Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6. MEETING NOTICES VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, January 22, 2004 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2nd Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of November 6,2003 III Discussion Regarding Proposed 2003 Work Plan IV Other Business V Chairman's Report VI Finance Director's Report VII Next Meeting: Thursday, February 26,2004,7:00 p.m. VIII Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING NOVEMBER 6, 2003 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and Commissioners Charles Bennett, Vince Grochocinski, Ann Hull, Brian McPartlin, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Village Manager Michael Janonis, Director of Finance David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. II. ApPROV AL OF MINUTES Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to approve the minutes of October 29, 2003. Commissioner Brian McPartlin seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. III. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED 2004 VILLAGE BUDGET Chairman John Korn began by asking if the members had any questions regarding Public Work's proposed budget. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked if the street resurfacing program (the 7th year of a 10 year program) could be deferred in any capacity. Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer stated that a pavement evaluation program is scheduled for next year and we will be looking at the possibility of deferring some of the projects. Commissioner Brian McPartlin asked what made up the Public Works contractual services figure on page 205 of the proposed budget. Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer stated that the majority of the figure represents the internal service fund charges for vehicle replacement and maintenance. The figure also includes tree trimming, snow removal and custodial services Commissioner Tom Pekras mentioned the refuse disposal contract and asked what is expected to come up in the negotiations. Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that a lot would depend on what the industry is offering. One possibility is moving to a toter system. Currently the village is looking at bidding the contract out with various options so that the village could pick and choose what are the most important services. Commissioner Charles Bennett wanted to mention that the Capital Improvements Plan shows $500,000 being pulled from the water and sewer fund for the combine sewer improvement. Mr. Bennett stated that he felt the Finance Commission should keep a close eye on this program and the potential for a lot of money to be expensed over the next few years. Chairman John Korn asked the commission if they wanted make any recommendations on the Public Work's budget to the Village Board. Commissioner Brain McPartlin stated that he felt the commission should mention the combine sewer improvement project. Commissioner McPartlin stated that the village must think about the potential need to finance this endeavor. Furthermore, the commission could stress the need to continue to fund Capital Improvement Projects as a whole. Chairman John Korn asked the commission for recommendations or questions on the Non- Departmental budget items. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked what the Special Events Commission expenses are and if they try to generate revenue. Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that the Special Events Commission budget is $36,000 and nearly all the money spent is recouped through ticket sales and sponsorships for the various events held by the commission. The Special Events Commission is essentially self- sufficient. Chairman John Korn wanted to mention that he felt the Winter Parade is a worthwhile project and that the village should look to individual sponsorship and the possibility of a corporate sponsorship as a means for the continuation of future parades. Commissioners Brain McPartlin and Charles Bennett agree it is an important community event that brings people into the downtown area. Commissioner Charles Bennett added that he believed a joint venture with corporate and downtown merchant sponsorship and some village cooperation would work to continue the Winter Parade. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT There was a discussion regarding the meeting of December 4, 2003. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to give Chairman John Korn authority to cancel the December 4th meeting at his discretion. Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded the motion and the motion carried. Chairman John Korn stated that the January 2004 meeting would be a discussion on the Finance Commission's 2004 work plan. The commission directed Finance Director David Erb to draft a schedule to provide for discussion at the January 2004 meeting. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT There was nothing to report VI. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman John Korn stated the commission would like to show their support for all the cuts and reductions made in the Non Departmental budget, but would like to show support for the Winter Festival Parade. Commissioner Charles Bennett wanted to compliment the Village Manager and staff on finding cuts and making sacrifices to balance the budget. Commissioner Bennett also wanted to reemphasize to the public that the village is doing everything possible to balance the budget. VII. NEXT MEETING: DECEMBER 4, 2003 Commissioner Ann Hull motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for December 4,2003. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2 MAYOR Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AGENDA VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: Fax: TDD: 847/818-5328 847/818-5329 847/392-6064 MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center Thursday 1000 W. Central Road January 22, 2004 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF DECEMBER 11, 2003 MEETING A. PZ-46-03/ AM Pinnacle Holding Co./32l E. Rand Rd./ Rezone from Rl to R2. B. PZ-48-03 / Mount Prospect Historical Society 11 03 S. Maple Street / Conditional Use. N. OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-39-02 / Meadows Park / Mt. Prospect Park District / Plat of Consolidation - Phase I. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-47-03 /504-510 E. Rand Road / Mt. Prospect Park District / Map Amendment & Plat of Consolidation. