Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. New Business 11/03/2015Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL J. CASSADY, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 28, 2015 SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR FACADE REBATE REIMBURSEMENT — BAR 145 — 34 S. MAIN STREET The Village has established the Fagade Rebate Program in the downtown Tax Increment Financing District that offers matching grants to businesses that make improvements to storefronts in the downtown district. The maximum Village contribution is $25,000 for restaurant operations. Bar 145 has entered into a lease at 34 S. Main Street to operate their restaurant in the downtown district. They intend to replace the exterior signage, modify the interior lighting, resurface the flooring and update the HVAC systems. The total project costs are estimated at approximately $200,000, of which approximately $80,000 are eligible for reimbursement. Bar 145 is seeking reimbursement for $25,000 of eligible expenses related to this project. The Village currently has funds budgeted in account # 022.40.90.00.0.710.636.007 (page 313 of the Budget) for the 2015 budget year, however a budget amendment will be necessary to cover these costs as the Village has exceeded this year's budget for this program. The program is funded by TIF funds and there are sufficient monies in that fund to support the request. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their November 3rd meeting. Staff will be at that meeting to answer any questions related to this matter. William J1 Cooney Jr. Bar 145 is a gastro pub specializing in "Burgers, Bands, and Bourbon." A gastro pub has an atmosphere that is relaxed and focused on offering a particular cuisine prepared as well as the best restaurants. Our tag line: "Red Chucks, White China" emphasizes our culture clash having all of our food served on white china while our employees are sporting red Chuck Taylor tennis shoes. Bar 145 provides a spacious patio, a 20 -seat bar, 100 plus seats and a private party room with flat screen TVs strategically placed all around the bar for viewing. Utilizing local businesses and purchasing fresh products daily allows Bar 145 to offer customers a vast amount of exclusive specials. With the option to "Stack Your Own," customers are given an opportunity to create a burger or sandwich choosing from 10 Artisan Cheeses, 14 House -made Sauces, and Over 23 toppings ranging from Roasted Red Peppers to Peach Habanero Chutney to Roasted Duck & so much more! Bar 145 has acoustical performances at least twice a week and Live bands every Friday and Saturday night after 10 pm. The most popular question asked to our staff is how we came up with the name Bar 145, wondering if it is the address or if there is 145 different ways to stack your own burger/sandwich. The answer? It is actually the temperature of a perfectly cooked medium rare burger. The warm pink center and slightly crispy outside provide an amazing contrast that we can't resist, and you shouldn't mess with. Bar 145 improvements include reconfiguring the space with new tables, chairs on both levels and five booths on the first floor. Bar 145 will put cosmetics touches to the interior with unique motif's only found at BAR 145. Fagade renovations include new signs and awnings on the exterior supporting the Bar 145 Logo. Lighting will be updated with new fixtures with LED Bulbs for best efficiency. Mechanical systems shall be retrofitted or upgraded for optimal performance. New windows, doors, and interior painting. Fire safety system to be checked and updated for optimal safety. Re- surfacing or replacing floors. Total build out investment will be close to $200,000 once completed Es,firmahe Actual „ Fbar :001104'i,w igic nag9Y Wpc,,'HI ' S II MUM 5'JIOK.'K Y Sunni Wares, a mm lcW I,Wq �iui�l lk w O g � HVAC i� iylcr���Vk�k I g ml� ���'�B WC �� fkIOC I XKJ IIII��pl S1��NH,I ���`i � :.i IIS �� � km r��� repair ��lii !�ry�,� �6k.�. v ll�p�p�� ,.'l I'. Illrl!dV! 11 . k��i "1�:mp0R M� �,�"�. �mp�..u!�pllk � ,y ryb�u� Vd gj 11 IIYk ni rig 'i���V"n �W"''m�iM IIIY IIS i2 N Wia�(YJ p ISI o jp� 5h i rs 205,010 Mist om U ratal 247oSUO. Tota] Startup Cbmfts, 61,0,1,000 . Village of Mount Prospect MountPmspect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM - ----- . . . ..... . .... . .... TO: MICHAEL J. CASSADY, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2015 SUBJECT: PZ -25-15 / 308 S. EMERSON STREET / VARIATION The petitioner installed a sports court measuring nineteen feet (19') by thirty-eight feet (38') in the summer without a permit, and is seeking variation approval to allow the structure to remain as is constructed. Per the Petitioner's site plan, the sports court is located one foot (1') from the south property line (side yard), eleven feet (11') from the north property line (side yard) and nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear yard). An accessory structure such as a sports court is not a permitted obstruction in the required side yards, but is a permitted obstruction in the rear yard, as long as a minimum setback of fifteen feet (16) is provided between the rear property line and the near edge of the structure. The petitioner is seeking variation approval from the side and rear yard setback requirements to allow a sports court to be located one foot (1') from the south property line (side yard), instead of the required five feet (5), and nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear yard), instead of the required fifteen feet (15'). The Planning & Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the requests on Thursday, October 22, 2015 and by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval of the following motion: A. Variation to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a sports court, as shown in the site plan date stamped October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S. Emerson Street. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their November 3, 2015 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. , �� - William I Cooney, AI `P \\VCI\vhlhcdSWLAWlaiming&Zoiwig COMM\P&Z2015\Villagc Matagcr Mcmos\PZ-25-153085 Emerson(Setback Variation).docx Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY — PZ -25-15 LOCATION: PETITIONERS: OWNERS: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: et ?F 308 S. Emerson Street Sean Mitchell Sean and Roberta Mitchell 08-12-126-015-0000 0.172 acres (7,500 square feet) RA Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Variation — Side and rear yard setbacks for a sports court. LOCATION MAP Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: FROM: DATE: HEARING DATE: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND MEMORANDUM MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JOSEPH P. DONNELLY, CHAIRPERSON LATIKA BHIDE, DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PLANNER OCTOBER 13, 2015 OCTOBER 22, 2015 PZ -25-15 / 308 S. EMERSON ST. / VARIATION (SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS) A public hearing has been scheduled for the October 22, 2015 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Sean Mitchell (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 308 S. Emerson Street (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking variations to the side and rear yard setbacks to allow a sports court. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the October 7, 2015 edition of the Daily Herald 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 Emerson Street, south of Milburn Avenue. The Subject Property 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. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exhibits illustrate the Petitioners' improvements. The Petitioner installed a sports court, nineteen feet (19 feet) by thirty-eight feet (38 feet) in the rear of the property this summer without a permit. Per the site plan, the court is located one foot (1 foot) from the south property line (interior side), eleven feet from the north property line (interior side) and nine feet (9 feet) from the west property line (rear side). GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations and is considered non -conforming. The Plat of Survey indicates the existing home does not comply with all of the required setbacks. The home is setback twenty-one feet and nine and three -fourth inches (21.75) feet from the east property line (front) when the Village Code requires a minimum of thirty (30) feet. The home is setback four feet and eleven inches (4.91) feet from the north property line (interior side) when the Village Code requires 5 feet. The south (interior side) and west (rear) setbacks are conforming. The Subject Property is in an area of the Village that was annexed in 1917. The Subject Property was likely developed in the mid-1950s. PZ -25-15 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 22, 2015 Page 2 Accessory structures are not permitted to be located in a required side yard. However, patios (a sports court is considered a patio) are permitted to encroach into the required rear yard, as long as a minimum setback of fifteen (15') feet is maintained. Per the site plan submitted by the petitioner, the sports court is located one (1') foot from the south property line (side yard), instead of the required five (5') feet and nine (9') feet from the west property line (rear yard), instead of the required fifteen (15') feet. Therefore, a variation for the side yard and rear yard setback requirements is required. Besides the variation requests for the side and rear yard setbacks, the proposed improvements would comply with the RA bulk requirements, including floor area ratio and overall lot coverage. The following table compares the existing and proposed improvements to the RA Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. The italicized text denotes items that require zoning relief from the Village Code's bulk regulations. Staff conducted a site visit to the property on October 6, 2015. During the visit, staff noted that the post for the basketball hoop is approximately nine (9") inches from the west property line and the edge of framing for the court is approximately sixteen (16") inches from the (west) property line. Also, staff noted that the edge of framing for the court is approximately eight feet six inches (8.5') from the west property line. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. RA Single Family District Requirements Existing (without sports court) Proposed Setbacks (Principal Structure): Front (east) Min. 30' 21.75' No Change Interior Side (north and south) Min. 5' 4.92' and 9' No Change Rear (west) Min. 25' 77.12' No Change Setbacks (Accessory Structure): Interior Side (north and south) Min 5' 1' Rear (west) Min 15' 9' F.A.R Max. 0.5 (3,897.25 sq. ft.) 0.39 (3,016 sq. ft.) 0.39 (3,016 sq. ft.) Lot Coverage Max. 50% (3,897.25 sq. ft.) 32.39% (2,525 sq. ft.) (3,247 sq. ft.) Staff conducted a site visit to the property on October 6, 2015. During the visit, staff noted that the post for the basketball hoop is approximately nine (9") inches from the west property line and the edge of framing for the court is approximately sixteen (16") inches from the (west) property line. Also, staff noted that the edge of framing for the court is approximately eight feet six inches (8.5') from the west property line. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: • A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. PZ -25-15 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting October 22, 2015 Page 3 Per the Petitioner, the other parts of the property are not suitable for installation of the court. They have indicated that moving the court south would require costly grading and the removal of a large maple tree and root system. The petitioner has stated that the subject property is unique because of the slope of the yard as well as the location of the maple trees. Staff has reviewed the Petitioner's request and finds that the standards for a variation have not been met. The Subject Property's characteristics are not unique and unusual, and would be applicable to other property in the Village. The Variation request does not meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The location of the trees and the slope of the yard, which is not excessive, do not constitute hardships. The Petitioner has the option of locating the sports court so that it meets the required five (5') feet side yard and fifteen (15') feet rear yard setback as permitted by Code. RECOMMENDATION Based on staff's analysis, the Variation request does not meet the standards for a variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons noted above. Therefore, Staff recommends that the P&Z recommend denial of the following motion: "To approve a variation to allow a one (1') foot side yard setback and a nine (9') foot rear yard setback for a sports court, as shown in the attached plans dated October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S. Emerson Street" The Village Board's decision is final for this case. I concur: William J. ooney, A ] (' ' Director of Community )evelopment /it HVLANTIanning & Zoning COMMT Z 2015\PZ-25-I5 308 S Emerson Street (VAR- Sports Court).docx Angell, Lisa From: Cooney, Bill Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:54 AM To: Angell, Lisa; Agoranos, Karen Subject: FW: request for waiving of second reading FYI From: sean mitchell [mailto:smitch308( ghoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 9:57 AM To: Cooney, Bill Cc: Roberta Mitchell; Sean Mitchell Subject: request for waiving of second reading William J. Cooney, AICP Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 or Via fax: 847/818-5329 or Via email: bcoonevZ-mountorosr)ect.ora Dear Mr. Cooney, The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of our variance of a side and rear yard setback for use of a sport court only by a 7-0 vote. Our request is scheduled to go before Village Board for the ordinance's first reading Nov 3 2015. We are requesting that the Village Board waive the second reading, tentatively scheduled for November 17 2015, and take final action at the November 3`d meeting. We are anxious to receive final word on these matters. I appreciate your assistance in facilitating this request. Should you have any questions, feel free to contact us at 847-253-5180 (home) or 847-927-934 (cell). Many thanks, Roberta and Sean Mitchell 308 S. Emerson St Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Scanned by the Symantee Email Security.cloud service. 1 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ -25-15 PROPERTY ADDRESS: PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: October 22, 2015 308 S. Emerson Avenue Sean Mitchell October 7, 2015 08-12-126-015-0000 Variation — Side and rear yard setbacks for a sports court Thomas Fitzgerald Keith Youngquist Jeanne Kueter Sharon Otteman Norbert Mizwicki Joseph Donnelly, Chair Agostino Filippone - Associate William Beattie Consuelo Andrade, Deputy Director of Community Development Latika Bhide, Development Review Planner Sean and Roberta Mitchell, Ed and Chris Warden 1 Chairman Donnelly called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Commissioner Fitzgerald made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 27`h, 2015 meeting; Commissioner Younquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 6-0 with Commissioner Otteman abstaining. After hearing one (1) additional case, Chairman Donnelly introduced Case PZ -25-15 308 S. Emerson Avenue and stated it was Village Board Final. Ms. Bhide stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Emerson Street, south of Milburn Avenue and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA district. Ms. Bhide stated the Petitioner installed a sports court, nineteen feet (19') by thirty-eight feet (38') in the rear of the property this summer without a permit. Per the site plan, the court is located one foot (1') from the south property line (interior side), eleven feet (11') from the north property line (interior side) and nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear side). Ms. Bhide stated that accessory structures are not permitted to be located in a required side yard. However, patios (a sports court is considered a patio) are permitted to encroach into the required rear Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 2 yard, as long as a minimum setback of fifteen feet (15') is maintained. Per the site plan submitted by the petitioner, the sports court is located one foot (1') from the south property line (side yard), instead of the required five feet (5') and nine feet (9') from the west property line (rear yard), instead of the required fifteen feet (15'). Therefore, a variation for the side yard and rear yard setback requirements is required. Ms. Bhide summarized the standards for a variation as the following: A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; • Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and • Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Bhide stated that Staff has reviewed the Petitioner's request for variation and finds that the standards have not been met. The Subject Property's characteristics are not unique and unusual, and would be applicable to other property in the Village. The location of the trees and the slope of the yard, which is not excessive, do not constitute hardships. The Variation request does not meet the standards for a Variation because there is no hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. The Petitioner has the option of locating the sports court so that it meets the required five feet (5') side yard and fifteen feet (15') rear yard setback as permitted by Code. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to adopt staff's findings as the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission and recommend denial of the following motion: "To approve a variation to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a sports court, as shown in the plan dated October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S. Emerson Street" She stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Commissioner Filippone asked about lighting for the court. Ms. Bhide stated that there are no lights currently installed, but the petitioner can address if lighting is put up temporarily. Commissioner Mizwicki asked if the basketball hoop would be located nine inches (9") from the property line. Ms. Andrade confirmed the distances of the hoop and the court. Commissioner Mizwicki said that was awfully close. Chairman Donnelly swore in Sean Mitchell and Roberta Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell stated that he was not aware that a permit would be required. He stated that they put a basketball hoop in the yard a few years ago. Earlier this summer, they removed the tree near the hoop as it had suffered some damage. Mr. Mitchell stated that they had received some light weight tiles and thought that these would be perfect to lay on the ground in the dirt. Because the ground was not entirely flat and because they believed that they had to manage stormwater, they graded the yard. He said that they removed the grass and filled the area with crushed stone; the depth was approximately 1.5 inches. Mr. Mitchell showed a video comparing hosing water over turf and the court. He stated that in his opinion, it was not the same as a patio because the sports court was permeable and allowed the water to go through. He showed pictures of surrounding properties and stated that the neighbor's garage is on the fence line without a setback. Mr. Mitchell Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 3 showed several other pictures of surrounding properties with accessory structures on lot lines. He stated that he had four (4) children and that Emerson Street was a busy street. Mr. Mitchell presented a signed petition from the neighbors in support of his request. He stated that when he has company over he has run a cord with lights across the tree, but never past 10:00 pm in the summer. He said that it was a temporary light. Chairman Donnelly stated that even with the addition of the court, the property was under the maximum allowable lot coverage. Commissioner Youngquist clarified that a patio (even if permeable) would add to the lot coverage. Commissioner Youngquist asked about the required setbacks on a fifty foot (50') wide lot. Commissioner Otteman stated that she lived at 312 S. Emerson and that her garage is on the lot line. She stated that she cannot move her garage without impacting a large tree and would need a variation when rebuilding her garage. Commissioner Filippone asked if the petitioner has received any complaints from the neighbors to the south and west. Mr. Mitchell stated that all the immediate neighbors are in favor and have signed the petition, and the only complaint was from the neighbor that was two lots to the north. Chairman Donnelly stated that they had received a letter signed by six (6) people asking the Planning and Zoning Commission to not approve the variation. Chairman Donnelly swore in Mr. and Mrs. Worden, 304 S. Emerson Street. Mrs. Worden stated that she is concerned with the water run-off. She stated that when there are heavy rains, the water stagnates, the grass dies and they get mosquitoes and she is concerned that this will have a negative impact. She stated that having so much play equipment in a small yard would bring down their property values. Mrs. Worden stated that the children routinely make noise 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. and she is required to keep the windows closed in summer and anticipates this to be more of an issue over time. Mr. Worden stated that the letter speaks for itself and he did not have anything to add. Mrs. Worden added that zoning codes are there for a reason. Mr. Mitchell said that the kids go to bed at a reasonable hour and they are not there until 10:30 p.m. or 11:00 p.m. He said that immediate neighbors who may be affected by the run-off if any have signed the petition in support. He said that if the court was moved (to meet the setbacks) it would be closer to 304 S. Emerson. Chair Donnelly confirmed that the Engineering Division does not have any concerns with the court. He asked staff if there was a limitation on the number of play equipment on the property. Ms. Andrade stated that there is a limitation on the number of detached structures. Up to two (2) detached accessory structures are permitted, but that it would not apply to the sports court in question. Chair Donnelly stated that any noise after 10:30 p.m. would be a police issue, not a zoning issue. Commissioner Youngquist asked if the garage was in the front of the property. Mr. Mitchell answered that it was an attached garage and they had initially thought to attach the hoop to the garage, but were worried about the safety of the children if the ball rolled onto Emerson Street. Commissioner Youngquist said that because of the attached garage they do not have a driveway going to the rear of the property like a lot of the neighbors. Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman 4 Chair Donnelly asked for confirmation that the variation would apply to the sports court only. Ms. Andrade responded the variation would be specific to the sports court. Commissioner Jeanne Kueter asked about the lighting. Ms. Andrade stated the Village Code did not allow light trespass or direct glare onto adjacent properties. Any lighting would be subject to the code provisions. Commissioner Youngquist stated that a construction lamp without a canopy would not meet the Code provision. He said that any light must be directed directly into the yard. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked how far the court would have to be moved to meet setbacks. Ms. Bhide said that the court would have to be moved 6 feet east and 4 feet to the north. Mr. Mitchell stated that the root system of the big maple tree that was removed would make moving the court six feet (6') east difficult. The slope of the yard would also make it difficult. Commissioner Kueter asked why they would not make the court smaller to meet the setbacks. Mr. Mitchell said that they could, however it made sense to keep it in its current location because of where the hoop was located. Chair Donnelly asked if anyone else had anything to add before closing the hearing. Commissioner Youngquist stated that a lot of homes in Mount Prospect have detached garages in the back with basketball hoops and people play on the asphalt surface at all times. He said that they don't have that (possibility) here, and there is no lot coverage problem. Commissioner Otteman said that Emerson was a very busy street and people are often racing down (the street). She said it was a great block to live on, but that they could not be in the front yard. She stated that because their kitchen was located behind the garage, they could not make the garage as a pass-through. Commissioner Filippone said that he was trying to balance the petitioner's need and the resident concerns. He said that this petition was a Village Board final and they would have an opportunity to express their concerns to the Board. Commissioner Otteman discussed the reason for the stagnant water, but she stated