HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 02/22/2005
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
Meeting Location:
Mount Prospect Village Hall
50 South Emerson Street
Meeting Date and Time:
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
7:00 p.m.
I.
CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL
Mayor Gerald L. Farley
Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron
Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks
Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael ladel
II.
ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8,2005
III.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
IV.
BICYCLE HELMET LAW
Mrs. Janet Weiss and her fourth grade class at Indian Grove School in Mount Prospect have
undertaken a yearlong project on helmet safety. As part of this undertaking, the students
determined that there was a need to increase the safety of bicycle, rollerblade and
skateboard riders by requiring all such users to wear safety helmets. To this end, the
students began researching the topic including talking to various safety groups, helmet
manufacturers and experts in the field. The students also surveyed other local communities
to see how many had helmet laws. At this time, the students would like to make a formal
request of the Village Board of consider passing a "Helmet Law."
Mrs. Weiss, students and parents of her fourth grade class will be in attendance to make
their request and provide pertinent background information.
V.
DISCOUNT TAXICAB PROGRAM
The Discount Taxicab Program has been providing transportation to residents who do not
have access to a private car or who physically cannot use a bus. This program has been an
important source of transportation to the registered participants. During 2004, 4,730
discounted cab rides were taken by Mount Prospect residents.
Currently, more than one registered participant may ride in the same cab if their pick up and
destination sites are the same. However, no provision exists that would allow a senior
citizen or disabled person who needs the assistance of a non-registered companion to ride
with them for the discounted fare. During the month of December, a mother of a severely
disabled child requested the discount taxicab card to transport her child to therapy.
Unfortunately, as the ordinance currently is written, the transportation program would not
assist this family with discounted taxicab rides.
NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A
DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE
MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT ÞROSPECT, ILLINOIS60()56, 847/392-6()0(),
EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
An Amendment to the Code will allow a companion who assists a senior citizen or disabled
person to ride for the discounted fare. A special card will be issued to the companion. The
discount fare for a second person is ten cents.
LIQUOR CODE CHANGES
Staff is recommending a number of changes to the Village's Liquor Code.
1.
The number of inquiries the Village receives for the opening of a traditional liquor
store (liquor only) has increased dramatically over the last year. Given the fact that
the Village Board has not issued this type of Class C License in over ten years - due
to the Board's sensitivity to the easy availability of alcohol -- it is recommended that
the number of such package goods licenses be frozen at the present number (5) so
there is no ambiguity with regard to this type of establishment. Class C Licenses
would continue to be available for large-scale (in excess of 10,000 square feet),
mixed-use (grocery, big box) establishments that sell alcohol as part of a much
larger product offering.
2.
Staff has also received a number of inquiries from existing license holders (both
package goods and restaurant-type license holders) seeking relief from the Liquor
Code's current prohibition on Sunday sales before 12:00 p.m. (noon). With regard to
package goods sales, it is cited that customers are inconvenienced in that if they are
shopping earlier on Sunday in advance of a Sunday event such as a family gathering
or sporting event, they must make two trips to complete their purchases or go to a
neighboring municipality that allows liquor sales at an earlier hour. With regard to
restaurant-type operations, there has been a growing desire to offer "Sunday
Brunch" options to customers that would include cocktail availability; i.e., Bloody
Marys, Mimosas, etc. That opportunity is not available under current restrictions. In
both instances, a survey of surrounding municipalities shows that Mount Prospect is
considerably more restrictive. It is recommended that the hour for both types of
sales be changed to 10:00 a.m.
Even though the two recommendations appear contradictory at a certain level
(availability of alcohol), staff believes they are justifiable each in their own context.
Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
ADJOURNMENT
CLOSED SESSION
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public
body."
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
FEBRUARY 8, 2005
I.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:02 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall,
50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were:
Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron,
Irvana Wilks and Michael lade!. Staff members present included: Village Manager
Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Police Chief Richard
Eddington, Deputy Police Chief Michael Semkiu and Fire Chief Michael Figolah.
II.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of Minutes of January 25, 2005. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and
Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved. Trustee Corcoran
abstained.
III.
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
Fire Chief Michael Figolah wanted to recognize the donation of an AJAX air chisel to
the Fire Department from Mount Prospect National Bank.
John Eilering, of Mount Prospect National Bank, stated that he is proud to represent
the Bank and its strong working relationship with Mount Prospect and the Fire
Department and is committed to remaining involved in the community.
IV.
POLICE DEPARTMENT PERSONNEL REQUEST - OPERATIONS COMMANDER
AND CIVILIAN MOBILE VIDEO RECORDING REVIEW (MVR) OFFICER
Village Manager Janonis stated that this presentation is an outgrowth of some of pent
up operational/capital demand that has been deferred over the last several years due to
Budget limitations.
Police Chief Eddington stated that he is quite sensitive to the Village's financial
position and is only presenting this proposal as a last resort that without the additional
assistance, there may be unforeseen ramifications. He stated the Operations
Commander position would monitor the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the
Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure compliance and communicate the necessary
information to the DOJ for their review as part of their substantial compliance monitoring
process.
1
He stated the typical candidate for this position would be a Sergeant promoted to work
underneath the Deputy Chief of Operations and would deal with all internal and external
complaints as defined by the additional demands stipulated in the MOA. This position
would also be part of the outreach to the Hispanic community and manage Homeland
Security issues in addition to coordinating traffic related issues as necessary. He stated
the MOA has impacted numerous General Orders and there is a need to maintain
compliance to ensure the General Orders are communicated and maintained properly.
The MOA has significantly increased the data collection compared to the State
mandated data to be collected at traffic stops. He also provided information regarding
the civilian position to monitor the video recording devices in the vehicles. This
information is also part of the MOA compliance. He stated the financial impact would be
an additional $63,000 for fiscal year 2005.
Village Manager Janonis stated that the discussions regarding this position were not a
part of the 2005 Budget due to the revenue situation, however, at this time, he feels the
financial position of the Village can better absorb the cost of these positions and due to
the unique demands of these positions, he feels they have a priority equal to
consideration of additional line positions.
V.
2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE TOPICS
Village Manager Janonis provided a summary of the topics that were carried over from
the previous year that included:
.
Refuse Hauling Contract renewal
Crime Free Rental Housing Program
Cat Licensing
Rand Road Corridor Turn Restrictions
Uniform Traffic Control Police
Pent-Up Operational Demands
Stem Cell Research*
Class C Liquor License Limits and time of operations discussion
Audit Firm Police
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
*He stated the Stem Cell Research topic had been suggested, but no activity
proceeded on that topic last year.
Consensus of the Village Board was to remove Stem Cell Research from the
topic list.
.
Habitual Vacant Property - Explore options for solution and usage.
Carbon Monoxide Alarm - Mandated use.
Bicycle Helmets - Mandated usage. Suggested to discuss with the Youth
Commission.
Parkway Signage - Parkway clutter of authorized and not authorized signage.
Jurisdictional Transfer position.
Water Rate Study - Review rate structure and non-resident connection rates.
Review Business License Fees - In addition, home-based business and rental of
impacted facilities.
E-Pay for Village Services.
Long-Range Financial Planning Workshop.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2
VI.
VII.
VIII.
DS/rcc
.
Business Delivery Time Regulations.
Discount Taxi Cab Program - Allow companion fares.
Police Traffic Unit. .
Police Space Needs.
Modifications to Nuisance Abatement Ordinance - Administrative Hearing
Process-Adjudication of nuisances.
Update Village's Comprehensive Plan.
Combined Sewer Discussion/Financing.
Sanitary Sewer Services-Repair of private sewer lines.
Non-conforming mailboxes.
NPDES Permit Review.
J.U.L.I.E. Locate markings removal.
Lighting Ordinance Update discussion.
Performance Review/Assessment System for Village Manager's performance
review.
Continuous Improvement Systems process.
Dog Bite Ordinance reporting system.
Consideration of Policy on whether the inclusion of interior garage space should
be allowed to meet parking demands in a PUD.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager Janonis stated that Coffee with Council is scheduled for February 12,
from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. in the Community Center of Village Hall.
He also stated there was a major water main split in a 12" main at Northwest Highway
near Tri-State Electric. The final street patching will be completed once the weather
breaks.
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at
8:34 p.m.
Respectfully SUb~ t7
~~a..:J a...1..-1.{
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
3
\-IO-O~
i
I
l
...,..... .~..'J5£¿f'. )í1\~'1~~~6c~~~_~~~=.~._n- ..,- ,... ..
--------f---\A1C.__Q,X"'e-_itL'::t \i¡ --f}ffirk-_1lÍ___.n .0.
---. _._-~J.a.rL_._G.LQ\œ-.--S c..lxolr_ß~t - _L£. _Om --.
,,_n,. -,.tLl',~lt - -. P~OSp'eL~~_\Nt-~-- ._b_~£t-_.__s_tcLc_Je,d-
--~_... .... ---1-~-_. .~Llli.:L ou___lkJ~--_---SaiSc~r---- - .--- - . .
'.. . ......... .-_.. -Þ-W d - . . Ct. .Liti£~_.GJcJ -- seod:: beLt_.. _scLteJ¥_- ..
