Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MEETING NOTICES 9/20/05 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDO: 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 September 22, 2005 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 25, 2005 P&Z MEETING · PZ-30-05 / 253 E. Rand Road / Early Days Preschool & Childcare / Conditional Use (Daycare Facility). · PZ-31-05 / 1821 W. Golf Road (Mansions of Mt. Shire Apartment Complex) / Special Use (Electronic Message Board). . PZ-32-05 /90 E. Milburn Ave./ Axley Residence / Variation. . PZ-34-05 / 312 Hatlen Ave. / Hakalo Residence / Variation (Front Yard Setback). · PZ-35-05 / Village of Mount Prospect / Text Amendment (Sign Code - Electronic Message Board). III. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-32-05 / 90 E. Milburn Ave. / Axley Residence / Variation (Exterior Side Yard Setback). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-35-05 / Village of Mount Prospect / Text Amendment (Sign Code - Electronic Message Board). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-33-05 / 900 Business Center Drive / International Gymnastics / Conditional Use (Gymnastics School). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-36-05 / 999 N. Elmhurst Road (Randhurst - Bed, Bath & Beyond) / Sign Variation (Oversized Wall Signs). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-30-05 /253 E. Rand Road / Early Days Preschool & Childcare - Village Board waived the second reading and approved the request September 7, 2005 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-30-05 Hearing Date: August 25,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 253 E. Rand Road PETITIOl\TER: Marc Callero 710 S. Beverly Lane, Arlington Heights, IL 60005 PROPERTY OWNERS: Marc Callero & Vince Sommer PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 2005 PIN#: 03-34-200-055-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Daycare Center MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Owners of Early Days Daycare: Marc Callero, Vince Sommer, Sheila Miller, and Errol Oztekin Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floras and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 7:34 p.m. Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-30-05, a request for a Conditional Use for a Daycare Center at 253 E. Rand Road. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said the Subject Property is located on the south side of Rand Road, between Highland Street and Kensington Road, and contains a commercial building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 District to the north and east, R3 Low Density Residence to the south, and B 1 Office to the west. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed daycare facility would be located in the B3 District, which requires Conditional Use approval. She reported that "Early Days" is an independently owned and operated preschool environment for infants as young as 6 weeks old and toddlers up to 5 years old. The facility would occupy the former Heart & Soul Cafe building. The daycare facility has a maximum capacity of 94 clients and 15 staff members, which are based on Department of Children & Family Services (DCFS) regulations. The facility would be open from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday and have staggered start times with children arriving between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m.. The Petitioner anticipates half of the children arriving at 9 a.m., with 8 to 8:30 a.m. being the peak arrival time. Children may be enrolled in a morning only program or a full day program. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25, 2005 PZ-30-05 Page 2 Enrollment projections for January 2006 are expected to be 50 children. Early Days requires that each child be signed in and out. This requires that the parent/guardian physically accompany each child both to and from their vehicles and the sign-in desk, which is located inside the facility. A security system will be installed in the vestibule of the building, with Staff monitoring the area to ensure a safe and efficient drop-off/pick-up routine. Ms. Connolly reported that the Subject Property does not comply with current zoning regulations because the parking lot encroaches into the required 10' setback. She noted that the Zoning Ordinance classifies it as a legal nonconforming situation and is allowed to remain. However, the building meets the required setbacks. The Petitioner proposes a number of improvements to the Subject Property, which include an addition to the existing structure, and decreasing the amount of impervious surface by removing sections of the parking lot and reconfiguring the parking lot. Although the site currently does not exceed the Zoning Ordinance's lot coverage limitation, the Petitioner proposes to remove asphalt to install additional landscaping and convert portions of the parking lot into a play area. Since the scope of the addition does not exceed 25% of the square footage of the existing structure, the Petitioner is not required to provide storm water detention. It is important to note that any future additions that exceed 1.5 sq. ft. will trigger the application of Development Code regulations and storm water detention and other improvements listed in Sec. 15.402 will be required. Ms. Connolly also reported that the Subject Property contains sufficient parking to meet the Village's requirements. She said that the available on-site parking totals at 31 spaces, meeting the 30 space requirement. The 30 space requirement is based on the Village's Zoning Ordinance, which requires 1 space per employee plus 1 space per 10 children. Based on a maximum enrollment of 94 children (9 spaces) and a staff of 15 employees, the daycare facility would require a total of 24 parking spaces. In addition there is an easement allowing cross access and spillover parking for the adjacent property. The office building at 259 E. Rand Road requires 16 parking spaces, but only has 10 spaces on-site. Therefore, it needs 6 spaces from the adjacent site to comply with zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner submitted a traffic study that evaluates the impact the daycare facility will have on Rand Road traffic. The Subject Property has two driveways, which helps create a better traffic flow and limits congestion within the parking lot. Also, there are over 30 parking spaces on-site and the drop-off/pick-up process will allow for a quick-turn over for the spaces. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the study and agreed with the study's findings that the daycare facility will have minimal impact on Rand Road. However, the site plan indicates four parallel parking spaces along the south property line. In an effort to ensure a smooth drop- off/pick-up routine, the Traffic Engineer recommends that those spaces be designated as Employee Parking. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village's Zoning Ordinance does not have operational requirements for daycare uses. However, the Petitioner is required to meet specific DCFS regulations, which the Petitioner is aware of and has worked with in other daycare facilities. It is important to note that the Petitioner is required to follow State regulations, which will be enforced by the appropriate State agency. The DCFS requirements include regulations pertaining to play areas, providing food service, and program content. These regulations are based on the length ofthe child's stay at the facility. Ms. Connolly said that the interior of the building has to be modified to comply with the National Life Safety Code and the BOCA Building Code for daycare centers which entails installing a fire detection system and a fire sprinkler system. She said that although this is a Building Permit issue, it is important to note now to eliminate potential confusion during another review process. Also, Staff reviewed the landscape plan and found the proposed improvements would be an attractive addition to the Subject Property. However, the existing landscaping along the 'west' property line is primarily deciduous and the parking lot would not be screened year- round. Therefore, the proposed plan should be revised to include year-round plantings to screen the parking lot. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses and said that the proposed use meets the Conditional Use standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25,2005 PZ-30-05 Page 3 the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Conditional Use for a Daycare Center at 253 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-30-05 subject to the following conditions: 1) The Early Days facility be constructed in accordance with the plans prepared by HKM Architect, dated August 12, 2005, but the landscape revised to include additional year-round plants that screen the parking lot along the west lot line; 2) meet the Building Code & Fire Code requirements, which include but are not limited to the installation of sprinkler and fire alarm systems; 3) future improvements that exceed 1.5 sq. f1. shall comply with all Village Codes including, but not limited to the Development Code; 4) the Village reserves the right to review any traffic related matters created by the use and require any necessary measures needed to address them; and 5) prior to the Village issuing a Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner shall obtain the necessary permits and authorizations from the appropriate agencies. Ms. Connolly also noted that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Vince Sommer, 214 Fox River Drive Cary, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Sommer gave an overview of the mission, philosophy, and culture of the company. He stated that Early Day will provide premier preschool and childcare services for their clients, respect individuals in and outside their company, career and growth opportunities for their associates and grow a financially strong organization. Mr. Sommer then summarized the personal backgrounds and related experience of the primary investors to this company. Afterwards, Mr. Sommer briefly went through the daily operations, building and location plans of Early Days. Also, he presented renderings of the exterior of the building and landscaping. Mr. Sommer concluded his presentation by stating that Early Days would be good for Mount Prospect because it would improve the appearance of the existing site, not create a negative traffic impact, provide childcare parents can be proud of, provide property tax revenue, and that Early Days would be good for the community because it is a company with a neighborhood focus, and plans to participate in community events. Sheila Miller, 212 S. Dunton, Arlington Heights, IL, was sworn in. Ms. Miller stated that she will be the Director; then she summarized the curriculum planned for use at Early Days. Early Days would use a play based theory, called a "creative curriculum", meant for children 6 weeks through 5 years old that would teach children to make decisions early in life. Ms. Miller also stated that Early Days would also work closely with DCFS, maintain a low teacher to child relation, and strictly monitor three meals a day and the release of children