Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. NEW BUSINESS 7/16/02 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JULY 12, 2002 PZ- 14-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 208 NEIL AVENUE PASQUALE ERGASTOLO - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-14-02, a request for an unenclosed covered porch, as described in detail in the attached staffreport. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their June 27, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The 7'x12' enclosure would extend along 12' of the house. The petitioner proposes to construct the porch floor from cement and have open, brick columns two-feet from the house. The proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval because it encroaches four-feet into the front setback. After determining the enclosure qualified to be interpreted as a porch, the Planning & Zoning Commission noted that the porch would enhance the house and discussed its aesthetic benefit to the neighborhood. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of an unenclosed covered porch within 26 feet of the front property line at 208 Neil Avenue, Case No. PZ-14-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 16, 2002 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZO~rlNG COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-14-02 Heating Date: June 27, 2002 PETITIONER: Pasquale Ergastolo 208 Neil Avenue PUBLICATION DATE: June 12, 2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use (porch) MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Pasquale Ergastolo Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of the May 23 meeting were approved. At 9:15, after the Commission heard a case under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-14-02, a request for a Conditional Use to allow construction of an unenclosed porch four feet into the front yard setback, for the property located at 208 Nell Avenue. She explained that this case would be Village Board £maI. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case. She explained that the subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The home is set back 31' from the front lot line and the applicant would like to modify the front entrance. She said that the proposed modification, a 12'x7' roofed, unenclosed structure meets the definition of a porch as it is currently written. However, Ms. Connolly said that it is different from previous Conditional Use requests for a porch in that this request has a structure that will extend two stories tail and has the characteristics of a formal entryway. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner's plans and color photos show that the porch would be located in the center of the house and extend 12' across the house. The porch will encroach 4-feet into the required setback, creating a 26-foot setback. The petitioner states in his application that the porch will enhance the appearance of the residence. The petitioner's plans include modifying the front service walk. Ms. Cormolly reviewed the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said in order to approve the request the porch has to meet the standards. She said Staffreviewed the plat, site plan, elevations, and visited the site and found that the subject parcel measures 13,576 square foot and has a two-story single family home, with an attached garage. The applicant proposes to construct a porch that extends into the front yard, leaving a 26-foot setback. The encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the R1 district and the proposal meets all other zoning requirements. Ms. Connolly noted that the modification would help to reduce the 'mass' of the house by making it more architecturally interesting and provide vertical relief by creating a smoother transition from the first to the second story. She said that the porch would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements Based on these findings, Ms. Connolly said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed porch to encroach 4-feet lmming & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ- 14-02 Page 2 into the required front setback for the residence at 208 Neil Avenue, Case No. PZ-14-02. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Connolly added that Staff was asking the Planning & Zoning Commission to direct Staffto: 1) continue to interpret this type of modification as a porch, or 2) modify the definition of a porch so as to better define the structure, i.e., limit it to one-story. Pasquale Ergostolo was sworn in. He testified that he had purchased the home three years ago, but thought the entrance was unattractive. He said he wanted a more homey, welcoming look to the entrance. He said the proposed improvement would greatly add to the appearance of the home and enhance the neighborhood. He said that he shared the plans with his neighbors and that they all approve of the proposal. P&Z members discussed whether the proposed improvement could be called a porch or just a covered entry~vay. All the Commissioners agreed the renderings showed a vast improvement over the present entry. It was agreed that the Commission appreciated the opportunity rendered by the Conditional Use process to analyze these proposals on a case- by-case basis, allowing attractive projects to be approved. Mr. Rogers confirmed that the petitioner understood that the "porch" could never be enclosed if it were approved. Mr. Ergostolo said yes. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:25 p.m. as there was no one in attendance to address the Commission for this case. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board for the property at 208 Neil Avenue, Case No. PZ- 14-02. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 6~0. At 9:50 p.m., after the Commission heard two more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Dounelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~u~y Co'n~n~l~, Senior elannery' Village of Mount P 0spect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE YURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JUNE 20, 2002 HEARING DATE: JUNE 27, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-14-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 208 NEIL AVENUE (ERGASTOLO RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: STATUS OF PETITIONER: PARCEL NUMBER: LOT SIZE: EXISTING ZONING: EXISTING LAND USE: LOT COVERAGE: REQUESTED ACTION: Pasquale Ergastolo 208 Neil Avenue Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Property Owner 03-35-312-00t-0000 t3,576 square feet R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residence 22.8% existing 24% proposed 45% maximum CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF AN UNENCLOSED PORCH FIVE-FEET INTO THE FRONT YARD. BACKGROUND AND PROPOSED :CONDITIONAL USE The subject property is an existing home located on an interior lot on a single-family residential street. The home is currently set back 3 I' from the front lot line. The applicant proposes to modify the entrance to the home and is seeking Conditional Use approval for an unenclosed porch to encroach 4-feet into the 30-foot setback. The proposed modification, a 12'x7' roofed, unenclosed structure meets the definition of a porch (a roofed, open structure, without walls, screens, or windows, attached to and part of a structure, with direct access to and from the structure). However, it is different from previous Conditional Use requests for a porch in that this request has a structure that will extend two stories tall and has characteristics of a formal entryway; The request meets the definition of a porch as it is currently written. The enclosed plans and color photos show that the proposed porch would be located in the center of the house and extend 12' across the house. It will encroach 4-feet into the required 30-foot setback, leaving a 26-foot setback. The petitioner states in his application that the porch will enhance the appearance of the residence. The petitioner's plans include modifying the front service walk as indicated on the attached site plan. Z-14-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 27, 2002 Page 2 To conduct its analysis of the proposed Conditional Use, staff reviewed the petitioners' plat of survey and site plan, and visited the site. REQUIRED FINDINGS Conditional Use Standards The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and includes seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. These findings are: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The subject parcel for the proposed Conditional Use is a 13,576 square foot parcel developed with a one-story single family home. The applicant proposes to construct a porch that extends into the front yard, leaving a 26-foot setback. The encroachment of the porch into the front setback is listed as a Conditional Use in the R1 district and the proposal meets all other zoning requirements. The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. The modification would help to reduce the 'mass' of the house by making it more architecturally interesting and provide vertical relief by creating a smoother transition from the fu:st to the second stoW. .RECOMMENDATION The proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to a~orove a Conditional Use for a covered, unenclosed porch to cmeroach 4-feet into the required front setback for the residence at 208 Nell Avenue, Case No. PZ-14-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. However, Staff asks that the Planning & Zoning Commission direct Staff to: I) continue to interpret this type of modification as a porch, or 2) modify the definition of a porch so as to better define the structure, i.e limit it to one-story. I concur: 901 903 902 905 907 ~001 1003 1005 1007 1009 1101 1203 1205 206 Eric Avenue 904 1000 I001 ~ 1000 1002 ~ -- 1003 ~ t002 1004 ~ 1005 o 1004 1006 1007 ~ CatinoCourt ~ Eric Court 1030 1050 1124 t214 1216 1101 1103 1215 VILLAGE OF MOUNT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 PROSPECT" Final The Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW z Case Number Il ~ ~ ~ ~e~Name/Address , ~-- ,i P 1~ Ii ' t r~ ~ il Date of Submission .. ~ Hearing Date Z I · ' Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) ~0~ /ve/I /Tve.o4c Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) 0 ~- 3S-- ~/~-co/- oodo Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) ~ Corporation Telephone (evening) ~.~ Street Address Fax ~ ~ CiW ~ . State Zip Code Pager Interes m Prope~ r Name Telephon[ ay) ' Co~oration Telephone (even~g) S~eet Ad.ess F~: CiW State Zip Code Pager Developer Name Telephone (day) Ad.ess Fax A~omey Nme Telephone (day) Ad.ess F~x S~eyor Nme Telephone (day) Ad.ess Eng~eer Nme Telephone (day) Ad.ess F~ Architect ~ ~ i . N~e .IFil, (~r~ ~ ~ Telephone(day): ~. ~- ~/00 G ooo L~dscape ~chitect N~e Telephone (day): Ad.ess Fmx 'Mount Prospect Department of Comn~unity Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prosp~ect Illinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax847.818.5329 TDD847.392.6064 ode Section(s) for which ~.,...;oiff's)'is (are) Requested Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s) ,. ~q ,/ Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has b~en fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village Staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition and all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during masonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby afl.am that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are tree and accurate to t~.best of my knowledge. / o Applicant ~) ~.//~ ~-' '~/~4 Date If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date · Mount Prospect Department Of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois ' 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 OT?i; #6' Architects I Lmx&Ass~ 201,5 $, Ar~ _,~,n Ro~ Aflin~n H~lm, IL 60005 ' Phone ~ 847.956.7170 7,01' 52.55' ~'rOLD P, ESIDENCF 2C~ NElL AVENUE Mi'. PROmPt:T, IL Architects i 1015 $. Arlington Heights Road Sui~ 118 C Arlington Heights, IL 600~5 Phon~ 847,9.56.7 I00 Fax 847,951L7170 ,J SIDE El ~EVATION Existing July 11, 2002 William J. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Dear Mr. Cooney, The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of our Conditional Use project (an unenclosed porch) by a 6-0 vote. Our Conditional Use request is scheduled to go before the Village Board for the ordinance's first reading July 16, 2002. We are requesting that the Village Board waive the second reading, tentatively scheduled for August 6th, and take final action at the July 16th meeting. We are anxious to start the project as soon as possible. I appreciate your assistance in facilitating this request. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at 847/297-6640. Sincerely, Julie & Pat Ergastolo 208 Neil Avenue Mount Prospect, IL 60056 wvl 7/9/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 208 NElL AVENUE WHEREAS, Pat and Julie Ergastolo (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) have filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit, with respect to property located at 208 Nell Avenue (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property), and legally described as follows: Lot 45 in Harvest Heights, being a Subdivision of part of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded as Document No. 88-147393 and amended by Certificate of Correction recorded as Document No. 88-333001, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index No. 03-35-312-001-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek a Conditional Use permit to construct an unenclosed porch encroaching four feet (4') into the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ-14-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 27 day of June, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 12 day of June, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-14-02; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. Page 2/2 208 Neil Aveune SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch encroaching four feet (4') into the required front yard setback, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit '%." SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copY of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVEDthis day of ., 2002. ATTEST: Richard M. Lohrstorfer Mayor Pro Tern Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\G EN~files~W[N~O RDINANC~C USE, 208 NeilAve,porCh.dOc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JULY 11, 2002 PZ-13-02 - MAP AMENDMENT & CONDITIONAL USE (REZONE FRO SINGLE FAMILY TO MULTiFAMILY RESIDENTIAL & TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT) 791 E. RAND ROAD INSIGNIA HOMES, LLC - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve a map amendment and 23-unit townhome development for the property located at 791 E. Rand Road. The proposal is described in detail in the attached s'affi' report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their May 23 & June 27, 2002 meetings. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard comments at both meetings and discussed the project in great detail. Issues discussed included the site's impact on the adjacent single-family residences, sufficient on-site parking, and emergency vehicle access to the development in addition to building materials, driveway materials, and landscaping. Neighborhood residents voiced their support of the project at the May meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-1 to approve the proposed map amendment to rezone the property at 791 E. Rand Road from R1 to R2. The P&Z voted 5-1 to approve the variations to allow 4'x8' front stoops, a 7.5' parking setback along the north property line, and the Planned Unit Development for 23 townhome units with the following conditions: 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the submitted site plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June 10, 2002, revised to show: · 5 land banked parking spaces; * Driveways constructed of decorative pavement (bomanite). 2. Landscape plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June I0, 2002, but revised to reflect: · Berms scattered along the Rand Road frontage; · Shallower detention basin; · Increased landscaping along the Rand Road frontage: clustering plantings is acceptable, but the quantity and species of plants must provide continuous screening from Rand Road; · Shade trees with a caliper no less than 3"; · Foundation landscaping. 3. Development of the project using elevations presented at the June 27~' Planning & Zoning meeting that show additional brick and vinyl siding (no Dryvt) prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Bustert and measure no more than 2g-fect from the mid-point. Z- 13-02 Memo to Village Manager July 11, 2002 Page 2 4. Consolidate the site to a one-lot subdivision. 5. Dedicate right-of-way along Louis Street, Thayer Street, and Rand Road as required by Village Code. 6. Improve Louis Street as required by the Development Code. 7. Improve Thayer Street with the termination of paving done in a manner that does not impede access to the property south of the townhome development with a design approved by the Engineering Division. 8. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O~T. and M.W.R.D. 9. Submittal of final building plans that meet all applicable Building Code, Fire Code, and Development ........ Code requirements which include but are not limited to: ...... · Provide hydrants on-sito as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; · Buildings are to constructed according to BOCA 1996 regulations; · Ail construction must meet file Village's Building and Fire Codes. 10. Install fire sprinklers in each townhome unit. 1 I. Applicant shall create an escrow account in the amount of $25,000 to pay for the 5 land banked parking spaces. 12. Association documents shall restrict storage in garages to ensure that two vehicles may be parked in the garage at all times. The petitioner has revised their submittal and the attached site plan and landscape plan reflect the P&Z's Conditions of Approval. They reflect: · The location of five land banked parking spaces; ,, Driveways constructed of colored, stamped concrete; · Foundation plantings; · A berm along sections of the Rand Road frontage and a shallower detention basin; · A detailed landscape plan. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 16, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. WilliamlJ. Cooney, J'l'., AICP CASE NO. PZ-13-02 Hearing Date: June 27, 2002 PETITIONER: Insignia Homes, LLC 35 W. Slade Street Palatine, IL 60067 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 791 E. Rand Road PARCEL NUMBER: 03-35-300-007 03-35-300-004 PUBLICATION DATE: May 8, 2002 REQUEST: Map Amendment, Conditional Use (Preliminary Planned Unit Development plan approval) and Variations to allow construction of 23 townhomes. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Dounelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson · MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: JUdy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Mark Janeck Rich Valentino Bill Rotolo Tom & Florence Boyle Bridget Chavez Zenon & Sue Golba Iver H. Iverson Ray & Hedy Lundin Adam Paulus Frank & Stephanie Schoenberg Clifford Wesa Donna Weseloh George Ziegler Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of the May 23 meeting were approved. At 7:34, under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-13-02, a request to rezone property located at 791 E. Rand Road from R1 to R2, preliminary approval of a Planned Unit Development, and Variations to allow the construction of a 23-unit townhome development. She explained that this case would be Village Board final. Judy Counolly, Senior Planner, reported that this case was reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission at their May 23~ meeting. At that meeting, the P&Z voted to continue the case so the petitioner could revise their plans to address the Planning & Zoning Commission's concerns regarding exceeding lot coverage, maximum building height, and permitted density; providing emergency vehicle access to the site that meets Village Code requirements, identifying elements of the project that would qualify it as a Planned Unit Development. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-13-02 Page 2 Ms. Connolly reported the applicant revised the development, but requires relief from Zoning requirements for the north setback and for the size of the front stoops as code permits 5'x5' stoops in the front setback and 4'x 8' stoops are proposed. Ms. Connolly said the site's current zoning is R1 Single Family Residential. In order to build the proposed townhomes, the site must be rezoned and the applicant has requested R2 Attached Single Family. The petitioner is seeking PUD designation for the development, which is a Conditional Use. Before the Conditional ~Jse may be approved, the development must qualify as a PUD. The proposed development will require Map Amendment, PUD designation, and Conditional Use approval by the Village Board, following a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Connolly pointed out that the petitioner reduced the number of units to 23 and has revised the layout of the development. The cul-de-sac and multiple curb cuts off of Louis and Thayer Streets have been eliminated and a 'looped' 20-foot wide, private street will provide access to/from Louis Street and Thayer Street. Thayer and Louis Street will be fully dedicated and have 66' rights-of-way. She said that the plans show ~hat Thayer Street will be used as an access point for the development, but the street would not be improved past the entranc~/exitTCthe tbwnhome development. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner's revised landscape plan shows additional landscaping along the perimeter of the development. The proposed plantings and respective sizes meet the minimal landscaping code requirements, but are not in keeping with Corridor Design Guidelines, which call for a continuous three-foot evergreen hedge supplemented with perennials and annual plants. The intent of the landscaping is to minimize the impact of the Rand Road traffic, screen the commercial corridor, and create more 'green' along the Village's prominent commercial corridors. In addition, the size of the proposed planting area between the driveways, located in the interior of the development, is minimal and most likely will inhibit the growth of the plants. Ms. Connolly explained that the develol~ment includes two-car attached garages for each unit and 10 guest parking spaces, essentially providing 56 parking spaces allowing for parking in the driveway. The Zoning Ordinance requires 2 parking spaces for two bedroom dwelling units and 2.5 parking spaces for three bedroom dwelling units. Also, parking is permitted on the east side only of Louis Street. She said the 'looped' private street design addresses the Fire Prevention Bureau's concerns about access to the individual units. They added that 'No Parking' signs must be posted along the private street and that it is designated as a Fire Lane. She said that the Police Department remains concerned that the development does not provide adequate on-site guest parking. Ms. Connolly said the standards for Map Amendments listed in the Zoning Ordinance rehte to the project's compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; the compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; the suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. Ms. Connolly pointed out that the subject parcel for the proposed Map Amendment is a vacant lot located along an established commercial corridor. It is adjacent to residential and commercial uses. She said that the proposed townhomes are of a similar use to the adjacent residential, but have a significantly higher density and will create additional traffic on Louis and Thayer Streets. The proposal is not consistent with the immediate surrounding commercial area. The townhomes would be located on a commercial corridor and the property is adjacent to commercial uses fronting onto Rand Road. She said that the proposal does not meet the standards for a Map Amendment since it is not compatible with existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. Also, the request is not consistent with the .trend of development in the general area of the property in question. The second part of thc case, the petitioner's request for Preliminary Planned Unit Development (PUD) approval, was reviewed. Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance defines the purpose of a PUD as "...a tool to aeenmmodate development which is in the public interest, and can provide a public benefit, and which would not otherwise, be permitted ,by the zoning ordinance." She said that the revised plans show that the development complies with density regulations, Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ- 13 -02 Page 3 lot coverage, and the petitioner has agreed to modify the units so the slructures do not exceed maximum height regulations. The revised site plan shows that access to/from the site will be done in a manner that meets Village Code regulations. In addition, the petitioner has agreed to sprinkle the townhomes. However, the development fails to meet the criteria of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) as defined by Sec. 14.501.A of the Village's Zoning Ordinance. This section lists standards for a PUD, which a development must meet in order to qualify as a Planned Unit Development even before it can be considered for approval. Ms. Connolly then reiterated those standards for the Commission. Ms. Connolly referred to the petitioner's letter dated June 6~ that lists reasons why the deve}opment qualifies as a PUD2 However, the reasons cited in the letter:, zoning compliance, use compliance, and street design compliance are requirements regardless of the PUD classification. She said that a PUD must meet minimum code regulations and create a public benefit as defined by the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Although the site has been reconfigured to meet lot coverage requirements, the design does not include usable open space. Ms. Cormolly said that the 'green' areas are located in close proximity to Rand Road and will be used primarily for detention. She said that an alternative that would meet PUD standards would be eliminating units at the southwest corner of the development and creating a play/tot-lot or a garden area. She said this would preserve open space, create a common area and provide an amenity for the neighborhood-6~:0ackyard area for people living in the townhomes. Ms. Cormolly said the petitioner is seeking to install a private street to provide access to the town.home units. The petitioner's June 6t~ letter states that, "The s~'eet access has been designed to handle a Fire Department ladder vehicle, at a width approved by the Fire Department. Lack of curb cut on Rand Road (an SRA route) avoids traffic congestion, and an expected total of 32 vehicles combined using the site during AM and PM peak hours is not expected to cause congestion on Louis Street." However, it is important to note that street access is required to handle Emergency Vehicle access; IDOT determines whether a curb cut permit to/from Rand Road wilt be issued; and that the petitioner's traffic data indicates that the development will generate seven vehicle trips a day per unit, which Would generate 161 new daily trips on Louis Street. Ms. Connolly reported that the petitioner proposes to design access to the site in a manner that meets Village codes, which is a requirement, but is seeking relief from -Village codes that require a.66' fight-of-way without providing a benefit for the community, and would generate more traffic on Louis Street. In addition, the petitioner's letter states that staffprefers a commercial use on the site. However, the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Rand Road Corridor Plan call for a commercial use for this site. The Rand Road?lan lists 15-18 townhomes as an alternative to a commercial user~ She said that the impact of developing this site as a townhome development would influence the redevelopment of other properties along Rand-Road, which is a onmmerclal corridor. Furthermore, the development does not qualify as a PUD bemuse it does not provide a benefit as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said the towuhomes comply with the setback requirements for the R2 Zoning District. However, the design does not preserve green space or provide practical common open space. The development does not include amenities, or incorporate design elements that distinguish this development as a PUD. The proposal does not provide an adequate buffer from .Rand Road traffic such as intense landscaping and harming to minimize traffic noise and be consistent with Village's Corridor Design Guidelines. Therefore, the plan does not meet the standards that designate a development as a Planned Unit Development. Ms. Connolly said that the Planning and Zoning Commission could not make positive findings with respect to the standards for Map Amendments and Planned Unit Developments in the Zoning Ordinance based on Staff's analysis. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the proposed Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, and variations for the property at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-13-02. Richard Rogers asked if the development would qualify for PUD approval if it included a play lot and berming along Rand Road. Ms. Connolly said staffprovided several suggestions to the applicant after the last P&Z meeting, including a play lot or garden, that would be usable green space. She said that the applicant identified the detention area close to Rand Road as green space although this may not be practical for the residents of the proposed project because of the Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 'green spaces' proximity to Rand Road. Mr. Rogers agreed and said he would not want to see a fence next to Rand Road, unless it were a landscape fence or berming. Arlene Juracek asked if the two illustrated detention basins were in the only possible location. Ms. Connolly said staff did not require detention to be in these specific areas. Ms. Juracek said it was probably chosen as a buffer between Rand Road. Ms. Juracek confirmed with Ms. Cormolly that staff's major concerns with this development were (1) lack of public benefit; and (2) that it is residential rather than commercial. Ms. Juracek added that staff's minor concerns were (a) screening from Rand Road, whether by berming or landscaping; and (b) traffic on Louis Sti:eet and guest parking. Ms. Counolly said guest parking tends to be tight in these types of development and that ten guest spots on-site may not be sufficient. Richard Valentino came forward to testify. Ms. Suracek reminded Mr. Valentino, Mr. Rotolo and Mr. Janeck that they were still sworn in from the first public hearing. Mr. Valentino said Insignia had high enthusiasm for their new townhome plan. He said that although the last plan had been good and very workable, the new plan addressed all the i~i~;5~Harrt-Vittage concerns. He said the redesigned plan was good for the site and for the Village. He pointed out the new road in the project would not be Village maintained. He said the Village would receive higher taxes on the property with this use. He presented an aerial view of the area and pointed out that there is much residential surrounding this site. He said it was logical and consistent to have a townhome buffer between commercial and residential uses. He said such an infill property requires the expertise Insignia could provide. Mr. Valentino said the neighbors are resoundingly in favor of residential at this site. He said Insignia would be providing a public benefit by installing fire sprinklers in each unit, which would set a precedent for future townhome developments and be safer for residents. He said congestion would be problematic with a commercial use and there would ,be a greater amount of traffic on Louis Street. He said this project would solve many problems and be beneficial to the area. Mr. Valentino also pointed out the nec. essary green space had been addressed in an acceptable manner. Mark Janeck, of Insignia Homes at 35 West Slade Street in Palatine came forward to testify. Mr. Janeck reminded the Commission that Insignia's original plan had contained 24 units. He said they eliminated one unit and the proposed cul- de-sac, and replaced that with a looped street. He presented new elevations that showed more brick on the exterior of the front of the townhomes and on the sides of the garages. He said they did not add more onsite parking since the plan meets code. They would be willing to add more parking throughout the site, but noted that doing so would reduce green space and add to the amount of impervious surface. The fence shown in the plan would be metal, having the appearance of wrought iron and would not block any view. He said there would be very few children living in the proposed development and there was a park with a tot lot 150' from the townhome site. Insignia would not want to put a tot lot near Rand Road but would be willing to upgrade the existing park district lot. Mr. Janeck said 50% of the property is surrounded by R-1 and the development is compatible to the area, which akeady has too much commercial use having a problem with survival. He said they proposed the use of 4' x 8' stoops, wMch was more commodious than 5' x 5', but would provide 5' x 5' stoops if preferred. Mr. Janeck said it was Insignia's opinion that they did meet standards for a PUD, would be providing a public benefit, and had answered all of the Commission's concerns. Arlene Juracek asked Mr. Janeck if the 4' x 8' stoop accommodated furniture moving and walking aids. Mr. Janeck said, yes, better than 5' x 5' did. Ms. Juracek asked if Insignia would consider berming along Rand Road. Mr. Janeck said there was not enough room to berm as IDOT requires 10' from the base line to start berming. He said that berming would use up the green space and render it unusable. Mr. Janeck said berming would look good to passing automobiles, but that flat landscaping was more people friendly. Leo Floros asked how large the units would be and what the prices would be. Mr. Janeck said they would be two and three bedrooms, up to 1,600 s.f., and range in price from $245,000 to $270,000, possibly $300,000 with options added. Richard Rogers said he was disappointed with the layout of the new proposed site plan. He said that he was notin favor of the cul-de-sac in the original proposal, but he thought the Original site plan had more excitement and a less regimented look by having several buildings at an angle. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson PZ~ 13 -02 Page 5 William Rotolo came forward to say that the "regimentation" adds formality to this site and the rear loaded garage buildings have beauty and character. Mr. Rogers asked why the balconies are located over the garages. Mr. Rotolo said balcony orientation was not important to buyers of these townhomes and that these buyers are people who do not cook or eat on the balcony, but patronize restaurants for most meals. Ms. Juracek opened the discussion to the audience at 8:25. Clifford Wesa of 109 Louis, who also had been sworn in at the previous meeting, came forward to ask if anything ha~ been resolved with regard to Thayer Street. Fie said he had asked if the residents could get it in perpetuity that the street not be accessed from Rand Road so the issue would not be raised every year. Referring to InSignia's recent site plan, he said the use of a portion of Thayer Street looks like an invitation to mn the street through. He also asked whether Fire Department trucks would be able to turn on the proposed looped street. Ms. Juracek said yes, the Fire Department would be able to maneuver their trucks on the looped street. She also informed Mr. Wesa that the P&Z Commission could not permanently foreclose the use of Thayer Street because it is part cfa larger Village solution on a ring road concept. She clarified that the townhome project is not proposing a through street and would need to come before the Commission again to request making Thayer Street a through street.~-~=~=~_ Commission members discussed at length: landscaping features; berms; fences; detention areas; parking spaces and escrow for parking spaces; decorative treatment of driveways; covenants requiring garages to be used to park cars as opposed to becoming additional storage space and the having to park cars on the driveway. Mr. Floros suggested all these items could be made conditions of approval for Insignia to work out with staff. Keith Youngquist said this was a true infill project and that he agreed with Mr. Rotolo regarding lining up the buildings and having the outward look. He said this proposal was laid out in the only possible way on an awkward triangular piece of land. Matt Sledz said he could support the idea of a residential development at this site but he had concerns with the density of the project and that he felt this design was too urban of a concept. He said the solution would be a less dense development. Frank Shoenberg, 105 N. Louis St. was sworn in and said the wrought iron fence around O'Hare was very attractive. He said the Village could control parking on Thayer Street in the future by use of 'hao parking here to corner" signs. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:10 p.m. Leo Floros moved to recommend approval to the Village Board to rezone 791 E. Rand Road from R1 Single Family to R.2 Single Family Attached. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 5-1. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board to allow a PUD, subject to the following conditions: 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the submitted site plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June 10, 2002, revised to show: * 5 land banked parking spaces; . driveways constmeted of decorative pavement. 2. Landscape plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June 10, 2002, but revised to reflect: , berms scattered along the Rand Road frontage; . shallower detention basin; lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-13-02 Page 6 · increased landscaping along the Rand Road frontage: clustering plantings is acceptable, but the quantity and species of plants must provide continuous screening from Rand Road; · shade trees with a caliper no less than 3"; · foundation landscaping. 3. Elevations presented at the June 27t~ Planning & Zoning meeting that show additional brick and vinyl siding (no Dryvt) prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Bustert and measure no more than 28-feet from the mid-point. 4. Consolidate the site to a one-lot subdivision. 5. Dedicate right-of-way along Louis Street, Thayer Street, and Rand Road as required by Village Code. 6. Improve Louis Street as required by the Development Code. 7. Improve Thayer Street with the termination of paving done in a manner that does not impede access to the property south of the townhome development with a design approved by the Engineering Division. 8. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D. 9. Submittal of final building plans that meet all applicable Building Code, Fire Code, and Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; · buildings are to constructed according to BOCA 1996 regnlations; · all construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes. 10. Install fire sprinklers in each townhome unit. 11. Applicant shall create an escrow account in the amount of $25,000 to pay for 5 land banked parking spaces. 12. Association documents shall restrict storage in garages to ensure that two vehicles may be parked in the garage at all times. for the property at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-13-02. Joe Donn~lley seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Dounelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 5-1. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board to approve Variations from R2 Bulk Regulations (north tot line 7.5' parking setback and 4'x8' front stoops) for the property at 79t E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-13-02. Joe Donnelley seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Suracek NAYS: Sledz Motion was approved 5-1. At 9:50 p.m., a.fter hearing three cases under New Business, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary °7, MINUTES PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-02 PETITIONER: Hearing Date: May 23, 2002 Insignia Homes, LLC 35 W. Slade Street Palatine, IL 60067 PUBLICATION DATE: May 8, 2002 '. REQUEST: Map Amendment and Preliminary Planned Unit Development approval to allow construction of 24 townhomes. MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Suzanne Maso, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Tom & Frances Boyle Laurie Camp Bridget Chavez Joe & Susan Enzenbacher Zonon & Sue Golba Iver H. Iverson Randall Knudsen Ray & Hedy Lundin Adam Paulus Jennifer Schmidt Frank & Stephanie Schoenberg Clifford Wesa Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Minutes of the April 25 meeting were approved, with Chairperson Juraeek abstaining from the vote. At 7:48, at~er hearing three eases, Ms. Juraeek introduced Case No. PZ-13-02, a request to rezone property located at 791 E. Rand Road and approval of a 24-unit townhome development. She explained that this case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case. She said that the site is a triangular-shaped vacant lot that fronts onto Rand Road. The site is between a car dealership and a hair salon, and is across the street from single-family residences. She said that the applicants propose to consolidate the 2-lots ofreeord and construct a 24-unit townhome development. Ms. Connolly said that the current zoning is R1 Single Family Residential. She said that in order to build the proposed townhomes, the property must be rezoned and that the applicant has requested PO. Attached Single Family. Elements of the development do not comply with zoning regulations and the petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development. The proposed development will require Map Amendment and Conditional Use approval by the Village Board, following a public hearing and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She clarified that the request before the Planning & Zoning Commission is for approval of a Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, and relief from zoning requirements. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Code requires that Louis Street and Rand Road be fully improved. This requires dedicating land for a 66' right-of-way, installing sidewalks, streetlights, and following all Village Code regulations. She said that a Final Plat of Resubdivision consolidating the site and a plat dedicating the right-of-way has to be prepared and reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approved by the Village Board. Ms. Connolly said that Staff reviewed the petitioner's plat of survey, site plan and landscape plan, and visited the site. She said that the subject property consists cfa vacant lot located along a commercial corridor. The applicant's design shows two curb cuts off of Louis Street and a curb cut offofThayer Street. After dedicating the required right-of-way, the site measures 2.2 acres. Ms. Connolly stated that the density and lot coverage change and that this project requires relief from density and lot coverage regulation. However, the six clusters of buildings meet the required setbacks. She said that the units' front entrances face 'out', towards Louis Street, Thayer Street, and Rand Road. She reported that each unit has a 2-car garage with a 17'x17' parking area in front of the units, connected by an 18-foot wide drive aisle. Ms. Connolly said that the drive aisle width is substandard as code requires 24-feet to accommodate two-way traffic. She added that a Fire Lane has a 20-foot minimum width requirement. She said that the proposed 18-foot width does not meet Fire or Zoning regulations and that the design dictates that the drive aisles accommodate two-way traffic. Ms. Connolly said that the site plan shows a 23-foot wide private street that leads to an 80-foot wide cul-de-sac bulb, although code requires 100'. She said that the site plan shows a paved emergency access drive exiting onto Rand Road, which is intended to allow emergency vehicles a means of exiting the site without having to drive in reverse~ The plan includes 12 on-site guest parking spaces and there is on-street parking available 6n sections of the east side of Louis Street. Ms. Connolly said that code requires 2 parking spaces for two bedroom dwelling units and 2.5 parking spaces for three bedroom dwelling units. Including the guest parking, she said there are 60 parking spaces on-site, which meets code. Ms. Connolly reported that the fronts of the buildings would be constructed of a combination of face brick and siding, but only siding would be used on the sides and backs. The garages would be constructed of brick veneer. She stated that the Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject property for Multi-Family Residential - Medium Density use. However, the Comprehensive Plan calls for general commercial. She said that recognizing the importance of developing corridor plans as part of the Comprehensive Plan, the Village Board adopted the Central Road Plan in 1994 and the Rand Road Corridor Plan in 1998 and that the subject property was studied in the 1998 plan. She said that the plan calls for a stand alone commercial development in the range of 25,000 to 30,000 square feet without drive through facilities; that the hair salon seek a shared parking agreement when the site is developed; and that there is an adequate buffer between the residential and commercial uses. She said that the plan includes Iow density residential as an alternative to commercial redevelopment and restricts the number of units to 18 townhomes. Ms. Connolly added that, as part of the Rand Road Corridor Plan, there was discussion about creating a series of ring roads along Rand Road to eliminate certain turning movements on Rand Road and to improve traffic flow. She said that the ring road exhibit shows that Thayer Street could be extended, but more important was creating a connection between the adjacent properties along the west side of Rand Road. She said that traffic exiting from the east side of Rand Road would exit onto Rand Road at a centralized point. The intent behind this concept was to install a traffic signal that would line up with Thayer Street. However, the Village is not requiring that Thayer Street be extended and improved. She said that future development along Rand Road, and traffic studies, may require implementing this concept at a later date. Therefore, staffreeommends that the developer of this site be required to dedicate that portion of Thayer Street. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner's submittal included a landscape plan, which was recently revised to include additional landscaping along the perimeter of the development, and a 6' wooden perimeter fence. However, it still Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ- 13 -02 page 3 does not meet the general intent of the landscape ordinance. She said that it doesn't minimize the impact of the Rand Road traffic or screen the development along the commercial corridor in a manner that is consistent with the Village's Corridor Design Guidelines. She said that the Public Works Department reviewed the proposal to rezone the properties and had no objections to the request. However, the development will have to meet all Village codes. In addition, the Development Code requires right-of-way dedieatinn for Louis, Rand, and Thayer Street. Ms. Connolly informed the Commission that the Fire Prevention Bureau has concerns about access to the individual units and that they could not approve the proposed development. She said that the site configuration does not comply with Development Code requirements, specifically the 100' pavement radius that is required for the bulb of the cul-de- sac, and that the emergency vehicles would have difficulty exiting the site because the vehicles cannot mm around at the north curb cut or the Thayer Street curb cut. She said that the vehicles would have to back out of the development onto Louis Street. In addition, the Police Department reviewed the request and had concerns about the amount of on- site parking provided. Ms. Connolly said that in order to rezone the site, the request has to meet the standards for Map Amendments listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the proposal is not consistent with the immediate surrounding commercial area. She said that a new commercial center is nearing completion one block south of the subject site, which implies that commercial uses are viable along this corridor. She said that the essential character of the proposal has elements of the surrounding residential uses, but that the townhomes would be located on a commercial corridor and that the property is adjacent to commercial uses fronting onto Rand Road. She said that the proposal does not meet the standards for a Map Amendment since it is not compatible with existing uses of property within the general area of the property in question. Also, the request is not consistent with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question. Ms. Connolly stated that according to the Zoning Ordinance, "The purpose ora planned unit development is to provide a tool to accommodate development which is in the public interest, and can provide a public benefit, and which would not otherwise be permitted by the zoning ordinance." She summarized the standards for a Planned Unit Development listed in Zoning Ordinance and said that a development must meet these specific requirements to qualify as a Planned Unit Development. She said that in this case, the townhomes comply with the setback requirements for the R2 Zoning District. However, the design does not preserve green space or provide common open space. Ms. Connolly said that the design exceeds lot coverage, does not include amenities, or incorporate design elements that create an efficient provision of utilities, streets, and other public facilities. Furthermore, the proposal does not provide an adequate buffer from Rand Road traffic and emergency vehicle access has not been designed in a safe manner. She said that the plan does not meet the standards that designate a development as a Planned Unit Development. Ms. Connolly concluded by stating that Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the proposed Map Amendment, Preliminary Planned Unit Development Plan, and variations for the property at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-13-02. The Planning and Zoning Commission members asked if the proposal included parking for the adjacent hair salon. Ms. Connolly said that it did not. There was discussion about access onto Rand Road and the amount of lot coverage. Bill Rotolo, Richard Valentino and Mark Janeek, of Insignia Homes at 35 West Slade Street in Palatine, were sworn in. Mr. Valentino said the townhome project was the culmination of many hours spent with the neighbors to address their concerns and working with their architects and engineers to arrive at the best plan for this controversial property. Mr. Valentino said he was confident any conditions imposed by staff could be adjusted if, in fact, they hadn't already been. He urged Planning and Zoning Commissioners to look at the ultimate plan, move forward and put an end to the controversy surrounding the property. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Mr. Rotolo testified that his firm constructed infill developments that catered to second and third time homeowners to provide the attached housing desired by those empty nesters. He said that they have built and sold over $100 million in homes in the north and northwest suburbs, some in joint venture with other builders. He told the commission that the Dearborn Court project, started by Insignia and built in a transitional area of Algonquin Road, was a joint venture with Dearborn Homes. Mr. Rotolo said he had been a professional city planner for ten years and was a zoning and land use expert who had been cited by the Chicago Tribune Real Estate section as an exceptional infill developer. He explained that he had grown-up in the Emerson/Thayer neighborhood and wanted the best solution for the area. Mark Janeck came forward and said the twenty-four townhomes would present an urban appearance and be a proper transition for the area characterized by commercial and single-family uses. He responded to staffissues regarding curb cuts into Rand Road, continuation of Thayer Street to Rand Road, emergency vehicle access and explained why Insignia felt they had justification for a PUD. He pointed out the project would provide few children, and thus an excess tax flow, to the schools. He also said they would work to meet 50% lot coverage. Planning and Zoning Commissioners stated their dissatisfaction with the fence and Mr. Janeck agreed, saying they would prefer to provide a soft buffer to Rand Road and just have a fence between the parking, hair salon and car dealership. Discussion followed regarding lot coverage, building height, density and emergency vehicle access. Ms. Juracek opened the discussion to the audience at 8:35. Brad Game, who said he was not a local resident but lived on River Road and had previous experience with a similar project built by Insignia, was sworn in. He said he represented 80 people who were going through the court system to stop a different Insignia development in Des Plaines. He said this project doesn't meet PUD or zoning regulations, Comprehensive or Corridor Plan guidelines; that it exceeds density and building height regulations and would greatly increase/traffic in the area. He said he would be shocked and mortified if the project were allowed. Tom Pikarski, law offices of Gordon & Pikarski, 25 W. Washington St., Chicago, was sworn in and said he represented Mr. Spiewak and Century Tile. He reviewed the Zabest proposal brought before the board two years ago and said that it was a well-deslgned commercial project, but the neighbors were vehemently opposed to a commercial use. He said that this proposal had the support of the neighbors and that the builder agreed to work with Village staff to meet code requirements. Jennifer Schmidt of 204 Louis, Lauri Camp of 216 Louis, Clifford Wesa of 109 Louis, were individually swom in and spoke of their and their neighbors' support of Insignia's proposed project. Cheryl Herman of 111 Louis was sworn in and asked the audience/neighbors for a show of hands in support of the proposal. Ms. Juracek scanned the audience and asked that the records show unanimous and overwhelming support by the residents. She closed the public hearing at 9:11 p.m. Planning and Zoning commissioners discussed at length the merits of the proposal, but decided they could not vote to rezone the property or grant preliminary approval as a PUD until the petitioner mades major revisions and the project received greater endorsement from staff. Leo Flores moved to continue the case until the petitioner revised their plans to address the Planning 8t Zoning Commission's concerns about exceeding lot coverage, maximum building height, and permitted density; and had emergency vehicle access to the site that met Village Code requirements, in addition to identifying elements of the project which would qualify it as a Planned Unit Development, for the property at 791 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-12- 02. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Flores, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 6-0. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ- 13-02 Page 5 At 9:22 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded bY Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Ju~k'Co~(~ll~/S~ni~°r>[anr~er INSIGNIA HOMES Townhomes Mt. Prospect, Illinois NORTH F-H-A Y~- ImHAEGER ENGINEERING INSIGNIA HOMES Townhomes Mt. Prospect, Illinois NORTH I~HAEGER ENGINEERING INSIGNIA HOMES Townhomes Mt. Prospect, Illinois [] HAEGER ENGINEERING REAR ELEVATION LEFT SIDE ELEVATION R/GHT SIDE ELEVATION FRONT ELEVATION 7/'~ 0/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 791 EAST RAND ROAD WHEREAS, Mark Janeck d/b/a Insignia Homes (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner"), has filed an application to rezone certain property generally located at 791 East Rand Road (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"), and legally described as follows: Parcel 1: Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing in the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest quarter at a point which is 359 feet north of the Southwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence east parallel with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 223.85 feet to an intersection with the center line of Rand Road; thence northerly along said canter line for a distance of 71.69 feet; thence west parallel with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 188.19 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence south for a distance of 62 feet to the place of beginning, in Cook County, Illinois; and Parcel 2: Parcel of land in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence north along the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 359 feet; thence east parallel with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 223.85 feet to an intersection with the center line of Rand Road; thence southerly along said centerline for a distance of 414.99 feet to an intersection with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence west along said south line for a distance of 430.28 feet to the place of beginning. Containing 105,868 square feet (2.4304 acres) of land, more or less, Southwesterly of Southwesterly line of Rand Road. Property Index Number(s): and 03-35-300-007 03-35-300-004 WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rezoned from R-I (Single Family Residence) to R-2 (Attached Single Family Residence); and WHEREAS, a Public Headng was held on the request for rezoning being the subject of PZ-13-02, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 27th day of June, 2002, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 8~h day of May, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to approve the request, to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and 791 E. Rand Road Page 2/3 WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the request being the subject of PZ-13-02 and have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting said request. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Official Zoning Map of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, as amended, is hereby further amended by reclassifying the property being the subject of this Ordinance from B-1 to R-2 District. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this .day of ,2002. ATTEST: Richard M. Lohrstorfer Mayor Pro Tern Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS AND A CONDITIONAL USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 791 EAST RAND ROAD WHEREAS, Mark Janeck, d/b/a Insignia Homos (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for Variations and a Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development with respect to property located at 791 East Rand Road, (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Parcel 1: Part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, described as follows: Commencing in the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter at a point which is 359 feet north of the southwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence east parallel with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 223.85 feet to an intersection with the center line of Rand Road; thence northerly along said center line for a distance of 71.69 feet; thence west parallel with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 188.19 feet to an intersection with the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence south for a distance of 62 feet to the place of beginning, in Cook County, Illinois; - Parcel 2: Parcel of land in the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois described as folloWS: commencing at the southwest comer of said Northwest Quarter of the Soutl~west Quarter; thence north along the west line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 359 feet; thence east parallel with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter for a distance of 223.85 feet to an intersection with the center line of Rand Road; thence southerly along said centedine for a distance of 414.99 feet to an intersection with the south line of said Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter; thence west along said south line for a distance of 430.28 feet to the place of beginning. Containing 105,868 square feet (2.4304 acres) of land, more or less, southwesterly of southwesterly line of Rand Road. and Property Index Number(s): 03-35-300-007 03-35-300-004 791 E. Rand Road Page 2/4 WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for a twenty-three (23) unit townhome development, as provided in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations from the Village Zoning Code to allow 4'x8' front stoops at each townhome unit, and a 7.5' parking setback along the north property line, as provided in Section 203.C.7 of the Village Code; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use and Variations being the subject of PZ-13-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 27th day of June, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 8th day of May, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the requests being the subject of PZ-13-02; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit and Variations would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mour~t Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for a twenty-three (23) unit townhome development, as provided in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code; and SECTION THREE: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant Variations from the Village Zoning Code to allow the construction 4'x8' front stoops on each townhome unit, and a 7.5' parking setback along the north property line, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code; and 791 E. Rand Road Page 3/4 SECTION FOUR: Prior to the issuance of a building permit relative to the Conditional Use permit and Variations, the following conditionS and/or written documentation shall be fulfilled: 1. Development of the site in general conformance with the submitted site plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June 10, 2002, revised to show: · 5 land banked parking spaces; · Driveways constructed of decorative pavement (bomanite). 2. Landscape plan prepared by Haeger Engineering, revision date June 10, 2002, but revised to reflect: · Berms scattered along the Rand Road frontage; · Shallower detention basin; · Increased landscaping along the Rand Road frontage: clustering plantings is acceptable, but the quantity and species of plants must provide continuous screening from Rand Road; · Shade trees with a caliper no less than 3"; · Foundation landscaping; th 3. Elevations presented at the June 27 Planning & Zoning meeting that show additional brick and vinyl siding (no Dryvt) prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Buster[ and measure no more than 28-feet from the mid-point; 4. Consolidate the site to a one-lOt subdivision; 5. Dedicate right-of-way along Louis Street, Thayer Street, and Rand Road as required by Village Code; 6. Improve Louis Street as required by the Development Code; 7. Improve Thayer Street with the termination of paving done in a manner that does not impede access to the property south of the townhome development with a design approved by the Engineering DMsion; 8. Approval of appropriate permits by I.D.O.T. and M.W.R.D.~ 9. Submittal of final building plans that meet all applicable Building Code, Fire Code, and Development Code requirements which include but are not limited to: · Provide hydrants on-site as determined necessary by the Village's Fire Code, Fire Prevention Bureau, and Public Works; · Buildings are to constructed according to BOCA 1996 regulations; · All construction must meet the Village's Building and Fire Codes; 10. Install fire sprinklers in each townhome unit; 11. Applicant shall create an escrow account in the amount of $25,000 to pay for the 5 land banked parking spaces; 12. Association documents shall restrict storage in garages to ensure that two vehicles may be parked in the garage at all times. 791 E. Rand Road Page 4/4 SECTION FIVE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION SIX: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk Richard M. Lohrstorfer Mayor'Pm Tem illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JULY 12, 2002 PZ-17-02 - DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION (BUILD OVER LOT LINE) 10-50 S. EMERSON STREET (PROPOSED PARKING DECK) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT The Planning 8~ Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-1%02, a request for an exception to Development Code regulations, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their June 27, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located between the existing Senior Center and Mount Prospect Public Library and is part of the Village's Redevelopment Plan. The Village proposes to construct a parking deck, half of which will cross the property line shared with the Library. Village Hall customers, Libra~ patrons, and employees will use the deck. However, the Development Code requires that the parking deck be built on a properly recorded lot of record, i.e. a separate lot of record. The reason for the request to build over the lot line is to increase green space in the downtown, minimize costs for residents, and create a cohesive, unified redevelopment. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the request and noted that the case was an example of two governmental entities working together to create an improved project. They discussed the impact of the agreement between the Village of Moant Prospect and the Mount Prospect Public Library and how parking spaces could be shared between the two entities. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for an exception to the Development Code requirement to allow the construction of a parking deck to cross the lot line at 10-50 S. Emerson Street, Case No. P-Z- 17-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 16, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. Willian~. 'Coon~ey, r., ~ICP MINUTES OF TI-II~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-17-02 Hearing Date: June 27, 2002 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect, for property located at 10 - 50 S. Emerson St. PUBLICATION DATE: June 12, 2002 REQUEST: Development Code Exception (building over a property line) MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Counolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of the May 23 meeting were approved. At 9:25, after the Commission heard two other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-17-02, a request for a Development Code Exception to build a parking deck over a property line at 50 S. Emerson Street. She explained that this case would be Village Board f'mal. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case. She said that a great deal of work on downtown redevelopment has been completed since the Downtown Strategic Plan was adopted in 1998 and that the next step in the redevelopment process is to construct a parking deck, new Village Hall and Community Center. She explained that the request before the Commission relates to the parking deck, which would be located between the Library and the new Village Hall. Ms. Connolly said that Village Hall customers, Library patrons, and employees would use the parking deck. She said that the Village and the Library are still finalizing the details, but essentially half of the deck will be constructed on Village owned land and half on Library owned land. In order to l:onstmct the parking deck as proposed, the Village Board would have to approve an exception to the Development Code requirement that requires development to occur on a properly created lot of record. Ms. Connolly clarified the requirement and stated that a separate lot of record would have to be created for the parking deck. She said that the Development Code Exception process requires holding a public hearing, forwarding a recommendation from the Plarm'mg & Zoning Commission, and final action by the Village Board. Ms. Connolly described the subject properties as currently including the Village's Senior Center Building and parking lot and the Mount Prospect Public Library and parking lot. She said that the Senior Center Building would be demolished in the near future and that construction of the parking deck is scheduled to begin in late summer or early fall, pending approval of the Development Code exception and obtaining building permits. The Library building will be vacated in the up-coming months in order to construct a second story addition. Ms. Connolly explained that the Development Code allows the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval of exceptions in cases of hardship, caused by conditions uniquely attributable to the land under consideration. She summarized the standards listed in the Development Code. Ms. Counolly said the request to build a parking deck in the Village's downtown district, which is zoned BSC, is a unique situation and not generally applicable to other properties in this zoning district. She said that while the property owners lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Suracek, Chairperson PZ-17-02 Page 2 created the situation, the reason for the request is to increase green space in the downtown, minimize costs for residents, and create a cohesive, unified redevelopment area. The Village and the Library are in the process of finalizing an agreement that would enable the Village to build on the Library's property in exchange for providing the Library with parking spaces in the parking deck. She said that the exception would enable this public project to move forward while maintaining each governmental agency's property rights into the future. Ms. Connolly said that based on this analysis, the Planning & Zoning Commission can moke positive findings with respect to the standards for a Development Code Exception and that the Commission recommend that the Village Board approve the request for a parking deck to be built over the property line at 10-50 S. Emerson Street, Case No. PZ-17-02. Arlene Juracek said that since the Library needs to come to Village Board for approval of their budget and for their tax levy which makes it a subsidiary unit of government to the Village, shouldn't the two plats be consolidated into one lot of record. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Library and Village are two separate property owners. Ms. Juracek also confirmed that the Commission is not being asked to approve a design, just to approved the exception to Development Code as requested. Ms. Connolly said yes. Richard Rogers asked who owns the parking garage. Ms. Connolly said the Village would own it and have an agreement with the Library to allow them to use the garage. She said the Library will need additional parking for their addition and by working together the garage will not take away from the greenspace downtown. Commission members discussed other possible remedies m/d Leo Flor°s clarified that the P&Z was required to make a recommendation about building over a lot line and that the petitioners would resolve the legality of the proposal. Richard Rogers moved to recommend that the Village Board approve a Development Code Exception request to allow a parking deck to be built over a property line at 10-50 S. Emerson St., Case No. PZ-17-02. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: .: Motion was approved 6-0. At 9:50 p.m., aider hearing another case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~c~ut~l l'y, 'Senior p1 anner ~V Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JUNE 20, 2002 HEARING DATE: JUNE 27, 2002 SUBfECT: PZ-17-02- DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION (BUILD OVER A PROPERTY LINE) VILLAGE OF MOLrNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 PROPERTY OWNERS: REQUESTED ACTION: Village of Mount Prospect & Mount Prospect Public Library DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION TO BUILD A PARKING DECK OVER A PROPERTY LINE ON LAND OWNED BY THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC LIBRARY. BACKGROUND The-Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan, which was adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, presents a vision for the downtown based on work by the Ad Hoe Committee with input from the residents of Mount Prospect. A great deal of work on downtown redevelopment has been completed since the plan was adopted in 1998. The next step in the redevelopment process is to construct a parking deck, new Village Hall and Community Center. The parking deck would be located between the Library and the new Village Hall. Village Hall customers, Library patrons, and employees will use the parking deck. The attached site plan shows the location of the deck, the new Village Hall, and the Library. While details of the parking deck are still being finalized, essentially 60' (half) of the deck will be constructed on Village owned land and 60' (the other half) on Library owned land. In order to construct the parking deck as proposed, the Village Board would have to approve an exception to Sec. 15.701.A of the Development Code, which states: "... No permit shall be issued for any work on any parcel if the parcel is not a properly created lot of record,...". The Development Code Exception process requires holding a public hearing, forwarding a recommendation from the Planning & Zoning Commission, and final action by the Village Board. ANALYSIS The subject properties currently include the Village's Senior Center Building and parking lot and the Mount Prospect Public Library and parking lot. The Senior Center Building will be demolished in the near future and construction of the parking deck is scheduled to begin late summer or early fall, pending approval of the Z- 18-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 27, 2002 Page 2 Development Code exception and obtaining building permits. The Library building wilt be vacated in the up- coming months in order to conslruct a second story addition. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE EXCEPTION & STANDARDS Sec. 15.109 permits the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval of exceptions to Development Code regulations in cases of hardship, "caused by conditions uniquely attributable to the land under consideration, would be imposed upon an applicant by compliance with these regulations and upon a finding that there are alternate feasible means of fulfilling the purpose and spirit of the regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare...". The request must meet the standards for an exception, which are listed in Sec. 15.109 and are summarized as follows: · A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; · lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · prOtection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The request to build a parking deck in the Village's downtown distr/ct, which is zoned BSC, is a unique situation and not generally applicable to other properties in this zoning district. While the property owners created the exception request, the reason for the request is to increase green space in the downtown, minimize costs for residents, and create a cohesive, unified redevelopment area. The Village and the Library are in the process of finalizing an agreement that would enable the Village to build on the Library's property in exchange for providing the Library with parking spaces in the parking deck. The.exception would enable this public project to move forward while maintaining each governmental agency's property rights into the future. RECOMlVlIgNDA'rlON The proposed exception to the Development Code is necessary to continue the downtown redevelopment and meets the standards for an exception. Based on the above analysis, the P&Z can make positive findings with respect to the standards for a Development Code Exception~ Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed request for a parking deck to be built over the property line at 10-50 S. Emerson Street, Case No. PZ-17- 02. William J. C6oney, AICP, ~)i{'eetor of Community Development MOUNT PROSPE£ VILLAGE OF JT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division I00 S. Emerson Street MoUnt Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847/818-5328 FAX 847/818-5329 Development Code Exception Case Number ~ PZ 1% 02 ! Subdivision Name/Addres Emerson Street Parking Garage ~,~° Date °f Submissi°n 5/27/02  Hearing Date 6/27/02 Petitioner Telephone (day) Village of Mount Prospect Corporation Telephone (evening) Street Address Fax 100 S. Emerson Street City State zip Code Pager Mount Prospec[ ~ IL 60056 Interest in Property:. I of 2 Owners Property Owner Telephone (day) Village of Mount Prospect & Mount Prospect Public LibrarY Corporation Telephone (evening) Street Address Fax: I00 S. Emerson Street & 10 S. Emerson Street City State Zip Code PagerAVlobile Mount Prospect IL 60056 Surveyor/Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax UBDIVISION NAME REAL ESTATE INDEX NO.: 08-12-103-014, 017, 019. 020. 021. 025, 026. 027, 028, 031 and 032 LOCATION OR ADDRESS: Area between 50 S. Emerson S!reet ?: I 0 S. ~merson Street, MP, IL 60056 LAND USE: EXISTING Parking Lot PROPOSED: Parking Garage ZONING: EXISTING BSC PROPOSED: BSC List Development Code exception request and explain why it is necessary: The Village of Mount Prospect & the Mount Prospect Public Library are iu d~e process ol' constructing a 'shared' parking garage, i.e. Library patrons & re4dents visiting Village Hall will use the parking garage Sec. 15.701 of the Village Code requires that structures be constructed on a properlv recorded lot of record. However, the parking garage will be~over the shared property line and located on land that both parties own. Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted, to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staffto review the process and so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of thc Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that ~1 infot~{[ati~erein and iff all materials submitted in association with this application are true and aec tV,°the2:'/fmYf° - / / // If~pplicant"fslfiot property o~¥ner: ~ - I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and ,the associated supporting material. Property Owner v~~~.~-~'~ __ Date ~///0~ Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Stxeet, Mount Prospect Illinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD847/392-6064 Pine Street 299 Wille Street Main Street 103-111 r~nerson ~treet Elm Street 300 308 312 ........ ~et BUSSE AVENUE C£N"i~ ROAD ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING EXCEPTIONS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT CODE (CHAPTER 15) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 10-50 SOUTH EMERSON STREET WHEREAS, the Mount Prospect Public Library and the Village of Mount Prospect (hereinafter referred to as the Petitioners) are owners of property located at 10 South Emerson Street and 50 South Emerson Street respectively(hereinafter referred to as Subject Property), legally described as follows: Lots 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 in Block 4 in Busse and Wille Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in the West ~ of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, In Cook County, Illinois and LotA in Mount Prospect Public Library Resubdivision of Lots 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 14 in Block 4 in Busse and Wille Resubdivision in Mount Prospect in the West % of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index No(s): 08-12-103-014 08-12-103-017 08-12-103-019 08-12-103-020 08-12-103-021 08-12-103-025 08-12-103-026 08-12-103-027 08-12-103-O28 08-12-103.