-.- ... """f"". Quc~~~~,.-., ~---o-..-, ~I.î í Co ~iuDí .{--'J,n, '-. lha~-le--('--I-~-. (---'n" .m-
. ..___n__J6£L-'-_...<:i~~V1ed-- a--Œd.l.ld --.û:1C\ J.L., . . 0. s.
.._-----Jtbo.t..oo\L£._.be£n ;X of.h_lA.<¿. by
. un ...fibe - _NQflOh;JQLSoJetB:J~_Cam p:fÜ] G
.. '... .- .....rLLu~{L~=9£e1ç:L!--A1L,__;-h ,. LL^peLpÍ'21eJ':> v; f -
e. ,"'" ,-~OL¡(lJ.Q - .C"rl1=;~ . -j-'-L.tJ£ - j <11 ,--,..Cil~, ¡ ec -, ' ,
-- -, -,"-' ,- "- -- JlhiLce.____De PL__and..._IJQ{JÜ",<;,_oi1:lec- "-, _n' """
" b CqoBi2J:Li:rdk1~~.r:: baie_- J:;eetJ Se(f'l t
.. -...... jGCVf LcJes,_.-P.G.Cn-ple1_:~_pos1r.L~ .,. vJ deos I
¡CD; -::"bJobTsd c,-!tD__leQ¡{Bm ß~ mLlC Ii
1010:; ,PQ'?SLbJe__l1Le-kJCl\L€nbeen ty IViS
II n C'eQ dHì5 !mafh)~ mY\il[YJai~ s pe U ! V1CJ I
. _ _qctrx]~SLC~___~L[l_____QL:LL__- dC\_\Jy- - fe_Cl c n l (ì § 1>
P!Jr emfl). L<o,~hfUjQ_~~~ ~r n~d. IV'-b
h 5-2 fefï Z Q}/'JeJ<W sÇ-- ~CLtJ .. 0 LAC Se (v e <;
jlIJ e ..._~--~Q-k-fy-______h_AJ\t.o-C--Q-+ £s. ..... ..of .:(r,d 161\ Gr D Vt-
I lc/ ¿: W £-C<z.C hOS52J'l tv be t/.¡-; ~
!2.CDlf.. Q ~SafQ ty Ad\iocCt te ~ by
. . parr.'j\ I Q TIe C$of) in - SpCh~~ -t.¡ ç¿ I d .
JkJ/? ...}/~c\.ve.. beetL__c-eil k;\c-re d ~JY
r,\
V
.
.. I..D. c~ tiS \\ O~~Y) _~Jç¿dQr2q; f
khOwwh€ ve ~they ..':]0 t- . Ql{ v-
no vJ1~ ÇíomoN~w~Q.bQ ~t.- ~.~ --
~ . ¿Vocate. Pc<:¡rml/CLi? .Set tefy
ha,~-be.5l4n qIQSPC£Q<::!. We . '< VÇ' n
-_._kk.CASL! cA..f:V..\è,3../ In. --. O_l-:i,/.C. --__--S~~lç.O.t
o.6u + wkP ~eQ(S ~7UYJ£.+S .-.... ..
..._C\i1..sJ.. ......W ~:JC ...._doe$Y)~ t vve . a(e .--
meA k i VJ 3J . q clQs,~.. n evJSpo.per 0. tDuJ
+h LVìCjs,w€ "v_e- .cead ( Le,Q£û~d)_a_ú¿_~
. DJ~1ï!des IvvQwrote. We ho,vf' bev1
. .. +0. j:j Û~.,p\LtLA (?:S ... of Q\j ec,/ thq
\iJR/~~. 6QVle ~ ÜÐ ~ . ~c.\¿ (, J£ l'l t\ \'1 'j ~ .
_.. ..e:...\i£:.,(. yth......\.-..(\.3U'J.-..-. TIJ.. .T- ... -. CL. ,'o......-\..-.3.P. -.. If.,cl..er:...::w."..... ..-
-. He[m~tsace-ro.(~gj99\rOfYì - I r~
¿\\\n3a<..~., ..._~__nd!2l_Qla_tlovL ". -
. -- .-. We.. -. . .-..UJJ... L(.-. i.-..........-...l.ike. _to,. ._-...'.;{\... \1.\ t.e:...... .~.'...- ..\.'-7\.
-- -OL\C ..S_. ) ( n- crorYt to SJ~ìG'vJ -
Y D(J .. howi (\\10 \ \,/ ill UJ£ are.
QViCGoa( ... is -ioge1 Q. blAd,
npO-~~edjLìbere-.LSn' tone. . ~(J\ r..
- - --mQJJdQte£--Cl\\'--Kld~ _c\r~d .C\clé\ Lts-
.. ....-... 1oL>JffiLohelw£t whtle r\d\Vì]
. . . . . . any }+ìiJ19-ThoJbClS - .. .w heeLs .\.t rì aQ r
___ìtL_--- ...... -- -.
JJe c.o.!JshOWY()\A sfufL~tcs
r:~'
'¿H)
. I
!
- - - e_- --'-- - ~-_-i ,--'-',-'-' ,,____n__un-T---.-.------ ._._n_._.__.-'----.-----"...-..---.--. -.'.n_--'.-_---.---.. -
----_uu_,--------------~~_v~___-J_ewc_ned-.---Q_LAC__- - (YljSSJQfJ (~,--- iv--- - --
---------Þ o. me_- in MViUãge _J-falLWDd-- - spe al_-- '.'
------- i a + -~\le n i YlS-Þlee flffi---~.fujL-¡-
-. . -". _____flL_ili__.L ~~ts...- JJ£..c'{t ._:e, ~.Qs,fecI ' ,
----------_-JbOjA) ---w~- \__lJ c¿ -kûQJ.¿¿ ---,--- L.-- ----1. ----------- --- n --
¡ ir ' "
i I ¡
--------___--_n______-JCO{YJe::,.------ ,--Drìl_-____c_bJldLeh___,Q~!s_c_-", --- -,VOiCE------" --
- ------J~-beQ.C¿~ [n__~_n______-- ,- - ',-" ,
,--- ,,---------~-_1J.Q ~LL ---~ kiJ, ,~L}<3 -"OLWQCcl--ID- _nnn n
r--- --------þe- beæ.lßJ--------OfX),-LJOlL.--_--__nu -_..- n-'- .-_u
--------------------___-_L_-____--,,----------------------------,----------,-----, --------'--- --..---------------- -------------------------- ---------------- ----------- ---------,------------
J
,
;
.. - =. =~--l=======~: ..- - ------=_: .. Si~;¿~¿~ Y~-r-; :-- .7-- -- ....-.- -. -..~. .'- .-
----------- ----------+-------------------------------------------------------,-_____~D!J,_C___~D\_te: \3--_1:1(::1:10_( rtL_'~-
--" 1----,,-------- m "()ç-,, l(ì~~iÇìp "Gec- i~-e
-+------------------- --------------------------------------------- ._--_-Y~_\¿r~_de___n_n__-
-=~:-~::-:--_'-!",.,:,_-\IÇ}c:ho\ßr~_.'), G" -,CO"',V,,:Bc;¡ :,Jw,' II -,-,:'"
------------__+--__2_'=1 _--n_bv\fnl n Yj - -- V\. --:)- ht=-V"';- ,
\M tPCQs¡oec+j JTL qroCbSb
i I
!
-- ------------{------- _----_n--____-- --- ---
-- --, ------
!
- ---- - ,
- -- -----J..~------
~ - - -- - --~----
-----------------------'----------t-----'---------- - ---~------------------ -
I
1
.
- . L--
!
..i ..
I
¡
:
- ,-
I
I
i
~
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Mount Prospect
Village of Mount Prospect
Human Services Department
TO:
FROM:
MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
NANCY MORGAN, HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR
DATE:
FEBRUARY 10, 2005
DISCOUNT TAXICAB AMENDMENT
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
The Discount Taxicab Program has been providing transportation to residents
who do not have access to a private car or who physically can not use a bus.
This program has been an important source of transportation to the registered
participants. During 2004, 4,730 discounted cab rides were taken by Mount
Prospect residents.
DISCUSSION
Currently, more than one registered participant may ride in the same cab if their
pick up and destination sites are the same. However, no provision exists that
would allow a senior citizen or disabled person who needs the assistance of a
non-registered companion to ride with them for the discounted fare. During the
month of December, a mother of a severely disabled child requested the discount
taxicab card to transport her child to therapy. Unfortunately, as the ordinance
currently is written the transportation program would not assist this family with
discounted taxicab rides.
RECOMMENDATION
The attached ordinance addresses the discount taxicab fare. The amendment
will allow a companion who assists a senior citizens or disabled person to ride for
the discounted fare. A special card will be issued to the companion. The
discount fare fora second person is 10 cents.
"""7 í
"'., ./ )
"\" I /'-
.j 1/.,. /'v/)- .
(/ I pyk~) . Î1..e }1'--
\,. r v
Nancy Morgan
,'/
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 11
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION 1:
Subparagraph A(2) of Section 11.1136 entitled "Senior
Citizen/Handicapped Subsidized Taxicabs Rate Program" of Chapter 11, entitled
"Merchants, Business, Occupations and Amusements" of the Mount Prospect Village Code
shall be amended by deleting the subparagraph A(2) of Section 11.1136 in its entirety and
adding a new subparagraph A(2) which shall be and read as follows:
2.
