Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 07/24/2001 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, July 24, 2001 50 South Emerson Street 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2001 II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. VILLAGE HALL/COMMUNITY CENTER/PARKING DECK DISCUSSION In August 2000, the Village Board accepted and preliminarily considered the report of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee. This Committee was formed in June of 2000 to make recommendations regarding the development of a new Village Hall/Community Center/Parking Deck within the context of the 1998 TIF District Strategic Plan. At that time, the Village Board directed staff to continue with preliminary planning and the development of information that would allow the Village to make a final decision during 2001 on whether to go ahead with the project. This Committee of the Whole meeting marks the beginning of those discussions. Information will be presented regarding: 1) project financing options, 2) Referendum requirements and 3) Design Team designation. Project Financinq Options A key element in the decision-making process centers on the Village's ability to finance the estimated $13.5 million project. Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth has provided a financing plan as well as supplemental information that lays out a number of options. Obviously, Board acceptance of, and comfort with, a financing plan is a critical first step in mapping out how future discussions will proceed. The Financing Plan may also become an element in the Referendum question discussion. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. Referendum Reauirements Another cdtical decision the Village Board will need to make is whether the project should be submitted to Advisory Referendum. Given the Village's Home Rule powers, there is no Statuatory requirement that the issue be put to Referendum. There is a longstanding, but unwritten, policy that large capital, public facility (building) projects be submitted to voter approval by Advisory Referendum. If the new Village Hall project were being considered in isolation, outside of the overall downtown redevelopment effort, there would likely be little question about proceeding to Referendum. However, given the fact that the relocation of Village Hall is integral to the completion of the downtown development effort, several Board members, along with Ad Hoc Advisory Groups, have suggested that the "policy" might not apply here. Attached is information regarding the Statutory requirements for placing a Referendum question on the next scheduled election in Mamh 2002. Desion Team Desi_onation On Saturday, July 21, 2001, the Village Board interviewed three architect/construction management groups (design team). The purpose of retaining a design team is to assist the Village Board and staff in developing a Preferred Site Plan and firm Project cost estimates as early in this process as possible. Tuesday evening's meeting will provide the Village Board with an opportunity to finalize discussions regarding a Preferred Design Team and provide direction to staff regarding the negotiation of a Professional Services Contract. Retaining the Design Team does not commit the Village Board to proceed with the project. While the Village Board will consider each of these items, it is not obligated to make a final decision on items one or two that evening. It is crucial with regard to item three that a Design Team be identified so they can be placed under contract and begin some of the preliminary site research and costing efforts that will be required for the Village Board to make its final decision later in the year on whether to proceed with the project. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT H:\GEN\CowgAgenda\072401 COW Agenda.doc MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JULY 10~ 2001 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:33 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. TruStee Timothy Corcoran arrived at 7:39 p.m. Staff members Present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth, Community Development Director William Cooney, Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Deputy Fire Chief John M~lcolm, Police Chief Richard Eddington, Deputy Police Chief Ronald Richardson, Acting Deputy Chief Kevin Condon, Police Sergeant Michael Semkiu, Police Sergeant John Dahlberg, Public Works Director Glen Andler and Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from April 24, 2001. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved. Trustees Zadel and Lohrstorfer abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD John Bittner, 319 North Main, spoke. He wanted to bring to the Village Board's attention that there were no drinking fountains installed at Busse Park and feels that there should be opportunity for water at the Park due to the level of activities that occur there including softball games. He stated he has called the Mt. Prospect Park District to inquire about the installation of drinking fountains but has yet to receive a return call so he decided to come before the Village Board to see if the Village could assist in spurring the Park District into action. Village Manager Janonis stated that he would contact the Park District to see what the status was regarding the installation of drinking fountains and he would have someone get back to him regarding that situation. IV. DISCUSSION OF THE 2002-2006 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM Village Manager Janonis provided a general introduction to the CIP process. He stated this is the sixth edition of the CIP and the CIP is a rolling five-year projection into the future with cost estimates and suggested funding opportunities depending on the project. This document has been valuable in terms of planning for future expenditures. He also stressed that project inclusion at this stage does not necessarily mean that it will be funded. There is another review of each project when it is necessary to discuss the budget for the year in which the project is to be considered. The primary focus this evening will be on the 2002 items which total a budget of $21.7 million and a substantial portion of that includes the Road Program. There will be various staff presentations, which will focus on the changes of previous programs, or new programs, which are being suggested for consideration during this period. Finance Director EIIsworth provided a general introduction to the document and highlighted how the document was structured. He also pointed out the process for which items are considered and reviewed. He stated the Public Works Department has the majority of the projects within the document and the items are grouped by project type and project funding for cross-reference purposes. He stated the Village Board has trensferred Generel Fund monies in the past to cover capital projects, however, based on the projections for the 2002 Budget today, there may be a need to re-visit that funding source due to a projected revenue sho~all of some $1 million. He also stated that the General Fund will need to loan the TIF Fund money to complete the projects due to the delay in Tax receipts for the various projects. He stated a major expense which will be noted during the presentations will be the need to address the Combined Sewer System within the community. Village Manager Janonis provided a general summary of administrative government projects projected for the upcoming CIP period. Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the items from the Community Development Department and highlighted the fact that the majority of the projects were a continuation of previous projects. Fire Chief Michael Figolah provided a summary of the -items that he is recommending for consideretion. One of the items he highlighted was the emergency warning siren monitoring system. He also pointed out that there is a projection for a new Station to replace the Kensington Road Station for 2003- 2004 and the need to expand the Public Works maintenance bays to accommodate such a change. Deputy Chief Richardson provided an overview of the cost and installation of in-car cameras and the projection for additional care assuming a Treffic Unit is created in the upcoming Budget year. Public Works Director Glen Andler provided a summary of the projects that he has included in the CIP. Among those items are the continuation of the Flood Contrel Pregrem and the anticipated cost of the Combined Sewer Study. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a discussion regarding the Tree Program and the projected increased cost of maintaining and replacing the Village forest. There was also discussion regarding the timing of traffic signal improvements on major thoroughfares. There was also a question raised regarding the clarification of the cost for the implementation of a Police Traffic Unit. John Korn, Chairman of the Finance Commission, spoke. He stated that the Commission members have no recommendations regarding the projects but find the document very helpful for planning purposes. However, the Commission reserves the right to review projects as they come up for discussion. Village Manager Janonis stated that he anticipates bringing the Plan before the Board at the July 17 meeting and will put the appropriate projects in the Budget for 2002 for further evaluation. V. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Farley stated there is a TIF Joint Jurisdiction Meeting at 3:30 p.m. on July 17 at the Village Hall and July 14 is the Coffee with Council meeting date. Trustee Hoefert requested information regarding the traffic light control installation status. He also noted that the grass areas near the streets that the Village recently repaired with no curb does not appear to be flourishing. Trustee Wilks wanted to thank all the participants in the 4th of July events. VI. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis reminded everyone that Coffee with Council on July 14 is a floater which includes an initial convening at the ViLlage Hall followed by the meeting at Forest View Elementary School. VII. ADJOURNMENT Since there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:11 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL DS/rcc Assistant Village Manager H:\GEN\Cow\Minutes\071001 COW Minutes.doc Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE PRESIDENT AND BOARD Of TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER AND DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JUNE 18, 2001 SUBJECT: VILLAGE HALL AND PARKING STRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN PURPOSE: To present information relative to financing a new village hall/community center and multi-level parking structure. Included herein is staff's recommendation as to how to finance the construction with the least impact upon the taxpayers. BACKGROUND: The Village issued general obligation bonds to finance the construction of the Public Works building and the Police and Fire building. There are currently two outstanding bond issues that financed the construction of these buildings, the Series 1987A bonds and the Series 1993B Refunding bonds. Like most governments, the Village is using property taxes to pay for the construction of the public buildings. Following are the debt service levy requirements and the estimated amount of property tax revenue needed for the remaining life of the bonds. The estimated tax levy needs are less than the scheduled debt service requirements because of the existence of surplus within the debt service funds. Series '1987A and 1993B Refunding Bonds Levy Fiscal Debt Service Estimated Year Year Requirements Tax Levy 2000 2001 709,041 658,313 2001 2002 712,232 658,050 2002 2003 726,665 656,000 2003 2004 737,556 657,000 2004 2005 769,327 731,000 2005 2006 405,000 386,896 2006 2007 0 0 -; Village Hall Financing June 18, 2001 Page 2 DISCUSSION: The cost of constructing a new village hall/community center that would meet our immediate space needs and provide for reasonable growth in the long-run is estimated at $6.6 million. The cost of constructing a multi-level parking structure needed to meet parking requirements for the village hall and downtown businesses is estimated at $5.5 million. The cost of architectural services is estimated at $1,360,000. Therefore, the total cost of construction is estimated at $13,460,000. In order to proceed with the construction of a new village hall at the site of the current Human Services/Senior Center building, the Village would have to acquire the medical office just to the west of the Senior