Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. NEW BUSINESS 7/6/04 MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER "1.>b.~~ 111.. \ 0'1 FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 2, 2004 SUBJECT: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - STREETLIGHT 700-715 FRENCH WAY NICHOLAS PAPANICHOLAS - APPLICANT The Development Code requires the Applicant to improve the right-of-way as part of the redevelopment of the Subject Property. However, streetlights have not been installed along Dale Avenue at Northwest Highway. Therefore, installing streetlights on Dale Avenue in the area adjacent to the Villas of Sevres development, 700- 715 French Way, at this time would not be practical. The Village Code has provisions for instances where this type situation arises and allows for the installation of the required improvement at a later date. Attached please find a copy of the Restrictive Covenant where the Applicant agrees to pay for the installation of the required streetlights when the Village requires such improvement. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 6, 2004 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. i r~l~ " ) . T .." ~ /ÎJ i ..,~~. William J. Cooney, Jr., AI H IPLANIMEMOS'('o,el1aol ME! Memo (70D-715 French Way Papamcholos develop~lel1l) doc 9J V'NI 6/29/04 RESOLUTION NO, A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR STREETLIGHT INSTALLATION AT 700-715 FRENCH WAY WHEREAS, applicant, Nicholas Papanicholas, has received approval from appropriate Village of Mount Prospect departments, to improve the right-ot-way as part of the redevelopment of the Subject Property, located at 700-715 French Way; and WHEREAS, Chapter 16 (Site Construction Standards) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect requires installation of streetlights in conjunction with the development of property; and WHEREAS, in certain instances the installation of public improvements, including but not limited to streetlights, is not feasible at the time of development, however the developer is required to provide those improvements as such time as the Village, Cook County, or Illinois Department of Transportation deems appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees have determined that the best interests of the Village would be served by having the developer enter into a Restrictive Covenant, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", guaranteeing the installation of specified improvements at such a time as deemed reasonable and proper. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, IlUNOIS: SECTION ONE' The Mayor and Board of Trustees do hereby authorize execution of a Restrictive Covenant, a copy of which Restrictive Covenant is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", for property commonly known as 700-715 French Way, which Restrictive Covenant guarantees the installation of public improvements in the form of streetlights at such time as deemed necessary. 700-715 French Way Page 2/2 SECTION TWO- The Village Clerk is hereby directed to record with the Recorder of Deeds, a fully executed copy of the Agreement being the subject of this Resolution. SECTION THREE' This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2004. Gerald L. Far!ey Mayor ATTEST: Velma W, Lowe Village Clerk HICLKOIf1leslWINIRESIResirictive Cov.700-715 frenchWay,July,O4 doc RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BY AND BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS AND THE OWNER~DEVELOPER OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN SAID VILLAGE REGARDING COMPLETION OF REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 700-715 FRENCH WAY, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15 entitled "Development" of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois certain public improvements are required to be constructed and installed by Owner and Developers of property within the Village, as part of the approval for the development of such property; and WHEREAS, the schedule for accomplishing the construction and installation of such public improvements by the Owner-Developer of the Property under development is often in conflict with other public improvement projects adjacent to or in the vicinity of the Property so as to render the accomplishment of such public improvements by the Owner- Developer to be practically or economically unfeasible until the project can be combined with or scheduled so as to conform with other public improvements affecting the subject Property under development; and WHEREAS, such other public improvement projects are administered by the Village, County or State officials over which the Owner-Developer has no control, and in some instances those improvements to be accomplished by the Owner-Developer with respect to the Property under development cannot be completed until the other improvements under the Village, County or State control have been accomplished; and WHEREAS, under such circumstances, it is deemed to be inequitable to delay development of the Property under development or to require the Owner-Developer to establish a cash escrow, letter of credit or improvement bond for the purpose of guaranteeing the completion of required public improvements due to the delay caused by the intervening or subsequent accomplishment of the other public improvement projects under administration and control of the Village, County or State; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois provides that in lieu of a cash escrow, letter of credit or development bond, the Owner-Developer may execute a restrictive covenant to be recorded and to run with the land as a guarantee that the required public improvements shall be completed with respect to the Property under developmen t;and WHEREAS, the Village finds that it be in the best interests of the Village to accept a covenant to construct street lights in the future. NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the said Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois the undersigned Owner does hereby covenant with the Village of Mount Prospect, an Illinois municipal corporation, as foHows: 1. The undersigned is the Owner of the following described Property within the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, to wit: UNITS 1 THROUGH 7, IN Tf-Œ VILLA OF SEVRES CONDOMINIUMS AS DEPICTED ON THE PLAT OF SURVEY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED REAL ESTATE: LOT 1 IN VILLAS OF SEVRES, INc., PLAT OF CONSOLIDATION OF LOTS 19 AND 20 IN BLOCK 8 IN ARTHUR T, MCINTOSH AND COMPANY'S NORTHWEST MEADOWS, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF THE EAST ONE HALF OF SECTION 33, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAJ.~, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THERETO RECORDED APRIL 28, 1952 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 15327949, IN COOK COUNTY, lLLINOIS 'W'J-UCH PLAT OF SURVEY IS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT "A" TO THE DECLARATION OF CONDOMINIUM O\XlNERSHIP, RECORDED SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS DOCUMENT NUj\ffiER 0326031141, AS AMENDED FROM TIME TO TIME, TOGETHER WITH ITS UNDIVIDED PERCENTAGE INTEREST IN THE COMMON ELEMENTS IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Permanent Real Estate Index Number(s): 03-33-407-007-0000 Permanent Real Estate Index Number(s): 03-33-407-008-0000 Commonly IZnownAs: 700-715 FRENCH WAY, MT. PROSPECT, IUJNOIS 2, A plan of development of the described Property by the undersigned has been approved by the Village of Mount Prospect, which approval includes the completion of the following public improvements contained in and provided as a part of the plans, to wit: The payment for the installation of a streetlight along Da]e Avenue at Northwest Highway adjacent to Villas of Sevres, installed and constructed to Village Code. 3, For a period of twenty (20) years commencing from the date of this Restrictive Covenant, the undersigned shall undertake d1C above stated improvements within sixty (60) days after being advised by the Village of Mount Prospect to commence such construction and installation work. The work shill] continue without interruption or delay, until the improvements are completed in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with the Village, County, and State plans and specifications, 4, This Covenant to complete public improvements shall run with the subject Property for twenty (20) years. Nothing in the Covenant shall in any way prevent the alienation or sale of all or a portion of the subject Property, except that the sale shall be subject to the provisions of this Restrictive Covenant and to the plan of development pertaining to the Property. The new Owner shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed of this Restrictive Covenant. 