HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 04/13/2004
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location:
Mt. Prospect Community Center
1000 West Central Road
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesda~ApriI13,2004
7:00 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 MARCH 23, 2004
III.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV.
PZ-41-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE
At the April 6 Village Board meeting, staff began to review the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendations regarding a variety of Village initiated text amendments
(PZ-41-03). Following the review of a number of items, the Village Board continued the
discussion to the April 13 Committee of the Whole meeting. The remaining issues to be
reviewed with the Village Board involve the following:
Pavement Separation
Conversion of Attached Garages into Living Space
No Trespassing Signs
Compost Pile Locations.
Gravel Driveways
Location of Port-A-Pots
Residential Construction Site Fencing
Staff will provide a detailed review of these remaining issues during the April 13 Committee
of the Whole meeting.
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE
MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000,
EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064.
V.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT LEAD PAINT POLICY
As a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement community, the Village is
required to comply with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's)
recently adopted lead-based paint regulations. These regulations are designed to identify
and address lead-based paint hazards on properties that obtain funding through the CDBG
program. Of the programs sponsored through the Village's CDBG funding, the Single-
Family Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Home Weatherization Grant Program, the
Emergency Repair Program and the First-Time Homebuyer's Assistance Program are those
most directly impacted by the lead-based paint regulations.
In situations where a program participant's home tests positive for lead-based paint hazards,
the total cost of lead hazard reduction and lead-safe work practices can be significant
(potentially several thousand dollars). To allow an applicant to utilize HUD-financed
programs to the fullest extent, staff recommends the Village grant the participant CDBG
funds to cover all of the costs associated with addressing the lead-based paint hazard
(including costs associated with inspections, assessments, hazard reduction work and
clearance tests). By not granting the funds necessary to correct lead-based paint hazards,
the associated costs could utilize all of the funds available to an applicant through a specific
grant or loan program (leaving little or no money to use towards other necessary
improvements ).
Staff will be in attendance to facilitate discussion and answer any questions the Board may
have regarding this policy.
VI.
BRANDING POLICY
In August of 2003, staff presented the Village Board with ideas regarding a "branding" policy.
Based on that discussion, Logo Design Guidelines have been developed. The use of the
keystone logo stemmed from its creation as part of the corridor design guidelines
undertaken several years ago by the Community Development Department. Since many
variations of the logo were being used by the different departments, there was a need to
establish guidelines for its use and to make it universal for all departments. It is our intent
that people will come to identify the keystone logo with the Village of Mount Prospect.
Among other things, the policy covers the following areas:
Explanation of the logo - the symbolism, meaning and color usage
Use on uniforms/clothing
Varying color options (offering flexibility for departments)
The preferred version of the logo is the MP in the keystone with the tree in green and brown.
It is our intent that the brown and green logo with the tree will be used (when possible) on
printed materials such as letterhead and business cards, in the newsletter and on the web
site. In other cases, it will work better to use a one color or even black and white version of
just the MP in the keystone without the tree. With regard to the various departments, there
will be an effort to incorporate departmental logos wherever possible to maintain each
department's identity.
The use of the Village seal will still be appropriate under certain formal circumstances as
designated by the Mayor and Board of Trustees.
Staff will be present to facilitate discussion and answer any questions the Board may have.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
CLOSED SESSION
Personnel:
5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). "The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline,
performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, including hearing
testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity."
I.
II.
III.
IV.
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
MARCH 23, 2004
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District
Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the
meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and
Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting were Trustees Timothy Corcoran and Paul
Hoefert. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant
Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff
Wulbecker and Project Engineer Matt Lawrie.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes from February 24, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and
Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved.
Approval of Minutes from March 9, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded
by Trustee Zadel. Minutes were approved with Trustee Lohrstorfer abstaining.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
2004 ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided .an overview of the upcoming construction
projects throughout the community for this construction season.
.
Street Resurfacinq Proqram
The Street Resurfacing Program is slated to improve 8.8 miles of streets for this coming
season. Mr. Wulbecker stated that the accelerated Street Resurfacing and
Reconstruction Program has paid extensive dividends by moving many more streets into
the good and very good rated categories. He provided a chart showing the shift from
poorly rated streets to good and very good rated streets from the start of the program to
the current date whereby the amount of streets that are rated poor is less than 10% at
this point.
.
Streetscape Phase IV - Civic Block
The streetscape work will focus on the Civic Block where the Library and Village Hall are
under construction in addition to the east side of Route 83 in front of the new
condominium buildings.
.
SeeGwun Avenue Bridqe Reconstruction
This reconstruction project is slated to be completed prior to the conclusion of the new
Club House at the Golf Course so there will not be any conflicts with traffic and parking.
.
Emerson Street Water Main Improvements
These improvements will be made during the construction phase o~ the Civic Block so
that when all the construction is completed on the block, the street will be resurfaced in
the near future, completing all work necessary for the civic block.
.
Sidewalk Improvement ProGram
This program will be throughout the community and the 50/S0 Share Program has slated
the price per square at $42.S0.
.
Prospect Meadows Water Main Replacement - Phase 1"
This will be the first portion of the multi-year program for the replacement of the water
mains from the rear of the properties to the right-of-way for better maintenance.
.
Alqonquin/BusselDempster Street Liqht Improvement ProGram
This Program was started last year and is a cooperative effort with Arlington Heights
using Federal Funds and is to be completed this construction season.
.
Combined Sewer Evaluation Study
This is the second year of the study with recommendations to follow at the completion of
the study area for consideration.
.
Pavement Manaqement ProGram
Village Engineer Wulbecker also provided an overview of the Pavement Management
Program that the Public Works Department has been experimenting with in the past. He
stated the Village has 132 miles of streets including 28 lane miles of State Highways to
maintain. He stated 2004 marks the eighth year of the 10-year accelerated road
program and the 1996 study was updated in 2003. The average age of Village-owned
streets in the community is nine years. These are only Village-owned streets, however.
He stated there are currently only 6.8 miles rated as poor compared to 51 miles that
were rated as poor in 1996. Therefore, the backlog has shrunk substantially due to the
accelerated program. He also stated that the staff has experimented with alternative
paving techniques. Among these techniques are the following:
1. Saw and Seal Joints. This technique has been used when there is a need to
control transverse cracking and has shown marginal results and has not fully
addressed the problem that has been identified. Therefore, staff is
recommending to discontinue.
2. Seal Coating. He stated that a seal coat area was applied and has been
monitored since its application. It has been found that the seal coat has worn
off and the condition of the street is comparable to a street that was not seal
coated, therefore, there were no substantial improvements to the condition or
the life expectancy of the street. He stated that the improved crack sealing
techniques have shown substantially better results than the seal coating
experiment, therefore, the seal coating will be discontinued and emphasis
placed on crack filling.
v.
3. Microsurfacing. This is where'a thin surface is ground off and reapplied for a
smoother surface. He stated that experience has shown that such effort does
not necessarily add to the life of the str¡;et and does require additional visits
to maintain the surface that was removed and replaced. Therefore, staff is
not recommending the continuation of this process.
4. Concrete overlay of asphalt. This is a technique that is typically used
in areas where there is significant rutting of streets where high traffic
volumes are present. He stated this is a costly solution and based on
the number of actual Village streets with this condition; there has been
limited use due to the fact that such rutting does not typically occur
with Village-owned streets.
5. SuperPave Method. This has been used since 2002 and allows for
flexibility in pavement design with no additional cost and results have
been favorable. SuperPave consists of improved asphalt mixtures
which are holding up better than past mixtures and since results have
been favorable, the Department will continue utilizing this method.
.
Levee 37 Update
He stated there will be no construction for this Levee this year, however, the design
plans are 90% complete. Currently, the discussion is centering on compensatory
storage further upstream. He stated the Study is due for completion in 2004, however,
the earliest start date is now 2006.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
This Levee discussion has been underway since 1995 and was originally proposed as a
stand-alone project without the need for compensatory storage. However, there has
been a change in thinking that requires such storage so the focus has now shifted to
design and build such storage. There was also a discussion regarding the latest
sidewalk ramp requirements at streets and the need to alter future designs to include a
raised pattern with a red-colored pavement.
This information was provided for the Board as background information and required no
action this evening.
FEDERAL WHISTLE BLOWING RULE
Project Engineer Matt Lawrie provided an overview of the latest Federal ruling. He
stated the expected effective date is December 18, 2004 that will impact six crossings
within the community. That date is the date that the Quite Zones are supposed to be
deleted so that whistle blowing does occur. However, if there was a previously created
Quiet Zone, which Mount Prospect has done, then there is a need to use the Quiet Zone
calculator and determine the eligibility of future whistle blowing deferments based on the
risk level at the crossing. This will impact the Quite Zone for the long term because
there is another milestone date in which improvements are required at the various
crossings to reduce the risk level. It is also questionable whether the alternatives that
are suggested will actually reduce the risk level after the extensive expense of
installation.
