Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
VB Agenda Packet 03/06/2001
Next Ordinance.No. 5173 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 March 6, 2001 Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 7:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER I1. ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald "Skip" Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Dennis Prikkel Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Irvana Wilks III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Trustee Prikkel IV. INVOCATION: Mayor Farley V. APPROVE MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF FEBRUARY 20, 200'1 VI. *APPROVE BILLS (To be considered under Consent Agenda) VII. MAYOR'S REPORT A. PRESENTATION: By the Cook County Sheriff's Emergency Management Agency to Mount Prospect Emergency Services Disaster Agency (ESDA) B. PROCLAMATION: "SEVERE WEATHER AWARENESS WEEK," March 4-10, 2001 ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, 847/392-6000, TDD 847/392-6064. C. PROCLAMATION: "ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE KID DAY," March 15, 2001 D. PRESENTATION: "CHARACTER COUNTS!" Campaign, by Dr. Maureen Hager, School District 57 President E. PROCLAMATION: "AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH," March 1-31, 2001 F. 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 by 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 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2105 WEST PRENDERGAST LANE (Exhibit A) 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. B. ~ZBA 04-01, Text Amendments, Village of Mount Prospect 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE VILLAGE CODE (Exhibit B) 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 approva~ 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, XI. NEW BUSINESS A, Safety Commission report recommending retaining the left turn restriction at the intersection of westbound Central Road and Wa-Pella Avenue. B. Request for motion to accept a report from Metro Transportation Group providing for the reinstatement of left turn movement from eastbound Prospect Avenue onto Route 83. Xll. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT A. *Bid results: 1. Catch basin and inlet repair 2. Cleaning of catch basins and inlets 3. Parkway tree stump removal contract 4. 2001 street resurfacing program contract B. *Request to waive bid procedure and authorize the purchase of two (2) pick-up trucks through the State purchase program. C. *Request to ratify expenditure for emergency sewer repair at Pine and Lincoln Street (Route 83). D. *Request for authorization of contract with SPACECO to provide ALTA survey for library/senior center block. E. Request to waive bid procedure and award contract to Wolff Clements, L.L.C. for design and construction drawings for corridors at Central/Rand Roads, Central Road/Busse Avenue, and Golf Road/Route 83, F. Request for authorization to enter into an agreement with St. Raymond Church to obtain a temporary construction easement and to install corridor improvements along their Route 83 frontage. G. Status Report Xlll. ANY OTHER BUSINESS XIV. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT February 20, 2001 CALL CALL TO ORDER TO ORDER Mayor Gerald Farley called the meeting to order at 7:39 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 Lohrstorfer led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION INVOCATION Trustee Wilks gave the invocation. MINUTES APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held February 6, 2001. Upon roll call: Ayes: CorC°ran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. BILLS APPROVE BILLS AND FINANCIAL REPORT Mayor Farley stated that the next item on the agenda, "APPROVE BILLS & FINANCIAL REPORT" was shown with an asterisk, and that all items further noted in that manner t be considered with one vote under as "IX. CONSENT AGENDA." MAYOR'S REPORT: MAYOR'S REPORT AMEND CH. 13: An ordinance was presented for first reading to delete the Class "E" liquor license issued DELETE to Mr. Peter's Banquets, 1018 Mount Prospect Plaza. The restaurant has recently closed and relocated to Prospect Heights. LIQUOR LICENSE, Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved to waive the rule requiring two MR. PETER'S readings of an ordinance. BANQUETS Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ORD. NO. 5172 Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved for approvai of Ordinance No. 5172: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 (ALCOHOLIC LIQUORS) OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved to consider an item not listed on ADD AGENDA the agenda, such item being a proclamation recognizing the 25th anniversary of the City ITEM of Prospect Heights. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. PROSPECT Mayor Farley read the proclamation acknowledging January 31,2001 as the 25th HEIGHTS 25TM anniversary of the City of Prospect Heights, It was also mentioned that Prospect Heights ANNIVERSARY would celebrate its anniversary with a dinner/dance at AIIgauer's Restaurant'on Saturday,' February 24. APPOINT- The Mayor had no recommendations for board or commission appointments. MENTS CITIZENS COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Don Harmon, 16 N. William Street, addressed the Board with concerns relative to a recent article in a local newspaper about tree trimming procedures and restrictions, and underground cable installation and restrictions, for utility companies. CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT Trustee Wilks asked that the following items be removed from the Consent Agenda, and AGENDA: considered individually in the order listed on the regular agenda: REMOVE Xll. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT CONSENT A. Bid results: AGENDA 3. Contract for furnishing and planting of parkway shade trees ITEMS 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. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved to consider the above items individually, under the regular agenda. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee HoeferL seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer, moved for approval of the following items of business: BILLS 1. Bills, dated February 15, 2001, and financial report dated January 1-31, 2001 ACCEPT 2. Request for Village Board approval and acceptance of private improvements PRIVATE at Dearborn Villas, 1449-1500 Dearborn Court (Algonquin Road) IMPROVE- MENTS, 3. Bid results: DEARBORN 1. Parkway tree trimming contract (Robert W. Hendricksen Co.) 2. Parktree tree removal contract (Robert W. Henddcksen Co.) VILLAS 4. Request for Board ratification of expenditures relative to the demolition of the TREE rear portion of Ye Olde Town Inn, 18 West Busse Avenue ($16,237.50) TRIMMING & TREE Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks REMOVAL Nays: None CONTRACTS: Motion carried. R.W. HENDRIKSEN 2 OLD BUSINESS ZBA 02-01 An ordinance was presented for first reading to grant a variation for the construction of an 2105 enclosed patio, which would encroach 15 feet into the required 25-foot rear yard setback. PRENDERGAST LANE Mayor Farley explained that because this request was denied on January 25 by the Zoning Board of Appeals (4-2), a suPer-majority vote by the Village Board would be necessary for approval of the request. Bill ~Cooney, Director of Community Development explained the request, stating that the petitioner Frank Penzarino, wishes to add a three-season room to his house. He s~_i_d. ..... the petitioner has expressed a need for this room, to allow his family to better enjoy their backyard area during the warmer months, which they are unable to do now, because of the large number of mosquitoes which come from the retention pond between h!s house and St. Cecelia Catholic Church. Petitioner Frank Panzarino addressed questions from Board members, and neighbors Anthony Kies of 610 St. Cecelia Drive, Larry lacino of 645 Sl Meier Road, and Amy Sevalino of 606 St. Cecelia Drive expressed their support for Mr. Panzarino's request. Trustee Prikkel and Mayor Farley expressed their support for the request, stating that a hardship exists for the property owners, however, other members of the Board stated various reasons for not wishing to grant the variation, the primary reason being the encroachment of the addition into the rear yard setback. This ordinance will be presented for second reading at the March 6, 2001 Village Board meeting. NEW BUSINESS ZBA 04-01 An ordinance was presented for first reading, which would amend various sections of TEXT Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code. Among the proposed amendments were the AMENDMENTS establishment of a "minor variation" process, the creation of Floor Area Ratio standards in residential districts, and increasing the maximum size of detached garages from 600 to 672 square feet. The Board requested a number of revisions to the proposed ordinance, which includes the notification of residents neighboring a proposed minor variation property and the length of time one would have to appeal a minor variation: The revised ordinance will be presented for second reading at the March 6, 2001 meeting. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT PARKWAY At the request of Trustee Wilks earlier in the meeting, the following two items were TREES, removed from the consent agenda. FURNISH & Assistant Village Manager David Strahl presented bid results from B.C. Landscape, PLANT: B.C. Weller Nursery, and Mill Creek Nursery for the furnishing and planting of parkway shade LANDSCAPE, trees (itemized bid results attached). WELLER NURSERY, Responding to a question from Trustee Wilks regarding what some residents perceive as MILL CREEK a limited selection of trees, Village Forester Sandy Ciark explained that only a limited NURSERY number of maple trees are offered to residents in the cost,share program because the Village is currently overpopulated with that species. She stated that the Village currently averages one maple out of every four parkway trees. She further explained that whenever a particular species of trees becomes susceptible to a disease, as in the recent outbreaks of Dutch Elm disease, it is wise to have a variety of trees, so that only a limited number is affected. Trustee Wilks0 seconded by Trustee Prikkel, moved to split the contract award among all three bidders, with total expenditures notto exceed $140,068.00, and each tree being ordered from the lowest bidder for that particular size and species. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkell Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. REVIEW TREE A request was presented to waive the bidding procedure and award a contract to Natural RISK Path Forestry Consultants, Inc. for professional services to review the Village's tree risk MANAGEMENT management program. . PROGRAM: NATURAL PATH Forester Sandy Clark explained that a Request for Proposals was sent only to Natural Path because of their impressive level of expertise combined with their first-hand FORESTRY knowledge of Mount Prospect's tree risk program. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to waive the bidding procedures for a firm to perform services for the review of the tree risk management program. Upon roll calh Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to award a contract to Natural Path Forestry Consultants, Inc. for professional services to review the tree risk management program, in the amount of $15,000.00. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. HIRE A request was presented for authorization to retain the services of a professional RECRUITMENT recruitment firm to assist in filling the vacancy for Chief of Police. FIRM: RESOURCE Assistant Village Manager David Strahl stated that proposals were received from MANAGEMENT Resource Management Associates (P, MA) of Tinley Park, DMG Maximus of Northbrook, and from The PAR Group of Lake Bluff. ASSOC. Mayor Farley questioned the terms of the agreement relative to travel expenses possibly becoming excesive, since they are not included in the proposed amount of $22,700. Mr. Strahl explained that all travel expenses would have to first be authorized by staff. Trustee Lohrstorfer, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved to authorize the execution of an agreement between the Village and P,esource Management Associates for professional recruitment services to fill the vacancy of Police Chief, in an amount of $22,700, excluding travel expenses. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Lohrstorfer, Prikkel, Skowron, Wilks Nays: None Motion carried. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Farley announced an upcoming Multicultural Festival at Forest View Educational Center, scheduled for February 25. Trustee Prikkel congratulated four Mount Prospect youth, Julie Higginson, Laura Higginson, Jane Szafraniec, and Julie Markus on recently achieving the Girl Scout Gold Award. 4 Trustee Hoefert asked staff to provide updates on the proposed row homes to be constructed on Prospect Avenue, approved in 1999, the recently closed Shell service stations, the former LaSalle Bank site, and the Citgo service station on the south side of town. Additionally, Mayor Farley requested an update from staff on the development of the former General Store, since its relocation. ADJOURN ADJOURNMENT . By unanimous vote, the February 20, 2001 meeting was adjourned at 9:33 p.m. Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk 5 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT CASH POSITION 28-Feb-01 Cash & Invstmt Receipts Disbursements Other Cash & Invstmt Balance 02/16101 - Per Attached Credits/ Balance 02/15101 02/28101 List of Bills Debits 02/28/01 General Fund 7,836,506 1,739,165 403,088 9,172,584 Special Revenue Funds Refuse Disposal Fund 1,369,560 145,405 120,975 1,393,989 Motor Fuel Tax Fund 2,212,504 70,910 2,141,594 Local Law Enfrcrnt BIk Grant Fd 1997 18,617 18,617 Community DeveloPment BIk Grant Fund 10,022 18,129 220 27,931 Debt Service Funds 2,330,499 105,573 300 2,435,772 Ca;)ital Proiects Funds Capital Improvement Fund 3,164,302 2,107 3,162,195 Police & Fire Building Construction Fund 4,123 4,123 Capital ImProvement Construction Fund 187,655 187,655 Downtown Redevelopment Const Fund 20,914 30,961 42,311 9,565 Street Improvement Construction Fund 3,388,454 70,042 3,458,496 1998A Flood Control Construction Fund Flood Control Construction Fund 3,145,486 3,145,486 Enterprise Funds Water & Sewer Fund 2,860,022 287,769 14,339 3,133,451 Parking System Revenue Fund 727,284 6,124 450 732,958 Internal Service Funds Vehicle Maintenance Fund 191,991 25,436 166,555 Vehicle Replacement Fund 5,525,060 8,196 5,516,864 Computer Replacement Fund 330,185 330,185 Risk Management Fund 2,703,777 51,908 183,160 2,572,525 Trust & Aqency Funds Police Pension Fund 31,091,499 63,092 31,486 31,123,105 Fire Pension Fund 32,253,820 54,872 24,966 32,283,726 Flexcomp Trust Fund 4,404 8,800 13,204 Escrow Deposit Fund 1,533,239 18,074 54,020 1,497,294 Benefit Trust Funds 86,799 571 86,227 t00,996,722 2,599,914 982,535 102,614,10'1 REPORT: APBOARERPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 R~: REDRESDAY ~B2801 12:37 PAGE 1 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUN~ PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PKESF. NTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 200! TO FEBRUARY 2g 2001 DE~T VENDOR NBR VENDOR NE INVOICE DESCRIPTION ANOINT 00I 02919 303 CAB ASSOCIATION, INC. SENIOR TAXI RIDES 411.30 02557 RE/~, INC. FAX ~ACNINE 1895.00 TONER C,%RTRI~E 42.00 1937.00 02955 ACME TRUCK BRAKE & SUPPLY CO. AIR BRAKE S~CK 310.32 01246 AIRGAS NORTH CENTRAL SERVICE 226.95 01383 ALLEN AWARDS & TKO?HIES AWRE~-RONALD W FOVLOCK t11.00 01535 ANERICAN ARBORIST SUPPLIES, IN SUPREIES 284.59 CO~ON CABLE 284.11 568.70 01543 AMERICAN BACKFLOW PREV. ASSN. MFi~RERREIP DUES 03.00 01561 k~ERICAN CHARGE SENVICE SENIOR TAXI RIDES 171.20 SENIOR TAXI RIDES 131.80 303.00 01591 AMERICAN HOTEL REGISTER CO. PARTS 117.30 05222 AMERICAN INDUSTRIAL UNIFORM RENTAL 116.47 04948 AMERICAN Pk~NNING ASSOCIATION REF%JOL%7195 155.08 01780 AMERITECH SERVICE 57.45 01840 ANDERSON PEST CONTROL AVITROL ON ROOF TOPS 66.25 SERVICE 66.25 132.50 01973 APHA CHICAGO METRO CHAPTER REGISTRATION FEE 66.00 REGISTHATION FEE 130.00 196.00 05736 ARCH WIRELESS ARCH WIRELESS 106.80 05712 ARLINGTON TRANSMISSION REBUILT Tk~SiSM!SSION 700.00 . 01124 ARTHUR CLESEN, INC. FLAGSPHA. YCUS 1!0.44 05739 ASSOCIATED FiREFIGHTE~ OF ILLINOIS PENSION BOOKS i00.00 02320 AUTOi~.%TIC FIRE AAA. BI AHSOC. REGISTRATION 4!7.39 85044 AVIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM TLC UNiT LEASE 696.34 REPORT: APBOAPJ%RPT GEXE~TED: 1 REP 00 07:t7 RUN: REDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 2 REREANE ID : VILL~RE OF MO~N~ PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO TH]5 BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARy 28 2001 DEPT UENDOR ~R VENDOR WAWE INVOICE DESCRIPTION ~OUNT 04324 BANK ONE RETI~NT GIFT 1400.00 02798 BETTER ROADS WAGAZINE SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 50.00 02924 BOCA INTEUNATIONA~ INC. M~RE-W.GEORRE i80.00 02947 BRITE BLIND CLEANERS CLEANING 70 SETS-BLINDS 490.00 00477 BUNDS, PAUL REI~URSEXENT 5.76 01006 BUSRE CAR WASH, INC. CA[{ WASH-FIRE DSPT i5.75 05268 CARE INDUSTRIES CLEANING SDPPLIES 1544.50 CLEANING SUPPLIES 576.50 2121.00 01049 CUN GOVEREMEXT, INC WINDOWS 2000 26.60 DRUM KIT 78.79 COMPUTER SUPPLIES 77.49 WINDOWS 2000 P~OFESSIONAL 78.84 261.72 01069 CHEX RITE PRODUCTS COMPANY SUPPLIES 176.01 SUPPLIES 176.01 SUPPLIES 176.01 SUPPLIES 176.02 704.05 01088 CHIEF SUPPLY SUPPLIES 53.76 LATEX GLOVES 492.50 BATTERIES 28.52 574.78 01097 CINTAS CORP UNIFOEX EXPENSE 60.00 CL&~NING SERVICES 210.80 270.80 01102 CITIBANK, N.A. AOL*ONLINE SERVICE 21.95 01103 CITIZENS WATER RESOURCES WATER DIST.CHGS 99.62 01118 CLEUN OF THE CIRCUIT COURT PAYROLL FOR - 022201 700.00 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 190.00 890.00 01139 COLLEGE OF LAKE COUNTY REGISTRATION 693.00 01146 CC~{4. ON ACCREDITATION FOR LAW E&~CCREDITATIUN FEE 4590.00 01147 CO~9~ONWEALTH EDISON STREET LIGHTING 10121.6! REPORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 SEE OO 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 3 ~ RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUN~ PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PP~St!NTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROMFEBP. UARY 16 2~1 TO FEBRU~Y282~I DE~ ~N~R NBR VENDOR N~E I~OICE UNSC~ION ~O~ 01153 C~NITY C~ CO. SUNIUN T~I RIDES 556.30 01183 COOK COUNTY RECUNDEE OF DEEDS RECORDING-CIB'S PLAT 107.00 04809 COOK COUNTy SNEEIFF'S TREG.INSTITUTE REGISTRATION 3765.00 00309 COONEY, WILLIAM 4. REI~UNSEMEN~ 87.00 04543 CORPORATE EXPRESS OFVICE SUPPLIES 104.35 05574 COSTELLO, ELAINE WELLNESS CLASS 550.00 01223 DAILY OFVICE PRODUCTS OFFICE SUPPLIES 231.66 01230 DARTWELL CO~UNATIUN RENEWAL 102.00 01233 DATA MEDIA PRODUCTS, INC. VIDEOTAPE 988.80 05061 DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES JANUARY BILLING 122.00 01253 DES PkAINES GLASS CUNEk~Y REPLACE GLASS TOPS 367.00 05614 DETROIT SALT CO, ROAD SALT 11330,00 04707 DIRECT RESPONSE VEHICLE STIC~E MAILING 6782.75 01279 DISTINCTIVE BUSINESS PRODUCTS STAPLES FOR COPIER 54.97 STAPLES FOR COPIER 54.97 MAINT.AORE~4ENT 6!5.00 QUARTE~Y MAINTENANCE 227.70 QUAMTERLYMAINTENRECE 227.70 TASNIBE A0346 374.00 TASNIBE A0346 374.00 QTLY AGREL~ENT 325.00 2253.34 04833 DO~, BLAINE EXPENSES 364.98 01287 D~R SYST~S, INC. ~PAIR OF ELEV. i41.45 05742 DUPAGE MAYORE AND MANAGERS CONF. REGISTRATION ~3.00 05578 ENREAROT'S TRA!LEE SALES INC. INSTALL TRUCK CAP 750.00 01328 EL-CUN INDUSTRIES, INC. HELOGEN BULBS 126.00 01349 5~SAR REPAIR & CERTIFICATION . 497.88 01350 ENDEAVOR ~LUS MEDICAL EXAMS 2092.00 MEDICAL EX~ 44!.00 3!03.00 01366 EXPERIAN SERVICE 25.00 00326 FARLEY, REPALD L. EXPENSES 99.79 RE?O~T: AFEOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 SEE 00 07:17 R~N: WEDNESDAY FEB280t 12:37 PAGE 4 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSEEOT LIST OF BILLS PRES~NTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES DEPT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NA~E IRVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 01374 FA~EY AND ASSOC. NA~E TAGS 28.00 01377 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORE MISC.SHIEPING CRARRES 19.09 MISC.SEIEPING CHA~GES 17.23 36.32 05740 FIRE FIGETER SELECTION INC. SERVICE FEE 1746.06 00102 FIRE BENSION ~ND PAYROLL FOR - 022201 12717.84 05730 FLOROS, LEO WEi~BU~F/~ENT 24.00 00334 FLOYD, BRIAN REIMB EXPENSES 18.00 01422 FOLGERS FLAG & DECORATING, INC R~OVAL OF LIGHT POLE BLOWERS 440.00 MISC. OFFICE 48.00 488.00 01448 G & O THERi~L SUPPLY C~PANY WARERE DUCT HEAT ELL~ENTS 378.85 01469 GATEWAY COMPANIES INC. GATEWAY PROFESSIONAL 1975.00 01407 GOVERNMENTAL ACCT STDS BOAND GASB SUBSCRIPTION ' 160.00 00341 GRIFFIN, TIMOTHY REIRE EXPENSES 27.73 01555 HAWEY AND SONS, B. INC. PJ/~OVAL OF YARDS LOUS 62.50 01550 EANSEN ASSOCIATES MONTHLY SERVICE 409.07 MONTHLY SERVICE 240.51 MONTHLY SERVICE 100.00 749.58 05729 EEINRICH, LARRY SF/4INAR MEAL 44.00 01578 HENDRICKSEN, ROBERT W. LIGHT REMOVAL/INSTALLATION 2758.00 05735 EITCHENS, ANNA~AE OVERPAYMENT 2.00 01610 DOME DEPOT SUPPLIES 41.83 00349 EOSKINSON, THOMAS REiMB EXPENSES 30.00 01635 I.E.H.A. ROBERTS/LACZ/KRUPA 150.00 00107 ICMA RNTIR~ENT TRUST - 457 PAYROLL ~OR - 022201 18628.33 00108 ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE PAYROLL FOR - 022201 =o750.08 01689 ILLINOIS GDOA PFDLICNTIONS 16.00 01698 ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE SuBSCRIPt.ON~' ~? 5.00 REPORT: AREOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 5 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSRNC7 LIST OF BIL~ PP,]~S~D TO THB BOARD OF TRUSTBHS DENT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION ~MOUNT 00109 ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT PAYROLL FOR - 022201 237.00 01122 ILLINOIS STATE DISBUNS~RNT UNIT PAYROLL FOE - 022201 019.23 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 195.50 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 126.00 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 60.00 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 520.75 1421,40 01712 ILLINOIS STATE POLICE BAUKGREOND CHECK 76.00 01724 INKMEAL MS GETWELL CARDS 442.45 01731 INT'L ANDOC,OF ELECT. INSP. VAN ~tRT/HEINREICH I20.00 03942 INTEkwEDIA CO{4~UNICATIONS tNTERWET SERVICE 1309.61 01753 IPELRA D.0T~HL-SRMIRAR 50.00 01758 ISFSI RE~ISTRATION 700.00 05725 ISSA MEWERRLRIP 120.00 00303 JANONIS, MICHAEL E. LUNCH/RENTING 69.15 LUNCH MEETING 26, 23 95.38 05727 JOHN JAY ELFi~ENTARY SCHOOL AD 175,00 01783 JOURNAL & TOPICS NE~NTAPERE SUBSCRIPTION SUBSCRIPTION 25,00 RENEWAL SUBSCRIP 25.00 75.00 01784 JOURNAL OF LIGHT CONSTRUCTION SUBSCRIPTION 39.90 01794 KALE UNIFORMS, INC. BODY AI~OR 770.00 HOUY A~OR 385.00 URIFORE SUPPLiRE 431.05 1586.05 00359 IL%WE, LAWRENCE REIMB EXPEHRES 69.28 01001 K~R PRODUCTS iNC MISC REPAIR SUPPLIES 423.33 SPRAY GREASE 52.96 476.29 05711 L~BROU, ALEE REFUND LIQUOR LICENSE FEE 333.34 01872 LATTOF CHEVROLET, INC. M!