509 91.9 03 FIRE TRAINING ACADEMY 2,881 2,381 15,135 12,754 84.3 04 FIRE PREVENTION 31,327 31,327 412,856 381,529 92.4 05 FIRE COMMUNICATIONS 5,618 5,618 53,940 48,322 89.6 06 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 29.961 29,961 405,090 378,129 92.6 07 EMERGENCY PREPARDENESS PRG~ 6,125 6,125 15,620 9,495 60.8 08 PAID-ON-CALL PROGRAM 3,309 3,309 32,490 29,181 89.8 Totals 556.458 556,458 7,575,651 7,019,193 92.7 EXPENDITURE CI~%SEiFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 402.088 402,088 5,272,635 4,870,547 92.4 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 71.642 71,642 1,558,150 1,486,508 95.4 52 OTRER EMPLOYEE COSTS 10.310 10,310 125,560 115,250 91.8 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 31,150 31,150 408,151 377,001 92.4 55 UTILITIES 4 700 4,700 37,150 32,450 87.3 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 13 296 13,296 96,430 83,134 86.2 64 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 9,000 9,000 100.0 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 5,043 5,043 4,200 -843 -20.1 67 OTNER EQUIPMENT 18,229 18,229 64,375 46,146 71.7 Totals 556,458 556,458 7,579,651 7,019,193 92.7 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FUND 556,458 556,458 7,575,651 7,019,193 92.7 Totals 556,458 556,458 7,575,651 7,019,193 92.7 02/08/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ) completed s2:0~:o6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT is Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining PRRDBR01 -SUM031 Department B~d~E~pe~diture SU~Unary os/os/os - os/3s/os Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended PUBLIC WORKS - ADMINISTRATION Ex~endeU Expended Budget Balance Percent PROORAMTOTALS 01 PUBLIC WORKS ADMINSTRATION 76,499 76,499 958,712 882,213 92.0 Totals 76,499 76,499 958,712 882,213 92.0 ~Xp~NDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 12,401 12,401 193,808 181,407 93.6 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 7,900 7,900 100,381 92,481 92.1 52 OTEER EMPLOYEE COSTS 1,522 1,522 26,850 25,328 94.3 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 49,717 49,717 605,538 555,821 91.8 55 UTILITIES 1,480 1,480 17,175 15,695 91.4 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 523 523 10,460 9,937 95.0 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,956 2,956 3,000 44 1.5 67 UTEER EQUIPMENT 0 0 1,500 1,500 100.0 Totals 76,499 76,499 958,712 852,213 92.0 02/08/2001 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~,0~:06 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1I Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 SUMo~i Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/01 01/31/01 CU~ MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended PUBLIC WORKS - STREETS/BLDGS Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PRO~RAM TOTALS 01 STREET DIVISION ADMINISTRATION 20,716 20716 124,265 103,549 83.3 02 MAINTENANCE - PUBLIC BUILDINGS 47.835 47.835 700,108 652,273 93.2 04 STREET MAINTENANCE 10,033 10,033 487,158 .477,125 97.9 05 SNOW REMOVAL 157.163 157,163 308,759 151,596 49.1 06 LEAF REMOVAL 7,423 7,423 155,918 148,495 95.2 07 STORM SEWER & BASIN MAINT 8,662 8,662 146,435 137,773 94.1 08 MAINTENANCE OF STATE HIGHWAYS 2,890 2,890 89,812 56,922 95.2 09 TRAFFIC SIGN MAINTENANCE 4 810 4,810 98,347 93,537 95.1 11 PARKING LOT MAINTENANCE 12 648 12,648 280,895 268,247 95.5 Totals 272,180 272~180 2,361,697 2,089,517 88.5 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 135 571 135,571 1,050.729 915,158 87.1 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 25272 28,272 244,418 219,146 89.7 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 49 012 49,012 424,446 875,434 88.5 55 L~TILITIES 357 357 21,608 21.248 98.3 56 INSURANCE 627 627 7,524 6.897 91.7 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 60,851 60,851 303,275 242,424 79.9 59 OTHER EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 67 OTHER EQUIPMENT 0 0 2,200 2,200 100.0 69 INFRASTRUCTURE 490 490 307,500 307,010 99.8 Totals 272,180 272,180 2,361,697 2,089,517 88.8 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FI/ND 207,080 207,080 1,907,762 1,700,682 89.1 050 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND 52,452 52,452 173,040 120,588 69.7 630 PARRING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND 12,648 12,648 280,895 268,247 95.8 Totals 272,180 272,180 2,361,697 2,089,517 88.5 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 02/08/2001 i v- n~ MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining VILLAGE FRRDBR01 .$UM031 Department BUd~ Expenditure Summary o~/o~/os - os/~/os Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended PUBLIC WORKS - FORESTRY/GRNDS Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent 01 FORESTRY DIVISION ADMIN 11,756 11,756 171,112 159,356 93.1 02 MAINTENANCE OF GROUND 19,459 19,489 327,921 308,462 94.1 03 FORESTRY PROGRAM 108,180 108,180 725,474 617,294 85.1 04 PUBLIC GROUNDS BEAUTIFICATION 1,799 1,799 48,198 46,399 96.3 Totals 141,194 141,194 1,272,705 1,131,811 88.9 80 PERSONAL SERVICES 40,488 40,488 609,247 568,759 93.4 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 11,197 11,197 149,540 138,343 92.5 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 0 0 1,290 1,290 100.0 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 88,255 88,255 465,338 377,083 81.0 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 1,254 1,264 35,400 34,146 96.5 67 OTHER EQUIPMENT 0 0 11,890 11,890 100.0 Totals 141,194 141,194 1,272,705 1,131,511 88.9 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENBP~L FLeD 141,194 141,194 1,262,705 1,121,511 88.8 690 RISK MA/~AGEMENT FUND 0 0 10,000 10,000 100.0 Totals 141,194 141,194 1,272,705 1,131,511 88.9 02/08/200I i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2:0~06 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Nonths ( 91.6~ ~ Re~alni.g FRRDBR01 SUM031 Depar~nent Budget Expenditure Sui~ary 01/01/01 ~ 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING E~cpendeU Expended Budget Balance Percent PRO~RAMTOTALS 01 ENGINEERING SERVICES 44,421 44,421 652,924 608,503 93.2 05 TRAFFIC CNTRL & STREET LGETNG 35,038 35,038 532,344 497,306 93.4 Totals 79,459 79,459 1,185,268 1,105,809 93.3 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 29,407 29,407 509,243 479,836 94.2 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 9,074 9,074 130,112 t21,038 93.0 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 585 585 5,930 5,345 90.1 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 26,607 26,607 160,423 133,816 83.4 55 UTILITIES 12,654 12,654 248,800 236,146 94.9 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 404 404 15,875 15,471 97.5 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 728 728 2,700 1,972 73.0 67 OTEER EQUIPMENT 0 0 2,185 2,185 100.0 69 INFRASTRUCTURE 0 0 110,000 110,000 100.0 Totals 79,459 79,459 1,185,268 1,105,809 93.3 o2/08/2OOl 1 Month ( 8.3% ) completed ~2:0~:o6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 .SUMO3~ Department Budget Exl)enditure summary 01/01/01 01/31/01 Cur MO Y~T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended PUBLIC WORKS - WATER/SEWER Hx~enUed Expended Hudget Rala~ce Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 01 WATER & SEWER DIVISION ADMIN 90,169 90,169 1,323,233 1,233,064 93.2 02 MAINTENANCE OF BUILDINGS 3,192 3,192 81,665 78,473 9~.1 03 ~IN~T~/~CE OF GROUNDS 4,289 4,289 80,652 76,363 94.7 04 WATER SUPPLY MAINT & REPAIR 94,904 94,904 664,456 569,592 85.7 05 WATER DISTRBT MAINT & REPAIR 118,023 118,023 601,451 483,428 80.4 06 WATER VALVE/BYDRNT MAINT & REP 20,792 20,792 287,001 266,209 92.8 07 WATER METER MAINT & REPL 18,585 18,585 273,934 255,349 93.2 08 EQUIPMENT ~INTEN~/~CE 44,081 44,081 528,975 484,894 91.7 09 SANITARY SEWER MAINT & REPAIR 52,165 52,165 391,617 339,452 86.7 10 WATER & SEWER SYSTEM IMPROV 44,759 44,759 521,900 477,141 91.4 12 LAKE MICHIGAN WATER SUPPLY 175,375 175,375 3,056,480 2,881,105 94.3 Totals 666,336 666,834 7,811,364 7,145,030 91.5 EXPENDITUP~ CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 93,672 93,672 1,331,253 1,237,581 93.0 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 29,025 29,025 377,000 347,975 92.3 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 1,575 1,575 25,720 24,145 93.9 54 CONT~CTUAL SERVICES 309,899 309,899 4,659,604 4,349,705 93.3 55 NTILITIES 19,833 19,833 137,170 117,337 85.5 56 INSUR3%NCE 8,838 8,838 106,053 97,215 91.7 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 15,918 15,918 232,800 216,882 93.2 59 OTHER EXPENDITURES 0 0 22,364 22,364 100.0 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 0 4,300 4,300 100.0 67 OTEER EQUIPMENT 88,118 88,118 264,300 176,182 66.7 68 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS 99,456 99,456 543,700 444,244 81.7 71 BOND PRINCIPAL 0 0 107,100 107,100 100.0 Totals 666,334 666,834 7,811,364 7,145,030 91.9 02/05/2001 i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~:o~06 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ~l Month~ { 91.e~ ~ Remaining FRRDBR01 SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/01 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 unexpended Unexpended PUBLIC WORKS - REFUSE DISPOSAL ~xpenUed Expended Budget Balance Percent 02/08/2001 I Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2:o~:0~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT n Months ( 91.6~ ~ Re~ini~g FRRDBR01 .SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/01 - 01/31/Ol Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Une~pended PUBLIC WORKS - VEHICLE MAINT Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 01 VEHICLE DIVISION ADMINSTRATION 10.742 10.742 146.019 135,277 92.6 02 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE PROGRAM 94,051 94,052 991.370 897 319 90.5 Totals 104,793 104,793 1,137,389 1,032,596 90.8 EXPENDITURE CLASgIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 41.778 41,778 536 539 494.761 92.2 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 11,698 11.698 145.290 133,592 91.9 52 OTHER EMPLOYEE COSTS 0 0 2,900 2,900 100.0 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,160 9,160 53,160 48,000 30.3 55 UTILITIES 173 173 965 792 82.1 57 CO~ODITIES & SUPPLIES 45,984 45~984 392.785 346,801 88.3 59 OTHER EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 0 0 1,000 1,000 100.0 67 OTHER EQUIPMENT 0 0 4,750 4,750 100.0 Totals 104,793 104,793 1,137,389 1,032,596 90.8 SOURCE OF FUNDS 660 VEHICLE MAINTENAdgCB FUND 104,793 104 793 1.137,389 1,032,596 90.8 Totals 104,793 104,793 1,137,399 1,032,596 90.8 02/00/2001 I Month ( 8,3% ) Completed ~,o~o? VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Month~ ( 91.B~ ) He~inin~ FRRDBR01 ~ SUM031 DepartmentBudget Expenditure Summary o~/os/os - os/3~/o~ Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended COMMUNITY SERVICE PROGRAMS Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 02 CO~9~UNITY GROUPS & MISC 10,199 10,199 95,400 85,201 89.3 03 4TH OF JULY & CIVIC EVENTS,ETC 4,746 4,746 93,786 89,040 94.9 04 HOLIDAY DECORATIONS 9,558 9,558 70,639 61,081 86.5 05 BLOOD DONOR PEOGP~M 188 188 2,871 2,683 93.5 Totals 24,691 24,691 262,696 238,005 90.6 EXPENDITURE CLAESIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 512 512 31,768 31,296 98.4 51 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 117 117 4,988 4,871 97.7 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21,765 21,765 192,970 170,805 88.7 55 UTILITIES 0 0 1,200 1,200 100.0 57 COMMODITIES & SUPPLIES 2,197 2,197 22,170 19,973 90.1 59 OTHER EXPENDITURES 100 100 10,000 9,900 99.0 Totals 24,691 24,691 262,696 238,005 90.6 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FU~D 24,691 24,691 262,696 238,005 90.6 Totals 24,691 24,691 262,696 238,005 90.6 I Month ( 8.8% ) Co~leted 02/08/2001 ~2:0~,07 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 8~.6~ > Re~inin~ FRRDBR01 · su~081 Departanent Budget Expenditure Suam%ary 01/01/01 - 01/31/01 Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Une~-pended Une~q~ended CAPITAL IMPRO%rEMENT PROJECTS Ex-penUed Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGP,%M TOT~J~S 01 VILI~GE IMPROVEMEI~TS & EQUIP 41,956 41,956 2,938,037 2,896,081 98.6 02 CO~94%~NITY IMPROVEME~ PROJECTS 44,697 44,697 2,186,047 2,141,350 98.0 03 DOWNTO~rN REDEVELOPMENT CONST 52,433 52,433 1,452,742 1,400,309 96.4 04 FLOOD CONTROL PROJECTS 14,654 14,654 2,947,700 2,938,046 99.9 06 STREET IMPRO%TEMENT PROJECTS 35,686 85,686 4,934,513 4,898,827 99.3 09 MOTOR EQUIPME~ REPI~CEMENT 61,649 61,649 1,330,000 1,268,351 95.4 10 COMPLetER REPLACEMENT 0 0 46,075 46,075 100.0 Totals 251,075 281,075 18,838,114 18,584,039 98.4 EXPE~IDETt~E CI~%SSIFICATION 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 850 850 1,174,100 1,173,250 99.9 95 UTILITIES 277 277 0 -277 89 OTHER EXPENDITURES 8,162 8,162 762,742 754,580 98.9 62 L~-ND IMPROVEMENTS 0 0 100,000 100,000 100.0 64 BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 12,498 12,498 1,529,000 1,516,502 99.2 65 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 2,105 2,108 318,639 316,534 99.3 66 MOBILE EQUIPMENT 61,649 61,649 1,330,000 1,268,351 95.4 67 OTHER EQUIPMENT 27,353 27,353 136,473 109,120 80.0 69 INFP3%STRUCTURE 138,181 138,181 10,484,160 10,345,979 98.7 Totals 291,075 251,075 15,835,114 15,584,089 98.4 SOURCE OF FUn'DS 050 MOTOR FUEL T~=X FUND 828 828 1,800,053 1,799,225 100.0 060 ~W ENFORCEMENT B~CK GPJ%NT 0 0 0 0 500 STREET IMPROV CONSTR I998A 0 0 0 0 510 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FL~gD 60,663 60,663 3,528,418 3,467,795 98.3 520 POLICE & FIRE BLDG CONST FI~gD 25,990 25, 990 0 -25,990 525 SERIES 2001 PROJE~ FUND 0 0 960,000 960,000 100.0 530 CAPITAL IMPROVEME~ CONST FL~gD 0 0 190,666 190,666 100.0 580 DOWNTOWN REDEVLPM~T CONST 52,433 52,433 1,482,742 1,400,309 96.4 560 STREET IMPROVEMENT CONST FUND 34,858 34,858 3,059,460 3,024,602 98.9 590 FLOOD CONTROL CONST FUND 14,684 14,654 2,807,700 2,793,046 99.5 630 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND 0 0 660,000 660,000 100.0 670 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 61,649 61,649 1,330,000 1,268,351 95.4 680 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND 0 0 46,075 46,075 100.0 690 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND 0 0 0 0 Totals 251,079 281,075 15,895,114 ~5,584,099 98.4 02/0e/200I i Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 12=o12o~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 ' SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/O1/O1 - 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended DEBT SERVICE Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROGRAM TOTALS 02 DEBT SERVICE - PROPERTY TAXES 47,000 47,000 636,543 589,546 92.6 03 DEBT SERVICE - TAX INCREMENT 147,331 147,331 1,312,401 1,165,070 88.8 04 DEBT SERVICE - R/R SALES T/MX 1 19,944 19,944 1,484,782 1,464,838 98.7 05 DEBT SERVICE - N/R SALES T~-X 2 0 0 881,341 881,341 100.0 06 SPECIAL SERVICE AREA B & I 0 0 42,309 42,305 100.0 Totals 214,275 214,275 4,357,372 4,143,097 95.1 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 59 OTRER EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 71 BOND PRINCIPAL 31,441 31,441 3,094,780 3,063,339 99.0 72 INTEREST EXPENSE 182,534 182,934 1,251,762 1,069,228 85.4 73 BANK AND FISCAL FEES 300 300 10,830 10,530 97.2 80 INTERFUND TRANSFERS 0 0 0 0 Totals 214,275 214,275 4,357,372 4,143,097 95.1 SOURCE OF F%rNDS 140 PUBLIC WORKS FACILTY B&I 1987A 47,000 47,000 47,000 0 150 PUBLIC WORKS FACILTY B&I 1987B 0 0 0 0 160 POLICE & FIRE BLDG B&I 1991A 0 0 0 0 170 REFUND 87B & 9lA B&I 1993B 0 0 589,543 589,543 100.0 180 G. 0. SERIES 2001 DEBT SERVICE 0 0 0 0 240 DOWNTOWN RBDEVLOPMNT B&I 1992B 0 0 0 0 250 DOW~TOW}I REDEVLOPM~ B&I 1993A 0 0 430,292 430i292 100.0 260 DOWNTOWN REDEVLOPE~T B&I 1994B 0 0 0 0 270 DOWNTOWN RED~VLOPMNT B&I 1996B 0 0 163,388 163,388 100.0 280 DOWNTOWN REDEVL B & I 1998B 0 0 54,588 54,588 100.0 290 DONNTOWN REDEVL B & I 1999 147,331 147,331 511,163 363,832 71.2 300 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1991A 0 0 0 0 310 FLOOD CONTROL B&I I992A 0 0 0 0 320 REFUNDING FLOOD 91A B&I 1993B 0' 0 309,624 309,624 100.0 330 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1994A 0 0 179,710 179,710 100.0 340 FLOOD CONTROL B&I 1996A 0 0 212,188 212,188 100.0 390 FLOOD CONTROL - 1998A B & I 0 0 66,908 66,908 100.0 360 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOP 1998C B & I 0 0 152,970 152,970 100.0 380 EPA FLOOD I~DBH B&I 19,644 19,644 603,854 584,210 96.7 390 FLOOD CONTROL 2000 B & I 300 300 112,498 112,198 99.7 410 STREET IMPROVEMENT B&I 1994A 0 0 621,753 621,753 100.0 420 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS B&I 1996A 0 0 156,688 156,689 100.0 430 STREET IMPROV B & I 1998A 0 0 102,900 102,900 100.0 810 SSA #1 PROSPECT MEADOWS B&I 0 0 0 0 830 SSA ~6 GEORGE/ALBERT B&I 0 0 42,305 42,305 100.0 Totals 214,275 214,275 4,357,372 4,143,097 95.1 20 02/08/2001 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Completed 12=0~=o? VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Months ( 91.6% ) Eemaining FRRDBR01 .SUM031 Department Budget Expenditure Summary 01/01/Ol 01/31/01 Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended RETIREE PENSIONS Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROG~AMTOTALS 01 MISCELLANEOUS PENSIONS 4,253 4.253 56,695 52,442 92.5 02 POLICE PENSIONS 138 900 138,900 1,813,738 1,674,838 92.3 03 FIRE PENSIONS 142 027 142.027 1,798,075 1,656,048 92.1 Totals 285,180 285,180 3,668,508 3,888,328 92.2 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 83 PENSION BENEFITS 268,180 285,180 3,661,955 3,376 778 92.2 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 0 0 6 550 6 550 100.0 Totals 285,180 285,180 3,668,508 3,383,328 92.2 SOURCE OF FUNDS 00I GENERAL FUND 1,293 1,293 21.170 19,877 93.9 710 POLICE PENSION FUND 138,900 138,900 1,813,738 1,674,838 92.3 720 FIRE PENSION FUND 142,027 142,027 1,796,075 1,686,048 92.1 730 BENEFIT TRUST ~2 FUND 2,960 2,960 35,525 32,865 91.7 Totals 285,180 285,180 3,668,508 3,883,328 92.2 02/08/2001 1 Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~2:o~:o7 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1~ Months ( 91.6% ) Remaining FRRDBR01 ~ SUMO3~ Department Budget Expenditure Summary o~/os/os - os/3~/os Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpe~ded Unexpended RISK MANAGEMENT Expended Expended Budge~ Balance Percent 22 I Month ( 8.3% )Ccmpleted 02/08/2001 ~2:0~:07 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSpEcT PRRDBR01 ~SUM021 Department Budget Expenditure 'summary o~/os/o~ - os/~/os Cur Mo Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended NON-DEPARTMENTAL Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PROG~AMTOTALS 01 CONTINGENCIES 0 0 641,970 641,970 100.0 Totals 0 0 641,970 641,970 100.0 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 50 PERSONAL SERVICES 0 0 0 0 53 PENSION BENEFITS 0 0 0 0 54 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 0 0 0 0 59 OTBER EXPENDITURES 0 0 0 0 80 INTERFUND TRANSFERS 0 0 641,970 641,970 100.0 Totals 0 0 641,970 641,970 100.0 SOURCE OF FUNDS 001 GENERAL FUND 0 0 571,970 571,970 100. 670 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 0 0 70,000 70,000 100.0 Totals 0 0 641,970 641,970 100.0 02/08/2001 I Month ( 8.3% ) Completed ~o~:o7 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 11 Month~ ( ~1.~ > Re~i~ing FRRDBR01 ~ SUMo31 Department Budget Expenditure Summary o~/os/os - os/3s/os '~ Cur MO Y-T-D 2001 Unexpended Unexpended MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY Expended Expended Budget Balance Percent PRO~RAMTOTALS 02 LIBRARY SERVICES 0 0 4,573,000 4,573,000 100.0 Totals 0 0 4,573,000 4,573,000 100.0 EXPENDITURE CLASSIFICATION 90 COMPONENT UNIT EXPENDITURES 0 0 4,573,000 4,573,000 100.0 Totals 0 0 4,573,000 4,573,000 100.0 SOURCE OF FUNDS 950 MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY FUND 0 0 4,573,000 4,573,000 100.0 Totals 0 0 4,573,000 4,573,000 100.0 24 ORDINANCE NO. __ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 15 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRU3/mES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That in accordance with SUbsection A of Section :t3.108 of Chapter 13 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, the Corporate Authorities shall determine the number of Liquor Licenses available in each Classification and shall establish a list spedfying the number of Liquor Ucenses authorized. Said list is hereby amended by decreasing the number of Class E Liquor Licenses by one (1) L&V Banquets d/b/a Mr. Pete~s Banquets. Said list is as follows: Zero (0) Class A License Two (2) Class B Licenses Nine (9) Class C Licenses One (1) Class D License One (1) Class E License One (1) Class G License Zero (0) Class H License Zero (0) Class M License One (1) Class P License Seventeen (17) Class R Licenses Sixteen (16) Class S Licenses One (1) Class T License Six (6) Class W Licenses SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of . ,2001. Village President Viltage Clerk Class Establishment Number A 0 B Famous Freddie's; Ye Olde Town Inn 2 C Alvee's Liquors; Balzano Liquors; Dominick's (83 & Golf); Dominick's (Mt. Prospect Plaza); Gold Eagle Liquors; .lay Uquors; Mt. Prospect Liquors; Osco Drugs; Walgreens (83 and Golf) 9 D Prospect Moose Lodge 1 E Bristol Court Banquet Hall G Mt. Prospect Park DistrictIGOlf Course H 0 M 0 P CVS Pharmacy 1 R Artemis; Chungldwa Restaurant; Cuisine of India; Fellini; Giordano's (Elmhurst Road); Han River; House of Szechwan; Izakaya Sankyu; LaTejanita; Little America; Nina Restaurant; Pusen; Red A Chinese Restaurant; Riva Bella; Sakura; Taqueria Fiesta; Torishin 17 S Applebee's; Bella Capri; El Sombrero; -lake's Pizza; .lameson's Charhouse; Kampai; The Lof~; Hrs. P & He Restaurant; New Shin .lung; Nikki D's Charhouse; Old Orchard Country Club Restaurant; Pap's Grill & Bar; Retro Bistro; Rokudenashi; Sam's Place 16 T Brunswick Zone-Thunderbird Lanes 1 W Frankie's Fast Food; Fratalli's; Los Arcos Restaurant; Hr. Beef & Pizza; Pete's Sandwich Palace; Photo's Hot Dogs 55 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2001 SUBJECT: ZBA-02-01 - VARIATION FOR AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE (PORCH) 2105 PP,_ENDERGAST LANE APPLICANT - PANZAR_INO RESIDENCE The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits their recommendation to deny Case ZBA-02-01, a request to construct an enclosed 3-season room in the rear yard setback. The attached ZBA staff report described the request in detail. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard the request at their January 25, 2001 meeting. The subject property is an interior lot that abuts St. Cecilia Church. The proposed structure will encroach 15-feet into the required 25-foot rear yard setback. The applicants propose to construct a 33'x15' enclosed 3-season room structure along the rear of the existing residence. The ZBA discussed lot coverage, aesthetics of the neighborhood, and the said hardship created by the detention area located behind the applicant's property. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted 4-2 to deny the Variation for a ten-foot rear setback for Case No. ZBA-02-01 at 2105 Prendergast Lane. After the heating, the petitioner brought to staff's attention that a similar variation was granted ten years ago to 607 and 609 Noah Terrace. A copy of the Village Board minutes pertaining To these cases is attached to this memo. Although those cases were similar in nature, it does not change the fact that the pending request does not meet the standards for a variation prescribed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. Please forward this memorandum and attachments m the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 6, 2001 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. Will/am J. (~ooney, AI~P MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-02-2001 Hearing Date: January 25, 2001 PETITIONER: Frank and Anna Panzarino SUBJECT PROPERTY: 2105 W. Prendergast PUBLICATION DATE: January 10, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Variation to construct an enclosed structure in the rear yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotren Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngqmst Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Luxem STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Frank and Anna Panzarino Anthony Kies Phil Cinantino Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting m order at 7:35 p.m Minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting were approved. The Zoning Board heard Case ZBA-01-01 and at 8:25. Chairperson Juracek introduced Case ZBA-02-2001. a Variation to enclose a structure in the rear yard setback. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She described the subject property as an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street that abuts St. Cecilia Church. The attached garage is set back 30' from the front lot line and the primary residence is set back almost 56' from the front lot line. Ms. Cormolly said the applicants propose ao construct a 33'xl 5' enclosed structure attached to the rear of the existing residence, which would be used in the same manner as an enclosed 3-season room. The proposed structure will encroach 15-feet into the required 25-foot rear side yard setback and requires a Variation because the structure would be located 10-foot from the rear lot line. Ms. Connolly said the plans for this project show that the enclosed structure would be located along a portion of the rear of the house and have a roof with skylights. The materials will match the existing house and include several large windows. In their application, the petitioners state that the enclosed porch as necessary because their property is adjacent to a detention pond and mosquitoes disturb them and limit the use of their yard. The petitioners feel that the proposed addition will enhance the home and not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Ms. Connolly explained that the Zoning Ordinance allows patios and decks to encroach into the rear setback 15', leaving 10' open from the rear lot line. Although the petitioners propose to maintain the same setbacks as a patio or deck, the intensity of the use differs because the proposed structure would be enclosed. Consequently, the bulk of the house extends into the rear yard. Ms. Connolly said that, to conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. The subject parcel is an 8,130 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-02-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 rectangular. The applicants propose to construct a 33' x i5' enclosed structure in the rear setback to provide a mosquito-free zone and allow them to use more of their property. She said that the reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner and that the structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. Ms. Connolly pointed out that, although the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect.on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Zoning Ordinance. She said that based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach into the required 25-foot rear side yard setback for the residence at 2105 Prendergast Lane, Case No. ZBA-02-0 i. Ms. Juracek asked if Zoning Board members had any questions of staff. As there were none, Ms. Juracek asked if the petitioner was present and if he wanted to discuss the proposed project. Frank Panzarino, 2105 Prendergast, was sworn in and testified that he was requesting a Variation in order to enclose an existing patio. He said that his family has lived in the house for fifteen years and wants to continue living in Mount Prospect. He said that the back of his property backs up to the detention area of the St. Cecilia's Church property, which attracts mosquitoes. He said that his family is unable to sit on the patio because of the mosquitoes and they would like to enclose the area to build a 3-season room, which they could enjoy in summer. Leo Floros asked if this wasn't a 4-Season room but Mr. Panzarino responded it was a 3-Season room. Mr. Panzarino presented photos to the Zoning Board and stated there is always water or moisture in the detention area. Mr. Floros asked if the room would be heated and air-conditioned. Mr. Panzarino said that it would be heated and have air conditioning to allow the family to use to room all the time. Hal Ettinger asked if Mr. Panzadno's neighbors west of his property had open decks on their homes. Mr. Panzarino said they did and that the Village often sprays the area for mosquitoes. Anthony Kies, 610 S. St. Cecilia Drive, testified that he had no objections to the proposed project. He said that he has lived in the neighborhood since June of 1997 and that it is a very good, cross-cultural neighborhood. Mr. Kies stated that family is important to the area and said that he thinks the Panzarino family should be allowed to enjoy the area outside of their home, which they cannot because of the mosquito problem. He said that the enclosure would help the Panzarino family become closer, which is important to the community. Ms. Juracek thanked Mr. Kies for his eloquent speech on his neighbor's behalf, but said that it is difficult to find a hardship to allow a Variation because of mosquitoes. She explained that it was the Zoning Board's purview to make a recommendation to the Village Board, who would make the final determination and At 8:40, Chairperson Juracek closed the public heating and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board. Leo Floros and Men/Il Cotton said that they would support the request because they felt the mosquito problem denied the homeowner the use of his property. Other Zoning Board members pointed out that the request was more like adding another room to a house that probably already has a family room, recreation room, and dining room. Zoning Board members discussed how aesthetics contributed to establishing a specific setback and the effect on the properties if St. Cecilia constructed a fence to enclose their property. Furthermore, they discussed how the addition would put the site at the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage and limit future property owners from installing a service walk or shed. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-02-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 There was no further discussion, and Ms. Juracek asked for a roll call on the motion. Leo Floros made a motion ro recommend to the Village Board approval for a Variation to enclose a structure in the rear yard setback. R/chard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Floros NAYS: Ettinger, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek Motion was denied 4-2. At 9:48 p.m., after two more cases were heard, Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ./ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE .IURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 18, 2001 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 25, 2001 SUBJECT: Z3BA-02-01 - VARIATION FOR AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE (PORCH) 2105 PRENDERGAST LANE (PANZARINO RESEDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Frank & Anna Panzafino 2105 Prendergast Lane Mount Prospect, IL 60056 STATUS OF PETITIONER: Property Owners PARCEL NUMBER: 08-10-306-033 LOT SIZE: 8,130 square feet EXISTING ZONING: R1 Single Family Residence EXISTING LAND USE: Single Family Residence LOT COVERAGE: 45% proposed 45% maximum per R1 district REQUESTED ACTION: PROPOSAL FOR A VARIATION TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 33'X15' ENCLOSED STRUCTURE iN THE REAR. SETBACK. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED VARIATION The subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street and abuts St. Cecilia Church. The attached garage ts setback 30-feet from the front lot line and the primary residence is setback 56-feet from the front tot line. The applicants propose to construct a 33'x15' enclosed structure attached to the rear of the existing residence, which would be used in the same manner as an enclosed 3-Season room or porch. The proposed structure will encroach 15-feet into the required 25-foot rear side yard setback and requires a Variation. Currently there ~s a landscape feature-wall that defines the area tha! the enclosure would occupy. The petitioners propose to enclose this area and maintain a 10-foot setback from the rear lot line. The attached plans show that the enclosed structure would be located along a portion of the rear of the house and have a roof with skylights. The materials will match the existing house and include several large windows. In ~r application, the petitioners compare the porch to an atrium, but with a roof. In addition, the petitioners state ZBA-02-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25, 2001 Page 2 that the enclosed porch is necessary because their property is adjacent to a detention pond and mosquitoes, which gather after it rains, disturb them and limit the use of their yard. The petitioners feel that the proposed addition will enhance the home and not adversely impact the adjacent properties. The Zoning Ordinance allows patios and decks to encroach into the rear setback 15-feet, leaving 10-feet open from the rear lot line. Although the petitioners propose m maintain the same setbacks as a patio or deck, the intensity of the use differs because the proposed structure would be enclosed. Consequently, the bulk of the house extends into the rear yard. To conduct its analysis of the proposed Variation, staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey and site plan and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Variation Standards Required findings for all variations are contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate to: A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Q lack of desire to increase financial gain; and r~ protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The subject parcel is an 8,130 square foot parcel that is out of any flood zone and rectangular. The parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. The applicants propose m construct a 33' x 15' enclosed structure in the rear setback. The reasons for the proposed Variation are for the convenience of the petitioner, rather than financial. The applicants propose the encroachment to provide a mosquito-free zone and allow them to use more of their property. The proposed structure would not be likely to have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION Although the proposed variation may not have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does nor support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend denial of the proposed Variation to permit an enclosed structure to encroach into the required 25-foot rear side yard setback for the residence at 2105 Prendergast Lane, Case No. ZBA-02-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. Coon/ey, AICP, Di[ector of Community Development VILLAGE lvlOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 100 $. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request The Zoning Board of Appeals has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and those variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REVIEW [21 Village Board Final O ZBA Final '0 ZBA !: Development Name.tAddress 'I~ Date of Submission Common Address(es~(Slreet Number, Street) t Ta~ I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) ~ Legal Description (attach additio_~nal sheets if necessary) :r Name o Corporation Telephone (evening) Street Address "' '~ City tt~ State Zip Code Pager Interest in Property Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested Surn~a[y and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the ~,ttalhed Standards fo~ Variations Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all requh'ed plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appoinlment with the appropriate Village staffso that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this requesc The applicant is the owner or anthorized representative ofthe owner ofthe propeny. Thepethionerandtheownerofthe propexiy grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are tree and If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applican~ to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting mate~lffi fl /] Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 I00 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 Fax 847.818.5329 3 TDD 847.392.6064 Name Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (ev~ening) Street Address Fax: City . ' State Zip Code Pager Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Surveyor Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Architect Name ~' Telephone (day): Address Fax Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 Fax 847.818.5329 2 TDD 847.392.6064 ~-IOF~ EASEMENT ~'OR PUBLIC ~ UTILITIES AND D~AINAGE 6775 State of IIIinois~ Stale o~ IIllnols~ Coun~ of C~kJ Coun~ o~ CookJ We, CERTIFIED 5URV. CO. do hereby c,~ that we have We. CERTIFIED SURVEY CO. do hereby ce,ii lo.ted the buildina on the above arooe~, su~eved the above des~i~d pro~ and ~at Village Board of Mt. Prostpect To whom it may concern: I am the owner/neighbor that resides on the west border of the property at 2105 W. Prendergast Lane. We have no objections to the owners Frank and Anna Panzarino, enclosing the existing patio for a sunroom. Sincerely, Phillip Di Martino Village Board of Mt. Prostpect To whom it may concern: I am the owner/neighbor that resides on the east border of the property at 2105 W. Prendergast Lane. We have no objections to the owners Frank and Anna Panzarino, enclosing the existing patio for a sunroom. Sincerely, Henry & Mary Ann Burkiewicz ZBA 59-V-90 ZEA 59-V-90, 730 East Northwest Highway 730 E.NORTRWEST An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would HIGHWAY grant variations to permit a zero foot front yard, a 2.5 foot side yard, 100% lot surface coverage amd to provide 10 parking spaces instead of the required 21 spaces. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting these requests by a vote of 5-0. At the request of the Petitioner, Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Busse, ~oved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg - Nays: None Motion carried.'- ORD. NO. 4226 Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved for passage of Ordinance No. 4226 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 730 EAST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Floros, Wattenberg Nays: Corcoran, Van Geem Motion carried. ZBA 61-V~90 ZBA 61-V-90, 802 Dresser Drive 802 DRESSER DR An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would grant a variation to permit a 3' 6" side yard in order to replace an. existing patio. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote of 4-0. At the request of the Petitioner, Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. ORD.NO. 4227 Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved for passage of Ordinance No. 4227 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY COM/~ONLYKNOWN AS 802 DRESSER DRIVE Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floroe, Van Geem, Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 62-V-90 ZBA 62-V-90, 609 Noah Terrace 609 NOA/~ TERR An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would grant a variation to allow a 15 foot rear yard setback in order to constr~ct a room additiom. The zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this reques~ ~y a vote of 4-0, provided the room addition constructed with face brick to match the house. The Petitioner requested relief from the requirement of the Zoning Board of Appeals that face brick be used on the addition, noting that other structures in the area have aluminum siding. Page 8 - August 21, 1990 It was the consensus of the Board that brick veneer would be acceDtable, rather than face briok. At the request 'of the Petitioner, Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Wattenberg, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floro$, Van Geem, Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Wattenberg, moved ORD.NO. 4228 for passage of Ordinance No. 4228 AN ORDINANCE GRA/~TING A~AiRIATION FOR'PROPERTY COMe, ONLY KNOWN AS 609 NO~/{ TERRACE Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geen, Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 63-V-90, 607 Noah Terrace ZBA 63-V-90 An Ordinance was presented for first reading that 607 NOANTER. would grant e variation~to permit a 15 foot rear yard in order =o add a room addition. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting this request by a vote of 4-0. Inasmuch as this request is identical to the previous case, the Board also agreed to permit veneer brick rather than face brick on this room addition. At the request of the Petitioner, Trustee Van Geem, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved towaive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee ~an Geem, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved ORD.NO. 4229 for passage of ordinance 4229 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY · COMMONLY KNOWN AS 607 NOAH TERRACE Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem, 'Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 65-V-90, 1307 East Ardyce Lane ZBA 65-V-90 An Ordinance was presented that would grant 1307 ARDYCE a var'iation to allow a five foot (5') separation between an existing d~ok and proposed family room. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended granting the Variation requested, with the condition that no additional buildings be permitted on this property. At the request of the Petitioner Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Arthur, moved to waive the rule Page 9 - August 21,1990 NORTHWEST MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT 147 WEST HINTZ ROAD WHEELING, ILLINOIS 60090 (847) 537-2306 Arnold D. Kinceid Michael L. Szyska President William Schneck Direc~r Daniel R. A~sani Treasurer Veverka, Rosen and Ha~gh Vice President Karen Mills Attorney Richard A. David Assistant Treasurer/Secretary McClure, Inserra & Company Secretary Auci'~f~r Feb. 7,2~$] To Whom It May Concern: There is a mosquito production source in close proximity to 2105 Prendergast, Mt. Prospect,IL. During the Year 2000 mosquito season this source was inspected eleven times.The dates of inspection were 5/22,6/1,6/8,6,14,6/21,6/27,7/6,7/12,7/12,8/2,and 8/11. Of those eleven inspections the source was found to be holding water ten times. Of the ten times that the source was holding water mosquito larvae were present 3 times,on 6/21,7/6 and 7/12.T The source was treated on each of these dates with products designed to kill the mosquito larvae present preventing the emergence of adult mosquitos. The moist conditions created by this retention area may make for an attractive area for the congregation of adult mosquitoes that may or may not have originated elsewhere. This residence is also well with-in a mosquitoes flight range from a Nature Preserve located in the Ned Brown Forest Preserve. The District is not allowed to do treatments with-in this Nature P~serve. Adult mosquitoes from the Nature Preserve Area may be migrating out and over to surrounding areas which include 2105 Prendergast. If you have any further question feel free to contact me at the Northwest Mosquito Abatement District. S~nce£ely,, /~ Mark Baker Chief Of Field VWL 1/$1/00 2/1/01 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2105 PRENDERGAST LANE WHEREAS, Frank and Anna Panzarino (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioners") have filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 2105 Prendergast Lane {hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 33 in St. Cecilia Subdivision, being a Resubdivision of Lot 2 and parts of Lots 3 and 6 in Meier Brothers Subdivision. being a Subdivision of parts of Sections 10 and 15, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number: 08-10-306-033 and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek a Variation from Section 14.905.B.1 to permit a ten foot(10') rear yard setback, instead of the required twenty-five feet (25'), to allow the construction of an enclosed structure to the existing single family dwelling; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation ~)eing the subject of ZBA Case No. 02-01 before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25t~ day of January, 2001, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10~ day of January, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings and recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the prol~osed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village. 2105 Prendergast Lane Page 2/2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TVVO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of an enclosed structure in the rear yard, which will encroach into the minimum side yard required by the Mount Prospect Village Code, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: In accordance with the provisions of Section 14.203.C.12 of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, the Variation granted herein shall be null and void unless permits are issued and construction begins within one (1)year from the date of passage of this Ordinance. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2001. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:\CLKO\G EN\flleS\WIN\O RDINANC~VaCation,2105 Prendergast Ln, Feb 2001 ,doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~l'~ DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: ZBA-04-01 - TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE 1. Create a Minor Variation Process and amend the Zoning Ordinance accordingly to implement the process; 2. Create a Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) requirement for Single Family dwellings and amend the Zoning Ordinance accordingly to implement an FAR; 3. Increase the maximum size of a detached garage to 672 square feet and eliminate the Conditional Use requirement for garages designed for more than two-motor vehicles; 4. Clarify that the maximum number of Accessory Structures is two per Zoning Lot and exempt swimming pools from this provision; 5. Require that the finished side ora fence is exposed along arterial streets; 6. Eliminate parking lots from the Bulk Regulations sections of the nonresidential Zoning Districts to permit parking lots within 10-feet of a property line, unless adjacent to Single Family Residential Zoning Districts. The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits their recommendation to approve Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as described above. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard the proposed amendments at their January 25, 2001 meeting. As a result of the September 26, 2000 Committee of the Whole meeting discussions, Staff was directed to draft text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Staff undertook a e~prehansive review of neighboring communities' regulations and the Mount Prospect community's expectations when drafting the text amendments. In addition, Staff prepared text amendments that address concerns expressed at later Village Board meetings and amendments that clarify existing code requirements and/or Village policy. The proposed changes are described in the attached ZBA staffmemo. The ZBA discussed the proposed Amendments in terms of the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments and voted, in six separate motions, to recommend approval of the proposed Amendments, Case No. ZBA-04-01. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 20, 2001 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ZBA-04-01 Michael E. Ianonis Page 2 Specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance that would be amended: 1. Minor Variation: 14.201 (revise text) 14.201.C (revise text) 14.202.C.4 (revise text) 14.202.C.9 (create) 14.203.C. 1,2,3,4,6 (revise text) 14.203.C.11.a,b,c,d, [create new sections) Existing sections 14.203.C. 11,12,13 should be renumbered to 14.203.C.12,13,14 respectively Amend Sec. 14.2401 to create definition of a minor variation 2. FAR: Create sections I4.805.E. 14.905.E. 14.1005.E, 14.1105.E. 14.1205.E. and amend 14.2401 to create definition of FAR 3. Detached Garages: 14.306.B.1 (revise text) and delete: "Detached garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles" from sections 14.803.A, 14.903.A, 14.1003.A. 14.1103.A 4. Accessory Structures: 14.306.A.5 (create) 5. Fences: 14.304.D.2.A (delete: Fence support posts may only be exposed when placed along exterior lot lines abutting arterial streets.) 6. Parking Lots: Delete: "and parking lots" from sections I4.1504.A, 14.1604.A, 14.1704.A, 14.1804.A. 14.2004.A. 14.2104.B MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING- BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-04-2001 Hearing Date: January 25, 2001 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect I00 S. Emerson St. PUBLICATION DATE: January 10, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance: 1) to create a minor variation process and amend the zoning ordinance accordingly to implement the process; 2) to create a floor-area-ratio (FAR) requirement for single family dwellings and amend the zoning ordinance accordingly to implement an FAR; 3) to increase the maximum size cfa detached garage to 672 square feet and eliminate eonditiunaI use approval for garages designed for more than two-motor vehicles; 4) to clarify that the maximum nuxr/Der of accessory s~rucrures is two per zoning lot and exempt swimming pools from this provision; 5) to require that the finished side cfa fence is exposed along arterial streets; 6) to eliminate parking lots from the bulk regulations sections of the nonresidential zoning districts to permit parking lots within I0-feet of a property line, unless adjacent to single family residential zoning districts. MEMBERS PRESENT: Men'ill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Luxem STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Counolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the November 9, 2000 meeting were approved. The Zoning Board heard Case Nos. ZBA-01-01, ZBA-02-01, and ZBA-03-01. At 9:16, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-04-01, Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Judy Connotly, Senior Planner, stated that public notice had been given and introduced the staff memorandum for the item, a request for Text Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. As background to the case, Ms. Connolly explained that the Village Board and Zoning Board members discussed several zoning issues at a previous Committee of the Whole meeting last fall. Copies of the minutes from the September COW Meeting and the Staff memo, which were the basis of that discussion, were included in the recent ZBA packets. As a result of these discussions, Staff was directed to draft text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that the amendments (1) create a Minor Variation process, (2) create residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, and (3) increase the size of detached garages to 672 s.f. and eliminate the Conditional Use requirement for garages designed for more than two vehicles. She explained that. in addition to these amendmems, staff drafted three other text amendments in response to concerns expressed at later Village Board meetings and To clarify Village policy. These amendments (1) require that the Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene Jnracek, Chairperson Page 2 finished side of a fence faces out along arterial streets, (2) limit the number of accessory structures and (3) clarify parking setbacks for nonresidential properties that are adjacent to nonresidential zoning districts. It was decided that Ms. Connolly would briefly describe each amendment and Zoning Board members would voice their comments and questions at the completion of each amendment. MINOR VARIATION PROCESS Ms. Connolly described the minor variation process as one that would allow the Director of Community Development to hold an administrative heating and decide whether an existing non-conforming structure, such as a patio or shed could be replaced in kind. Currently, the Zoning Ordinance allows people to replace certain non-conforming structures, but requires that they meet lot coverage requirements. Ms. Connolly stated that if the minor variation process is approved as proposed, a resident could replace an existing patio that was 3' from the lot line, when code required a 5' setback through a simpler hearing process: She said another example replacing an existing patio, same size and location, even if the lot coverage exceeded the maximum allowed by code. She said that if code allowed up to 50% lot coverage; the resident could have the same lot coverage up to 55%. Ms. Counolly reported that the Staff memo contains revised sections of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the minor variation process. Ms. Counolly said that the Director of Community Development could only hear requests for petitions for replacing existing non- conforming structures that: (1) extend into no more than 40% of the required interior setback, (2) extend into no more than 10% of the rear yard setback or (3) ~vhere the applicable lot coverage does not exceed the maximum permitted for that zoning district by more than 10%. She said that the new section creates standards for minor variations that require that the Director of Community Development to make findings of fact based the standards listed in the staff memo and input from adjacent property owners. The new section creates notice requirements to ensure that neighbors are aware of the request and includes posting a sign in front of the property, having neighbors sign an administrative notice or having the applicant mail the administrative notice through Certified Mail. Ms. Connolly described the administrative notice as having the property address, a description of the project, and where and when the heating will be held: She said residents can go to the hearing or submit their comments in writing. In addition, the new section creates an appeals process whereby residents can appeal the Director's decision on minor var/ations to the ZBA. Ms. Juracek asked if there would be a trial period for the Minor Variation Process. Michael Blue said that if the process was not working that Minor Variations could be removed from the Zoning Ordinance as a text amendment. Ms. Juracek asked who presently provides notice to the adjacent property owners. Ms. Counolly responded that the petitioner obtains the names of property owners within 250' and prepares labels, which are given to staff. The notices are mailed to the homeowners by staff. Mr. Blue pointed out that under the new system the petitioner would personally contact homeowners within 50' of the petitioner's property for their approval and signs would continue to be posted. Ms. Juracek said that was a much more friendly process. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) Ms. Cormolly explained that Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are regulations that limit the intensity of development. She said that the Village currently uses lot coverage to regulate the amount of property a development covers, but recent development trends require that the code be revised to include an FAR in an effort to restrict the gross square footage of buildings that may be constructed on a property. She stated that current lot coverage requirements would not change as those regulations also govern structures such as patios and decks. The Zoning Ordinance would be revised to create FAR regulations and a definition of FAR. Ms. Connolly said that Staff had researched adjacent communities' requirements to arrive at the proposed FARs and definition. Ms. Jnracek asked why RX districts had a .35 FAR and other districts had a .5 FAR. Ms. Counolly explained that R-X district was the largest lot size and that a .5 FAR on a large lot would allow for too large a structure: DETACIt~D GARAGES Ms. Connolly reported that in reSPonse to lifestyle changes, the number of requests for detached garages larger than 600 s.f. has increased. People are driving larger vehicles and using garages as a workspace or storage area. Village Board directed staff to revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size of detached garages to 672 square feet. This Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 number was arrived at based on how garages are designed and constructed (28'x24' is a standard 3-car garage size), and how people use garages, in relation m the aesthetics of the community. Ms. Cormolly said that this text amendment seeks to eliminate the requirement that garages designed to house more than two vehicles receive Conditional Use approval. By increasing the size of detached garages to 672 square feet, the garage is designed for more than two vehicles and puts an undue burden on homeowners who wish to construct a garage as would be allowed by the proposed text amendment. Ms. Counolly described the proposed changes m sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Richard Rogers asked if the Director of Community Development would be authorized to allow someone to construct a new garage 10% larger than the newly allowable 672 s.f. Ms. Counolly said no, that the minor variation would apply to existing buildings only. Mr. Blue said the minor variation process would be for setback requirements and not to allow an increase to a garage s~ze. The resident would have to apply to the ZBA for a garage larger than 672 s.f. MAXIMUM NErMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Ms~ Connolly explained that it has been Village policy to allow twe accessory structures per property, but that the Zoning Ordinance does not specifically state such limit. She said that current code regulations address the location of accessory sumcmres and the amount of lot coverage permitted, as a whole for the property. Revising the Zoning Ordinance to specifically state that accessory structures are limited to nvo per lot. and exempting swimming pools from this total, would maintain the aesthetics of the community and limit the number of accessory su'ucmres. This would allow homeowners to have a swimmingpool, a shed, and a detached garage, or a swimming poul, gazebo, and a detached garage. Ms. Cormolly described the proposed changes to sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Arlene Juracek asked if someone would have to go through the variation process if they requested more than two structures. Ms. Connolly said that they would have to get approval from the ZBA. FENCES Ms. Cormolly reported that, in an effort to improve the appearance of the town's corridors, Village Board has directed Staff to prepare a text amendment that requires homeowners to install the finished side of a fence face "out", towards the street, along arterial roads. The code currently reqmres that the "good" side face out, towards your neighbor, but allows the unfinished side to be exposed along arterial roads. The code would be amended so that the last sentence of 14.304.D.2.a is deleted. PARKING LOTS Ms. Counolly stated that the Bulk Regulations section of the Zoning Ordinance reqmres parking lots to meet the same setbacks as a building. In the Off-Street Parking and, Loading section of the Zoning Ordinance, parking lots ~n a nonresidential zoning district are allowed within ten-feet of the proper~y line unless the parking lot is adjacent to single family residential. She pointed out that the code regulations are contradictory. Eliminating "parking lots" from Bulk Regulation sections of Business, Industrial, and Office Research Zoning Districts clarifies code requirements. The Staff memo lists specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance that would be revised. Hal Ettinger asked why parking lots would have less restrictive requirements than buildings as they still have an impact. Ms. Cormolly responded that when the parking lot is adjacent to single-family residential it must adopt the more stringent setback so it would be further away, similar to the building. Mr. Ettinger suggested the Ordinance should be more restrictive regarding parking lots. Mr. Blue said that the Village did have a more restricted code but it was changed six years ago because it restricted development of the commercial corridor. The amendment several years ago allowed properties not adjacent to residential to have parking 10' from the lot line. Mr. Ettinger disagreed with this decision. He said that this change allows more commercial development and encourages parking lots. He said that along commercial corridors are part of a community, but that it was bad for a community to acquiesce to vehicles. Mr. Blue agreed, but said that the Ordinance as originally written was overly restricting to development. Ms. luracek said the Village did make changes in the Off-Street and Loading sections, but not the Bulk Regulations sections. This amendment affirms that determination that a parking lot has a different impact than bulk regulations intended to govern. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-200i Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Ms. Cormolly summarized the amendments saying that the proposed text amendments are a result of (1) in-depth discussions with the Village Board and the Zoning Board on what changes are necessary for the Zoning Ordinance to accurately reflect Village policy and goals, (2) research of neighboring communities regulations and what is consistent with community expectations, and (3) clarifying existing code regulations. The proposed amendments meet the standards listed in Sec. 14.203.D.8.b which relate to the degree to which the amendments are consistent with Village policy, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, applicable to the Village at large and not for the benefit a specific property, and also consistent with objectives and intent of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend approval of the proposed text amendments as listed in the staff memo. At 9:45, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for motions on each amendment individually. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendmects to Zoning Ordinance Nos. 14.203 and 14.2401, to create a Minor Variation Process and related changes and provisions to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Keith Youngquist seconded the motiOn. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Etflnger, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6~0. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoxfmg Ordinance Nos. 14.306.B.1, ar.803.A, 14.902.A, and 14.1003.A, to increase the maximum size of detached garages to 672 s.f. and eliminate Conditional Use approval requirements for garages designed to house more than two motor vehicles. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 5-1. Keith Youngquist made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Nos. 14.306.A.5, to limit the number of accessory structures to two structures. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Nos. 14.805, 14.905, 14.1005, 14.1105, 14.1205, 14.1304, I4.2401, to create Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and related definitions. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Ploros, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-200 i Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 5 Merrill Cotten made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments to Zoning Ordinance No. 14.2217, to clarify setback requirements for parking lots. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten. Floros. Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Ettinger, Rogers Motion was approved 4-2. Merrill Cotten made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for Text Amendments To Zoning Ordinance No. 14.304.D.2.b, to eliminate provisions that allow the unfinished side ora fence to be exposed along arterial streets. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten. Ettinger, Floros, Youngqmst, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 9:48 p.m.. Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Hal Ettinger. The motion was approved by a voice yore and the meeting was adjourned. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 18, 2001 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 25, 2001 SUBJECT: ZBA-04-01 - TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect REQUESTED ACTION: i) Create a Minor Variation Process and amend the Zoning Ordinance accordingly to implement the process; 2) Create a Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) requirement for Single Family dwellings and amend the Zoning Ordinance accordingly to implement an FAR; 3) Increase the maximum size of a detached garage to 672 square feet and eliminate Conditional Use approval for garages designed for more than two- motor vehicles; 4) Clarify that the maximum number of Accessory Structures is two per Zoning Lot and exempt swimming pools from this provision; 5) Require that the finished side of a fence is exposed along arterial streets; 6) Eliminate parking lots from the Bulk Regulations sections of the nonresidential Zoning Districts to permit parking lots within 10-feet of a property line unless adjacent to Single Family Residential Zoning Districts. BACKGROUND Village Board and Zoning Board members discussed several zoning issues at the September 26, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting. As a result of these discussions, Staffwas directed to draft text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. The amendments create a Minor Variation process, provide for residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements, modify the existing code to increase the size of detached garages to 672 square feet and eliminate the Conditional Use permit requirement for garages which house more than two vehicles. Attached are copies of the minutes from the th September 26 COW Meeting and the Staff memo which was the basis of that discussion. In addition, this memo includes text amendments to address concerns expressed at later Village Board meetings, 1) to require that the finished side of the t'ence face out on arterial streets and 2) to amendments that clarify existing code requirements and/or Village policy. These amendments limit the number of accessory structures and clarify parking setbacks for properties that are adjacent to nonresidential zoning districts. ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25, 2001 Page 2 MINOR VARIATION PROCESS The minor variation process would allow the Director of Community Development to hold an administrative hearing and decide whether an existing non-conforming structure (such as a patio or shed) could be replaced in kind. Currently, Sec. 14.402.B of the Zoning Ordinance allows replacement of certain non-conforming structures, but requires that the applicable lot coverage requirements be met. If approved as proposed, a minor variation could allow a resident to replace an existing patio that was 3-feet from the lot line, when code required a 5-foot setback. This process would also allow a resident to replace the patio even if the lot coverage exceeded the maximum allowed by code, such as 55% lot coverage when code allowed up to 50% lot coverage. Below are portions of the Zoning Ordinance, as it pertains to this text amendment. The text in black is the current text of the Zoning Ordinance and the bold, red text and strikeouts are the proposed revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, which would create a minor variation process. [2 Sec. 14.201, Minor Variations would be added to the list of administrative functions of this chapter. n Sec. 14.202.C lists the specific duties of the Director of Community Development. Sec. 14.202.C.4 would be revised to include minor variations and a 14.202.C.9 would be created and read: 9. Conduct administrative hearings and make final determinalions on minnr variatious. t2 Sec. 14.203.C lists the procedures for administrative functions for variations and would be revised to read: 1. Intent: Variations shall be granted or recommended for approval only where the Zoning Board of Appeals. or in the case of minor variations the Director of Communit~ Develnpmen~. makes findings of fact ~n accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter, and further finds that the regulations of this Chapter will impose practical difficulties or particular hardships to the petitioner in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this Chapter. 2. Authority: The Director of Community Development may, al~er an administrative hearing, grant a minor variation as provided for in this Chapter. The Zoning Board of Appeals may, after a public hearing, grant or recommend for approval a variation in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter. 3. Initiation: An application for a minor variation or variation may be made by any person, firm, other entity, corporation, or by any governmental entity requesting or intending to request application for a building permit. 4. Filing Of Applications: An application for a minor variation or variation shall be filed with the Director of Community Development on forms obtained from the Community Developmem Department. Such form shall include all information necessary for processtng the variation request, including but not limited to a statement on specific hardship, the extent of variation requested, legal description of subject property, survey, site plan, appropriate proof of ownership, or proof of authority. The application form fa:' :: va:~x.%~:x may be revised from time to time. The application shall be filed with the appropriate fee in an amount established by the Board of Trustees. 6. Action By Zoning Board Of Appeals: The Zoning Board of Appeals shall hear and decide as final administrative authority, all petitions for fence variations and variations which do not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of any requirement of this Chapter, except for minor variations as described in this section. A new section would be created for minor variations, a "new" 14.203.C.11, and the current sections numbered 11, 12, 13 would be renumbered accordingly. This is necessary to ensure that the Zoning Ordinance is organized properly and that code requirements flow and transition well. ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25,2001 Page 3 14.203.C.11 Minor Variatinns: a. Action By Director of Community Development: Tile .l)irectOr of Community I)eve]opmcnr shall and decide as linal administrative authority, all petitions lbr minor variatinns lin' existing non- conforming structures that 1) extend into no more than 4t)% of the required interior setback. 