5, This Covenant shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns in title and interest. The provisions shall be enforceable 2 in a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons seeking to violate it including an action for injunctive relief, specific performance or to recover damages or other fines and penalties as may be established in such violation, In the event that the Owner-Developer of the subject Property fails to complete the required improvements or pay a proportionate share of the required improvements by other contractors within the specified time periods, the value of such improvements shall be entered as a lien against the Property due and payable within sixty (60) days after notification to proceeds with the improvements, IN WI1NESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this 27th day of February, 2004. VILLAS OF SEVRES, INc., an Illinois corporation, By ~Ch~ ~afif£~~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS By Village President Attest: By Village Clerk Real Estate Index No: 3 Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ~ 11Œ1E em 1& TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E, JANONIS ~I' ~11"Þ PROJECT ENGINEER 1 Iø ot ruNE 29, 2004 ~ JUNE SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING .n.,..~ ,) EVERGREEN AVENUE & MAIN STREET TURN RESTRICTION ' FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to require right turns only for eastbound Evergreen A venue traffic at Main Street. South of the Union Pacific railroad tracks, Evergreen Avenue terminates immediately south of the intersection of Main Street and Prospect Avenue. Given the configuration of the intersection, it is not safe for a vehicle to turn left onto Main Street from eastbound Evergreen Avenue, As such, the curb has been designed to channel eastbound motorists to turn right onto southbound Main Street. Also, a No Left Turn sign is instaHed. The Police Department recently brought to the Engineering Staff's attention that some eastbound motorists are actually continuing through the intersection to eastbound Prospect Avenue. This is not only a hazardous maneuver but according to the Police Department difficult to enforce since it is not a complete left turn, The Police Department, with the support of the Engineering Staff, believes a Right Turn Only sign is the more appropriate sign for the intersection, The Village Code does not currently include the left turn restriction. Therefore, a repeal of an existing ordinance is not necessary, Only the addition of a right turn only movement is required. This issue was discussed at the June 14, 2004 Safety Commission Meeting, There was no one in the audience to speak on this issue, After some discussion, the Safety Commission supported the request from the Police Department to remove the No Left Turn sign and replace it with a Right Turn Only sign, The Safety Commission also recommended to install a supplemental plate stating "onto Main Street" below the Right Turn Only sign and a turn arrow on the pavement to emphasize the required turn movement. By a vote of 9-0, the Safety Commission recommends to require right turns only for eastbound Evergreen A venue traffic at Main Street (Village Code Section 18.2017 - Restricted Intersection Movements). Please include this item on the July 6th Village Board Meeting Agenda, Enc1osed are Commission Minutes from the meeting as well as a location map for your reference, ~J-' Matthew p, Lawrie the Safety cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x: \engineeringltraffic Isafecomm \recs&min )juneO4rec. doc EVERGREEN A V & MAIN ST TRAFFIC STUDY t VILLAGE or' MO!)~T PROSPECT MOUNT PROSPbCT, !LLlNQlS \ J Recommended Right Turn Oniy sign I below Stop sign l!j I ONTO MAIN ST I 1\ L___~ [¡] ,~::::::¡:' ¡ ~~~~~~ ..--... M CO (]) +J ~ 0 OC ........... +J U) C ro ~ I\t°tr~ J.t, ~ $. 't It /f,y &1]< '101} Þ QC¡j<;< Ie I?I? //"""'" I I i I \ I \ ! Director Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A Wulbecker SoUd Waste Coordinator M. Usa Angell Water/Sewer Superintendent Roderick T. O'Donovan Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E. Guenther MCUNT PRCSPECT PUBLIC WCRKS DEPARTMENT 1700 W, CENTRAL ROAD, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOiS 60056-2229 PHONE 847/870-5640 FAX 847/253-93'77 TDD 847/392-1235 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.rn, on Monday, June 14, 2004, ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Chuck Bencic John Keane Susan Arndt Kevin Grouwinkel Mark Miller Carol Tortorello Ken Lee Buz Livingston Jeff Wulbecker Matt Lawrie Absent: None Others in Attendance: See attached list. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Police Department Fire Department Public Works Public WorksÆngineering Division 'ð Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commissioner Tortorello, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on May 10,2004, The minutes were approved by a vote of9-0, CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No citizens came forth to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda, """'-"""'_'.m. """"""""""""""",~~"""",'n......... ...................................... ""O"""."m..".".,.".n.....<..m.",,,""""'" ................................. '. OLD BUSINESS None. NEW BUSINESS A) TRAFFIC STUDY ALONG THE 600 & 700 BLOCKS OF N. PINE STREET 1) Background Information Ken Bo\\man, 613 N. Pine Street, submitted a petition with 43 signatures from those residents who live along the 600 and 700 blocks ofN. Pine Street. The residents are concerned with the amount of cut through traffic and speeding from vehicles avoiding the traffic signal at Kensington Road and Elmhurst Road. The petition requests signage to restrict right turns from eastbound Kensington onto N. Pine Street. 2) Staff Study Kensington Road is a t'vVo-lane asphalt road under the jurisdiction of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). Its intersection with Elmhurst Road and Rand Road creates one of the most congested areas in Mount Prospect. Kensington Road is the minor street of the three (approximately 7000 vehicles per day) and, therefore, gets the least priority when it comes green time, A typical cycle length is 3 minutes 50 seconds with eastbound Kensington Road receiving 35 seconds of green, At its intersection with Elmhurst Road, Kensington Road has two eastbound lanes. There is a shared left and thru, and a shared right and thru. The two lanes narrow to one 150' west of the intersection, The combination of the long cycle length and constricted lane configuration often leads to back~ups during peak travel times. As a result, some eastbound motorists on Kensington Road who want to turn right onto southbound Elmhurst Road instead choose to use the neighborhood streets to avoid the traffic signal. The first street west of Elmhurst Road is Wille Street. Signs are posted at its intersection with Kensington Road that prohibit right and left turns onto southbound Wille Street. Staff was not able to learn the history of these signs other than they were installed before 19800 The next street west is Pine Street. There are currently no turn restrictions at its intersection with Kensington Road. Also, the next five intersecting streets further west also have no turn restrictions at Kensington Road. Traffic volume and speed data were gathered over a five-day period in May 2004 along four streets: Wille Street, Pine Street, Russel Street and Elmhurst Avenue. The highest daily traffic occurred on Elmhurst Avenue according to the results (~llOO vehicles) with Pine Street close behind (~1O00 vehicles), However, based on our observations and the fact there were some minor glitches with the traffic counter on Pine Street, Staff believes Pine Street to have a slightly higher volume than recorded and would recommend gathering additional volume data once school resumes in the fall. Russel Street and Wille Street experienced approximately 600 and 400 vehicles per day, respectively, As part of our traffic volume collection, Staff also performed a manual count during peak times ofthe day by observing the turning movement of vehicles on Pine Street at its intersection with Kensington Road and Highland Street. The purpose of the study was to gain a better understanding ofthe amount of traffic using Pine Street to avoid the traffic signal. Counts were taken from 7:00-8:00am (morning rush), 2:30-3:30pm (high school dismissal) and 5:00-6:00pm (evening rush), One observer noted whether the vehicle was traveling eastbound or westbound when it turned onto southbound Pine Street and the other observer noted the direction the vehicle chose when it reached the Highland Street and Pine Street intersection, Staff assumed the typical turning movement for a motorist avoiding the traffic signal at Kensington Road and Elmhurst Road was an eastbound vehicle turning right on Pine """.