$C REAR ESJ=iE P.ARTS 291.47 05719 LAW ADVISORY GROUP REGISTRETION 320.00 BEPO~T: APDOANDRPT BENEBETED: 1 RE,P 00 07:17 R~: WEDNESDAY FBE2801 12:37 .PAGE 6 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT .PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARY 28 2601 DE.PT VENDOR UNR VENDOR ~ I~OIEE DUNCRIFIION MOUNT 00374 ~A~IE, MATT REIMBURS~ 17.10 05744 LICANI, NICK CLOTHING ALLOWANCE 125.03 02310 LINDA S. PIECZYNSKI SEMIMAN BEG. 180.00 05737 LYLE SIGNS, INC. N~17165 SCHOOL CROSSING SIGNS 3489.90 01922 LYNN .PEAVEY CNNPANY EVIDENCE BAGS 247.05 01957 MARBERTEK VIDEO SUP.PLY VIDEO SUNPPLIES 2240.86 VES C3~B~E 253.61 2494.47 01967 MARV'S AP,PLIANCE SERVICE REPAIR GAS IGNITOR 101.00 05709 MEADE ELECTRIC CO. INC. TRAFIC SIGNAL REPAIR 632.20 05021 MNNANDS ~ALLON PLUS GAS CANS 23.28 00216 METRO REDEEA5 CREDIT UNION PAYROLL FOE - 022201 830.00 05371 METRO TRANSPORTATINN GROUN~INC. PRO~E$SINNAL SERVICE i75.00 00117 ~TROROLITAN ALLIANCE - .POLICE PAYROLL FOR - 022201 02826 MICEAEL WAGNER & SONS, INC. REPAIR PANTS 29,55 02028 MIGETY MITES AWARDS & SONS PkAQUE 103.50 02046 MOBILE PRINT INC. BUSINESS ENVELOPES 4!6.93 MAILING 5BEELS 167.99 BAN ENVELOPES 69.20 N~E PANS 66.25 LOCKOUT BELEASE FONN 266.27 ARREST RERORTS-FO~S 132.66 11!9.30 02067 MOUNT .PROSPECT HISTORICAL SOC. MARON P~S 3333.33 02107 NA,PA-HEIGHT$ AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLY JAN.MISC RE,PAIR PARTS 567.I0 02109 NATIONAL ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION MEMBENSBIP RENEWAL !3.00 00123 NATIO~IDE .PAYROLL FOR - 022201 16880.75 04679 NEW MILLENNIU~ ,PRD. INC. REGISTEATION 500.00 02158 N~XTEL CO~UNICATIONS RER.1/!8-2/17/01 517.70 RER.1/!8-2/17/01 370.46 CELLULAN SENViCB 290.2 CELLULAN SERVICE 32L 63 1501,03 REPORT: AREOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY VEB2801 12:37 PAGE 7 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNV PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PP,~qENTED TO THI~ BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARY28200! DE~? ~N~OR NBR VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRI~?ION AMOUNT 02160 NFPA MEMBEMSHI P-VAMWART 110.00 NFPA SEMINAR 875.00 990.00 02170 NORTH EAST MULTI REGIOEAL TRNG REGISTRATION 690.00 REGISTRATION 210.00 REGISTRATION 150.00 1080.00 02182 NORTHE~ ILLINOIS POLICE ALLAN SYSTAM LAMGUAGE LINE SERVICE 70.40 ~RGEHCY SERVICE 3730.00 LAMGUAGE LINE 18.60 3819.00 02193 NORThg~EST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 736.10 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 750.86 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 226.74 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 107.30 1821.00 05002 NORTHWEST POLICE ACADEMY SEMINAR 50.80 02228 OAKTON PAVILLION HEALTHCARE HOME DELIVERED MEALS 1255.00 02256 PADDOCK PUBLICATIONS, INC. BID NOTICE PUBLISHED 48.95 BID NOTICES PUBLISHED 128.37 177.32 02285 PEDERSEN & NOUPT SENVICES 212.50 SENVICES 41.25 REAL ESTATE TkaMREER TEE 10.00 263.75 02301 PETTY CASH - FINANCE DEPT. MISC EXPENSES 48.41 MISC EXPENSES 74.00 MISC EXPENSES 19.36 MISC EXPENSES 13.39 MISC EXPENSES 4.50 MISC EXPENSES 19.76 NISC EXPENSES 24.24 MISC EXPENSES ' 12.84 MISC EXPENSES 15.00 MISC EXPENSES 8.26 MISC E)?ENSES 26, 80 M/SC ENPENSES 50.17 NISC EXPENSES 42.55 MISC EXPENSES 20.82 PETTY CASE 100.00 479,60 RNVO~T: APBOANDRPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: ~EDRESDAY FEB280t 12:37 PAGE 8 P, ELEARE ID VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPEC~ LIST OF BILLS PRESSED ~ T}{]~ BO~ Of TRUST£~S FROM F~RU~Y ]6 200] TO ~'~BRU~Y 28 2oO! DEFI VENDOR NBR VENDOR NENE INVOICE DESCRIPTION k~OU~T 00124 POLICE PENSION FUND PAYROLL FOR - 022201 23111.1I 04921 POPS, ELIZABETH A. PAYROLL FOR - 022201 923.08 02333 PORTER LEE CORPORATION SUPPLIES 96.00 05745 PRECISE TIRE RECORDER CO. REPLACE RIBBON 75.00 TIMECARDS 38.00 113.00 02344 PENISER ANIMAL BOSPITAL STRAYS DSC-JAN, 01 330.00 02358 PROSAFETY SAFETY SBOES & SUPPLIES 220.40 02379 QUILL CORPORATION SUPPLIES 35.88 02393 RAY O'ENRAON CO.,INC. POLICE SUPPLIES 623.50 FINGERPRINT STATION 146.95 770.45 02396 RAYI(ANK OFFICE PROD & FUUN POLICE ~320999 148.03 POLICE ~320999 7.17 155.20 02399 REBEL'S TROPHIES, INC. SERVICE i61.25 02401 RDD WING SHOE STORE SAFETY SHOES 212.50 SHOE PURCHASE 85.00 297.50 02408 REID AND ASSOCIATES, JOHN E. PRE-ENPLOYMENT-L CZAPLA 175.00 SERVICE 350.00 525.00 04902 RELIABLE OFFICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 45.84 02417 RENTOKI5 - SUBURBAN ~INT.CONTRACT 687.30 02467 DUSE-k%NDHURST SHOP CENT,INC. RENT-MARCH 2000.00 04673 SAN BEENANDINO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS PAYROLL FOR - 022201 92.30 02494 SAVE-A-PET ADOPTION CENTER STRAYS 35.00 00428 SCKEITZ, JEFFREY RS!MB EXPENSES 56.85 05732 RDHWIEGER, MIKE RDIMBUSENENT 50.00 02522 SEA LION DIVE CENTER REGISTER-G.GDORGE 155.00 00125 SSIU LOCAL 73 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 456.00 REPORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 SEP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 9 REL~SE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BI~ PP. ES£~ED TO TH~ BO~ OF IRUST~£S FROMFI~BRUAR¥ 16 ~001 TO FEBP. UARY2~2001 DENT VENDOR WER VENDOR NA~E INVOICE DESCRIPTION ~OUNT ................................................................................................................................... 02536 SEVENTEEN SPECIALTIES INC, PENS 215.75 02542 SHEPP PEST CONTROL PEST CONTROL 295.00 05720 SEMCNT, CHERYL REIMB ~NENSES 49.95 02597 SPONTNART, INC. WORKOUT SHOES 4964.06 04139 STANARE & ASSOCIATES PRE-EMPLOYMENT TESTING 350.00 02632 STERS!NG CODIFIERS, INC. ZONING BDOK~ETS 512.00 05741 STRUIF, RICH EXPENSES 82.50 02660 SUBURBAN PRINTING CABLE COMP.FORWE 75.00 02672 SYSTEMS FOEMS, INC. VEHICLE LICENSE FOEMS 439.40 02680 TELETRAC, INC. SENVICE-FEE,2001 1213.95 02684 TERk%CE SUPPLY COMPANY MISC PAINT & SUPPLIES 382.51 05710 THE BLUE LINE.COM SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 69.95 02691 THOMPSON ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS ELEVATOR SERVICE 639.00 01291 TBYSSEM DOVER EL~ATOR MAINTENANCE 196.29 02697 TIMEMARK, INC. SUPPLIES/PARTS 2185.00 SUPPLIES/PARTS 1734.29 391929 08722 TIP PLUS CORP. IRON GRINGER STAND 306.95 02723 TRITON ELECTRONICS, INC. k~BOR AND REPAIR 158.70 LABOR 62.50 221.20 02749 UNITED BUSINESS MACHINES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT 77.50 MA!NTEMANCE AGRBEMEMT 15.50 ¥~iNTENANCE AGREEMENT 15.50 ~INTEMANCE ACiREEMENT 15.50 MAINTENANCE AGRKK~ENT 15.50 M.%INTEMANCE AGREEMENT 496.80 Y~INTEHANCE AGRBEMEMT 15.50 YAIWTENANCE AGRBEMEMT 46.50 687.80 00127 U.~n~ ~,~. ?AVEOLL FOR - 022201 375.85 ~O~I~IO.~ OM RENALF 36.00 41!.85 REFO~T: ARBOARDRPT GRBF~RATED: 1 RBP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 10 REL~SE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BI~ P~I~N'I?~D TO T~{B BO~ OF ~UST~:~ FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARY 2$ 20OI DE~T VENDOR WER VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT ................................................................................................................................... 02760 UNIVERSITY OF iLLINOIS EONEO~WE~ GUIDE 85.00 02770 URBAN LAND INSTiTURB RENEWAL OF DUES 170.00 02782 VALVOLINE, INC. OTHER SUPPLIES 761,75 05733 VICORP REFONDOVERPAYMENT 100.00 02801 VIKING OFFICE HRODUCTS CARTRIDGE CANON 349.98 MISC OFFICE SUPPLIES 113.10 MISC,OFFICE SUPPLIES 37.84 500.92 00128 VILLAGE OF MO~C PROSPECT PAYROLL FOR - 022201 16741.36 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 29.96 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 4,32 16775.64 04314 VILLAGE OF MOU!~ PROSPECT - PAYROLL WIRES PAYROLL FOR - 022201 136606.11 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 16100.90 PAYROLL FOR - 022201 13078.32 PAYROLL FOR- 022401 80.63 165865.96 02816 VISION MANKETi!:S HELMET SHIELDS 54.00 01522 W.W. GRAINGER i'.iC. SLOTTED ANGLE KIT 165.00 05718 WALKER, RONAL9 A. REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX 530.00 02832 WALMAETCO~EiTY BRC EIREACCT-8802 19.64 FIRE ACCT'8802 9.20 28.92 02832 WALMANTSTORES, INC. MISC.SUPPLIES 35.67 02835 WAREHOUSE DIaZ SUPPLIES 93,36 L~SER LABLES 50.25 SUPPLIES 74.02 SUPPLIES 384.86 SUPPLIES 94.35 896.84 02844 WEARGUARD CLOTHING 219.65 05588 WINDGWS2000>~SAZ!NE RENEWAL 99.00 02893 WOLF C~EkA, iIiC. FILM 287.88 POLAROID FOLM 62,96 PROCESSING 29.92 PROCESSING 5.77 PROCESSING 13.72 REPORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB280t 12:37 EAGE 11 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUAR¥ 2$ 2001 RE~T VENDOR NER VENDOR NAME INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT PROCESSING I3.31 PROCESSING 734.11 EROCESSING 78.78 1226.45 05410 WO~OCOM WIRELESS, INC. CELL PHONE SERVICE 546.54 02909 Z-ROSE PRODUCTIONS GAE~ENT CA~IERS 271.70 00465 ZBORIL, DAVID REINE EXPENSES 30.00 TOTAL : 403087.88 03O 02016 ARC DISPOSAL COMPANY SINGLE FAMILY REFUSE 53735.44 SINGLE FANILY RECYCLING 20061.05 M~LTI FAMILY RECYCLING 32380.55 REFUSE 3116.76 REFUSE 10606.56 120700.36 01706 ILLINOIS RECYCLING ASSOCIATION ML~BRESEIP RENEWAL I75.00 05731 NATIONAL POLLUTION PREV.ROUNDTABLE REGISTRATON FEE 25.00 05199 SAFENAY INC. RE~3ND-OVERPAY~ENT 75.00 TOTA~ : 120975.36 05O 01302 ALDRiDGE ELECTRIC, INC. TkAFUIC SIGNAL MAINT. 700.00 02167 ARROW ROAD CONSTRUCTION RESUREACING PROG. 41262.77 05614 DETROIT SALT CO. ROAD SALT 15761.51 05620 MORTON SALT ROAD SALT 9993.76 05211 STATE TREASURER QUANTERLY CHARGES 3192.18 TOTAL : 70910.22 07O 05~67 LEAD INSPECTORS, INC. iNSPECTION 220.00 TOTAL ~: 220.00 290 04324 SANK ONE AGEN FEE-1999 300.00 TOTAL 300.80 510 01591 ~ERiCE~ HOTEL REGISTER CO. COAT kECK 202.15 REPORT: APBOARDRPT GUNERATBD: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: ~EDNESDAY FRE2801 12:37 PAGB 12 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MONNT PROSPECT FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARY 28 2001 DEFT VENDOR NBR VENDO~ Nk~E INVOICE DESCRIPTION k~DONT 04952 CIORBA GROUP INC. STREETLIGHTS 1776.63 01147 CC~UNIq. ALTH EDISUN ACCT,0858037019 20.42 04432 SPOT, JOUN PUNTRELE SERVICES 108.00 TOTAL : 2107.20 550 04124 ALBRECHT E~ERPRIRES FENCE RENTAL 1002.36 DEXOLITION & REXOUAL 24988.00 25990.36 01147 CCIg{ONI~EALTH EDISON ACCT,4475403022 46.03 ACCOT#4475453022 36.81 82.84 05728 NORWOOD BUILDERS RENOVATION 16237.50 TOTAL : 42310.70 610 05222 A~RICAN INDUSTRIAL CLUING 116.48 02577 BATTERY WORKS INC. PARTS 167.00 03758 BUREAU OF BUSINESS PRACTICE SAFETY CO~IP.LETTRE 30.56 01008 NURSE'S FLOWERS '& GIFTS FLORAL ARPulNG~NT 50.00 01147 C(I~quNWEALTH EDISON ACOT# 0770712000 7647.64 05714 DAVIS, SCOTT REFUND 150.75 REFUND 15.75 166.50 00318 DORSEY, SEAN REIMBURSS~ENT 1222.00 01436 FREDRIKSEN & SONS RECHARGE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 40.00 01448 G & O THEP~i~L SUPPLY CoMPaNY LOUVER MOTOR 460.66 05713 GRRE!NSKI, SUSAN REFUND 3.35 REFUND 0.35 REFUND 0.37 4.07 05716 GRO~F,~!HKEL, REVIN OVEP~ILLED !50.75 OVEREILLED 15.75 _66 50 01708 ILLINOIS SAFETY COUNCIL ldEMBRESHIP DUES 100.00 ~EPORT: APBOARDRPT GENERATED: 1 SE9 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 13 REL~SE ID : VILLAGE OF MOU~ PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARY 28 20OI DEPT VENDOR NBR VENDOR NAI~ INVOICE DESCriPTION AMOUNT 01707 JULIE, INC. SERVICE CHARGES 103.20 01886 LEGEND ELECTRICAL SALES HOASWITCHES 40.20 01909 L~E OILS INC SERVICE 248.60 04190 MI~, NANCY REIMBURSEMENT 51.90 02162 NICOR ACCT~140610120-2 234.40 ACCT#l-34-82-0910-5 310.08 ACCT~l-35-97-3730-9 79.15 ACCT~l-39-79-0550-4 524.07 1147.70 02193 NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 33.95 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 59.24 93.19 00403 O'DONOVAN, RODERICK CONFERENCE 1623.15 02301 PETTY CASE - FINANCE DEPT. MISC ~PENSES 122.40 02358 PROSAFETY SAFETY SHOES & SUPPLIES 220.40 05717 PULJIC, ELY/JOHN REFUND 67.00 RE,ND 7.00 74.00 02401 RED WING SHOE STO~ SAFETY SHOES 127.50 05715 RUDEAN, NE~EN REFUND 3.35 REFUND 0.35 3,~0 02672 SYST~S FO~S, INC. BLANK PERF PAPER 189.00 02914 ZIEBELL WATER SERVICE PRODUCTS ACCESSORIES 123.00 TOTAL : 14339.35 630 01069 CHEM RITE PRODUCTS C~P~Y SUPPLIES 176.01 01147 COb~O~EALTH EDISON ACCT,4475770000 258.9i 02806 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PDSPECT WATER SEUiCE 14.80 T~AL : 449.72 660 01937 A~IOCH TIRE, INC. SERVICE 117.30 REPORT: AREOARERPT GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 14 RELEASE tD VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT DEPT VENDOR WER VL~DOR NkwH I~OICE DF~CRIPTIUM MOUNT 02319 AUTO COLOR SUPPLIES 193.76 01006 BUSSE CAR WASH, INC. CAR WASRES-JAN,01 1070.75 04296 ENGIN~ASTERE, INC. MOTORCRA~ SPAk~ PLUGS 10.00 01750 INTERSTATE BATTERY BATTERIES 143.90 01909 LUBE OILS INC SERVICE 222.44 01990 MC~AUTER-CARE BALL JOINT 107.01 02250 OVER~EAD ~TERIA~ HANDLING R~RAIR TO OVERE~AD 710.00 02569 R.G. SMITH EQUIPWENT CO. EQUIPMEWH 1924.00 02395 RAYFAR HYDRAULIC REPAIR S~VIC REPAIR SERVICE 466.99 02484 SAFETY KLE~N CORPORATION PARTS WASHER SERVICE 354.75 04461 SCEULTE SUPPLY ~DEEAL/TARGNT TECR 559.40 02575 SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL CIRCUT TESTER 55.50 04101 SPI DISTRIBUTION INC. REPAIR PARTS 703.38 02684 TERRACE SUPPLY COMPANY GAS CYLINDER RENTAL 6.20 04472 TEXOR PETROLEUM CO PRUMIUM DIESEL 8290.59 GAS~OL 9092.54 17383.I3 02769 UPTOWH AUTO SUPPLY REPAIR PARTS 388.59 REPAIR PARTS 691.3i 1079.90 02870 WHOLESALE DIRECT INC. SERVICE 327.70 TOTAL : 25436.11 670 05721 LINE-X SERVICE 740.00 02509 R.G. SMITH EQUIPMENT CO. EQUIPMENT 6416.00 EQUIPMENT 962.00 7378.00 02525 SECRETARY OF STATE LICENSE PLATE-RENEWALS 78.00 TOTAL : 8196.00 69O 01460 ARTHUR J. GALLAGHER RI~m .==..:. PRO~SSIONAL LIABILITY 182.00 REPORT: APBOARDRPT GREERATED: 1 HEP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 I2:37 PAGE 15 REL~SE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUAP. Y282001 DEPT VRE~OR RER VENDOR NA~ INVOICE DESCRIPTION REOUNT 01737 INTRRGO~PJ~}4ENTAL PER.BEN.COOP INSURANCE 2069.40 INSURENCE 60949.88 INSUPJ~ICE 109716.29 INHUk%NCE 7112.22 179847.79 01966 MARTIN BOYER C~PANY,INC "GEORGE,WILLI~ G." 3129.84 TOTAL 183159.63 710 01027 CAPITAL GAINS INC. INVEST.MG~fr-POLICE 2310.00 00128 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAYROLL FOR - 022501 8880.65 04314 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - PAYROLL WIRES PAYROLL FOR - 022501 20294.97 TOTAL 31485.62 720 01027 CAPITAL GAINS INC. INVEST.MGt4T-FIRE 2865.00 00128 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAYROLL FOR - 022601 7892.47 04314 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - PAYROLL WIRES PAYROLL FOR - 022601 14200.58 TOTAL 24966.05 730 00128 VILLAGE OF MOU~IT ~OSPEOT PAYROLL FOR - 022401 371.24 04314 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - PAYROLL WIRES PAYROLL FOR - 022401 200.00 TOTAL 571,24 790 04324 D/QK ONE SAVINGS BONDS 800.00 05095 DEAREO~ VILLAS REFUND 20003.00 01286 DOMINICK'S FINER FOODS REFUND DUP PMT !35.00 05723 B.T.A. CIRCUIT BREARE~ OVERPAY~ENT 60.00 05743 NAEGELE, RAYMOND REFUND-EUCLID STORE 1824.00 05724 PATEL, ATUL V. OVERPAY24ENT · 36.00 0573~ RAPP, LEO OVERRAYNENT 12.00 04549 ROUSE k~NDRURST SHOPPING CTR. REFUND 9800.00 02622 STATE OF ILLINOIS LIQ.APPL!CAN? RECORD CHECK 38.00 02659 THIRD DISTRICT CIRCUIT COURT BOND 1.[ONRY !075.00 BUND b'.ONEY 6047.00 REPORt: APBOARDRPT GE~WEATED: 1 SEP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 16 RELS~SE ID VILk~GB OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST OF BILLS pKESENTED TO THE BOAP. D OF TRUSTEES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARY 28 2001 DE~T VENDO~ WER VENDO~ NA~E INVOICE DESCRIPTION A~OUNT ................................................................................................................................... BOND MONEY 1325.00 BOND MONEY I00.00 8547.00 00128 NTL~GE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAYROLL FOR - 022401 7149.34 DISBURSEMENTS 5000.00 DISENESTMENTS 50.00 12199.34 04990 WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ~VEWEE WISC.TAX-JAN t90.25 WISC.INCOME TAX 295.20 485.45 TOTAL 54019.79 GRAND TOTAL 902534.87 GENERATED: 1 REP 00 07:17 RUN: WEDNESDAY FEB2801 12:37 PAGE 17 RELEASE ID : VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT LIST Of BILLS PRESENT]ED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTE]ES FROM FEBRUARY 16 2001 TO FEBRUARY 25 2001 0~)~ARY BY ~D ................................................................................................................................... 001 GENERA~ FUND 403007.88 030 REFUSE DISPOSAL FUND 120975.36 050 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND 70910.22 070 C{~NITY NUVELP~T BLOCK GRNT 220.00 290 DUNNTO~N REDEVL B & I 1999 300.00 510 CAPITAL IMREOVE~]~? FUND 2107.20 550 DO~T(Y~N REDEVSp~ CONST 42310,70 610 WATER AND SEWER ~0ND 14339.35 630 PA~ING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND 449.72 660 VEHICLE MAINT~NCE FU~D 25436.11 670 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT FUND 8196.00 090 RISE MANAN~ENT FUND 183159.63 710 POLICE P~SIUN FUND 31405.62 720 FIRE PENSION NUND 24960.05 730 BENEFIT TRUST ~2 FU~D 571.24 790 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND 54019.79 TOTAL: 982534.07 PROCLAMATION SEVERE WEATHER PREPAREDNESS WEEK MARCH4-10, 2001 WHEREAS, the severe weather season is imminent, putting human lives and property in danger; and WHEREAS, most tornadoes and thunderstorms occur in the spring and summer, with flash floods occurring most frequently in mid to late summer; and WHEREAS, the state of Illinois is especially vulnerable due to its location at the northeast edge of the most tornado-prone region in the world therefore there is an average of 29 tornadoes per year in Illinois; and WHEREAS, in 2000, 52 tornadoes were reported in Illinois, and since 1985 twenty people in Illinois have died from floods and twenty-one people have been killed by lightning; and WHEREAS, tornadoes and severe weather are the most devastating natural disasters that regularly affect our state; and WttEREAS, the Illinois Emergency Management Agency, the National Weather Service, and Mount Prospect Emergency Services and Disaster Agency have combined efforts to implement emergency planning to combat the deadly effects of severe weather; and WHEREAS, the Emergency Services and Disaster Agency of the Village of Mount Prospect encourages residents to plan ahead and establish a plan for emergency action in the event a severe weather warning is activated in the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, I, GeraM L. Farley, do hereby proclaim March 4-1 O, 2001 to be SEVERE WEATHER PREPAREDNESS WEEK in the Village of Mount Prospect, and I strongly urge residents to become familiar with the hazards of tornadoes, lightning, and floods, and to formulate or refine preparedness plans in order to minimize deaths and/or injuries from the devastating effects of the varioas forms of severe weather. GeraM £. Farley Mayor ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk Dated this 6a day of March, 2001. PR 0 CLA MA TION "ABSO£ UTEL Y INCREDIBLE KID DA Y" MARCH 15, 2001 WHEREAS, Camp Fire Boys and Girls, the national organization, will sponsor 'Absolutely Incredible Kid Day' on March 15, 2001; and WHEREAS, Camp Fire Boys and Girls has issued a call to action, asking every adult in America to write a letter to a child or children on March 15, 2001; and WHEREAS, Camp Fire Boys and Girls has established the goal that every child receive a letter on March 15, 2001; and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Chicago Council of Camp Fire teaches boys and girls to become caring, confident youth and.future leaders; and WHEREAS, through contemporary programs and by speaking out on issues affecting youth and their families, Camp Fire Boys and Girls helps youth cope with their changing world: and WHEREAS, in Camp Fire, the choices and opportunities are inclusive to ALI. boys and girls; and , WHEREAS, Camp Fire Boys and Girls is commended for the valuable programs offered to young people in the V~Tlage of Mount Prospect and throughout the nation, and for the many services these young people perform for their communities through Camp Fire. NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Gerald L. Farley, Mayor of the Village of Mount Prospect, do here[~l' proclaim March .15, 2001 to be "ABSOL UTEL Y INCREDIBLE KID DA Y" in the Village of Mount Prospect, and declare the children of the Village of Mount Prospect as absolutely incredible kids this sixth day of March in the year Two Thousand and One. Gerald L. Farley Mayor ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk Dated this 6t~ day of March, 2001. PROCLAMATION "AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH" MARCH 1 - 31, 2001 · WHEREAS, theAmerican Red Cross, the largest social service agency in the world, is a humanitarian organization led by volunteers; and WHEREAS, the American Red Cross is designated by the United States congress as the nation's main voluntary agency responsible for disaster relief; and WHEREAS, the American Red Cross is also designated by Congress as the primary emergency communications link between military personnel and their families: and WHEREAS, theAmerican Red Cross is the primary deliverer of health and safety services to the American people as approved by the American Academy of Sciences; and WHEREAS, the American Red Cross is a vital link to Village residents and their families affected by civil unrest, war or disaster around the world; and HHEREAS, the American Red Cross of Greater Chicago provides services for the residents of Mount Prospect and thousands in surrounding communities, as well as providing a reliable blood service to many of the largest medical centers and community hospitals in metropolitan Chicago; and NOW, THEREFORE, I, GeraM L. Farley, Mayor of the Village of Mount Prospect, do herebyproclaim March 1 - 31, 2001 to be "AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH" in the Village of Mount Prospect, and I commend this organization for the outstanding contribution and dedication it has made to our Village's vitality. Gerald L. Farley Mayor ATTEST: Velma W.. Lowe Vt7lage Clerk Dated this 6th day of March, 2001. 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 PRENDERGAST LANE APPLICANT - PANZARINO 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 hearing, 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 to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their February 6, 2001 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, AICP MINUTES OF THI~ REGULAR MEETING OF TIt~ 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 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 Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Frank and Anna Panzarino Anthony Kies Phil Cinantino 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 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. Connolly said the applicants propose to 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 is 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 I0' open from the rear tot 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 15' 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-02-01. Ms. Juraeek asked if Zoning Board members had any questions of staff. As there were none, Ms. Juraeek 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 them 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. Panzarino'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, 6t0 S. St. Cecilia Driye, 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 hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board. Leo Floros and Merrill 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 pen:aitted lot coverage and limit future properly owners from installing a service walk or shed. on'mg Board of Appeals ZBA-02-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chah-person Page 3 There was no further discussion, and Ms. Juracek asked for a roll call on the motion. Leo Floros made a motion to recommend to the Village Board approval for a Variation to enclose a structure in the rear yard setback. Richard 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 JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JANUARY 18, 2001 HEARING DATE: JANUARY 25, 2001 SUBJECT: ZBA-02-01 - VARIATION FOR AN ENCLOSED STRUCTURE (PORCH) 2105 PRENDERGAST LANE (PANZARINO RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Frank & Anna Panzarino 2105 Prendergast Lane Mount Prospect, lL 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'X 15' ENCLOSED STRUCTURE IN THE P.EAR 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 is setback 30-feet from the front lot line and the primary residence is setback 56-feet from the front lot 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 is a landscape feature-wall that defines the area that 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 ~ir application, the petitioners compare the porch to an atrium, but with a roof. In addition, the petitioners state BA-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 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. 