HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. OLD BUSINESS 11/19/02 illage of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
NOVEMBER I, 2002
PZ-33-02 - TEXT AMENDMENTS:
1. PUBLIC NOTICE
2. MAXIMUM SHED SIZE
3. PROVISIONS FOR CONVERTING ATTACHED GARAGES TO LIVING
SPACE
The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits the following recommendations for text amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance, Case PZ-33-02:
1. legal notices: APPROVE (6-0);
2. provisions for converting attached garages to living space: DENY (4-2);
3. maximum shed size: APPROVE, but changed to 160 square feet for all properties (5-1),
as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their
October 24, 2002 meeting.
The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the benefits of simplifying the legal notices and how using a
common address instead of a legal description would reduce publication costs and make the notices more user-
friendly.
The P&Z discussed the need for requiring garages, the aesthetic impact of parking cars in the front yard, and the
impact of the code change on residents in great detail. After discussing this matter in detail they determined that
proposed text amendment requiring residents to construct a new garage when converting an existing garage t_o .
livings space was too restrictive.
The Commission also discussed increasing shed sizes and stated that they supported allowing larger sheds
throughout the community. However, basing the shed size on lot size was unfair to some residents and that the
200 square foot limit was too large and likened it to the size ora garage. They therefore recommended modifying
the current the current shed regulations to allow a maximum size garage of 160 square feet.
Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their
November 6, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related, to this matter. ·
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-33-02
Hearing Date: October 24, 2002
PETITIONER:
Village of Mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson Street
PUBLICATION DATE:
October 9, 2002
REQUEST:
Text Amendments: 1) public notices; 2) maximum shed size; 3) provisions for
converting attached garages to living space
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Matthew Sledz
Keith Yoangquist
Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
INTERESTED PARIIES:
Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the
minutes of the September 26 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The September meeting minutes were approved 6-
0. At 8:00, after hearing three cases, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-33-02, a request for Text Amendments to the
Village Code, and said the case would be Village Board final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, described the requested Text Amendments. She explained that three amendments were
being requested and that the first request was to eliminate Legal Descriptions from public notices. Ms. Coanolly
explained that the Village currently requires that a property's legal description be included on a public hearing notice.
Due to the length, content, and cost of publishing a property's legal description, Staff proposes that .the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to allow publishing the property's common address instead. She said that a common address is
easier to understand than a legal description and reduces the possibility of error. As an example, she said, a typo may
nullify a legal notice .and create delays for the petitioner while the notice is republished.
Ms. Connolly said the Village Attomey has reviewed this issue and determined that the elimination of S property's
legal description from the public notice would be acceptable. Based on the information outlined above, staff suggests
Section 14.203. G. 4 - Public Hearing Procedures is amended. Ms. Connolly read the changes listed in the Staff memo
and pointed out that the elimination of legal descriptions will help to shorten the public notices, in some cases
substantially, resulting in more reader friendly notices and lower publishing costs.
Vice Chairman Rogers suggested discussion and voting on each requested amendment separately.
Matt Sledz said eliminating the legal deacfiption from the Published ads was a very good idea and Joseph Donnelly
Joseph Donnally made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board to amend Section 14.203! G. 4 - Public
Hearing Procedures, as prepared by staff. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion.
Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-33-02
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 6-0.
Ms. Connolly explained the second requested amendment, Regulations regarding the conversion of attached garages
into living space. She explained that the Building Division has received an increased number of permit applications
regarding the conversion of an attached garage into living space. In some cases, the conversion of the garage into
living space did not include constructing a new garage and the existing driveway was maintained and used for parking
vehicles. She said that there have been other instances where a new detached garage could not be constructed
following the conversion of an attached garage into living space because there was insufficient space to accommodate
a 9-foot wide driveway or the site would have exceeded lot coverage regulations.
Ms. Connolly said the Village currently does not require existing residential properties to have a garage. As a result,
demolishing and converting an existing garage into living space without constructing a new garage is permitted. Staff
proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to prevent situations where the conversion of an existing garage is
completed without the construction of a new garage.
Ms. Connolly pointed out that there are two potential options to address this situation: 1) require that a new garage be
built as part ora garage conversion project; or 2) require that the garage conversion project be done in such a manner
that, at a minimum, a new one-car garage could be built at a later date.
· Ms. Connolly said that in order to ensure that a new garage is built as part of a garage convemion project, staf~
suggests that See. 14.304 - Bulk Regulations of the Zoning Code be modified and that a new subsection would be
created. She read the changes listed in the Staff memo.
Mr. Rogers said that most homes with attached garages in the Village do not have sufficient side yard to allow for a
new 9' driveway to a detached garage. It was suggested that, as an alternative when side yard space is limited, room
additions could be added to the back of a house or as a second story. Some Commissioners said it was not fair to limit
room addition projects to a more costly way of building, i.e. building a second story and also putting residents through
the expense of providing another detached garage or provisions for one.
Mr. Donnelly asked .if a new driveway to the rear of the house could be less than 9' wide xvith permission from the
Board. Ms. Connolly said that due to publication requirements that it was not possible to change the 9' width as called
for in the' Development Code at this meeting. She said that staff could research the possibility of reducing the
minimi~m driveway width at the direction of the Commission. However, the minimum width is based on industry
standards and that a narrower driveway may not be navigable.
Several Commissioners cited examples of garage conversions with the driveway left in place and used as a parking pad
for many family cars. They pointed out that this am6fidment would preclude that happening in the future. Mr. Cotten
stated that limiting the location of an addition and/or requiring that a garage be built at the time of the addition could
rome families.with many children to move, possibly out 0f Mount Prospect.
Matt Sledz made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board to amend Section 14.304.E, Bulk RegulatiOns,
of the Zoning Code, that appropriate provision for replacement of a garage be completed before a Certificate of'
Occupancy is issued. Leo Floros' Seconded the motion.
lanning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-33-02
Page 3
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Flores and Sledz
NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist
Motion was denied 4-2.
Ms. Connolly explained the third text amendment, regulations regarding the maximum allowable size of a shed. She
said that in response to an increased number of variation requests to install sheds larger than 120 square feet, staff
researched the typical size of the most commonly sold sheds and the size limitations of other communities. The intent
was to determine if the Village's existing 120 square foot limitation was still appropriate. The fmdings indicated that
the Village's existing regulations do not correspond with today's common shed sizes or the regulations of other
communities.
Ms. Connolly reported that various options to regulate shed sizes were discussed at recent Committee of the Whole
meetings. Also discussed was prohibiting flat roofs on sheds and garages. As a result of these discussions, staff
proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit the maximum shed size to correspond to the size of the
property, but capped at 200 square feet. In addition, that the code contain regulations regarding a shed and garage roof
pitoh. She said that the benefits of this approach would be the relative ease in which Staff and residents could
understand and apply the regulations in addition to allowing for larger sheds on larger lots. Staffalso proposes that the
Zoning Ordinance include definitions that would help to restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in a sLorage
shed. These definitions would help to prevent the use of a larger size shed for a workshop or the storage of a vehicle.
She read the definitions and the staff recommendation from the Staff memo and summarized the standards for text
amendments to the Code. Ms. Connolly said that staffrecommends that the P&Z recommend approval of the proposed
Text Amendments as detailed in the staff memo and added that the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
~lr. Cotten said it would not be fair to limit smaller properties to a smaller size storage shed because a smaller house '
requires a larger storage area. Mr. Sledz said the amendment was headed in the right direction by sizing the shed to the
size of the lot but that 200 s.f,. is too large for any property.
Much discussion followed with varying ideas as to what size shed should be allowed for what size lot. Leo Floros
reminded the Commissioners that the Committee of the Whole had spent many hours and many sessions agonizing
over this matter and he was prepared to accept their findings.
Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 8:40
Joseph Dounetly moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of an amendment to Sec. 14.306.B to allow
sheds no larger than 160 s.f. Matt Sledz seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
Motion was approved 6-1.
