Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 09/09/2003COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, September 9, 2003 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 AUGUST 12, 2003 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. REGULATION OF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS This item was previously discussed at the September 10, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that time, it was the consensus opinion of the Mayor and Trustees that the Police Department attempt to regulate the operation of these scooters utilizing existing State law. Further, the Chief of Police was asked to monitor the enforcement effort and report back as to the degree of success regarding same. The material provided includes meeting Minutes from previous Committee of the Whole discussions. Those residents and interested parties who spoke at the September 10, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting have been invited to attend Tuesday evening's discussion. 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 pads 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 last year 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 outright banning of same has arisen anew. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTIClPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER°S OFFICE AT '100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD 847/392- 6064. Given the most prevalent users of these devices are pre-teen/young teenagers (pre-driver's license), there is a wide spectrum of driving skills at play and no formal/uniform mechanism for training 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. PROPERTY-RELATED CODE AMENDMENTS AND COMPANION ISSUES On a day-to-day basis, staff sometimes finds that the Municipal Code either does not address, or addresses inadequately, citizen complaints or staff identified concerns regarding the upkeep, development or use of one's property. Additionally, over time, staff finds that current regulations are not keeping pace with prevailing trends in these same areas. As a result, from time-to-time, staff brings forward a "laundry list" of such concerns and issues for discussion by and direction from the Village Board prior to formally processing a number of potential Text Amendments. Zoning, Property Maintenance and Building Code issues are the focus of this discussion. In addition to the attached memorandum, staff will make a power point presentation at the Committee of the Whole meeting highlighting the nuances of each issue, as well as answer questions and facilitate discussion. VI. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VIII. ADJOURNMENT II. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 12, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley, in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. 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, Deputy Community Development Director Michael 'Jacobs, Police Chief Richard Edd[ngton, Deputy Police Chief Ronald Richardson, Police Commander Mike Semkiu, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm, Fire Marshal Paul Valentine, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, Deputy'Human Services Director Jan Abernethy, Public Information Officer Maura Jandds, Finance Director David Erb and Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from July 8, 2003. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Zadel. Minutes were approved. Trustee Wilks abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. 2003 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW/2004 PRE-BUDGET WORKSHOP Village Manager Michael Janonis stated this is David Erb's first meeting as Finance Director. He stated that, unfortunately, revenues have continued to slip even after the Vitlage Board approved revenue increases effective for 2004. He stated that the projected deficit for 2004 could be impacted due to fudher revisions in the State financing formulas which are currently affecting 2003. 2003 Mid-Year Budqet Review Finance Director David Erb provided an overview' of the status of the 2003 Budget. He stated that based on the current revenue projections and some recent changes in the State formula for some shared revenues, the projected deficit for 2003 is approximately $802,000. He also stated that property tax shortfalls are related to successful tax appeals. He further stated that sales taxes are running 7% behind projection. He provided a general overview of the various funds and recommended the Vitlage Board consider utilizing existing fund balance to cover the projected shortfall for 2003 since there are only four months left in the year in which to possibly reduce expenditures. 2004 Pre-Budget Workshop Finance Director David Erb stated that declining revenues have impacted the projected Budget and there is a current projected deficit of $840,973. This projected deficit includes all previously incorporated staff initiatives for expenditure reductions. He stated there is an option to draw down fund balance to cover the shortfall which would bring the fund balance to approximately 21%. Village Manager Janonis stated the Village Board' had set the benchmark for fund balance at approximately 25% but also was willing to reduce the balance to 20% if necessary to cushion future funding issues as they come about. He stated several options are available for the 2004 Budget including deferring all or a portion of the ClP transfer of $550,000. He also stated it would also be difficult to cut approximately another $290,000 after the initial $500,000 staff-initiated cuts. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was stated that the projected numbers should not count on Costco sales tax receipts for 2004. It was also suggested that the staff-initiated options be considered before utilizing fund balance for 2004. It was also pointed out that there is a fixed cost for services that utilizes variable revenue sources which invariably creates conflict within the Budget. Village Manager Janonis stated that as part of the $500,000 staff-initiated cuts, it is unlikely that the civic and community events' portion of the budget will be spared. He stated there are some items that will definitely be addressed. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was stated that hopefully there will be other items that can be looked at and not the entire budget balancing burden placed upon the community and civic events items. General consensus of the Village Board was to utilize existing fund balance to cover the projected shortfall for 2003. BRANDING- VILLAGE LOGO/WEB SITE REDESIGN Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village Board has previously asked for a uniform logo to create a unique identity for Village services and items representing the Village. This direction has been undertaken by Public Information Officer Maura Jandris in an attempt to incorporate as much of the possible branding. Public Information Officer Maura Jandris spoke. She provided information of what is a typical definition of branding. It is commonly defined as a way to convey an image through unified appearance. She stated that some of the creation of a specific logo was initiated under the corridor design program which has been incorporated in various communication pieces distributed by some Village Departments. There is a need to unify the various Department uses in an attempt to unify the appearance and utilization of the logo for specific purposes. She is suggesting the Village establish a criteda similar to what Evanston has done for the use of their logo. illage Manager Janonis stated the Village seal could be retained for official documents only and he stated the seal is difficult to reproduce and has a specific purpose and use which may be different from the actual logo use. He stated that staff would undertake a specific policy document for the use of both symbols. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was felt that both the seal and the logo could co-exist and the Village flag should remain untouched. It was also suggested that the keystone does represent something within the community along with the proposal for a tree in the background of'the keYStone. It was also recommended that the Village trademark or license the final design to minimize unauthorized reproduction. There were also comments regarding the two versions of the proposed web site redesign. It was suggested that photos be utilized wherever possible as part of the web site redesign. Village Manager Janonls summarized the direction from the Village Board as the following: The Village seal will remain for official use only and the keystone with the tree will be incorporated into a uniform logo for Village identification purposes. Staff will also undertake' the creation of a policy defining specific use of the logo utilizing the Evanston policy as an example. The Village web site redesign preference was version 2 utilizing photos similar to version 1,' but replacing the icons in version 2 with photOs highlighting various services. VI. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that the railread crossing repair work has been delayed one week with September 2 as the start date for the Emerson Street crossing and continuing until September 14. The Route 83 crossing will be replaced between September 16 and September 28. Vii. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert stated the last Antique Auto Show was concluded on August 10 and he wanted to thank everyone who participated in pulling off the event. Trustee Wilks expressed her thanks to Trustee Hoefert for his continuous work on organizing and various duties related to putting on the Antique Auto Show over the years. Nil. ADJOURNMENT DS/rcc There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager CHF 03-293 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, IllinoiS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER RICHARD EDDINGTON, CHIEF OF POLICE SEPTEMBER 4, 2003 MOTOR DRIVEN SCOOTERS The reason for this topic reappearing before the Village Board is that our position outlined last year is no longer legally tenable in the 3rd district. Judges are disinclined to concur with the outline of charges as prepared by George Wagner in his correspondence of September 12, 2002. With the legislature escalating driving without a license to a Class B Misdemeanor, the judges of the 3rd District are disinclined to find younger unlicensed drivers guilty of this offense. That offense was the cornerstone of George Wagner's legal argument. While I concur with the merits of both Buzz Hill and George WagneCs legal position, unfortunately, the judges in the 3rd district do not. Consequently, if we wish to address this issue, I am recommending that the ordinance drafted by Buzz Hill last year be enacted. In addition to the correspondence prepared by George Wagner and the ordinance prepared by Buzz Hill, please find attached a memorandum prepared by Deputy Chief Dahlberg that gives a recent August 18, 2003 overview of the current situations with motorized scooters throughout the northwest suburbs. I am looking forward to discussing this matter with you and the Village Board to finalize the policy direction the Village Board wishes to undertake. RE:dr Attachments C: Deputy Chief Dahlberg Deputy Chief Richardson H:\My Docs\Chief's Memos\VMO~2003\Motodzed Scooters CHF 03-293.doc Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DEPUTY CHIEF JOHN DAHLBERG W,~ AUGUST ~8, 2003 SUBJECT: MOTORIZED SCOOTERS In response to your direction of 05 August 2003, I contacted Chief Edward Gerretsen of the Fox Lake, Illinois Police Department concerning his comments in a recent Daily Herald article regarding motorized scooters. I specifically inquired of Chief Gerretsen what State laws he felt were violated by scooter operators and how his department addressed those violations. Chief Gerretsen told me the 02 August 2003 Daily Herald Newspaper article entitled: "Chief tells scooter riders to scram'; misquoted him with respect to his statement about the scooters violating State law. He told me his statement to the reporter was they (scooters) do not violate existing State law(s); therefore, he is drafting an ordinance to be introduced to his elected Village officials this Fall. Chief Gerretsen said their draft ordinance is modeled in large part on the Lake Zurich, Illinois "Motorized Skateboards" ordinance. He described the motorized scooter issue in Fox Lake as largely attributable to a groWing number of elderly residents. He further asserted that many of these elderly scooter operators have been denied drivers license renewal, and they operate the scooters in town to do errands specifically because no drivers license is required to operate one. Chief Gerretsen told me the Village of Fox Lake currently has a "Toy Vehicle" ordinance on the books that fails to adequately address the scooter issue, as he understands it (copy attached). I contacted the Lake Zurich, Illinois Police Department and was provided with a copy of their Motorized Skateboards ordinance (attached). Chief Gerretsen is closely modeling the draft Fox Lake ordinance after the Lake Zurich ordinance. In closing, I have spoken with the traffic unit supervisors of some of the largest suburban Chicago law enforcement agencies in recent weeks. None of the agencies polled are currently using Illinois State statutes to enforce motorized scooter related issues within their respective communities. In fact, many supervisors I spoke with indicated their communities have adopted or are drafting specific ordinances to address motorized scooter enforcement issues. Page - 1- \\Pd\Users\jdahlber~Main\My Documents\WORD\Motorized Scooters - Aug 2003.doc If you have any questions or desire additional information, please advise me. JKD Attachments c: Chief Eddington D/C Richardson Page - 2 - \\Pd\Users\jdahlber\Main\My Documents\WORD\Motorized Scooters - Aug 2003.doc CHF 03-137 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER RICHARD EDDINGTON, CHIEF OF POLICE MAY 6, 2003 MOTOR DRIVEN SCOOTERS Please find attached a draft of an ordinance prepared by Buzz Hill. This ordinance was prepared last year, but a decision was reached to utilize state statutes to enforce operations of motor scooters. A letter prepared by George Wagner outlines that enforcement stand. Driving without a license is the cornerstone of that enforcement concept. Unfortunately, in the wisdom of the state legislature they have escalated Driving Without A License, 1.V.C.18-6-101 (a), to a Class B Misdemeanor. This will not be a tenable position in the 3rd District. Consequently, I am requesting that we reconsider our position on the implementation of this ordinance. I am available to discuss this with you at your convenience. RE:dr Attachment C: Scooter File H:\My Docs\Chiefs Memos\VMO~003\Motor Scooter Ordinance CHF 03-137.doc ATRICK A. LUCANSKY E. KENNETH FRIKER GERARD E. DEMPSEY TERRENCE M. BARNICLE BRUCE A. ZOLNA JAMES P. BARTLEY RICHARD T. WIMMER MICHAEL J. DUGGAN THOMAS P. BAYER DENNIS O. WALSH SCOTT F. UHLER EVERETTE M. HILL, JR. JANET N. PETSCHE RINDA Y. ALLISON JAMES V. FEROLO LAW OFFICES KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKINS, LTD. SUITE 1660 20 NORTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606-2903 TELEPHONE (312) 984-6~.00 FACSIMILE (312] 984-6444 ORLAND PARK OFFICE 15010 S. RAVINIA AVE., SUITE 17 ORLAND PARK, IL 6046E-S162 TELEPHONE 1708) 349-3880 TELEPHONE 1312) 984-6446 FACSIMILE 17081 349-150S September 12, 2002 Chief Richard Eddington Mount Prospect Police Department 112 East Northwest Highway Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MICHAEL