to their parents or guardians. Mr. Rogers asked Ms. Miller if she reviewed the conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report and if she agreed to meet the conditions. Ms. Miller agreed to meet the conditions. Mr. Rogers also wanted to know if there were any plans to improve the exterior of the building; the Petitioner said yes. Leo Floros asked for clarification on the scope of the proposed property improvements. Errol Oztekin, 7 Pacer Trail, South Barrington, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Oztekin said that the work for improving the site was going to be extensive and would include interior and exterior improvements that would take up to 3 months to complete. He hopes to be able submit building plans within a couple weeks to get moving on the project for an opening in February 2006. Mr. Floros asked if market studies were conducted to measure the demand for this service. Mr. Sommer replied that he did not know the exact demand for daycare. He said that even though there were a few daycares in the area he still believed there is a strong need for a daycare with the amount of children in Mount Prospect. Ronald Roberts mentioned that daycare centers sometimes are a large part of the decision for people moving into the community and that he believes there is a big need for them. Mr. Donnelly asked the Petitioner to explain the logistics for the drop off and pick up process at the center. Mr. Sommer replied that parents would enter the center at one entrance and there would be a designated area for drop off and pick up; the parents would exit a different way when leaving the center. Mr. Donnelly further mentioned that he was concerned how the movement of cars would be organized when 90 children were in the daycare center Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25,2005 PZ-30-05 Page 4 at one time. Ms. Miller stated there would never be 90 children at the daycare at one time, and that drop off and pick up would be staged through out the day because of programming schedules with those in the half-day program picking up mid-day. Mr. Youngquist asked the Petitioners if there were any other Early Day daycare centers, or if this was the first one; the Petitioners replied that this was the first one. Mr. Roberts asked if there were any plans for a special education program. Mr. Sommer replied that there were no immediate plans, but one of their long term goals was to provide that type of education if possible. He stated that as a father of an autistic child, he is aware of the demand for this type of programming. Mr. Rogers mentioned that the Mount Prospect community is growing and that there are families coming in with young children. He stated that the Petitioner's facility would be a great addition to the Village. Ms. Rogers asked if there were any questions from the audience. There were none and the Public Hearing was closed. Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve the Conditional Use for a daycare center at 253 E. Rand Road, Case No. PZ-30-05 with the conditions listed in the Staff Report. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing four more cases, Joseph Donnelley made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Jason R. Zawila, Long Range Planner Ikd C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scuings\Tcmporary Iutcmct Filcs\OLK2\PZ-30-Q5 253 E Rand - CU - dilycarc.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-31-0S Hearing Date: August 25,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1821 W. Golf Road PETITIONER: Dave Tometz, Whiteway Signs (Agent for Property Owner) 1317 N. Clyboum Ave, Chicago, IL 60610 PROPERTY OWNER: Mansions of Mount Shire, DiMucci Partners 837 Management Inc. PO Box 95838 Hoffman Estates, IL 60195 PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 2005 PIN#: 08-15-202-021-0000 REQUEST: Special Use and Variation - electronic message board sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Dave Tometz, Whiteway Signs Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 7:57 p.m. Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-3l-05 a request for Special Use and Variation for an Electronic Message Board sign at 1821 W. Golf Road. He said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Commission Final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Subject Property, The Mansions of Mount Shire, is located on the south side of Golf Road, between Grove and Oakwood Drives, and consists of a 5l2-unit multi-family development. Although the development includes multiple buildings and is an apartment complex, it is zoned RA Single Family. The Subject Property is bordered by the CR Conservation Recreation district and Rl Single Family Districts to the north, B3 Community Shopping to the east, RA Single Family to the south, and R4 Multi-Family Residence to the west. She said the Petitioner is seeking approval to replace the existing freestanding sign on Golf Road. The existing sign includes the name of the complex, and it is used to advertise vacancies, on-site amenities, and the leasing agent's hours of operation. During the Staff review, it was determined that the size of the proposed sign face exceeds the Sign Code limitations. The Sign Code limits the size of the sign face for residential developments Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 PZ-31-05 Page 2 located on an arterial street to 35 square feet; she said that the 12' height complies with Sign Code regulations. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking Special Use approval for the electronic message board component of the sign as well as a Variation to permit a 68.7 sq. ft. sign face. Ms. Connolly said that the amount of permanent information on the new sign face will be minimal in comparison to the existing sign. The Petitioner proposes to use the electronic message board for changing information such as vacancies and special rent promotions. The Sign Installer proposes to reuse the existing supports, but the size of the sign face will be reduced. Currently, the sign measures approximately 12' from grade and the sign face measures approximately 84 square feet. The new sign will be internally illuminated and have a brick base. Ms. Connolly stated that the plans submitted do not indicate whether the area around the sign will be landscaped, as required by the Sign Code. Ms. Connolly explained that in order to approve the Petitioner's request, the P&Z has to find that the proposed freestanding sign meets the criteria for a Variation because the sign face exceeds the maximum size permitted. She summarized the standards for a Variation and said that the existing 84 sq. ft. sign face exceeds current Sign Code regulations. The Sign Installer estimates the age of the existing sign to be more than 20 years old, which predates current Sign Code regulations. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 68.7 sq. ft. sign face because the 35 sq. ft. sign face permitted by the Sign Code would not be in scale with the development and the text would be difficult to read. Also, the size of the proposed sign face would be smaller than the existing sign face. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner's request would not adversely impact the neighborhood or the adjacent properties. However, the Petitioner's submittal did not include landscaping for the area around the base of the sign. She said that landscaping this area, even using larger container planter boxes, would somewhat improve the aesthetics of the parking lot. In addition, the Sign Code requires the base of freestanding signs to be landscaped. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Petitioner submit a landscape plan, as required by the Sign Code, before a Sign Permit may be issued. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the electronic message board, the P&Z has to find that it meets the standards for a Special Use, which are listed in the Sign Code. She summarized the standards and said that the Subject Property has expansive frontage on to Golf Road and that the size of the sign is consistent with other signs for commercial properties in the area. The proposed electronic message board would include one line of 12" text used to display current information about the apartment complex. The sign would be located more than 700' from the recently approved electronic message board sign at CVS. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and found that the electronic message board would not adversely impact traffic, even with the addition of the CVS sign. In addition, Staff found that the design of the proposed sign would not create a negative impact on adjacent properties. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed sign meets the standards for a Variation and Special Use because the site has expansive frontage onto a major arterial road; the size of the proposed sign would be smaller than the current sign; and the proposed sign will have less text than the current sign, which minimizes the amount of 'visual clutter'. She said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 68.7 sq. ft. sign face as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit and to approve a Special Use permit to allow an electronic message board that has one line of 12" text subject to the following conditions: prior to obtaining a Sign Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan that shows the base of the sign will be landscaped (at a minimum installing planter/container boxes) as required by the Sign Code; the text shall not change more frequently than every 15 seconds (which is consistent with the CVS sign); and the proposed sign shall comply with the standards listed in Sec. 7.330.A of the Sign Code." Ms. Connolly said that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Mr. Rogers asked if a permit was issued for the existing oversized sign. Ms. Connolly said the Village does not have a record of issuing a sign permit for the existing sign. She said that it is possible that since the parcel is zoned R-A, which Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-31-05 Page 3 is a nonconforming zoning classification, that the property may have been annexed into the Village already developed with the existing sign. Mr. Donnelly expressed concern about the placement of multiple smaller yellow signs near the existing sign and wanted to know if Staff should include another condition prohibiting this type of signage. Ms. Connolly said that would not be necessary because it was a violation of the Sign Code to use this type of signage and that she already notified the Property Owner, who agreed to remove the signs immediately. Mr. Youngquist inquired if there were any other apartments or rental complexes that had electronic message boards in the Village. Ms. Connolly replied no. Mr. Rogers wanted to clarify that there were two issues at hand: 1) the size of the signage and 2) the electronic message board center. Ms. Connolly confmned that was correct. Dave Tometz, of Whiteway Signs, 1317 N. Clyboum Ave., Chicago, IL, was sworn in Mr. Tometz explained that the existing 84 square foot double sided sign would be removed. The new sign would measure approximately 68 square feet and reuse the existing supports and foundation