2) extend into no more than 1(l% of the rear yard setback or 3) where the applicable lot coverage does not exceed the m~cximtnn permitted for tha! coning district by more than 1.0%. b. In all petitions Ibr Minnr Variatinns. the 1)irector of CommuniW Development shall make lindings of fact based on input front adjacent proper~y owners, and tbe fallnwit~g stamlards: 1) Was the regulation h'om which relief is sought itt existence when the applicant either purcbased or improved the property? 2)Has the applicant changed the property in some way sn as m create the nonconformity? 3)Will the requested relief be out of cimracter with the neighborhood? 4) Arc there other structm'es within the same Zoning District. which either violate or have received variation t¥om the same regulatkm? 5) Does tile negative impact nn the applicant, in nat being able to use the properly in the specific manner requested, substantially ontweigl~ any negative impac[ on the adjacent prnpcrties if the variation is granted? 6) Is tile request the minimum necessary to use file property in a manner reasonably similar to other uses in the neighborhood? 7) Is there a reasonable alternative that is consistent with the expressed term~ oi the Zoning Ordinance? c. Administrative H.earino, s shall be held for minor variatious ooly and in compliance with lhe provisions as described in this Section. 1) Upnn receipt of an application fllr a n~iuor variation, the Director of Comnmnity Development shall review the application for completeness anti assign a case nnmber to the requesr. 2) For all applicatinns for a minor variation, the applicant shall provide to the Department of Commnnity Development a list of all owners ol' record o[ property lying within fifty feet exclusive of right-of-way width, of file parcel subject lo the public hearing. The applicant shall attest in writing that the list of property owners is true and accm'ate. The applicant must provide a signed administrative, ~ notice~ by each~ prnperty~ owner~ lying~ within 50-feei~ of tlle~ prop~rty~ or provide evidence that the), have been notified of the minor variatiun request and hearing by Ccrtiffed Mail. 3) Att administrative notice shall contain the case number assigned to the application, ~hc address tit' tile property, a brief statement on the nature of the minor variation, the name and address of the propert5' owner, the petitioner and their legal representative, attd the date, time and location of the administrative hearing. 4) Fur all applications for a minor variation, the Director of Community Development shall also cause one nr more signs to be posted on the property which is the subject of the administrative bearing. 5) The nu tuber and location of signs shall be determined by the Director of Comnmnity Developntcnl. 6) Tile sign must be a minimum nf thirty inches by thirty inches (30" x 30") in size, having letters a minimum of two inches (2") high, and contaiu the following information: ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25,2001 Page 4 ~ The fact that an administrative hearing will be held to affect the subject property, ~vith direcfion to interested members of the general public to call the office of the Community l)evelopment I)irector tbr fi~rther information concerning date, time and place and subject matter of said administrati~,'e hearing. Any interested pers{m may appear and be heart[ at the hearing held concerning any such applicatioa for minor variation, and sncl~ appearance may be made in person, by agent (if a corporation), or in writing. d. Appeal Of Director of Community Development I)ecision Any individual may file an appeal of the decision of the Director of Commnnity Development regarding a minor variation with the Zoning Board nf Appeals. Snch appeal shall be filed with the Director of Community Development within fiYe (5) calendar dnys of lite I)irector's decision. n Renumber 14.203.C.11. Additional Restrictions to 14.203.C.12 n Renumber 14.203.C.12. Revocation to 14.203.C.13 n Renumber 14.203.C.13. Effect Of Denial Of Proposal 14.203.C.14 In addition, the Zoning Ordinance would be amended to include definition of a minor variation, as shown below: Sec. 14.2401 DEFINITIONS Minor Variation: A dispensation permitted on individual parcels ol~ property as a method of alleviating practical difficulties by allowing exact replacement of existing non-conforming structm'es as specified in 1.4.203.C.6.a of this code to allow reasonable nsc of the building, struclnre, or property which, because of unusual or unique circumstances, is denied by this code. FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) Floor Area Ratios (FAR) are regulations used by municipalities to limit the intensity of development that is possible on private property. Currently the Village uses lot coverage to regulate the amount of property a development covers, but recent development trends require that current Bulk Regulation be revised to include a FAR in an effort to restrict the gross square footage of buildings that may be constructed on a property. Current lot coverage requirements will not change as those regulations also govern structures such as patios and decks. Using the RX district as an example of how the other sections of the Zoning Ordinance would be revised, a new section for Bulk Regulations would be created for FAR regulations. The bold, red text are proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance. R-X Single-Family Residence District 14.805: BULK REGULATIONS rn Create a new section of the Bulk Regulations to read: E. Floor Area Ratio: dwellings and garages in the RX Zoning District shall not exceed a .35 FAR S/F RESIDENCE I)ISTRICT RI: 14.905.E: FAR shall be .5 SAF RESIDENCE DISTRICT RA: 14.1005.E: FAR shall be .5 ATTACHED S/F RESIDENCE DISTRICT R2:14.1105.E: FAR shall be .5 LOW DENSITY RESIDENCE DISTRICT R3: 14.1205.E: FAIt shall be .5 SEC. 14.2401: DEFINITIONS Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The ratio of the total flnnr area of a single family dwelling (except basemeno and garage tu the area of the lot on which the building is built. ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25,2001 Page 5 DETACHED GARAGES The number of requests for detached garages larger than 600 square feet, the size currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance, mirrors today's larger vehicle designs and pick-Up truck vehicles. Also, requests for larger garages have included space for a workroom and/or storage areas separate from the house. In response to lifestyle changes, the Village Board directed staff to revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size of detached garages to 672 square feet. This number was arrived at based on how garages are designed (28'x24' is a standard 3-car garage size) and constructed, and how people use garages, in additiOn to the aesthetics of the community. In addition, the proposed text amendment for detached garages includes eliminating the requirement that garages designed to house more than two vehicles receive Conditional Use approval. By increasing the size of detached garages to 672 square feet, the garage is designed for more than two vehicles and puts an undue burden on homeowners who wish to construct a garage as would be allowed by the proposed text amendment. The black text below shows existing code requirements and the bold, red text are the proposed revisions. 14.306: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: _ B. Restrictions In Residential Districts: 1. Maximum Size: Permitted accessory buildings used as detached private garages shall be no larger than six hundred seventy two (672) square feet, .......... ,,,,~ ~,,~,~ ....... ................... ~ ,,, k,,,,,;.~ .... m()r~ ,~m2 ..... ~ , (*)- :::at:::' :':!:Sz!'-':. No accessory bUilding used as a storage shed shall be larger than one hundred twenty (120) square feet. Other sections of the Zoning Ordinance that list garages designed for more than two vehicles as a Conditional Use would be modified so that requirement is deleted, as shown for the RX ZOning District. R-X Single-Family Residence District 14.803: CONDITIONAL USES: A. The folloWing uses may be allowed by conditional use issued in accordance With the provisions of subsection 14.203F of this Chapter: Colleges and universities. Cultural institutions, libraries and museums. Dayeare homes. Family community residence, where operator is not licensed or certified by an appropriate agency, and where residence of no more than eight (8)Unrelated persons with disabilities is not located one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. Group community residence. Such residence shall be located no closer than one thousand feet (1,000') from another family community residence. More than one garage. Rehabilitation homes. Residential planned unit developments, subject to Article V of this Chapter. UnenclOsed front porches attached to single-family residences, with an approved certificate of occupancy as of May 18, 1999, encroaching up to five feet (5') into front setbacks. (Ord. 4590, 9, 21-1993; Ord. 4825, 10-1-1996; Ord. 5023, 5-18-1999) R-1 14.903.A. CONDITIONAL USES: R-A 14.1003.A: CONDITIONAL USES: R-2 14.1103;A: CONDITIONAL USES: ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25, 2001 Page 6 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES The Zoning Ordinance does not list the maximum number of accessory structures permitted, but it has long been Village policy to limit the number of accessory structures at two per property. Current code regulations address the location of the accessory structures and the amount of lot coverage as a whole for the property. Revising the Zoning Ordinance to specifically state that accessory structures are limited to two per lot, but exempting swimming pools from this total, would maintain the aesthetics of the community and limit the number of accessory structures. This would allow homeowners to have a swimming pool, a shed, and a detached garage, or a swimming pool, gazebo, and a detached garage. 14.306: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES: A. General Requirements: The following restrictions on accessory buildings, structures and uses apply to all zoning districts: ~ Create the following section: 5. Number of Accessory Structm-es: The illaxinlum namber of accessory structnres SIl~tll ltot exceed two structures per Zoniug lol. Swimming pools are exempt fi'om the to~al number of accessory structures. FENCES The Zoning Ordinance requires homeowners who install fences to have the finished side of the fence face their neighbor's property, but allows the unfinished side to be exposed along arterial roads. In an effort to improve the appearance of the town's corridors, Village Board has directed Staff to prepare a text amendment that requires homeowners to install the finished side of a fence face "out", towards the street. 14.304: BULK REGULATIONS: D. Regulations For Fences And Walls: 2. Construction: a. Wood and chainlink fences shall be constructed so that the side facing an abutting lot is smooth finished. Fa.ncc :upi:x:-t i'd:st.~, :xa: ..:2: '. p.~':.z:~. w PARKING LOTS In the Bulk Regulations section of the Zoning Ordinance, parking lots are required to meet the same setbacks as a building. In the Off-street Parking and Loading section of the Zoning Ordinance, parking lots in a nonresidential zoning district are allowed within ten-feet of the property line unless the parking lot is adjacent to single family residential. The code regulations are contradictory. Eliminating "parking lots" from Bulk Regulation sections of Business, Industrial, and Office Research Zoning Districts clarifies code requirements. This text amendment is more of a "housekeeping" issue but nonetheless important to ensure a correct interpretation of code regulations. Using the B1 Zoning District as an example, other sections of the Zoning Ordinance would be modified so that "parking lots" would be eliminated from the Bulk Regulations section. B- 1 OFFICE 14.1504: BULK REGULATIONS: A. Yard Requirements: All buildings t~.x[!r"mr'k;-n'~,, k:tz in the B-1 District shall meet the following setback requirements: B-2 NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING DISTRICT 14.1604.A.: BULK REGULATIONS ...... v ........ ,, .... (Dl. LL I LD) B-3 COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT 14.1704.A: BULK REGULATIONS: ...... ~ ......... ~, ...... (I)ELI~TEI)) B-4 CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 14.1804.A: BULK REGULATIONS: ancl pm k...~, ...... ([ LLET OR OFFICE RESEARCH DISTRICT 14.2004.A BULK REGULATIONS :: n t~ [~a~'l:~xg k::s ( D E LET E D) I1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 14.2104.B BULK REGULATIONS ~axt! ~;ark'k:g !,~t: (t)ELETED) ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25, 2001 Page 7 RECOMMENDATION The propose text amendments are a result of in-depth discussions with the Village Board and the Zoning Board on what changes are necessary for the Zoning Ordinance to accurately reflect Village policy and goals, research of neighboring communities regulations and what is consistent with communi~ expectations, and clarifying existing code regulations. Therefore, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend approval of the proposed text amendments to sections: 1 Minor Variation: 14.201 (revise text) 14.201.C (revise text) 14.202.C.4 (revise text) 14.202.C.9 (create) 14.203.C.1,2,3,4,6 (revise text) 14.203.C. 11 .a,b,c,d, (create new sections) Existing sections 14.20~.C. 11,12,13 should be renumbered to 14.203.C.12,13,14 respectively Amend Sec. 14.2401 to create definition of a minor variation 2. FAR: Create sections 14.805.E, 14.905.E, 14.1005.E, 14.1105.E, 14.1205.E, and amend 14.2401 to create definition of FAR 3. Detached Garages: 14.306~B.1 (revise text) and delete: "Detached garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles" from sections 14.803.A, 14.903.A, 14.1003.A, 14.1103.A 4. Accessotw Structures: 14.306.A.5 (create) 5. Fences: 14.304.D.2.A (delete: Fence ~u_pport posts may only be exposed when placed along exterior lot lines abutting arterial streets.) 6. Parking Lots: Delete: "and parking lots" from sections 14.1504.A, 14.1604.A, 14.1704.A, 14.1804.A, 14.2004.A, 14.2104.B William J. Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development MINUTES COMMITTEE oF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 26, 2000 I. C~ The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Gerald FarleY. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Dennis Prikkel and Irvana Wilks. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer and Michaele Skowron. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney and Deputy Community Development Director Michael Blue. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from August 22, 2000 was deferred. Approval of Minutes from September 12, 2000 was deferred, Both sets of Minutes were deferred due to the limited number of Board members present. · !11. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. MISCELLANEOUS ZONING ISSUE DISCUSSION Community Development Director Bill Cooney introduced the topic by stating this is a follow-up discussion from several weeks ago in which floor area ratio, minor administrative variation considerations,' garage size and single-familY home tear-down criteda was discussed. Floor Ar~a Ratio Discussion He stated the floor area ratio example would be based on the lot coverage and stated that the garage size and pavement area has a significant impact on the percentage of coverage ratio which is typical depending on lot size of anywhere from .63 to .75. Staff recommends a floor area ratio amount of ,50, General discussion from the Village Board members included the following items: There was a discussion regarding the maximum height of a structure and the impact of height on the structure's mass. There was also discussion regarding the definition of a hardship and the need to better define a hardship for use by the ZBA members. There was also some discussion regarding whether the redefinition of a hardship would limit people's ability to maximize the use of their property. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson of the ZBAi spoke. She stated the more subjective a hardship is defined, the more difficult it is for the members to determine whether a hardship actually exists. She would suggest the C°nsideration of a Conditional Use and the ZBA has considered economic hardships in the past including protection of mature trees. Keith Youngquist, member of the ZBA, spoke, He felt that the definition of a hardship could be refined to help in the decision process. Consensus of the Village Board was to retain the hardship definition as is but monitor the requests for variations due to hardships to determine whether unique circumstances are present. The Board also recommended the floor area ration to be altered .50, Discussion on Minor Administrative Variations Community Development Director William Cooney is suggesting administrative authority to allow residents to replace non-conforming structures if they are limited to only a 10% variance. He stated them still would be the intent to have the necessary Hearings but they would be administrative hearings and appropriate back-up material would be provided to the Village Board. General comments of the Village Board members included the following items: Them was a recommendation that a trial period be considered regarding this administrative variation option, There was also a question regarding a piecemeal apProach that would possibly compromise the administrative variation and how that would be controlled. It was also pointed out that them is aneed to allow neighbor input to variation changes. Consensus of the Village Board was to establish a reasonable trial period and allow administrative variations of a minor nature primarily regarding driveway, patio and garage replacements on existing footprints, ZBA Chair Arlene Jurecek spoke. She stated the hardship cannot be of the petitioner's making and would feel that the minor variance being limited to specific items is worthwhile and would support the change. (.~arage Size Discussion Community Development Director Cooney stated that staff has researched the option of creating a sliding scale for garage sizes based on lot size, home size and rear yard setback requirements. However, after the analysis, staff feels it is unrealistic to create a sliding scale. Therefore, staff is recommending a standard size as the permitted use and requests variations for a larger size beyond that. He is recommending the Board consider a 672 or a 720 square foot garage as a permitted use.' Obviously, it is expected that in order for a garage of this size, it would still have to meet the necessary requirements on the property and if there were variations necessary, appropriate'Public Hearings would be undertaken. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Several Board members felt that a 672 square foot garage would be acceptable but there were also concerns regarding the mass of the structure upon the lot and the limitations the lot size contributes to the structure itself. Consensus of the Village Board was to alter the Zoning Code to allow 672 square foot garages as permitted uses. Single-Family Tear-Down and Design Review Community Development Director Cooney stated that other towns have dealt with this issue in different manners and has summarized those options in the back-up material provided. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: Some Board members do not see this issue as a major problem in Mount Prospect and saw this as a good option for redevelopment and shows that Mount Prospect is a very desirable community if people are willing to invest in the property, ZBA Chair Arlene Juracek spoke. She personally welcomes the redevelopment and feels that the current restrictions in place are effective and there would not be a need to alter them at this time. Consensus of the Village Board was to monitor the number of tear-downs and rebuilds to determine whether this issue starts to reduce the number of homes overall throughout the community, 3 Mayor Farley suggested that staff look at whether the Village can require vacant property to be planted in grass instead of maintained in gravel awaiting redevelopment. Mr, Cooney stated that he would research the option of putting the properly in grass and determine whether the Village could require it. Mayor Farley also suggested some staff review regarding specific yard landscaping that retains water runoff to supplement storm water management, V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Michael Janonis stated the 2001 Budget will be available starting October 6 and the review sessions will be starting soon thereafter. VI, ANY OTHER BUSINE~ Mayor Farley suggested the Village consider one COW meeting per month in order to maximize the available staff and Village Board time. The Closed Session for Personnel was cancelled. Since them was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. 