Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 04/9/02 shortMeeting Location: Mount Prospect Senior Center 50 South Emerson Street COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, April 9, 2002 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 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2002 Ill. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS Earlier this year, two Variation requests for the size and placement of sheds came to the Village Board for consideration. In each case, the sheds' respective sizes greatly exceeded the current 120 square foot maximum allowed by Code. Both cases also requested Variations to allow placement of the sheds in existing utility easements or setback areas. These Cases and the issues they raised prompted considerable discussion among Village Board members. As a result of that discussion, the two shed Variation Cases were tabled, and staff was directed to research whether the current Village shed regulations were outdated as to both allowable maximum size of a shed and its placement on one's property. As a result, staff surveyed surrounding communities regarding their regulatory schemes and found that two methods of regulation prevailed. Some communities simply state the maximum allowable size for a shed, regardless of lot size, with the only other limiting factor being overall lot coverage. Other communities followed a formula wherein the maximum size of a shed was determined by multiplying lot size by some factor to determine maximum shed size, again with overall lot coverage being a limiting factor. Staff would be comfortable in administering either type of regulatory scheme. From a policy standpoint, the Village Board needs to determine whether overall lifestyle changes and demands in housing amenities dictates the need to modify current Village regulations. Appropriate staffwill be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. V= VI. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS Chapter 16 of the Mount Prospect Village Code is entitled, "Development Code." The Development Code governs site related development and construction standards fo r new construction, certain expansions and remodelings and redevelopment within the Village. The Development Code is different from the Building and Fire Prevention Codes in that its focus is on the development characteristics of the land including, but not limited to, public utilities, pavement specifications, subdivision, development and site improvement procedures, site construction standards, flood control and detention requirements. The proposed Code modifications constitute the first comprehensive review and reorganization of this Code Section in more than a decade. The effort found its genesis in the initial 1998 effort on the part of staff to streamline the building permit and review process. Over the past three years, substantial improvements have been made to our process resulting in a more user-friendly system, with shorter turn-around times and greater responsiveness in field inspections and approvals. These improvements were realized while maintaining the integrity of the regulatory scheme. The proposed changes to the Development Code is the last major piece ofthe streamlining effort. Not only has the Development Code been broken up into more logical, user-friendly pieces, specifications and requirements have been updated to current industry standards. The revised document should result in greater ease of use by developers and in quicker review times from staff, in an area that is arguably the most complicated aspect of a development project. While the proposed changes are voluminous, staff has attempted to summarize same by way of an Executive Summary and a detailed "explanation of changes" for each of the Code Chapters affected by this review. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. REVISIT SIDEWALK INSPECTOR PROGRAM Early in 2001, the Board took up the concept of creating a Sidewalk Inspection Program whereby an Environmental Health Inspector (or Inspectors) would, over some specified period of time, conduct a basic "sidewalk inspection" of all properties throughout the Village, paying particular attention on single-family residential properties. The impetus for the 2001 discussion was a growing concern that with the overall aging of the Village's housing stock, basic property maintenance efforts were of ever-greater importance. After extensive deliberation by the Village Board, the 2001 discussion resulted in a decision not to pursue such a program. In the alternative, staff was instructed to pursue a more activist approach in seeking out and following up on property maintenance issues throughout the Village. While there has been a greater number of cases generated by staff initiated property maintenance inspections, there is no systematic program in place to cover the entire Village in a given time period. During the identification of 2002 Committee of the Whole discussion topics, a majority of the Board expressed a desire to revisit the feasibility and need of a more formalized program. Basic information regarding the scope and demands of implementing such a program have been provided in a staff report. Additionally, appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VII. USE OF EIFS (DRYVIT) FOR COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION VIII. IX. One of the 2001 Committee of the Whole discussion topics not addressed last year was whether the Village should regulate (prohibit)the use of EI FS as an acceptable construction material on buildings in the Village. Discussion of this topic resulted from a number of high- profile media reports indicating that this manmade building material was defective and resulted in long-term maintenance and in some cases health-related issues (mold). Board members continued to express an interest in reviewing this topic. Staff has provided background material and will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT ANY OTHER BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT II. III, IV. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MARCH 26, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michae[e Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth and MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from March 12, 2002. Motion was made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Corcoran to accept the Minutes. Minutes were approved. Trustee Wilks abstained. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. VILLAGE HALL PLAN UPDATE Village Manager Janonis stated that the staff and DLK have been working diligently on space allocation needs and parking deck options. He stated that there are ongoing discussions regarding the use of the Library property for the proposed parking deck along with discussions for joint utilization of the parking deck to enhance the programs at the Village Hall and the Library. He stated the original budget for the Village Hall was $6.5 million which assumed a 35,000 square foot building and a 400 car parking deck at $5.5 million. The estimates that are very preliminary at this point have the Village at approximately 47,000 square feet and $1.6 million over original estimate. The driving rome behind this difference is the inclusion of an unfinished basement. The parking deck is estimated at 386 care with a cost of $7.7 million. The major cost issues regarding the parking deck is whether the deck has underground parking and the likely ramp connection to the Library's underground parking. He would anticipate further discussion between staff and the architect to address this budget differential, however, there will likely need to be some Village Board direction and recommended priorities to assist staff in addressing the budget issues. Assistant Village Manager Strahl stated that the Plans have progressed through several revisions and he highlighted the changes to the preliminary plans in an attempt to reduce square footage. He also commented that the public areas for circulation and basement are still included and have generated additional square footage that was not initially anticipated in staff estimates. When the staff estimates were drafted, the programmed space estimates were increased by 25% to assume the circulation space need. He stated that additional review is ongoing in an attempt to reduce some square footage but the likelihood of significant footprint changes will not likely make significant budgetary impacts on the cost. He also stated that the different options of the parking deck scheme include several different options for connecting to the lower level of the Library and the discussion with the Village and the Library regarding the preferred connection has not yet taken place. He stated the projected configurations of the parking deck do include money for architectural enhancements to the deck but until more detailed design is developed, there is no way to project a realistic final cost. Community Development Director Cooney outlined the parking needs for the Library expansion, the new Village Hall and the assumption of incorporating in the Bank One remote parking lot. He estimates that between the Village Hall and the Library, the minimum amount of parking necessary to meet Code is 244 spaces. If the remote lot is incorporated, that would generate an additional 100 spaces. These estimates were assumed early on in an attempt to open up redevelopment opportunities at the remote parking lot. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was discussion regarding the overlapping parking needs of the Library, Village Hall and Bank based on the typical business usage times. There was also concern about the projected costs at this early stage. There was a discussion regarding possible reorientation of the deck in relationship to Route 83. There was also discussion regarding the projected height of the deck and the impact of including the lower level parking on the projected budget amount. There was also a discussion regarding preliminary parking cost estimates during the amhitect and construction manager interview process. Dave Olson, of WB Olson, spoke. He stated the projected cost per square foot does include some money for architectural enhancements but the ramp connection and the lower level options drive the overall square footage cost. Waiter Feder, 30-year resident of Mount Prospect, spoke. He stated the Board needs to consider why people come downtown in the first place and make parking convenient. He also suggested consideration of moving the Village Hall to the K-Mart site and a health center to the Library site. 2 He also questioned whether the building supports in place at the Library could support the proposed expansion. He also suggested that the Village Hall and Library be considered for consolidation into a single building such as K-Mart. Village Manager Janonis commented that it was his understanding that the Library cannot take three floors of books but can handle two floors of books and one floor of office space if necessary. Laura Luteri, President of the Mount Prospect Public Library, spoke. She confirmed Manager Janonis' comments regarding the engineered loads the building is capable of. Consensus of the Village Board requested staff gather additional information regarding the Bank One parking needs as required by Code and review opportunities for redevelopment and potential expenses related to such redevelopment in order to consider whether a 307 or 384 space deck is best for this site. They also requested information regarding on- street parking as it exists today and possible future enhancements, Assistant Village Manager Strahl provided an overview of the preliminary plans for the Village Hall itself, He noted that there have been at least three plans drawn and it continues to be a work in progress. He noted that there have been several changes to the plan in order to reduce space and noted that there are Senior Center activity rooms included in the plans. Kevin Kemp of DLK provided an overview of the proposed footprint of Village Hall Plan C and pointed out the general public circulation areas. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was discussion regarding location and need of conference rooms within each Department. There was also discussion regarding operational needs of space for various tasks as these rooms might be utilized during the normal course of business. There was also discussion regarding the proposed increased security throughout the building using the gatekeeper concept and conference rooms near public space of the building. There was discussion regarding utilization of the unfinished basement and the cost impact of incorporating a basement into the plan. There was discussion regarding the staff oversight of the Senior Center activities with the separation of Human Services from the Senior Center's physical location. There were also several comments regarding the concern that the facility could be under built and this concern should be considered as the plan moves forward. 3 Ann Smilanic, member of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee, spoke. She questioned the configuration of the building as proposed and how after-hours public use would be incorporated without compromising building security. Jeff Bruner, member of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee, spoke. He suggested the utilization of modular offices instead of closed offices and stressed the need for conference rooms based on his preview of other Village Halls. He urged the Board to include the unfinished basement space and not to give up the community room. Carol Tortorello, member of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee, spoke. She stated that although there are valid budget concerns, she is concerned that the building could be shortchanged and such an issue would be present indefinitely. She feels that the Police and Fire building was short of space and parking when it was built and there should be some consideration for reconfiguration of space depending on service needs. Virginia Tyler, 17 South William, spoke. She is concerned about the Senior Center plan and feels they could be improved to avoid people having to pass through other rooms to get to activities in other areas of the Senior Center. She also suggested some reconsideration of the location of the restrooms for the Senior Center and eliminate the proposed coatroom and expand the kitchen area into that coatroom. Mary Lynn Bower, member of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee, spoke. She suggested the Board consider eliminating the community center space altogether since many of the activities are focused on seniors and the various Park Districts are better equipped to serve those needs than adding this use to a Village Hall building. Ruth Haut, 400 East Berkshire, spoke. She stated that she is a 45-year resident of the Village and wants to keep the Senior Center as part of the Village. She stated the seniors typically provide volunteers to assist the Village in various activities and expects such a relationship to continue in the future. Jackie Hinaber, member of the Mount Prospect Public Library Board and a member of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee, spoke. She would suggest considering the meeting space open for all community persons to use and not limit it to just seniors but allow any public purpose to take place in the space. Julie Markus, member of the Mount Prospect Youth Commission, spoke. She stated the youth would like to be involved and participate in the space uses along with the seniors and would like to see the senior space continue to be included in the space plan. 4 General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was discussion regarding the modular office furniture options. There was also discussion regarding the maximum use of the building for all constituents to utilize the space. There was a comment made regarding including opportunities for future space and flexibility. A suggestion was made to trade off parking to get additional building space if necessary. There was discussion regarding the possible name for the community and/or senior space within the building or the area that is not programmed for general Village operational needs. Patti Walpole, member of the Mount Prospect Youth Commission, spoke. She stated that Youth Commission members have met with the Senior Advisory Council and are anticipating some dialogue with those representatives in an opportunity to determine if shared space opportunities exist. Virginia Tyler, 17 South William, spoke. She stated that it would be acceptable to name the space Senior/Community Center as long as the seniors were recognized in the name and came first. Laura Luteri, President of the Mount Prospect Public Library Board, spoke. She stated that she was impressed with the members of the Youth Commission's approach and the structure should be considered a Mount Prospect Village Complex for all to use. Dave Weysick, 1'15 South George, spoke. He is concerned about building too much in the downtown and creating crowds and more cars whereby the area would not be attractive for people to utilize. Several Board members responded to his comments stating there is a desire to include some open space in the downtown area so that there is no overbuilding. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to review the plans further and schedule future workshops to go over additional details regarding the plans and possible cost reductions. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) DIVISION CREATION Assistant Village Manager Strahl stated that this option has been in development for several months and there has been extensive research on the technology operations in other Departments. He also stated that the consideration for this creation is intended to address organizational needs and get away from the decentralization of technology use among various Departments. He suggested that the Division be created beginning January 1, 2003 with physical transition to the new space in the Village Hall coming once the structure is completed. He highlighted the transition plan taking several years so that as many issues can be worked out as the project progresses. 5 VI. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was stated that this suggestion is in step with the market place, makes sense and acknowledges a more professional operation for technology. There was a comment made that Departments would be allowed to focus on their operation with technology issues being handled by professionals specifically trained to deal in such issues. There was some discussion regarding the feedback from the various Departments regarding the proposal that was included in the packet. There was also a discussion regarding the possible budget impact with the physical move of personnel. The comment was made that the Board should expect some higher costs during the transition period but those costs will stabilize once the physical moves and equipment consolidation takes place. Consensus of the Village Board was to support the creation of the IT Division under general supervision of the Village Manager's Office. REVISIT FLOATING COFFEE WITH COUNCIL Trustee Wilks stated that she sees there are three options available for consideration. Leave the Floating Coffee with Council as is whereby the meeting would initially convene at 9:00 a.m, at the Village Hall, recess at 10:15 a.m., and reconvene at 10:30 a.m. into a meeting at a remote location somewhere in the community. 2. Have all Coffee with Councils at Village Hall and do not move to a floating location. 3. Have the Floating Coffee with Councils convene entirely at a remote site. Comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was noted that the Board is not getting the neighbors to attend the remote locations as had originally been intended. However, it was noted that when an issue is specific to an area of the community, the Board does go and make the meeting convenient for attendance for residents who could be impacted by the issue in that area. There was a comment made that much of the attendance is based on citizen needs. A comment was made also that the location should be convenient for citizens to attend anytime they feel and the constant rOtation is confusing. 6 II. VIII. IX. Village Board members stated their preference as to changing the Coffee with Council so that all future Coffee with Councils would convene at the Village Hall and remain at the Village Hall; thereby, eliminating the floating Coffee with Council experiment. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT None. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:02 p.m. DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 7 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: MARCH 28, 2002 SUBJECT: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ISSUES In preparation for the Committee of the Whole discussion on April 9th, Community Development staff have prepared background information on the series of topics to be considered that night. They are: 1. Changing the size of sheds allowed in the Village 2. Implementing the use of"Sidewalk Inspectors" in our Property Maintenance Program 3. Controlling EIFS, synthetic stucco construction material, on buildings in the Village This memorandum includes a brief description of each topic summarizing current standards, possible changes to those standards, and potential impacts of changes. Where useful, we have provided a recommendation on changes most appropriate for the Village given recent policy considerations and how such changes would impact residents, b~sinesses, and staff's ability to enforce any new code requirements. Additional information is provided as attachments to this memorandum. Shed Size Two Village residents have recently come before the Village's P&Z Commission and Village Board requesting variations to the permitted shed size of 120 square feet. While a small number of requests, it raises the question of whether the established shed size is too small for residents' storage needs. In addition, the Building Division occasionally fields calls from residents who express disappointment that larger sheds are not permitted. Staff has conducted a brief survey of some our neighboring communities to determine how our shed regulations compare. Our research found that communities utilize two primary methods to limit the size of sheds. Some communities adopt a maximum size while others utilize a formula to calculate the total square footage of accessory structures permissible on a lot. All communities restrict the maximum height and the minimum setbac-k for these structures. In addition to the regulations listed below, other factors such as the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and maximum tot coverage provisions affect the ultimate size of any shed. There are several factors that impact the possible shed size in those communities that apply .formulas. Factors such as the width of the lot, depth of the required rear setback or whether the property has an attached or detached garage can greatly affect the maximum size of permitted sheds. Listed below is a sample of