The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About4. NEW BUSINESS 03/16/2010 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT pt:>. ~t., 3 \L" \\0 TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: MARCH 1, 2010 PZ-03-10 113 WESTGATE ROAD 1 VARIATIONS (SIDE YA SETBACK & ROOF PITCH) 1 FRED N. SALDANA - PETITION SUBJECT: Attached please find plans related to the Petitioner's request seeking approval of a variatio to the required side yard setback and roof pitch for a garage addition at 13 N. Westgate. The Petitioner constructed a 20.68' wide by 10.20' deep garage addition last fall without a permit. A Stop Work Order was issued and now the Petitioner seeks Variations to decrease the required side yard setback from five feet (5') to two feet and four and a quarter inches (2'-4%") and the roof pitch from three twelve (3:12) to one twelve (1 :12) units for the garage addition. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, February 25, 2010, and by a vote of 5-0 recommended denial of a Variation to allow a two feet and four and a quarter inches (2'-4%") side yard setback and a one twelve (1: 12) roof pitch. Details of the. proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their March 16, 2010 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~~l~~,cP H:\PLAN\Planning& Zoning COMM\P&Z 2010\MEJ Memos\PZ-03-1O 13 Westgate Rd (Variation.Side Yard&RoofPitch).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-03-10 Hearing Date: February 25, 2010 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 13 Westgate Road PETITIONER: Fred N. Saldana PUBLICATION DATE: February 10,2010 PIN NUMBER: 03 - 35-401-009-0000 REQUEST: Variations (Side Yard Setback for an Accessory Structure and Roof Pitch for an Accessory Structure) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Theo Foggy Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: William Beattie Ronald Roberts ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development William Schroeder, Building Commissioner INTERESTED PARTY: Fred Saldana Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 28, 2010 meeting; Mr. Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0; with Mr. Foggy abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-03-I0, 13 Westgate Road, at 7:34 p.m. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner for PZ-03-I0 was requesting Variations to decrease the required side yard setback and roof pitch for a garage addition located at 13 Westgate Road. Ms. Andrade said the Subject Property is located on the east side of Westgate Road and is zoned R-l Single Family Residence. The site contains a single-family residence with related improvements as illustrated on the 2009 Plat of Survey. The detached garage and shed on the property are non-conforming as the required side yard setbacks are not met. Ms. Andrade stated the garage addition was constructed in the fall 2009 without a permit. As currently constructed, the garage addition encroaches into the required side yard 2.65 feet and has a one to twelve (1 : 12) roof pitch. The Village Code requires a minimum five (5) foot setback and a three to twelve (3:12) roof pitch for accessory structures. Therefore, the Petitioner was seeking a Variation to decrease the required side yard setback from five (5) feet to two feet and four and quarter of an inch (2'-41;4") and to decrease the required roof pitch from three to twelve (3: 12) to one to twelve (1: 12) units. Ms. Andrade said the garage addition roughly measures 20 feet wide by 10 feet deep. The garage addition was attached to a detached garage with a pitched roof that measures 20 feet wide by 22 feet deep. The height of the garage addition increases from 9 feet tall in the front to 10 feet tall in the rear. Per the Petitioner's drawings, the Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-I0 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 2010 Page 1 of5 roof pitch is one to twelve and standard sloped shingles were used for the roof, which require steeper roof pitches as per the Village Code. Ms. Andrade stated Staff reviewed the permit history for the subject property to determine when the structures on the subject property were constructed. Staff found that plumbing permits were issued in 1970 and 2002. A fence permit was issued in 2008 and a roof permit for the house and garage was issued in 2009. There were no permits on file for the pool, deck, shed, or the detached garage. Ms. Andrade said in addition to reviewing permits, Staff reviewed the plat of surveys on file for the property. Surveys from 1979 and 1989 both showed a garage measuring 20 feet wide by 22 feet deep. The new 2009 survey illustrated a larger garage than is shown on the 1979 and 1989 plats of survey. Ms. Andrade showed a table comparing the Rl Bulk Requirements to the garage addition: Code Requirements Existing Proposed SETBACKS: Front 30' (accessory structure) 102.17' (garage) 91.97' (garage) Side (N) 5' (accessory structure) 2.65' (garage) 2.35' (garage) Side (S) 5' (accessory structure) 76' (garage) No Change Rear 5' (accessory structure) 130' (garage) No change ROOF PITCH 3: 12 (accessory structure) N/A J:12(Rara}(e) FAR .5 Maximum .09 .10 LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 23.36% No Change The garage addition complies with the required front, side yard to the south, and rear yard setbacks. In addition, the FAR and lot coverage regulations are met. However, the garage addition fails to meet the required 5 foot side yard setback to the north property line and the three to twelve roof pitch. Ms. Andrade stated the purpose of the nonconforming provisions in the Village Code are to allow existing structures/uses to remain, but over time when replaced to bring properties into compliance. Ms. Andrade said per Section 14.402 of the Zoning Code, the replacement of any structure on the property, as is claimed by the petitioner, requires the new replacement structure to meet bulk regulations for the zoning district. In this case, the removal of the non-conforming garage addition in 1992 would require any replacement structure to meet the required bulk regulations. By code the garage would need to be located at least five feet (5') feet from the side property line and have a three to twelve (3: 12) roof pitch. Ms. Andrade stated according to the Building Division, the garage addition does not comply with the Village Building Code or the International Residential Code. Specifically, the garage addition does not comply with the required footings, floor, header, bracing, structural ties, lumber fasteners, and roof pitch. Ms. Andrade said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following is a summary of these findings: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; . Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character Ms. Andrade said the Petitioner's narrative stated that the garage addition was removed in 1992 and replaced in the fall of 2009 because it had become an eye sore and was structurally dangerous. However, the necessary Richard Rogers, Chair PZ-03-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 2010 Page 2 of 5 permits were not obtained for the demolition or addition. As constructed, the garage addition does not comply with the Village Zoning and Building Codes. While the Petitioner said that the he replaced what was there because it was structurally unsound, the detached garage was non-conforming and the Village Code requires the new structure to comply with Code requirements. A garage addition can be redesigned and constructed to meet Code requirements on the Subject Property. The alleged hardship presented in this case has therefore been created directly by the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There are no unique conditions on the property which would not exist elsewhere within the Village. Ms. Andrade stated based on Staff's review of the Variation standards, Staff does not believe that either requested Variation satisfies the criteria. If the requested Variations are granted, the structure would need to be modified in order to comply with the Village's Building Code requirements as detailed in the staff report. Therefore, Ms. Andraded stated that Staff recommended the Planning and Zoning Commission deny the motions. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Mr. Youngquist asked if the square footage of the garage in its current state met Village Code. Ms. Andrade said the current garage does comply with the maximum size permitted as well as the lot coverage for the subject property . Chairman Rogers said he understood there were several issues regarding this case: the side yard setback and roof pitch; he asked if the asphalt driveway was the garage floor in the entire garage or the addition alone. Ms. Andrade stated that it was staff's understanding that the driveway was the floor only in the garage addition. Chairman Rogers stated he will talk to the Petitioner to find out if the driveway goes into the garage itself. He also confirmed that the garage was built on piers instead of a foundation, Ms. Andrade stated that was correct. Chairman Rogers swore in Fred Saldana, 13 Westgate Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Saldana said that the garage addition never had a garage door because it was not sound enough. His plan was to put a garage door on the garage addition. Mr. Saldana said he tore down the original garage addition in 1992 because it was not safe, he did not know that he had one year to re-build the same structure. The new addition was constructed when Mr. Saldana had the resources. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he built the garage addition and if he was a builder. Mr. Saldana stated that he did construct the addition with help and said he is a union electrician. Mr. Saldana confirmed that the floor under the garage addition and the garage itself was blacktop (asphalt). He said that the addition was placed on piers because of the forty two inch (42") frost line requirement for foundation; he thought the piers were the best way to frame up the addition. Mr. Saldana said he had a statement from the contractor who helped him install the piers. Mr. Saldana stated that the garage addition was added for additional storage. He said he was also able to add new garage doors to the new structure. Mr. Saldana said the new roof contained an ice/water shield that the old roof did not have. He did not utilize the higher pitch due to the windows in the garage prevented him from doing so. He stated everything could be adjusted and brought up to code. Mr. Saldana said he understood he did something wrong but thought knocking the structure down would not be fair. He stated the structure looks and fits on the property better than it did before. Mr. Saldana said he is not encroaching on his neighbor, even with the shade of the structure. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Saldana if he was aware of the permit process. Mr. Saldana believed the garage addition and the asphalt flooring were grandfathered in. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner built the garage, Mr. Saldana said no, it was there when he purchased the property. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 2010 PZ-03-10 Page 3 of5 Chairman Rogers clarified that the neighbor to the north installed the fence; this is when the Petitioner realized he was 2.5 feet from the property line. Chairman Rogers also confirmed there was no permit for the swimming pool. Mr. Saldana stated that this existed on the property when it was purchased. He also said the shed was an existing structure too. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner if he knew the garage addition was an unsafe structure. Chairman Rogers mentioned that the Petitioner was putting almost 7,000 pounds of load on two of the front piers. The Village requires a continuous foundation to spread the load over the entire soil. There was additional discussion regarding the safety and load capacity of the piers that were installed by the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers stated that he thought that the Petitioner had no choice other than to tear down the garage addition because it is unsafe. He said a new structure could be built and moved five feet from the property line to meet code. The existing garage could remain as long as there was no major work being completed on it. Chairman Rogers said if the entire garage was replaced, then it would have to be moved five feet. Chairman Rogers said the asphalt flooring does not conform to Code and should be replaced with concrete. He stated there are several issues that need to be taken care of by the Petitioner. Chairman Rogers asked Staff if they had a license and bond for the fence contractor, Fence Menders. Ms. Andrade stated that Fence Menders did have a Contractor's License that expired on December 31, 2009. Chairman Rogers said based on the fence contractor's notes and affidavit, he should have known the setback and the fact that a garage addition could not be built on piers. Mr. Saldana said he misunderstood the Code Requirements for the attached garage. There was discussion regarding Village Code and the full foundation that was needed below the garage addition. Mr. Youngquist discussed the foundation requirements. He said piers are not appropriate. Mr. Youngquist stated that the Petitioner lined the garage addition so two cars could fit into the garage. In order for compliance, the Petitioner would need to shift the addition five feet and that would misalign the garage and the addition. Mr. Youngquist asked if the existing garage was made of dry wall. Mr. Saldana said the garage is insulated and dry walled inside. Chairman Rogers stated that the Petitioner would need to tear the garage addition down; there is no way he can keep it. He said if it was not torn down, it will eventually fall down. Chairman Rogers suggested that if the Petitioner rebuilds the addition, to move it five feet to bring it into compliance. Mr. Saldana asked if he could put a foundation wall underneath the existing structure. There was a general consensus that putting a wall underneath the existing structure would cost a lot more money than tearing down and rebuilding. There was discussion regarding the support beam ofthe garage addition. Chairman Rogers stated that the Building Department would have helped the Petitioner if a permit was pulled or if any questions needed to be answered. Mr. Foggy asked if a demolition permit would be required for the Petitioner to remove the garage addition. Chairman Rogers stated that this was correct. Mr. Youngquist said it was unfortunate that the Petitioner has a large side yard on the south side of the property with everything jammed along the north end. He suggested that the Petitioner consult an architect to see if the Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25,2010 PZ-03-10 Page 4 of 5 garage addition could be extended five additional feet. Mr. Youngquist stated that because of his professional background he could not support the Variations. There was discussion regarding several of the issues on-hand: the asphalt floor, the structure of the addition, and the proximity to the north property line. Chairman Rogers suggested that the Petitioner replace the entire garage and addition. He said the Petitioner would move the entire structure to the south five feet and have a new garage with a concrete floor. There was discussion regarding the maximum size garage allowed in the Village. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner's garage met Village Code size requirements. Mr. Simmons stated the proposed addition did not meet the side yard setback because it encroached into the setback. The existing structure is allowed to remain as it is currently constructed within 2.5 feet of the property line, any new addition to that would have to meet the Code. The Petitioner could expand the structure, as long as the side yard setback was met for the new expansion. Chairman Rogers closed the public portion of the meeting and brought the discussion back to the Commission. Mr. Floros made a motion to approve: 1. A Variation request to decrease the required to side yard setback from five-feet (5) to two feet and four and quarter of an inch (2' -41/4"); and 2. A Variation request to decrease the required roof pitch from three twelve (3:12) to one twelve (1: 12) units for the residence located at 13 Westgate, Case No. PZ-03-1 O. Mr. Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Foggy, Youngquist, Rogers Motion was defeated 5-0. This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceed 25% ofthe Zoning Ordinance requirement. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:15 p.m. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~% Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 2010 PZ-03-10 Page 5 of 5 LOCATION: PETITIONIW.: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQlmST: Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ-03-10 13 Westgate Road Fred N. Saldana Same as Petitioner 03-35-401-009-0000 0.58 acres (25,515 square reet) R 1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residential 1) Variation to the Side Yard Setback for an ^ccessory Structure 2) Variation to the Roor Pitch for an ^ccessory Structure LOCATION MAP MI'~MOHANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICI lARD ROGERS, CI IAIRPERSON FROM: CONSUELO ANDRADE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER DATI<~: FEBRUARY 11,2010 HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 25, 2010 SlJB.lECT: PZ-03-10/ 13 WESTGATE ROAD / VARIATION TO SIDE YARD SETBACK AND ROOF prrcI I BACKGHOU~D A public hearing has been scheduled for the February 25, 20 I 0 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Fred :\. Saldana (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 13 Westgate (the "Subject PropeI1y"). The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to decrease the required side yard setback from five feet (5') to two feet and four and qual1er or an inch (2'-41;;") and to decrease the roof pitch rrom three twelve (3: 12) to one twelve (1: 12) units 1'01' a garage addition. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the February 10, 2010 edition of the Journal & Topics Newspaper. In addition starf has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Ilearing sign on the Subject Property. PR()PI<~HTY IH~SCRIPTlON The Subject Propel1y is located on the east side of Westgate between Central Road and Thayer Street. The property currently contains a single-ramily residence with related improvements. The Subject Propel1y is zoned R-] Single Family Residence and is bordered by the 133 Community Shopping to the west and the R-l District to the 11011h, cast, and south. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exhibits illustrate the Petitioner's garage addition to the west or the existing detached garage. The garage addition was constructed in the ralloI' 2009 without a permit. The Building Department issued a Stop Work Order on October 19, 2009. As currently constructed the garage addition measures 10.20' by 20.68' and encroaches into the required side yard 2.65 ICel. Also. the roof pitch is one twelve (1:12) units ror the garage addition. Iherefore. the Petitioner seeks a Variation to decrease the required side yard setback to from five ICet (5') to two feet and four and quarter of an inch (2'-4:1,") and to decrease the required roorpitch rrom three twelve (3: 12) to one twelve (]:] 2) units. StafT has discussed the garage addition with the petItIoner for the past several months trying to rectify the situation and have the garage addition removed and proper permits obtained to install a garage addition that complies with Village Code. The petitioner is seeking a variation to the required side yard setback along the north lot line and to the required roof pitch to allow the garage addition to remain as currently constructed. The PZ-03-10 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25, 20 I 0 Page 3 Zoning Ordinance requires a five foot (5') side yard setback and a three to twelve (3:12) roof pitch for aecessory structures. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Propeliy does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The principal structure located on the property meets the bulk regulations provided in the ordinance in regards to building setbacks; however, the detached accessory structures do not comply with the required side yard setback and are considered nonconform ing. In particular, the detached garage and the shed encroach into the required 5' side yard. No variations have previously been approved for this property. The Plats of Survey of the Subject Property in the building permit flies, dated 1979 and 1989, illustrate the principal structure and a twenty two foot (22') by twenty foot (20') detached garage. The Plat of Survey submitted by the Petitioner is dated January 13.2010 and illustrates the principal structure, detached garage, wood deck, above ground swimming pool, and a shed on the property. Staff reviewed the permit history for this property to determine when these structures were construeted. The following summarizes permits which have been issued for 13 Westgate: . 1970 Plumbing Permit - Kitchen Remodel . 2002 Plumbing Permit-- Village Sewer . 2008 Fence Perm it . 2009 Roof Perm it House and Garage As indicated by the permit history, there is no history of permits issued for the existing garage addition, shed, wood deck, and above ground swimming pool on the Subject Property. The above ground pool and wood deck comply with the required setbacks. The detached garage and shed encroach into side yard and are considered noncon form i ng. The Petitioner notes in the attached application that he knocked down the garage addition in June of 1992 and reconstructed it in October 2009 by replacing the walls and roof. There is no history of a demolition permit and a perm it was not issued for the reconstructed garage addition. NOl1co/lj(mning Structures Per Section I/lJ102 of the Zoning Code. the replacement of any structure on the property requires the new replacement structure to meet bulk regulations for the zoning district. In this case, the removal of the non- conforming garage addition in 1992 would require any replacement structure to meet the required bulk regu lations. By code the garage wou Id need to be located at least five feet (5') feet li'om the side property line and have a three to twelve (3: 12) roof pitch. The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the R I Single hUllily Residence District's bulk requirements. The italicized text denotes items that require zoning relief from the Village Code's bulk regulations. PZ-03-10 Planning & /oning Commission Meeting February 25, 20 I 0 Page 4 Code Requirements Existing Proposed SETBACKS: Fnmt Side (N) . Sid~(S) Rear ~---_._._- ROOF PITCH FAR LOT COVJ1:RAGJ1: 30' (accessory structu re) ------ --.--- .--- 5'_ ( accessory structure) 5' (accessory structure) ___ __l'J (l~~~ssory structure) 3~1~Jil~ccssgry structure) .5 Maximum 45% Maximum 102. I 7' (garage) 91. 97' (garage) 2.65' (garage)u2-}XJgarage) 76' (garag_e) __ Ng Change 130' (garage) ..... ____~S'_cl]ange N/.0_____ .__L_1]_{g~lrage) .09 .10 --- ----.--.---...-.-- ---------.--- 23.36<Yo No Change Building Division Comments According to the Building Division, the garage addition docs not comply with the Village Building Code or the International Residential Code (IRe). According to Section 21.1 06(b )(2) of the Village Building Code, "footings for frame garages shall be not less than twelve inches (12") wide and not less than twelve inches (12") in depth around the entire perimeter of slab". The Petitioner's garage addition was placed on piers and does not provide a garage foundation. The Village 13uilding Code and International Residential Code also requires 1100rs to be not less than four inches (4") thick reinforced with 1110 wire screen over a base of crushed stone or sand at least four inches (4") in depth. The base shall bc placed on undisturbed soil and the 1100r shall be pitched a minimum of one and one-half inches (1 W') from the rear of the garage towards thc vchicle door. noor drains arc not allowed in the garage. The Petitioner's garage addition's 1100r does not comply with thc Code requirements as the existing driveway is uti I ized as the garage addition's 110or. The garage add ition' s header also docs not com ply with code requ irements. Per Vi Ilage Code, each corner is to bc wind-braced outward from the top in two directions to a minimum of four feet (4') from corner at the bottom plate. As built, the garage addition is missing corner bracing and lateral bracing, which are key-structural components for the structure. Additionally, the IRC Code requires all new top plates to be tied to old plates. The new structure as-built is missing structural ties to existing top plates. Pressure treated lumber was used for portions of the wall framing in the garage addition. Per Code, special fasteners arc required to properly fasten pressure treated lum bel' to prevent j~lstener and structural fai lure. As built, the Petitioner's garage addition does not meet Village Code requirements for fastening. The roof as constructed is one twelve (I: 12) units when the Village Code requires a minimum of three twelve (3: 12) units to avoid water damage. Standard sloped shingles were used on the roof, which require steeper roof pitches as per the Village Code. VAIUATIO~ STANDARDS The standards for a Variation arc listed in Section 1/\.203.C.9 of the Village /oning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: . Would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; . Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . Protection of the public welfare, other propel1y, and neighborhood character. PZ-03-1O Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 25,2010 Page 5 The Petitioner states in the attached application that the replacement of the garage addition was required because it had become an eye sore and was structurally dangerous. However, the necessary permits were not obtained and the garage addition as constructed does not comply with the Village Zoning and Building Codes. While the petitioner states that the he replaced what was there because it was structurally unsound, the detached garage was non-conforming and the Village Code requires the new structure to comply with Code requirements. A garage addition can be redesigned and constructed to meet Code requirements on the Subject Property. The alleged hardship presented in this case has therefore been created directly by the property owner's own interest in the property and not by the zoning code. There are no unique conditions on the property which would not exist elsewhere within the Village. Based on the above review of the standards, staff does not believe that either requested variation satisfy these criteria. If the requested Variations are granted, the structure would need to be modified in order to comply with the Village's Building Code requirements as detailed above. RECOMMENDATION The Variation request for a two foot and four and quarter of an inch (2'-4V4") side yard and a one to twelve (1:12) roof pitch does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z deny the following motions: "To approve: 1. A Variation request to decrease the required to side yard setback from five-feet (5) to two feet and four and quarter of an inch (2' -4'i4"); and 2. A Variation request to decrease the required roof pitch from three twelve (3:12) to one twelve (1:12) units for the residence located at 13 Westgate, Case No. PZ-03-1O." This case is Village Board final since the Variations exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. I concur: ~& J~eY~ ~fCommunity Development lit H:\PLAN\Plalulillg & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2010\StaITRcporls\PZ-0J-IO 13 Westgate Road (VAR~ Side Yard,RoofPitch).doc VILLACJE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 't.O COMMUNITY ])EVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning D~~€,~~ 50 S. Emerson Street ~...'f,;.. Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone S47.818.532S FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request ~! v Mount Prospect , . 0\'\ ,~'.,. . [";\I'V e 0' . . .eV.)r -.J\\\o<J u{'\\\'I \)U. co~~ The Planning & Zoning Commission 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 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW Village Board Final ~ o - f- <~ :::'c; ~o o ;; """ CJ ~iE -0 x'-' l~ t': ,... ..., .- !i r- < ;;:: ~ o "- "- - t': o f- -< :>. ,=, .-, ,j :: c II t': 0 I -.- 'I' 0 P.. i t': e.- If Case Number PZ - - 10 Dew lopment N ame/ Address u__.__ Date or Submission 'i Ilearine, Date I . j COlll11l0n Address(es) (Street Number, Street) '" 'j?~6-i;fi;;ff1:f{7;;J~ff9 - tJMO , , "" t: rJJ ; [:;ill)cscripti~)n (attaeh~d~jiti~)I~al-sh~cls-i{l~e~~~saJ:Y):"'- - -.-.t d-:;-'&71/-tl/LcI?a.uIJ;;J7f~' c!'vJ;-;;J! :' 4/: i-.J?:fL 1~.1 C:~. 6od.:J.. ;;d5J1~t.-16;frhYr/ iI 5;i~l'/SAt/ 17/ h,J /;)/ c./!. 4&1z. II ~~<.1- ~~~pf;;4 fl/).t/;V/f/nl /)/f-h I//Lr} ~~ of rAt- JtlJ/}),$/frJ- ~ ,(;115!cJ-.~j/r J~:! i:t~~2j? ';/(J-)4rlA"I&Pfl- II If/f) i/I'I)L f.l,,(d JJ./~/t.:PJfJ. /l1P//C)AJ/j :Lu (;;L___ !I '~!J f~j'~/~5, -/l/hl~f.Jrlif.., ,.v.fA ~jl. /?-p,Pt/rle#.#YLt.f /?/"'c/ . Er.'v,A.f~I ...Ii/v!.. t/,IIf~ ~J,,~. ,.yf'!,<-&J!~(/:'-"J~~~J.'- ~ .__~ _... Name ~C~/ tI ;;J~;I/J Corpor;lt ion Telephone (dav) "17)- YJ'.f. /JL1t? T-:lcphone (even ing) i Streetl~])/ M~.j /fIt tJ ,! City Y ; Slate . Zip Code ~~ar~L"J-__L!J)~ blltJ56 il Interest in Property j tJ W;f./t~ . J'ax I f:lllai I I '7. 2 !- -< ~I 0:: t ~ ~ ~o - >-> o t Z v :Jg. o .... 0::0.. c.:ll ~ U -< c;Q Z 21 !- Vl -<-a ~ g 0:: . Vi o~ ~ 0 z .... _0.. o C z v :J E o g. o::-v c.:l > ~o UI -< c;Q Name hl2~1 i/ Nitj//} Corporation ~~ City 11/ /. L 'I II Developer II Name II il ^ddress I i I ^ttorney Name ^ddress !'surveyor , Name ^ddress ri:ngineer II Name II ii ^ddress , i' I !I ^rch itect I Name , ^ddress Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois, 60056 I I Telephone (day) Telephone (evening) Fax Email Telephone (day) Fax Email Telephone (day) Fax Email Telephone (day) Fax Email Telephone (day) I I:a.\ Email Telephone (day): Fax Email I I I Telephone (day): Fax Email r~J- I 11'1' Landscape Mchitect Name 'I ^ddress I I __~~~"L~ ~~C1 Ii 'I 'I I, I I 11 I J Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.81 ~.5329 'I'D!) 847.39:-'.()()64 i Cod, S,,';,m(,) SWh;~",;~~ ;'8');O;,,'Od . /fl?:dJ,~.~, .gH II Summary ~lIld Justification for Requested Variation(s), Relate Justification to the Attached Standards for Variation'S- II ________________ f3 ~ ~ef! / ' )/11;1 L/Je d o ~ E-< ~rJJ O~ ;.:J >0 a::~ <:a:: ~rJJ ~Z ::JO rJJ- E-< U <: Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have ocen satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village stafl so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to subm itta!. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supponing 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 propel1y during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application arc true and accurate to the oest of my knowledge. Applicant ;?./~ 7I'~~ Print Name ~ /~;;;/~~/l_~____~~__u Date /-;J.J v ~t1/0 If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent Cor the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Propel1y Owner ;t;U/ J/. );).j; J(/;9 ?~)f~ Date Print Name Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect lllinois, 60056 1 Phone 847.X! ~.5328 Fax 847.g] loU329 Tl'\I'\ Q,17 "l(Y, LnLA STANDARDS FOR VARIATIONS '/) .~~ A I am requesting a variation to the required set back from 5 feet to 2.35 feet. B 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a specific hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations was to be applied: ~ I have presented you with a picture of what the garage looked like when I initially purchased the property October 1989. As you can see the area in question looks and was in disrepair, neglected and poorly constructed. The seller was asking $125,000.00 for the house. I tried to haggle and bring the price down, but he was firm. Because of the lot size and more important the school system of Mount Prospect, I did pay the asking price for the property. Being a construction worker all my life, and having more energy than money, in time I figured I could repair the garage. In the summer of 1992 I decided it was not only an eye sore, the structure was dangerous I replaced the garage roof and walls in October 2009. ) The front part section with the flat roof was rain damaged, leaning to the north a good 8 to 10 inches. It was loose. It was dangerous. I had no choice but to knock it down before someone got hurt. I could not put anything in the garage. It was not usable. Once I knocked down the shed roof and walls I could at least put some barn style doors, as it looks today, and used what was left, approximately 20' wide and 22' deep for storage, which is what it is used for now, in 20 years I have not been able to use the garage to park a car. We were looking in Mount Prospect because of family living here and having children in the Mount Prospect school system and how great it was. We feel we had found the perfect spot to raise our three children and spend the rest of our lives here, which is what we plan on doing. The property was for sale by owner so no realtor was involved. I never had an original picture of the garage. , / Regarding the tear down and replacing of roof and walls, I dont feel I have done anything that terribly wrong. We looked at the property fell in love with it. We interviewed the schools in the area and were impressed with the science and music departments. Yes the house did need some TLC. We knew it was on a crawl space but we figured the 2nd floor of the garage could be used as a basement. The children loved the pool that was and is here. ..~ Point is the fence line, the garage being 3 feet aways from it, means nothing. My neighbor to the north of the fence line is at least 20 feet way if not more. The 10 feet going west effects him in no way. 1 When I bought the property I bought a home with a garage that was 20' wide and 32' deep and storage on the 2nd level. That is what I paid for. As you can see by the survey that lot is extremely large compared to most of my fellow neighbors in Mount Prospect, 1 DO' wide by 225' deep. ~ The Garage was put 3 feet away from the fence line. I really dont know which came fust the garage or the fence line. The existing condition effects no one in a negative way. We found out from a neighbor that our home had been built in 1948. ,,{. The 2nd reason I need the replaced space is for storage, the storage area until now has been used mainly j' for my wifes holiday decorations and such. The area on the 2nd floor is no longer practical for her to use. She has recently had her left hip replaced and in the future may have the right one replaced also. Using the stairs up to the 2nd level is not only inconvenient, it is dangerous for her to use. ~, ~~ ...()~> ~ ",--../ , . ,~ I~, ~~. .1 < i ' . '\l\' !~~~ ~ : ~ ~ s::' . hs::. ~ ~ ~~ !~ '~aL ~,~.~ "'~~ ~~~ ~ ~ r I ; " 'j : i ; .1 l i , , , I , ; : ! . i I . j :' ; ~ ---~>l i I I 1 , . I I I i 'I i I i 1 I ) J : .\ ~ 1 V ~ t f f ( 'I .'!t",,~~""-""""'>"" .~)'~..........",.~---_. .,-........,:iI\~........>I'<I'.:~:,,;~.~',~~'~'~ I ,f ~~.,.--- , 1 i I , I . I ! I f ~ J':"~''''':'''~ ' .....~,. .,;" " ,~~..},~~'" .. :,1 :'~f.:;~,..t:,; 1. f /.,...,t....,:., ,., :."'...:~\:::. ..~, ..j,;.'~" I P ..~~'M.(!";;:;,., \: -,.1' . /J .....?' ../ // '. '" / ,/"'''" . . .;.. ;,~;?'".r ("'\ ......,;'/ \.\ ~ '( ~ ,':--. '.\,' .\:--- ~ K ~~ ',[ .... i f' ~l Q;; f 4 ( "'. : ~ I.' '~~ I ~ 1,~ ~, I'~ j~~t t I f~~ :;'~ ~ "i'i 1'1:1 tV f1' · ,I (; ,,' 'fi'.::" ( if' ,: ti_~.!; ~:'~ :' \ ~ 1 I, ) j I t I I -. . " l I ~ ,~ . J....-, , I , ''\J ( ./\ ~ \ ~'- ~". ~~ ... '. . \;~ .~ ~ ~ ~ >~ ~ ,~: \ \::. \.\. "~" \~ ~ ~ , ." \", \: ',.- t~'l 'b VI ... ~" ~ 1'~~.\ ~~-. \: ~ ~\:: '\-.. ~ ,"\ '\,~ ~ {\ ~'- .'. " "'\0, ..,.... ..'. j , . ...>>t.""'........... I .t~." ,., .,~. iI,.' ..,' . "-~-'~./ l./rJl' ,I }Y j .' (~ '~..." "', " "". "'-., " "- " " "" " '" ,...'.........~.. ..... " / ./ .' ! ., "J " ! .../ ,/ ~..; ..' t-....,,I>f ../ /. .' v ~b l' The plan is for the replaced area (the roof and walls in question) would allow us to bring the stored articles to the ground level for her easy access. ~ The usable space above thfte gara~ellbealcausb e of pitched. rothof is abofuut 200 sq. nlft. ThethneWh rde~lacthed brookf and walls are also 200 sq It WI so e necessary In e near ture to e arge e s e In e ac yard to accommodate the riding mower and all the tools needed to maintain a home and such a large lot, and my work tools. 1..... 2. The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification. {1\. This condition is unique to our property because as you can see on our recent survey the garage was built very close to the fence line, or the fence line was put very close to the garage. Most other homes in Mount Prospect are centered on the property. We have an extremely wide lot for the area. IJ 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial gain. No financial gain intended. We never had or have had any intention of selling the home. Any financial gain would be very little. Our intentions have always been to retire and live out our lives in this home. () 4. The alleged difficulty or hardship is caused by this Chapter and has not been created by any person presently having an interest in the property. P No, I did not cause this problem and yes this chapter does cause me difficulty and hardship. If 1m not allowed to retain the walls and roof I have replaced recently, it would cause me hardship in the manner I have mentioned. And on that thought, when I purchased this property, I was not made aware that any Grandfathered in restrictions existed. In all fairness, the Village of Mount Prospect should be required to inform any potential buyers of any and all property that have any Grandfathered structures on the property before they purchase the property. Some how there must be a way. ~ 5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located. This it totally true. It does not affect any neighbor in any way (!.. 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It not only looks better, but because of our extremely long driveway it is not even noticeable. 