The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 03/22/2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, March 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 Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22,2005 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. DISCUSSION ON ELECTRONIC PAYMENT OF WATER BILLS Residents and commercial property owners currently have the ability to pay their water bills through the Village's bank lockbox or at the front counter at Village Hall. Although these options for payment continue to work well for the Village, the Finance Department regularly receives requests from water billing customers to provide additional alternatives for making payment. One option that is becoming common at other communities is electronic remittance, or e-payments via the Internet. There are primarily three types of service providers currently offering programs to facilitate these types of payments; 1) E-Pay Service Program through the State of Illinois Treasurers Office, 2) E-Pay services provided through a financial institution, or 3) E-Payment and Presentation service provided by a full-service vendor. Each option provides a different level of service and associated cost. All of these types of service providers will be discussed in detail. In addition, Third Millennium Associates (TMA) will be on hand to make a presentation for their e-payment and presentation service and be available for questions as needed. TMA currently provides the Village's water billing to its residential and commercial customers. Staff will present information on each of the types of service for discussion and will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME A CCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT tHE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. V. BANKING SERVICES UPDATE In the fall of 2004, the Finance Department commenced a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for all Village banking services. The scope of service included depository and banking services, lockbox remittance, safekeeping and merchant services. The original RFP asked firms to provide a fee quotation for banking services for an initial four-year period with the option for an additional four-year extension. The Village last prepared an RFP for its banking services in 1988. The successful bid was awarded to what was at that time the First National Bank of Mount Prospect. Since then the bank has gone through numerous ownership changes due to mergers and acquisitions. The Village's current banking partner is Bank One, which is part of the JP Morgan Chase group. With all the technological advances in the past 15+ years and new e-services being offered to manage the Village's funds, it was felt an RFP was needed. On October 14, 2004, RFP's were issued to twelve financial institutions that were either located in the community or have experience providing banking services to governmental entities. 10 proposals were received. Based on an initial review, three financial institutions were considered to move forward in the process. Follow-up meetings were held with each of the finalists and site visits were made to their lockbox processing facilities. Finalists were then provided one last opportunity to clarify pricing issues brought up in the follow-up meetings. Staff will present the final results of the RFP process along with an overview of the Village's depository account structure. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VI. REVIEW OF AUDIT POLICY In November 2004, the Village Board approved a recommendation made by the Finance Department to accept a proposal from Sikich Gardner & Company to provide auditing services for fiscal years ending December 31, 2004 - 2007. Sikich Gardner was recommended based on factors that included pricing, familiarity with the Village's finances and knowledge and experience in municipal and governmental auditing. Sikich had also been the auditor for the Village for the period immediately prior to the new RFP (fiscal years 2001 - 2003). One question that came out of the Board's discussion on this matter was whether the Village should retain existing auditors beyond their initial contract period and allow them to participate in a subsequent RFP process. The Village currently does not have a policy to address this issue. Staff would like to discuss this matter with the Board and obtain direction to develop policy on this issue and will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS IX. 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 22, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 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 Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl and Police Officer Bill Roscop. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes of February 8, 2005. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. BICYCLE HELMET LAW Janet Weiss, fourth grade teacher at Indian Grove Elementary School, provided some general background regarding the curriculum discussion that has taken place since September among her students and stated several of the students would like to provide some information to the Village Board for consideration of a mandatory Bicycle Helmet Law. The students, as a group, provided a pledge and a song regarding bicycle helmet usage. Numerous students spoke regarding the background of the program and their goal of helmet and seatbelt use for safety purposes for children. There was also a discussion regarding the research that the students have undertaken that has led them to this point. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was discussion regarding the need to purchase helmets as children continue to grow. There was also a discussion regarding the cost of helmets and the opportunity for a possible exchange program of helmets. It was also discussed that helmets are useful for protection during other outdoor activities. Five other communities including Barrington, Chicago (for bicycle messengers only), Inverness, Libertyville and Skokie, have helmet ordinances. There was also discussion regarding possible enforcement options if such a program was undertaken. 1 Consensus of the Village Board was to direct this proposal to the Youth Commission for discussion and recommendation to Village Board and have staff undertake research regarding enforcement and application of such an ordinance. It was noted that the Youth Commission would next be meeting on March 2. Terry Barker, Superintendent of School District 26, spoke. He wanted to thank the Village Board for the opportunity for the students to participate in the governmental process. V. DISCOUNT TAXICAB PROGRAM Village Manager Janonis stated that this would be an expansion of the Program to allow a companion to ride with a primary person. The primary user must qualify for the the discount initially. The companion fare would only be available when the companion rode with the primary individual. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was discussion regarding the cost that the companion should pay and the overall cost impact to the Village. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider this program further once additional information was provided by staff and the need to consider companion cost that was representative of encouraging people to participate in the program without discouraging participation financially. VI. LIQUOR CODE CHANGES Village Manager Janonis stated that this proposal is based on trends and requests for Liquor Licenses that he has experienced over the last several years. He is suggesting capping the number of package goods Licenses at five (5) which are the current number within the community. There have been numerous requests for additional package stores within the community and the Board has not granted an additional package License in over 15 years. He also noted that the package stores are considered Class C Licenses. There would be a need to create a Class C-1 for package sales at grocery stores and that would be based on square footage of the store. He also stated that there would be no sales at any gas station operation related to grocery store operations. Consensus of the Village Board was to limit the number of Class C Licenses to five (5). Village Manager Janonis also suggested the Board consider revising the Sunday sale hours to be earlier than noon. He also provided information regarding a survey of surrounding communities and the start time for Sunday sales. He stated that some stores and restaurants have requested earlier start times for liquor sales and he is recommending a 10:00 a.m. start for Sunday sales. Currently, sales start on weekdays at 11 :00 a.m. General discussion among Village Board members included the following items: 2 There was a discussion regarding the need to establish a consistent starting time for any day of the week. There was also a discussion regarding the applicability to all License Classes and create sales hours that are competitive with surrounding communities. There was also a discussion limiting the earlier start time to only Sunday and not impacting the other days of the week. It was also suggested that an earlier start time could be established and changed at a later date if necessary. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider the 9:00 a.m. start time for liquor sales for any day of the week. The hours would remain restricted for any store that would be open 24 hours which would generally be a grocery store. The liquor sale hours would continue to be restricted and not allow liquor sales 24 hours a day. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated the Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters is sponsoring a Candidates' Forum on March 12 from 9:00 a.m. until 12:00 noon in the Village Board Room which will be televised. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. CLOSED SESSION The Closed Session was cancelled. IX. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at 8:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, ~,;-d s::.-6Lf DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc 3 Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois ~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: MARCH 17, 2005 SUBJECT: ELECTRONIC PAYMENT AND PRESENTATION OF WATER BILLS PURPOSE: This memorandum presents information on the implementation of an electronic remittance or e-pay option for the payment of water bills via the Internet. BACKGROUND: Residents and commercial property owners currently have the ability to pay their water bills through the Village's bank lockbox or at the front counter at Village Hall. Although these options for payment continue to work well for the Village, the Finance Department regularly receives requests from water billing customers to provide additional alternatives for making payment. One option that is becoming more common for governmental entities is electronic remittance, or e-payments via the Internet. DISCUSSION: In an attempt to meet the expanding needs of its residential and commercial water billing customers, the Finance Department began to look into the possibility of offering other payment alternatives to the methods currently available. It was felt that the Village could take advantage of an already useful informational tool, the Village's website. More and more, people are using the Internet as a tool to pay other monthly bills (credit card, utility etc.). There are existing alternatives available that could be implemented fairly easily to address this growing trend. Consolidated bill payers such as eBillPay, Pay trust and Checkfree are not included in this analysis as they do not offer the data exchange needs of the Village (payment remittance file). The three primary types of service providers currently offering programs to facilitate these types of payments; 1) E-Pay Service Program through the State of Illinois Treasurer's Office, 2) E-Pay services provided through a financial institution, or 3) Electronic Bill Payment and Presentation (EBPP) service provided by a full-service vendor. Each option provides a different level of service and associated cost. The following is a discussion on the advantages and disadvantages by selecting one of these methods and cost of providing this service. Exhibit One provides a summary of advantages and disadvantages as well as expected costs for providing the service. Electronic Bill Payment and Presentation for Water Bills March 17, 2005 