Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. NEW BUSINESS 10/7/03 NEE & WARD P.C. Attorneys at Law William F. Knee Barry C. Ward, II 1900 Spring Road Suite 204 Oak Brook, Illinois 60523 September 29, 2003 Mr. William J. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development Village of Mt. Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 RE: 102 North Fairview Conditional Use Petition Telephone: 630/571-7777 Facsimile: 630/954-1984 www.knee-ward.com Dear Mr. Cooney: The Planning & Zoning commission recommended approval of my unenclosed front porch by a unanimous vote of members who were present at the September 25, 2003 meeting. Our case is scheduled to go before the Village Board for the ordinance's first reading on October 7, 2003. By this letter, I am requesting that the Village Board waive the second reading, tentatively scheduled for the second board meeting, and take final action at the October 7, 2003 meeting. We would like to have the project begun and finished as soon as possible, before cold weather. The balance of our second story addition is nearly completed. I appreciate your assistance in facilitating this request. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at 847/255-4038. Very truly~ours,, -> William and Susan Knee 102 North Fairview Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 3, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ-40-03 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 102 N. FAIRVIEW AVENUE BILL & SUSAN KNEE - APPLICANTS The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-40-03, a request for an unenclosed covered porch, as described in detail in the attached staff report. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their September 25, 2003 meeting. The Subject Property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed porch would encroach no mole than 5-feet into the required 30-foot front yard setback. Therefore, it requires Conditional Use approval. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's plans for the porch and noted that the high quality materials would help make the porch appear as part of the original construction of the house. It was noted that some of the first unenclosed porches approved appeared to have a deck located in front of the house, but the subject porch would be in keeping with the character of the house. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of an unenclosed covered porch to encroach no more than five-feet into the front yard for the property at 102 N. Fairview Avenue, Case No. PZ-40-03. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 7, 2003 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. Wflham I' Cooney, JI" AICP MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-40-03 Hearing Date: September 25, 2003 PETITIONERS: Bill & Susan Knee 102 N. Fairview Ave. PUBLICATION DATE: September 10, 2003 PIN #: 03 -34-316-021-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use for a porch MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Bill & Susan I<haee Brian Koch Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Merrill Cotten made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 28 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The August meeting minutes Were approved 6-0. At 7:42 pm, after hearing another case, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-40-03, a request for an unenclosed porch. She said that the Village Board's decision would be final for this case. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Fairview Avenue, between Thayer and Henry Streets, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She said that the Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. The existing home is currently set back approximately 31-feet from the front lot line, less than seven-feet from the north lot line, and slightly more than eleven feet from the south lot line. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's plans for improving the house and noted that the project is currently under construction. She said that the improvements include creating a full second story, an addition to the rear of the house, and an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch consists of a wood floor and wood columns and would encroach no more than five feet into the required front yard. Therefore, it requires Conditional Use approval. Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She said that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said that based on these findings, 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 five feet into the required front yard for the residence at 102 N. Fairview Avenue, Case No. PZ-40-03. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-40-03 page 2 Bill Knee, 102 N. Fairview, was sworn in. He said that he and his wife were in the process of improving their home and that the contractor could provide specific details on the project. Brian Koch, Midwest Construction, 145 Princeton St., Hoffman Estates, was sworn in. Mr. Koch went into great detail regarding the building materials that would be' used to construct the unenclosed porch, how it would be constructed, and how the area under the porch would be improved to minimize the possibility of animals burrowing uhder it. There wasgeneral discussion regarding the porch and it was noted that the porch.had to remain unenclosed and could not be.. enclosed in the future. The Petitioner said he understood this requirement. Chairperson Juracek discussed the design of the subject porch and said that some porch designs gave the appearance of having a 'deck' placed in front of the home~ Mr. Koch explained that the proposed porch would appear as part of the house's original construction and would blend better than other porches because of the materials selected. He gave a detailed explanation of the pomh materials and its design, all of which he said would make the porch appear as a unified addition to the house. Chairperson Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission about this case. Since there was no response, she closed the hearing at 7:50 pm. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the requested Conditional Use to allow an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than five (5) feet into the required front yard setback, for Case No. PZ-40-03, 102 N. Fairview Avenue. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 8:35 p.m, after hearing one more case, Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jac/qgs, AICP, Deputy Director Comm?nity Development ~ conno y[ AICP, Senior elanner~ H:I,PLAN~Planni~g & Zoning COMM~P&Z 2003\Minat¢~\PZ-40-03 I02 N Falrvlew.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 40-03 LOCATION: PETITIONERS: OWNERS: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 102 N. Fairview Avenue Bill & Susan Knee Bill & Susan Knee 03-34-316-021-0000 0.17 acres (7,253.95 square feet) RA Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Conditional Use - Porch in front yard LOCATION MAP 119 120 117 118 115 116 i13 114 111 112 I10 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 ~ Cefit ThaYer Street 121 120 109 t08 107 106 105 104 103 102 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 110 109 108 107 106 105 104 103 102 101 10~ Road 119 118 117 116 ~o3 i to~ Henr ' Street Walnut Street 17 15 I1 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE YURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2003 HEARING DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ-40-03 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 102 N. FAIRVIEW AVENUE (KNEE RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the September 25, 2003 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Bill & Susan Knee (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 102 N. Fairview Avenue (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a new porch in the front yard. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the September 10, 2003 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the west side of Fairview Avenue, between Thayer and Henry 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 existing home on the Subject Property is currently set back approximately 31-feet from the front lot line (31.31 '), 6.82-feet from the north (side) lot line, and 11.11- feet from the south (side) lot line. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exhibits outline the Petitioner's plans for improving the existing house. The proposed improvements include creating a full second story, an addition to the rear of the house, and an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch, consisting of a wood floor and wood columns, would encroach no more than 5' into the required front yard, thus requiring Conditional Use approval. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The existing home and proposed improvements comply with zoning regulations. However, the detached garage encroaches into the required side yard. The encroachment is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. z-4O-o3 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting September 25, 2003 page 3 RA Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requff~ments "SETBACKS: Front 30' 31.31' 25.34' Interior 5' 6.82' north & no change 11.11' south nq,,.ghange Rear 25' 70' 60' LOT CovERAGE 50% Maximum 39% " 46% CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203~F.8 6fthe Village zoning Ordinance and inclUde seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following list is a sUmmary of these findings: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact.on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the SUrroUnding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's ComPrehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use permit for an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 5-feet into the required front yard for the residence at 102 N. Fairview Avenue, Case No. PZ-40-03. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: X~J~illiam 2on~y, A~C~,~Director o f Community Development VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMU'NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division I00 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 . Application for Conditional Use Approval Case Number P&Z Development Name/Address ~ ~ Date of Submission Hearing Date Address(es) (Street Number, Street) /09. ~,' ~,o~._~, P,~rE Site Area (Acres)/~ ~r?~erty Zoning Total Building .Sq. F~t. (Site) iJ 1%, Setbacks: Front Rear Sid~ Side Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of P~k~g Spaces Adjacent Land Uses: No~h South East west ~ ~,r~, ~O. 5~a,. ~.a.s'~' ~ Trax I.D. Number or,Coun~ Assigned P~ Number(s) Legal Description (anach additional sheets ' Name (day) ~c~elanone C°m°rati°~ ~ t~~ ~ ~(%~0~o~ Telephone (even~g) S~eet Address Fax ~¢F~ State ZipCode Pager _ _ Interest in Prope~ Name Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (ev~ing) Street Address Fax: c'"--' City State Zi~ Code Pager Attorney Name _/ Telephone (day) Address ! Fax Su~eyor Name ~ Telephone (day) Address F~ Engineer Name ~ Telephone (day) Address Fmx Architect Name ~OM ~O~C~ TelePhone (day): ~ Landscape Architect Name ~ Telephone (day): Address F~ Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois www.mountprospect.org Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 ~'OM ; ~ZZ)WEST CON'ST CE) OF PFIDN~ NiT. : till? 78~ 8'30,:1 ' Rta9. P4GE Bl 2.,. Phone 847.