Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 05/24/2005 SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesda~May24,2005 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Irvana K. Wilks Trustee Timothy J. Corcoran Trustee Richard M. Lohrstorfer Trustee Paul Wm. Hoefert Trustee Michaele W. Skowron Trustee A. John Korn Trustee Michael A. Zadel II. TRAFFIC WORKSHOP WITH SAFETY COMMISSION CONTINUA TION OF DISCUSSION THA T BEGAN ON APRIL 26, 2005 Back in September 2004, the Engineering Staff presented to the Village Board of Trustees a series of new traffic programs that were in different stages of development. Based on the input we received atthat meeting, Staff has continued development of these programs and is now prepared for further discussion. The April 26 Committee of the Whole meeting, which has been scheduled to be a joint workshop with the Village Board and Safety Commission, will allow Staff to present new information and provide an opportunity for questions and discussion in an informal setting. We plan on dividing the meeting into two segments: evaluation and implementation. The first part of the meeting will focus on evaluation of the three new traffic programs. After Staff presents a program, there will be a time of discussion. It will be an opportunity to share opinions and ask questions. Your feedback will be critical in shaping the programs. Once there is a consensus on a program, Staff will move on to the next program. Attached for your consideration are the three traffic programs that will be presented at the meeting. The Residential Speed Limit Program evaluates speed limits on the Village's local streets in order to achieve a higher level of standardization. It was presented in detail last September and we have already begun to gather the necessary field data. The Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program will involve studying each of our intersections for the proper traffic control signs. And the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program will provide a process of studying and implementing traffic calming measures on Village streets. The meeting will not be televised. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. ORDER OF BUSINESS SPECIAL MEETING Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, May 24, 2005 6:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Irvana K. Wilks Trustee Timothy J. Corcoran Trustee Richard M. Lohrstorfer Trustee Paul Wm. Hoefert Trustee Michaele W. Skowron Trustee A. John Korn Trustee Michael A. Zadel II. CLOSED SESSION PERSONNEL 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). "The appointment, employment, compensation, discipline, performance, or dismissal of specific employees of the public body, including hearing testimony on a complaint lodged against an employee to determine its validity." LAND ACQUISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). 'The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired." . III. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056,847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. '" Mount Prospect Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES VILLAGE SAFETY COMMISSION FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: MAY 19,2005 SUBJECT: TRAFFIC WORKSHOP MAY 24,2005 COMMITTEE-OF-THE-WHOLE MEETING At last month's Traffic Workshop, the Engineering Staff was able to share with both the Village Board of Trustees and Safety Commission a couple of new traffic programs: the Residential Speed Limit Program and Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program. Based on feedback we received at the meeting, Staff has moved forward with both programs. Speed data is being collected and will continue to be collected throughout the summer as part of the Residential Speed Limit Program. Also, we are in the process of receiving proposals from consultants to assist in the Residential Intersection Traffic Control Program. At the May 24th Traffic Workshop, Staff will present one more traffic program: the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. This program will provide a process of studying and implementing traffic calming measures on Village streets. Similar to the last meeting, Staff will provide an overview of the program and then allow time for discussion and questions. Staffwill again ask some questions that will assist us in finalizing the program. To better prepare you, below is a list of those questions Staff will be asking (in one form or another) during the course of the meeting regarding the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. · Is the process of study, education & enforcement, restudy, resident support, Safety Commission approval and Village Board approval as detailed in the program acceptable? · The program calls for residents to participate in 25% of the construction costs through a special assessment. Is this acceptable or should funding be handled differently? · Based on our research, the Engineering Staff has npt included the use of speed humps as an option in our ''toolbox''. Is this acceptable or should they be considered an option? · Staff views this program differently than the speed limit and traffic control programs in that it is set up to be more resident driven. Because of the controversial nature of traffic calming, residents ought to be highly involved in the process and support the measures before implementing them. The other two programs are more proactive in that they will be Staff driven. They will lay a good foundation for the traffic calming program. All that said, should Staff focus on completing the speed limit and traffic control programs before moving forward with the traffic calming program? · Another option would be to identify a street that would be a good candidate for traffic calming and test common measures such as speed humps and traffic circles. Is creating a test project more favorable while the speed limit and traffic control programs are being completed? Staff will provide possible test locations during the meeting. Once the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program has been presented and discussed, Staff will next discuss implementation of all three programs. During this discussion we will present various options and potential costs. Questions surrounding timing, Staff management, consultant costs, construction costs and 1/1' Page two... Traffic Workshop May] 9, 2005 public involvement will be brought up for discussion. Ultimately, consensus from the Village Board of Trustees and Safety Commission will be important for Staff to move forward with implementing these programs. Questions surrounding implementation that Staff will be asking include: · Staff has divided the Village into 18 neighborhood zones as we collect field data. Will implementation of the programs be done neighborhood by neighborhood or Village-wide? · Will each program be implemented separately or concurrently? · What will be the process of resident notification and involvement? · What will be the Safety Commission's role in implementation? · There will be both consultant costs and construction costs associated with these programs. How will this affect the time frame the Village Board may expect with implementing these programs? Staff again looks forward to partnering with the Village Board and Safety Commission at next week's Traffic Workshop. Representatives from the Engineering Staff will be in attendance to facilitate discussion and answer questions. Please remember to bring copies of the three programs, particularly the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, as well as the presentation handout distributed at last month's meeting for reference. Finally, the Village Engineer has asked that you also remember to bring your traffic signal pen given to each of you at the last meeting. We didn't anticipate two workshops so it was not budgeted to pass out two pens to everyone! Matthew P. Lawrie cc: Village Clerk Velma Lowe x: lengineeringltrq/Jiclsummit\05.24. 05_ board _ memo. doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, May 26, 2005 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson Street Third Floor Executive Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of April 28, 2005 III Continued Discussion Regarding Revenue Alternatives A. Water and Sewer B. General - Revenue Alternatives and Summary of Alternatives C. Ambulance Fees IV Other Business V Chairman's Report VI Finance Director's Report VII Next Meeting: Thursday, June 23,2005, 7:00 p.m. VIII Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE CoMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING APRIL 28, 2005 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and Commissioners Charles Bennett, Vince Grochocinski, Rich Micelli, Ann Smilanic and Lee Williams. Also present were Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioner Tom Pekras was absent. Resident John Kellerhals observed the meeting. II. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to approve the minutes of March 20, 2005 as corrected. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as corrected. Commissioner Charles Bennett abstained. III. DISCUSSION REGARDING REVENUE ALTERNATIVES - GENERAL AND COMBINED SEWER Revenue Alternatives Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer handed out a spreadsheet outlining a summary of revenue alternatives and a summary of the projected 2006 - 2009 operating deficit. Ms. Widmer began by mentioning that the property tax levy does not cover the amount of money needed to fund the Police and Fire Pensions. The balance of money needed is normally taken for the general fund. There is currently a discussion about shifting the full burden of the Pensions to the levy so that the entire amount would be levied through the property taxes. Deputy Director Widmer discussed several of the revenue alternatives mentioned in the handout. Of the items discussed were the following: Property Tax, Home-Rule Sales Tax, Real Estate Transfer Tax, Hotel/MoteJ Tax, Food and Beverage Tax, Local Motor Fuel Tax and Utility Tax. Also discussed were Ambulance Billing, Business Licensing and Direct Billing for Refuse. Commissioner Rich Micelli asked if the commission could be provided with a better understanding of the breakdown between the number of ambulance calls to residents versus non-residents, so that they could more accurately calculate the amount of money currently being generated versus what potentially could be generated. After hearing an explanation from Deputy Director Widmer regarding the idea of direct bill of refuse offsetting the cost of eliminating the vehicle sticker, Commissioner Ann Smilanic added that she did not favor the idea because there was no benefit to the seniors. Commissioner Lee Williams asked what a typical business license costs. Ms. Widmer stated that the cost is based on the square footage of a property. Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer provided a brief overview of the Projected Operating Deficit - Summary of Alternatives worksheet. Ms. Widmer stated that the summary provided a projection on deficit figures based on the information available right now. There was a discussion on the layout of the spreadsheet and how the numbers were presented. Several members thought that with some modifications the spreadsheet would provide more informative information that was easier to follow. Chairman John Korn asked if the commission wanted to discuss a possible plan of action tonight on revenue alternatives or use the time between now and the meeting on May 26th to individually come up with plans to discuss at the May meeting. Chairman John Korn also asked that the members be provided with a copy of the recommendations made last year to the Board regarding revenue enhancements. After a discussion the members decided to look their material over during the month of May and revisit the discussion at the May 26th meeting. Combined Sewer Revenue Alternatives Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer handed out discussion documents regarding funding options for the Combined Sewer Project as well as Water and Sewer Rate Calculations. The funding options for the Combined Sewer Project focused on funding categories 4 and 5 of the project, which are the most critical areas. The handout outlined the differences between borrowing $4,000,000 for a 10 year versus a 15 year period. A spreadsheet was presented to the Finance Commission explaining what the Village's water and sewer rates should be to support expenditures in the 2005 budget. The formula used was to estimate the operations, debt service and capital expenditures less SSA #5 tax revenue and any other revenue produced. That figure was divided by the volume of gallons sold during the year to produce the rate needed. The computed rate was $3.50 for water and $1.63 for sewer for a total of $5.13. The current Village rates are $3.93 for water and $0.39 for sewer for a total of$4.32 per 1,000 gallons. Therefore, the water and sewer rate would have to increase $0.81 to support current expenditures. A similar spreadsheet was also presented for the year 2006 including an assumption for the debt service of $4,000,000 of bonds with either a 10 year or 15 year payback period to show what rates should be to support future expenditures. Commissioner Ann Smilanic mentioned that instead of borrowing money for the combined sewer project why not add a monthly customer fee to each water bill sent out to village water customers. Ms. Smilanic stated that such charges are currently added to her Nicor Gas as well as Commonwealth Edison bills. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski asked when the bonds for Special Service Area #5 mature, Ms. Widmer stated that the bonds are already paid off, but the service area continues in order to fund operations. Commissioner Rich Micelli and Chairman John Korn added that they agreed with Commissioner Smilanic's suggestion on adding a customer charge to water bills. Commissioner Charles Bennett stated that he felt the customer charge should not be added to the water rate but instead tied to the sewer rate. Sewer rates should go up because the money is needed to fund the repairs to the sewer. There was a brief discussion by the members regarding doubling the sewer rate as well as adding the customer charge to water bills. Commissioner Rich Micelli was interested in seeing what amount of money would be generated if for example the sewer rate were doubled and a $5.00 flat customer fee were added to village water customer bills. There was a discussion on possibly moving the May 26th meeting up to finish discussing revenue alternatives. Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to give Chairman John Korn the authority to move the May 26th meeting to May 1 th if the commission needed to make their revenue alternative recommendations to the Board in a more timely manner. Commissioner Lee Williams seconded the motion and the motion carried. IV. LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN II - UPDATE Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer advised that there was no update available at this time. V. OTHER BUSINESS There was nothing to report. VI. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman John Korn highlighted the topics discussed at the board meetings that have taken place recently. 2 VII. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer handed out li copy M the Finance Commission Articles. VIII. NEXT MEETING: MAY 26, 2005 Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.rn. The next meeting will be Thursday, May 26,2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 3 MAYOR Irvana K. Wi]ks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michae]e Skowron Michae] A. Zade] Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/8]8-5328 Fax: 847/8] 8-5329 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 May 26, 2005 7:30 p.rn. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL A. APPRO V AL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 10, 2005 P&Z COMMISSION WORKSHOP B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2005 MEETING · PZ-50-04 / River West / Condominium Conversion · PZ-10-05/ 100 S. School St. / St. Paul Lutheran Church · PZ-11-05/ 1101 S, Linneman Road / MitroffGroup · PZ-14-05 /700 S. Louis Street / McDonnell Residence III. OLD BUSINESS NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-13-05 /416 & 418 S. Maple Street / Stratford Homes / Kelly's Mount Prospect Subdivision (2-lot subdivision). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-15-05/ 1002 S. Busse Road / CVS Pharmacy / Special Use (Electronic Message Board). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. C. PZ-16-05/ 1712 W. Lincoln Street / Dojutrek Residence / Conditional Use (Porch). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. D. PZ-17-05 / 548 Ida Court / Judy Altobelli / Variation (Location of detached garage). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-50-04 / River West Condo Conversion: Village Board approved 5/17/05 · PZ-10-05 / St. Paul Lutheran Church: Village Board heard the 1'1 reading 5/17/05 · PZ-11-05 / MitroffGroup: Village Board heard the rl reading 5/17/05 VI. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-50-04 Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1510-1534 River West Court PETITIONER: Billy Bob Marketing, LLC (Contract Purchaser) PROPERTY OWNER: Sparks & Associates, Inc. 4700 Arbor Drive, Suite 101 Rolling Meadows, IL 60008 PUBLICATION DATE: February 9, 2005 PIN#: 03-24-416-004-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking approval to convert the existing rental apartments to condominium ownership. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: 1. E. Mulh Mike Sparks Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.rn. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist. Under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-50-04, a request to convert the existing rental apartments to condominium ownership, and other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed condo conversion. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the west side of River Road, between Seminole Lane and Camp McDonald Road. The site contains the River West Apartment Complex, which consists of 10 buildings, 60 units total. The apartment complex was built in the late 1980s/early 1990s in accordance with a Court ordered Consent Decree and is zoned R4 Multi-Family Development. The Subject Property is bordered by the Rl District to the north and west, the B3 Community Shopping District to the south, and to the east by the Cook County Forest Preserve. The Development Code requires existing developments being converted to condominiums to be considered a new development, and required to meet current Village regulations. The Petitioner's exhibits specify the proposed improvements, which include, but are not limited to: Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-50-04 Page 2 Increasing the amount of storm water detention to comply with current code requirements; installing fire sprinklers and fire alarms as required by current code requirements; and repairing the parking lot, private sidewalks, and balconies as needed to comply with current code requirements. It is important to note that the Petitioner is not seeking relief from any Village Codes. Also, the Petitioner has started the building permit application process to obtain permits required to improve the Subject Property. Although the Petitioner submitted Preliminary and Final Property Reports, the Final Property report needs to be revised to: 1) reflect the correct water supply and sewer service, 2) explain the final storm water detention design, and 3) include the November 30, 2001 Letter of Map Amendment (LaMA) information from FEMA. The correspondence from the Petitioner provides details on changes to the property report. Furthermore, the Village Attorney has to review and approve the Final Property Report. Current zoning regulations require 2 parking spaces per unit. In this case, 120 parking spaces are required. The Subject Property exceeds this requirement and includes 123 parking spaces. The Petitioner's exhibit documents that there are 93 surface spaces and 30 garage spaces. The Petitioner's landscape plan documents the existing landscaping. The landscape plan indicates that the area between the garages and the adjacent single-family residences does not include or call for landscaping. Staff conducted a site inspection and noted that the adjacent property owners have bushes, fences, and other materials that screen the rear lot line. Staff researched the River West development file and found that the Village approved the