that it was not related to the court. Commissioner Fitzgerald asked if there was a utility easement along the back of the property. Ms. Andrade said that there was no easement outlined on the Plat of Survey. Commissioner Fitzgerald said that because of the power lines back there, if someone wanted to work there on the power lines, they could. Mr. Mitchell said that they could move the tiles like carpeting. Commissioner Youngquist made a motion seconded by Commissioner Otteman to approve the following motion: "A Variation to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a sports court, as shown in the plan dated October 7, 2015 for the residence at 308 S. Emerson Street." UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Filippone, Fitzgerald, Otteman, Youngquist, Kueter, Mizwicki, Donnelly NAYS: None The vote was approved 7-0 with a positive recommendation to Village Board. Commissioner Otteman made a motion seconded by Commissioner Kueter and the meeting was adionmed at R-15 nm_ Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman Latik' 3hide, Development Review Planner Planning and Zoning Meeting- October 22, 2015 PZ -25-15 Joseph Donnelly, Chairman VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Community Development Department — Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone: (847) 818-5328 Fax: (847) 818-5329 Zoning Request Application Mount OFFICIAL USE, ONLY (To be completed by Village Staff) Case Number: P&Z - - Date of Submission: Hearing Date: Development Name/Address: I. SUBJECT PROPERTY Address(es): --?OS S. E Me rsart &I - Zoning District (s): 114 Property Area: SQ.Ft. Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): Of- !d Id wj— Adjacent Zoning Districts: Adjacent Land Uses: To the North: To the North: 7(A.� VAC To the South: To the South: To the East: To the East: To the Vilest: To the West: ll. ZONING REQUEST(S) (Check all that apply) ❑ Conditional Use: For R'Variation(s): From Chapter 14, Section(s)� ❑ Zoning Map Amendment: Rezone From to ❑ Zoning Text Amendment: Section(s) ❑ Other: Official Use Only To be completed by Village Staff): ❑ Administrative, ❑ P&Z Final, ❑ Village Board Final III. SUMMARY OF REQUESTED ACTION(S) .va Hours of Operation: IV. APPLICANT (all correspondence will be sent to the applicant) Name ��- n �'}�j� l�_ Corporation: Interest In Property: (e.g. owner, buyer, developer, lessee, architect, attorney, etc...) Address:; Work Phone: Cell Phone: I V 7-1f 7 Fax Email V. PROPERTY OWNER Check if Same as Applicant Name: Corporation: Address: Work Phone: Cell Phone: Fax: Email: VI. EXISTING SITE INFORMATION VII. PROPOSED SITE INFORMATION el- c_i r-4 vt t4 Building Size: P ��..�— Sq. Ft. t ovr �i �� � % Sq. Ft. Tenant Space Size: L) Sq. Ft. TenaTt e -Size: Sq. Ft Land Use: t Land Use: Building Setbacks: (N) J ­ Feet, Inches Building Setbacks: (N) Feet, Inches (S) Feet, Inches _S,1 -,►/e_ (S) Feet, Inches (E) ` Feet, Inches (E) Feet, Inches (W) Feet, Inches (W) Feet, Inches Lot Coverage: �� Lot Coverage: 3/ Sq. Ft. (Overall Impervious) -3 Sq. Ft. (Overall Impervious) Parking Provided- Standard Standard p Accessible Accessible VIII. DEVELOPMENT/PROJECT PROFESSIONALS 1. Developer Name: Address: Email: Phone: Fax: Z. Architect Name: Address: Email: Phone: Fax - 3. Engineer Name: Address: Email: Phone: Fax: 4. Landscape Architect Name: Email: Fax: Email: Fax: Email: Fax: In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agent's permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant: Date: �/k�/ T (Signature) c r< (Print Name) If applicant is not property owner: I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the zoning request(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner: Date: (Signature) (Print Name) VARIATION 1. Because of the particular physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a specific hardship to the owner would result, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience if the strict letter of the regulations was to be applied; Other parts of the land are not conducive for this court. Moving the court south and/or east would require costly leveling of the land as well as large maple tree and root removal. This is a permeable surface on a small bed of crushed stone. There is no change to the direction of water flow. 2. The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification; This property is unique to other properties because of the angle/hill/ slope of the yard, as well as location of very large maple tree and roots. 3. The purpose of the variation is not based primarily upon a desire to increase financial gain; No financial gain will come of this sport court. The property is not for sale or rent. This is for the use of our family, as living on the busy section of Emerson, we prefer to not play in the front. 4. The alleged difficulty or hardships is caused by this Chapter and has not been created by any person presently having any interest in the property; Difficulty and hardships would be caused by this Chapter because it would require the removal of very large maple tree, roots, and costly leveling of property. 5. The granting of the variation will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; Granting this variation will in no way be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the other property or improvements in the neighborhood. 6. The granting of the variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; The granting of this variation will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. It is frequently enjoyed by surrounding neighborhood families. 7. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to the adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets, or increase the danger of fire, or impair natural drainage or create drainage problems on adjacent properties, or endanger the public safety, or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. This court is flat on the surface of the yard. No light or air supply, have been impaired. No congestion has been created on the public streets. There is no increase of fire danger. There is no public safety endangerment. No impairment to natural drainage has been caused. This surface is permeable. The plastic tiles have holes in them and are on top of a %Z inch layer of crushed stone which is on the dirt surface. s S -Pe-c-X7 Qe7 ti 1 i v:�r7L Vv" Lovi--i Svr C r%'' cr(aAe- x '1�kl7e- MOUNT PROSPSCT APO 23 AM BUILDING DIVISION ,�/a,-J4,— 309S, �TE.E'Sc�/V . ST.eEc�T EA o� �n �w iss n .a .L rr A 5 • 2 3 7 n E 9 m ,� �=.,,,.,�,,�C ''�►��Yy, .gyp ,% f * i _ �. �;s' , + f `..,'i . r M� � ' Jf{_'"�.`.~�-71. �f f. `�y. • ;. ; �..�z-...r;.,,.,%, .jam,. �. yr� V� •� �'9 � i j ink a,� �.-�.•'� A. Si � �..Y � .� � •r 2 i" �tjIvy 1 Jot .a 0 1To i , ♦� iri+�ia� .rir�rrr� ► ��1 ► � ,,�� rai INI iia � "riH�iii, ..iri ♦i i j �� � ���� ��`, .iaa iia/ i t e riau iN RE: Case No. PZ -25-15 RECEIVED OCT 1 6 2015 Village of ML Prosped Community Development Octob' Dear Members of the Zoning Commission, Do not allow allow the property located at 308 S. Emerson Street a variance for a private outdoor sports court. Do expedite the demand for the immediate removal of the illegally installed private outdoor basketball court at 308 S. Emerson Street. I request that the variance for a private outdoor sports court (POSC) at the subject property not be approved. I, and other concerned nearby residents, will be adversely affected by such variance if it is approved by the Zoning Commission. We have already been adversely affected with undue hardship resulting from the illegally installed POSC that currently exists at this time at the subject property. Additionally, due to the undue hardships experienced from the illegally installed POSC, and for public safety concerns, we implore the commission to expedite the demand for an immediate removal of the illegally installed POSC that currently exists at this time at the subject property. As you already know, Lions Park, a beautiful public park, has soccer, football and baseball fields as well as basketball courts for public use. Lions Park is situated in a location that has been approved for such activity. Lions Park is approximately two blocks away from the subject property requesting the variance. Lions Park provides an adequate solution for basketball play and any and all other play for the other items currently in the subject property backyard. What you do not know, which I am writing at this time to notify