-031 08-12-103-O32 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested an exception to the requirements of the Development Code, Section 15.701, to allow the construction of a parking deck over a shared property line, without the recorded lot of record for a separate lot as required by the Development Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect did consider the request for an exception from Section 15.701 of Chapter 15 (Development Code) for the Subject Property at their regular meeting on June 27, 2002, said request being the subject of PZ-17-02 and by a unanimous vote recommended to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village to grant the exception from Chapter 15 as requested; and Development Code Page 2/2 WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has forwarded their recommendation being the subject of PZ-17-02 to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporate herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: That the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant to the Subject Property an exception from Section 15.701 of Chapter 15 (Development Code) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to allow the construction of a parking deck over a shared property line, without the recorded lot of record for a separate lot, as required by the Development Code. SECTION THREE: Except for the modifications granted herein, all other requirements of said Development Code shall apply to the Subject Property. SECTION FOUR~ This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,20'02. ATTEST: Richard M. Lohrstorfer Mayor Pro Tem Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:~GEN\files\WIN~ORD~NANC\DEV CODE, 'vi g,LIbraryParkingGa rage, July,02.doc illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JULY 12, 2002 PZ- 18-02 - TEXT AMENDMENT (Sec. 14.2211 HANDICAPPED PARKING REGULATIONS) · Allow a 5-foot wide access aisle; · Allow access aisles to be shared; · Create regulations for van-accessible parking stalls; · Clarify the location of handicapped parking stalls. The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-18-02 as described in the attached staff memo. The text amendment modifies the Village's handicapped parking regulations so the Village's regulations are in keeping with the recently revised Federal regulations. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their June 27, 2002 meeting. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed how the proposed changes would benefit the community by allowing additional standard parking stalls and/or more parking lot landscaping. They noted that these changes would allow more handicapped stalls to be located closer to the building, which will decrease the travel distance for handicapped individuals. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend approval of the text amendment, Case No. PZ- 18-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 16, 2002. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TIkE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-18-02 Hearing Date: June 27, 2002 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street PUBLICATION DATE: June 12, 2002 REQUEST: Text Amendment (update Handicapped Parking Regulations) MEMBERS PRESENT: Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of the May 23 meeting were approved. At 9:39, after the Commission heard three other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-18-02, a request for a Text Amendment to update handicapped parking regulations. She explained that this case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case. She said Staff proposes that the Village's handicapped parking regulations be revised to be consistent with the Federal Americans with Disabilities Act. Currently, the Village requires 8-foot wide handicapped-parking stalls and that each stall has an 8-foot wide access aisle. She said that the Village's Code does not include provisions for van-accessible parking stalls and that sharing an access aisle is not permitted. In comparison, the recently changed Federal regulations contain provisions for van-accessible parking and reduce the width of the access aisle to 5-feet for cars. She said that van-accessible stalls are required to maintain an 8-foot wide access aisle, but two parking spaces may share an access aisle in both cases. Ms. Connolly referred to the packet sent to the Commissioners that detailed specific text changes. She summarized the proposal and stated that the new Village regulations would allow 5' wide access aisles and allow the access aisle to be shared by two cars. Also, the code would be changed to create van-accessible parking regulations and to have those stalls have an 8-foot wide access aisle. She clarified that the number of handicapped parking spaces would not change, but require that van-accessible parking be provided. In addition, there was additional text added to help clarify the required location for the handicapped stalls. Ms. Connolly said Section 14.203.D.8.b lists standards for text amendments to the Zoning Code. She reviewed the standards and explained that the proposed amendment applies to all handicapped parking stalls in parking lots in the Village and does not affect an individual parcel or parking lot. She said that the changes are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan because the changes protect and promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of residents of the Village, while still preserving the character of the community. Ms. Connolly said the proposed text amendment would allow for future improvements to be constructed in a safe manner and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. She said that changes to handicapped parking regulations create regulations that are consistent with Federal standards and regulations. Therefore, the proposed amendment meets the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendment and that Staff recommends that the P&Z recommend approval of the proposed Text Amendment for handicapped parking regulations as outlined in the staff report. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-18-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Richard Rogers stated this amendment makes a lot of sense, having two cars share one access aisle between them. Presently, with every space having an access aisle next to it, the last spaces are very far from the building to be accessed. Arlene Juracek had concerns about vans having the extra 8' space on the wrong side for disembarking a handicapped person, but the other members assured here the van could back in to the space to access the proper side. Commissioners discussed several other space measurement options, but decided to follow ADA regulations. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 9:49 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board for a Text Amendment to update handicapped parking regulations as outlined in the staffmemo, Case No. PZ-IS-02. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: Motion was approved 6-0. At 9:50 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: JUNE 20, 2002 HEARING DATE: JUNE 27, 2002 S~JE~: PZ-I 8-02 - TEXT AMENDMENT (UPDATE HANDICAPPED PARKING) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BACKGROUND INFORMATION PETITIONER: REQUESTED ACTION: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S, Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 TEXT AMENDMENT TO UPDATE HANDICAPPED PARKING REGULATIONS: 1) REDUCE THE ACCESS AISLE WIDTH TO 5-FEET FOR CARS 2) CREATE VAN-ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACES PROVISIONS BACKGROUND Recently, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division, wl~mh oversees the Disability Rights Section, revised its requirements to create provisions for van-accessible parking and to reduce the width of the access aisle to 5-feet for cars (see attached ADA Design Guide). However, van-accessible stalls are required to maintain an 8-foot wide access aisle, but parking spaces may share an access aisle. In order to be consistent with the DOJ's ADA Design Guide, Staffproposes that Sec. 14.2211 be revised to reflect these changes. Currently, the Village of Mount Prospect requires 8-foot wide handicapped-parking stalls and that each stall has an 8-foot wide access aisle. The Village's code does not include provisions for van-accessible parking stalls and sharing an access aisle is not permitted. PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT Sec. 14.2211 would be modified so the red text is deleted and the blue (bolded) text is added as follows: Accessible (handicapped) parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 as follows: A. Size: Each accessible parking stall [or cars shall consist of an eight foot (8') wide parking space and an adjacent ~.~, ....... x$ ) five (5) foot wide access aisle, for a total of~ thirteen (13') feet. Two parking spaces may share an access aisle. The standard length of accessible parking stalls shall be the same as all other parking stalls. PZ- 18-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 27, 2002 Page 2 Each accessible parking stall for vans shall consist of an eight-foot (8') wide parking space and an adjacent eight-foot (8') foot wide access aisle, for a total of sixteen feet (16'). Two parking spaces may share an access aisle. The standard length of accessible parking stalls shall be the same as all other parking stalls. B. Number: All parking lots required by this Chapter shall provide the following number of accessible parking stalls: Table #1 Total Number Total Minimum Van Accessible Accessible Parking of Parking Number of Parking Spaces Spaces ~v/min. 60" spaces provided Accessible Parking w/min. 96" wide wide access aisle. (per lot) Spaces (60" & 96" access aisle aisles) Column A 1-25 ! 1 0 26-50 2 1 1 50-75 3 1 2 76-100 4 1 3 101-150 5 1 4 151-200 6 1 5 201-300 7 1 6 301-400 8 1 7 401-500 9 2 7 501-1,000 2% Total parking 1/8 of Column A* 7/8 of Column A*~ provided (1 out of every 8 (7 out of every 8 accessible spaces) accessible parking spaces) 1,001 & over 20 plus 1 for each 1/8 of Column A* 7/8 of Column A** 100 over 1,000 (1 out of every 8 (7 out of every 8 accessible spaces) accessible parking spaces) C. Access: The required access aisle must have a smooth transition with adjacent walk surfaces, either by joining at a common level or by use of a curb ramp, and be located on the shortest accessible route of travel to an accessible facility entrance. D. Identification: Each accessible parking space shall be equipped with a sign, which complies with the Americans with Disability Act. Signs shall be vertically mounted on a post or a wall at front center of the parking space, no more than five feet (5') horizontally from the front of the parking space, and set four feet (4') from finished grade of the parking space to the bottom of the sign. Z-18-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 27, 21302 Page 3 STANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS Section 14.203.D.8.b lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. The standards relate to: the general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; · consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; · the degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity; the degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; and · consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. The proposed amendment applies to all handicapped parking stalls in parking lots in the Village and does not affect an individual parcel or parking lot. The changes are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act, objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan because the changes protect and promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare &residents of the Village, while still preserving the character of the community. The amount of handicapped stalls does not change, but creates provisions for van-accessible vehicles. The text amendment allows the access aisles to be shared, which allows for more parking and/or landscaping in parking lots. In addition, text was added to help clarify the location of handicapped parking stalls. The proposed text amendment will allow for future improvements to be constructed in a safe manner and comply with the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, the text amendment does not make the Zoning Ordinance more permissive. Changes to handicapped parking regulations create regulations that are consistent with Federal standards and regulations. Therefore, the proposed amendment meets the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments. RECOMMENDATION The proposed text amendment is necessary to ensure the Village's requirements for handicapped parking are consistent with Federal regulations. Based on the above analysis, the P&Z can make positive findings with respect to the standards for Text Amendment in Section 14.2211. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed Text Amendment for handicapped parking regulations as outlined in the staff report. William J. ~ooney, AICP, Director of Community Development U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Disability Rights Section ADA Design Guide Restriping Parking Lots Accessible Parking Spaces When a business, State or local government agency, or other covered entity restripes a parking lot, it must provide accessible parking spaces as required by the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. Failure to do so would violate the ADA. In addition, businesses or privately owned facilities that provide goods or services to the public have a continuing ADA obligation to remove barriers to access in existing parking lots when it is readily achievable to do so. Because restriping is relatively inexpensive, it is readily achievable in m. ost cases. ~--~Van-Accessible Parking Spaces Van-accessible parking spaces are the same as accessible parking spaces for cars except for three fca- tm-es needed for vans: a wider access aisle (96") to accommodate a wheelchair lift; vertical clearance to accommo- date van height at the van park- ing space, the adjacent access aisle, and on the vehicular route to and from the van-accessible space, and an additional sign that identifies the parking spaces as "van accessible." One of eight accessible parking spaces, but always at least one, must be van-accessible. This ADA Design Guide provides key information about how to create accessible car and van spaces and how many spaces to provide when parking lots are restriped. --~Accessible Parking Spaces for Cars Accessible parking spaces for cars have at least a 60-inch-wide aeees~ aisle located adjacent to the desig- nated parking space. The access aisle is just wide enough to permit a person using a wheelchair to enter or exit the car. These parking spaces are identified with a sign and located on level ground. Minimum Number of Accessible parking Spaces ADA Standards for Accessible Design 4.1.2 (5) Total Number of Parking spaces Provided (per lot) 1 to25 26 to 50 51 to 75 76 to 100 101 to 150 151 to 200 201 to 300 301 to 4O0 401 to 500 501 to 1000 1001 and over Total Minimum Number of AccessilJle Parking Spaces (60" & 96" aisles) Column A Van Accessible Accessible Parking Spaces Parking with min. 96" i Spaces with wide access ' ~ min. 60" wide aisle ! access aisle 1 0 3 2 4 5 6 7 3 4 8 1 9 2 7 1/8 of Column A* 1/8 of Column A* ; 2%oftotal · parking provided in each lot 20 plus 1 for each 100 over 1000 7/8 of ColumnA** 7/8 of ColumnA** one out of every 8 accessible spaces 7 out of every 8 accessible parking spaces page 1 of 2 Location Accessible parking spaces must be located on the sho~est accessible route of travel to an accessible facil- ity entrance. Where buildings have multiple accessible entrances with adjacent parking, the accessible parking spaces must be dispersed and located closest to the accessible entrances. When accessible parking spaces are added in an existing parking lot, locate the spaces on the most level ground close to the accessible en- trance. An accessible route must al- ways be provided from the acces- sible parking to the accessible en- trance. An accessible route never has curbs or stairs, must be at least 3- feet wide, and has a firm, stable, slip- resistant surface. The slope along the accessible route should not be greater ~an 1:12 in the direction of travel. Accessible parking spaces may be clustered in one or more lots if equivalent or greater accessibility is provided in terms of distance from the accessible entrance, parking fees, and convenience. Van-accessible parking spaces located in parking ga- rages may be clustered on one floor (to accommodate the 98-inch mini- mum vertical height requirement). Free Technical Assistance Answers to technical and.general questions about restfiping parking lots or other ADA requirements are avail- able by telephone on weekdays. You may also order the ADA Standards for Accessible Design and other ADA publications, including regulations for private businesses or State and local governments, at any time day or night.' Information about ADA-related IRS tax credits and deductions is also available from the ADA Information Line. Department of Justice ADA Information Line 800-514-0301 (voice) 800-514-0383 (tty) page 2 of 2 Features of Accessible Parking Spaces for Cars -- Sign with the international symbol of accessibility mounted high enough so it can be seen while a vehicle is parked in the space. - If the accessible route is located in front of the space, install Iwheelstop$ to keep vehicles laccessible route (rain, 36-inch width) /~96" min 2440 from reducing width below 36 inches. Access aisle of at least 60-inch width must be level (1:50 maximum slope in all directions), be the same length as the adjacent parking space(s) it serves and must connect to an ac* cessible route to the building. Ramps must not extend into the access aisle. Boundary of the access aisle must be marked. The end may be a squared or curved shape. Two parking spaces may share an access aisle. Three Additional Features for Van-Accessible Parking Spaces Sign with "van accessible" and the international symbol of accessibility mounted high enough so the sign can be seen when - [ a vehicle is parked in the space J. accessible route ....... ~..' · · ~ .'..'.'..%'.'..'..'.1,' · · '.~..~ ...... 96" min. width access aisle, level (max. slope 1:50 in all directions), lo- cated beside the van parking space Min. 98-inch-high clearance at van parking space, access aisle, and on vehicular route, to and from van space " ' 96 mm. 96 mm /96 mm. / / . 2440 . 2440 " 2440 Internet You may also review or download information on the Department's ADA Internet site at any time. The site provides access to ADA regula- tions, technical assistance materials, and general ADA information. It also provides links to other Federal agencies, and updates on new ADA requirements and enforcement efforts. Interact address: www. usdoj.gov/cr t/ada/adahom 1.btm Reference: ADA Standards for Accessible Design (28 CFR ?art 36): § 4.1.6 Alterations; § 4.1.2 Accessible Sites and Exte- rior Facilities: New Construction, and § 4.1.6 Parking and Pas senger Loading Zones. Duplication of this document is encouraged. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WHEREAS, the Petitioner (Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount prOSpeCt) have filed an application for certain text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend various regulations; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks amendments to the following Section 14.2211 of the Village Code, entitled "OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING"; and WHEREAS, a Public Heating was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject of PZ-18- 02, before the Planning and Zoning Commission on June 27, 2002, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the Mnun! Pm~nenf ,Inurnal & Tnpic,~ on the 12th day of June, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have considered the requests being the subject of PZ-18-02. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: ~EC_T_LQN_QJ::~: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorPorated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of MOunt Prospect. .