He stated one of the options suggested is four quadrant gates which are in conflict with
. the lOOT design of avoiding possibly trapping cars in such gates at crossings. There
was also a suggestion about utilizing the automated warning system to direct noise up
and down the streets that are crossing the tracks, however, in the downtown area of
Mount Prospect, such a system is impractical. He also pointed out that there is no
funding available from neither the Federal government nor the state for these possible
improvements.
He would encourage all comments to be sent in by the deadline of April 18, 2004. He
stated that the improvements the Village undertook at Prospect and Emerson and
Prospect and 83 are not recognized by these regulations as reducing risk. He also
stated that if there are improvements made to crossings by the municipality, the
municipality assumes liability exposure for such improvements in addition to future
maintenance.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items.
A comment was made that the Northwest Municipal Conference and the Metropolitan
Mayors are preparing responses for comments to be considered regarding these
regulations. It was also pointed about the significant concern about shifting the cost to
local governments.
This information was provided to the Board as background regarding Whistle Blowing
Regulations and requires no action at this time.
VI.
VILLAGE MANGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Janonis stated there will be no meeting on March 30 since it is a fifth
Tuesday and the April Coffee with Council is on April 3 due to the Easter weekend
conflict on April 10.
VII.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
There was no need to go into Closed Session.
VIII.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
~
Respectfully submitted, . / ¡J
~&</~) s:-6u
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM:
W1LLIAM 1. COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE:
APRIL 8, 2004
SUBJECT:
PZ-4l-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE
As you are aware, during the April 6th Village Board meeting Staff began to review the Planning & Zoning
Commission's recommendations regarding a variety of Village initiated text amendments (PZ-4l-03). Following
the review of a number of items, the Village Board continued the discussion to the April 13th Committee of the
Whole meeting. The remaining issues to be reviewed with the Village Board involve the following:
./ Pavement Separation
./ Conversion of Attached Garages into
Living Space
./ No Trespassing Signs
./ Compost Pile Locations
./ Gravel Driveways
./ Location of Port- A-Pots
./ Residential Construction Site Fencing
All of the information regarding the above-mentioned items was included in the packet for the April 6th meeting.
Staff will provide a detailed review of these remaining issues during the April 13th Committee of the Whole
meeting.
In addition to the items mentioned above, Staff has also obtained the following information regarding specific
issues raised during the April 6th meeting:
. Day Care Regulations: In response to the Board's concerns regarding the language included within the
definitions of "Limited Daycare" and "Daycare Center", staff has contacted a representative of the Day
Care Action Council of Illinois. Staff is currently reviewing this issue and will provide additional
information prior to the April 20th Village Board meeting.
. Administrative Subdivisions: During the Village Board's review of the proposed text amendment
regarding Administrative Subdivisions, questions were raised regarding the Village's ability to deny a
request for a subdivision (or consolidation) that complies with all of the Village's zoning and
development standards. The Village Attorney has confirmed that the Village is obligated to approve a
subdivision (or consolidation) that complies with all applicable regulations. The Village Board, however,
has much greater discretion when reviewing subdivision (or consolidation) requests that require rezoning
or other relief from the applicable zoning and development regulations. These subdivisions would require
review and approval by the Village Board.
Staff will be present at the April 13th Board meeting to review the remaining text amendments in detail and
~~7~R
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
'Bt> ~~
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER 4- r c" jo"f
WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR ~.
MARCH 31, 2004 . ~~)
PZ-41-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
BACKGROUND
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve case PZ-41-03, a request for
various Text Amendments to the Village Code, as described in detail within this report. The Planning & Zoning
Commission last heard the request at their February 26,2004 meeting. The proposed Text Amendments involve
the following:
../ Outdoor Storage on Residential Properties
../ Home Occupations
../ Daycare Facilities
../ Maintenance of Landscaping
../ Unenclosed Front Porches
../ Service Walk & Sidewalk Width
../ Administrative Subdivisions
../ Flags & Flagpoles
../ Storage of Commercial Trailers in
Residential Zoning Districts
../ Arbors and Trellises
../ Attached Garages
../ Driveway Widths
../ Permitted Fence Locations
../ Double Fences
../ FAR and Related Definitions
../ Pavement Separation
../ Conversion of Attached Garages into
Living Space
../ No Trespassing Signs
../ Compost Pile Locations
../ Gravel Driveways
../ Location of Port- A-Pots
../ Residential Construction Site Fencing
As you may recall, prior to review by the Planning & Zoning Commission, Staff forwarded the various items
identified above to the Village Board to obtain some initial feedback and direction prior to proceeding with the
formal amendment process. These items were reviewed by the Board during the September 9, 2003 and
December 9,2003 Committee of the Whole meetings (see attached copy of meeting minutes).
To assist in your review of the proposed amendments to the Village Code, this memo has been formatted to
include the following information for each of the issues identified above:
. A summary of each amendment to be considered;
. An outline of the Village's current regulations;
. Staffs initial recommendations;
. The Village Board's initial comments; and
. The final recommendations by the Village's Planning & Zoning Commission.
Staff will be present at the April 61h Board meeting to review each issue in detail and answer any questions.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 2 of 20
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
Issue: Outdoor Storae:e on Residential Properties - One of the issues that is often at the heart of property
maintenance complaints relates to outdoor storage. The accumulation of debris can often upset neighboring
property owners; however, items that are viewed as unacceptable can vary greatly from person to person. In an
effort to address this issue staff recommends that language be included in the Village Code that identifies what
specific items can be stored outside on residential properties.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
None
Section 14.311.c. Outdoor Storae:e on Residential Properties - Outdoor
storage on residential properties is prohibited except for the following: lawn
and garden equipment and materials, garbage cans, grills and portable
fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools, chiJdren's play equipment, and
other items similar to the above as determined by the Community
Development Director. For regulations regarding the storage of commercial
vehicles, or recreational vehicles and equipment please refer to Article XXII
of this Code.
Consensus ofthe Village Board was to endorse Staffs recommendation to define
permissible outdoor storage items on residential properties.
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff s recommendations
regarding Outdoor Storage on Residential Properties and recommended approval
by a vote of 6-0.
Issue: Home Occupations - The Village Code currently contains regulations with regards to Home Occupations.
These existing regulations are intended to minimize the potential impacts that a Home Occupation could have on
surrounding properties. A strict reading of the current regulations would indicate that employees, other than
family members residing at the home, are not allowed to report to the home to work in the home. What Staff is
starting to find is that some home occupations have employees reporting to the home and then being sent off to
work at another location, thus not officially working "in the home". Although staff believes that the current
regulations were intended to prohibit this type of activity, the actual wording is somewhat vague and has led to
some debate between Staff and residents. It should be noted that in trying to create regulations that will
successfully address the issues outlined above, Staff is also trying to craft language that could not be interpreted
as prohibiting carpooling activities. Based on these various issues the following amendments to the Village's
Home Occupation regulations are recommended.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
14.307: HOME OCCUPATIONS - Standard E: No person shall be employed
other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit, and
no employees other than persons residing on the premises shall report to work at
or near the premises. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that no
nonresident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and to minimize the
traffic generated by the home occupation.
14.307: HOME OCCUPATIONS - Standard E: No person shall be employed
other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit, and
no employees other than persons residing on the premises shall report to work at
or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or
to be dispatched to work at another location. The purpose of this standard is
to ensure that no nonresident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 3 of 20
to minimize the traffic generated by the home occupation. No routine
attendance of employees associated with any home occupation shall be
allowed at the premises of the home occupation. "Routine Attendance" shall
mean that the conduct of the home occupation requires non-domiciled
persons to visit the premises of the home occupation as part of the regular
conduct of the occupation, without regard to the number, frequency or
duration of such visits.
Board Comments:
The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommendation to include additional
language within Standard E of the Village's Home Occupation regulations.
P&Z Recommendation:
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff s recommendations
regarding Home Occupations and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0.
Issue: Day Care Facilities - In reviewing the Village Code's current regulations regarding day care facilities
there are some inconsistencies with the terms and definitions used. These inconsistencies have created some
issues in reviewing and enforcing the Village's current regulations. The Village Code currently allows "Limited
Daycare" facilities to operate within the Village's various residential zoning districts. These facilities are limited
to a maximum of 8 children per household (including the family's natural and adopted children as well as all other
persons under the age of 12). The Village Code also includes "Daycare Homes" as a conditional use in the
residential districts; however, the term "Daycare Home" is not defined within the code. Staffs interpretation
would be that "Daycare Homes" would refer to an in-home daycare facility that would provide service to more
than 8 children. In reviewing the State's current regulations with regards to in home daycare facilities, a single
employee can provide daycare services to a maximum of 8 children. A facility serving more than 8 children
would then be required to provide additional staff.
When considering larger in-home daycare facilities within the Village's residential districts, Staff believes that
daycare facilities serving more than 8 children could negatively impact a residential neighborhood's character due
to increased traffic and related activities. In addition, a facility with more than 8 children is required to provide
additional staff which could be in direct conflict with the Village's Home Occupation regulations that prohibit
employees (other than family members) to report to a home in conjunction with a home occupation. Due to these
circumstances Staff suggests the existing regulations be modified to allow in-home daycare facilities (Limited
Daycare), serving no more than 8 children, as a permitted use and eliminate the allowance for larger in-home
daycare facilities in residential districts.