of the old sign. He said that the masonry base would now include landscaping as noted in the Staff Report. He presented a revised exhibit of the proposed sign that showed a brick planter to be installed and that it would match the existing building. Mr. Tometz said that the message center would be a low impact LED illumination featuring one line of text and would change every 15 seconds. The message center would feature rental information and the time and temperature. The sign itself would be constructed of half inch plastic, internally illuminated and covered by vinyl to give a shadow effect to the text and logo of the Mansion Apartments. Mr. Donnelly asked if the Petitioner was planning to use red or amber illumination for the sign. Mr. Tometz replied that the sign would use amber lighting. Mr. Donnelly further asked if the white background for the sign was going to be lit internally or externally. Mr. Tometz replied that the lighting was going to be internally illuminated with a high output illumination. Mr. Donnelly then asked if one line was enough room for the sign, because he usually sees signs with three lines. Mr. Tometz replied that this was intended to be a low impact sign and one line was sufficient. Mr. Youngquist asked if the height of the message center was sufficient to adequately display the message, as three feet from grade could be easily obstructed. Mr. Tometz replied that this was a typo on the drawing that he just showed to the Commission and that the sign is actually 12 feet overall; he said that the message board would be mounted 4 feet from grade. Mr. Rogers asked if the Petitioner was aware that 12 feet is the maximum height for the sign and that the landscaping was required for the sign. Mr. Tometz said he was aware of the requirements. Ms. Rogers asked if there were any questions from the audience. There were none and the Public Hearing was closed. Mr. Rogers confirmed with Ms. Connolly that one vote for both requests was appropriate. Ronald Roberts asked Ms. Connolly if there were any restrictions for the brightness for self illuminating signs. Ms. Connolly said the Village Code had nuisance regulations that could be applied if the Director of Community Development determined that the sign was too bright and needed to be illuminated at a level that would minimize the nuisance. Mr. Donnelly said that the proposed sign was an improvement compared to the existing sign and that the single line of text would not create a traffic hazard. Mr. Roberts agreed that this sign is an aesthetic improvement over the existing sign. Mr. Youngquist said that the electronic message board sign should help better advertise apartments for rent and their amenities. Mr. Rogers stated that he hopes this would decrease the use of banners for advertisement. Mr. Roberts stated he could support the request for only one line of text, but he would have been inclined to vote against the sign if it had the multiple lines of text. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-31-05 Page 4 Keith Youngquist made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a 68.7 sq. ft. signface as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit and to approve a Special Use permit to allow an electronic message board that has one line of 12" text subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to obtaining a Sign Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan that shows the base of the sign will be landscaped (at a minimum installing planter/container boxes) as required by the Sign Code; 2. The text shall not change more frequently than every 15 seconds; and 3. The proposed sign shall comply with the standards listed in Sec. 7.330.A of the Sign Code for the property at 1821 W. Golf Road, Case No. PZ-3l-05. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Jason R. Zawila, Long Range Planner Ikd C:\Documcnts and Scttings\Jcdcwis\Local Scnings\Tcmporary IntcllIcl Filcs\OLK2\PZ-31~05 1821 W GolfRo~d. SU. c1cc sign,doc IMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-32-05 Hearing Date: August 25, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 90 E. Milburn PETITIONER/PROPERTY OWNER: Cheryl Axley, 90 E. Milburn, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 PUBLICATION DATE: August 10,2005 PIN #: 08-12-120-023-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chairman Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Cheryl Axley, Stuart Wolf, Riner Warner Acting-Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 8:15 PM Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-32-05 a request for Variation for Side Yard Setback for 90 E. Milburn. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Senior Planner Judy Connolly summarized the case. The Subject Property is located at the northwest comer of Emerson and Milburn, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. Although the residence is entered and exited along Milburn A venue, the Zoning Ordinance defines the Milburn. frontage as the exterior yard and the front yard is Emerson Street. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and the existing house is currently set back approximately 15 feet from the south lot line, which is the exterior property line, and approximately 71' from the east lot line, which is the front property lot line. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner is in the process of, and actually has completed most of the improvements to the existing patio and driveway. She said the Petitioner's exhibits illustrate the proposed improvements and the exhibit notes the proposed patio extension. The Petitioner is seeking approval for a 14' x 29' patio, intended to accommodate a brick fire pit, to encroach into the exterior yard. However, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20- foot exterior side yard setback; therefore the Petitioner is requesting a Variation. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-32-05 Page 2 Ms. Connolly reported that the Petitioner's application provided an in-depth description of the request as the patio relates to the character of the neighborhood. She said that the narrative states multiple times that the area in question is heavily screened and the proposed encroachment would have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. The Petitioner's narrative also provides an overview of events leading up to the requested Variation. Ms. Connolly said several discrepancies were identified when information in the Petitioner's narrative was compared to information in Village files during the Staff review of the request. In an effort to resolve the discrepancies, Staff met with the Petitioner and her attorney. As a result of this meeting, it appears there was a misunderstanding regarding the scope of the work approved for the permit issued in June 2005. Although the permit information indicates a 20' setback is required along Milburn Ave., this requirement was not explained in a manner that was made clear to the Petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner started excavation in the required exterior side yard. The Petitioner applied for a Variation when she was made aware that the proposed project did not meet the zoning regulations and that the permit issued did not authorize work in the exterior side yard. However, the discrepancies and amount of work completed, whether or not it was authorized, are not standards, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, to grant a Variation. Therefore, the Staff Report will not focus on this aspect of the Petitioner's request and will instead just address the Variation request itself. Ms. Connolly said that the existing home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the house encroaches approximately 5-feet into the exterior setback. However, this situation is a legal nonconformity and is allowed to remain. The proposed patio in the exterior side yard is new construction and is required to meet current Village Code requirements. Therefore, the patio requires relief from the RA District's bulk regulations to allow a 6' exterior side yard setback when the Zoning Ordinance requires 20'. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and include specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. 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 expand the patio to accommodate a brick fire pit. Regardless of the intended use, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 20-foot exterior side yard. The Subject Property has a regular shape and normal topography. The manner in which the house is located on the Subject Property does create challenges for locating a patio that meets current zoning regulations. However, the same size (square footage) patio, but a different configuration, could be constructed east of the existing patio and still meet the required setbacks. The Petitioner states in the attached application that the patio would be screened by mature landscaping and a fence. Therefore, the request would have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood. However, the request fails to meet the standards for a Variation because there isn't a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance that prohibits them from complying with the required 20' setback. The Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances". Although the site is a corner lot and could be described as having two 'front yards', this condition exists throughout the surrounding neighborhood and Village of Mount Prospect; therefore it is not unique to this property. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-32-05 Page 3 Ms. Connolly said that although the proposed patio may be constructed in an attractive manner, its location is extremely close to the lot line. She said that Staff can appreciate the intent of the Petitioner's request, however, locating a patio that includes a fire pit 6-feet from the sidewalk is a significant deviation from zoning regulations. The Petitioner has other alternatives that would meet zoning regulations and the request is not essential, but more of a convenience. Based on this analysis, Staff finds that the request does not meet the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance and recommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 6' exterior side yard for the proposed patio for the residence at 90 E. Milburn Ave., Case No. PZ-32-05." Ms. Connolly said that as the amount of the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement, the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Joseph Donnelly asked if they were to put a new fence up in what is now the front yard (east part of the house), would the zoning ordinance allow them to fence in this whole area proposed for the patio. Ms. Connolly clarified that the fence would need to be out of the 30' setback, it is currently about 10' back, so it would have to be shifted 20' west out of the front yard, per code. The code does look at what is happening on neighboring properties; if it is an exterior yard, the setback should back the adjacent properties. Calling the external side yard a "transitional side yard," Chairman Rogers asked if the fence along the side yard on the southern lot line could be rebuilt "as is." Ms. Connolly clarified that per