shed regulations from surrounding communities: Community Development Issues March 28, 2002 Page 2 Communities that have a maximum shed size: MOUNT PROSPECT - Mount Prospect limits the maximum size for sheds at 120 square feet, 12' in height and 5' from the rear and side lot lines. DesPlaines - DesPlaines utilizes the same regulations as Mount Prospect. Elk Grove - Elk Grove limits sheds to a maximum 150 square feet, a maximum 15' in height and a minimum 2' setback from the rear or side lot lines, 60' from. the front lot line. Communities that utilize a formula to calculate maximum shed size: Arlington Heights - Arlington Heights regulates the maximum square footage allowed for all accessory structures by multiplying the total area in the required rear yard setback by 30%. On a typical 70' wide yard with a 30' rear yard setback requirement, the property could house 630 square feet of accessory structures (70x30x.3). Accessory structures include detached garages, sheds and decks but do not include any pavement. The sheds may not exceed 12' in height and must be 5' from all lot lines. Palatine - Palatine utilizes the same formula as Arlington Heights but reduces the multiplier to 20%. The sheds may not exceed 15' in height and must be 5' from all lot lines. Prospect Heights - Prospect Heights Utilizes the same criteria as Palatine. Schaumburg - Schaumburg utilizes the Arlington formula with a 40% multiplier. The sheds may not exceed 15' in height and must be 5' from all lot lines. Wheeling - Wheeling's only requirement is that the square footage of all accessory structures must be less than that of the principal structure. Sheds may not exceed 15' in.height and must be 6' from the rear and side lot lines. As for changing Mount Prospect's requirements, there are several factors to be considered: 1. There is some evidance, although mostly anecdotal, of the need to increase the permitted shed size in the Village. This Should not be a surprise given the increasing number of items that residents have-to store for yard work and other household activities. 2. There is not a "standard" size for sheds. However, most people who have called the Building Division recently asking about sheds are looking for about 200 square feet or more. 3. Given the investment in the shed, it is logical to assume that increasing shed size will invite residents to install the largest shed permitted~ 4. A simple maximum size, as we have now, is easy to understand and enforce, but does not take into consideration that some lots in the Village are large and would not be impacted by a larger shed to the same extent as our smaller lots. 5. A sliding scale based on some percentage of lot or rear yard size creates the potential for large sheds on some lots. This .is particularly true of large lets or those lots that already have an attached garage and can use the entire percentage for the shed. Based on these factors, the Village should consider .establishing a straightforward ~vay of determining and enforcing maximum shed:sizes, This could include increasing-the maximum shed size to a total of 200 square feet in all residential districts, but allow sheds up to 250 square feet on lots over 10,000 square feet in size. This change would allow a significant increase in storage area for residents: 66 percent on lots under I0,000 square Community Development"Issues Mamh 28, 2002 Page 3 feet and more than doubling the allowable size on larger lots. The underlying intent of the zoning ordinance would remain the same since lot coverage and setback requirements would remain the same. Sidewalk Inspectors The Village of Mount Prospect enforces the Property Maintenance and Zoning Codes on a complaint basis. This system has been in place for many years and has been effective at addressing problem situations. Village Inspectors investigate service requests received from the public or other staff, and determine if there is a violation of Village Codes. The goal of this program is to work with residents and businesses to educate them about code requirements and to cooperatively reach compliances. Citations for property maintenance problems are truly a last resort. The benefits to this system are that: 1. Service is delivered where requested, 2. Staffsize and work load are kept to a minimum, and 3. It allows residents to make requests anonymously to preserve relations with neighbors. The disadvantages to this approach are that: 1. A problem must be reported to be addressed - and may become severe by the time it is noted, 2. Motives to report a problem can be based on personal or cultural differences, 3. Only the specific problem is addressed, while others may exist, and 4. The Village's involvement can increase tensions among neighbors, and 5. Complaint based programs can be interpreted as discriminatory. In the past several years, as interest in preserving the current housing stock and maintaining the appearance of the community has increased, Environmental Health Inspectors have taken a more proactive approach towards property maintenance issues. This has been possible as staff has been able to smoothly operate the Multi-Family Inspection Program. While this type of service request is dependant on the time available for staff to report and address the problem, it has moved the Division into a more proactive mode on property maintenance matters. The table below illustrates the increasing number of service requests generated by Environmental Health Staff since 1999. Service Requests Generated by Environmental Health Staff Type of Area 1999 2000 200! Commercial 13 165 362 Multifamit7 25 90 60 Residential 7 78 151 Total 45 333 573 During 2001, staff generated 573 of the 1,605 service requests (36%) handled by the division. The Environmental Health Division made these efforts to find the problems before they are reported, be systematic in enforcement, and to avoid the disadvantages of complaint based inspections. A more systematic approach of walking the public sidewalks to identify code violations would intensify the Village's efforts to preserve the housing stock and the appearance of the community. Communities such as Elk Grove, Hoffman Estates, Bolingbrook, and Oak Park have been doing these programs for many years. With this type of systematic inspection program, the exterior of all dwellings in the community are inspected from visible public areas such as the sidewalk for compliance with property maintenance, health, and zoning codes. The entire Village would be inspected over a defined time-period that could vary from one to five years (as with the Community Development Issues March 28, 2002 Page 4 Multiple-Family Inspection Program). The amount of staff involved with these programs is dependant on the length of time in which we expect to inspect the entire community. While this type of program could clearly raise the overall effectiveness of a property maintenance program, the challenges to operating these more aggressive programs are: 1. Gaining community acceptance over a perception of over-regulation, 2. Developing standards for the inspection, 3. Establishing time-limits for compliance, and 4. Having strategies to address hardship cases such as the elderly, disabled, and unemployed. Communities that have developed successful programs have found that the following elements are necessary: 1. Educational materials and handouts, 2. Defined parameters for the inspection and time limits for correction, 3. Develop an inspection schedule for the community, 4. A contact list of neighborhood leaders and organizations, and 5. A strategy to resolve hardship cases, Should the Village Board wish to pursue this more aggressive program, we would recommend that each of the steps above be implemented. Regarding staff, we envision that starting such a program would require assigning a new permanent part-time (20 hours per week) staff person to this task. We believe that a part-time position would be able to survey the entire Village by car each year and adequately address those properties that are in violation of Village Codes..Currently, the Divisi(~n uses a part-time position to systematically inspect commercial corridors for property maintenance, zoning, and sign code violations. This has ',vorked well and is seen as a good model for starting a sidewalk inspection program, should the Village Board wish to pursue one. Synthetic Stucco ~Construction Material As part of the development approval process, the Village has established a policy of seeking to reduce or e}iminate the use of synthetic stucco construction material on new commercial buildings. The concern over this material grows out of local and national problems with its durability and potential for creating property maintenance problems. To better determine the Village's options for dealing with this material, the Community Development Department has researched it's history, application, and potential problems. The attached information, which was provided at a seminar on synthetic stucco attended by Nick Licari of the Building Division, provides good background on the material. The issue as it relates to Mount Prospect is summarized be'low. The generic name of the synthetic stucco mater/al in question is Exterior Insulation Finish System (EIFS), but it is also kno~vn by the name of its most common producer's brand name - Dryvit. As.-noted on the attached information, EIFS is a-low cost insulation/construction material tha~ has failed in many places .in the United States. Two relevant results of these failures are the structural problems that are created and a reputation for the material as "cheap" - implying both buildings and communities in which it is ~ound are second rate. The construction and construction inspection industries have committed substantial effort to understand the structural prob'lems created by EiFS. It is widely acknowledged that problems with the system result from .improper installation, rather than the system as a building material. 