~;I 8.5328 Fax $47. s ! 8.5~29 ,~. TDD $47.39?.6064 P~A~.~VIEV~ AVENUE, LOT t0 [N BL.DCI< 20 Rq PR[3'SPECT HANOR, BEING A [']F PART BY THE S~UTH THREE QUARTERS OF' THE 'WEST HALF' JIF THE WEST HALF DF SECTION 34, T~V'NSFIIP 42 NORTH, RANG~ 11 E~!' JiF T~[j THIRD PRINCIPAl. MERIDIAN, IN COOK C[]UNTY, ILLINOIS Y -I 131,89' r:~r RESIDENCE 131,89 LTt. SL'fl~i; '~'~[Sft -[,'5, r~,¢( '}',~F ::.~ 7';:<:?'~'6F-':-~.U .............. h', tV,;?. 'i;~.5~(ii'Sf'rS~^' ' '/,'~','5"ffti~x;t~:;ii:~'//' ,. ,," kad 9/29/03 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 102 NORTH FAIRVIEW WHEREAS, B ill a nd Susan Knee (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) have filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit, with respect to property located at 102 North Fairview (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property), and legally described as follows: Lot 10 in Block 20 in Prospect Manor, being a subdivision of the South % of the west ½ of the west 1/2 of Section 34 Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, IL. Property Index No. 03-34-316-021-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioners seek a Conditional Use permit to construct an unenclosed porch encroaching no more than five (5') feet into the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ-40-03 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of September, 2003, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10th day of September, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ-40-03; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. E. Page 2/2 102 North Fairview SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit, as provided for in Section 14.203. F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch encroaching no more than five (5') feet into the required front yard setback, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FOUR: T his Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVEDthis day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\file$\WIN\ORDINANC\C USE. t02 n fairvfew,porch.doc illage of Mount prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: SEPTEMBER 30, 2003 SUBJECT: PZ- 13-03 - TEXT AMENDMENT (LIGHTING REGULATIONS) VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-13-03, a request for Text Amendments to the Village's outdoor lighting regulations, as described in detail in the attached staff reports. The Planning & Zoning Commission last heard the request at their September 25, 2003 meeting. As outlined in the attached Staff reports and meeting minutes, the proposed' lighting amendments are the result of in-depth research and analysis by both the Planning & Zoning Commission and Staff. The following is a summary of the issues included within the proposed lighting regulations: The proposed amendments provide specific regulations for outdoor lighting within all zoning districts; The amendments include specific design requirements for outdoOr light fixtures on non-residential properties (the proposed fixture design requirements would not apply to streetlights); Maximum illumination levels have been established based on the specific use of the property (the recommended illumination levels are based on the recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America); The proposed amendments include a maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles at any property line (this limitation is designed to provide sufficient lighting for aesthetic and security purposes while minimizing the potential impacts on adjoining properties). The proposed amendments would result in the creation of a new section within the Village Code - "14.314 Outdoor Lighting Regulations". It should be noted that the existing regulations related specifically to parking lot lighting would be maintained. The proposed amendments also include definitions for some of the specific lighting terms included with the regulations. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the proposed Text Amendments for outdoor lighting during their September 25, 2003 meeting. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their October 7, 2003 meeting. Staffwill be present to answer any questions related to this matter. Previous Staff Reports Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL W. JACOBS, AICP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 19, 2003 SEPTEMBER 25, 2003 PZ-13-03 - TEXT AMENDMENT (LIGHTING REGULATIONS) BACKGROUND INFORMATION On September 11, 2003, the Planning & Zoning Commission held a workshop meeting to discuss the remaining issues regarding the proposed amendments to the Village's lighting regulations. The two primary issues that were discussed during the meeting related to the maximum light intensity levels at residential property lines and the method in which compliance with the new lighting regulations would occur. SUMMARY OF FINAL ISSUES During the September 11th meeting the P&Z Commission agreed to address the remaining two issues in the following manner: Illumination Levels at Residential Property Lines- Prior to the September 11th meeting, the P&Z Commission was still concerned with whether Staff's suggested illumination level restriction (0.5 foot- candles) at residential property lines was appropriate. After reviewing the illumination level readings obtained from several properties within the Village, as well as the use of the 0.5 foot-candle limitation by other suburban communities, the P&Z Commission agreed that the proposed maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles at a residential property line was appropriate. The P&Z Commission concluded that the suggested illumination restriction would be in keeping with the existing lighting utilized in Mount Prospect's residential neighborhoods, but also prohibit excessive lighting levels. Compliance Date/Deadline - With regards to compliance issues, it was recommended that the proposed lighting amendments would become effective for any new construction on the date of formal passage by the Village Board. For all existing lighting that may not comply with proposed amendments it was recommended that a compliance date of January 1, 2005 be enacted. This deadline would be consistent with the compliance deadline currently included within the Zoning Code's parking lot lighting regulations. PZ- 13-03 - Lighting Regulations Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 25, 2003 Page 2 DEFINITIONS During the SePtember 1 lth meeting Staff also discussed the importance of including additional definitions in the Village's Zoning Code that would clearly define some of the terms used in both the existing and proposed lighting regulations. These terms, and suggested definitions, are as follows: · Glare - Light emitting from a luminaire that causes reduced vision or momentary blindness. · Light Trespass - The shining of light produced by a luminaire beyond the boundaries of the property on which it is located. · Luminaire- A complete lighting unit consisting of the lamp or lamps and ballast(s) together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. In addition to the terms and definitions outlined above, Dave Toeppen has submitted additional information (see attached) that suggests we include the term "full cutoff' fixture in our fixture design regulations, rather than the current reference to "cutoff' fixtures. The term "full cutoff fixture" could be defined as follows: · Full CutoffFixture- A luminaire, or light fixture, that allows no emission of light above horizontal. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS The proposed lighting amendments (indicated as ~c!etic~n~ and additions) are as follows: 14.314 Outdoor Lighting Regulations: All outdoor lighting, except for streetlights, shall be subject to the following general requirements (Note: additional regulations for parking lot lighting are included in section 14.2219 of this Code): A. Glare Onto Adjacent Properties: Electric lighting used to illuminate outdoor areas shall be directed in such a way as to prevent light trespass or direct glare onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in non-residential locations must comply with the 'following limitations: 1. Full Cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety degrees (90°) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles greater than ninety degrees (90°) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries upon submission of information conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adj acem properties. 2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including but not limited to luminaires mounted on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be fully shielded. PZ-13-03 - Lighting Regulations Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 25, 2003 Page 3 Light Intensity Levels at Property Lines: The light intensity level measured at a property line shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candles. All illumination level readings shall be taken at ground level. Maximum Illumination Levels: The following table summarizes the maximum average illumination levels for a variety of uses. (Note: The outdoor lighting levels included in these proposed amendments were based on the illumination levels recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America). Eo Type of Use Maximum Average I.E.S. Illumination Level (Foot-Candles) 30 Canopy Lighting Auto Dealerships (display areas only) Business Districts 50 5 Park, School, Institutional, and 5 Industrial Uses 20 Loading/Unloading Platform (Dock) Outdoor Sports Lighting 40 Lighting for uses other than those listed in the above table shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to ensure the proposed illumination levels are appropriate for the property and surrounding area. Lighting Plan required: The building permit submission for any non-residential development or multi- family residential development shall include a lighting plan signed and sealed by a professional engineer and including, at a minimum the following: 1. All property lines, building locations, dimensions of paved areas, and location of all curbs; 2. Fixture locations; 3. Fixture details and height; 4. Photometric data for all paved areas at a spacing of not greater than 20' and not greater than 6" above the pavement surface; 5. Photometric data at all property lines at a spacing of not greater than 50' and not greater than 6" above grade; 6. Scale of not less than I" to 50'; 7. Details of the proposed light poles and foundations; 8. Exiting and proposed utilities on the Subject Property and in rights-of-way adjacent to the subject property; 9. Other information, as required. Hours of Operation: During non-hours of operation of the use all lighting shall be reduced to security levels as recommended in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America's Lighting Handbook. PZ-13-03 - Lighting Regulations Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 25, 2003 Page 4 G. Nonconforming Lighting: Any lighting that does not conform to the regulations oUtlined above shall be made to conform by means of alteration by no later than January 1, 2005. 