When more than one senior citizen and/or handicapped person or when a
companion accompanies a senior citizen or handicapped person and that
person or persons is(are) transported to the same destination, then each
additional person shall be required to pay, in addition to the established rate,
an amount set forth in Appendix A, Division II of this Code.
SECTION 2: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its
passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this - day of
,2005.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Velma Lowe, Village Clerk
¡Manage 149211vl
1
Comparison of Area Communities - Sunday Liquor Sales Regulations
Package Sales - Sunday Table Service - Sunday
Community Yes/No Start Time Yes/No Start Time
Arlington Heights Yes 11 :00 AM Yes 11 :00 AM
Buffalo Grove Yes 9:00 AM Yes 9:00 AM
DesPlaines Yes 9:00 AM Yes* 10:30 AM
Elk Grove Yes 6:00 AM Yes 6:00 AM
Glenview Yes 11 :00 AM Yes 11 :00 AM
Hoffman Estates Yes 8:00 AM Yes** 7:00 AM
Mount Prospect Yes 12:00 PM Yes 12:00 PM
Niles Yes 6:00 AM Yes 8:00 AM
Palatine Yes 6:00 AM Yes 6:00 AM
Park Ridge Yes 8:00 AM Yes 11 :00 AM
Schaumburg Yes 7:00 AM Yes 7:00 AM
Wheeling Yes 7:00 AM Yes 7:00 AM
*Service before noon is only allowed for a "champagne brunch"
**Hotels are limited to 11 am start.
Comparison of Sunday Liquor Sales
2/17/2005
~~
<v~
D 4/:,.
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 13 OF
THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION 1: That Subparagraph (c) of Paragraph A of § 13.107, entitled
Licenses and Permits of Article 1 General Provisions of Chapter 13 Alcoholic Liquors is
hereby deleted and replaced with the following:
"c. Package Licenses
(1.) Class C, general package license, which shall authorize the
licensee to sell and offer for sale at retail, in the premises
specified in such license, alcoholic liquor in its original package
only but not for consumption on the premises where sold. No
general package license shall be issued for a premises whose
primary business is the sale of groceries or other products. No
general package license shall be issued to any establishment
which also delivers gasoline for automotive vehicles on the
same or adjacent premises.
The number of general package licenses available at any time
shall be limited as set forth in Section 13.108 A.
1
(2.) Class C1, supermarket package license, which shall authorize
the licensee to sell and offer for sale at retail, in the
premises specified in such license, alcoholic liquor in its
original package only but not for consumption on the premises
where sold. Samplings of alcoholic liquor in conjunction with
sales promotional efforts shall be allowed pursuant to the
regulations contained in section 13.116 of this article. No
supermarket package license shall be issued for a premises
whose primary business is the sale of groceries or other
products unless the premises occupies at least ten thousand
(10,000) square feet of floor area."
SECTION 2: There shall be added to the end of Paragraph A. of Section
13.108 Number of Licenses of Article 1 General Provisions of Chapter 13 Alcoholic
Licenses, a new sentence which shall read as follows:
"Under no circumstances shall the number of Class C, general package
licenses, be increased beyond the number in existence as of January 1,
2005."
SECTION 3: Paragraph A of Section 13.118 Closinq Hours; Sunday Closing;
of Article 1 General Provisions of Chapter 13 Alcoholic Liquors shall be amended by
changing the hours of mandatory closure on Sundays from between two o'clock
(2:00) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon to between two o'clock (2:00 a.m. and
ten o'clock (10:00) a.m. (and) on January 1 of each year from between four o'clock
(4:00) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon to between four o'clock (4:00) a.m. and
ten o'clock (10:00) a.m.
2
SECTION 4: Paragraph B of Section 13.118 Closinq Hours; Sunday Closinq;
of Article 1 General Provisions of Chapter 13 Alcoholic Liquors shall be amended by
changing the hours of mandatory closure on Sundays between the hours of two o'clock
(2:00) a.m. and twelve o'clock (12:00) noon on Sunday to between the hours of
two o'clock (2:00) a.m. and ten o'clock (10:00) a.m. on Sunday.
SECTION 5: Paragraph C of Section 13.118 Closinq Hours; Sunday Closinq; of
Article 1 General Provisions of Chapter 13 Alcoholic Liquors shall be amended by
changing the hours of consumption on premises on Sunday between the hours of
twelve o'clock (12:00) noon and ten o'clock (10:00) p.m. on Sunday to between the
hours of ten o'clock (10:00) a.m. and ten o'clock (10:00) p.m.
SECTION 6: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after
its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the rnanner provided by law.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this ~ day of
,2005.
Gerald L. Farley, Village President
ATTEST:
Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk
3
MAYOR
Gerald 1. Farley
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
TRUSTEES
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wm. Hoefert
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Michaele Skowron
Irvana K. Wilks
Michael A. Zade]
Village of Mount Prospect
Community Development Department
50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
VILLAGE CLERK
Velma W. Lowe
Phone:
Fax:
TDD:
847/818-5328
847/818-5329
847/392-6064
AGENDA
MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
MEETING LOCATION:
Mount Prospect Village Hall
50 S. Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
MEETING DATE & TIME:
Thursday
February 24, 2005
7:30 p.m.
I.
CALL TO ORDER
ll.
ROLL CALL
A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 27,2005 MEETING
. PZ-46-04 / 1310 Burning Bush Lane / Drag Residence
. PZ-O 1-05 / 515 Deborah Lane / Morris Residence
. PZ-02-05/ 1-17 S. Emerson Street / Conditional Use
. PZ-03-05/ 1451 W. Lincoln St./ Conditional Use
. PZ-04-05 / Mogielnicki Residence / 510 W. Lonnquist Blvd
III.
OLD BUSINESS
A. PZ-48-04 / Mitroff Group /1101 Linneman Road / Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development 70-
Unit Townhome Development) / NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
B. PZ-49-04 / 7 N. Main Street / Licari Consolidation (one-lot subdivision). NOTE: This case is
Village Board Final.
C. PZ-50-04 / River West / Condominium Conversion. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final.
(Continued to March 24,2005 per Petitioner's request)
N.
NEW BUSINESS
A. PZ-05-05 /1000 Mount Prospect Plaza / Staples / Variation (oversized wall signs) NOTE: This case
is Planning & Zoning Commission Final.
B. PZ-06-05 /2400 Tenninal Drive / Albrecht / Conditional Use (Contractor's Storage Yard). NOTE:
This case is Village Board Final.
V.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
VI.
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 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect,
IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064.
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-46-04
Hearing Date: January 27, 2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1310 Burning Bush Lane
PETITIONER:
Ted Drag
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 12, 2005 Journal & Topics
PIN#:
03-25-123-003-0000
REQUEST:
Variations for the size and height of a detached garage.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Men-ill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Ted Drag
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the
revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting; and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was
approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve
the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting and Men-ill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were
approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-46-04,
a Variation request for the size and height of a detached garage. She said that this case is Planning & Zoning
Commission Final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the Staff Report. She said that the Subject Property is located on
the west side of Burning Bush Lane, between Cree Lane and Euclid Avenue, and contains a single-family
residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is
bordered by the Rl District on the north, west, and south and by the CR Conservation Recreation District to the
east, River Trails Park District. The Subject Property is slightly larger than the typical Rl lot and has a
rectangular shape. The Petitioner would like to demolish the existing garage, repave the driveway, and
construct an oversized detached garage. The proposed garage would comply with the zoning setbacks; however,
the proposed driveway would need to be modified to comply with the code. The Zoning Ordinance limits the
size of the driveway width to no more than 23' after 15' ITom the ITont elevation of the garage. In order to
comply with the zoning regulations, the Petitioner would need to change the color or the material of the adjacent
patio so the driveway does not exceed the 23' width limitation.
Ms. Connolly reviewed the Petitioner's exhibits, which illustrated that the proposed garage would measure
30'x25', which is 750 sq. ft., and would measure 13.25' ITom the mid-point of the roof. She said that the
Zoning Ordinance allows detached garages up to 672 sq. ft. and the height cannot exceed 12' when measured
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-46-04
Page 2
from the mid-point of the roof. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking Variations for the height and size of the
proposed oversized garage.
Ms. Connolly said that the proposed garage would be constructed of white vinyl siding and have a 6: 12 pitch
roof. Vehicles would enter/exit the garage on the east elevation through either a 16' wide double door or a
single, 10' wide single door. In addition, there would be a service door and two windows on the north elevation.
The Petitioner states in his application that the oversized garage is necessary to accommodate storage needs,
which include a boat. Several of the Petitioner's neighbors signed a petition stating they are not opposed to the
proposed garage.
The existing home does not comply with current Village zoning regulations because the house encroaches into
the required front yard by one inch. Also, the existing detached garage encroaches into the required side yard
setback. However, the Petitioner would demolish this garage and construct a garage that meets the required
setbacks. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that
must be made in order to approve a Variation. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the
Petitioner is proposing to construct an oversized garage to provide additional storage. The Petitioner states that
he only has a subbasement, which does not meet his storage requirements. Also, he states that the oversized
garage would allow him to store his 'yard' furniture and boat inside the garage, as opposed to parking the boat
on the driveway, which is pennitted by the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner provided a list of oversized garages with his application. She said that five
of the garages are in the Village's corporate limits. Staff researched the infonnation provided by the Petitioner,
but could not confinn the size of all the garages listed. She said that the table in the Staff Report documents that
only one oversized garage received a Variation since the Zoning Ordinance was changed to allow larger
detached garages (672 square feet).