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.W.W.'.'.'.W~'.". Street and then left (eastbound) onto Highland Street to Elmhurst Road, However, the assumption was made that 1 0% of the motorists making this series of turns actually turned onto northbound Wille Street before reaching Elmhurst Road. Since signs prohibit right turns from Kensington Road onto Wille Street, some residents ofWiUe Street choose to use Pine Street. The other assumption made is that motorists making the other combination oftuming movements had reason to be using Pine Street other than avoiding the traffic signal. Below is a table showing the percentage of motorists using Pine Street as a cut through to avoid the traffic signal during peak hours of the day, May 12. 2004 7:00-8:00am 2:30-3:30pm 5:00-6:00pm total number of vehicles 92 98 93 % 49 48 32 number of cut through vehicles 45 47 30 Traffic speed was also gathered over a 5-day period in May 2004 along the four parallel streets west of Elmhurst Road. The 600 and 700 blocks have no intersecting streets. It is approximately 1300' (1/4 mile) between Kensington Road and Highland Skeet. A kaffic counter was placed half way between on each of the four streets, Overall, average speeds ranged &0111 25-30mph and the 85th percentile speeds ranged nom 33-36mph. On each of the streets, 2-3% of the vehicles were traveling over 40mph, With the higher percentage of cut through vehicles than compared to other local streets, speeds tend to be higher as are evident on these streets. Speed enforcement by the Police Department would have a positive influence on the small percentage of motorists driving well in excess of the posted speed limit of 25mph. Finally, Staff requested crash reports nom the Police Department for accidents that have occurred over the past five years along Pine Street between Kensington Road and Highland Street. We received four reports. The first accident occurred January 2001, A vehicle backing out of the driveway at 614 N. Pine Street struck a southbound vehicle. The southbound motorist lived on the 400 block ofN, Pine Street. The second accident occurred shortly after the previous accident. A school bus attempting to drive by the accident scene, struck one of the vehicles involved in the previous accident. The third accident occurred October 2002 but it happened on Kensington Road, The fourth accident occurred February 2004. This accident prompted Mr, Bo\vman to contact the Village about the amount of traffic on Pine Street. A Prospect High School student swerved to avoid a parked vehicle and then struck another parked vehic1e on the opposite side ofthe street in &ont ofMr, Bowman's house, 3) Evaluation Based on Staff's traffic study, it is evident that eastbound motorists are using Pine Street as a cut through to avoictthe traffic signal at Kensington Road and Elmhurst Road. From our observations, however, other streets such as Russel Street and Elmhurst A venue are a150 experiencing cut through traffic, particularly during peak travel times. The petition requests that right turns onto Pine Street at Kensington Road be restricted to reduce the traffic volume, Should this be approved, Staff believes traffic volume on the adjacent streets further west will only increase, These streets will be negatively affected and turn restrictions will have to be considered on these streets as well. Adding turn restrictions to every local street will restrict access to residents who live in the neighborhood and further cause delay along Kensington Road. For these reasons, Staff does not believe adding turn restrictions is the solution at this time. Other measures that would directly affect Pine Street such as installing speed humps are not believed to be the solution at this time either, While speed humps and other traffic calming measures can affect traffic volume and speed, they can also shift the problem to adjacent streets and have a negative affect on those who reside along the street as they must negotiate these measures every day, Further, Staff does not beJieve removing the turn restrictions at Wine Street and Kensington Road is the solution either. The signs have been in place for at least 25 years and removing them will most .......m".'.'.'.'.'.,w.-.-m.'.'.'.'.'.-.'.~.'.w likely prompta negative response from the residents along Wille Street. In addition, Staffbelieves cut through traffic will still be experienced on Pine Street even with allowing turns onto Wille Street. All of the .considerations mentioned thus far have a direct affect on the local streets. Staffbelieves the more. appropriate solution is to look for ways to reduce the delay along Kensington Road and, therefore, give less incentive for motorists to cut through the neighborhood, One recommendation is to work with mOT to see if there is an opportunity to modify the traffic signal timing at Kensington Road and Elmhurst Road, Adding green time to eastbound traffic without increasing the overall cycle length will allow more vehicles to clear the intersection while not increasing the delay during the red phase. IDOT will have to determine what affect this may have on Elmhurst Road and Rand Road traffic before agreeing to any changes. The other recommendation is to widen the roadway along Kensington Road, Increasing the length of the two eastbound lanesandeven.providing an exclusive right turn lane would allow more vehicles to clear the intersection per cycle and reduce the delay, Not too long ago, mOTperformed an in-depth study of the Rand/Elmhurst/Kensington intersection in order to develop a plan to relieve congestion. Property acquisition, ring roads and other significant changes were considered in the study, It is our understanding mOT has ceased pursuing this plan at this time, However, Staff is hopeful there is an opportunity to make improvements to Kensington Road to address the cut through concern once Staff initiates discussion with mOT, 4) Recommendation Based on Engineering Staff's analysis of the issue, the Village Traffic Engineer recommends: . contacting ¡DOT and requesting they modify the traffic signal timing to reduce the delay along eastbound Kensington Road at Elmhurst Road contacting ¡DOT and requesting tbey make road improvements to Kensington Road to reduce tbe delay obtain traffic volume and speed data on Pine Street once school resumes in the fan periodic speed enforcement by the Police Department during peak travel times bring the issue back to the Safety Commission for further discussion once :mOT has reviewed the issue . . . It 5) Discussion Chairman Bem~ic opened up the discussion to the audience. Mr, Ken Bowman, 613 N, Pine Street, shared the story of an .accident that occurred along the street in February 2004, He is concerned about the .traffic volume and speed along the street and would like something done about it. He prefers a turn restrictionoffofKensington Road and would be open to time specific restrictions. He is also in favor of speed humps to slow down traffic, Mike Koldras, 610 N. Pine Street, is also concerned about the speed along the street. He would like to see Police enforcement ofthe speed limit. Matt Spejcher, 603 N, Pine Street, made a point that southbound motorists on Pine Street do not stop at the Stop sign at Highland Street. He did mention that Police enforcement in the past has been effective. Marilyn Clark, 706 N, Pine Street, daily witnesses cut through traffic on Pine Street and is also concerned about the speeding. Marty Thomas, 718 N. Pine Street, shared that many ofthe drivers cutting through the neighborhood speed. Dan Vierneisel, 620 N, Pine Street, suggested turn restrictions for certain times of the day for the first three or four street west of Elmhurst Road. Mr, Bowman suggested constructing a right turn lane on Kensington Road at Elmhurst Road to invite drivers to stay on Kensington Road. He realizes the road is under the jurisdiction ofIDOT and would like the Village to pursue this option, Kevin Howe, 623 N. Pine Street, sees the long-term solution as road improvements to Kensington Road but would like to a short-term solution of turn restrictions, Pat Rehusch, 621 N, Pine Street, has been a long time resident and believes the turn restrictions on Wille Street were insta1ied because a previous mayor lived on the street many years ago, She, too, believes cars are speeding on the street and is in favor of time specific turn restrictions, Mirean Blye, 615 N, Pine Street, shared her concern with the volume on the street and the speed of the vehicles. Michael Palomo, 607 N. Pine Street, has contacted the Police Department about speeding on the street in the past and they have responded. However, he believes speeding is stiH an issue on the street. Ernie Johnson, 717 N. Pine Street, believes there is a speeding issue along the street. Karen Bowman, 613 N, Pine Street, is concerned for people's satèty in the front yard with the speeding along the street. Chairman Bencic brought the issue back to the Commission. He asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to present the report to the Safety Commission. Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of Staff's study of the issue and the recommendations to the Safety Commission, Chairman Bencic asked if there were any questions ITom the Commission. Commissioner Arndt asked if turn restriction signs could be installed and then removed in the future if IDOT were to make changes to Kensington Road, Traffic Engineer Lawrie said that installation of turn restriction signs require Village Board approval and removal of the signs would also require their approval. Commissioner Miller asked if speed humps were an option to control vehicle speeds along the street. Traffic Engineer Lawrie explained that a traftìc calming program which includes speed humps has not yet been developed by Star[ At this point, Staff has not endorsed speed humps, Resident response to speed humps is often mixed and other communities have actually begun to remove speed humps. Village Engineer Wulbecker pointed out that speed enforcement is a reasonable reaction to address a speeding issue. Also, installing turn restrictions doesn't get at the root of the problem which is the long delay along Kensington RQad, That is why Staff has recommended to work with IDOT in addressing the delay problem and if that doesn't work to look at other options such as turn restrictions. However, any turn restrictions is going to affect the entire neighborhood including making it difficult for residents of Pine Street to access their homes. Commissioner Grouwinkel mentioned he used to live on the 200 block ofN, Louis Street and at one time experienced a lot of cut through traffic, The ViHage, after a detailed study, installed turn restriction signs off of Rand Road, If mOT does not agree to any changes on Kensington Road, he would be in favor of turn restrictions at Pine Street. There was some additional discussion about the scope of the improvements along Kensington Road to ---"'-.'.'.'.'.'O'.'.'.'.'.'.'.WN.W"'" .m~...mm............................~......... address the cut through concern, Staff was going to meet with mOT and try to convince them to commit to this work, Chairman Bencic requested the Police Department do additional speed enforcement to address the speeding concern. To address the cut through issue, he hopes mOT wiH make improvements to Kensington Road, Otherwise, he is concerned that not just Pine Street but many streets further west wi1l a!l have to have turn restrictions and this will limit access for the residents. Commissioner Keane would like to bring the issue back for more discussion in October once Staffhas had a chance to meet with IDOT and also collect additional traffic data once school resumes in the tàlL A resident asked if a No Thru Traffic sign could be installed to deter cut through traffic, Traffic Engineer Lawrie said that such a sign does have some affect even though it is not an enforceable sign since Pine Street is a public street It will be considered by Staff, Village Engineer Wulbecker, seconded by Commissioner Keane, move to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer which included: . contacting mOT and requesting they modify the traffic signal timing to reduce the delay along eastbound Kensington Road at Elmhurst Road contacting mOT and requesting they make road improvements to Kensington Road to reduce the delay obtain traffic volume and speed data on Pine Street once school resumes in the fall periodic speed enforcement by the Police Department during peak travel times bring the issue back to the Safety Commission for further discussion once mOT has reviewed the Issue e . . e The motion also included having Staff contact the bus companies and asking them to utilize the arterial routes as much as possible and having the issue brought back to the Safety Commission in October, The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0, B) EVERGREEN A VENUE & MAIN STREET TURN RESTRICTION 1) Background Information For safety purposes, the Police Departmefrt requested that the No Left Turn sign be replaced with a Right Turn Only sign at the intersection of Evergreen Avenue and Main Street. 2) Staff Study South of the Union Pacific railroad tracks, Evergreen Avenue tenninates immediately south of the intersection of Main Street and Prospect Avenue. Given the configuration of the intersection, it is not safe for a vehicle to turn left onto Main Street from eastbound Evergreen Avenue. As such, the curb has been designed to channel eastbound motorists to turn right onto southbound Main Street. Also, 11 No Left Turn sign is installed. The Police Department recently brought to the Engineering Staff's attention that some eastbound motorists are actually continuing through the intersection to eastbound Prospect A venue, This is not only a hazardous maneuver but according to the Police Department difficult to enforce since it is not a complete left turn. The Police Department, with the support of the Engineering Staff, believes a Right Turn Only sign is the more appropriate sign for the intersection. The Village Code does not currently include the left turn restriction, Therefore, a repeal of an existing ordinance is not necessary, Only the addition of a right turn only movement is required. 3) Recommendation Based on Engineering Staff's analysis of the issue, the Village Traffic Engineer recommends: . approval to require right turns only for eastbound Evergreen Avenue traffic at Main Street. 4) Discussion There was no one in the audience to speak on this issue, Chairman Bencic asked that Traffic Engineer Lawrie provide a brief overview of Staff's report to the Commission, Traffic Engineer La\vrie did so and provided Staff's recommendation to install a Right Turn Only sign at the intersection. Commissioner Keane thought it would be a good idea to add the phrase "onto Main Street" below the Right Turn Only sign to provide further clarification for motorists. Chairman Bencic wondered if it would be possible to narrow Evergreen Avenue at its intersection with Main Street and further emphasize that only a right turn only is allowed. He thought this could be done either with modifying the curb or striping the area. Village Engineer Wulbecker suggested installing a right turn arrow on the pavement to emphasize the right turn only designation, Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commissioner Grouwinkel, moved to approve the recommendation of the Village Traffic Engineer to require right turns only for eastbound Evergreen A venue traffic at Main Street. The motion also included adding the phrase "onto Main Street" below the Right Turn Only sign and installing the appropriate pavement markings, The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. COMMISSION ISSUES Chairman Bencic welcomed Mark Mi1ler as a new member to the Safety Commission. No other Safety Commission items were brought forth at this time, ADJ OURNMENT With no íùrther business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 9-0 to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner TortoreUo. Commission Keane seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew p, Lawrie, P.E, Traffic Engineer x :\engineeri ng\tra ffic\safecomm\recs&mi n \j uneO4min.doc ...-.~.~o.'.'.'.'m.w~'-"-"'~-~.'.'.'.'m.