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 arc contained in Section 14.203.C,9 of the Village of Mount Prospect Zoning Code. The section contains seven specific findings that must bc 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 thc same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; ~2 lack of desire to increase financial gain; and u 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 at~ached garage. The applicants propose to construct a 33' x 15' enclosed str~cture in the rear setback. The reasons for thc 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 usc more of their property. Thc proposed structure would not be likeiy to have a negative effect on the character of thc neighborhood or the public welfare. RECOMMENDATION 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 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. l concur: William J. Coor~y, AICP, Director of Community Development VILLAGE Ot Iv OUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division I00 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 84'7.818.5328 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 ~ Village Board Final {~1 ZBA Final _I~i:i.:~:': o,S~NUmber :~:?~'!i7Development Nam~Address ' ,:~i~:.:~i~I DateofSubmission COmmon Address(es~$treet limber, Str~e.t) t Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) ~ Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ~. Lo:r 33 ~,~ ~'~. C~c,t;~ 5o~,d,b'~,;,,.., .I I I Z Name ./'fl Telephone (day) ~ Corporation Telephone (evening) i Street Address City D State Zip Code Pager Code Section(s) for which Variation(s) is (are) Requested SunlRra.Cy and Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the .a, tta~hed Standards for Variations Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fi~liy completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Pinn~ing Division. R is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment 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 suppeaing documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property 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 affu'm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate t ° the(_~ff~ ~ ~L° wl~/~, e' 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 associnted supporting ma,terjpl//i "~~ , // ; ~ Property Owner "~0' Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 Fax 847.818.5329 3 TDD 847.392.6064 A Name Telephone (day) Corporation " ~ Telephone (evening) Street Addre~ F~: Ci~ . ~ S~o Zip Code Pager Developer ~e Telephone (day) Add.ss F~ A~raey N~e ~ Telephone (day) Ad.ess Su~eyor I Nme ~ Telephone (~y) Engin*er Nme Telephone (day) Ad.ess Architect Nme '*" Telephon~ (day): Ad.ess Landscape Architect Nme Telephone (day): Address Mount Prospect Department of Community Development Phone 847.818.5328 100 South Emerson SWeet, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 Fax 847.818.5329 2 TDD 847.392.6064 ~0 FT. BUILDING -- LI~E - I ~IOFT E~E~ENT ~OR PU~LIC ~ UTILIT.IES AND D~AINAGE We, CERTIFIED SURV~ CO. do heraby ce~ify that we have We. CERTIFIED SURVEY CO. do hereby cedil the buildina ~n the above Dro~e~. sugared the above desk,bed ~oDe~ a~d that 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 ZBA 59-V-90, 730 East Northwest Highway 7~0 E.NORTHWEST 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 and 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, 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. 4226 Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved for passage of ordinance No. 4226 AN ORDINANCE GP~%NTING 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 bye 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 Cormoran, moved for passage of Ordinance No. 4227 AN ORDINANCE GRARTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 802 DRESSER DRIVE Upon roll cell: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem, Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. ZBA 62-V-90 ZBA 62-V-90, 609 No~h Terrace 609 NOAH TERR An Ordinance was presented for first reading that would grant a variation to allow a 15 foot rear yard setback in order to construct a room addition. The Zoning Board of Appeals recom~mended granting this request by a vote of 4-0, provided the room addition is 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 acceptable, rather than face brick. 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, Buses, Corcoran, Floros, , Van Geem, Watt~nberg Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Arthur, seconded by Trustee Wattenberg, moved ORD.NO. 4228 for passage of Ordinance NO. 4228 AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A ~ARIA~ION FqR' PROPERTY COM~{ONL¥ IG~OWN AS 609 NOAH TERRACE Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem, 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 NOAH TER. would grant a variationtto per, it a 15 foot rear yard in order to 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 Gesm, seconded by Trustee Floros, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corcor~n, Floro$, Van Geem, Wattenberg Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee ~an Geem, seconded by Trustee Ftoros, moved ORD.NO. 4229 for passage of Ordinance 4229 AN ORDINANCEGRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY · COMMONLY KNOWN AS 607 NoAH TERRACE UPon roll call: Ayes: Arthur, Busse, Corooran, Floros, Van Gee~, .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 variation to allow a five foot (5') separation between an existing d~ck 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. KJncaJd Michael L Szyska President Witliam Schneck Director Daniel R~ Ansani Treasurer Vevefka, Rosen and HaL~h Vice President Karen Mills Attorney Richard A, David Assistant Treasurer/Secretary SecretaPj McClure, Inserra & Company Auditor Feb. 7,2007 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 Preserve. Adult mosquitoes from the Nature Preserve Area may be migrating out and over to surrounding areas which include 21Q5 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 1/~1/00 2/1/01 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2105 PRENDERGAST LANE WHEREAS, Frank and Anna Panzadno [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 Headng was held on the request for a Variation being the subject of ZBA Case No. 02-01 before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25'h day of January, 2001, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10th 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 proposed 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 TWO: 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 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MARCH 1, 2001 SUBJECT: MODIFICATIONS TO PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Attached to this memorandum is a revised Ordinance reflecting comments made by Village Board members at their February 20 meeting. The modifications are primarily related to the proposed text for the Minor Variation Process. Staff has modified the Ordinance to increase the notification radius to adjacent property owners within 100' of the subject property and to require that the Village send the notice. In addition, the text was modified to address situations where more than two accessory structures are present on a property. These modifications reflect the comments made at the past Village Board meeting. Please forward this memorandum and attachment to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their March 6 meeting. Staffwill be present at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. Cooney, AICP Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~~ FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 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 detacbed 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 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. 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 comprehensive 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 staff memo. 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. William ~1. Cooney, )~ICP ZBA-04-01 Michael E. Janonis 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 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. 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 14.1504.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 100 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 ora detached garage to 672 square feet and eliminate conditional use approval for garages designed for more than two-motor vehicles; 4) to clarify that the maximum number of accessory structures is two per zoning lot and exempt swinuKmg pools from this provision; 5) to require that the finished side of a 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 10-feet of a property line, unless adjacem to single family residential zoning districts. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Elizabeth Luxem STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, AICP, Depuw Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, 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 Connolly, 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 amendments, 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 Juracek, 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 hearing and decide whether an existing non-conforming sh'ueture, 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. ~he 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. Connolly reported that the Staff memo contains revised sections of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to the minor variation process. Ms. Connolly 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) where 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. Cormolly described the administrative notice as having the property address, a description of the project, and where and when the hearing 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 variations 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. Connolly responded that the petitioner obtains the names of property owners within 250' and prepares labels, ~vhich 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. Connolly 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. Cotmolly said that Staff had researched adjacent communities' requirements to arrive at the proposed FARs and definition. Ms. Juracek asked why RX districts had a .35 FAR and other districts had a .5 FAR. Ms. Connolly 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. DETACHED 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 staffto revise the Zoning Ordinance to increase the size of detached garages to 672 square feet. This Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 3 number was arrived at based on how garages are designed and constructed (28'x24' is a standard 3-ear garage size), and how people use garages, in relation to the aesthetics of the community. Ms. Connolly 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. Connolly described the proposed changes to 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. Connolly said no, that the minor variation would apply to existing buildings only. Mr. Blue said the minor variation process would be for sethaek requirements and not to allow an increase to a garage size. The resident would have to apply to the ZBA for a garage larger than 672 s.f. MAXIMUM NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES Ms. Connolty explained that it has been Village policy to allow two 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 stmetores and the amount of lot coverage pemitted, as a whole for the property. Revising the Zoning ordinance to specifically state that accessory structures are limited to two per lot, and 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 detaebed garage. Ms. Connolly described the proposed changes to sections of the Zoning Ordinance. Arlene luraeek asked if someone would have to go through the variation process if they requested more than two structures. Ms. Counolly said that they would have to get approval from the ZBA. FENCES Ms. Connolly reported that, in an effort to improve the appearance of the town's corridors, Village Board has dkected Staffto 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 requires 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 requires parking lots 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. 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. Counolly 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. Juracek said the Village did make changes in the Off-Street and Loading sections, but not the Bulk Regulations sections. This amendment affirms thit determination that a parking lot has a different impact than bulk regulations intended to govem. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Ms. Counolly 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 regulafions~ 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 Amendments 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: Cot'ten, Ettinger, 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 Zoning Ordinance Nos. 14.306.B.I, 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~ 14.240I; to create Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements and related definitions. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, ROgers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-04-2001 Arlene Juracck, 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. LIPON 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 of a fence to be exposed along arterial streets. Leo Floros seconded the motion. Id'PON ROLL CALL: AYESi Cotten, Ettinger, Floros, Youngquist, 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 vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~arbara Swiatok, Planning Secretary 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: 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 Conditional Use approval for garages designed for moro 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. 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, Staff was 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 September 26th 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 fence 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 tbat 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, See. 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. See. 14.201, Minor Variations would be added to the list of administrative functions of this chapter. 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. Cm~duct admiuistrative hearings and nlake final determiuations (m minor YarifltiollS. tn 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 uf 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 to the petitioner in carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this Chapter. 2. Authority: The Directur of Cmnmunity Development may, after an administrative hearing, grant a minor variation as provkled for in ~his 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 miuor 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 vmSa:~vn 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 f:::' :: vx:-~xt:.:;n 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 miaor varintioas as described ia lhis sectlon. A new section would be created for minor' variations, a "new" 14.203.C.11,~aud'the curren~ section's' ' 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 l)evelopmeat: Tire Director of Community Development shall hear and decide as linal administrative authority, all petitions lbr ~ninor variations I~)r existing non- conforming structures that 1) extend into no more than 40% of the reqaired interior setback. 2) exlend into no more than 10% of the rear yard setback or 3) where the applicable lot coverage does not exceed the maximmu permitted ~i)r that zoning district by more than 10%. b. tn all petitions tbr Minor Variations. the Director nf Community Development shall make tindings nf t~tct based on input l?om adjacent property owners, and the l?}llowine stamlards: 1) Was the regulafion from which relief is sought in existence when the applicant either pnrchased or improved the properD~'l 2)Has the applicant changed the property in snme way sn as to create the noncnnlk~rmi~'? 3)Will the requested relief be ont of character with the neighborhood? 4) Arc there other structures within the same Zoning District. which either violate or have received a variation from the same regulation? 5) Does the negative mtpact on the applicant, in no~ being able to use the property in the specific manner requested, substantially outweigh any negative ,~npact on the adjacent properties if the vm-iatkm is granted? 6) Is llle i~quest the nmfimum necessary u) use the property in a manuer reasonably similar In off, er nses ia the neighborhood? 7) Is there a reasonable al~ernalive ~hat is consislent wifl~ fl~e expressed terms of the Zonine Ordinance? c. Administrative Hearings shall be held for minor variations only aud in compliance with the provisions as described in this Section. Upon receipt of an application tbr a minor variatian, the Director of Community Development shall review the application for completeness and assign a case number to the reqnest. 2) For all applications for a minor variation, the applicant shall provide to the Department nf Communily Development a list of all owners of record of property lying within fifty t~el (50'). exclusive of right-of-way width, of the parcel subject to the public hearing. The applicant shall attest in writing that the list nf property o~vners is trne and accurate. The applicaut must provide a signed administrative notice by each property owner lying within 504~et of the prt~pcrty or provide evidence that they have been notified of the minor variatlo~ request and hearing by Certified Mait. 3) An administrative notice shall cuntain the case number assigned to the aplflication, tl~e address (ff the property, a brief statement on the nature of the minor variation, the name and address of thc property owner, the petitioner and their legal reprcsenlative, and tl~e date, time and location of the administrative hearing. 4) For ail applications l%r a minor variation, the Director of Community Development shall alsn ca~sc one ov mnre signs to be posted on thc properly which is the subject of the administrative heari.ng. 5) Thc number and location of signs shall be determined by lite I)irccV~r ofCommnnity I)cvelopmcnl. 6) The sign must be a minimam oF flfiriy inches by thirty inches (30" x 30") in size. Imviu~ leiters a minimum of two inci~es (2") lfigh. ;ind contain ~t~c 12flinwing intk~vmation: ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25, 2001 Page 4 ~ The fact that an administrative hearing will be hehl to afl¥ct the sub.iect property, with direction to iuterested members of Ibc gencc:d public ,) cult ~he office of rite Comrnunity l)evelopment Director for fltrther informatinn concernin~ date. time and place aud subject ma tter of said administrative hearing. Any interested person may appear and be heard at the hearing held concerning any such application for minor variation, aud such appearance may be made in person, by agent (if a corporation), or in writing. d. Appeal Of Director of Community l)evelopment I)ecisiou Any individual may file an appeal of the decisioa of the Director or' Cunmmnity Developmeat regarding a minor variatiou with the Zoning Buard nf Appeals. Such appeal shall be filed with the Director of Commnnity Development within five (5) calendar (lays of the I)irec;or's decision. Renumber 14.203.C.I 1. Additional Restrictions to 14.203.C.12 Renumber 14.203.C.12. Revocation m 14.203.C.13 Renumber 14.203.C.13. Effect Of Denial Of Proposal 14.203~C. 14 In addition, the Zoning Ordin~ce would be amended to include definition of a minor v~iation, as shown below: Sec. 14.2401 DEF~I~ONS Minor Variation: A dispensation permitted on individual parcels o~' property as a method of alleviating practical difficulties by allowing exact replacement of existing n(m-confi)rnfing structures as specified in 14.203.C.6.a of this code to allow reasonable nsc of the building, strucn,-e, or property which, because of tmusunl nr unique circumstauces, 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 n Create a new section of the Bulk Regulations to read: E. Floor Area Ratio: dwellings and garages in the RX Ztming District shall no~ exceed ~, .35 FAR S/F RESIDENCE I)ISTRIiCT RI: 1,1.905. E: VAR silall bc .5 S/ff RESIDENCE I)ISTRICT RA: 14.1005.E; liAR ~hall be .5 ATTACHED S/F RESIDENCE DISTRICT R2: 14. t 10S.E: FAR shall be .5 I,OW DENSITY RESIDENCE D1S'I'I~,ICT 1<3: i4.!205. E: I::\R shall be .5 SEC, 14.2401: DEFINITIONS Fh)or Area I>,atio (FAR): The ratin of the total Iloor area {If ~! single faal/ly dwelling (excepl bas~ ment) :~nd garage to ~hc area of'the lot (Itt which the bnihting is built. ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of January 25, 2001 Page 5 DETACIrlED G.I_RAGES 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, x;::: ..... :::ct:::- x'2!t?c!'¢s. 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. Daycare homes. 'D::tazI.::! g::::~:gor: d~gigne~.~ ::,z ~:::::;: ::::::'~ ....... r...~, ........ c~ . ~ ~c.c,. (DELETED) Family community residence, where operator is not licensed or certified by an appropriate agencyi 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 fe~t (5') into front ~etbacks. (Ord. 4590, 9- 21-1993; Ord. 4825, 10,1-1996; Ord. 5023, 5-18-1999) R 1 14903 A CONDITIONAL USES '~ .................................................................. R-A 14.1003.A: CONDITIONAL USES: e" ....................... ~::: ................ R-2 14.1103.A: CONDITIONAL USES: '-;.. ..................... ..l. ..... ,.,., ..,. ....... ZBA-04-01 ZBA Meeting of JanuaD' 25, 2001 'Page 6 MAXI~ NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTIYRES 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: c~ Create the following section: 5. Numbel of Accessory Structures: The luaxi~l'~um number of accessory strt crt 'es shall lot exceed two structures per Zo~i~t~ [cl. Swimmi~ pools are exempt from the total number o'1' 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. ' ................... PARKING LOTS In the Bulk Regulations s~tion 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 B 1 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 ~::::! i::::",:~::~ '-!:::: in the B-I District sball meet the following setback requirements: B-2 NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING DISTRICT 14.1604.A.: BULK REGULATIONS B-3 COMMUNITY SHOPPING DISTRICT 14.1704.A: BULK REGULATIONS: B-4 CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT 14.1804.A: BULK REGULATIONS: OR OFFICE RESEARCH DISTRICT 14.2004.A BULK REGULATIONS I1 LIMITED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 14.2104.B BULK REGULATIONS BA-04-01 ZBA Meet'mg 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 n~essary for the Zoning Ordinance to accurately reflect Village policy and goals, research of neighboring communities regulations and what is consistent with community 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) 14.20t.C (revise text) 14.202.C~4 (revise t~xt) 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 See. 14.240! 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, 141903.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 14.1504.A, 14.1604.A, 14.1.704.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. ~&U._TQ~)J~,DJ[E 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 Stmhl, Community Development Director William Cooney and Deputy Community Deve[opment 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. lie CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. MISCELLANEOU~ 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 cdteria was discussed. ~:loor Area 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 ZBA, 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 COnsideration of a Conditional Use and the ZBA has considered economic hardships in the past including protection of mature trees, Keith Youngqulst, member of the ZBAi 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 there still would be the intent to have the necessary Hearings but they would be administrative hearings an~ appropriate back-up material would be provided to the Village I~oard, General comments of the Village Board members included the following items: There 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 there is a need 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 Juracek 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. Garage 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 Headngs 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 Jumcek spoke. She personally wetcomes the redevelopment end feels that the current restrictions in place are effective and there would not be e 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. 