Based on the infonnation submitted by the Petitioner, the Variation is needed to accommodate the Petitioner's
living requirements, which does not meet the Zoning Ordinance's definition of a hardship. Ms. Connolly said
that the Petitioner has the option of adding onto the house and/or constructing a shed to store some items.
However, any of these alternatives would require modifying the driveway and patio to ensure the site continued
to meet lot coverage requirements.
Although the requested Variations are unlikely to have a detrimental effect on neighborhood character, the
request fails to support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the Variations to
pennit a 750 square foot garage that would measure 13.25' from the mid-point of the roof, for the residence at
1310 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-46-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this
case.
Ms. Juracek asked Ms. Connolly to review the e~ti1ail from a neighbor inquiring whether adverse water run-off
conditions would be created as a result of this Variation. Ms. Connolly said that she had contacted the
Engineering Department to answer the resident's question. Engineering found that the Petitioner's request
would not exceed the Village's lot coverage limitations. Therefore, constructing a new garage should not
adversely impact drainage.
Matt Sledz asked about the Variation that had been granted since the Text Amendment that allowed larger
garages had been adopted. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner could have done a 10 x 12 shed, but wanted a
larger garage instead of the shed. The P &Z approved the larger garage on the condition that a shed would never
be built. That case was final with the P&Z.
Ted Drag, 1310 Burning Bush Lane, was sworn in. He said that he has lived in his Mount Prospect home for
three years. He said Ms. Connolly had covered all points of his petition very well. He said he designed the
garage so his Bass boat would fit perfectly during storage time. He has hired a professional architect and builder
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-46-04
Page 3
and will change the color of the driveway concrete to meet zoning regulations. He described several other large
size garages in the area. He said he investigated the water drainage issue, which is a problem in their area, and
said he is sure he will not add to it with this garage. He also said he will not need a shed in the future if he is
allowed to build this garage to these proportions. The Planning & Zoning Commission asked Mr. Drag about
his current storage situation. Mr. Drag said he presently keeps vehicles and his boat on the driveway.
Ms. Juracek asked if any audience members wished to speak. Since nobody came forward, she closed the
Public Hearing. She said a petition from the neighborhood was submitted and that it is in favor of the request.
Mr. Cotten said the residents want to get vehicles and boats off the driveways. Mr. Donnelly agreed as did Mr.
Floros, although he said he has mixed feelings because the Text Amendment has just been written and
exceptions were already being made. Mr. Rogers said he agreed with Mr. Floros; he said he felt a line had to be
drawn somewhere. Mr. Sledz also had similar comments. He thought the premise of not building a shed on the
property was appealing, but a new owner might not abide by that rule. Ronald Roberts said he thought a deeper
garage could store the boat without being that much larger.
Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation for a 750 sq. ft. detached garage that measured 13.25'
from the mid-point of the roof for the residence at 1310 Burning Bush Lane, Case No. PZ-46-04. Merrill Cotten
seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, and Juracek
NAYS: Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, and Sledz
Motion was denied 4-3.
Ms. Juracek explained to Mr. Drag that he had the option to appeal the P&Z's decision to the Village Board
within five calendar days and that Ms. Connolly would follow up to explain that procedure to him.
After hearing four more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 11 :45 p.rn., seconded by Joe
Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
C:IDocuments and SettiugslkdewislLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK2IPZ-46-04 1310 Burning Bush Lane Ted Drag.doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-OI-O5
Hearing Date: January 27,2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
515 Deborah Lane
PETITIONER:
Joanna Morris
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 12, 2004 Journal/Topics
PIN#:
08-10-413-008-0000
REQUEST:
Conditional Use -Unenclosed Porch in front yard
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Community Development Deputy Director
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Joanna Morris
Brian Struck
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the
revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion, which was approved 4-0,
with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of
the November 11, 2004 meeting. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0, with
abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-Ol-05, a request for a
Conditional Use permit for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard. She noted that the request
would be Planning & Zoning Commission final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented Staff report. She said that the Subject Property is located on the east
side of Deborah Lane, between Rusty and Estates Drives, and contains a single-family residence with related
improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the
Rl District.
The Petitioner recently removed a tree in the front yard. As a result, rooms along the west elevation of the
house receive additional sunlight and heat. The Petitioner would like to construct an unenclosed porch along a
portion of the front elevation to provide shade as well as update the look of the house. The proposed unenclosed
porch is the only improvement the Petitioner anticipates making at this time. The porch would consist of a
concrete base and wood columns. It would extend 5' from the house, resulting in a 25'2" front yard setback.
Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. The existing home complies with the
Village's zoning regulations, but the detached garage encroaches into the required side yard setback. The
garage is allowed to remain in its current location because it is a legal non-conformity.
Ms. Connolly said that the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-o 1-05
Page 2
specific findings that must be made in order to approve the proposed porch. She summarized the standards and
said that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility
provision, or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's
Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Conditional Use
for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 25' for
the residence at 515 Deborah Lane, Case No. PZ-Ol-05. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final
for this case.
Joanna Morris and Brian Struck, 515 Deborah Lane, were sworn in. Ms. Morris stated that the sunlight is very
strong in the summer between the hours of noon and 5 p.m. There are no trees to shade the ITont of the house.
A large tree was removed prior to purchasing the house as evidenced by the visible stump. She said that the
Village removed a parkway tree last spring because it was dying. A covered porch would shade the house and
also add a safe entryway when it is raining or snowing. Ms. Morris said that they will plant other foliage and a
tree this spring, but it will take several years to give ample shade to the house. Richard Rogers asked the
Petitioners if they were aware that the porch could not be enclosed at anytime. They said yes. Mr. Rogers asked
if they would consider planting another tree in the future; the Petitioners said yes.
Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. Nobody
came forward.
There was no further discussion on this case and Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing.
Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Conditional Use that would allow an unenclosed
porch to encroach into the ITont yard setback for the property located at 515 Deborah Lane, Case No. PZ-OI-05.
Merrill Cotten seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 7-0.
At 11 :45 p.m., after hearing other cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly.
The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
C:IDocuments and SettingslkdewislLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK2IPZ-OI-O5 515 Deborah Lane Porch CV.doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-O2-05
Hearing Date: January 27,2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1-17 S. Emerson Street
PETITIONER:
Bruce Adreani (of Norwood Builders)
Founders Row, LLC
7458 N. Harlem Ave.
Chicago, IL 60631
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 12,2005 Journal/Topics
PIN#:
08-12-104-001/-002-003/021-0000
REQUEST:
CU approval for a PUD and other relief £Tom the Village Code as may
be required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Bruce Adreani, Diane Becker, Jim Beloklon, Mike Breclow,
Barbara & Melvin Fisher, Jim Kapustiak, Christine Kuttzolt,
Wanda Leopold, Bill Loftus, Mike Miller, Jenny Mulek,
Ed Pfmgsten, Jennifer Tammen, Judy Schreiber, Beverly Zapfel,
Linda Venticinque, Rich Scholl, and Linda Waycie
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the
revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion, which was approved 4-0,
with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved to approve the minutes of
the November 11, 2004 meeting. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0, with
abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-02-05, a request for
Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development and other relief £Tom the Village Code as may be
required for the proposed 14-unit rowhome development. She noted that the request would be Village Board
final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the Staff Report. She said that the Subject Property is located at the
northeast comer of Busse Avenue and Emerson Street, and consists of multiple vacant lots and a parking lot.
The Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered by the B5C District to the west, the
Library and Village Hall, RA Single Family District to the north and east, and Rl Single Family District to the
south. The Village Board adopted the Mount Prospect Downtown Strategic Plan in 1998. The Strategic Plan is
part of the Comprehensive Plan and it created a vision for downtown redevelopment based on work by the Ad
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-02-05
Page 2
Hoc Committee with input from the residents of Mount Prospect. A great deal of work on downtown
redevelopment has been completed since the plan was adopted. The plan was revisited last year and an ad hoc
committee confirmed that the redevelopment of the Subject Properties include rowhomes, with the buildings
oriented to the street and the garages and vehicle access oriented to the rear.
Ms. Connolly summarized the review procedure for a PUD and said that it requires review and recommendation
by the P&Z Commission and final action by the Village Board. She said that when reviewing the current
application, the P&Z Commission should consider that the Village Board selected the Petitioner's Request For
Proposal submittal (RFP) through a competitive process involving 8 development teams. Also, traffic patterns
on Emerson Street are under review and Staff is evaluating the feasibility of modifying the Emerson Street cross
section between Central Road and Busse Avenue.
Ms. Connolly summarized the Petitioner's exhibits and said that the Petitioner is proposing a rowhome
development consisting of two clusters of 7 units, 14-units total; there would be two floor plans: both plans
include basements and 3-bedrooms. However, one floor plan would include the option of having 2 additional
bedrooms on the third floor; 2 and 3 car detached garages, accessed from a shared private drive; each unit would
have its own backyard and patio. The Village's adopted Streetscape Program would be installed along Emerson
Street and Central Road, but the development would include landscaping of private areas as well. The proposed
development is consistent with the Village's Downtown Strategic Plan, which calls for the Subject Property to
be developed with rowhomes. The Petitioner is seeking approval for the proposed Planned Unit Development,
which consists of 2 clusters of 7-units each, located on multiple lots of record. The buildings would front onto
Emerson Street, with vehicle access from the private drive that is located behind the rowhomes. The
Petitioner's site plan indicates that the private drive would accommodate 2-way traffic and would be accessed
from Emerson Street and Central Road.