~~n \/WI 6/29/04 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, iLUNOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2017 of "SCHEDULE XVII-RESTRICTED INTERSECTION MOVEMENTS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by inserting in proper alphabetical sequence the following, so that hereafter said Section 18.2017 of the ViI!age Code of Mount Prospect shall include the following: "Intersection and Direction Eastbound traffic on Evergreen Avenue at its intersection with Main S1. Restriction Right turn only from eastbound Evergreen Avenue onto Main St." SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2004, Gerald L. Farley Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk K\ClKOIfìles\WIN\ORDINANCICH 18-Rt lurns only,July,04.doc £ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department ~ FROM: WILLIAM J, COONEY, DIRECTOR MICHAEL W. JACOBS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR ~~. ~~ 1/t.1~ TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER SUBJECT: PZ-41-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE DATE: JULY 1,2004 BACKGROUND As you may recall, on May 11 th the Village Board continued their review of a variety of proposed Text Amendments to the Village Code. The specific issues remaining involved the following: ./ Flags & Flagpoles ../ Driveway Widths ./ Attached Garages ./ Pavement Separation To assist the Board in finalizing the text amendments regarding these various issues, the following staff report outlines each issue and summarizes the proposed amendments. Staffwil! be present at the July 6th meeting to review each issue in detail and answer any questions. FLAGS & FLAGPOLES Following the Board's most recent review of the proposed text amendments regarding flags & flagpoles, it was requested that Staff obtain information regarding flag regulations within the Village of Schaumburg, The following is a brief summary of Schaumburg's regulations: General Requirements: . Flags shall be displayed only on flagpoles or staffs designed and constructed specifically and exclusively for flag display, . No flag shall be displayed or attached in any manner to light poles, sign poles, trees, or similar structures or objects. Flags shall be displayed in such a manner that no portion of the flag shall project over any property line or contact any structure when fully extended. . . Flags shall not be mounted on roofs. An official flag shall always be displayed above another flag. The official flag of the United States shaH always be displayed in the position higher than any other flag. Wall mounted flags shall be displayed from flagpoles not to exceed 10 feet in length, and such poles shall not extend above the roof line. . . F "" PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board -July 6,2004 Page 2 of 6 ill Flags shall be maintained in an orderly fashion and in good condition. Tattered or tom flags shall be removed or replaced. Only government flags may be displayed on or attached to vehicles and buildings. The vertical length of a permitted flag on a flagpole shaH not exceed 14 of the length of the pole upon which the flag is hung. However, the maximum vertica! !ength of any flag shaH not exceed 14 of the vertical length as would be aHowed for a 45-foot pole, ill Ii Residential Districts: A maximum of 1 flagpole per single-family zoning lot, and a maximum of 3 flagpoles per multi-family zoning lot. For single-family uses, the height of the flagpole shall not exceed 15 feet, nor shall the size of the flag exceed 24 square feet. Additionally, flagpoles in single-family residential areas shall have a minimum setback of 10 feet from any property line Non-Residential Districts (including Commercial. Shopping Centers, Automobile Dealers, Automobile Service Stations, Office, industrial, and Institutional uses): There shall be a maximum of 3 flagpoles per zoning lot. The regulations for permitted flag size and flagpole height vary based on the amount of setback provided and the height of the flagpole. The permitted heights vary from 25 feet to 55 feet and the permitted flag sizes vary from 40 square feet to 96 square feet. Staff Comments: The Village of Schaumburg's limitations with regards to the number of flagpoles permitted in residential and non-residential districts is consistent with the proposed amendments previously reviewed by the VilJage Board. Staffbe!ieves all of the "General Requirements" included within Schaumburg's regulations could be beneficial and have been incorporated into the proposed amendments. It should be noted that Schaumburg's regulations specifically prohibit the display of flags from light poles, sign poles, trees, or similar structures. This restriction would prohibit the current display of flags at the Volkswagen and Buick dealerships on Rand Road. The Board should review each of Schaumburg's "General Regulations" to determine which, if any, should be incorporated into our final ordinance. Proposed Rc2ulations: The following summarizes the proposed regulations regarding flags and flagpoles that are included in the attached draft ordinance. The proposed regulations are similar to those previously reviewed by the Village Board; however, they also include the general restrictions included within Schaumburg's regulations. Section 7.205 Exempt Signs - E. Flags: Residential Districts: A maximum of one flagpole, which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) feet in height, sha]] 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 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. General Requirements: In addition to the limitations outlined above, the following restrictions shall apply to flags and flagpoles within all zoning districts. 1) Flagpoles shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet (5') from any property line and are not permitted within a required interìor side yard, 2) FJags shall be displayed in such a manner that no portion of the flag shall project over any property line or contact any structure when fully extended. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - July 6, 2004 Page 3 of 6 3) Flags shall not be mounted on roofs. 4) Display of flags of the United States shall conform to all applicable Federal statutes regarding the use and display of the United States flag, 5) Flags shall be displayed only on flagpoles or staffs designed and constructed specifically and exclusively for flag display. 6) No flag shall be displayed or attached in any manner to light poles, sign poles, trees, or similar structures or objects. These restrictions shall not apply to flags located within public rights-of- way, 7) Wall mounted flags shall be displayed from flagpoles not to exceed 10 feet in length, and such poles shall not extend above the roof line. 8) Flags shall be maintained in an orderly fashion and in good condition. Tattered or tom flags shall be removed or replaced. A TT ACHED GARAGES As you may recall, during the Planning & Zoning Commission's review of the various proposed text amendments the issue of limiting the size of attached garages within single-family residential districts was discussed, In the end the P&Z Commission determined that the issue of garage size is not as important as the visual impact from the street. To address this issue the P&Z Commission recommended that language be induded within the Village Code that would allow no more than a 3-car garage to face the street (including both the front and exterior side yards), It is important to note that recent amendments adopted by the Village Board now include garages (whether attached or detached) when calculating floor-area-ratio (FAR). It is anticipated that the inclusion of garages y¡hen calculating FAR will help to limit garage sizes. To address the issue of limiting the size of garages facing the street the following language is proposed: Sections 14.806, 14.906, 14.1006, 14.1106, & 14.1206 entitled "Garages" which shall read as follows: Garages: No garage serving a single-family detached dweHing and fronting on a public right-of-way, may have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single garage doors; b) a combination of a single and double garage door; or 3) a triple garage door. DRIVEW A Y WIDTH & RELATED ISSUES As you may recall, during the May Illh meeting Staff presented various methods for regulating driveway and sidewalk widths within a required front or exterior side yard. 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 also 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. - -~-.'.-.w.-.-.~~.-.'.-.'.-.'m.'m.W.'m" PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - July 6, 2004 Page 4 of 6 These existing regulations are designed to permit driveway widths that are in keeping with the size of 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) of garages. With this in mind Staff believes amendments to the Village's existing driveway width limitations are warranted, Related Driveway Issues: In reviewing the issue of drive\vay width the following factors must be considered: . Definition of "Width" - The Village Code currently indicates that the maximum permitted driveway width shall include all adjacent walkways, This stipulation was included to limit the overall width of the driveway and prevent sidewalks from becoming additional parking areas, However, the inclusion of all adjacent walkways has direct impacts on the design of walkways and entryways. . Application of Drivewav Regulations - The Village's existing regulations regarding driveway widths apply throughout an entire property, regardless if the driveway is located within a required yard or in the permitted building envelope. . Relationshio to Sidewalk Regulations - The Village Code currently permits a maximum width of 5 feet for service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps that encroach into a required front yard. The existing 5-foot width límitation does not accommodate many of the recent trends in walkway/entryway design. In addition, the existing 5-foot limitation is less than the maximum width of 8 feet allowed for stoops that project into a required yard. . Lot Coverage - In reviewing the Village's various limitations regarding driveways and walkways it is important to note that the ViJlage Code includes underlying lot coverage limitations for all residential zoning districts, Staff Comments: Initially staff recommended the foHowing modifications to the existing regulations regarding driveway widths (pJease note the additions and deletions). 