14.2219 Parking Lot Lighting: In addition to the requirements outlined below, all parking lot lighting shall comply with the Outdoor Lighting Regulations included in section 14.314 of this Code. All parking lots with more than four (4) spaces shall provide lighting. Artificial lighting used to illuminate any parking lot shall comply with the regulations as set forth in this Section. A. General Requirements: 1. Pole height and material: a. The height of light fiXtures shall be limited to the district height limit or a maximum of 30', whichever is less. b. Light poles shall be constructed of metal, or other material acceptable to the Village Engineer. Wood poles are prohibited. 2. Glare Onto Adjacent Properties Prohibited: Electric lighting used to illuminate off-street parking areas or driveways shall be directed away from adjacent properties and rights-of-way in such a way as to not create a nuisance. The following illumination standards shall be enforced to a. Light intensity at a property line abutting a residential property shall not exceed 0.1 foot- candles. b. Light intensity at a property line abutting a non-residential property or right-of-way shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles 3. Protection of lighting fixtures: Light poles in a parking lot shall be protected from vehicles by curbed landscape islands or curbed landscape diamonds. 4. Illumination levels and uniformity: The following criteria for minimum illumination, maximum illumination, and uniformity shall be met for all parking lots. Z- 13-03 - Lighting Regulations Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 25, 2003 Page 5 Minimum Average I.E.S. Maximum Average I.E.S. Type of Development Illumination Level Illumination Level Uniformity (Foot-Candles) (Foot-Candles) Multi-Family Residential 0.1 1.5 4:1 (ave./min.) 15:1 (max./min.) Commercial 0.2 2.4 3:1 (ave./min.) 12:1 (max./min.) Industrial 0.2 3.0 4:1 (ave./min.) 15:1 (max./min.) Public, semi-public, and 0.2 2,4 3:1 (ave./min.) institutional 12:1 (max./min.) .. .; t g <"v A ~*~--~*.:~ ~*~ c^. ~,, ..... ~ ...... · ..... ;.~ ~c.~. .~. ~a, and nc rearer th~n ight ' "~; ........ ~ bj B. Nonconforming Lighting: Any existing parking lot lighting that does not conform to these regulations shall be made to confom by me~s of alteration no later than Janu~ 1, 2005. CONCLUSION The proposed text amendments included within this report are a result of in-depth research and analysis by both the P&Z Commission and Staff. Based on this analysis the P&Z Commission can make positive findings with respect to the standards for a Text Amendment included in the Village Code. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed Text Amendments as outlined within this report. I concur: William J. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development 09 South HiLusi Avenue Mount Prospect, IL. 60056 September 18, 2003 Michael Jacobs Deputy Director Community Development Dept. Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Street Mount ProspeCt, IL 60056 Re: Village of Mount Prospect Ordinance #5136 - Lighting. Good Morning Mike, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on revisions being considered to the above ordinance. With reference to "A. General Requirements / #2. Glare onto adjacent properties prohibited / a." I suggest the following: The word "Cutoff" be replaced by "Full Cutoff". The word "Cutoff" is gradually beingused less to avoid confusion. Several recent definitions from ordinances are as follOwS: 1) Full cutoff fixture: A fixture that allows no emission of light above horizontal. Eagle, Colorado, 1/13/2000. 2) 3) Full cutoff luminaries: A Luminaire designed and installed where no light is emitted at or above a horizontal plane running through the lowest point on the Luminaire. Halley, ID. 3/26/02. AlSo Mammoth Lakes, CA.3/26/03 Variation: State of Califomia OutdOOr Lighting standards call for a stricter definition with 80 degree Full CutOff point. 6/2/02 1) and 2) essentially say the same thing with different wording and agree with our village concept. They are regarded as being simpler than many earlier statements. Your consideration of this modification is appreciated. Dave Toeppen Information Sheet Number 122 (May 1997) International Dark-Sky Association (IDA) 3225 N. First Ave., Tucson,/~. 85719-2103 USA Tel: 1-520-293-3198 Fax: 1-520-293-3192 TolI Froe(USA): 1-877-600-5888 ...... E-mail: ida~¢ar, ksk~/;or~ h, ttp://,w~vw.darksk¥.or~ ,, Examples of Good and Bad Lighting GOOD Even post-top ornamental fixtures, like this Salem Cutoff from GE Lighting, cutoff with clear panels and lamp/refleCtor' located above. --. GOOD Flat-lens cobra head fixtures, like this American Electric Series 125 Roadway Cutoff luminaire, provide excellent roadway lighting with greatly reduced glare and no uplighL i.'': GOOD Many existing dusk-to-dawn security lights and residential streetlights can be retrofitted with the Hubbell Skycap. GOOD The Yo~kt0wh, another ornamen{al from Emery Fixtbr~s,:':iL also has ~lear"Pahi~ls and bulb located a~o~)e for maximum glare and spill light cont~rol,.,., .' GOOD This new ..':: generaUon of f[at'.ler~'S ' cobra head fix~Jre frbm Amer can Ele~.tricl cai ed the Dur~iStar "il ' 2000, provlde~'~upe~i0r ~ighting uniformity a.! . standard moun. ting heights and slsb. cings.· GOOD The Hubbell Skycap turns any standard NEMA head light into a fuIFcutoff lighl with wide area coverage. Fixtures -'- BAD Non-cutoff fixtures like'this ~'; "acorn" orn~m~i~t~] cause light'poll~ti0n. BAD The ubiquitous drop-lens cobra head lumlnaire produces a level of glare and uplight that is both unacceptable and unnecessary, BAD NEMA head style fixtures are very inefficient, sending about 20% of the light upward end another 20% horizontally outward, creating glare. GOOD Fiat-lens shoebox fixtures'Come in many rectangular, etc. All c=ntrQ[{?light with interri'~l are minim[z~:~: ;; ~;~ ':;:;, uplight is GOOD Full.cutoff wall packs such as this: mcPhilben 10i Wall Sconce make excellent entryway.and bui!ding perimeter lights, and there is enough forWard throw that adequate lighting is provided for near-building parking. GOOD If floodlights must be used, they should always-have top and side shielding, and be pointed at least 45= below the horizontal. GOOD Post-top flat- lens shoebox fixtures like this one provide good area iltumination without light pollution. GOOD Recessed canister !ights~ b.U, i!t into the eaves or canopy, of---, other buildin-~ t.s.'~[h& first choice'for building i~tei;i~)ts; GOOD Even sports lighting can be done v/ell, if one uses cutoff light fixtures such as these from Soft Lighting Systems. BAD (sometimes) The telltale sag lens gives this luminaire away as a possible problem, if the lens is clear and very shallow, and the bulb. wattage is not too high, this type of light can cover a wider area" without too much glal;e or uplight, but bewar61 BAD Wall packs like this should never be used. They produ~, enormous glare and uplight. BAD Unshielded floodlights provide a trashy "prison yard" look and should not be used. Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON MICHAEL W. JACOBS, AICPi DEPUTY DIRECTOR SEPTEMBER 5, 2003 SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 PZ- 13-03 - TEXT AMENDMENT (LIGHTING REGULATIONS) BACKGROUND INFORMATION As you are aware, the Planning & Zoning Commission has held several recent discussions regarding potential amendments to the lighting regulations within the Village Code. Although progress has been made in preparing a number of potential amendments, there were still several concerns/issues raised during the P&Z Commission's last review of this item at the July 24th meeting. To help finalize the potential lighting amendments a workshop meeting has been scheduled on September 11th to review the various issues related to the pending lighting amendments. Please note that this meeting will be held in the 2na floor conference room of the Village Hall, 100 S. Emerson Street. To assist with your review of this matter I have provided some general responses to the latest issues identified by the Planning & Zoning Commission. It is my intention to review/discuss these various issues in greater detail during the September 11"~ meeting and then prepare the final amendments for consideration by the P&Z Commission at the September 25th regular meeting. LIGHT INTENSITY LEVELS AT PROPERTY LINES As previously noted, Staffhas found that several suburban communities limit the maximum lighting level at a residential property line to 0.5 foot-candles (versus the 0.1 limit initially recommended as part of the proposed lighting amendments). Based on these findings Staff adjusted the proposed amendments to include a maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles at any property line (whether abutting residential or non-residential). It should be noted that the existing parking lot lighting limitations (0.1 foot-candles at residential property lines and 0.5 foot-candles at non-residential property lines) would be maintained. The P&Z members noted some concerns with the proposed maximum illumination levels and how they related to existing lighting within the Village's residential neighborhoods. In response, I recently visited some of the P&Z Commissioner's homes to determine the illumination levels of some of their existing exterior light fixtures. The table on the following page summarizes the illumination level information that was obtained: PZ- 13-03 - Lighting Regulations Planning & Zoning Commission Workshop Meeting September 11, 2003 Page 2 Location Type of Fixture Light Levels 1715 N. Laurel Drive Coach Light 0.1 foot-candles '~Rogers residence) 1713 N Laurel Drive Coach Light 0.3 foot-candles next door to Rogers residence) 103 Juniper Lane Porch & Security Lights 0.4 foot-candles across from Donnelly residence) 303 S. Lancaster Street Porch Lights 0.1 foot-candies Juracek residence) As you can see, the existing lighting at each property would fall below the recommended maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles. The properties included in the table offered a good mix of fixture type and location, and are representative of the types of lighting typically found within Mount Prospect's residential neighborhoods. MOTION SENSING FIXTURES & SECURITY LIGHTING The P&Z Commission has raised some concerns in regards to how motion sensing fixtures and security lighting would be impacted by staff's suggested illumination level restrictions (maximum 0.5 foot-candles). These types of fixtures and their use can be discussed in greater detail during the workshop meeting. Initially, I would think that both types of fixtures could be designed/mounted in such a way that they could comply with the suggested illumination restrictions outlined earlier in this report. However, it may be appropriate to allow certain types of fixtures/lighting as exceptions to maximum illumination levels. COMPLIANCE DATE/DEADLINE Throughout the review of this matter there have been several concerns/questions raised in regards to how the new lighting regulations would be applied and what potential impact they could have on existing lighting throughout the Village. Staff is currently reviewing various options with the Village Attorney and will be prepared to present them to the P&Z Commission during the September 11 th meeting. CONCLUSION Staff looks forward to reviewing these various matters with the P&Z Commission on September 11t~ and believes the workshop format will provide an opportunity for the Commissioners and Staff to work through the remaining issues. Again, please note that the meeting will be held in the 2nd floor conference room of the Village Hall. Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-03 Hearing Date: September 25, 2003 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson St. PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 & August 27, 2003 REQUEST: Text Amendment (Lighting Regulations) MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Dave Toeppen Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Merrill Cotten made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 28 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The August meeting minutes were approved 6-0. At 7:35, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-13-03, a request for a Text Amendment to the Lighting Regulations of the Village Code. The Village Board's decision will be final for this case. Michael Jacobs noted that the P&Z Commission last reviewed this issue during a special workshop meeting on September 11. During the September 11 meeting the P&Z Commission discussed two main issues, illumination levels at property lines and the method in which compliance with the proposed amendments would be achieved. Mr. Jacobs indicated that after reviewing the light level readings obtained from several of the Commissioner's homes, the P&Z Commission was supportive of the proposed maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles at a property line. With regards to compliance, Mr. Jacobs noted that during the September 11 meeting the P&Z Commission recommended that a compliance date of January 1, 2005 be included within the proposed amendments. This compliance date would be consistent with the compliance date already established within the Village Code's parking lot lighting regulations. Lastly, Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposed amendments also include some definitions for specific lighting terms used within the lighting regulations. In addition, Dave Toeppen, 409 S. Hi-Lusi Ave., also suggested the amendments include a specific definition for "full cutoff' fixtures. Staff agreed with Mr. Toeppen's suggestion and included the proposed definition within the amendments. Chairperson Juracek indicated that the latest staff report had addressed all of the previous suggestions made by the P&Z Commission. She also noted that in reviewing the final version of the proposed amendments she thought up a few different scenarios to determine if the proposed amendments would achieve the Commission's desired results. She noted that the proposed amendments adequately addressed each of her possible scenarios. Merrill Cotten questioned if the proposed amendments included a specific section for residential lighting. Mr. Jacobs noted that the proposed amendments would create a general outdoor lighting section within the Village Code, but lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 within the regulations there would be some elements that impact all types of lighting while in other instances there are certain types of uses that would be specifically excluded. Chairperson Juracek suggested that staff review the proposed language regarding hours of operation. She noted that although the language is grammatically correct, it could be phrased in a different way. Mr. Jacobs noted that he would review the language within the proposed hours of operation section to see if it could be improved. Richard Rogers moved to recommend approval to the Village Board of the Text Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, CaseNo. PZ-13-03. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 8:35 p.m. Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael W. Jacobs, Deputy Director H:~PLAN~lanning & Zoning COMM~&Z 2003~Minutes~PZ-I3-03 9-25 mtg Text Amendment-Lighting, doc MOUNT VILLAGE OF PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP MEETING MINUTES Mount Prospect Village Hall - 100 S. Emerson Street Thursday, September 11, 2003 - 7:30 PM The meeting of the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z Commission) of the Village of Mount Prospect was held on Thursday, September 11, 2003 at the Mount Prospect Village Hall, 100 S. Emerson St., Mount Prospect, Illinois. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 PM. Commissioners Merrill COtton, Joseph Donnelly and Keith Youngquist were present. Commissioners Leo Floros, Richard Rogers and Matthew Sledz were absent. Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of the Community Development Department, was present. Dave Toeppen, 409 S. Hi-Lusi Avenue, was also in attendance. OLD BUSINESS PZ-13-03 - Village of Mount Prospect, Applicant: Proposed Text Amendments regarding the Village's lighting regulations. Michael Jacobs noted that the P&Z Commission last reviewed this issue during their July 245 regular meeting. During that review the Commissioners identified two final issues with regards to the proposed lighting amendments: 1) acceptable illumination levels at residential property lines; and 2) compliance deadline for the proposed amendment. Mr. Jacobs first reviewed the issue of illumination levels at residential property lines. To assist in the review of this matter Mr. Jacobs obtained outdoor lighting illumination level readings from several of the Commissioners homes to provide familiar examples of existing lighting within the Village's residential neighborhoods. Mr. Jacobs noted that all of the readings obtained fell below the suggested maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles. The Commissioners generally discussed the issue of illumination levels at property lines and then agreed that Staff's recommended maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles at any property line was acceptable. Mr. Jacobs noted that the 0.5 foot-candle limitation would apply to outdoor lighting within any zoning district; however, the Village Code's existing illumination level restrictions for parking lot lighting would be maintained. Mr. Jacobs then reviewed the issue of compliance with regards to the proposed lighting amendments. He suggested that the proposed lighting amendments would become effective for all new improvements following the Village Board's formal approval. With regards to existing lighting he suggested that a compliance date of January 1, 2005 be utilized, which would be consistent with the compliance deadline established for all parking lot lighting. Following a general discussion the Commissioners agreed with the proposed compliance date and suggested the proposed amendments include specific language referencing such. The Commission then directed Staff to prepare a report incorporating all of the suggested amendments for consideration at the September 25th meeting. NEW BUSINESS Planning & Zoning Commission Agendas and Filing Deadlines lanning & Zoning Commission September 11, 2003 Workshop Minutes Page 2 Michael Jacobs briefly summarized the Community Development Department's policies and procedures with regards to processing formal development application requests. Mr. Jacobs stated that during the past summer there were several lengthy meetings due to the number and complexity of the items scheduled for review. Mr. Jacobs indicated that Staff is sensitive to the issue of meeting length, but at the same time attempts to process formal application requests in a timely manner. Mr. Jacobs noted that at times the P&Z Commission has utilized a second monthly meeting to help review items; however, it was Staff's understanding that the use of a second monthly meeting was to be for the review of more general topics and issues, not typical development applications. He then indicated that he wanted to use this opportunity to ensure that the P&Z Commissioners agreed with Staff's approach in scheduling meetings. Arlene Juracek indicated her support for the manner in which Staff has been processing applications and agreed that although some of the meetings have run lengthy it is still her preference that second monthly meetings be reserved for general discussion items or Village initiated applications. She also noted that it is often difficult to obtain a quorum for a second meeting due to scheduling conflicts amongst the Commissioners. Merrill Cotton indicated that he did not object to lengthy meetings and that it is to be expected as part of the duties of serving on the Commission. He also noted that it is important for formal applications to be processed in a timely manner to help promote economic development and redevelopment throughout the community. In summary, the Commissioners agreed with Staff's approach to scheduling items for review by the P&Z Commission and they noted their understanding that lengthy meetings may occur from time to time. The Commissioners also noted that a single monthly meeting is the preferred approach unless certain topics warrant a separate and more focused review that would best occur during a second monthly meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Mr. Jacobs indicated that during the September 9th Committee of the Whole Meeting Staff presented a variety of potential code/policy amendments to the Village Board to obtain some initial feedback and direction. The items reviewed included a number of Zoning Code, Building Code and general policy related issues. Following the Board's review, Staffwill now process several formal amendments that will require review and recommendation by the P&Z Commission and final action by the Board of Trustees. Mr. Jacobs suggested that due to the number and complexity of some of the issues to be considered it would be beneficial for the P&Z Commission to begin their review of these issues in a more informal workshop type format. The P&Z Commissioners agreed with the suggestion and tentatively scheduled a meeting for October 9, 2003. Mr. Jacobs stated he would notice the meeting date pending confirmation of availability by a majority of the Commissioners. ADJOURNMENT At 8:45 p.m, Joseph Dormelley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Michael W. Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & zoNING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-03 Hearing Date: July 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 Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: None Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Anne Walters, Community Development Intern 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 June 26 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The June meeting minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions (Arlene Juracek, Joseph Donnelly and Keith Youngquist). At 10:38, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ- 13-03, a request for a Text Amendment to the Lighting Regulations, Section 14.314 of the Village Code. The Village Board's decision will be final for this case. Ms. Connolly presented the case on behalf of Deputy Director Michael Jacobs. She said that at the last P&Z meeting, the Commission generally supported Staff's recommendations, but suggested some further revisions. In response to the various issues and concerns raised by the P&Z, Staff has made further modifications to the proposed text amendments. Ms. Connolly said that during the P&Z Commission's last review of this issue there were some concerns raised regarding where light level readings should be taken and what impact ambient lighting, including a full moon, could have on the readings. In researching this issue, she said that Staff had found that the average luminance' level of a full moon is 0.0i foot-candles, which is based on information published by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. Based on the recommended illumination levels included in the proposed text amendments it appears that ambient lighting, including a full moon, will not have a great impact when enforcing the suggested lighting level regulations. She said that Staff has also found that taking lighting readings at ground level is the preferred method, thus avoiding any confusion with regards to enforcing the proposed lighting regulations. Ms. Connolly reported that Staff had found that several communities have a maximum lighting level of 0.5 foot- candles at a residential property line versus the 0.1 limit initially proposed as part of the lighting amendments. Communities that utilize the maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles include Elk Grove, Lake Forest, Lake Zurich, Libertyville, Lincolnshire, Northbrook and Wilmette. She said that Staff adjusted the proposed text amendment to include a maximum illumination level of 0.5 foot-candles at any property line whether abutting residential or non-residential. It should be noted that the existing parking lot lighting limitation of 0.1 foot-candles at residential property lines and 0.5 foot-candles at non-residential property lines would be maintained. She said that this approach would still limit the potential impacts of lighting on adjacent properties while also providing a little more flexibility. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly summarized changes to the Text Amendment since the P&Z last reviewed the case and noted that tbe Staff report has specific recommendations carried over from the last P&Z review. She reviewed the standards for a Text Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance and said that the proposed lighting amendments apply to all parcels in the Village and do not affect an individual parcel. Ms. Connolly reported that 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 help to address all outdoor lighting issues. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments. Ms. Connolly stated that 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 Amendment. Therefore, Staff recommends approval of the proposed Text Amendments as outlined within this report. Leo Floros asked why these lighting amendments had been initiated. Ms. Connolly said it was in response to increased service requests from residents. Mr. Floros asked how the business community had reacted to these proposed amendments and Merrill Cotten noted that businesses had until 2005 to comply with parking lot lighting regulations whereas the new regulations applicable to all properties would be effective immediately and must be complied with immediately with no grace period. After much discussion by the Commission, Chairperson Juracek asked that Staff return with enforcement regulations, compliance effective dates, penalty dates, and security lighting regulations. She closed the hearing at 10:59. At 10:59 p.m, Joseph Donnelley made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers, The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner H:~PLAN~Planning & Zoning COM/vI~&Z 2003~inute$~PZ- 13-03 7-24 ratg Text Amendment-Lighting.doe MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-13-03 Hearing Date: May 22, 2003 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson St. PUBLICATION DATE: April 9, 2003 REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Text Amendment (Lighting Regulations) Section 14.314 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Anne Walters, Community Development Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. The April meeting minutes were approved 6-0, with one abstention by Matthew Sledz. At 8:06, under Old Business, Ms. Jumcek 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. Ms. Connolly presented the case on behalf of Deputy Director Michael Jacobs. She said that at the last P&Z meeting, the Commission voiced concerns with the restrictions proposed for residential areas. She said that staff reviewed the proposed amendments in light of the concerns raised and modified the proposal accordingly. In order to better illustrate the proposed lighting levels, Mr. Jacobs took additional readings this week at 9:30 pm and provided the lighting levels in a handout provided before the meeting. Ms. Connolly said that the changes to the proposed text amendment include: allowing tilted fixtures, provided they do not negatively impact adjoining properties, and eliminating the illumination level restrictions within residential districts. Also, Section 14.314.B.2 which reads, "The illuminated face of all exterior fixtures shall be mounted parallel to the ground. The Director of Community Development may approve tilted fixtures provided they will not create light trespass or direct glare onto adjacent properties or rights-of-way" has been deleted since the staff report was sent to the commission members. Also, the preceding section that reads "Cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety degrees (90°) shall be used in all non-residential locations. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles greater than ninety degrees (90°) or the use of fixtures without cutoff luminaries upon submission of information conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adjacent properties" has been modified. 'Non-residential locations' was eliminated so the regulations apply to businesses and residential. She said that the rationale behind this change was to not require all cutoff fixtures and to allow some flexibility for homeowners installing lights like post lights and coach lights, which are partial cutoff fixtures. She said that the handout provided before the meeting provides examples of cutoff fixtures and partial cutoff fixtures. Ms. Connolly said that at the last meeting there were questions about enforcing the new regulations and whether existing lights would be grandfathered in and allowed to remain. She said that staff presented this concern to the Village Attorney, who recommended that the Village continue to function on a complaint basis. In cases where the lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-13-03 Page 2 Village receives a complaint with regards to outdoor lighting, the Village would send a warning letter and provide a specified amount of time to correct the situation. If the property owner did not comply by the specified date, then the Village would initiate the enforcement process. She said that the proposed Text Amendment was drafted so the Zoning Ordinance included regulations that would allow the Village to address a lighting complaint when necessary. Ms. Connolly said that the replacement of an existing light fixture, such as a coach light or front porch light, does not require a permit so most of the lights installed will not be reviewed by the Planning Division. She said that the proposed lighting regulations provide some flexibility for lighting plans that the Village does review. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Text Amendment and noted that the proposed lighting amendments apply to all parcels in the Village and do not affect an individual parcel. She said that 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 help to address all outdoor lighting issues. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments and Staffrecommends approval of the proposed Text Amendments as outlined. Ms. Juracek said she had noticed the Village's Streetscape lights and new downtown construction lights would be in violation of the proposed regulations changes. She said she contacted staff about this matter and that is why the wording was changed to give the Director of Community Development some discretion in allowing variations to the Code. She agreed that enfomement only upon complaint would be plausible. Richard Rogers said many signs and building lights would be made illegal by this amendment although they are not obtrusive and even attractive. He said that his primary concern was to ensure the proposed regulations prohibited lighting from spilling onto a neighbor's property or public right-of-way. Joseph Donnelly said the amendment would also make many holiday decorations and underwater pond lighting illegal. Merrill Cotten suggested using wording to allow decorative or architectural enhancement lighting. Ms. Juracek said the problem with including wording to allow certain things is that it is often interpreted to mean that, unless something else is specifically mentioned in the ordinance, it is not allowed. She said she thought it best to defer to the Director's discretion on these matters. Leo Floros said he did not want to put the Director in a position to need to referee each decision. Mr. Sledz agreed, saying the Director would be very busy at Christmas time. Ms. Juracek reminded the Commission that enforcement would be handled on a complaint basis. Discussion ensued between Commission members regarding post lights, intrusive lighting at boundaries of other municipalities, the enforcement process, timelines for compliance, lighting levels at property lines. They summarized by asking Staff to "clean-up" the proposed amendment by incorporating IES standards, especially with regard to ambient and incremental lighting measurements, and bring the final draft to the Commission at the next meeting. At 8:37 p.m, Joseph Donnelley made motion to adjoum, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner H:\GEN~PLANNING~'Ianning & Zoning COMM~&Z 2O~3~vllnutes~PZ-13-03 5-22 ratg Text Amendment-Lighting doc MINUTES OF TH]~ 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 Connoily, 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 March 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 restrictive2 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 lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-13-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 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.darksky.