Ms. Connolly reviewed the Village's Zoning Ordinance bulk regulations for the development and noted that the
proposed development does not have a setback requirement. However, the Petitioner's site plan indicates that
the buildings would have staggered setbacks. The buildings would have no less than a 15' front setback and the
stairs leading up to the units would be setback no less than 7'. However, the Petitioner revised the site plan
since the Staff Report was written and will review the changes during their presentation.
The exhibits indicate varying heights for the buildings. The lowest part of the roof measures 30' from the mid-
point, but extends to 32'2" from highest point of the roof. However, the B5 District allows a maximum building
height of 30 feet and the Petitioner's elevations indicate that the building height would exceed this limitation.
The color elevations indicate that the style of the proposed buildings would be in keeping with other buildings
constructed as part of the downtown redevelopment and include elements of each project. The exhibits indicate
that the front elevations will be all 'Modular Brick', which is another name for standard residential brick.
However, sections of the rear elevations, side elevations, and some of the garages list 'Man Made Shake Siding'
as building materials. It is important to note that the building materials submitted as part of the RFP review
process differ from the materials listed on the Petitioner's exhibit. Therefore, the building materials must be
finalized prior to Village Board review to ensure the proposed building materials are the same as the materials
presented to the Village Board as part of the RFP process.
Vehicles would access the detached garages via an "L" shaped private driveway with curb cuts on Central Road
and Emerson Street. The Engineering Division has requested that the Central Road access be widened to 24'
and that the Central Road access be restricted to right-in/right-out only movements. In addition, the Strategic
Plan calls for the installation of a public park to the south of the Subject Property where the two single family
homes currently exist. Provisions should be made that at such time that the park is installed that the Subject
Property's private drive shall be extended south to Busse Avenue and that the segment accessing Emerson Street
shall be incorporated into the park. Ms. Connolly stated again that the Petitioner has revised the exhibits since
the Staff Report was written and would review the changes.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-O2-05
Page 3
The Petitioner's Landscape Plan provides a concept of the proposed landscaping to be installed. However, the
plan does not incorporate the Village's Streetscape Plan and the correct improvements to be made on Emerson
Street and Central Road. Also, the plan does not specify the screening required along the east lot line.
Prior to Village Board review, a revised detailed landscape plan listing materials and sizes must be submitted for
Staff review. In addition, the revised plan needs to include additional trees throughout the development, have
the Central Road 'parkway trees' located on private property, south of the sidewalk, and identify the screening
along the east lot line.
The proposed development calls for 14 units on the 1.6 acre site. The Zoning Code allows a maximum density
of 16 units per acre in the B5 District. The proposed density complies with zoning regulations.
The Village's Zoning Ordinance requires 2.5 parking spaces for residential developments with 2-3 bedrooms.
The unit mix is not confinned at this time, but the Petitioner's site plan indicates that vehicles will be parked in
either a 2-car or 3-car garage. The Fire Department has required that parking be prohibited in the private drive.
The project does not include Guest Parking, however there is on-street parking alÖhg Emerson Street in addition
to the Village parking deck. The Petitioner's revised exhibits indicate a 'lift' may be installed in the garage to
accommodate additional vehicles, which they will review as part of their presentation.
In response to Staff comments, the Petitioner proposes to create a 7' easement along the north lot line of the
Subject Property to allow for the continuation of the Village's Streetscape Program. A 7' wide public sidewalk
will be installed; however, physical constraints require the parkway trees to be located on the private property.
As previously stated, Staff is currently evaluating Emerson Street traffic patterns. Although the design has not
been finalized, 5.5' from the east side of Emerson Street must be dedicated to ensure proper traffic lane widths
and to allow for the installation of the Village's Streetscape Program.
Ms. Connolly said that the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized
the standards and said that the development is designed to complement the existing and future downtown
developments in addition to generating pedestrian activity and multiple-use trips. Although the Mount Prospect
Downtown Strategic Plan calls for the rowhome development to extend from Central Road to Busse Avenue, the
Petitioner's proposal is in keeping with the plan. Also, the rowhome development provides a transitional land
use between the existing single-family residential homes and the surrounding commercial and institutional uses.
The development will have a positive effect on nearby properties and continue to stimulate the development of
the downtown area. Therefore, the development will have a limited adverse impact on the adjacent
neighborhoods, utility provision or public streets. Subject to compliance with the conditions of approval, the
proposal will comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on these
findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend approval of the Petitioner's
request for Planned Unit Development proposal and proposed building height, subject to the conditions listed in
the staff report.
Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner has since revised their plans to address most of the conditions listed in the
Staff Report. She said that the latest revisions indicate that the Petitioner is seeking relief from stonn water
detention requirements. However, the request was not based on a hardship as required by the code. She asked
that the Petitioner review the revised exhibits and identify any conditions not met but listed in the staff report.
Ms. Juracek asked why the original submittal did not include the request for relief from stonnwater detention.
Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner thought the property was exempt from onsite stonnwater management based on
the development of the neighboring property. Ms. Connolly said the Development Code reads B5C Districts are
not required to provide stonnwater detention. On January 25, the Petitioner submitted revised exhibits seeking
relief from stonnwater detention, citing the reason that the properties across the street are exempt from the
requirement. The Planning & Zoning Commission would need to recommend approval and the Village Board
would need to grant relief if it was detennined there was a hardship.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-02-05
Page 4
Mr. Rogers asked if there would continue to be parking allowed along Emerson Street in front of the rowhomes.
Ms. Connolly said at this time there were no plans to eliminate the public parking on the street. Mr. Donnelly
asked if emergency vehicles will use the private drive of the project and if they had approved it. Ms. Connolly
said the Fire Chief has tentatively approved the drive with one change, a striped 'pork chop' design instead of a
raised design. Keith Youngquist asked how refuse would be handled. Ms. Connolly said the garbage containers
would go in the private drive on garbage day for pick-up, not on Emerson Street.
There was discussion regarding overnight guest parking with no immediate solution. Ms. Juracek swore in
speakers for the petitioner and asked that they identify themselves when they presented.
Bruce Adreani, 7458 N. Harlem Avenue, Chicago, IL introduced himself as the owner of Norwood Builders and
Petitioner for the project known as Founders' Row. He introduced the Norwood staff members.
Jennifer Tammen, Director of Planning for Norwood Builders, 7458 N. Harlem Avenue, Chicago, IL, addressed
the P&Z. She said the planned luxury rowhomes of this development would be an aesthetic addition to, not just
the downtown, but also the entire Mount Prospect community. Ms. Tammen itemized other recent downtown
proj ects that have been, or are near completion. She reviewed the Vision Statement of the 1998 Strategic Plan
that included rowhomes in the downtown. Ms. Tammen reported on current market conditions and how this
project makes a 'good fit' at this time. She said Norwood agrees to all conditions listed in the Staff Report
except item "r', as they were requesting some relief or modification from stormwater detention requirements on
the grounds that the rowhomes are a downtown property like the other properties that did not have to provide
detention. Ms. Tammen stated that, given the size of the land in relation to the project, any extensive
stormwater management would be a hardship. The second item they would ask relief from is extending the
private drive to Busse Avenue in the future. They would like to explore other options that would not affect their
sale to a homeowners association. She said that this is new item and they have not had time to consider
alternative solutions.
Mike Breclow, Director of Design and Partner at OKW Architects, 600 W. Jackson, Chicago, spoke next. He said that
the project is located between institutional uses on one side and residential uses on the other. They looked to historic
precedent set in Chicago and Boston rowhomes for guidance. He discussed the generous and staggered setback
allowances and choice of trees, lined up with the home entrances, for the streetscape. The simple, yet timeless façade
is robust enough to stand up to the institutional uses surrounding it, the entrances neighborly, yet opaque. Each
rowhome has a private rear yard and both end units have generous side yards. The fIrst floor of each unit is about 4-1/2
feet above grade and there is an English basement allowing for plenty of daylight to enter the basement. The end units
have opportunities for side windows and have 3-car brick garages and a I-story rear building extension. There would
be at least 5' of walkway and a recessed gate between each garage. Also, there would be a painted metal fence
between each sideyard. Mr. Breclow briefly described the generous floor plans, noting that each basement would be
capable of being finished and having a bathroom added at a later date.
Ms. Tammen came back to the podium to show an example of the lifts available for installation in the garages
should buyers desire space for more cars. She explained that the automatic photocell lights outside of the
garages would be on one circuit that operates simultaneously without spilling onto neighbors' property. She
said this ended their formal presentation and they would answer any questions put forth by the P&Z
Commission.