development without landscaping in this area. The file includes documentation from a landscape architect stating that the dense shade limits the viability of plant growth. The Petitioner is not seeking relief from current storm water detention requirements and has submitted preliminary engineering plans. The Petitioner's Engineer has met with the Village Engineer and Project Engineer and is working with them to document that the final design will comply with current Village Code requirements. Staff has included the Petitioner's latest proposal, however, the plan was submitted late and Staff cannot confirm at this time that the proposed design complies with Village regulations. A comprehensive review will be done when the Petitioner applies for a building permit. Please note that if the proposed design does not comply with Village regulations, the Petitioner will have to modify the design to meet Village Code requirements. The alternative is to apply for a Development Code exception, which requires P&Z review and final approval from the Village Board. A streetlight and sidewalk covenant was recorded when the property was originally developed. The covenant is in place for 20 years and guarantees that the property owner pays his/her fair share of the cost to install streetlights and sidewalks in the public right-of-way. Since River Road is an IDOT right-of-way, the decision to make the public improvements is subject to IDOT approval. The covenant runs with the Subject Property and it has approximately 10 years remaining. The covenant requires the Property Owner at the time the improvements are being made to pay for the improvements. In an effort to minimize costs and confusion for the futurt? condominium association, the Village Attorney recommends that the Petitioner obtain estimates for the improvements and escrow the funds as part of the requested conversion. The funds would be refunded to the Petitioner should the covenant expire without the improvements being made. The Subject Property was developed in accordance with a 1980 Court ordered Consent Decree. Furtherrelief from zoning regulations is not required at this time because the Decree included' specific de~ei;pm:e~t' requirements for setbacks and density. The proposed condo conversion was prepared in accordance with Village regulations and the Petitioner is not seeking relief from Village Codes. The proposed improvements document that the Petitioner will comply with all Village Codes for, but not limited to providing parking lot lighting, installing a fire suppression and detection system, and meeting Life Safety requirements. The conversion would benefit the community and bring the property up to current code requirements. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-50-04 Page 3 Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a condominium converSIOn for the River West Apartment Complex at 1510-1534 River West Court subject to: 1) Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall obtain estimates to install streetlights and sidewalks in the public right-of-way (River Road) and escrow funds for the proposed improvements; 2) Completing the Condominium Conversion Plat Procedures as outlined in the Village's Subdivision Code (Section 15.307,B); 3) Submitting a Final Property Report as required by Village Code for the Village Attorney's review and approval; 4) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; and 5) The Petitioner shall improve all units, common areas, and the Subject Property according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: installing a fIre suppression and detection system, meeting current Building Code requirements, and complying with current storm water detention requirements. P&Z Commissioners determined that the proposal was in compliance with all Village Codes and had sufficient parking for residents and visitors. Chair Arlene Juracek asked the Petitioner to address the Commission. Mike Sparks, President of Sparks and Associates, 14 E. Evelin, Arlington Heights, was sworn in. He said he represented the owner of the River West property. He said they have been doing condo conversions since 1974. They have worked diligently with staff to bring the property up to Code for conversion on these 11-year-old buildings. The units will be priced at $180,000 - 200,000. There are (10) 2-Bedroom/1bath and the rest of the units are 2-Bedroom/2-baths. They have a rent-to-own program for their current renters, where part of the rent goes to the purchase price, using the Ameri-Dream Program. Richard Rogers asked if they had made adequate provisions for stormwater detention provisions, given that the Forest Preserves and the Des Plaines River are across the Road from the complex. Mr. Sparks said they had lowered the parking lot sufficiently to hold the water as required by Village Code. The engineering information will be included in the property report, Ronald Roberts complimented Mr. Sparks on his programs that help the community in home ownership. Mr. Sparks said the previous owner had maintained the property to the degree that not much reconstruction needed to be done. Ms. Juracek asked ifmembers of the audience had come to address the Commission on this case. Roger Van Dyke was sworn in and said he was curious about using a parking lot for detention. He said he had not seen that before and wondered how the design worked. Keith Youngquist explained that it is a common design, most notably used by the big box stores. He said the parking lots essentially become detention ponds. Mr. Sparks explained the lot will have drains and when the river goes down the parking lot water will go down. Mr. Van Dyke thanked them for the explanation. There were no more questions from the audience and Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval to convert the existing rental apartments to condominium ownership with the recommendations listed in the Staff Report, emphasizing the need to comply with storm water detention requirements, at 1510-1534 River West Court, Case No. PZ-50-04. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-50-04 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donn~lly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, 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 Inte111et Files\OLK2\PZ-50-04 River West Condo Conversion.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-IO-05 Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 S. School Street PETITIONER/OWNER: St. Paul Lutheran Church 100 S. School Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2005 PIN #s: 08-12-111-012 & 08-12-111-016 REQUEST: Petitioner is proposing to construct an addition to the existing church and expand/modify the existing parking lot. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for the following: 1) required setbacks (Variation); 2) number of parking spaces provided on-site (Variation); 3) storm water detention (Development Code Exception); and 4) other relief from the Village Code as may be required for this project. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Harold Bune; Bob Dooley; Barbara Dorolnig; Janet Doyle; Roy & Darby Halsaien; Dennis & Cynthia Higdon; Ronald Kloss; Brenda O'Brien; Peter Loeschke; Sue Miceli; Scott Moon; Roger & Melodie Van Dyke; Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg; Paul Seils; Rev. Kris Whitby; Charles T. Walsh; Jennifer Weisler; Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-I0-05, a request to construct an addition to the existing church and expand/modify the existing parking lot. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Petitioner is seeking relief from Village regulations for the following: (a) required setbacks, (b) the number of parking spaces provided on-site, and (c) storm water detention requirements. The Subject Property, consisting of two parcels, is located at the southwest comer of Busse Avenue and School Street. The property located at 100 S. School Street contains the main church building, a one-story accessory structure and parsonage; at 108 S. School Street, a parking lot and related site improvements. The property at 112 S. School Street contains an existing single-family residence with related Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-lO-05 Page 2 improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the site, including a 2-story addition to the existing church, which creates an open, interior courtyard, and an expansion of the existing parking lot. The proposed improvement would result in the demolition of the accessory structure at 100 S. School Street and the existing home at 112 S. School Street. The proposed 2-story building addition will match the Church's existing setback of 19.32' along School Street, which is less than the required setback of 20 feet. Therefore, they are seeking a Variation for the proposed exterior side yard setback. The Petitioner is also proposing an expansion of the existing parking lot. Although the site will include 21 additional parking spaces, creating a total of 52 on-site parking spaces, the Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's zoning regulations for the amount of required on-site parking. In addition, the proposed parking lot requires variations from the RA District's minimum rear and exterior side yard setback requirements. The Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface. However, due to the scope of the project, the Development Code requires that storm water detention be provided for the entire site. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking an Exception to the Development Code regulations to allow storm water detention for the new impervious surface only. The Petitioner has included a detailed Facility Usage chart that outlines the various activities that occur at the Church and the estimated number of participants. Based on the "Net Change in Use" information submitted, the facility may experience some parking deficiencies. It is important to note that the facility currently does not meet the Village's parking requirements and occasionally experiences parking shortages. During those occasions when on-site parking is not available the Church's parishioners can either park on the school property or park on the street. The proposed addition will meet the interior side yard setback requirement; however, it will encroach slightly into the exterior side yard. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow the addition to encroach 8" into the required yard in order to maintain the Church's existing setback. The existing setback cannot be considered a legal nonconformity for the addition because the intensity of the addition exceeds the limitations listed in the Zoning Ordinance and new construction is required to comply with zoning regulations. Currently, there is a vacated alley along the west lot line that is used as a secondary means of access to the existing parking lot. The existing parking lot extends up to the lot lines on both the east and west sides of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's plans indicate that the vacated alley access point will be abandoned and that landscaping will be installed along the entire west lot line. The new parking lot will have a 15.8' setback along the west lot line. The Petitioner's plans show two parking lot driveways: one entrance and one exit, and striped accordingly. The parking lot currently extends to the east lot line; however, the Petitioner proposes to create a 10' setback and landscape islands to separate the driveways. Although the parking lot currently does not comply with zoning regulations, a Variation is required for the proposed setbacks because the parking lot intensity changes and it can no longer be considered a legal non-conformity and allowed to remain with a zero setback. In reviewing this request it is important to note that the Village's height restrictions within residential zoning 'districts are measured to the mid-point of the roof (except for buildings with flat roofs). The existing building height measures 41' at the top of the ridge. Although the proposed addition has a height of approximately 36' to the peak of the roof, the height to the mid-point of the roof is 27'. It should be noted that although the height restrictions within the RA District apply only to residential buildings, Staff has applied the same height restrictions to the proposed Church addition. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 3 The Petitioner submitted a lighting plan that shows the proposed light levels and type of fixture. The information submitted does not comply with Village regulations. However, the Petitioner has not requested a Variation from the Village's lighting regulations and has not provided justification for a Variation, Therefore, the lighting plan must be revised to comply with Village Code requirements. The Police Department recommended that the Petitioner install a perimeter fence along the west and south lot lines of the Subject Property. The fence would minimize entrance/exit points and help eliminate thefts to vehicles. The Petitioner confirmed that there are existing fences along the west lot line, which create a continuous fence line. The Petitioner has agreed to pursue an arrangement with the property owner south of the Subject Property to install a fence that meets the Police Department's requirements and is acceptable to the Property Owner. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. They relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to add a 2-story addition to increase the efficiency and general comfort of the Church's daily operations. As part of the project, the Petitioner would demolish two structures to accommodate the construction of the addition and parking lot expansion. The Petitioner designed a parking lot that would provide the maximum number of parking spaces possible. The existing parking lot is currently built to the lot line, but the proposed parking lot will include landscape setbacks. These landscape areas will minimize the impacts of the parking lot on the adjacent properties. In addition, the 8" Variation needed for the exterior side yard would be in keeping with the existing setback and maintain the character of the building. Based upon the scope of the improvements, the Development Code requires that the entire site be brought into compliance. However, the Petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention only for the new impervious surface. The Village's Engineering Division reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and found that the site slopes predominantly west to east. Consequently, stormwater runoff from the site, as well as runoff entering the site from the properties along Elm Street, is conveyed east across the site. This flow enters the storm sewer system in School Street unrestricted; no stormwater detention currently exists on site. Engineering concurred with the Petitioner's engineering report that states providing the storage as described would create adequate storage volume for the area to be improved for the runoff generated by a lOO-year storm. This volume would equate to providing storage volume for the entire site for the runoff generated by the 25-year storm. Engineering also concurred that the cost involved and the disturbance to the areas intended to remain outside the scope of the project could be significant if storm water detention must be provided for the entire site. However, the design submitted indicates the proposed stone fill, back filling around the detention chamber, would be included with the detention calculations. Village policy prohibits the inclusion of the stone fill as part of the storage volume calculation. Therefore, in order for Staff to support the Petitioner's request to provide detention for the new impervious surface only, the storm water detention design would need to be reconfigured so the calculations do not include the stone fill as part of the storage volume. This may include, but is not limited to a larger detention chamber, increasing the depth of the detention chamber, or a new design. The Village Code permits the Planning & Zoning Commission to recommend approval of exceptions to Development Code regulations in cases of hardship, "caused by conditions uniquely attributable to the land under consideration, would be imposed upon an applicant by compliance with these regulations and upon a finding that there are alternate feasible means of fulfilling the purpose and spirit of the regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare...". Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-IO-05 Page 4 The request must meet the standards for an exception. The standards relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The site currently does not provide storm water detention and the Petitioner would provide detention for the new impervious surface. Staff reviewed the request and found that a reasonable effort has been made to comply with Village Code requirements, but that site constraints limited the Petitioner's ability to provide above grade detention. In addition, the site will be well below the maximum amount of permitted lot coverage. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve Variations for 1) the amount of parking, 2) the proposed setbacks, and 3) a Development Code exception to allow the Petitioner to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only for the Subject Property, subject to the following: I. Consolidating the Subject Property into a single lot of record; 2. Revising the lighting plan to comply with the Village's lighting regulations; 3. Revising the landscape plan to reflect existing fences and the proposed fence along the south lot line; 4. Meeting the Building Code & Fire Code requirements for Fire Protection that include the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm; 5. Complying with all other Development Requirements, as defined in Section 15.402 of the Village Code, which include: a) The installation of streetlights within the public right of way adjacent to the site; and b) Paying a fee for the planting of parkway trees in the public right of way along the site (this fee is $400 per tree, and shall be based upon the number of planting sites determined by the Village's Forestry Division). Three gentlemen were sworn in: Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg, Senior Pastor at St. Paul, 21 S. Owen St., Greg O'Brien, St. Paul's Building Committee, and Greg Goss, Architect. Rev. Marc Schwichtenberg said the case is about people; not a building and he introduced Greg O'Brien, Chairman of the Building C0111l1littee. Mr. O'Brien showed a power point slide presentation and highlighted changes made since the August 2004 zoning meeting. He noted the concerns and issues discussed at that meeting and noted how the Building Committee addressed the issues. He compared the previous addition elevations to the new proposed elevations and noted how solutions to the objectionable height and other issues were incorporated into the new design. He reviewed the landscape design and showed where new plants would be planted and how shrubbery would be used to screen and shield neighboring properties for privacy and from light. He reviewed changes to the parking lot traffic pattern improvements, Mr. Roberts asked if Mr. O'Brien had aerial graphics of the school location. He said that he did not, but explained the school location in relation to the church. Ms. Juracek presented a petition from Mr. Robert Black and questions from Ms. Janet Doyle, both posing the question why additional parking is needed when, as late as last Sunday, many empty spaces were noted in both the church and school parking lots. Mr. O'Brien responded that he realized that nobody wanted to see buildings torn dO~TI to make room for parking, especially in a residential area, and if they were building a new church in a new area it wouldn't be necessary; the church would be built with the necessary size parking lot next to it. But this church is 90-years old and they have one parking lot next to the church and one parking lot a block away, And the parish being 90 years old, so are many of its parishioners, who cannot walk that extra block, especially in the weather extremes that we experience in this area, so oftentimes they choose to stay home rather than attend church. Ms. Juracek brought up the question posed by petitioners that, rather than razing single-family homes, those should be used to house staff meetings. Mr. O'Brien said they have scattered staff all over in various storage, broom closets and classrooms, basements and sub-basements and have found that to be counter-productive and, given the ADA requirements, it would be very expensive to make those homes handicapped accessible. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-10-05 Page 5 Greg Goss, Architect with GosslPasma Architects, came to the dais to answer Richard Rogers' questions regarding storm retention and assured the Commission they would meet Engineering's requirements. Ms. Juracek thanked Mr. O'Brien on his presentation and asked for questions from the audience. Robert Black, 119 S. School Street, was sworn in. Mr. Black said he didn't know where Mr. O'Brien came from, but where he came from he didn't call walking across a parking lot a hardship and he didn't approve of razing two perfectly viable residential homes for parking spaces and also, the size of the structure is too large. Neighbors would not object to parishioners parking on the streets. Perhaps the Church could compromise and tear down just one home. He is not at member of the congregation, but has been inside the facility and they seem to have enough space for meetings. Melodie Van Dyke, 123 S. School St., was sworn in. She said she has lived there for 25 years and has been a parishioner for 10 years. She said she is so concerned about demolishing two homes to accommodate the Church expansion that she may leave the St. Paul Lutheran parish. She stated that it's not a Lutheran campus and that there are other ways to accommodate the Church's needs without tearing down homes. Bill Reddy, 105 S. Elm St., was sworn in. He said this was not about anger, confrontation, or the Church, it was about community. They are a tight knit community and the Church has not done the proper outreach to the community. He described the meetings held by the church for the neighborhood as inadequate. He said the two homes needed to be town down to provide water detention area for the 8,175 sq. ft. addition proposed by the church. He said that for his property it was necessary to spend over $4,000 in landscaping trying to block the light from the Church's parking lot. He concluded by passing out pictures of his backyard to the Commission. Ann Doyle, author of the earlier referenced e-mail, came up and passed out pictures of many empty parking spaces in the existing lots. She said she did not think 7 parking spaces were worth tearing down 2 houses. Jennifer Weisler, 111 S. Elm St., was sworn in and testified that she lives behind the Church parking lot and will be deprived of sunlight because of the building height and stated that the addition would decrease her property value. Robert Kleinke, 102 S. Elm, member of St. Paul for 35 years, was sworn in and said the Church has always supported community events. The Prayer Garden is open to everybody to use. The changes in the Church are for (physically challenged) people like him, who cannot walk to Church anymore. Peter Loeschke, 101 S. Elm, was sworn in and showed a picture ofthe proposed Church and said he thought it was a beautiful Church and appreciated that they had lowered the height of the Church and increased the landscaping and hopes the Church can find a way to bring the neighborhood together. Greg O'Brien came forward again to address the lighting issues. He said the parking lot lighting is at a bare minimum. They have worked with staff on a photometric plan to reduce the amount of glare. With regard to the windows facing Elm St., the windows will be shaded and the offices are not occupied evenings and weekends when people are home and most in need of privacy. There is only a fire exit planned for a former driveway in back of the Church. Mr. Horos asked him if there would actually only be 7 more parking spaces as he has been hearing. Mr. O'Brien said, no, they are going from 21 spaces to 52. He further emphasized that they needed the improvements they were requesting. Richard Rogers said there are shields that can be put on the lights on the parking lot. Mr. O'Brien said he would work with the lighting contractor on that item. Roger Van Dyke, 523 N. Main St., was sworn in. He said that the lighting issue is very minor, and that his sister, Melodie's, concern about tearing down houses, is a major issue. They shouldn't be allowed to build higher than surrounding homes and block the sunlight from the yards. He also said they don't need meeting rooms, they have a huge gymnasium in which to hold meetings. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-10-05 Page 6 Matt Sledz said the Church had done an honorable job in responding to the earlier objections to this expansion; however, he does not feel they have effectively proven a hardship to be granted relief from Village Code. Leo Floros said the Church is a good neighbor. He noted that much has been said about demolishing two homes and observed that St. Mark demolished at least four homes for its Chqn::h expansions. He thinks St. Raymond's and St. Emily's may have also tom down homes to build their additio'ns. He said he has pp problem at all in supporting this request, which he feels will be good for the community. Richard Rogers said St Paul's owns the property and has the right to improve the property as they see fit and they need the parking near to the Church. He said putting in storm water detention will benefit the neighborhood and he also supports St. Paul in this expansion project. Keith Youngquist said this proposal was a definite improvement over the previous proposal, but he thinks the west elevation of the new addition would be improved if it were a stepped elevation on the southwest side and he had concerns with regards to that area in the rear that abuts to the yards of the homes on Elm and School Streets. He thinks most people prefer more open space near their back yards and it would alleviate negative feelings if the Church could open it up. He said this was not a demand but if the Church could look into it th~t would be good. He said the Church did a great job with the presentation tonight. Joe Donnelly said he was pleased to see the building height reduced and the mechanicals relocated from the previous request. He said the two houses could be tom down just as easily to build new, larger homes. Ronald Roberts said he agrees with all the comments made by the other Commission members and hopes the Church will strive to promote future harmony in neighborhood by looking at all parcels and all their needs to minimize the impact on the neighbors. Ms. Juracek said she was glad to see the height of the building reduced and said the open south end provides balance on the north end. She said the additional green space adds to the neighborhood balance. Ms. Juracek also noted that churches needed to function differently today than before; that there was definitely a need for adult gathering spaces and meeting rooms. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval for: 1) a Variation to allow a 25.2' rear yard setback for the parking lot; 2) a Variation to allow a 19.32' exterior side yard for the building addtiion and a 10' exterior side yard for the parking lot; 3) a Development Code exception to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only; and 4) Variation for the amount of on-site parking to allow the expansion and modification of the church and parking lot for the property at 100 S. School St., St. Paul Lutheran Church, Case No. PZ-10-05, with all the conditions imposed by staff and the further condition that shields be placed on the parking lot lights. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, 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-ll-05 Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1101 S. Linneman Road PETITIONER/OWNER: Mitroff Group, Ltd 1655 N. Arlington Heights Road Arlington Heights, IL 60004 PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2005 PIN#: 08-14-401-151-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking to: 1) rezone the Subject Property from RX to R1 & R2 (Map Amendment), 2) Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development, 3) Variation for building height, and 4) other relief from the Village Code as may he required for the proposed 7 single-family residences and 50-unit townhome development. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Darlene Bergstrom; Joanne Bina; Ron Brialeaf; John Diplin; Greg Galla; Ms. Lynn Davies-Gavin; Concetta DiSilvestro; Fred Durler; Patricia Fruin; Rev. Jeff Gavin; Edith & Ellen Gehrke; Christine Hecht; Fred & Joyce Hayden; Ed Hofert; Phillip Hutchinson; Alice & Chester Kilian; Tarki & Ken Koeppen; David Kovacevic; Dorothy Krueger; Luther Legg; Javier Millan; David Mitroff; Dan O'Malley; Kathy Montalbano; Richard Oslovski; Carol Pappas; Ed & Carol Pfmgsten; Margaret Pyde; Vincent Sclapini; Neil Schmidt; George, Patricia, Christine & Joe Schubkegal; Terry Smith; Allen Szumanski; Jon Tertel; Jim Vylanek; Stuart Wolf. Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24, 2005 meeting and Leo F10ros seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-11-05 a request to 1) rezone the Subject Property from RX to R1 & R2 (Map Amendment), 2) Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development, 3) Variation for building height, and 4) other relief from the Village Code as may be required for the proposed 7 single-family residences and 50-unit townhome development. She said that this case would be Village Board Final. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-ll-05 Page 2 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. J,ohn Lutheran School with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, R2 Attached Single Family Residence Planned Unit Development to the southwest, 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 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 appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission in February. At that time, they presented a request for a 70-unit townhome development and they were seeking R4 Planned Unit Development Zoning District approval. The P&Z recommended that the Village Board deny the request, but the Petitioner withdrew the request before the Village Board reviewed the case. The Petitioner has since revised the proposal to address concerns and comments raised at the February P&Z meeting, 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 50-unit townhome development with 7 single-family residences along the north lot line. The various elements of the proposal are outlined below: As noted previously, the Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single-Family Residence. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to Rl Single Family for the 7 Single-family residences, but R2 Attached Single Family for the 50-unit townhome development. The R2 district allows a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.06 units per acre, 50 units/6.2 acres, which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R2 District. In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development for the townhome development. The Petitioner is not seeking PUD approval for the 7 single- family residences. The proposed 7-lots of record would comply with the Rl Zoning District regulations, lot size, depth, and width. Plans have not been submitted for the single-family residences as the homes would be custom built homes and would be built according to Village regulations. Zoning compliance is reviewed independently for the townhome PUD and for the single-family residence lots. The Petitioner's site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 50-unit townhome development and 7 single- family residences. The development would consist of 10 townhome buildings: (3) 4-unit buildings, (4) 5-unit buildings, (3) 6-unit buildings, and (7) single-family residences on 7 individual lots of record. Each of the townhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. The pavement width of the public street is 28-feet, which is consistent with the Village standards, and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The proposed development also includes a 5-foot wide sidewalk on Hunt Club Drive and 52 guest parking spaces on-site. The Petitioner's 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 and the rear elevations of all end units would be all brick, as shown on the enclosed, revised elevations. 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, ornamental, and evergreen trees will be the primary screening material around the perimeter of the Subject Property. In addition to the landscaping, the Petitioner proposes to install a 4-5' wrought iron fence along the south and east lot line. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates gates at appropriate access points. The proposed fence was included in response to the Police Department's concerns regarding possible vehicle burglary and overall site perimeter security. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-ll-05 Page 3 The proposed site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Linneman Road and Hunt Club Drive by a public street running east/west. Also, there will be one emergency vehicle access point from Hunt Club Drive. The single-family residences would be directly accessed from the public street, and access to the townhomes would be from a private drive accessed from the public street. The emergency access point 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 with a 5' wide public walk installed in the easement. This was required 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. Therefore, the proposed sidewalk should not 'jog' as shown on the Petitioner's plan because it creates safety hazards and it is unlikely that the tree they are attempting to save would survive. The Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be two types of floor plans for the townhomes, Unit A consists of 2 bedrooms with a den while Unit B would have 3 bedrooms with a bonus room. The Village Code requires 2- Y2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more). The Petitioner's proposal contains 200 parking spaces (consisting of a two car garage and two driveway parking spaces per unit), plus 52 guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development. The single-family homes would have garages and guests would park in the driveways. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the R2 PUD portion of the project would have approximately 48% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The proposed single-family residences would comply with the 45% limitation for the Rl Zoning District. The Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village Engineer to document that 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 including, but not limited to, televising the existing sanitary service, increasing the detention volume, and other modifications required as part of the final engineering design. The Petitioner is not seeking relief from Engineering requirements and will meet all Village regulations. The Petitioner submitted a Traffic Study to evaluate the impact of the proposed development. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the plan and agreed that the overall impact of the development on the local road system will be minimal because the previous use, a school, generated more traffic in the morning than the proposed residential development. However, the evening rush hour will have an increase in traffic because the school's peak traffic was early afternoon, but the increase is reasonable, Reasonable meaning the level of service has not changed and the delay due to added traffic is less than 5 seconds. Also, the proposed street connecting Linneman and Hunt Club will disperse the traffic so that one street will not be burdened with all the development traffic. The Village's Traffic Engineer found that the delay at key intersections, i.e., Hunt Club/Golf, Linneman/Golf, Linneman/Church/Willow, would not be significantly affected with the added traffic. However, the Village's Traffic Engineer disagreed with the study's findings regarding the impact of the new church, on the west side of Linneman Road, on the local road system. The study states that ". ..no new/additional traffic is expected to be generated" by the church development. However, based on the preliminary plans, the building footprint is much larger and includes a sanctuary, hall, gym, offices and more parking spaces. It would be important to know the impact this will have on traffic in conjunction with the Petitioner's development. Therefore, since the Petitioner submitted their project first and the church does not have finalized plans at this time, the Village's Traffic Engineer recommended that the church do a traffic study and incorporate the Steepleview info into their report. If the study finds the combination of both developments shows a need for road improvements, Staff recommends that each development be responsible for a percentage of the improvements. Therefore, if Steepleview gets approved first, Staff recommends that one of the conditions of Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-II-05 Page 4 approval include a condition that the Petitioner is required to pay for their share of road improvements if road improvements are necessary, by putting funds in escrow. The Petitioner is proposing to make a monetary contribution, approximately $60,000, to the Mount Prospect Park District that would be used to upgrade the ball fields at Kopp Park, which is the closest public park to the Subject Property . The table in the Staff Report provides zoning district information for the property's proposed zoning classification and summarizes the proposed setbacks. It shows that the proposed building height requires a Variation because it exceeds the maximum height limitation of 28' for the R2 district. The project would comply with all other Village regulations. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance. They relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character, The Petitioner is seeking relief from the Zoning Ordinance to allow portions of the townhomes to exceed 28' from the mid-point of the roof; the single-family homes would comply with Village Code. The Petitioner states in their application, that "The justification for this relief is because of the fact that the site can be classified as a transitional land use parcel, sandwiched between more dense multifamily areas to the south, southwest, and east and the low density single family areas to the north." Technically, the Petitioner is creating the need for a Variation because the building style could be redesigned so the height complies with the Zoning Ordinance. However, the proposed height is in keeping with the height of several existing buildings adjacent to the Subject Property and would be consistent with the maximum building height permitted in the adjacent RX Zoning District. Therefore, because only portions of the buildings would exceed 28' and several of the adjacent existing buildings have similar height, the proposed height would not be out of character of the neighborhood. The standards for Map Amendments are listed in the Village 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 res-idential developments, abuts single-family residences, and is across the street from an Institutional Use, St. John's. The proposed 50-unit townhome development and 7 single-family residences 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 Property and provides an adequate transition from the single-family residence to the north to the multi-family residences to the south. The proposed Map Amendments, Conditional Use for the Planned Unit Development, and Variation for building height requests meets the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve: 1) The request to rezone the Subject Property from RX to Rl and R2 as shown on the Petitioner's site plan dated Aprilll,2005; 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Modify the site plan so the sidewalk and easement/ROW do not jog as shown on the plan, it is unlikely that the tree they are attempting to save would survive even if the sidewalk was jogged and the 'jogged' sidewalk design creates safety issues; Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-11-05 Page 5 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; C. 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; D. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall respond to Engineering's comments: I) increase the stormwater detention volume to 2.62 ac-ft, instead of the 2.23 ac-ft shown, as required by Village Code, 2) note the sides of the detention pond slope and do not exceed 4: 1 (horizontal/:vertical), and 3) note the proposed rim elevations so Staff can confirm that the structure are below the design high water level; E. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development; F. 