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 adjoumed. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Michael W. Jacobs, Deputy Director H:\GEN~PLANNINGhnlannlng & Zoning COMM~&Z 2003LMinutes~PZ-134)3 Text Amendment-Lighting.doe mj kad ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE WHEREAS, the Petitioner (Board of Trustees of the Village of MoUnt ProspeCt) has filed an application for certain text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend various regulations; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks amendments to the following Section 14.2219 of the Village Code, entitled "LIGHTING"; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject of PZ-13-03, before the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 24, 2003, May 22, 2003, July 24, 2003, September 11, 2003, and September 25, 2003, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 9th day of April, 2003 and the 27th day of August, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have considered the requests being the subject of PZ-13-03. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 14,2219 entitled "Lighting" of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting said subsection in its entirety and substituting therefore the following new Section 14.2219, so that hereafter said Section 14.2219 shall be and. read as follows: "14.2219 Parking Lot Lighting: In addition to the requirements outlined below, all parking lot lighting shall comply with the Outdoor Lighting Regulations included in section 14.314 of this Code; A II parking lots with more than four (4) spaces shall provide lighting. Artificial lighting used to illuminate any parking lot shall comply with the regulations as set forth in this Section. A. General Requirements: 1. Pole height and material: a. The total height of light fixtures, including the pole, pole support, fixture and related equipment, shall be limited to the district height limit or a maximum of 30', whichever is less. b. Light poles shall be constructed of metal, or other material acceptable to the Village Engineer. Wood poles are prohibited. 2. Glare Onto Adjacent Properties Prohibited: Electric lighting used to illuminate off- street parking areas or driveways shall be directed away from adjacent properties and rights-of-way in such a way as to not create a nuisance. The following illumination standards shall be. a. Light intensity at_ a property line abutting a residential property shall not exceed 0.1 foot-candles. b. Light intensity at a property line abutting a non-residential property or right-of-way shall not exceed 0.5 footcandles 3. Protection of lighting fixtures: Light poles in a parking lot shall be protected from vehicles by curbed landscape islands or curbed landscape diamonds. 4. Illumination levels and uniformity: The following criteria for minimum illumination, maximum illumination, and uniformity shall be met for all parking lots. Minimum Average I.E.S. Maximum Average I.E.S. Type of Development Illumination Level Illumination Level Uniformity (Foot-Ca nd les) (Foot- Ca ndle s) Mu Iti-Family Residential 0.1 1.5 4:1 (ave./min.) 15:1 (max./min.) Commercial 0.2 2.4 3:1 (ave./min.) 12:1 (max./min.) Industrial 0.2 3.0 4:1 (ave./min.) 15:1 (max./min.) Public, semi-public, and 0.2 2.4 3:1 (ave./min.) institutional 12:1 (max./min.) B. Nonconforming Lighting: Any existing parking lot lighting that does not conform to these regulations shall be made to conform by means of alteration no later than January 1, 2005. SECTION TWO: That Chapter 14 of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended to include Section 14.314 entitled "Outdoor Lighting Regulations", so that hereafter said Section 14.314 shall be and read as follows: "14.314 Outdoor Lighting Regulations: All outdoor lighting, except for streetlights, shall be subject to the following general requirements (Note: additional regulations for parking lot lighting are included in section 14.2219 of this Code): A. Glare Onto Adjacent Properties: Electric lighting used to illuminate outdoor areas shall be directed in such a way as to prevent light trespass or direct glare onto adjacent properties and rights-of-way. B. Fixture Design: Outdoor lighting fixtures in non-residential locations must comply with the following limitations: 1. Full Cutoff luminaries with a total cutoff angle of not more than ninety degrees (90°) shall be used. The Director of Community Development may approve cutoff angles greater than ninety degrees (90°) or the use of fixtures without full cutoff luminaries upon submission of information conclusively demonstrating that the proposed lighting will not cause glare on adjacent properties. 2. Canopy Lighting: All lighting mounted under a canopy, including but not limited to luminaires mounted on or recessed into the lower surface of a canopy, shall be full cutoff. C. Light Intensity Levels at Property Lines: The light intensity level measured at a property line shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candles. All illumination level readings shall be taken at ground level. D. Maximum Illumination Levels: The following table summarizes the maximum average illumination levels for a variety of uses. Type of Use Maximum Average I.E.S. Illumination Level (Foot-Candles) 30 Canopy Lighting Auto Dealerships (display areas only) Business Districts 50 5 Park, SchoOl,'l~s~titUti(~hall add 5 Industrial Uses 20 Loading/Unloading Platform (Dock) Outdoor Sports Lighting 40 Lighting for uses other than those listed in the above table shall be reviewed by the Community Development Director to ensure the proposed illumination levels are appropriate for the property and surrounding area. E. Lighting Plan required: The building Permit submiSsion for any non-residential development or multi-family residential development shall include a lighting plan signed and sealed by a professional engineer and including, at a minimum the following: .All property lines, building locations, dimensions of paved areas, and location of all curbs; 2.Fixture locations; 3.Fixture details and height; 4.Photometric data for all paved areas at a spacing of not greater than 20' and not greater than 6" above the pavement surface; 5.Photometric data at all property lines at a spacing of not greater than 50' and not greater than 6" above grade; 6.Scale of not less than 1" to 50'; 7.Details of the proposed light poles and foundations; 8.Exiting and proposed utilities on the Subject Property and in rights-of-way adjacent to the subject property; 9.Other information, as required. F. Hours of Operation: All lighting shall be reduced to security levels, as recommended in the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America's Lighting Handbook, during hours of non-operation of the principal use on a property. G. Nonconforming Lighting: Any lighting that does not conform to the regulations outlined above shall be made to conform by means of alteration by no later than January 1, 2005. SECTION THREE: That Section 14.2401 entitled "Definitions" of Chapter 14 of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended by including the following: GLARE - Light emitting from a luminaire that causes reduced vision or momentary blindness. LIGHT TRESPASS - The shining of light produced by a luminaire beyond the boundaries of the property on which it is located. LUMINAIRE - A complete lighting unit consisting of the lamp or lamps and ballast(s) together with the parts designed to distribute the light, to position and protect the lamps, and to connect the lamps to the power supply. FULL CUTOFF FIXTURE - A luminaire, or light fixture, that allows no emission of light above horizontal. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this __ day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\ORDINANC\Ord - Ch. 14 Parking lot lighting amendments 2003,doc INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FI,t. OM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS PROJECT ENGINEER OCTOBER 1, 2003 REQUEST SCHOOL FOR PARKING RESTRICTIONS AROUND PROSPECT HIGH The Engineering Staff transmits their recommendation to approve parking restrictions on various streets surrounding Prospect High School. During this past summer, the Village Board of Trustees voted to enact parking restrictions on various streets immediately south Of Prospect High School This was done in response to numerous complaints during the 2002/2003 school year. Signs were installed before school started in September to address these mosl recent parking problems. Also, you instructed Staff to monitor on-street parking around the sdaool wInen class resumed and agreed to quickly authorize additional parking restrictions if new problems arose. On tine first day of class, approximately 40 students were parked on Mount Prospect streets south of tlne latest parking restrictions. Similar to previous problems, it was difficult to maintain thru traffic with vclnicles parked on both sides of the street. Buses had to determine a new route and other services such as mail delivery, garbage pick-up, street sweeping, etc. were being affected. Staff received numerous complaints fi'om residents during the first week of school. As shown on the attached map, you authorized Staff to enact additional parking restrictions to address these new problems. Signs were installed the first week of September. After enacting the new parking restrictions, only approximately 10 vehicles have been seen parked in the neighborhood. All of them park along the east side of Oak Avenue south of Gregory Street. Signs have not been installed along this side of the street since there is a dedicated parking lane and allowing parking has not created any problems. During mid September, Staff began receiving complaints from residents in the Prospect Meadows Subdivision concerning student parking. Approximately 5-6 vehicles were parked on Forest Avenue n<mh ot' Kensington Road on a regular basis. Again, per your direction, parking restrictions were enacted flit last xveck of September on a couple of streets in the neighborhood. Since then, students have not been seen parked in the neighborhood. StalT has and will continue to monitor Mount Prospect streets for any additional streets that may experience problems associated with student parking. At this time, no other streets appear to be experiencing parking problems. [IS Parl<ir~g I>,cstrictions October 1. 