changes to the code last year, that fence along the exterior side yard (southern property line) would need to be at least a foot off the property line and would need to be relocated a little to allow a site triangle. The southern lot line is an exterior side yard, the western lot line would be considered transitional as it borders a neighboring house. Noting a new concrete curb cut, Chairman Rogers asked the driveway width, stating it appeared to be about 30 feet. Ms. Connolly indicated that field drawings would be needed to confirm the width. A permit was granted to modify the driveway but it would still need to be within code. The Commission confirmed that Emerson is the front yard and Milbourn should be considered as a side yard. The Petitioner, Cheryl Axley, 90 E. Milburn Ave., was sworn in. She opened her remarks by stating she's lived in the home 20 years and is raising 3 teenagers. She started the project to extend what is existing and to put in a permanent fire pit, which would be safer than the temporary pit now used. She believes her home has unusual surroundings: 1) traffic is high from cut through traffic which is avoiding Route 83, 2) the western portion of her lot is virtually unusable due to lack of privacy, traffic lights, and noise, 3) the front yard is too narrow, 4) her lot is unlevel with a slope from north to south that has a 4 foot taper so that south side is most logical place to put pavers in. She also stated that to dig elsewhere would be a hardship, and that her sewer line runs in the area where the Village Code says she has to put the patio. She believes the logical place to put the extended patio is where she has outlined it. She continued that her home is extensively screened by landscaping and a fence which was put up by permit 14 years ago. No one objects to this and she has some letters of support from neighbors which she would like to add to the record. She mentioned a similar project close by in the neighborhood, stating it was allowed by the Village so it would be fair to allow her project. She brought photos to share with the Commission. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 4 Stuart Wolf, 3345 N. Arlington Heights Road, Arlington Heights, IL, attorney for the Petitioner was sworn in. Mr. Wolf said he was at the meeting as an attorney and was here to further explain the matter. He said his associate Riner Warner would assist with photos. He thanked the Commissioners for coming to view the property . Mr. Wolf showed a series of photographs of the property which captured in his opinion: o how landscaping blocks the view of the yard completely o the area left to be worked on, indicating it is 14' x 16' o the view from the homeowner to the north showing the fence, tree line and slope rising to the northeast o a view of some of the completed work that demonstrates the sloping in the yard, the shrubbery and the fencing that prohibits a view of the yard. o unique topography and significant slope between the property and the home to the north boundary line o the area of the yard where the sewer line runs Mr. Wolf next showed photographs of a property he stated was 123 S. Elmhurst Avenue, which he characterized as a similar home on a similar lot except that the lot is flat and doesn't appear to have the same topography issues. He stated this was recent construction with improvements in the front yard and there is not the lush landscaping and density of trees or fencing to block the views from the street. With a large retaining wall swooping in front of the home, certainly a more extensive variance than they are seeking on the behalf of Ms. Axley. Leo Flores clarified the location of the home asking if the front of the home is on Evergreen next to the Church. Mr. Wolf continued that there is precedent "by fact of approval of a more significant project" to approve what was being requested tonight. He showed more views of this home. Chairman Rogers clarified where the retaining wall was and Ms. Axley clarified it was a sunken patio. Mr. Wolf continued that the retaining wall is clearly visible, clearly way in front of the structure, and over the building line, coming up almost to the fence line that would appear to be on the boundary line of the property. And that construction, he stated, they believe was done this spring. Chairman Rogers asked if this was in the front yard. Mr. Wolf replied it was a comer lot with a similar situation to Ms. Axley's home. Mr. Flores and Keith Youngquist stated the home was on Evergreen. Staff was asked if this patio was built in the side yard setback with benefit of a permit. Ms. Connolly replied that this is the first she had learned of this example, if this was built last year, she was sure this was not done with benefit of a variation. She did note that an existing non-conforming patio can be rebuilt without complying to the setback as long as they meet lot coverage, but new construction must meet lot coverage. As this was the first Staff was hearing about this example, she said research time is needed. Mr. Wolf showed some drawings of the property at 90 E. Milburn stating that one or two of them had appeared in the packet but he wanted to point out a couple of other things. He stated that the first drawing shows the original plan. Gesturing to the area next to the driveway he stated that all of the work in the area had already been completed and area to southeast is the area in question. He stated the project is even with a walk and patio already in place, it is consistent with the fence, is aesthetically appropriate, it is all hidden by the fence and the shrubbery. He states this is the most functional use of the property and most functional design that could be furnished. To come up with an alternate would require coming into the yard with inherent risks involved with the sewer line and excavation. He stated his next drawing is the plan "that was part of the building permit that was issued," also remarking this is what was approved and what was assumed to be approved by the homeowner. He continued, "There are no notations "as to subject to variance," "variance needed" in order to accommodate the building line. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-32-05 Page 5 Referring to the drawing, he stated, all of the highlighting was done by the Building Department and the work done was consistent with what the Building Department approved so the homeowner continued, subject to what she was given by the Building Department. The Commission questioned the fact that the drawing "clearly says 20' setback and 21' maximum for driveway." Ms. Axely replied that she had written those notations herself. Mr. Wolf stated that, however, in a subsequent approval after the work was stopped, "the Building Department then came out and did approve the work in yellow, including the driveway in question. Again, the highlighting was done by Village Staff from the Building Department." Mr. Wolf stated he believed Mr. Cooney was present; Ms. Axley clarified it was Mr. George. The drawing, which was not the permit approved Job Copy, showed a different plan with a notation by Building Commissioner Bill George, which read: "Yellow approved to be built." Mr. Youngquist asked for clarification for the width of the driveway on the drawing, noting 2 numbers. Mr. Wolf said the driveway would appear to be 24' wide with an additional 9', therefore Mr. Roger's estimate of 34 feet would be correct with the two added together. Mr. Wolf pointed out that the homeowner worked in accordance with the permit and the directive of Building Department. He said the only alternative noted in the Staff report would destroy the yard and run the risk of 2-3 feet of excavation not knowing where sewer line is, and not providing same aesthetic of the original plan. He said they wanted to submit a packet of letters from Don Wood, Contractor for the project, and all of the neighbors who would be affected by the possible impact of the project - all asking the Commission to move in favor of a variance. He noted the only neighbor with a view, the neighbor to north, submitted a letter of support. In reviewing the Village's list of standards from the code, which would support the variance, Mr. Wolf noted they believe the homeowner has met all of the 7 points and made these points: o Relating to the specific hardship, the alternative is not feasible due to the unknown risk of excavating and the slope issues for drainage, they believe this is the only alternative; and, based upon amended plan approved by Village, the homeowner has extended significant money and now to drastically change the plan would cost additional monies. o This is a unique situation due to the topography; this is not a simple flat land corner lot, this is a situation not generally found with other properties. o This is not being done for financial gain. o Homeowner did not create the hardship; she worked in accordance to plans given by the Building Department. o 5, 6, and 7 relating to whether the project is injurious to the public, the project has complied with these. o All standards have been met for the variance In summarizing his comments Mr. Wolf stated: o He does not believe the Village has an adequate view of the situation, noting the Staff summary eliminates reference to hardship and the uniqueness of property. o He believes the variance should be approved because the homeowner has met all the requirements. Topography may not make it impossible, but makes it pretty darn hard. There is an unknown on what this would do to drainage for the yard given the slope from 2 different directions to the house. We acknowledge the property presents some challenges and the homeowner has met those challenges. o He continued that there certainly is no desire for financial gain. The area in question that has been excavated is 14' x 16' not 29' x 14' and therefore they believe is a much lesser impact than might have gotten from reading the summary. With recommendation of staff the proximity of firepit, not that he thinks it matters, is 13' not 6' making it less visible from the street given the dense landscaping. They think the project is a natural extension of lines of the home, request is essential, not a whimsy or convenience, but is appropriate use of yard space. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-32-05 Page 6 o This usage won't diminish property values if anything will enhance values, is not injurious to anyone's use of property, and will not have any negative impact on character of the neighborhood, nor will it influence anyone else's use of their own property. o Variances come into play where desired use is prohibited under ordnance and when standards for requesting a variance are met. What's proposed is not inconsistent with neighbor and is justified by practical difficulties, hardship and uniqueness of the property. We think that fairness would require and request that the commission allow the petitioner to complete the project, especially where the homeowner relied on information from the building department and not suffer a further financial detriment due to the miscommunications. He referred again to the standards for variance summarizing his belief that the project met each. Mr. Donnelly asked who designed the patio. Mr. Wolf replied that in their packet was a letter from the company, Krugel Cobbles Inc. Mr. Wolf confirmed they had done the drawings. Mr. Donnelly asked if, when the contractor was doing the drawings, had they been advised a variance was needed? Ms. Axley came to the podium and said that when she first applied for the permit, "they told me to draw all the building lines on the survey and she said that part may not be approved, you may need a variance." She continued, "So I said, well let me apply for it and I'll get all the paperwork because she said it takes a long time to get a variance. I thought I'd get a head start in case it didn't go through. So I talked with Judy and she said you're probably going to need a variance, here's the procedure, she gave me all the paperwork. I checked back a week later to see how the permit was coming and I went in and they had approved the whole job. And I asked the lady, I was real excited because I didn't have to go through the variance procedure. I said, does this mean I can proceed on the whole job, and she said yes, just make sure they come out for the two inspections, one at the end and one in the middle and you're good to go. So, I went." Asked by Mr. Donnelly about a drawing they gave her that was marked with a 20 foot setback, Ms. Axley said she put that that on there. Mr. Donnelley asked if this was the case on the notation for the 21 foot driveway width, noting it looked like it was put in by the Village. Ms. Axley said she drew all of that on there when she applied for the permit because she was told to. Mr. Donnelly asked if whoever took the permit drawing to do the design drawing had asked about the notation for the setback and driveway. After clarifying he was referring to her contractor, Ms. Axley and Mr. Wolfe both said, "No." Mr. Donnelley stated he didn't understand, the drawing showed a 6' 1" setback and asked if the first time she found out she was within the 20' setback was when the Inspector came out and said she had a problem. Ms. Axley replied, "No, when I applied for the permit they told me there was a setback line, so I knew when I applied for the permit that the line was, I drew the line on the survey myself." Mr. Donnelly asked when the Contractor drew his drawings: did he know there was a 20' setback requirement and did he advise her she was in the 20' setback of the need for a variance? She stated "No, he didn't advise her of any zoning issues. I told him we might have to hold up a portion of the job to get a variance and then when I got the permit, I didn't think I needed a variance. " Mr. Donnelly said he sees a discrepancy between the fact that she got approval to proceed with a 20' setback and the guy who designed it designed within that 20' setback without telling you; he's got a problem. Mr. Wolfe said that he thinks what Ms. Axley is saying is that when she got the permit, she was instructed, "draw these lines in." She then applied for it and received it back, that was one of the drawings that we showed you. Mr. Donnelley interjected, "which clearly shows that the whole patio should be within the buildable space." Mr. Wolf continued, "Yes, but the Building Department had highlighted the entire whole project as approved, including that portion of the project over the 20' setback line. When Ms. Axley questioned the two women in the Building Department whether a variance was still required, the answer was "no, you can proceed." " Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-32-05 Page 7 Mr. Donnelly asked to see the drawing which showed that the Village had approved it within the 20' setback. Mr. Wolf referred to the approved building permit drawing and Mr. Donnelly replied that drawing clearly showed the need for a 20' setback. Mr. Wolf respectfully disagreed, stating it showed a highlighted portion over the setback line and said the highlighting was done by the Village. Mr. Donnelly stated he didn't see it that way, but o.k. Ms. Axley said that was the problem she has, because they were saying... Commissioner Donnelly interjected, that the guy drawing the plans should have noted the discrepancy as he was actually building stuff within that 20' setback and I'm hearing that he never told you that. Ms. Axley replied, "they didn't discuss the zoning, no." Mr. Youngquist clarified to Ms. Axely, "You indicated you put those numbers on there for a 20' setback?" Ms. Axley and Mr. Wolf replied yes she had, the Building Department had told them to write that on there. Regarding the 21' max on the driveway width, Mr. Youngquist clarified it was Ms. Axley's handwriting as well and she replied yes. He asked how it was that the driveway is now 33' wide. She replied "that it's always been long; it's always been extra wide. But, they were telling me what the restrictions were...." Mr. Youngquist interjected, "but that's not what this site plan shows, it doesn't show a 33' wide curb cut. I can tell just by looking at it, unless the surveyor is .... wacky." Chairman Rogers stated it appeared to him that the curb cut is brand new. Mr. Youngquist stated, "well that's absolutely wrong." Ms. Axley said it was being extended; they took down a huge tree a few years ago and before that the drive.... Mr. Youngquist stated the maximum driveway width on a huge lot is 26', it's 21' on these 50' lots and to have a 33' driveway curb cut out there, it's just not right. Chairman Rogers asked Ms. Connolly to clarify for the Commission on what happened at the Building Department. Ms. Connolly replied that she wasn't there at the Building Department during transactions on this permit; she herself can look at these sheets and see the setback or width is marked. She said that when you submit multiple copies, one's the job copy that needs to be on site for the contractor to follow, one's an inspector copy, and one's a file copy. Chairman Rogers summarized that it was clear that the 20' setback and 21' driveway are part of the permit no matter who colored in with yellow. Mr. Donnelley said they were allowed to build, based upon a 21' driveway and a 20' setback. But, stated, Chairman Rogers, somehow the project was built with a 33'driveway, a 6' side yard instead of the 20' side yard. Putting a drawing of the project on the overhead screen, Mr. Wolf said, that was where they had demonstrated that Bill George and Mr. Cooney had signed off on the expanded project; we call it the 31' driveway. Chairman Rogers responded that without them being here, we don't really know what happened. All we can see is what's on the original copy. Chairman Rogers said the drawing being shown was a sketch; not the permit drawing. Mr. Wolf said, but you can see their signatures here and the words, "yellow area approved for completion, 7/25/05, initialed by William George, with signatures by Mr. George and Mr. Cooney." Ms. Connolly and Mr. Youngquist stated that those signatures were not made by either Bill George or Bill Cooney. Ms. Axley confirmed she had written the names of Mr. George and Mr. Cooney on the drawing. Mr. Wolf apologized and did confirm that it was indeed Mr. George's initials next to the words "approved for completion." The Commissioners turned their attention to the two highlight areas on the drawing, one area being the driveway, and one area being a small piece of patio to the east of the driveway. The Chairman noted that the portion of the patio in yellow was allowed, but it was basically larger than would normally be allowed and the drawing did not have the remainder of the patio (including the firepit) marked "as approved," according to the note. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25,2005 PZ-32-05 Page 8 Mr. Wolf said that's why they're saying that viewed in light of what was approved and what was originally approved, the new patio area was in its logical place. Mr. Rogers stated that one of the problems the Commission had was that if they allowed this on their side yard, the next person will come in and ask for the same. Just the same way they were saying that it had been allowed on the other house and we don't know what happened there but we don't want to get into that situation. He continued, "We don't want to get into a situation where somebody does something that's illegal, and I have to careful here, I know you're an attorney.... We don't want to get into a situation where someone does something that's not correct and we accept that and all of a sudden that becomes the precedent for other requests." Mr. Wolf replied that he thinks they could go back to hardship and topographical issues that he's been addressing: the fact of the topographical slope of the yard from the east and the north, the excavation, the fact that this isn't as described in the staff report a typical comer lot, but there are topographical issues that really restrict what Ms. Axley can do with the property and that makes it more unique than the average comer property. Chairman Rogers said there could also be a raised patio constructed that would eliminate the problem of having to do the excavation and the sewer is normally 3.5 feet below grade so he doesn't see that as becoming a major factor. There are several ways to solve the other problems without creating a precedent in the Village for future side yard variations. Mr. Wolf said he understands and respectfully disagrees because to do the extension that he's suggesting perhaps to the east, within the lines destroys a good portion of what remains of the grassy portion of the yard. He thinks that where you might have to go 3 feet plus or minus in excavation and we hope the sewer is 3 feet deep, you are getting mighty risky as to where that bobcat has to go before it hits the sewer line. If the sewer line is a little bit higher than where it should be, you have a risk involved. He thinks there are some good arguments here to go with the variance without setting a precedent and to go with this plan instead of alternate plans suggested. Chairman Rogers said he didn't know who suggested those plans but if those plans were legal alternatives he thinks the homeowner should explore those alternatives. And again, it could be a raised patio; the patio doesn't have to be dug down into the ground and then the water from next door would fall on that patio. You'd be better off to raise that patio and avoid the water problem altogether, avoid the sewer problem and you wouldn't be setting the precedent we're talking about. Chairman Rogers asked if there were any other questions for the Petitioner. He asked ifthere was anyone else in the audience who wished to address this. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the hearing and brought it back to the Board. Mr. Donnelly had a question for Ms. Connolly asking what would happen under the new fencing code, what would happen if the Petitioner applied for a new fence today, would the fire pit area be outside the fenced area? Ms. Connolly replied yes, she thought so. Mr. Roberts asked, "Did the Village approve or not approve the existing already built portion of the patio that is 7' 1" from the south lotline?" It seems to me that all the Petitioner is seeking is to build a firepit; the column would go only be 6 '1" from the lot line. I'm not an architect, some of these guys are. He sees that if this has been approved already at 7' 1 inch from lotline he doesn't see a bi tissue to go I more foot. She does have special circumstances. He sees this as a transitional neighborhood, this is downtown, it's one block from the downtown, I drive this everyday on my way to the train. There are special circumstances in addition to the topography. Ms. Connolly said she could not locate a permit for the patio in the exterior side yard, and could only find a permit for a 4' service walk only in the exterior side yard; she doesn't see approval for the patio east of the service walk. Mr. Roberts asked how far from the south line the service walk would be. Ms. Connolly replied Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 9 that the service walk was approved to be 4' in width. Chairman Rogers clarified it would be from the public sidewalk, which is allowed. Chairman Rogers said he was concerned because he's seeing a driveway put in well beyond the dimensions specified, a patio put in beyond a walk that was approved, and there appears to be a disregard to building codes unless Bill George or someone else has approved this and we don't see evidence of this tonight. Ms. Connolly said she doesn't have enough information and can only go on the microfilm information for the permit history. Mr. Youngquist said he was disappointment that the permit was approved based on a site plan with a few marks and not a drawing with actual dimensions. The sketch has the Petitioner's own writing with notations for 21-feet, "on it; you don't come up with 21' out of your head, somebody said that was the width - it's an odd dimension. 20' on the setback - it's clearly marked on there as well and those are the only 2 things on that drawing that stand out to me as something realistic and written in stone. This must be 21', this must be a 20' setback. They didn't pay any attention to this; the contractor must have not even looked at that drawing, never questioned it - "I'm not digging until we get this resolved, I'm not cutting this curb until I get answers." Mr. Roberts stated that maybe one answer was to get more facts. It might be to the Petitioner's advantage to withdraw until we know more. He noted he'd read through letters form neighbors and all were very positive. One stood out to him, from Mary Johnson, 215 Emerson Street: "it is very concerning that given that rules are broken for other projects all around us." Mr. Youngquist said he understands what he's saying, but this is residential and it's not a transitional area. Property improvement is fantastic but in this situation it seems somebody turned the other way and said we're going to do what we're going to do and if we get caught, we get caught. I love to see beautiful improvements. Chairman Rogers agreed it was a beautiful home and an attribute to community, but you can't do what you want to do, that's why we have the rules we do have. Mr. Donnelly said that there are alternative solutions. Even though there are construction issues there are no technical issues that would create a hardship. Plus, to build in this area that would later be in front of a fence line; we're trying to open up the yards. Mr. Flores asked where the Building Department was in this, how can this happen 2 blocks away from Village Hall. Ms. Connolly noted the project was stopped when the inspection occurred. In regard to the driveway, she'd have to check on the approved width and would do so first thing tomorrow. Mr. Flores stated he was in agreement with Mr. Roberts and supported the Petitioner; her facts could be described as hardships. He's disturbed by comments and would like further explanation from the Building Department as to how these things can happen and no one is aware of them. He'd like to hear from Cobble Kugles as well. Mr. Donnelly noted that the fence is a non-conforming fence now even though it's been there for years. He said he'd like to hear from Bill George. Mr. Youngquist noted this is a bad situation. He said we get beautiful drawings from people wanting to come in for a variation to put on as' porch and here with a potentially more technically complicated project we're working from no drawings at all. Mr. Donnelly noted that the architectural drawing from the designer they did have wasn't part of the building permit application. It was noted it the Barrington surveyor drawing was provided after the fact. It was determined that Bill George would be asked to come to the next meeting or provide a written response. The Petitioner was asked if she was willing to continue this to the next meeting. Ms. Axley came to the podium and said she'd done everything that was asked of her and nothing was done on the sly: Bill George approved the driveway, he approved all the whole yellow area and everything was done with the Village approval. She didn't know she had to get this variance, she thought with the permit she wouldn't need the variance, that's why the area was excavated. She didn't finish that area, she's there asking for the variance now. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 25, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 10 Chairman Rogers suggested the item be tabled until they got more facts because he feared that she might not get the variance. He asked that someone from the Permit Department attend the meeting and provide facts. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to table the case until September 22, 2005; the motion was seconded by Mr. Roberts. The motion was approved 5-0 at 9:01 PM. Chairman Rogers stated, "So this was tabled, she will lose a month's time; it will be brought up under old business at the next meeting, September 22. It remains Village Board final." After hearing discussing 2 more items and the topic of Circular Driveways, Joseph Donnelley made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary lnternet Files\OLK2\PZ-32-05 90 E. Milburn - V AR - Ext Side yard (JMC version).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-34-05 Hearing Date: August 25,2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 312 Hatlen Avenue PETITIONER Leslow Hakalo, KPOL, Inc. 312 Hatlen Ave, Mount Prospect, IL 60056 OWNER: Leslow Hakalo PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 2005 PIN#: 08-10-217-018-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Front Yard Setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Artur Kaczmarek (4211 N. Keystone, Chicago, IL 60641) Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 9: 15 p.m. Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-34-05, a request for a Variation for a Front Yard Setback at 312 Hatlen Avenue. He said that this case would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. Ms. Connolly said that the Subject Property is located on the south side of Hatlen A venue, between Busse Road and Michael Street, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the Rl District. The Subject Property has an irregular shape and there is a 5' storm water easement in a portion of the interior side yard. Ms. Connolly explained that the Petitioner's exhibits illustrate the proposed improvements to the existing home, which include demolishing the existing detached garage, adding a second-story addition, modifying the first floor, and constructing an attached 2-car garage. She said that the front setback of the house complies with the required 30-foot setback, but a portion of the attached garage would encroach approximately 3'7" into the front yard. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25,2005 PZ-34-05 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that in an effort to arrive at a design that meets Village regulations, the Petitioner's architect met with Village Staff several times prior to applying for a Variation. The initial designs called for the garage to encroach into the side yard. However, that design was abandoned when it was learned the garage would encroach into the side yard and storm water easement. The architect explored relocating the garage, 'pushing' it further back, but then the garage would still be in the side yard and close to the easement. The architect and Petitioner had concerns about providing sufficient access to the storm sewer, which is necessitating the need for the 5' storm sewer easement, should the area need to be excavated. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a portion of the attached garage to encroach into the front yard, instead of the side yard, to allow adequate access to the storm sewer. Ms. Connolly reported that the existing home complies with the Village's zoning regulations, but the existing detached garage encroaches into the required 5' side yard setback. The Petitioner proposes to demolish the detached garage and replace it with an attached 2-car garage. The proposed garage requires relief from the Rl District's bulk regulations for the front setback. However, the proposed addition to the house and site improvements meet the Village's zoning regulations. The proposed improvements would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. The project would meet all setback and lot coverage requirements. Ms. Connolly reported that the standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner has explored different designs for the garage, but the triangular shape of the Subject Property and 5' storm water easement limits their options. The size of the proposed encroachment has been minimized from previous design proposals and the request meets the standards for a Variation because of unusual circumstances, specifically the triangular shape of the Subject Property and the 5' storm water easement in the side yard. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner's request to construct an attached garage in a portion of the front yard meets the Variation standards because the triangular shape of the Subject Property and 5' storm water easement in the side yard creates a hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a motion to approve a Variation to allow a portion of an attached garage to encroach into the front yard, as shown on Petitioner's Site Plan, for the residence at 312 Hatlen Ave., Case No. PZ-34-05. She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation is less than 25% of the zoning requirement for the setback. Leslow Hakalo, 312 Hatlen, Mount Prospect, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Hakalo asked his architect Artur Kaczmarek to explain the request. Mr. Kaczmarek, 4211 Keystone, Chicago, IL, was sworn in. Mr. Kaczmarek stated that the main objective of the project was to renovate the existing house and add a second story. After studying the site plan and existing conditions, he said that he noticed that there was a 5 foot storm water easement located at the side of the house that would make it difficult to build an attached two car garage. Therefore the Petitioner would like to build a garage that would encroach on the front yard setback and is asking for a Variation. Mr. Rogers said that the drawings submitted called for stucco for the addition and asked the architect to confirm that dryvit would not be used. Mr. Kaczmarek said that he spoke with Ms. Connolly about the building materials already and was informed that the Village's Building Code does not allow for the use of dryvit. Mr. Rogers asked whether the existing trees would be affected by the construction. Mr. Kaczmarek said that no trees would be affected by the construction and that the driveway would be expanded to the maximum 20 feet allowed from its existing 15' width and would leave the existing curb untouched. Mr. Rogers asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Commission. As there were no comments or questions, he closed the Public Hearing. Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25,2005 PZ-34-05 Page 3 Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a portion of an attached garage to encroach into the front yard, as shown on Petitioner's Site Plan, for the residence at 312 Hatlen Ave., Case No. PZ-34-05; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floras, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing one more case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Jason R. Zawila, Long Range Planner C:\DocumCIllS and SCllings\kdcwis\Local Scttillgs\Tcmporary Intcmcl Filcs\OLK2\PZ-34-05 312 Hallen VAR Front Yard.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-35-05 Hearing Date: August 25,2005 PETITIONERS: V illage of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: August 10,2005 REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Sign Code - Electronic Message Centers MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Tom Reindl, 600 Business Center Drive, MP (Northwest Electric) Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 9:24 PM Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-35-05 a review of text amendments to the Village's Sign Code for Electronic Message Centers. He said that this case would be Village Board Final. Mr. Rogers inquired whether the Commission wanted to vote on the proposed text amendment at this meeting or if they preferred to just discuss the proposed changes. The P&Z decided to discuss the changes and have Staff modify the proposed text amendments based on this evening's discussion. The changes would be brought back to the Commission at the September 22, 2005 meeting and would be voted on at that time. Joseph Donnelly said the Commission had been requiring a 15 second display time for electronic message board signs, and asked why the text amendment called for a five (5) second display. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, explained that research indicated that a 15 second display was not appropriate for all uses as the entire message may not be able to be read due to the lengthy display time. She said that since the electronic message centers required Special Use approval, the Commission could require a longer display time if they determined five (5) seconds was too short for a specific location. Mr. Donnelly inquired about a two (2) minute display interval for CVS signs and said he preferred a 15 second display time. Mr. Rogers said the Commission should review the requests on a case by case basis, and that he wanted a 15 second display. He said a shorter display time could be approved if it was deemed appropriate. He described the Northwest Electric sign and noted how its multiple colors make it difficult to look at and drive. He said that the Frankie's sign was too distracting. Mr. Rogers stated that the text amendments should require a more static message and have less scrolling text. He said it is distracting when the text appears from various directions and that he prefers uniformity when displaying text because it minimizes distractions. Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25, 2005 Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-35-05 Page 2 Mr. Donnelly said that it is difficult to read scrolling messages at higher traffic speed and that only static messages are legible. Leo Floros said that he disagreed and that it was not the government's responsibility to regulate signs so closely. He noted that too much regulation limits businesses ability to advertise their products. He said that the business suffers when the sign is not legible and that most businesses use signs as a means of improving their business. Mr. Rogers said that regulations are necessary because the signs can distract drivers. Mr. Floros said that most drivers will focus more on the road and their driving than the sign. The Commission discussed to what extent signs can and should be regulated. Keith Youngquist said that 15 seconds is too long to display a message because the entire message cannot be read at one time. Ronald Roberts said that one line of text should have different regulations than a multi-line message. He said he prefers the Sign Code adopt a more conservative approach to sign regulations. Mr. Youngquist stated that electronic message centers are becoming more prevalent. The Commission discussed whether a 600' separation between electronic message centers was sufficient. Tom Reindl, 600 Business Center Drive, was sworn-in. He said that his sign has an electronic message center and it has been in use for almost three (3) years. He said it has been a beneficial tool in promoting products and attracting customers. He summarized how electronic message centers are used differently by chain stores than by independent stores. He described how the timing interval helps 'punctuate' messages and said that you may loose information when the interval is too long. He said it has been his experience that people respond differently to the timing of the signs and that he prefers a three (3) second interval. He noted that a 15 second display would not be appropriate for their use.There was discussion on landscaping and how trees can block signs. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, raised the issue of how the 600' separation can limit competition and create advantages for businesses with the electronic message centers. She asked whether the Commission wanted the text amendment to include provisions that addressed lot width. There was further discussion on spacing between signs and the length of time the text should be displayed. The Commission made the following modifications to the proposed text amendment as outlined in the Staff Report: Sec. 7.330.A.l: Continue to require a 600' separation between electronic message centers; the Commission will review Variation requests for signs located closer than 600' from another electronic message center; Sec. 7.330.A.2: Eliminate the requirement to display time and temperature; Sec. 7.330.A.3: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.4: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.5: Per the 3-2 vote, the Commission is requiring a 15 second display time with the stipulation that a shorter display time may be approved on a case-by-case basis. Also, the electronic message center text has to be a uniform color, the text cannot scroll, and the text has to appear on the message center in a uniform manner, i.e. cannot explode onto screen from various locations. Sec. 7.330.A.6: No changes from text listed in Staff Report; Sec. 7.330.A.7: Create regulations that require gasoline price signs to be static, that the signs have intensity and color regulations. Planning & Zoning Commission meeting August 25, 2005 Richard Rogers, Acting Chair PZ-35-05 Page 3 Joseph Donnelly made a motion to continue the case until the September 22, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting when the Commission will review the modifications to the Staff Report; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, and Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After discussing circular driveways, Joseph Donnelley made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judith M. Connolly, AICP Senior Planner C:\Docllmeuls and Scttings\k.dcwis\Local Scuings\Tcmporary Intcmct Filcs\OLK2\PZ-35-05 text amrodmcnt " clcc mess bd.doc MINUTES OF THE AUGUST 25, 2005 PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION DISCUSSION ON CIRCULAR DRIVEWAYS TOPIC: Circular Driveways MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Acting Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Ronald Roberts Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Marlys Haaland STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development Acting Chair Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the minutes of the July 28, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 3-0 with Leo Floros and Keith Youngquist abstaining from the vote. At 9:24 p.m. Mr. Rogers introduced the topic of Circular Driveways. Discussion that evening would allow the Commission to discuss this topic without an actual case being before them. The Village Board will discuss the topic at a Committee of the Whole Meeting in September and would appreciate understanding the Planning and Zoning Commissioners' thoughts on the topic. Chairman Rogers noted that his comments on circular driveways had not been included in the Commissioners' packet; Ms. Connolly confirmed they would be included in the Village Board packet. Chairman Rogers said he would like to see a workshop that would help establish guidelines for situations where a circular driveway may be approved. Joseph Donnelly stated that he had concerns that circular driveways had been approved based on the premise that the driveway resolved a traffic conflict on or near major roads. He said he noticed that some circular driveways were used only to park cars on and that people still backed out of the driveway. He stated that the reason the Village Board granted Conditional Use approval was to provide an alternative to backing out of the driveway and allow for a safer entry onto a busy street. He said that it is difficult to enforce how people use their driveways and cited an example in his neighborhood where he counted 11 vehicles parked in the driveway. Chairman Rogers stated that he thinks a drawback to allowing circular driveways is that the driveway may come to serve as a parking lot. He added that circular driveways pave a significant portion of the front yard and that installing landscaping in a manner that minimizes the impact of the driveway should be required as part of the Conditional Use approval permit. Mr. Rogers said that landscaping would minimize the effect of a parking lot in the front yard and if the Village decides to approve circular driveways, then the driveways should be done in aesthetically pleasing manner. Ronald Roberts said that the materials the driveway is constructed of affects the impact the driveway has on the property. He said that requiring decorative materials would improve the aesthetics of the driveway. He suggested requiring the owner to use brick pavers or stamped concrete, but not allowing shiny concrete, for the driveway. He asked that a landscape plan be required as part of the review process. Also, he said that they have discussed the lot coverage policy of no more than 35% of the front yard being covered. He said that 35% of paving may be appropriate for lots in the RX district, but the lot coverage should be proportionate to the size of the front yard. Mr. Roberts said that lot coverage should be considered when approving the driveways because drainage may impact neighborhoods differently and may be more important in some areas of the Village. Planning & Zoning Commission August 25th Workshop Page 2 Mr. Donnelly