you, are the concerns of nearby residents. We deeply oppose an approval of the requested variance by the property owner where the POSC is located. a) Conditions particular to that property are causing a hardship. We believe the lot size, shape, current configuration, or any known or unknown modified configuration of the lot, will not adequately provide for a POSC and at the same time also provide for the proper water runoff that it creates. Adequate and proper water runoff is important for our health and property values, and we have concerns for our health and and property values. Residents are concerned for the flooding of surrounding yards and basements. Flooding of yards may result in the creation of an environment that is favorable for increased breeding of dangerous mosquitoes and other pests. Flooding of basements will result in lowered property values. If the POSC is allowed to remain, or to exist with Zoning Commission permission, then the hardships as described will likely be experienced as flooding already occurs of a neighboring yard. Therefore, we concerned residents request the homeowner pay for and obtain an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) from a neutral, approved and qualified party to create a report and provide the findings to the Zoning Commission before the Zoning Commission gives any further consideration of variance at this time. We believe it is in the best public interest for the entire community that the Commission do its due diligence of obtaining an EIS as described prior to further consideration for variance. Until an EIS is obtained the Zoning Commission has no true understanding of the consequences of the effects of approving the POSC. We believe anything less than doing full due diligence that may have a negative impact on the people of the community is not sound governance. b) The property owner has self-created a hardship. He is only now, after the fact, requesting approval to have a POSC on his property by way of requesting a needed variance after he built the POSC that requires a variance. That is not a valid reason to be provided a variance. c) To our understanding, the homeowner did not follow ordinance by first obtaining a Permit prior to building the POSC. This results in public safety concerns. If the zoning requirement for Permit(s) to build have been ignored, then the installation of a POSC and accompanying pole mounted stadium lighting around the yard perimeter prior to obtaining valid Permit(s) from the Zoning Commission in and of itself is sufficient reason to have the POSC immediately removed. We request that the immediate removal of the POSC to occur at this time if the POSC has been erected without being Permitted properly as required, and also inspected at required stages of construction by authorized and qualified Public Works Official(s) as required by law. Building codes help ensure the public safety and if the periodic inspections have not occurred then we have a concern for public safety. Permit to build is typically obtained with a plat of survey with proposed building design(s) prior to Permit being approved. To our knowledge and until proven otherwise, this has not been completed, submitted, or approved by the Commission or by Public Works to have Permit(s) issued. Therefore, if Permit was not approved and issued, and if inspections for the safety of the public have not been performed by an authorized party at Public Works, then before variance approval should even merely considered, we find it quite necessary and correctly so to have the existing structure be completely and immediately removed and have the lot returned back to its original condition as required by village ordinance. Only then if the homeowner desires to have a POSC installed in that location they may proceed using the proper channels and legal means, including variance request with public opposition opportunity prior to the construction of a POSC, the issuance of Permits, and finally inspections during construction if all of the aforementioned are approved in good and proper order. d) Property value impact. Currently the yard has several items that are not necessarily outside of ordinance, however we believe the items as a whole constitute a "Playground Park". We believe adding more "Playground Park" items to this already full yard is unreasonable and will reduce property values. Property values have not yet improved to baseline since the 2009 housing drop. We would appreciate if one neighbor does not reduce property values again because they would like to have more "Playground Park" items in their yard. A full-sized trampoline, a tree swing and two climbers seems reasonably sufficient to put in the yard of a persons home with its current lot size and existing improvements. If more items are required, and subsequently approved by the Commission, such as allowing the pole mounted yard perimeter stadium lighting to remain and allowing for loud sporting events occurring late into the night on a POSC, then we're convinced that will lower our property values in a way that would be considered unjust. The small downtown lot with the "Playground Park" atmosphere including perimeter stadium lighting and a POSC is not congruent with the rest of the neighborhood to such a degree that we believe it adversely affects our property values. We would like to request at this time from the Zoning Commission to confirm the stadium lighting was Permitted and installed by a licensed and/or qualified as per ordinance electrician. If not, then we request the proper officials instruct that to be removed by a qualified electrician to protect the public safety from this lighting. e) Disturbing the peace. There are often 10-15 children in the yard with seemingly little to no supervision. I have no problems with children playing and having fun, and I encourage it. But, having 10-15 children at all times of the day and at times late at night with the stadium lighting, loud music, and fireworks reduces my quality of life. I have to leave the windows closed during nice weather. The 10-15 children can play and scream at Lions Park and have the same level of fun without the need to mimic a Lions Park in their backyard. The level of noise that occurs at times past 10:30 while I have to sleep with earplugs in so I can work the next day is correctly described as disturbing the peace. Please help in every way by refusing a variance and by demanding that the POSC be removed. Sincerely, Vvt o� ���M Q o °Eco Hello Neighbor The Mitchell family at 308 S. Emerson has installed a sport court in our backyard. This temporary and permeable surface"s location is currently being reviewed by the village zoning oommiu)on. If you are comfortable with us keeping the court where it is currently installed, Please sign the form below to show your support for us in our upcoming board review. Many thanks NAME ADDRESS VI Y' AJ In ' Lcl u, JV rl _ 60�4�� Lr 60�4�� Lr Ile a 11M■OM. d m, • ' X 1.■ M C C -F IL ," I P771 I E71 -(Tr � . r%a 4d N Ilk w r *4 R 4 4 •� M .m ,—, I, 40 14MEW i mom « ter►. r 6 T ti k w d4 n1W IN �w w yaw ww�♦ 0 „ 4 i �� w _ „ _ a� �u ,� � r � wrry � R .M �_" � " , ry y •. R � wr i 7 ti � r r r � , +f h J 70PMt� � \� � � ' \� �`. -14 -1 -- 0IbL x i il W k ryry �h. YV- F p e 4 mar r. I� I� WAJu w rl, A le Nk I ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS (SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 308 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Sean and Roberta Mitchell (Petitioners), have filed a petition for Variations to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for property located at 308 South Emerson Street (Property) and legally described as: LOT 20 IN WALDEMAR KRAUSES'S ADDITION TO MOUNT PROSPECT, IN THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Property Index Number 08-12-126-015-0000; and WHEREAS, the "Petitioners" seek Variations to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a sports court as shown on the Petitioner's Site Plan attached as Exhibit "A" for the property located at 308 South Emerson Street; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Variations being the subject of PZ -25-15 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the22nd day of October, 2015, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Daily Herald Newspaper on the 7th day of October 2015; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ -25-15; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the request meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the Variations to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a sports court would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect grant Variations to allow a one foot (1') side yard setback and a nine foot (9') rear yard setback for a sports court as shown on the site plan. SECTION THREE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance and Exhibit "A" with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED AND APPROVED this day of, 2015. ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk Arlene A. Juracek Mayor 308 S. Emerson Street 08-12-126-015-0000 Sw44, CoUrf 4 or44,- 309 4, - 30 s EiYlE.G50n/ ST.efEP o 4 or44,- 309 4, - 30 s EiYlE.G50n/ ST.efEP 5 1 tvrrrs^�v^ €'�O rTr^rT W/PdC 13"3N 4 or44,- 309 4, - 30 s EiYlE.G50n/ ST.efEP 20 N. Wacker Drive, Ste 1660 Chicago, Illinois 60606-2903 T 312 984 6400 F 312 984 6444 KLEIN, THORPE & JENKINS, LTD. Attorneys at Law DD 312 984 6420 emhill@ktilaw.com MEMORANDUM TO: Mike Cassady FROM: Everette M. Hill, Jr. DATE: October 29, 2015 RE: Catalytic Converter Theft Ordinance 15010 S. Ravinia Avenue, Ste 10 Orland Park, Illinois 60462-5353 T 708 349 3888 F 708 349 1506 www.ktjlaw.com The mayor recently brought to the attention of the staff that the City of Chicago and Cook County were leading an area wide effort to address the mounting problem of catalytic converter theft. This particular auto part contains precious metals that may be extracted and sold for profit. If stolen, the cost of replacement is between $1000 and $2000. The matter has also been brought to our attention by at least one of our own auto repair shops. It is believed that, in order to have a significant impact, each municipality in the metropolitan area must make the dealing in catalytic converters a violation of the law. The attached ordinance is our response. This ordinance prohibits anyone except a Mount Prospect licensed auto repair shop from removing, purchasing or selling a catalytic converter. The ordinance also permits the removal of a catalytic converter from one's own vehicle. The ordinance requires every repair shop to maintain a record of the removal or receipt of a used catalytic converter. The ordinance has been reviewed and approved by the police department. 355742_1 MARTY QUINN ALDERMAN, 13TH WARD 6500 S. PULASKI ROAD - 60629 TELEPHONE: (773) 581-8000 Mayor Arlene A Juracek Village of Mount Prospect 50 S Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 June 9, 2015 Dear Mayor Juracek: CITY COUNCIL CITY OF CHICAGO COUNCIL CHAMBER SECOND FLOOR, CITY HALL 121 NORTH LASALLE STREET COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPS AVIATION RULES AND ETHICS LICENSE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION SPECIAL EVENTS, CULTURAL AFFAIRS AND RECREATION PEDESTRIAN AND TRAFFIC SAFETY TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC WAY Recently the Chicago City Council passed an ordinance prohibiting secondhand dealers, junk peddlers and pawn shops from dealing in catalytic converters. It also provides all of the city's motor vehicle repair shops and recycling facilities with clear specific guidelines regarding who they can accept catalytic converters from and how to responsibly dispose of them. In addition to providing Chicago Police Officers with another tool to combat these thefts citywide, the ordinance will also supplement CPD's enforcement efforts by helping to dry up the Chicago market for stolen catalytic converters. The theft of catalytic converters has become more common as the market for the precious metals in these devices has increased. Since there is constant traffic between the city of Chicago and the surrounding suburbs, it would be good public policy for your municipality to adopt a similar ordinance. Combining our efforts to dry up the market will decrease catalytic converter theft in the greater Chicagoland area. Attached for you use, please find a sample ordinance and a list of Scrap Metal Yards in the city of Chicago and Suburban Cook County. Please feel free to call me with any questions. With kindest regards, I remain Sincerely, u�vrw� Marty Quinn Alderman, 13th Ward ® -@MNI- 310 ORDINANCE WHEREAS, Since 1975, all motor vehicles produced in the United States are required to have a catalytic converter as part of the exhaust system. The catalytic converter is an emissions control device containing precious metals, such as platinum, palladium or rhodium, that act as catalysts. When hot exhaust enters the converter, a chemical reaction occurs that turns toxic carbon monoxide gas and hydrocarbons into less harmful emissions; and WHEREAS, With the price of precious metal skyrocketing, thieves have acquired an interest in stealing catalytic converters, which they then pawn or sell to junk peddlers, secondhand dealers, motor vehicle repair shops, and recycling facilities for a fraction of the converter's cost. Stolen catalytic converters typically reap the thief a profit of $100.00 to $150.00, while, depending on the make and model of the vehicle, it costs the vehicle owner between $1,000.00 and $2,000.00 to replace; and WHEREAS, Vehicles that sit higher from the ground, such as trucks, pick-up trucks and SUVs, are particularly vulnerable to catalytic converter theft because thieves can access the converter simply by sliding underneath the vehicle without having to jack it up. With just a few cuts of a battery -powered saw, a catalytic converter can be removed from a vehicle in less than a minute; and WHEREAS, Catalytic converter theft typically happens to vehicles that are parked for prolonged periods in large parking lots, such as shopping centers, mass transit commuter lots or company parking lots. However, vehicles parked on City streets are not immune from such theft, as the February 2015 spate of catalytic converter thefts in the Armour Square neighborhood on Chicago's South Side most recently demonstrated; and WHEREAS, Because catalytic converters are not marked with the vehicle's VIN number, they are not readily traceable to the vehicle's owner, making them easy fodder for theft and illegal resale; and WHEREAS, The City Council of the City of Chicago seeks to deter catalytic converter theft by making it more difficult for thieves to sell stolen catalytic converters in Chicago; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO: SECTION 1. Section 4-6-150 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 4-6-150 Junk peddlers. (a) Definitions. As used in this section: j� No sueh licensee ijudc,, this dih i :a or shall take or receive in pawn or pledge, for money loaned, or shall buy or otherwise transfer or receive, any firearm, ammunition, stun gun or Laser from any person, (41 rJo licensee under this chapter shall purchase lake car receivefroin ,olv-)crson in Pawn or e(l ,e, j r nnurtc _Inaned, any [ ilnlytic,, converter that is not attached to a motor or any portion of'a dismantled catalytic. converter that is reasonl-ibly id(.iaihablc as such. SECTION 3. Section 4-264-090 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 4-264-090 Prohibited purchases. (a) No secondhand dealer shall purchase any article of secondhand property whatsoever from any minor without the written consent of a parent or legal guardian. The Such consent must be signed in the presence of the licensee, who must include the consent in the daily record required under Section 4-264-050. No secondhand dealer shall purchase any article of secondhand property from any person who appears intoxicated or under the influence of any drug. U No secondhand dealer shall purchase any article of secondhand property from any person known to be a thief or to have been convicted of theft or burglary, and when any person is found to be the owner of stolen property which has been bought, such property shall be returned to the owner thereof without the payment of the amount paid by the secondhand dealer for the stolen property. Q No Secondhand dealer Shall purchaw, take or receive from any person any catalytic conve rtcr (hat is not attached to a motor vehicle, or any portion of a dismantled catal is converter that is reason rhly idcrztil ._ihle as such. SECTION 4. Section 4-228-210 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 4-228-210 Proper disposal of unrepairable or unclaimed vehicle and parts other than tires and catalytic converters. Motor vehicle repair shops shall lawfully dispose of all