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz
NAYS: Floros
At 9:00 p.m, Merrill Cotten 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
)~'dy~on~olly, Sen~io~'l~lm~n-ei:v ~ //x/
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COM!MISSION
ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON
FROM:
JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER
DATE:
OCTOBER 17, 2002
HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2002
PZ-33-02 - TEXT AMENDMENTS:
1. PUBLIC NOTICES
2. MAXIMUM SHED SIZE
3. PROVISIONS FOR CONVERTING ATTACHED GARAGES TO LIVING SPACE
BACKGROUND
A public hearing has been scheduled for the October 24, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review
the application by the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Petitioner") for text amendments to the Village Code
regarding the following: (1) public notice requirements; (2) procsiuns for the conversion of an attsehed garage
into living space; and (3) the maximum allowable shed size. The Planning & Zoning Commission-hearing was
properly noticed in the October 9, 2002 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS
1. ELIMINATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FROM PUBLIC NOTICES
As you may be aware, the Village of Mount Prospect currently requires the inclusion of a property's legal
description as part of a public hearing notice. Legal descriptions can orion be very lengthy mad confusing
depending on the size, shape and number of parcels involved. In addition, the technical format of legal
descriptions can be very difficult for an average person to understand, thus most people are unable to gain
much information from them. It should also be noted that retyping a formal legal description for use in a
public notice allows for potential typographical errors due to their length and format. The Inclusion of any
typographical errors could render the legal description Invalid and may challenge the integrity of the public
notice. Another item for consideration regarding the elimination of legal descriptions from public notices
relates to cost. The price of posting a legal notice is based on its length and the cost to publish some recent
legal notices has exceeded $200. The elimination of legal descriptions will help to shorten the public notices,
In some ease substantially, resulting in more reader friendly notices and lower publishing costs.
Summary Of Proposal '
Staff proposes to amend the Village Code by eliminating.the requirement that a property's legal description
be included In a public notice. In its place, the public notice would include the property's common address or
other appropriate information When an address does not exist. The Village Attorney has re~/~wed this issue
and determined that the eliminatitn of a property's legal description from the public notice Would be
acceptable. As outlined in the attaebed letter, the Village Attorney has provided specific language for
PZ-33-02
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 24, 2002
Page 2
amending the Village Code. Based on the information outlined above, Staff suggests Section 14.203. G. 4 -
Public Hearing Procedures be amended as follows:
4. All published and mailed notices shall contain the case number assigned to the application, (delete this
text') '~.~!~g~4~ ~-a .aa ..... ~,,~ .......-~, ~ u.:~, ~,~- .... · ^. +u .........e~,-u .... ~':~ kz~-ing
.................... v ............o- (add this text:) the common address of the property or in the event
that there is no common address, an appropriate description of the location of the properly, a brief
statement on the nature of the public hearing, the name and address of the property owner, the
petitioner and their legal representative, and the date, time and location of the public hearing.
2. REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CONVERSION OF ATTACHED GARAGES INTO LIVING
SPACE
Over the last several years, the Building Division has received a number of permit applications regarding the
conversion of an attached garage into living space (such as a family room or bed room). In some eases,
however, the proposed conversion of the garage into living space did not include the construction of a new
garage. In these situations, the existing driveway was maintained and utilized as a parking area. In addition,
there have been instances where following the conversion of an attached garage into living spacc, a new
detached garage could not be conslructed due to insufficient side yard width for a driveway or lot coverage
limitations.
Currently the Village does nos require each residential property to have a garage, therefore, demolishing and/or
converting an existing garag~ into living space without constructing a new garage is permitted. Staffproposes
the Zoning Ordinance be amended in order to prevent situations where the conversion of an existing garage is
completed without the construction of a new garage. Based on these circumstances, two potential options to
address this situation include: 1) require that a new garage be built as part cfa 'garage conversion' project; or
2) require that the 'garage conversion' project be done in such a manner that at a m'mimum a new one-ear
garage (12'x20') could be built at a later date.
Summary Of Proposal
In order to ensure that a new garage is built as part of a 'garage conversion' project, Staff suggests that Sec.
14.304 - Bulk Regulations of the Zoning Code be modified to include the following: '
14.304.E: Prior to issuing a BuildingPermit to convert an attached garage into living spacc, or the
demolition of an existing detached garage, the property owner shall submit building plans for a new
garage (a 'one-car garage is the minimum acceptable size) and driveway. A final Certificate of
Occupancy shah not be issued for the new living space until such time that the new garage has been
constructed and approved by the Village.
3. REGULATIONS REGARDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF A SHED
In response t6 an increased number of variation requests to install oversized sheds, Staff recently researched
the typical size of today's most commonly sold sheds and the size limitations of other co,,,munlties to
determine ii' the Village's .existing 120 square foot l'maitation is appropriate. The research indicated that the
Vffiage's existing regulations do not correspond with today's common shed sizes or the regulations of other
commtmities.
PZ-33-02
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 24, 2002
Page 3
During recent Committee of the Whole meetings, various options that could be utilized by the Village to
regulate shed sizes were discussed (to assist in your review of this matter we have attached a copy of the Staff
report previously prepared for the Board of Trustees in addition to COW meeting minutes). Also discussed
was not permitting fiat roofs on sheds and garages. In light of these recent discussions, Staff proposes that the
Village's Zoning Code be mended so that the permitted size of a shed corresponds with the size of the
property (with a maximum shed size of 200 square feet) and that the roof pitch regulations are created. The
benefits of this approach would be the relative ease in which both Staff and the residents could understand and
apply the regulations. This method would also allow for larger sheds on larger lots.
In addition to amending the Village's specific size limitations, Staff also proposes that the Zoning Ordinance
include definitions that would help to restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in a storage shed.
These definitions would help to prevent the use of a larger size shed for a workshop or the storage ora vehicle.
The Village Code currently defines accessory structures as "a subordinate structure detached from but located
on the same tot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal
structure." The Village could modify the accessory structure definitions by adding text defining the permitted
uses of garages and sheds. The following text provides one possible solution to this matter:
Accessory Structure - A subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal
structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may
include, but are not limited to the following:
Garages - A structure.designed to house motor vehicles and to store items and equipment
necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upom
Sheds - A structure that is designed to store household items and equipment necessary to maintain
and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upon.
Summary Of Proposal
Staffproposes that Sec. 14.306: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES be modified as follows:
Sec. 14.306.A: Paragraph A shall be amended by adding new subparagraphs (6) and (7) to Paragraph A which
shall be and read as follows:
6. Shed Restrictions: A shed shall not be utilized to store motor vehicles or as office, work or living
space.
7. Roof Pitch: No aeeessory structure shall have a roof pitch of less than 3:12.
Sec. 14.306.B. Restrictions In Residential Districts: Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be deleted in their entirety and
· replaced with:
(1) Maximum Size
a.' Garages: A detached private garage may beno larger than 672 square feet.
b. Sheds: A shed may be no larger than the smaller of the following:
' i. Two percent (2%) of the lot area; or . ·
ii. 200 square feet.
(2) Bulk Restrictions
On lots fifty five feet (55') in width or less, detached accessory structures shall be set back
three feet (3') from any interior side or rear lot line. On lots greater in width than fifty five
Z-33-02
Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 24, 2002
Page 4
feet (55'), detached accessory stmctores shall be set back five feet (5') from any interior side
or rear lot line. No accessory structure shall be placed on any dedicated easement. Accessory
stmctores shall be included in any maximum lot coverage calculation.
Also, the definition section (Sec.14.2401) would be amended to include the definition for an accessory
structure, garage and shed as outlined above.
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 amendments are applicable on a community-wide basis and do not impact a particular lot.
Changes to the legal notices will make the notices more useful and usg-friendly while also reducing costs;
requiring a garage to be constructed as part of a garage conversion project will protect the character of the
Village; and the change to allow larger sheds is consistent with current standards and other communities'
regulations. Also, adding definitions will help clarify how residents are allowed to utilize sheds.