'Poor installation allows water to be trapped behind the material. The.' trapped moisture results in deterioration of the EIFS system and other parts of the structure. This is particularly true in the freeze & thaw cycle of our local climate. Since the problem -is literally hidden, the damage is li~cely to.become quite extensive .before it is even noticed. Newer versions of the EIFS ommunity Development Issues March 28, 2002 Page 5 technology allow for it to be installed with drainage channels that prevent water from getting trapped. These "drainage systems" are found to be far superior to the "barrier system" of EIFS. Given its many failures and relatively low cost, buildings constructed with EIFS may be seen as "second class". Likewise, communities that have many buildings with this material may be concerned that the buildings pass along that same impression of the community. Whether an individual or a community as a whole likes the appearance of commemial or residential buildings constructed using EIFS is a separate issue from the question of its integrity, but one that exists. The impression that communities give is an important aspect of their character and the reputation of EIFS may play a role in that impression. Since EIFS is an exterior finish (like siding) the Village of Mount Prospect does not currently regulate or inspect its application. It is most commonly found as a highlight material or sign background on newer commercial buildings in town. It is also found on some single-family homes in the Village. To date, we have had no complaints about the material. This does not assure that the system will not become a problem in the futura, since many of its applications are relatively new. In addition, where it is used in new construction, we are inspecting other parts of the structure that help move water away from the building (primarily the roof and its various elements). In general, if properly installed the material should last and serve as a sturdy exterior construction material. The Village can regulate the use of EIFS in a number of ways, ranging from being silent on its application to banning it outright. The City of Chicago explicitly banned the "barrier-type" EIFS in 2000, but allows the "drainage-type" systems - as have other local communities including Grayslake and Franklin Park. It has been the; Community Development Department's experience that the developers of new commercial projects receiving zoning approval are open to limiting the use of EIFS to architectural highlights and sign bands on buildings. The result has been attractive projects that enhance the character of the Village. Should the Village Board concur and choose to establish this model, the Building Code could be amended to allow EIFS as sign bands and architectural highlights, which would require additional definition. Also, the amendments needed to implement such requirements would be very brief and would require three key items: 1. Allow only drainable EIFS systems - the barrier system would be prohibited, 2. Manufacturer's specification would be required for plan review (to insure proper installation), and 3. Third party inspection by an agency with expertise in EIFS installation would be required (similar to our practice with other specialized inspections, such as structural steel or soil testing). Regarding residential applications of EIFS, the same items as above would be required. It should be noted that constructing new homes clad entirely with EIFS is not uncommon in the Chicago area. With the above Building Code amendments addressing structural concerns, the only question remaining is whether aesthetic concerns would lead to a desire to prohibit the material on new homes or renovations. While the poor perceptions of EIFS noted above are real, it should be noted that the Village doesn't currently regulate the appearance of single-family homes other than through certain zoning requirements (for example front porches being a conditional use). Please contact me if you have any questions on this information prior to the April 9, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting. Appropriate Department staff will be at the meeting to facilitate the Village Board's discussion. Wilham J. Co n , Jr., AtCP EIFS Development & History EIFS is a wail finish system developed in Europe during the rebuilding process after the second world war. It was designed as a finishing system for exterior of buildings. The driving goal was to develop an efficient way to manage energy inside a building when the insulation is added to the exterior. By maintaining the wall at a more even temperature there would be less walt movement due to expansion, contraction, and heat loss. The result would be a building that would retain heat reducing the energy demand during peak heating and cooling pedods. In accomplishing this goal it was determined that placing the insulation on the exterior was most efficient since the bulk of the structures in Europe are some form of masonry with no hollow wall cavities. German scientists formulated a vadety of materials utilizing polymer chemistry. Utilizing this technology they designed a cladding that would be efficient at protecting the insulation from the elements, while maintaining a pleasing appearance. The end result is an exterior polystyrene insulation foam board that uses an adhesive to hold the board in place~ and a flexible synthetic plaster coating added to the surface as a protectant. The insulation boards would be protected yet the finish would be able to expand and contract with the weather extremes. This cladding material is designed to be a finish system only. It provides no structural support. DRYVIT SYSTEM imported EIFS to the United States in 1969 and installed it on three wood framed buildings. As the wood shrank, crack patterns occurred that had not been experienced in Europe due to the masonry construction there. This shrinkage resulted in crushing cracks at floor lines and led to the first "Detail" for use in the United States; an expansion joint at floor lines for wood frame construction. From 1969 to 1976 there was only one producer of EIFS, Dryvit. During this time installation was mostly trial and error development on commercial structures. EIFS was installed by plasterers, as they were accustomed to the trowiing methods of installation. Also during this time more "Details" were developed. Backwrapping was developed to protect the ends of the foam from deterioration and separation. Sealant systems were improved to prevent moisture infiltration at seams and protrusions. From 1976 to 1990 the use of EIFS increased exponentially. Use of EIFS was still generally for commercial construction, and the commercial construction industry was booming. There was plenty, of room for competition. By 1990 there were another 20 manufacturers added. EIMA (EIFS Industry Members Association) was formed and created basic standards and specifications for installation. By 1990, there was a dramatic downturn in commercial construction and sales of EIFS lagged. As a result priding dropped and the more enterprising vendors and builders started using EIFS in residential construction, initially in the Atlanta, Georgia area. Aesthetic joints and custom colors provided an inexpensive way to add cornices, arches, columns, keystones, cornerstones, special moldings and decorative accents or otherwise "jazz" up the exterior of homes at minimal cost. The industry again exploded in growth. MIDWEST INSPECTORS INSTITUTE Pagel This fast growth period led to catastrophic problems. The most profound problem was the many new manufacturers that entered the market were unfamiliar with the finer points of installation. Not necessarily the product, but the installation. Also, due.to the rapid growth in the industry there was a shortage of qualified installers. This led to drywall plasterers and painters becoming installers. As they were totally unfamiliar with exterior flashings and terminations they installed the material the way they would finish drywall. They did not follow the installation instructions, nor did they follow the "Details". Failures developed at roof rakes, chimneys, floor lines, and around windows, doors, and protrusions. Everyone has heard or seen horror stories of EIFS failures. These failures are generally due to improper installation, not product failure. The industry has taken 3 steps to help correct this. First, the installers are being trained to EIMA Standards and Manufacturers Installation Instructions. Second, Third Party inspections are being performed by impartial inspectors. Manufacturers determined that there is no way to follow-up on the job site to verify that the installation is going up as specified. The manufacturers all banned together in pushing for a independent inspection means to verify on site installations, Lastly, EIMA has developed a set of "Details" for original installation procedures resulting from over 20 years of on the job experience in charting failures and has formulated a program to minimize future failures. Please refer to the attached "Detail" Pages. EDI (Exterior Design Institute) offers an inde'pendent certification program for inspections of installation of the EIFS process in the field. This program is designed to train individuals to monitor the installation of the materials in the field and verify that the manufacturers specifications and details are followed. This helps insure that the installation will provide a weather tight surface to protect the insulation, the structure and the inhabitants. The classes i.nclude: History of EIFS; Types of Systems; System Components; Details; Sealant & Joint Design; Application; Chemistry and Physical Properties; Model Codes and Testing; Inspection Documentation; Inspections; Testing and Forensics - Moisture Analysis. There have been numerous law suits over EIFS installations. For the most part, the failures have been in the installation of the system rather than the system itself. Generally the problem is that water that gets behind the system, cannot get out, and begins to deteriorate the framing members. The finishing system is vapor permeable, but not water penetrable. The water enters at improper flashings, improperly sealed joints, and terminations, thus getting trapped in the wall cavity. With adequate training and the proper equipment, faulty installations can be readily identified. Using a Tramex Wet Wall Detector and a penetration moisture detector to allows an inspector to confirm and pinpoint the location of water behind the system. Repairs are not difficult to make as an area with a defect can be patched in. However, the patched area may not be the exact color or texture of the original. The trick is to make the original installation correct with little need for repairs. If left uncorrected over time it may result in catastrophic failure at an incredible cost to cure. Today EIFS accounts for 17% of'the-US commercial exterior wall market and about 3.5% of the residential market. Growth is strong in both sectors, especially residential, where sales are increasing at a rate of 12% -18% per year. MIDWEST INSPECTORS INSTITUTE Page2 IS THERE A PROBLEM? EIFS gives the appearance of stucco, at a much lower installed cost. The beauty of EIFS is that you have great flexibility in design and detail without greatly increasing the labor or cost. There are other advantages as well. Among these are increased insulation, light weight construction, and a very forgiving material. EIFS materials, when installed correctly, consists of a foam board made most commonly of either polystyrene (white) or polyisocyanurate (beige). This is glued or mechanically fastened to the substrate. A polymer base coat with a fiberglass mesh imbedded in it, is applied over the entire surface and backwrapped around all edges. An acrylic polymer finish coat is then installed and spread over the entire surface. This finish is called the laminate. It presents a solid but flexible surface that is quite strong, impact resistant and is a vapor permeable water barrier. The most notable concern with this type siding material is that if not installed correctly it will allow water to become trapped behind the siding. Water oollects behind the siding material and if not evaporated will be absorbed by substrate materials and flaming, and/or rot the interior finish surface. Moisture trapped behind the siding is not visible to the eye until it has done damage. EIFS reduces air infiltration by as much as 55% compared to standard brick or wood construction. As a result, the only means to determine if elevated moisture content is present is to do a moisture analysis. The procedure to follow is relatively simple but it does take time. MIDWEST INSPECTORS INSTITUTE Pages HOW SERIOUS IS SERIOUS? How serious is the problem? A National Residential Relocation and Environmental Inspection Company on May 4th, 1998, stated, "Over the past 10 months we have conducted well over 400 Synthetic Stucco inspections and have found varying degrees of damage on all but one home. The moisture penetration we have uncovered and the resulting damage has been as high as $100,000 on a home with a market value of $450,000." How extensive is the use of EIFS? The same relocation company stated that" EIFS has been applied to 