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. C. PZ-OI-04/507 S. Wille Street / Duffy Residence / Conditional Use (porch). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. D. PZ-02-04 / 1450 S. Elmhurst Road / Harris Bank / Conditional Use (bank with 4 drive thru lanes). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. E. PZ-03-04 / 501 db Drive / Niagara Educational Services / Conditional Use (amend previous Conditional Use approval). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS . PZ-46-03 / AM Pinnacle Holding Co. / 321 E. Rand Rd. - Village Board reviewed 1/6 and the second reading is 1/20. . PZ-48-03 / The Mount Prospect Historical Society /103 S. Maple Street - Village Board approved 1/6 and waived second reading. . PZ-36-03 / Kiddie Corps / 1699 Wall Street Suite lOS/Conditional Use (Day Care) - WITHDRA WN. VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, II.. 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847- 392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-46-03 Hearing Date: December 11,2003 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 321 E. Rand Road PETITIONER: Zack Joseph, for AM Pinnacle Holding Co. PUBLICATION DATE: November 26, 2003 PIN#: 03-34-206-002 REQUEST: Rezone property from Rl Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow the construction of a four (4) townhome unit development; and a Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Zack Joseph Ed Kowalski Norman Toberman Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions by Arlene Juracek, Merrill Cotton, and Matthew Sledz. At 7:32, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-46-03, a request for a Map Amendment to Rezone property from Rl Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow the construction of a 4-unit townhouse development and a Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the southwest comer of the Rand Road and Highland Street. It contains a single-family residence and related improvements. The portion of the Highland Street right-of-way that runs along the northern edge of the Subject Property has not been dedicated; consequently the right-of-way and street pavement width are substandard. Highland Street currently functions as a one-way, eastbound only street along the northern edge of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly reviewed the adjacent land uses and zoning districts. She summarized the Petitioner's proposal and noted that the Petitioner is in the process of demolishing the existing house and has applied for a building permit to construct a four (4) -unit townhome development. However, before construction 0 fthe proposed townhomes may begin, the Petitioner's request to rezone the Subject Property from R-l Single-Family Residence to R-2 Attached Single-Family Residence must be approved by the Village Board following a recommendation and Public Hearing by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Although permits cannot be Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-03 Page 2 issued for the proposed townhome project until the Village Board takes final action, the Petitioner is permitted to proceed with the demolition of the existing residence. Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's site plan and said that the development would consist of a single, 2-story building containing four units. Each unit would have its own separate entrance, but a single shared driveway would provide vehicle access to the development. The site plan indicates that each unit would have its own 3 'x3' stoop in the rear yard. The proposal does not incorporate guest parking for the development. The elevations indicate that the townhomes will have peaked roofs of varying heights that do not exceed 28-feet in height from grade. Each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the shared driveway off of Highland Street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of face brick and stone trim. Also, balconies will be included on the front and rear elevations. The Petitioner's site plan includes a shared driveway for all four (4)-units, with a single curb cut to/from Highland Street. The site plan indicates that the Highland Street right-of-way will be dedicated, as required by the Village's Development Code, but does not show the required improvements, which include widening the street and installing sidewalk. The site plan indicates that the shared driveway tapers to 18' 6" where it intersects with the existing Highland Street pavement and then flares to a maximum width of 97-feet at its widest point, which is at the entrance to the garages. Ms. Connolly said that the north half of the Highland Street right-of-way has already been dedicated and improved. As part of the proposed townhome project, the south half of the street must also be dedicated and improved to Village standards. The site plan currently includes a shared driveway with a width of 18'6" where it would intersect with Highland Street, then flaring to a total width of 97-feet along the front of the garages. In addition, widening Highland Street as required by Village Code regulations may add additional traffic and turning movements from Rand Road. Currently, Highland Street is a one-way, eastbound street from Elm to Rand Road. Consideration should be given as to whether turning restrictions should be included as part of the road improvement project before Highland Street is widened. The Safety Commission would review this matter and forward its recommendation to Village Board for final approval. Also, the Petitioner is required to dedicate a portion of Rand Road to complete the 1O0-foot right-of-way. Rand Road would not be physically widened since mOT previously improved the road without requiring the dedication of the additional Rand Road right-of-way. However, sidewalk and parkway trees would be installed along the Subject Property's east lot line. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that new landscaping will be planted in the right-of-way and on private property. However, the size of the plants is not clear. Also, additional year-round, mature materials must be planted to adequately screen the residences and provide a buffer from Rand Road. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner intends to demolish the existing home. She compared the differences between the Rl and R2 zoning district's bulk regulations. She noted that the primary difference between the Rl and R2 districts was the interior side yard requirement. She said that the Rl zoning district requires lO-feet or 10% of the lot width, whichever is less and the R2 district requires no less than 5-feet. Also, Rl permits up to 45% lot coverage while R2 permits up to 50% lot coverage. The petitioner's site plan indicates the townhomes and related improvements would cover no more than 43% of the Subject Property. The proposed townhome development meets all of the R2 District's bulk regulations except for the rear yard setback. The plan calls for a 20-foot rear yard when the minimum rear yard permitted in the R2 district is 25- feet. The 3 'x3' stoops shown in the rear yard are permitted encroachments. However, the Zoning Code allows patios and/or decks to encroach in a required yard, but the structures must maintain a IS-foot setback. Since the project is well below the minimum lot coverage requirement, the Petitioner may want to explore the possibility Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-03 Page 3 of increasing the size of the patios to a more usable size, while maintaining the required IS-foot rear yard setback and complying with the lot coverage limitation. Ms. Connolly summarized the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the Subject Property is located out of a floodplain and that the topography is relatively level. The proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the minimum setback regulations although the Petitioner has the opportunity to design a development that complies with all Village regulations. Therefore, the proposed 20-foot rear yard does not meet the standards for a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the Petitioner is creating the hardship and the need for a variation when the site could be redesigned so the units comply with the required rear yard setbacks. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Map Amendment. She said that the Subject Property is adjacent to existing single-family residences, abuts Gregory Park, and has frontage onto a major arterial road. The proposed four (4)-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments to the south and east of the site. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Rand Road to the Single Family Residential neighborhood. Although Rand Road is a significant commercial corridor, the Subject Property would not be conducive to commercial development due to its limited size and surrounding uses. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. However, the Variation to permit a 20-foot rear yard fails to meet the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, she said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the Variation request to permit a 20-foot rear yard and approve the request to rezone the Subject Property from Rl to R2 subject to the following: 1) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall provide a material sample board for Staff review and approval; 2) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Highland Street right-of-way and Rand Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; 3) The site is developed in accordance with t he elevations and plans prepared by TAP Architects, Ltd dated October 9, 2003 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. Additional year-round landscaping installed along the perimeter of the Subject Property (minimum 5-foot tall evergreens line the entire Rand Road frontage); c. Larger patios/decks in the rear yard without exceeding lot coverage limitations for the site; d. Revised driveway access design to/from Highland Street; 4) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and 5) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, mOT and MWRD. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Ms. Connolly several questions regarding landscaping and sidewalks as they related to future Park District and Christian Life College improvement plans. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-46-03 Page 4 Zack Joseph, 2817 Central, Glenview, IL, and Ted Pysiniak, TAP Architects, 6422 Glenwood Drive, Long Grove, IL were sworn in. Mr. Pysiniak said the townhomes were designed to blend with the architecture of the neighborhood. The design attempts to retain as many existing trees as possible as well as adding more trees. He clarified that the site plan had been modified since the Staff memo was received and that they are no longer seeking a Variation for a 20-foot rear yard. He said that the site meets all bulk regulations for the R2 zoning district. He said the townhomes are 3-bedroom units and will have all brick exteriors. They will have two-car garages and parking for two-cars in front of each garage. They will be marketed for approximately $350,000. Norman Toberman, 615 W. Rockwell St., Arlington Heights, IL, Engineer, reviewed the engineering plans at length. He provided details on how the site will drain, the proposed grading plan, and the storm water detention design. Ms. Juracek asked him if water runoff would be diverted from the Christian Life property and Mr. T oberman said it would. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. She asked the Petitioner if the Variation request had been withdrawn; Mr. Joseph confirmed the request was withdrawn. She then quoted an e-mail received from residents who live at 521 N. Elm Street, Ed and Lind Ruff, who presented their concerns regarding their view of the townhome development. Ms. Juracek stated that the landscaping condition recommended by staff would resolve the residents' concerns of seeing a parking lot from their backyard. Ed L. Kowalski, 513 Eastman Court, Mount Prospect, Architect, asked if there would be 3 & Yz baths, asphalt driveways, and a homeowners association. The responses to all questions were yes and Mr. Kowalski said thank you. Mr. Jacobs noted that a resident had called the Community Development Department and expressed concerns regarding safety and traffic if Highland Street were to be converted into a two-way street. Ms. Juracek said that the Highland Street improvements and possible turning restrictions would be deferred to the Safety Commission for review. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 8:15 pm. Leo Floros made a motion to make a recommendation that t he V illage Board approve a request for aM ap Amendment to Rezone the property from Rl Single Family to R-2 Attached Single Family to allow construction of a 4-unit townhouse development for Case No. PZ-46-03, 321 E. Rand Road, subject to the conditions listed in the Staff memo and the additional condition to require the townhomes to have all masonry exteriors. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotton, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:45 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner HIPLANlPlanning & Zoning COMMlP&Z 2003IMinutesIPZ-46-03 32\ E. Rand Rd-AM Pinnacle Holding Co"doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-48-03 Hearing Date: December 11, 2003 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 103 S. Maple St. PETITIONER: Mount Prospect Historical Society PUBLICATION DATE: November 26, 2003 PIN #s: 08-12-110-002-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use to operate a museum (former Central School building) upon relocation of the structure and relief from on-site parking requirements. MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Gavin Kleespies Andrew Hommowun Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 13 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The minutes were approved 4-0, with three abstentions by Arlene Juracek, Merrill Cotton, and Matthew Sledz. At 8:20, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-48-03, a request for a Conditional Use to operate a museum on the Subject Property and relief from parking regulations. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to operate a museum and a Variation from the Village's parking regulations. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RA Single Family Residential district to the north, south and east, and the B5C Central Commercial Core to the west. The Subject Property is a vacant lot and is located directly south of the Historical Society's existing facility. The Petitioner proposes to move the Central School from its current location at Wille and Thayer to the Subject Property and operate a museum. The Historical Society would use the proposed Central School museum as a part of their existing operation. The Village's Zoning Ordinance lists 'Cultural institutions, libraries, and museums' as a Conditional Use in the RA Single Family Residence district, which requires review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and final approval by the Village Board. Ms. Connolly reported that the Subject Property is currently vacant, except for an accessory building located at the rear of the lot. The site plan indicates the proposed location and setbacks where the Petitioner would like to locate the Central School building. In addition, the Petitioner's architect has provided a photo 'Perspective' that superimposes the schoolhouse on the Subject Property. The Petitioner is in the process of completing a Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-03 Page 2 landscape plan that will indicate both the existing landscaping to be maintained as well as additional landscaping to be installed. The table in the staff memo demonstrates that the project would comply with all zoning bulk regulations and that the site is well under the maximum lot coverage limitation. Also, t he building would be improved as required by Village regulations. According to the Village's Zoning Ordinance, the petitioner is required to provide 4 parking spaces on-site. However, the Petitioner does not propose to provide the required spaces on-site and is in the process of obtaining approval from the Village to allow patrons to park in the nearly completed parking deck. The Zoning Ordinance allows off-site parking agreements subject to Planning & Zoning Commission approval. It should also be noted that the Village Code restricts parking on the east side of Maple Street between Northwest Highway and Central Road and parking is prohibited along the west side of Maple Street for the first 100' south of Central Road. In spite of these parking restrictions, there are sections of parking available on the west side of Maple Street and technically, vehicles could park on the street. An internal Village Staff review was conducted as part of the Conditional Use request. Staff comments were not related to the request so much, but related to how the proposed museum would be relocated and how it would be improved once it was relocated. The following issues do not need to be resolved as part of the Conditional Use request, but they must be resolved prior to the relocation of the Central School building. . The Fire Department reviewed the request and found that the relocated building is required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes, which includes the installation of automatic sprinklers and a fire alarm system. . The Engineering / Public Works Department indicated that relocating the existing Central School building to 103 S. Maple Street represents a new building on the site. Therefore, the site would be subject to all applicable Development Code requirements. As with other projects, the development requirement that will most likely have the greatest impact on this proposal is the provision of stormwater detention. Also, the site plan does not show any site improvements except for the proposed building location. When the Petitioner applies for a building permit they must indicate whether there will be any service/sidewalks installed and if the necessary utility service connections have been considered. In addition, the Engineering/Public Works Department noted that the Petitioner's plans do not accurately indicate the location of existing trees on site, which must be corrected at time of permit. Also, when determining the route that will be used to move the existing Central School building, the potential damage to trees should be considered. Both the Engineering and Forestry Departments would like to be involved in the discussions concerning the path of travel so that an appropriate Tree Protection Plan may be determined and implemented. The project would comply with all zoning bulk regulations and the building would be improved as required by Village regulations. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. The Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 3.