Existing Regulations:
Section 14.2401 - Definitions
DA YCARE CENTER: A building where care, protection, and supervision are
provided on a regular schedule at least twice a week to at least eight (8)
preschool or elementary school age children or both, including children of the
adult provider, or persons with disabilities related to age who require supervision
for a period ofless than twenty-four (24) hours per day.
DA YCARE, LIMITED RESIDENTIAL: A daycare home is a family home
which receives a maximum of eight (8) children for less than twenty-four (24)
hours per day where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of
children is charged. The maximum of eight (8) children includes the family's
natural or adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12).
The term does not include facilities which receive only children from a single
household. Daycare homes should meet all applicable Village and State
requirements.
PZ-41-03: Variolls Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 4 of 20
Staff Recommendation:
Section 14.2401 - Definitions:
LIMITED DAY CARE DAYC\RE, LIMITED RESIDENTIAL: A Limited
Daycare facility is a daycarc residential home is a family home which that
receives a maximum of eight (8) children for less than twenty-four (24) hours per
day where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of children is
charged. The maximum of eight (8) children includes the family's natural or
adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12). The term
does not include facilities which receive only children from a single household.
Limited Daycare facilities shall Daycarc homes should meet a1l applicable
Village, County and State requirements.
In addition to the proposed definitions above, the inclusion of "Daycare Homes"
as Conditional Uses in the R-X, R-1, R-A, R-2 and R-3 Districts will be
eliminated (the term "Daycare Home" is not defined within the Code).
Board Comments:
The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding
amendments to the existing regulations for daycare facilities.
P&Z Recommendation:
P&Z Commission concurred with Staffs recommendation regarding Limited
Daycare facilities, however, they noted that the proposed language would
prohibit Daycare Centers in churches or other non-residential buildings if they
were located within a residential zoning district. To address this issue the P&Z
Commission recommended the following modification to the definition of
Daycare Center:
Section 14.2401 - Definitions
DA YCARE CENTER: A non-residential building where care, protection, and
supervision are provided on a regular schedule at least twice a week to at least
eight (8) preschool or elementary school age children or both, including children
of the adult provider, or persons with disabilities related to age who require
supervision for a period ofless than twenty-four (24) hours per day.
In addition to the proposed modification to the definition of Daycare Center, the
P&Z Commission recommended that the Conditional Use section of the R-X, R-
1, R-A, R-2 and R-3 Districts be amended as follows (these amendments wi11 be
consistent with the recommended amendments to the Code's definition section):
Sections 14.803.A, 14.903.A, 14.1O03.A, 14.1 103.A, 14.1203.A:
"Daycare Homes"
Sections 14.803.A, 14.903.A, l4.1003.A:
"Daycare Center"
The P&Z Commission recommended approval of the amendments regarding
Limited Daycare, Daycare Center and Daycare Homes by a vote of 6-0.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 5 of 20
Issue: Landscapine: - Maintenance vs. Replacement - Within the Zoning Code's landscaping regulations there
is specific language regarding the maintenance of plant materials. The existing language included in the Code is
somewhat general and does not specifically address the issue of replacement of either dead, dying or diseased
landscaping. Staff recommends that the code be amended to include specific language that would require the
replacement of any landscaping to be consistent with the originally approved plan, if one exists, or in similar kind
to the landscaping material being removed (this would not apply to single-family homes). The intent is to require
the ongoing maintenance of landscaping throughout the Village, while specifically prohibiting the removal of
landscaping materials under the guise of maintenance.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
Section 14.2304:D. Maintenance of Plant Materials - The owner of the premises
shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all
landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse disposal areas, walls, fences,
etc. as may be required by the provisions of this Article A. A means of irrigating
plant material shall be provided. Installation of an automatic underground
sprinkling system is recommended.
Section 14.2304:D. Maintenance of Plant Materials - The owner of the premises
shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all
landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse disposal areas, walls, fences,
etc. as may be required by the provisions of this article the Village. When any
existing landscaping materials are removed they must be replaced in similar
kind and quantity. A means of irrigating plant material shall be provided.
Installation of an automatic underground sprinkling system is recommended.
(Note: This amendment would not apply to single-family residential properties.)
The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staff's recommendation.
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations
regarding landscaping and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0.
Issue: Unenclosed Front Porches - As you may recall, the Village Code currently allows unenclosed front
porches to encroach up to five feet into a required front yard. This encroachment, however, requires review and
recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approval by the Board of Trustees. In reviewing the
recent history of conditional use applications for unenclosed front porches, Staff has found that each application
during the past two years has been approved (all with unanimous approval by both the Planning & Zoning
Commission as well as the Board of Trustees). In light of these statistics it has been recommended that the
Conditional Use approval process for front porches be revised to require P&Z review and approval only. This
revised approach will still allow for a formal review procedure, but will reduce the amount of time needed to
complete the process for the Applicant.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Unenclosed porches, encroaching no more than five feet into the required front
setbacks, are allowed as a Conditional Use in the R-X, R-I, R-A, R-2, R-3 and R-
4 Districts.
Create the following Code section that would grant the Planning & Zoning
Commission final administrative authority when reviewing Conditional Use
requests for unenclosed front porches:
Section 14.202.B.4. - To hear and decide as final administrative authority, all
Conditional Use petitions to allow the construction of an attached
unenclosed front porch encroaching up to five feet (5') into the required
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6,2004
Page 6 of 20
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
front setback, with respect to single-family residences with an approved
certificate of occupancy that was issued prior to May 18, 1999.
The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommendation to allow the Planning
& Zoning Commission final administrative authority for Conditional Use
requests for unenclosed front porches.
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff s recommendations
regarding the review process for Conditional Use petitions to allow attached
unenclosed front porches and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0.
Issue: Service Walk/Sidewalk Width Limitations - The Village Code contains existing limitations with regards
to the permitted width of service walks/sidewalks that may be located within required front, side and rear yards.
In reviewing recent permit applications Staff has found that homes on corner lots are often oriented (garage, front
door/porch) toward the lot's exterior side yard rather than the front yard. The existing regulations, however, only
allow a larger sidewalk, step or handicap ramp width within the required front yard. It is Staffs recommendation
that the existing regulations be amended to allow sidewalks, service walks, steps and handicap ramps with a
maximum width of 5 feet to encroach into the required front and exterior side yards.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
Section 14.306.E.4 - Service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps up to
five feet (5') in width may encroach in the required front yard; service walks,
sidewalks, and steps up to three feet (3') in width may encroach in the required
side and rear yards.
Section 14.306.E.4 - Service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps up to
five feet (5') in width may encroach in the required front and exterior side
yards; service walks, sidewalks, and steps up to three feet (3') in width may
encroach in the required interior side and rear yards.
This specific issue was not previously reviewed by the Village Board.
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations
regarding modifications to the regulations regarding service walk, sidewalk and
handicap ramp encroachments into required yards by a vote of 6-0.
Issue: Administrative Subdivisions - Staff occasionally encounters properties that may appear as a single lot,
but in actuality they consist of two or more parcels. When reviewing any type of development proposal for these
properties, including building additions, decks garages, etc., it is often difficult for staff to apply the required
setbacks due to the property's configuration. Due to these circumstances Staff has traditionally required that the
property owner apply for a Plat of Consolidation that would create a single lot of record from the existing multiple
lots. The Plat of Consolidation process; however, currently requires review and recommendation by the Planning
& Zoning Commission and final approval by the Board of Trustees. This review and approval process can often
create delays and additional expenses for the property owner. As a result Staff is suggesting that the Village's
Development Code be amended to allow administrative subdivisions under specific circumstances. This process
would still require the preparation and recordation of a Plat of Consolidation, but, under certain circumstances,
would eliminate the need for review by the P&Z Commission and approval by the Board. The existing
regulations and proposed amendments are outlined below:
Existing Regulations:
Preliminary Plat/Final Plat approvals require review and recommendation by the
Village's Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by the Board of
Trustees.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 7 of 20
Staff Recommendation:
Development Code - Section 16.202: Definitions:
Administrative Subdivision - A subdivision that may be approved by the
Director of Community Development and does not require a public meeting
before the Planning & Zoning Commission or approval by the Board of
Trustees.
Create the following section:
Section 16.308: Administrative Subdivision - An Administrative Subdivision
shall be permitted in the following instances:
a. An adjustment of a lot line between two (2) adjoining lots; or
b. The consolidation of two (2) or more lots, parcels or tracts of land, either
in whole or part, into a single lot of record, when all of the properties are
under the same ownership.
With respect to the above, an Administrative Subdivision is permissible
only if no non-conformities are created with respect to these regulations.
Board Comments:
The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommended amendments regarding
administrative subdivision review.
P&Z Recommendation:
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff s recommendations
regarding Administrative Subdivisions and recommended approval by a vote of
6-0.