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 property 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 BUSINESS 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. VII. ~D~JJ~[Z~[J~J3L~ Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m. Village of MoUnt ProsPect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL SANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM COONEY, JR. AICP, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL BLUE, AICP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 2000 SUBJECT: FOLLOW UP TO VILLAGE BOARD DISCUSSION ON ZONING ISSUES The Village Board discussed several zoning issues at the August 22, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting. A number of follow up questions resulted 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) LIMITS Lot coverage and FAR ratios are two common methods used by municipalities to limit the amount of development that is possible on private property. Lot coverage specifically limits the amount of land that can be "covered" by any type of structure (buildings, driveways, patios, etc.) irrespective of the height of the structures. FAR addresses the gross square footage of buildings that may be constructed on a property and does not take into consideration other structures. The Village's Zoning Code applies lot coverage ratios to all of its zoning districts as well as other bulk regulations including setbacks, height limits and minimum lot sizes. Although FARs are not listed in our Code, a "defact°'' FAR can be determined utilizing the above mentioned bulk regulations. Listed below are the bulk regulations For the RI and RA districts: R1 Zoning District Lot size: 8,125 sq. ft. (65' x 125') Setbacks: 30' front, 25' rear and 6.5' sides Buildable area: 3,640 sq. ft. (area within setbacks) Allowable lot coverage: 3,656 sq. ft. (45% of lot size) "Defacto' maximum FAR: .63 RA Zoning 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 Gm'age 120' Home I Home Drive- way 50' 50' Figure 1 Zoning Issues - Follow up September i9, 2000 Page 3 RI Single Family District Single Family Home w/ Single Family Home w/ Detached Gararge Attached Garage ~Driveway 125' 125' Home Home Drive- way 65' 65' Figure 2 ~ning Issues - Follow up { ;eptember 19, 2000 'age 4 ?he site plans demonstrate the type of homes that could be developed under our current zoning codes in the RA ~nd RI districts. As the exhibits show, a key factor is whether the home has an attached or detached garage. A )roperty owner could construct a 4,200 square foot home with an attached garage or an 1,800 square foot home vith a detached garage in the PA. district. In the R1 district, an owner could build a 5,500 square foot home with m attached garage or a 2,800 square foot home with a detached garage. The reason for the large variance in ~ossible home sizes relates to the amount of land used for the driveway and detached garage. For every square 'oot of land occupied by the driveway and/or garage, two square feet of potential house is forsaken. It should be aoted that these figures are m~imums and that property owners typically would install additional patios, decks md ancillary sidewalks on their property, thereby reducing the possible size of the homes. ,3taft surveyed surrounding towns to deternfme what FAR limits they allowed, if any. Typical FARs for lots that would fall into the RA and R1 districts ranged from .35 to .5. The Village's "defaeto" FARs of .63 and .75 were very generous when compared to surrounding communities. If the .5 FAR were applied, the homes with detached ,~a'ages shown on the attached exhibits would not be affected. However, the homes with attached garages would ~e reduced to a maximum 2,880 square feet in the RA district and 4,000 square feet in the R1 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 eases 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 eases, 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 of a "Minor Variation" process is to address variations that have limited impact on the neighborhood in a manner that is quicker and easier for residents. Our research, including a review of minor variation procedures in other towns and discussions with the Village Attorney, indicates that a minor variation process for Mount Prospect could include the following elements: 1. Limited Number of Items to be Considered: The Minor Variation process is meant to address requests for relief from the zoning ordinance that are in keeping with the intent of the ordinance and reflect public policy. Therefore, the number of variations that should be issued under a minor variation procedure would be limited and the extent of relief granted would be only up to a certain percentage of the base standard. In Mount Prospect it would be most appropriate for Minor Variations to be heard for requests related to alterations or replacement of existing conditions on residential property. For example, requests by residents to remove and replace an existing patio on a property that exceeds lot coverage could be considered for a Minor Variation; a request related to construction of a new home or major renovation of an existing home Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 Page $ 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 districts. 2. Notice: There is a notice requirement for Minor Variations, but it need not be as extenstve 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 eases. 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 fi-om neighbors) under which the hearing step could be waived. Applicants or others would be able to appeal the decision of the Hearing Officer to the ZBA. 4. Benefits to Residents: The benefit to residents requesting the variation is a shorter turnaround time for the process and a less onerous application process (for example, they would need fewer copies of application materials). Likely users of the Minor Variation process are those discouraged from undertaking projects by the rigor of the standard variation process. The Planning and Building Divisions occasionally discuss projects that will require formal hearings for very minor variations with residents who decide the process is not worth the effort. 5. Impact on ZBA or Staff: It is difficult to say how many Minor Variations would be heard - Des Plaines averages two Minor Variations each month. Few 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 prevtous memorandum (dated August 15, 2000 and presented to~tbe 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 thc RX, RI, and RA. Zoning District Minimum Lot .$iz..e. RX 17,500 R1 8,125 (9,375 on a comer lot) RA 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 (R.A). In these cases the approved garage size was a function of the request by the resident and the site characteristics. Although COunterintuitive to the idea of a sliding scale, the larger gai~ages were permitted on the smaller lotsl 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 ora 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, otc). 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 reasonableness in using house size as a way to determine garage size. It makes sense from an aesthetic standpoint that a home not be dwarfed by a garage on the lot. However, this approach also presents a number of problems. Not the least of which is that house sizes change. We are seeing many additions in the Village that double the size of home. Would a garage on that lot also be allowed to double in size? Also, since a prime 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 (and perhaps the most imposing or out of character) to have the largest garage. For the~e 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 it is impractical to create a sliding scale based on fixed items such as lot or yard size to control the size of garages. Consideration of such sliding scales indicates that using any one of the standards considered above is not sufficient. The best standard would have tobe a combination of factors. This would create a complex analysis that would be cumbersome and difficult for residents to understand. The benefit of additional regulation in controlling potential adverse impacts would be limited. This is because garages are designed and constructed in increments - the most common being 600 (24 x 25), 672 (24 x 28), and Zoning Issues - Follow up September 19, 2000 -. Page 7 720 (24 x 30). While 22 feet deep versions of these increments are possible (550, 616, and 660) they are not as desirable since they have less storage space for household goods. Therefore, even a sliding scale standard will ultimately result in garages based on the commonly available garage size. In any case, the differences between these are relatively minor in regard to their potential impact on neighboring properties. For example, the difference between the 672 and 720 square foot garage is only two feet of additional width. Controls to protect against potential impacts of garages coming too close to neighboring properties (being too tall or covering too much of the lot) are already in place in the Village's Zoning Ordinance. There is no evidence in the Village's recent review and approval of oversized garages that fixed standards (lot, house, or yard size) as the basis for a sliding scale would be a better approach. Likewise, it does not seem likely that such an approach would dirnL'aish potential impacts on adjacent properties or reduce the number of variations requested. A simple and clearly understood garage size, which would be further controlled by existing lot coverage ratios and setback requirements, will continue to serve the Village well. If there is desire to increase the current standard, information on common garage sizes indicates that either 672 or 720 square feet are appropriate options. TEAR DOWN (DESIGN REVIEW) ORDINANCES Tear down ordinances have been collected and reviewed from four communities that addressed this issue. They are Park Ridge, Lake Forest, Winnetka, and Hinsdale. The intent and application of those ordinances are summarized below. It is interesting to note that Hinsdale, Winnetka, and Lake Forest regulate the ability to simply demolish residential structures. Park Ridge - Construction of a new home or major renovation in Park Ridge requires review and approval by an Architectural Review Board. Detailed residential design guidelines relate to architectural style, site layout, proportion/massing/scale, roofs, windows and doorways, exterior architectural elements, and surface materials and colors. The City's zoning ordinance also includes FAR, height, and setback requirements. 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 are controlled by the FAR and setback standards in the zoning ordinance. Winnetka & Lake Forest- Control of tear downs in Winnetka and Lake Forest are related to protecting historic landmarks. The Winnetka ordinance primarily allows the village to delay demotion of a historic structure. The Lake Forest ordinance requires a Certificate of Appropriateness for any landmark or structure in a landmark district to be demolished or replaced, or for construction on a vacant lot in a historic district. A hearing is required before Lake Forest Preservation Commission for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Standards for new homes include building height, design, and scale in relationship to surrounding areas. Naperville - Napcrville has established a Teardown Taskforcc, which is currently studying thc issue of tcardowns. The emphasis of their work is on the bulk and size of new homes, rather than the appearance. Please pass this memorandum on to the Village Board for their review and consideration at thc September 26, 2000 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Community Development Staff will be in attendance to present these findings and answer any questions. b$ ',nt Village. of Mou Prospect Commumty Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM COONEY, JR,, AICP, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL BLUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: AUGUST 15, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING ISSUES FOR VILLAGE BOARD DISCUSSION Recently, several residential zoning issues before the Village Board have raised questions about how our Zoning Code addresses certain situations. This memorandum describes issues raised by 1) lot coverage in residential areas, 2) tear downs and additions, and 3) oversized garages. The memo has been prepared as background information for a Village Board Committee of the Whole meeting to be held on August 22, 2000. LOT CoVERAGE Lot coverage is the portion of a property covered by some type of structure. The structures included in the calculation are defined though a municipality's zoning ordinance. In Mount Prospect, the standard of lot coverage includes items that are considered as impervious surfaces - those that do not allow water to flow through them. "Impervious Surface" is defined in both the zoning ordinance and development code as 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 are: CR- Conservation Recreation 25% B 1 - Business Office 75% RX- Single Family Residence 35% B2 - Neighborhood Shopping 75% R1 - Single Family Residence 45% B3 - Community Shopping 75% P.A.- Single Family Residence 50% -B4 - Corridor Commemial 75% R2 -Attached S/F Residence 50% B5 -Central Commercial 100% P,.3 - Low Density Residence 50% O/R - Office/Research 80% R4 - Multi Family Residence 50% I 1 - Limited Industrial 75% R5 - Senior Citizen Residence 75% Why is lot coverage a concern? Lot coverage is regulated through Village codes for two reasons: 1) to limit 5tormwater runoff from any given stte onto adjacent properties and 2) for aesthetic reasons, m limit the impact on a neighborhood or commemial area of excessive parts cfa lot being covered by buildings and hard surfaces. ning Issues gust 15, 2000 ge2 ~rmwater management, is a longstanding issue in the Village. For obvious reasons, residents-and property 'nets are very concerned about potential storm water impacts created by adjacent properties. Stormwater runoff controlled by both the zoning and development codes. In short, water that arrives on a site (rainfall) must be atained on site or conveyed to part of the Village's stormwater management system - storm sewers, creeks, tention ponds, etc. Other regulations that control the impact of stormwater flow from one property to the next :lude requirements to point residential downspouts away from neighboring properties and requiring a permit for · work that changes the grade of a property. The Engineering Division in the Public Works Department nerelly addresses these regulations, and their related inspections. ~e relationship of aesthetics to lot coverage is somewhat more subjective. However, the intent of lot coverage in ks regard is to limit a property from being covered excessively with pavement and/or accessory structures. The ought of a residential front yard paved completely, or a rear yard completely covered by a shed, patio, deck, etc. akes for an extreme example, but does give a clear idea of why the regulation is needed. Likewise, the ~pearance of a commercial parking lot covered property line to property line with asphalt creates a negative reetseape along our commercial corridors. In most zoning ordinances, including ours, commercial parking lots ust provide perimeter and interior landscaping. esidents' Needs ecent zoning cases and requests at the Building Division Customer Service Counter show that resident requests :gat'ding lot coverage are: 1) requests to "remove and replace" existing patios, sidewalks, decks, etc. that are oneonforming with zoning requirements and 2) addition of new or larger patios, decks, etc. that bring the total ~t coverage ratio over the maximum allowed. These rather frequent requests indicate that there is a common eslre to increase the lot coverage ratio, or at least permit exceptions for inquiring residents. 'roperties that were developed in unincorporated areas and then annexed to the Village are often nonconforming s they relate to lot coverage. Likewise, some properties may have been developed prior to the establishment of urrent zoning standards. In any ease, the existing conditions are permitted to remain as nonconforming tructures per the zoning ordinance CSection 14.402). That section allows these nonconforming patios, driveways, nd sidewalks to be replaced in their same location - even if they do not comply with setback regulations. towever, they must meet applicable lot coverage requirements (14.402.B). This requirement has prevented a ~umber of residents from removing patios, driveways, and sidewalks, and replacing them in the same location. In · omc cases the replacement is to correct an area that is severely cracked, sometimes to the point of being a trip lazard. -~roperty owners seeking to install new or enlarged patios, sidewalks, or driveways, decks, etc. also run into the naximum lot coverage ratio - even when the improvements .qconform to setback requirements. While the code is :lear in defining the standard, residents are ot~en disappointed that desired improvements to their property are ~imited. Where the desired lot coverage ratio is close to the permitted level and a hardship can be identified. :esidents occasionally pursue a zoning variation to allow them to exceed the standards. It should be noted that the same types of lot coverage issues arise for commercial development - even though in those cases the lot coverage ratio is higher to allow for needed parking and loading dock areas. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Neighboring Communities - Other communities address the question of lot coverage in a similar manner. However, they typically include buildings, accessory structures, and decks while excluding driveways, patios and sidewalks. This approach can be thought of as a "building coverage ratio". Those ratios in adjacent communities Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 3 range from 25% to 40%, depending on lot sizes. A survey summary and copy of survey questions are included in Attachment A. Credits for Certain Materials - Giving a credit for what might be called a "semi-pervious" surface has been suggested as a way to allow residents to exceed the lot coverage ratio. As an example, while the square footage of a concrete patio might be applied completely to the lot coverage ratio, only 80% of the square footage of a brick paver patio would be applied. This approach has merit in regard to the aesthetics issue of lot coverage, but would require consensus on how to set the ratios. However, this would be a subjective process and one that has room for many variations. For example, assume the Village decided that brick pavers are more attractive than concrete and should be considered at 80% of their square footage for sidewalks, patios and driveways in regard to lot coverage. This would create legitimate questions regarding the aesthetic value of concrete that can be dyed and/or stamped to resemble brick pavers and like materials. It would also create the problem of tracking and regulating any future requests to go from a brick patio or sidewalk that received the credit back to concrete, which would require that less surface be installed. From the perspective of atormwater management, assigning a credit to seemingly less pervious surfaces is not an acceptable alternative for several reasons. 1. Moderate to severe storms are analyzed in determining storm sewer sizes and detention basin designs. These storms are characterized by short durations and high intensities. The rate at which water will infiltrate into even a permeable surface is so slow as to be insignificant when compared to the rote 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 properly owners to remove and replace certain nonconforming structures would let them make_, in-kind replacements of existing patios, driveways, sidewalks, and decks that met all zoning standards except for lot coverage. As written now, the zoning ordinance prohibits residents from replacing those existing structures that are dilapidated and perhaps even unsafe. As for sidewalks and driveways, they could constitute a larger square footage over the standard and could be capped - for example allowed to exceed the permitted lot coverage ratio by no more than five percent. The standards under which these requests for small lot coverage variations were approved could be defined in the zoning ordinance or handled administxatively through a "minor variation" process. - . . Zouinglssues August 15, 2000 Page4 TEAR DOWNS AND ADDITIONS The occurrence of"tear downs" and major additions in residential areas is becoming more and more common in the Chicago area. The reasons for this type of development are very straightforward. As a community becomes mom desirable and has less land is available for residential development, residents begin to invest in large additions and even tear down smaller, less desirable home~ 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 praetioe was prevalent prior to current economic conditions, and can be expected to continue independent of the economy. The reason is that the aspects of a 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 modern 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 attractive to tear downs are present in Mount Prospect. Of late, the Village has seen very few tear downs. Over the last 18 months, building permits have been issued for about 14 new single family homes (this does not include permits issued or under review for 22 tuwnhomes at Dearborn Villas and five townhomes behind Mrs. P & Me). Of these 14, C~vo 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 additiQns, in some cases placed on rather modest homes, can reach well above $100,000 in cost. This level of invesUnent can be seen as an indicator that the value of Mount ProspectUs amenities is gaining on (or may have reached) l~a~d 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 modern 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 is impact on the neighborhood) and allows conditions to be placed on the approval. At the time oftbe amendment both the Zoning Board and Village Board expressed their desire to review these items on a case by case basis to allow for consideration of possible impacts on neighborhood character. Other communities have tried various methods to bring this tear down craze under control. While tear downs have not become common in the Village, all the ingredients are in place for.them to occur. Also, many of the same neighborhood impacts created by tear downs can also result from large additions. Some of the alternatives for addressing those issues, as used by other communities are described below: Neighboring Communities- The attached survey of adjacent communities shows that tear downs have not been a big issue in other towns, except for Park Ridge (which had 67 last year) and to a lesser extent Des Plaines. Most other towns in the survey had fewer additions than Mount Prospect (some could not separate out data as to how many residential permits were specifically for additions). Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Most zoning ordinances in adjacent communities include a floor area ratio (FAR) standard. Similar to lot coverage, FAR limits the square footage of structures as a function of lot size. It differs from lot coverage in that FAR includes total square footage of all floors of a structure, but does not necessarily include accessory structures like sheds or garages. The intent of this approach is to limit the size of new structures so that they are more in character with the surrounding neighborhood. It does not prevent a larger new house from going up in an area, but van 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 contxol requires that the front of the house "step back" to minimize the impact of height. ming Issues ~gust 15, 2000 tge 6 VERSIZED GARAGES ~e typical garage is more than just a home for cars. They are used for storage of household items, children's ya, and recreational vehicles from bicycles to boats. This expanding use of garages has, not surprisingly, has led . residents' needs for larger garages. In mostly built up communities like Mount Prospect, existing garages are len replaced with larger ones. In addition, many homes built without garages are adding them (along with a :iveway). These new and potentially large garages oi~en occur on smaller lots and raise questions of how to dance residents' need for extra space with potential impacts on the neighbors. ackground he Village Zoning Ordinance allows construction of detached garages up to 600 square feet on residential roperties. The garages must also meet yard setback requirements of five feet from interior side or rear lot lines ahree feet for lots that are equal to or less than 55 feet wide). Detached garages designed to house more than two rotor vehicles must be approved as a conditional use in the single family zoning districts (attached three ear stages are permitted in the residential districts). The intent of these collective controls is to minimize the otential impact of large garages on adjacent residences. ~ew garages have been a very common home improvement in Mount Prospect. Since the beginning of 1999, ~rty-nine permits have been issued for new garages (half of them in the last six months). Over the past two years he Village has received four variation requests for oversized garages. Those requests have ranged in size from i72 square feet to 768 square feet. The applicants have cited the need for additional room in the garage for storing ~ousehold items and recreational vehicles, or having space for a workbench. Each of the four variation requests ~,as ultimately approved - although in two eases the approval was for less square footage than requested. Reeem :uses are summarized in the chart below. In each case, the Zoning Board and Village Board took note of site ;peeifie conditions in considering their findings and determining the appropriate size for the garage. Recent Oversized Garage Requests Cases Size Requested Size Approved Notes I-BA 30-97 748 748 Approved as ZBA final EBA 12-99 768 720 Approved by Village Board EBA 35-99 720 672 Approved by Village Board EBA 10-2000 672 672 I Approved by Village Board on Appeal 7.BA 22-2000 832 720I Approved as ZBA final Issues with Oversized Garages As the Village's experience in approving garages has shown, it is hard to define a "typical" garage. However, some industry standards are useful for this discussion. A basic two-car garage about 528 square feet - 22 feet wide by 24 feet deep (a 22 foot deep garage is possible but not as desirable by most). At 600 squai'e 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 cfa garage will also be affected by bulk standards like yard set backs and lot coverage ratio. How the garage fits on a property is also a function of lot size. Even with these controls, it is possible to construct a garage that may be considered out of scale with the existing home and/or neighborhood. Another zoning issue related to large garages is that they create a greater opportunity to operate a home occupation, although it could Certainly be a problem with a garage of 600 square feet or less. Zoning Issues August 15, 2000 Page 7 Answering the question of"What is too big?" must also be understood to also have a subjective component. Of the zoning cases listed above, minutes indicate few objections from adjacent property owners. Those that did object were concerned about stormwater runoffrather than the size of the garage. Approaches to Addressing the Issue Other Communities- The survey of surrounding communities shows a maximum garage size of between 700 and 720 square feet. In some instances, that maximum includes a limit on the total percent of lot or rear yard coverage. Some communities have other controls on use of the garages that include not operating a business out of that garage, no bathrooms, no phones or machinery, and no living space. With a 600 square foot maximum, the Mount Prospect standard is generally smaller than nearby communities by about 100 square feet. ~'arlatlons - 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 ora smaller garage strut:ture 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 22~ 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 11 Attachment C Residential Construction in Mount Prospect Since the start of 1999 the Village's Building Division has maintained detailed records regarding building permit applications requiring plan review (as opposed to those done as walk-through permits). A summary of major residential construction and remodeling permits for the past 18 months is shown below. Type of Permit 1999 2000 (through June) Additions 53 46 Bathrooms 30 15 Basements 9 15 Decks 36 32 Garages 25 24 Kitchens 33 22 Lawn sprinklers 33 "10 New Homes 18 I 17 Pools 9 12 Sun:rooms 14 , [ 9 Additional Materials 1. Daily Herald Article about trends in suburban tear downs (7/14/00) 2. Mount Prospect Residential Zoning District Standards for RX, R1, and PA. /mb )ozone Tear down trend moxang deeper into cago suburbs ls the home you're living in a can- and is likely to be torn down." especially in more upscale com. didate [or demolition? Some homes escape total demo- munities: and the..' may not b Whether they are too dilapidated lition because they have enough worth much more th'an 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 3,5OO square dangered list as a result of the cur- teryear's modest dwellings, feet to be built on your IoL The big- rent housing boom. "In Chicago's Lincoln Park eom- get 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 mala~ way for new $600,000 for an old house, and then builder. home construction has been well do a 8ut rehab,'~ says Roger Lautt · The house is a ranch. Caoe documcntedoverthe}astfewyears of RE/MAX Exclusive Properties Cod or of a nondescript style. in such communities as Hinsdale, on the Near North Side. Homes built from the 1930s Winnetka, Glenooe, Lincoln Park "In Western Springs, many small- through the 1960s oreo fall in this and 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 tLE/IvlAX sales associ- bing," says Gary Barnes of dealgnappealandinteriurdetsliing ares in the Chicago area, the phe- RE/MAX Properties, Western that a comparable home built in uomenon has spread, engulfingar- Springs. {.91o might offer. ~'-.~ eas such as Arlington Heights, "In LaGrange you find more · The house has an exterior of Deerfield, Skokie, Flossmoor and homes with brick or stone exteriors siding or stucco, rather than brick LaGrange, along with a large area and architectural interest. In West- or stone, Brick or stone homes are of Chicago itsel/ era Springs, there are more frame good candidates for rehab and For example, Kathy Barkulis of and stucco houses that don't hold expansion, rather than demolition. Frame and stucco houses face RE/MAX Suburban, Arlington up as well if they are not main- Heights, says, "We find builders teined over time. We're seeing tear more uncertain futures. are looking aggressively for homes doWns in Western Springs that are ii The home is in a highly deiir- selling in the range of $275,000 to able location, such as within walk- that they can purchase and demol- ish. Lq our oommunity right now, a $375,000." lng distance of a commuter train design~] tear down can be any home priced Much the same is true in the city, station or in a very upscale neigh- ~liablo under $2,25,000, and they are being says Lautt. There, brick homes or borhoed. If so, and ifits size or con- two-flats, no matter what their eon- dillon doesn't measure up to a t~i- replaced by much larger homes selling for $750,000 or more. Typi- dition, are usually spared demoli- cal home in the area, someone may · stamped envelope to cally, these new homes are about tion even ii the interior is a mess. see it as a tear-down candidate. lley, c/o Daily Herald, 3,500 square feet with four bed- Rundown frame structures, on the ' · The house has a serious struc- green Drive, Cincinnati, rooms, three baths and a throe-car other hand, tend to attract bulldoz- turnl, p. roblem. If it does, the cost of ir download at wv,w.dul- garage." ers. repau'mg the sit-nation may be such Along the North Shore, the de- How can you tell if your old and that a tear-down makes solid eco- { considering buying 'a mand for tear downs is even more relatively modest house is a tear- nomic sense. sage chair instead of intense, according to Allyson Hoff-. down candidate? Cheek 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 tpist. Those chairs seem brook. · More than one home has been markets, like Chicago's Near South :.or of motors in them. Do ~The tear-down phenomenon has torn down and rebuilt within four Side and Ravenswood area, old . lot of electricity to oper- been going on along the North blocks in the last year. This may industrial and commercial sites zi G. Shore for along time, but there has indicate that builders are seeking have been available to satisfy the been a radical increase in the last tear-down candidates in your demand for new construction. ) per hour for a therapist, ,assage chair can quickly three to five years as the prices of neighborhood. Other areas in both city and sub- s inltialcnsL A.~ you men- houses andlots has soared. · Th~ house is under 2,000 urbs lack the safety valve that ese real massage chairs Recently a house on a one-acre square feet in size. Homes that vacant land provides, which y motors for a true mas- lot in Deerfield sold for $1 million small tend to have limited appeal, encourages tear downS. '.cst vibrators to relax. n Interactive Health mas- r and it uses only 60 watts ' :ity. This costs less than a r hour used. The "human nnologies" (RTl') use sev- ,rs and electrnnles lnalde.,ameside varioUSDulley c!omaSsage~ It's the Smartest raid. 6906 Royalgreen ~ncinnuti. OH 45244. ~} ' ' , mortgage m town. v Herald 6C ORDINANCE NO.. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WHEREAS, the Petitioner (The Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an application for certain text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend various regulations; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing 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 Prosoect Journal & Tooics on the 10t~ 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: SECTION ONE: 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 TVVO: 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 shalt 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 hearings · Fees and penalties · Minor variations" Chapter 14 Page 2/6 ~J~J~L~I~: 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." ~: 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 headngs 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, t4.203.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. Fi~ing 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 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 14.203 of Chapter 14, as amended, is hereby further amendeC by inserting a new Subsection 14.203.C.11 entitled "Minor Variation" in ils entirety, ant renumbering existing Subsections 14.203.C.11, 14.203.C.12, and 14.203.13 accordingly: "14.203.C. ll 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, 3. extend into no more than 40% of the required interior ~ setback, 4. extend into no more than 10% of the rear yard setback or 5, 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 wilt 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 or the ac.iacent properties if the variation is granted. 6) Whether the request is the minimum necessary [o use ~ne property in a manner reasonably similar to other uses in the neighborhood 7) Whether a reasonable alternative is consistent with me 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 provisions 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 property lying within ¢'~', .... ~ ~ (W0'), 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-~.,-.,w.,.'~""""~"* ..._~.* p"'"'~'~ .?.v,~.~;""",..d or r ........................ J ......................................... -, .... =nd ........................... ~T'~m '_ '~m~at..~i,.ca~e a 3) An administrative notice shall contain the case number assigned to the application, the address Of the proPertY, a brief statement on the nature of 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 following 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. Chapter 14 Page 5/6 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." ~: 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." ~: 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" ~: 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 (872) 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 further amended by deleting the following text from each Subsection: "Detached garages designed to house more than two (2) motor vehicles." SECTION TWELVE: 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 pool~ are exempt from the total number of accessory structures." Chapter 14 Page 6/6 E F E : 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 10t or road." 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 accessory structure is being replaced." SECTION SEVENTEEN: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approva! 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 A%I'EST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER i ~,~1-'' DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2001 SUBJECT: FEBRUARY SAFETY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION LEFT-TURN PROHIBITION AT CENTRAL ROAD & WA-PELLA AVENUE The Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to leave in place the current ordinance that prohibits a left-turn from westbound Central Road to southbound Wa-Pella Avenue at all times, Central Road was part of the detour route during the Route 83 Reconstruction Project. Due to the anticipated increase in traffic, various turn and weight restrictions were enacted by the Village Board prior to the start of the project. One of the signs installed was "No Left Turn" from westbound Central Road to southbound Wa-Pella Avenue at all times. At the end of the 2000 construction season, the Village Board of Trustees repealed all of the turn and weight restrictions related to the Route 83 Reconstruction Project except the left-turn prohibition at Central Road and Wa-Pella Avenue. The Village Board remanded this issue back to the Safety Commission at their December 19, 2000 meeting for review. Staff observed the traffic patterns along Central Road between Prospect Avenue and Cathy Lane over a two week period. Based on observations, three issues appear to influence the decision on whether or not to maintain or repeal the left-turn prohibition: 1. Safety of motorists - The current left-turn prohibition is posted for all times in order to eliminate the potential for westbound vehicles stopped on the railroad tracks. 2. Efficient movement of traffic - Traffic congestion should be alleviated to the greatest extent possible. It has decreased around the Central Road / Wa-Petla Avenue intersection since installing the left-turn prohibition sign. 3. Resident convenience of accessing the neighborhood - The change in traffic patterns has inconvenienced some motorists and residents while benefitting others. Both the Police and Fire Departments support the left-turn prohibition. Eliminating the potential for vehicles stopped on the railroad tracks and the reduction of accidents are a couple of [easons they stated for supporting the left-turn prohibition. Letters were sent to those properties that reside within 200"of the Central Road / Wa-Pe{la Avenue intersection per the Notification Policy. A sign was also erected at the intersection providing an opportunity for anyone interested to send written comments on this issue to the Village. Half the comments supported the left-turn prohibition citing safety concern because of the railroad tracks and less traffic on Wa-Pella Avenue. Others opposed the left-turn prohibition citing an inconvenience of having to go to Cathy Lane and commercial properties experiencing cut age two... Febru~r~ 28, 2001 February Safety Commission through traffic. Some of the comments supported time specific restrictions rather than the current all day restriction. The Safety Commission discussed this issue for an hour and a half at their February 12~ meeting. Each person in the audience was given the opportunity to share his/her opinion. Also, the Police Department and myself were asked to share our insight and answer questions from the Safety Commission. By a vote of 6-t, the Safety Commission recommends to leave in place the current ordinance that prohibits a left-turn from westbound Central Road to southbound wa-pella Avenue at all times. please include this item on the March 6th Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed are the Safety Commission Minutes from the meeting as well as two location maps for your reference. Matthew P Uawne cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x:\files~ngineerktraffic~safecommXrecs&min\febO I rec.doc Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. ~en~l ~o~d. Mou~c P~e~, Illinoi; ~-~ MI~S OF T~ MO~ PROSPE~ S~ETY CO~ISSION D~ C~L TO O~ER ~e Re~l~ Mee~ng of~e Mo~t ~o~ct Safe~ Commission ~s called to order a~ 7:35 p.m. on Monday, Feb~ 12, 2001. ROLL CALL ~esent upon roll calk Chuck B~cic Commissioner ~oan Bjork Co~issioner Jo~ ~ne Co~issioner ~dy Mitchell Co~issioner ~o~ Dahlberg Police Dep~ Buz Li~ngston Fire Paul Bures Public Works Ma~ ~ie Public Work~nginee~ng Division Absent: Lee Beening Chai~an N~ncy Bobikew~cz Commissione~ Others in ~endance: See Attached Attendance Sheet APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Mitchell, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on December 18. 2000. The minutes were approved by a vote of 7-0~ CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No citizens came forth at this time to discuss any topics that ~vere not on the currem agenda NEW BUSINESS A) LEFT TURN PROHIBITION AT CENTRAL ROAD & WA-PELLA AVENUE 1) Background Information During the summer of 2000, Route 83 between Prospect Avenue and Golf Road was under reeonstruefi0nl Only southbound traffic was allowed to use this stretch of Route 83. Central Road was part of the detour route for northbound traffic. Due to anticipated increase in traffic, various turn and weight restrictions were enacted by the Village Board prior to the start of the project. The purpose of the ordinances was to enhance safety, maintain acceptable traffic movement and protect the integrity of our streets. One of the signs installed was "No Left Turn" from westbound Central Road to southbound Wa-Pella Avenue at all times. At the end of the 2000 construction season, the Village Board of Trustees repealed all of the mm and weight restrictions related to the Route 83 Reconstruction Project except the left turn prohibition at Central Road and Wa-Pella Avenue. The Village Board recently remanded this issue back to the Safety Commission to review and provide them your recommendations. 2) Existing Conditions Central Road is under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). It is an east-west arterial route that carries over 22,000 vehicles per day. At Wa-Pella Avenue, Central Road is a four lane cross-section and has asphalt pavement. According to records, it appears the road was last reconstructed in 1958. In 1971, the Central Road / Northwest Highway intersection Was reconfignred and resurface& Today, the road is in fi deteriorated state with cracking and potholes. Wa-Pella Avenue is a north-south residential street under the jurisdiction of the Village. The road begins at Central Road and continues south. The north side of Central Road is the driveway to 5'00 W. Central Road. At Central Road, Wa-Pella Avenue is 46' wide. Parking is allowed on both sides of the street in front of the commercial buildings. Approximately 150' south of Central Road, the street narrows to 26' wide as the residential neighborhood begins. Parking is prohibited on the west side of the street from this point to Busse Avenue. Behind 601 W. Central Road, a 15' wide alley connects the commercial property, 6 Wa-Pella Avenue and the Central Village Apartments to Wa-Pella Avenue. This alley is owned by the Village. Approximately 350' east of the Central Road / Wa-Pella Avenue intersection are file Union Pacific railroad tracks. Prospect Avenue originates at Central Road and parallels the near side of the tracks. North}vest Highway parallels the far side of the tracks. Approximately 1000' west of the Central Road / Wa-Pella Avenue intersection is C,athy Lane, the next opportunity to enter or exit the neighborhood south of Central Road as you travel ~vest, 2 3) Observations Staff observed the traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Central Road / Wa-Pella Avenue intersection during peak travel times of the day. With the left turn prohibition currently in effect, westbound Central Road traffic moved efficiently with little congestion. On occasion, a vehicle would turn. left into the commercial property at 601 W. Central Road. This would lead to a back- up until the vehicle could complete the turn. The same situation would be seen for a vehicle turning left into the Central Village Apartments property. On occasion, vehicles that entered the commercial building property or the Central Village Apartments properly would cut through the parking lots to the alley, travel east down the alley and turn right to go southbound on Wa-Pella Avenue. The presence of railroad tracks lead to occasional back-ups for eastbound Central Road 'traffic near Wa-Pella Avenue. This is compounded by vehicles turning left into the commercial property at $00 W. Central Road. Staff also observed the traffic patterns in the vicinity of the Central Road / Cathy Lane intersection during peak Iravel times of the day. Staff believed Cathy Lane may be can3ang more traffic with the left turn prohibition al Wa-P¢lla Avenue. Traffic counts were obtained in 1998 and manual counts were done on Tuesday, January t6~. The data revealed that the amount of northbound traffic dropped slightly while southbound traffic increased three-fold (82 vehicles in 1998 vs. 260 vehicles in 2001 during the peak4 hours of the day). Observations at Cathy Lane during the peak hours of the day showed that vehicles waiting to mm left onto Cathy Lane from Central Road or vehicles waiting to turn left onto Central Road from Cathy Lane did not have to wait a significant amount of time to complete the turn. On most occasions, a turning vehicle did not have To wait. The most a vehicle had to wait to turn left was approximately 60 seconds. Based on Staff's observations during the manual counts at Central Road and Cathy Lane. approximately 10% of the southbound vehicles turned right or left onto Whitegate Drive. 40% turned left (eastbound) at Busse Avenue, 10% turned right (westbound) at Busse Avenue. 40% continued south past Busse Avenue. Accident report data was obtained for the intersections of Prospect Avenue, Wa-Pella Avenue and Cathy Lane with Central Road over the past five years. The report show accidents have dropped along Central Road at Wa-Pella Avenue and Prospect Avenue since the left turn prohibition went into effect. Accidents at Cathy Lane have not changed significantly. 