Center. The cost of acquiring this property is estimated at $600,000. This is expected to be offset by the proceeds from selling the current village hall site to Norwood Construction pursuant to an option agreement the Village entered into in 1999. Therefore the net construction cost of a new village hall and parking structure is $13,460,000. Estimated Cost Village Hall/Community Center $6,600,000 Parking Structure 5,500,000 Doctor's Office Acquisition 600,000 Architectural Fees 1.360.000 Sub-total $14,060,000 Less: Proceeds from sale of current Village Hall (600.000) Net Construction Cost $13.460.000 Straight General Obligation Bond Financina The most common method used by local governments to finance public facilities is to issue general obligation bonds. If the Village were to issue bonds to finance all of the construction costs the gross amount of the bonds would be approximately $13,315,000. This includes the construction costs of $13,460,000, costs of issuance of approximately $90,000 and estimated investment earnings of $235,000. Attachment A presents the estimated debt service schedule for a bond issue in the amount of $13,315,000. As you can see, the annual debt service for an issue with a straight twenty- year life would be approximately $1,091,195. Since a portion of the Village's tax levy is currently used for the payment of debt service, the increase to the overall tax levy is not as great when the current bonds are retired. The following table illustrates the estimated increase to the property tax levy if bonds are issued for the new village hall and parking structure. Village Hall Financing June 18, 2001 Page 3 Impact of Pro 3osed Villag~ Hall Financingon Tax Levy Percent Current Proposed Increase over Increase over Levy Fiscal Debt Sew. Series 2001 Total D/S 2000 Debt Total 2000 Year Year Lev,/Needs Bonds Tax Levy Se~ice Levy Levy 2000 2001 658,313 0 658,313 0 0% 2001 2002 658,050 1,091,195 1,749,245 1,090,932 10.8 2002 2003 656,000 1,091,195 1,747,195 1,088,882 10.7 2003 2004 657,000 1,091,195 1,748,195 1,089,882 10.7 2004 2005 731,000 1,091,195 1,822,195 1,163,882 11.5 2005 2006 386,896 1,091,195 1,478,091 819,778 8.1 2006 2007 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2007 2008 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2008 2009 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2009 2010 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2010 2011 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2011 2012 0 1,091,195 1,091~195 432,882 4.3 2012 2013 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2013 2014 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2014 2015 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2015 2016 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2016 2017 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2017 2018 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2018 2019 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2019 2020 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2020 2021 0 1,091,195 1,091,195 432,882 4.3 2021 2022 0 0 0 (658,313) (6.5) As can be seen, the Village's tax levy will have to increase by approximately 11% for the first four years of the bond issue since the Series 1987A and 1993B bonds would still be outstanding. In fiscal year 2006, when the Series 1993B bonds are retired, debt service drops but still represents an 8% increase over the total tax levy. Once we get to fiscal year 2007, and only the proposed Series 2001 bonds are outstanding, the debt service levy represents a 4.3% increase over the current total levy~ It should be emphasized that the 4.3% increase represents a one-time hike in the levy. The Village's debt service levy will not be increasing 4.3% each and every year. This table merely is intended to show the long-term effect the proposed bond issue will have on the tax levy. Village Hall Financing June 18, 2001 Page 4 Alternate Funding for a Portion of Debt Service It will be difficult for the Village to increase taxes by 11% for the 2001 levy, even though the levy would decrease slightly in 2006 and again in 2007. Staff believes it would be beneficial to find alternate revenue sources to cover a portion of the debt service ("D/S") in the first five years, making the net increase in the tax levy stable at 4.3% from the first year of the bond issue. The amount needed to be raised in order to keep the tax increase at 4.3% from year one of the proposed bond issue is $3,088,946. The following table shows how that number was derived. Funds Needed for Stable Debt Service Property. Tax Increase Levy Fiscal increase over Desired Amount Year Year 2000 D/S Levy increase Needed 2001 2002 $1,090,932 $432,882 $ 658,050 2002 2003 1,088,882 432,882 656,000 2003 2004 1,089,882 432,882 657,000 2004 2005 1,163,882 432,882 731,000 2005 2006 819,778 432,882 386,896 2006 2007 432,882 432,882 0 Total $ 3,088,946 After reviewing the financial condition of the various funds, we believe we have found a reasonable solution to the problem of minimizing the increase in the property tax levy associated with funding a new village hall and parking structure. Street Improvement Construction Fund Excess Fund Balance: The long-term financial forecast for the Street Improvement Construction Fund (Attachment B) shows that there is currently surplus fund balance of approximately $2 million. The surplus is expected to grow to almost $5 million by the end of 2006. This surplus is the result of solid tax revenues, strong investment earnings and construction costs coming in less than projected. We recommend that the Village transfer $2 million from the Street improvement Construction Fund to the Series 2001 Debt Service Fund over the next four years. · ..... General Fund Excess Fund Balance: On September 7, 1999 the Village Board adopted Resolution 43-99 which amended the Village's reserve policy to establish the recommended General Fund fund balance level at 25% of budget. '; As of December 31, 1999 the unreserved fund balance in the General Fund amounted to $6,064,534. This represented 22.5% of the 2000 General Fund budget. - Village Hall Financing June 18, 2001 Page 5 The soon to be released audited financial report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 is going to show a significant increase in fund balance. First of all, there was an excess of revenues over expenditures and other financing uses of $1,396,198. Revenues came in a full $951,812 above projections. Expenditures came in almost $264,000 below budget. This alone would have pushed unreserved fund balance to $7.2 million, the equivalent of 25.7% of the 2001 General Fund budget. During the past year there was also a clarification to an accounting standard that resulted in a significant increase in the General Fund's fund balance. Accounting standards have always provided that only liabilities expected to be paid from current financial resoumes should be booked as a current liability in the General Fund. However, some governments, including the Village of Mount Prospect, took an ultra-conservative position in recording as a liability in the General Fund the current value of all accumulated and unused vacation and personal time (compensated absences). As of December 31, 1999 the Village's General Fund liability for compensated absences was $1,397,916. The Governmental Accounting Standards Board issued Interpretation 6 in the year 2000 that provided clear guidance that compensated absences should not be shown as a liability of the General Fund, but rather reflected as a liability in the General Long-term Debt Account Group. Therefore, we were required this year to move the 1999 liability to the account group and restate the beginning year fund balance by $1,397,916. The end result is an unreserved fund balance in the General Fund of $8.6 million as of December 31, 2000. This represents 30.7% of the 2001 General Fund budget. The excess over the 25% reserve guideline is approximately $1.6 million. Staff suggests transferring $1,088,946 from the General Fund between 2002 and 2006 to cover the balance of the $3,088,946 needed to keep the property tax increase related to the new village hall and parking structure at 4.3%. If the Board concurs with the above recommendations, the net increase to the Village's property tax levy related to the financing of a new village hall and parking structure would be 4.3% for the 2001 levy payable in 2002. For a home with an equalized assessed value of $44,000 (market value of about $230,000) the 4.3% increase in the levy translates into an increase of approximately $18. Fiscal Impact of Redevelooment of Current Village Hall Site As the Village Board deliberates on whether to construct a new village hall and redevelop the current village hall site, it would be beneficial to know the estimated impact on the equalized assessed value and tax rolls of the Village and the other impacted governmental jurisdictions. ': Attached is a copy of a memorandum dated January 6, 2000 that discusses the property tax implications of redeveloping the current village hall site. The construction of forty condominiums and 16,000 square feet of commercial space is expected to generate equalized assessed valuation illage Hall Financing June 18, 2001 Page 6 (EAV) of $2.5 million in 2004. This would generate total property taxes of approximately $238,000 per year, of which the Village's share would be close to $22,000. Offsetting a portion of these figures will be the removal of the doctor'S office building from the tax rolls. That property is expected to have an EAV of $393,000 in 2004. The property taxes estimated to be paid by the doctor in 2004 is $37,300, of which the Village's share would be $3,510. It is pointed out in the memorandum that the current village hall site and the doctor's building are within the Village's tax increment financing district. Therefore, the Village and other impacted jurisdictions would not likely see any additional property tax revenues until the year 2009. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board authorize staff to initiate the financing plan outlined above: 1) Complete acquisition of the doctor's building; 2) Issue general obligation bonds in the Fall of 2001 to finance construction of a new village hall/community center and multi-level parking structure; 3) Utilize $2 million of surplus fund balance in the Street Improvement Construction Fund to pay a portion of the debt service on the Series 2001 bonds in the years 2002 through 2005; 4) Utilize approximately $1,089,000 of surplus fund balance in the General Fund to pay a portion of the debt service on the Series 2001 bonds in the years 2005 and 2006; 5) Increase the property tax levy by approximately 4.3% to cover the remaining debt service on the Series 2001 bonds; 6) Proceed with the sale of the current Village Hall to Norwood Construction pursuant to an existing option agreement. c: Finance Commission Members ". Department Directors I:\Corresp~lntl~2001\Village Hall\Financing Memo 6-18,doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE HALL/PARKING STRUCTURE FINANCING PLAN: Assumptions Amount: $13,315,000 (a) Interest Rate: 5.25% Annual Payments: $1,091,195 20 Date: Dec. 1,2001 Matudty Date: Dec. 1, 2021 PROPOSED BOND ISSUE FISCAL TOTAL PRINCIPAL YEAR PRINCIPAL INTEREST DE, BT SERV OUTSTAND. TAX LEVY 2002 392,158 699,038 1,091,195 12,922,843 1,091,195 2003 412,746 678,449 1,091,195 12,510,097 1,091,195 2004 434,415 656,780 1,091,195 12,075,682 1,091,195 2005 457,222 633,973 1,091,195 11,618,460 1,091,195 2006 481,226 609,969 1,091,195 11,137,234 1,091,195 2007 506,490 584,705 1,091,195 10,630,744 1,091,195 2008 533,081 558,114 1,091,195 10,097,663 1,091,195 2009 561,068 530,127 1,091,195 9,536,595 1,091,195 2010 590,524 500,671 1,091,195 8,946,072 1,091,195 2011 621,526 469,669 1,091,195 8,324,545 1,091,195 2012 654,156 437,039 1,091,195 7,670,389 1,091,195 2013 688,500 402,695 1,091,195 6,981,890 1,091,195 2014 724,646 366,549 1,091,195 6,257,244 1,091,195 2015 762,690 328,505 1,091,195 5,494,554 1,091,195 2016 802,731 288,464 1,091,195 4,691,823 1,091,195 2017 844,874 246,321 1,091,195 3,846,949 1,091,195 2018 889,230 201,965 1,091,t95 2,957,719 1,091,195 2019 935,915 155~280 1,091,195 2,021,804 1,091,195 2020 985,050 106,145 1,091,195 1,036,754 1,091,195 2021 1,036,765 54,430 1,091,195 (12) 1,091,195 13,315,012 8,508,888 21,823,900 Projected Bond Issue Size: Village Hall Construction 6,600,000 Parking Structure Construction 5,500,000 Architect & Space Planning 1,360,000 Capitalized Interest 0 Costs of Issuance 90,000 Interest Income on Cap. Proj. Fd. (235,000) Interest on Debt Service Fd. 0 13,315,000 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROI*I'ICE