Issue: Fla!!:s & Fla!!:poles - The Village Code does not currently restrict the height or number of flagpoles, as
well as the number of flags, within any of the single-family or multi-family residential districts. The code
specifically excludes flagpoles from the various residential district height limitations (along with chimneys,
steeples and radio/television antennas attached to the principal structure). In addition, the Village Code is also
silent with regards to flags and flagpoles within other zoning districts.
Existing Regulations:
R-X, R-l, R-A, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts - Height Limitations, Exceptions:
The following shall be excluded from the Zoning District's height limitations: a)
Chimneys; b) Flagpoles; c) Steeples; and d) Radio and television antennas
attached to the principal structures.
Other Zoning Districts: No existing regulations
Staff Recommendation:
Sign Code - Section 7.205:E. Flags:
Residential Districts: A maximum of one flagpole, which shall not exceed
twenty (20) feet in height, shall be permitted per zoning lot. No more than two
(2) flags shall be displayed on a single-family property at one time, and each flag
shall not exceed a maximum size of three (3) feet by five (5) feet.
Non-Residential Districts: A maximum of three (3) flagpoles, with no more
than two (2) flags on a pole, shall be permitted per zoning lot. The maximum
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6,2004
Page 8 of 20
height permitted for the flagpole shall not exceed the District's height limitations
for principal structures. For flags flown from a flagpole, such flagpole shall be a
minimum of four (4) times the length of the flag.
In addition to the limitations outlined above, the following restrictions would
apply to flags and flag poles within all zoning districts:
1 ) Location: Flagpoles or flag supports shall not be located within a required
interior side yard. A flagpole or flag support shall maintain a minimum
setback of five feet (5') from any property line. Flags and flagpoles shall be
located in such a manner that no portion of the flag will project over any
property line or contact any other structure when fully extended. Roof
mounted flagpoles or flag supports are prohibited.
2) Display of flags of the United States shall conform to all applicable Federal
statutes regarding the use and display ofthe United States flag.
Board Comments:
The Board generally concurred with Staffs recommendation, but suggested
additional research be done to determine a typical maximum height for
residential flagpoles.
P&Z Recommendation:
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations
regarding flags and flagpoles and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0.
Issue: Commercial Trailers in Residential Districts - As you may be aware, the Village Code currently
contains specific regulations regarding the storage of commercial vehicles and trailers within residential zoning
districts. Staff is recommending that the Village Code be amended to specifically prohibit the outdoor storage of
commercial trailers within any of the Village's residential zoning districts. To help clarify the regulations, Staff is
also recommending specific definitions for both Commercial Vehicles and Commercial Trailers. If the proposed
amendment were supported, the Village Code would then allow the outdoor storage of no more than one (1)
commercial vehicle within a residential zoning district and prohibit the outdoor storage of commercial trailers.
Existing Regulations:
Section l4.2208:D.l. Rear: Trailers or other attachments shall be prohibited on
the rear of a commercial vehicle when parked in a residential district.
Staff Recommendation:
Storage Limitations: All commercial trailers parked or stored on a zoning
lot in a residential district shall, at all times, be parked in a fully enclosed
garage.
Section 14.2401: Definitions:
Commercial Trailer - Any trailer, (1) carrying work equipment such
as ladders, snowplows, hand or mechanical tools; (2) carrying work
machinery on or affixed to the outside of the trailer; (3) containing a
refrigeration unit or other motorized compressor; or (4) being used
for storage shall be considered commercial trailers. None of the
following shall be considered a commercial trailer: (a) a recreation
trailer that is not included within the above categories; and (b)
Mount Prospect police or fire trailers.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6,2004
Page 9 of20
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
The Village Board supported amending the Village Code's regulations regarding
the storage of commercial trailers in residential districts, but suggested
consideration be given to creating restrictions based on the size of the trailer
rather than its use.
After discussing various potential approaches to this issue the P&Z Commission
concurred with Staff s initial recommendation regarding the storage of
commercial trailers in residential zoning districts (by a vote of 6-0). In addition,
the P&Z Commission also recommended (by a vote of 6-0) that the Village
pursue amending the Village Code's regulations regarding the storage of
recreational vehicles in residential districts (including a limit on the amount of
time that recreational vehicles, including boats and RVs, could be stored on
residential driveways).
Issue: Arbors & Trellises - The Village Code does not contain any regulations regarding arbors or trellises.
Although the Code does not specifically address this issue, there have been several requests in the past to install
various types of arbors/trellises within residential properties. In reviewing these proposals staff is often forced to
fall back on the existing fence regulations because no specific regulations for arbors/trellises exist. This
approach; however, often does not adequately address the issue given that the Code's maximum fence height is
five (5) feet. Most proposals for arbors/trellis often exceed seven (7) feet in height because the arborltrellis is
incorporated into a gate/entrance feature, thus requiring a minimum clearance of 7 feet. To address this issue staff
recommends that Village Code be amended to include specific regulations that allow arbors/trellises, but limits
their size and location:
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
None
Section 14.304 D. Regulations for Fences and Walls:
1. Height and Location:
j. Arbors/Trellises - A maximum of one arbor or trellis, not exceeding eight
(8) feet in height or ten (10) feet in width, shall be permitted except in any
required front yard.
Consensus of the Village Board was for Staff and the Planning & Zoning
Commission to review this matter further to determine an appropriate approach.
Section 14.304 D. Regulations for Fences and Walls
1. Height and Location:
j. Arbors/Trellises - Arbors and trellises, not exceeding a height of ten
(10) feet, shall be permitted except in any required front yard.
Section 14.2401 - Definitions:
Arbor/Trellis: A decorative feature, constructed from latticed or patterned
materials, that is no more than fifty percent (50%) opaque.
The P&Z Commission recommended approval of these amendments regarding
arbors/trellises by a vote of 6-0.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 10 of 20
Issue: Attached Gara2es - The Zoning Code currently contains specific language with regards to attached 3-car
garages within the R-X, R-1 and R-2 Districts; however, the language is different within the R-A, R-3 and R-4
Districts. Specifically, the Zoning Code lists "Single-Family Dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3-
car garage" as a permitted use in the R-X, R-1 and R-2 Districts, while only "Single-Family Dwellings" are listed
as a permitted use in the R-A, R-3 and R-4 Districts. In reviewing these current regulations one could interpret
that the code specifically requires 3-car attached garages in the R-X, R-1 and R-2 Districts, while there is no
limitation on the size of attached garages in the other residential districts. To address this issue Staff suggests the
Code be amended by eliminating the specific reference to the size of attached garages in the R-X, R-l and R-2
Districts and include "Single-Family Dwellings, with or without attached garages" as a permitted use in the R-X,
R-A, R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts. This approach will specifically reference garages as a permitted use in the
residential districts, but will not specifically limit the size of garages. It should be noted that the existing
regulations regarding the maximum permitted size of detached garages would not be impacted by the amendments
suggested above.
Existing Regulations:
The term "Single-Family Dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3-car
garage" is listed as a permitted use in the R-X, R-I & R-2 Districts and "Single-
Family Dwellings" is listed as a permitted use in the R-A, R-3 & R-4 Districts.
Staff Recommendation:
The R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts will be amended to eliminate all
current references to single-family residences as permitted uses and the following
use will be listed as a permitted use in each of the Districts:
Sections 14.802,14.902, 14.1102:
"Single family detached d'Nellings, including dwellings \vith an attached three
(3) car garage"
"Single-Family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages"
Sections 14.1002, 14.1202, 14.1302:
"Single family detached d'Nellings"
"Single-Family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages"
Board Comments:
The Board supported Staffs recommended modifications to the Village Code,
but requested that the P&Z Commission also review the issue of limiting the
overall size of an attached garage within the Village's residential zoning districts.
P&Z Recommendation:
The R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts will be amended to eliminate all
current references to single-family residences as permitted uses and the following
use will be listed as a permitted use in each of the Districts:
"Single-Family Dwellings, with or without attached garages"
The P&Z Commission recommended approval by a vote of 5-1.
In addition to the existing language regarding garages, the P&Z Commission also
discussed the issue of limiting the size of attached garages within single-family
residential districts. Following discussion of this issue (and potential restrictions
on the size of attached garages) the Commission determined that the issue of
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 11 of 20
garage size is not as important as the visual impact from the street. To address
this issue the P&Z Commission recommends that the following limitation (by a
vote of 6-0) be included within the Village Code that would allow no more than a
3-car garage to face the street (including the front and exterior side yards).
Limitations Re2ardin2 Attached Gara2es In Sin2le-Family Residential
Districts: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have
more than one of the following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of
a single and double door; or c) a triple door.
Issue: Driveway Width - The Village Code currently limits the maximum permitted driveway width to 35% of
the lot width (there are special exceptions for lots less than 60 feet or greater than 75 feet in width). The code
includes an exception for driveways that serve three car garages, allowing a maximum driveway width that would
match the width of the garage, but no greater than 32-feet, within IS-feet of the garage's front elevation. The
driveway width must then be tapered to a width no greater than the maximum allowable driveway width as would
normally be allowed by Code. This approach is designed to result in driveway widths that are in keeping with the
property and do not overly impact the surrounding neighborhood. However, recent trends in home design have
seen an increase in both the size (2, 3 and 4 car) and orientation (front, side and rear load garages). With this in
mind Staff believes that the following amendments to the Village's driveway width limitations are warranted.