4 Village of Mount P ospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FKOM: WILLIAM COONEY, YR. AICP, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL BLUE, AICP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO VILLAGE BOARD DISCUSSION ON ZONING ISSUES The Village Board discussed several zoning issues at the August 22, 2000 Committee Of the Whole Meeting. A number of follow up questions resulted from that session. This memorandum presents the findings and analyses that resulted from additional research in response to those questions. LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) LI34ITS Lot coverage and FAR ratios are two common methods used by municipalities to limit the amount of development that is possible on private property. Lot coverage specifically limits the amount of land that can be "covered" by any type of structure (buildings, driveways, patios, etc.) irrespective of the height of the structures. FAR addresses the gross square footage of buildings that may be constructed on a property and does not take into consideration other structures. The Village's Zoning Code applies lot coverage ratios to all of its zoning districts as well as other bulk regulations including setbacks, height limits and minimum lot sizes. Although FARs are not listed in our Code, a "defacto" FAR can be determined utilizing the above mentioned bulk regulations. Listed below are the bulk regulations for the R1 and RA districts: R1 Zoning District Lot size: 8,125 sq. ft. (65' x 125') Setbacks: 30' front, 25' rear and 6.5' sides Buildable area: 3,640 sq. ft. (area within setbacks) Allowable lot coverage: 3,656 sq. ft. (45% of lot size) "Defacto" maximum FAR: .63 RA Zoning District Lot size: 6,000 sq. ft. (50' x 120') Setbacks: 30' front, 25' rear and 5' sides Buildable area: 2,600 sq. ft. (area within setbacks Allowable lot coverage: 3,000 sq. ft. (50% of lot size) "Defacto' maximum FAR: .75 The "defacto" FAR listed for each district was determined by designing site plans for single family homes and applying the other bulk regulations listed above. Assumptions were made for "typical" driveway widths, garage sizes, sheds and sidewalks in order to achieve this ratio; therefore, the actual FAR will vary slightly depending upon the assumptions used. Site plans for these typical sites are shown on the following pages. Zoning Issues- Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 2 RA Single Family District Single Family Home w/ Single Family Home w/ Detached Garage Attached Garage Gm*age Driveway 120' 1:20' Home Home way 50' 50' Figure 1 Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 3 RI Single Family DistriCt Single Family Home w/ Single Family Home w/ Detached Garage Atiached Garage Driveway 125' 125' Home Home ii ' 65' 65' Figure 2 Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 4 The site plans demonstrate the type of homes that could be developed under our current zoning codes in the RA and R1 districts. As the exhibits show, a key factor is whether the home has an attached or detached garage. A property owner could cbnstruct a 4,200 square foot home with an attached garage or an 1,800 square foot home with a detached garage in the RA district. In the R1 district, an owner could build a 5,500 square foot home with an attached garage or a 2,800 square foot home with a detached garage. The reason for the large variance in possible home sizes relates to the amount of land used for the driveway and detached garage. For every square foot of land occupied by the driveway and/or garage, two square feet of potential house is forsaken. It should be noted that these figures are maximums and that property owners typically would install additional patios, decks and ancillary sidewalks on their property, thereby reducing the possible size of the homes. Staff surveyed surrounding towns to determine what FAR limits they allowed, if any. Typical FARs for lots that would fall into the PA. and R1 districts ranged fi.om .35 to .5. The Village's "defacto" FARs of .63 and .75 were very generous When compared to surrounding communities. If the .5 FAR were applied, the homes with detached garages shoWn on the attached exhibits would not be affected. However, the homes with attached garages would be reduced to a maximum 2,880 square feet in the PA. district and 4,000 square feet in the RI district. If the Village Board feels that the current bulk regulations leave too much potential for oversized homes, they may want to consider the .5 FAR figure. However, to date the current regulations have adequately controlled the potential impacts of new homes and large additions on adjacent properties. MINOR VARIATIONS Variations are considered by the Village in cases where property owners request relief from the strict standards of the zoning ordinance. The ordinance requires that a hearing be held before the Zoning Board of Appeal (ZBA) to consider the merits of that request: The criteria by which the request is to be considered are contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Variations that do not exceed 25 percent of the required standards and those for fences are granted by the ZBA. Variations greater than 25 percent are granted by the Village Board. The process of application review and hearing can take up to 90 days for a variation. The processing fee for a single-family property is $100. Some requests for variation are relatively minor. They only slightly exceed the setback line or lot coverage limits. In many cases, the requests are for needed repairs to an existing condition that became a nonconformity due to annexation or a change in the zoning ordinance. In these cases, it may be appropriate to approve such minor variations through an administrative process. This process is used in nearby communities including Des Plaines, Palatine, Northfield, Libertyville, and Evanston. The purpose df a "Minor Variation" process is to address variations that have limited impact bn the neighborhood in a manner that is quicker and easier for residents. Our research, including a review of minor variation procedures in other towns and discussions with the Village Attorney, indicates that a minor variation process for Mount Prospect could include the following elements: t. Limited Number of Items to be Considered: The Minor Variation process is meant to address requests for relief from the zoning ordinance that are in keeping with the intent of the ordinance and reflect public policy. Therefore, the number of variations that should be issued under a minor variation procedure would be limited and the extent of relief granted would be only up to a certain percentage of the base standard. In Mount Prospect it would be most appropriate for Minor Variations to be heard for requests related to alterations or replacement of existing conditions on residential property. For example, requests by residents to remove and replace an existing patio on a property that exceeds lot coverage could be considered for a Minor Variation; a request related to construction of a new home or major renovation of an existing home Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 .,. Page 5 would not be considered. In the case of commercial development, all variation requests would be heard by the ZBA, and Village Board if required. Minor Variations could be made available for situations such as: a. Replacement of existing sidewalks, patios, and driveways on properties that exceed lot coverage requirements by no more than 10 percent of the standard in residential districts. b. Replacement of existing accessory structures that encroach into side yards by not more than 40 percent of the standard or rear yards by no more than 10 percent of the standard in residential disuicts. 2. Notice: There is a notice requirement for Minor Variations, but it need not be as extensive as for regular variations. Common practice is that notices be mailed or a sign be posted on the property. Rather than mailing to all residents within 250 feet of the subject property, an acceptable alternative is to send notices to all adjacent property owners. To ensure control of the process, the Village would mail notices. The notice would include a defined period for public review and comment on the application - two weeks is appropriate. 3. Hearings: Holding a small, but official hearing before a Hearing Officer is common for Minor Variations - although Evanston allows an administrative decision with no hearing in some cases. Another acceptable alternative is to waive a hearing in the case of requests that do not receive formal objection by the end of the notice period. Hearings for Minor Variations in Mount Prospect could be held by the Director of Community Development serving as the Hearing Officer. The hearings would be held at a set time(s) each month and allow for comment and discussion by residents. There might also be situations (such as when there are no formal complaints from neighbors) under which the hearing step could be waived. Applicants or others would be able to appeal the decision of the Heating Officer to the ZBA. 4. Benefits to Residents: The benefit to residents requesting the variation is a shorter turnaround time for the process and a less onerous application process (for example, they would need fewer copies of application materials). Likely users of the Minor Variation process are those discouraged from undertaking projects by the rigor of the standard variation process. The Planning and Building Divisions occasionally discuss projects that will require formal hearings for very minor variations with residents who decide the process is not worth the effort. 5. Impact on ZBA or Staff: It is difficult to say how many Minor Variations would be heard - Des Plaines averages two Minor Variations each month. Few of the ZBA cases heard recently could have been addressed through this administrative process and, as noted above, some with very minor requests chose not to pursue variations. SLIDING SCALE FOR GARAGE SIZE As described in a previous memorandum (dated August 15, 2000 and presented to the Village Board on August 22, 2000) there have been several variation requests to allow garages larger than the 600 square feet permitted by the Village Zoning Ordinance. Given the potential impacts of larger garages, there was discussiOn regarding the potential for a sliding scale for garage sizes, with a maximum standard set. There are several possible ways that such a sliding scale could be incorporated. Our research shows that such a scale could be based on the size of the lot, the size of the house, or the amount of the rear yard to be covered. Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 , Page 6 Garage Size as a Function of Lot Size Minimum lot sizes in Mount Prospect single family zoning districts range from 8,000 to 17,500 - as shown below. Note that while single family detached homes are permitted in all the districts listed here, they are most common in the RX, R1, and PA. Zoning District Minimum Lot Size RX 17,500 ': R1 8,125 (9,375 on a comer lot) ~ PA 6,000 ' R2 8,125 R3 8,000 Recent zoning"cases have approved 720 square foot garages in both the RI and RA zoning districts on lots of 8,544 and 8,840 square feet. Garages of 672 square feet have been approved on lots of 10,124 (RI) and 11,775 · (PA). In tllese cases the approved garage size was a function of the request by the resident and the site characteristics. Although counterintuitive to the idea of a sliding scale, the larger garages were permitted on the smaller lots. This experience indicates that using a sliding scale for garage size based on required or actual lot size would not necessarily be reflective of the potential impacts of a new garage. Garage Size as a Function of the Rear Yard Establishing a limit on the amount of a rear yard that could be covered by a detached garage presents difficulties similar to those with a lot size standard. The main problem would be that the use of rear yards varies from home to home. The simple area calculation also does not take into account factors such as amount of yard covered with other structure (patios, sheds, em). In addition, having a larger rear yard does not justify having a larger garage that could be the same distance from an adjacent property, as a smaller garage. Therefore. as with lot size, the setting a standard based on required or actual yard size would not be the definitive control. If used, it would have to be part of a calculation considering such factors as side and rear yard setbacks, and lot coverage. Garage Size as a Function of the House Size There is rcasunableness in using house size as a way to determine garage size. It makes sense from an aesthetic standpoint that a home not bc dwarfed by a garage on the lot. However, this approach also presents a number of problems. NOt the least of which is that house sizes change. We are seeing many additions in thc Village that double the size of home. Would a garage on that lot also be allowed to double in size? Also, since a prime concern regarding large garages is impact on neighboring properties, using house size as a standard for garage size would allow the largest house on the block Iand perhaps thc most imposing or out of character) to have the largest garage. For these reasons, using house size as a standard on which to base a sliding scale would only work as a secondary consideration. Summary The Village's recent experience indicates that ir is impractical to create a sliding scale based on fixed items such as lot or yard size to control the size of garages. Consideration of such sliding scales indicates that using any one of the standards considered above is not sufficient. The best standard would have to be a combination of factors. This would create a complex analysis that would be cumbersome and difficult for residents to understand. The benefit of additional regulation in controlling potential adverse impacts would be limited. This is because garages are designed and constructed in increments - the most common being 600 (24 x 25), 672 (24 x 28), and Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page 7 720 (24 x 30). While 22 feet deep versions of these increments are possible (550, 616, and 660) they are not as desirable since they have less storage space for household goods. Therefore, even a sliding scale standard will ultimately result in garages based on the commonly available garage size. In any case, the differences between these are relatively minor in regard to their potential impact on neighboring properties. For example, the difference between the 672 and 720 square foot garage is only two feet of additional width. Controls to protect against potential impacts of garages coming too close to neighboring properties (being too tall or coveting too much of the lot) are already in place in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. There is no evidence in the Village's recent review and approval of oversized garages that fixed standards (lot, house, or yard size) as the basis for a sliding scale would be a better approach. Likewise, it does not seem likely that such an approach would diminish potential impacts on adjacent properties or reduce the number of variations requested. A simple and clearly understood garage size, which would be further controlled by existing lot coverage ratios and setback requirements, will continue to serve the Village well. If there is desire to increase the current standard, information on common garage sizes indicates that either 672 or 720 square feet are appropriate options. TEAR DOWN (DESIGN REVIEW') ORDINANCES Tear down ordinances have been collected and reviewed from four communities that addressed this issue. They arc Park Ridge, Lake Forest, Winnetka, and Hinsdale. The intent and application of those ordinances are summarized below. It is interesting to note that Hinsdale, Winnetka, and Lake Forest regulate the abitity to simply demolish residential structures. Park Ridge - Construction of a new home or major renovation in Park Ridge requires review and approval by an A.rchitectural Review Board. Detailed residential design guidelines relate to architectural style, site layout, proportion/massing/scale, roofs, windows and doorways, exterior architectural elements, and surface materials and colors. The City's zoning ordinance also includes FAR, height, and setback requirements. Hinsdale - Notice of properties within 250 feet is required as part of any residential demolition permit so as to advise adjacent residents of the activity. The newly built homes arc controlled by the FAR and setback standards in the zoning ordinance. Winnetka & Lake Forest- Control of tear downs in Winnetka and Lake Forest arc related to protecting historic landmarks. The Winnetka ordinance primarily allows the village to delay demotion of a historic structure. The Lake Forest ordinance requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for any landmark or structure in a landmark district to be demolished or replaced, or for construction on a vacant lot in a historic district. A hearing is required before Lake Forest Preservation Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Standards for new homes include building height, design, and scale in reIationship to surrounding areas. Naperville - Naperville has established a Teardown Taskforce, which is currently studying the issue of teardowns. Thc emphasis of their work is on the bulk and size of new homes, rather than the appearance. Please pass this memorandum on to thc Village Board for their review and consideration at the September 26, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Community Development Staff will be in attendance to present these findings and answer any questions. Village of Mount PrOspect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM COONEY, JR., AICP, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL BLUE, DEPU'I~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING ISSUES FOR VILLAGE BOARD DISCUSSION Recently, several residential zoning issues before the Village Board have raised questions about how our Zoning Code addresses certain situations. This memorandum describes issues raised by 1) lot coverage in residential areas, 2) tear downs and additions, and 3) oversized garages. The memo has been prepared as background information for a Village Board Committee of the Whole meeting to be held on August 22, 2000. LOT COVERAGE Lot coverage is the portion of a property covered by some type of structure. The structures included in the calculation are defined though a municipality's zoning ordinance. In Mount Prospect, the standard of lot coverage includes items that are considered as impervious surfaces - those that do not allow water to flow through them. "Impervious Surface" is defined in both the zoning ordinance and development code as follows: "A surface that has been compacted or covered with a layer of material so that it is highly resistant to infiltration by storm water. Such surfaces include hard pavements, such as concrete, asphalt, brick, slate, gravel and boulders; wood decks and structures." Each zoning district in the Mount Prospect zoning ordinance includes permitted lot coverage. Text of the districts typically notes that no lot shall be developed with a total impervious surface exceeding the set ratio. Those ratios CR- Conservation Recreation 25% B 1 - Business Office 75% RX - Single Family Residence 35% B2 -Neighborhood Shopping 75% K1 - Single Family Residence 45% B3 - Community Shopping 75% RA - Single Family Residence 50% -B4 - Corridor Commercial 75% R2 - Attached S/F Residence 50% B5 - Central Commercial 100% R3 - Low Density Residence 50% OrR - OfficefResearch 80% R4 - Multi Family Residence 50% I 1 - Limited Industrial 75% R5 - Senior Citizen Residence 75% Why is lot coverage a concern? Lot coverage is regulated through Village codes for two reasons: 1) to limit stormwater runoff from any given site onto adjacent properties and 2) for aesthetic reasons, to limit the impact on a neighborhood or commercial area of excessive parts ora lot being covered by buildings and hard surfaces. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 2 Stormwater management is a longstanding issue in the Village. For obvious reasons, residents and property owners are very concerned about potential storm water impacts created by adjacent properties. Stormwater runoff is controlled by both the zoning and development codes. In short, water that arrives on a site Irainfall) must be contained on site or conveyed to part of the Village's stormwater management system - storm sewers, creeks, detention ponds, etc. Other regulations that control the impact of stormwater flow from one property to the next include requirements to point residential downspouts away from neighboring properties and requiring a permit for site work that changes the grade of a property. The Engineermg Division in the Public Works Department generally addresses these regulations, and their related inspections. The relationship of aesthetics to lot coverage is somewhat more subjective. However, the intent of lot coverage in this regard is to limit a property from being covered excessively with pavement and/or accessory structures. The thought ora residential front yard paved completely, or a rear yard completely covered by a shed, patio, deck, etc. makes for an extreme example, but does give a clear idea of why the regulation is needed. Likewise, the appearance of a commercial parking lot covered property line to property line with asphalt creates a negative streetscape alc~ng our commercial corridors. In most zoning ordinances, including ours, commercial parking lots must provide perimeter and interior landscaping. Residents' Needs Recent zoning cases and requests at the Building Division Customer Service Counter show that resident requests regarding lot coverage are: 1) requests to "remove and replace" existing patios, sidewalks, decks, etc. that are nonconforming with zoning requirements and 2) addition of new or larger patios, decks, etc. that bring the total lot coverage ratio over the maximum allowed. These rather frequent requests indicate that there is a common desire to increase the lot coverage ratio, or at least permit exceptions for inquiring residents. Properties that were developed in unincorporated areas and then annexed to the Village are often nonconforming as they relate to lot coverage. Likewise, some properties may have been developed prior to the establishment of current zoning standards. In any case, the existing conditions are permitted to remain as nonconforming structures per the zoning ordinance (Section 14.402). That section allows these nonconforming patios, driveways, and sidewalks to be replaced in their same location - even if they do not comply with setback regulations. However, they must meet applicable lot coverage requirements (14.402.B). This requirement has prevented a number of residents from removing patios, driveways, and sidewalks, and replacing them in the same location. In some cases the replacement is to correct an area that is severely cracked, sometimes to the point of being a trip hazard. Property owners seeking to install new or enlarged patios, sidewalks, or driveways, decks, etc. also run into the maximum lot coverage ratio - even when the improvements fionform to setback requirements. While the code is clear in defining the standard, residents are often disappointed that desired improvements to their property are limited. Where the desired lot coverage ratio is close to the permitted level and a hardship can be identified, residents occasionally pursue a zoning variation to allow them to exceed the standards. It should be noted that the same types of lot coverage issues arise for commercial development - even though in those cases the lot coverage ratio is higher to allow for needed parking and loading dock areas. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Neighboring Communities - Other communities address the question of lot coverage in a similar manner. However, they typically include buildings, accessory structures, and decks while excluding driveways, patios and sidewalks. This approach can be thought of as a "building coverage ratio". Those ratios in adjacent communities Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 3 range from 25% to 40%, depending on lot sizes. A survey summary and copy of survey questions are included in Attachment A. Credits for Certain Materials - Giving a credit for what might be called a "semi-pervious" surface has been suggested as a way to allow residents to exceed the lot coverage ratio. As an example, while the square footage of a concrete patio might be applied completely to the lot coverage ratio, only 80% of the square footage of a brick paver patio would be applied. This approach has merit in regard to the aesthetics issue of lot coverage, but would require consensus on how to set the ratios. However, this would be a subjective process and one that has room for many variations. For example, assume the Village decided that brick pavers are more attractive than concrete and should be considered at 80% of tbeir square footage for sidewalks, patios and driveways in regard to lot coverage. This would create legitimate questions regarding the aesthetic value of concrete that can be dyed and/or stamped to resemble brick pavers and like materials. It would also create the problem of tracking and regulating any future requests to go from a brick patio or sidewalk that received the credit back to concrete, which would require that less surface be installed. From the perspective of stormwater management, assigning a credit to seemingly less pervious surfaces is not an acceptable alternative for several reasons. I. Moderate to severe storms are analyzed in determining storm sewer sizes and detention basin designs. These storms are characterized by short durations and high intensities. The rate at which water will infiltxate into even a permeable surface is so slow as to be insignificant when compared te the rate that stormwater accumulates and runs off. For example, concrete is actually permeable - it soaks up water. However, the rate at which water soaks into concrete is too slow to have any impact on analyzing stormwater runoff. While the other materials defined as impervious absorb water quicker than concrete, the rate is still too slow to have a significant impact. 