250,000 homes in the US and that number is growing at a rate of 10% per year. According to a study commissioned by the NAHB (National Association of Home Builders) homes surveyed "ages two to six are experiencing structural damage due to excessive moisture buildup within walls. The cause of moisture accumulation is rain water intrusion from a combination of factors including: improper sealing at joints and around windows, doors and other penetrations; improperly stoped horizontal EIFS surfaces; inadequate flashing at roof lines, dormers, decks, fireplace chases etc.; and window frames that leak into wall cavities." Moisture buildup and rotting was found to be insidious, as it could not be determined from visual inspection. EIFS is designed to be a face-sealed barrier providing a weatherproof membrane. All water must be shed at the outermost surface of the EIFS lamina, since water entering behind the base coat can enter the wall cavity. Therefore, watertight sealing around penetrations such as windows, doors, electrical outlets, vents, roofing etc., is essential to maintaining the integrity of the EIFS. Moisture readings ranged from 18% to greater than 50% in sheathing near band joists below window and door openings." MIDWEST INSPECTORS INSTITUTE Page4 NAHB RESEARCH CENTER, March 1999 · When moisture has entered the wall cavity due to a leak and no further water enters the system at that location during a period of 24 weeks the moisture content will drop from 20% - 25% to an acceptable rate of 10%. · If the wall cavity is made accessible the interior vapor (poly) retarder should be removed. · With a moisture content of 20% decay will start if left for extended periods. · Short repeated intervals of wet then dry is O.K. · Fungus spores will germinate if moisture content is at least 25% · Moisture content of 30% will hasten decay in most species of wood. · Mildew is a fungus that grows only on the surface and will not damage wood. · A humid climate alone will not cause mildew, but can lead to mold growth. FIELD RESEARCH BY NAHB RESEARCH CENTER, March 1999 In Wilmington, North Carolina 1,200 homes have been evaluated. · 350 had EIFS completely removed. · 100 of the 350 were analyzed in detail. - Before and after tear off moisture testing. - Damage assessment completed. - Analysis of contributing conditions. · The water intrusion problems are most associated with: - Windows - Roof Flashings - Deck Attachments - Below grade installations - Articulations and projections (minimal) - Problems in the field are minute Percentage of Homes With Damage Of 100 Homes Total % Homes Damaged $ 0% 28 I-2% 29 3-6% 26 7-t3% 9 14-29% Damaged Areas Statistics Percentage of Houses Sheets of substrate replaced 8% None 35% <3 27% !<6 15% <9 5% <12 5% <16 5% <19 **These figures reflect homes with an average wall surface of 2, 730 sq. ft. It was determined that 566 sq. ft., or 20%, of the surface was potentially problernatic. Areas included were under every window, kick-outs, decks, and penetrations. MIDWEST INSPECTORS ~NSTITUTE Pages Damaged Areas By Element Windows 45% Kick-outs 30% Decks 10% Projections & Articulations 6% Chimneys 4% Doors 3% Misc. other 2% Remediation Options Window Sill and Perimeter Sealing Window Sill Flashing Roof - Wall Diverter Flashing I Partial Drainable EIFS Deck Flashing Surface Crack / Damage Repairs The above noted information was taken from a Report from the NAHB Research Center, released March 1999. For additional information please contact NAHB Homebase Hotline, technical service line, at (800) 898-2842. While these numbers appear to make the EIFS material at fault in reality the EIFS materials may be performing quite well. However the installation of the EIFS material appears to be one of the main problems. If the penetrations are correctly backwrapped, backer rod installed and sealed properly, the likelihood of moisture getting in would be reduced to -the failures of sealant materials or a penetrating component. ' The chart above that depicts the damaged areas by element with windows and lack of kickouts are the two most common installation errors that i have seen in the Kansas City market. Therefore, these two areas need the most attention to detail at time of installation and during your inspection. NAHB Research Center has determined that of the needed repairs the most serious are water entry points around windows and at kickouts. Now the question appears to be; does the EIFS fail at the areas adjoining these or is the damage possibly due to defective windows. I was involved in a case against an EIFS installer in Colorado and after reviewing all the evidence, and much my surprise, my conclusion was that in spite of a less than quality installation the bulk of the moisture damage noted came from window design and their installation. Lack of correctly installed kickouts at intersecting walls with roof lines is the second most likely leak location. It is difficult to blame the EIFS when the lack of a flashing allows water to enter behind it. L_ MIDWEST INSPECTORS INSTITUTE ,~ Page6 BARRIER vs. DRAINABLE SYSTEMS The original EIFS installations was designed as a barrier system, and used in the 1940's in Europe, to cover masonry construction. If water was to penetrate the system and come in contact with masonry substrate; it was not a big deal as the small amounts of water would not damage the masonry wall structure. With the introduction of EIFS here in the United States the system was used over both masonry - mostly commercial work and now in residential construction with wood framing and sheetrock substrate. The residential segment of the market is where moisture problems seem most prevalent. There have been Class Action Lawsuits in North Carolina resulting from the moisture penetration, The manufacturers were hit hard before they were really able to show that the problem for the most part is really in the installation, not necessarily in the product itself. Due to the onset of these problems and litigation the industry manufacturers have developed a drainable system. Pictured here is the DRYVIT version. The drainable systems all have several things in common with one central purpose. That is to allow water that does get behind the EIFS to drain out. The drainable system has a vapor barrier installed against the substrate to prevent it from getting wet. This barrier extends down in to an installed track that water can run into and then drip out at the front lower edge away from the structure. This system will be more forgiving of an improper installation. The felt paper or barrier is fastened to the substrate so there will be screw and or staple holes in the barrier but in reality this will still be an improvement for a less than adequate installation. Some limited areas of the country now will only allow the drainable system. If the drainable system is correctly installed, you will be able to tell by the plastic bottom track with relief holes drilled. As you can see from the photo above the base coat, mesh, and lamina extend to the bottom edge of the track. If you see a crack along the top edge of the track it tells you that the mesh was not extended to the bottom edge of the track and a repair is needed. Base track with drainage holes In bottom of track TYVEK is a brand of a material used as a vapor barrier. MIDWEST INSPECTORS INSTITUTE Page15 Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TREE CIndY USA TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LINDELOF APRIL 2, 2002 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS BACKGROUND In 1998 several problems were identified in the process in place to review and approve building permits. Not only was the process lengthy and confusing for the applicant, but the Code itself made applying and enforcing Village Ordinances difficult. In response to these problems, the Village Board has directed Staff to reexamine the entire construction process from initial application through final ..acceptance. To fulfill this directive, the following actions have been taken: - The position of "Plans Examiner" was created in order to better manage the permit process, and provide better and quicker response to applicants. This also eliminated the need for a sign-off by Public Works on most "walk-thru" permits, thereby allowing them to be processed solely at Village Hall. - An additional Project Engineer was hired to better distribute the workload amongst Staff in order to reduce the permit review time. In addition to those actions listed above, in 1999, Staff began the task of reevaluating the Chapter 16 of the Village Ordinances, better known as the "Development Code". The "Development Code" governs site related development and construction standards. Modifications have been made to Chapter 16 as well as other chapters of the Code as the nature of development has changed over the years from open land development to infilling and downtown redevelopment projects. These intermittent code modifications have been difficult to apply to the various types of development projects we see on a daily basis for a variety of reasons, including but not limited to confusing organization, vague improvement requirements, and conflicting or out of date construction standards. The first step in improving the Development Code was taken last June when the first Code modifications were presented to the Village Board. These changes defined the scopes of "Developments", "Site Improvements", and "Maintenance", and detailed the permit and construction requirements associated with each. The Village Board approved these changes last July. Page 2 Proposed Development Code Modifications April 2, 2002 DISCUSSION We have now completed the second part of the task by addressing the remaining concerns with the Development Code, specifically the reorganization of the chapters to eliminate redundant or conflicting information conceming site construction requirements. To that end, the current Development Code will be split into two chapters 15 and 16. Chapter 15 will contain all subdivision, development, and site improvement proc6~dures. (The current code shows Chapter 15 as "reserved"). This chapter also includes information detailing all aspects of the permit process, and intended to make the entire Code more "user friendly". Chapter 16 will be dedicated to site construction standards. Two other chapters, 9 and 22 will be completely reorganized so that pertinent sections can be included in the development code and redundant information eliminated. These four chapters will be identified as follows: Current Chapter Title Proposed Chapter Title Chapter 9: "Streets & Sidewalks" "Village Utility, Street, and Tree Regulations" Chapter 15: -- reserved -- "Subdivision, Development and Site Improvem.