Page 2 The E-Pay Service Program offered through the State of Illinois Treasurer's Office is something new that has recently became available in the past few years. This free service allows Village's to offer citizens the ability to pay for services 24/7 from any computer hooked up to the Internet. The program resides on the State of Illinois system, but is transparent to the user. The user needs only to enter basic account information (account number, service address) and payment amount. There is a convenience fee charged to the user for using this system that is paid to the State. The minimum fee is $1.00 and it takes 2-3 business days for payment to be posted to the users water billing account. One advantage to utilizing E-Pay from the State of Illinois is its ease of use. The program also comes to the Village at no cost. Disadvantages are that it is limited in the information it can provide to the user, does not permit the entering of meter reads (Village would still have to develop a system to enter reads manually) and there is a service fee attached to every transaction. Also, the Village cannot access the payment information until it receives the remittance file the next day. E-Pay services provided through a financial institution are similar to those provided in the State of Illinois program, but can provide additional account information to the user. Again the program resides off the Village's system, but remains transparent to the user. Additional benefits to the user are the ability to make immediate one-time payments or recurring scheduled payments. The user also has access to limited account information (payment history). There are also some additional benefits to the Village. Real-time payment confirmations are available to notify that a payment has been made. A data entry field can be set up to allow for customers to enter their meter reads eliminating the need for a staff person to enter the information. Also, the Village is able to access payment information 24/7 rather than having to wait until the next day. This option also has its shortcomings. Only limited account information is available to the user. Administration of the site is made more difficult as only the financial institution can perform modifications to the system. There is also a setup, monthly maintenance and payment processing fee for providing this service. The cost of implementation is $3,500. There is also minimum monthly charge of $500. The cost per transaction fee of $0.50 is in addition to the minimum monthly charge. The EBPP solution is the most comprehensive program for both the user and the Village. As with the other types of service providers, this program resides off the Village's system, but remains transparent to the user. Not only are users able to make a payment on their account, they also can check billing, payment and water usage history. Users can also opt to receive their bill electronically, continue to receive a paper bill, or both. Recurring payments can be set up with parameters on the minimum and maximum payment amount that will be accepted. Although the system is robust, it is very easy to navigate with transactions completed in as few as four steps. This program will also allow for a data entry field to be set up to allow for customers to enter their meter reads. Another unique feature is the ability to pay for two or more accounts in a single transaction. This is Electronic Bill Payment and Presentation for Water Bills March 17, 2005 Page 3 especially helpful for those who own or manage multiple properties such as apartment buildings or commercial properties. There appears to be no disadvantages to the user by going with this program. The program currently being considered to provide this service can also expand to receive other Village payments such as vehicle stickers, parking tickets and other miscellaneous fees. The initial cost of setup for the EBPP is higher as would be expected for the more comprehensive program. The monthly maintenance and processing fee for providing this service is similar to that of the e-pay services program provided through the financial institution. I have included an article published in GFOA Public Investorand IGFOA Leader publications that provides additional information on delivering EBPP to customers. The EBPP program being considered is provided by Third Millennium Associates (TMA). TMA currently provides water billing services for the Village and its e-pay program is a perfect extension to an existing service. The cost of implementation is $22,500. There is also an annual software maintenance fee after the first year of $2,200 and a minimum monthly server charge of $500. The cost per transaction fee of $0.27 is applied towards the minimum monthly charge. Although the initial implementation charge is higher than the other alternatives, this program best meets the desired service needs of the Village into the future. As people have grown accustomed to the convenience of online commercial services, they are beginning to expect to be able to transact business electronically with governments as well. Implementing an e-pay program will allow the Village to meet the growing needs of the community at a relatively low cost to the Village. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend the Village Board authorize staff to pursue the implementation of an electronic bill payment and presentation program for the Village's water billing customers. ~?/. 4L-. DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DOE/ EXHIBIT ONE Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois E-Payment Options for Water Billing Customers Summary of Advantages, Disadvantages and Costs State of Illinois E-Pav Bankina E-Pav Third Millennium EBPP Advantages Customer ease of use Customer ease of use Customer ease of use No cost to Village One-time or reoccurring One-time or reoccurring payments payments Payment history information Expanded account information to include billing, payment and water usage history Expanded capabilities to accept other Village payments Multiple account payment by a single user Disadvantages No account information other Limited account information Cost for initial setup and than payment amount due ongoing maintenance! user fee Does not permit the entering Cost for initial setup and of a meter read ongoing maintenance! user fee Mandatory service fee charged to user Costs None $3,500 setup $22,500 setup $500 monthly fee $500 monthly fee $0.50 per payment $0.27 per payment processing fee processing fee (first applied to monthly minimum) '!- Delivering Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment to Customers By Lince Leader In the past several years, e-com- merce and e-government have evolved from conceptual white papers to implementation and now to a routine expectation among citi- zens. Perhaps no where is the expec- tation for online service greater than at the treasurer's office, where trans- actions such as utility bill payment are increasingly made online. Payment processing is one of the most time- and labor-intensive activ- ities in government. Governments understand that they would save a lot of money-both in terms of reduced costs and collection float- if all of their customers were to pay their utility and tax bills over the Internet. Electronic bill presentment and payment, or EBPP, refers to the electronic delivery of billing state- ments to customers and the elec- tronic initiation of payment by those customers. The purpose of this arti- cle is to familiarize finance officers with the mechanics of EBPP so that they can evaluate its desirability and feasibility for their jurisdictions, examine the two leading models, and review the payment options. EBPP Delivery Models. Like most other technology offerings, electronic bill presentment and pay- ment comes in a variety of shapes and sizes. These variations can be categorized into two major EBPP delivery models-the biller-direct model and the consolidation model. (See Exhibit 1.) Biller-Direct. The biller-direct model is so named because there are no intermediaries between the biller and the customer. (Even though bill translation and formatting and Web site hosting are sometimes out- sourced, the bill originates from the biller and payment is made directly to the biller.). This model offers the maximum level of control over bill presentment and payment, including security and user friendliness. Customers who are signed up for EBPP are notified bye-mail when a bill is pending. To execute a transac- tion, the customer simply opens the e-mail and selects "pay bill." One variation of the biller-direct model is to e-mail an electronic ver- sion of the billing statement to the customer-not just notification that the bill is available for viewing and payment. The customer simply opens the message to see the e-mail version of the bill. Clicking on a button in the bill takes the user to a full version of the bill or directly to payment of the bill, where payment options can be selected and execut- ed. Because of the graphics and links inherent in this delivery mecha- nism, customers must have modern Internet browsers to take full advan- tage of it. Designing, hosting, and maintaining an EBPP system is expensive. The cost of an EBPP system ranges from $40,000 to $100,000. For con- sumers, the biller-direct model is a free (usually) and convenient way of paying bills that spares them the costs of writing and mailing checks. The drawback is that consumers must visit the Web sites of each of their service providers to enroll for EBPP service. Consolidation. In the consolidation model, the biller sends customer account information to a bill consol- idator, which collects bills from mul- tiple billers and aggregates them for the consumer on a central Web site. Although some bill consolidators present bills on their own Web sites, most go through a consumer service provider-usually an Internet search continued on page 5 .................................................................................................................................... Electronic - continued frompage 1 engine or a financial institution. (For additional information, see "Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment: Is It Just a Click Away?" Economic Perspectives xxv, no. 4 (2001): 2-16.) The obvious advan- tage to this model is that customers can pay all of their bills through a single Web site instead of having to visit separate sites for each individ- ual service provider. However, con- sumers usually pay a price for this convenience. Unlike the biller-direct method, consolidation does not require the biller to invest in expensive hard- ware and software to electronically bill customers. However, the biller must pay a fee to the bill consolida- tor for providing the portal for elec- tronic bill presentment and pay- ment. This fee typically amounts to 10 to 15 cents per transaction. Billers aren't the only ones who pay for the convenience of EBPP under the consolidation model. Popular providers like USPS eBillPay, Pay trust, Yahoo! Bill Pay, and CheckFree usually charge a flat fee of $5 to $10 per month and/or 10 to 20 cents per transaction. Many consumers still are not willing to pay for the convenience of EBPP. There are other drawbacks. Many consolidators remit customer pay- ments to billers by mailing paper checks. In addition to the float inherent to this method of pay- ment, the checks sometimes do not include account numbers, which can cause problems in updating cus- tomer accounts. In the consolidation model, the biller surrenders control over the bill delivery process to a third party. The exchange of billing informa- tion between the biller and the con- solidator heightens consumer con- cerns about privacy and security and biller concerns about data accu- racy. Universal acceptance of a common data exchange standard may eventually allay these concerns and lead to more ""1.despread use of , Exhibit 1 Biller-Direct Model vs. Consolidation Model Biller-Direct Model Advantages: · Biller control of the bill delivery process · Solid reporting capabilities · Reliability of e-mail as a delivery mechanism · No fees for the consumer · No postage or check writing costs · Better customer service than third parties · Consumers are more comfortable with established service providers than with unknown third parties Disadvantages: · Expensive to design, host, and main- tain · Consumers must visit multiple Web sites to view and pay their bills · A single biller