In addition, the amendments are consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive
Plan because the changes protect and promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of
the residents of the Village, while still preserving the character of the community. The text amendments do
not make the Zoning Ordinance more permissive and will allow for future improvements to be constructed in
a safe manner. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments.
RECOM~IENDATION
Based on the above analysis, the P&Z can make positive fmdings with respect to the standards for Text
Amendment in Section 14.2211 Therefore, Staff recommands approv, al of the proposed Text Amendments
as.detailed in this staffreport.
I concur:
LAW OFFICES
SUITE 1660
20 NORTH WACKER DRIVE
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-2903
TELLPHONB {312} 984-6400
FACSIMILI~ {312) 984-6444
September ].9, 2002
Mr. Michael Jacobs
Deputy Director of Community Development
Village. of Mount Prospect
100 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-3265
RE: Proposed Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance's public notice requirement
Dear Mr. Jacobs:
You recently asked if public notices for zoning purposes could be limited to stating the common address,
rather th~ a le~l description and address, as presently required in Public Hearing Procedures, Section
14.203G, of the Zoning Ordinance. Your concern was the likelihood of inaccuracy in a.public notice
when including a legal description, as well as your observation that citizens arc best informed of the
location of certain proper~y by the common address, rather than a legal description. In addition, the
Zoning Ordinance presently requires only an address in notices for administrative hearings to ~view
minur variations.
B~sed upon our msesrch, PUblic notice, stating only the common address, would be valid in these types of
cases, as the applicable state statutes do not require a legal description; only the "particular location" is
require& Therefore, I have drafted a proposed Oraln,nce to amend the Public Hearing Procedu~s,
Section 14.203G in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.203(G), which applies tO public notices for
variations, amendments, app~ts, and conditional uses. The proposed ordinance would require a
address, rather than a legal description md address, but, in the event that a common addr~s is not
available, some other epproptlate desc~ption must identify the location of the. property.
Ploase advise Buzz Hill or me if this amendment meets your needs. I can be contacted at (312) 984-6468.
Very truly yours,
Enclosure
C:
.,,.'L~orge A.~v/~
Michael Janonis, ¥illagc Manager
Evere~tc M. Hill. Ir.
.~ JENKINS, LTD.
ORDINANCE biO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
CHAPTER 14
OF THE VILLAGE CODEOF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED:BY ~ PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF Tlq~.
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION h That Subparagraph G(4) of Section 14.203, entitled "Procedures for
Administrative Functions" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code, shall be deleted in
its en~ety and a new subparagraph G(4) shall be' "~'~ ~"'~ "~
inserted t ......... ~ follows:
4. All published and mailed notices Shall contain the case number assigned to the
application, the common address of the property or in the event that there is no
corrnnon address, an appropriate description of the location of the property, a brief
statement on the nature of the public heating, the name and address of the property
owner, the petitioner and their legal representative, and the date, time and location of
the public hearing.
SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect fi:om and after its passage,
approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of
,2002.
ATTEST:
Village President
Village Clerk
. l:~Ordlnznce amending notice m~.ui~m~at ia Za~ing Cod~lce
Meeting Location:
Mount Prospect Senior Center
50 South Emerson Street
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesdayl April 9, 2002
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel
II.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF
MARCH 26, 2002
IlL CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV. REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS
Earlier this year, two Variation_ requests for the size and placement of sheds came to the
Village Board for consideration. In each case, the sheds' respective sizes greatly exceeded
the current 120 square foot maximum allowed by Code. Both cases also requested
Variations to allow placement of the sheds in existing utility easements or setback areas.
These Cases and the issues they raised prompted considerable discussion among Village
Board members. As a result of that discussion, the two shed Variation Cases were tabled,
and staff was directed to research whether the current Village shed regulations were
outdated as to both allowable maximum size of a shed and its placement on one's property.
As a result, staff surveyed surrounding communities regarding their regulatory schemes and
found that two methods of regulation prevailed. 'Some communities' simply state the
maximum allowable size for a shed, regardless of lot size, with the Only other limiting factor
being overall lot coverage. Other communities followed a formula wherein the maximum size
of a shed was determined by multiplying lot size by some factor to determine maximum shed
size, again with overall lot coverage being a limiting factor. Staff would be comfortable in
administering either type of regulatory scheme.
From a policy standpoint, the village Board needs to determine whether overall r esMe
changes and demands in housing amenities dictates the need to modify current Village
regulations. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answerquestions and facilitate discussion.
NOTE: ANY INDMDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING .BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABlU'rY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO. PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE
MANAGER'S OFFICE AT fO0 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/'392..6~00,
EXTENSION 5327, TDD fl84'//'392.6064..
I1.
III.
'MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
APRIL 9, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at
the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Pau~ Hoefert, Michaele Skowron
and Irvana Wilks. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer
and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael
Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development
Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Mike Blue,
Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels, Building Division Inspector Nick
Licari, Fire Marshal Paul Valentine, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village
Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from March 26, 2002. Trustee Hoefert requested several
revisions regarding the Minutes and the description of the Village Hall project and
asked that the approval of the Minutes be deferred until the revision is provided.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS
Community Development Director Bill Cooney summarized the staff research
that he has obtained from other communities. This information was requested
based on the frequency of requests for Variations that have come before the
· .Village Board racently. He highlighted the fact that several towns approach shed
regulations similar to Mount Prospect where the maximum square footage is
used as the determining factor for administrative .regulation. He also highlighted
that several communities utilize a formula for maximum shed size computed on
the property size and other accessory structures on 'the site. He also stated that
a review of the market place has shown that there are sheds available within the
parameters that Mount Prospect utilizes for shed regulations. He stated the
formula for computing maximum size is more C°mplex and would require
additional staff explanation and generate larger sheds depending on the property
size. He also suggested that if the formula were to be used, then there could be
the'opportunity to create a band of vadous property sizes (based on square.
footage) unique to various shed sizes..
1
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
There was support expressed for considering an increase in the overall shed size
compared to what is currently regulated. There was also discussion regarding
the need to make the regulation easy to administer and maintain the required
setback for larger sheds. There was a concern that with the larger shed sizes,
there could be additional requests before the Board for Variations to allow such
larger sheds on limited property that would necessitate encroachment in the
setbacks. There were comments made regarding the need to keep the size of
the shed below a typical garage size.
Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an increase in the size but
gather input from the Planning and Zoning Commission with guidance from
the Village Board considering the larger sizes based on property square
footage and maintenance of the setbacks.
Walter Feder, 808 Lancaster, spoke. He would suggest the Board consider
reducing the setback based on the size of the shed.
Doug Doughty, 1431 Blaokhawk, spoke. He stated that he has a larger shed
and would not want to take stock what was available in the market place as a
basis for determination of what size is appropriate. He also wanted to,point out
that usage of sheds does change over time and the Village would not eliminate
all Variation requests with a proposed change.
V. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS
Village Manager Janonis introduced the topic by stating this has been a three-
year process and the goal was to make the Code much more understandable
and user-friendly. He also hoped that the revisions would .make the Code more
equitable for application since the Code does touch on several Departments at all
times.
Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof provided a general overview to the Village
Board regarding-the revision process and what changes were made. He said
many of the changes were necessitated through staff review of the process and
some changes were made through additional staff. He stated one of the main
goals for changes for the Code over time was to reduce the tum-around time and
confusion by users of the Code. He stated that 90% of the changes could be
categorized as organizational in nature and the Code has been separated into
two sections; one for site improvements and the other for site construction
standards for better application. .He also stated that much of the content
changes are reflective of new'materials and standard practices and would liketo
comp ets the process prior,to the construction season for this year.
Meeting Location:
Mount Prospect Senior Center
50 South Emerson Street
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday, May 14, 2002
7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel
II.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF
APRIL 9, 2002
IlL CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
The financial health of the Village is of paramount importance to the Mayor and BOard of
Trustees and administration. Constant review of the Village's financial pos'~ion with regard to
revenues and expenditures allows budgetary decisions to be made in an informed manner.