4) Written Comments Letters were geni to those properties that reside within 200' of the Central Road / Wa-Pella Avenue intersection per the Notification Policy. A sign ~vas also erected at the intersection providing an opportunity for anyone interested to send written comments on this issue to the Village. Half the comments supported the left turn prohibition citing safety concern because of the railroad tracks and less traffic on Wa-Pella Avenue. Others opposed the left turn prohibition citing an inconvenience of having to go to Cathy Lane and commercial properties experiencing cut through traffic, Some of the comments supported time specific restricuons rather than thc current all day restriction. 3 Both the Police and Fire Depariments support the left turn prohibition. Eliminating the potential for vehicles stopped on the railroad tracks and the reduction of accidents Were a couple of reasons for supporting the left turn prohibition. Representatives of the Police and Fire Departments Will be in attendance at the meeting. 5) Conclusions Three issues appear to influence the decision on whether or not to maintain or repeal the left turn prohibition. SafetY of motorists, efficient movement of traffic and resident cOnvenience of accessing the neighborhood are all to be taken into account. With our history Of train/vehicle accidents, the Village is very conccrned with situations that cause any vehicle to be stopped on railroad tracks. Prior to the left mm prOhibition, a vehicle waiting to turn left from westbound Central Road to southbound Wa-Petla Avenue would cause a back-up of other vehicles. Due to the close proximity of the railroad tracks to Wa-Pella Avenue, it only takes approximately I0-12 vehicles to be stopped behind the turning vehicle to reach the railroad tracks. While this situation is most likely to occur during peak travel times, the potential for this occurrence is Possible at any time because of the fluctuation in the amount of traffic throughout tbe day. The current left mm prohibition is posted for all times in order to eliminate the potential for vehicles stopped on the railroad tracks. Staff has received comments suggesting only restricting the left turn during peak travel times. While this may be thought of as an acceptable compromise, it does not eliminate the Potential of a dangerous situation not to mention the need for a high level of Police enforcement. With the presehce Of railroad tracks, Central Road can experience greater than normal traffic congestion. The multiple traffic movements at Prospect Avenue and Northwest Highway at Central Road leads to a 10ng traffic signal cycle. For westbound Central Road traffic, congestion is heightened with vehicles turning left at Wa-Pella Avenue because of its close proximitY to the railroad tracks and other intersections. Traffic congestion should be alleviated to the greatest extent possible. By Prohibiting the left turn movement from westbound Central Road to southbound Wa-Pella Avenue, many residents who live in the neighborhood sOuth of Central Road must now travel four additional blocks by using Cathy Lane rather than Wa-Pella Avenue. Cathy Lane experiences more traffic now than prior to the left turn prohibition at Wa-Pella Avenue. While data has nOt been Obtained, greater speeds may also be experienced since motorists feel the need to makeup "lost" time. Some Wa-Pella Avenue residents, on the other hand, have commented they enjoy the reduction in the amount of traffic on their street. The change in traffic patterns has inconvenienced some motorists and residents while benefitting others. Staff has also received comments from the management companies at 601 and 603 W. Central Road that some motorists use their parking lots as a cut through. We have also observed this situation in the field. With the assistance of the Village, signs have bee.n installed at tl~c driveway entrances to thc properties stating "No Thru Traffic" and "No Trespassing". Iqowevcr this still occurs and con,promises the safety of pedestrians and other motorists. Additional measures should be considered to address this cut through concern. · Recommendations Based on Staff observations, collected data and comments received from residents, motorists and Village Staff: The Village Traffic Engineer recommends to leave in place the current left turn prohibition from westbound Central Road to southbound Wa-Pella Avenue at all times. Furthermore, the Village Traffic Engineer recommends: 1. The Village pursue discussions With IDOT on improving the condition of Central Road. A new pavement sudrfaee will be less damaging to vehicles and improve the efficiency of traffic movement. 2. The Village pursue discussions with IDOT on widening and reconfiguring Central Road to provide a left turn lane at Wa-Pella Avenue. By providing a separate turning lane, the potential for westbound vehicles stopped on the railroad ~racks would be eliminated. If this work were to be completed, the Village Traffic Engineer would support repealing the left turn prohibition. 3. The Village provide some assistance to those properties that are experiencing cut through traffic. Some suggestions would be additional signing and use of a drone squad car supplied by the Police Department in order to reduce the amount of cut through traffic. Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided a 10-minute presentation of the study that was performed as part of this issue. He touched on the history, observations, written comments, conclusions and recommendations associated with the left turn prohibition. Commissioner Bencic asked for comments/questions from the Con-/mission. Commissioner Bjork wondered when IDOT plans on reconstructing Central Road. Traffic Engineer Lawrie was not sure but believed it was not planned within the next five years. He anticipated thc Village writing a letter to IDOT in the near future requesting Central Road be reconstructed as soon as possible. Commissioner Mitchell commented that Central Road will be getting street lights between Arlington Heights Road and Northwest Highway this year. Commissioner Bencic asked if additional right-of-way would be needed ~n order to widen Central Road for a left turn lane. Traffic Engineer Lawrie believed there was enough right-of- way to widen the road. Commissioner B~ncic then opened the discussion to the public. Mr. John Swider. 8 Wa-Pella Avenue. believes it is always difficult to turn left on a tour-lane road. By prohibiting the turn at Wa-Pella Avenue. the problem is only moving te Cathy Lane. He oeheves it is even a more dangerous situation at Cathy Lane because of the higher speeds along Central Road in this area. Mr. Lester Fleming, 105 Wa-Pella Avenue, asked why have accidents decreased at Central & Wa-Pella over the past five years and whether restricting the left turn only during rush h6ur was considered. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained that limiting the left turn prohibition to certain hours was considered. However, the oombination of the fluctuation of traffic and the olose proximity of the railroad tracks allows the potential for vehicles to be stopped on the tracks. Time specific restrictions may also lead to confusion for motorists and could increase accidents. Safety reasons lead to the recommendation. Mr. Tom Nowak, 300 W. Central Road, commented that the new Park District building was going to generate more pedestrian activity around Central & Cathy. He also commented that the lighting along Central Road wasa waste of money when the road needs to be repaired. He, too, believes the problem is only going to be moved from Wa-Pella to Cathy. Mr. Joe Novelle, 601 W. Central Road, is concerned for the safety of his tenants in the office building. Vehicles are cutting through his property as a result of the left turn prohibition at Wa- Pella. Mr. Bill Ewerling, 609 W. Central Road, represented the Central Village Apartments. He is also concerned about the cut through traffic on his property. Commission Benoit asked if there has been any difference in the amount of cut through traffic when Route 83 was under construction verses now. Mr. Ewerling responded there was not a significant change. Ms. Carol Novelle, 601 W. Central Road, said that the cut through problem goes on all day and believes someone is going to get hurt. Traffic Engineer Lawrie responded to Mr. Nowak's earlier concerns about the street lighting and Park District building; The money for the street lighting was from a State grant and little, if any, Village money was going to be used. Also, while IDOT did not approve a traffic signal at Central & Cathy, pedestrian safety improvements are to be done in the area of the building. Mr. Paul Snead, 121 Wa-Pella Avenue, believes a compromise ought to be considered as time restrictive turns are throughout the Village. Ms; Carol Tortorello, 223 S. Elmhurst Avenue, identified another potential problem at Northwest Highway and Central Road. The eastbound left turn lane is short and creates congestion. She believes Central Road needs to be widened to provide a longer mrn lane at Northwest Highway and new turn lanes at Wa-Pella and at Cathy. Traffic Engineer Lawrie responded that the Village plans on bringing up all these issues with IDOT during a future meeting. The Village is aware of the congestion at Northwest Highway as a result of the short eastbound left turn lane. Sergeant Dahlberg responded to an earlier question regarding a reduction in accidents over the past five years at Wa-Pella and Central. The sample number of accidents is rather small. therefore, it is difficult to determine the effect of the left tuna prohibition. However, traffic movement hag improved tremendously. Since the Route 83 project, an additional 15 seconds of green time has been given to Central Road at Northwest Highway. Westbound Central Road traffic moves many more vehicles since the left turn prohibition. Sergeant Dahiberg also explained the poor sight line makes it difficuli for westbound Central Road traffic to see over the railroad tracks. As a result, vehicles have a difficult time moving from tile through lane to the curb lane to avoid a turning vehicle. Vehicles then back up to the tracks and into the Northwest Highway intersectiou. Wi~h tile additional green time from the traffic signal and tbe left turn 6 prohibition, Sergeant Dahlberg believes Central Road has never moved better. He is aware of the inconvenience this causes to residents but he is very concerned for the safety of the motorists. Mr. Nowak added that he believes the area west of Route 83 and south of Central Road is becoming isolated with the turn prohibitions along Route 83. He too believes restricting the turn prohibition to specific times would be a good compromise since a left turn lane 'cannot be installed right away. Commissioner Benoit acknowledged Mr. Nowak's position but also said anyone that drives by the intersection is affected. Sergeant Dahlberg reiterated the issue of traffic movement. A vast majority of left turners from westbound Central Road attempt to turn while eastbound traffic has a green light. This causes westbound traffic to back-up until eastbound traffic gets a red light and motorists allow space for the turning vehicle to complete the turn. Only then can westbound traffic proceed. Commissioner Bencic then brought the issue back to the Commission. Commissioner Bjork asked if the speed limit along Central Road is enforced by thc. Village. Sergeant Dahlberg said that it is. She also commented that being hit by a train is worse that being hit a vehicle travelling 35mph. Commissioner Keanc commented that he witnessed a near accident with a vehicle stopped on the tracks as a result of a vehicle waiting to turn left onto Wa-Pella. Fortunately, the inbound train was on another track as it went by. He would be inclined to find a compromise if there was a way to guarantee a vehicle would not be stopped on the tracks. With no further discussion, Commissioner Bencic asked if there was a motion. Commissioner Keane, seconded by Mr. Bures, moved to leave in place the current left turn prohibition from westbound Central Road to southbound Wa-Pella Avenue at all times. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-1. Commissioner Mitchell opposed the motion. Ms. Novelle asked what additional measures could be done to reduce the amount of cut through traffic. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said that he would look at installing additional signs in the area. Sergeant Dahlberg said they would provide Police presence immediately to deter motorists from cutting through private property by providing warnings and possibly citations. Mr. Bures pointed out to the audience that no matter what changes are made, accidents may still occur. The decision was based on which one was the safest option. If changes are made to the road to improve safety, the Safety Commission would review the issue again. Mr. Swider asked if the alley behind the medical building is public or private. Mr. Bures stated the alley is publi~. Ms. Novelle asked if the alley would then be plowed by the Village. Mr. Bures stated it would. D$OURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 7-0 to adjourn at 9:10 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Keane. Mr. Bures seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted,~ Traffic Engineer x:\filcs~enginecr~af¢comm\h'affich~c$&min\fcbO I rain.doc Oo WA-PELLA AVE ! ~ - HI-LUSI AVE ~ RIDGE AVE ~ Mount Prospect Public WOrks Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2001 SUBJECT: ROUTE 83 AT PROSPECT AVENUE TRAFFIC/RAILROAD SIGNAL REPORT As a consequence of a train-vehicle crash resulting in a fatality to a motorist in July 2000, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) directed Union Pacific and Metra trains to sound their whistles when crossing Route 83. Through subsequent discussions, the ICC agreed to lift the whistle blowing requirement as long as the Village agreed to close the left-mm lane from eastbound Prospect Avenue to northbound Route 83. Since July 21, 2000, the left-mm lane has not reopened. In August 2000, the Village hired Metro Transportation Group (Metro) of Hanover Park to study the Route 83 / Prospect Avenue intersection as welt as the grade crossing. The consultant was directed to provide recommendations to improve safety. A second primary goal was to be able to reopen the left-mm lane without reinstating the whistle blowing requirement. On February 7t~, Metro led a meeting with the ICC, IDOT and the Village to discuss their recommendations. In sununary, the recommendations included: · Install railroad signs and pavement markings on Prospect Avenue. · Install intersectional striping to better guide eastbound turning motorists into the northbound through lane of Route 83. · The eastbound Prospect Avenue left-mm movement shall be under "protected-only" operation. In other words, a motorist will only be allowed to mm left on a green arrow. A red arrow will be displayed when the mm is prohibited. · Remove a portion of the Prospect Avenue median west of Route 83 to provide additional left-mm storage. · Remove the two parking spaces on the north side of Prospect Avenue immediately west of Route 83 to enhance the sight lines. · Install supplemental flashing railroad warning lights facing eastbound and westbound Prospect Avenue traffic. All parties supported the recommendations at the meeting and agreed to reopen the left-tam lane once the changes have been implemented. The ICC will oversee the modifications to the railroad equipment. IDOT will oversee the modifications to the traffic signals. The Village will oversee the modifications to the Prospect Avenue roadway. In addition, the ICC stated that reopening the left-tam lane will not provoke them into ordering trains to blow their whistles again. Both the traffic signal and roadway modifications will be incorporated into the Route 83 Reconstruction Project that is to be completed this Spring. Funding for this additional work will come ftom the street reconstruction program. Attached is a copy of Metro's report on this issue as well as minutes from previous meetings for your reference. Village Staff will be in attendance at the February 27, 2001 Committee~of-the-Whole Meeting to provide a brief presentation and answer questions. // . .~,..--~ / x:\files\enginccr\traflic\raih'oad\routc83\board_memot .doc Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS ~,~0 FROM: SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS & BUILDINGS DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 SUBJECT: SEALED BID RESULTS FOR THE 2001 SEWER CATCH BASIN & REPAIR PROGRAM BACKGROUND This bid is for our annual contract for sewer catch basin and inlet repair. Many of our older structures are made of brick and, with time, the mortar or brick deteriorate, requiring patching, reconstructing or total replacement. The repairs are usually made with concrete adjustment rings or precast cones to eliminate future deterioration of the mortar joims. This work is usually completed by late August to make sure all structures are in good repair for the fall rainy season and to minimize any possible wimer failures. BID RESULTS Sealed bids were opened at 10:00 A.M. on February 20, 2001 for proposed sewer catch basin and street inlet repairs. Bid prices were based on estimated quantities of approximately 30-35 structures to be either adjusted, reconstructed or replaced as needed. Ten invitational bids were mailed, and a bid notice was placed in the local paper. Six bids were received, and bid results are as follows: Bidder Bid Price S. Schroeder Trucking, Inc. $39,650.00 Suburban General Construction $41,985.00 Scott Contracting, Inc. $47,100.00 Glenbrook Excavating, Inc. $47,800.00 Landmark Contractors, Inc. $55,955.00 Archon Construction Co. Inc. * $68,800.00 · No bid bond submitted, bid is not eligible for consideration. X:\US ERS\PB U RES\WOI~, D\STREET~BASN R EP2001 RES.doc I age two Sewer Catch Basin & Inlet Repairs Bid Results FEBRUARY 23, 2001 DISCUSSION The low bidder S. Schroeder Trucking, Inc. supplied three references. All said he has done excellent work and they would use him again. Quantities will be adjusted so the total expenditure will not exceed the budgeted amount. Funds for this proposed contract are in the current budget, on page 255, account code 6105509-540777, in the amount of $40,350. RECOMMENDATION I recommend acceptance of the lowest bid as submitted by S. Schroeder Trucking, Inc. for a sewer catch basin and inlet repair contract for an amount not to exceed $40,350. Paul Bures Superintendent of Streets & Buildings I concur: Director of Public Works PB c: Director of Public Works Glen R. Andler Deputy Director of Public Works Sean P. Dorsey file X:\USERS\PB URES\WORD\STREET\BASNREP2001 RES.doc 2 Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS & BUILDINGS DATE: FEBRUARY 23, 2001 SUBJECT: SEALED BID RESULTS FOR THE 2001 SEWER CATCH BASIN AND INLET CLEANING PROGRAM BACKGROUND Annually a contract is let to clean, inspect and update our inventory for one sixth of the village's sewer catch basins and inlets. This annual program minimizes possible clogged sewer structures, and updates our inventory and condition rating of all our structures on a six-year cycle. BID RESULTS Sealed bids were opened at 10:00 A.M. on February 20, 2001 for proposed sewer catch basin and inlet cleaning. This year's area is located between Euclid Avenue south to Central Road, and between Wolf Road and Rand Road. Bid prices were based on an estimated quantity of 250 sewer catch basins and inlets to be cleaned. Ten invitational bids were mailed, and a bid notice was placed in the local paper. Four bids were received, and bid results are as follows: Bidder Bid Price Elgin Sweeping Services, Inc. $ 20,900.00 National Power Rodding Corp. 20,937.50 A-K Underground, Inc. 21,875.00 Heritage Environmental Services, LLC 35,500.00 X:\USERS\PBU RES' WORI)/STREETXBSINLCL200 H{EC.DOC ] age two Sewer Catch Basin & Inlet Cleaning Program Bid Results February 23, 2001 DISCUSSION The low bidder Elgin Sweeping Services, Inc. performed Mount Prospect's sewer catch basin and inlet cleaning contract in 2000 and completed the work successfully. Quantities will be adjusted so the total expenditure will not exceed the budgeted amount. Funds for this proposed contract are in the current budget, on page 255, account code 6105509-540779, in the amount of $30,000.00 and on page 21 $, account code 001 $108-$40520, in the amount of $5,350. RECOMMENDATION I recommend acceptance of the lowest bid as submitted by Elgin Sweeping Services, Inc. for a sewer catch basin and inlet cleaning contract for an amount not to exceed $35,350.00. Paul Bures Superintendent of Streets & Buildings I concur: Director of Public Works PB/pb c: Director of Public Works Glen R. Andler Deputy Director of Public Works Sean P. Dorsey file Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2001 SUBJECT: BID RESULTS - PARKWAY STUMP REMOVALS BACKGROUND Sealed bids for parkway stump removals were opened on February 27, 2001. This contract requires grinding tree stumps to a 10" - 12" depth, removing the grindings, and restoring the area with topsoil and grass seed. BID RESULTS Twelve invitational bids were mailed and a notice was published in a local newspaper. Two bids were received. Bid results are as follows: Winkler's Tree Service $15,558.46 Kramer Tree Specialists $22,897.50 DISCUSSION The bid specifications identified 76 stumps totaling 1762 inches in diameter at the time the specifications were prepared. However, the specifications were written to allow us to add additional stumps throughout the year, if desired, up to the amount budgeted. BID RECOMMENDATION The low bidder, Winkler's Tree Service installed holiday lights for us several years ago. They have been in business for 25 years and have performed tree and stump removals for many municipalities. They provided us a list of references, who reported favorably on their work. There is $53,000.00 allocated for contractual stump removal in the 2001 budget (Page 226, Account #0015203-540726). I recommend award of this contract to the lowest qualified bidder, Winker's Tree Service, in an amount not to exceed $53,000.00. I concur: ~len~. A~nd~ Director of Public Works X:FILES\FORESTRY\WORD\2OO I\STP-RECMD.DOC Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TREE CITY USA TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E, SANONIS 3~.~ FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER ,.~]~[~ DATE: MARCH 1, 2001 SUBYECT: 2001 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM Background This project includes the resurfacing of 3.7 miles of Village streets. This represents the fifth year of the street resurfacing component of the ten year accelerated street improvement program. Bids Result~ A notice to bidders was published in a local newspaper. Since this project uses MFT funds it was also published in the IDOT construction bulletin. On February 27th, at 10:00 A.M. sealed bids were received for The 2001 Street Resurfacing Program. At this time, the sealed bids were publicly opened and read aloud. Nine contractors received contract bid documents and three contractors submitted bids. The bids ranged fi.om a low of $1,278,953.39 by Arrow Road Construction Company [o a high of $1,470,454.00 by J.A. Johnson Paving Company. The Engineer's estimate for the project was $1,305,448.50. Below is a summary of the bids. Bidders Total Bid Arrow Road Construction Co. $1,278,953.39 Plote Construction, Inc. $1,293,037.49 Johnson Paving Co. $1,470,454.00 Engineer's Estimate $1,305,448.50 Discussion All bidders submitted IDOT Local Agency Bid Bonds in the amount of 5% o£ their total bids as required by the Contract Documents. All bids were checked for their accuracy. No errors were found. All bidders correctly signed their bids and bid bonds. The low bidder Arrow Road Construction Co. has previously completed street improvements for the Village including the 1999 and 2000 Street Resurfacing Programs and their work has been acceptable. Recommendation The Village budget limit for this project is $1,155,000. The Iow bid is $123,953.39 (10.7%) over the budget limit. Since our estimate is based on the average of prices that we have received in the previous year, we typically see a low bid that is less than our estimate. We therefore include a sufficient number of streets to give us an estimate that is approximately 15% over the budget amount. At the time that we age 2 2001 Street Resurfacing Program March 1,2001 prepared our estimate we were aware of increasing, or at least Unstable oil prices and the increase in construction projects due to the Illinois First construction funding program. We took these factors into account but in the time between the preparation of our estimate and the submittal of bids, oil prices have continued to rise. Since the low bid exceeds the budget limit, we must reduce the contract to the budget limit. In order to accomplish this it may be necessary to postpone the resurfaeing of some streets. However, because of the favorable construction prices received in years one through four of the resurfacing program, 'we are 2 miles ahead of our target length. Even with the postponement of some streets, we will still be ahead of the target length. The contract quantities include some items that allow for Unforeseen circumstances such as additional base repair, additional asphalt required because of thickness variation, etc. The full projected quantities for these items may not be needed. Midway through the project we will e,)aluate the money spent vs. the money needed to resurface the remaining streets. At that time we wilt determine whether all the streets scheduled for this year's program can be completed with'm the budget limit. The requirements for IDOT/MFT funding require that the following procedure be used to reduce the contract: 1. Award the contract to the low bidder for the low bid amount. 