Existing Regulations:
Sections 14.2215:AJ and 14.2215:AJ.a - Driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-l and
R-2 Districts shall conform to the following requirements:
3. Width: Driveway width shall be determined by the maximum front yard lot
coverage of 35% for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum
driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. Lots
which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26
feet.
a. Width of driveways serving 3-car garages shall be permitted to be up
to the same width as the garage, no greater than 32 feet, within 15
feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined
by measuring the width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the
separation between garage doors plus 2 feet. The driveway width
must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line
as set forth hereinabove.
Staff Recommendation:
Sections 14.2215:AJ and 14.2215:AJ.a
3. Width: Driveway width shall be determined by the maximum front yard lot
coverage of limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required
front setback Hne, for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum
driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. Lots
which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26
feet.
a. Width of Driveways serving ~ garages with a width greater
than the maximum permitted driveway width in Section
14.2215:A.3.a may sßall be permitted to be up to the same width as
the garage, no greater than 32 feet, within 15 feet of the garage's
front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6,2004
Page 12 of 20
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between
the garage doors, plus 2 feet on either side. The driveway width
must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line
as set forth hereinabove.
General consensus of the Board was to have the garage width regulations
correspond with restrictions regarding garage size and try to minimize excess
pavement.
The P&Z Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding
driveway width (by a vote of 6-0), but questioned if the proposed limitations
could address all of the potential garage/driveway configurations. Following a
brief discussion, the Commission noted that in those instances where the
proposed driveway width regulations could not address the specific design of a
garage and driveway, the property owner could request relief from the Code.
Issue: Permitted Fence Locations - Staff has encountered several issues related to the Village's fence
regulations over the past few years. The proposed amendments outlined below are intended to provide some
greater flexibility with regards to fence locations, while also trying to maintain the character of the Village's
residential neighborhoods. A common point of contention is with the Village's current requirement that fences
must be placed along a lot line, providing property owners with little flexibility in regards to the placement of a
fence within their yard. In addition, the Code's current fence regulations for corner lots warrant review due to the
potential impacts on surrounding properties by allowing fences in exterior side yards even though they may abut
the front yard of an adjoining property.
Existing Regulations:
(see attached diagram)
Staff Recommendation:
(see attached diagram)
Section 14.304:D.l.e - Fences up to five (5) feet in height are permitted in the
following locations:
(1) Along the interior lot lines, behind the front line of the principal building.
(2) On corner lots, placed entirely behind the principal building and setback ùne-
foot from property line along exterior side yard.
Section 14.304:D.l.e - Fences up to five (5) feet in height will be permitted as
follows, and as shown on exhibit 14.304Dlb in section 14.2501 of this chapter:
(1) Rear & Interior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in the rear and
interior side yards, provided any fence is located behind the front line of the
principal building structure. If a fence is not located along a property line
then sufficient access must be provided to the area between fence and
property line to allow for proper maintenance.
(2) Exterior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard,
provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal
building and setback one-foot from the property line along the exterior side
yard. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the
fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than
either the building line established by the principal structure or the front
yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6,2004
Page 13 of 20
Board Comments:
Consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation and
gather input from the Planning & Zoning Commission.
P&Z Recommendation:
(see attached diagram)
Section 14.304:D.1.e - Fences up to five (5) feet in height will be permitted as
follows, and as shown on exhibit 14.304Dlb in section 14.2501 of this chapter:
(1) Rear & Interior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in the rear and
interior side yards, provided any fence is located behind the front line of the
principal building structure. If a fence is not located along a property line
then sufficient access must be provided to the area between fence and
property line to allow for proper maintenance.
(2) Exterior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard,
provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal
building and setback one-foot from the property line along the exterior side
yard. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the
fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than
either the building line established by the principal structure or the front
yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less.
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation;
however, the Commission recommended that fencing not be permitted in the
exterior side yard in front of the rear line of the principal structure (please refer to
attached diagram).
In addition to the regulations recommended by Staff, the P&Z Commission also
recommended approval of the following restrictions for "Fenceable Area" to
prohibit the creation of dog runs.
Section 14.304.D.1.d.: Fenceable Area: Under no circumstances shall a
fence enclose an area that is less than 50% of the maximum fenceable area
of a residentially zoned property. This limitation shall not apply to fencing
around swimming pools.
The P&Z Commission recommended approval of these two amendments by
votes of 6-0 and 4-0 respectively.
Issue: Double Fences - The Village Code currently indicates "no more than one fence shall be allowed along a
lot line on a zoning lot". Staff has interpreted this language as to permit only one fence along a common (side or
rear) property line. The issue created by this limitation/interpretation is that a property owner cannot install a
fence along a property line where a fence on the neighboring property already exists (unless the existing fence is
removed or a variation granted). The major concern expressed by residents is that they are often forced to live
with their neighbor's fence, even if it is in poor condition or of a height or style that they don't like. This current
policy promotes a "first come first served" approach to regulating perimeter fences within the Village. The
second issue with the existing language is that Staff has interpreted the Code to allow only one fence on a
property. In those cases where a property contains an existing perimeter fence, any other fencing within the yard
would be prohibited based on the current limitations regarding double fences. In response to these issues Staff
suggests that the existing language allowing no more than one fence along a lot line be removed.
Existing Regulations:
Section 14.304:D.l.d - No more than one fence shall be allowed along a lot line
on a zoning lot.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 14 of20
Staff Recommendation:
Eliminate the existing language (Section l4.304:D.1.d) that permits only one
fence along a lot line - thus allowing multiple fences along a common property
line as weJl as multiple fences on a single property.
Board Comments:
Consensus of the Village Board was to allow multiple fences as recommended by
Staff.
P&Z Recommendation:
The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendation and
recommended approval by a vote of 6-0 to eliminate the existing language within
the Village Code that prohibits double fences.
Issue: FAR and Related Definitions - The Village of Mount Prospect continues to see a tremendous amount of
construction activity related to single-family dwellings (including additions and construction of new single-family
homes). The recent trend in development has been to maximize the amount of living space within single-family
homes, often pushing the edge on a variety of bulk regulations (including setbacks, height and FAR). As a result
we have found some items within the Village Code that should be reviewed to ensure our regulations are resulting
in the desired limitations on the size of single-family homes.
Existing Regulations:
Attic: The space between the ceiling beams of the top story, and the roof rafters, and containing no
habitable room.
Basement: That portion of a building which is partly or completely below grade.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Determined by dividing the number of square feet of gross floor area of
living space in all buildings on a lot by the square feet of area of that lot.
Floor Area (Gross): The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a building, including
principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall
exclude:
A. Areas used for storage of building, mechanical and HV AC equipment;
B. Interior parking areas;
C. Interior loading docks; and
D. Basements and garages in single-family dwellings.
Habitable Room: A room designed and intended for use and/or occupied by one or more persons for
living, sleeping, eating or cooking; includes kitchens serving dwelling units, but does not include
bathrooms, water closet compartments, laundries, pantries, storage rooms or below grade recreation
rooms.
Height: The vertical distance, measured in feet, from the base grade to the average height of a flat,
mansard or gambrel roof or the midpoint of a hip or gable roof.
Story: That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of
the floor or roof next above.
PZ-4I-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 15 of20
Staff Recommendation:
1) Definition of Gross Floor Area: As noted in the definition of Gross Floor Area, garages
and basements are specifically excluded when calculating the Gross Floor Area for a
single family home. The exclusion of garages can have a noticeable impact on the
overall size of a home that is permitted within the Village's single-family residential
zoning districts. To help illustrate the impact that excluding garages from the FAR
limitations can have on the overall size of a home, Staff has prepared the attached table
that compares two different development scenarios. As outlined in the table, Scenario 1
illustrates the potential maximum development of a new home in the R-I District when
garages are excluded from the FAR calculation, while Scenario 2 includes the garage area
when calculating the total FAR of the house. To address this issue Staff recommends the
following amendments to the existing definition of Gross Floor Area:
Floor Area (Gross): The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a
building, including principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from
the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall exclude:
a. Areas used for storage of building, mechanical and HV AC equipment;
b. Interior parldBg areas;
c. Interior loading docks;
d. Unenclosed porches; and
e. Basements and garages in single-family dwellings.
2) Definition of Basement & Related Issues: The Village Code currently defines a
basement as "that portion of a building which is partly or completely below grade." This
definition does not differentiate between a typical basement that is almost entirely below
grade and an "English Basement" which has a substantial portion of its living area above
grade. With the specific exclusion of basements from the definition of gross floor area, a
home with an English Basement or a split-level home could contain a significant amount
of living area that would not be included when calculating FAR. To address this issue
Staff recommends the following definition:
BASEMENT: That portion of a building having more than half (1/2) of its floor-
to-ceiling height below the average level ofthe adjoining finished grade.