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; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of Resubdivision that creates 7 individual lots of record for the single-family residences and at least one-lot for the townhome development; H. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; J. 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; J. The emergency access gate and paved drive at the southernmost access to Hunt Club Drive must have traffic pre-emption devices; and K. As the impact of both the Steepleview and St. John Lutheran Church developments may result in the need for road improvements as a result of an expected increase in traffic on the local road system, a Traffic Impact Study will be required by the St. John Lutheran Church and must include the Steepleview traffic forecast prior to approval of the church development. Should road improvements be necessary based on a review by the Village's Traffic Engineer, both developers will be required to pay for their share based on their respective impact to the local road system; funds will be escrowed. L. 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. 3) Variation to allow the rear elevation of the townhomes to measure no more than 33.5' from the mid-point of the roof. Richard Rogers asked if Mitroff was developing the proposed custom homes. Ms. Connolly said Petitioner would respond to that question. Patrick Brankin, the attorney for Mitroff with Schein, Birney Ross & Citron in Chicago came forward and thanked Ms. Connolly for her thorough presentation. To be swom in, he introduced Rev. Jeff Gavin, Terry Smith, Planner, Dan Kovasevic of Mitroff, Xavier Millan, Traffic Engineer, Todd Schaeffer, Engineer, Dan O'Malley, Architect, Sharon Jones, Landscape Architect. Mr. Brankin said this presentation will show that they will meet all Codes necessary for this project. Rev. Jeff Gavin, 1111 Linneman Rd., Pastor of St. John's Church, came to the dais and gave a lengthy history of the parish and the area. He also gave examples of the parish having been a good neighbor through the years. He Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-II-05 Page 6 said when they decided to sell part of their property they chose Mitroff Builders because of their fine reputation and confidence that they would build a project that would enhance the area, even though they could have enjoyed greater financial rewards from other builders. He said it is the hope and prayer ofthe membership of 157-year-old St. John's Church that their presence continues to be felt through the decisions made by the Village tonight. Dan Kovasevic of Mitroff Builders came forward next and told of several developments they had built in the area. He also pointed out changes they had made from the previous proposal for this site to develop this proposal. He also answered the previous question that they do plan to build the custom homes on the single-family sites. They have added street parking so they don't need to ask the Church to handle their overflow parking. He touched upon the improved water detention and restrictor. He spoke about the added tot-lots and enhanced brick elevations as requested by staff. Terry Smith, Director of Land Planning for BSP Architects in Palatine, stepped up to the podium and testified that he has been working with Mitroff over a year with this site, which he again described. He showed an aerial view of the site and pointed out the existing developments and spoke of the problems to consider when planning a new development, especially with regard to the objections to the last proposal. He said they are trying to be a good neighbor by showing front elevations and keeping garages in back of the homes. He reminded the group that the total townhomes, 50, is down quite a bit from the original proposal of 70 townhomes. Ms. Juracek asked about some issues she had from the previous proposal that had been carried over into this proposal regarding ingress/egress onto Hunt Club and moving a right-of-way further south to avoid a dangerous corner. Mr. Smith said the only way to follow Village Code and have ingress/egress onto Hunt Club Drive would be the way they have configured it. Javier Millan, Senior Consultant with KLOA, Inc., Traffic Consultants for Mitroff Builders, spoke next. He told Ms. Juracek her question was a very good one. He personally had checked out the dangers of the corner at Hunt Club. Taking the computer mouse to the aerial photo, he illustrated an area on Hunt Club Drive where there is a Stop Sign. When a car is stopped there, they can see any cars that would be coming out of the proposed subdivision. He went on to explain the Traffic Study they had conducted for Mitroff. Todd Schaeffer, Haeger Engineering, came forward to speak. He said he is a Registered Professional Engineer and a Certified Flood Plain Engineer in Illinois. He said he has been working on this project for quite some time and worked with Village Staff to include Village Engineer and Public Works. They have decided on a dual detention system, isolating the single-family sites, they will provide their own stormwater detentions system. He explained the system in great detail, including the restrictor, which will need to be maintained by the homeowner association. He explained access to the water supply and noted that no easements would be necessary. Dan O'Malley, Architect, described the layout of the townhomes in greater detail. He said he feels there is a broad market of buyers for this type oftownhome. He said he wanted to explain their request for a Variation for the height of the building is actually a measure to protect the character of neighborhood. The buildings are designed to blend in with the area and do not have a flat roof. Sharon Jones, Landscape Architect with Pugsley & Leyhad in Lake Zurich, IL. She described the trees and plantings to be used in the proposed development. She spoke of a proposed wrought iron fence they would erect and a welcome sign to the development. Her talk concluded the Mitroff presentation. Ms. Juracek opened the Hearing to the audience. Edward Hofert was sworn in and said he was an attorney representing Mr. Jacek and several members of the audience. He said he had served on the Zoning Board in the late 1950s, had been the Village attorney from 1961- 1965, had been the attorney for Elk Grove Village for 20 years, and also the attorney for Hoffman Estates for 7 years. In his practice of specializing in municipal law he prepared many ordinances including the 1 ST Open Space Ordinance for the Village of Mount Prospect, which was later adapted by Cook County. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-I1-05 Page 7 He said multi-family housing changes the character of a neighborhood and should not be allowed to proliferate. He said he thinks this is an opportunity to keep this as a single-family community. John Desmond, 62 West Briarwood, Streamwood, IL, was sworn in and said he was the Congregation Chairman for St. John and a licensed Real Estate salesman. He was on the Selection Committee and they had many builders who submitted plans for 150-250 units but they did not think those plans would be good for the neighborhood. Only Mitroff & Cambridge Builders came in with plans for 70 units and based on Mitroffs excellent reputation, the committee chose them. He also wanted to squelch rumors that the Church congregation was divided over building this facility. They have taken repeated votes and nearly 100% have voted for the facility, only 1 or 2 percent have voted against it. He also stated that 50 townhomes would not create greater social distortion and reduce property values. Townhomes priced at over $300,000 cannot hurt values in the area, only increase them, especially when they are top quality, they will only upgrade and improve the existing facility. Years ago he purchased a unit at 1103 Hunt Club Drive for $90,000 and today those units are selling for $200,000. He also said moving the road would not work as the Church would be residing in the school for at least one year until their new facility is completed. Paul Dahlgren, 1161 Linneman Road presented a petition and was sworn in. He said he represented Courts of St. John and they went along with all the listings. He read their objections to the development proposed by Mitroff Group: water retention; restrictor; congestion; no change in amount of greenspace; high density; traffic; and drainage. Todd Schaeffer returned to the podium and responded to the Courts of St. John's objections but met resistance from another resident who was sworn in, Bruce Cascarano of 1145 Linneman Road. He had questions about the restrictor and the water that presently accumulates on the Courts' property. Mr. Schaeffer pointed out the system to Mr. Cascarano on the aerial exhibit. Mr. Cascarano was satisfied with the explanation and thanked Todd Schaeffer. Richard Rogers pointed out that Mitroff would be solving the Courts of St John's water problem. Alan Szumanski, resident and owner of 665 Bel Aire Lane and several other properties in the area, was sworn in and said he was pleased to see that some reduction in density had been made but thought it was not enough. He agreed other concessi9ns had been made but still felt the proposal was inappropriate for the area. He said he thinks the restrictor will cause the same problem that the Courts of St. John has. Mr. Schaeffer again returned to the podium to respond to Mr. Szumanski's objections. He referred to the aerial exhibit and pointed out the way the restrictor would operate. He also said he will continue to work with Village Staff and Engineer to refine the restrictor to further enhance the system to accommodate the future single-family homes. Ms. Juracek assured Mr. Szumanski that the developer would need to work very closely with Staff and meet Village Codes. Ms. Juracek said we have heard drainage and density concerns, single-family vs. multi-family concerns, are there any new issues to bring up at this point. Celine Birmbaum, 1101 S. Hunt Club Drive, was sworn in. She said when they exit their driveway they have a blind spot that will be increased by this development. Stuart Wolf, an Attorney with offices at 3345 Arlington Heights Road, was sworn in. He said he represents St. John Lutheran Church. He said the plan presented tonight is a win/win proposition for the Village and the neighborhood. He said he feels the Commission should