2. Immediately issue a change order (IDOT Form BLR6301 - Request for Approval of Change in Plans) which reduces the contract amount to the desired level. I recommend that the low bidder An-ow Road Construction Co. be awarded the contract for the 2001 Street Resurfaeing .l~rggram in the amount of $1,278,953.39 and that a change order be approved which reduces the contract by $125,249.50. This gives an adjusted contract amount of $1,153,703189. Funding for this project is shown on Page 292 of the 2001Budget where $1,155,000.00 is allocated under Account Code No. 0507706-690049. I concur with the above recommendation. Pubhc Works D~redtor Glen Andler Attachments: Change Order Project Map X:XFILESkEN GINEERkI~I38URFACkRe~ur f2001 \CorreskMEMO_$AN.DOC 2001 Street Resurfacin8 Program Chan~e Order No. 1 DATE: March 6, 2001 CHANGES TO THE CONTRACT PRICE Original Contract Price: $ 1,278,953.39 Change to Contract Price: $ 125,249.50 New Contract Price as a Result of this Change Order: $ 1,153,703.89 Reason for Change: Reduce the quantities of the fo[towing pay items: Class C Patches, Class D Patches, PCC Driveway Rem & Rep[ace and Bituminous Driveway Rem P, Rep[ace, in order to reduce contract to budget amount. ~MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS -- +, ~Str~et F~ To 2001 Street Resurfacing Program Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM .o: FROM: VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 200'1 ~ SUBJECT: ACCEPT BID OF STATE OF ILLINOIS FOR THE PURCHASE OF TVVO a TRUCKS Background In the current budget, there are funds available to replace 2732 with two pickup trucks and a one new brush chipper. 2732 is a 1971 Caterpillar 955K track loader used by the Public Works Department to excavate retention basins, new construction sites, and for loading materials such as dirt, stone, sand, and snow when rubber tired end loaders could not be used. In recent years, this tractor has not seen any use due to the fact that the department out soumes the construction where this type of track loader is needed; Due to these.factors, during the 2001 Budget presentation to the Village Board we requested and the Village Board approved our request to replace the track loader with two pickup trucks and a brush chipper. The department is in need of pickup trucks for transportation and hauling small items and equipment to work sites. Also, in the past couple of years the Village has experienced severe windstorm damage to trees and there is the need to have an additional brush chipper. Replacement Schedule 2732 was purchased in 1971. The vehicle/equipment replacement schedule for tractors is 15 years. This vehicle meets the required years of service. In the Vehicle Replacement Fund there is currently $154,383.07 allocated for the replacement of 2732. Discussion It is my recommendation that two pickup trucks be pumhased immediately through the State of Illinois Bid Award. The brush chipper will be bid and brought to the Village Board for their approval later this spring after the Forestry Division has had an opportunity to operate and evaluate the brush chippers now being manufactured. The proposed pumhase of two 2001 4X4 8600 lb. GVWR LEV (Iow emissions vehicle) pickup trucks per our specifications are available through either the State of Illinois contract award or the Suburban Purchasing Cooperative (SPC) through competitive bid process. The State of illinois pricing is lower than the SPC bid pricing and the pricing is as follows. State of Illinois Contract Award Bid Price Terry's Ford LM $ 21,885.00 Suburban Purchasing Cooperative Bid Price Bill Jacobs Chevrolet $ 23,006.44 Bid Recommendation I am recommending the purchase of the two 2001 Ford F250 4X4 8600# GVWR LEV pickup trucks from the State of Illinois contract award winner, Terry's Ford Lincoln Mercury, Peotone, illinois. I request that the Village Board authorize the purchase of two pickup trucks under the State of Illinois contract award at a cost of $21,885.00 per truck with a total cost not to exceed $43,770.00. Funds for this proposed ccept Bid of State of Illinois for the Purchase of Two 4X4 Pickup Trucks February 28, 2001 Page2 of 2 purchase arc available in account 6707709-660115 ($32,100.00 per unit), page 292, of the current budget. Funds remaining will be used to purchase the necessary equipment to make the units completely functional. Vehicle 2732 being rcplaced will be sold this spdng by sealed bid. We are currently having 2732 evaluated by Patten Industries, the local dealer for Caterpillar equipment, to determine the minimum bid that will be included in the bid document. James E. Gue'nther Dircctor of Public Works JG c: Deputy Director Public Works Sean Dorsey \\PUB LICWORK\SYS2\FILES\FRONTO F F~BIDS\RES U LTS\Pickup4X42001 .doc Mount Prospect Public Works Department [~i~) INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM 'n~t crrv t~a DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2001 SUBJ: EMERGENCY SEWER REPAIR ~ PINE AND LINCOLN (ROUTE. 83) During the routine sewer televising inspection, of the 24 inch sewer pipe located on Linc0in Street intersection of Pine (Rte. 83, see attached n~ap), our sewer rehab contractor fusituforra Technologies, discovered that a fiber optic cable had apparently caused damage to the main sewer line during i~s installation. 'I'here is approximately 50 feet of damaged and partially collapsed sewer pipe. The sewer pipe is located under the northbound curb lane of Rte. 83. The cable was installed in the Fall of 2000 using a directional bore process and belongs to Level Three Communications. We have been in commm~ication with Fluor Global Services, who represent Level Three, and they acknowledged that they did indeed cause the damage and have agreed to pay for any repairs. They are requesting the Village hires a contractor to make the repairs and they will reimburse the Village for all costs. We experienced a similar situation with Level Three last year when they damaged our 12-inch sanitary sewer on Rte. 83 south of Central. The Village inctm'ed costs totaling $28,000 and they have paid this bill in full. Because of the urgency of this repair, I have obtained an estimated price quote from Martam Construction Company who was the con~'actor that reconstructed Rte. 83. Since the Rte. 83 Reconstruction Project is still in progress and the improvements have not been accepted, it is my recommendation Martam Construction be awarded the contract. Should there be any issues concerning the quality of the pavement restoration or any other aspect of the repair, Martam would not have any recourse back to the Village for poor workmanship. The job would be charged as time and materials at an estimated cost of $36,000 including all restoration. ! am requesting your approval to wave the normal bidding processing and authorize these emergency repairs as soon as possible. Although the sewer system is still functional, further collapse and possible blockages are a real concern. We anticipate the project will take a week to complete. As previously stated, the entire cost of these repairs will be paid for by Level Three Communications. Thank you for your attention in this matter and ! await your decision. Rode~ck O'Donovan Dtrector of Pubhc Works, G an R n er Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM DATE: MARCH 1, 2001 ~ ~A SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE CONTRACT WITH SPACECO SURVEY FOR THE LIBRARY/SENIOR CENTER BLOCK Staff is requesting that the Village Board authorize a contract with SPACECO, INC. to provide an ALTA Survey for the Library/Senior Center Block. The ALTA Survey is necessary to provide detailed information of the entire block as we pursue the potential development of a new Village Hall/Senior Center in this area, SPACECO has prepared ALTA Surveys for three other blocks in the downtown area. Therefore, utilizing their services on the Library/Senior Center block will provide continuity and one soume for our records. Staff is requesting that the Village Board authorize the contract with SPACECO, INC. to provide an ALTA Survey for the Library/Senior Center Block in an amount not to exceed $14,400. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their March 6 meeting. Staff will be present at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. William J, o SPAOECO, INC. · ..... F February 15, 2001 I FEB I 9 20011 RECEIVED' Mr. William d. Oooney, Jr., AICP Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson St. Mount Prospect, IL 60056 RE: PROFESSIONAL SURVEYING SERVICES AGREEMENT BOUNDARY AND TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYS MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS (SPACECO Project No. 2728.06 - Parcel 3) Dear Mr. Cooney: SPACECO, Inc. is pleased to submit this agreement for professional surveying services at your request. The parcel is bounded by Busse Avenue on the south, Emerson Street on the east, Main Street on the west and Central Road on the north. Our Scope shall consist of the following: SCOPE OF BASIC ,SERVICES TASK 1 - ALTA/ASCM LAND TITLE SURVEY: We will provide field and office support for the preparation of an ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey as defined bythe 1999 Minimum Standard Detail Requirements. The survey will include the Table "A" Specifications 1, 4, 5, 7a, 8, 10, & 1 la. Per the 1999 ALTA standards, it has been assumed that we will be provided with all record documents including easements and deeds for the subject property and adjoining properties. Existing monumentation and the edge of pavement of all adjacent roads will be shown. An area for the surveyed property will be calculated and shown on the plat, Existing ground elevations and sewer depths will be shown. Based on your previous request, a J.U.L.I.E. meet will be held to mark out all utilities serving the subject property. These markings will be measured and shown on this survey. TASK 2 - TITLE COMMITMENT: We will coordinate the preparation of a title commitment for the project area with Chicago Title Insurance Company. CONSULTING ENGINEERS SITE DEVELOPMENT DESIGNERS LAND SURVEYORS 9575 WEST HIGGINS ROAD, SUITE 700 · ROSEMONT, ILLINOIS 60018 888/SPACECO (772-2326) · 847/696-4060 · FAX 847/696-4065 FEES The fee for the above-described services will be: Task 1 - ALTNACSM Land Title Survey & $14,400 lump sum Topo Survey Task 2 - Title Commitment $700 to $1,000 Reimbursable Expenses Cost + 10% This work is waiting to proceed pending our receipt of this signed agreement. We estimate four to five weeks from notice to proceed for delivery, weather permitting. We will establish our contract in accordance with the enclosed Standard Charges for Professional Services and General Terms and Conditions which are expressly incorporated into and are an integral part of this contract for professional services Please sign both copies of this agreement and return one to us for our files. Very truly yours, SPACECO, Inc. C. Brian Lounsbury, P.L.S. Vice President CBL/Ir c: William B. Loftus Jim C. Kapustiak, Rob Stawik, B. Giroux ACCEPTED FOR: BY: TITLE: DATE: TABLE A OPTIONAL SURVEY RESPONSIBILITIES AND SPECIFICATIONS NOTE: The items of Table A must be negotiated between the surveyor and client. It may be necessary for the surveyor to qualify or expand upon the description of these items, e.g. in reference to Item 6, there may be a need for an interpretation of a restriction. The surveyor cannot make a certification on the basis of an interpretation. If checked, the following optional items are to be included in the ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY: I._~ Monuments placed (or a reference 11. Location of utilities (representative monument or witness to the comer) at all examples of which are shown below) major corners of the boundary of the existing on or serving the surveyed property, unless already marked or property as determined by: referenced by an existing monument or ~,/ witness to the corner. ~)[ (a) Observed evidence 2. Vicinity map showing the property surveyed (b) Observed evidence together with plans in reference to nearby highway(s) or major and markings provided by client, utility street intersection(s), companies, and other appropriate sources (with reference as to the source of 3.__ Flood zone designation (with proper information) annotation based on Federal Flood Insurance Rate Maps or the state or local * railroad tracks and sidings; equivalent, by scaled map location and graphic plotting only.) ,, manholes, catch basins, valve vaults or other surface indications of subterranean 4.~ Land area as specified by the client, uses; 5. ~J[ Contours and the datum of the elevations. · wires and cables (including their function) crossing the surveyed premises. 6, Identify, and show if 3ossible, setback, all poles on or within ten feet of the height, and floor space area restrictions of surveyed premises, and the dimensions of record or disclosed by applicable zoning or all crosswires or overhangs affecting the building codes (in addition to those surveyed premises; and recorded in subdivision maps). If none, so state. · utility company installations on the surveyed premises. 7. '~ (a) Extedor dimensions of all buildings at ground level 12. Governmental Agency survey-related requirements as spech'ied by the client. (b) Square footage of: 13. Names of adjoining owners of platted (1) exterior fo(~tprint of all buildings at lands. ground level: 14. Observable evidence of earth moving work, (2) gross floor area of all buildings; or building construction or building additions within recent months. (3) other areas to be defined by the client 15. Any changes in street right of way lines (c) Measured height of all buildings above either completed or proposed, and grade at a defined location, If no defined available from the controlling jurisdiction. location is provided, the point of Observable evidence of recent street or measurement shall be shown, sidewalk construction or repairs. 8. ~, Substantial, visible improvements (in 16. Observable evidence of site use as a solid addition to buildings) such as signs, waste dump, sump or sanitary landfill. parking areas or structures, swimming pools, etc, 17. 9. Parking areas and, if striped, the striping and the type (e.g. handicapped, motorcycle, regular, etc.) and number of parking spaces. 10. ~ Indication of access to a public way such as curb cuts and driveways. 99altawd97.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNffY' DEVELOPMENT . bi ~[~ DATE: MARCH 1, 2001 SUBJECT: REQUEST TO WAIVE BID PROCEDURES FOR CORREDOR IMPROVEMENTS J Staff is working towards implementing three of the entrance markers that were recently approved as part of the Village's Corridor Improvement Program. As part of that program, the Village must secure surveys and construction drawings for these projects. Staff is requesting that the Village Board waive the bid procedure for awarding the contracts and enter into a contract with WolffClements, LLC. I have attached a copy of the Wolff Clements proposal that includes all phases of the design and construction management of these entrance features. As you will note, the total cost of the professional services for the three projects totals $36,100. The cost of these professional services would be paid for out of the Corridor Improvement funds (Account #5107702-620000, page 289 of the budget). The improvement cost for these projects will be paid for from a combination of the Corridor Improvement fund and from a grant from the state of Illinois. In an effort to streamline these projects and ensure that they are installed this year, staff is requesting that the Board waive the bid procedure and award the contract to Wolff Clements, LLC for design and construction management services related to these three Corridor projects. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their March 6 meeting. Staff will be present at that meeting to answer any questions related to this mat~er. W~il~a~m -<~j. ~oney, A~iC~' WJC::bhs Sent By: Wolff Clements and Associates; 312 663 5497; Mar-l-01 10:53AM; Page 2 WOLF F C LE I~1E N TS February 27, 2001 Mr. William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP Oirector of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect t00 South Emerson Strect Mount Prosge~ Illino~s 60656 Re: Gateway Sites Four, Five, and Nine, Proposal For L~ndseape Architectural Services Dear Bill: Thank you for the opporUmtty to submit a proposal for lancLseape architectural services to prepare the design development, development ofcoutract documents and specifications for bidding and cons~actlou proposes, and contract adminlst~ation for three gateway sites: Site Four, Golf Road and Route 83; Site Five, Central Road (west); and Site Ninc, Rand Road and C~ntral Road. Constmctiou budgnta established during the development of the "Corridor Design Guidelines" were $157,518.00 for Site Four. $33,264.00 for Site Five. and $87,024.00 for Site Nine. These budgets will be adhered to as closely as possible. However, since the). were established without the benefit cfa detailed site survey, they may have to b~ adjusted as information on each site becomes available. For this work we have assumed that both ~es witl be designed, bid, and constructed concurrentty: and that the Village will assign a representative to act as our day-to-day contact. The subconsullants we are proposing for your project are GrafX Communication for signage, Tom Webber and Associates for eleetrlcal engineering, Fisher + Heros for structural engine,:ring, and Mmray and Mooby, L~. for sur¥¢ying, Pre-design We will obtain a topographic and utility survey, which wilt be supplled in Auto CADD release 14.0 format. We will meet with ~he Mount Prospect slaf'f to review project goals, reconfirm the project progrmn, budget, and schedule, and to establish administrative procedures pertaining to communication, de~ision making, invoicing. et. cetera. Design Development Based on the agreed upon concepts in ~he "Corridor Design Guidelines," the Wotff Clements team would prepare design development documents that describe more futly the scope and qualhy of the work. Design development docurncnts would define overall and partial dimensions, ma:crlabL t~mtshcs, signag¢ text and layout. preliminary indication of plant species, and the nurture of any crier site amenities. We woukl expect co meet with ~he Client halfway through and at the con¢]usion of[he design devetopm¢~: phase to review the design dcvclopmcm documents. We have not included any time or cost for any meetings with the Village Board and Commissioners, ncr have wc . included time or cost for any hearln~ or other public meetings that may bc required. In the event that ~,ugh meetings a. re required, we will prepare a proposal for eddhlonaI services at the ~:quns: of the Client. SeNt By: Wolf? Clements and Associates; 312 663 5497; Map-l-Q1 10:54AM; Page 3/7 Page 2 Mr. William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP Gateway Sites Four, Five, and Nine, Proposal For Landscape Architectural Services Febraary 27, 2001 Products of the design development phase of work would include, but not be limited to, the Following: · Overall plan~ · Enlarged sections · Standard details · Preliminary plant list Preliminary technical ~pecifications · Updated cost estimate Construction Documents Based on the agr~d upon d~ign development plsns and budget, the Wolff'Clements team would prepare const£uction documents striving to define folly the quali~ of work. Producns of lite C0nStTUCtien document phase of work would inelux~e, b~t not be limited to, the Following: · Overall layout plans with grading · Enlarged plans · Planting plans · Enlarged sections · Details · Technical spocificat[ons · Final estimate of probable costs Plans, sections, details, and technical specificafinns would address all of the are~ oFwork within the scope of the project, including, bt~ not limited to: · Exterior landscape · Irrigation (performance specification) · Site signage · Walls · Wall lighting/Electrical We have included the time and cost for'~vo meetings during this phase of work, We will prepare mt updated estimate OF proposed cost based ntt the contract docuraents. Irrigation Plan We will not prepare a detailed irrigation desi~ plan. We will, inste.~t, defi~ nraas to be irri~ated with an automatic irr[§ation system, and will prep.arc an "Automatic lrri~atio~ Performance Specification" that defines performance standards to b~ achieved by th~ irrigation design a~d equipment (coverage. types of irrigation heads, valves, etc.). We will review the "[rrig~tion Desi~ Plan" submitted by the successful irrigation co~tracr~r or subcontractor for conformance with the performance specification. This plan, as modified by the LaudScape Archi,.ect. wilt be the basis for installation of the au[omatlc irrlg~tlon system. Bid Phase Services The Landscape Architect, in conjunction with [he Village Engineen £ollowin§ the ©wner's approval of'the Consmuction Documents and of the latest S~tement of Probable Construct[on Cost~ shall a.~sisl the Owner in obtaining bids or negotiated proposals, and assist in awarding and preparin$ contracts for construction. SeNt By: Wolff Clements and Aseootaten; 312 663 5497; Mar-l-01 10:54AU; Page 4/7 Page 3 Mr. William J. Cooney, Jr~ AICP Gateway Sites Four, Five, and Nine, Proposal For Landscape Architectural Services Febronty 27, 2001 Construction Administration Services We have not alleealed/my time to select plants at their place of growth. W= would suggest that the City Forester perform this wodc However,/n the event we are required to do this work, we would perform it on an hourly basis aRer authorization from the Client. Review of Submittals. We will review and respond, as r~uired, to any submittals, including samples, shop drawings, and irdgntion design drawings. Communication and Coordination. We will respond to requests for information fi-om the contractor and/or landscape contractor during the is~tallntion of the work, and will commanic, ate with ;he Owner, ArahitecL contractor, and landscape couuactur as required throughout the consl~uctlon period. Construetion Observation. We propose to visit ea~a site two (2) time~ during the course of i~stalietiou of the landscape work, and one (1) time et the conc]asion of the work, at the contractor's or landscape contractor's request, to ~'eview the L~tndscape wod~ and prepare a punch lisl of work not htstalled or not in,tiled in conformance with the contract documents. Fee Summnry WoiffCiements and Associ~.tes proposes to provide the profe~ional services oullined above for a fee of $22,500.00, broken down by phase as follows: Pre-design $ 3,500.00 Design Development 5,500.00 Construction Documents ?,875.00 Irrigation Plan 1,000.00 Bid Phase Services 1,125.00 . . Construction Phase Services 3~$00.00 Subtotal S22,500.00 in addition ~o the professional fee proposed above, the followin§ consultants are required, and would be bilie, d ~t cost accordin$ to the following breakdown: Surveys (Site Four, $] ,800.00; Site Five, $1,800.00: Site Nine, $1,650.00) S 5,300.00 Structural Engineer (Fisher + Flores) 500.00 Elec~'ical Engineer (Tom Webber and Associates) 2,900.00 Environmental Graphic Design (OrafX Communications) 4.900.00 Subtotal $13,600.00 TOTAL, FEE $.36,100.00 Sent By: Wolff Cleaents and Associates; 312 663 5497; Map-l-01 10:55AM; Page 5/7 Page 4 Mr. William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP Gateway Sites Four, Five, and Nine, Proposal For Landscape Architectural Services Februa~' 27, 2001 Standard Terms and Conditions Hourly Billing l~tt$ Following are our normal hourly billing ra~es: Position Staff Billing Rate Principal T~I Wolff, Frank Ckracnts $ S~nior desigecr Craig F~wo~, P~ Smot~ Wolff 80 to ~.