3) Definition of Story & Related Issues: As noted above, the Village's existing definition
of story is "that portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and
the upper surface of the floor or roof next above." Based on this definition one could
argue that a typical 2-story home with an attic could actually be considered a 3-story
home. This interpretation would then conflict with the Village Code's existing height
limitations and the manner in which they are applied. Another related issue is the recent
desire to include living space (such as a rec/play room or finished storage area) within the
"attic" of a home. In reviewing these proposals the Village's existing regulations do not
specifically address this issue. To address these "story" related issues staff suggests the
Board considerthe following definitions:
STORY: That portion of a building, excluding attics and basements, included
between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof
next above.
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 16 of20
ATTIC: The space between the ceiling beams of the top story, and the roof
rafters, and containing He-habitable reem area over no more than 50% of the
floor area.
Board Comments:
The Board recognized the need to review these issues in greater detail and requested
detailed input from the P&Z Commission. The Board focused primarily on the issues
of defining "basement" and whether or not open porches should be included when
determining FAR. The Board noted that the definition of FAR (and related terms)
where designed to address the massing of a house and that this idea should be
considered when reviewing related terms and definitions.
P&Z Recommem/ation:
1) Amend Section 14.2401 as follows;
Floor Area (Gross): The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a
building, including principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from
the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall exclude;
a. Areas used for s~orage of building, mechanical and HV AC equipment;
b. Interior parking areas;
c. Interior loading docks;
d. Unenclosed porches; and
e. Basements and garages in single-family dwellings.
2) Amend Section 21.50 1 as follows:
BASEMENT: That portion of a building '..vhich is partly or completely below grade
having no more than three (3) feet of its floor-to-ceiling height above the average
level of the adjoining finished grade.
3) Amend Sections 14.805.D.1, 14.905.D.1, 14.1005.D.l, 14.11O5.D.l, 14.1205.D.l,
14.305.D.l, 14.1304.D.1 as follows:
Existing Height Regulations:
Zoning District:
Height Limitations
Maximum Height *; Number of Stories:
35 feet or 3 stories - whichever is less
28 feet or 2 stories '- whichever is less
RX
R1, RA & R-2
R-3:
Single-Family
Multi-Family
28 feet
35 feet
34 feet
or
or
or
2 stories - whichever is less
3 stories - whichever is less
3 stories - whichever is less
R-4
* Note: Maximum height is measured to the mid-point of the roof
PZ-4I-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 17 of 20
Proposed Height Regulations:
Zoning District:
RX
RI, RA & R-2
R-3:
Single-Family
Multi-Family
R-4
Height Limitations
Maximum Height *: Number of Stories:
35 feet or 3 stories wHichever is less
28 feet or 2 stories v:hichever is less
28 feet
35 feet
34 feet
or
or
or
2 stories whichever is less
3 stories whichever is less
3 stories whichever is less
* Note: Maximum height is measured to the mid-point of the roof
P&Z Comments: This approach would eliminate the conflicts within the Zoning Code as they relate to applying
the regulations for building height and number of stories within the RX, Rl, RA, R2, R3 and R4 zoning districts.
The P&Z Commission noted that the overall height of the structure is the primary concern, not how the living
space within the structure is divided up. This approach would also address the issues related to defining terms
such as "story" and "attic".
Issue: Pavement Separation - The Village Code contains specific regulations regarding a variety of paved
surfaces, including, but not limited to, driveways, patios, stoops and service walks. The issue that often confronts
Staff, however, is how to clearly delineate one type of pavement from another when the pavement areas are
adjacent to each other. For example, if a driveway serving a detached garage in the rear of a property is located
directly adjacent to a patio, it is possible for the patio area to become (either temporarily or permanently) a
parking pad seeing that a vehicle could access the patio area directly from the driveway. Another example would
be if a homeowner would like to place a small concrete pad along the side of their house as an area to locate their
garbage cans. If the proposed pad was to be located directly adjacent to a stoop or service walk, the total paved
area may exceed the size limitations for each individual element (service walk, stoop and concrete pad). To
address the scenarios outlined above Staff has required a minimum separation of I-foot between paved areas;
however, no formal language addressing this issue is included in the Village Code. In response Staff suggested
specific language be included in the Village Code to require a minimum I -foot separation between different
pavement areas. It should be noted that this separation requirement would not apply to those situations where
pavement connections are needed (such as where a service walk would connect to either driveway and/or patio).
Existing Regulations:
None
Staff Recommendation:
A minimum separation of I-foot shall be provided between all paved areas
(including driveways, patios, service walks, etc.). This requirement shall not
apply in those situations where pavement connections are needed to provide
pedestrian access from one paved surface to another.
Board Comments:
Following discussion with Staff regarding this issue, the consensus of the Village
Board was to require a minimum separation of 2 feet.
P&Z Recommendation:
The general consensus of the Commission was that a pavement separation of 1 or
2 feet would not prevent the potential storage of vehicles on various paved
surfaces, thus requiring a specific pavement separation within the Village Code
would not be beneficial.
Issue: Conversion of Garaees Into Livine Space - The Village continues to see the occasional proposal to
convert an existing attached garage into living space. In reviewing these requests the homeowner is currently not
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6,2004
Page 18 of 20
required to remove the garage door, provided all applicable building and health safety regulations are met. For
those that choose to maintain the existing garage door it can often result in a poor design and an unattractive
exterior appearance. As a result, Staff recommends the Building Code be amended to require removal of the
garage door and the use of exterior building materials that are consistent in both material and color with the
remaining portion of the home's exterior.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
P&Z Recommendation:
None.
Conversion of Attached Garage to Living Space - For any attached garage that is
to be converted into living space, the garage door must be removed and replaced
with materials that are consistent in color and material with the exterior of the
existing home.
The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation.
During review of this issue the P&Z Commission referred to their previous
recommendation to the Village Board to require the construction of a new garage
(either attached or detached) if an existing garage were converted to living space.
The Commission noted that their previously recommended approach would
address Staffs concerns due to the Code's current restrictions on multiple
garages.
Additional Amendments to the Villaee Code
In addition to the various Text Amendments outlined above, Staff has recommended amending other areas of the
Village Code. The following amendments did not require review and recommendation by the Village's Planning
& Zoning Commission, but were previously forwarded to the Village Board for initial feedback.
Issue: No Trespassine: Sie:ns on Residential Properties - Staff has recently experienced problems with property
owners displaying several "No Trespassing" signs on their property. The display of numerous signs can become
unsightly and redundant. In response, Staff suggests language be included within the Village's Sign Code that
will limit the number of "No Trespassing" signs that can be displayed.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
None
Section 7.306: No more than four signs shall be permitted on any single-
family residential lot and under no circumstances shall the total sign area
exceed six square feet. No more than one sign shall be permitted along each
front, rear or side property line.
The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staff's recommendation.
Issue: Compost Pile Locations - The Village does not currently have any type of regulation with regards to the
location of a compost pile on a property. Due to the characteristics of a compost pile, and their potential impacts
on adjoining properties, staff suggests the Village adopt regulations that would require a minimum setback of five
feet from any side or rear property line.
Existing Regulations:
None
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 19 of20
Staff Recommendation:
Board Commeltts:
Section PM 302.10: When locating a compost pile a minimum setback of
five (5) feet must be provided. Compost piles are not permitted within a
required front yard.
The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommendation.
Issue: Gravel Driveways - As you may be aware, there are still a few remaining gravel driveways within the
Village. The Code currently requires all driveways and parking areas to be paved; however, several unpaved
driveways still exist that were initially constructed prior to the Vi1Iage's current regulations. Although the
Village's Development Code would require that a gravel driveway be paved once it wears out, what is often the
case is that property owners will continually maintain a gravel driveway by slowly adding additional gravel over
time. It is often difficult for the Village to then prove what gravel was existing and what gravel was new, seeing
that both the old and new gravel blend together. To address this issue Staff is recommending that language be
included in the Village Code that would require the phasing out of gravel driveways, with a specific date set at
which point any existing gravel driveway or parking area would be required to be paved. An initial suggestion
would be to establish a compliance date of January 1, 2009, at which time all previously existing gravel
driveways would have to be paved.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
None
Section - of the Development Code: Require that all existing gravel
driveways be paved by January 1,2009.
The Board generally concurred with Staff s recommendation but suggested that
sufficient notification be given to property owners with existing gravel
driveways.
Issue: Location of Port-a-pots - As with compost piles, the Village does not have any specific regulations with
regards to permitted locations for port-a-pots on properties during construction activity. This issue has resulted in
several complaints from Village residents when a port-a-pot is located in close proximity to an existing, occupied
home within an established neighbor. To address this issue Staff suggests specific requirements be included in
the local amendments to prohibit port-a-pots from being located in required side yards and within any right-of-
way.
Existing Regulations:
Staff Recommendation:
Board Comments:
None
Amend the Illinois State Plumbing Code to include the following: Section
890.810.C.ix - Port-a-pots shall not be located within any required side yard
or within any right-of-way.
The consensus ofthe Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation.