unrepairable or unclaimed motor vehicles and motor vehicle parts within their custody;_ prorvided 1'rovided, however, that the disposal of tires shall be governed by Section 4-228-200. Provided 4-2213-217 Prover clisposal_of ca fialytie converters. Cawfvtic converters oarts of dismantled gt.aaly€ic converters shall only bcN sold, disposed U_l'_or otherwise transferred: LL)..to a ther l�rc}��erlV licensed motor vclli�l�_ rep iir st7o Linder Chapter 4-228 of this Code or 2 to a properly permilicd Class I VA or Clays 1 VI3, re�c�g facility _under Chapter 1 1-4 of this Code or 3 rulurn ingthe converter or part thereof to its OriI;iIMl 111.rrrrrf8etatre1'l qac h c rtdtivtic converter. c�rapart theroof th_ gal is sold, disposed uf'0F otherwise trar11s1c1-1'ed a)ursuant to this section shiaii be ,accoiiip_g ied_by a co )y of the record rUmiced upxler subsection (aa) of Section 4-228-255 perta inirn�_' ta} ,such converter ori2iiol, SECTION 7. Section 4-228-255 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 4-228-255 Maintenance of records — Advertising; requirements. (a) Each motor vehicle repair shop shall maintain copies of estimates, work orders, invoices, parts purchase orders, appraisals and schedules of charges prepared by that repair shop. A dated invoice shall be prepared Im each catalytic converter that is remova.d from a vehicle, Soar_invoice shall include the full name, address, telephonc;,adimber and driver's license number of the _owner of the vehicle1_ frrom which the catalytic converter vvas removed. and the ninke, mc��lcl, a+ aar and vin nunibcr of such vehicle. Such copies or invoices shall be kept by the licensee for two years ancf. j(.)n [cc u_f est by_arnX authorized city official, shall be made available for inspection durin,�the shop's re �c� alar NI.Siness hours by auth01-iZ0d city official c#ttritht1slep°times lit3ttrs. (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) SECTION 8. Section 11-4-2657 of the Municipal Code of Chicago is hereby amended by deleting the language stricken through and by inserting the language underscored, as follows: 11-4-2657 Prohibited activities. No recycling facility permittee shall: (Omitted text is unaffected by this ordinance) (g) sort through garbage for the purpose of recovering recyclable material without first obtaining a waste handling facility permit issued under Section 11-4-1520; er cis — Chicago "�c�c�acla etas. yards Scrap Metal Services, LLC 13830 S Brainard (Burnham) Scrap Metal Recycling 409 N Addison City Scrap Metal 1815 N Kingsbury St Lakeshore Recycling Systems 3152 S California Chase Steel, Inc 813 Cermak Rd Joseph N Cozzi Enterprises Inc — Scrap Metal Yard 4015 S Ashland Central Metal Recycling LLC 5618 S Filmore All State Scrap Metal Recycling 3590 W Potomac Onstate Recycling 5825 S State Tri State Metal Company 1745 W Fulton Pure Metal Recycling 3357 S Justin Stainless & Alloy Div 6660 S Nashville (Bedford Park) Chicago Industrial Catalytic Ltd 4427 W 45th Street Regal Johnson 5301 W 66`x' Street Archer Metal C & R Scrap 4619 S Knox Brookfield Rootirce Ml -int 171 E 121" Street, Chicago Heights Hunter Douglas Metal, Inc 915 175`" Street, Homewood Commercial Metals Co 11950 S Harlem, Palos Heights Lemont Scrap Processing, Lt 16229 New Ave, Lemont Sims Metal Management 4747 US 30, Matteson All American Recycling 2285 New Lenox Rd, Joliet Gaby Iron & Metal Co 2611 East End Ave, Chicago Heights Berlinsky Scrap Corporation 212 Page Ave, Joliet Ace Iron & Metals, Inc 11 3`d Ave, Joliet S & S Metal Recyclers II 336 W Sullivan Rd, Aurora Aurora Metal Recycling 619 Spruce St, Aurora Alliance Metal Recycling 1137 Michell Rd, Aurora Fox Valley Iron & Metal Corporation 637 N Broadway, Aurora Midwest Industrial Metals 615 Northwest Ave, Northlake G & M Metals 1970 Estes Ave, Elk Grove Village ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 23 "OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS REGULATIONS" OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, since 1975, all motor vehicles produced in the United States are required to have a catalytic converter as part of the exhaust system. The catalytic converter is an emissions control device containing precious metals, such as platinum, palladium or rhodium, that act as catalysts. When hot exhaust enters the converter, a chemical reaction occurs that turns toxic carbon monoxide gas and hydrocarbons into less harmful emissions; and WHEREAS, because of these precious metals, thieves are stealing catalytic converters. They are pawned or sold to junk peddlers, secondhand dealers, motor vehicle repair shops and recycling facilities for a fraction of the converter's cost. A thief makes $100.00 to $150.00 from a stolen catalytic converter. It costs the vehicle owner between $1,000 and $2,000 to replace it; and WHEREAS, with just a few cuts of a battery powered saw, a catalytic converter can be removed from a vehicle in less than a minute; and WHEREAS, catalytic converter theft often happens to vehicles that are parked for prolonged periods in large parking lots, such as shopping centers, mass transit commuter lots or company parking lots. However, vehicle parked on Village streets are not immune from such theft; and WHEREAS, because catalytic converters are not marked with the vehicle's VIN number, they are not readily traceable to the vehicle's owner, making them easy fodder for theft and illegal resale; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect seek to deter catalytic converter theft by joining with other municipalities to make it more difficult for thieves to sell stolen catalytic converters in the northern Illinois area; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION 1: Article IV "Offenses Against Property' of Chapter 23 "Offenses and Miscellaneous Regulations" of the Mount Prospect Village Code is hereby amended by adding a new Section 23.406 entitled "Sale, Trade and Recordkeeping With Respect to Catalytic Converters" which shall read as follows: 23.406: Sale, Trade and Recordkeeping with Respect to Catalytic Converters 348057_1 C �� A. Prohibitions. No person, except a properly licensed motor vehicle repair shop or a properly licensed recycling facility, shall remove, sell, deliver, purchase, take or receive any used catalytic converter or part of a used catalytic converter. B. Exceptions. The foregoing shall not apply to a catalytic converter that is functioning as a catalytic converter and is properly affixed to a motor vehicle. Neither shall it apply to a person making repairs on his or her own motor vehicle. C. Removal of Catalytic Converters. Anytime a repair shop or recycling facility removes or receives a used catalytic converter, the transaction shall be recorded in a log. Each entry shall include the full name, address, telephone number and driver's license number of the owner of the vehicle from which the catalytic converter was removed, and the make, model, year and VIN number of such vehicle. Such log shall be kept by the licensee for two years and, upon request by any authorized Village official, shall be made available for inspection during the shop's regular business hours. SECTION 2: 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 , 2015 Arlene A. Juracek Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk 348057_1 2 Mount Prospect Public Works Department LL $/ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL CASSADY FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS DATE: OCTOBER 29, 2015 SUBJECT: CENTRAL ROAD & WELLER LANE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS IDOT INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT Background In November 2014, the Village was awarded a $92,400 grant from the federally -funded Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS). The purpose of the grant is to improve the pedestrian crossing at Central Road & Weller Lane. Locally, the SRTS program is administered by the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). In July 2015, the Village Board of Trustees entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with IDOT. The estimated cost of the project was $137,600. $92,400 of the proposed expenditure was to be funded by the SRTS grant and the remainder, $45,200 ($137,600 —$92,400 = $45,200), was to be drawn from Village funds. The original estimated cost of this project for the Village was $45,200. IDOT opened bids on July 31, 2015 and the low bidder was Alliance Contractors, Inc. of