To that end, the Village has engaged in quarterly reporting of the Village's financial position.
As was the case last year, it is again especially important to be vigilant given the weakened
national and local economies. Pending State legislation could also seriously impact our
financial position.
Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth has prepared a general overview of our revenue and
expenditure position based upon the recently completed first quarter. While it is early in the
year, and clear trends have not been established, there is enoUgh information to begin
looking for areas of concern that merit close scrutiny and some preliminary strategic
discussion.
Appropriate staff, will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
NOTE: ANY INDMDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A ·
DISABII. JTY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE
MANAGER'S OFPfCE AT ~00 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT~ ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392~6000,
EXTENSION 5327, TDD fig47/392.6064.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
STREETSCAPE UPDATE
With the start of construction season, work will again begin on various downtown streetscape
projects. Staffwould like to provide the Village Board and public with an oral status of both
current and futura projects. A PowerPoint prasentation is planned. Also, Community
Development Diractor Bill Cooney and Public Works Director Glen Andler will serve as tour
guides.
REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS
Eadier this year, two Variation raquests for the size and placement of sheds came to the
Village Board for consideration. In each case, the sheds' raspective sizes graafly exceeded
the current 120 squara foot maximum allowed by Code. Both cases also requested
Variations to allow placement of the sheds in existing utility easements or setback areas.
These Cases and the issues they raised prompted considerable discussion among Village
Board members. As a result of that discussion, the two shed Variation Cases were tabled,
and staff was diracted to reseamh whether the current Village shed regulations were
outdated as to both allowable maximum size of a shed and its placement on one's properly.
As a result, staff surveyed surrounding communities ragarding their regulatory schemes and
found that two methods of regulation prevailed. Some communities simply state the
maximum allowable size for a shed, regardless of lot size, with the only other limiting factor
being overall lot coverage; Other communities followed a formulawherein the maximum size
of a shed was determined by multiplying tot size by some factor to determine maximum shed
size, again with overall lot coverage being a limiting factor. Staff would be comfortable in
administering either type of regulatory scheme.
From a policy standpoint, the Village Board needs to determine whether overall lifestyle
changes and demands in housing amenities dictates the need to modify current Village
regulations.
The Village Board discussed this topic at the April 9, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting.
The general consensus reached at that time was the need to increase the current 120
squara foot size limit. There was also general agraement that setback requirements be
maintained. Still tobe determined is maximum shed size and how that size is arrived at, by
way of a formula, or a fixed maximum size.
Refer to the Apdl 9 Committee of the Whole minutes included in this package. Appropriate
':staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VILLAGE.MANAGER'S REPORT
ANY OTHERBUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
C._LOSED SESSION
PROPERTy ACQUISITION
5 I LCS !20/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public'
body."
I1.
II1.:
IV.
MINUTES
COMMIt ~ EE OF THE WHOLE
MAY 14, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Fadey. Present at
the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard
Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members
present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager
David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Finance
Director Doug EIIsworth and Public Works Director Glen Andler.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes from April 9, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and
seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Trustees Lohrstorfer
and Zadel abstained.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
Finance Director Doug EIIsworth provided a summary of revenue and
expenditures to date for this current fiscal year. He stated that the revenue
stream is such that it arrives at different times throughout the fiscal year so it is
tough to estimate revenues this early in the fiscal year since many arrive late~ on
in the year. He stated that expenditures are easier to track during the first three
months because they tend to be fairly stable, throughout the year except for
capital construction projects which happen dUring the COnstruction season. He
stated Property Tax receipts have dropped over time due to the numerous tax
appeals that have been processed and approved. He stated that Sales Tax is
not as far behind as previously estimated but still is lower than previous years.
He stated at this point there is a still is a projection of a $640,000 General Fund
.deficit and would find it difficult to reinstate the Capital Improvement Fund
transfer in 2003 with the current revenue scenario. He stated that rising Pension
and Health Insurance costs will be an additional challenge for 2003. He stated
that' there still is a deficit projected for 2003 and stated that typical'expenditures
raise at a normal rate of 4%. With revenues being fiat, there is a. need for
app.reximately $1 million of new money each year to balance~the budget.
He stated that the initial projections of the General Fund do not include the
transfer to the ClP for 2003 but thero will be a need to address the ClP funding in
the near future.
STREETSCAPE UPDATE
Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the
Straetscape progress throughout the downtown to date along with projected
timeframes for other improvements in the downtown.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There were significant positive comments regarding the appearance of the work
in the downtown area as several Trustees relayed comments they have received
from citizens as the projects start to take shape. There were also comments
regarding the timing of the various work and the total time allotted for various
improvements.
Public Works Director Glen Andler stated that all the bdcks that were
previously installed will soon be replaced since the bricks do not meet the
specifications of the contract. He stated the brick replacement will be at no cost
to the Village and will be coordinated so to minimize disruption among downtown
businesses. He stated that sections of the brick would be removed and then
replaced as the project moves throughout the downtown.
VI. REVIEW OF SHED REGULATIONS
Village Manager Michael Janonis stated this is a follow up of previous
discussions based on some variation requests from several residents regarding
larger sheds. Community Development has done much of the requested
research by the Board for consideration of possible parameters for shed
consideration.
Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided the baseline
information and the marketplace details of the vadous shed sizes. He also
suggested there are several policy options regarding shed regulation. Among
those are lot coverage limits as a factor on the shed size along with outdght
maximum square footage limits.
General comments of the Village Board members included the following items:
There was some discussion regarding maximum lot coverage including all
structures. There was als0 a concern raised regarding the possible loophole of
multiple structures in the case of a detached single-family car garage. There
were comments made regardingthe clarification of the hard surface necessary to
utilize a garage versus an accessory structure such as a shed.
2
There were also comments regarding the maintenance of the required setback
regardless of the shed size to be considered. A suggestion was made to create
various shed sizes based on the lot sizes in various bands or ranges of lot size.
There was a concern raised regarding the percentage of lot coverage formula
and a suggestion was made to use the break point of the lot size for the range
criteria instead. There was also a suggestion simplifying the regulation whereby
a maximum size would be defined and enforced.
Doug Doughty, 1431 Blackhawk, spoke. He suggested a clarification for the
structure height and to clearly define the difference between a shed and a
garage. He also suggested the Village Board consider the size of the shed
based on the lot size and coverage percentage for the individual lot.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a discussion regarding the application of a possible formula regarding
shed size based on square footage and lot coverage. A comment was also
made regarding the definition of logic to allow reasonable maximum use of
property by individual homeowners.
Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that there could be an impact on the
walkthrough permit process for sheds depending on the policy as defined by the
Board and the likelihood that residents will not have the necessary information
available in order for permit processing on a walk through basis.
Consensus of the Village Board was to maintain the ten foot height of a
shed, maintain the setbacks and consider how the formula would work
based on lot size for a single accessory structure; i.e., shed. This proposal
was presented to staff for further analysis to be brought back for additional
consideration.
VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Janonis stated the Public Works Open House is scheduled for
May 18 from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m.
VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
Mayor Farley wanted to apologize to citizens and the Village Board about how
he treated a person that appeared before the Board at the last meeting. He
appreciated the civility that is typical of this Village Board but he had several
extenuating circumstances that affected his judgment in running the meeting on
· this particular night and. would work not to repeat the situation again.
3
Village ot Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
MEMORANDUM
TO:
MIC]~ukEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE 1VL4-NAGER
FROM:
DIRECTOR OF COMI~IUN1TY DEVELOPMYANT
DATE: ~0~LY 10, 2002
SHED REGULATIONS
In light of the recent discussions by the Village Board on the topic of storage shed sizes, staff has further reviewed
possible regulations that wouM provide greater flexibility to our residents while maintaining the integrity of our
zoning regulations. The information provided below and in the attached documents is intended to provide the
Village Board with sufficient information to make a final determination on this matter.