Issue: Residential Construction Site Fencin!! - Due to the recent trends of large scale development and
redf(velopment projects within the Village's single family-residential areas there has been concerns raised in
regards to access to construction sites. The recently adopted 2000 International Building Code contains specific
requirements for fencing of commercial/industrial development sites; however, no specific requirements are
included within the single-family construction guidelines. Due to these circumstances Staff is recommending that
we include a fencing requirement of a minimum of four (4) feet for all substantial single-family development
projects (including new construction, teardowns, and major additions).
Existing Regulations:
None
PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments
Village Board - April 6, 2004
Page 20 of 20
Staff Recommendation:
Amend the 2000 International Residential Code to include the following:
Subsection R328 - Construction Site Fencing: A minimum perimeter fencing
of five (5) feet in height shall be required for all substantial single-family
development projects, including, but not limited to, new construction,
teardowns, and major additions. The required fencing shall be maintained
until the structure is properly secured.
Board Comments:
The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation.
RECOMMENDATION
As outlined within this memo, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended to the Village Board to
approve the various Text Amendments outlined in this report (Case No. PZ-41-03). The Village Board's
decision is final for this case. Staff looks forward to reviewing these various issues with the Village Board during
the April 6th meeting. In addition to the attached exhibits, Staff will present additional information during the
meeting to help clarify the various proposed amendments.
I concur:
William J
irector of Community Development
H:/Plan/Planning & Zoning COMM/P&Z 2004/Staff Memos/PZ-4 1-03 ME] MEMO (various Text Amendments)
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
MARISA WARNEKE, NEIGHBORHOOD PLANNER
APRIL 8, 2004
LEAD-BASED PAINT HAZARDS
As a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement community, the Village is required to
comply with the u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) recently adopted lead-
based paint regulations. These regulations are designed to identify and address lead-based paint hazards on
properties that obtain funding through the CDBG program. Of the programs sponsored through the Village's
CDBG funding, the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program, the Home Weatherization Grant Program,
the Emergency Repair Program, and the First Time Homebuyer's Assistance Program are those most directly
impacted by the lead-based paint regulations.
In situations where a program participant's home tests positive for lead-based paint hazards, the total cost of
lead hazard reduction and lead-safe work practices can be significant (potentially several thousand dollars).
To allow an applicant to utilize HUD-funded programs to the fullest extent, Staff recommends the Village
grant the participant CDBG funds to cover all of the costs associated with addressing the lead-based paint
hazard (including costs associated with inspections, assessments, hazard reduction work, and clearance tests).
By not granting the funds necessary to correct lead-based paint hazards, the associated costs could utilize all
of the funds available to an applicant through a specific grant or loan program (leaving little or no money to
use towards other necessary improvements).
The following is a brief summary of the potential impacts that HUD's lead-based paint regulations could
have on the Village's CDBG-funded programs:
.
Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program, Home Weatherization Grant Program, and Emergency
Repair Program: The amount of action required to address lead-based paint hazards is directly related
to the amount of federal assistance the program participant receives. If the participant receives less than
$5,000 in rehabilitation hard costs, then the contractor must use lead-safe work practices on any lead-
based paint surface that is disturbed during the rehabilitation project. If the applicant receives more than
$5,000 then the contractor must control any identified lead-based paint hazards and any lead-based paint
hazards created as a result of the rehabilitation work. Once the certified contractor completes the lead
hazard reduction work and/or rehabilitation using lead-safe work practices, the property must pass a
clearance test to ensure that no lead-based paint hazards remain at the property.
As part of the lead-based paint abatement process, the Village may be required to temporarily relocate
the applicant (and their family) depending on the extent of the lead hazard-reduction work. In cases that
require temporary relocation, the chosen location must be lead-based paint hazard free, which can be
verified if the temporary location was built after 1978 or by conducting a visual risk assessment (which
costs approximately $230). Staff will determine when temporary relocation is required per HUD
regulations.
.
First Time Homehuyer's Assistance Program: Should an applicant purchase a home built prior to 1978,
the Village must conduct a visual risk assessment of the property prior to the applicant moving into the
home. Staff recommends that the Village use CDBG funds from the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan
Program to assume the costs of testing and stabilizing any deteriorated lead-based paint that may exist in
a home purchased by a participant of the First-Time Homebuyer's Assistance Program. Please note that
the buyer will not be eligible to participate in the actual Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program at
the time of purchase due to the program's requirement that the applicant own the property for a period of
at least one year.
Staff believes that to comply with HUÐ's lead-based paint regulations, while also allowing residents to
utilize the Village's CDBG funds to the fullest extent possible, the costs related to addressing any lead-based
paint hazards should be provided as a grant through the Village's CDBG funds. This approach will help to
provide safe, suitable housing for participants in the Village's CDBG-funded programs.
Staff will be present during the April 13th meeting to review this issue in greater detail.
I concur:
~~l¿o~rector of Community Development
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
FROM:
DATE:
VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
TO:
SUBJECT:
APRIL 7,2004
VILLAGE LOGO POLICY
In August of 2003, staff presented the Village Board with ideas regarding a "branding" policy. Based
on that discussion, Logo Design Guidelines have been developed and are presented here for your
review and comment.
As you may recall, the use of the keystone logo stemmed from its creation as part of the corridor
design guidelines undertaken several years ago by the Community Development Department. Since
many variations of the logo were being used by the different departments, there was a need to
establish guidelines for its use and to make it univer~éll for all departments. It is our intent that
people will come to identify the keystone logo with the Village of Mount Prospect.
Please make note of the following items within the policy:
. Explanation of the logo - the symbolism, meaning and color usage
. Use on uniforms/clothing
. Varying color options (offering flexibility for departments)
The preferred version of the logo is the MP in the keystone with the tree in green and brown. It is our
intent that the brown and green logo with the tree will be used (when possible) on printed materials
such as letterhead and business cards, in the newsletter and on the web site. In other cases, it will
work better to use a one color or even blacl< and white ye[siqr] of just the MP in the keystone without
the tree. With regard to the various departments, there will be an effort to incorporate departmental
logos wherever possible to maintain each department's identity.
The use of the Village seal will still be appropriate under certain formal circumstances as designated
by the Mayor and Board of Trustees.
The policy is attached for your review. I look forward to discussing this matter further.
7Ka~' if ~~
Maura EI Metennani
Public Information Officer
VILLAGE OF
Mou nt Prospect
Logo Desig n G u idel i nes
April, 2004
Village of Mount Prospect Logo Usage Policy
The Significance of the Logo
Shape
The keystone shape represents the strength
and support of the community. It also
signifies the community's endurance and
permanence or "prospect" of its future.
Font
The Font or letter style reinforces the idea of stability.
Color
Green is the color of nature. It symbolizes
growth, harmony and freshness. Green has
strong emotional correspondence with safety.
Brown is an earthy color. It grounds,
stabilizes and neutralizes.
Graphic
The tree is a symbol of antiquity and strength. Trees
allude to home or property, and they are also generally
considered a symbol of life and strength. It also
represents the pride the Mount Prospect community
takes in its "Tree City USA" designation and its
appreciation of and respect for our tree-lined streets.
Page 1
Village of Mount Prospect Logo Usage Policy
Logo Usage Policy
1. Intent
The Village Logo should always be used in a manner consistent with the values and mission of the
Village of Mount Prospect. Its purpose is to serve as a readily identifiable symbol of the Village of
Mount Prospect. It does not replace the Village seal, but serves as a less formal, alternative mark.
The words "Village of" must appear along with the logo at all times.
2. Source
Because most external and internal documents are created electronically, employees should use the electronic
version by importing the EPS file of the Village Logo into a graphic box. Do not "stretch" or distort the logo
to fit the shape of the graphic box. The primary configuration named "mp_keysUogo.eps" is the preferred
logo; however, multiple versions are available. All logos can be found on the J drive of the Village's Network
at J :\VillageLogo. This file also includes memorandum and letterhead templates featuring the Village Logo.
3. Reproduction Quality
The Village Logo must be digitally imprinted onto an item from the electronic file. Copies of copies should
be avoided whenever possible to retain image sharpness, particularly on items that are widely distributed
or circulated outside of the organization. No hand drawn reproductions of the logo may be used.
4. Non-Paper Use
Whenever the Village Logo is imprinted onto a non-paper item (Le. banners, pens, binders, clothing,
etc.), those other uses must have prior written consent of the Village Manager's Office. An e-mail
request and sample of the logo usage sent to the Village Manager or designee will suffice.
5. Trademark Protection
The Village of Mount Prospect has designated this mark as its official logo and has sought federal trademark
protection. As such, external parties may only use it with the prior consent of the Village Manager's Office.
Violations of usage standards by internal or external parties may constitute infringement of the Village's rights.
6. Treatment
The Village logo may not be altered or added to in any way that deviates from the standards
manual. It may not be superimposed upon or be tangent to any other symbol nor may
any other symbol be superimposed upon or be tangent to the Village logo.
7. Printed Form orders
Printed forms or letterhead should adhere to the approved usage guidelines as described here. If design
or layout deviates from these guidelines, approval from the Village Manager's Office is required.