Richard Rogers asked Ms. Tammen if they had done any parking or traffic studies for this project. Ms. Tammen
said no, they had not. Mr. Rogers asked why they had built all these projects in the downtown area without
exploring avenues for extra guest parking. Ms. Tammen said that with each project they have provided the
parking required by Code and did not feel it was in their purview to tell the Village what to provide in the way
of street parking or in the new parking garage. They did try to be innovative with the idea of parking lifts,
which cost about $15,000 to $20,000, and would be available as an option in the 2-car garages, which would
need to be made 18" higher to accommodate one; the door does not need to be any larger. Joe Donnelly asked
about building codes for the use of these lifts and said that a Variance was required to install one in Chicago.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-02-05
Page 5
The Norwood reps said they were not familiar with these regulations.
Extensive discussion followed regarding building heights. It was determined that the general midpoint is at 32'.
Keith Youngquist asked who the target customer of these rowhomes would be.
Christine Kuttzolt, Director of Sales and Marketing, responded. She said their previous experience in Mount
Prospect afforded them the opportunity to discover what many people are looking for in this area and until now
has not been available - a true, luxury rowhome. The typical buyers would be the 45-64 year old homeowners
living in Mount Prospect, empty-nesters, whose children have gone off to college; they mayor may not be
commuters, down-sizing or possibly upsizing their lifestyle, not yet ready to throw in the towel, looking for that
semi-urban lifestyle. Ms. Kuttzolt said many potential buyers have contacted her already. Mr. Floros asked the
probable price of the rowhomes. Ms. Kuttzolt said they are working on pricing and, subject to prices of the
varied choices of optional construction elements going into the units, they will probably start in the high $500's.
Ms. Juracek said if the Petitioners' presentation were complete, that she would open the hearing to the public.
She did so by reading a note from Ms. Mary Alice Neitzke, 6 South Maple Street, asking to be read as part of
the public record. Ms. Neitzke's letter stated she requests: 1) A brick fence/wall between her rear yard and the
private driveway; and 2) Lighting be done in a manner that does not 'light-up' her yard - prefers the lighting be
installed at the garage level.
Ms. Tammen said they could not support a brick wall because it would require a 3-4 foot concrete footing,
which they simply do not have the ground space for. With regard to the lighting, the garages wiII have ambient
lighting similar to single family homes, not pole lighting. There was discussion regarding the fence and Ms.
Connolly said her conversations with the residents indicated their concern that the fence will become an eyesore
in the future and that the residents felt the rowhome association documents should address who should maintain
a board-on-board fence in the future. Ms. Tammen said they wiII work with neighbors on maintenance issues.
Mr. Rogers asked what Norwood could do to provide stormwater detention. Bill Loftus, Spaceco, addressed this
question. He said they wiII be providing storm sewers throughout the property and tying in to downspouts
where appropriate and eventually into the combined storm sewer in the street. He said what Ms. Tammen
referred to as their being unable to provide stormwater retention was that they could not provide a large
retention pond as is done in many suburban condo projects due to land space constrictions. Mr. Rogers said
they would look to Staff to provide further compromise in final plans.
Mr. Donnelly asked why it was necessary for the excessive garage height. Mr. Breclow said it was to blend in
with the gable pitch of the rowhomes. After some discussion about the height of the Lofts at Village Centre, the
old ViIIage Hall and the new Village Hall, Ms. Juracek opened the discussion to the audience.
Ron Ditthart, 123 N. Emerson, Mount Prospect, said it appears the north 150' of this property will be the subject
of a referendum that will appear on a ballot April 5. He said that 1,600 signatures have been filed at the Village
and none have been contested. He said he had been active in circulating those petitions and he interviewed 77 in
favor of the referendum. Of those, 75 in favor were in favor of keeping the area as a park and 72 were in favor
of keeping the north 150' open with mature trees with grass as is now. He is asking on behalf of those 1,600
voters that approval of this project be continued until after the April 5 referendum. This would be a "no lose"
situation because it would avoid the Board the embarrassment of approving something the overwhelming
majority of voters oppose. Ms. Juracek reminded the group that this is the first step in the process for approval
of the project. After this meeting, the request will go to the ViIIage Board and the concerns of the voters would
be noted.
Penny Perliss, 500 Westwood Lane, was sworn in. She said that she has lived in Mount Prospect 35 years and
her main concern is all the stairs associated with the rowhomes. She said she disagreed with the marketing
group and that 45-64 year olds would not want any stairs. She said she also worked on obtaining signatures for
the petition both times and nobody refused to sign the petition the second time around.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-02-05
Page 6
Wanda Leopold, 107 William St., was sworn in. She said that she submitted a list of questions to the P&Z
earlier and some of her questions have been answered. She asked if the Board could require the builders to use
pervious materials in the driveways and alleys to absorb the water and use native landscaping. She said this
project would be dangerous for surrounding properties accessing Central Road. She said she sent e-mails to
National Arbor Day Foundation, regarding the consequences of destroying the nine trees on the property. She
said she copied the Village and received an answer from Sandy Clark, Village Forestry Superintendent, who
said that efforts would be made to save as many trees as possible. Ms. Leopold said she was sure that if
Norwood setback the building line further, they could save the American Elm tree.
Linda Venticinque, 10 South Maple Street, was sworn in. She said she has lived here since 1985 and that she is
in favor of the proposed development. She said they have a problem with backing up to a parking lot, but do not
experience any flooding/water problems. She stated that she was not approached to sign the petition to build a
park instead of the rowhomes and that they welcome the new rowhome project.
Rich Scholl, 12 South Maple, was sworn in. He said he thought rowhomes was the best use ofthe property. He
said that 14 families as opposed to a parking lot is a higher and better use of the property. He said that he has
lived in Mount Prospect since 1987 and that there were chain link fences along the parking lot that had been
repeatedly knocked down. He said that the Bank hadput up the board-on-board fence around 1994. His only
reason for being at the meeting was the fence. He thinks the proposed project is a very good one and he wants
to be sure the fence is replaced and hopefully with a wrought iron one for maintenance reasons. He feels that
would fit in well with the proj ect.
Wes Pinchot, 747 Whitegate Court, was sworn in. He said that said he has lived in the Village for 40 years and
is a licensed architect. He complimented Village Staff, particularly Judy Connolly who, he said, did a
wonderful job with Petitioner's proposal. He said most people are not aware that these $500,00/$650,000
rowhomes/townhouses are going to be a glorified alley. He said the people on Maple Street will be
overwhelmed with the high gable roofline and the Village sewers will be overtaxed with water. Also, the people
will not be able to get out of their garages on snowy days. He said there isn't parking outside of the garages for
people to wash their cars or for any reason. The Fire Department will not allow them to park in that alleyway so
the people will park on Emerson Street. Mr. Pinchot asked the P&Z to consider these things when making their
decision.
Mel Fisher, 100 S. William Street, was sworn in. He said that the neighborhood experiences periodic flooding
and cited an instance 12 years ago: on the comer of Owen and Busse, he helped float a car and tie it to a tree for
its owner. He said now we've added deep tunnel, more water, and less retention. He said that he does not
appreciate the looks of this tenement-like project. After hearing Mr. Cooney, Director of Community
Development, talk about the downtown improvements and use the word 'ambience', he looked it up in his
thesaurus and found out it meant: aura surrounding an area. Mr. Fisher said that the country club area has a
beautiful new country club, but nobody in the triangle area is protecting the ambience here. He concluded by
stating that each of you on the Board has that duty, and that he charges the Commissioners to think of ambience
before chopping down trees.
Burt Scholz was sworn in. He said that he has lived here since 1974 and collected petitions in favor of the park.
He wants to use the Emerson area as open space to be enjoyed by this and future generations. He said we are
one of the few suburbs to have such a jewel in the downtown area, that Arlington Heights has no open space.
We should strongly consider keeping the area open and have no water retention, fence, or tree problems.
Linda Waycie, 603 Windsor Dr., was sworn in. She said that she is a 20 yr. resident, and also gathered
signatures for the petition and wants open space. She said the downtown would continue to get denser with
more buildings, stores, and apartments and be more urban like the slides shown earlier. The residents want
suburban areas not urban areas - less density, not high density, and open space, not buildings. She asked if a
compromise couldn't be made to keep 9 trees and build just 12 units.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-02-05
Page 7
Judy Schreiber, 817 Waverly, was sworn in. She said that London is a city full of parks and they refer to those
parks as their "lungs". Mount Prospect needs "lungs", too. In Chicago, Michigan Avenue wouldn't have Grant
Park or Millennium Park, either, if the commissions didn't plan ahead. It would just be buildings one on top of
another right up to the lake.
Sylvia Jonas, 1007 Willow Lane, was sworn in. She said she has been a legal resident of Mount Prospect for
many years, but has been away in the military for 15 yrs. and recently returned. She said that she wasn't here
when all these plans were made. She said that now when she comes downtown to go to the bakery she can't just
park and go into the bakery. Or when she drives around downtown she has to be so careful of cars going in and
out of parking places. She said she would probably not come downtown, but just go to the outlying Jewel and
other stores for most purchases.
Ms. Tammen returned to the podium to say this project is not to be thought of as a regular condo development.
She said it is the type of quasi-urban setting where the car is left in the garage much of the time and the owner
walks to the train or to the restaurant or library or Village Hall. Also, when there is a large snowstorm, the snow
will not just be shoved to another part of the driveway, but that the association will have a contract to remove
the snow to an off-site location. She asked Ms. Kuttzolt to address the question of stairs.