move forward and recommend approval to the Village Board. He also pointed out that this discrete proposal is a financial loss to the Church. He didn't want the Commissioners to think all the people in the audience were against the proposed development. Many were parishioners of the Church and supporters of the proposal. He asked those to stand up briefly so the Commissioners would know they were supporters of the proposed development. A group of people stood. Ms. Juracek thanked them. Joanne Bina, 1026 Linneman Road, said if you look between Elmhurst Road and Algonquin way over to Arlington Heights Road, it is a sea of apartments, a sea of humanity, and with United building more across from Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-11-05 Page 8 their facility, it will worsen. She said she wanted to urge the Commission to please keep the area single-family residences. Edward Hofert again came forward and said he thought Ms. Bina had summed it up - reduce the size. Don't flood the area with townhomes. He wants the Church to prosper, everyone does, but not at the expense of the community. John Desmond returned to the podium to say that, regarding reducing down to single-family homes, it would significantly reduce the price for the property, which would prohibit us from building a new church facilities and, in that case, nothing happens. He said the Church has already reduced its price because of the reduction in the number of townhomes. Mr. Desmond said he wanted to reiterate his earlier sentiment, 50 townhomes is not going to hurt the quality of life in the area, Ms. Juracek asked staff if they could impose a Stop Sign as a condition of approval. Ms. Connolly said they could. Ms. Juracek suggested a Stop Sign at the location of proposed house #7, She then closed the Public Hearing. Mr. Donnelly asked why townhomes I & 2 were different than 8 & 7. It appears that from 8 & 7 one may view the center court, which is blocked from 1 & 2. Mr. O'Malley said it was not intentional, perhaps because they were limiting the total number of townhomes. Ronald Roberts said he supports the intentions of the Comprehensive Plan to promote single-family residences. Matt Sledz agreed with that opinion and said he felt this was an inappropriate development. Richard Rogers said we are at odds with comparing the local community with the property rights of an owner. We have a situation here where we already have a large area of multi-family residences, so lower height would make sense. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend approval to: 1) rezone the Subject Property from RX to R1 & R2 (Map Amendment), 2) Conditional Use approval for a Planned Unit Development, subject to the conditions imposed by staff and the further condition the Petitioner install a STOP sign to minimize traffic conflicts, for the proposed 7 single-family residences and 50-unit townhome development at 1101 S. Linneman Road, Case No. PZ-I1-05. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NAYS: Roberts, Rogers, Sledz and Youngquist Motion was denied 4-3. A negative recommendation will go to the Village Board. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, 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 Intemet Files\OLK2\PZ-l1.05 110 I S. Linneman Rd. MiLroffGroup.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-14-05 Hearing Date: April 28, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 700 S. Louis St. PETITIONER/OWNER: Kurt & Julia McDonnell PUBLICATION DATE: April 13, 2005 PIN#: 08-12-415-041-0000 & 08-12-415-042-0000 REQUEST: Petitioner is seeking Conditional Use approval to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard setback. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Matt Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Kurt & Julia McDonnell Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m, Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the March 24,2005 meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0 with abstentions by Chair Arlene Juracek, Richard Rogers and Keith Youngquist. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-14-05 a request to construct an unenclosed porch in the required front yard setback and other relief from the Zoning Ordinance as may be required for this project. She said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the request. The Subject Property is located on the west side of Louis Street, south of Council Trail, and contains a bi-level single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the R1 District. The Subject Property is comprised of a parcel, a vacated right-of-way, and a vacated 10' pedestrian walk. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the existing home, including a 2-story addition and an unenclosed front porch. The proposed porch would consist of a concrete base, a brick 'railing' or half-wall, and limestone columns. The proposed porch will extend 5' from the house, resulting in a 25' front yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. The existing home was built over the property line and does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. Although this is a legal nonconforming situation, the proposed addition would increase the intensity of the nonconformity. Therefore, the Petitioner has agreed to resubdivide the Subject Property and consolidate the site to a one-lot subdivision in order to meet setback regulations. Upon completion of the plat of Resubdivision, the Subject Property, including the addition, would comply with the Village's zoning regulations. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-14-05 Page 2 The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve the proposed porch. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said t1}at the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 25' for the residence at 700 S, Louis Street, Case No. PZ-14-05, subject to consolidating the Subject Property to a single lot of record. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is fmal for this case. Kurt McDonnell, 700 S. Louis St., was sworn in and said they want to put an addition on the existing house on the north part of the property up to the approved setback. They are expanding the home with a basement underneath the house and also a second story. They want a variance for a porch that will be centered on the existing house; everything to the right of where the porch ends will be an addition, along with the second story. Ms. Juracek said this was a straightforward request and asked the petitioner if he understood that he could not enclose the porch at any time. Mr. McDonnell answered yes. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Conditional Use permit to construct an unenclosed porch 5-feet into the required front yard setback for the property at 700 S. Louis St., Case No. PZ-14-05 subject to resubdividing the Subject Property to create a single lot of record. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Joe Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at midnight, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:IDoeuments and SettingslkdewislLoeal SettingslTemporary Internet FilesIOLK2IPZ-14-05 700 S. Louis St Me Donnell Res.doe MINUTES OF THE MARCH loth PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORKSHOP TOPICS: I) Electronic message board signs and 2) Klaeren Court case MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Matt Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Buzz Hill, Village Attorney Kevin Crowe, White Way Sign Bob Flannery ill, White Way Sign Rick Schultz, White Way Sign Chair Arlene Juracek called the workshop meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. She said that representatives from White Way Sign would discuss current trends and review industry requirements for electronic message boards. Also, Village Attorney Buzz Hill would review information from the Klaeren Court case. Rick Schultz, Research & Development for White Way Signs, presented information on electronic message board signs. He reviewed sign history, differences among the types of illuminated signs, new technology, and what styles of signs are most requested. His associates, Kevin Crowe and Bob Flannery, provided marketing and sales details as well as their own experiences with customers' ordering preferences and community restrictions. There was significant discussion on: · LED: Light Emitting Device, longer energy so it costs less, more predictable color · White LED is expensive and has a shorter lifespan; red has the longest lifespan, then blue/green · White text is less intrusive · Red has the slowest response time for eyes, but it cuts through overcast easily · Yellow & black combination has the highest contrast · Red & black is seen for the longest distance, shows up in fog · I" text may be seen 30-50' away depending on weather conditions · dwell time: read and retain characters; 2 seconds is too short (Sec.7.330.A.5) · 64-80 characters per sign; font impacts legibility Planning & Zoning Commission March 10th Workshop Page 2 The Commissioners stated interest in: 1. having day & night modes for signs 2. minimizing motion 3. eliminate requirement to post time/temp; use as a delineator between 'thoughts' or message 4. keeping aesthetics balanced; evaluate setback vs. letter height 5. updating Sign Code to regulate the amount of light emitted from signs, factoring ambient light when approvmg SIgn 6. having periodic reviews of LED signs to ensure proper speed of text (dwell time) and graphics through an annual license inspection 7. require 'sample' of sign at night as part of the P&Z review 8. require static signs (text does not change and graphics OK) 9. prohibit polarized glass at street level due to glare The Commissions identified signs to research: . gas station price boards . menu boards for drive-thrus. Village Attorney Buzz Hill discussed the Klaeren Court case. He reviewed its history, the Courts' findings, and clarified steps the Commission could take to ensure compliance with the court's decision. He added that he felt the P&Z was already in compliance. There was lengthy discussion and Mr. Hill answered various questions from" the Commissioners. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 10:05 p.m., seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scuings\Tcmporary lnlcmct Filcs\OlK2\Workshop minutes March IOl.doc