3. Width: Driveway width shall be detennined by the maximum frOl~t yard lot coverage of limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback line, for ail 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 of26 feet a. Width of Driveways serving J-..e.æ: garages with a width greater than the maximum pernIitted driveway width in Section 14.2215:A.3 may 5flaH be permitted to be lip 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 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. The modifications proposed above helped to clarify the existing regulations regarding driveway width; however, both the P& Z Commission and Village Board suggested that regulations be adopted to allow some greater design flexibility while also maintaining a sufficient amount of green space within a front yard. In response Staff recommended the folJowing options that could be used (either individually or in combination) to regulate driveway widths: 1) Front Yard Cover(1'Ze Limitation - To provide some design flexibility while also maintaining a minimum amount of green space, a lot coverage limitation could be established for the front yard, This limitation could be based on the zoning district's underlying lot coverage limitations PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - July 6, 2004 Page 5 of 6 (ranging from 35% to 50% depending on the district). In applying this approach it is still suggested that a maximum driveway width be established. 2) Varied Materials - To help visually separate various paved surfaces the Village Code could be amended to require different materials, patterns, or colors between various paved surfaces. 3) Establish Specific Limitations For Each Design Element - This option would maintain the Village Code's current approach by defining specific size limitations for driveways and walkways. To help accommodate greater design flexibility the current limitations could be changed (such as increasing the maximum walkway width from 5 feet to 8 feet or j 0 feet). In addition, specific language could be developed to determine what is included in driveway width. Based on the Board's comments during the May 11lh meeting, Staff suggests a combination of all three of the above regulation options be utilized. The following is a detailed explanation of how each of these regulations would apply to the design of driveways and sidewalks within front & exterior side yards (please refer to the attached exhibits for some illustrative examples). I) Front & Exterior Side Yard Covera1!e Limitations: Similar to the existing lot coverage limitations within the residential zoning districts, a coverage limitation specific to front and exterior side yards would be established. The proposed limitations (outlined below) would match the underlying lot coverage limitation for all single-family residences within the Village's various residential zoning districts, Please note that the proposed front and exterior side yard coverage limitations would only apply to paved areas within a required front or exterior side yard; however, all proposed improvements must also comply with the zoning district's underlying lot coverage limitations. Zoning District: Existing Lot Coverage Limitations: Proposed Front & Exterior Side Yard Coverage Limitatlom-: R-X R-l R-A, R-2, R-3 35% 45% 50% 35% 45% 50% 2) Underlyine Limitations for Driveways and Sidewalks: In addition to the proposed front & exterior side yard coverage limitations, Staff also recommends that underlying limitations be developed for driveway and sidewalk widths. The following is a summary of the proposed limitations: Sidewalks: Sidewalks and steps providing direct access to an entrance of a principal structure may be up to eight (8) feet in width within a required front or exterior side yard. (Note: This proposed width is consistent with the existing maximum permitted stoop width), Driveway Width: Driveway width shall be limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback line, 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. Driveways serving garages with a width greater than the maximum permitted driveway widths outlined above may be the same width as the garage within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the width of the garage doors pius, 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. Driveway width shall PZ-41-03: Various T ex! Amendments Village Board - July 6, 2004 Page 6 of 6 include all adjacent parallel sidewalks that are constructed of the same materia! as the driveway. All parallel adjacent sidewalks constructed of different materials than that of the driveway shall be subject to the applicable sidewalk limitations within the Village Code. The minimum driveway width for all single-family residences shall be eight (8) feet. PAVEMENT SEP ARA TION The Village Code contains specific regulations regarding a variety of paved surfaces, including, but 110t limited to, driveways, patios, stoops and service walks, As noted previously, Staff is confronted with the issue of delineating one type of pavement from another when the pavement areas are adjacent to each other. To address this issue Staff has previously required a minimum separation of I-foot between paved areas; however, no forma] language outlining this requirement is included within the ViUage Code. In response Staff previously suggested that specific language be included in the Village Code that would require a minimum ] ~foot separation between different pavement areas. During review of this issue by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Village Board there was consensus that applying a pavement separation requirement was not desired, due to the maintenance and safety issues that it can create. Due to these circumstances Staff is no longer proposing an amendment to the Village Code to require a specified separation between paved areas, In addition., Staff will no longer enforce a pavement separation policy when reviewing building permits. CONCLUSION Staff will be present during the July 6th meeting to review the various proposed text amendments and answer any questions regarding this matter. ,~~ <'I {\ 1 '. ~ {. ;~....t.i \ l !' . ' i. ¡ '-!. . r . i William J. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 AND CHAPTER 14 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Article II, Section 7.205 entitled "Exempt Signs" of Chapter 7 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph E entitled "Flags" in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph E entitled "Flags" which shall be and read as follows: E. Flags: 1. Residential Districts: A maximum of one flagpole, which shall not exceed twenty-five (25) 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. 2. 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 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. 3. General Requirements: In addition to the limitations outlined above, the following restrictions shall apply to flags and flagpoles within all zoning districts. a. Flagpoles shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet (5') from any property line and are not permitted within a required interior side yard. b. Flags shall be displayed in such a manner that no portion of the flag shall project over any property line or contact any structure when fully extended, c. Flags shall not be mounted on roofs. m ..'.y.