Ms. Kuttzolt said stairs are a personal preference. She said some people prefer two-story living and some
people prefer ranch home living whether they are 25 or 50. People who are baby-böömetgeneration are much
more active than previous generations of the same age were.
Ms. Juracek asked about fencing and the closing of Emerson Street during construction and a Norwood
representative said it would probably not need to be fully closed for 24 hours. Ms. Tammen said they are
absolutely open to suggestions and would work with the residents on Maple for a satisfactory solution. She said
they were pleased to hear the nearby residents were amenable to the project. Mr. Donnelly said fence
maintenance through the years would be an important issue, too.
Pervious pavement substances and native landscaping plants also were discussed between the P&Z and the
Petitioner's Engineer Bill Loftus. Mr. Loftus said that he didn't doubt Mr. Fisher's story about the floating car
because it only took 24" of water for a car to float, but that 24" of water could be right next to a million dollar
project and just blocked from getting into it by some poor planning.
Mr. Breclow said a great deal of land would be needed to do wetland landscaping. He said they would look into
saving any magnificent specimen of trees.
Mr. Rogers said this land has already been approved by the Village Board to be used for rowhomes and not
something else to be considered by the P&Z at this time. Mr. Floros also brought up similar sentiments and said
the Village was planning open space at the south end of this property. Ms. Juracek said she was also in favor of
open space at the south end of the Emerson property.
Matt Sledz said the proposed use is a totally inappropriate use for a suburban location. He said that if someone
wants to live like this that they should move to Chicago or Boston. Richard Rogers said we are already
committed because we are two-thirds into the downtown plan. Ms. Juracek said it is too late now to comment
that the Comprehensive Plan is wrong when the rowhomes were approved many years ago.
Ronald Roberts said he thought just seven rowhomes would be enough density. Ms. Juracek asked Ms.
Tammen if that would be viable. Ms. Tammen said the project would not be viable at less units.
Burt Scholz addressed the P&Z again and said that the downtown area plans can be changed, that they are not
cast in concrete, and asked the P&Z to step back and look at the problems.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-O2-05
Page 8
Wes Pinchot said the Village Staff has an obligation to see to it that the rowhomes must comply with water
retention and parking.
Bruce Adreani came to the podium and said he works hard to get things done and he felt good because of the
people who lived on Maple Street and came out to the meeting tonight and said they approved of the project and
didn't have water problems and didn't anticipate any future problems.
There was discussion regarding the size of the proposed detached garages. Several of the Commissioners stated
the size was inappropriate for the project. There was discussion regarding modifying the proposal to have the
garages comply with Village regulations. Some Commissioners stated that the style of the garage was
appropriate for the type of project (rowhomes) and that changing the roofline would detract from the project.
Joe Donnelly moved to modify the proposal so the garages would meet zoning regulations. Richard Rogers
seconded the motion.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Donnelly, F10ros, and Sledz
NAYS: Cotten, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek
Motion failed 3-4.
Richard Rogers moved to approve a Conditional Use permit for a P1am1ed Unit Development for the proposed
14-unit rowhome development subject to the conditions list is the staff report, but modified to require 50%
storm water detention, and include: 1) the Petitioner work with the neighbors to resolve issues regarding a fence
(type, maintenance) along the east lot line and 2) the Petitioner shall try to preserve as many existing tress as
possible at 1-17 S. Emerson St., Case No. PZ-02-05. Leo F10ros seconded the motion. The Village Board's
decision is final for this case.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, F10ros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: Sledz
Motion was approved 6-1.
At 11 :45 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Inremet Fi1es\OLK2\PZ-O2-05 1-17 S Emerson St Rowhome Developmentdoc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-O3-05
Hearing Date: January 27,2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
1451 W. Lincoln St.
PETITIONER:
Steve Miller
233 Hatlen
Mount Prospect
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 12,2005 Journal/Topics and
PIN#:
08-11-300-023-0000
REQUEST:
Conditional Use approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the
required front yard and a Variation for a garage addition to encroach
into the exterior side yard setback.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Steve Miller
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.rn. Richard Rogers moved to approve the
revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion to approve. The
motion was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved
to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting; Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The motion
was approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-
03-05, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the required ffont yard and a
Variation to add on to the existing garage that would encroach into exterior side yard.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the south
side of Lincoln Avenue, between Busse Road and Ojibwa Trail, and contains a single-family residence with
related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides
by the RX District. The Petitioner proposes to improve the house by adding a one-story addition to the house in
the rear, an unenclosed porch, and an addition to the existing garage to accommodate a third vehicle. As part of
the project, the Petitioner proposes to modify the front elevation of the house by adding dormers and modifying
the roofline. However, the Petitioner has not submitted floor plans that indicate a 'finished' second story
addition at this time. The addition to the house meets zoning regulations, but the porch and garage addition
encroach into the required setbacks.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-03-05
Page 2
The proposed unenclosed porch consists of a concrete base and wood columns. It would extend almost 6' from
the house, resulting in a 39' front yard setback when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 40' setback for this
district. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Also, the proposed garage addition
would encroach 10.41' into the required 25' exterior side yard. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation
to construction the garage addition.
The existing home and addition to the rear of the house complies with the Village's zoning regulations.
However, the proposed porch and garage addition would encroach into required setbacks. ill order to approve
the requests, the board has to find that they meet the standards for a Conditional Use and Variation, respectively,
which are listed in the Zoning Ordinance.
Ms. Connolly summarized the standards. She said that the proposed Conditional Use, the unenclosed porch,
would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets,
and would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She noted that the
standards for a Variation are different than the Conditional Use standards and said that the Petitioner is
proposing to increase the size of the garage to accommodate a third vehicle, resulting in a 14.59' exterior side
yard setback.
Ms. Connolly said that the garage would continue to be accessed from Lincoln Avenue. The Subject Property is
rectangular in shape and exceeds the minimum lot size for the RX district. The Petitioner examined the
possibility of constructing a new 3-car garage that would front onto Busse Road. However, they stated exiting
onto Busse Road would be dangerous due to the high traffic volume on Busse Road. ill addition, the new curb
cut would require a permit from Cook County Highway because Busse Road falls under CCH jurisdiction. The
Petitioner also explored redesigning the garage so they would be side loading, while still maintaining access
from Lincoln Avenue. The Petitioner determined that there was not enough room to allow for an adequate
turning radius for this design. The manner in which the existing garage is located on the Subject Property, as
well as the traffic volume on Busse Road, create challenges for expanding the existing garage to accommodate a
third vehicle. However, a 3-car 'tandem-style' garage could be constructed and still utilize the same driveway;
this design would require removing the existing sun porch.
Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the
requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason
of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground
conditions or other unusual circumstances". Although the site is located on a comer, the site is not restricted by
a small lot width. However, these conditions exist throughout the surrounding neighborhood and are therefore
not unique to this property. The Petitioner has the option of modifying the existing garage so the addition meets
the 25-foot setback, as permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. While this design may not be the most convenient
option, the garage would meet the required setback.
Although the proposed garage addition may be constructed in an attractive manner, the Petitioner has other
alternatives that would meet zoning regulations. Also, while Staff can appreciate the Petitioner's desire for a 3-
car garage, there is no hardship and the proposed 3-car garage is more of a convenience. Based on this analysis,
Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. However,
Staff finds that the proposed unenclosed porch does meet the Conditional Use standards listed in the Zoning
Ordinance. Therefore, Staff recommends: The P&Z approve the unenclosed porch and allow it to encroach into
the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 35' for the residence at 1451 W. Lincoln Street,
Case No. PZ-03-05. The P&Z's decision is final for this part of the case. Staff recommends: The P&Z
recommend that the Village Board deny a Variation to allow a garage addition to encroach into the required
exterior side yard, creating a 14.59' setback for the residence at 1451 W. Lincoln Street, Case No. PZ-03-05.
The Village Board's decision is final for this part of the case because the request is more than 25% of the
Zoning Ordinance requirement.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-03-05
Page 3
Ms. Juracek noted there is a lot of green space between the fence and Busse Road and asked if that is an
easement. Ms. Connolly said that was right of way that belongs to the County and that the road could possibly
be widened in the future.
Steve Miller, 233 Hatren, Mount Prospect, was sworn in. He explained that his detached garage has been
broken into where he presently lives and he feels that an attached garage offers more security. He also feels the
turnaround would be a great advantage when his children start to drive. Ms. Juracek asked if the wooden fence
on the Busse side would remain. Mr. Miller said it would.
Mr. Rogers said it would be difficult to approve this requested garage, being so close to Busse Road, and asked
Mr. Miller if he would consider a two-step garage, keeping one car in back of another. Mr. Miller said he had
thought of that, but obviously it would not be as convenient or as aesthetically pleasing in appearance.
Several Planning & Zoning Commissioners noted that this garage would be very close to Busse Road if Busse
were widened, and that it would be the only structure that close to Busse. Mr. Youngquist asked if Mr. Miller
resided in the house at present. He said he did not, that he lived two blocks away. Mr. Youngquist and Ms.
Juracek said a condition of granting a Variation was proving a hardship and no hardship was being proven in
this case.
Mike Pollera was sworn in. He said he was the general contractor for the project and represented the architect
who was unable to be at the hearing. He said that the architect had gone through as many designs as possible to
try to stay within Code, including demolishing the present garage, but could not design a more acceptable plan.