Staff has reviewed four options that could be utilized by the Village to regulate shed sizes. These options include
1) adopting a maximum size that would apply to all lots (current regulation), 2) setting a lot size threshold (10,000
square feet) and allow one size shed for smaller lots and a larger size shed for larger lots, 3) utilizing a formula
method to calCulate the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures ("Arlington formula") and 4)
basing the maximum size of sheds upon a percentage of the lot size. Each of these options has its' own unique
benefits and drawbacks which are outlined below.
Staff also chose 10 varying sized lots throughout the Village and applied the four options listed above to determine
what size structures could be built under each scenario.. The actual plats of survey for each lot are. attached to this
memorandum to provide a visual aid to the Village Board.
Options
One size shed for ali properties - The Village currently regulates sheds by setting a maximum size (120 square
feet) for all properties and through varions bulk regulations (lot coverage, setbacks; etc.). This maximum size
applies to all properties throughout the Village regardless of their respective sizes. The Village could~naintain the
status quo and keep the maximum size of the permitted storage sheds at 120 square feet or it could increase the
maximum size to a.larger number if so desired by the Village Board. Listed below is a chart that illustrates the lot
co,¢erage ratio of various size sheds in relation to the size of the ten lots that have been chosen for review:
Lot # Lot Size 120 Sq. Ft I 150 Sq. Ft. 200 Sq. Ft. 250 Sq. Ft.
1 7,205 1.67% 2.08% 2.78% 3.47%
2 7~426 1.62% 2.02% 2.69.*/0 3.37%
3 8,400 1.43% 1.79% 2.38% . 2.98%
4 8~664 1.39% 1.73% 2.31% 2.89%
5 ' 11~280 1.06% 1.33% 1.77% 2.22% '
6 1 lr325 1.06% 1.32*/0 1.77% 2.2 I%
7 15~260 0.79% ] 0.98% 131% · 1.64%
8" ' 20,000 . 0.60./~ ' 0.75% 1.00%' ' t.25%
"9'. ". 20,130 0.60% 0.75% · 0.99% 1.24%
10 30~5'00 0,.39% 0.49% 0.66% 0.82%
Benefits - This system is very easy. mderstand and regulate since it does no(" uire the homeowner or Village
staffto calculate the size of the shed uased upon the lot size or any other structures On the property. So long as the
property doesn't exceed allowable lot coverage ratios, the owner can construct the maximum size shed.
Drawbacks - This system does not take into account the various size lots that exist throughout town and therefore
"penalizes" larger properties by restricting the maximum size of the shed to what would be allowed on the smallest
of lots in town. The Village has recently received complaints that the current 120 square foot maxiraum is not large
enough for today's needs.
Set ma.-'dmum size for small/large lots - One option the Village could consider is to permit larger sheds on larger
lots. The Village could establish a lot size threshold, say 10,000 square feet, and permit one size shed (150 square
feet) on lots smaller than that and a lhrger size shed (200 square feet) on lots greater in total area.
Benefits - This system would enable homeowners on larger lots to construct larger sheds that would house yard
equipment that is necessary to maintain those lots.
Drawbacks - This system would penalize properties that are just under the threshold size (in this case lots that are
9,900 squar~ feet) and would appear to be more arbitrary than the other options. In addition, owners of smaller
properties that have one car garages olden complain that they have the greatest need for the larger sheds since they
do not have enough space to store their belongings.
"Arlington" formula - Several surrounding communities utilize a formula to determine the maximum allowable
shed size. These formulas typically multiply the lot width by the required rear yard setback by a locally determined
ratio that generates the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures (lot width x rear yard setback x
ratio = maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures). Other accessory structures include detached
garages, driveways, patios, pools, etc. The following chart demonstrates the square footage that would be possible
on the sample ten lots with a 40% and 30% ratio applied. ;
Lot # Lot Size Rear lot width Rear Setback .4 ratio I ,3 ratio
1 7,205 55 25 550 413
2 7,426 62 25 620 465
3 8,664 57 25 570 428
4 10,275 75 25 750 563
5 11,280 80 25 800 600
6 11,325 75 25 750 563
7 15,260 70 25 700 525
$ 20,000 100 30 1~200 . 900
9 20,130 122 30 !,464 1,098
' 10 30,500 I00 30 1,200 . 900
Benefits - This system takes into account the Size of the property and typically enables owners of larger lots to
construct larger sheds. It also looks at the amount of other structures that are located in the rear yard and
specifically limits the amount of .lot coverage in that .portion of the property. This system also provides
homeowners greater flexibility in choosing what types of accessory structures they desire to construct on their
property.
Drawbacks - The greatest drawback to this system is that it penalizes owners that have detached garages that are
located in the rear yard while allowing very large sheds on those properties that have been developed with attached
garages. In the' above chart, lots #3 (with both ratios) and #7 (with' the 30% ratio) would not be allowed to
construct a shed bemuse they have detached garages that use up ,the allowable square footage for acce~ory
structures. If the ¥lllage Bqard vAshes to pursue this system, I would recommend that we adopt a maximum size
shed on any lot (250 square feet) so that we don't have situations where a property owner could construct very large
2 ~
structures. I would also note that (f'- system would be more difficult for hon~'.' raem to understand since they
would have to calculate how large their garage could be based upon a variety of i;actors.
Utilize a percentage of the lot size - A resident at one of the recent Committee of the Whole meetings raised this
proposal. The resident proposed that we allow sheds to be constructed no greater in size than 2% of the total lot
area. Therefore an owner could construct a 200'square foot shed on a 10,000 square foot lot. Listed below is a
chart that demonstrates the'maximum size shed that would be permitted on our 10 sample lots.
Lot # Lot Size 2%
1 7~205 144
2 7,426 149
3 8~664 173
4 10,275 206
5 11,280 226
6 11,325 227
7 15,260 305
8 20,00O 4O0
9 20,130 403
10 30,500 610
Benefits - This system would be relatively easy to regulate and understand from a staff and resident standpoint. It
would also allow for larger sheds on larger lots. If the Village adopted this system with a maximum allowable shed
size for any lot (250 square feet) then this system could be very effective.
Drawbacks - If the Village did not apply a maximum size limit with this system, owners of large lots could build
very large sheds. There are a few lots in town that are close to an acre is size which would be allowed sheds
exceeding gO0 square feet under this system. . ·
,Definitions
Several Trustees raised concerns that if we increase the size of storage sheds that these larger structures could be
utilized to store vehleles and/or to create office space or workshops. In order to address this concern, .the Village
could adopt definitions for garages and sheds that would restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in these
structures. The Village Cede currently defines accessory structures as "a subordinate structure detached from but
lecated on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal
structure".
The Village could modify the accessory structure definition by adding text defining the permitted uses of garages
and sheds. The following text provides one possible solution to this matter:
Accessory Structure - A subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure,
'the use of which is ineidantal and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, but are
not limited to the following:
Garages - A structure designed to house motor vehicles and to store household items and
equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is
located upon.
Sheds -A st~cture that is designed to store household items and equipment necessary to r..mt.~.
and upkeep the primary structure and the property that kis lecated upon. The sheds shallnot be
utiIized to store automobiles or to locate office, work or living space.
ecommendation
Staff'recommends that the Village Board modify our cod~ to allow sheds to be constructed no greater in size than
2% of the total lot area or 250 square feet, whichever is less. This system provides for varying size sheds and
would be easily understood by our residents. In addition, staff recommends that the Village modify the accessory
structure definition to further define garages and sheds as listed above. Please forward this memorandum and
attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at a future Committee of the Whole meeting.
Lot #1
Lot #2
Lot #3
Lot #4
Lot #5
00'0~
00"O9--¥
Lot #6
00'9/.
l,ot//7
Lot #8
00~00 t
Lot #9
.I.
I].