~nt Procedvres'~. Chapter 16: "Development" "Site Construction Standards" Chapter 22: "Water, Sewer, and Floodplain Regulations" "Floodplain Regulations" Minor changes will also be made to Chapter 14, "Zoning"; Chapter 18, "Traffic"; Chapter 21, "Building Code"; and Chapter 24, "Fire Prevention Code" to provide consistency throughout the Village Code. Finally, during the process of reorganizing the Code, we have taken the opportunity and time to reexamine the content of the Code. Most of the Code is current, clear, and needed no additional modifications. However, where we identified Out of date regulations or standards, inconsistencies, or other problems, these have been corrected. Some of the changes in the content of the Code include: - Elimination of the Private Development Completion Guarantee. (Current Section 16.607; Proposed Section n/a) - Sight triangles have been better defined to reflect national design standards. (Current Sections 9.105, 9.117, and 14.2401; Proposed Section 9.308) - Sprinkling bans have been changed to allow even numbered addresses on even numbered days, and odd numbered addresses on odd numbered days. (Current Section 22.405.2.A.1; Proposed Section 9.406.B.1.a) age 3 Proposed Development Code Modifi~ati0n~ April 2, 2002 - The minimum water service size has been increased from 1" to 11/2". (Current Sections 16.406.C.9.b and 21.105.A.3.d; Proposed Section 16.403.J.2) - The policy of assisting residents with the restoration work within the public right of way associated with sanitary service repair has been incorporated in the Code. (Current Section n/a; Proposed Section 9.504.D) - The requirement that detention ponds be located a minimum of 25' from a building has been eliminated. (Current Section 16.405.F; Proposed Section n/a) - Fees for reinspections for Certificates of Occupancy and Completion have been instituted. (Current Section n/a; Proposed Section 15.702.D.3) - The measures listed above have allowed the maximum review time for a site development to be reduced from sixty (60) days to thirty (30) days. (Current Section 16.302.C.1; Proposed Section 15.403.C. 1 ) These proposed modifications to the Village Codes were brought before the Economic Development Commission on February 7, 2002, and before the Planning and Zoning Commission on February rt4,..2002. Both co'n~issions expressed support for the proposed changes. RECOMMENDATION We believe that these proposed changes to the Development Code make the Code easier to use for developers, designers, and contractors, as well as for Staff. For that reason we recommend approving and adopting the proposed changes to the Development Code. The changes to the Village Code discussed in this memo will be presented at the Committee of the Whole Meeting on Apdl 9, 2002. Appropriate Village staff will be on hand to answer any questions that you or the Village Board may have. If the response from the Village Board is favorable, it is our intent to present these changes for a first reading at the Village Board meeting on April 16, 2002. Chuck Lindelof Director of Public Works Glen R. Andler Director of Community Development William J. Cooney, Jr,, AICP Fire Chief Michael J. Figotah X:\FILES\ENGI NEE R\DevCode~Present-Final~Board.doc Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 CHAPTER 9 {PUBLIC UTILITIES, PAVEMENT, AND TREE REGULATIONS) - Explanation of Changes Chapter 9 has been reorganized to contain only information pertaining to the operation of Village owned rights of way and trees. All subdivision construction standards and specifications have been moved to Chapter 16. For clarity, the text of the sections moved to Chapter 16 have not been shown in this Chapter. Article I was modified to include general provisions concerning public utilities, as well as streets. Information from Article I specific to streets has been split into Article III. Definitions not specific to a given article or section have been collected in Article II. All permit and fee requirements for site construction have been consolidated in Chapter 15. Section 9.t02 concerning permit and bond requirements has been modified to refer to Chapter 15. Sections 9.103, 9.105, 9.108 through 9.111, 9.114, 9.115, and 9.117 have been included in Article III. Section 9.111.D was relocated to Section 24.113. Section 9.106 was modified and moved to Section 16.310. Section 9.107 was reorganized and included in Section 9.302. Section 9.113 has been moved tO ChalStei 18.113.C. .. Section 9.114 was combined with Section 22.405.3, relocated to Section 9.103, and generalized to apply to the entire Chapter unless noted otherwise in the specific Articles. Section 9.112 concerning barbed wire and electric fences has been included in Section 14.304.D.2.h. Section 9.115 concerning the commercial use of sidewalk was consolidated with information from Section 14.311: Section 9.116 was moved to Section 9.104. Section 9.117 was moved to Section 9.308. Section 9.201 has been included in Articles III through VII of Chapter 16. Section 9.202 has been moved to Section 16.104. Section 9.203 has been included in Section 16.105.D. Section 9.204 has been included in Section 16.107. Information from Section 21.310 concerning street obstruction permit fees has been relocated to 9.302. Section 9.414.I was added to specify standards for fire pump installation. Article II was created to define terms consistent with this Chapter. Article III concerning berms has been moved to Section 16.705. Information from Chapter 22, Articles IV, V, VI, and VII has been moved to Chapter 9, Article II. Section 22.405.4 was included in Section 9.307. Page 1 of 57 Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 Article IV concerning subsidewalk space has been renumbered to Article IX. Sections 22.405.3.B.5.a and b have been combined into Section 9.407.E. 1, and revised to eliminate the distinction between when the payment is mailed. Regardless of whether the settlement is mailed before or after final notice is given a single schedule of penalties shall be used. Section 9.518 has been replaced by Section 9.103. Information from Chapter 22, Articles II and III has been moved to Chapter 9, Article V. Section 16.404.H was included in Section 9.502 Section 22.206 was moved to Section 9.509. Information from Chapter 22, Article I has been moved to Chapter 9, Article IV. Article V has been renumbered to Article VII. Article VI concerning utility permit requirements has been moved to Article VIII. Article VI governing the ownership, use, and maintenance of the public storm sewer system was created, based upon Article V for the sanitary sewer system. Page 2 of 57 Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) - Explanation of Changes Portions of Chapter 14 have been modified to be in keeping with the changes proposed for Chapters 9, 15, and 16. Only the affected portions of Chapter 14 are included below. All references to "the Development Code" have been changed to read "Site Construction Specifications contained in Chapter 16 of this code" as appropriate. Redundant information in Section 14.203 concerning Certificates of Occupancy has been deleted. (See Section 15.703 for Certificates of Occupancy.) Section 9.112 concerning barbed wire and electric fences has been included in Section 14.304.D.2.h. Section 9.115 concerning the commercial use of sidewalk was consolidated with information from Section 14.311. (For clarity, only the affected portions of Section 14.311 are included here.) Redundant information contained in Section 14.2305 was eliminated and replaced with a reference to Section 16.904. The definitions contained in Article 24 were modified to be consistent with other chapters. Redundant definitions were replaced with references to the appropriate section. Page 1 of 25 Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 CHAPTER 15 (SUBDIVISION, DEVELOPMENT AND SITE IMPROVEMENT PROCEDURES) - Explanation of Changes Chapter 15 has been created to define the scope of different levels of site construction and the associated requirements, plus describe the permit and subdivision processes. Chapter 16, Article 111, Procedures was relocated to Chapter 15, and split into two separate articles: Article III, Subdivision Procedures; and Article IV, Development Procedures. Article IV was created to define the requirements for construction of projects smaller in scope than larger subdivisions or site developments. Specific construction standards triggered by the requirements contained in this Chapter are contained in Chapter 16. In addition, the aspects of the permit process have been modified where appropriate to bring the Village Code up to date with current practices. For clarity, only these changes have been highlighted in the attached code. Changes resulting from the reorganization have not been highlighted. (It should be noted that the Development Code allowed for a separate and parallel permit process for site improvements administered by the Engineering Division. This parallel permit process lead to confusion when projects included both site development and building construction. Consequently, it has been Village policy since 1997 to consolidate all construction though a single permit process administered by the Building Division. Separate "Engineering Approval" is no longer appropriate, and has been eliminated from the Code.) Because the Pre-Application Conference is not a requirement, and was seldom requested by the applicants, Section I6.301 was eliminated. It should be noted that Staff is always available to meet at any point inthe application and review process, so this section is unnecessary. Section 15.302, Subdivision Requirements, was added to define when the applicant has to submit a Preliminary Plat of Subdivision. Section 16.305.D has been modified to allow the Director of Public Works to waive the requirements for easements aiong the rear and/or side property lines if it is deemed that such easements would serve no useful purpose. Table IV-1 was modified so as to require barrier curbs in cul-de-sac bulbs. Section 16.403 was divided into two sections: 15.305, Public Right:of Way Standards,.and Chapter 16, Article VII. Section 15.304 details all geometric requirements for designing new streets. Chapter 16, Article III contains all construction requirements for pavement, sidewalk, curb and gutter. A separate Private Improvement Deposit has been eliminated. The Construction Nuisance Abatement Deposit has been increased to also cover the securing of abandoned sites. Also, Section 21.312, requiring a Restoration Deposit was incorporated into the Nuisance Abatement Deposit. (Refer to Section 15.802.B.) Section 21.311, requiring a surety bond was relocated to Section 15.809. Page 1 of 51 Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 CHAPTER 16 (SITE CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS) -ExpIanation of Changes Chapter 16 has been reorganized to contain only construction standards and specifications for site improvements. Information from Section 16.403 concerning subdivision, development, and right of way standards was moved to Chapter 15. The major sections from Article IV (16.402, Grading and Erosion, Sedimentation and Dust Control; 16.404, Sanitary Sewer System; 16.405, Storm Sewers and Drainage; 16.406, Water Distribution System; 16.407, Street Lighting Improvement; and 16.408, Landscaping) have been revised, reorganized, and expanded into separate articles within Chapter 16. Also, overlapping areas of the Code from Chapters 9, 14, 21, and 22 have been included in this Chapter. hz addition, the construction standards and specifications have been modified where appropriate to bring the Village Code up to date with current practices. For clarity, only these changes have been highlighted in the attached code. Changes resulting from the reorganization have not been highlighted. The standards for which an exception would be granted have been modified and included in Section 16.109 to reflect similar standards found in the Village Zoning Ordinance for granting Variations. Definitions appropriate to Subdivision and Development Regulations have been moved to Section 15.202. The minimum thickness for bituminous surface course has been increased from I" to 11/2" in Table 1II-2. SeCtion 16.403.A.8.h.(7) required that the construction of the surface course b.