2. Water moving through and/or under a pervious pavement will undermine the pavement by washing away the fine particles in the base. Also, water acting in the freeze-thaw cycle can break up pavement. Consequently, all pavement types are installed in such a way as to minimize the amount of water infiltrating the pavement. Even the base below and aggregate between brick pavers is compacted (in part) to prevent the movement of water. 3. In many cases, an impervious layer is installed below the surface in question. For example, one common method of installing brick pavers is to place them over concrete to keep them level and in place. Another example is the installation of a layer of plastic below wood decks to prevent nuisance plant growth. Thus the level of impermeability is greater than would appear from the surface. Remove and Replace - Amending the Zoning Ordinance to permit residential property owners to remove and replace certain nonconforming structures would let them mak~e in-kind replacements of existing patios, driveways, sidewalks, and decks that met all zoning standards except for lot coverage~ As written now, the zoning ordinance prohibits residents from replacing those existing structures that are dilapidated and perhaps even unsafe. As for sidewalks and driveways, they could constitute a larger square footage over the standard and could be capped - for example allowed to exceed the permitted lot coverage ratio by no more than five percent. The standards under which these requests for small lot coverage variations were approved could be defined in the zoning ordinance or handled administratively through a "minor variation" process. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 4 TEAR DOWNS AND ADDITIONS The occurrence of"tear downs" and major additions in residential areas is becoming more and more common in the Chicago area. The masons for this type of development are very straightforward. As a community becomes more desirable and has less land is available for residential development, residents begin to invest in large additions and even tear down smaller, less desirable homes to construct new [often much larger) homes. Background Although part of the recent interest in major home investments clearly can be attributed to the strong economy, this practice was prevalent prior to current economic conditions, and can be expected to continue independent of the economy. The reason is that the aspects cfa community that attract residents are generally independent of the economy. Proximity to transportation, access to downtown Chicago and other regional hubs, quality schools, and desirable recreation facilities continue to be key draws. When the value of these considerations relative to other communities exceeds property costs, tear downs and major additions can be expected. While generally considered the sign of a very desirable community, this phenomenon also presents potential negative impacts on the residential character of the neighborhoods in which the tear downs and additions occur. Anyone who has driven through a neighborhood that has experienced tear downs has seen one or more large modem homes tucked in the middle of a block of older and smaller homes. In addition to difference in size, the homes are often constructed of different materials than the older structures (brick versus siding). These changes alter what designers refer to as the "rhythm" of street, giving the neighborhood character a different feel. The attached pictures (Attachment B) give an idea of some of these impacts as relate to building sizes and aesthetics. Mount Prospect's Experience The characteristics described above as making communities atWactive to tear downs are present in Mount Prospect. Of late, the Village has seen very few tear downs. Over the last 18 months, building permits have been issued for about 14 new single family homes (this does not include permits issued or under review for 22 townhomes at Dearborn Villas and five townhomes behind Mrs. P & Me). Of these i4, two were tear downs - one with a construction value over $500,000. Home additions make up a considerable portion of the residential construction activity in the Village. Permits were issued for 53 additions in 1999 and 46 for 2000 just through the end of June. Nearly 30 percent of those (27 of 99) were for second story additions. The additions, m some cases placed on rather modest homes, can reach well above $1.00,000 in cost. This level of investment can be seen as an indicator that the value of Mount Prospect's amenities is gaining on (or may have reached) l~and values. A summary of major residential home improvements in Mount Prospect since January, 1999 is provided in Attachment C. The location of homes building major additions is also interesting. Approximately three-quarters of all the residential additions built in the last 18 months are located within one mile of the downtown (by contrast new home construction is .seen wherever vacant property can be found in the Village). This is understandable since that area includes homes that are typically smaller, older, and lacking modem amenities. Discussions with residents putting on additions and porches show they are often families with children who have been in the Village for years and very much want to stay, but whose homes don't meet their needs. Residents Needs Some reasons for enlarging and/or remodeling homes include: Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 5 More space -Those with smaller homes need more space to accommodate growing families. They may build an addition or another rehab project, such as a finished basement or three-season room. Modern Space - People are adding modern amenities to older homes. Since the beginning of 1999, permits have been issued to remodel 48 bathroom and 55 kitchen projects. Aesthetics - While not a primary motivation for undertaking an addition, aesthetics do come into play. A number of those building additions included a front porch to help "tie together" the existing house and addition. Approaches to Addressing the Issue By amending the zoning ordinance to include front porches extending into the front yard as a conditional use, Mount Prospect has begun dealing with the issue of how additions impact neighborhood character. This approach allows each porch to be reviewed by Village officials on a case by case base. Furthermore, it has specific standards by which to approve the conditional use (one of which ts impact on the neighborhood) and allows conditions to be placed on the approval. At the time of the amendment both the Zoning Board and Village Board expressed their desire to review these items on a case by case basis to allow for consideration of possible impacts on neighborhood character. Other communities have tried various methods to bring this tear down craze under control. While tear downs have not become common in the Village, all the ingredients are in place for them to occur. Also, many of the same neighborhood impacts created by tear downs can also result from large additions. Some of the alternatives for addressing those issues, as used by other communities are described below: Neighboring Communities- The attached survey of adjacent communities shows that tear downs have not been a big issue in other towns, except for Park Ridge (which had 67 last year) and to a lesser extent Des Haines. Most other towns in the survey had fewer additions than Mount Prospect (some could not separate out data as to how many residential permits were specifically for additions). Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Most zoning ordinances in adjacent communities include a floor area ratio (FAR) standard. Similar to lot coverage, FAR limits the square footage of structures as a function of lot size. It differs from lot coverage in that FAR includes total square footage of all floors of a structure, but does not necessarily include accessory structures like sheds or garages. The intent of this approach is to limit the size of new structures so that they are more in character with the surrounding neighborhood. It does not prevent a larger new house from going up in an area, but can limit how much larger it is than other homes. Architectural Review - The concern of new homes and/or additions can be addressed through the process of architectural review, either through zoning standards or formal review. Park Ridge uses an Architectural Review Board to review and approve tear downs and additions that are visible from the street. Last year, that group reviewed all 67 tear downs and about half of the City's_200 additions. This is a controversial aspect of development review. It can add time and cost to a residential project and some feel it is not within the purview of a local municipality to regulate appearance. Where applied best, the architectural review process is based on clearly identifiable standards and avoids subjective consideration of what is considered attractive. Plane of Light- To address the problem of large and tall homes seeming more "massive", a few communities employ a "Plane of Light" standard. This requirement controls the height of the building by extending an imaginary line at a predetermined angle from the property line - as shown in the figure. This control requires that the front of the house "step back" to minimize the impact of height. ZoningIssues August 15,2000 Page 6 OVERSIZED GARAGES The typical garage is more than just a home for cars. They are used for storage of household items, children's toys, and recreational vehicles from bicycles to boats. This expanding use of garages has, not surprisingly, has led to residents' needs for larger garages. In mostly built up communities like Mount Prospect, existing garages are often replaced with larger ones. In addition, many homes built without garages are adding them (along with a driveway). These new and potentially large garages often occur on smaller lots and raise questions of how to balance residents' need for extra space with potential impacts on the neighbors. Background The Village Zoning Ordinance allows construction of detached garages up to 600 square feet on residential properties. The garages must also meet yard setback requirements of five feet from interior side or rear lot lines (three'feet for lots that are equal to or less than 55 feet wide). Detached garages designed to house more than two motor vehicles' must be approved as a conditional use in the single family zoning districts (attached three car garages are p~rmitted in the residential districts). The intent of these collective controls is to minimize the potential impact of large garages on adjacent residences. New garages have been a very common home improvement in Mount Prospect. Since the beginning of 1999, forty-nine permits have been issued for new garages (half of them in the last six months). Over the past two years the Village has received four variation requests for oversized garages. Those requests have ranged in size from 672 square feet to 768 square feet. The applicants have cited the need for additional room in the garage for storing household items and recreational vehicles, or having space for a workbench. Each of the four variation requests was ultimately approved - although in two cases the approval was for less square footage than requested. Recent cases are summarized in the chart below. In each case, the Zoning Board and Village Board took note of site specific conditions in considering their findings and determining the appropriate size for the garage. Recent Oversized Garage Requests Cases Size Requested Size Approved Notes ZBA 30-97 748 748 Approved as ZBA final ZBA 12-99 768 720 Approved by Village Board ZBA 35-99 720 672 Approved by Village Board ZBA 10-2000 672 672 Approved by Village Board on Appeal ZBA 22-2000 832 720 Approved as ZBA final Issues wath Oversazed Garages As the Village's experience in approving garages has shown, it is hard to define a "typical" garage. However, some indusla3t standards are useful for this discussion. A basic two-car garage about 528 square feet - 22 feet wide by 24 feet deep (a 22 foot deep garage is possible but not as desirable by most). At 600 square feet, the two car garage provides room adjacent to the vehicles for limited storage. Garages over 600 are large enough to accommodate three cars at sizes as small as 22x28 (616 square feet), with 24x30 (720 square feet) more desirable. Amount of room needed for vehicles and storage aside, how big a structure to allow is a basic zoning issue with garages. The permissible size of a garage will also be affected by bulk standards like yard set backs and lot coverage ratio. How the garage fits on a property is also a function of lot size. Even with these controls, it is possible to construct a garage that may be considered out of scale with the existing home and/or neighborhood. Another zoning issue related to large garages ts that they create a greater opportunity to operate a home occupation, although it could certainly be a problem with a garage of 600 square feet or less. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 7 Answering the question of"What is too big?" must also be understood to also have a subjective component. Of the zoning cases listed above, minutes indicate few objections from adjacent property owners. Those that did object were concerned about stormwater runoffrather than the size of the garage. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Other Communities- The survey of surrounding communities shows a maximum garage size of between 700 and 720 square feet. In some instances, that maximum includes a limit on the total percent of lot or rear yard coverage. Some communities have other controls on use of the garages that include not operating a business out of that garage, no bathrooms, no phones or machinery, and no living space. With a 600 square foot maximum, the Mount Prospect standard is generally smaller than nearby communities by about 100 square feet. Variations - Less than ten percent of all building permits for garages go through the variation request process. Those requests for oversized garages have been considered by the ZBA and Village Board based on the conditions of the specific property and the potential impact on the neighborhood character and adjacent properties. As noted earlier, those specific site conditions have in some cases led to approval of a smaller garage structure than was requested. Should it so choose, the Village Board/ZBA could continue to address the oversized garage requests in this manner. The disadvantage to this process (as addressed last year with front porches encroaching into the front yard) is that the standard for variation requires a specific finding of hardship. As such, oversized garage requests typically receive a denial recommendation from staff and leave the ZBA/Village Board looking to identify that particular hardship on the site. Oversized garages below a certain size could also be treated as minor variations and handled administratively - as described in the lot coverage discussion. Conditional Use - Oversized garages could be treated as Conditional Uses. This is how the Village addresses detached garages that are specifically designed for more than two cars and for unenclosed porches in the front yard setback. This approach would follow essentially the same zoning process (from the applicant's perspective) as a variation, but would allow the standard of approval to be based firmly on the character of the area and potential impacts on neighbors. As with three car garages and porches, the emphasis would be on the case by case consideration of the request. CONCLUSION This memorandum has provided a summary of current zoning issues that face the Village and provides alternative methods to address them if so desired by the Village Board. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their August 22nd Committee of the Whole meeting. Staff will be present at this meeting to further discuss this matter. Attachment B Tear Down Examples - Building Aesthetics Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page I 1 Attachment C Residential Construction in Mount Prospect Since the start of 1999 the Village's Building Division has maintained detailed records regarding building permit applications requiring plan review (as opposed to those done as walk-through permits). A summary of major residential construction and remodeling permits for the past 18 months is shown below. Type of Permit 1999 2000 (through June) Additions 53 46 Bathrooms 30 18 Basements 9 15 Decks 36 32 Garages 25 24 Kitchens 33 22 Lawn sprinklers 33 10 New Homes 18 17 Pools 9 12 Sun rooms 14 9 Additional Materials I. Daily Herald Article about trends in suburban tear downs (7/14/00) 2. Mount Prospect Residential Zoning District Standards for RX, RI, and PA. /mb H:\GEN~PLNG~onin$¢owmemo.doc ozone Tear down trend moxang deeper into Chicago and area suburbs Is the home you're living in u can- and is likely to be torn down." especially in more upscale COm- didate for demolition? Some homes escape total demo- munities, and they may not b Whether they are too dilapidated Iition becuuse they have enough worth much more than the value of or too small to suit contemporary appeal to merit major remodelings the lot on which they stand. tastes, thousands of homes across as new owners seek to add square · E.'dsting local zoning laws per. the Chicago area are on the eh- footage and luxury features to yes- mit a home of at least 3,500 square dangered list as a result of the cur- teryear's modest dwellings, feet to be built on your lot. The big- rent housing boom. "In Chicago's Lincoln Park corn- ger the home allow,,d by code, the Demand for properties that can munity, I've seen buyers pay more tempting ti. site is to a be torn down to make way for new $600,000 for an old house, and then builder. home construction has been well do a gut rehab," says Roger Lantt · The house is a ranch, Cape documented over thelast fewyears of RE/MA.X Exclusive Properties Cod or of a nondescript style. in such communities as Hinsdale, on the Near North Side. Homes built from the lg30s Winnetka, Glencoe, Lincoln Park "In Western Springs, many small- through the 1960s often fall in this ap.d Lake View. er homes are being torn down. but category and are viewed as tear- ' Now, according to an informal in LaGrange, you see more rehab- down candidates. Many lack the survey of top RE/MAX sales associ- bing," says Gary Barnes of design appeal and interior detsliing ales in the Chicago area, the phc- RE/MAX Properties, Western that a comparable home built in nomenOn has spread, engulfingar- Springs. 1910 might offer. ess such as Arlington Heights, "In LaGeange you find more · The house has an exterior of Deerfield, Skokie, Flossmoor and homes with brick or stone exteriors siding or stucco, rather than brick LaGrange, along with a large area and architectural interest. In West- or stone, Brick or stone homes are of Chicsgoitself ern Springs. there are more frame good candidates for rehab and For examFle, Kathy Barkulis of and stucco houses that don't hold expansion, rather than demolition. RE/MAX Suburban, Arlington up as well if they are not main- Frame and stucco houses face Heights, says, '!We find builders tained over time. We're seeing tear more uncertain futures. are looking aggressively for homes downs in Western Springs that are · The home is in a highly deSir- that they can purchase and demdi- selling in the range of $275,000 to able location, such as within waLk- ish. In orr cormrlunity right now, a $375,000." ing distance of a commuter train tear down can be any home priced Much the same is true in the city, station or in a very upscale neigh- , reliable scroll design under $225,000, and they are being says Lautt, There, brick homes or borhood. I/so, and if its size or con- replaced by much larger homes two-flats, no matter what their con- dition doesn't measure up to a typi- selling for $750,000 or more. Typi- dition, are usually spared demoli- cai home in the area, someone may ed. stamped envelope to rally, these new homes are about lion even if the interior is a mess. see it as a tear-down candidate. )utley. c/o Daily Herald, 3,500 square feet with four bed- Rundown frame structures, on the · The house has a serious struc- algreen Drive, Cincinnati, rooms, three baths and a three-car other hand, tend to attract bulldoz- rural, p. roblem. If it does, the cost: of t or download at www.dul- garage." ers. repau'mg the situation may be such Along the North Shore, the de- How can you tell if your old and that a tear-down makes solid eco- as considering buying 'a mand for tear downs is even more relatively modest house is a tear- nomic sense. .ssage chair instead of intense, according to Allyson Hoff-. down candidate? Check for these · Vacant lots are in short supply ~ the money at the mas- man of RE/MAX North, North- signs: in the area. In some hot real estate rapist. Those chairs seem brook. · More than one home has been markets, like Chicago's Near South t tot of motors in them. Do "The tear-down phenomenon has torn down and rebuilt within four Side and Ravenswood area, old a lot of electricity to oper- been going on along the North blocks in the last year. This may industrial and commercial sites uzi G. Shore for a long time, but there has indicate that builders are seeking have been available to satisfy the 30 per hour for a therapist, been a radical increase in the last tear-down candidates in your demand for new construction. ~assage chair can quickly three to five years as the prices of neighborhood. Other areas in both city and sub- ts initial cost, A.s you men- houses andlotshas soared. · The house is under 2,000 urbs lack the safety valve that hese real massage chairs Recently a house on a one-acre square feet in size. Homes that vacant land provides, which ny motors for a true mas- lot in Deerfield sold for $1 million small tend to have limited appeal, encourages tear doves. just vibrators to relax. m Interactive Health mas- ir and it uses only 60 watts city.. This costs less than a ~r hour used, The "human · hnologies' {HTT) use sev. It'sthe Sm. artest · ide various massage James Dulley c/o the · raid. ~906 Royalgreen toWn ,, mortgage . y Herald ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CMAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WHEREAS, the Petitioner (Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect) have filed an application for certain text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend vadous regulations; and WHEREAS, a Public Headng was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject of ZBA Case No. 04-01, before the Zoning Board of Appeals on January 25, 2001, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10'h day of January, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings and positive recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have given consideration to the requests being the subject of ZBA 04-01. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: ~: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: Section 14.201 entitled "ORGANIZATION" of Chapter 14, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting said Section in its entirety and substituting therefor the following new Section 14.201, so that hereafter said Section 14.201 shall be and read as follows: "14.201: ORGANIZATION: The administration of this Chapter is hereby vested in the following elected and appointed Boards and professional staff: · Village Board of Trustees · Zoning Board of Appeals · Director of Community Development The administrative functions of this Chapter are as follows: ·Zoning compliance reviews · issuance of certificates of occupancy · Variations · Text and map amendments · Appeals · Conditional uses · Public headngs · Fees and penalties · Minor variations' Chapter 14 Page 2/6 SECTION THREE: Subsection 14.202.C.4 entitled "Director of Community Development" of Chapter 14, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting said Subsection in its entirety and substituting therefor the following new Subsection 14.202.C.4, so that hereafter said Subsection shall be and read as follows: "4. Maintain possession of appropriate records and files pertaining to the Zoning Ordinance, including, but not limited to, zoning maps, amendments, conditional uses, variations, appeals and minor variations." SECTION FOUR: Subsection 14.14.202,C. entitled "Director of Community Development" of Chapter 14, as amended~ is hereby further amended by adding a new Subsection 14.202.C.9, which shall read as follows: "9. Conduct administrative hearings and make final determinations on minor variations." SECTION FIVE: Subsections 14.203.C.1, 14.203.C.2, 14.203.C.3, and 14.203.C.4 of Chapter 14, as amended, are hereby further amended by deleting said sections in their entirety, and adding new Sections 14.203.C.1, 14.203.C.2, 14.203.C.3 and 14.203.C. 4 which shall be and read as follows: "1. Intent: Variations shall be granted or recommended for approval only where the Zoning Board of Appeals, or in the case of minor variations, the Director of Community Development, makes findings of fact in accordance with the standards set forth in this Chapter, and further finds that the regulations of this Chapter will impose practical difficulties or particular hardships on the petitioner in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this Chapter. 2. Authority: The Director of Community Development may, after an administrative hearing, grant a minor variation as provided in this Chapter. The Zoning Board of Appeals may, after a public hearing, grant or recommend for approval a variation in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter. 3. Initiation: An application for a minor variation or variation may be made by any person, firm, other entity, corporation, or by any governmental entity requesting or intending to request application for a building permit. 4. Filing Of Applications: An application for a minor variation or variation shall be filed with the Director of Community Development on forms obtained from the Community Development Department. Such form shall include all information necessary for processing the request, including but not limited to a statement on specific hardship, the extent of variation requested, legal description of subject property, survey, site plan, appropriate proof of ownership, or proof of authority. The application form may be revised from time to time. The application shall be filed with the appropriate fee in an amount established by the Board of Trustees." Chapter 14 Page 3/6 SECTION SIX: Section 14.202. entitled "ADMINISTRATIVE BODIES AND SPECIFIC DUTIES" of Chapter 14, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new Section 14.202.B.2, which shall read as follows: "2. To hear and decide as final administrative authority, all petitions for fence variations and variations which do not exceed twenty five percent (25%) of any requirement of this Chapter, except for minor variations as described in this Section." SECTION SEVEN: Section 14.203 of Chapter 14, as amended, is hereby further amended by inserting a new Subsection 14.203.C.ll entitled "Minor Variation" in its entirety, and renumbering existing Subsections 14.203.C. 11, 14.203.C;12, and 14.203.13 accordingly: "14.203.C.11 Minor Variations: a. Action By Director of Community Development: The Director of Community Development shall hear and decide as final administrative authority, all petitions for minor variations for existing nonconforming accessory structures that: 1. Will be replaced with the same type of structure, 2. extend into no more than 40% of the required interior setback, 3. extend into no more than 10% of the rear yard setback or 4. where the applicable lot coverage does not exceed the maximum permitted for that zoning district by more than 10%. b. In all petitions for Minor Variations, the Director of Community Development shall make findings of fact based on the petition and public input according to the following standards: 1) Whether the regulation from which relief is sought was in existence when the applicant either purchased or improved the property. 2) Whether the applicant changed the property in some way so as to create the nonconformity. 3) Whether the requested relief will be out of character with the neighborhood. 4) Whether there are other structures within the same Zoning District, which either violate or have received a variation from the same regulation. 5) Whether the negative impact on the applicant, in not being able to use the property in the specific manner requested substantially outweighs any negative impact on the adjacent properties if the variation is granted. 6) Whether the request is the minimum necessary to use the property in a manner reasonably similar to other uses in the neighborhood. 7) Whether a reasonable alternative is consistent with the expressed terms of the Zoning Ordinance. Chapter 14 Page 4/6 c. Administrative Hearings shall be held for minor variations only and in compliance with the previsions as described in this Section. 1) Upon receipt of an application for a minor variation, the Director of Community Development shall review the application for completeness and assign a case number to the request. 2) For all applications for a minor variation, the applicant shall provide to the Department of Community Development a list of all owners of record of properly lying within fifty feet (50'), exclusive of right-of-way width, of the parcel subject to the public hearing. The applicant shall attest in writing that the list of property owners is true and accurate. The applicant must provide a signed administrative notice by each property owner lying within 50-feet of the property or provide evidence that they have been notified of the minor variation request and hearing by Certified Mail. 3) An administrative notice shall contain the case number assigned to the application, the address of the property, a brief statement on the nature ef the minor variation, the name and address of the property owner, the petitioner and their legal representative, and the date, time and location of the administrative hearing. 4) For all applications for a minor variation, the Director of Community Development shall also cause one or more signs to be posted on the property, which is the subject of the administrative hearing. 5) The number and location of signs shall be determined by the Director of Community Development. 6) The sign must be a minimum of thirty inches by thirty inches (30" x 30") in size, having letters a minimum of two inches (2") high, and contain the foltowing information: a. The fact that an administrative hearing that affects the subject property will be held, with direction to interested members of the general public to call the office of the Community Development Director for further information concerning date, time and place and subject matter of said administrative hearing. b. Any interested person may appear and be heard at the hearing and such appearance may be made in person, by agent (if a corporation), or in writing. d. Appeal Of Director of Community Development Decision ~ Any individual may file an appeal of the decision of the Director of Community Development regarding a minor variation with the Zoning Board of Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Director of Community Development within five (5) calendar days of the Director's decision." Chapter 14 Page 516 ~: Section 14.805, as amended, is hereby further amended by including the following Subsection 14.805.E, and said Subsection shall be and read as follows: "E. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): FAR shall not exceed a .35 FAR." ~E_C_T_LO__.N__~_~: Sections 14.905, 14.1005, 14.1105, and 14.1205, as amended, are hereby further amended by including the following Subsections 14.905.E, 14.1005.E, 14.1105.F, and 14.1205.F, and said Subsections shall be and read as follows: "Floor Area Ratio (FAR): FAR shall not exceed .5" SECTION TEN: Subsection 14.306.B.1, entitled "Maximum Size" as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting said subsection in its entirety and substituting therefor the following new Subsection 14.306.B.1 so that hereafter said Subsection shall be and read as follows: "1. Maximum Size: Permitted accessory buildings used as detached private garages shall be no larger than six-hundred seventy two (672) square feet. No accessory building used as a storage shed shall be larger than one hundred-twenty (120) square feet." SECTION ELEVEN: Subsections 14.803.A, 14.903.A, and 14.1103.A, entitled "CONDITIONAL USES" as amended, are hereby fruther amended by deleting the following text from each Subsection: "Detached garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles." SECTION T~NELVE: Subsection 14.1003.A, entitled "CONDITIONAL USES," as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the following text from said Subsection: "Garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles." SECTION THIRTEEN: Section 14.306, entitled "ACCESSORY STRUCTURES," as amended, is hereby further amended by adding a new Subsection 14.306.A.5, which shall be and read as follows: "5. Number of Accessory Structures: The maximum number of accessory structures shall not exceed two such structures per zoning lot. Swimming pools are exempt from the total number of accessory structures2 SECTION FOURTEEN: Subsection 14.304.D., entitled "Construction," as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting paragraph 14.304.D.2.a in its entirety, and substituting therefor the following new paragraph 14.304.D.2.a. so that hereafter said paragraph shall be and read as follows: "2. Construction: a. Wood and chain link fences shall be constructed so that only a smooth finished side faces an abutting lot or road." Chapter 14 Page 6/6 SECTION FIFTEEN: Subsections 14.1504.A., 14.1604.A., 14.1704.A., 14.1804.A., 14;2004,A., and 14.2104.B., entitled "BULK REGULATIONS" of Chapter 14, as amended, are hereby further amended by deleting the following text from each Subsection: "and parking lots". SECTION SIXTEEN: Section 14.2401 entitled "Definitions" as amended, is hereby further amended by including, in proper sequence, the following definitions: "FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR): The ratio of the total floor area of a single family dwelling and garage (except basement) to the area of the lot on which the building is built." "MINOR VARIATION: Administrative relief from certain setback and lot coverage requirements when an existing nonconforming structure is being replaced. E TION SEVENTEE : This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2001. Gerald L. Farley Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk G:\GEN\Ch 14 TextAmendFeb2001- REVISED.doc Mount Prospect Public Works Department iNTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS VILLAGE CLERK VELMA LOWE FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2001 SUBJECT: DEARBORN VILLAS ALGONQUIN ROAD Attached please find the Village Board Approval and Acceptance form for the subject project. The project has been satisfactorily completed and I recommend approval and acceptance of this project. Please place this in line for inclusion at the February 20, 2001 Village Board Meeting. JAW x:\files\engineer\dev~brdacc\d rborn bd mm VILLAGE BOARD ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AND/OR PRIVATE IMPROVEMENT APPROVAL PROJECT: Dearbom Villas LOCATION: Algonquin Road DATE: February 7~ 2001 STAFF APPROVAL ENGINEERING DRAWINGS APPROVED: ~ ENGINEER PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECEIVED: ~ CLERK PLAT OF SUBDIVISION RECORDED: CLERK AS BUILT PLANS REVIEWED AND APPROVED: ,,t ENGINEER PUBLIC'WORKS APPROVAL: ~ PUB.WKS.DIR. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: COMIVI.DEV.DIR. FIRE DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: FIRE PREVENTION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR ACCEPTANCE BY VILLAGE WATER MAIN N/A SANITARY SEWER N/A STORM SEWER N/A ROADWAYS N/A SIDEWALKS N/A STREET REGULATORY SIGNS N/A STREET LIGHTS # N/A PARKWAY TREES # 3 PARKWAY LANDSCAPING Cash escrow posted RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS N/A PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS APPROVED WATER MAIN 675 L.F. - 8" SANITARY SEWER I~290 L.F. - 8" STORM SEWER 1~470 L.F. - 12" / 402 L.F. - 15" / 16 L.F. 18" ROADWAY Complete SIDEWALK Complete SITE LIGHTING Complete LANDSCAPING Cash escrow posted RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS Complete APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, THIS DAY OF ., 2001. Village Clerk Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: FORESTRY / GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT t. ~IZ~Io[ DATE: FEBRUARY 13,2001 SUBJECT: TREE TRIMMING BID RESULTS BACKGROUND Sealed bids for parkway tree trimming were opened on February 8,2001. Prices were sought for trimming trees in areas due for trimming on our five-year cycle. As in the past, we also sought prices for emergency tree work in the event ora major storm. Finally, we also included a provision which will allow us to extend the contract for a second year at the same bid prices, if both the contractor and Village agree. BID RESULTS Eleven invitational bids were mailed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. Five bids were received. The bid results for trimming 4,790 trees are as follows: R.W. Hendricksen Co. $131,810.00 B. Haney and Sons $135,453.00 Autumn Tree Experts $146,117.40 Asplundh Tree Experts $158,077.91 Kramer Tree Specialists $267,597.50 BID DISCUSSION Our specifications asked for bid prices to trim 4,790 trees now due for trimming as per the attached map. However, we reserved the right to reduce the number of trees trimmed so as not to exceed allocated funds. Therefore we plan to defer until 2002, some of the trees in Trim Area ~4 (north of Rand Road and West of Elmhurst Road), in order to remain within the budgeted amount. BID RECOMMENDATION The low bidder, Robert W. Hendricksen Co., has held our tree trimming contract since 1994 and has performed satisfactorily. In the 2001 budget, $115.000.00 has been allocated for parkway tree trimming (Page 226 Acct. # 0015203-540730). I recommend award of a contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Robert W. Hendricksen Co., in an amount not to exceed $115,000.00. I concur, f~n R. An(~ler X:FILES/FORESTRY/WORD/2001/TRiM-BID-REC.DOC Village of Mount Prospect 200I Proposed Tree Trimming Areas Seminole Ln 1 Camp McDonald Rd 2 Euclid Ay 4.1 4.2 3 5.3 Kensington Center for Business 7.2 5.4 Central Rd 16.1 16.~ 8 ~ 15.1 IJmcoln St Lincoln St ~ 15 l~',?r C~'eek 15.2 11 i0 Golf Rd 14 12 ~ 2001 Proposed Tree Trimming Areas FORESTRY/GROUNDS 1 3 ,~AS & SUB AREAS Mount Prospect PubliC Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS '~ FROM: FORESTRY/GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 14, 2001 SUBJECT: BID RESULTS - TREE REMOVALS BACKGROUND Sealed bids for parkway tree removals were opened on February 8,2001. This contract requires removal of dead, dying or structurally ansound parkway trees to gronnd level. BID RESULTS Ten invitational bids were mailed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. Four bids were received. Bid results are as follows: R.W. Hendricksen Co. $24,942.00 B. Haney and Sons, Inc. $32,100.56 Autumn Tree Experts $40,866.00 Kramer Tree Specialists $47,623.40 DISCUSSION The bid specifications identified 62 trees scheduled for removal at the time the specifications were prepared. However, the specifications were written to allow us to add additional trees throughout the year, if desired, up to the mount budgeted. BID RECOMMENDATION The low bidder, Robert W. Hendricksen, Co., has worked for us in the past. They have satisfactorily performed numerous tree removals throughout the Village and have trimmed trees on our cyclical trimming contract since 1994. There is $59,000.00 allocated for contractual tree removal in the 2001 budget (Page 226, Account #0015203-540725). I recommend award of this contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Robert W. Hendricksen, Co., in an amount not to exceed $59,000.00. ~%a'fidy Clark / I concur: Gle~ Director of Public Works X:FILESkFORESTRY~WORD~200 IXREM-RECMD.DOC Mount,Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: FORESTRY/GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001 SUBJECT: BID RESULTS - SI-IADE TREE PLANTING BACKGROLrb/D On February 8, 2001, sealed bids were opened for the provision and installation of parkway trees. As in the past, bid prices were sought for 2-1/2" trees for our Cost Share planting pro- gram, 1-1/2" trees for reforestation, and larger trees for accident replacements. Due to the on- going shortage of nursery stock, this year we also asked for quotes on 2" trees in case not enough 2-1/2" trees would be available to fill our order. We also asked bidders to quote prices for "en- hanced planting sites" - larger pits with amended backfill - which we may order on a small num- ber of trees being planted in very poor soil. Bid prices are good through December, 2001. BID RESULTS Six invitational bids were mailed and a notice to bidders was published in a local newspaper. Three bids were received. Bid results are shown on the attachment. It should be noted that no one bidder submitted the low price on all sizes/species requested. The darkened prices on the attachment designate the lowest unit cost for each particular size and species of tree. DISCUSSION As you may recall, in 2000 we deviated from our traditional "combined" contract and experi- mented with a "two-contract" approach. Instead of having a nursery both furnish and plant the trees, in 2000 we instead purchased trees from seven different nurseries and hired another contractor to deliver and plant them. We learned from this experiment that the two-contract approach is extremely time consuming and difficult to coordinate. Although all trees were eventually properly planted, we spent countless hours travelling to the nurseries and trying to coordinate the schedules of all the entities in- volved. We concluded that our traditional combined contract is more cost:effective and thus are recommending returning to that approach this year. At this time we do not know the exact quantity, sizes and species we will need to order during the coming year. However, from the bid results it appears that there will be enough trees avail- able to supply our regular planting programs. ID RECOMMENDATION There is a total of $140,068.00 in various tree planting accounts in the 2001 budget: On Page 226, #0015203-540710 (Reforestation), 0015203-540715 (Tree Replacement - Village), O015203-540720 (Tree Replacement - Shared Cost), and on page 227, 0015204-540714 (Tree Replacement - Public Property). I recommend splitting the contract award among B-C Landscape, Arthur Weiler Inc. and Mill Creek Nursery. Total expenditures for all purchases will not exceed $140,068.00 and each tree will be ordered from the lowest bidder for that particular size and species. Sandy Clark I concur: ~_ Director of Public Works Attached X:FILES~FOR~STRY~WORD~2001 ~PLT-RECMD.DOC Bid Results - Shade Tree Furnishing and Planting Bid Opening February 8, 2001 · / Available I Available I I Available Spectas Oiametel1 Bidder I Q.anti I Bidder I Quantit7 I Bidder I Quaetl / ' _ __ ~ B.C. Landsca:-e Weller Nume _ Mill Cre~k Nurse~ Purpleblow Maple 2;5." - -- ~-reencolumn Black Maple 2;5." o'°'l II II ! Crimson King Nonvay Maple 2.5" -o o 0 o _ __ Emerald Queen or Emerald Luster Norway Maple 2;5." '/~:~;','0 : : -- Columnar Norway Maple ~2 ~ -- Green Mountain Sugar Maple 2~,5." , i10.. __ · ega sugar Maple Black Alder Forest Prince Serviceberry or A. Bdllance (tree form) Amedcan Hornbeam 2;5." -~ 0 10 ! ~ -- Bid Results - Shade Tree Furnishing and Planting Bid Opening February 8, 2001 Available Available Available Species Bidder Bidder Bidder E Mill Turkish Filbert American Yellowwood (tree form) Thomless Cockspur Hawthorn $160.00 25 $235.00 45 Purple Beech Purple! Kleinburg, Skyline or Windy City White Ash 25 20 Summit or Patmore Green Ash $250.O0 15 $235.00 40 $280.00 Cimmaron Ash $310.00 5 $250.00 20 $270.00 25 Blue Ash Autumn Gold Ginkgo i Princeton sentry Ginkgo Skyline or Shademaster Honeylocust $260.00 25 t5 <entucky Coffee Tree 10 Tuliptree Sentinel Crabapple (tree form) White Angel, Donald Wyman, or Ormiston Roy Crabapple X:FILES/FORE STRY/EXCEIJ2001/PLT-SHT-R SLT. XLS 2 Bid Results - Shade Tree Furnishing and Planting Bid Opening February 8, 2001 · / Available Available I Available Species Dlamete~ Bidder I Quantity Bidder I Quantity Bidder Quantity · . / B.C. LandscaPe Weiier Numery Mill Creek Nursery a~dams Crabapple (tree form) 2.,5. / I I / / Dawn RedWood . 2.5" ' ~ ~ ~ __ __ IrOnwood (Hophombeam) 2.5" Bloodgood London Planetree :ii~l I I I I ~~1.5" __ __ Redspire Callery Pear 2;5." '. I I I I __ ~ _ . 