IlL
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WI.IOLE
AUGUST '13, 2002
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to older at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Fariey in the conference room of
'the Cer~tral Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present at the meeting were:
Trustees Timothy Con:oran, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron, Irvana W[Iks and Michael
Zadel. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer. Staff members
present included Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development
Director Bill Cooney, Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Police Chief Ronald
Richardson, Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm, Public Works Director Glen Andler,
Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan,
Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer and Village Clerk Velma Lowe.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Aprfroval of Minutes from July 9, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Skowron and seconded
by Trustee Corcoran.~ Trustee Hoefert abstained. Minut. es were approved.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
DISCUSSION ON BAN OF.MO..TOR-DRIVEN SCOOTERS
Mayor Farley provided an introduclJon and general information on the background of the
proposal as submitted.
Deputy Chief Ron Richardson spoke. He stated that the Police are somewhat limited
at this point In regulating these so-called vehicles because they fall within the gap of the
definition of a vehicle by the Illinois Vehicle Code. He stated that from the Police
perspective the opportunity to utilize such an Ordinance to educate ~nd enforce, ~f
necessary, would be an important tool for their use. He stated that the' Police 'have
received seven to ten complaints per week and would categorize the complaints as not
overwhelming the resources of the Department at this time. He stated that the Hoffman
Estates Ordinance example allows for several options for enforcement and that
ordinance example is supported by the Police Department for that mason[. He stated the
difference between the enforcemen[ options for bicycle riders and these scooters are the '
fact that the scooters operate at much higher speeds than bicycles.
John Ko,n, 30t North William, spoke. He stated that he has appeared before the
Board previously to request an Ordinance regula[ing theee items and Is supportive of the
Ordinance as drafted.
1
Brian Buchanan, 302 North Prospect Manor spoke. He is also in favor of a ban on
the scOoters and has experienced these scooters being operated irresponsibly *by
groups of operators traveling on the streets and sidewalks.
Kevin Bolger, 510 North Prospect Manor, spoke. He supports the ban and is
concerned that these will continue to increase in number unless they are regulated. He
has also seen the operators utilizing these scooters in packs or groups and completely
ignore all rules of the read.
General comments fram the Village Board members included the following items:
There was a discussion regarding the application of the Illinois Vehicle Code, There was
also a discussion regarding whether the segway which was recently approved for
sidewalk use by the General Assembly is Included or not included In the proposed draft
prohibition. There was also discussion regarding the use of such similar devices by Post
Office empleyeas or adults who operate these vehicles within the rules of the read.
There was also a concern raised regarding similar type devices operated for legitimate
purposes and the Board wanted 'to make sure this proposed Ordinance does not
eliminate those opportunities.
Consensus of the Village Board was to continue to consider the ban but to
request staff to provide some additional research to ensure that the proposal
includes a prohibition on the items that the Board is focused on.
SHED REGULATION DISCUSSION
Community Development Directo~ Bill CoOney provided a review of the staff analysis
with the four options that staff has researched extensively. He stated that staff is
recommending a 2% lot coverage option with a 250 square foot maximum.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items:
There was a concern that setbacks and,. lot coverage requirements must apply
regardless of what would be relaxed to allow larger sheds. There was also a concern
raised regarding the actual usage of the shed and the height of such a sl~'ucture.
Concem was raised about the insrease In Size from 120 square feet'to the 250 square
.foot proposal. It was suggested that the garage be included as part of the lot coverage
: calculation if the staff proposal is to move fonvard. There were comments regarding
general appearance review of the structures as preferred. A preference wes made for
simpler regulations in order to allow residents easy understanding of what the maximum
size and application is for what they may consider for use on their property.
COnsensus of th~ Village Board Included'the following:
'3.
Setback must be maintained as required in the Village Code for any
change in shed square footage consideration.
The Village Board Is comfortable with the 2% lot coverage limitation
for sheds. That way, the lot size can be incorporated into the
consideration of the shed size.
The height ofth~ shed wlll be clearly described In the Village COde.
Definition of accaptable uses will be Included In the Code revision.
2
Consideration of appearance review over a specific square footage
as recommended by staff. However, this component of the
proposed regulation change should not be developed at the expense
of completing the remaining regulations and moving forward.
Consequences for violation of the shed regulation is the structure
must be brought into compliance and the current enforcement
structure of double fines elimlncted.
Dave $chein, 512 Na-Wa-Ta, spoke. He stated that he is not sure that the Shed Cede
needs to .be altered but would suggest that there may be insurance implications that
impact rasIdents that want larger sheds and such impacts should be considered.
2002 MID.YEAR BUDGET REVIEW/2003 PRE-BUDGET WORKSHOP
2002 Mid-Year Budget Review
Finance Director Doug EIIsworth went threugh the revenue estimates so far for this
fiscal year and acknowledges that revenues are significantly down from the previous
year. He stated that the budget situation is a lack of revenue not excessive
expenditures. He stated that at this point he estimates the General Fund revenues to be
below $440,000 of the original estimate for the year and that expenses are projected to
be approximately $64,000 over budget. He stated that as previously directed by the
Village Board, there will-be some reserves utitized down to the 25% level for Village Hall
funding. He also stated that the Property Tax receipts have gone down substantially due
to the appeal process and he has increased his percentage of loss to 1-t/2% compared
to the previous 1%. He stated that State Income Tax is down 12% compared to the
previous year, He stated that expenditures are running ahead of budget for the legal
fees category and the relocation expenses for the TV Services Division. He stated that
the Board will likely sea a Budget Amendment in the near future that includes the
funding for the purchase of the medical building adjacent to the Senior Center. The
Village staff is also awaiting proceeds from the sale of the third piece of property for the
Norwood development. Finally, he stated that Home Rule Sales Tax is down 12%. This
money is utilized for-flood.control purposes.
2003 Pre-Bud,qet Workshop
Finance Director ·Doug· EIIsworth stated that revenues are not keeping pace with
expend'rtures and the projected shortfall for 2003 Is currently at $1.2 million. He stated
that Pension Levies are scheduled to Increase due to investment shortfalls. He stated
that of the typical programmed increase of Property Tax at 3.5%, the General Fund
would only receive $81,000 of new money and he is suggesting the Board consider
transferring any savings that may be realized through the Refuse Program into the
General Fund to assist In covering expenditures. He stated staff will continue to refine
the budget as information becomes available. He stated there will be significant difficulty
to present a balanced budget and staff has undeP~aken a no increase In all commodities
approach, however, with two-thirds of the budget considered as personnel costs, it is
difficult to make significant Impact with those limitations.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location:
Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center
1000 West Central Road
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday, September 10, 2002
7:00 p:m.
I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowr~n
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel
II.
III.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF
AUGUST 13, 2002
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
BACKGROUND CHECKS FORVOLUNTEER BOARDS/COMMISSIONS
Several months ago, Trustee Timothy Corcoran raised concerns with the longstanding
method of reviewing .the background and credentials of potential Village volunteer Board and
Commission members. Current.practice consists of having interested candidates fill out an
Appointee Information Sheet and sitting with the Mayor for an interview. This practice has
been unchanged for well over a decade, if not longer.
Trustee Corcoran's desire to have the Village Board consider stricter standards comes from
the recent private sector financial scandals where corporate boards of directors were
severely criticized for not taking their fiduciary responsibilities more seriously. On the-public
sector side, the same need for strict fiscal oversight is obvious. Beyond that, there is also a
feeling on the part of some Village Board members that greater review should be directed at
the backgrounds of individuals, who through appointment to any one of ten (10) duly
constituted Village advisory Boards and Commissions, are placed in the position of"advisors"
to the Mayor and Board of Trustees on a wide range of issues vital to the well being of the
community.
At this point, members of the Village Board are divided on the need and/or scope of
heightened review criteria. Tuesday evening's meeting provides an initial forum for detailed
discussion of this topic. The attached information packet includes a "thought starter'
memorandum from Trustee Corcoran, background information on current criteria, information
on the Village's background checking policy for new hire employees and a survey of the
Northwest Municipal Conference communities regarding their background checking criteria
for volunteer boards and commissions.
NOTE:
ANY INDMDUAL WHO WOULD UKE TO Al-rEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABIETY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE
VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 'I O0 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,
847/392.6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392.$064.