I~EMORANDUM' /~TTACt-~W t::~ 7'" TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JANUARY 6, 2000 SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX IMPLICATIONS OF VILLAGE HALL SITE . REDEVELOPMENT You requested that I prepare an analysis of the properW tax implications should the Village Board decide to construct a new Village Hall/Senior Center and redevelop the current Village Hall site. To perform such an analysis, certain assumptions have to be made regarding tax rates, assessed values and the nature of the redevelopment project. Community Development Director Cooney suggested I base my analysis on the current Village Hall site being redeveloped as 40 condominiums and 16,000 square feet of commercial space. There are two main components to the analysis. We need to estimate how much property tax revenue would be generated by the redevelopment of the current Village Hall site, but we also must estimate the amount of property tax revenue that will be lost due to the Village's acquisition of the doctor's office building next to the Senior Center. Property Taxes Generated from Redevelopment For purposes of this analysis, we assume the forty condominiums will be completed in the years 2003 and 2004 and they will have an average sales price of $210,000. Upon their completion in the tax levy year 2004, we are estimating the residential units will have a total equalized assessed value (EAV) of $1,546,563. As for the commercial property, we are estimating the EAV to be $957,528. The total projected 2004 EAV for both the commercial space and the residential units is $2,504,091. We estimate the tax rate in 2004 to be $9.505, thereby generating total taxes of $238,025. The Village's share of the total taxes generated is estimated at $22,375 per year. Property_ Taxes No Longer Received from Doctor's Office Building The 1998 EAV of the doctor's office building was $336,767. The total taxes paid on the property for the 1998 levy was $32,188. For the 2004 levy year, we are projecting the doctor's office property will have an EAV of $392,805, and will pay total taxes in the amount of $37,338. The Village's share cf the total taxes paid on the doctor's office property is estimated at $3,510. Implications of Tax Increment Financing_ District ': Both the current Village Hall and the Doctor's Office building are in the Village's tax increment financing district, which will not expire until 2008. Of the total taxes paid by the Doctor's Office, a little over $4,000 is being distributed to all affected taxing bodies each year. The balance is being eposited into the Village's Downtown Redevelopment Tax. Increment Financing Fund. Until the year 2009, 100% of the property taxes generated by the Village Hall redevelopment project would go into the Village's TIF Fund. Summary of Property Tax Implieations The following table summarizes the projected property taxes for the Doctor's Building and the redeveloped Village Hall project for the tax levy year 2004:.. Est. Property Taxes Doctor's Village Hall · 2004 Levy Year Building Redevelopment Variance Total Taxes $37,338 $238~025 $200~687 TIF Taxes $33,254 $238,025 $204,771 Distributed Taxes $ 4,084 $ 0 $ (4,084) This table summarizes the projected property taxes for the tax levy year 2009, the first year after the end of the tax increment financing district: Est. Property Taxes Doctor's Village Hall 2009 Levy Year Building Redevelopment Variance Total Taxes $ 42,663 $271,971 $229,308 TIF Taxes $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Distributed Taxes $ 42,663 $271,971 $229,308 Conclusion The above tables show that the affected taxing bodies will receive higher property tax revenues from the redevelopment of the current Village Hall site. An additional $200,000 of property taxes will be generated beginning in 2004, with the mount growing slightly each year thereafter. However, it should be pointed out that this alone is not justification for constructing a new Village Hall/Senior Center. Of the $200,000 or so in additional property taxes per year, the Village's share will be somewhere near $20,000, far less than annual debt service requirements related to financing a new Village Hail/Senior Center. Douglas R. Ellsworth, CPA Director of Finance ' ' copy: Bill Cooney, Community Development Director David Strahl, Assistant Village Manager - ' ' ' ':- ' -~- '.'" Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JULY 16, 2001 SUBJECT: VILLAGE HALL FINANCING OPTIONS Our June 18~ memorandum to the Village Board presented a recommendation that a portion of the fund balance of both the General Fund and Street Improvement Construction Fund be used to pay for a portion of the annual debt service payments in fiscal years 2002 through 2006. What this does is stabilize the property tax increase attributable to the new Village Hall and parking structure at approximately 4.3%. It was pointed out in the memorandum that this would be was in addition to any tax increase needed to fund ongoing operations, if the operating levy was increased 3.5% we would be looking at a total tax increase of 7.5% for the 2001 levy (2002 fiscal year). The increase in subsequent years would be only that necessary for operations, which for purposes of this analysis we assume to be 3.5% per year. Realizing that a 7.5% increase in any given year would be difficult for the taxpayers, we discussed possibly using additional General Fund fund balance in order to gradually increase the tax levy to the amount necessary to cover the debt service on the proposed bonds. Attached are four separate spreadsheets which I believe clearly show the levy implications of four different funding options. Once again, under each of the scenarios we assume a 3.5% increase in the portion of the property tax levy that is not used for debt service. Scenario A: This is the funding scenario that is based upon a straight bond issue with no use of surplus fund balance from the General Fund and Street Improvement Fund. As you can see, we would need to increase our 2001 property tax levy by 14% over the 2000 levy. When our current public building bonds are retired in 2006 and 2007, the Village's tax levy would actually increase less than 1% in those years. Scenario B: This is the funding alternative discussed in the June 18th memorandum, in which $2 million would be transferred from the Street Improvement Construction Fund and $1,088,946 would be transferred from the General Fund to cover a portion of debt service for the levy years 2001 through 2005. Under this scenario, the 2001 levy would increase 7.5%. If this one-time transfer of fund balance had been made in 2000 our ending fund balance would still represent 26.8% of the 2001 Budget, which is over the '25% benchmark established by the Board. illage Hall Financing July 16, 2001 Page 2 Scenario C: In this funding scenario, we draw down further on the General Fund reserves to smooth out the 7.5% increase over a three year period. What this does is result in an overall tax increase of 4.6% in each of the levy years 2001, 2002 and 2003. The total amount that would be transferred from the General Fund is $1,553,946, which is $465,000 more than the transfer of Scenario B. Assuming this transfer was made in 2000, fund balance at 12/31/00 would still represent 25.2% of the 2001 Budget. Scenario D: This funding scenario goes one step further and spreads the 7.5% tax increase over four years. The total annual increase in the levy for levy years 2001 through 2004 would be 4.3%. The total amount that would be transferred from the General Fund would be $1,748,946. This is $660,000 more than the transfer found in Scenario B. If this transfer was made in 2000 our fund balance at 12/31/00 would represent 24.5% of the 2001 Budget. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum or the financing scenarios presented please advise. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DRE/dre I:\Corresp~lntl~001\Village Hall\Financing Memo 7-16-01.doc ~>'~~°;oO ~ 0 0~00 5~ oooooo ~oooooooooooo Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO:' VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: VILLAGE CLERK VELMA W. LOWE DATE: JUNE 21, 2001 SUBJECT: REFERENDUM PROCEDURES Attached are sections from the Local Election Offidals Handbook (2000) and the Illinois State Statutes 2000. On each attachment, I have highlighted statements relative to deadlines for adopting an ordinance/resolution for the Placement of a public question on a 2002 election ballot. Neither the County, or State have released election calendars for 2002 yet, however, I was able to obtain the following dates and deadlines, verbally, from election officials: PRIMARY ELECTION. March t9. 2002 Deadline for adopting ordinance/resolution is January 14, 2002; we would need to adopt on Wednesday. January 2, 2002, assuming that we meet on that day. The last meeting prior to the first January meeting is December 18, 2001 GENERAL ELECTION. November 5. 2002 Deadline for adopting ordinance/resolution is September 3, 2002; we would need to adopt at our meeting on that day. The last meeting prior to that date is the August 20 meeting. The resolution/ordinance must be adopted not less than 65 days before the election. Bear in mind that September 3, 2002 only allows 63 days; when I questioned that fact, I was informed that because September 1 is a Sunday, and September 2 is a holiday, the State decided on the September 3 date. Please let me know if additional information is needed. vwl! ¢: Village Attorney E. Hill Assistant Village Manager ~. Strahl State of Illinois LOCAL ELECTION OFFICIALS HANDBOOK for the 2001 Consolidated Elections Issued by the State Board of Elections TIME OF PETITION FILING (10 ILCS 5/28-2) A petition for a public question shall be filed with the appropriate officer or board not less than 78 days prior to a regular election to be eligible for submission on the ballot at such election. Attached to such petition shall be a certificate showing the name and address of one proponent of the public question or the attorney for the proponents. oeSOlutionordinance question must be adopted by the appropriateI or initiating public rning body not less than 65 days before a regular election. ~ Unless a particular statute author!zing a public question specifies the regular election at which such question shall be submitted, the petition, resolution, or ordinance initiating such question may specify the regular election for its submission, and the question shall be limited to that election. However, no petition, resolution, or ordinance, initiating a public question of a political subdivision may specify an election more than one year after the date on which it was filed or adopted, if the petition, resolution, or ordinance does not. specify a regular election for submission, such question shall be certified for and submitted at the forthcoming election occurring not less than 78 days (for petitions) after its filing or 66 days (for resolution or ordinance) after its adoption. We advise the local election official to provide a Notice of Obligation (Form D-5) as provided under the Campaign Financing Act to the proponent whose name is indicated on the certificate attached to the petition or to the attorney for the proponents if no name is listed. "BACK - DOOR" REFERENDA (10 ILCS 5/28-1,28-2) When a "back-door" referendum (i.e., question of acceptance or rejection of prior official action of a governing body submitted to the voters of a political subdivision) is permitted by a political subdivision statute, any time restrictions in another statute on the filing of the "back-door" petition shall be in addition to the 78 day filing deadline for public question petitions. Sec.~0n 28-2 provides that the Secretary or Clerk of the political subdivision shall provide petition forms, signature requirements and filing deadlines for "back-door', referenda. EXAMPLE: If the statute provides that a "back-door" petition may be filed within '30 days after the publication of a local ordinance, such p~titio~n must still.b.e~filed, not less than 78 days before the next regular election to be eligible for submission at that election.~ When a local ordinance or resolution.is subject to "back- door" referendum provisions, such ordinance or resotution must be adopted at least 30 days prior to the 78 day petition filing deadline. 