5 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Every point of #7 is true, and with the new walls and roof and new garage doors, it will enhance the look of the home and garage. As you can see by the pictures I have presented, the home has a shed roof on the front porch with the shed roof on the garage, it looks even better. They fit together netter. tAl ff1 1 Besides the affidavits from a reputable contractor and my neighbors, I have presented you with aerial photos going back to 2007 which of course would not show the part of ~e garage in question here. Please note in 2007 the garage roof was black. I also have presented you with an aerial picture taken in 1988. Remember I knocked the structure down in June of 1992. As you must agree, because of the black roof, the trees and the shadows, it is not clear that the structure is not there. I am saying it is there in 1992. With these facts presented here, I am hoping you will give me the benefit of the doubt and allow me to keep the new roof and walls. t1 I am willing to pay for a permit for having knocked the old structure down and pay for the permit to put the new structure up. In doing so I will install everything according to todays building code. J I feel that this would be fair. Please note (If the strict letter of the regulations were to be applied) which reads; Article IV Nonconforming building, structure and uses. Paragraph C. Reads - Damage or Destruction: In the event that any nonconforming building or structure is damaged or destroyed to the extent of more than fifty percent (50%) of the replacement value of such building or structure, such building or structure shall not be rebuilt or restored unless it conforms to all regulations of the zoning district in which it is located. x When such building or structure is damaged by any means to less then fifty percent (50%) of replacement value, such building or structure may be reconstructed or repaired, provided that such repair or restoration begin and is pursued to completion within one year of the date of such damage. Any such repair or restoration shall be done in compliance with current building codes (Ord. 4590, 9- 21- 1993; Ord. 4678,10-4-1994) Y The ground level of the garage was and now is 20' wide and 32' deep is 640 sq ft. The 2nd floor, even if you only count the usable space is another 200 sq ft. That is a total of 840 sq ft, half would be 420 sq ft, I only knocked down 200 sq ft, that is less than fifty percent (50%) of the structure, which relates to value. According to the Ordinance stated above, it was alright for me to replace the 200 sq ft. 2- The second paragraph of the article C refers to a time limit to replace the structure, which I did not do because I did not have the funds at that time. If I would have known about the Ordinance I would have rebuilt right away. But I did not know. In reading this paragraph carefully it states at the end Ord. 4590 9-21-1993; Ord. 4678, 10-4-1994, I knocked down the roof and walls in question in July of 1992. Maybe just maybe my situation is not bound by this Ordinance, because it occurred before the Ordinance was created. To Whom It May Concern: My name is /ill'!J ( /'- G't,/ v Mender for the last ,;;.. !? Years. @ ~ f , I have owned a fencing company named Fence It is understood that I am making this statement for no benefit to me financially or otherwise. Mr Fred Saldana hired me to install a new fence in April 2007, which I did. Mr Saldana wanted new steel post installed instead of wooden post. Steel posts being the best type of installation there is. Top quality in the business. I remember Mr Saldana was very impressed with the post hole digging machine that I used for his fence. Some time this past summer, Mr Saldana called me to give an estimate for some piers. The piers were to be for the best of my recollection for walls and a roof that he was replacing, three walls and a flat roof that was there when he bought the property. Upon attempting to install the piers we discovered there were already some piers existing there. Together Mr Saldana and I have presented a sketch of what happened that day. Please refer to sketch for explanation. Upon installing pier #1 no problems, 8" diameter by 42" deep. Upon installing pier #2 ,just below dirt level we discovered a cement circle approximately 8" in diameter and as solid as a foundation pier should be. Trying to remove it was impossible. After several attempts with a sledge hammer it was not possible. We both assumed it was an existing pier from the original walls that Mar Saldana remembers tearing down. Upon attempting to install pier #3 we found the same situation as pier #2. Again we assumed it was from the original walls that were tom down. Next we attempted pier #8 no problem, 8" diameter, 42" deep, 3 bags of cement and rebar, pier done. Next we attempted installing pier #7, a few inches below grade again we found what looked like and felt like an 8" diameter pier. We assumed as in pier #2 and #3 we could use them for the new walls and roof I intended to rebuild. Then we attempted to install pier#6 again we find another existing pier. Installing pier #5 no problem 8" diameter 42" deep with rebar for added strength. In conclusion piers #2, #3, #6, and #7 were existing and must have been installed to support the old walls and roof. Myself and Mr Saldana added piers #1, #4 , #5 and #8 as per drawing. Note piers #1 and #8 were attached to original foundation by drilling 1/2" rebar into the foundation and cementing the new piers to the old foundation. 11Us~d1e~memory Signed. Cl. . Fence Mender owner. ..._ _ S Y);!i.t./- (II tJf!!_L f? (I ,II I I I? I -- .., _~.I!-1i-5~j [ /Ld nIl ~ I \ ,rQ~p4l.~ ~1/j/c/tti/tJ./ p;'!JL{ · (Jl }j Cl Y I ,~ OIt,Ct'Jt1L (11j/1 t~/J ,;/ '-..., ~ /: \~ tt-~ ~I ~ --5 ~e vJ _ 13:1 ~ 3 II t ~tf 11#/11 ~ p/ t/L :; if- / f II g . 11- j(d~R J'q g";)l1o ~ O,t.jl~J1t h",vdt;;t/)/ fAhLl Ill-l .4tLetl,;-t; p/cIt/ pJt/l-{ #1-- f --.f c/ f ;t;/$"I!1l-kJ/ 11/ jj;J X )LJ J-' .DtJlp (e/I IJl/4fL ! II; I) I ;p 1 , . j I J I ~ ~rt-A !]e _F 11. 0 V..J- ,- - ~ I !t-s'.~ _ ~& I ) Jf- - t)( flle -- -- 4t- ;/ewi( :J;/5/t;lkf f!-/f-S-1) _ - ftl(hl!1 ClO i\l ~ ~ o < ); z <. o ~ rn -; m :n ~ en en ~ 9 g>w~ O:!,.NCD o -. ~ ::s ~ ::s 0 n OS Z CD 8 0 ~ :c5:5. CD CD riQ. ~ ~ s:-== rJJ ::s -os t""'"o ::s ~ ciQ. ::T .-+ rJJ 6: - z 6 - (j rr1 ! I/o , , I I ~I .-. \;,,;.,> M ~It To Whom It May Concern: My name is..-;;:;;b,l1lf'5 J L. /!.; T6Pfl/J ~ () ~ tJ v.J fiSiC-.4-Tl: R lJ . My family has owned the home at since J? l't . It is understood that I am making this statement for no benefit to myself fmancially or otherwise. My younger brother Ben and Fred Saldanas' son Alex went all through elementary and high school together. Regarding the subject matter (the garage roof and walls). To the best of my memory, I remember my father and I helping Mr Saldana tear down the roof and walls which were just about falling down as it was. It was summer time and I was about f~ years old. I remember my father stating it was too dangerous for one man to do by himself. I remember Mr Saldana making comments that the wood was not that old but because of the rain and snow and the poor design of the roof it started to deteriorate sooner than it should have. Signed 11 '(I ~/J- To Whom It May Concern: My name is :; EQ. Q. '{ ~ \ 'CC- \. 0 f\, I own the home at 9 Westgate N Rd, which is located going south immediately adjacent to 13 N Westgate Rd. #/jvt IiJwJ/ /11/ #/Jrlt- Ji#,~ ~~ - If" Understand I am making this statement for no benefit to me, financially or otherwise. The subject matter (the replaced garage roof and walls of the garage) this does not affect me or my family in any negative manner. In fact with the garage roof it looks complete All facts stated are true 0\ ~ ') G - '20 10 ') " \'.1, \ '; ;(/ i;' To Whom It May Concern: My name is which is located going no I own the home at 17 N Westgate Rd since / f ? 7 immediately adjacent to 13 N Westgate Rd. I understand that I am making this statement for no benefit to myself, financially or otherwise. The subject matter (the replaced garage roof and walls of the garage) affect me and my family in no negative manner whatsoever. Us being the closest neighbor to the garage, it looks much better than before ~ All facts stated are true ~ -WjJ ~;jj)v~ ~ 14 M/t!J!l'fl"I'!"^_7___ _~~r:r/~5 !I1Ie~)--- uJ,~./t~ :::'J;J./ J ~ /l~ /15 ;k~//JtfI4.9h ,1'/ lAg j{;.4,,- ~)LAJL- )}/lP~IrV.C,/;~J ~'!../~M:ld;jj~/l- /hJ ///) 2007 Aerial wlo ftprnt 2007 Aerial w/o ftprnt -^ U - #'1) Page 1 of I Print Close --- - ~.~....c::I .....~.....Icrl.~. -es.u."d"..-...g_ P_rlc:_ :S.c:llh~l_ ....-yo d....-.-I-s;;Jl'Y .I='t:~-d. c:::::-.....--=-....I....._ -=--.-I_...~ .F:lt~d__ ~llr~c:J;_ ....or.,..d-c:t....___ ~_..-.c:z_._ C::-c>>r~..._'t.at ~~....-c:I....r-y :204317 ~. Pr'CJo_~<IO't ...a..-ri.-I F"'" "'~CJo_ - ...~.~~ _.-.__f ~.>' r==J c::=I Printed: 01113/2010 02:07:51 PM DISCLAIMER This GIS data is provided 'as is' without warranty or any representation of accuracy, timeliness or completeness. The burden for determining accuracy, completeness. timeliness. merchantability and fitness for or the appropriateness for use rests solely on the requester. ~\~ '," , " ~-;.', --,~~~:.i\<<\1~ ,'.-~~"'-~ ~-,.....- ,., \Ill" "at ~~ !./a . II'! III ~.~ II ,"It .. 'I i?j, /1 ........ . ""M' ,~, t" } . .,/t ,. .~'. ,,' r: - ... I> f if .1 :if 11 :0,' ',t .. ~\ '~ j ~[up>- . ~;""'Il~ I.... 4 ~.......~ . ~...... ,.,' ;1' -... '; . \(:... ~. - -- ~.~...._-- ......~.. _;~~" ~_ ~r1 _ .'~ Cl4lv. ."~ "h* -.-. -. ~. k:~"~~.~~ .' .' . iI'" ~ " " _. -:-:-...., 100l>~. -.~ l JI''''''' - l'- 11- .r" .,.,.. ~ ~_....~ . 'lOiI."""-: ."!,, ~-....~...... ~ . ~.."-, ~,.,.;'t.-"_ ~." ... /">/ _ /2_;tI ~~#I< ~o. ;?C-~At !/lft):/P / /~ kf';L-~- /k__&i.Ii/~ 19'/ r\~ r;J 1" 5!4/,/ct;j 5:.-;.) ~ ~~~;,( )/p,.J-) .~ ./ I. I /,'/ _.J~~:L L/t/tJ~(}I~( i' ..~.I_ * \ ~ /I"~ I ~ ( ~ ' ~ . ; yl ~ \_- / 1---- I f ~I -;;. Y WJ TtJ )'1nv ~ u71~I6:-C.~ J. .a 1/?t.Jed./;V/71 ")1 / I -;;?h~ <~'" c-\::, \.. -::-~" :: \ ~ ~ s\ r:- ~~ " x -i\ \'l') '-0. ......'-'" "/ : ~ -1 :" ~ ~ ,~~%- )i~'\; ,~ ..."-< .'~ ,_. ~....." ,tx, \'\. \ ~ ~. ~, ~) -~ -.~~ .~" ~'\ -:. U, ~-"" '\. . .', .', ---l.'::i' .....j', ot,;;...........: .....:~.... : '~,~'.;.. i -~, ~. o ~':? ').( .. "'. --.r ".! '<? rj, 'J' ~, . ~~~"<.x 't. ~ -{ -4 ~ "- ~ -{:' ,~ <~ r---." --~~~. ~ "\' ~~\-<. \ .~ --," 1-- "". II~I .-j, ct. .:;; "" "<. 'll::>'l x :;: \ :<"\ '.~ '\ '.' ~l i pI '\ ." '\. I~~I \ -I, . \\L~' ~ ~~ -\ lQ1) . ~ "'- ........ "'-.... \ !" \\ I \~, , . ',- . "" -- ~ ~ A 1 ~l ~ ,~. ~ n. .::~ \, ... -I ~-~ ~,~.~ ' ~<~~ .. _ " ~....." '-.... - >l. "Y''''' " ,1; \-'\ .'/ '-:'. '>< <1> --\; , . i ~ . ;~i -::;_ I xi: '~'\~l t.\~ !- <:.J \'~. "'...... '.....",\ .'_~ \' I ". I ,'" '.., ;, ~ \ \~ v -"- '> ~ \ \ Q.. :~ ~ ill ~ " ~ -..._~~\ . ~ ,~ ~, ~ ~ <;:r; ">- i "~ ~i"'..5 :'V ~!I--\~' ~ " ~ ,>,,~ 'J '\. y , x. I i.c' 'hi",. -- ,~.- i ;<1 '. 'v' ~ l~ L ~ \~~ 'J., "~ I ~ ~ ~ -~.... q [' \ ~ - : {. ~ . 'cS -- --' -" --~ -- I - ~ ~---,-- :'\i : { i-~ ~ ,~.C) :", r..1~ ::co ..... .... :a;Ul H<t r>.1 .- 'C 0 .. c:> H.-l 0'\ U'),..; '9 I"; f>,1 'C ><:.l> ~ ~~ r!- ~~ .~ Ulh U ~ <:~ ~ ~ "'" hO Z ~Z r~N . 00 ~..;- ~ ~ <tp. ...,C:> C.!l~ ~ ~ ~U) G ~~~~ ~ ~ I"'I""!~ h ~ ~ > A<~ ~~. -t: ~~:z; ~ (>.10 ~ 01-1 . P <:.l>E"Vl f----} :i 00 . ~ ~ ,..., ': ~C/)~ rJJ. ~ ~ U~~ 00 O~:::::. h ~ ~ ..;'-l~ ~ <U I:.....l E-<E-<~ <.l L' O~O ; -< ,.J(L1t.) ~.~ ~~~g ~ C ""',ZUlU ~ ~ I"'I""!gf>,1Z t....... c:> U)::cH ~..,. HE-< h ~..,. r:;~r.:; .... t:l0~ ~Nt:l ~ ~ ~~~ '9 t:lE-<:>:: U ~ ?Jgj,.J ~ ~::;~ ~ <.!>r~lH QO ~::r.:~ 0.:(......... Zr",!C HOO = ~~ ~:U "..( ~ E-< E-< en ~'l Or>J~ ~~E-t Qi c o .c ~ z I&J * . , c;>"b .....<5' "'vc:. vc:.J3.: Cl,) ~ V'.......\S"l '*0"'" *. ......Oes>"" K -$', c:.~ "'IY.;<'S'''' ............. ~...c..-;. 4~7;...;S) ~~.~. y--:> 50 'hc:.oO o <3' ~ <Y~ "1. .0'001 ~ -.;, c.. ..., <-"- ';>0 06'G b)~ ~:a O<\S'~ ~l c-..: ~ .':1' \ V""o /, ~ ...J;---:>~<>l ;'>1>-0-0} ~Ou>"t:rO '<~~IS' ~,p,pCS>b ~ ...... ~%O ~ ~ ~ ~ '-l , "'1. ~~ 6 Zq'S>Z" 'r 0-1-.<- ~~ -<?"O -1',,- ~ ., ,) ~. G) <-l <l'l '" .1'- ~ ~ . 0) "l ~ <') ~ C\... " ~, ~ . IJ , '\ ''-I f(\' en avoCl 3.L V.9.L9.= 0 0 en 0 0 a !!i (') a 3: Ol m <ll <ll ~ ~ Z iil '" Co Z 5 ~ <;! p Z '" > '" m Z S .... ~ 0 '" m > '" '" c ;;:: m - 0 <::l .., ::0 0 ;;:: in '" lP. ~ z e> iil '" ~ 8 '" '" 5' }? '" '" ~ " " " " " " ;' ~. ~ ~ ~ :t 03 'i ... ~ g~ '" '" " !!. 5." ... c.. ., '" '" -0' N to> '" .., '" .., ~ sa " " " " " " -" "l ": '1 "l -: ~ g' a '" - :r ~ !:E. <D ~ b .. <D is ~ " ~ u. ~ o~ c '" '" :""" ::;r " " " " " " " r;. "l ~ <D ~ 'I "l a \\\1'111'4..1/1 ..'" PROF',f "" '. ~':) ......~.4'.. 3~ 1', ~~~1~:i:~~{}) -u ,...;u -0 0.." mm Zen en en m- mO xZ -u)> ~~~~ ZZ oQ <en ~~ ' tDZ mo ;Uen wc ?;u N< om ~-< 00 ;U en-uen:2: oen ~~~JTl gE r1i~r1i~ ~m -<m-<;u -<0 . Al[g~ ~~ o -liii 0 C Z:x:o OZ omen 00 ~)>c .gi!i :2:tDo~ en Z m -r1i.-< en _ )>~t5m(j~~ om' ~;a m en OOOri!>g" ;uC!0::D~::Df5 ::om:J::tIc~;:H ~gJgjg~~~ -t mm::aFO ;U-UtD"'-<C:~ m~-<ci~i5.,... "'O"'OO"'::aCiiC/) ::Ommo<s:;g:! ~~~ffi~z~ ~-<~~15~~ ~)>-l zs:o -lZ:X: ~ ~ Z (50)> m>o Z -l-l ~ is ::D 0~:2: ~~~ 11-i~ ~gd ~:i!~ omm NESTGATE RQ "'''' me 8{; "'- OZ me> 0,... z~ ....'" ffi~ ;;::0 ~~ $1'", Om ....s: :z:m mZ ~cri CiiSj mm "'", !:H:z: mO "':; OZ -<0 OZ c:!< "':; O:z: mm m", om 0.... "':z: >m ",-< "'> ...." "m fj", ,..,0 --eec. 4//.43' I:ll . r--. l.. 'f') f ~ 1 ~ \) ~ ~ ~ \ ill N hi -.,I CSl w w ~ en (,l) o%~ (n N ~ '.so~...., cl '1oc;.>Q 'Xl:'> 1\ ;so....., / /" ~ ~? ,,~ . \ "'<5> , .~o "'\51 c- o~ ."" -'@ <9 -""k" ('> o.......o~ ~~ ~Q <::'/ on =H~ m" ,,> m" Zm n> ~F " o Z o:l '" m .., o '" m Ol c: '" o Z e> Ol -< '" > s: m > Z o ~ o Z n m " m " o ~ > Z -< ~ -::. C'>~ " ~ 'i '1--d6 o~c:-~ ~~ .C" "t'> o",O.,...r'""l ..-;..~ ?<l> ?O<l> o ''ts- r; o ""10 ~ ~ 96>.s-.s~ \SI-5-~>- o lS\o~ ~'"'1< ": %\l>C-~o;'<l> ~o '/ ..er.<<,...) ~ "W~:~o ~ ~<l> ~.90 c>('> (">~ <S>. ....., ...... ?~ ....., ('>-:> 0", 100.0' "",'1--0 -"'''.~'? ~ 0-:> ,,('> ?.....-:- ~~ q...-: o)~ ~ 0 ('l \SlQ 0-<, t:--::s- 1; 70 f\ ~ ~( .~- ~ '!"*-'L~ _' .... < ~ . ~- -. ~, . Ir' r ',~~ .... '\ .. .. >{' I!II ~ "f--! , : ~ "". F ~ Z'f.l-. ~V.J1. r. ..,""Y'l ~"h'" - - ---L......1io~...L ~ 4" .:!-_..!-:I ;;:J ,=-'_ ....r- /' 1/ / / /y ~ ~J~~ ./(JV ~ -Wf'''~ t. JL __ ~<-/. J /J"~A~ ~ -_k S:Ve ~ J;~;<~ g // P .-t--/ II I JI <"/ ~./ /(OcJ7 T /1c: /-I5t/Y'~S ijl,:l }'jY.J.~ I.J'..? / I / ) /1 -- I !/!-- Y _ e. '") l 'i i: ': r) My biggest mistake was not being aware that the property we were looking at had a (Article IV - Non - conforming building, structure and uses) rule attached to the property, which I term as a Grandfather Law. I feel it is the Vdlage of Mount Prospects responsibility to inform all potential buyers of all properties in Mount Prospect, that have this stipulation attached to them. I believe this fact should have been attached to the title of the property. It should have been found dming the title search of the property by the mortgage company. When we fell in love with the house that you see today (the pictures I have presented) is what we paid for when we initially bought the home. All I am asking is to be treated fairly. Thank you for your time regarding this very important matter. Thank You the Owners Fred and Lame} Saldana ~ ~~ ~\ ~-;: '::',.