We are seeking consensus {=mm Village Board members on how to proceed with changes, if
any, to the review criteria. Letters have been sent to all current Board and Commission
members inviting them to attend the meeting and participate in the discussion. Appropriate
staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate'discussion.
REGULATION OF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS.
This item was previously discussed at the August 13, 2002 Committee of the Whole
meeting. The attached draft Ordinance contains a number of changes reflective of the
August 13 discussion. The reworked draft and other background material was also
reviewed and discussed by the Youth Commission at their September 4, 2002 meeting.
Youth Commission members may be in attendance to share their initial thoughts on
the proposed Ordinance.
During the past several years, the popularity of motor-driven scooters (a.k.a. go-peds or
motorized skate boards) has skyrocketed. Along with the proliferation of these (vehicles),
has come complaints from all parts of the community regarding the inherent danger in these
vehicles and the sometimes-reckless manner in which they are operated. The Village had, in
the past, received a small number of requests seeking the strict'regulation or outright ban of
these vehicles in the Village. Other neighboring communities such as Des Plaines and
Hoffman Estates, have taken an aggressive stance in banning the use of these vehicles on
public property and have begun aggressive enforcement. With the tragic death this past
June of a Des Plaines youth who was struck by an automobile while on Such a motorized
scooter the need to consider the strict regulation or outdght banning of same has arisen-
anew. Given the most prevalent users of these devices are pre-teen/young teenagers (pre-
driver's license), thero is a wide spectrum of driving skills at play and no formal/uniform
mechanism for treining said users. The Police Chief has recommended an outright ban of
these devices.
Village Attorney Everette Hill, in consultation with Chief Eddington, has drafted an Ordinance
banning the use of these devices, which is modeled after the Hoffman Estates prohibition.
Besides banning the use of these devices on public ways, the Ordinance also provides for
fines and the ability of the Police to impound said vehicles under certain circumstances.
A staff report and draft Ordinance are provided for your review. Appropriate staff will be In
.attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS
This topio has been previouslY discussed at the April 9, May t4 and August 13, 2002
Committee of the Whole meetings. The attached draft Ordinance contains a numberof
changes reflective of the August 13 discusSion. While it appears that the material
regulations (size, setback, definitions) have been agreed to by Board members, staff
seeks further direction regarding concerns raised about regulation of appearance and
penalties for work without a permit. Informati°n regarding the open items is included
in the information package.
Earlier this year, two Variation requests for the size and placement of sheds came to the
Village Board four consideration. In each case, the sheds' respective sizes greatly exceeded
the current 120 square feet maximum allowed by the Code. Both cases also requested
Variations to allow placement of the sheds in existing utility easements or setback areas.
These cases and the issues they raised prompted considerable discussion among Village
Board members. As a result of that discussion, the two shed variation cases were tabled,
and staffwas directed to research whether the current shed regulations were outdated as to
both allowable maximum size of a shed and its placement on one's property.
As a result, staff surveyed surrounding communities regarding their regulatory schemes and
found that two methods of regulation prevailed. Some communities simply state the
maximum allowable size of a shed, regardless of lot size, with the only other limiting factor
being overall lot coverage. Other communities followed a formulawherein the maximum size
of a shed was determined by multiplying lot size by some factor to determine maximum shed
size, again with overall lot coverage being a limiting factor. Staff indicated it could be
comfortable administering either type of regulatory scheme. The May 14 discussion resulted
in direction to staff to develop regulations within a "formula" framework plus an overall "not-
to-exceed" maximum shed size.
Staff went back and reworked all previously discussed options and tested same against ten
randomly selected lots throughout the Village. The attached staff report reviews each of
those options and their impact on these sample lots. Staffs recommendation calls for shed
size not to exceed 2% of the lot area along with not-to-exceed maximums. An additional
limiting factor would be current lot coverage limitations. Additionally, staff is recommending
new de/3nitions, which clarify and distinguish sheds from other accessory structures.
Appropriate staff will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VII. PROHIBITION ON USE OF DRYVIT (EIFS)
This item was previously discussed at the April g, 2002 Committee of the Whole
meeting. At that time, the Village Board directed staff to draft an Ordinance prohibiting
the use of Dryvit (EIFS) for all building applications (residential and commercial). At
this time staff is requesting that the Village Board consider a modified prohibition that
would allow for the limited use of a "water managed" Dryvit (EIFS) system in
commercial applications subject to strict regulation. Draft Ordinances along with
additional background information is provided.
One of the 2001 Committee of the VVhole discussion topics not addressed last year was
whether the Village should regulate (prohibit) the use of EIFS as an acceptable construction
material on buildings in the Village. Discussion of this topic resulted from a number of high-
profde media reports indicating that this manmade building material was defective and
resulted in long-term maintenance and in some cases health-related issues (mold).
Board members continued to express an interest.in reviewing this topic. Staff has provided
background material and will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
Viii. ViLLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
IX. ANY OTHER BUSINEsS
X. ADJOURNMENT
CLOSED SESSION
LAND ACQuiSITION ·
5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body."
II.
III,
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
SEPTEMBER t0, 2002
.CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Farley in the board room of the
Central Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present at the meeting were:
Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstoffer, Michaele Skowron,
Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager
Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development
Director Bill Cooney, Police Chief Richard Eddington and Village Attorney Everette Hill.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes from Augus:t 13, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and
seconded by Trustee Wilks. Trustee Zadel requested a correction for a t~13o. Minutes
were approved with the revision. Trustee Lohrstorfer abstained.
.CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
None.
.BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR VOLUNTEER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Trustee Corcoran opened the discussion Stating that he wanted to confirm that there is
a trust relationship between the members of the Boards and Commissions to the Village
Board and he wanted to make sure there was acknowledgment of any possible conflict
of ~nterest. He stated this idea came to him through the creation, of .the Community
Relations Commission and thought that maybe the review should be extended to all
advisory groups. He stated there is an informal process that has been utilized in the
past but wanted to undertake confirmation of due-diligence for these individuals. He
stated this is not targeted toward any individuals that are currently serving on any
advisory boards or commissions but wanted to focus on the process in determining the
necessary people for these purposes. He stated there are different levels of checks and
they are dependent on the type of board or commission.
Trustee Skowron stated that she supported the opportunity to at least discuss this and
· . .po!nted out that many of the Boards are autonomous in their decision-making and there
· ' ' . ~* i$~i .mpa.ct u ~p~. n.all residents. ~he* stated she~ has no reason to doubt th.e integrity of any
, . person serving .on any Board!(~r .Commission but thought'it would b.e worth.nile to' have
a discussion mgardtng the~process of appointment.* ~
John Brennan, 520 South Prospect Manor, member of the Community Relations
Commission, spoke. He expressed concern about the need to determine how
extensive the background check is intended to be.
Chris Lenz, 214 North Louis, Chairman of the Board of Fire and Police
Commissioners, spoke. He stated that he does background checks for a living and
there are many records that are considered public records. He stated a basic cdminal
background check and confirmation of credentials would not slow the process and wou;d
likely be adequate. He stated that he would support an ethics statement and a conflict of
interest statement by members. He also stated that any background checks regarding
Police and Fire applicants only include the background check going back ten years.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
It was suggested that a possible ad hoc group be convened to develop standards for
each Board and Commission and there is a need to have a signature contirming the data
as submitted as correct. Other current volunteers have submitted comments via email
for Village Board consideration and many of them have suggested revising the
application to confirm that the information is true and correct. There has been a
previous Board request for a conflict of interest seminar for all Board and Commission
members which is yet to take place.
Consensus of the Village Board was to review the application process and
consider drafting an ethics statement and conflict of Interest statement for review
and possible incluslon in the application Packet for future volunteers.
Ve
DISCUSSION OF REGULATION oF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS
Village Manager Janonis stated that the moditications submitted this eve[~ing in the
Ordinance are arising out of a previous Committee of the Whole meeting. He also
wanted to point out that there is no opportunity to distinguish between licensed versus
nonAicensed operators but wheelchairs and motorized wheelchairs have been exempted
along Nth the segway device and motorized scooters dudng parades. He stated the
discussion this evening should clarify what the direction the Board wants regarding
possible enforcement.