~our ~ior ~n~c ~hit~ J~l ~d~ Bill ~hmi&~ Bfi~ Hopkins 65 to 70.~our ~n~ca~ ~h~ G~ Lehm~, Alex Re~l~ 60 m 6S.~our Michello Wall~. Oanh Weber Hourly billing rotes ~u~ ~ reed ~ ~e ~ for hilling for any additional se~ic~ ~ould tMy be ~uir~ and r~u~t~d by ~e ClienL We ~ll pr~e a ~i~en propo~ ~r any ~dkional s~i~s, which may ~ ~d will priced wit~ su~ ~itional s~i~ afl~ ~i~n ~tho6mtion by ~o Client. Hourly bilting ~t~ would also ~ ~e basis for ~m~mation for ~y wo~ p~o~d in the evem ~at work sto~d ~fore a p~e of work is completed. Reimbumable Ex,asea Ex~n~s di~cfly attrlbmablc to the project ~at ~e ~d in ~ff~ing professional I~pe ~chi[~ture sewi~s ~e reimbu~ie m ~e ~ndscape Architect. They will be billed at co~ ~d will inci~e, but not be [imited to, the follow,g: Automobile mileage for pmj ec~ ou~ide of CooE ~un~, billed m the prevailing allowable IRS (c~enlly $0.31 per mile) Copyi~ ~d ~lor copying Film purch~ ~d developing Mounting PIo~i~ ~th in-house and by ~ice buream ~oject ~terials (~.g., Fome-Bor~ for mo~tin~ model materials, otc.) Reproduction (biueprintin~ la~e d~ument copying, photog~phic repr~uctions, etc,) Reimbarsable expen~ would not exceed $2,~0.00. Billing and Payment lnvoic~ will be prepared monthly for work complet~ during the previo~ month or [hrou~ a completed pha~c ofth~ work. Pa~em is du~ u~n receipt. In ~he event that pa~m is not received within thi~ O0) ~ys. [he L~d~ape Architect resets ~ Hght sus~nd services unilaterally on ~e pro~ct until receipt et payment. Sent'By: Wolff Clements ana Associates; 312 663 5497; Mar-l-01 10:56AM; Page 6/7 Page 5 Mr. W'illiam J. Cooney, Jr.. AICP Gateway Sites Four. Five. end Nine, Proposal For Landscape Architectural Services Februa~. 27, 2001 In the event that payment is not received within sixty (60) days of the date of invoice, the Landscape Architect reserves the right to terminate services unilaterally on the project. [n the event of eithar suspension or termination of services, all invoices outstanding` as well as full compensation for all work completed but not yet billed, shall rt:raain payable by the Client to the Landscape Architect. Additional Services In the event that ~he Client requires gary[cea tha~ are not within the scope of work as defined above, such services will be additional services the cost of which will be in addition to the fee summary outlined above. The Client shall outline the anticipated scope of required additional ser,nces, and shall request the Landscape Architect to prepare and submit a writte~ proposal for s,'ach services outlialng both the proposed scopa of work and fee. The Client shall review and approve this proposal, and shall authorize the Landscape Architect in vn'ifmg to proceed with such work prior to any work being performed. The Landscape Architect's normal hourly billing rates will 'oe the basis for the calculation of any requested additional services. Standard of Care The services provided by the Landscape Architect under this agreement will be performed az reasonable required in accordance with genarnlly accepted standards for services as offered [n this proposal for this project at the time when, and at the place, where the services are performed. ~/e carry insurance of the following kinds and in the following amounts, and will have Certificates of Insurance sent to the Client upon request: * Professional liability $1,000,000 each claim and aggregate · Genera~ llabili~ $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, and · · $2,000,000 products - corapleted operations · Excess liability (umbrella) $2,000.000 each occurrence, 52,000,000 aggregate · Workmen's compensation $100,000 each accident, $100,000 disease each employee, $500,000 disease, policy limit Client's Responsibilities Client shall arrange for access and make all provisi, oas for the Landscape Architect to eater upon project property for the sake ef sire visits, and shall provicie the Landscape Architect with ail existing available information for the project, including but not limited to the following: * Planning, zoning, and building codes, ordinances, and regulations, ~ well as any planning, zoning or building code analyses prepared for the project by the Client or Client's consultant(s). · Other guidc[ir~es, regulations, or covenants regarding parking, loading and scr~icc areas, site dcvelopraenr. an(~ landscaping. Cost Opinions, Budget Estimates, and Cost Estimates will be ot't'ered on thc basis of experience and.judgment, bat, because [l~c Landscape Arch[leer has no or eht By: Wol?f Ctements and Associates; 312 663 5497; Mar-l-01 10:57AM; Page 7/7 Page6 Mr, William J. Cooney, Jr., AICP Gateway Sit~s Four, Five, and Nir~, Proposal For Lanclscapc Architectural Services February 27, 2001 Acceptance It' this proposal is acceptable, please counter sign one copy and return i~ to the Landscape Architect for our records. The countersigned proposal will also serve as the Client's Notice to Proceed. Thc Landscape Architect will start work immediately, or at the Client's direction, or as stipulated in this proposal. Proposed by: Accepted by: WOLFF CLEMENTS AND ASSOCIATES, LTD. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT F 1-8~~ ~ ~'~ Namc, Title Principal Date Date Village of Mount Prospect Communit3' Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2001 SUBJECT: ST. RAYMONDS CHURCH - PROPOSED LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENT~ I have been working with representatives of St. Raymond's Church in an effort to enhance the appearance of their parking lot that is located along Route 83 between Lincoln Street and Shabenee Trail. The parking lot is currently constructed at the lot line, therefore creating a stark appearance along this highly visible roadway. This frontage was targeted in our recently adopted Corridor Improvement Plan as a possible location for corridor enhancements. The Church is interested in pursuing these improvements and is willing to forgo a portion of their parking lot to allow the Village to install landscaping. The Church has tentatively agreed to provide a temporary construction easement over the east $' 6" of tbeir parking lot to allow the Village to install the landscaping (see the attached exhibits). The Village would remove the existing chain link fence, sawcut the existing pavement, install landscaping improvements and a new fence along the Route $3 frontage. The total cost to the Village would be approximately $30,000 to $40,000 de.~pending upon the style offence that is installed (chain link or ornamental). I have attached a memo from Glen Andler that outlines the estimated costs of the project. The project would be paid for with Corridor Improvement funds (account #~ 107702-620008, page 289 in the Budget). I believe that this project provides the Village with a good opportunity to significantly improve the appearance of some highly visible frontage along one of the Village's major arterial roadways. Staff will also pursue further corridor improvements along this recently completed stretch of Route 83. It is our intent to implement the proposed entrance feature concept plan for the NE coroer of Route 83 and Golf Road later this summer and redesign the landscaping around the train station. Once the new streetlights are installed, we will move forward with a banner program to accentuate this corridor. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their March 6a~ meeting. If there is support for the project, staff will pursue a formal agreement with St. Raymond's representatives. flog Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM' 1~1'~ ~ / TO: COMMUNrrY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR WILLIAM COONEY FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS . ?.::-. -: .... DATE: NOVEMBER 27, 2000 SIJBJ-ECT: ST. RAYMOND'S lvENCE COST ESTII~ATES Below are the estimates you requested for relocating the fence along the St. Raymond's Parking lot adja- cent to Route 83 at LincOln. Prices include either relocating existing gates or replacing with new fence. · Relocate approximately 600' of fencing: · Save and reuse fence fabric and top rail. : · Remove existing line posts, and install new line posts. Action Fence Martam Construction 'rru Link Fence $8,000,00 $7,250.00 $6,591.00 Alternate Price Remove existing chainlink fence and install powder-coated aluminum ornamental fence at new fence lo- cation (see attached brochure). Iron Works Action Fence Tru Link Fence $25,300.00 $22,200.00 $18,700.00 Pavement Removal Added to either fence option above would be the cost to sawcut the existing parking lot pavement, remove the existing pavement, earth excavation, add earth fill (final elevation to be determined - berm?) and structure adjustments. Martam has submitted a cost estimate of $9,328.50. This figure is subject to change based on final grade elevation. Also, this estimate does not include the cost of sod or any other type of landscaping; i.e., bushes, trees, etc. Call me if you have any questions. " GRA/td/attach. c: DepUty Director of Public Works Sean P. Dorsey Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandy Clark X:\FILES\FRONTOFF~xORG,-\N1ZE~,ST IL.kYMOND'S FENCE COST ESTIMATES.DOC MAYOR Gel'Md g F~y ~ TRU~I'EI~ Timothy J. Corcor~ Phone: (847) 39E-6000 P~u~ Wm. Hoefen .._J F~x: (847) 392-6022 ~d M.I.ol~'~tmter ~. TDD: (847) 392-6064 ~ G. Prlld~el Mlch~Me W. Skowron Irvarm K~ Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Village of Mount Prospect VILLAGE CLERK re,ma W. Lowe '100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MOUNT PROSPECT YOUTH COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 7, 2001 MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING 7:00 P.M. I. Call To Order II. Roll Call III. Approval of February 8, 2001 Minutes IV. Guest Speaker V. New Business A. Jaycees Pizza Contest B. New Ideas / Issues VI. Old Business VII. Other Business VIII. Adjournment It is the general expectation of the Mount Prospect Youth Commission that all members attend every meeting. If you are unable to attend please contact either Nicole at 758-9680 or Julie or Laura at 870-0327 by the Friday prior to the meeting. In an emergency cancellation, you may call the meeting room at the Mount Prospect Public Safety Building at 818-5337 at the time of the meeting. Upcoming meetings are scheduled for: - April 4, 2001 - Senior Center - May 2, 2001 - June 6, 2001 MAYOR Ger~dd L. Farley ~ TRUSTEE8 Timothy J. Co~x~n Phone: (847) 392-6000 Pau! Wm. Hoelen Fax: (847} 392-6022 Richard M. Lohrstorfer TDD: (847) 392-6064 Dennis G. Prikkel Michaele W. S,kowron VILLAGE MANAGER Village of Mount Prospect VILLAGE CLERK VelmaW. Lowe 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MOUNT PROSPECT YOUTH COMMISSION MINUTES MOUNT PROSPECT SENIOR CENTER THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2001 7:00 P.M. PRESENT: NICOLE BYRNE, CHAIRMAN JULIE HIGGINSON, CO-CHAIRMAN LAURA HIGGINSON, CO-CHAIRMAN BRENT BUSSE SARAH CORCORAN JAMES RUETSCHE KlM UNGER A/A BUSSE A/A GILLIGAN A/A SCHEIN NA WALPOLE ABSENT: A/A LOHRSTORFER AJA NAGEL GUESTS: STEVE DIDUCA KAREN HUANG KILEY LYTHBERG JULIE MARKUS CALL TO ORDER THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRMAN NICOLE BYRNE AT 7:09 P.M. iN THE FIRST FLOOR MEETING ROOM OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SENIOR CENTER, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS. ROLL CALL SECRETARY CINDY RUMORE READ ROLL CALL. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 10, 2001 MEETING. 1sT SARAH CORCORAN 2ND JAMES RUETSCHE UNANIMOUS MOUNT PROSPECT YOUTH COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 2001 PAGE 'rINO BUSINESS LETTERS AND FLYERS TO SCHOOLS THE YOUTH COMMISSION DISCUSSED INVITING MAURA JANDRIS TO THE MARCH MEETING TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE TO FORM A PUBLICITY COMMI'I-I'EE, HELP TO INCREASE PARTICIPATION IN YOUTH COMMISSION THROUGH PUBLICITY, ADVERTISING I.E. FLYER, BROCHURE, WEBSITE, MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION ETC. YOUTH VIEW CHAIRMAN BYRNE IS WAITING FOR RESPONSE FROM GEORGE CLOWES TO SCHEDULE THE FIRST YOUTH VIEW PROGRAM. KlM UNGER CONTACTED MUSIC TEACHER, MR. MORRISON; WHO HAS AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FIRST YOUTH VIEW PROGRAM. YOUTH COMMISSION TO CONTACT HIM WITH DATE AND TIME. THANK YOU LETTER CHAIRMAN BYRNE WROTE THANK YOU Lr=i I ER TO RETIRING CHIEF OF POLICE RONALD W. PAVLOCK FROM THE YOUTH COMMISSION THANKING HIM FOR HIS WORK WITH THE COMMISSION AND CONGRATULATING HIM ON HIS RETIREMENT. SECRETARY CINDY RUMORE DELIVERED LETTER TO ACTING CHIEF OF POLICE THOMAS F. DALEY FOR PRESENTATION TO RONALD W. PAVLOCK. COFFEE WITH COUNCIL CHAIRMAN BYRNE ENCOURAGED ALL YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS TO ATTEND THE COFFEE WITH COUNCIL AT VILLAGE HALL ON SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2001 FROM 9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M. AND INTRODUCE THEMSELVES TO THE VILLAGE OFFICIALS, IT IS AN INFORMAL MEETING AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE YOUTH COMMISSION TO LET VILLAGE OFFICIALS KNOW THAT THE YOUTH COMMISSION HAS AN INTEREST IN THE FUTURE OF THE SENIOPJYOUTH/COMMUNITY CENTER. FIELD TRIP NA GILLIGAN CONTACTED THE ARLINGTON HEIGHTS YOUTH COMMISSION REGARDING THEIR MEETINGS. THEY MEET THE THIRD THURSDAY OF THE MONTH, 7:30 P.M., ARLINGTON HEIGHTS VILLAGE HALL (2r~° FLOOR), 33 SOUTH ARLINGTON HEIGHTS ROAD. NA GILLIGAN TO ATTEND THEIR NEXT MEETING TO SEE HOW THEIR COMMISSION OPERATES AND THE ISSUES THEY ARE CURRENTLY DISCUSSING. YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND TO VIEW ANOTHER YOUTH COMMISSION. CHAIRMAN BYRNE TO CALL ARLINGTON HEIGHTS AND POSSIBLY SCHEDULE A VISIT TO THEIR TEEN CENTER FOLLOWING THE COFFEE WITH COUNCIL MEETING. CHAIRMAN BYRNE TO CONTACT MEMBERS IF VISIT IS CONFIRMED. OTHER BUSINESS A/A PATTI WALPOLE UPDATED THE COMMISSION ON THE JAYCEES PIZZA CONTEST. THE CONTEST WILL BE HELD SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 2001 FROM 1:00 P.M. - 5:00 P.M. AT THE RAMADA INN, 200 EAST RAND ROAD, MOUNT PROSPECT. YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS WILL VOLUNTEER TO HELP THE DAY OF THE CONTEST. YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS SUPPLIED NAMES OF MOUNT PROSPECT PIZZA ESTABLISHMENTS TO A/A WALPOLE TO SUBMIT TO THE JAYCEES. AJA WALPOLE TO ATTEND THE NEXT JAYCEE MEETING AND WILL UPDATE THE COMMISSION AT THE MARCH MEETING. SIGN UP TIMES FOR THE CONTEST WILL BE AVAILABLE AT THE MARCH MEETING. JULIE HIGGINSON WROTE A THANK YOU LETTER FROM THE YOUTH COMMISSION TO THE MAYOR AND VILLAGE BOARD TRUSTEES FOR THE CANDY GIFT TO YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS. A/A SCHEIN ADVISED THE NEXT "WELCOME TO MOUNT PROSPECT DAY" WILL BE ON SATURDAY. APRIL 28. 2001 FROM 9:00 A.M. - 10:30 A.M. AT THE MOUNT PROSPECT SENIOR CENTER. MOUNT PROSPECT YOUTH COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 8, 2001 PAGE THREE A/A SCHEIN SUGGESTS YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS TALK TO THEIR FRIENDS AND SEE WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE HAPPEN IN THE COMMUNITY. CHAIRMAN BYRNE REQUESTS ALL YOUTH COMMISSION MEMBERS TO BRING IN TWO NEW IDEAS/ISSUES FOR THE YOUTH COMMISSION TO DISCUSS AT THE MARCH MEETING. MOTION TO ADJOURN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING WAS UNANIMOUS. MEETING ADJOURNED 8:24 P.M. /ct MAYOR ~ VILLAGE MANAGER C~rald L. Farley Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEF~ VILLAGE CL~ Viii f M age o ount Prospect ~c~d M. ~f~ ~o.~ Communi~ Development Department ~o~: s~7~o Mi~l~ W. Sko~on F~: 847~022 ~ ~. wi~ i00 Sou~ Emerson S~eet Mo~t Prospec~ Ill~ois 60056 TDD: 847a~4 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: 2~ Floor ~erence Room W~es~y Village ~11 ~ch 7, 2001 100 Sou~ Ememon S~e~ 7:00 p.m. Mo~t Prospe~ IL 60056 I. C~L TO O~ER II. ROLL C~L HI.~PROV~ OF M~ES A, l~ua~ 17, 2001 S~DI~SIONS A. ~e Resub~vision (2120 ~ite O~) Subdivide ~ existing lot to cr~te a ~o-lot subdivision B. Me~o F~e~ Cr~it Union ~subdivision (2440 E. ~d Road) Co~oli~te mo 1o~ to crmte a one-lot subdivision C.Fmen Resub~vision (319 N. Prospect M~or) Co~olidate ~o lob to cr~te a one-lot subdivision D. Village CeriSe P~e 1-B Plat of Resubdivision (14 E. No~hwest ~ Subdivide existing lots to create a ~ree-lot subdivision - V. OLD BUS,ESS None NEW BUS,ESS None VII. COMME~S/OTHER BUS,ESS VIII. ADJOU~MENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION January 17, 2001 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Michael Zadel at 7:05 p.m. at the Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. ROLL CALL: Present: Michael Zadel, Chairman Edwin Janus Bill Reddy Matt Sledz Carol Tortorello Absent: Antoinette Astreides Gary Grouwinkel Village Staff Present: Judy Connolly AICP, Senior Planner Chuck Lindelof, P.E., Project Engineer Nieole Roberts, Neighborhood Planner Others in Attendance: David Krzymiaski Bob Malandrino George Baddour Thomas Hurley Paul Lipski Harvey Koloms APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Chairman Zadel asked for comments or changes to the minutes from December 12, 2000. Carol Tortorello moved to approve the minutes and Ed Jan. is seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Chairman Zadel asked staffto present the first case, PC-09-2000. OLD BUSINESS: PC-09-2000/BRENTWOOD SQUARE CONSOLIDATION ('1750 E. KENSINGTON ROAD) Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case, Brentwood Square's Consolidation. She said that the petitioner would like to construct additional parking spaces to be used by the existing shopping center. She said that this case was continued from the December Plan Commission meeting at the petitioner's request because the petitioner wanted his engineer to confirm that the project would meet Village codes and not require an exception to the Development Code. She said that the petitioner is not seeking relief from Development Code requirements or the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that in order to construct the additional parking spaces for the existing shopping center, the two, separate lots of record must be resubdivided to create one lot of record. She said that staff reviewed the plat and found that it meets all Village codes and that the plat was prepared according to Development Code requirements. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the Brentwood Square Consolidation plat of resubdivision. Chairman Zadel asked representatives of the petitioner if they wanted to add to staff's summary. Harvey Koloms, attorney for the property owner, said that he wanted to clarify the scope of the projectl He said that a new restaurant wanted to lease space at the Brentwood Square, but the property owner would withdraw the request to consolidate the two lots if the site could not meet the Village's parking requirements. He said that they might develop the second lot as a separate development and not lease thc space in the retail center to the restaurant. Mr. Koloms said he needed to confirm the number of seats proposed for the new restaurant, the maximum number of parking spaces needed, and the amount of spaces that could be provided by cousolidating the site into one-lot of record. MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Page 2 Minutes from the January 17, 2001 meeting The Plan Commission asked in-depth questions about the design of the storm water detention. Chuck Lindelof, Project Engineer, answered the Plan Commission's questions and confirmed that he worked with the petitioner's engineer to ensure that the design met Village code requirements. There was discussion that the property owner needed to maintain the sewer system more frequently because the pond should drain faster than its current rate. There was further discussion about the need for additional parking because a current tenant sponsored events that created parking conflicts among all the tenants. Mr. Koloms said that the conflicts among tenants would be resolved by adding more parking spaces. In addition, the restaurant owner Thomas Hurley said that the restaurant would be designed to have two entrances to provide customers access from the front of the shopping center and fi'om the proposed parking lot. Chairman Zadel clarified that the scope of the Plan Commission's review was to ensure that the plat met Development Code requirements, but he appreciated that the petitioner addressed ancillary issues that are important to the neighbors. He asked if there were any other questions or discussion. As there was none, Carol Tortorello moved to approve the Brentwood Square Consolidation plat of resubdivision and Bill Reddy seconded the motion. The plat was approved 5-0. SUBDIVISIONS: NONE NEW BUSINESS: Chairman Zadel introduced the next agenda item and reviewed the cases that the Plan Commission reviewed last year. Ms. Connolly provided the status of the Corridor Design Guidelines and Streetscape projects. She said that the Guidelines would become part of the Village's Comprehensive Plan and that process would require the Plan Commission reviewing the final draft before forwarding a recommendation to the Village Board. She said that work on the Streetscape program is scheduled to begin this spring or summer and that staff is working with the consultant to address circulation issues at the train station and throughout the downtown area. Chairman Zadel asked Nicole Roberts, Neighborhood Planner, to review CDBG and HUD related activities. Ms. Roberts said that she prepared a tentative timeline for 2001 activities. She discussed the CAPER report and possible projects to reduce the balance of funds. There was general discussion on the timeline and the Plan Commission's monitoring responsibilities. The Plan Commission asked Ms. Roberts if some of the excess CDBG funds could be used to pay for new streetlights along Central Road, more of the sidewalk ramping program, and squad cars for the Police Department. Ms. Roberts said that she had to verify if the projects met HUD criteria and that she would update the Plan Commission at their next meeting. Chairman Zadel asked the Plan Commission for their input for objectives for the new year. There was discussioh on redeveloping commercial properties within the Village, possible areas to research such as the Randhurst area, and revisiting the South Sector Study. There was further discussion on the Judith Ann Study and installing playground equipment at Prospect Commons. MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Page Minutes from the January 17, 2001 meeting COMMENTS AND OTHER BUSINESS: None Carol Tortorello moved to adjourn the meeting and Ed Janis seconded the motion. The motion carried and the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 p.m. Judy Connolly AICP, Senior Planner Nicole Roberts, Neighborhood Planner [kDI~01 \V02~D EPT~CO MD\GEN~PLNG~PC~C 200 l~Minutcs\l - 17-O 1 minutes PC-09-2000 (Brentwood resub).doc