A tandem garage would have required destruction of part of the existing house and consequent weakening of the
structure.
Ms. Juracek asked if there was any further comment from the audience. Being none, she closed the Public
Hearing and brought discussion back to the P&Z.
Leo Floros said he could support this project because he does not think Busse will be widened in the near future.
He said there is a turn lane at Busse and Lincoln, which affords sufficient land area. Mr. Floras said that to
orient the garage towards Busse would be a serious mistake; it would be dangerous or they would be unable to
get in or out during rush hours.
Richard Rogers made a motion for Conditional Use approval to allow construction of an unenclosed porch that
would encroach in the required front yard at 1451 W. Lincoln St., Case No. PZ-03-05. Merrill Cotten seconded
the motion. The Planning and Zoning Board's decision is final for this case.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 7-0.
Mr. Donnelly asked Mr. Miller to return to the podium and explain if he needed the turnaround whether or not
the 3-car garage addition was approved. Mr. Miller said yes, he did need the turnaround because of the traffic
coming off of Busse onto Lincoln. Ms. Juracek agreed, saying yes, there is not actually a left-turn lane at that
location, cars just go onto the walkway to make the turn.
Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for a Variation to allow a 14.59' exterior side yard for
the proposed Garage Addition, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan at 1451 W. Lincoln St., Case No. PZ-03-
05. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. It was noted that the Village Board's decision is final for this case.
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-O3-05
Page 4
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Sledz and Juracek
NA YS: Rogers and Youngquist
Motion was approved 5-2.
At 11 :45 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn; seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved
by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
C:IDocuments and SettingslkdewislLocal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK2IPZ-O3-05 1451 W. Lincoln Steve MilIer.doc
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
CASE NO. PZ-O4-05
Hearing Date: January 27, 2005
PROPERTY ADDRESS:
510 W. Lonnquist Blvd.
PETITIONER:
Andrej Mogie1nicki
PUBLICATION DATE:
January 12, 2005 Journal/Topics
PIN#:
08-11-428-008-0000
REQUEST:
Conditional Use approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the
required tront yard.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Chair Arlene Juracek
Merrill Cotten
Joseph Donnelly
Leo Floros
Ronald Roberts
Richard Rogers
Matthew Sledz
Keith Youngquist
MEMBERS ABSENT:
None
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development
INTERESTED PARTIES:
Andrej Mogie1nicki
Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.rn. Richard Rogers moved to approve the
revised minutes of the October 28, 2004 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion to approve. The
motion was approved 4-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros, Matt Sledz and Keith Younquist. Matt Sledz moved
to approve the minutes of the November 11, 2004 meeting; Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The motion
was approved 5-0, with abstentions by Leo Floros and Keith Younquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-
04-05, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard. She
said that this case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final.
Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said that the Subject Property is located on the
north side of Lonnquist Boulevard, between WaPella and I-aka Avenues, and contains a single-family residence
with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single-Family Residence and is bordered to the
north, east, and west by the RA District and to the south by the Rl Single Family District. The Petitioner is
proposing a number of improvements to the existing home, including a new attached garage, brick driveway, a
second story addition, and an unenclosed front porch. The porch consists of a wood base, rails and columns.
The Petitioner will install gravel fill and a wood lattice skirt to deter animals trom burrowing under the porch.
The proposed porch will extend 5' trom the house, resulting in a 27.9' tront setback. The proposed unenclosed
porch would encroach into the required 30-foot front yard; therefore the unenclosed porch requires Conditional
Use approval.
Ms. Connolly explained that the existing home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because
the house and detached garage extend into the required 20-foot exterior side yard on WaPella Avenue.
However, the detached garage will be demolished and the new attached garage will comply with current zoning
Planning & Zoning Commission
Arlene Juracek, Chairperson
PZ-04-05
Page 2
regulations. She said that Section 14.402.B permits the second story addition to maintain the same setback as
the first floor because the extent of the nonconformity, the exterior side yard setback, will not be increased. The
Zoning Ordinance allows for the addition to go 'up' but not 'out', i.e., the Petitioner could not maintain the
existing 6.27' setback for a first story addition.
Ms. Connolly said that the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include
specific findings that must be made in order to approve the proposed porch. She summarized the standards and
said that the porch would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision,
or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive
Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Conditional Use
for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 25' for
the residence at 510 W. Lonnquist Blvd., Case No. PZ-04-05. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision
is final for this case.
Richard Rogers reiterated that the transitional sideyard was a pre-existing condition so it was not an issue in this
case and by removing the garage the Petitioner had actually improved the situation so the only real request was
to add a porch, which would need to remain unenclosed. Ms. Connolly agreed.
Andre Mogielnicki and his brother, Toggan Mikuta, were sworn in and testified to the plans for the proposed
porch. Mr. Mikuta said Mr. Mogielnicki has two children who play in the park across the street and the parents
would like to sit on the porch and supervise them.
Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Conditional Use permit to allow the construction of an unenclosed
porch that would encroach no more than 5' in the required front yard at 510 W. Lonnquist Blvd., Case No. PZ-
04-05. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. The Planning and Zoning Board's decision is final for this case.
UPON ROLL CALL:
AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek
NAYS: None
Motion was approved 7-0.
After hearing another case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 11 :45 p.m., seconded by Joe Donnelly.
The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned.
Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner
C:IDocuments and SettingslkdewislLocal SettingslTemporary Interne! FilesIOLK2IPZ-04-05 510 W. Lonnguis! Blvd Andrej Mogielnicki.doc
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
FINANCE COMMISSION
AGENDA
Thursday, February 24, 2005
7:00 p.m.
Village Hall Building
50 South Emerson Street
Third Floor Executive Conference Room
I
Call to Order
IT
Approval of Minutes - Meeting of January 27, 2005
ITI
Continued Discussion Regarding Proposed 2005 Work Plan
IV
Discussion on Combine Sewer Repairs
v
Other Business
VI
Chainnan's Report
VII Finance Director's Report
VITI Next Meeting: Thursday, March 24, 2005, 7:00 p.m.
IX
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 50 South Emerson
Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064.
FINANCE COMMISSION
DRAFT
MINUTES OF THE MEETING
JANUARY 27, 2005
VILLAGE HALL BUILDING
DRAFT
I.
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Kom and Commissioners
Charles Bennett, Vince Grochocinski, Ann Hull, Brian McPartlin, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic. Also present
were Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Director of
Finance David Erb was absent.
II.
ApPROV AL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Charles Bennett stated that he had a correction in the December 2, 2004 minutes. Commissioner
Bennett stated that the minutes incorrectly quoted Commissioner Brian McPartlin asking how much the Historical
Society had in reserves; it was Commissioner Bennett who asked the question. Commissioner Tom Pekras
motioned to approve the minutes of December 2, 2004 as amended. Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded the
motion and the minutes were accepted as amended.
III.
DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED 2005 WORK PLAN
Chairman John Kom began the discussion by asking the members if they had any suggested topics to add to the
work plan. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked that the commission have a discussion and receive a status report
on implementing e-pay.
Commissioner Brian McPartlin mentioned he would be interested in discussing the development of the fire station
project.
Commissioner Ann Smilanic added that she would like to talk about sales tax in February. Deputy Director of
Finance Carol Widmer stated that as of Oct 2004 sales tax figures were up 1-1/2% over last year.
IV.
DISCUSSION ON COMBINE SEWER REPAIRS
Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer stated that repair work for the combine sewers would probably begin in
the fall of2005. Ms. Widmer stated that approximately $500,000 is available as seed money to get the project
started. Ms. Widmer also stated that by February Director of Public Works Glen Andler and Deputy Director of
Public Works Sean Dorsey should have a better idea of the course of action on the project once the areas are
mapped out in greater detail. Once the areas are mapped out the village will have a better idea of which areas will
need repairs, when and what approximate costs would be.
V.
CHAIRMAN'S REpORT
There was nothing to report.
VI.
FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT
There was nothing to report.
VII. OTHER BUSINESS
Chairman John Kom mentioned that several members of the commission were interested in obtaining some TIF
information. Chairman Kom then provided the members with a handout related to the TIP. Chairman Kom stated
that according to current discussions the village would like to extend the entire TIP District as well as add the Bank
One parcel and the shopping center at Route 83 and Central to the TIF District extension.
Commissioner Brian McPartlin asked how long the extension would be for. Chairman John Korn stated that the
TIF would be extended for an additional 13 years.
There was a brief discussion on the process the village will follow to get approval from the school in order to be
able to extend the TIP. Commissioner Brian McPartlin stated that the extension would take an agreement between
the schools and then a formula is agreed to and an act of legislation is needed to approve the extension.
Commissioner Ann Hull stated that she is concerned that the village is guaranteeing they will provide the schools
with a fixed amount of tax money with no cap, therefore money must be paid whether there is fund balance or not.
Commissioner Charles Bennett added that it would just give the village the incentive to move quickly to redevelop
the rest of the TIF.
VIII. NEXT MEETING: FEBRUARY 24, 2005
Commissioner Vince Grochocinski motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Charles Bennett seconded. The
meeting was adjourned at 8: 12 p.m. The next meeting will be Thursday, February 24, 2005.
Respectfully submitted,
Lisa Burkemper
Administrative Assistant
Finance Department
2