noted that the request for circular driveways may be based on the belief that the driveways make an impressive front yard. He said that part of this curb appeal, however, is that several cars are not parked in front and that the landscaping is visible. He added that enforcing a ban on overnight parking on the circular portion of the driveway would be problematic. Mr. Donnelly also stated that several requests for circular driveways have been for new construction homes and that designing the house differently would have eliminated the need for a circular driveway. He said that some of the requests were made because the owner did not want to push the house back or the driveway was located on the 'wrong' side of the lot, right next to the main road. He said that he would prefer the owners appear before the P&Z Commission with their proposed design, when the house is still being designed, and before a foundation is poured. Mr. Roberts asked whether the Village can limit the number of vehicles allowed to park in the driveway. He said that too many vehicles are an eye sore. There was discussion about other vehicles permitted to park in driveways; it was clarified that recreational vehicles and campers are permitted to be parked on an approved surface, as described in the Village's Development Code. Mr. Youngquist noted the parking recreational vehicles, pop up campers, boats, cars being worked on, and multiple cars are situations that already exist throughout the Village and that the restrictions are the same with, or without, a circular drive. He said that people may want circular drives because of an aesthetic issue. He stated that the Commission can discuss the safety issue further, but considering the larger style homes currently being built, it is reasonable to believe circular driveways are wanted for aesthetic reasons. He said that on 100' or 150' wide lots that have a 100' or 80-90' wide home, homeowners may want a circular drive so guests can enter through the front door instead of the through the side loaded garage that is typically built on such homes. He said that circular driveways made sense and were a reasonable request for situations such as this. He noted that since overnight street parking is prohibited in Mount Prospect, people may look to the circular driveway as a way to resolve a parking conflict. He said that from an enforcement perspective, the Village has the authority to write the rules and ban parking on the circular driveway, but the restriction would most likely only be enforced on a complaint basis. Chairman Rogers and Leo Flores expressed concern that the rights of those in large homes on large lots be balanced with the rights of those on smaller lots. They posed the question of "How do you legislate a compromise?" The Commissioners agreed that lot coverage and lot width are important factors to consider when reviewing a request for a circular driveway. The Commissioners discussed whether a 70' or 80' lot width should be the minimum lot size to consider for a circular driveway request. Mr. Y ounquist remarked that the Commission and V illage Board went through this process with sheds and that the maximum size of a shed relates to the size of the property. He said that in the RX district, technically a 200 square foot shed is permitted. He said he hopes circular driveways have a similar equitable solution. Mr. Donnelly remarked he has seen circular driveways used for RV parking and not used for auto circulation. The cars are on the original part of the driveway, and the homeowner never has to move the RV. He asked whether the Village should put restrictions on the circular portion of the driveway. Judy Connolly summarized the Commissioners' concerns and thoughts on circular driveways: 1. Circular Drives should continue to require Conditional Use approval; 2. Lot width of the Frontage should be considered 3. Landscaping should be required 4. Decorative materials should be used for the driveways 5. There are still questions on enforcement such as whether to restrict overnight parking or the number of vehicles Planning & Zoning Commission August 25th Workshop Page 3 Mr. Donnelly remarked that circular driveways are not an issue when the entire circle is located behind the required setback, in the buildable area. He cited a home on Busse Road as an example of a circular driveway that met this criteria. He stated that he has an issue with new construction houses that locate the home at the front setback and then request the circular driveway in the front yard when they have the ability to locate the house further back and construct most of the circular portion of the driveway behind the required front setback. Mr. Youngquist noted that circular driveways are more in scale on the larger lots where the homes can be set further back. He added that including landscaping is critical. He said that he is not so concerned about overnight parking on the driveway because the driveway is usually vacant during the day, when it is most visible. Ms. Connolly reminded the Commission that this topic will come up at a forthcoming Committee of the Whole meeting. She said she will advise the Commission of the date when it is scheduled. Mr. Donnelley made a motion to adjourn at 10:40 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director C:\Documcnts and Scuings\kdcwis\Local Scnillgs\Tcmporary Inlcnlcl Filcs\OLK2\DiscussioIlIllIIlUICS Aug 25 05 Circular Drivcs.doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, September 22, 2005 7:00pm Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson 3rd Floor Executive Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - July 28,2005 III a) Discussion regarding Village Board and Finance Commission Joint Budget Workshop Meeting. b) Discussion of Revenue Enhancements IV Chairman's Report V Finance Director's Report VI Other Business VII Next Meeting: October 13, 2005 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 JULY 28, 2005 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 :02 p.m. Those present included Acting Chairman Vince Grochocinski and Commissioners John Kellerhals, Rich Micelli, Ann Smilanic and Tom Pekras. Also present were Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer, Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper and resident Wayne Gardner. Chairman Charles Bennett, Commissioner Lee Williams and Director of Finance David Erb were absent. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to approve the minutes of June 30,2005 as corrected. Commissioner John Kellerhals seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as corrected. In the minutes of June 30, 2005, Commissioner Kellerhals stated his support in charging a fee to residents for ambulance services if the resident was billed to the extent that insurance or Medicare will pay and that the village would consider that payment as payment in full. Commissioner Kellerhals added that the minutes should have reflected that other members present that night agreed with the statement. After a brief discussion all members present tonight stated that they agree with and support the comments made by Commissioner Kellerhals on June 30th. Acting Chairman Vince Grochocinski mentioned that at the next meeting the Commissioner would need to select a Vice Chairman. III. REVIEW OF .ANNUAL AUDIT Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer presented the Commission members with their copies of the Village's 2004 Annual Audit. Ms. Widmer stated the village received an unqualified opinion and the audit was found to be in compliance with generally accepted accounting practices. The audit met all guidelines and criteria with no major problems noted. Ms. Widmer also stated the audit would be submitted to the Illinois Government Finance Officers Association for approval. Ms. Widmer stated the Village's Single Audit and the TIP Audit also received unqualified opinions. Ms. Widmer also mentioned that the Management Letter addressed two items specifically. The first item pertains to the village establishing an audit committee to review the auditors on a four year basis, which will help in uncovering fraudulent activities. The second item in the letter addressed the practice of marking investments at year end. Commissioner John Kellerhals asked how extensive the audit is for the TIP. Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer stated that the audit was brief. Commissioner John Kellerhals then asked ifhe could have a copy of the TIP Audit. Commissioner Rich Micelli asked if the village had an internal auditor on staff. Ms. Widmer stated that the village does not. DISCUSSION OF REVENUE ENHANCEMENTS PRESENTED TO THE VILLAGE BOARD Commissioner Ann Smilanic began a discussion on the combine sewer project by outlining some ideas of how to raise money for the projects. Commissioner Smilanic proposed adding a service fee and increasing sewer rates to avoid issuing any bonds to cover the projects. Acting Chairman Vince Grochocinski stated it was his understanding that the village would like to increase water and sewer rates to be able to at least cover costs. There was a brief discussion regarding Chairman Bennett's revenue enhancement presentation to the Board. The members agreed Chairman Bennett did a very good job at presenting the recommendations made by the Finance Commission members. N. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT There was nothing to report. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT There was nothing to report. VI. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner John Kellerhals asked what the commission's role was in looking at or analyzing the monthly Budget Revenue and Expenditure Summary report provided to them. Ms. Widmer stated the information is provided to each member monthly and is for information purposes only. VII. Next Meeting: September 22.2005 There was a discussion regarding canceling the next meeting scheduled for August 25,2005. Commissioner Rich Micelli motioned to cancel the meeting scheduled for August 25, 2005, however they would give Chairman Bennett the right to reinstate the meeting if necessary. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Tom Pekras and the motion carried. Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to adjourn which Commissioner John Kellerhals seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 7:48 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for September 22,2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2 MAVOR lr\'ana K. Wilks Phone: (847) 392-6000 Fax: (847) 392-6022 TDD: (847) 392-6064 I'v1otlnt Prospc<.:t TRUSTEES Timothy.l. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. .lohn Korn Richard M. Lohrslorfer Michaele W Skowron Michael A. Zade! VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. .lanonis VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 SPECIAL MEETING VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPCT BOARD OF TRUSTEES STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKSHOP Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall, Community Room 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Meeting Date and Time: Monday September 19, 2005 5:00 P.M. The Mount Prospect Village Board will hold a Strategic Planning Workshop.