T. JURUS1K THOMAS M. MELODY LANCE C. MALINA PETER M. DOIt. N, IR. STEPHEN F. POTTS CHRISTOPHER M. KANIS SHANON D. SHUMPERT ERIC J. FUOLSANG OF COUNSEL ARTHUR C. THORPE PHILIPPE R. WEISS WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL Enforcement of traffic laws regarding motor driven scooters Dear Chief Eddington: The Village Board of Trustees decided not to pass separate legislation regulating motor driven scooters and other similar devices, recognizing that the Illinois Vehicle Code (I.V.C.) presently regulates these motorized vehicles. Therefore, in the event that an officer determines the driver of such a vehicle to be in violation of the I.V.C, appropriate citation(s) should be issued as a local ordinance in accordance with the procedure set forth in the Village Code, Section 18.100, which adopts the I.V.C. and provides that a local ordinance citation can be issued for violations of that Code by placing "18-" before the I.V.C. section number. The following are examples of typical violations and the local ordinance number to be noted on the citation: 18-3-701 18-6-101(a) 18-11-1412.1 18-12-101(a) No valid registration displayed Driving without a license Driving on sidewalk Unsafe motor vehicle (examples: no lights - head, tail or brake, no brakes, unsafe tires, etc. See Chapter 12 of the I.V.C.) If you have any questions, please contact me at (312) 984-6468. Very truly yours, C: Michael Janonis, Village Manager Everette M. Hill, Jr. KLE.,I~I~THORPE & JENKINS, LTD. .George A.?JVagner l:kEnforcement of traffic laws for motor driven scooters.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Article XI, Motorcycles, of Chapter 18, Traffic, of the Mount Prospect Village Code, shall be amended by adding a new Section 18.1103 which shall be and read as follows: Sec. 1821103. Motor Driven Scooters. A. For the purpose of this Section a motor driven scooter is defined as any electric or gas driven wheeled scooter, cycle or other vehicle that does not provide a permanent seat installed by the manufacturer for the operator of the vehicle. B. No person shall operate a motor driven scooter upon any public or private street, public sidewalk, parking lot, bike path; public park or on any other public property. C. No person shall operate any motorized vehicle of any kind or nature upon any sidewalk within the Village except for the purpose of crossing a sidewalk for ingress or egress to a lawful driveway. D. A peace officer who cites a person for a violation of this Section may impound any motor driven scooter used by the person in the commission of the offense. The person or owner may recover the motor driven scooter from the impound 24 hours after the citation was written upon payment of a fee as set forth in Appendix A, Division II. This fee shall include the costs incurred by the Village to remove the motor driven scooter to the impound. Upon the presentation of a signed court order by the person whose motor driven scooter was impounded showing that the person has been found not guilty of the offense, the Village shall refund the impoundment fee to the person or owner who paid such fee. E. Exemptions. 1. Any police vehicle, fire vehicle, Village vehicle or Park District vehicle driven by an employee in the course of his or her duties. 2. Motorized wheelchairs as defined in Article II of the Illinois Vehicle Code. F. Any person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this Section shall be fined as set forth in Appendix A, Division Ill. SECTION 2: Section 3, AppendixA, Division II of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following: Sec. 18.1103 Motor Driven Scooters. D. Impoundment fee - $100.00 SECTION 3: Section 4, Appendix A, Division II of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following: Sec. 18.1103 Motor Driven Scooters. F. Fine - Not less than $200.00 nor more than $1,000.00. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk COMMI'I-rEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Park Distdct CommunityCenter 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER ~ ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L.. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Irvana WilkS TrUStee Michael Zadel il. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.OF AUGUST 13, 2002 I11. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR VOLUNTEER BOARDS/COMMISSIONS NOTE: Several months ago, Trustee Timothy Corcoran raised concerns with the 10ngstanding 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 ha~e th~ Village Board consider stdcter standards comes from the recent private sector financial s~nd~ls. ~['~..~rporate boards of directors were severely criticized for not taking their fiduciary responsibilities more seriously. On the public sector side, the same need for stdct ~! 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 cdteda, Tuesday evening's meeting provides an initial forum for detailed discussion of this topic. The attached information packet includes a "thought started memorandum from Trustee Corcoran, background information on current criteria, information On the'Viliage's i0aCkgi;oU~d 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. ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT I00 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. Vo VI. We are seeking consensus from Village Board members on how to proceed with changes, if any, to the review cdteda. 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~a~kground 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. Dudng 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 wh!c.h 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 suchas Des Plaines and Hoffman Estates, have taken an aggressive stance in banning the use of these vehicles on public property and h-a-~e 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 stdct regulation or outdght banning of same has adsen anew. Given the most prevalent users of these devices are pre-teen/young teenagers (pre- ddver's license), there is a wide spectrum of ddving skills at play and no formal/uniform mechanism for training said users. The Police Chief has recommended an outdght 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 de¥i~ces 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 topic has been previously discussed at the April 9, May 14 and August 13, 2002 Committee of the Whole meetings. The attached draft Ordinance contains a number of changes reflective of theAugust 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 withouta permit. Information regarding the open items is included in the info,nation package. DISCUSSION OF REGULATION OF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS Village Manager Janonis stated that the modifications submitted this evening 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 non-licensed operators but wheelchairs and motorized wheelchairs have been exempted along with the segway device and motorized scooters during 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 fine. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some concern regarding distinguishing between licensed drivers operating scooters versus non-licensed operators. There was some concern about writing tickets under the State Code and the impact 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. Police Chief Eddington spoke. He stated that there is some concern about the operation of these vehicles by young people and he would focus on enforcement on a complaint only basis. Arin Koon, 419 Oriole Lane, spoke. He stated that he rides a scooter that goes about eight miles an hour. He is a licensed driver and he utilizes the scooter to get to the train station and to go between his job downtown and the train station. He has never experienced a problem and would ask that the scooters not be banned in Mount Prospect. Jason Royster, 310 North Elm, spoke. He stated the issue seems to be the safe operation of the vehicle and maybe a driving course would affirm the ability of the operator similar to a motorcycle license course. Kevin Bolger, 510 North Prospect Avenue, spoke. He stated the purpose is to protect the users and other people that could be impacted by the operator and felt that enforcement and a possible impact upon driver's license was necessary. David Schein, 512 Na-Wa-Ta, spoke. He suggested that there should be some kind of parental responsibility to expressly accept liability for the operator so that the parent is fully aware of the responsibility. Brent Busse, 111 South Maple, spoke. He stated that scooter operation is the same as bicycle operations and the rules should be based on education and safe operation of each. Sal Valconi, '112 North Eastwood, spoke. He is concerned about the outright ban and the impact on whether the parent has any decision regarding the operation. Chris Young, 509 North Fairview, spoke. He stated that he has used scooters for three years and is not aware of any safety statistics nationwide which makes them more dangerous than other vehicles. He stated they do make noise and feels that noise is the issue since there does not seem to be any complaints from other drivers who share the read with the vehicles. He suggested the Village consider registering the vehicles and let the operators prove themselves that they are able to operate the scooters in a safe manner. Julie Prumpus, 420 North Fairview, spoke. She stated there are regular drive-bys by groups of scooter operators and they are very noisy. She is concerned about possible conflicts between vehicle operators who conflict with scooter operators. She also mentioned there is some concern regarding the message that parents are sending to their kids regarding safe operation of the scooters. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he is concerned about the speed of the operators and not the safety protection. He has not seen any adults operating these vehicles in his experience. He stated there is some need for regulation otherwise more and more will continue to appear in the neighborhood. Andy Darien, 618 North Pine, spoke. He stated you could retrofit the scooters 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. OMMI'I-I'EE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Park District CommunityCenter 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JULY 9, 2002 - III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. CONSIDER BAN ON MOTOR-DRIVEN SCOOTERS Dudng 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 July 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 outright banning of same has arisen anew. Given the most prevalent users of these devices are pre-teen/young teenagers (pre-driver's license), there is a wide spectrum of driving skills at play and no formal/uniform mechanism for training 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. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392.6064. DISCUSSION ON BAN OF MOTOR-DRIVEN SCOOTERS Mayor Farley provided an introduction 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 and enforce, if 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 resoumes 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 reason. He stated the difference between the enforcement options for bicycle riders and these scooters are the fact that the scooters operate at much higher speeds than bicycles. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he has appeared before the Board previously to request an Ordinance regulating these items and is supportive of the Ordinance as drafted. 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 road. General comments from 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 employees or adults who operate these vehicles within the rules of the road. 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. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MICHAEL W. JACOBS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS & RELATED ISSUES In an effort to address a variety of code and policy related issues, Staff would like to obtain some preliminary direction from the Village Board prior to formally processing a number of potential text amendments. This memo has been formatted to identify each issue/policy to be considered, summarize the Village's current regulations and provide some initial recommendations. Staff would like to review these issues with the Board during their Committee of the Whole meeting on September 9th. General Zoning Code Issues Issue: Permitted Fence Locations - Staff has encountered several issues related to the Village's fence regulations over the past few years. The proposed amendments outlined below are intended to provide some greater flexibility with regards to fence locations, while also trying to maintain the character of the Village's residential neighborhoods. A common point of contention is with the Village's current requirement that fences must be placed along a lot line, providing property owners with little flexibility in regards to the placement of a fence within their yard. In addition, the Code's current fence regulations for comer lots warrant review due to the potential impacts on surrounding properties by allowing fences in exterior side yards even though it may be adjacent to the front yard of an adjoining property (see attached diagrams). Existing Regulations: (see attached diagram) (1) Along the interior lot lines, behind the front line of the principal building. (2) On comer lots, placed entirely behind the principal building and setback one- foot from property line along exterior side yard. Proposed Amendments: (see attached diagram) Rear & Interior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in the rear and interior side yards, provided the fence is located behind the front line of the principal structure. If a fence is not located along a property line then sufficient access must be provided to the area between fence and property line to allow for proper maintenance. Potential Text Amendments Page 2 Exterior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard, provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal structure. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. Issue: Permitted Residential Fence Heights - In addition to fence locations, permitted fence heights are another issue often raised by Village residents. The current regulations permit a maximum fence height of 5-feet in most instances. This existing height limit is often viewed as insufficient by those residents trying to provide screening and/or privacy for their property. In addition, some areas of Mount Prospect that were initially developed within Cook County and then later annexed into the Village contain existing 6-foot high fences. When these property owners pursue replacement of their fences they are required to either meet the current height limitation of 5-feet or pursue a variation. To address these various issues Staff is suggesting the Board consider increasing the permitted height offences to 6 feet. Specific recommendations are provided below. Existing Regulations: Between 4-feet & 5-feet: To completely surround swimming pools other than swimming pools having a raised deck at least 4-feet above grade. Fence can be located along perimeter of the pool walk areas or along the perimeter of the lot. 5-feet: Permitted along interior side, exterior side and rear yards. 6-feet: (1) When placed within the permitted buildable area of a residential property, an area fence no longer than 18-feet in length provided that it is located within the rear yard. (2) When placed along the rear or exterior side lot line when such line abuts an arterial road as defined by the Village's Comprehensive Plan. (3) When placed between adjacent residential uses and non-residential uses along side or rear lot lines. 