~:;{~;~ .. . .~-' ~ ....,. '. '-. - ~. '~i,..-, _~:~., -> UJ > .0: :::> ;(/) -......~ ',0- ~.. -.<:.u:. ~ - L&. - t-, Q:: LIJ U.', ---r-- __ l' ':/71/>/ -" .;-..,:....:..;- ~; ~~~ ... . ',., .. ;:'..... 0 '-"2':~'7 .... ..-,0.. t.;' . -co !: . ~.,... m, \'):.. t:!;;; ...n' c ".;:: o ....4 .J: C> ::l ,A" ~_ <:.. :<:~ E<~ . U) 0 1>'10 ~ W f;!g 8U, lZllZ; ...t-< \' l,. '--J l.... .. ~ If) ~l ~ .0 ->- ...... > = J V\ 8~ ...... mj:l j;j;1 He: A... ~.:a .,p.. '<t-< :'0 -3i~ "'~ . f: (J"f .I't\ o ,- o \0 III .._..'~O .- . ..\, " _:.::.:.:~:._.::;f:. :;:E::...~J;;~.. . ':"'~f c .... U eft 0' . Q -<~ O~ lZl ... . :<: ...~ 80-' S'" N rz.~ a p, "'... 2gj (I)", "'::>0 e;g A @", tI].~ -,I -' I. ~ --I ; ~ ., I 'Ii" '" -I " ~ ~ ~ " ~) ~ t: ~~ -r f tJ 1 j ~ ~ II ~ I ". ..: t?t?/ ", ,-"..';.'.)~;"'.~'" ""l .-, ~ ~;f:J::'/ , . .~~.,~ J;-'-,y'-"'.:. , ':;{;" :':~<'F. ,;'.; . '. - :" .,.. ..; '";~.:.~ ('/./,/ ~ If) I() C'i r'O ,.) . ' , . ." .:::-:~. . ..--. ~ . -,;~~.~{~:~~;t~~k'7~~~'~' .:.~ '.._. .' .' 4;';T~--::_ t':,;;.;,: :?:/:i. __ .-....;0>:...;;. :;;...~.~, . f~tiff~tY:1:-~ Z~~~~d; ~'"'~ - .!2 ;; ] " -= ;; -= i' ~ "~~t~~??;'\0't1f~~~rp~~I~~~~~~~:'t'~!~:q~0~t~W5., "",: ;,t:-::.:"~:' .- ! ~; ~ ~ ~ \J ~ >- .zJ ... ..',; t .&: ~ .~ ~, '" r.< :: '" _. :9 -< .~ ~ :; ~ c ~ :EO .... '" c ~ ; ,-:> :!: 2 ~ ~ .. ... ~ ~ '" "" ~ :> is ~ "" :5 , . . -. ~ ,-- -- - ~I ~ .'-./ ~ ~ ~ -J OOZ?.7.:B' r.fF ilt' II ". ~ '" ~ ...... ~ ';,7'OtfTb~ :' ..-. '.' :~'. .:. .' . ,_. OW ~~ ; ': Q ... e >"'2 " c >- " ~ 1 ~o ~.Q. ~ " .- o " - "'tl.lJ2 : c .. v " r;zc ... ... 0" " >- 'l) a > ~ ~ '" 0 =>.zJ .... 0 .. .. v ~ g ~~o < "2 .~ ~ t'] :w: ~ Co. a ~ ~~~ 00 0 w.c" ~--= ~ C!\ ... .. (; >- " . :; .... -'" <; ... >WJ " > .. .~ ' . -'.~ -. . - D . _' : -'." . ..;".; t,l' , . . - u C '." ;,'.. ;; :-", ,I c 0 '~'" . 0.... ~~_ :!"C;:.,:." --;! ~:~ r~,tiJ :1 !' irl IJ ~ = ~'. , ~;- BeE ~ ~ D =: ! g' 2 ' ~:E 0 '5- . .o..! !:= o . 1;"0 .D_ ee .2 :- ~.zJ ~< ~(; -" o~ ." (;:: c." .'f c 00 uu o ~~ " ... ~ o .x .t-.~~:~;i::-~' ~ --:. ~.i. ~:~>. ..." ~, .. - " --.. :j?.i.b'9.L ~iA1:..; , ~-tt ....-...: -. :' :.'~ , .'~.' " - ,~. :'"" -'- "~-':-:--'--: .. ._~:,_~:,:;:,.;.:",:':.;~:~>_/i'; '.::'..:;.-.':;":2'~"'-'.'::' "., ~_~:{~~~}it~f~?:::i:1t~;~~;:r.'[~~'2~{~~~~fg~~ .., ~ 0 .00 ~u =0 0>- ,,'0 :E '5 v>U ~ . I' -.00>-0 -:-E?;:t '-._1 /'././ ./ ,/ '.' ". " '-, ., .- . .';'.'~~'~::'::"::'~::;:: " c c " 0 .;.. .., ~ ,; .. C> .., .. P. I'l C> ~ C> .., 02 ci ;;. .D Z ~ .. " t > ." ~ c5 V> ~~ ~. . -''''~;;, - .. --"" ,'. :. .:":i.-':i7;~; ,:;c.;. .... ..~. . :. ~.:,::~~::-:.: ~ '::'~'~ __';;i:"; ".' ;:.;~ .'\-:.~~::::?~:~:'.~~~~~~'~:...~_:~> ~.':~:~.' ~;'";::~::rF:~:;';';:.:~..~l.:'-'~:~:':. -- ~~- 1~:!.3f-~~~:?::- ~ -~~~:~~';_' -~~-?~~i{r~p;~~ii.~~';~~~~:i&~ '- -_.~-~~'- - ....... ....-... . ~'". .....-. ~ "". '.. .:~":_::'~~"" ..::_',.:'~_:'~i-~~:._u_ .,.1 "," :~;;: :. :~ . ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 WESTGATE DRIVE, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Mr. Fred N. Saldana (Petitioner) has filed a petition for Variations with respect to property located at 13 Westgate Drive ("Property') and legally described as follows: Lot liE" in Wedgewood Subdivision of Lot 1 in CA Goelz Prospect Gardens, a Subdivision in the West X of the West X of the Southwest % of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 03-35-401-009-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations to allow the 20.68' by 10.20-" deep garage addition, a reduction in the required side yard setback from five (5) feet to two (2) feet and four and a quarter inches (2'_4%"), and a reduction in roof pitch from three twelve (3:12) to one twelve (1 :12) units for the garage addition; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of PZ-03-1 0 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th of February, 2010, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Pros/Ject Journal on the 10th of February, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and negative recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in denial of the request being the subject of PZ-03-10; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the requests meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variations to allow (1) a reduction in the required side yard setback from five (5') feet to two (2) feet and four and a quarter inches (2-4 % ") and (2) a reduction in roof pitch from three twelve (3: 12) to one twelve (1: 12) units for the garage addition would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: 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 Variations, to allow a garage addition and create a two (2) feet and four and a quarter inches (2-4 % ") side yard set back and roof pitch of one twelve (1 :12) units. SECTION THREE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. 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: A. NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of March, 2010. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\ORDINANCE2\Variations 13westgatedrivemarch16.201 O.doc MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMAL MEMORANDUM CHF 10-30 CONTROL NUMBER FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER CHIEF OF POLICE '$b ~1",=? ~l ,~\ lO TO: SUBJECT: 2008 TOW CONTRACT DATE: FEBRUARY 26,2010 Introduction Approximately every three years, the police department rebids the police towing and storage contract. The purpose of the contract is to select a single company to tow and store disabled, abandoned, impounded and crashed vehicles. The contract is regulatory only. It is intended solely to ensure vehicles are towed quickly and effectively by a professional towing service according to a fixed fee schedule. The police department gains no monetary consideration by contracting this service. Hence, timely and professional service is paramount for both the police department and the citizens it serves. In May 2008, a bid process was conducted for purposes of awarding a tow contract to a qualified towing service for a period of three years beginning July 1, 2008 and terminating June 30,2011. Notice was provided to interested vendors pursuant to Village Ordinance. Completed bids were required to be tendered in to the Village Clerk by May 15, 2008. Only one bid was presented to the Village Clerk. This bid, provided by Hillside Towing, met all the requirements of the Village. At a regular Board meeting on June 3, 2008, the Village Board approved the request to enter into a three (3) year towing and storage contract with Hillside Towing. Accordingly, the written contract for tow services was executed by the Village Clerk and an officer of Hillside Towing. Issue During the course of review of the current contract with Hillside towing in preparation for the 2011 contract termination, staff noticed that the expiration date listed in section 20 of the contract was June 30, 2009. As indicated earlier, the termination was to be June 30, 2011. Noting the error, staff contacted Mark Balek, the Vice President of Hillside Towing. Mr. Balek indicated that it was Hillside's intent to enter into a three (3) year contract with the Village and that Hillside had inadvertently inserted the incorrect date in section 20. Mr. Balek indicated he would assist staff in correcting the issue. Staff has discussed the issue with Village Attorney George Wagner. Mr. Wagner indicated that the issue may be remedied by an amendment to the original contract entered into by the Village with Hillside Towing and Village Board Resolution approving the amendment. Copies of these documents are attached. 13> Page 10f2 MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMAL MEMORANDUM CHF 10-30 CONTROL NUMBER Recommendation It is staff's recommendation to amend the aforementioned contract with Hillside Towing by revising the termination date to June 30, 2011. Since the contract inception, Hillside Towing has fully met the terms and obligations of the contract, and has provided excellent service to the community. Attached for your review is the original bid documentation and the executed contract dated June 24, 2008. Attachments .' ') " Lf' 'v?// c: Deputy Chief Semkiu Commander Wagner Tow File Page 20f2 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT VEHICLE TOWING AND STORAGE CONTRACT WITH HILLSIDE TOWING WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect and Hillside Towing, 200 E. Palatine Road, Arlington Heights, Illinois, entered into the Village of Mount Prospect Vehicle Towing and Storage Contract (hereinafter the "Contract"), effective July 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Contract was publicly bid as a three (3) year contract, ending June 30, 2011; and WHEREAS, paragraph 20 of the Contract, as executed by the Village of Mount Prospect and Hillside Towing, states that the Contract "shall remain in effect until June 30, 2009"; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect and Hillside Towing intended that the Contract remain in effect until June 30, 2011, with an extension of one (1) year by mutual agreement; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect President and the Board of Trustees find that it is in the best interests of the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect to enter into the First Amendment to the Mount Prospect Vehicle Towing and Storage Contract in order to correct the term of that Contract. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACTING PURSUANT TO ITS HOME RULE POWERS, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That Paragraph 20, Length of Contract, in the Mount Prospect Vehicle Towing and Storage Contract is amended to provide that the Contract shall remain in effect until June 30, 2011, subject to the extension provision in Paragraph 20. SECTION 2: That the Village President is hereby authorized and directed to execute the First Amendment to the Mount Prospect Vehicle Towing and Storage Contract. SECTION 3: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. SECTION 4: That all motions and resolutions or parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this Resolution are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. 247974_1 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this _ day of March, 2010. ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk Irvana K. Wilks Mayor H:ICLKOIWIN\RESOLUTION\Resolution - approve Amendment to Towing Contract with Hillsidemarch2010.DOC 247974_1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Fire Department FROM: FIRE CHIEF TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS DATE: MARCH 11,2010 SUBJECT: COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD (ET SURCHARGE REALLOCATION The Village of Mount Prospect is eligible to receive $1,000 from the Cook County ,f Emergency Telephone System Board (ETSC). These funds are available though the Surcharge Reallocation Program, which was developed to share excess funds with fire departments that serve unincorporated areas of Cook County. These funds, however, can only be used for specific expenditures as outlined in the ILCS Chapter 30, Section 750/15.4/C. Background The Cook County ETSB is responsible for the oversight of the Cook County 9-1-1 Public Service Access Point (PSAP), which answers 9-1-1 calls from the unincorporated areas of Cook County. The Mount Prospect Fire Department is responsible for answering calls for service that come through the Cook County 9-1-1 Center, which originate in the Forest River Fire Protection District. The Cook County 9-1-1 Center receives its funding from a surcharge placed on land line and cellular telephones, which is collected through phone bills. Several years ago the Surcharge Reallocation Program was started to financially support communications activities for public safety agency users who are part of the ETSB 9-1-1 system. Recommendation It is my recommendation that funds received through this initiative be used to purchase needed radios for the newly built Emergency Operations Center (EOC). To be eligible for the surcharge allocation funds the local agency must execute the provided intergovernmental agreement. Therefore, I request the Village Board approve the attached resolution authorizing an Intergovernmental Agreement by and between the Cook c, Cook County Emergency Telephone System Soard (ETSS) Surcharge Reallocation March 11,2010 Page 2 County Emergency Telephone System Board and the Village of Mount Prospect for the funding of a 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation. Michael J. Figolah MFI 1:\Arehive -- Letters & Mise Projects\2010\03 Mareh\Cook County ETSB Memo - MF (3-11-10).doe RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is eligible to receive $1,000 from the Cook County Emergency Telephone System Board (ETSB) WHEREAS, the ETSB funding is available through the Surcharge Reallocation Program, which shares excess funds with fire departments that serve unincorporated areas of Cook County; and WHEREAS, The Mount Prospect Fire Department is responsible for answering calls for service that come through the Cook County 9-1-1 Center, which originate in the Forest River Fire Protection District. WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined it is in the best interests of the Village to authorize participation in the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program and enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement with The Cook County Emergency Telephone System Board (ETSB); and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby authorize and direct the Village President to execute the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and the The Cook County Emergency Telephone System Board for the funding of a 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation, Fiscal Year 2010, a copy of which is attached and made a part of as Exhibit "A". SECTION TWO: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of March, 2010. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WI N\RESOLUTION\Authorizecookcountyemergencytelephoneboardmarch 16201 O.doc Albert Pritchett Chairman 9511 W. Harrison Des Plaines, IL 60016 Grace Colbert-Mauldin Treasurer 9511 W. Harrison Des Plaines, IL 60016 Willie Carter 9511 W. Harrison Des Plaines, IL 60016 DeW_VIle Holbrook 1401 S. Maybrook Dr Maywood,IL 60153 Arthur Jackson 9511" W. Harrison Des Plaioes; IL 60016 William G. Little 2~4 E. Marquette Road Chicago; 1L 60637 William McHenry 9511 W. Harrison Des Plaines, IL 60016 John J. Robberson 9511 W. Harrison Des Plaines, IL 60016 Denise Roche-Evans 9511 W. Harrison Des Plaines, IL 60016 EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD Enhanced 9-1-1 Emergency Service for Cook County MEMORANDUM February 2010 TO: SURCHARGE REALLOCATION RECIPIENTS Fron: ~rJ~~t~j' ."e((BE T PRITCH , CHAIRMAN COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD (ETSB) SUBJECT: COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD (ETSB) SURCHARGE REALLOCATION PROGRAM (FY 2010) We are pleased to inform you that the Cook County Emergency Telephone System Board voted to continue our assistance through the Surcharge Reallocation Program, designed to provide financial support for communications activities to public safety agency users who are a part of the ETSB 9-1-1 system. Surcharge Reallocation Program funds will be released during the second quarter of 2010. The use of these funds shall be limited to those expenditures specifically identified within the scope of the Emergency Telephone System Act of Illinois; Illinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 50, Section 750/15.4/C. Enclosed for your review and execution are the following Surcharge Reallocation Program documents. The documents are also available on the ETSS's website (www.cookcounty911.com): 1) Intergovernmental Agreement By and Between the Cook County ETSB and your municipality/agency, authorizing participation in the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program. 2) Exhibit One - Cook County Emergency Telephone System Board, 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program Guidelines. 3) Exhibit Two - 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Distribution (See your municipality/agency for the specific dollar amount of the Surcharge Reallocation). 4) Exhibit Three -Expenditure Audit Report (Every agency granted the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation shall file an expenditure report by November 30, 2010). 5) Exhibit Four - Contact Update form. If vour aaencv Intends to oartlcloate In the Droaram. Dlease return the slaned Intergovernmental Aareement and Contact U~ate fonn to Mr. John J. Robberson. Executive Director. Cook County ETSB. 9511 West Harrison. Des Plalnes.llllnolS 80018. bv March 31. 2010. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact Natasha Allen-Victor Grant _Coordinator, at (847) 294-4452 or Mr. Robberson at (847) 294-4744 Enclosures INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD AND THE MUNICIPALITY/AGENCY FOR THE FUNDING OF A 9-1-1 SURCHARGE REALLOCATION FY 2010 Effective January 1,2010 to November 30,2010 DATED: 1 J' INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD AND THE MUNICIPAL AGENCY KNOWN AS FOR THE FUNDING OF A '-1-1 SURCHARGE REALLOCATION . This AGREEMENT is made and entered into on the 1st day of January, 2010, by and between the COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD (hereafter referred tQ as "ETSB") and the MUNICIPAL AGENCY known as (hereafter referred to as "MUNICIPAL AGENCY"). WHEREAS, the ETSB has created a Surcharge Reallocation program as outlined in "Exhibit One", attached hereto, and hereby incorporated by reference; and WHEREAS, the MUNICIPAL AGENCY has agreed to participate in said Surcharge Reallocation Program, and by doing so, has agreed to all of the terms and conditions as outlined in said agreement; and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article Vll, Section 10 of the 1970 Dlinois Constitution and the provisions of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (5 ILCS 220/1 et seq.) authorize and encourage intergovernmental cooperation; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises, covenants, tenns and conditions set forth in this AGREEMENT and the attached "Exhibit One," the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the ETSB, and the MUNICIPAL AGENCY agree as follows: A. That the parties agree to be bound by each and every term and condition as set forth in "Exhibit One" and that all such terms and conditions are hereby made a part of this agreement as ifhere fully set forth in this INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT. B. That this Surcharge Reallocation is expressly given by the ETSB to the MUNICIPAL AGENCY as a single Surcharge Reallocation for specific qualifYing goods and/or services in accordance with "Exhibit One", and is not to be construed as a continuing Surcharge Reallocation for this, or any other purpose. 2 C. That this Surcharge Reallocation is not a continuing Surcharge Reallocation but is limited to a one time only agreement, unless the ETSB, at its sole discretion, determines that additional Surcharge Reallocations or extensions are to be allowed. D. The term of the Agreement will take effect as of January 1,2010 and continue through November 30, 2010. E. The receiving agency acknowledges that all purchases made by it shall be legal, proper and in accordance with the "Emergency Telephone System Act", SO ILCS 750. F. That attached hereto, and hereby incorporated by reference as "Exhibit Two", is the specific dollar amount of the Surcharge Reallocation as approved by the ETSB. G. That attached hereto, and hereby incorporated by reference as "Exhibit Three", is the surcharge expenditure audit reporting form that shall be completed by the MUNICIPAL AGENCY in accordance with "Exhibit One". H. That attached hereto, and hereby incorporated by reference as "Exhibit Four", is the Contact Information form that shall be completed by the MUNICIPAL AGENCY and returned to the ETSB with this executed agreement I. MISCELLANEOUS 1. Nonliability: No party to this AGREEMENT shall be liable to any other party for any loss, claim or damages as a result of any delay or failure in the performance of any obligation hereunder, directly or indirectly caused by or resulting from acts of the other PSftY, acts of the government, acts of God, acts of third persons, strikes, embargoes, delays in the mail, transportation and delivery, network or power failures and shortages, fires, floods, epidemics and unusually severe weather conditions, or other causes beyond the control of such party. . 2. Binding effect: This AGREEMENT shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties as if they too were parties. 3. Severability: The parties agree that to the extent a court of competent jurisdiction shall determine that any part or provision of this AGREEMENT is unenforceable as a matter of law, such part or provision of the AGREEMENT shall be deemed severable and the remainder of the AGREEMENT shall survive. 3 4. Notice: All notices required herein shall be in writing and be served personally or by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, upon the parties at their principal administrative offices or as otherwise designated. s. Governing law: This agreement shall be governed, interpreted and construed according to the laws of the State of Dlinois. 6. Amendment: This AGREEMENT and attached exhibits contains the entire agreement of the parties and shall supersede any prior agreements or understandings, written or oral, and may only be altered, modified or amended by written consent of the parties. 7. Compliance with laws: The parties agree that they will each observe and comply with all applicable federal, state and 10ca1laws that affect performance under this AGREEMENT. 8. Indemnification: The MUNICIPAL AGENCY hereby holds hannIess the ETSB for any claims, losses, damstges and liabilities whatsoever relative to actions by third parties as a result of this SurcJ:uuge'Reallocation and/or the purchase of goods and services with the Surcharge Reallocation funds. MUNICIPAL AGENCY ~s to hold harmless and defend the ETSB, its staff and Board members, from and against any claims, losses, damages and liabilities, including costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. 9. The ETSB, or its designee, shall have the authority to audit services, equipment or materials purchased through the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program to ensure that said services, equipment or materials are being used in accordance with the Emergency Telephone System Act and the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program Guidelines. This audit authority shall remain in effect for the life of the service, equipment or materials purchased through the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation. Should the ETSB determine that the service, equipment or materials are not being used in accordance with the Emergency Telephone System Act and the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program Guidelines, then said service, equipment or materials shall be removed and returned to the ETSB, at the expense of the agency, or the agency shall be required to refund the financial assistance received from the ETSB. The ETSB shall have sole discretion in ~etennining which method of recovery shall be followed by the agency. 4 10. Forfeiture: Any use of smcharge reallocation funds that is not in compliance with the intergovernmental agreement, shall cause forfeiture of any unexpended reallocation funds and cause forfeiture of any future rights under this or any subsequent grant or smcharge reallocation program by the ETSB. 11. Term of Agreement: The term of said agreement will take effect as of January 1,2010 and continue through November 30,2010. 12. The agency shall pay all reasonable attorneys' fees to the ETSB for any action necessary to enforce any part of this agreement SIGNED: COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD BY: ALBERT PRITCHETT, CHAIRMAN DATED MUNICIPAL AGENCY BY: TITLE: DATED: 5 EXHIBIT ONE COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD 9-1-1 SURCHARGE REALLOCATION PROGRAM GUIDELINES FY 2010 SECTION I-INTENT The purpose of the Surcharge Reallocation Program is to provide assmtance to Public Safety agency users who are a part of the ETSB 9-1-1 system in maintaining and delivering high quality 9-1-1 emergency services. The Cook County Emergency Telephone System Board (ETS;B) recognizes that Municipal Agencies and Fire Protection Districts that are a part of the ETSB system may require additions or enhancements to their communications centers in order to provide 9-1 -1 related services to their respective communities. The ETSB has approved the funding of the Surcharge Reallocation Program to assist its participants in providing a dependable and efficient emergency telephone system. SECTION 2 - ELIGmILITY To be eligible to receive surcharge reallocation the agency shall meet all of the following criteria: 1) The agency must regularly receive 9-1-1 telephone call transfers from the Cook County Sheriff's Police Communications Center. These 9-1-1 telephone call transfers shall not be fufrequent nor the result of emergency conditions. 2) The agency must have a communication center that dispatches police andlor fire and emergency medical services responders within the jurisdictional boundaries of the ETSB. 3) The agency must have residents that both reside within the jurisdictional boundaries of the ETSB and pay the ETSB 9-1-1 surcharge. 4) The agency must have hardwire 9-1-1 access lines within the j~ctional boundaries of the ETSB. Those agencies that dispatch for 9-1-1 systems that are not a part of the ETSB system shall not be eligible. SECTION 3 - AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS The total amount of 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation to be distributed shall be determined by the ETSB and is subject to availability of funding within the ETSB budget. The ETSB may terminate, expand or amend the Surcharge Reallocation Program at its discretion. Any 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation funds delivered to and not used by the recipient after one year, from the date of delivery, shall be retumt?d to the ETSB. Funds not yet delivered to the recipient after one year following approval of the reallocation shall lapse. 