Woodstock, Illinois with a bid of $164,621.86. This result was $27,021.86 higher than the estimate. In August, the Village Board of Trustees concurred with IDOT to award the project to Alliance Contractors and approved a maximum Village participation of $79,500. This award included the Village's original estimated cost ($45,200), the additional cost attributed to bid results ($27,021.86), and a small construction contingency ($7,278.14) ($45,200 + $27,021.86 + $7,278.14 = $79,500). The awarded cost of this project for the Village was $79,500. Staff recently contacted [DOT requesting additional grant funding to cover the higher-than-expected construction costs. In our view, much of the additional cost was driven by specific IDOT requirements. The Village was notified last week that IDOT has agreed to direct an additional $39,300 to the project. The total grant amount is now $131,700. This revised grant amount reduces the Village's share of costs to $40,199.14. This share includes the $32,921.86 cost of the project not covered by the grant ($164,621.86 bid amount - $131,700 grant amount = $32,921.86) as well as the construction contingency ($7,278.14) ($32,921.86 + $7,278.14 = $40,199.14). The revised cost of the project for the Village is $40,199.14. Intergovernmental Agreement As part of the process to secure the additional grant funds, the Village must execute a Local Agreement Amendment (LAA) reflecting the revised amounts. The attached LAA shows the total construction amount of $164,621.86, the new grant amount of $131,700.00, and the Village's amount of the remaining $32,921.86. Please note that the LAA does not include the construction contingency ($7,278.14). Central Road & Weller Lane Pedestrian Crossing Improvements / IDOT Intergovernmental Agreement Amendment Page 2 of 2 October 29, 2015 Recommendation It is Staff's recommendation that a Resolution be passed authorizing the Mayor to sign the LAA and attesting that sufficient funds have been allocated for the Village's share of the Central Road & Weller Lane Pedestrian Crossing Improvements. Sean P. Dorsey Attachments: Local Agreement Amendment h:\engineering\agencies\srts\central-weller\vb resolution memo- revised.doa page 2 of 2 ®Illinois Department Local Public Agency State Contract Day Labor Local Contract RR Force Account of Transportation Village of Mount Prospect ® ❑ ❑ i❑ Section: 14-00162-00-SP Fund Type: SRTS ITELocal HSP /SRTS I HSIP 2014-0039 Public Agency Amendment 9 Y # 1 for Federal Participation Number(s) Construction En in enno Ri ht-of-Wa Job Number Project Number Job Number Pro ect Number Job Number Project Number C-91-246-15 SRTS-4009(323) This Amendment is made and entered into between the above local public agency, hereinafter referred to as the "LPA", and the state of Illinois, acting by and through its Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as "STATE". The STATE and LPA have jointly proposed to improve the designated location as described below and agree to the changes outlined in this Amendment. The improvement shall be constructed in accordance with plans approved by the STATE and the STATE's policies and procedures approved and/or required by the Federal Highway Administration, hereinafter referred to as "FHWA". Location Location Central Road Route FAU 1300 Length 0.06mi Termini at Weller Lane Current Jurisdiction LPA Type of Work Participating Construction Non -Participating Construction Preliminary Engineering Construction Engineering Right of Way Railroads Utilities Materials TOTAL NOTE: SRTS 131,700 TIP Number 03-15-0001 Amended Division of Cost Existing Structure No n/a LPA 32,921.86 BAL Total 164,621.86 $ 131,700 $ $ 32,921.86 $ 164,621.86 *Maximum FHWA (SRTS) participation 80% not to exceed $131,700. The costs shown in the Division of Cost table are approximate and subject to change. The final LPA share is dependent on the final Federal and State participation. The actual costs will be used in the final division of cost for billing and reimbursment. If funding is not a percentage of the total, place an asterisk in the space provided for the percentage and explain above. Local Public Agency Appropriation For Amendments Increasing the LPA share: By execution of this Amendment, the LPA attests that additional moneys have been appropriated or reserved by resolution or ordinance to fund the aditional share of LPA project costs. A copy of the resolution or ordinance is attached as an addendum (required for increases to state -let contracts only). Page 1 of 2 BLR 05311 (Rev. 09/03/15) ADDENDA Additional information, changes, and/or stipulations to the original Agreement are hereby attached and identified below as being a part of this Amendment. Number 1 — Location Map, Number 2 — Local Appropriation Resolution (Insert addendum numbers and titles as applicable) BE IT MUTUALLY AGREED that all remaining provisions of the original agreement not altered by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect and the Amendment shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, their successors and assigns. The LPA further agrees, as a condition of payment, that it accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions set forth in this Amendment and all Addenda. APPROVED Local Public Agency Arlene A. Juracek Name of Official (Print or Type Name) Mayor Title (County Board Chairperson/MayorNillage President/etc.) (Signature) Date The above signature certifies the agency's TIN number 36-6006011 conducting business as a Governmental Entity. DUNS Number 069507697 APPROVED State of Illinois Department of Transportation Randall S. Blankenhorn, Secretary By: Aaron A. Weatherholt, Deputy Director of Highways Date Omer Osman, Director of Highways/Chief Engineer Date William M. Barnes, Chief Counsel Date Jeff Heck, Chief Fiscal Officer (CFO) Date NOTE: If the LPA signature is by an APPOINTED official, a resolution authorizing said appointed official to execute this agreement is required. Page 2 of 2 BLR 05311 (Rev. 09/03/15) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (IDOT) FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL ROAD AND WELLER LANE, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Resolution No. 25-15 "A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN INTER - GOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (IDOT) FOR PEDESTRIAN CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CENTRAL ROAD AND WELLER LANE, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS was adopted by the Village Board of Trustees on July 7, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect and the Illinois Department of Transportation have jointly proposed to improve the pedestrian crossing at Central Road and Weller Lane; and WHEREAS, in 2014 the Village of Mount Prospect was awarded $92,400 in federal funds through the Safe Routes to School Program for the pedestrian crossing improvements; and WHEREAS, in October 2015 the Village of Mount Prospect was awarded an additional $39,300 in federal funds through the Safe Routes to School Program (STRS) resulting in a total grant amount of $131,700; and WHEREAS, the awarded total construction cost for the pedestrian crossing improvements at Central Road and Weller Lane is $164,621.86; $131,700 of this cost will be covered by SRTS grant and the remaining balance of $40,199.14 ($32,921.86 + $7,278.14 construction contingency) will be paid by the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the Amendment to the Agreement granting $39,300 in additional federal funds for the pedestrian safety crossing improvements at Central Road and Weller Lane and have determined that said amended Agreement is in the best interests of the Village. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS PURSUANT TO ITS HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: The Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby authorize and direct the Mayor to execute the Addenda to the original Agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and the Illinois Department of Transportation for pedestrian crossing safety improvements at Central Road and Weller Lane attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit "A". SECTION TWO: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES NAYS.- ABSENT: AYS:ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 2015 Arlene A. Juracek Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\files\WIN\RES\amendIntergovt Agrmsafergrantnov2015