8-feet: In residential zoning districts along rear or side property lines contiguous to railroad rights-of-way. Proposed Amendments: General Fence Height Limitations - A maximum fence height of 6-feet is permitted within interior side, exterior side and rear yards. A maximum fence height of 8-feet is permitted in residential zoning districts when located along rear or side property lines contiguous to railroad rights-of-way. Swimming Pool Enclosures - A fence with a minimum height of 4-feet must be installed to completely surround swimming pools that do not have a raised deck of at least 4-feet above grade. Fences designed to serve as swimming pool enclosures can be located either along the perimeter of the pool deck area or along the perimeter of the lot. Please note all pool enclosures must also comply with the specific design guidelines outlined within the Village Building Code. Issue: Double Fences - The Village Code currently indicates that "no more than one fence shall be allowed along a lot line on a zoning lot". Staffhas interpreted this language as to permit only one fence along a common (side or rear) property line. The issue created by this limitation/interpretation is that a property owner cannot install a fence along a property line where a fence on the neighboring property already exists (unless the existing Potential Text Amendments Page 3 fence is removed or a variation granted). The major concern expressed by residents is that they are often forced to live with their neighbor's fence, even if it is in poor condition or of a height or style that they don't like. This current policy promotes a "first come first served" approach to regulating perimeter fences within the Village. In response to this issue Staff suggests that the existing language allowing no more than one fence along a lot line be removed. Existing Regulations: No more than one fence shall be allowed along a lot line on a zoning lot. Proposed Amendments: Allow multiple fences along a common property line. Issue: Dog Runs - In applying the Village's existing fence regulations Staff has determined that "dog runs" are currently prohibited within Mount Prospect. This determination is based on the current requirement that fences be located on a tot line, thus enclosing a small portion of a yard cannot be allowed. In reviewing the various issues outlined in this report the Board may want to give consideration to allowing dog runs (or "Animal Exercise Areas") provided they meet specific requirements. Staff suggests that if dog runs are to be permitted, then they should not be allowed in either a required front or interior side yard, and the dog run must be located a minimum of 5-feet from a rear lot line. This approach would then permit dog runs, but also try and minimize the potential impacts on adjoining properties. Existing Regulations: No existing regulations - dog runs are prohibited due to the Village's current fence regulations. Proposed Amendments: Dog runs shall be permitted within the Single-Family Residential districts provided they are located entirely behind the principal structure and shall not encroach into the required side or rear yard setbacks. Issue: Outdoor Storage on Residential Properties - One of the issues that is often at the heart of property maintenance complaints relates to outdoor storage. The accumulation of debris can often upset neighboring property owners; however, items that are viewed as unacceptable can vary greatly from person to person. In an effort to address this issue staff recommends that specific language be included in the Village Code that identifies what specific items can be stored outside on residential properties: Existing Regulations: None Proposed Amendments: Outdoor Storage on Residential Properties - Outdoor storage on residential properties is prohibited except for lawn & garden equipment and materials, grills & portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools and children's play equipment. These outdoor storage regulations shall not apply to vehicles, recreational equipment or recreational vehicle trailers. Issue: No Trespassing Signs on Residential Properties - Staff has recently experienced problems with property owners displaying several '~1o Trespassing" signs on their property. The display of numerous signs can become unsightly and redundant. In response, Staff suggests language be included within the Village's Sign Code that will limit the number of'*No Trespassing" signs that can be displayed. Existing Regulations: None Proposed Amendments: No more than four signs shall be permitted on any single-family residential lot and under no circumstances shall the total sign area exceed six square feet. No more than one sign shall be permitted along each front, rear or side property line. These limitations shall not apply to political signs or to seasonal displays. Potential Text Amendments Page 4 Issue: Home Occupations - The Village Code currently contains regulations with regards to Home Occupations. These existing regulations are intended to minimize the potential impacts that a Home Occupation could have on surrounding properties ad well as residential neighborhoods in general. A strict reading of the current regulations would indicate that employees, other than family member residing at the home, are not allowed to report to the home to work in the home. What we are starting to find is that some home occupations have employees reporting to the home and then being sent off to work at another location, thus not officially working "in the home". Although staff believes that the current regulations were intended to prohibit this type of activity, the actual wording is somewhat vague and has led to some debate between Staff and residents. It should be noted that in trying to create regulations that will successfully address the issues outlined above, Staff is also trying to craft language that could not be interpreted as prohibiting carpooling activities. Based on these various issues Staff suggests the Board consider the revised language outlined below. Existing Regulations: HOME OCCUPATIONS - Standard E: No person shall be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit, and no employees other than persons residing on the premises shall report to work at or near the premises. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that no nonresident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and to minimize the traffic generated by the home occupation. Proposed Amendment: HOME OCCUPATIONS - Standard E: No person shall be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit, and no employees other than persons residing on the premises shall report to work at or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or to be dispatched to work ut another location. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that no nonresident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and to minimize the traffic generated by the home occupation. No routine attendance of employees associated with any home occupation shall be allowed at the premises of the home occupation. "Routine Attendance" shall mean that the conduct of the home occupation requires non-domiciled persons to visit the premises of the home occupation as part of the regular conduct of the occupation, without regard to the number, frequency or duration of such visits. Issue: Day Care Facilities - In reviewing the Village Code's current regulations regarding day care facilities there are some inconsistencies with regards to the terms and definitions used. These inconsistencies have created some issues in reviewing and enforcing the Village's current regulations. The Village Code currently allows "Limited Daycare" facilities to operate within the Village's various residential zoning districts. These facilities are limited to a maximum of 8 children per household (including the family's natural and adopted children as well as all other persons under the age of 12). The Village Code also includes "Daycare Homes" as a conditional use in the residential districts; however, the term "Daycare Home" is not defined within the code. Staff's interpretation would be that "Daycare Homes" would refer to an in-home daycare facility that would provide service to more than 8 children. In reviewing the State's current regulations with regards to in home daycare facilities, a single employee can provide daycare services to a maximum of $ children. A facility serving more than 8 children would then be required to provide additional staff. When considering larger in home daycare facilities within the Village's residential districts, Staff believes that daycare facilities serving more than 8 children could negatively impact a residential neighborhood's character due to increased traffic and related activities. In addition, a facility with more than 8 children is required to provide additional Staff which would be in direct conflict with the Village's Home Occupation regulations that prohibit employees (other than family members) to report to a home in conjunction with a home occupation. Due to these circumstances Staff suggests the existing regulations be modified to allow in-home daycare facilities (Limited Daycare), serving no more than 8 children, as a permitted use and eliminate the allowance for larger daycare Potential Text Amendments Page 5 facilities in residential districts. It should be noted that larger daycare centers (those serving 8 or more children) would still be allowed as a Conditional Use in several of the Village's commercial and industrial districts. Existing Regulations: DAYCARE CENTER: A building where care, protection, and supervision are provided on a regular schedule to at least eight (8) preschool or elementary school age children or both, including children of the adult provider, or persons with disabilities related to age who require supervision for a period of less than twenty- four (24) hours per day. DAYCARE, LIMITED RESIDENTIAL: A daycare home is a family home which receives a maximum of eight (8) children for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of children is charged. The maximum of eight (8) children includes the family's natural or adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12). The term does not include facilities which receive only children from a single household. Daycare homes should meet all applicable Village and State requirements. Proposed Amendment: DAYCARE CENTER: A building where care, protection, and supervision are provided on a regular schedule to at least eight (8) preschool or elementary school age children or both, including children of the adult provider, or persons with disabilities related to age who require supervision for a period of less than twenty- four (24) hours per day. LIMITED DAYCARE FACILTIY DAYCAP, E, LLX?2TED RESIDENTIAL: A Limited Daycare Facility is a daycarc residential home.o ;~ ~ ~ ~....,j~--:T" ,~v.,~--~ ',','h~c~. that receives a maximum of eight (8) children for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of children is charged. The maximum of eight (8) children includes the family's natural or adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12). The term does not include facilities v,'~c~ that receive only children from a single household. Limited ....... meet all applicable Village, County Daycare Facilities shall Daycarc kcmcg ~-~ and State requirements. Issue: Landscaping - Maintenance vs. Replacement - Within the Zoning Code's landscaping regulations there is specific language regarding the maintenance of plant materials. The existing language included in the Code is somewhat general and does not specifically address the issue of replacement of either dead, dying or diseased landscaping. Staff recommends that the code be amended to include specific language that would require the replacement of any landscaping to be consistent with the originally approved plan, if one exists, or in similar kind to the landscaping material being removed. The intent is to require the ongoing maintenance of landscaping throughout the Village, while specifically prohibiting the removal of landscaping materials under the guise of maintenance. Existing Regulations: Maintenance of Plant Materials - The owner of the premises shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse disposal areas, walls, fences, etc. as may be required by the provisions of this Article A. A means of irrigating plant material shall be proyided. Installation of an automatic underground sprinkling system is recommended. Proposed Amendment: Maintenance of Plant Materials - The owner of the premises shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse disposal areas, walls, fences, etc. as may be required by the Village. Potential Text Amendments Page 6 When any existing landscaping materials are removed they must be replaced in similar kind and quanti~y. A means of irrigating plant material shall be provided. Installation of an automatic underground sprinkling system is recommended. Issue: Driveway Width - The Village Code currently limits the maximum permitted driveway width to 35% of the lot width (there are special exceptions for lots less than 60 feet or greater than 75 feet in width). The code includes an exception for driveways that serve three car garages, allowing a maximum driveway width that would match the width of the garage, but no greater than 32-feet, within 15-feet of the garage's front elevation. The driveway width must then be tapered to a width no greater than the maximum allowable driveway width as would normally be allowed by Code. This approach is designed to result in driveway widths that are in keeping with the property and do not overly impact the surrounding neighborhood. However, recent trends in home design have seen an increase in both the size (2, 3 and 4 car) and orientation (front, side and rear load garages). With this in mind Staff believes that the following amendments to the Village's driveway width limitations are warranted. Existing Regulations: Driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-1 and R-2 Districts shall conform to the following requirements: Number: One driveway may be permitted per lot, with a maximum of one curb- cut onto the street pavement per driveway. Circular or dual frontage driveways may be permitted only by conditional use. Location: Driveways must lead to required off-street parking spaces(s) and may cross the required front yard in a manner essentially perpendicular to the street pavement. Width: Driveway width shall be determined by the maximum front yard lot coverage of 35% for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. Width of driveways serving 3-car garages shall be permitted to be up to the same width as the garage, no greater than 32 feet, within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between garage doors plus 2 feet. The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line as set forth hereinabove. All driveways shall be unobstructed from any encroachment such as chimneys, fireplaces, and bay wind6ws. The maximum driveway width shall include all adjacent walkways. c. Parallel paving strips shall be permitted as alternatives to paved driveway surfaces. 