41 10 ILCS 5/28-1 ELECTIONS ~ to Article VII of the Constitutian may be submitted at an officer or board not more than 10 months nor less ~ ~ election. If more than one such proposition is timely initi- months prior to the election at which such question is ~ ~ f'-'- ir atod or certified for submission at an election with respect to submitted to the voters. a municipality, the first validly initiated shall be the one (b) However, petitions for the submission of a public qb printed on the ballot and submitted at that alectian, tion to referendum which proposes the creation or forma~ l~sidel No public question shall be submitted to the voters of a of a political subdivision must be filed ~qth the approp~ ~ ~tisn political subdivision at any regularly scheduled election at officer or board not less than 108 days prior to a r~g~ which such voters are not scheduled to cast votes for any election to be eligible for submission on the ballot at sue[ the candidates for nomination for, election to or retention in election. *'l~e public office, except that if. in any existing or proposed lc) Resolutions or ordinances of governing boards of l~li~ ~e ds,x political subdivision in which the submission of a public cai subdivisions which initiate the submission of public qU~. ~ of question at a regularly scheduled election is desired, the tlons pursuant to law must be adopted not less than ~ da~ ,~th the voters of only a portion of such existing or proposed political before a regnlarly scheduled election to be eligible for s~ The t~ subdivision are not scheduled to cast votes for nomination miesion on the ballot at such election. for, election to or retention in public office at such election, but the voters in one or more other portions of such existing (d) A petition, resolution or ordinance initiating the rat~ {des or proposed political subdivision are scheduled to east votes mission of a public question tnay specie' a regular elec~o~ a~ Isig~ for nomination for, election to or retention in public office at which the question is to be submitted, and must so ~peeify i! Nar such election, the public question shall be voted upon by all the statute authoris~ng the public question requires submi.~ new sion at a particular election. However. no petition, re~htio~ .Whe the qualified voters of the entire e:dsting or proposed peliti- or ordinance initiating the submission of a public questior~ cai subdivision at the election, other than a legislative resolution initiating an amendment to Femur. . Not more than 3 advi~ry public questions may be submit- the Constitution, may specify such submission at an elecfior, ted to the voters of the entire state at a general election. If more than one yea;' after ~he date on Which it is filed or more than 3 such advisory propositions m'e initiated, the first adopted, as the case may be. A petition, resolution or ~t to st 3 timely and validly initiated shall be the questions printed ordinance initiating a public question which specifies a pattie. No~ on the ballot and submitted at that election: provided howev- ular election at which the question is to be submitted shall I~ t~a (g) er, ;,hat a question for a proposed amendment to Article IV so limited, and shall not be valid as to any other electior~ ~/nolle of the Constitution pursuant to Section 3..-~xicle XIV of the other than an emergency referendum ordered pursuant to ~11 no Constitution, or for a question submitted under the Property liB, or Tax Cap Referendum Law,a shall not be inehided in the ;eetion 2:~.-1.4. foregoing limitation. (e) If a petition initiating a public question does not spe~- tg~'uar fy a reg~ a' v scheduled election, the public question shall he l~leg a aatto Laws 1943, vol. 2, p. 1, § °-g-l, added by P.A. 80-1469, § 2, eft. Dec. 1. 1980. Amended by P.A. 81-IB2. § I. eft. Aug. 1L submitted to referendum at the next regular election occur. 1979; P.A.. 81-163, § 2, eft'. Aug. 1L 1979: P.A. 81-1509, Art. ring not less than 78 days after the filing of the petition, or ~;h rs~ I, § 32, eft. Sept. 26, 1980; P.A. 81-1535. } 18. eft. Dec. 19, not less than 108 days al~er the filing of a petition for referendum to create a political subdivision. If a ressisdon ~'thom 1980; P.A. 82-750, § L eft. May 26. 1982: P.A. 84-739, § 1, eft. Jan. I, 1986; P.A. 84-126t. § I. elf. Aug. 11. 1988; P.A. or ordinance initiating a public question does not spec~' a 84-1467. § 1. eft. Jan. 14. 1987: P.A. 87-17..Mx. 1. § 1--60. regu arly scheduled election, the public question shall he I~ elf. Oct. 1, 1991; P.A. 87-919, § 15. elf. Aug. 15. 199'2; P.A. submitted to referendmn at the next regular election occur- ~ P.A 88-116, Art. 1, § 1-105. eft July ~. 1993: P.A.. 89-,510, § 5. ring not less than 65 days aRer the adoption of the resolution Dee. 1. 82-750. r~ance. eft. July 11, 1996. (f) I'~he case of back door referenda, any iimitatiora i~ Formerly Ill. Rev. Stot.1991, eh. 46. *,, 9-8-I. another s~tute authorizing such a referendmn which restd~ PA. 9( 135 ILCS 200/18-1&5 et .~eq. the time in which the initiating petition may be validly filed 235 ILC$.-'4~0/I-1 et seq. shall app v to such petition in addition to the filing deadlin~ tn5 33.5 ILC$ ~48/1-I et seq. (repealed,. specified in this Section for suhinission at a particular elcO- Former § 28-1. wa~ amended and renumbered as § 28-6 b.~ P.A. ~)- t on. In the case of any back door referendum, the peblon- mi~ or 1469. § 2. lion of the ordinance or resolution of the political ~ubdlvimon F. flee For effective date and partial nvaliditv proGsions of PA. 81-162. shall include a notice of (1) the specific number of voten see note under 10 ILCS 5/10-8. required to sign a petition requesting that a public quesdon ~or For effective date and partial nvatiditv proxi~ion~ of P.A 81-163. be submitted to the voters of the subdivision; (2) the time ~ see note under 10 ILCS 5/I0-8. within which the petition must be filed; and (3) the dato.~°! the prospective referendum The secretary or clerk of u,~ 5/28-1.1, 5/28-1.2. §§ 28-!.1, 28-1.2. Renumbered political subdivision shall provide a petition fotnn to any as §§ 28-3, 28-4 by P.A. 80-1469, § 2, eff. nd vidual requesting one. As used herein, a "back door § Dec. I, 1980 referendum" is the submission of a public question to ~ ~r th ~fnni voters of a political subdivision, initiated by a petiti°n.'~ 5/28-2. Petitions, resolutions or ordinances voters or residents of such political subdivision, to deternare lot si; initiating question--Time of filing-- whether an action by the governing body of such selxlb~sio~ Back door referenda shall be adopted or rejected. . § 28-2. la) Except as other~Sse provided in this Section. (~r) A petition for the incorporation or formation of a petitions for the subraission of public questions to referen- political subdivision whose officers are to be elect~ ~u.~ dura must be filed with the appropriate officer or board not than appeinted must have attached to it an affidavit, atte. u,'~rlor to less than 78 days prior to a regular election to be eligible for that at least 'lq8 days and no more than 138 da.~ s .P submission on the ballot at such election: and petitions for such election notice of intention to file such petinoO the submission of a question under Section 18-120 of the ublished in a newspaper published within the prOpO_:,~ Political subdivision, or if none in a newspaper of ge~er~ Property Tax Code 1 must be fried xvith the appropriate p · Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR FARLEY AND VILLAGE BOARD FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JULY 17, 2001 SUBJECT: ARCHITECT INTERVIEWS Attached please find background information relevant to Saturday's interview process. Included is the Request for Qualifications, a Glossary relevant design/construction terms, a list of the 18 firms that responded to the RFQ, a letter of instruction to the three finalists regarding the conduct of Saturday's meeting and, finally, the submittals from each of the finalists. The meeting is scheduled to begin at 8:00 a.m. and wrap up by noon. It will be held in the Training Room of the Police and Fire Building. The first interview will begin around 9:00 a.m. Saturday's discussion will be a critical step in ultimately determining the future of the Village Hall. The purpose of this interview process is to receive Village Board direction as to which architect/construction manager team the Village should enter into a contract to undertake schematic design and design development for a new Village Hall/Community Center. Moving into a contract for these phases DOES NOT bind the Village Board in any way regarding whether a new building will be built. The information derived from the schematic design and design development effort will provide the Village Board and staff with the necessary cost and design information to determine the feasibility of the project. This information will also assist in any public information effort the Village Board wishes to undertake whether or not in the context of a Referendum question. Prior to Saturday, if you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the Village Manager or me. David Strahl Assistant Village Manager c: Village Hall Team VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, July 26, 2001 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2~ Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - June 28, 2001 III Review of 2000 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report IV Mid-Year Budget Review V Village Hall Financing VI Chairman's Report VII Finance Director's Report VIII Other Business IX Next Meeting: August 23, 2001 NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MEETING JUNE 28, 2001 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Vice Chairman George Busse and Commissioners Charles Bennett, Vince Grochocinski, Ann Hull, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic. Also presem were Village Manager Michael Janonis, MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton, Cable Production Coordinator Ross Rowe, Deputy Director of Community Development Mike Blue, Fire Chief Mike Figolah, Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm, Fire Captain Tony Huemann, Deputy Police Chief of Administration Ron Richardson, Police Sergeant Michael Semkiu, Director of Public Works Glen Andler, Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey, Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Newly appointed Chief of Police Richard Eddington was also present. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Ann SmJlauic motioned to approve the minutes of May 24, 2001. Commissioner Ann Hull seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. III. REVIEW OF PROPOSED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN (2002-2006) Director of Finance Doug Ellsworth began with a brief overview of the Capital Improvemems Plan (CIP). The plan serves as a planning tool and helps in viewing long term capital needs. Included ~n the CIP are projects that are generally longer than one year and are in excess of $25,000. Currently the Village has $55,109,091 proposed for the five-year period. There is $21,748,107 being requested for 2001 and $8,829,815 in 2003. Administration Cable Production Coordinator Ross Rowe discussed the need for a Remote TV Production Vehicle. The vehicle would be used to more efficiently cover offsite village events. Mr. Rowe stated that over the last few years the number of events that need to be covered have increased; in 1993 the village covered four outside events per year and currently the village covers four to five per month. The acquisition of the vehicle would reduce the amount of set up and labor time spent from approximately five hours to about one hour per event. Mr. Rowe's plan also included the purchase of a new remote control meeting package that would replace the cameras and monitors used to tape the board meetings. The current cameras have no speed control, are loud and replacement parts are becoming hard to get. The new cameras would have a 350N viewing range and would be much quieter. Furthermore, much smaller LCD units would replace the old 20" monitors. MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton had two items in the CIP to discuss. One being the telephone system upgrade. The village currently runs on five separate phone systems and upgrading the systems would allow the village to centralize all five systems. The other item discussed was the Desktop Operating System Upgrades. The upgrade of the office suite and operating system is currently on a four-year replacement cycle and is due to be replaced in 2005. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked Mr. Rowe if Public Works has room for the proposed Remote Production Vehicle and if it would require an increase in insurance costs. Mr. Rowe stated that Jim Guenther at Public Works said there would be room at their facility to house the van. Mr. Rowe also stated that there would be additional insurance premiums to cover the van. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski asked if the Finance Commission could see the financial numbers for Cable Television at budget time. Mr. Grochocinski said he would like to see if Cable Television is making or losing money. Commissioner's George Busse and Ann Hull both voiced their support of Cable Television services. They believe it is a valuable service to the community as well as to the schools. Communi~. Development Deputy Director of Community Development Mike Blue mentioned the department's five projects that are currently listed in the CIP. They are the Streetscape Program, Downtown Redevelopment, Corridor Improvements, new Village Hall/Senior Center and the Municipal Parking Facility. Commissioner Tom Pekras asked if there has been any preliminary discussions with Bank One regarding the development of the new Village Hall/Senior Center. Mr. Blue stated that Community Development Director Bill Cooney has had been in contact with Bank One. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if the parking garage would have space set aside for commuters. Mr. Blue stated there is not a floor or section set aside for commuter parking and it is not specifically part of the plan. Fire Department Fire Chief Mike Figolah began his discussion on the departments cIP's by stating that they need to complete the replacement of the mobile data terminals and status mobile terminals in various fire apparatus. To date three of the eight units have already been replaced. Mr. Figolah also mentioned the need to replace the Warning Siren Telemetry System. Currently the village has six sirens that are only tested once a month. The new system would monitor the sirens on a twenty-four hour basis and would notify personnel of a problem immediately. Two items that are closely related that were discussed are the expansion of the Public Works facility to house the maintenance of fire apparatus and the building of a new Fire Station 14. The village is currently looking at possible sites for the construction of the new station and is looking at the year 2003 and 2004 for construction of the new station. 2 Police Department Deputy Chief Ron Richardson stated that the department would like to purchase eight additional in-car video cameras. Twelve have already been bought with the help of grant money. Mr. Richardson also stated the department would like to purchase two additional patrol squad cars, contingent upon the depa~i~ent moving forward with the addition of a dedicated traffic unit. Another item discussed was the acquisition of eight personal laptop computers for patrol sergeants and detectives. Sergeant Mike Semkiu discussed two additional projects the Police Department has in the current CIP. One project discussed is the department's need to update to a digital imaging system. Currently paper records are accumulated and once a year transferred onto microfilm. With the digital system paper reports can be scanned in house immediately, categorized and stored long term. Another project discussed was the purchase of software and hardware for the live scan workstation. With this workstation mug shots and digital fingerprints are stored in the booking room and are automatically sent to the Illinois State Police. Currently, only the booking room area can access the information contained in the workstation. The purchase of the software and hardware will allow other areas of the police department, such as records and investigations, to access the information. In justification for the additional squad cars, Commissioner Ann Smilanlc asked Mr. Richardson how many traffic enforcement complaints are received and what are some of the examples. Mr. Richardson stated that currently there are 70 - 80 requests pending. Some examples would be citizen complaining about people not stopping at a particular stop sign or complaints of speeding down residential streets. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked where the department anticipates the laptops will be used. Mr. Richardson said that they could be used in the office, in the car or at home. Commissioners Charles Bennett and George Busse both agree that the digital imaging system is very important and suggest it be moved up if at all possible since it is a nominal cost. Public Works Director of Public Works Glen Andler began his presentation by summarizing several of the Public Works projects in the current CIP. One item is the Weller Creek flood control project, which was originally in the 2000-2001 CIP and was moved up to 2001-2002. Another project is the sidewalk cost share program, which will be increased by $25,000 in the next five years. The water tank rehabilitation program was also discussed as a project that runs on a 10-year cycle. Maintenance and repair on the tank needs to be done every 10 years to maintain sanitary conditions and provide stability of the structure. Finally, a new program to rehab the jogging path in the Kensington Business Center was discussed. The jogging path is 15 years old and needs to be repaved and fixed. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked about putting sidewalks in areas that currently do not have them. She asked if residents request sidewalks in these areas. Mr. Andler stated that there are some requests from residents especially in areas near schools, shopping centers and parks. Commissioner George Busse questioned the $7,000 amount for annual inspection of sidewalks under the New Sidewalks Project (Fl0). Mr. Busse stated the figure appeared to be a bit high, Mr. Andler advised he would check the number and make sure it is right. Commissioner George Busse also asked why CDBG funds could only be used for a limited number of sidewalk improvement projects. Mike Janonis stated that the money could only be used in areas that are classified as low to moderate income. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked who is legally responsible for the Kensington Business Center Jogging Path. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the owners as well as the village are responsible for the area. Mr. Bennett recommended that the repaving project be moved up from 2004 because it is need of work now. General Discussion Commissioner Ann Smilanic stated that since the general fund balance should be 25 % of the operating budget, can we continue to forecast the money that we need to fund Capital Improvement projects? Mr. Ellsworth stated that the village will face a great challenge in the coming years. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if the village is realizing a decrease of sales tax revenue. Mr. Ellsworth stated that the village is beginning to see the affects now. There is a three- month lag in sales tax reporting and we will have a better idea in the next month or two. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Vice Chairman George Busse had nothing to report. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Finance Doug Ellsworth presented the Finance Commission members with copies of the 2000 Annual Financial Report with accompanying memo and a memo regarding the new Village Hall/Senior Center financing scenarios. VI. OTHER BUSINESS There was no other business discussed. VII. Next Meeting: July 26. 2001 Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to adjourn and Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:05 p.m. The next meeting will be July 26th. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 4 Village of Mount Prospect M chae W. Skow o,, Community Development Department Michael A. Zadel 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD 847392-6r/,a AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Senior Center Thursday 50 South Emerson Street July 26, 2001 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Minutes of June 28, 2001 1. ZBA-11-01 / 303 S. George / Kohl Residence 2. ZBA- 12-01 / 600 W. Kensington Road / Sokolik Residence 3. ZBA-13-O1/17 AudreyLane/KronResidence 4. ZBA-I4-01 / 305 N. Fairview / Oblinger Residence 5. ZBA- 15-01 / 418 S. NaWaTa Ave. / George Residence 6. ZBA-16-0I / 1006 Isabella / Chamberlin Residence IV. OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS A. ZBA-17-01 /305 Douglas Street / Craig Residence / Conditional Use to install a circular dri¥'e. NOTE: This case is Village Board final. B. ZBA-18-01/125 Homer / McMahon Residence / Variation (side yard). NOTE: This case is Zoning Board final. C.ZBA-19-01 / 305 WeGo Trail / D'Acquisto Residence / Variation (rear yard). NOTE: This case is Village Board final. D. ZBA-20-01 / 202 Prospect Manor / Miller Residence / Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch. NOTE: This case is Village Board final. E. ZBA-21-01 / 1001 S. Busse / Dunkin Donuts-Baskin Robbins / Conditional Use (drive-thru & Variations. NOTE: This case is Village Board final. F.ZBA-22-0I / 1004 Callero / Krueger Residence / Variation (side yard). NOTE: This case is Zoning Board final. G.ZBA-23SR-01 / 824 E. Rand Road / Brunswick Zone / Special Use and Variation to Sign Code. NOTE: This case is Zoning Board final VI QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT An?, individual ~vho svould like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at I00 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO~ ZBA-11-2001 Hearing Date: June 28, 2001 PETITIONER: Kathryn & Patrick Kohl 303 South George Street PUBLICATION DATE: June 13, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Variation to allow two perimeter fences along the same lot line MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotton Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Kathryn & Patrick Kohl Jill Lumberger Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. The minutes of the May 24, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-11-01, a request for a Variation to allow a double fence along the same lot line. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She reported that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street and there is a three-foot, wooden, horizontal-slat style fence on the adjacent residential property south of the subject property. She said the petitioners discussed removing the existing fence with the property owner who owns the fence and installing the proposed 5-foot shadow-box style fence but the neighbor declined the petitioners' offer to remove the existing fence, at the petitioners' expense, and installing a new fence. Ms. Connolly said the applicants propose to construct a 5-foot shadow-box style fence along their south lot line and, since the Zoning Ordinance permits only one fence per lot line, the petitioners are seeking a variation to allow two fences along the same lot line. Ms. Counolly explained that, in order to approve the requested variation, the ZBA has to make findings of fact that the request meets the standard for a variation. She reviewed the standards for the Board. Ms. Counolly said staff reviewed the petitioners' plat, visited the site, and found that the subject parcel is typical of most lots in the Village. The Zoning Ordinance permits only one fence per lot line in order to ensure that the fence and surrounding area is maintained. In this case, the existing and proposed style of fences will provide the property owners with adequate means to maintain the fences and surrounding area and the neighbor indicated that he did not object to the petitioners' request to install a new fence. Ms. Connolly said staff concluded that the petitioners tried to comply with code requirements, but were unsuccessful for reasons out of their control. Therefore, the code is imposing a hardship on the petitioners. Installing a second fence along the lot line will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare since the existing fence and the proposed fence allow for both to be maintained and, in addition, aesthetics is not an issue since the property owner who has to view the two fences does not object to the situation. Ms. Connolly pointed out that the proposed second fence meets the Variation standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, staffrecommends that the ZBA approve a Variation for a second perimeter fence along the south lot line for the residence at 303 S. George Street, Case No. ZBA-11-01. The Zoning Board's decision is final for this case. oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 11-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly if public notice had been given and Ms. Connolly said yes. She asked if the petitioners wished to address the Board. Kathryn and Patrick Kohl were sworn in and stated they wished to reiterate Ms. Connolly's comments regarding aesthetics and to stress the issue of safety, lhey have three small children and the neighbor has two large Dobermans. The dogs wear collars for an electric fence but, if their collars are not in place, can easily jump over the present fence. They said they had a good relationship with their neighbor but he refused to take the fence down as it has sentimental value to him; his father built the fence over 60 years ago. Hal Ettinger asked what type of fence they planned to install. Mr. Kohl said they would install a wooden board-on- board fence with 6" of space between the two fences. Richard Rogers asked the age of the dogs and if they are always outside. Mr; Kohl said the dogs were 2 & 6, and they have a "doggie-door" and come out whenever they choose. Chairperson Arlene Juracek said she had received letters from neighbors in support of the proposed fence. At 7:58, Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. Mr. Floros said he thought this was a discrete request. Ms. Connolly said she had not heard of a similar request in four years. Ms. Juracek said he was not aware ora similar request and remarked that, since the fence was so old, it might remove itself shortly. As there was no further discussion, Richard Rogers moved for approval of, Case No. ZBA-11-01, a request for a Variation to allow two fences along the same lot line. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Ettinger, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. At 10:10 p.m., after hearing five more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-12-2001 Hearing Date: June 28, 2001 PETITIONER: Steve and Sanice Sokolik 600 W. Kensington Rd. PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Conditional Use to allow construction of a circular driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Cormolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Steve & Janice Sokolik Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. The minutes of the May 24, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0. At 8:04 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-12-01, a request for a Conditional Use to allow a circular drive. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. The subject property is located at the northeast comer of Prospect Manor and Kensington Road. Ms. Connolly said that this area of Mount Prospect does not have curbs or sidewalks and the street is 22-feet wide, compared to "improved streets" that measure closer to 27' wide. The home has two driveways, which are located along and accessed fi.om Prospect Manor. The previous property owner converted the attached garage to living space and constructed a detached garage with a new driveway. The Village did not require the property owner to remove the original driveway when the new driveway was completed. Current code requirements permit only one driveway. The current property owners use both driveways and would like to link the two driveways together and create a circular driveway to afford a safe entrance onto Prospect Manor. There is a tree and concrete blocks in a portion of the area that the petitioner would like to pave. The drive would be designed in a way that preserves the tree. Ms. Connolly explained that, in order to approve the request, standards for a Conditional Use must be met. l-he standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance relate to the impact of the request on public health, safety, and general welfare; if the request will adversely impact other properties and so forth. Staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, visited the site, and found that the subject property is a 12,000 square foot parcel developed with a single family home with 2 driveways along Prospect Manor, which is classified as a local street. To clarify, a local street is defined as a street "intended to serve only vehicle trips generated by land use abutting the street and the function of this type of street is local access within a neighborhood". Data supplied by the Record's Division of the Village's Police Department indicates that, within the last six months, there were 3 driving complaints (erratic driving, speeding), 8 parking complaints (blocked driveways, vehicles blocking the street, etc.), and 2 accidents without injuries. In addition, the Police Department set-up Traffic Enforcement Detail t~ee times this year. While Traffic Enforcement Detail is not unusual for this particular area because of its proximity to major arterial roads, 3 times in 6 months is not typical for a local street. The Engineering Division confirmed that the Village does not plan to install curbs, gutters, and sidewalks in this neighborhood and, while they don't object to the requested circular drive, they note that high traffic volumes occur during peak traffic hours on certain days. oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 12-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly evaluated the request with respect to the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said the proposed circular driveway would not have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. In this case, the petitioner is seeking a circular drive to provide a safe entry onto Prospect Manor, a heavily traveled local street. Village records indicate that there are traffic issues in the neighborhood. The circular driveway would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be affected by the proposed Conditional Use, nor would it have any significant effect on the public welfare. Ms. Connolly said that, based on these findings, staff recommends that the ZBA make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 600 W. Kensington Road, Case No. ZBA-12-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly if public notice had been given and Ms. Connolly said yes. Steve Sokolik was sworn in and testified he wanted to attach his two separate driveways into a circular driveway so could pull forward into Prospect Manor instead of backing into it. He said the road continually gets busier and the cars are going faster. He said his elderly neighbors pull into his driveway to back into theirs. Mr. Sokolik said the neighborhood residents had tried to get the street closed years ago due to cars on Kensington taking a short cut through their street but the Village could not close it because emergency vehicles needed to access the street. At 8:16, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members Hal Ettinger said that allowing this circular driveway would be a short-term-fix, rather than addressing the real issues. Ms. Juracek pointed out that the whole issue was much larger and the Village was grappling with ways to handle the problem, but meanwhile, the petitioner had two existing driveways and was doing the best he could by connecting them into a circular drive. Mr. Floros said this request was a confined, localized attempt to remedy an existing situation. At 8:23, Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for Case No. ZBA-12-01, a request to allow construction of a circular driveway at 600 W. Kensington Road. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Ettinger, and Juracek NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 3-0. At 10:10 p.m., after hearing four more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-13-2001 Hearing Date: June 28, 2001 PETITIONER: Robert Kxon 17 N. Audrey Lane PUBLICATION DATE: June 13, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Conditional Use to allow construction of an unenclosed porch MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotton Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Robert Krun Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. The minutes of the May 24, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0. At 8:23 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-13-01, a request for a Conditional Use to allow construction of an unenclosed porch. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case by reporting that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The home is currently set back approximately 31-feet from the front lot line. She said that the applicant proposes to construct an unenclosed porch along the front of the house. This requires Conditional Use approval because the porch will encroach into the required front yard. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioners are adding a second story addition and, as noted in their application, the porch would create a unified look to the residence. The proposed porch will be made of wood, but have a cement base. It would be attached to the front of the house and be set back 25.45-feet from the front property line. The front elevation of the home will be modified (adding a new bay window, relocating the door, and using a stone cast material instead of the brick). Ms. Connolly said the petitioner states in his application that the proposed porch will complement the second story addition and enhance the home. Ms. Connolly reminded members that, in order to approve the unenclosed porch, the requested Conditional Use must meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance, which relate to the request not having a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; how the request will impact the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity. She reported that staff had reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey, site plan and elevations & visited the site. She described the subject parcel as a 10,004.82 square foot parcel developed with a one- story single family home. Ms. Cormolly reported that the proposed second story addition meets all other zoning · requirements, but the porch encroaches into the front yard and requires Conditional Use approval. She said the unenclosed porch meets the standards for a Conditional Use and would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. She said the porch would not change the residential character of the neighborhood, nor would it have any significant effect on the public welfare. The proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Ms. Connolly said that, based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed porch to encroach five-feet into the required oning Board of Appeals ZBA- l 3 -2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 front setback for the residence at 17 N. Audrey Lane, Case No. ZBA-13-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly if public notice had been given and Ms. Connolly said yes. She asked if the petitioner wished to speak. Richard Kron was sworn in and said they want a front porch and need an addition to the house as they are expecting their third child. They decided to add a porch at the same time as the second story addition. Richard Rogers asked if petitioner understood he could never enclose the porch. Mr. Kron said yes, he understood that. Leo Floros asked how long they had lived in that house and Mr. Kron answered 15 years. At 8:27, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. As there was no further discussion, Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for Case No. ZBA-13-01, a request to allow construction of an unenclosed porch addition within 25' of the front property line at 17 N. Audrey Lane. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Ettinger, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. At 10:10 p.m., after hearing three more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-14-2001 Hearing Date: June 28, 2001 PETITIONER: Munica & Donald Oblinger 305 N. Fairview Avenue PUBLICATION DATE: June 13, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Conditional Use to allow construction of an unenclosed porch MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotton Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Monica & Donald Oblinger Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. The minutes of the May 24, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0. At 8:29 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-14-01, a request for a Conditional Use to allow construction of an unenclosed porch. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She reported that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street and is currently set back 33-feet from the front lot line. The applicants propose to construct an unenclosed porch along the front of the house. Ms. Connolly stated that the petitioners are remodeling their house and adding a second story addition. The porch would nm the length of the front of the house and encroach approximately three-feet into the required 30-foot setback. She said the petitioners feel that the proposed porch will bring a benefit to the neighborhood because it would unify the front fagade of the house and make the addition blend in and balance the look of the house. Ms. Connolly said that, in order to approve an unenclosed porch in the front setback, the request must meet the standards for a conditional use which relate to the request not having a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; and how the request will impact the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity. She reported that Staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey, site plan, elevations, and visited the site and found that the subject parcel is a 7,200 square foot parcel with a one-story single family home and a detached garage. The encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the RA district and the house, including the addition, meets all other zoning requirements. Ms. Connolly said the porch meets the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance as it would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets; it would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The single-family residential character &the neighborhood would not be affected by the proposed Conditional Use. Based on these findings, Ms. Connolly relayed Staff's recommendation that the ZBA recommend to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front setback for the residence at 305 N. Fairview Avenue, Case No. ZBA-14-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. ConnoIly if public notice had been given and Ms. Cormolly said yes. Ms. Juracek asked if the petitioner wanted to speak. oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 14-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Monica & Donald Oblinger were sworn in and said they were very excited about their addition. They have lived here sixteen years and love their neighborhood and do not want to leave it for a larger home. Hal Ettinger asked if the second floor addition would encroach or only the porch. He was answered that only the porch would encroach. Richard Rogers asked if they understood the porch could never be enclosed and was answered affirmatively. At 8:33, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. As there was no further discussion, Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a request for a Conditional Use for Case No. ZBA-14-01, to allow construction of an unenclosed porch addition that would encroach into the required front setback for the residence at 305 N. Fairview Ave. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Ettinger, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. At 10:10 p.m., after hearing two more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-15-2001 Hearing Date: June 28, 2001 PETITIONER: Thomas & Lisa George 418 S. NaWaTa Ave. PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Variation to extend an unenclosed porch MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Thomas & Lisa George Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. The minutes of the May 24, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0. At 8~34 p.m., Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-15-01, a request for a Variation to allow construction of an unenclosed porch. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. She reported that the subject property is located on a comer lot on a single-family residential street and the home is currently set back 20.10 feet from Go Wanda Ave., but there is a 9'x4' unenclosed porch/extended entryway that encroaches into the 20-foot side yard. The applicant proposes to construct an unenclosed covered porch along GoWanda, which is an exterior side yard, although it is used as a "front". Ms. Cormolly clarified that, according to the Zoning Ordinance, the front of the lot is along NaWaTa Avenue. In order to construct this porch, the petitioners are seeking a variation to permit a 13.10-foot exterior yard because the propoged porch will encroach 7' into the required yard. She said the petitioners state in their application that the porch would be used as a gathering place and not alter the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed unenclosed porch is different from other porches that received variations to be located in the exterior side yard because this porch extends farther into the side yard than the 15' setback previously approved by the Zoning Board and the proposed porch would be the only modification to the house at this time. She said staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey, site plan, elevations, and visited the site and found that the subject parcel is a 7,257 square foot parcel that is relatively level, out of any flood zone and rectangular. The parcel is developed with a single family home and an attached garage. Ms. Connolly said that, in order to approve the requested variation, the request has to meet the standards for a Variation as defined in the Zoning Ordinance. She said the reasons for the proposed variation cited in the petitioner's application address aesthetics and how the porch would not have a negative impact on the neighborhood. The proposed porch could enhance the character of the existing single-family residential area and would not have a negative effect on the public welfare. Ms. Connolly did point out however, that no particular condition of the lot justifies the proposed encroachment. Therefore, there is not sufficient justification for a Variation by the Zoning Ordinance standards, and based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA make a recommendation to the Village Board to deny the proposed Variation to permit an unenclosed porch to encroach 7' into the required 20' exterior side yard setback for the residence at 418 S. NaWaTa Avenue, Case No. ZBA-15-01. The Village Board's decision is final for this ease. oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 15-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly also informed the Board members that, in 1991, the petitioner received a variation for 16.5-foot exterior side yard rather than the 20-feet required by the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner had recently purchased this lot and was building a new home. The Zoning Board granted the setback variation in addition to height (26'4" when 24' max), and FAR (.367 FAR when .35 max) variations citing topography (this property has a lower grade) and narrowness of the lot as reasons for approving the variations. The Zoning Ordinance has since changed and allows 28' tall buildings, .5 FAR, and the property was rezoned in 1993 from R1 to RA. The subject property is larger than the minimum lot size required by the Zoning Ordinance and exceeds the minimum width required (code requires 50-feet and the subject property measures 58' at the front setback). Therefore, the reasons for granting the previous variations are no longer applicable to the subject property. Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly if public notice had been given and Ms. Connolly said yes. Ms. Juracek called upon the petitioners to address the Board. Tom & Lisa George were sworn in and said they were doing extensive improvements to their home which would include a new roof and shutters and repainting. They said they have a hardship issue as they have five children ages 6 to 14 and a small backyard. The children spend most of their playtime in the driveway, which leads to a high-traffic street. Mr. & Mrs. George said the children would utilize the porch for much of the day, rather than the driveway. They also said they want the porch as a sunshade for their kitchen, which is too bright and very warm due to its southern exposure. Mr. George said the porch would be constructed of brick, redwood and cedar. Mrs. George pointed out that the porch would be built over existing construction and only the stairs would encroach into the setback. Mr. George identified several homes in the area with non-conforming setbacks. Ms. Juracek said she thought the planned improvements would be in character with the existing neighborhood. She also pointed out that a Conditional Use would limit the porch to remaining unenclosed in the future, whereas a Variation, which was requested, does not set that limitation. Ms. Connolly said that limitation could be included as a condition to the Variation. At 9:00, Chairperson Juracek closed the public hearing and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. As them was no further discussion, Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a request for a Variation for Case No. ZBA-15-01, to allow construction of an unenclosed porch addition that would encroach into the exterior side yard setback for the residence at 418 S. NaWaTa Ave, with the condition that the porch always remain unenclosed and no other portion of the building extend into the sideyard setback. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Ettinger, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. At 10:10 p.m., after hearing another case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner MINUTES OF Tlq~, REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-16-2001 Hearing Date: June 28, 2001 PETITIONER: Jeffery & Karen Chamberlin 1006 W. Isabella Street PUBLICATION DATE: June 13, 2001 Journal/Topics REQUEST: Variation for lot coverage and Conditional Uses to allow construction of an unenclosed porch and a circular driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: Hal Ettinger Leo Floros Richard Rogers Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Mike Blue, AICP, Community Development Deputy Director INTERESTED PARTIES: Jeffery & Karen Chamberlin Bogdan & Deborah Skoskiewicz Marge Dybing Kevin Kazimer Juha & Anna Pentikainen Chairpers°n Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:47 p.m. The minutes of the May 24, 2001 meeting were approved 4-0. At 9:03 p.m., after hearing five cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. ZBA-16-01, a request for a Variation for lot coverage and Conditional Uses to allow construction of an unenclosed porch and a circular driveway. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the staff memorandum for the case. Ms. Connolly stated that the subject property is an existing home located in a single-family residential neighborhood on an interior lot on a local street. The 17,765 square foot lot is relatively square in shape and meets the minimum lot size and width for the RX Zoning District. She reported that the petitioners propose to raze the existing structure and build a one-story ranch-style home with a 3-car, side-loaded garage, In addition, the petitioners propose to install a circular drive, separate from the 3-car garage and an unenclosed, covered porch in a portion of the front setback. Ms. Connolly said the Chamberlins are seeking relief from Zoning Ordinance requirements for the maximum amount of lot coverage permitted, in addition to Conditional Use approval for the circular drive and the 4.5'x14' porch. The petitioners have been working to revise their plans to be closer to code requirements than their original submittal, but still require relief from the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Cormolly said, in order to conduct its analysis of the proposed circular drive and porch, staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. Although the Conditional Use requests are part of the same proposed project, they are evaluated separately. In order to approve the Conditional Use requests, the proposal must meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance, which Ms. Connolly reiterated to the Zoning Board. She stated that, per Sec. 14.2215.A of the Zoning Ordinance, Conditional Use approval is required for circular driveways. The circular drive would be constructed in the front of the proposed new home and would not be connected to the driveway that leads to the garage. In their application, the petitioners state that the circular drive is necessary because the street is not as wide as other streets in the Village that have curbs and gutters and that street parking in front of their home is limited and unsafe. By having people park on the circular drive and not in the street, the petitioners state that the cimular drive creates a safer environment for guests and people driving on Isabella. Ms. Connolly explained that the subject property is located in an area of Mount Prospect with unimproved rights-of-way, with streets that typically measure 22-23' in width. By constructing a circular drive, the petitioners are creating three curb cuts onto Isabella in Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA- 16-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 addition to exceeding lot