2003 So that the recent parking restrictions are included in the Village Code, Staff recommends to approve: No Parking lOam-l lam & lpm-2pm School Days signs for: Dale Avenue from Gregory Street to Isabella Street · MacArthur Boulevard from Gregory Street to Isabella Street · west side of Oak Avenue from Gregory Street to Isabella Street · Isabella Street from Dale Avenue to Oak Avenue · Forest Avenne from Kensington Road to Larkdale Lane · Oriole Lane from Forest Avenue to Prospect Manor Avenue (Section 18.2009 of the Village Code) Please include this item on the October 7t~' Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed are the Safety Commission Minutes fi'om the meeting as well as a location map for your reference. cc: Deputy Village Clerk Kim Dewis x :q'iles\cl~gin eer\tra ffic\sal'ecomm\recs&minksept03 mc.doc Matthew P. Lawrie 30B-O- ' ;'4 KENSINGT RD PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL ~1 II I~1 II I1~ cx,sT,.~ ~ ~-4PM ~HOOL OA~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I~1 I~/ ~ .o =~o.,.=. ~.~,.=..~.~,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ · II Il ~-~.,~.oo~ ~ ~ ~ II I/ ~ .o P~.Xm= =.o.-o~r/.c~-u. ~ SCHOOL OA~ 8AM-4PM ~ HIGH'ND ST ~ NO PARKING I0-11~, 1-2PM ~H~O~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I I L W ISABELLA ST Glen R. Andlar Sean F~ Dorsey Jeffray A, Wulbecker Phone 847/870-5640 Water/Sewer aupeHntandent Roderick · O'Donovan Mount Prospect Public Works DePartment 1700 w. central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 Fax 847/253-9377 St~eete/Buildings Superintendent Paul C. Bures Forestry/Grounds Superintendent Sandra M. Clark Vehic~e/Eq uipment Superintendent James E. Guenther TDD 847/392-1235 MINUTES OF TIlE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The Regular Meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on Monday, September 8, 2003. ROLL CALL Present upon roil call: Chuck Bencic John Keane Kevin Grouwinkel Carol Tortorello John Dahlberg Buz Livingston Jeff Wulbecker Matt Lawrie Chairman Vice Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Police Department Fire Department Public Works Public Works/Engineering Division Absent: Susan Arndt Commissioner (arrived at 7:30pm) Joan Bjork Commissioner Others in Attendance: None :\PPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tortorello, seconded by Commissioner Keane, moved to approve the minutes of' the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on July 14, 2003. The minutes were approved by a vote of 6-0. Commissioner Grouwinkel abstained as he was not present at the previous meeting. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD No citizens came forth to discuss any topics that were not on the current agenda. ! Recycled Paper - Printed with Soy Ink OLD BUS[NESS REQUEST FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COLUMBINE DRIVE, LARCH DRIVE 8,: ONEIDA LANE I ) Back=m'ound Information Per Mr. Jim DeMar's letter in 2002, he believes the new train station along Wolf Road south of Camp McDonald Road is the source of increased traffic in the neighborhood. His neighbors have also voiced concern over vehicle speeds and lack of courtesy by motorists. This issue was first brought to the Safety Commission in September 2002. The request for stop signs was denied by the Safety Commission and Village Board but Staff was directed to restudy the issue in one year. All residents within 200 feet of this intersection including Mr. DeMar were informed that this issue would again be discussed at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, September 8, 2003, at the Public Works Department. 2 ) Staff' Study a) Accidents A search of the accident reports indicated: Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (Aug) Number of Accidents 0 0 0 0 0 0 b) Speed Study Representative speed surveys were performed at all three legs of the intersection fi'om August 15-22, 2003. The average and 85th percentile speeds are as follows: Northbound Columbine Dr. Eastbound Larch Dr. Westbound Oneida Ln. 2002 2003 2002 2003 average average 85~t~ % 85[~' % 20 mph 20 mph 24 mph 23 mph 21 mph 20 mph 26 mph 25 mph 18 mph 18 mph 23 mph 24 mph The speed limit on all three streets is 25mph. Based on the results, there doesn't appear to be an overall speeding problem. However, the data did show some motorists did drive above the speed limit as is evident on most residential streets. 3) c) Traffic Volume Traffic volume data was gathered August 2003. Based on the results, there are approximately 755 vehicles per day that enter the intersection (up from 700 in 2002). 365 vehicles travel on Columbine Drive (350 in 2002), 125 vehicles on Larch Drive (110 in 2002) and 265 vehicles on Oneida Lane (240 in 2002). The peak hour of the day (typically 5pm-6pm) experiences approximately 75 vehicles that enter the intersection. d) Survey Results A total of 14 surveys ~vere sent out in August 2003 to collect the residents! comments on this restudy. 0 surveys (0%) were returned to the Village. e) Existing Traffic Control Signs Traffic control signs adjacent to the intersection are as follows: Columbine & Camp McDonald (south) - 2-way stop signs on Columbine Oneida & Rosetree (east) - uncontrolled Larch & Maya (west) - 2-way stop signs on Larch Sight Obstructions There are not any sight obstructions near the intersection that should interfere in allowing a motorist to come to a full stop before reaching the intersection if necessary. The fact there hasn't been any accidents over the past 5 years supports this determination. g) Thru Traffic The petitioner claims many motorists are avoiding the traffic signals at Camp McDonald Road and Wolf Road during peak travel times. As a result, the neighborhood is experiencing cut through traffic. Based on the volume data and Staff observations, there doesn't appear to be a significant issue with cut through traffic. A No ]']lru Traffic sign on Columbine Drive immediately north of Camp McDonald Road ~vas installed by the Village last year as a result of the original study. Also, the Village contacted the City of Prospect Heights and requested that a similar sign posted on Alderman Avenue immediately east of Wolf Road. Upon a recent inspection, the City has not installed such a sign. Recommendations All-Way Stop Signs AlI-xvay Stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where there is a condition of severely restricted view, accidents or a significant amount of vehicles and pedestrians. Based on an inspection, there are not any sight obstructions immediately at the intersection that would cause a full stop to be necessary at all times for all four directions. In addition, there have been 0 4) accidents over the past 5 years. In order to meet the criterion for an all-way stop sign installation, there is to be 5 accidents in a 12-month period. Finally, the peak hour of'the day experiences approximately 75 vehicles entering the intersection. In order to meet the criterion, thc volume entering the intersection from the major street approaches is to average 300 vehicles per hour for any 8 hours of the day and 200 vehicles per hour for the same 8 hours from the minor street approaches. Based on the new data, all-way stop signs are not warranted at this intersection. I-Way or 2-Way Stop Signs 1-~vay or 2-way stop signs are normally warranted at intersections where the criteria for an ail- way stop sign installation is not met but where a full stop is necessary at all times on one street in order to clarify the right-of-way. As stated above, there are not any sight obstructions immediately adjacent to the intersection that would cause a motorist to have to come to a full stop in order to safely proceed through the intersection. Also, there is not a significant amount of traffic at the intersection. A routine motorist may become accustomed to not seeing any traffic at tl~e legs of the intersection. This, in turn, may result in disobedience of a full stop by motorists creating a potential safety concern for other motorists and pedestrians. Motorists may also feel tile need to make up for "lost" time after stopping at the intersection resulting in higher speeds at tl~c midblock. Based on the existing conditions, 1-way or 2-~vay stop signs are not recommended at this intersection. Yield Signs At intersections where a full stop is not necessary at all times, consideration should be given to using less restrictive measures such as yield signs. Yield signs assign right-of-way to traffic when the normal right-of-way rule appears to not be effective. 0 accidents in the past 5 years appears to reveal that motorists are safely negotiating driving through the intersection without stop or yield signs. Based on the speed data, motorists appear to have sufficient clear vision to come to a full stop before reaching the intersection if necessary. Based on the existing conditions, yield signs are not recommended at this intersection. The Village Traffic Engineer recommends: denial of stop or yield signs at the intersection. Discussion Traffic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of the report to the Commission. Chairman Bencic opened up the discussion to the commission members. Commissioner Keane visited the area earlier in the day and counted 20 vehicles'pass through the intersection during a one-hour period. Deputy Police Chief Dahlberg mentioned that Mr. DeMar, the original petitioner, participated in a "ride along" with a police officer last year and watched radar. Some tickets were issued at the time but tl~ey were for stop sign violations. This education process may have addressed Mr. DeMar's concenqs. Cl~airman Bencic asked about the No Thru Traffic signs that were discussed at last year's meeting. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said the Village of Mount Prospect installed a sign on C(>lumbine Drive north of Camp McDonald Road last September and asked that the City of Prospect Heights install a similar sign at Alderman Avenue at Wolf Road; However, they have not installed a sign. Commissioner Keane, seconded by Commissioner Tortorello, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traftic Engineer. The motion to deny stop or yield signs was approved by a vote of 7-0. 