1,5" __ ;hanticleer or Cleveland Select Calle~y Pear 2.5" ~ ~ ~ ~ . __ ~ 1.5' '~ ~ e $200.00 20 $230,00 30 ~oo. Oak 2;~.' ' "" ' __ 2" ___ . -- __ __. ~i,° -- ..... ~. ',', ' ,~5o`0o ~o 1~" ''" ' ' X:FILES/FORESTRY/EXCEL~001/PLT-SHT-RSLT.XLS Bid Results - Shade Tree Furnishing and Planting Bid Opening February 8, 2001 / I Available I ' I Available I I Available Species Diameter~ Bidder I QuantityI Bidder I QuantityI Bidder I Quantity ~ B.C.I..andsca · WellerNurse Mill Creek._Numery English Oak Ivory Silk Tree Lilac (tree form) China Snow Tree Lilac (tree form) ~ ~ . __ Greenspira Littleleaf Linden 1.5" i ', ~ e~ e $200.00 25 __ _ __ Redmond Linden 2.5" __ _ __ 6240.00 15 Steding Silver Linden Douglas American Linden ~'~" I I I L I Homestead E,m ~ ~ -~ t 4.5" I I I t I Misc. and Larger Trees ~g Norway Maple 4 Emerald Queen Norway Maple 4 Columnar Norway Maple 5 Sugar Maple Autumn Purple, Kleinburg, Skyline or Windy City White Ash Summit Green Ash X:FILE$IFORESTRYIEXCELr2OOIlPLT-SHT-RSLT.XLS 4 Bid Results - Shade Tree Furnishing and Planting Bid Opening Februa~ 8, 2001 / I Available I I Available I I Available SpeCies Dlametel1 Bidder I quantityI Bidder I ctuantltyI BidderI Quantity  Mill Blue Ash Skyline or Shademaster Honeylocust Bradford or Autumn Blaze Callery Pear Redspire or Chanticleer Callery Pear Greenspire Litfleleaf Linden Silver Linden Additional Cost Per Tree for Enhanced Planting Sites BCL WEILER MILL CREEK 1-1/2" tree $30.00 $40.00 $75.00 2" tree $40.00 $60.00 $150,00 2-1/2" tree $60.00 $75,00 $250.00 3" tree $80.00 $100,00 ¢" tree $125,00 $150.00 5" tree na $200.00 Additions by B.C. Landscape N0dhem Catalpa $220.00 Northern Catalpa 2.5" $270.00 Substitutions "Fall Festival" White Ash " "Sherwood Glen" Green Ash .... Mancana" ASh ..... New Bradford" Callery Pear X:FILESIFORESTRYIEXCE[J2OOIlPLT-SHT-RSLT.XLS Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: FORESTRY/GROUNDS SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 13, 2001 SUBJECT: TREE RISK MANAGEMENT CONTRACT I am requesting that the Village Board consider award of a Tree Risk Management Contract to Natural Path Forestry Consultants, Inc. The cost of this contract wilt be partially reimbursed with funds from a grant we obtained from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. I am asking that this re, quest be considered at the February 20, 2001 Village Board meeting. BACKGROUND As explained further in the attached "Request for Proposals", in 1994 the Village used grant funding to begin a formalized tree risk management program. Since then, we have assessed the structural integrity of more than 300 large (over 24" diameter) trees each year. We have then scheduled each for special pruning, cabling, periodic reassessment or removal, as appropriate. I believe the program has been very successful in terms of improving the condition of our park- way tree population and increasing public safety. However, it has become increasingly cumber- some and time-consuming to manage as more and more of our trees grow to large sizes. We have now moved through the Village once with this program, but additional trees need assessment each year as they grow into the larger size classes. I feel it is appropriate at this time to thoroughly re- view the tree risk management program, and consider whether any modifications should be made. t want to determine whether we can reduce the amount of time and resources spent on the pro- gram and still provide a reasonable level of care. REQIIEST FOR PROPOSALS I sent a Request for Proposals only to Natural Path Forestry Consultants, Inc. of Missoula, Mon- tana. I feel strongly that their combination of expertise plus first-hand knowledge of Mount Pros- pect's tree risk program makes them the only logical choice. Natural Path's owner, Mark Dunte- mann, has published many documents, made over thirty presentations, and conducted workshops throughout the country about tree risk management practices. Additionally, Mr. Duntemann helped us with the initial development of our program, conducted tree risk assessment on about 600 of our trees, and developed the TRiM software we use to track our tree risk assessments. He continues to modify the program at no charge to help make it more useful to us. Natural Path has submitted a very thorough proposal describing the methodology he will use if awarded the contract. This includes a three-day on-site visit, meetings with Forestry staft~ the illage Attorney and Finance Director, a poll of other municipalities, review of current practices and collected data, report preparation and presentation to the Village Board. Natural Path pro- poses to complete this work for a sum of $15,000.00. The attached project budget analysis shows a cost breakdown. RECOMMEI~I1)ATION In the 2001 budgeL $10,000.00 was appropriated for a Tree Hazard Study (page 226, Account /~-6905203-540740)~ Since our budget request, we have been awarded a $5,000.00 Urban For- estry Assistance C~rant from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. We will receive the grant funds after the project is completed. Therefore, I request that formal bidding procedures be waived, and a contraet for professional services to review our tree risk management program be awarded to Natural Path Forestry Con- sultants, in the amount of $15,000.00. I also request that a budget amendment be processed to increase the amount in Account ~6905203-540740 to $15,000.00. -' Sandy Clark 1 concur: .~J~ -'"'rGLEN R(. ANDLER Director of Public Works Attachments C. DepUty Public Works DireCtor Se, an Dorsey Finance Director Doug Ellsworth X:FI t2/~WORESTRY\WOIa, Dk2001 ~1~8 K-RECMD.DOC Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Fload, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60058-2828 Phone 847/870-5640 Fax 847/253-8377 TDD 847/382~1235 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS TREE RISK MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JANUARY 10. 2001 The Village of Mount Prospect, population 53,170, is seeking the services of an arboricultural consultant to further refine our existing tree risk management program. The Village has been notified that we will receive grant funding to help finance this project. The Village will make full payment to the consultant, and seek reimbursement of grant funds later from the Illinois Department of Nantral Resources. As detailed further below, the consultant will be asked to meet at least once with forestry staff, review past and present tree risk management activities, analyze Village records and collected data, poll other communities regarding their activities, analyze existing resources, recommend an Action Plan, prepare a detailed written report, and present same to the Village Board. BACKGROUND 1. Current Program: Mount Prospect has a well-established forestry program which includes many components designed to keep trees healthy and safe, including a five-year pruning cycle. As a result ora management plan adopted in 1993, the following year a new program was begun, in an attempt to better manage potential risk from trees. The first year of this program was partially funded by a grant. The attached excerpt from the original grant application explains the background and original objectives. Each year since 1994, the Village has hired a consultant to perform a thorough tree risk assessment, using ISA forms, on approximately 300 parkway trees. Each tree has been placed into one of three categories: "Removal" (removal scheduled immediately or within a few months), "Priority" (annual inspection needed due to presence of cables or significant defects), or "Cyclic" (routine inspection every five years is adequate, before next pruning cycle). Hazard abatement efforts, mostly cabling and special pruning, have been scheduled for many trees. Records on assessments and hazard abatement activities have been stored in Tree Manager for Windows and/or TRiM programs, or on hand-written service requests. In 1994 an analysis of the first year's data was completed by Natural Path Forestry Consultants, Natural Path's repor~ recommended that the Village continue and further refine the program, and formalize a tree risk policy. Data collected since 1994 has not yet been thoroughly analyzed, nor has a policy statement been developed. 1 2. Results: Thus far approximately 1800 trees have been assessed. Approximately 500 of these trees have been designated "Priority', trees needing annual inspection. We believe this program has significant~ly improved the overall condition of our parkway tree population; and substantially reduced the Village's liability exposure. However, the program is very costly in terms of staff time and money. If the program continues in the same manner, these costs will only continue to increase yearly as tree growth and decline causes additional assessment needs. For example, when the program began in 1994, about 1600 of our 23,677 parkway trees then fell into the "target population" (the trees we selected for special assessment due to their size and species). Now, though we have just completed moving through the entire Village once, we have assessed 1800 trees but still have 300, now over 24", that were not assessed due to their smaller size at the time. Finally, our current tree population now includes a total of approximately 5,400 of the seven species we have targeted as ,'tfigh-risk", so if they all grow to maturity'they will one day present a huge burden. 3. Problems/Issues: The following are examples of some of the issues the consultant will need to address: I. Is it possible to reduce the amount of time and money spent on the program, or at least hold it to the current level even as our trees grow larger? Can our paperwork be streamlined? 2. We are currently defining our target population only by diameter and species. Should we be including other parameters such as condition and defects? (If we include condition, how do we make that change since current condition ratings do not include structural issues? If we include defects, which ones are critical and is our current tree inventory procedure adequate?) 3. How should we treat boundary line trees, which may or may not be in our tree inventory? 4. How should we treat multi-stemmed trees (usually only the largest stem has been recorded, but the crown is typically larger than that diameter would indicate?) 5. How can we achieve more consistency between consultants in annual assessments? 6. Overall, are we providing at least a'reasonable level of care as compared to other communities? (Are we being too careful, or not careful enough?) 7. How can we streamline follow-up assessments on Priority trees? Should a new form be completed each time? If not, how should Village staff updates be recorded separately from the consultant's initial assessment? Should a Priority tree always remain a Priority tree, even if mitigation efforts result in the defect being removed? (If not, should a new form be completed?) 2 8. How can we achieve more consistency in deciding when a tree should move from "Priority" to "Removal"? 9. If changes are recommended that result in a different target population, how do we treat trees assessed thus far? POLL OF OTHER COMMUNITIES The consultant will be expected to send a questionnaire to other Chicagoland communities requesting detailed information about their tree risk management activities. The questionnaire must be mailed to as many communities as necessary, to achieve at least 25 responses from cities ranging from small to large, with at least 10 similar in size to the Village of Mount Prospect. Include communities expected to have well-developed tree care programs as well as those expected not to. The consultant will be expected to coCpile and share the results with participants without identifying communities by name. The consultant shall uge the results to help determine what is a "reasonable level of care" in the Chicagoland area, and consider and report on same when preparing recommendations for Mount Prospect's program. FINAL REPORT The Final Report must include at a minimum, the following information: 1. Review of "reasonable care" concept, liability issues, importance of defined tree risk management program and policy. 2. Review of Mount Prospeet's tree risk program to date. Include summaries of defects found, mitigation efforts completed, species composition of assessed trees, failures experienced, hours spent on program, costs and other pertinent information. 3. Analysis of existing parkway tree population (by species, diameters, condition ratings and known defects) and expected changes in the future. 4. Analysis of existing resources available for our program (staff, equipment, budget). 5. Results of poll of other communities, and assessment as to whether Mount Prospect's level of care is "reasonable" in comparison. 6. Recommended changes to existing program (Include specific goals, objectives and action steps). 7. Recommended tree risk management policy for adoption by Village Board. PROJECT DEADLINES January 22, 2001 Proposals due to Forestry / Grounds Superintendent January 24, 2001 Contract to be awarded Between February 12 Consultant meets with Forestry Division staff in Mount Prospect and March 2, 2001 and receives requested documents May 1,2001 Consultant submits progress report summarizing activity to date (Village will submit to IDNR) July 3, 2001 * Consultant submits first draft of report for review by Forestry July 20, 2001 * Forestry returns comments to consultant August 3, 2001 * Consultant submits second draft of report for review by Forestry and Public Works Administration August 21, 2001 * Forestry returns comments to consultant September 8, 2001 * Consultant submits one copy of proposed final draft for approval by Forestry Superintendent September 12, 2001 * Approval of final draft granted September 19, 2001 * Consultant submits 20 bound copies of final report September 25, 2001 * Consultant, along with Forestry staff, presents report at Village Board Committee of Whole (C.O.W.) Meeting, (expected 5-!0 minute report followed by questions) · Dates may be subject to change if C.O.W. meeting is rescheduled. PROPOSAL REOUIREMENTS The consultant's proposal shall include at a minimum, the following information: I. A description of the firm's organization, qualifications for, and experience with similar projects. 2. An overall introduction to the proposal, including a summary of the firm's approach to the project. 3. Address the interactions expected between the consultant and the Village staff. Specifically identify the documents and data the Village will need to provide to the consultant, and in what format. 4 4. Indicate the principal in charge, and additional staff who will be committed to the project, along with their professional resumes. 5. Include a Iump sum cost to complete all specified work. Fee shall include all of consultant's expenses including, but not necessarily limited to, transportation, lodging, printing costs and supplies. All proposals shall be submitted to Sandy Clark, Forestry/Grounds Superintendent at 1700 W. Central Rd., MoUnt Prospect, IL 60056 no later than January 22, 2001. X:FILES/FOR~STRY~VO RD/2001/P,.ISKMG MT-P~FP.DOC ATTACHMENT A - EXCERPT FROM ORIGINAL 1994 GRANT APPLICATION PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION What We Propose TO Do If grant funds are obtained, a consultant will be hired to begin a systematic hazard tree evaluation and risk reduction program for Mount Prospect% street trees, The consultant wilt use a recognized hazard evaluation formula, such as that detailed in Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, published by the International Society of Arboriculture. Trees of seven species will be inspected and evaluated. These include White Poplar, Cottonwood, Boxelder, Weeping Willow, Silver Maple, American Elm and Siberian Elm. Size of trees to be evaluated will depend on bid prices received. If possible, we would like to evaluate all trees of the selected species which are over 24" in diameter. If necessary because of costs, only trees over 30" in diameter will be evaluated. The Village currently has 1008 of these trees that are 25"-30" in diameter, plus 649 trees that are over 30". This project is expected to be only the beginning of the hazard tree program. There are several reasons: 1) available funds will not allow all trees to be addressed in the first year 2)hazard evaluation properly involves periodic reinspection, not just a one-time evaluation and 3) as the tree population ages, additional trees will move into the larger size classes (particularly Silver Maples, which currently number over 3000 trees in the 13" - 24" size range). Because of the ongoing nature of this program, part of the consultant's assignment will be to train key Forestry Division personnel to conduct hazard evaluations. In this way the program can be continued even if funds for a consultant are not available in the future. When the evaluations in a given area ~)ave been completed, trees receiving the highest hazard ratings will be scheduled for pruning and/or cabling, if those measures will reduce the risk to an acceptable level at an acceptable cost. Otherwise the trees will be scheduled for removal. Importance Of The Pro_iect Implementation of this program will be an important step towards meeting one of the established goals of Mount Prospect's forestry program. Although Mount Prospect's street trees are pruned approximately every five years and inspected at that time, time and budget constraints do not allow as complete an evaluation as proposed in this project. All trees were additionally inspected during a street tree inventory carded out from 1989 through 1993. Each tree was given a Condition rating from 0-10. The factors considered in determining this rating are detailed in the enclosed "Tree Inventory Data Collection Guidelines". Although many of the same factors used in tree hazard evaluation formula were considered (see enclosed sample form used with ISA formula), our inspection was not as thorough. Additionally, limited defect information was recorded about each tree, and additional measures such as coring or drilling were not undertaken. 6 Currently, the possibility that a tree is hazardous is brought to our attention in one of several ways: 1) a homeowner complains 2) Forestry personnel or other village staff notice the tree by chance or 3) a perceived hazard is noted when the tree is inventoried or trimmed. The decision whether to remove or save a tree is usually made by either the Forestry Superintendent, the Forestry Foreman or one of the more experienced Forestry maintenance workers. These people have varying degrees of education and expenence in hazard evaluation techniques. This system has worked fairly well for us, since we have never been sued for personal injury due to trees, and property damage claims have not been great. However, this does not mean that we have no tree failures. Especially in the last two years, our trees have at times been hit hard by storms, resulting in the removal of many trees (see enclosed newspaper articles). Additionally, we sometimes experience tree failures even when there is no storm. Although we recognize that no hazard evaluation program can prevent all tree failures, especially when severe storms are involved, we feel that a more thorough, systematic program would reduce our risks and help us fulfill the "generalized duty of care' that courts have ruled belongs to all tree owners. ACRT Inc. recently reviewed our forestry program and prepared our Urban Forestry Management Plan. In the report, which was presented to our Village Board in December 1993, ACRT recommended that we conduct a thorough, systematic evaluation of all large trees of high-risk species within the next few years. Their recommendations are detailed on Pages 32- 34, 52 and Appendix "P" of the plan. How The Work Will Be Scheduled In order to maximize our budget dollars, we propose to schedule the hazard evaluation for any given neighborhood at least six months in advance of the time that neighborhood is scheduled for systematic tree trimming. The enclosed map shows our past pruning history and planned pruning schedule. (For our population Of 23,677 trees, we plan to prune approximately 4700 trees annually for the next five years). Another map shows the distribution of the 1657 trees that may be evaluated. Reports listing the actual addresses of these trees are also enclosed. We plan each year to update our tree inventory data for all trees scheduled to be pruned the following year. Therefore the most logical time to schedule the hazard evaluation is at the time of the data update. This will maximize our efficiency in two ways: 1) When updating a tree's condition rating, our inventory personnel should be able to identify some trees, which have no visible signs of defects. This may reduce the number of trees the consultant will have to formally evaluate. 2) If removals are required, this schedule should give us time to remove the trees before the neighborhood is pruned, thus reducing the chance of spending funds to prune a tree only to remove it shortly thereafter. X:FILES/FORESTRY/WORD/2001/GRANT.DOC 7 Village of Mount Prospect Community DevelOpment Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ~/ ~SE~S DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2001 SUBJECT: YE OLDE TOWN INN - DEMOLITION AND REHABILITATION EXPE As part of the purchase agreement for the rear portion of the Ye Olde Town Inn property, the Village is responsible for the demolition of this structure and the reconstruction of the back wall. In an effort to expedite this project and allow the Residences at Village Centre to move forward, staff requested that Norwood Builders act as the General Contractor for the project. To date, the rear portion of the wall has been demolished, the footings and structural portion of the rear wall have been constructed and all necessary insulation and roof repairs have been installed. The next phase of the project is to salvage the original brick from the building and utilize it to construct the rear wall. This will ensure that the rear wall is consistent with remainder of the building. Attached to this memorandum is an invoice in the amount of $16,237.50 for a portion of the work described above. It is anticipated that the total cost of the project will not exceed $50,000. Staff is requesting that the Village Board ratify these expenditures as part of the original negotiated purchase agreement for the Ye Olde Town Inn property. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their meeting this evening. Staff will be present at that meeting to further discuss this matter. MAYOR ~ Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E, Janonis TRUSTEES TimothyJ. Corcoran Viii ge fM P p PaulWm. Ho~fe~ a o ount ros ect VILLAGECLE~Ve,~aW. Lowe Richard M. Lohr~orfer Dennis G. Prikkel Community Development Department Phone: 847/818-5328 Michaele W. Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 lrvana K, Wilks I00 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392-6064 NOTICE THE TFI-URSDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2001 MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS BEEN CANCELLED. AN AGENDA WILL BE SENT PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING. Dated this 150, day of February 2001. MAYOR ~ Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES TimothyJ. Corcorar~ Viii g f Mo P sp P~u, Wm. Ho~fe~ a e o unt ro ectV,LLA~ECL~Ve,ma W. Lowe Richard M.'Lohrstorfer Dennis G. Prikkel Community Development Department Phone: 847/818-5328 Micfiaele W. Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 lrvana K. Wilks 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 ~rr>D: 84~/392-6064 NOTICE ZBA WORKSHOP SESSION AT TIlE VILLAGE HALL WORKSHOP LOCATION: DATE & TIME: Village Hall Thursday 100 South Emerson Street February 22, 2001 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. 2nd Floor Conference Room TOPICS: 1. SIGN REVIEW Three earlier sign cases will be reviewed and discussed: A. SRB-04-98 Big Kmart (1500 S. Elmhurst Road): 1) Request for a 366-sq. ft. wall sign 2) Request for multiple wall signs B. SRB-03-99 Walgreen's (1701 E. Kensington): Request for multiple wall signs C. SRB-05-99 Dearborn Villas (Algonquin Road): Variation to increase the number of entry signs for a resid~ntiaI development 2. MEETING PROCEDURE Discussion on efficient and effective meetings 3. 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. MAYOR ~ Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Phone: (847) 392-6000 Timothy J. Corcoran Fax: (847) 618-5336 Paul Wm. Hoefert TDD: (847) 392-6064 Richard M. Lohrstoder Dennis G. Pri~<kel Michsele W. Skowron Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis Village of Mount Prospect VILLAGE CLERK VelmaW. Lowe 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR FEBRUARY 22, 2001 HAVE BEEN CANCELLED MAYOR Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E./maonis TRUSTEES TimothyJ. Corcoran Viii g fM p p .LLAGECLE= P~ulWm..~oef~ a e oount ros ect Velma W. Lowe Richard M. Lolustorfer De~is G. P~al Community Development Department ~ho~: Michaele W. Sko~on F~x: 847/818-5329 ~a <. wires 100 Sou~ Emerson Stre~ Mourn Prosper, IllMois 60056 TDD: NOTICE THE WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 2001 MEETING OF THE PLAN COMMISSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. AN AGENDA WILL BE SENT PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING. Dated this 14th day of February, 2001.