1 SECTION 4 - BASIS OF DISTRIBUTION BY AGENCY The total number of hard wire 9-1-1 access lines within the ETSB service area shall be determined by AT&T and provided to the ETSB. The corresponding Emergency Service Number (ESN) for each agency within the ETSB's jurisdiction shall further break down the total AT&T access line count The ETSB shall determine the amount of surcharge allocation per hardwire access line. The total amount of surcharge to be reallocated to an agency shall be determined by multiplying the number ofhardwire access lines by the per access line amount approved by the ETSB. In areas where the same ESN serves more than one agency the approved surcharge reallocation amount per access line will be divided accordingly. The ETSB has established, as policy, that no agency shall receive less than $1,000.00, regardless of its access line count. SECTION S - 9-1-1 SURCHARGE REALLOCATION FUNDING QUALIFYING EXPENDITURES The use of the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation shall be limited to those expenditures specifically identified within the scope of the Emergency Telephone System Act ofIDinois; Dlinois Compiled Statutes, Chapter 50, Section 750/15.4/C. The following list identifies examples of qualifying equipment and services. The list of examples is not intended" to be all-inclusive. Salaries for Telecommunications Staff Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 9-1-1 Telephone Customer Premise Equipment 9-1-1 Related Training Radio Equipment and Console Furniture Mobile Data Terminal . Computer Hardware/Software used for Call Taking and/or Dispatching Office Equipment used for Call Taking and/or Dispatching Maintenance of Equipment used for Call Taking and/or Dispatching Emergency BackUp Power Systems Communications Center In:frastructure Upgrade SECTION 6 - AGENCY EXPENDITURE REPORT Every agency granted the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation shall file an expenditure report using the approved ETSB form (attached as Exhibit Three - Expenditure Audit Report) on or before December 1, 2009. The report shall itemize the expenditures made from the surcharge funds granted to the agency. In addition, proof of each purchase must be provided in the form of copies of paid invoices, or in the case of personnel services copies of payroll records, and should be attached to the expenditure report. The completed fonn shall be signed by the authorized fiscal agent for the agency and attested to by the Mayor, President, or other Presiding Officer of the agency. 2 SECTION 7 . ETSB RIGHT TO AUDIT The ETSB, or its designee, shall have the authority to audit services, equipment or materials purchased through the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program to ensure that said services, equipment or materials are being used in accordance with the Emergency Telephone System Act and the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program Guidelines. This audit authority shall remain in effect for the . life of the service, equipment or materials purchased through the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation. Should the ETSB determine that the service, equipment or materials are not being used in accordance with the Emergency Telephone System Act and the 9-1-1 Surcharge Reallocation Program Guidelines, then said service, equipment or materials shall be removed and returned to the ETSB, at the expense of the agency, or the agency shall refund the financial assistance received from the ETSB. The ETSB shall have sole discretion in determining which method of recovery shall be followed by the agency. The ETSB shall exercise whatever legal action it deems appropriate to recover any.funds improperly used. SECTION 8 - ETSB INDEMNIFICATION Indemnification: The MUNICIPAL AGENCY hereby holds harmless the ETSB for any claims, losses, damages and liabilities whatsoever relative to actions by third parties as a result of this Surcharge Reallocation and/or the purchase of goods and services with the Surcharge Reallocation funds. MUNICIPAL AGENCY agrees to hold harmless and defend the ETSB, its staff and Board members, from and against any claims, losses, damages and liabilities, including costs, expenses, and attorney's fees. SECTION 9 - ETSB FORFEITURE Any use of surcharge reallocation funds that is not in compliance with the intergovernmental agreement attached hereto, shall cause forfeiture of any unexpended reallocation funds and cause forfeiture of any future rights under this or any subsequent grant or surcharge reallocation program by the ETSB. SECTION 10 - PROGRAM TERM The term of the Agreement will take effect as of January 1, 2010 and continue through November 30,2010. 3 COOK COUNTY ETSB 2010 SURCHARGE REALLOCATION FUND EXHIBIT TWO Line Count Police Jurisdiction Fire/EMS Jurisdiction Police Share Fire/EMS Share 1224 DIXMOOR PO DIXMOOR FD $3,378.24 $3,378.24 935 FORD HEIGHTS PO FORD HEIGHTS FD $2,580.60 $2,580.60 301 H GOLF 1661.52 7921 NORTHLAKE PO NORTHlAKE FO - - 717 PHOENIX PO PHOENIX FD $1,978.92 $1,978.92 1810 ROBBINS PO ROBBINS FD . $4,995.60 $4,995.60 1063 STONE PARK PO STONE PARK FO $2,933.88 $2,933.88 62840 CC SHERIFF'S PO $173,438.40 936 CC FOREST PRESERVE PO $2,583.36 1055 OAK FOREST HOSP PO OAK FOREST HOSP FD $2,911.80 $2,911.80 1669 HINES HOSPITAL PO $4,606.44 52 ALSIP FD $1,000.00 740 BARRINGTON FD $2,042.40 1009 BARTLETT FPD $2,784.84 41 BLUE ISLAND FD $1,000.00 259 BRIDGEVlEW FD $1,000.00 5 BURNHAM FD $1,000.00 14 CALUMET CITY FD $1,000.00 2350 CENTRAL STICKNEY FO $6,486.00 156 CHICAGO HEIGHTS FD $1,000.00 7 CHICAGO RIDGE FD $1,000.00 80 COUNTRY CLUB HILLS FD $1,000.00 123 CRESTWOOD FD $1,000.00 84 DOLTON .FD $1,000.00 27 EAST DUNDEE FPD $1,000.00 11695 ELKGROVE RURAL FPD $32,278.20 127 ELMHURST $1,000.00 38 EVERGREEN PARK FD $1,000.00 329 FLOSSMOQR FD $1,000.00 86 FOREST VIEW FD $1,000.00 4 FRANKLIN PARK FD $1,000.00 299 GARDEN HOMES FPD $1,000.00 631 GLENCOE FD $1,741.56 15984 GLENVIEW FD $44,115.84 216 GLENWOOD FIRE $1,000.00 1 HARVEY FD $1,000.00 4 HAZEL CREST FD $1,000.00 18 HILLSIDE FD $1,000.00 73 HOMEWOOD ACRES FPD $1,000.00 1 HOMEWOOD FD $1,000.00 261 LANSING FD $1,000.00 2477 LEMONT FPD $6,836.52 4199 LEYDEN FPD $11,589.24 502 LONG GROVE FO $1,385.52 352 L YNWOOD FD $1,000.00 58 LYONS FD $1,000.00 17 MARKHAM FD $1,000.00 Line Count 819 327 90 20 73 10 274 8 7602 95 1 2829 5 8119 435 117 261 23 2108 1510 2922 1106 1881 34 124 114 85 54 2 395 758 137 191 19 3 26 13 343 14 10 4 COOK COUNTY ETSB 2010 SURCHARGE REALLOCATION FUND EXHIBIT TWO Police Jurisdiction FlrelEMS Jurisdiction Police Share FlrelEMS Share MATTESON FD MAYWOOO FD MELROSE PARK MERRIONETTE PARK FD MIDLOTHIAN FD MORTON GROVE FD MOUNT PROSPECT FD NILES FD NORTH MAINE FD NORTH PALOS FPD NORTH RIVERSIDE FD NORTHBROOK FD NORTHFIELD FD NORTHLAKE FPD NORWOOD PARK FPD NW HOMER FPD OAK FOREST FD OAKBROOKFD ORlAND FPD PALATINE RURAL FPD PALOS FPD PALOS HEIGHTS FPD PlEASANT VIEW FD POSEN FD PROSPECT HEIGHTS FD RICHTON PARK FD RIVER FOREST FD RIVERDALE FD RIVERSIDE FD ROBERTS PARK FIRE ROSELLE FPD SAUK VIlLAGE FD SCHAUMBURG FD SOUTH CHICAGO HEIGHTS FD SOUTH HOlLAND FD STEGER FD THORNTON FD TINLEY PARK FD WESTCHESTER FD WESTERN SPRINGS FD WILLOW SPRINGS $2,260.44 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $1.000.00 $1.000.00 $1.000.00 $20,981.52 $1.000.00 $1.000.00 $7,808.04 $1,000.00 $22,408.44 $1,200.60 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $1,000.00 $5.818.08 $4.167.60 $8,064.72 $3.052.56 $5.191.56 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $1,090.20 $2,092.08 $1.000.00 $1.000.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 EXH.JJSIT THREE COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD 9-1-1 SURCHARGE REALLOCATION PROGRAM EXPENDITURE AUDIT REPORT FY 2010 AGENCY NAME: AGENCY CONTACT PERSON: AGENCY CONTACT PHONE #: AGENCY TYPE (pOLICE, FIRE, EMS, OTHER): REPORT COMPLETED BY (NAME AND TITLE): AMOUNT OF FUND A WARD: UNLIQUIDATED BALANCE (IF APPLICABLE): Attach all necessary documentation of reported expenditures. Dati of EXDendlture DescriDtion Cost Total Expenditures: Unliquidated Balance: Certification: I certify that to the best of my knowledge and belief that this report is correct and complete and that all outlays and unliquidated obligations are for the purposes set forth in the surcharge reallocation documents. Signature of Authorized Certifying Official Date Attest Date EXHIiJIT FOUR COOK COUNTY EMERGENCY TELEPHONE SYSTEM BOARD (ETSB) SURCHARGE REALLOCATION PROGRAM - FY 2010 CONTACT INFORMATION MUNICIPALITY/ AGENCY: STREET ADDRESS: CITY/STATE/ZIP: PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: POLICE CHIEF: ADDRESS/PHONE: (If different from above) FIRE CHIEF: ADDRESS/PHONE (If different from above) FISCAL AGENT/ TREASURER: MA YORlELECTED OFFICIAL: Term Expires: ADDITIONAL CONTACT: Send completed form to: John J. Robbenon, Executive Director Cook County ETSB 9511 W. Harrison, Des Plaines, IL 60016 MOllnt Prospect INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR ~.~~ ~, ~,tb TO: DATE: MARCH 8, 2010 SUBJECT: 2009 BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE PURPOSE: Present a recommendation that the annual budget be amended for fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31,2009. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 5721, adopted December 16, 2008, established the annual budget for the year ending December 31, 2009. The budget was subsequently amended four times during 2009. . Ordinance 5736, adopted on April 21, 2009 provided for amendment #1 . Ordinance 5760, adopted on September 15, 2009 provided for amendment #2 . Ordinance 5771, adopted on November 17, 2009 provided for amendment #3 . Ordinance 5785, adopted on December 15, 2009 provided for amendment #4 DISCUSSION: A proposed ordinance amending the 2009 annual budget is attached for the Board's consideration. In total, this amendment adjusts revenue projections by $3,200,869 and expenditures by $3,622,172. Amendments to the budget for both revenues and expenditures are made up of various adjustments related to the bond sale completed December 22,2009. This amendment simply records the impact to accounts for auditing purposes. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board adopt the proposed budget amendment #5 for the 2009 annual budget. Jl~. cL-~" David O. Erb Finance Director Copy: Finance Commission Department Directors DOE/ b 1:\Budget 2009\Amendments\Board Memo Amendment #5 - March 2010.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1,2009 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2009 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the _ day of ,2010 Published in pamphlet form by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois the _ day of ,2010. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2009 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2009 WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 2342 which sets the finances of the Village under the "Budget Officer System"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid Ordinance and the Statutes of the State of Illinois an annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009 was adopted through the passage of Ordinance No. 5721 approved by the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect on December 16,2008; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 5736 on April 21,2009, amending the annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 5760 on September 15, 2009, amending the annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1,2009 and ending December 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 5771 on November 17, 2009, further amending the annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 5785 on December 15, 2009, further amending the annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January I, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have reviewed certain changes to the aforesaid budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31, 2009; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect believe the changes, as specified on the attached January I, 2009 through December 31, 2009 Budget Amendment No.5 to be in the best interest of the Village of Mount Prospect. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That the fiscal year budget for January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 for the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby amended, as detailed on Budget Amendment No. 5 attached hereto. SECTION TWO: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. AYES: NA YES: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2010. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No.5 Fiscal Year January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 Revenues Original Amended Revenue Increase Revenue F und/Program/Classification Account # Account Description Estimate (Decrease) Estimate Series 2001 8&1 (180) Other Financing Sources 490850 Transfer In 0 3,167 3,167 Other Financing Sourcrs 494150 Refunding Bond Proceeds 0 3,153,925 3,153,925 0 3,157,092 3,157,092 All other Series 2001 B&I accounts 385,000 0 385,000 Total Series 2001 B&I Fund 385,000 3,157,092 3,542,092 Series 2003 8&1 (190) Other Financing Sourcrs 490850 Transfer In 0 3,167 3,167 0 3,167 3,167 All other Series 2003 B&I accounts 918,000 0 918,000 Total Series 2003 B&I Fund 918,000 3,167 921,167 Series 20098 8&1 (196) Other Financing Sourcrs 494150 Refunding Bond Proceeds 0 40,610 40,610 0 40,610 40,610 All other Series 2009B B&I accounts 0 0 0 Total Series 2009B B&I Fund 0 40,610 40,610 Total Estimated Revenues Funds being changed 1,303,000 3,200,869 4,503,869 All other Village Budget accounts 100,831,614 0 100,831,614 Total Estimated Revenues After Changes 102,134,614 3,200,869 105,335,483 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 5 Fiscal Year January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009 Expenditures Current Amended Budget Increase Budget F und/Program/Classification Account # Account Description Amount (Decrease) Amount Series 1987A B&1 (140) Interfund Transfers 1408102-800230 Transfer Out 0 6,334 6,334 0 6,334 6,334 All other Series 1987A accounts 0 0 0 Total Series 1987A B&I Fund 0 6,334 6,334 Series 2001 B&1 (180) Interest Expense 1808102-720261 2001 G.O. Interest 165,740 23,925 189,665 Other Financing Uses 1808102-810100 Bond Principal - Current 0 3,490,000 3,490,000 165,740 3,513,925 3,679,665 All other Series 2001 B&I accounts 215,600 0 215,600 Total Series 2001 B&I Fund 381,340 3,513,925 3,895,265 Series 2009B B&1 (196) Contractual Services 1968102-540026 Legal & Financing Costs 0 38,237 38,237 0 38,237 38,237 All other Series 2009B B&I accounts 0 0 0 Total Series 2009B B&I Fund 0 38,237 38,237 Series 2009 Construction Fund (528) Contractual Services 5287701-540026 Legal & Financing Costs 100,000 63,676 163,676 100,000 63,676 163,676 All other Series Construction Fund accounts 13,582,020 0 13,582,020 Total Series 2009 Construction Fund 13,682,020 63,676 13,745,696 Total Village Budget Funds being changed 14,063,360 3,622,172 17,685,532 All other Village Budget Accounts 86,473,537 0 86,473,537 Total Village Budget after Changes 100,536,897 3,622,172 104,159,069 2 Mount Prospect INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR l>~ · ~.,.,., -:!>} IwllO TO: DATE: MARCH 9, 2010 SUBJECT: 2010 BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE PURPOSE: Present a recommendation that the annual budget be amended for fiscal year beginning January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2010. ,I' BACKGROUND: Ordinance 5779, adopted December 15, 2009, established the annual budget for the year ending December 31, 2010. DISCUSSION: In order to better manage the annual budget, the Village has taken to preparing budget amendments in early Spring and late Fall to account for carry-over items or material variations in revenues and/or expenditures. Many times this is as a result of fluctuations in the economy affecting revenues (either positively or negatively), extraordinary or unanticipated charges for expenditures or the timing of projects causing work to occur over different fiscal periods. This amendment adjusts original budget figures to reflect carry-over projects from the prior year. A proposed ordinance amending the 2010 Annual Budget is attached for the Board's consideration. In total, we are increasing the budget for expenditures by $3,390,144. Except for two minor adjustments in operating accounts, amendments made to the General Fund are limited to items that are supported by a dedicated revenue source (donations or grants) or for projects started, but not completed in the prior year. Amendments in other Funds are for expenditures related to capital projects for building and infrastructure improvements, water and sewer system improvements and vehicles and equipment replacement. There were several notable adjustments made to capital expenditure accounts. The budget for Phase I projects had anticipated completion of the EOC and PW Expansion. Weather delays in these projects as well as Fire Station #14 pushed completion into 2010. The total amount of the amendment related to these projects is $1.2 million. Budgets for the lift station stand-by generator and emergency generator for the Public Works facility were adjusted by $598,000 and $250,000 respectively. Replacement Public Works vehicles ($370,000) and the Basin 14 overhead sewer project ($100,000) account for the other significant expenditure amendments. E 2010 Budget Amendment Number One March 9, 2010 Page 2 of 2 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board adopt the proposed ordinance amending the 2010 Annual Budget. J~/o~ David O. Erb Finance Director DOE/ Copy: Finance Commission Department Directors 1:\Budget 201 O\Amendments\Board Memo Amendment #1 - March 201 O.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1,2010 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31,2010 PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES the _ day of ,2010 Published in pamphlet form by authority ofthe corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois the _ day of ,2010. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1,2010 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2010 WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 2342 which sets the finances of the Village under the "Budget Officer System"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid Ordinance and the Statutes of the State of Illinois an annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January 1, 2010 and ending December 31, 2010 was adopted through the passage of Ordinance No. 5779 approved by the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect on December 15, 2009; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have further reviewed certain additions and changes to the aforesaid budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1, 2009 and ending December 31,2009; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect believe the changes, as specified on the attached January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 Budget Amendment Number One to be in the best interest of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the Village has now revised the revenue projections or has reserves in each of the Funds in which the budget is being increased adequate in amount to cover the budget changes reflected in Budget Amendment Number One, attached hereto. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the fiscal year budget for January 1,2010 through December 31,2010 for the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby amended, as detailed on Budget Amendment No. 1 attached hereto. SECTION TWO: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. AYES: NA YES: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2010. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 1 Fiscal Year January 1, 2010 through December 31,2010 Expenditures Current Amended Budget Increase Budget F und/Program/Classification Account # Account Description Amount (Decrease) Amount General Fund CD-Planning & Zoning Contractual Services 0012102-540205 Document Imaging 8,000 6,900 14,900 Contractual Services 0012102-540282 First Time Homeowners 32,000 20,400 52,400 CD-Building Inspections Employee Benefits 0012105-510100 Medicare 5,251 3,000 8,251 Contractual Services 0012105-540205 Document Imaging 20,000 25,000 45,000 Human Services-Administration Other Employee Costs 0013101-520400 Travel & Meetings 2,128 500 2,628 Contractual Services 0013101-540225 Other Services 6,447 1,500 7,947 Commodities & Supplies 0013101-570080 Other Supplies 5,000 2,185 7,185 Police - Crime Prevention Commodities & Supplies 0014103-570080 Other Supplies 1,500 11,695 13,195 Fire-Equipment Maintenance Commodities & Supplies 0014206-570651 Vehicle Registration/License 0 250 250 80,326 71,430 151 ,756 All other General Fund Accounts 40,993,774 0 40,993,774 Total General Fund 41,074,100 71 ,430 41,145,530 Capital Improvement Fund Village Improvements and Equipment Building Improvements 5107701-640001 Other Public Buildings 100,000 106,790 206,790 Building Improvements 5107701-640021 Digital Cameras-Parking Deck 0 45,000 45,000 Building Improvements 5107701-640031 Civic Event Sign Replacement 0 35,000 35,000 Other Equipment 5107701-670027 Patrol Citation Printing System 0 32,360 32,360 Other Equipment 5107701-670300 Emergency Generator 0 250,000 250,000 Community Improvement Projects Land Improvements 5107702-620008 Corridor Improvements 0 26,065 26,065 Infrastructure 5107702-690005 Residential Street Lights 10,000 39,700 49,700 Street Improvement Projects Infrastructure 5107706-690104 Wolf Road Engineering 150,000 (150,000) 0 Infrastructure 5107706-690107 Kensington Road Turn Lanes 139,000 31,000 170,000 399,000 415,915 814,915 All other Capital Improvement Fund Accounts 1,315,350 0 1,315,350 Total Capital Improvement Fund 1,714,350 415,915 2,130,265 Series 2009 Construction Fund Station 14 Office Equipment 5287711-650000 Office Equipment 0 60,000 60,000 Other Equipment 5287711-670050 FS #14 Furnishings 0 194,000 194,000 Other Equipment 5287711-670151 Other Equipment 76,892 204,378 281,270 EOC Office Equipment 5287712-650000 Office Equipment 0 91,000 91,000 Other Equipment 5287712-670055 EOC Furnishings 0 134,000 134,000 Other Equipment 5287712-670151 Other Equipment 0 231,741 231,741 PW Expansion Other Equipment 5287713-670070 PW Furnishings 0 45,000 45,000 Other Equipment 5287713-670151 Other Equipment 0 300,929 300,929 76,892 1,261,048 1,337,940 All other Series 2009 Construction Fund Accounts 845,693 0 845,693 Total Series 2009 Construction Fund 922,585 1,261,048 2,183,633 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No.1 Fiscal Year January 1, 2010 through December 31,2010 Expenditures Current Amended Budget Increase Budget Fund/Program/Classification Account # Account Description Amount (Decrease) Amount Street Improvement Construction Fund Street Improvement Projects Contractual Services 5607706-540115 Traffic Study/Improvements 100,000 34,840 134,840 Infrastructure 5607706-690084 Resurfacing 1,020,000 56,845 1,076,845 Infrastructure 5607706-690103 Parking Lot Improvements 0 82,595 82,595 1,120,000 174,280 1,294,280 All other Street Improvement Fund Accounts 281,600 0 281,600 Total Street Improvement Fund 1,401,600 174,280 1,575,880 Flood Control Construction Fund Flood Control Projects Infrastructure 5907704-690013 Creek Bank Stabilization 25,000 11,275 36,275 25,000 11,275 36,275 All other Flood Control Construction Fund Accounts 125,150 0 125,150 Total Flood Control Construction Fund 150,150 11,275 161,425 Water and Sewer Fund Administration Other Employee Costs 6105501-520600 Uniform Expense 17,253 21,665 38,918 Contractual Services 6105501-540612 GIS Maintenance 20,600 20,000 40,600 Water Distribution Maintenance & Repair Other Equipment 6105505-670041 Video Security Cameras 0 8,000 8,000 Other Equipment 6105505-670301 Emergency Generator/Wells 100,000 24,640 124,640 Water Meter Maintenance & Rep!. Contractual Services 6105507-540770 Meter Installation 60,000 61,855 121,855 Contractual Services 6105507-540775 Meter Testing & Repair 24,720 11,415 36,135 Other Equipment 6105507-670062 Water Meters 63,345 35,250 98,595 Sanitary Sewer Maintenance & Repair Contractual Services 6105509-540778 Building Sewer Inspection 24,930 18,460 43,390 Other Equipment 6105509-670043 Lift Station Emergency Generator 0 598,560 598,560 Water & Sewer System Improvements Distribution Systems 6105510-680003 Water Mains Replacement 370,000 53,590 423,590 Distribution Systems 6105510-680006 Basin 14 Foot Tile/OH Sewer Project 368,000 100,000 468,000 Distribution Systems 6105510-680010 Combined Sewer Improvements 1,000,000 73,275 1,073,275 2,048,848 1,026,710 3,075,558 All Other Water and Sewer Fund Accounts 10,474,191 0 10,474,191 Total Water and Sewer Fund 12,523,039 1,026,710 13,549,749 Vii/age Parking System Revenue Fund Village Parking Lot Maintenance Contractual Services 6205110-540550 Parking Lot Sealcoating 10,609 10,610 21,219 Contractual Services 6205110-540570 Cleaning Service 24,200 24,200 48,400 Building Improvements 6205110-640018 Parking Deck Maintenance 6.800 13,055 19,855 41,609 47,865 89,474 All other Village Parking System Revenue Accounts 85,624 0 85,624 Total Village Parking System Revenue Fund 127,233 47,865 175,098 2 F und/Program/Classification Parking System Revenue Fund Parking Lot Maintenance Contractual Services Commodities & Supplies All other Parking System Revenue Accounts Total Parking System Revenue Fund Vehicle Replacement Fund Motor Equipment Replacement Mobile Equipment VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No.1 Fiscal Year January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010 Account # 6305111-540645 6305111-570750 6707709-660115 All other Vehicle Replacement Fund Accounts Total Vehicle Replacement Fund Risk Management Fund Forestry Program Contractual Services All other Risk Management Fund Accounts Total Risk Management Fund Total Village Budget Funds being changed All other Village Budget Accounts Total Village Budget after Changes 6905203-540740 Expenditures Account Description RR Station Maintenance Bicycle Racks Replace Public Works Vehicles Tree Hazard Study 3 Current Budget Amount 3,090 1,231 4,321 165,955 170,276 o o 440,000 440,000 11,500 11,500 6,853,598 6,865,098 65,388,431 18,009,631 83,398,062 Increase (Decrease) 3,090 1,231 4,321 o 4,321 370,000 370,000 o 370,000 7,300 7,300 o 7,300 3,390,144 o 3,390,144 Amended Budget Amount 6,180 2,462 8,642 165,955 174,597 370,000 370,000 440,000 810,000 18,800 18,800 6,853,598 6,872,398 68,778,575 18,009,631 86,788,206