~zEC_T_LQN._~LQ: Section 14.2211 "Accessible Parking Requirements" of Chapter 14, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows: "ACCESSIBLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS Accessible (handicapped) parking spaces shall be provided in compliance with the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 as follows: A. Size: Each accessible parking stall for cars shall consist of an eight foot (8') wide parking space and an adjacent five (5') foot wide access aisle, for a total of thirteen (13') feet. Two parking spaces may sharo an access aisle. The standard length of accessible parking stalls shall be the same as all other parking stalls. Each accessible parking stall for vans shall consist of an eight-foot (8') wide parking space and an adjacent eight-foot (8') foot Wide access aisle, for a total of sixteen feet Page 2/3 (16'). Two parking spaces may share an access aisle. The standard length of accessible parking stalls shall be the same as all other parking stalls. B. Number: All parking lots required by this Chapter shall provide the following number of accessible parking stalls: Table #1 Total Number Total Minimum Van Accessible Accessible Parking of Parking Number of Parking Spaces Spaces w/min. 60" spaces Accessible Parking w/min. 96" wide wide access aisle. provided (per Spaces (60' & 96" access aisle lot) aisles) Column A 1-25 I 1 0 26-50 2 1 1 50-75 3 1 2 76-100 4 1 3 101~150 5 1 4 151-200 6 1 5 201-300 7 1 6 301-400 8 1 7 401-500 9 2 7 501-1,000 2% Total parking 1/8 of Column A* 7/8 of Column A** provided (1 out of every 8 (7 out of ever~ 8 accessible accessible parking spaces) spaces) 1,001 & over 20 plus 1 for each 1/8 of Column A* 7/8 of Column A** 100 over 1,000 (1 out of every 8 (7 out of every 8 accessible accessible parking spaces) spaces) C. Access: The required access aisle must have a smooth transition with adjacent walk surfaces, either by joining at a common level or by use of a curb ramp, and be located on the shortest accessible route of travel to an accessible facility entrance. Page 3/3 D. Identification: Each accessible parking space shall be equipped with a sign, which complies with the Americans with Disability Act. Signs shall be vertically mounted on a post or a wall at front center of the parking space, no more than five feet (5') horizontally from the front of the parking space, and set four feet (4') from finished grade of the parking space to the bottom of the sign." ,~Z~f~L~:J~: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. A'Iq'EST: Richard M. Lohrstorfer Mayor Pro Tem Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL J. FIGOLAH, FIRE CHIEF ~,,} Ii~.OlO~.' JULY 11, 2002 AUTOMATIC AID AGREEMENT/PROSPECTHEIGHTS The item on the agenda for the Fire Department is a resolution to revise our automatic aid agreement with the Prospect Heights Fire Protection District. An original agreement was signed on May 1, 1994 and several changes have been made to this agreement since that time. Those changes include an Addendum dated August 4, 1995, and two letters modifying the agreement dated January 10, 2000 and June 20, 2001. Prospect Heights FPD has requested some additional minor changes to the agreement and because of the multiple modifications to the original agreement; a new agreement is recommended. A copy of the agreement and a map outlining the response areas is attached to this memo. This agreement provides for the exchange of manpower and equipment for emergency incidents. The folloWing is a brief description of mutual and automatic aid and how they both evolved. Mutual Aid Mutual aid is a formal plan that was developed in 1970 to provide assistance to a community when their emergency response capabilities were overwhelmed. The initial plan was to provide fire apparatus and crews to assist a fire department battling a fke that was beyond their capabilities. Over the years this plan was expanded to include ambulance assistance when all of the fire department ambulances are all out on simultaneous incidents or when a mass casualty incident occurs. Mutual aid assistance is also available for Technical Rescue Teams (high-rise & below grade), Scuba Teams, Hazardous M. aterials Teams, Fire Inspectors, Fire Chiefs and special equipment. Automatic Aid Automatic aid is an enhancement of the mutual aid system. Automatic aid is a predetermined plan for responding apparatus and crews to another community for routine responses. The apparatus from another community responds even if the host community has apparatus crews available in its own stations, but further away. The idea of this plan is to provide the stricken citizen with the fastest response of apparatus and manpower regardless of the name on the side of the vehicle. Rather than responding an engine from our Fire Station//12 to the far north end of the community, a Prospect Heights engine responds. This keeps Engine #12 available for subsequent calls in Mount Prospect and responds the closest apparatus. The advantage of automatic aid response is that mom apparatus and manpower arrive at the emergency quicker. When two fire departments provide each other with automatic aid, the responses must be equal to one another. The intention is to help each other without taking advantage of the other. MF Attachments H:\I Archives\1999\September~MF-Prospect Heights Auto-Aid Agreement-Village Manager.doc Z 0 0 ~ -r- m -r I~l ,..q O~ i 2002 ADDENDUM TO THE AUTOMATIC FIRE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT (of May 1, 1994 and Addendum of August 4, 1995) BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS AND THE PROSPECT HEIGHTS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, ILLINOIS In accordance with 65 ILCS 5/11-6-i of the Illinois Compiled statutes, which empowers Municipalities and Fire Protection Districts to enter into "Mutual Aid agreements", and in accordance with the MABAS agreement entered into by the Village of Mount Prospect and the Prospect Heights Fire Protection District in 1973, renewed in 1989, the Village of Mount Prospect and the Prospect Heights Fire Protection District agreed to provide automatic aid to each other on structural fire alarms as follows: GENERAL CONDITIONS Equipment responding on an automatic mutual aid response to the jurisdiction shall have a minimum of three (3) fire department personnel; except for a tanker vehicle, which shaI1 have a minimum of two (2). Only one (i) unit or a combination of units creating a single response team from the fire department providing aid shall be required to respond at any one time, unless the manpower on the one apparatus needs additional manpower to meet the minimum requirements. In the event that the unit due is unavailable (i.e. out of service, committed to another call), no back- up or alternate unit shall be required to respond. At all times, the jurisdiction within which the emergency exists will be in charge and responsible for the operations at the emergency scene, the company officer shall exercise his/her discretion as to the appropriate action to be taken. Upon arrival of a company officer from the department having jurisdiction, command of the emergency scene shall be transferred in a smooth and efficient manner to the fire department in whose jurisdiction the emergency exists. Each fire department shall be responsible for providing a communication system which allows the immediate dispatching of all units due to respond from the assisting department, as well as apparatus to apparatus communications while en route to and while on the emergency scene. 5. Each department agrees to provide and participate in quarterly training between the two (2) fire departments. 6. Each jurisdiction agrees that the general provisions of the "MABAS MUTUAL All) AGREEMENT" apply to this agreement, except as modified by this agreement. Each jurisdiction agrees to waive all claims against the other party for compensation for any loss, damage, personal injury or death occurring as a result of performance in conjunction with this agreement. General liability insurance, personal injury insurance, and property/vehicle insurance shall be the responsibility of each individuaI j urisdiction/department. C:\Documents and Settings\jmalcolm\Local Settings\Temporary lnternet FilesXOLK3FXMount Prospect 2002.doc Automatic Fire Mutual Aid Agreement 2 RESPONSE AREA The Village of Mount Prospect agrees to provide the Prospect Heights Fire Protection District on all Code #3 incidents, subject to the provisions of paragraph two (2) of the general agreement: A. One (1) Engine Company to the following areas: Rob Roy Country Club Village Fairway Estates Brighton Gardens, Marriott (Grid 991) Lake Claire, Shires, Bonnie Brook subdivisions (Grid 983) Train Station and Ascot Shopping Center (Grid 3974) Saint Alphonsus Church (Grid 993) The areas known as Grids 991,993, 983, and 3974 are located: Saint Alphonsus Church 411 North Wheeling Road (North), Euclid Avenue (South), Wheeling Road (West), Wolf Road (East). (See Map #1) One (1) Engine Company to the following areas: The entire area known as Grids 3971, 3972, 3961, 3962, 3963, and 3973 The areas listed above are located: One quarter (1/4) mile North of Hintz Road (North), Old Willow Road (South), Wolf Road (West), and Milwaukee Avenue (East). (SeeMap#1) Note: This response does not include the operational area of the Palwaukee Municipal Airport One (1) Engine Company to the following area: The entire area known as Grids 980, 990, 981,982, 984, 985,994. The areas listed above are located: Hintz Road (North), Camp McDonald Road (South), Comell Avenue (Northwest side of District) Rand Road (Southwest side of District), Wheeling Road (Eas0. (SeeMap#1) C:\Documents and Settings\jmalcolm\Local Settings\Temporary Interaet Files\OLK3F4vlount Prospect 2002.doc Automatic Fire Mutual Aid Agreement The areas known as Grid 987 and 988: 3 The areas listed above are located: Outside the corporate limits of the City of Prospect Height in our unincorporated area located (North) of Hintz Road, Elmhurst Road (RT 83) (East), Jackson Drive (West). (See Map #1) The Prospect Heights Fire Protection District agrees to provide the Village of Mount Prospect Fire Department on all Code #3 incidents, subject to the provisions of paragraph two (2) of the general agreement: One (1) Engine Company, Squad Pumper Company or Track Company (your choice) to the following areas: The entire area bounded by Old Willow Road (North) Kensington Road (South) Rand Road (West), River Road (East), Camp McDonald Road (Northwest). (See Map #2) B. One Tanker (3000 gallons) to the following area: The entire area known as MPFD Grid 1430 located: Kensington Road (North), Gregory Street (South), Railroad Tracks (West), River Road (East). (See Map #3) Minor modification to the above response area (s), as well as the vehicles assigned, may be made without further modification to this agreement. However, said modifications must be mutually agreed upon, in writing, by the two (2) respective fire departments. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT Either the Village of Mount Prospect or the Prospect Heights Fire Protection District may terminate this agreement by notifying the Fire Chief of the other fire department, in writing sixty (60) days from the date of written notice. TERM OF AGREEMENT This agreement shall be effective as of the Ist day of August, 2002 and shall continue in full force until terminated, in writing, by either party. Village of Mount Prospect Prospect Heights Fire Protection District Gerald Farley Mayor Donald R. Gould Jr. Fire Chief C:XDocuments and Settings\jmalcolmXLocal Settings\Temporary lntemet Files\OLK3F\Mount Prospect 2002.doc RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO ENTER INTO AN AMENDED AUTOMATIC FIRE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF PROSPECT HEIGHTS, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect has deemed that the best interests of the Village may be served by entering into intergovernmental agreements; and WHEREAS, 65 ILCS 5/11-6-1 empowers municipalities and fire protection districts to enter into mutual aid agreements; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect and the City of Prospect Heights are members of a Mutual Aid Box Alarm System, pursuant to an agreement since 1973, and renewed in 1989; and WHEREAS, each community desires to suPplement said agreement to provide automatic fire mutual aid to specific areas within both communities, as outlined in the attached amended agreement; and WHEREAS, said amended agreement is a direct benefit to the Village of Mount Prospect and its residents by improving upon the Village's fire service capabilities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE.: That the Board of Trustees do hereby authorize the Village of Mount Prospect to participate in an Automatic Fire MutUal Aid Agreement with the City of Prospect Heights. SECTION TWO: That the Mayor and the Fire Chief are hereby authorized to sign the agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and the City of Prospect Heights, being the subject of this Resolution, a copy of said agreement being attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". Fire Dept. mutual aid Page 2/2 SECTION THREE: That this Resolution shall be in full fome and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. Richard M. Lohrstorfer Mayor Pro Tem ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\GE N~flles~WIN~RES~Aut h agrmt,Fire mutual aid,Jul,02.doc Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PURPOSE: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JULY 3, 2002 COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT - 12/31/01 To present the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. BACKGROUND: Each year, the Village retains a CPA ~rm to audit the Village's CAFR. Sikich Gardner & Co, LLP performed the audit of the Village's CAFR for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. DISCUSSION: Sikich Gardner has given our 2001 CAFR an "unqualified opinion". This means that their examination found our financial statements to be fairly presented and prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Their opinion can be found on pages 1 and 2 in the financial section. A detailed overview of the financial results for the fiscal year is provided in the transmittal letter to the CAFR, which may be found on pages iv through xviii in the report's introductory section. Following are a few of the more significant highlights: General Fund: General Fund revenues of $28,081,036 fell short of projections by $110,535 or 0.4%. The following table shows the breakdown of the positive vadance by major revenue categories. Revenue Type ~" ·' R~y!~ei~[!Budget ActUal variance % Variance Property Taxes $ 7,011,234 $ 6,797,777 $(213,457) (3.0)% Other Taxes 3,345,565 3,417,277 71,712 2.1% Licenses, Permits 2,718,500 2,734,880 16,380 0.6 % Intergovernmental 13,016,833 12,918,771 (98,062) (0.7)% Service Charges 695,449 735,846 40,397 5.8 % Fines and Forfeits 440,000 468,941 28,941 6.6 % Investment Earnings 450,000 492,970 42,970 9.5 % Miscellaneous 513,990 514,574 584 0.1% Total Revenue $28,191,571 $28,081,036 $(110,535) (0.4)% Comprehensive Annual Financial Report July 3, 2002 Page 2 Actual collections for 2001 were $80,226 higher than the $28,000,810 re~lected in the original 2001 Budget approved by the Village Board in December of 2000. Property tax revenues were down $213,457 from original projection due to an increase in property tax appeals. The amount collected bythe County and remitted to the Village came in at 96% of the original levy, compared to 99% in prior ~ears. Revenue classified as Other Taxes exceeded our projections by $71,712, or 2.1%. The real estate transfer tax generated $826,717, a positive variance of $76,717, or 10.2%, due to some large commercial property transfers. The natural gas utility tax receipts exceeded projection by $33,929 (10.3%), but this vtes offset by a $51,858 shortfall in the telecommunications tax. Intergovernmental revenues of $12,918,771 fell $98,062 (0.7%) short of the $13,016,833 projected. State sales tax receipts of $7,729,085 slightly exceeded the $7,702,906 anticipated. State income taxreceipts totaled $4,049,867, just short ofthe $4,053,787 we expected. The state use tax fell $91,023 short ofthe $675,900 anticipated. Corporate personal property replacement taxes of $239,043 fell $70,957 short of projections. Actual expenditures totaled $27,546,963, representing a positive variance of $280,365, or 1%, over the revised 2001 Budget. The following table presents a breakdown of actual expenditures as compared to the tinal budget for each department. ; ;/~v ~e~: POsiti~/eT; Positive Department ~d~6'[ Actual (Negati~) (Negative) Village Board $ 107,006 $ 100,590 $ 6,416 6.0 % Village Manager 1,257,297 1,264,541 (7,244) (0.6)% Television Services 191,304 182,592 8,712 4.6 % Village Clerk 143,370 152,694 (9,324) (6.5)% Finance 1,335,370 1,313,565 21,805 1.6 % Human Services 672,975 635,161 37,814 5.6 % Community Dev. 1,653,121 1,580,585 72,536 4.4 % Police 9,551,942 9,519,849 32,093 0.3 % Fire 7,586,121 7,619,556 (33,435) (0.4)% Public Works 5,050,283 4,877,196 173,087 3.4% Miscellaneous 278,539 300,634 (22,095) (7.9)% Total Expenditures $27,827,328 $27,546,963 $ 280,365 1.0 % Comprehensive Annual Financial Report July 3, 2002 Page 3 The General Fund is showing an excess of revenues over expenditures of $534,198. A total of $571,970 was transferred to the Capital Improvements Fund, resulting in a net decrease of $37,897 in fund balance for 2001. Beginning fund balance was increased by $709,390 due to the implementation of GASB Statement 33 and the reciassiication of accumulated sick time. Fund balance at December 31, 2001 w~s therefore $9,448,697. Unreserved fund balance at year-end was $9,417,702, representing 33% of budgeted operating expenditures for 2002. Special Revenue Funds: In total, the special revenue funds are showing an excess of revenues over expenditures in the amountof$532,037. Fund balance forthe special revenue funds totaled $4,228,930 at ~ar-end. Debt Service Funds: The various debt service funds are showing an operating deficit of $99,846 for the year, on revenues and other financing soumes of $4,221,087 and expenditures of $4,320,933. The deficit was planned, due to the use of capitalized interest in the Series 1999 Debt Service Fund and the drew down of fund balance for a few bond issues that will soon be totally retired. Fund balance for the debt service funds totaled $2,38,984 at December 31, 2001. Capital Projects Funds: Revenues and other financing sources exceeded expenditures by $3,852,969 in 2001, pushing total ~ar-end fund balance to $14,434,134. The operating surplus can be attributable to the issuance of $5 million of general obligation bonds to fund a portion of the construction costs of the new village hall and parking deck. Water and Sewer Fund: This fund is showing net income of $256,501 on revenues of $7,696,022 and expenses of $7,439,521. The net income figure includes depreciation expense of $395,012, and excludes $107,100 of bond principal payments and $85,436 of capitalized fixed assets. Beginning retained earnings ~as restated and increased by $7,035,616 due to a fixed asset inventory that was undertaken in 2001. Ti~e value of infrastructure improvements contributed to the system over the years was calculated and added to the financial records. Pension Trust Funds: Due to a steep decline in equities and a slight increase in bond pdces the Police and Fire~ightere Pension Funds reported modest increases in Net Plan Assets. The Police Pension Fund is showing an increase of $275,031, while the Firefightere Pension Fund is showing an increase of $595,408. According to the December 31, 2000 actuarial report, the most recent inbrmation available, the Police Pension Fund was 86.84% funded and the Firefighters Pension Fund was 86.37% funded. omprehensive Annual Financial Report July 3, 2002 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board accept the Comprehensi\e Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA Copy: Finance Commission Members Carol Widmer, Deputy Director of Finance I:~audit~2001\Correspondence\Bd Memo 7-3-02.doc illage of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JULY 8, 2002 SINGLE AUDIT ACT COMPLIANCE - 12/31/01 pURPOSE: To present the Single Audit Compliance Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. BACKGROUND: Each year as part of the annual financial audit, the Village engages a CPA firm to undertake a compliance audit of the Village's federal and state grant receipts pursuant to the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Cimular A-133. This is commonly referred to as the Single Audit Act. Sikich Gardner & Co. LLP performed the Single Audit for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. DISCUSSION: As you can see on pages 3 and 6 of the Single Audit Report, the auditors are reporting that the Village complied with the Single Audit Act for 2001. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board accept the Single Audit Compliance Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA I:~audit~2001\Correspondence\Single Audit~Board Memo.doc I ! VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SINGLE AUDIT REPORT For the Year Ended December 31, 2001 ~.,~ikich Gardner & Co, LLP CONSULTANTS AND ACCOUNTANTS VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS TABLE OF CONTENTS Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance and on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards ....................................................................................... Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ..................................................................... Independent Auditor's Report on Compliance with Requirements Applicable to Each Major Program and Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance with OMB Circular A-133 ........................................................................................................ Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs ....................................................................... Page(s) 3-4 5 6-7 8-9 Sikich Gardner & Co, LLP Accountants & Consultants 998 Corporate Boulevard Aurora, IL 60504 A Merober of Sikich Group, LLC MEMBERS O~ INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE AND ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING BASED ON AN AUDIT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENTAUDITING STANDARDS The Honorable Mayor Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the Village of Monnt Prospect, Illinois, as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, and have issued our report thereon dated April 12, 2002. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Compliance As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' general purpose financial statements are free of material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts and grants, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of the general purpose financial statement amounts. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards. Internal Control Over Financial Reporting In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Village of Mount Prospect's internal control over financial reporting in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general purpose financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal control over financial reporting. Our consideration of the internal control over financial reporting would not necessarily disclose all matters in the internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that misstatements in amounts that would be material in relation to the general purpose financial statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. .... e noted no matters involving the intemal control over financial reporting and its operation that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, we noted other matters involving the internal control over financial reporting that we have communicated to the management of the Village of Mount Prospect in a separate letter dated April 12, 2002. Aurora, Illinois April 12, 2002 This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Members of the Board of Trustees, management and federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Sikich Gardner & Co, LLP Accountants & Consultants 998 Corporate Boulevard Aurora, IL 60504 A Member of Sikich GrDup, LLC AMERICAN INSTtT[JTE CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACC'~UNTAt ILLINOIS CPA SOCI[ INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH OMB CIRCULAR A-133 The Honorable Mayor Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois Compliance We have audited the compliance of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' with the types of compliance requirements described in the U. $. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement that are applicable to each of its major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2001. The Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor's results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs. Compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to each of its major federal programs is the responsibility of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' compliance based on our audit. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits ~ontained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and ]ion-Profit Organizations. Those standards and OMB Circular A-133 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our audit does not provide alegaldetermination on theVillage of Mount Prospect, Illinois' compliance with those requirements. In our opinion, the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' complied, in all material respects, with the requirements referred to above that are applicable to each ofit~ major federal programs for the year ended December 31, 2001. nternal Control Over Compliance The management of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants applicable to federal programs. In planning and performing our audit, we considered the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' internal control over compliance with requirements that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on compliance and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Cimular A- 133. Our consideration of the internal control over compliance would not necessarily disclose ali matters in the internal control that might be material weaknesses. A material weakness is a condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that noncompliance with applicable requirements of laws, regulations, contracts and grants that would be material in relation to a major federal program being audited may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions. We noted no matters involving the internal control over compliance and its operation thai we consider to be material weaknesses. Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards We have audited the general purpose financial statements of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, as of and for the year ended December 31,2001, and have issued our report thereon dated April 12, 2002. Our audit was performed for the purpose of forming an opinion on the general purpose financial statements of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, taken as a whole. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by U.S. Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, and is not a required part of the general purpose financial statements. Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the general purpose financial statements a:nd, in our opinion, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the general purpose financial statements taken as a whole. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Village Council, management, and federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Aurora, Illinois April 12, 2002 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS For the Year Ended December 31,2001 Section I - Summary of Auditor's Results Financial Statements Type of auditor's report issued: Internal control over financial reporting: Material weakness(es) identified? Reportable condition(s) identified considered to be material weaknesses? Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? Federal A wards Internal Control over major programs: Material weakness(es) identified? Reportable condition(s) identified that are not considered to be material weaknesses? Type of auditor's report issued on compliance for major programs: Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Circular A-133, Section 510(a)? Identification of major programs: CFDA Number(s) Name of Federal Program or Cluster 14.218 Community Development Block Grant Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type B programs: $ Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? unqualified __ yes __ yes __ yes yes · yes unqualified __ yes 300,000 x yes X BO X none reported x no X no X no X' no no VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) For the Year Ended December 31,2001 Section II - Financial Statement Findings None Section III - Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs None -9- illage of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PURPOSE: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JULY 8, 2002 TIF COMPLIANCE AUDIT - 12/31/01 To present the Report on Compliance with Public Act 85-1142 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. BACKGROUND: Each year as part of the annual financial audit, the Village engages a CPA firm to undertake a compliance audit of our tax increment financing activities. Sikich Garnder and Co. LLP performed the TIF compliance audit for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. DISCUSSION: As you can see on page 4 of the TIF Compliance Report, the auditors are reporting that the Village complied with the requirements of the Tax Increment Redevelopment Allocation Act (P.A. 85-1142). 'RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board accept the Report on Compliance with Public Act 85-1142 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA h\audit~00 l\Correspondence\'~ F Transmittal.doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS FINANCIAL REPORT AND REPORT ON COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC ACT 85-1 I42 DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT FUNDS For the Year Ended December 31, 2001 ~iSikich Gardner & Co, LLP CONSULTANTS AND ACCOUNTANTS ikich Gardner & Co, LLP Accountants & Consultants 998 Corporate Boulevard Aurora, IL 60504 ^ Member of Sikich Group, LLC MEMBERS O AMERICAN iNSTITUTE O CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT~ iLLINOIS CPA SOCIE~' ENTDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT The Honorable Mayor Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois We have audited the accompanying combining schedule of revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances of the Downtown Redevelopment Funds of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, for the year ended December 31, 2001. The financial statements are the responsibility of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. The financial statements referred to above present only the Downtown Redevelopment Funds and are not intended to present fairly the financial position and results of operations of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The statements referred to above do not include the notes to financial statement~. In our opinion, such notes are required by generally accepted accounting principles. In our opinion, except for the effects on the financial statements of the omission described in the preceding paragraph, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the revenues, expenditures and changes in fund balances of the Downtown Redevelopment Funds of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, for the year ended December 31,200 I, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The statistical information on pages 5 through 7 was not audited by us, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion thereon Aurora, Illinois April 12, 2002 0 0 .< > 0 ~o © r~ 0 © ikich Gardner & Co, LLP Accountants & Consultants 998 Corporate Boulevard Aurora, IL 60504 A Member of Sikich Group, LLC MEMBERS AMERICAN INSTITUTE REPORT OF iNDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT'S ON COMPLIANCE The Honorable Mayor Members of the Board of Trustees Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois We have examined management's assertion included in its representation letter dated April 12, 2002, that the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, complied with the provisions of subsection (q) of Section 11-74.4-3 of the Illinois Tax Increment Redevelopment Allocation Act (Illinois Public Act 85-I 142) during the year ended December 31,200I. As discussed in that representation letter, management is responsible for the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' compliance with those requirements. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the City's compliance based on our examination. Our examination was made in accordance with the standards established by the American Institute of Public Accountants and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois' compliance with statutory requirements. In our opinion, management's assertion that the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, complied with the aforementioned requirements for the year ended December 31, 2001, is fairly stated in ail material respects. ' This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council, management, the joint review board, the Illinois State Comptroller, and the Illinois Department of Revenue and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Aurora, Illinois April 12, 2002 -4- STATISTICAL SECTION r~ [- © < illage of Mount prOspect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: PURPOSE: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JULY 8, 2002 AUDITOR'S MANAGEMENT LETTER - 12/31/01 To present the Auditor's Management Letter for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. BACKGROUND: Auditing Standards require auditors to present a management letter to the governing boards of entities they have audited. The purpose of the letter is to inform the board of any problems they encountered during the audit, and to report anydeficiencies in intemal controls uncovered dudng the course of the audit. DISCUSSION: Attached is the Management Letter prepared bySikich Gardner & Co., LLP for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. Page two of the Management Letter reports on the prior ~ear's recommendations. As ~ou can see, the Village has implemented the recommendations made last ~ear. The only current year recommendation is for the Village to begin thinking about the implementation of new accounting pronouncements that will become effective within the next few years. The Finance Department anticipates addressing these issues during the ne~t six months. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board accept the auditor's Management Letter br the fiscal year ended December 31, 2001. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA I:~audit~001~Correspondence\Mgmt Letter Transmittal.doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS MANAGEMENT LETTER December 31,2001 ~iSikich Gardner & Co, LLP CONSULTANTS AND ACCOUNTANTS ikich Gardner & Co, LLP Accountants & Consultants 998 Corporate Boulevard Aurora, IL 60504 A Member of Sikich Group, LLC MEMBEF AMERICAN INSTITU3 CERTIFIED PUBtJC ACCOUN3~ The Honorable President Members of the Village Board Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois Ladies and Gentlemen, In planning and performing our audit of the general purpose financial statements of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois as of and for the year ended December 31, 2001, we considered its internal controls in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the general purpose financial statements and not to provide assurance on the internal controls. Our assessment of the internal controls was limited to obtaining an understanding of the internal controls sufficient to plan our audit and did not include tests of control policies and procedures. The Village Board and management of the Village are responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls. In fulfilling that responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of control procedures. The objectives of a system are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized use or disposition, and that transactions are executed in accordance with management's authorization and recorded properly to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Because of the inherent limitations in any internal control, errors, or irregularities may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any assessment of the internal controls to future periods is subject to the risk that policies or procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate. Our study and evaluation made for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the internal controls of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois taken as a whole. However, our study and evaluation disclosed the following conditions that we believe should be considered by management and the Village Board. This report is intended solely for the information and use of the President, the Village Board and management and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. ! Aurora, Illinois April 12, 2002 -2- RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT - PRIOR YEAR 1. Fixed Asset Detail Listings Comment: The Village currently did not have a detailed listing of all fixed assets that was reconciled to the balances in the financial statements. Recommendation: We recommended that management maintain a detailed listing of fixed assets that reconciles to the general ledger. By maintaining a detailed listing, the Village would have better control of fixed assets. Additionally, this will become increasingly valuable in the future with the implementation of GASB 34, which among other things, will require additional fixed asset reporting. Status: The Village has improved its fixed records and we consider this comment to be implemented. Escrow Deposits Comment: The Village maintained certain escrow deposits on its books that were several years old. Recommendation: Although significant improvements in this area have been made, we again recommend that the Village periodically review its escrow deposits to determine their ultimate disposition. Management's Response: Management has informed us that it is currently performing such a review. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT - CURRENT YEAR OTHER INFORMATION 1. Future Accounting Pronouncements The Governmental Accounting Standards Board has issued a number of pronouncements that may impact the Village in the future. GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis -for State and Local Governments, approved in June 1999, effective for the Village's year ending December 31, 2003 with retroactive reporting of infrastructure by December 31, 2007, will alter how the Village reports its financial position and results of operations in its external financial statements. In addition, it will require the Village to capitalize and either depreciate or develop a consumption charge for all infrastructure assets owned by the Village (e.g., roads, bridges, curbs, gutters, streetlights, sidewalks, alleys). Also, the administrative services overhead allocation to the general fund from the TIF fund, water and parking lot funds will reduce expenditures in the general fund rather than being shown as revenue. GASB Interpretation No. 6, Recognition and Measurement of Certain Liabilities and Expenditures in Governmental Fund Financial Statements, to be implemented at the same time as GASB Statement No. 34, clarifies the parts of certain liabilities that the Village can report as governmental fund liabilities and as general long-term liabilities in accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements - and Management's Discussion and Analysis -For State and Local Governments (e.g., debt service liabilities and expenditures, claims and judgments, and compensated absences). GASB Interpretation No. 6 may no longer allow the Village to accrue a compensated absences liability as a liability of the governmental funds, and instead require the liability to be reported in the General Long Term Debt Account Group. Furthermore, an exposure draft (ED) on post-employment benefits (e.g., retiree health care) has been issued that will not allow the use of the pay-as-you-go method for accounting for these benefits, instead requiring a charge in the operating statement for the benefits as they are earned over the service life of an employee. In addition, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board released an exposure draft (ED), The Financial Reporting Entity - Related Organizations, that would require the Public Library (and ultimately, the Village) to include annual financial information for the Library Foundation and the Friends of the Library in the Library's reporting entity. Specifically, if the articles of incorporation of these non-profit entities specify an affiliation with the Library (e.g., funds are raised for the Library) and the affiliation with the Library is also set forth in the application to the Internal Revenue Service for 501(c)(3) tax exempt status, then this entity would be required to be presented in a separate column in the general purpose financial statements of the Library. In order to prepare for the implementation of this pronouncement, we recommend that the Library request that these entities have annual audits prepared using the same fiscal year end as the Library and that the financial statements be prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and be submitted to the Library. -4- illage of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JULY 10, 2002 SUBJECT: 2003- 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PURPOSE: To present for the Village Board's consideration and approval the 2003 - 2007 Capital Improvements Plan (ClP). BACKGROUND: The proposed CIP was prepared by staff and distributed to the Village Board, Finance Commission and public for review. The Finance Commission reviewed the proposed CIP on June 27, 2002 and recommends its approval as presented. The Village Board reviewed the proposed ClP at its July 9th Committee of the Whole meeting. DISCUSSION: During staff's presentation of the proposed CIP at the Committee of the Whole meeting, Chief Figolah reported that the Wide Area Network request included in the proposed document should not have been included. A request was made to delete this item from the final document. The CIP, as amended, totals $45,194,308. Accompanying this memorandum are the summary pages that will be included in the final CIP document once approved by the Village Board. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board approve the 2003 - 2007 Capital Improvements Plan. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Recapitulation by Department Department Administration Community Development Fi~e Police Public Works Total 2003 2004 0 320,000 9,356,464 270,000 606,266 I85,760 168,000 186,000 5,137,370 6,952,127 15,268,100 2005 2006 2007 Toml 294,000 435,000 176,000 1,225,000 770,000 430,000 280,000 11,I06,464 1,353,260 1,350,500 0 3,495,786 55,000 0 0 409,000 6,459,868 6,169,663 4,239,030 28,958,058 7,913,887 8,932,128 8,385,163 4,695,030 45,194,308 A-1 VILLAGE OF MouNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Recapitulation by Project Type Group Project Type Group 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Water and Sanitary Sewer Projects 710,000 585,000 805,000 840,000 830,000 3,770,000 Flood Control and Related Projects 495,000 1,215,000 1,290,000 875,000 800,000 4,675,000 Street and Relatad Projects 3,927,000 5,084,720 4,709,720 4,051,000 2,536,000 20,308,440 Public Buildings 9,721,730 375,760 1,481,260 1,510,500 35,000 I3,124,250 Equipment 189,000 401,000 376,000 510,000 176,000 1,652,000 Miscellaneous 225,370 252,407 270,148 598,663 318,030 1,664,618 Total 15,268,100 7,913,887 8,932,128 8,385,163 4~695,030 45,194,308 A-2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Project Type Group: Water and Sanitary Sewer Projects (Codes 10 and 20) Page Project Project Name No. Type Sewer Main Rehabilitation (E) F-4 20 · Water Main Replacement (E) F-5 10 Water Control System (E) F-6 10 Addison Court Improvements (Iq) F-14 10/40/50 Water Tank Rehabilitation (E) F-22 I 0 Stand-By Pump Power Supply (E) F-24 I 0 Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 265,000 285,000 305,000 315,000 330,000 1,500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 325,000 325,000 1,550,000 65,000 0 50,000 0 0 115,000 80,000 0 0 0 0 80,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 150,000 0 175,000 325,000 710,000 585,000 805,000 840,000 830,000 3,770,000 * = Fedcral Mandate Project Type Codes: 10 =Water System 20 ~ Sanitary Sewer (E) = Established Project (iq) = New Project A-3 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Project Type Group: Flood Control and Related Projects (Codes 30 and 40) Page Project Project Name No. Type Flood Control Program (E) F-3 30 Addison Court Improvements (N) F-14 10/40/50 Combined Sewer Improvements (Iq) F-15 40 Storm Swr Inventory & Mapping(N) F-16 40 Detention Pond Improvements (N) F-19 40 Total 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Toml 50,000 250,000 325,000 50,000 50,000 725,000 120,000 0 0 0 0 120,000 250,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 3,250,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 300,000 0 140,000 140,000 0 0 280,000 495,000 1,215,000 1,290,000 875,000 800,000 4,675,000 * = Federal Mandate Project Type Codes: 30 = Flood Control Projects 40 = Storm Sewer (E) = Established Project (N) = New Project A-4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Project Type Group: Street and Related Projects (Codes 50 and 60) Project Name Page Project No. Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total Streetscape Program (E) Corridor Improvements (E) Street Resurfacing (E) Sidewalk Cost Share Program (E) SidewaLks-ADA Compliance (E)* New Sidewalks (Iq) Streetlight Improvements 2 (E) Bridge Rehabilitation (E) Addison Court Improvements (Iq) Sidewalk Improve. Program (E) KBC Jogging Path Rehab (Iq) Wolf Road Improve. (N) Busse Road Improvements (bi) Total C-2 50 250,000 0 500,000 150,000 0 900,000 C-6 50 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 800,000 F-2 60 3,165,000 3,428,000 3,395,000 3,516}000 2,131,000 15,635,000 F-7 60 105,000 110,000 115,000 I20,000 125,000 575,000 F-8 60 52,000 55,000 58,000 0 0 165,000 F-9 60 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 150,000 F-I2 60 25,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 115,000 F-13 50 100,000 50,000 0 0 0 150,000 F-14 10/40/50 220,000 0 0 0 0 220,000 F-18 60 0 65,000 0 0 0 65,000 F-20 60 0 150,000 150,000 0 0 300,000 F-2I 50 0 241,720 241,720 0 0 483,440 F-23 60 0 750,000 0 0 0 750,000 3,927,000 5,084,720 4,709,720 4,051,000 2,536,000 20,308,440 * = Federal Mandate Project Type Codes: 50 = Street Construction and Reconstruction 60 -- Resurfacing/Carbs and Gutters/Sidewalks (E) = Established Project (t'4) = New project A~5 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Project Type Group: Public Buildings (Code 70) Page Project Project Name No. Type 2003 2004 Village Hall/Community Center (N) C-4 70 5,591,464 0 Municipal Parking Facility (Iq) C-5 70 3,455,000 0 Fire Station 12 Improvements (E) D-2 70 530,266 0 Diesel Exhaust Removal System (N) D-4 70 0 40,000 Expansion of PW Bldg. (Iq) D-5 70 0 50,760 New Fire Station 14 (Iq) D-6 70 0 95,000 Radio System Booster (N) E-3 70 55,000 0 Pistol Range Renovation (N) E-5 70 0 105,000 Other Public Buildings (E) F-10 70 40,000 40,000 parking Lot Improvements (lq) F-17 70 50,000 45,000 Emergency Generator PW Bldg (lq) F-26 70 0 0 Total 9,721,730 2005 2006 2007 Total 0 0 0 5,591,464 0 0 0 3,455,000 0 0 0 530,266 0 0 0 40,000 473,760 423,000 0 947,520 852,500 852,500 0 1,800,000 0 0 0 55,000 0 0 0 105,000 95,000 35,000 35,000 245,000 60,000 75,000 0 230,000 0 125,000 0 125,000 375,760 1,481,260 1,510,500 35,000 I3,124,250 * -- Federal Mandate (E) -~ Established Project Project Type Codes: 70 = Construction of and Improvements to Public Buildings (N) = New Project A-6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Project Type Group: Equipment (Codes 80 and 90) Project Name Page Projedt No. Type 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 To~l Phone System Upgrade (N) Television Studio System (N) Remote Control Camera System (lq) Desktop Operating System (N) Video Conferencing System (N) Satelite Downlink System CN) Financial Software & Hardware (hi) Cardiac Monitors (N) Thermal Imaging Cameras (N) Video Confereneing Sys.- Fire (Iq) Squad Cars - Additional (Iq) Personal Computers (N) LiveScan Workstations (N) Document Imaging System (N) Prinsoner Transport Van (30 Total B-2 90 0 48,000 0 0 0 48,000 B-3 90 0 0 207,000 0 0 207,000 B-4 90 0 227,000 0 0 0 227,000 B-5 90 0 0 87,000 0 0 87,000 B-6 90 0 45,000 0 0 134,000 179,000 B-7 90 0 0 0 0 42,000 42,000 B-8 90 0 0 0 435,000 0 435,000 D-3 90 76,000 0 0 0 0 76,000 D-7 90 0 0 27,000 0 0 27,000 D-8 90 0 0 0 75,000 0 75,000 E-2 80 89,000 0 0 0 0 89,000 E-4 90 24,000 24,000 0 0 0 48,000 E-6 90 0 27,000 0 0 0 27,000 E-7 90 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 E-8 80 0 0 55,000 0 0 55,000 189,000 401,000 376,000 510,000 176,000 1,652,000 *; Federal Mandate Project Type Codes: 80 = Vehicles and Automotive Equipment 90 = Non-Automotive Equipment (E) = Established Project (Iq) = New Project A-7 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN S~RY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Project Type Group: Miscellaneous (Code 00) Project Name Downtown Redevelopment (E) Tree Planting Program (E) Aerial Photogrammetry (lq) Total Page Project No. Type C-3 00 F-Il 00 F-25 00 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 60,000 70,000 70,000 80,000 80,000 165,370 182,407 200,148 218,663 238,030 0 0 0 300,000 0 225,370 252,407 270,148 598,663 318,030 360,000 1,004,618 300,000 1,664,618 * = Federal Mandate Project Type Codes: 00 = Miscellaneous (E) = Established Project (N) = New Project A-8 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Projects By Sources of Funds Page Project Project Name No, Typer General Fund: Sidewalk Cost Share Program (E) F-7 60 New Sidewalks (lq) F-9 60 Tree Planting Program (E) F- 11 00 Sidewalk Improvement Program (E) F-18 60 Subtotal - General Fund Capital Improvement Fund: Phone System Upgrade (lq) B-2 90 Television Studio System (lq) B-3 90 Remote Control Camera (lq) B-4 90 Desktop Operating System (lq) B-5 90 Video Conferenc[ng System {'Iq) B-6 90 Satelite Downlink System (Iq) B-7 90 Financial Software & Hardware (Iq) B-8 90 Corridor Improvements (E) C-6 50 Station 12 Improvements (E) D-2 70 Cardiac Monitors (Iq) D-3 90 Diesel Exhaust Removal System (lq) D-4 70 Thermal Imaging Cameras (N) D-7 90 Video Conferencing System- Fire (N) D-8 90 Police Squad Cars ON) E-2 80 Radio System Booster (Iq) E-3 70 personal Computers ON) E-4 90 Pistol Range Renovation (iq) E-5 70 LiveScan Workstations (N) E-6 90 Document Imaging System OxY) E-7 90 Prisoner Van (N) E-8 80 Other Public Buildings (E) F-10 70 Streetlight Improvements 2 (E) F-12 60 Parlcing Lot Improvements (Iq) F-17 70 Detention Pond Improvements (N) F-19 40 KBC Jogging Path Rehab CN) F-20 60 Wolf Road Improvements (Iq) F-21 50 Busse Road Improvements (Iq) F-23 60 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 68,250 71,500 74,750 78,000 81,500 374,000 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 I50,000 95,000 105,000 115,000 125,000 135,000 575,000 0 65,000 0 0 0 65,000 173,250 261,500 219,750 243,000 266,500 1,164,000 0 48,000 0 0 0 48,000 0 0 207,000 0 0 207,000 0 227,000 0 0 0 227,000 0 0 87,000 0 0 87,000 0 45,000 0 0 134,000 179,000 0 0 0 0 42,000 42,000 0 0 0 435,000 0 435,000 0 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 800,000 85,032 0 0 0 0 85,032 76,000 0 0 0 0 76,000 0 40,000 0 0 0 40,000 0 0 27,000 0 0 27,000 0 0 0 75,000 0 75,000 89,000 0 0 0 0 89,000 55,000 0 0 0 0 55,000 24,000 24,000 0 0 0 48,000 0 105,000 0 0 0 105,000 0 27,000 0 0 0 27,000 0 30,000 0 0 0 30,000 0 0 55,000 0 0 55,000 40,000 40,000 95,000 35,000 35,000 245,000 25,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 115,000 0 45,000 60,000 75,000 0 180,000 0 140,000 140,000 0 0 280,000 0 150,000 150,000 0 0 300,000 0 241,720 241,720 0 0 483,440 0 600,000 0 0 0 600,000 A-9 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL LM[PROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Projects By Sources of Funds Page Project Project Name No. Type Aerial Photogrammetry (Iq) F-25 00 Emergency Generator PW Bldg. (N) F-26 70 Subtotal - Capital Improvement Fund Motor Fuel Tax Fund: Street Resurfaci~g (E) Bridge Rehabilitation (E) Subtotal ~ Motor Fuel Tax Fund F-2 60 F-13 50 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Fund: Sidewalks~ADA Compliance (E)* Subtotal - CDBG Fund F-8 60 Downtown Redevelopment Construction Fund: Streetscape Program (E) Downtown Redevelop. Progrgms (E) Subtotal - Downtown Redevelopment Construction Fund 2003 2004 2005 0 0 0 0 0 0 Street Improvement Construction Fund: Street Resurfacing (E) Addison Court Improvements (N) Subtotal - Street Improvement Constmcfion Fund 2006 2007 Total 300,000 0 300,000 125,000 0 125,000 Flood Control Construction Fund: Flood Control Program (E) Addison Court Improvements (Iq) Storm Swr Inventory & Map (Iq) Subtotal - Flood Control Construction l~ad 394,0}~. 1,977,720 1,282,720 1,270,000 441,000 5,365,472 1,192,000 1,195,000 1,198,000 1,200,000 1,220,000 6,005,000 I00,000 50,000 0 0 0 150,000 1,292,000 1,245,000 1,198,000 1,200,000 1,220,000 6,155,000 52,000 55,000 58,000 0 0 165,000 52,000 55,000 58,000 0 0 165,000 C-2 50 250,000 0 500,000 150,000 0 900,000 C-3 00 60,000 70,000 70,000 80,000 80,000 360,000 310,000 70,000 570,000 230,000 80,000 1,260,000 F-2 60 1,973,000 2,233,000 2,197,000 2,316,000 911,000 9,630,000 F-14 I0/40/50 220,000 0 0 0 0 220,000 F-3 30 F-14 10/40~0 F-16 40 2,193,000 2,233,000 2,197,000 2,316,000 911,000 9,850,000 50,000 250,000 325,000 50,000 50,000 725,000 120,000 0 0 0 0 I20,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 300,000 245,000 325,000 400,000 125,000 50,000 1,145,000 A-tO VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 "2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Projects By Sources of Funds Project Name Capital Improvement Construction Fund: Station 12 Improvements (E) Page Project No. Typ~.. D-2 70 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 150,000 0 0 0 0 150,000 Water & Sewer Fund: Sewer Main Rehabilitation (E) F-4 20 Water Main Replacement (E) F-5 I0 Water Control System (E) F*6 10 Addison Court Improvements (II) F- 14 10/40/50 Combined Sewer Improvements (Iq) F-15 40 Water Tank Rehabilitation (E) F-22 10 . Stand-By Pump Rehabilitation (E) F-24 10 Subtotal - Water & Sewer Fund 265,000 285,000 305,000 315,000 330,000 1,500,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 325,000 325,000 1,550,000 65,000 0 50,000 0 0 I15,000 80,000 0 0 0 0 80,000 250,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 3,250,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 150,000 0 175,000 325,000 960,000 1,335,000. 1,555,000 1,590,000 1,580,000 7,020,000 Parking Fund: Parking Lot Improvements (N) Subtotal - Parking Fund F-17 70 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 Bond Proceeds: Village Hall/Comm. Center Fac. (lq) Municipal Parking Facility (Iq) Station 12 Improvements (E) Public Works Bldg Expansion (Iq) New Fire Station 14 (Iq) Subtotal - Bond Proceeds C~4 70 5,591,464 0 0 0 0 5,591,464 C~5 70 3,455,000 0 0 0 0 3,455,000 D-2 70 275,500 0 0 0 0 275,500 D-5 70 0 50,760 473,760 423,000 0 947,520 D~6 70 0 95,000 852,500 852,500 0 1,800,000 9,321,964 145,760 1,326,260 1,275,500 0 I2,069,484 Donations~Contributions from Residents/Developers: Sidewalk Cost Share Program (E) Tree Planting Program (E) Subtotal - Contributions F-7 60 36,750 38,500 40,250 42,000 43,500 201,000 F-Ii 00 70,370 77 407 85,148 93,663 103,030 429,618 107,120 115,907 125,398 135,663 146,530 630,618 A-Il VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 - 2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEN[ENTS PLAIN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Projects By Sources of Funds Page Project Project Name No. Miscellaneous State & Federal Grants: Station 12 Improvemenls (E) D-2 70 Busse Road Improvements (Iq) F-23 60 Subtotal - Misc. Federal Grants Total - All Sources 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Total 19,734 0 0 0 0 19,734 0 150,000 0 0 0 I50,000 i9,734 150,000 0 0 0 169,734 15,118,100 7,913,887 8,932, I28 8,385,163 4,695,030 45,044,308 New Projects (Iq) Established projects (E) Total - Ali Projects 10,095,464 2,863,480 3,148,980 3,I50,500 976,000 20,234,424 5,022,636 5,050,407 5,783,14~. 5,234,663 3,719,030 24,809,884 15,118,100 7,913,887 8,932,I28 8,385,163 4,695,030 45,044,308 * = Federal Mandate Project Type Codes: I0 = Water System 20 = Sanitary Sewer 30 = Flood Control Projects 40 = Storm Sewer 50 = Street Constraction and Reconstruction (E) = Established Project (iq) = New Project 60 = Resurfacing/Curbs and Gutters/Sidewalks 70 = Construction of and Improvements to Public Buildings 80 = Vehicles and Automotive Equipment 90 = Non-Automotive Equipment 00 = Miscellaneous A-12 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE BOARD AND FINANCE COMMISSION DIRECTOR OF FINANCE JUNE 5, 2002 PROPOSED CIP: 2003-2007 Attached hereto is the proposed 2003-2007 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The projects being considered for the year 2003 total $15,318,100. The five-year total for all projects is $45,244,308. We encourage you to read the Manager's transmittal letter beginning on page ii. This correspondence describes the purpose of the CIP, highlights some of the more significant projects, and reviews project funding. To help you evaluate our ability to fund the requested projects we have again provided five- year financial forecasts for the major operating and capital projects funds that provide funding for the CIP. These forecasts can be found in Section G of the document. In general, the projects being presented directly relate to the monies expected to be available. However, from reviewing the CIP requests in conjunction with the five-year financial forecasts you will find four areas of potential concern. General Fund Projects The CIP is showing projects totaling an average of $233,000 as being paid from General Fund revenues. This in itself appears reasonable given the fact we have funded in excess of $300,000 of capital expenditures out of the General Fund for the past several years. However, the five-year financial forecast for the General Fund is showing significant operating deficits beginning in 2003 and continuing through 2007 (see page G-2). It should be noted that increasing operating expenditures and relatively modest revenue increases are causing the deficits, and not the level of capital spending. Downtown Redevelopment Fund Projects As has been disclosed for the past few years, it is expected that the Downtown Redevelopment Fund will experience a negative fund balance in 2003 of almost $911,000. The negative balances gradually disappear by the year 2007. It has been suggested that the General Fund loan the Downtown Redevelopment Fund the money it needs to stay in a positive balance. apitallmprovements Plan June 5,2002 Page 2 Water and Sewer Fund The proposed CIP for 2003-2007 includes the start of a combined sewer system improvement program at an approximate cost of $750,000 per year beginning in 2004. This new program results in significant operating deficits in the Water and Sewer Fund as can be seen in the five- year financial forecast (pages G-12 through G-14). The deficits range from $200,000 to $350,000. Bond Proceeds The draft CIP is showing five projects valued at $12.1 million as being funded through the issuance of general obligation bonds. Two of these projects are the continued construction ora new Village Hall/Community Center and a multi-level parking structure, which account for a little more than $9 million of the total amount. The numbers included in the CIP for these two projects reflect a total borrowing of $14.4 million, compared to the $13.3 million originally projected. The other projects included in the proposed CIP identified as being funded from bond proceeds include Fire Station 12 improvements ($275,500), construction of a new Fire Station 14 ($1.8 million) and the expansion of the Public Works vehicle maintenance building ($947,520). The ClP does not address the tax increases that would be associated with issuing bonds for these projects. Staff looks forward to discussing the draft CIP with you in the very near future. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA DIRECTOR OF FINANCE I:~ClP\03-07~Correspondence\Board memo 6-5-02.doc Copy: Michael Janonis, Village Manager Dave Strahl, Assistant Village Manager Department Directors