4. Construction: Driveways and driveway approaches shall be paved with concrete, bituminous concrete or paver bricks in accordance with the construction standards set forth in the development code. Proposed Amendment: 3. Width - Driveway width shall be limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback line, for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The Potential Text Amendments Page 7 maximum driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. Driveways serving garages with a width greater than the maximum driveway width permitted above shall be allowed to have a width the same as the width of the garage within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between garage doors, plus 2 feet on either side. The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line as set forth hereinabove. Issue: Attached Garages - The Zoning Code currently contains specific language with regards to attached 3-car garages within the R-X, R-1 and R-2 Districts; however, the language is different Within the R-A, R-3 and R-4 Districts. Specifically, the Zoning Code lists "Single-Family Dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3- car garage" as a permitted use in the R-X, R-1 and R-2 Districts, while only "Single-Family Dwellings" are listed as a permitted use in the R-A, R-3 and R-4 Districts. In reviewing these current regulations one could interpret that the code specifically requires 3-car attached garages in the R-X, R-1 and R-2 Districts, while there is no limitation on the size of attached garages in the other residential districts. To address this issue Staff suggests the Code be amended by eliminating the specific reference to the size of attached garages in the R-X, R-1 and R-2 Districts and include "Single-Family Dwellings, with attached or detached garages" as a permitted use in the R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts. This approach will specifically reference garages as a permitted use in the residential districts, but will not specifically limit the size of garages. It should be noted that the existing regulations regarding the maximum permitted size of detached garages would not be impacted by the amendments suggested above. Existing Regulations: The term "Single-Family Dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3-car garage" is listed as a permitted use in the R-X, R-1 & R-2 Districts and "Single- Family Dwellings" is listed as a permitted use in the R-A, R-3 & R-4 Districts. Proposed Amendments: The R-X, R-A, R-i, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts will be amended to eliminate all current references to single-family residences as permitted uses and the following use will be listed as a permitted use in each of the Districts: "Single-Family Dwellings, with attached or detached garages" Issue: Pavement Separation - The Village Code contains specific regulations regarding a variety of paved surfaces, including, but not limited to, driveways, patios, stoops and service walks. The issue that often confronts Staff, however, is how to clearly delineate one type of pavement from another when the pavement areas are adjacent to each other. For example, if a driveway serving a detached garage in the rear of a property is located directly adjacent to a patio, it is possible for the patio area to become (either temporarily or permanently) a parking pad seeing that a vehicle could access the patio area directly from the driveway. Another example would be if a homeowner would like to place a small concrete pad along the side of their house as an area to locate their garbage cans. If the proposed pad was to be located directly adjacent to a stoop or service walk, the total paved area may exceed the size limitations for each individual element (service walk, stoop and concrete pad). To address the scenarios outlined above Staff has required a minimum separation of 1-foot between paved areas; however, no formal language addressing this issue is included in the Village Code. In response Staff suggests specific language be included in the Village Code to require a minimum 1-foot separation between different pavement areas. It should be noted that this separation requirement would not apply to those situations where pavement connections are needed (such as where a service walk would connect to either driveway and/or patio). Existing Regulations: None Potential Text Amendments Page 8 ProposedArnendment: A minimum separation of 1-foot shall be provided between all paved areas (including driveways, patios, service walks, etc.). This requirement shall not apply in those situations where pavement connections are needed to provide pedestrian access from one paved surface to another. Issue: Unenclosed Front Porches - As you may recall, the Village Code currently allows unenclosed front porches to encroach up to five feet into a required front yard. This encroachment, however, requires review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approval by the Board of Trustees. In reviewing the recent history of conditional use applications for unenclosed front porches, Staff has found that each application during the past two years has been approved (all with unanimous approval by both the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as the Board of Trustees). In light of these statistics Staff recommends that the approval process be revised to either require P&Z review and approval only or to allow unenclosed porches (subject to the existing restrictions) as permitted uses. This revised approach will still allow for a formal review procedure, but will reduce the amount of time needed to complete the process for the Applicant. Existing Regulations: Unenclosed porches, encroaching no more than five feet into the required front setbacks, are allowed as a Conditional Use in the R-X, R-l, R-A, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts. Proposed Amendment: Create a new Section 14.202.B4 that would read as follows: 14.202.B.4. - To hear and decide as final administrative authority, all Conditional Use petitions to allow the construction of an unenclosed front porches attached to single-family residence, with an approved certificate of occupancy as of May 18, 1999, encroaching up to five feet (5') into the required front setbacks. Note: This amendment would grant the Planning & Zoning Commission final administrative authority when reviewing Conditional Use requests for unenclosed front porches. Or; list unenclosed front porches as a Permitted Use in the districts that currently include unenclosed front porches as a Conditional Use. Issue: Compost Pile Locations - The Village does not currently have any type of regulation with regards to the location of a compost pile on a property. Due to the characteristics of a compost pile, and their potential impacts on adjoining properties, staff suggests the Village adopt regulations that would require a minimum setback of five feet from any side or rear property line. Existing Regulations: None ProposedArnendment: When locating a compost pile a minimum setback of five (5) feet must be provided. Compost piles are not permitted within a required front yard. Issue: Gravel Driveways - As you may be aware, there are still a few remaining gravel driveways within the Village. The Code currently requires all driveways and parking areas to be paved; however, several unpaved driveways still exist that were initially constructed prior to the Village's current regulations. Although the Village's Development Code would require that a gravel driveway be paved once it wears out, what is often the case is that property owners will continually maintain a gravel driveway by slowly adding additional gravel over time. It is often difficult for the Village to then prove what gravel was existing and what gravel was new, seeing that both the old and new gravel blend together. To address this issue Staff is recommending that language be included in the Village Code that would require the phasing out of gravel driveways, with a specific date set at which point any existing gravel driveway or parking area would be required to be paved. An initial suggestion Potential Text Amendments Page 9 would be to establish a compliance date