~m.wmmm. d, Display of flags of the United States shall conform to all applicable Federal statutes regarding the use and display of the United States flag. e. Flags shall be displayed only on flagpoles or staffs designed and constructed specifically and exclusively for flag display. f. No flag shall be displayed or attached in any manner to light poles, sign poles, trees, or similar structures or objects. These restrictions shall not apply to flags located within public rights-of-way. g. Wall mounted flags shall be displayed from flagpoles not to exceed 10 feet in length, and such poles shall not extend above the roof line. h. Flags shall be maintained in an orderly fashion and in good condition, Tattered or torn flags shall be removed or replaced. SECTION 2: Article III, Section 14-306 entitled "Accessory Structures" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting subparagraph (E)(4) of Section 14-306 and insertIng in lieu thereof, the following new subparagraph (E)(4) which shall be and read as follows: 4, Service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps may be instalied and maintained as follows: a. Rear or Interior Side Yards: Up to three (3) feet in width. b. Front or Exterior Side Yards: Up to eight (8) feet in width if providing direct and the singular means of access to the primary entry of the residence; otherwise up to five (5) feet in width. SECTION 3: Article VUJ, Section 14.805 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph C entitled "Lot Coverage" in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph C entitled "Coverage Limitations" which shall be and read as follows: 2 Co Coverage Limitations: 1. Lot Coverage: No lot in the R-X district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: a. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: 35% b, All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential: 75% 20 Front and Exterior Side Yard Coverage: No front or exterior side yard of a single-family residence in the R-X district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding 35%, SECTION 4: Article VIII, entitled "R-X Single-Family Residence District" of Chapter 14 shall be amended by adding a new section 14,806 entitled "Garages", which shall be and read as follows: 14.806: Garages: No garage serving a single-family detached dwelling and fronting on a public right-of-way, may have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single garage doors; b) a combination of a single and double garage door; or 3) a triple garage door. SECTION 5: Article IX, Section 14.905 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph C entitled "Lot Coverage" in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph C entitled "Coverage Limitations" which shall be and read as follows: C. Coverage Limitations: 1. Lot Coverage: No lot in the R-1 district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: a. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: 45% b. All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential: 75% 3 .o"'~owN.'.'.'.~.o.,.,.,.o.'.~. 2, Front and Exterior Side Yard Coverage: No front or exterior side yard of a single-family residence in the R-1 district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding 45%. SECTION 6: Article iX, entitled "R-1 Single-Family Residence District" of Chapter 14 shaH be amended by adding a new section 14.906 entitled "Garages", which shall be and read as follows: 14.906: Garages: No garage serving a single-family detached dwelling and fronting on a public right-at-way, may have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single garage doors; b) a combination of a single and double garage door; or 3) a triple garage door. SECTiON7: Article X, Section 14,1005 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shaH be amended by deleting paragraph C entitled "Lot Coverage" in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph C entitled "Coverage limitations" which shall be and read as follows: C, Coverage Limitations: 1, Lot Coverage:. No lot in the R-A district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: a. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: 50% b. All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential: 75% 2. Front and Exterior Side Yard Coverage: No front or exterior side yard of a single-family residence in the R-A district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding 50%. SECTION 8: Article X, entitled "R-A Single-Family Residence District" of Chapter 4 14 shall be amended by adding a new section 14.1006 entitled "Garages", which shall be and read as follows: 14,1006: Garages: No garage serving a single-family detached dwelling and fronting on a public right-at-way, may have more than one of the foiiowing: a) three (3) single garage doors; b) a combination of a single and double garage door; or 3) a triple garage door. SECTION 9: Article XI, Section 14.1105 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph C entitled "Lot Coverage" in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph C entitled "Coverage Limitations" which shall be and read as follows: C. Coverage Limitations: 1. lot Coverage: No lot in the R-2 district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: a. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: 50% b. All permitted and conditional uses for nonresidential: 75% 2. Front and Exterior Side Yard Coverage: No front or exterior side yard of a single-family residence in the R-2 district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding 50%. SECTION 10: Article XI, entitled "R-2 Attached Single-Family Residence District" of Chapter 14 shall be amended by adding a new section 14.1106 entitled "Garages", which shall be and read as follows: 14.1106: Garages: No garage serving a single-family detached dweIHng and fronting on a public right-at-way, may have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single garage doors; b) a combination of a single and double garage door; or 3) a triple garage door. 5 ,_._-,._,"..w,,~.~.-.'m.-mN.W SECTION 11: Article XII, Section 1401205 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect ViHageCode shaH be amended by deleting paragraph C entitled "Lot Coverage" In its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph C entitled "Coverage Limitations" which shall be and read as follows: Co Coverage limitations: 1, Lot Coverage: No lot in the R-3 district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding: a. All permitted and conditional uses for residential: 50% b. AU permitted and conditional usesJor nonresidential: 75% 20 Front and Exterior Side Yard Coverage: No front or exterior side yard of a single-family residence in the R-3 district shall be developed with total impervious surfaces exceeding 50%. SECTION 12: Article XII, entitled "R~3 Low DensityResidence District" of Chapter 14 shall be amended by adding a new section 1401206 entitled "Garages", which shall be and read as follows: 14,1206: Garages: No garage serving asing/e-family detached dwelling and fronting on a public right-ot-way, may have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single garage doors; b} a combination of a single and double garage door; or 3) a triple garage door. SECTION 13: Article XXII, Section 14.2215 entitled "Driveways" of Chapter 14of the. Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting subparagraphs (A)(3), (A)(3)(a) and (A)(3)(b) entitled "Width" in their entirety and by adding new subparagraphs (A)(3), (A)(3)(a) and (A)(3)(b) entitled "Width" in lieu thereof which shall be and read as 6 foilows: 3. Width: Driveway width shall be calculated by including all abutting parallel sidewalks that are constructed of the same material as the driveway. If abutting parallel sidewalks are constructed of different materials than the driveway they shall not be included in calculating driveway width, but shall be subject to the applicable sidewalk limitations within the Village Code. All driveways shall be unobstructed from any encroachment such as chimneys, fireplaces, and bay windows. Driveways may be installed and maintained as follows: a. Driveway width shall be limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback line, 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. The minimum driveway width for all single-family residences shall be eight (8) feet. b. Driveways serving garages with a width greater than the maximum driveway width permitted within Section 14.2215.A.3.a may be the same width as the garage 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 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, SECTION 14: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphiet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this - day of ,2004. 7 .."...','s.'.w.'.w.wn"'~" . """""'.w.'mn.'.'m.'.w.'è.,'."'.~-"-"~ Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma lowe, Village Clerk Continued Review of Proposed Text Amendments (PZ-41-03) to the Village Code Village Board Meeting July 6, 2004 [" The Village Board recently approved a number of amendments to the village Code, however, the following items still remain: ./ Flags & Flagpoles ./. Size of Attached Garages ./ Driveway Width & Related Issues ../ Pavement Separation I " I ! 1 .....mp...,....~m..~.....w.w.w.'