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet for museums; however, the Petitioner does not propose to provide the required four parking spaces on-site. It should also be noted that Sec. 18.2005 of the Village Code prohibits parking on the east side of Maple Street between Northwest Highway and Central Road. In addition, parking is prohibited along the west side of Maple Street for the first 100' south of Central Road. Vehicles could park across the street from the proposed museum, between the Bank One driveways. To address the issue of parking the Petitioner is in the process of obtaining approval from the Village to allow patrons to park in the nearly completed parking deck. Per Sec. 14.2206 of the Zoning Ordinance, such an arrangement is permitted, but the Planning & Zoning Commission has to approve the agreement. An internal Village Staff review was conducted as part of the Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-03 Page 3 Conditional Use request. While the following issues do not need to be resolved as part of the Conditional Use request, they must be resolved prior to the relocation of the Central School building. The Fire Department reviewed the request and found that the relocated building is required to comply with all applicable Building and Fire Codes, which includes the installation 0 fa utomatic sprinklers a nd afire alarm system. The Engineering and Public Works Departments indicated that relocating the existing Central School building to 103 S. Maple Street represents a new building on the site. Therefore, the site would be subject to all applicable Development Code requirements. As with other projects, the development requirement that will most likely have the greatest impact on this proposal is the provision of stormwater detention. Also, the site plan does not show any site improvements except for the proposed building location. When the Petitioner applies for a building permit they must indicate whether there will be any service sidewalks installed and if the necessary utility service connections have been considered. It has been noted that the Petitioners plans do not accurately indicate the location of existing trees on site. The locations of these trees must be included on the site plan. When determining the route that will be used to move the existing Central School building, the potential damage to trees should be considered. Both the Engineering and Forestry Departments would like to be involved in the discussions concerning the path of travel so that an appropriate Tree Protection Plan may be determined and implemented. Ms. Connolly reviewed the standards for Conditional Uses listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the proposed museum would be an extension of the Historical Society's existing operation and programs. The Petitioner's proposal and additional information demonstrate that a museum on the Subject Property would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. By relocating the existing schoolhouse to this location and creating a museum campus setting, the Historical Society would preserve a historic building while also expanding its operation in a manner that is in keeping with the adjacent Single Family Residential neighborhood. Also, the size of the schoolhouse is smaller than the typical single-family house built today. The schoolhouse would meet the applicable setbacks and generate minimal traffic except when holding a special event. In those special situations, the Historical Society will direct patrons to park in the parking deck. Therefore, the proposed museum would not a dversely affect the character 0 f 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 the proposed museum meets the Conditional Use standards listed in the Village's Zoning Ordinance subject to complying with the following conditions: 1) The site shall be developed in accordance with the plans prepared by DLK dated November 10,2003; 2) The Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan for Staff review prior to applying for a building permit; 3) The Petitioner shall work with Staff when determining the travel path for relocating the schoolhouse and adhere to Staff's requirements for tree protection; 4) The Petitioner shall enter into an off-site parking agreement with the Village of Mount Prospect to ensure parking spaces are provided as required by the Zoning Ordinance; 5) The site and building shall be developed in accordance with all Village Codes, which include but are not limited to the installation of fire sprinklers. She said that based on this analysis and compliance with the conditions just reviewed, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use to permit a museum at 103 S. Maple Street, Case No. PZ-48-03. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Gavin Kleespies, 2555 W. Cortez, Chicago, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Historical Society and Andrew Hommowun, 230 Ridgewood Court, Treasurer of the Society, were sworn in. Mr. Kleespies said the Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-03 Page 4 Historical Society currently owns the existing Central School building, but not the lot that it is currently located on, and that the schoolhouse will be demolished if it is not moved. They want to move it and use it as a museum. Richard Rogers asked about the steeple height and moving plans for overhead wires, etc. He noted that the tree in front of the property might prohibit the movers from accessing the property from Maple Street. Mr. Kleespies said they plan to bring the schoolhouse down streets that don't have overhead wires and that they may dismantle the steeple if needed. He clarified that the Historical Society would be working with a professional who specializes in relocating buildings. Leo Floros indicated that relocating the Central Schoolhouse building to the proposed location and the creation of a museum campus was an excellent idea. Mr. Kleespies thanked him and said there had been no opposition from the neighbors, only support. Mr. Youngquist agreed it was a good location for the building. Chairperson Juracek closed the hearing at 8:35 pm. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit to operate a museum on the Subject Property for Case No. PZ-48-03, 103 S. Maple St., subject to the five conditions imposed by staff Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotton, Floros, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:45 p.m, Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director, Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner H:IPLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2003IMinutesIPZ-48-03 MP Historical Society.doc