8. Miscellaneous
For any question that may not be covered by the foregoing usage rules, please refer to the Village
Manager's Office. Variations of the provisions for this standards policy, or use of the Village logo
in any manner not covered in this policy or variations in form, color or presentation of the Village
logo not provided for in this policy must be approved by the Village Manager's Office.
Page 2
Village of Mount Prospect Logo Usage Policy
General Logo Guidelines
In all instances, the Village of Mount Prospect
logomark should be treated as a unit. The symbol
and logotype should not be used independently.
VILLAGE OF
Mou nt Prospect
Two logomark configurations are acceptable for use in
the various printed materials produced by the Village
of Mount Prospect. The primary logomark is the
centered version should be used whenever possible.
However, if space dictates the horizontallogomark can
be used. This system allows for optimal placement
and visibility and aids in the maintenance of the
brand identity for the Village of Mount Prospect.
The logo mark and signature reproductions provided
here should be used at all times when creating
printed materials for the Village of Mount Prospect.
The logo should never be added
to or altered in any way.
VILLAGE OF
Mount Prospect
Page 3
Village of Mount Prospect Logo Usage Policy
VILLAGE OF
Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
T 847/818-5328
F 847/818-5329
comd evdept@mountprospect. 0 rg
~mountprospect org
VILLAGE OF
Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
50 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
T 847/818-5328
F 847/818-5329
co mdevdept@mountprospect.org
www motlntprospect or9
Sig natu re
Signature
A signature identifies the originator (sender) of a
communication, product or service. A signature
must be prominently displayed on all materials.
Address Block
Address blocks are used as an integral part of the
signature when a response may be necessary or
required (on printed materials such as envelopes
or letterhead). All information within the address
block should be spelled out, not abbreviated.
Page 4
Village of Mount Prospect logo Usage Policy
PMS 4625
PMS 342
The color matches the for PMS colors are as follows:
PMS 4625 (Brown)
4-Color Process RGB
C 0% R 43%
M 56% G 19%
Y 100% B 0%
K 83%
PMS 342 (Green)
4-Color Process RGB
C 100% R 0%
M 0% G 81%
Y 69% B 56%
K 43%
Color
Pantone matching system (PMS) colors 4625 (brown)
and 342 (green) are the standard colors for the Village
of Mount Prospect brand identity system. These PMS
colors may be converted into process color matches.
Page 5
Village of Mount Prospect logo Usage Policy
Color Options
Primary Color Option
Whenever possible the logo should
appear in PMS 4325 and 342.
Acceptable One Color Option
When colors are limited, the logomark may
also be printed in a single color. When this
is the case, no screens should be used. The
preferred primary single color logo is brown.
When colors are limited, the logomark may also be
printed in black. The logo can be used as a solid
black without any screens or with a screen of gray.
Reverse Reproduction
The logo mark may be reversed to white within any
background that provides sufficient contrast. Sufficient
contrast can be defined as a color or screened
percentage of a color that is dark enough to hold
enough contrast for a white logomark. Generally a
screen of 50% or more is sufficient. However, this rule
would not apply to lighter value colors such as pastels.
Mount Prospect
Page 6
Village of Mount Prospect Logo Usage Policy
Color Options
Color Variations
In some cases, certain variations of color will be
allowed for the different departments (with permission
from the Village Manager). For example, red for the
Fire Department and blue for the Police Department.
Page 7
Village of Mount Prospect Logo Usage Policy
UniformjClothing-
VILLAGE OF
Clothing Options
Special consideration will be given to uniform/
clothing uses of the logo. Due to the variety
of color used for the clothing item, the color
of the logo may need to vary as well.
If the space for the logo is large enough, the logo
with "Mount Prospect" in the top of the keystone
should be used. If the space is not large enough,
it is allowable to use the logo without Mount
Prospect within the keystone, but must be included
somewhere in the space along with the logo.
Public Works
Approval must be obtained from the Village
Manager or designee prior to ordering
uniform/clothing items with the logo.
VILLAGE OF
Mount Prospect
"Village of" should appear with the logo as well
as the name of the department (as shown here).
Public Works
Page 8
Village of Mount Prospect Logo Usage Policy
Vehicles
Displaying the Logo on
Village Vehicles
Village of Mount Prospect vehicles are to be identified
in accordance with the new identity program.
Exceptions, such as unmarked police cars,
will be made with the Village Manager's
approval. Since vehicles are of various sizes, it
is important that the Village of Mount Prospect
be identified as consistently as possible.
VILLAGE OF
Mount Prospect
Fire Department
The examples shown below are applications to
two select vehicles which represent the size and
location of the City's logo and logotype. Please
note that each department is identified according
to its specific vehicle. Due to the variety of color
used for the different departments' vehicles, the
color of the logo may need to vary as well.
The words "Village of" must
appear along with the logo.
Vinyl decals will be developed to adapt to the
various door and body panels. Questions related
to vehicle identification and placement should
be directed to the Village Manager's Office.
Page 9
MAYOR
Gera!d L Fárley
Timothy J, Corcoran
Paul Wm, Hoeferf
Richard M, Lohrstorfer
Michael.e W Skowron
Irvana K. Wilks
Michael A. lade!
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
VILLAGE CLERK
Velma W, Lowe
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Phone:
Fax:
TOO:
(847) 392-6000
(847) 392-6022
(847) 392-6064
Village. of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
April 15, 2004
CONFERENCE ROOM B, PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY
1700 WEST CENTRAL ROAD
7:30 PM
CALL TO ORDER
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
CITIZEN FORUM
SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS/DATA
. Three year overview of recycling volumes
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
. 2005 Solid Waste Contract
Continue review and discussion of current contract
. May 15, 2004 Public Works Open House
. May 22,2004 IEPA Household Hazardous Waste Collection
NEXT MEETING
ADJOURNMENT
ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
... .,.,..,. ....".."'....".""'...~"."""""".'."V'."".'..."'.'..."';""'..".""""."."..'...\'.."""'.'..
DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE PLEASÈ-tbNtACT.. . d,.
PUBLIC WORKSÄT847.870~Š~4Ò; TDí5"84i:392~Ú35..' .,.....",....".,.~,..,.., ,.\"...,. .\".....
,..,.;,,',.
. <c':'
.. .... ...,. . ... ...
x:/usersllis~/word/swmaprilAG2004 .
. .
MOUNT PROSPECT SOLID WASTE COMMISSION
February 19, 2004
MEETING MINUTES
PRESENT
Chairman George Luteri
Commissioner Pankaj Parikh
Commissioner Ken Westlake
Commissioner Mary Winkler
Lisa Angell
Public Works
ABSENT
Commissioner Rod Mobus
Commissioner Mary Rosen
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Luteri called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes from the January 15,2004 meeting were approved as written.
CITIZEN FORUM
No individuals were in attend~ance to address the Commission. The Solid Waste Coordinator stated she
received a call from a local businessman regarding the collection of household batteries. He was
proposing that local businesses such as his could have drop boxes for residents to dispose of unwanted
household batteries. The Commission agreed this was a great concept, however, as there are no viable
options for the proper disposal of the unwanted batteries pursuit of such a program would not be feasible
at this time.
SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS AND DATA
Commission members questioned the continued drop in recycling rates. The Commission members
requested a bar graph illustrating recycling volumes over the last few years be generated. The Solid
Waste Coordinator will also contact SW ANCC for additional information on recycling rates in the
SW ANCC region.
Chairman Luteri provided information on recycling markets. He noted that scrap steel prices are up due
to increased exporting of this material.
NEW BUSINESS
The Commission continued its review of the current Solid Waste Contract. The following
revisions/additions for the next Contract were made.
.
Language that refers to an Illinois Environmental Protection Agency permitted landfill
should be revised to read, state permitted landfilled. (It was noted that residential waste
could be disposed of in a landfill outside of Illinois therefore proper permitting should not
be limited to Illinois.
Page 3, Termination of Contract. 2nd paragraph, 2nd line, add the word business after (10],
so as to read, ten [10] business days.
Page 34, Item 7. Additional verbiage to Item 7 to read, The Village reserves the right to
review the hauler's, or subcontractor's documentation that material has been marketed.
Page 35, Item 13. Update current list of schools, churches and non-profit agencies
participating in recycling program.
.
.
.
OTHER
The Solid Waste Coordinator informed the Gommission thatthe Public Works Facility is one of the sites
selected for a one (1) day IEPA Household Hazardous Waste Collection in Spring 2004. Co-sponsored
by the MWRDGC and the Village of Arlington Heights the event will be conducted Saturday, May22nd
from 8:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Commissioner Westlake asked if additional volunteers would be needed as members of his Scout Troop
maybe interested in working at the event. The Solid Waste Coordinator stated the MWRDGC would
have adequate staff available but we could coordinate a time for the scouts to volunteer.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting was scheduled for Thursday, April 15, 2004 in the Public Works Facility, 1700 West
Central Road at 7:30 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
As there was no further business the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
M. Lisa Angell
Solid Waste Coordinator
X:\US ERS\LANG ELL \ W ORD\swmfeb2004. doc