coverage, which requires a Variation. As shown on the petitioners' revised application, the circular drive measures 762.4 square feet; the overall lot coverage for the site will exceed lot coverage by 718.3 square feet. By eliminating the circular drive, the petitioner would not need a variation for lot coverage and the site would meet Zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly reported that staff evaluated data from the Records Division of the Police Department and found that there were two parking complaints in the last six months. The data does not support the safety claims as justification for the circular drive. Ms. Connolly also reported that the applicants propose to construct a porch that extends 4.5-feet into the front setback. As with other porches, the encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the RX district. The porch would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The proposed Conditional Use would be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The single-family residential character of the neighborhood would not be affected by the proposed Conditional Use, nor would it have any significant effect on the public welfare. Ms. Connolly said the petitioners could build a two-story house that covers less of the lot and meets Zoning requirements but feel that that in doing so the character of the neighborhood would be adversely impacted. As part of the new home, the petitioners propose to construct a side-loading garage and a circular drive, separate from the driveway that leads to the garage. The proposed 3-car garage and driveway width meets Zoning requirements, but a variation for lot coverage is required. As shown on the petitioners' calculations, the circular drive measures 762.4 square feet, bringing the site to 39% lot coverage while 35% is the maximum allowed in the RX Zoning District. Ms. Connolly reviewed the findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. She pointed out that the size of the subject parcel exceeds the 17,500 square foot minimum lot size required for the RX district. It is relatively level, out of any flood zone and square in shape. She said the request does not meet the variation standards as set out in the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the lot coverage requirements could be met by eliminating the circular drive. That circular drive, which creates the need for the variation, does not meet the standards for a Conditional Use. In addition, the requested lot coverage variation does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. The unenclosed porch, the second Conditional Use request, meets the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance for a Conditional Use. Ms. Cormolly relayed staff's recommendation that the ZBA deny the variation for 39% lot coverage (ZBA final) and make a recommendation to the Village Board to deny the circular drive and approve the unenclosed porch to encroach 4.5-feet into the front setback for the residence at 1006 W. Isabella Street, Case No. ZBA-16-01. The Village Board's decision is final for the Conditional Use requests. Jeffery and Karen Chamberlin, 1006 Isabella, and Kevin Kazimer, Architect, of 250 Victory Lane in Gumee, were sworn in. Mr. Chamberlin said that he has been a lifelong resident of Mount Prospect and listed the various addresses he had lived in and the schools he had attended. He said he had purchased the home he lives in on a foreclosure and planned to update and add to it to accommodate his future family. Mrs. Chamberlin moved here from Indianapolis when they wed and they now have a 2-1/2 year old daughter. He said that they want to stay in their neighborhood because it is just two blocks from the school their daughter will attend. They explored many avenues to redesign their home to a larger, more modem style but were unable to arrive at an affordable design. They have been advised it would be more feasible to raze the home and build anew. He explained that they did not want to build a two-story home, which would tower over their neighbors' homes, because Mrs. Chamberlin's mother often visits and is handicapped. Mr. Chambeflin also stated one of the reasons they wanted a circular drive was so Mrs. Chamberlin's mother could more easily access the front door. He said they also wanted a circular drive as a means of preserving several large old trees and to provide guest parking, which is not readily available at the curb because there is a fire hydrant in front of the house. In addition, parking in the driveway that leads to the garage would not be convenient for guests. Mr. Chamberlin also presented graphs he had designed which detailed his sentiment that the R-X zoning was more restrictive with respect to lot coverage than the other residential zonings. oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 16-2001 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Ms. Juracek asked if members of the audience wished to speak. Mr. Bogdan Skoskiewicz, 300 N. MacArthur Drive, was sworn in. He voiced his objections to the Chamberlins' original submittal. He was most concerned that Mr. Chamberlin would be engaged in a home occupation. Ms. Juracek explained that this hearing was not the forum to discuss home occupations; just the porch, the circular drive, and the lot coverage variation. She advised Mr. Bogdan how to pursue his concerns about the alleged home occupation. At 9:56, Chairperson Juracek closed the public heating and asked for discussion from the Zoning Board members. As there was no further discussion, Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for Variation for lot coverage at 39% for the residence at 1006 W. Isabella Street, for Case No~ ZBA-16-0. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: NAYS: Floros, Ettinger, Rogers, and Juracek Motion was denied 4-0. Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the request for a Conditional Use to allow the construction of a circular driveway. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: NAYS: Floros, Ettingcr, Rogers, and Juracek Motion was denied 4-0. Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve the request for a Conditional Use to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch to encroach 4.5' into the front setback of the property at 1006 Isabella, Case No. ZBA-16-01, with the condition that the porch would always remain unenclosed. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Ettinger, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 4-0. At 10:10 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Leo. Floros. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT NO. 1 JOINT REVIEW BOARD MINUTES OF MEETING JULY 19, 2001 Mount Prospect Village Hall I. Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth called the Joint Review Board (JRB) meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Ellsworth welcomed all of the guests and stated the purpose of the meeting was to provide an update as to the status of the Village's tax increment financing district, as is now required by Statute. Mr. Ellsworth further stated that the requirements of the TIF Act do not require a quorum of the nine Joint Review Board members in order to convene the meeting. II. The following individuals were present at the meeting: Ms. Laura Luteri, Mount Prospect Public Library; Mr. Thomas Munz, School District 57; Mayor Skip Farley, VilIage of Mount Prospect. Village staff in attendance included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth and Community Development Director William Cooney. Interested residents in attendance were Bart and Laura Bartell. III. Mayor Farley made a motion to appoint Mr. Thomas Munz as Chairman of the Joint Review Board meeting; seconded by Ms. Luteri. The motion carried unanimously. IV. Community Development Director Cooney reviewed the status of the redevelopment efforts within the TIF. He discussed the status of the Residences at Towne Centere, the three-building condominium complex under construction by Norwood Builders. He also described the status of the Lofts and Shops development at the comer of Emerson and Northwest Highway. Mr. Cooney then reviewed a drawing showing the improvements to be made at the train station. He then briefly described the status of the possible relocation of the Village Hall to the current location of the Human Services offices and senior center. Ms. Luted inquired about the status of the acquisition of the Doctor's building. Mr. Cooney stated that the Village filed for eminent domain, and the attorneys am currently negotiating a selling price. Mr. Cooney said the Village does not expect a quick conclusion to the filing. Mr. Munz asked about the status of the property across from the Library on Emerson. Mr. Cooney reported that the Village would like to acquire that property from Bank One by trading parking spaces in the proposed multi-level parking structure. That project is currently on hold. Joint Review Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2001 Page Two V. Mr. Ellsworth reviewed with the JRB the Annual TIF Report that was filed with the State Comptroller in June. A copy of that report was mailed to every taxing jurisdiction affected by the TIF. Mr. Ellsworth summarized the financial results of the TIF for 2000. He reported that there were revenues of $2,033,313. Incremental property taxes totaled $801,036. Proceeds from the sale of land came to $1,135,360. Investment earnings totaled $96,917. Mr. Ellsworth reported the following expenditures for 2000: Debt Service $1,669,190 Site Clean-up 783,003 Property Acquisition 400,240 Demolition 79,325 Relocation Expenses 346,248 Streetscape Improvements 107,985 Developers Incentive 50,000 Miscellaneous Admin. Fees 51.018 Total $3.487.019 Mr. Ellsworth reported that expenditures exceeded revenues by $1,453,706, decreasing fund balance to $1,021,338. Mr. Ellsworth pointed out that there were no amendments to the Redevelopment Plan in 2000. He reported to the JRB that the Village Board did pass an ordinance during the past year clarifying that the Village would like to receive the property tax increment from the last year of the TIF. Mr. Ellsworth explained that the previous TIF legislation was not very clear as to the how the County should handle the levy in the last year of the TIF. VI. Mr. Ellsworth reviewed the most recent financial pro-forma with the JRB. Mr. Ellsworth pointed out that incremental revenues are expected to drop slightly in 2001 due to the acquisition of properties by the Village and the demolition of various structures over the past two years. Mr. Ellsworth then pointed out in the pro-forma how incremental revenues are projected to increase in 2002 to $930,236 and eventually be as high as $1,911,676 in 2008. Mr. Ellsworth pointed out to the JRB that it appears the TIF will experience deficit fund balances in the years 2002 through 2005. The Village will decide whether to advance the TIF monies from the General Fund or issue additional debt. The deficit is projected to disappear by 2006 and grow to a positive fund balance of $737,394 by the end of 2008. oint Review Board Meeting Minutes July 19, 2001 Page Three Mr. Munz inquired about how often the equalized assessed information changes, noting that the figures did not change from last year's report. Mr. Ellsworth responded that the numbers are updated every time the most recent EAV infromation is released by the County. It just so happened that the 1999 levy year EAV information was available at the time of the JRB meeting last year, and the 2000 levy EAV inform has not yet been released. VII. Chairman Munz asked if there were any additional questions fi.om the members, or any other matters to come before the TRB. Hearing none, Chairman Munz asked if the audience had any questions or comments. Bart and Laura Bartell, who reside on South Emerson, stated that they came to the meeting to receive information as to the status of the TIF. They also wanted to express concern that the redevelopment efforts are likely to result in additional traffic problems on their street. Chairman Munz informed the Bartell's that the Joint Review Board deals primarily with the financial aspects of the TIF. The Bartell's proceeded to express the view that there should be some sort of buffer between the redevelopment and the residences around the TIF. VIII. Hearing no other business, Chairman Munz adjourned the meeting at 4:18 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Douglas R. Ellsworth, CPA Director of Finance JOINT REVIEW BOARD MEETING VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TAX INCREMENT FINANCING DISTRICT JULY 19, 2001 ATTENDANCE ROSTER Name Jurisdiction / / I ~