~ delayed fo[~one winter season after constructing the binder course has been eliminated. While this practice is acceptable, it is not. necessary, and has been eliminated. Refer to Section 16.303.G. Section 16.303.H was added to specify requirements for pavement markings on public streets. The minimum course thicknesses have been clarified in Section 16.304.A.2. Section 16.305.A has been modified to require barrier curb along both sides of all streets, and around cul-de- sacs. Information redundant with that contained in Section 14.2215.A.3. was deleted from Section 16.306.A. Section 16.306. was rewritten to clarify the required driveway pavement thicknesses, dimensions, and maintenance responsibilities for all types of driveways. Section 14.403.A.8.j. has been moved and reorganized in Section 16.306.B. All references to driveway "approaches" have been changed to driveway "aprons" to match the definitions in Section 16.202 and the verbiage used on the existing permit applications. Subsections 1. and 2. have been created to organize the information concerning the separate driveway types. Section 16.306.B.5 was added to prohibit the installation of wire mesh within the driveway apron. Section 16.307.A has been modified to specify 7' wide public sidewalk to facilitate snow removal. Section 16.307.B.2 has been modified to clarify the minimum sections for public sidewalk. Section 16.307.B.3 was inserted to allow a lighter sidewalk section on private property only. Page 1 of 56 Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 Section 16.403.A. 12 was modified to refer to the Fire Prevention Code. Redundant information concerning fire lanes has been eliminated. Section 16.403.B was added to minimize the risk of contamination due to stagnation within the public water supply, and is consistent with current Village policy. The minimum size for a water service has been increased from 1" to 1½" in Section 16.403.J.2, and is referred to in Section 21.105.A.3.d. The criteria used in determining fire hydrant location were relocated from Section 16.403.E to Section 24.205. Information concerning trench excavation and backfill from Sections 16.404.D, 16.405.C, 16.406.D, 16.406.E, 22.104.4, 22.104.5, and 22.204.3 were combined in Section 16.702. Contradictory information has been eliminated. Sectionl6.407.I was added to detail the procedure for abandoning water services, and is consistent with current Village policy. Section 16.502.1.4 was added to require that the serviceability of any existing sanitary service to be reused be verified before the new connection is made. The requirement that all sanitary lift'~tations have an alarm connected to the Village master panel was eliminated from Section 16.502.J.2. Section 16.502.K was clarified to state that only sanitary flow can be discharged into sanitary or combined sewers. All downspouts, and sump pumps carrying stormwater must comply with Section 21.224. Section 16.503 was updated to include additional allowable pipe materials. Section 16.504.E.1 was inserted to clarify ownership and maintenance responsibilities for sanitary service connections. Section 15.504.F was added to specify the procedures for repairing existing sewer mains. Section 16.504.H. was added to specify the procedure for abandoning an existing sanitary service. Section 16.602.C.2.a.(3) was modified to prohibit "blind" connections. The requirement that detention ponds be located a minimum of 25' from a building has been eliminated from Section 16.603.A. The subsections in Section 16.603.C have been added to require that new outlet structures for detention ponds shall discharge stormwater runoff generated by the site and bypass flow from offsite in a manner consistent with current design standards. Section 16.603.D.3 has been added to require freeboard above the design high water level. Section 16.603.D.4 has been added to define the conditions to be met for parking lot detention. Page 2 of 56 Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 Section 16.704 has been modified to specify that fire hydrants may not be used for dust control. The list of State and County roadways was moved from Section 16.407 to 15.202, as part of the definition for an arterial street. Section 14.2305 was included in Article IX. Redundant or conflicting information was eliminated. Page 3 of 56 Rev. 1, 4/2/2002 CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC) - Explanation of Changes The designations of Collector Streets has been moved from Section 9.113, and included in the definition in Section 18.133.C. CHAPTER 21 (BUILDING CODE) - Explanation of Changes Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 Section 2 I. 105.A. 1.g, concerning construction specifications for flood control vaults, has been modified to refer to Chapter 16, Article V for construction specifications concerning sanitary manholes. Redundant information from Section 21.105.A. 1 .g has been eliminated. The minimum size for a water service has b6en increased from 1" to 1V2" in Section 16.403.J.2, and is referred to in Section 21.105.A.3.d. Section 21.203.A.2 has been added to include building demolition as work requiting a permit. A note has been added to Section 21.205.B.3 to refer to the requirements for abandoning services detailed in Sections 16.407.I and 16.504.H. Section 21.208 has been modified to refer to the water restrictions detailed in Section 9.306.A. Sections 21.209 and 21.210 have been included in Section 9.302.D and 9.302.F concerning encroachments into the public right of way. Section 21.218 has been modified to better define the requirements for Certificates of Occupancy, and relocated to Section 15.703. Requirements for Certificates of Completion have been defined and split into Section 15.704. Section 21.221 has been modified to refer to Chapter 15 for requirements associated with building on unimproved lots. Sections 21.222 thru 21.225 and 21.227 concerning lot grading requirements have been consolidated and reorganized in Section 21.223. Specific information regarding allowable slopes has been combined with other grading requirements, and moved to Section 16.701.A. Contradictory information was eliminated. Section 21.226 was redundant with Section 22.218, and has been eliminated. Sections 22.102.1 through 22.102.4 have been reorganized and relocated to Section 21.224. Sections 21.228 and 21.229 have been modified to refer to the appropriate sections of Chapters 9, 15, and 16. Information concerning Section 21.305.A has been included in Sections 15.806.F. Section 21.305.B bas been included in Sections 15.802.A and 15.802.B. Section 21.309.A has been included in Section 15.806.C. Section 21.309.B has been incorporated into Section 9.504.B. Sections 21.309.C is included in the fees detailed in Section 15:802.C, and so has been eliminated. Section 21.309.D has been relocated in 15.806.F. Section 21.309.E has been included in Sections 15.802.A and 15.802.B. Section 21.309.F has been included in Section 15.804. Information from Section 21.310 concerning street obstruction permit fees has been relocated to 9.302. Section 21.311, requiring a surety bond was relocated to Section 15.809. Section 21.312, requiring a Restoration Deposit was incorporated into the Nuisance Abatement Deposit detailed in Section 15.802.B. Page 1 of 25 Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 The restoration deposit required in Section 21.312 is redundant with the Construction Nuisance Abatement Deposit detailed in Section 15.802.B, and so has been eliminated. Section 21.313.A has been relocated to Section 15.806.C. Section 21.313.B has been relocated to Section 9.406.C. Section 21.313.C was included in Section 9.414.J. Sections 21.315 and 21.317 were modified to reflect that he fees described in these sections pertain to building construction. Site construction fees may be found in Chapter 15. Section 21.319 required a deposit to be collected to insure the installation of sidewalk along the public right of way. This requirement is now defined in Section 15.502 for developments and site improvements. Because this is a requirement of the permit, final approval of the construction cannot be granted until the sidewalk is installed. A Certificate of Occupancy cannot be issued until either the sidewalk is installed, or until sufficient ESCROW is received to cover the installation. Consequently, the deposit required in Section 21.319 is redundant, and has been eliminated. Sections 21.320 through 21.324 have been renumbered accordingly. The specifications concerning the requirements for parkway tree fees in Section 21.322 have been replaced with a reference to Section 15.502. The definitions for Directors and Village Engineer in Section 21.501 have been modified to be consistent with the definitions found in Section 15.202. Page 2 of 25 Rev. 1, 4/2/2002 CHAPTER 22 - Explanation of Changes Chapter 16 has been reorganized to contain only construction standards and specifications for site improvements. Information from Section 16.403 concerning subdivision, development, and right of way standards was moved to Chapter 15. The major sections from Article IV (16.402, Grading and Erosion, Sedimentation and Dust Control: 16.404, Sanitary Sewer System; 16.405, Storm Sewers and Drainage; 16.406, Water Distribution System; 16.407, Street Lighting Improvement; and 16.408, Landscaping) have been revised, reorganized, and expanded into separate articles within Chapter 16~ Also, overlapping areas of the Code from Chapters 9, 14, 21, and 22 have been included in this Chapter. In addition, the construction standards and specifications have been modified where appropriate to bring the Village Code up to date with current practices. For clarity, only these changes have been highlighted in the attached code. Changes resulting from the reorganization have not been highlighted. Chapter 22 was renamed to better reflect the items it contains. Information from Articles I through VII have been reorganized and moved to the appropriate sections in Chapters 9, 15, and 16. The definitions from Section 22.101 and 22.201 were combined with those from Chapters 9 and 16, and listed in Section 16.202. Information from Section 22.102 concerning stormwater detention was combined with that from Chapter 16, and reorganized in Chapter 16, Article VI. Sections 22.102.1 and 22.102.2 were relocated to Section 212.224. Section 22.103 was moved to Section 9.504.L. Sections 22.104 and 22.104.1 through 22.104.3 has been reorganized and combined with information from Sectionl6.405, and moved to Chapter 16, Article VI. Conflicting information has been eliminated. Information conceming trench excavation and backfill from Sections 16.404~D, 16.405.C, 16.406.D, 16.406.E, 22.104.4, 22.104.5, and 22.204.3 were combined in Section 16.702. Contradictory information has been eliminated. Sections 22.104.7 and 22.204.5 were combined and moved to Section 16.105. Sections 22.104.8 and 22.204.6 concerning the requirements for as-built drawings were included in Section 15.705. Section 22.105 was combined with information from Chapter 16 and moved to Section 16.603. Conflicting information has been eliminated. Section 22.106 was relocated to Section 9.603.B. Information from Section 22.202 was included in Section 15.501.B. concerning utility connection requirements. Rev. 1, 4/2/2002 Information from Section 22.203 concerning permit requirements was moved to Section 16.401.B. Section 22.203.A describing the classes of sewer permits was eliminated. Section 22.203.C was eliminated in favor of the recapture requirements included in Section 15.809. Section 22.204.A was moved to Section 16.502.B. Sections 22.204.B and 22.204.1 were redundant with other sections, and have been eliminated. Section 22.204.2 was included in the appropriate portions of Sections 16.502., 16.504, and 9.504. Information concerning trench excavation and backfill from Sections 16.404.D, 16.405.C, 16.406.D, 16.406.E, 22.104.4, 22.104.5, and 22.204.3 were combined in Section 16.702. Contradictory information has been eliminated. Section 22.204.4 was included in Section 16.503.E. Section 22.205, including Sections 22.205.1 through 22.205.3, concerning the ownership of the sanitary sewer system, was moved to Section 9.406. Section 22.206 was moved to Section 9.510. Article III was renumbered and included in Section 9.509. Section 22.303 was deleted. The penalties defined in Section 9.510 for will also be applied to violations concerning septic tanks. 