.w~' Flag & Flagpole Regulations Residential Flagpole War Memorial Lions. Park 2 Commercial Flagpoles I ,~,.,'~ Office Flagpoles Proposed Flag &. Flagpole Regulations: General Requirements: 1) Flagpoles shall maintain a minimum setback of 5' from any property line and are not permitted within a required interior side yard 2) flags shall be displayed in such a manner that no portion of the flagshaU project over any' property line or contact any structure when fully extended 3) Flags shaH not be mounted on roofs 4) Display of the USA flag shall conform to all applicable Federal statutes <: ! 3 ....",,~.'.'.'.'.'.'.w.wN.'=.'~'.'.'.'.'m' General Requirements (continued): 5) Flags shall be displayed only on flagpoles or staffs specifically designed for flag display 6) Flags shall not be attached to light poles, sign poles, trees or similar objects. These restrictions shall not apply to flags located within public rig hts-of-way 1) Wall mounted flags shall be displayed from flagpoles not to exceed 10 feet in length and shall not extend above the roof line 8) Flags shall be maintained in an orderly fashion'; and good condition. Tattered or torn flags shan be removed or replaced ., Proposed Flag & Flagpole Regulations: ./ Residential Districts: Maximum Pole Height: 25 feet Maximum Number of Poles: 1 Maximum Number of Flags Total: 2 Maximum Flag Size: 3 feet x 5 feet 4 Proposed Flag & Flagpole Regulations: vi' Non-Residential Districts: Maximum Pole Height: Same as maximum permitted building height in the zoning district. Maximum Number of Poles: 3 <, >; Maximum Number of Flags Total: 6 Maximum Flag Size: Flagpole shall be a minimum of 4 times the length of the flag. ';> Attached Garages 5 >"~.~,,»»w>->~>w»>w>=m»N>".~.~ Proposed language: Garages: No garage serving a single-family detached dwellingandJrontingon apubl¡c. right- of-way, may have more than one of the following: a)three (3)singlegaragedoors; b) a combination of a single and double garage door; or 3) a triple garage door. Note: These regulations would apply to either attached or detached garages (detached garages are already subject to a maximum size limitation of 672 square feet). Driveway Width & Related Issues ""~"-C"'W""""""""""""""".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.W."'.'.'.'.'m.'.'.'.'.'.'.~.'.'.'.'. 6 Proposed Regulations: ' ../ Establish front & exterior side yard coverage limitations ../ Maintain underlying restrictions for driveways, and sidewalks ../ Allow abutting sidewalks and driveways provided different materials are used front & Exterior Side Yard lot Coveraoe Limitations: To provide some design flexibility with regards to driveways & walkways, while also maintaining a sufficient amount of green space, Staff -recommends a coverage limitation be establïshed for the front & exterior side yards. This limitation could be based on the zoning district's underlying lot coverage limitation (ranging from 35°/0 to 50%) depending on the zoning district). ",. ';; :.- ; 7 ""~---"-'_'.W.7.=~.'.'~,=',',',','C,~,. Front & Exterior Side Yard lot Coverage limitations: Zoning District Lot Coverage (Existing) 35°/0 Front & Exterior Side Yard Coverage (Proposed) R~X R~l R-A R-2 R~3 45°/0 50°/0 50°/0 50°/0 35°/0 45°/0 50% 50% 50% " '.;, " Max Driveway Width: 32 feet* 85 feet * Assuming 3-car garage R-X Zonina District Max Lot Coverage: 35°/0 front Yard Area: 3,400 sq. ft. Max Front Yard Lot Coverage (based on 35°/0 maximum): 1,190 sq. ft. Max Driveway Area: 1..130 sq. ft. Remaining Potentia! Paved Area: 60 sq. ft. 8 ~ .... GI ~ 11\ " !" i 100 feet I Max Driveway Width: 32 feet* * Assuming 3-car garage R~X Zonina District Max lot Coverage: 35°/0 Front Yard Area: 4,000 sq, ft. Max Front Yard Lot Coverage (based on :35°/0 maximum): 1,400 sq. ft. Max Driveway Area: 1,130 sq. ft. Remaining Potential Paved Area: 210 sq. ft. I .... GI ~I .-Ii Max Driveway Width: 23 feet R-l Zonina District Max lot Coverage: 45°/0 Front Yard Area: 1,950 sq, ft. Max Front: Yard Lot Coverage (based on 45% maximum): 877.5 sq. ft. Max Driveway Area: 690 sq. ft, Remaining Potential Paved Area: 181.5 sq. ft. ,,' :' . 9 ,',_..~~"...m~~""~'~"""""~ ¡ ~riveway i LL=' 2U.; i .., (II .!! in N .-! I R-A Zonina District Max lot Coverage: 50°/0 Front Yard Area: 1,500 sq. ft. Max Front Yard Lot Coverage (based on ¡ 50°10 maximum): ¡ 750 sq. ft. j Max Driveway Area: 630 sq. ft. Remaining Potential Paved Area: 120 sq.. ft. I ~ """'.'.'.W.'.'.'.'.W.'.'.".'.'.'.7.".". 10 proDosed.lHiveway Width Regulations: Method for Calculating Width: - Shall include all abutting parallel sidewalks that are constructed of the same material as the driveway - If abutting parallel sidewalks are constructed of different materials than the driveway they shall not be included in calculating driveway width, but shall be subject to the applicable sidewalk limitations within the Village Code, , : h: Driveway (asphalt) Sidewalk & Driveway Widths Calculated Separately .1f Constructed of Different Materials 11 """",,',',',=,"v'v,,~",','mm,",','~" Sidewalk (concrete) Driveway Width Driveway ( concrete) Sidewalk Included In Driveway Width if Constructed of Same Materials Pro osed Drivewa Width Re ulations: Maximum Driveway Width: - Limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback Une, for aU lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet .. Maxirnumdriveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. - Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shaH have a maximum driveway width. of 26 .feet. 12 """""""""".'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'c.'.'.'..c.~~.....m...................... '.'...""..c.............m.."..... proDosedJ2.rjveway Width Regulations: Maximum Driveway Width: - Driveways serving garages with a width greater than the maximum driveway width permitted by the Village Code may be the same width as the garage 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 the garage doors, plus 2 feet on either side. ,;'. ;c. p roposed....Qjjveway Width Regulations: Maximum Driveway Width. (continued)= - The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum permitted driveway width at the lot line. :;0 } 13 '","ù'.....omm,.'.wm.'.'.'.W~"~" '~".'.'.'.=.'.'.'.w.=.,.,.,.,y'~""""""'W Drivewa Width Driveways for garages that exceedthepermifteddrivewaywidth 15 feet Maxim um distance beyond. garage doors: 2 feet Maximum -- permitted driveway width ~ Minimum Driveway Width: Although much of the focus has been placed on controUing the maximum width of driveways, the Village/s Zoning Regulations do not contain a minimum width standard. To address this issue Staff recommends a minimum width of 8 feet be established for single-family residential driveways" ";' :::. :> 14 Sidewalks Within Front & Exterior Side Yards proposed Regulations: Service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps may be installed and maintained as follows: - Rear or Interior Side Yards: Up to three (3) feet in width. ", '; - Front or Exterior Side Yards: Up to eight (8) feet in width if providing directand the singular means of access to the primary entry of the residence; otherwise up to five (5) feet in width. "; 15 """~.'.~W.~.~~N.""~'~""'W..~ Example #1 Maximum Width = 5 feet Maximum Width ..... 8. feet Example #1 16 Example #2 ';.'ê:;.;:;-';.>/~,';<?);.;-:,-:,;.~/;;-~;;;./-::.-;->/"::;;:;:';';:;;';';- ;'-;-::'--;;->:':'»;":;"';"':;:':"-;:";;//, ,/(?. 'i;~ '(~ :((<X(i, i: ~ '(( '(( '((( '(i)'((~'((((((((((¿));;),i:~iX(i,~ i:;(~;:(~ >X ,'// // / // /// / / /"'///'1 ~// / / / / // / // / // ////, '.','.""'",",.'>",,".","".,","".","'."."",",.., ,'.. """'.,",',",',"".,"""",,"".:',,'',:'.:.""'"','.",,,,,,".",' >'",çç>'/.~<,Vç<,<"(,ô-Ç H <,.<-<.(;ç./,(>~ ;(ç1.,.,/" '/////////////////. ouse /////////////.//// '?,~'(r(((i:¿,'(~¡;':,>X~):~ i:'í;'(tç»)¿.r(:;ç«(~;;'Z'Z' /////////////////, ////////////,,<///,,<... ¿X«(zi:¿;((,/z;)). ¿),'~(/" {, ;« <1,"',('.',«, ",(,¿.<:.Z«((Z;:;~¿x(.r(. i:i:';; (i,'Z' ;(:;C(jf:f£;/:.œ~f í';£f f ~~f;j~~ (új(::ææ::æ:::;:; ææ :}:(œþ~~{ Maximum Width = 8 feet Example #2 17 Nm."""""",~""""""""",,',',',',',','.wm,wmN'"", "w'~m,',w,=""""",,~""Nm """""',"',',','oW,',',',',',',','"-,",',-"."",,",.m",_,_"", Example #3 Example #3 18 "",."..n"",.."", """"""',',',',',',',',',',',',',',.',-,-,',' Pavement Separation pavement Sepa ration: - Staff has traditionally required a minimum separation of 1 foot between various paved surfaces. This separation was intended to clearly define the use of each paved surface. on be developed. - The P&Z Commission and Village Board discussed this issue and conduded requiring a pavement separation was often impractical and did not achieve the desired goal. - Due to these circumstances Staff is not proposing a formal amendment & will not continue to enforce a separation policy. c,c ,;cc : 19 ,~c.-.'.w.w.~.'.'.'.'.~.~^".'.'.'.=.~.','.