Village Attorney Hill stated that motorized vehicles are banned from all sidewalks
under State Code already and these scooters do not meet the threshold definition for
vehicles that can be operated on streets. He stated the discussion could focus on
whether tickets would be written under the State Code and possibly impact future
driver's liCense records or be written under a lOCal OrdinanCe whereby the adjudication
could generally be addressed through a tine.
'General comments'from Village Board me, mbe .mlr~d. uded ~e, following items:.
T~ere Was s°me concem regarding distinguishing, between licens,ed ddvers opemtlhg
sCOOters versus.non-licensed operators. There was some concern about w~iting tickets
under the State Code and the.impac~ on obtaining a future driver's license. There was
also a comment made regarding possible insurance impact on either the parents or the
operator of these scooters if damage or injury occurs, who would be responsible.
Andy Darien, 618 North Pine, spoke. He stated you could retrofit the scootem with
seats and turn signals and require everyone to wear helmets and operate at night to
make them street legal. He stated that he operates his scooter under the restrictions
outlined by his parents and does not have a problem.
General comments from Village Board members included the following items:
There was a suggestion that since the scooters are already illegal according to State
law, then it is the State Legislature's burden to try to address how they are defined in
terms of operation. It was also stated that it is impractical for the Village to get into the
business of registering and certifying the operators through some kind of regUlation.
Consensus of the Village Board was to utilize the existing State law for
Police enforcement and monitor the enforcement situation and advise the
Board if there are any changes.
.REVIEW OF SHED REGULATIONS
Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the last
discussion regarding the regulations. He stated that staff needed some direction on the
suggestion of an appearance review and the penalty. He stated as the revisions have
been promulgated a shed is considered part of the calculation for the 2% property lot
coverage with a maximum shed size of 200 square feet.
Consensus of the Village Board was to complete the Ordinance as directed but
leave the penalty discussion for another time and utilize the Planning and Zoning
Commission for Input,
Vii. .USE OF DRYVIT MATERIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION
Village Manager Janonls stated the Board had previously suggested an outright
prohibition on the use of the m~tedal and staff has drafted an Ordinance allowing for
limited commercial application if it is installed properly.
Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an Ordinance for complete
prohibition on the use of dryvit within the community,
VIII. ylLLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Janonts reminded everyone of the September 11 Remembrance
Ceremony and the Coffee with Council scheduled for September 14.
IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS
· None. '
11/13/02
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING)
OF THE VILLAGE COD[= OF MOUNT PROSPECT
WHEREAS, the Petitioner (Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an
application for text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount
Prospect to amend a certain regulation; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks an amendment to the following Section of the Village
Code:
Section 14.203 PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendment, being the subject of
PZ Case No. 33-02, before the Planning and Zoning Board CommissiOn on October 24,
2002, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the Mc)~n! t~ro~necf
J.~ on the 9th day of October, 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 request being
the subject of PZ-33-02.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
~: 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.
,~EC~: Section 14.203.G.4 entitled "PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES" of
Chapter 14, is hereby amended, and shall read as follows:
All published and mailed notices shall contain the case number assigned to
the application, the common address of the property, or in the event that there
is no common address, an appropriate description of the location of the
property, a brief statement on the nature of the public hearing, the name and
address of the property owner, the petitioners and their legal represenltative,
and. the date, time and. !ocation o~'the pUblic hearing."
Page 2/2
Ch. 14, Text amendment
~: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
do hereby grant approval of a text amendments to Section 14.203 of the Village Code of
Mount Prospect.
~C,~D~LEO~: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified
copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County.
S_E_C.,_T_LQJ~LF_~E: 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:
Gerald L. Fadey
Village President
Velma W. Lowe
Village Clerk
vwl
11/13/02
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) has filed an
application for text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village COde of MOunt
Prospect to amend a certain regulation; and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks an amendment to the following Section of the Village
Code:
Section 14.304 BULK REGULATIONS
WHEREAS, a Public Headng was held on the proposed amendment, being the subject of
PZ Case No. 33-02, before the Planning and Zoning Board Commission on October 24,
2002, pursuant to due and Proper legal notice haVing been pUblished in the Mnilnf P~Pec. f
J~ on the 9m day of October, 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 request being
the subject of PZ-33-02.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE
OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
~: 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 14.304 entitled "BULK REGULATIONS" of Chapter 14, is hereby
further amended by adding a new Subsection 14.304.E, which shall read as follows:
Prior to issuing a Building Permit to convert an attached garage into living
space, or the demolition of an existing detached garage, the property owner
shall submit building plans for a new garage (a one-car garage is the minimum
acceptable size) and driveway. A.flnal Certificate of Occupancy shall not be
issued for the new living space until such time that the new garage has been
constructed and approved by the Village.? ..
Page 2/2
Ch. 14, Text amendment
,~: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
do hereby grant approval of a text amendment to Section 14.304 of the Village Code of
Mount Prospect.
,~: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified
copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County.
~: 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:
Gerald L. Farley
Village President
Velma W. Lowe'
Village Clerk
vv~
11/13/02
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) has 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 Sections of the Village
Code:
Section 14.306
Section 14.2401
ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
DEFINITIONS
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject
of PZ Case No. 33'02, before the planning and zOning Board CommisSiOn On October
24, 2002, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the M~unf
Pr~.~.necf .l~/rnal & Tnpic.~ on the 9t~ day of October, 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-33~02.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SEC.TJQb[_QI~: 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.
S. EC_T.J.QJ:~]3/Y_Q: SectiOn 14.306.A entitled "ACCESSORY STRUCTURES" of Chapter
14, is hereby further amended by adding new Subparagraphs 14.306.A.6 and 14.306.A.7,
which shall read as follows:
"6. Shed Restrictions: A shed shall not be utilized to store motor vehicles or as
office, work or living space.
7. Roof Pitch: No accessory structure shall have. a roof pitch Of less.than
3:12." .'
Page 2/3
Ch. 14, Text amendment
~: Section 14.306.B entitled "ACCESSORY STRUCTURES" of
Chapter 14, is hereby further amended by deleting Subsection 14.306.B.1 and
Subsection 14.306.B.2 in their entirety, and adding new Subsections 14.306.B.1 and
14.306.B.2 which shall read as follows:
"1. Maximum Size:
a. Garages:
A detached private garage maY be no larger than 672
square feet.
Sheds: A shed may be no larger than the smaller of the following:
i. Two percent (2%) of the lot area; or
ii. Two-hundred (200) square feet.
Bulk Restrictions:
On lots fifty-five feet (55') in width or less, detached accessory structures
shall be set back three feet (3') from any interior side or rear lot line. On lots
greater in width than fifty-five feet (55'), detached accessory structures shall
be set back five feet (5') from any intedor side or rear lot line. No accessory
structure shall be placed on any dedicated easement. Accessory structures
shall be included in any maximum lot coverage calculation."
~-~: Section 14.2401 of Article XXIV, entitled "DEFINITIONS, shall be
amended to include, in subsequent alphabetical order, the following definitions:
"ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A subordinate structure detached from but located
on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and
accessory to
that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, but are not limited to
garages and sheds, as further defined by Village Code.
GARAGE: A structure designed to house motor vehicles and to store items and
equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the
property that it is located upon.
SHED: A structure that is designed to store household items and equipment
necessary to maintain and upkeep the pdmary structure and the property that it is
located upon."
Page 3/3
Ch. 14, Text amendment
S. EC_TJ.QJ~_LV_E: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect
do hereby grant approval of text amendments to Section 14.306 and Section 14.2401 of
the Village Code of Mount Prospect.
~C_,_T_[O.J~S~: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified
copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County.
~: 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.
Al-rEST:
Gerald L. Fadey
Village President
Velma W. Lowe
Village Clerk