2) TURN ON RED SIGNS IN DOWNTOWN Background Information Tlqe Sat'ety Commission asked that Staff inspect the downtown area and inventory the number of No Tttr, on Red signs. Also, Staff was asked to determine if all signalized intersections iri the downtown area should have such signs. No action was taken at the time but Staffwas directed to bring the issue back in one year. Staff Study No Turn on Red signs are typi~ally installed at intersections where there is inadequate sight distance of vehicles approaching from the left. DOT has installed these signs for northbound and southbound Route 83 at Northwest Highway and eastbound North~vest High~vay at Route 83 lbr this reason. The Village installed a similar sign for westbound Prospect Avenue at Route 83 to prevent vehicles from possibly stacking on the railroad tracks. No other No Turn on Red signs exist m the downtown area. Based on Staff's inspection, it doesn't appear that additional Nc) 7'ttr, o~ Red signs are necessary at this time because of sight distance issues. \Vhen there are pedestrian conflicts with right-turn-on-red maneuvers, signs that state zVo Turn Rc'd Whe~ Pedestrians b~ Croxswalk, No Turn on Red When Pedestrians Are Present or Turning 7'r~g{ic Must Yield To Pedestrians can be installed. Other communities in the Chicagoland area such as the Village of Arlington Heights have posted such signs in their do~vntown area. With tl~e presence of the train station and many new businesses, downtown Mount Prospect has a significant amount of pedestrians on any given day. For their protection while in the crosswalk, motorists should be made aware that they are to yield to pedestrians when attempting to turn rigt~t on red. The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), a resource the Engineering Staff often refers to when studying traffic issues, mentions signs that state turning traffic must yield to pedestrians should be posted when right turn on red is permitted and pedestrian crosswalks are marked. 3~ C~ I) Reconqnqendations Based on this information, the Village Traffic Engineer recommends that No Turn on Red IFhen Pedestrians In Crosswalk signs be installed at the following intersections: Route 83 & Northwest Highway Route 83 & Prospect Avenue Northwest Highway & Emerson Street The existing No Turn on Red signs at the above intersections would remain as is and not be altered. New signs along Route 83 and Northwest Highway would be installed by DOT as they have jurisdiction of these streets. Prospect Avenue and Emerson Street are under the Village's jurisdiction. Discussion Tral'fic Engineer Lawrie provided an overview of the report to the Commission. Clqairman Bencic said it appears a majority of the signs would have to be installed by IDOT. Traffic Engineer explained that if the Safety Commission supports installation of the sig-ns, the Village would request DOT to also agree and install all the signs. If IDOT would not install any signs facing a Village street, we would ask if the Village could so. Commissioner Keane asked if the existing No Turn on Red signs would be modified to include the supplemental When Pedestrians Are Present. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said it would be Staff's recommendation to not modify the existing signs unless DOT thought it appropriate. Deputy Chief Dahlberg supported the supplemental WT~en Pedestrians In Crosswalk because it is more specific than When Pedestrians Are Present. There was some additional discussion on the issue. Commissioner Keane, seconded by Deputy Police Chief Dahlberg, moved to approve the recommendations of the Village Traffic Engineer. The motion was al)proved by a vote Of 7-0. UPDATE ON PARKING SITUATION AROUND PROSPECT HIGH SCHOOL Background Information The Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees voted earlier this summer to enact additional parking restrictions around Prospect High School as a result of problems experienced the previous school year. The Village Board also granted authority to the Village Manager to take immediate action if necessary at the beginning of the school year should new problems arise. 2) Botln the Police Department and Engineering Staff were present the first day of class on Tuesday, ..\~gust 26"' to monitor student parking. Approximately fi0 cars were seen parked on 'Viltage streets that do not have parking restrictions. Tickets were issued to students disobeying posted signs, parking on the ~ass, and blocking driveways and fire hydrants. Per tlne direction of the Village Manager, additional parking restrictions will be going into affect shortly. The streets included Dale Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Oak Avenue and Fairview Avenue bet~veen Gregory'Street and Isabella Street as well as Isabella Street from Dale Avenue to Oak Avenue. The Village will be continuing to monitor this issue throughout the school year and is prepared to enact additional parking restrictions, if necessary, until student parking problems on Village streets are resolved. Also, the Engineering Staff will be meeting with the Village of Arlington Heights in an attempt to work together on this issue. The latest parking restrictions will be formally presented to the Village Board in October. No 2~mnal vote by the Safety Commission is necessary. Discussion 'l'rat'fic Engineer Lawrie provided an ove~wiew of the report to the Commission. Chairman Bencic asked xvhy the east side of Oak Avenue was not included in the latest parking restrictions. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said there is a dedicated parking lane along Oak Avenue and the student parking has not compromised safety or Village services along this block. Clnairman Bencic asked if the parking restrictions along the west side of Fairview Avenue would interfere with any elementary school activities. Traffic Engineer La~vrie said he believed they would not. Commissioner Tortorello inquired about the availability of parking spaces in the school lot. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said at the beginning of the school year there were many unused spaces hut tine school has continued to issue parking permits in an attempt to fill the lot. However, the '. 50 spaces blocked off for band practice will not be opened until November. Commission Tortoretlo asked if any students were parking in the Prospect Meadows Subdivision. Village Engineer Wulbecker said there were four or five cars seen on a daily basis on Forest Avenue and tlnat Staff' was monitoring the situation. There was some additional discussion on this issue. No vote was taken. NEW BUSINESS No nexv items were discussed by the Commission. ()Xl.MISSION ISSUES Commissioner Tortorello indicated that there was a problem with the timing of the traffic signals at the intersection of Euclid Avenue and the Randhurst Shopping Center. Traffic Engineer Lawrie said he would look into it. AI.)JOURNMENT With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 8-0 to adjourn at 7:50 p.m. upon the motion of Village Engineer Wulbecker. Commissioner Keane seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer ,.: :i!c< cngincer'.safecomm~tratTict.recs&min',sept03min.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' 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 ONE: That Section 18.2009 of "SCHEDULE IX- PARKING DURING SCHOOL HOURS" of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect. as amended, is hereby further amended by adding the following: "Name of Street Dale Avenue Side of Street East and West Between Hours of Description School days Btw. Gregory Street 10am -1 lam and Isabella Street and I pm-2pm MacArthur Blvd. East and West School days 10am -1 lam and 1pm -2pm Btw. Gregory Street and Isabella Street Oak Avenue West School days Btw. Gregory Street 10am -11 am and Isabella Street and lpm-2pm Isabella Street North and South School days 10am -1lam and 1 pm -2pm Btw. Dale Avenue and Oak Avenue Forest Avenue East and West School days 10am-1 lam and lpm-2pm Btw. Kensington Road and Larkdale Lane Oriole Lane North and South School days 10am -1 lam and lpm-2pm Btw. Forest Avenue and Prospect Manor Avenue". SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2003. Gerald L. Fadey, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:~CLKO~files\W~N\ORDINANC\CH 18,2009 Prospect School parking oct 2003.doc 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 Wagner's 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~003\Motorized 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!(~?'~i.~'. ~ AUGUST 18, 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, I.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~O03\Motor Scooter Ordinance CHF 03-137.doc ATRICK A. LUCANSKY E. KENNETH FRIKER GERARD E. DEMPBEY TERRENCE M. BARNICLB BRUCE A. ZOLNA .lAMES P. EARTLEY RICHARD T. WIMMER MICHAEL J. DUGGAN THOMAS P. RAYER DENNIS G. WALSH SCOTT F. UHLER EVERETTE M. HILL, IR, 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 {312J 984.-6400 FACSLMILE {312) 984-6444 ORLAND PARK OFFICE 15010 S. RAVINIA AVE., SUITE 17 OELAND PARK, IL 60462-3162 TELEPHONE (7'08} 349-3888 September 12, 2002 Chief Richard Eddington Mount prospect Police Department 112 East Northwest Highway Mount Prospect, Illinois 6005(5 MICHAEL T. JURUSIK THOMAS M. MELODY LANCE C. MALINA PETER M. DOLAN, JR. STEPHEN F. POTTS CHRISTOPHER M. KANIS SHANON D. SHUMPERT ERIC J FUGLSANG OF COUNSEL ARTHUR C. THORPE PHILIPPE R. WEISS WRiTEWS 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. KLEIN, .THORPE & JENKINS, LTD. .George A.(~agner l:\Enibrcement 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. 18/I 103. Motorized Skateboards. A. For the purpose of this Section a motorized skateboard is defined as any device that has a deck or platform on which a person may stand or sit, with two or more wheels, and is propelled by any type of motor or engine. However, the term "motorized skateboardi~shall nQt !nc!u~e. the fo!!g~ing: (i)a motorvehicle (as defined in 625 ILCS 5/1-145); (ii) a motorcycle (as defined in 625 ILCS 5/1-147); (iii) a motor driven cycle (as defined in 625 ILCS 5/1~145-001); (iv) a motorized pedal cycle (as defined in 625 ILCS 5/1-148.2); or (v) a motorized wheelchair (as defined in 625 tLCS 5/1-148.3) or other device designed and used to transport a person with a disability. B. No person shall operate a motorized skateboard upon any public or private street, public sidewalk, public parking lot, public bike path, public park or on any other public properly. C. A peace officer who cites a PerSon for a violation of this Section may impound any motorized skateboard used by that person in the commission of the offense. The person or owner may recover the motorized skateboard from the impound 24 hours after the citation was written upon payment of a fee as set fodh in Appendix A, Division I1. This fee shall include the costs incurred by the Village to remove the motorized skateboard to the impound. Upon the presentation of a signed court order by the person whose motorized skateboard 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. D. Exemptions. 1. Any police, fire, Village, Park District or US Postal Service 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. 3. Motorized skateboards approved for use in a Village sanctioned parade. E. Any person found guilty of violating any of the provisions of this Section shall be fined as set forth in Appendix A, Division III. SECTION 2: Section 3, AppendixA, Division il of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following: Sec. 18.1103 Motorized Skateboards. D. Impoundment fee - $100.00 SECTION 3: Section 4, Appendix A, Division III of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following: Sec, 18.1103 Motorized Skateboards. F. Fine - Not less than $75.00 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 irirthe mcinner ProVided by laTM. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this __ day of ,2003. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk 2