22.401 was moved to Seation 9.404. Sections 22.402 and 22.402.1 were rnoved to Section 15.50i. Section Section 22.402.2 was eliminated. Information in Sections 22.406.B, 22.406.C, and 22.046.E concerns construction, and has been included in Chapter 16. Information in Sections 22.406.A and 22.406.D describe ownership and maintenance responsibilities, and has been included in Chapter 9. Sections 22.403 through 22.407 were moved to Chapter 9, Article III. The definitions from Section 22.405.3.C were relocated to Section 9.302. Section 22.501 was included in Section 16.407. Sections 22.502.22.202.1, 22.502.2, and 22.502.3 were reorganized and included in Section 9.409. Section 22.504.1 was included in Section 9.402. Sections 22.504.2 and 22.504.3 and 22.504.5 were reorganized and moved to Section 9.410. Section 22.504.3 was moved to Section 9.508. Sections 22.506. 22.506.1, 22.506.1, 22.506.2, and 22.506.3 were reorganized and included in Section 9.412. Section 22.507 was included in Section 9.411.A. Section 22.508 has been included in 9.103. Section 22.509 has been moved to Section 9.411.B. Information from Chapter 22, Article VI was reorganized and included in the appropriate sections of Chapters 9, 15, and 16. Rev. 1, 4/2/2002 Section 22.601 was reorganized and included to Section 16.401. Information concerning construction specifications is contained in Chapter 16, Article IV, and referenced in Section 9.403.B. Section 22.603 was reorganized and included in Sections 9.403.A and 16.401. Section 22.604 was reorganized and included to Section 16.406.B through 16.406.D. Chapter 2, Article V concerning recapture agreements was relocated to Section 15.809. Article VIII has been renumbered as Chapter 22, Article I. Article IX has been reorganized and included in the appropriate sections in Chapters 9 and 21. Rev. 3, 4/2/2002 CHAPTER 24 - Explanation of Changes Information contained in Chapters 9 and 16 dealing with fire protection issues has been consolidated in Chapter 24. Section 16.403.A.12 concerning fire lane requirements was consolidated with that contained in Section 24.103. Section 9.111.D concerning the prohibition against burning leaves and/or rubbish on public property was relocated to Section 24.113. Information from Section 16.406.C.4 concerning the placement of fire hydrants has been moved to Section 24.205; information concerning the allowable hydrant types and installation standards remain in Chapter 16. Section 16.205.C requiring hydrant markers for hydrants on private water mains was added. Page 1 of 5 Glen R. Andler Village Engineer Jeffrey A. WuJbecker Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Angell Phone 847/870-5640 Water/Sewer Superintendent R0derick T O'D0n0van Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Fax 847/253-9377 Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures SendraM. CJark TDD 847/392-1235 .N OTI 0 E THE APRIL ~], 2002 MEETING OF THE SAFETY COMMISSION HAS BEEN P-ANCELLED. THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING IS SCHEDIJLED fDR MDNDAY, MAY I 3, 2002 At ?:30 P.M. AN AGENDA DR OAN{~ELLATION NOTIr:.E WILL BE SENT PRIOR TO THIS MEETING. DATED THIS 3R° DAY OF APRIL, 2002. Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink MAYOR Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hocfcrt Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 NOTICE THE THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2002 MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION HAS BEEN CANCELLED. AN AGENDA WILL BE SENT PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING, APRIL 25, 2002. Dated this 3rd day of April 2002. MINUTES VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COFFEE WITH COUNCIL SATURDAY, March 9, 2002 9:00 A.M. 2"d Floor Conference Room, Village Hall The meeting was convened at 9:00 a.m. Those present representing the Village Board were Mayor Gerald "Skip" Farley, Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron and Mike Zadel. Representing staffwere Village Manager Michael Janonis and Director of Human Services Nancy Morgan. Residents in Attendance: Rodger Kruse Lan'y Troy Carol Tortorello Mike Gurrie Steve Deluca Ray Rubio Jeanne Engstrom David Schein Dennis Prikkel Dan Robertsted Grace Martinez Charles J Guthrie 515 South Louis Street 1316 South Linneman 223 South Elmhurst Avenue 232 Hatlen 405 North Fairview 412 North Elmhurst 110 North Kenilworth 512 South NaWaTa 1731 Pheasant 520 North Wille Street 520 North Wille Street 1000 East Lincoln Rodger Kruse, 515 South Louis Street. Mr. Kruse raised three concerns with the Timberlane Apartments. The downspouts are producing mud on the sidewalks. Mr. Kruse has been picking up quite a bit of trash on the property; for example, empty oil cans in bushes, bunches of wire coat hangers and large pieces of lumber. He has also noticed many cars parked in the lot without vehicle stickers. The Mayor suggested that the Village invite the owners to the Village to discuss these issues. Mr. Kruse said that he has observed cars turning left from Prospect onto Route 83 and crossing over the yellow painted mm line. This was acknowledged as an on-going concern. Mr. Kruse read in the paper that the Village will be consolidating the computer operations and could not understand how a consolidation would cause the need to hire additional staff. It was explained that sworn personnel in the police and fire departments will be relieved of computer duties, which will allow them to do the work they have been trained. This is why there would be the need to hire a non-sworn staff member to do these duties. He also wanted to know about community service workers. It was explained that Cook County often has these workers clean up roadways but that the Village does not organize community service work. Larry Troy, 1316 South Linneman, raised a concern regarding renters who live in his duplex complex. The renters park their cars between the buildings on the lawn and now appear to be driving on the lawn causing deep trenches. Toby Roberts, Community Development Department, has been very helpful. The Police Department will be contacted to check up on thc parking situation. Mr. Troy also raised an issue about the location of the garbage cans. I-Ie believes the renters are placing the cans in the proper location, however, due to the configuration of the duplexes, the garbage cans are right outside his breakfast window. He would like to see the ordinance changed. Changing an ordinance to solve a specific issue is a tricky thing. Bob Roels, Community Development Department, will follow up on this issue. Carol Tortorello, 223 South Elmhurst Avenue, feels the Norwood sign at Central and Route 83 is blocking the sight triangle. The Village is aware of this sign and it is not blocking the sight triangle. However, they do have issues with Norwood regarding all of their signs and the Village will follow up with them. Mrs. Tortorello also wanted to know if dog runs were allowed, and she was informed that they are allowed. Mike Gurrie, 232 Hatlen is a new resident and is attending to see what was going on in the government. He is looking for a project for which to volunteer. Steve Deluca, 405 North Fairview, is a new resident, and was wondering if the Village was aware that School District 57 is planning on relocating the kindergarten class from Fairvicw school to Lincoln Junior High. A discussion took place explaining the separation between the Village and the School Districts, and that the Village has no control over the School Districts. Mount Prospect history indicates that classrooms have been moved from one school to another as space needs indicate. The School Board is very approachable, and Mr. Deluca was encouraged to talk with them. He was also concerned that when the weather is good, the cars speed down Fairview Avenue. He was hoping a squad car could be placed on the road to slow down the drivers. He was told that Fairview Avenue is on the selective enforcement list, and the Police Chief would be contacted. Mr. Duluca said that he was not impressed with the garbage pickup in Mount Prospect. There was a general consensus that he had a valid point, and that the company has not been responsive to the Village's complaints. The contract will be coming up and it will be dealt with at that time. Ray Rubio, 412 North Elmhurst, attended today's meeting to see what was going on. He commented that he also sees speeders and police squads, and that the police do a good job. Jeanne Engstrom, 110 North Kenilworth is planning her neighborhood's block party and wanted information on how to schedule the "Blues Mobile," fire engine and squad car. She will be given a form at the end of the meeting. avid Schein, 512 South NaWaTa, wanted to know when the "no exit" went into place at Miller Station and Central. He was told it has always been in place. He then stated that the lettering on Prospect High School's Knights Championship sign was too small. He was told that the Village is working to enhance that comer. He wanted to know the date of the next Safety Commission meeting because he feels the visibility is bad at the intersection of Council Trail and Elmhurst. He complimented the Village's snow removal efforts. He wanted to commend the Village on their effort to begin a Bike Patrol. He suggested that the Village give the Police Department some in-service training on Tourette's syndrome. His daughter has this syndrome, and he felt it would be good for the Police to be informed of its symptoms. Dennis Prikkel, 1731 Pheasant, complimented Bill Cooney and the Planning Division for their work with the new CVS pharmacy. The traffic flows well. The Ace Hardware did a good job with the fence. He raised a concern about the Dunkin Donut development. The Village Manager said that if the area is not built on then it needs to be landscaped. They will meet with the representatives on this issue. Mr. Prikkel has seen many political signs in the parkways. The Village will pull these signs and notify the candidates. Grace Martinez and Dan Robertsted, 520 North Wille Street, are new residents and attended meeting to see what was going on. Charles J. Gnthrie, 1000 East Lincoln, wanted to know what power the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has. It was explained that the ZBA hears cases, and makes rulings on simple cases and makes recommendations for Village approval on more complicated cases. A resident may make an appeal to the Village Board and after that may take the case to court. Mr. Guthrie said that he likes the format of the Coffee with Council. He asked about the purpose of vehicle stickers, which led to a discussion about vehicle taxes and Village taxes in general. He also asked why are some houses are not addressed to the street on which they are located. Houses are addressed to the shortest width of the lot. The meeting was adjourned at 10:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Morgan, LCSW Human Services Director H:NLOU Coffee with Council 3/9/02