may not offer all of the payment options desired by con- sumers Consolidation Model Advantages: · No need to implemented costlY tech- nology infrastructure · No postage or check writing costs · Consumers have access to payment options not supported directly byindi- vidual billers · Consumers can pay all of their bills through a single Web site Disadvantages: · Need for coordination among multiple parties · Lack of a universal d<:ita exchange standard · Perceived privacy/security flaws · CUmbersome enrollment procedures · Fragmented customer service · Consumers may pay a fee for online bill payment Source: A. Andreeff, L. Binmoeller, E, Eloboch, O. Gerda, S. Ch?krayqrti, T. Cie$iel$ki, and E. Green, "Electronic Bill Presentment and Payment: Is It Just a Click Away?" Economic Perspectives XXV, no. 4 (2001): 2-16. the consolidation model. Payment Options for EBPP Enrollment. Because of the secu- rity concerns and high fees, few governments are using a variation of the consolidation model. As such, the balance of this article assumes a preference for the biller- direct model. As they contemplate electronic bill presentment and pay- ment, one the most important issues governments need to consid- er are the payment options (other issues not covered here are priva- cy / security and user- friendliness). The payment options used by cus- tomers in an EBPP environment are essentially the same as those used in a paper-based billing process. In the biller-direct model, the four main payment options are ACH, credit card, debit card, and electronic check. The more pay- ment options available to cus- tomers, the more likely they are to migrate to electronic payments. Through electronic presentment, 5 billers can even encourage cus- tomers to use the most cost-effec- tive payment option. For example, a government could elect to have the ACH option presented first- before the main payment selection page. ACH is the most common electron- ic payment option. ACH typically involves a customer authorizing a biller to debit his or her bank account on a recurring basis. Electronic checks are a variation of ACH in which a customer provides his or her bank routing and account number online to electronically pay bills. Historically, many customers have been reluctant to sign up for ACH direct debit payments for fear of losing control over the timing and amount of their payments. The introduction of electronic checks and other one-time debit payments should make ACH a more attractive alternative for electronic payers. \X'hile ACH is the most common electronic payment option offered continued on page 6 .................................................................................................................................... Electronic - continl/edfrom page 5 by billers, credit cards are the most popular among online consumers. Credit cards offer consumers maxi- mum control over the timing and amount of their payments. However, credit cards are a more costly payment alternative for gov- ernments than ACH or debit cards because of the processing fees mer- chants must pay the credit card companies. These fees are generally 2.5 percent to 3 percent of each transaction. Some governments charge consumers a "convenience fee" to recover their costs, but these fees can be a barrier to EBPP adop- tion. ~ Lance Leader iJ general manager of Third .Mzllennittm /lJ'JodateJ. He can be readied at 312/461-0006. 6 Mount Prospect INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: MARCH 16, 2005 SUBJECT: BANKING SERVICES PROPOSAL - RESULTS PURPOSE: This memorandum presents the results of the Banking Services request for proposal (RFP). Areas of banking that were included in the RFP were depository and account services, lockbox remittance, safekeeping and merchant services. BACKGROUND: The Village last prepared an RFP for its banking services in 1988. The successful bid was awarded to what was at the time the First National Bank of Mount Prospect. Since then the bank has gone through numerous ownership changes due to mergers and acquisitions. The Village's current banking partner is Bank One, which is currently part of the JP Morgan Chase group. With all the technological advances in the past 15+ years and new e-services being offered to manage the Village's funds, it was felt an RFP was needed. DISCUSSION: On October 14, 2004 RFP's for Banking Services were sent to twelve financial institutions that were either located in the community or have experience in providing banking services to governmental entities. The twelve financial institutions were: Harris Bank, Mount Prospect National Bank, Fifth Third Bank, LaSalle, MB Financial, Northern Trust, Oak Brook Bank, Bank One, American Chartered, Charter One, First Bank and Parkway Bank. The original RFP asked firms to provide a fee quotation for banking services for the four- year period beginning March 1, 2005, with the option for an additional four years. Since the review and analysis of the submittals took longer than anticipated, the initial four-year term will commence upon awarding of the contract. All costs will remain fixed for the term of the initial contract period, but may be renegotiated for the optional four-year extension. As mentioned previously, the scope of services to be performed included depository and banking services, lockbox remittance, safekeeping and merchant services. The Village would allow for separate financial institutions to provide the different banking services if additional savings would be realized. Banking Services Proposal March 16,2005 Page 2 A pre-proposal conference was held on October 28, 2004 to go over questions regarding the proposal. The conference was helpful in clarifying the format of the responses by which the Finance Department was evaluating the proposals. The conference was well attended with many of the financial institutions participating in the discussion. RFP submittals were due November 19, 2005. Of the twelve that were distributed, ten were returned for consideration on at least one aspect of the bid. Only American Chartered and Charter One declined to submit a proposal. No reason was given for their decision not to participate in the process. Proposals were evaluated using the following criteria: financial strength of the institution, cost of providing service, experience providing services for similar accounts, proven capabilities and references and ability to meet current and projected service requirements over the term of the agreement. Based on an initial review, three financial institutions were considered to move forward in the process to provide depository account and lockbox services. These institutions were LaSalle Bank, Fifth Third Bank and Bank One. Depository Account and Lockbox Remittance Services were evaluated together as it was anticipated that the provider of the lockbox service would also hold the Village's depository accounts. This is done in order to reduce banking fees associated with fund transfers and eliminates the need to reconcile additional accounts. Follow-up meetings were held with each of the finalists and site visits were made to their lockbox processing facilities. Finalists were then provided one last opportunity to clarify pricing issues brought up in the follow-up meetings. Bank One came back with the lowest pricing for these combined services. The Village could anticipate saving approximately 18% in banking fees from what we are currently paying over the initial four-year term of the agreement. Additional savings could be realized by modifying some of the Village's current banking procedures. Exhibit One illustrates a summary of pricing for the depository and lockbox remittance services as well as for safekeeping and merchant services. The safekeeping and merchant services portion of the RFP were evaluated separately from depository and lockbox remittance to allow the Village flexibility to select different financial institutions if additional savings could be realized. In evaluating the proposals for Safekeepina services, it was important to keep in mind the monthly reporting requirements of the Village. Proposals not meeting the Village's minimum reporting requirements were not considered. After it was determined a particular proposal could meet the reporting needs, they were next evaluated on cost of providing the service. A monthly summary of activity for the five safekeeping accounts was provided to the financial institutions to calculate their pricing. This allowed the Village to evaluate proposals regardless of whether pricing was based on the value of portfolio or number of holdings/transactions. Based on the cost analysis, it was determined that the Village would retain LaSalle Bank to provide the Village's safekeeping services. Their reporting capabilities best met the needs of the Village and their pricing was lowest of all those who I:\RFP Information\Banking RFP\Recommendation Letter.doc Banking Services Proposal March 16, 2005 Page 3 submitted a proposal. Please refer again to Exhibit One for a summary of pricing for these safekeeping services. Cost estimates for Merchant Services were prepared based on estimated processing volumes since we do not currently offer this service to our customers. Merchant service providers were presented with two scenarios using different annual volume and average ticket assumptions. The proposal also assumed different levels of credit and debit card usage for walk-in and Internet usage. The lowest quote to provide this service came from Fifth Third Bank. The average cost per transaction was 1.73% or $17.30 per $1,000. Pricing for the merchant services is included in Exhibit One. Although the Village is not changing any of its banking relationships, the time and effort it took to conduct the RFP for banking services was definitely worth the effort. Annual savings for depository and lockbox services will be approximately $5,925 with potential additional savings through modifying some of the Village's current banking procedures. The RFP also confirmed that the Village is receiving excellent value in its monitoring and reporting for safekeeping services. Finally, the ability to accept credit card payments through the addition of merchant services will allow the Village to offers residents an expanded service with minimal impact to operations. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board accept the proposals from Bank One (depository and lockbox remittance), LaSalle Bank (Safekeeping) and Fifth Third (Merchant Services) to provide the Village's banking services for the four-year period commencing April 6, 2005. lj-/tP- ~ DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DOE! I:\RFP Information\Banking RFP\Recommendation Letter.doc EXHIBIT ONE Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois Summary of Proposals for Banking Services March 1, 2005 LaSalle Fifth Third Bank Bank One Depository and Lockbox Water Billing Vehicle Stickers Total 8,159.76 12,871.08 10,161.60 7.320.00 3.600.00 3.015.00 15,479.76 16,471.08 13,176.60 14.759.64 12.090.24 13,807.20 30.239.40 28.561.32 I 26.983.80 I Banking Services SafekeepinQ Basis points on existing assets Value of assets $45,024,852 0.019% 0,040% n/a Transactional based n/a n/a $801.25/month 8.554.721 18.009.94 9.61500 Total Merchant Services Annual volume $150,000 Average ticket $75 Average per transaction rate Total 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 75.00 75.00 75.00 2.377% 1.725% 2.068% 3.565.50 I 2.587.50 I 3.10200 ~ = = Q I:J I:J < <'I.l Cl) E u E ifl .......- S o u u < ~ Q ~ I:J Q ~ I-< Q) ~ ~~ 1s~ ~ ~ Q) ~ 8~ ~~ u as::;s ~::;s CZl en ~-g <l) 1:5& Q I ~ >. ::;s U u <l) ~ 1:"'0 ::;s ~ CI) 0 e!lo g 00. :.. CI)~ 0 ~ a a .c ~ .... ~ p... ~ 0 ~ ~ I t:: I ~ E-< I 0 ]::;s I ~ ~::;s I 0 ~ ..... 0 0 ::;s <l) ~ I: 0 - '1ji - "..... 5::;S > p...::;s e ~ I: 0 = '1ji 5 5::;s .- ~::;s :.. ~ ~ 0 p... (IJ .... = = Q C.I C.I < <l) ~ B u E r:/J. ~ t:: ~ o u u < ~ Q .c ~ C.I Q ~ ~ CI) : ~< ~ .~ ~."""'~'.}L}1 ~~~.~~ l I-< CI) ~ ~::;s '5::;s ..... ro ~ CI) ..... ro s::;s e-::;s o u MAYOR Gerald L. Farley Mount Prospect VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 Village of Mount Prospect www.mountprosvect.org 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, lllinois 60056 NOTICE DUE TO THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION ON APRIL 5, THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE BOARD WILL MEET ON WEDNESDAY, APRIL 6, 2005. Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk 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. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday March 24, 2005 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL A. APPROV AL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2005 MEETING . PZ-48-04/ 1101 Linneman Road / MitroffGroup . PZ-49-04/ 7 N. Main Street / Licari Consolidation · PZ-05-05/ 1000 Mount Prospect Plaza / Staples · PZ-06-05 /2400 Terminal Drive / Albright All Weather III. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-49-04 / 7 N. Main Street / Licari Consolidation (one-lot subdivision). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-50-04 / River West / Condominium Conversion. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. (Continued to April 28, 2005 per Petitioner's request) IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-07-05 / 2410 E. Rand Road / Taco Bell / Map Amendment, Conditional Use, and Variations. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-48-04 - Mitroff Group: withdrew project, indicated they would submit a revised plan. · PZ-06-05 - Albright All Weather: Village Board reviewed the case 3/15 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, a 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-48-04 Hearing Date: February 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1101 Linneman Rd. PETITIONER: Mitroff Group, Ltd. PUBLICATION DATE: February 9, 2005 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-34-410-044-0000 REQUEST: Rezone to Multi-Family Residence ranging from R2 to R4; Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; Variations to Bulk Regulations MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Matt Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Phillip Atchinson; Dan O'Malley; Terry Smith, BSB Architects Tiffany Baros; Celine Bembaum; Joanne Bina; S. Brudoley; Bruce Cascarano; DiSilvestro; Paul Dahlgren; Gladys & Clarke Dunkel; Irene Dziubinski; Mike & Jan Fedanzo; Marie Fisher; Rev. Jeff Gavin; Brunhilde & Sylvia Jonykeit; Alice & Chester Kilian; Ken & Jackie Koeppen; J. Kolooling; Daniel Kovacevic; G. Labec; Richard Orlowske; Mary Lynch; Peter Masterto; Marie Ann Maytum; Kathy Montalbano; Shiro Ozeni; Carol Pappas; Sanjit & Ruia Ray; Carol Rojo; Paul Salbi; Vincent Scheferin; L. Starr; Allen Sg; Bill Sweet; Patricia Terisin; Louise Vandrick; Robert W olk; Al & Anita Zuepuils Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2005 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion to approve. The motion was approved 6-0. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the March 24,2005 meeting. Richard Rogers made such motion, seconded by Joe Donnelly, approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-48-04, a request to rezone to Multi-Family Residence ranging from R2 to R4; a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and Variations to Bulk Regulations. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Linneman Road, between Golf Road and Dempster Street. The site currently contains the St. John Lutheran School with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, St. John Lutheran Church, R2 Attached Single Family Residence Planned Unit Development to the southwest, Courts of St. John, R4 Multi-Family Planned Unit Development to the east and south, and RX and R4 to the north. The Subject Property was originally located within unincorporated Cook Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 2 County and developed under the County's regulations. The Subject Property was later annexed into Mount Prospect. The properties involved with this annexation were also zoned RX Single-Family Residence as required by state statutes, but were later rezoned as they were redeveloped. The Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of all of the existing structures on the Subject Property and the redevelopment of the site as a 70-unit townhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single-Family Residence. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R4 Multi- Family Residence, which allows a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.99 units per acre, 70 units/8.99 acres, which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved planned unit development. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. The site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 70-unit townhome development. The development would consist of 12 buildings: 2 4-units, 2 5-units, 4 6-units, and 4 7-units. Each unit would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. The pavement width of the private street is 24-feet, consistent with the Village standards, and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. In response to the January Staff memo directing the Petitioner to comply with lot coverage requirements, the 5-foot wide sidewalk on Hunt Club Drive was eliminated. This change was not what Staff had in mind for the development to comply with Village regulations. A sidewalk currently exists on Linneman Road and the Petitioner proposes on-site guest parking spaces. The elevations indicate the general look of the townhomes. Each building will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the private street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of brick and siding. Also, balconies will be included on the rear elevation of some of the units. However, the Petitioner did not include individual elevations for each style of building. Staff has requested elevations for each of the proposed building types to ensure that the development benefits from varied architectural details. In addition, Staff has noted a concern with the proposed rear elevation and its lack of architectural interest. The Petitioner submitted revised rear elevations in an attempt to address Staffs comments in the January report. However, Staff found that having an all brick rear elevation for the end units would be appropriate in addition to the other proposed revisions. The site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Linneman Road only, but have two emergency vehicle access points from Hunt Club Drive. The main access road would then splinter off to the individual private drives via a 'turn-about'. The emergency access points from Hunt Club Drive would have a gate, controlled by a traffic pre-emption device, to eliminate vehicle cut-thru traffic. In addition, the Fire Department will designate specific areas of the development as Fire Lanes as necessary to ensure adequate emergency vehicles access. The Petitioner has agreed to make the required right-of-way improvements. However, Hunt Club Drive is a public roadway located in a 48' wide easement. The Petitioner's plans indicate a 9' easement along a portion of Hunt Club Drive. This was required as well as a 5' wide public walk installed in the easement because the easement may eventually be acquired as public right-of-way and the proposed improvements would be in keeping with current Village Code requirement. The Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be two types of floor plans. The Village Code requires 2-Yz parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more. The Petitioner's Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 3 proposal contains 280 parking spaces that consist of two garage and two driveway parking spaces per unit, plus 36 guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development. Although the site could accommodate 316 vehicles on-site, at Staffs suggestion, the Petitioner is working with St. John's to obtain an off-site parking agreement. The purpose of this off-site parking agreement is to ensure there is sufficient guest parking because the Village Code does not permit on-street parking on Hunt Club Drive and Linneman Road. The Petitioner can update the Commission on the status of the agreement with St. John's. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The landscape plan indicates that shade and ornamental trees will be the primary screening material around the perimeter of the Subject Property. In response to Staffs comments in the January memo, the Petitioner has submitted a revised landscape plan that includes additional plant species with year-round interest. In addition to the landscaping, the Petitioner proposes to install a 4-5' wrought iron fence along the south and east lot line. The proposed fence was included in response to the Police Department's concerns regarding possible vehicle burglary and overall site perimeter security. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the circle drive, or 'turn-about', would be constructed using a porous paver material. The Village Code does not recognize this material as pervious; therefore it is included in the lot coverage calculation. Including the sidewalk along Hunt Club, the site will exceed lot coverage; therefore, the Petitioner must modify the site to comply with code or provide justification for granting a Variation. The Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village's Engineer to document the design will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is typically submitted as part of the Building Permit process. However, Staff has already made the Petitioner aware of Staff concerns regarding televising the existing sanitary service, increasing the detention volume, and other modifications required as part ofthe final engineering design. The Petitioner is proposing to make a monetary contribution, approximately $60,000, to the Mount Prospect Park District. The funds would be used to upgrade the ball fields at Kopp Park, which is the closest public park to the Subject Property. The Petitioner must provide written confirmation of how much they will be contributing to the park district and how these funds will be utilized. 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 creating the need for a lot coverage Variation because this is a new development on a large parcel of land. There are elements of the project that could be modified and/or eliminated so the site does not exceed 50% lot coverage. The standards for Map Amendments, which rezones the property, are listed in another section of the Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: the compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; the compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; the suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The Subject Property is adjacent to existing multi-family residential developments, abuts single-family residences, and is across the street from an institutional use, St. John's. The proposed 70-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments approved in the Village. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 4 Property and provides an adequate transition from the single-family residence to the north to the multi-family residences to the south. The proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Variation to permit 51 % lot coverage does not meet the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board deny the lot coverage Variation, but approve: 1) The request to rezone the Subject Property from RX to R4; 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a revised site plan for Staff review and approval that reflects no more than 50% lot coverage and includes a sidewalk along the east lot line; B. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit detailed elevations for all building types, developed in accordance with the elevations prepared by Bloodgood Sharp Buster revision date February 14,2005 but revised to reflect the rear elevations of all end units to be all brick; C. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a detailed landscape plan developed in accordance with the landscape plan prepared by Pugsley & LaHaie, Ltd, but revised to reflect the finalized location of the wrought iron fence and gates (along the east elevation) as approved by the Police Department; D. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a finalized agreement with the Mount Prospect Park District documenting mutually agreed upon and Staff approved, off-site improvements to Kopp Park that meet the public benefit requirement for a Planned Unit Development; E. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall submit a finalized parking agreement with St. John Lutheran Church; 3) Prior to applying for a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall verify (televise) the portion of the existing sanitary service to be utilized for the development is still serviceable and that the receiving sanitary sewer system has sufficient capacity to serve the development, subject to Village Engineering certification; 4) Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan for the lighting within the development; 5) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of easement in favor of the Village for the eastern 9' of the property along Hunt Club Drive in the event the road is made public/improved; 6) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; 7) The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; 8) The 'turn-about'/cul-de-sac and all on-site utilities shall be privately owned and maintained; 9) The emergency access gates and paved drives to Hunt Club Drive must have traffic pre-emption devices. Ms. Connolly then summarized the difference between the original and current submittals. She noted that for lot coverage: the sidewalk along the east lot line was eliminated and service walks were modified; the project now meets the 50% lot coverage limitation. However, Staff suggests the Petitioner modify the site plan to meet lot coverage without eliminating the sidewalk or require the Petitioner to sign a covenant paying for its installation at a later date. Regarding the rear building elevations: the revised elevations indicate different windows and a 'scalloped' railing for the balcony as well as a modification to the upper level of the residences. Staff recommends that the elevations be revised to reflect the rear elevations of all end units to be all brick. The landscape plan should be revised to include additional plant species with year-round interest. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 5 In addition, Staff researched the feasibility of the site being rezoned to R2 Attached Single Family as opposed to the requested R-4 Multi-Family Residence designation. The table in the Staff Report listed the Zoning requirements for each district as well as the Petitioner's proposal. Should a plan be approved but not built, the Village Attorney confirmed that the Planned Unit Development designation does not expire and that the site would have to be developed in accordance with the approved site plan. Sec. 14.504.E allows the Village Board the opportunity to revoke the PUD if the project has not been completed within 5 years or the construction falls behind schedule. Therefore, it was the Village Attorney's determination that the site would need to be developed in accordance with the adopted site plan or not at all unless the Village Board took action to approve another development. Ms. Juracek and Mr. Rogers questioned the reasoning behind the requested zoning designations, they felt an R-2 designation with a height restriction should have been requested, in case the proposed project was not built and the PUD expired. Ms. Connolly said some of the buildings had 7-units, which required R-4 zoning. Interested parties who would speak for the Mitroff Case were sworn in by Chairperson Juracek. Dan Kovacevic of Mitroff Builders, 1655 N. Arlington Heights Road, spoke. He said they were proud to propose to build their fourth community in Mount Prospect. He said Mr. Mitroff lived adjacent to the subject property area over 32 years and his son, David, a principal with the company, grew up there. He introduced the next speaker, their land planner Terry Smith, of Bloodgood, Sharp & Buster Architects and Planners, in Palatine. Mr. Smith described the property and explained the proposed development as Ms. Connolly had, elaborated on the details, and explained the reasoning behind some of the decisions that Mitroff Builders had made. He said the land was basically flat with low points and a smattering of trees. He said they wanted a progression of densities from the south and east progressing north and developing south to north to a total of 70-townhome modules of 4,5,6 & 7 units. He presented slides to show how a typical 2-1/2 story rear elevation steps down to a 1-1/2 story front elevation from the streetside. There would be no garages in the front of the buildings for aesthetic reasons and the 1-1/2 story element would be facing the residential area. He said they worked closely with the police and fire departments to design a plan with just one access point to the cul-de-sac. Their original thought was to donate the street to the Village, but the street did not meet Village Code requirements, so it could not be accepted. This impacted the lot coverage calculation because now the private street is included as part of the lot coverage. If they used a certain type of ecological friendly pervious paver brick, it wouldn't exceed the 50% limitation. However, as Ms. Connolly reported, the Village Code does not recognize this material as being pervious. In order to provide variety they have changed the orientation of two buildings, providing an entrance view of green space and courtyard area. There is a detention area at the southwest comer, where St. John's Court has an easement. Each unit will have two garage parking spaces and two stacked parking spaces per unit. There are six locations of parallel parking onsite as well. Mr. Smith said they could provide a public walk running north! south along their property and still provide for a 9' easement area and provide bond money for a sidewalk to occur in future if needed. He also said this would be a two-phase project. Ms. Juracek asked Mr. Smith why they chose Linneman Road for ingress/egress and why they had no connection to Hunt Club Road. Mr. Smith said Linneman Road is a public street and Hunt Club Road is a private street. Ms. Juracek asked for Staff verification and Jeff Wulbecker, Village Engineer, said Hunt Club Road is a public street within an easement not a dedicated right-of-way so the Village does not own the right-of-way, but there is an easement for a public road. Keith Youngquist asked the reason for the dramatic elevation changes of up to 4' . Mr. Smith said that would be covered by Mr. Dan O'Malley. Todd Shafer, Civil Engineer with Haeger Engineering, 1911A Rohlwing Road, Rolling Meadows, said he had been working very closely with JeffWulbecker. Mr. Shafer discussed the existing sanitary/storm sewer Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 6 conditions in the area, as well as any requirements for the proposed development. He also described large existing stormwater detention areas installed by MWRD. Dan O'Malley, Architect, BSB Architects, came forward and said they no longer build "garage-heavy" buildings as they did fifteen years ago. Garages are kept low-key and out-of-sight as much as possible. Front entries are "easier on the eyes" than garages. He described the buildings at length. He explained the reason for the 4' grade change in elevation as providing a convenience. They are able to classify the building as 2-1/2 story rather than 3-story by keeping a portion of the bottom story 4' underground level. He described the building materials to be used and ease of maintenance and also the building height. Ms. Juracek asked if there would be a homeowner's association and Mr. O'Malley said there would. Mr. Rogers asked if he were talking about standard brick or modular brick. Mr. O'Malley said brick veneer. Mr. Rogers asked whether wood would be used and was told it would be an engineered wood product. A vinyl exterior window will be used. Mr. Rogers asked and was told that none of the units will be, or are required to be, handicapped accessible. Terry Smith returned to the podium to say the landscape planner was unable to be at the hearing so he would speak about the plan and answer any questions. He displayed several slides and described the shade trees, plantings, small sign and ornamental fence with emergency access points. He also referred back to the Chairperson's question of access from Linneman Road and said it had been their distinct impression that Staff wanted them to access Linneman Road and have limited access on Hunt Club Road. Mr. Rogers asked if they would preserve the trees presently along the east property line. Mr. Smith said they would make every effort to preserve the trees along the east and even the west property line. Depending on the grading, every provision would be made to preserve them. They would have no fence along north property line. They would plant evergreens 6 to 8' in height with small intermediate height plantings adjacent to those trees. Joe Donnelly asked the reason for the emergency access points and Mr. Smith said the fire department wanted them at the north and south auto courts. He asked how many units St John's Court had and Ms. Connolly responded 32 units. Mr. Floros asked the approximate distance of the northernmost building to the single-family residences to the north, the Bel Aire Subdivision. Mr. Todd Shafer came forward and said the proposed building setback is 30' - 32' with the concrete entry stoop - 32' north of the property line. Dan Kovacevic came forward again to say that concluded Mitroff Builder's presentation and with regard to Staffs conditions they felt they could accept all except the Hunt Club Road sidewalk requirement. He agreed to post a cash bond and would provide the 9' easement, but not the sidewalk at this time since it doesn't connect to another sidewalk. He said that they would make the change on Sheet B and that their Engineer confirmed with the Village Engineer that they would not need to televise the sewer lines to determine capacity. They have an agreement with St. John's Lutheran Church, that they have not yet been able to put down in writing, that would allow the Mitroff development to use the church parking lot for overflow parking. Therefore, Mitroff would like the on-site parking to be sufficient as they have 316 spaces for 70 units. These units will not be condominium, they will be fee simple. These 2, 3, and possible 4 bedroom units will be priced in the mid-$300,000s and optioned into the $400,000s. Ms. Juracek asked if they had done a traffic study and Mr. Kovacevic said they had not. She asked, if they were to require a street opening instead of a gated opening on Linneman Road, how would that impact the proj ect. Mr. Smith said the drive aisle is 24' wide, and asked whether the P&Z would prefer the possibility of cut-through traffic; their understanding from Staff was that the Village did not want cut-through traffic in the development. Ms. Juracek thought it would be more convenient for present homeowners to cut-through. Jeff Wulbecker, Village Engineer, said it had been the Police Department's suggestion, for security reasons, that there not be cut- through traffic and have a gated opening. Ronald Roberts described several anticipated traffic problem scenarios, which were greeted by applause from the audience. Ms. Juracek acknowledged receipt of written comments from residents regarding the proposed townhome project: Anita Zanek, Joanne & Steven Bina, and Paul Dahlgren of Linneman Road. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 7 A number of residents were sworn in and spoke negatively about the proposed project: Paul Dahlgren, President of the St. John's Condo Association for the past ten years, spoke about the adverse effect on the sewer system and additional traffic. He showed pictures of standing water and reported on the expense of having the water pumped away and expressed concern at having additional concrete surfaces added to the area. Pete Masterton, 680 W. Bel Aire, was sworn in and said he brought a petition from residents addressing the present standing water problems and the existing traffic problems. He also spoke about the effect on the aesthetics of the area and the ability of the proposed townhome residents to observe the present homeowners from their balconies. Ken Koeppen, 1040 S. Linneman, stated he has lived in Mount Prospect for 41 years. He presented a petition stating that the people who signed it wanted to keep the area single-family residential. He complained about the present density in the area and repeated comments made by the previous speakers. Mike Fedanzo, 1050 S. Linneman, said he is concerned with the 27 acres on the east side of Linneman, south of Dempster, formerly owned by United and sold for a condominium complex. Staff was familiar with the project, but said the county would have jurisdiction over that proposal because it was not in Mount Prospect. Jeff Wulbecker said any sewer system in that project would not connect with sewers on this side of Dempster. Mr. Fedanzo asked the Board to consider the additional traffic from that project when considering this proposal, also. Joanne Bina, 1026 S. Linneman, said the area is better suited to single-family homes. She noticed that many single-family homes are being tom down to build much larger homes. That is the trend being followed by most builders today. She also had concerns about the project to be built on the United property and the number of children it would place in Mount Prospect School Districts. Since our Board cannot control that development she advised stricter control over the projects they can control. She was also concerned about traffic, especially heavy construction traffic and the time of morning it would start, where it would park, and who would clean up the streets after it. Alan Szumanski, 665 Bel Aire Lane, a commercial investor in apartment buildings in Mount Prospect, was sworn in. He presented several petitiones against the project: (1) a petition signed by the Board of Directors from Countryside Apartments representing 33 buildings, 200 units; (2) a petition signed by the Board of Directors from Hawthorn Oaks Apartments, representing 33 buildings, 200 units; and (3) a petition signed by the 10 residents of the duplexes along Hunt Club Drive. He said Mr. Mitroff was a neighbor of his for 20 years and never made a proposal like this until he moved away from the area and opined that perhaps he did not want to live next to such a project. Mr. Szumanski said the proposed R-4 rezoning allows for a height limitation of 34', which would be completely incompatible for the area and that a 6-flat with 3 stories in the area is just 28'. Mr. Keith Youngquist advised Mr. Szumanski that the present R-X zoning would allow 35' building height. Laura Starr, 690 Bel Aire Lane, had concern about the lack of park space or green space if the project is built. She said the neighborhood children presently use this land as play area. Ms. Juracek said the developer would make a donation to the Park District and would elaborate on that donation later. She asked Jeff Wulbecker to discuss whether or not Linneman Road could handle construction traffic. Jeff Wulbecker, Village Engineer, came forward and said that, regarding the weight of the construction vehicles; anyone using Village streets with overweight vehicles must obtain a special permit from the Village. As to removal of mud from the streets, the contractor is given 24 hours to remove the mud or our Village crews clean up and bill them for the service. David Mitroff addressed the P&Z. He said that he grew up on Linneman Road and attended Robert Frost School. He said when his father decided to build this project he asked him to address the "public benefit" aspect of the project. He had always been active in baseball so he called the Park District and asked about any baseball projects. He said there were plans for a baseball diamond behind Cobb Park that required $60,000. They looked Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 8 at the plans and are proud to say Mitroff is going to finance that. Leo Floros asked if they had considered building single-family homes on the property and Mr. Mitroff and Mr. Kovacevic said they had, but felt that townhomes would be a better use of the land, given the apartments and condos already surrounding the area. Sylvia Jonykeit, 1007 Willow Lane, urged the Commission to retain the current zoning instead of making allowances for builders to build what they want. Todd Shafer came forward to respond to sewer questions. He said they are proposing to relocate the sewer restrictor to the Linneman Road right-of-way, not normally allowed, which would allow easier access. He described the workings of the proposed detention ponds at greater length. There is a drainage area 20' wide by 200' long at the northwest comer of the property that has a detention rate of 664 and our proposed ponds are at 666, so the sewers cannot accommodate that from a detention standpoint. In order for the project not have an adverse impact on the properties to the north, they propose to detain the water even further. St. John's property of 3.5 acres is 45% impervious and has a detention of .6 acre. They would provide more detention for this site with only a 5% difference in imperviousness and less release rate. Dan O'Malley came to the podium to say that the top of the balconies would only be 9' above grade level and project no more than 5' from the building. It was also noted that it would be the side elevation that faces north not the rear elevation where the balconies would be. Chair Arlene Juracek brought the discussion back to the Commission. Ronald Roberts reminded the group that the Comprehensive Plan encourages single-family homes in the Village, lives in the neighborhood and is biased in that thinking. Richard Rogers said the density in that area is too high already. Keith Youngquist noted the lack of amenities provided in the project. Leo Floros said he would also opt for single-family homes, especially with United's property development looming in the future. He did say, however, that Mitroff Builders would build a project to be proud of. Ms. Juracek said she does believe in property rights and a person's right to develop property to it's highest and best use but in this case there are other ways to bring an appropriate return to the developer; she also shared some of the other concerns mentioned this evening and was not in favor of walling off Hunt Club. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for rezoning to Multi-Family Residence to R4 for the property located at 1101 Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-48-04. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Motion was denied 6-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development and Variations to Bulk Regulations subject to the conditions listed in the Staff report for the property at 1101 Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-48-04. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Motion was denied 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-48-04 Page 9 Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11 :28 p.m., seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-49-04 Hearing Date: February 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 7 N. Main Street PETITIONER: Teresa Licari 4 Red Ridge Circle Barrington, IL 60010-5326 LEGAL NOTICES MAILED: February 9, 2005 PIN #: 03-34-410-044-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking approval to consolidate (2) parcels and create a one- lot subdivision/one lot of record MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Matt Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Irene Chipinski Teresa Licari Mark Watychowicz Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2005 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion to approve. The motion was approved 6-0. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the March 24,2005 meeting. Richard Rogers made such motion, seconded by Joe Donnelly, approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-49-04, a request to consolidate two parcels and create a one-lot subdivision into one lot of record. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the east side of Main Street, Route 83, between Central Road and Henry Street. It consists of two vacant parcels located between two apartment buildings. The Subject Property is zoned B5 Central Commercial and is bordered to the north, west, and south by the B5 district and by the RA Single Family Zoning District to the east. The Petitioner is proposing to consolidate two parcels, which were acquired through a County tax sale, to create a one-lot subdivision. The parcels would be consolidated through the proposed Licari's Consolidation plat. Plat approval includes Planning & Zoning Commission review and a recommendation to the Village Board. The Village Board's decision is final for the proposed plat. Village records indicate that the area north of Central road and south of the single-family residences was rezoned from R1 to R3 in 1960. The site was then rezoned from R3 to R4 a year later and the original subdivision indicates that the development consisted of 5 lots of record. The three existing apartment buildings were Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 2 constructed in the early 1960s. However, the building footprints did not match the lot lines. The Village later rezoned the properties to B5 Central Commercial in the early 1990s. Although the Petitioner did not submit a development plan, Staff had concerns regarding the proposed plat because of the potential impacts of developing the site. Currently, there is not enough parking for the tenants and developing an open area would intensify the situation. Each building has 12 units, creating a total of 36 units, and each building has 12 assigned parking spaces. However, it appears that some vehicles parallel park along the east lot line. The Village Attorney researched the title information and found that the Subject Property, the two parcels the Petitioner is seeking to consolidate, was created through a tax division. A tax division is a petition processed through the Cook County Assessor's Office whereby a property owner parcels off a portion of their land for tax purposes. A separate tax bill and PIN# are created. In this case, the Village was first made aware of this situation when the Petitioner contacted Village Staff to determine whether the property could be developed. The Village Attorney determined that the Subject Property was created without the benefit of a subdivision and Village review. In addition, he determined that the Village couldn't prevent the Applicant from seeking approval of the proposed Licari's Consolidation. However, future development of the site must comply with all Village Codes. The Petitioner could request relief, which would require going through the zoning process and obtaining Village Board approval. Currently, the Subject Property is undeveloped, but it includes an ingress/egress easement along the rear 30' of the property. The easement provides ingress/egress rights between the apartment properties over the eastern 30' of each property. The Petitioner has not submitted development plans for Staff review, but has indicated that the property would be sold to another party for redevelopment. The proposed development would have to incorporate the easement requirements and comply with all Village regulations. The Subject Property is zoned B5. The table in the Staff Report lists the bulk regulations for the B5 District. It is important to note that the item being reviewed is the plat that consolidates the parcels and creates a one-lot subdivision. The development of the site is a separate issue. If the proposed development does not comply with Village regulations or requires Conditional Use approval, the P& Z, and most likely Village Board, would review the request and make a decision in response to the development. The Subdivision Ordinance includes standards for approving a subdivision, which relate to the physical development of a subdivision. The regulations provide requirements for the development of the block, length, width, etc. and the development of the lot, size, depth, shape, etc. Staff reviewed the proposed plat and found that it had been prepared in accordance with the Village Code. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve the plat for 7 N. Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek asked if there were 5' utility easements on the north and south ends of the plat; Ms. Connolly replied yes. Ms. Juracek asked if they could build up to the easements without providing setbacks. Ms. Connolly said yes, but they would need to provide parking. She explained that in the B-5 district they would need Conditional Use approval for a residential only development and would have to provide parking to ensure proper development. Joe Donnelly asked if the existing parking spaces belong to the existing apartment buildings and was told they did. Richard Rogers asked what was a permissible use for B-5. Ms. Connolly said retail on the first floor and apartments above; the existing buildings are non-conforming. Teresa Licari was sworn in and testified that she purchased the property at a Cook County Tax Sale and received a Tax Deed approximately one year ago, placed a for sale sign on the property, and then there were signs placed on the rear of the property that the parking area belongs to someone else. She said she is trying to create a one-lot subdivision to make the property buildable. Mr. Donnelly asked what lots she wants to combine; she said she purchased a pin # that is listed as a lot for tax purposes but not for building purposes. Irene Chipinski, 5619 N. Campbell, Chicago, was sworn in and stated that her family owned the apartment building just north of the Licari property, 9-11 North Main. She reported that there is currently a parking shortage; they have 11 assigned parking spaces for 12 units, there is space for 4 non-assigned cars to park. There have been recent problems with a residential neighbor to the north and have had to restrict parking on the north side of the lot due to those complaints. She said she knows the other buildings have assigned parking spaces, but Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 3 also experience a parking shortage. There is a lot of traffic cutting through the lot trying to avoid the traffic lights. She had come to the meeting tonight and waited two hours to speak to the Commission to make them aware of the parking deficiency at this property. Discussion ensued between the Board members and Ms. Connolly regarding the lack of parking spaces and the future development of this site requiring more parking spaces in addition to displacing some of the existing spaces. Ms. Chipinski reminded the group that the additional garbage dumpsters would also take up additional parking spaces. Mark Watychowicz, 301 S. WaPella, an attorney for 5 N. Main Street, was sworn in. He said he wanted to stress that the reason for this request for Subdivision is actually a prelude for a request to build something at the location. And to build anything, even to pitch a tent and add one more car to the area will cause a major problem. There are three buildings, all built by the same builder. To build another building between those will cause an eyesore - across the street from another eyesore - an undesirable existing shopping center in need of redevelopment. Anyone entering or leaving the downtown area sees this eyesore. There are only half of the parking spaces now required by Code for the present development; to add another building will more than double the problem. All the overflow parking will fall into the downtown area, which is already overcrowded. He also questioned whether the petitioner had the proper standing to bring this request before the Board. To that end, Mr. Watychowicz gave his interpretation of his review of the file of the transcripts of the tax sale: He said, "The petitioner visited the property and testified to the judge, under oath, that the property was not being used for any purpose. But it should be clear to all here tonight that the property is being used for parking spaces. I believe if the petitioner had properly advised the judge in the tax court that the property was being used for parking the judge would have required that notice be provided to all the people who would be affected by the tax sale, and that would have included my client, and as a result my client's interest in the property hasn't been properly adjudicated. So for that reason, I would petition that the Board either deny this request or, at the very least, continue the case to allow my firm more time to further analyze the tax case and file any appropriate pleading which would probably affect petitioner's ability to do anything with this land." Ms. Juracek said she is having a difficult time understanding how the tax sale occurred since it appears it was a portion of Mr. Watychowicz's client's property that was sold and how could that have happened without his knowledge. Mr. Watychowicz's said his client purchased property in 1977 from Mr. Carlson in this condition. He considered buying this property but an attorney told him this property was unbuildable so he did not purchase it. The Village attorney reviewed the case and apparently the property division was done as tax benefit by a previous purchaser. His client has taken care of that property for the past 30 years, cut the grass, paved the area, re-paved, sealed, re- sealed, all at his own expense. Ronald Roberts asked him if his client would have bought the property at the tax sale. Mr. Watychowicz said he would have, but didn't know about the sale. Mr. Roberts asked ifhis client would still be willing to buy the property. Mr. Watychowicz said absolutely, but not at the price being asked. Mr. Rogers asked Ms. Licari if she would accept a lesser price at this time, given the condition of the property. Ms. Licari returned to the podium and said she had sold the property twice but neither deal materialized because of these problems. She went on to explain that her research had revealed that the Neri family had owned the Licari property, along with Mr. Watychowicz's client, Michael Neri's, property since around 1960. Somewhere in the 1960s, Edwina Neri divided the property in order to save taxes. Charlie Young then bought the property at a tax sale but did nothing with it and it went back into a tax sale and was purchased by Ms. Licari. Edwina Neri subsequently sold the original parcel to Michael Neri. Ms. Licari explained that she noted in the tax sale that a 60x142 vacant site zoned B-5 was available. She calculated 1.5 parking spaces for each 2-bedroom units and 1 parking space for each I-bedroom units would require 17 spaces. The property has 337' along the property line and at 20' per car that would be enough space. Ms. Licari said she did not commit any fraud in the tax transaction, the owner of the South building had proper notice of the sale and whoever put up the parking sign put that up after she put up the for sale sign. She had taken pictures at the end oflot line and presented those at the tax sale. She said they would have 50' of buildable space Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-49-04 Page 4 so there should be 55 parking spaces according to her calculations. She also said one prospective buyer was considering underground parking. Ms. Juracek said the problem to consider today is does the petitioner have a legal right to consolidate. Ms. Connolly said the Village Attorney reviewed it and said the property owner has the right to consolidate even if the county didn't notify the Village. Ownership has been traced back to 1990, but Staff could not confirm who transferred it for tax purposes and when. Ms. Licari said property can be traced online to 1985 and a title search can trace it back to the 1800s. Ms. Chipinski asked whether it was possible the land was sold without the parking area. Ms. Juracek said more research needs to be done before they can make a recommendation to the Village Board that would be fair to all parties involved. She asked that the Village Attorney clarify the limitations of the recorded easement and clarify whether a formal parking agreement exists and how future parking requirements would be regulated. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue the request to consolidate two parcels and create a one-lot subdivision/one lot of record at 7 North Main Street, Case No. PZ-49-04. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Case was continued to the March 24, 2005 P&Z Meeting. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11 :28 p.m., seconded by Richard Rogers. 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 Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-49-04 7 N. Main St. Licari Subdivision. doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-05 Hearing Date: February 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1000 Mount Prospect Plaza PROPERTY OWNER: Stoltz Management PETITIONER: Troy Funk, Authorized Agent for Kieffer Signs for Staples Office Supplies Store PUBLICATION DATE: February 9,2005 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-35-301-036-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Oversized Wall Signs MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Matt Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Steve Hergenrader Troy Funk Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2005 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion; the motion was approved 6-0. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the March 24, 2005 meeting. Richard Rogers made such motion, seconded by Joe Donnelly, and it was approved 6-0. After consideration of two other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-05-05, 1000 Mount Prospect Plaza, Staples Office Supplies, a request for a Variation for Oversized Wall Signs. She said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property, the former TJ Maxx, is located in the Mount Prospect Plaza Shopping Center and is an end unit in a retail shopping center. It is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 district to the west, east, and south, and R5 Senior Citizen Residence to the north. The Petitioner has submitted exhibits that indicate two wall signs would be installed on the front and side elevations of the building. A red metal band would be installed along the entire side elevation and portions of the front elevation. Staff reviewed the proposal to determine whether the red metal bands being used as a background material for the wall sign text should be considered as part of the sign. Staff could not cite previous sign proposals that included a colored metal band. Per the Sign Code, a sign is defined as "any surface, object, device, display, structure or fabric which is used to advertise, identify, display, direct or attract attention to an object, person, institution, organization, business, product, service, event or location by any means; including but not Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-05-05 Page 2 limited to words, figures, designs, symbols, fixtures, colors, illumination, projected images, or forms shaped to resemble any human, animal, product or object." If the Petitioner submitted a 'box sign' the entire box would be calculated as a sign. However, in other sign permit reviews, Staff has not counted painted "bands" that were made of the same material as the sign, i.e., Shell Gas Station. The proposed Staples wall signs include white text placed over a red metal background. The Petitioner is seeking relief for the size of the wall sign on the front elevation of the building and possibly the remainder of the sign package subject to the P&Z's interpretation of the red metal bands and background. The Sign Code allows signs to cover 50% of the signable area, up to 150 square feet. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Sign Code regulations to install a 276.9 square foot wall sign, text only on the front elevation of the building. The table in the Staff Report itemizes the components and square footages of the Petitioner's proposal. Basically, a 276.9 sq ft wall sign on the front elevation or if it is determined that the red bands are signs, then: a 376 sq. ft. wall sign on the front elevation; approval for the red bands; and a 168 sq ft wall sign on the side elevation plus the red bands. In order to approve the proposed sign package, the P&Z must find the request meets the standards listed in the Sign Code. The standards relate to: the sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; the hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the petitioner, and is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; the variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; the variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of this chapter. The front elevation, Rand Road, of the building measures slightly more than 129 linear ft. and the signable area measures approximately 476 sq.ft., 34'x 4',. The Petitioner is seeking relief from code regulations that limit the maximum size of a wall sign to 150 sq.ft. and would like to install a sign that measures almost 277 sq.ft. The actual text measures 276.9 sq. ft. but the red metal background would cover 384 sq.ft., 32'x12'. The Sign Code allows for signs larger than the maximum listed in the Sign Code when the sign meets certain criteria. The Petitioner would be eligible for the 15% bonus (172.5 sq. ft.) if the letters were mounted directly onto the building. However, the Petitioner's proposal exceeds the maximum size including the bonus and requires a Variation. Essentially, the proposed wall sign without the solid red background would cover a significant amount of the signable area, 58%. However, its size would not be uncharacteristic in comparison with the other signs at the center unless the red background is included. The red background would cover 79% of the signable area. Another section of the Sign Code lists regulations for signs in shopping centers. This section requires architectural harmony and unity of signs within a unified business center. The proposed wall sign has a solid red, metal background whereas the other signs in the shopping center are placed directly on the building elevation and do not include a colored background. Staff has allowed flexibility for different colors and text fonts within the Mount Prospect Plaza Shopping Center in the past. However, the proposed wall sign differs significantly from the other signs in the center. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the proposed wall sign as submitted by the Petitioner because it is not in keeping with the character of the other signs in the shopping plaza. Staff would support the same size sign if it were modified to exclude the solid color background. In addition, Staff recommends a different material for the red bands so they appear as an architectural element. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Connolly then asked the Board, "It has been determined that the red metal bands used as a background material in conjunction with the wall text does constitute signage; however, when it's independent and doesn't ..q Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-05-05 Page 3 have text or symbols it is not signage, correct?" Richard Rogers said, "That's how we interpreted the Code in the past." Ms. Juracek said, "There are two rectangles that say Staples, those are signs, the other stripes are not signs at all, right?" Ms. Connolly said, "Based on what I'm hearing, no." Ms. Juracek asked what the standard is for the. side elevation, as she didn't know what to compare it to. Ms. Connolly said what Staples had submitted was 150 sq.ft. Ms. Juracek asked if they are allowed a Code limit of 150 sq.ft. sign on each elevation and Ms. Connolly said yes. Troy Funk, 585 Bond Street, Lincolnshire, IL, National Account Manager for Kieffer Signs and Steve Hergenrader, Project Manager for Staples at 11624 Jackson Road in Omaha, Nebraska, were sworn in. Mr. Funk said Staples is entering the Chicago market March 7 when they will have 8 new stores open and the Mount Prospect Store will be part of the second group to open the first week of May. He said the red background is actually part of the building in addition to being part of the Staples identity. Mr. Hergenrader says he feels the raised letters are necessary since they are set back so far from Rand Road. He also feels to tell them not to use the red metal band is like telling Target not to use the "target" logo. He did show several pictures of exceptions they had made in the past. He said they could shrink the size somewhat but it loses balance and is not as attractive. He said they do not like to use paint because it is a maintenance problem. Board members said they favored the sign without a white border around the red bands. They also discussed the size and colors of signs to be used in various surrounding communities. They will not use any white Dryvit. Mr. Hergenrader said this will be the largest market entry that Staples will have, and they have 1,500 stores. Mr. Youngquist suggested they show the complete building elevation for better clarity in their future presentations. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Variation - Oversized Wall Signs for the property at 1000 Mount Prospect Plaza, Staples, PZ-05-05 as follows: a red sign, pillar-to-pillar, filling the entire space with red background, and individual white letters 5'high for Staples, and the rest of it in proportion. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, Recording Secretary for the meeting asked for and received this further clarification before the vote: Following items are all satisfactory to the Board: Use of red metal material; Side wall signs-4 foot letters and no white border; Front wall sign-5 foot letters (red background behind the sign actually being a wall panel not part of the sign); White cornice on very top of fa9ade to have white stripe between bottom of sign and red awning. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11 :28 p.m., seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner j .~; H. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-06-05 Hearing Date: February 24, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2400 Terminal Drive PETITIONER: Mike Albrecht 1368 Henry Ave. Des P1aines, IL 60016 PUBLICATION DATE: February 9, 2005 Journal/Topics PIN #: 08-23-300-053-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use approval for a contractors' storage yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo F1oros Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Matt Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Mike Albrecht Randy Spitzer , Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 27, 2005 meeting and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion; the motion was approved 6-0. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-50-04 to the March 24, 2005 meeting. Richard Rogers made such motion, seconded by Joe Donnelly, and it was approved 6-0. After consideration of three other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-06-05, a request for Conditional Use approval for a contractors' storage yard and other relieffrom the Village Code as may be required for the proposal. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. She said that the Petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval to allow a "Contractors', architects' and engineers' equipment and material storage yard" as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Subject Property is located on the north side of Terminal Drive, which is a private road located within the tank farm area. The Subject Property is currently used as a cartage facility by Roadrunner Express, and is not visible from any Village owned streets. The Subject Property is zoned n, Limited Industrial, and is bordered by the 11 district to the north, east and west, and by a trailer park to the south, which is located outside of Mount Prospect corporate limits. The Petitioner proposes to make minor changes to the site at this time and will use the existing structures in conjunction with the landscape/contractor business. The office building will continue to be used as an office and the storage building will be used to store vehicle parts, tools, etc. The Petitioner's application states that large vehicles will be parked on-site and they will store landscape materials in large concrete bins, similar to the type used at the Village's Public Works Department. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-06-05 Page 2 The Subject Property obtained Conditional Use approval in 1999 to operate a cartage facility. The Subject Property does not meet current zoning bulk regulations because one of the structures does not meet the Village's setback regulations. The building is located along the east lot line and is adjacent to one of the tank farm facilities. The property was developed under County regulations and then annexed into Mount Prospect. Therefore, the nonconforming structure is allowed to remain. However, future improvements will be required to comply with Village regulations. The table in the Staff Report documents the existing conditions. The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and noted that other departments reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and did not object to the use. However, several Village Code violations concerning this site have not been addressed. These outstanding code violations include: stone was placed to create a truck parking area between the west edge of pavement and the west property line. In placing this stone, the grading has been significantly altered in this area. The Village did not issue a permit for this work and it must be a condition of approval that the stone be removed. Ms. Connolly said that it was her understanding that the Petitioner contacted the Engineering Dept since the Staff Report was done and it was agreed by both parties that the work would be completed within 60 days of the Petitioner taking possession of the land. She said that the latest date of possession would be April 20, 2005. The Staff Report states a new fence has been installed along the south property line, near the west side of the site. A gate has been installed in the fence west of the Roadrunner property. This gate does not align with the existing 60' wide (average width) easement along the west side of the Roadrunner property; the fence now encloses the easement. After further research, it was determined that the Village issued a permit to the adjacent property owner, Citgo, and it appears they did not final out the permit. Also, it appears that the fence may be installed incorrectly. The Petitioner agreed to revisit this issue subject to obtaining a new plat of survey and Staff will work with the adjacent property owner to resolve the issue. Ms. Connolly said that Roadrunner obtained a permit to repair a portion of their existing pavement in 2001. However, as is confirmed on the survey included in Albright's submittal, the pavement improvements extended to a 10,400 sq. ft. gravel area north of the parking lot. The permit did not include the paving of the gravel area, so the installation of this pavement was not approved or inspected. Furthermore, the Development Code would have required storm water detention, but was not installed. Because of the small area involved, the Village's Engineering Division does not believe it to be practical to require stormwater detention to be provided for the paving of the gravel area at this time. However, it should be a condition of approval that any future paving improvements will have to include stormwater detention for the paving of the gravel area, plus any detention required for the future improvements. Subject to correcting the code violations, the request would have minimal impact on the adjacent properties and would meet the standards for a Conditional Use. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve a Conditional Use for a contractor's storage yard for the property at 2400 Terminal Drive, Case No. PZ-06-05, subject to the following revised conditions: 1. The Petitioner or current property owner shall remove the gravel that has been installed along the western portion of the property no later than 60 days of the Petitioner taking possession of the property. 2. The Petitioner or current property owner shall provide an updated plat of survey that documents the location of the existing fence along the south property line, near the west side of the site; 3. All future improvements to the property shall meet Village Code requirements. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the project. Chair Arlene Juracek noted that the request was straightforward and said she thought that the proposed use would not adversely impact the adjacent properties once the existing code violations were corrected. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-06-05 Page 3 Drake Murdis of the law firm of Dowe, Dowe & Murdis and attorney for the petitioner, was sworn in. He stated that the petitioner, Albright, agreed to the revised conditions of approval and was willing to comply with all Village Codes. He said that Mr. Spitzer and Mr. Albrecht are under contract to purchase the property and will get possession of the property at the end of April from Roadrunner. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval of a Conditional Use permit to allow for a contractors' storage yard at 2400 Terminal Drive, PZ-06-05, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Petitioner or current property owner shall remove the gravel that has been installed along the western portion of the property no later than 60 days of the Petitioner taking possession of the property. 2. The Petitioner or current property owner shall provide an updated plat of survey that documents the location of the existing fence along the south property line, near the west side of the site; 3. All future improvements to the property shall meet Village Code requirements. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11 :28 p.m., seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settingslkdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-06-05 2400 Terminal Dr Albrecht Storage Yard. doc