of January 1, 2009, at which time all previously existing gravel driveways would have to be paved. Issue: Flagpoles & Flags - The Village Code does not currently restrict the height or number of flagpoles, as well as the number of flags, within any ,of the single-family or multi-family residential districts. The code specifically excludes flagpoles from the various residential district height limitations (along with chimneys, steeples and radio/television antennas attached to the principal structure). In addition, the Village Code is also silent with regards to flags and flagpoles within other zoning districts. Existing Regulations: R-l, R-l, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts - Height Limitations, Exceptions: The following shall be excluded from the Zoning District's height limitations: a) Chimneys; b) Flagpoles; c) Steeples; and d) Radio and television antennas attached to the principal structures. Other Zoning Districts: No existing regulations Pro£osed Amendments: Residential Districts: A maximum of one flagpole per lot, with no more than two (2) flags per pole. The maximum height permitted for the flagpole shall not exceed the District's height limitations for principal structures. Non-Residential Properties: A maximum of three (3) flagpoles, with no more than two (2) flags on a pole, per zoning lot. The maximum height permitted for the flagpole shall not to exceed the District's height limitations for principal structures. Building Code - Local Amendments Issue: Location of Port-a-pots - As with compost piles, the Village does not have any specific regulations with regards to permitted locations for port-a-pots on properties during construction activity. This issue has resulted in several complaints from Village residents when a port-a-pot is located in close proximity to an existing, occupied home within an established neighbor. To address this issue Staff suggests specific requirements be included in the local amendments to prohibit port-a-pots from being located in required side yards and within any right-of- way. Issue: Residential Construction Site Fencing - Due to the recent trends of large scale development and redevelopment projects within the Village's single family-residential areas there has been concerns raised in regards to access to construction sites. The recently adopted 2000 International Building Code contains specific requirements for fencing of commercial/industrial development sites; however, no specific requirements are included within the single-family construction guidelines. Due to these circumstances Staff is recommending that we include a fencing requirement of a minimum of four (4) feet for all substantial single-family development projects (including new construction, teardowns, and major additions). otential Text Amendments Page 10 CDBG - Single Family Rehabilitation Program Guidelines Issue: Single-Family Rehab Loan Program & Repayment Requirements - As you may be aware, through the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds the Village sPOnsors a Single2Family Rehabilitation 0% Loan Program. This program is intended to help qualifying households make a variety of improvements to their existing homes. In the past the Village issued a policy that would require repayment of the interest free loan at the time of sale of the property or within twenty years, whichever came first. Within the last year or two the Village revisited this issue to determine if the policy of requiring repayment within a twenty-year period was appropriate given the potential impact it could have on the low and moderate-income households. It is important to note that the twenty-year time limit is a regulation created SOlely by the Village and is not required by HUD as part of the CDBG Program. In reviewing our outstanding Single Family Rehab loans, the Village currently has nine (9) loans that will have surpassed the twenty-year time limit by the end of 2003 and an additional fifteen (15) loans that would come due under the Village's current repayment policy within the next five years. The attached table summarizes the various loans that would come due between the years of 2003 and 2008. The summary table also includes information regarding the household size and the age of the head of household at the time of the initial loan. In reviewing the data staff has determined that the average age of the head of household at the time the loan would come due (under the existing 20 year time limit) would be approximately 70 years old. It should be noted that each applicant had to comply with HUD's income guidelines at the time of the initial application. The Village does not have information regarding the current income levels for each of the loan holders. Based on the information outlined above staff suggests that the time limit for repayment be eliminated entirely, thus requiring repayment of the loan only at the time of the sale of the property. Conclusion: Staff looks forward to reviewing these various issues with the Board during the September 9th meeting. In addition to the attached exhibits, we will also prepare additional information to help clarify the various issues outlined above. [~i lli~ j~C o~c~r~ Existing Fence Regulations for Interior Lots: Strict Reading of Currem Regulations: Staff Imer)retations of Current Regulations: Existing Fence Regulations [or Corner Lots: Street Street 1-foot l setbaok Street 1-foot setback Proposed Fence Regulations for Corner Lots: Street ,I louse Street Street Glen R. Andler Deputy Director Sean P D0rsey Village Engineer Jeffrey A Wdbecker Solid Waste Coordinator M. Lisa Angell Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Phone 847/870-5640 Fsx 847/253-E)377 Water/Sewer Superintendent R0derick T O'O0n0~an Streets/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. 8utes Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M Clark Vehicle/Equipment Superintendent James E Guenther TDID 847/:392-1235 SAFETY COMMISSION AGENDA MEETING LOCATION: Public Works Building 1700 W. Central Road Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 MEETING DATE AND TIME: Monday September 8, 2003 7:00 p.m. VI. VII. VIfl, Call to Order Roll Call Approval of Minutes Citizens fo be Heard Old Business A. Request for Traffic Control Signs at the Intersection of Columbine Drive, Larch Drive & Oneida Lane B. No Turn on Red Signs in Downtown C. Update on Parking Situation Around Prospect High School New Business Commission Issues Adjournment NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT t00 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, MOUNT PROSPECT, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD 847/392-6064. ******** TO ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS ******** IF YOU CANNOT ATTEND THE SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING ******** ******** PLEASE CALL MATT LAWRIE (847-870-5640) IN ADVANCE ******** Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink MAYOR Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefcrt 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 VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janoms VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 2nd Floor Conference Room 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday September 11, 2003 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-13-03 / VOMP / Text Amendment (lighting regulations): Continued discussion of Village initiated text amendments regarding lighting regulations. Note: This case is Village Board Final. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. Planning & Zoning Commission Agendas and Filing Deadlines V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VI. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommOdation to par>dcipate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD 0847- 392-6064.