Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8. MEETING NOTICES 5/20/03VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, May 22, 2003 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2nd Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of April 10, 2003 Ill Human Services - Pre-Budget Discussion IV Police Department - Pre-Budget Discussion V Fire Department - Pre-Budget Discussion VI Community Development Department - Pre-Budget Discussion VII Public Works- Pre-Budget Discussion VHI Finance Department - Pre-Budget Discussion IX Village Manager's Office - Pre-Budget Discussion X Chairman's Report XI Finance Director's Report XII Other Business XIII Next Meeting: Thursday, June 26, 2003, 7:00 p.m. XIV Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. DRAFT FINANCE COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MEETING A~'RIL 10, 2003 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and Commissioners Charles Bennett, Vince Grochocinski, Ann Hull and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioner George Busse was present and left at 7:35 and Commissioner Tom Pekras was absent. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to approve the minutes of February 27, 2003. Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. HI. DISCUSSION REGARDING 2004 PROJECTED BUDGET DEFICIT Chairman John Kom began the discussion with an overview of the April 9, 2003 Committee of the Whole meeting. Chairman Korn stated that the Board presented a tentative budget plan for 2004 at that meeting. The Board will hold another meeting on April 22, 2003 to allow for feedback from the residents, businesses and the Finance Commission. There was a question from commission members as to why the Board wanted to remove the sunset clause on the Food and Beverage Tax and the Municipal Motor Fuel Taxes now when they will not sunset until October 2006. The Finance Commission suggested it was too early to make recommendations on those revenues at this time. The commission stated that they felt there should not be a formal vote on the sunsets now. They felt it should be a topic for discussion purposes only. There was a discussion among the members on the tentative plan to increase the Home Rule Sales Tax rateby.5%. Commissioner George Busse stated he would rather increase the Telecommunications Tax and transfer less money to the CIP instead of increase the Home Rule Sales Tax. Commissioner George Busse motioned to resubmit the Finance Commissions original general fund operating deficit recommendations and to further mention that the commission did not support the October 2006 sunset recommendations by the Board. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded the motio~ and Commissioners Charles Bennett, Ann Hull and Chairman John Korn were in favor. Commissioner Ann Smilanic abstained. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if, as part of the projected deficit for next year, the village be looking to recover the money drawn down from reserves. Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth stated that the intent is to get the reserves back to 25% through excess revenues. V. CHAIRMAN ' S REPORT Chairman John Korn highlighted the topics discussed at the board meetings that have taken place recently. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Director of Finance Douglas Ellsworth wished the Finance Commission luck in the coming years, and commended them for a job well done. VI. OTHER BUSINESS Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked if Chairman Kom had resolved the problem with the commission member's staggering terms. Chairman Korn stated that Commissioner Charles Bennett has agreed to extend his term an additional year. Chairman Kom also stated that he would advise the Village Manager and the Board of the change and they will have to revise the terms. Chairman John Kom motioned to wish Finance Director Doug Ellsworth luck in his new position and stated it was a pleasure working with Doug for the past few years. Commissioner Ann Hull seconded the motion and the motion carried. VII. Next Meeting: May 22, 2003 Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for May 22, 2003. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department MAYOR Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AGENDA VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center 1000 W. Central Road Mount Prospect, IL 60056 I. CALL TO ORDER MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday May 22, 2003 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 24, 2003 MEETING A. PZ-08-03 / 312 N. Oak St. / Jorgenson Residence / Variation (side yard setback). B. PZ-09-03 / 404 S. Wille St. / Sulak Residence / Conditional Use (porch). C. PZ-10-03 / 316 N. Elm St. / Spencer Residence / Conditional Use (porch). D. PZ-I 1-03 / 1909 Bonita Ave. / Millonzi Residence / Variation (side yard setback). E. PZ-12-03 / 407 S. Carol Lane / Eddington Residence / Variation (double fence). F. PZ-13-03 / VOMP / Text Amendment (lighting regulations). IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-13-03 / VOMP / Text Amendment (lighting regulations). NEW BUSINESS A. PC-03-99 / 105 E. Prospect Ave. / Miller's Resubdivision (consolidation). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final B. PZ-04-03 / 300 E. Rand Road / Cultural Center / Text Amendment, Map Amendment, Conditional Use, Variations. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final (Continued to June Meeting) C. PZ-14-03 / 1605 Rosetree Lane / Dianis Residence / Variation (privacy fence). NOTE: This case is P& Z Final. D. PZ-15-03 / 1812 Aralia Drive / Gunderson Residence / Variation (double fence). NOTE: This case is P& Z Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-48-02 / 1850 ~. GolfRd.: Approved by Village Board 5/6/03. n PZ-09-03 / 404 S. Wille St.: Village Board waived 2nd reading and approved 5/6/03. n PZ-10-03/316 S. Elm St.: Village Board waived 2~d reading and approved 5/6/03. VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD 11847- 392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-08-03 Hearing Date: April 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Craig & Heidi Jorgenson PROPERTY ADDRESS: 312 N. Oak Ave. PARCEL #: 03-33-421-006 PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 REQUEST: Variations from the side yard setback regulations MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Craig & Heidi Jorgenson Brace Nadle Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The March meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 7:38, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-08-03, a request for a Variation from the exterior side yard setback regulations. She said that the request would be P&Z final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case, describing the subject property as zoned RX Single Family and located at the southwest comer of Gregory and Oak Streets. She said the Subject Property is rectangular in shape and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The petitioner's house was built in 1954 and the existing attached garage was part of the original construction and setback 14-feet from the exterior lot line. She said that Staff's research indicates the Zoning Ordinance required a 1 O-foOt or 10% of lot width setback for the interior and exterior yards when the house was built. However, these requirements have changed and now a 25-foot exterior side yard is required for properties zoned RX. She said that the petitioner would like to add on to the existing home and the plans show a 20-foot exterior setback, which is less than the 25-feet required by the Zoning Ordinance. The petitioner states in their application that meeting setback requirements would compromise the architectural integrity of the home and waste yard space. Ms. Connolly noted that the existing garage setback is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain. However, new construction is required to meet current regulations and the petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements for the exterior side yard setback. She said that the subject property would comply with all other zoning regulations and that the addition would be constructed according to Village Codes. The table in the staff memo compares the petitioner's proposal to the RX Single-Family Residence district's bulk requirements. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the petitioner is proposing to renovate the existing home to create additional living space. She said that the subject property is rectangular in shape and exceeds the minimum lot size required for the RX Zoning District and that the proposed addition could be redesigned to maintain a 25-foot exterior side yard as required by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-08-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 She said that while the Petitioner may have explored different design options in order for the addition to meet the 2% foot setback, they are still seeking relief from zoning regulations although the Subject Property does not appear to meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances. Ms. Connolly said that, although the proposed addition may be designed in an attractive manner, the request does not meet the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance because there is no apparent hardship. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny a Variation to allow a 20-foot exterior side yard setback for the residence at 312 N. Oak Avenue, Case No. PZ-08-03. She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Heidi and Craig Jorgenson were sworn in. Mrs. Jorgenson testified that to build according to Zoning regulations would waste much of their land while building per their design would provide much needed privacy for their family. She said that she is a teacher and feels their home life is of interest to many passers-bye. She also felt that the addition would be an attractive improvement to the neighborhood. Mr. Jorgenson said the addition would increase their living space and bedrooms. They had discussed various plans but felt this would be the best plan for their home and the neighborhood. Also, it would also preserve a honey locust tree. He said that changing the plan would close off the entrance to the basement stairs and necessitate breaking into a weight-bearing wall to open another entrance and that would comprise the structure of their home. Ms. Juracek asked if the Jorgensons had considered making the two added rooms flush, which would require only a 3' Variation. Mr. Jorgenson said that would detract from the outside appearance of the home and roofline. Mr. Rogers asked what type of trees were involved. Mr. Jorgenson said they were honey locust and are 20'-25' apart. Keith Youngquist agreed that architecturally this was an aesthetically pleasing design and agreed adhering to the required 25-foot setback would waste yard space. Mr. Rogers agreed and said this Variation would not be detrimental to the neighborhood. There was discussion about the significant distance from the house to the edge of pavement. Ms. Juracek noted the attachment containing signatures of nine neighbors in support of this Variation. Bruce Nadle, 313 N. MacArthur, was sworn in and testified that he lived directly behind the Jorgenson family for five years. He said that he and his wife fully support this planned addition and would also support the addition going to the end of the garage. He said he knows the other neighbors support the request, also. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 7:55. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow a 20-foot exterior side yard setback for the property at 312 N. Oak St., Case No. PZ-08. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-08-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~dy~l~ol~dol~yj Senior Planner H:\GEN~LANNING~Plan nlng & Zoning COMM~&Z 2003LMinut es~PZ-08-03 312 N, Oak St ,doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-09-03 Hearing Date: April 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Todd & Brandi Sulak PROPERTY ADDRESS: 404 S. Wille ~PARCEL #: 08-12-301-015 PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use to allow a front porch to encroach into the front yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The March meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 7:56 Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-09-03, a request for a Conditional Use to allow a front porch to encroach into the front yard setback. She said that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case and said that the subject property was located on the west side of Wille Street, between Lincoln Street and Sha Bonee Trail. She said that it contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA district. She said that the existing home is currently set back approximately 33-feet from the front lot line, 5-feet from the south side lot line, and 10.35-feet from the north side lot line. Ms. Connolly said the petitioner plans to add on to the house and include an unenclosed wrap-around porch. She said that the proposed improvements include extending the house to the west, adding a second story addition, and installing a porch with a concrete base. The proposed porch would encroach 4' into the required front yard, which requires Conditional Use approval. She said that the existing home and addition, except the porch, would comply with zoning regulations and noted that the table in the staff memo compares the petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the porch meets the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances and that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets. 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 an unenclosed porch to encroach 4-feet into the lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-09-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 required front yard for the residence at 404 S. Wille Street, Case No. PZ-09-03. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Brandi Sulak was sworn in and testified that the last page of her request was a drawing of what the addition would look like without the pomh. She pointed out the boxlike appearance of that drawing and said it was unacceptable. She said they spend a lot of time out in front of the house and decided the porch would be a very worthwhile addition. She added that the porch floor would be concrete. Mr. Youngquist verified that the petitioner understood the porch could never be enclosed. Ms. Sulak agreed. Mr. Rogers said this would be an attractive addition to the neighborhood. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:04. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval of the request for a Conditional Use to allow an unenclosed porch to encroach 4-feet into the front yard setback for the property at 404 S. Wille St., Case No. PZ-09-03. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. At 9:15 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary .... ~d~ Con_h~lly, Senior Planner~ H:\GI~N~PLANNING~Ianning & Zoning COMIvI~P&Z 2003hMinul~s~Z~09-03 404 S. Willc St..doc MINUTES OF Tm~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-10-03 Hearing Date: April 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Eric Spencer PROPERTY ADDRESS: 316 N. Elm St. PARCEL #: 03-34-402-015 PUBLICATION DATE: April 9,2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use to allow a front porch to encroach into the front yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The March meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 8:05, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-10-03, a request for a Conditional Use to allow a front porch to encroach into the front yard setback. She said that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the subject property is located on the west side of Elm Street, between Gregory and Isabella Streets, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA district. The home is currently set back approximately 31-feet from the front lot line, 10-feet from the south lot line, and 9.8-feet from the north lot line. She said that the petitioner plans to add on to the house and include an unenclosed front porch. The proposed improvements include extending the house to the west, a second story addition, and installing an unenclosed porch with a brick paver base. She noted that the proposed porch would encroach no more than 5' into the required front yard and required conditional use approval. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the porch meets the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances and that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood; utilities or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 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 an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 5-feet into the required front yard for the residence at 316 N. Elm Street, Case No. PZ-10-03. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-10-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Richard Rogers asked whether the garage shown on the site plan was a new garage or an existing garage. Ms. Connolly said that was a drawing of the existing garage. Mr. Rogers noted that the garage appeared to be close to the side lot line. Eric Spencer was sworn in. He said the garage was built new last summer and is three feet from the property line, which is the required setback. He explained that they want to put on a 20'x2-1/2' addition to the house to replace a smaller previous addition at the back of the house and add a second floor to the house above that. There will be a porch in the back similar to the one they are requesting for the front of the house. Richard Rogers said this addition would be a substantial improvement to the house and the neighborhood. He stated that these additions increase the value of surrounding homes. Ms. Juracek noted no objections had been forwarded to the P&Z Commission. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:08. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval of the request for a Conditional Use to allow an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard setback for the property at 316 N. Elm St., Case No. PZ-10-03. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. At 9:15 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary -J1J/oy ~onnoll~, Senior Planner (~ H:\GEN~PLANNING~Planning & Zoning COMIvBP&Z 2003Wlinut~PZ-10-03 316 N. Elm St. doe MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF TIlE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-11-03 ~ Hearing Date: April 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Joe Millonzi PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1909 Bonita Ave. PARCEL #: 08-10-208-005-0000 PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 REQUEST: Variation to side yard setback regulations MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Joe Millonzi Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting, seconded by Memll Cotten. The March meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 8:10, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-11-03, a request for a Variation to allow an encroachment into the interior side yard setback. She said that the request would be P&Z Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case, describing the subject property as being located on the east side of Bonita Avenue, between Hatlen Avenue and Lincoln Street, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She said that the subject property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the R1 district. The subject property has an irregular, triangular, shape and currently has an attached one-car garage. She said that the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow an eight-foot side yard along the subject property's south lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 9'10" setback. The petitioner would like to remodel the interior of the existing house and to add on to it. Due to the irregular shape of the property, part of the garage addition and a small section of the family room would encroach 1' 10" into the required 9' 10" side yard. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variation in order to construct a two-car garage and a family room. She said that the petitioner worked extensively with an architect to design an addition that would comply with zoning regulations. However, the shape of the lot and the wish to save an existing tree precluded them from arriving at a design that meets setback regulations. She said that the proposed addition was designed to match the existing building materials so the addition would appear as original construction. Ms. Connolly said the existing home complies with zoning regulations. However, the addition requires relief from the R1 bulk regulations for the interior side yard setback. She said that the subject property would comply with all other zoning regulations and that the addition would be constructed according to Village Code. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said that the petitioner is proposing to renovate the existing home to create additional living space and accommodate a second car. She said that Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-11-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 the petitioner explored different options for the addition, but found that the irregular shape of the subject property prevents them from adding onto the existing garage and designing a family room that would flow with the existing floor plan of the house without doing extensive modifications to the house. Ms. Connolly said the Zoning Ordinance requires a 9'10" side yard. However if the Petitioner were to construct a detached garage, the Zoning Ordinance would require a 5-foot setback. She said that the difference in the setback regulations is based on aesthetics, drainage, and ensuring an adequate buffer between living space. In this case, based on the submitted floor plan it is reasonable to believe that the garage will remain as designed and not be converted into additional living space. Also, the manner in which the addition was designed will create the appearance of a unified structure and preserve the character of the house with minimal impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Connolly explained that the proposed request meets the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance due to the irregular shape of the subject property. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Variation and allow an eight-foot side yard setback along the south property line as shown on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 1909 Bonita Ave., Case No. PZ-11-03. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this Ms. Juracek clarified that just two small triangular shaped pieces of property would be involved in this request. She also noted a detached garage could be added and legal setbacks maintained. Joe and Pam Millonzi, 1909 W. Bonita, were sworn in and testified that the purpose of their request was to give them room for another car. Mr. Millonzi said that a detached garage would leave him without much back yard, due to the shape of the lot. Mr. Rogers asked if the neighbors to the south had any objections to this request and Mr. Millonzi said they did not. Mr. Floros asked if there were any water problems. Mr. Millonzi said there was a swale between the houses and that the grading would be included with the permit for the addition. Mr. Donnelley asked that a condition be imposed that the garage could never be converted into living space. Ms. Juracek closed the public heating at 8:14 and said it would be necessary to vote on the amendment to the request. Joe Donnelly moved to include in the request the condition that the garage would always remain a garage. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Rogers and Youngquist Motion to include the condition was not approved 3-3. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow an 8-foot interior side yard setback for the property at 1909 Bonita Ave., Case No. PZ-11-03. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist NAYS: Juracek Motion was approved 5-1. P&Z decision is final. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-11-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~dy Conh611~,~Senior Planner ~}~ H:'d3EIq~LANN1NG~lannlng & Zoning COMM~&Z 2003~Vllnules~PZ- 11-03 1909 Bonita Ave. doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-12-03 Hearing Date: April 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Rich & Sue Eddington PROPERTY ADDRESS: 407 S. Carol Lane PARCEL #: 08-10-415-012-0000 PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 REQUEST: Variation to allow a double fence along the rear lot line MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Rich & Sue Eddington John Masong Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 24 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The March meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 8:15, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-12-03, a request for a Variation to allow a double fence at the back of the property. She said that the requests would be P&Z Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case, describing the subject property as being located on the east side of Carol Lane, between Lincoln Street and Rusty Drive, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow the construction of a new five-foot wooden fence along the subject property's rear lot line without removing the adjoining properties' existing chain link fences. The proposed fence would be located as close to the existing chain link fences as possible and the existing ground cover and landscaping would be removed to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, any maintenance issues. She said that the subject property currently contains a wooden fence along both of its side property lines and abuts two different chain link fences along the rear lot line. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner previously applied for a variation to allow the double fence. ' She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at the September 2002 meeting and voted to deny the request. Since then, the petitioner has taken steps to address the objections raised during the September meeting and has provided photographs taken during the Fall season in addition to identifying screening techniques to improve the aesthetics of a second fence. She said that the subject property abuts two single family residences, each of which have their own chain link fences. One of the fences measures three-feet in height and the other fence measures four-feet in height. The petitioner proposes to construct a five-foot wooden fence along their rear lot line and would match the existing wooden fence along the interior lot lines. The Zoning Ordinance permits only one fence per lot line; therefore, the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow two fences along the same lot line. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ- 12-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the petitioner previously investigated removing the existing fences, but found that it would require replacing more than the two fences that abut the subject property because the properties on Carol and Deborah Lane were platted differently and do not 'line-up'. She said that in order to meet zoning regulations and have only one fence per lot line, the petitioner would have to replace fences that would impact at least four other properties. Ms. Connolly reported the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the petitioner is proposing to construct a new wooden fence adjacent to existing chain link fences that are located on the rear lot line. The proposed wooden fence would not limit the neighbors' access to their fences and typically requires minimal maintenance, if left untreated. The petitioner would like the second fence for aesthetic reasons, in addition to providing privacy and minimizing noise. Staff concluded that the Petitioner tried to comply with Village code requirements, but was unsuccessful because the manner in which the lots were platted would require replacing multiple fences. She said that installing a second fence would not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare since the existing fences and the proposed fence allow for both to be maintained. Ms. Connolly relayed Staff's recommendation that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Variation for a second perimeter fence along the rear lot line for the residence at 407 S. Carol Lane, Case No. PZ-12-03. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Rich and Sue Eddington, 407 S. Carol Lane, were sworn in and testified they are in the process of landscaping their property and have been advised that a fence would be the best solution for the rear property, where nothing grows due to the shade. They said they wanted to address concerns that had been raised as a result of their last fence request before the Commission. Ms. Juracek asked the Eddingtons if the depicted 15' "pipe" trellis and wishing well covered by a blue tarp were located on their property. Ms. Eddington said they were on the neighbor's property to the rear of their property. Ms. Juracek said the Commission had received letters and e-mails from neighbors who had previously been against the fence request, but now support the request because they had a better understanding of the request and how a second fence would appear. John Masong, 404 S. Deborah Lane, was sworn in and testified that eight months ago they presented a petition signed by 26 neighbors objecting to the request for a double fence. He said the neighbors still do not want a double fence in the area. He said it is a common practice to cover objects with a blue tarp in the winter. He said the Commission should not reverse their previous unanimous vote. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:35. Richard Rogers said he had a problem with the statement that nothing would grow in the rear of the property. He said he thought arbor vitae would grow. Ms. Juracek said the situation of uneven lots holds the property owner hostage to the varying tastes of several neighbors to the rear unless everyone can agree on a certain type of fence. She said she understood the large pine tree provided too much shade for the soil and feels the iron trellis looks like a second fence. Leo Floros asked if the neighbor at 406 Deborah Lane was opposed to this request. Ms. Eddington said they did not. Ms. Juracek noted the previous case minutes reflected approval by the neighbors at 406. Mr. Masong said he did not object to removal of the fence and replacement and that his objection was to the double fence. The Eddingtons said they would pay to remove the other fences and put up their own fence. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-12-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow a double fence at the back of the property at 407 S. Carol Lane where it backs up to 406 Deborah Lane; the petitioner is required to remove existing fence at the back of 404 S. Deborah Lane and continue their new fence, Case No. PZ-12-03. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary J~:t~ Connolly//tS"en~r l~l[tr[ner ~y H:\GEN~PLANNING~Planning & Zoning COMMXP&Z 2003\MinutesXPZ-12-03 407 S, Carol Lane doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-03 Hearing Date: April 24, 2003 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson St. PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 REQUEST: Text Amendment (Lighting Regulations) Section 14.314 MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Dave Toeppen Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the Mamh 24 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The March meeting minutes were approved 5-0, with one abstention by Keith Youngquist. At 8:37, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-13-03, a request for a Text Amendment.for Lighting Regulations. She said that the request Would be Village Board final. Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development, presented the case. He noted that in 2000 the Village Code was amended to include specific regulations that helped to control parking lot lighting, but did not address other elements of outdoor lighting. He listed effective design techniques for outdoor lighting, which include: defining lighting criteria based on the demographics and characteristics of the area (rural vs. urban); confining projections of light and glare to within the property lines; using pole heights appropriate to the area; utilizing shields that minimize glare and the projection of light into the sky; utilizing control systems to reduce light levels during inactive periods, while also maintaining sufficient lighting for safety and security; designing the spacing of the lighting fixtures/poles so that the resulting illumination is uniform, thereby increasing safety and security while also minimizing the amount of light reflected into the sky; and, defining illumination levels based on recommended guidelines. Mr. Jacobs said that the Village's existing regulations help to address a number of lighting concerns, but they apply only to parking lot lighting and do not regulate general outdoor lighting. He said that Staff is suggesting that the Village Code be amended to include a general lighting regulation section as well as amending the existing parking lot lighting section. The proposed amendments include: fiXtures uSed on residential properties shall be positioned and shielded in such a manner so as not to create light trespass or direct glare onto adjacent properties or rights-of-way and light intensity levels measured at a property line abutting a residential property shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candle.; the illuminated face of all fixtures used On non-residential' properties shall be mounted parallel to the ground and light intensity levels measured at a property line abutting a non-residential property or right-of-way shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle. Mr. Jacobs reviewed a table of maximum illumination levels based on the illumination levels recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Maximum Average I.E.S. Type of Use Illumination Level (Foot-Candles) Canopy Lighting 30 Auto Dealerships (display areas only) 50 Residential Use - Pedestrian Entrance Area 5 Residential Use - Other lighting 1 Business Districts 5 Park, School, Institutional, and Industrial Uses 5 Loading/Unloading Platform (Dock) 20 Outdoor Sports Lighting 40 Mr. Jacobs said that lighting for uses other than those listed in the table could be reviewed by the Community Development Director to ensure the proposed illumination levels are appropriate for the property and surrounding area. Also, a lighting plan will be required. The proposed changes to the code would require a building permit submission for any non-residential development or multi-family residential development and shall include a lighting plan and the proposed hours of operation. During non-hours of operation the use of all lighting shall be reduced to security levels as recommended in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America's Lighting Handbook. Mr. Jacobs said the proposed lighting amendments would apply to all parcels in the Village. He said the changes 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 residents of the Village, while still preserving the character of the community. In addition, the text amendments do not make the Zoning Ordinance more permissive. The lighting regulations will maintain the existing limits with regards to light levels at property lines, but will help to address all outdoor lighting issues. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments. The proposed text amendments are a result of in-depth research of several sources of information to accurately reflect Village policy and goals, research of neighboring communities' regulations and what is consistent with community expectations. Based on the above analysis, the P&Z can make positive findings with respect to the standards for a Text Amendments in Section 14.203.D.8.b. Therefore, Staff recommends that the P&Z recommend approval to the Village Board of the proposed Text Amendments as outlined within this report. Ms. Juracek said she appreciated staff's efforts to streamline the Code and had a question regarding Section 4.314(a) with the stipulation that "tilted fixtures shall not be permitted"; that restriction is reasonable for pole mounted lighting, but ground mounted lights are tilted and provide security when aimed at outside facades. Mr. Jacobs noted that tilted fixtures could be reviewed by the Community Development Director and approved provided the light would not impact neighboring properties. Richard Rodgers noted some concerns with regards to the suggested illumination level limitations. Mr. Jacobs provided some examples of existing uses in town that would comply with the suggested limitations. Merrill Cotten stated that it would appear that most of the existing light fixtures within Mount Prospect's residential areas would not comply with the suggested regulations. He added that residents often use their fixtures to help illuminate areas where public streetlights provide poor lighting or do not exist. Mr. Jacobs stated that staff tried to prepare regulations that would help address specific lighting issues while not being too restrictive. Keith Youngquist noted his concern with how the new regulations would be imposed and whether existing lighting conditions would be grandfathered. Mr. Jacobs noted that the Commission may wish to recommend a grace period for compliance with the new regulations, in a similar manner as with parking lot lighting, or that the regulations could only apply to new lighting. Following additional discussion of the proposed residential lighting regulations, foot-candle levels and enforcement Z- 13-03 Page 3 Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson issues, Ms. Juracek suggested that the hearing be considered a draft session and that Staff should take the comments under consideration and incorporate them into the final draft of the proposed text amendment. Dave Toeppen, a resident of Mount Prospect, addressed the group. He said he wanted to congratulate Staff and the Commission for the work done on the proposed text amendments. He said a Model Lighting Ordinance is forthcoming this year from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, the International Commission on Illumination, NEMA, and the International Dark Sky Association. A draft of the ordinance may be viewed at www.darkskv.org under Model Lighting Code. He said that this ordinance will be written in layman's terms and divided into environmental zones with lighting appropriate to each zone. The values will be configured in lumens per acre. Light pollution ordinances are being adopted worldwide. Mr. Toeppen passed out copies of his ideas for lighting the area of the new Village Hall, Parking Deck and Library. He also gave out copies of a program, "Lost Light". Ms. Juracek asked that Staff go back to the drawing board and consider some of the areas of concern regarding the text amendment. At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael W. Jacobs, De~/~ Director H:\GEN~PLANNING~Planning & Zoning COMM~P&Z 2003XMinutes~PZ-13-03 Text Amendment-Lighting.doc