Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOW Agenda Packet 10/25/2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Village Board Room, Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Irvana K. Wilks Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee John Korn Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2005 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. 2006 BUDGET DISCUSSION Opening Remarks - Irvana K. Wilks, Mayor Budget Overview - Michael Janonis, Village Manager Community Development Department - William Cooney Human Services Department - Nancy Morgan, Human Services Director Public Works Department - Glen Andler, Director Finance Commission Comments V. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT Closed Session Property Acquisition 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body." ***For those wishing to call in with questions or comments during the Budget Hearing, please dial 1/847/870-5689.*** NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTlCIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TOD #847/392-6064. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE OCTOBER 11, 2005 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, John Korn, Michaele Skowron and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Village Attorney Everette Hill and Attorney Kathy Henn from Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from September 27, 2005. A Motion was made by Trustee Korn and Seconded by Trustee Corcoran to approve the Minutes. A revision was requested on page five regarding the title of the India Engineering Center. The Minutes were approved with the revision. Trustee Zadel abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. CONSIDER CREATION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION PROGRAM Village Attorney Hill stated this item is being brought forward for consideration due to the continuous delays that occur through utilizing the Cook County Court system. He stated these continuances have impacted the staff and its ability to effectuate compliance in a reasonable timeframe. He stated the Village, through its Home Rule powers, has the opportunity to create an alternative due process venue for disposition of Housing Court issues, nuisance abatement issues, property maintenance issues and local Ordinance violations. He stated the process is already in place in Park Ridge and they are seeing very positive results. Attorney Kathy Henn spoke. She stated the Park Ridge system has been in place since March of 2005 and they started with a smaller call in terms of the types of cases that are brought forward and are in the process of considering further additions. She stated there are two separate calls on one day with the housing cases on one call and the other violations heard on the second call. She stated fines are typically higher through this process because Courts have been reluctant to issue fines in the past. She stated the success of fines relies on getting the maximum fine and then offering a reduction in the fine once compliance is obtained while the Court system typically does not actually fine the offender until extensive continuations and possible compliance. She stated this system allows for a maximum continuance period of only 60 days, thereby, putting less of a burden on staff fpr re-inspections. 1 She stated the adjudicator in Park Ridge is paid approximately $150 an hour and works three to four hours per month with all paperwork necessary for the process being handled internally by Park Ridge staff. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a discussion regarding the tickets and how the tickets are required to be in proper format. It was also discussed there may still be collection issues but there are opportunities to place judgments against properties and may still need to go to Court for ultimate compliance. However, such a Court proceeding is just a review of the record and not a complete appeal of the actual event. Consensus of the Village Board was to move forward with this system and suggest a minimal number of items be considered for the call and determine success with reports back to the Village Board. Staff anticipates getting the final details worked out for the process to the Village Board prior to December 31, 2005. V. REVIEW OF APPENDIX A OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE Village Attorney Everette Hill stated this Ordinance consolidates all fines and fees in a central location for better tracking and corrected several Code mistakes where items had been duplicated or not addressed clearly within the body of the Code. He stated there are no substantial changes to the language and only minor codifications to some of the fines. The Village Board reviewed the Chapters individually during discussion and it was suggested that the connection fee be modified from $412.50 to $425. Consensus of the Village Board was to proceed with this Ordinance for consideration at the October 18 Village Board meeting. VI. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that October 16 will be the last Farmers' Market for the season. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to discuss, the Committee of the Whole adjourned at 8:10 p.m. 2 CLOSED SESSION . n was cancelled. The Closed Sesslo ~ s:--zfw 10 STRAHL r OA V. V'lIage Manage Assistant I 3 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn 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 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday October 27, 2005 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2005 P&Z MEETING · PZ-32-05 / 90 E. Milburn Ave. / Axley Residence / Variation · PZ-35-05 / Village of Mount Prospect / Text Amendment - Electronic Message Board · PZ-33-05 / 900 Business Center Drive / International Gymnastics. · PZ-36-05 / 999 N. Elmhurst Road (Randhurst - Bed, Bath & Beyond) / Sign Variation III. OLD BUSINESS None IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-39-05 / 222 S. Edward Street / Variation (Unenclosed Porch). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-32-05 /90 E. Milburn Ave. - first reading October 18th; second and final reading is November 1 st. · PZ-35-05 / Village of Mount Prospect / Text Amendment - Village Board approved October 18th with modifications: maintain 2 second display time, scrolling text is permitted. · PZ-33-05 / 900 Business Center Drive / International Gymnastics - Village Board waived second reading and approved October 4th. 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. -"""="",,,,,"''''-''''.=''cr,,=,:,,.,.,"==,,,,,,,,,,~=~~,~,,,,,=,,,.,,,"-'P'''''='~~,~~~____ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-32-05 Hearing Date: September 22, 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 & Driveway) MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning Intern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Bill Cooney, AICP, Director, Community Development Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Stuart Wolf, Ronald Nelson Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the August 25,2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5- 0; Marlys Haaland and Chairperson Juracek abstained from the vote. At 8:00 pm, Chair Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-32-05, a request for Variations to allow a patio to encroach 14' into the required exterior side yard and to allow a 33' wide driveway. She said that the case was heard at the August 25, 2005 meeting, but was tabled because the Commission asked for additional information. A motion was made by Richard Rogers to place this case back for discussion, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved 7-0. Chairman Juracek said that the Village Board's decision was final for these requests. Bill Cooney, Director of Community Development, stated that he was at the meeting to provide more background information. It is clear there was miscommunication or misunderstanding over this permit at 2 key points. The initial false start was when the Petitioner came in, met with Staff, and was advised that a Variation was needed for the both the patio in the side yard and for the width of the driveway, if she wanted to proceed as proposed. The Petitioner submitted the permit drawings for the overall project to the Building Division and they were routed to the other divisions for review. The permit was issued with the notations the Commission has seen for 21' on the driveway width and a 20' setback for the patio. There was an understanding by Staff that the permit was being issued, as notated on the plan that was part of the file. In discussing with Ms. Axley, she walked away from the issuance of the permit believing the project was approved as submitted and that what was submitted could be built. That was the first false start. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 2 When the Building Inspector went out and reviewed the site, he saw the work being installed didn't meet the approved permit. Then Ms. Axley came in and met with Building Commissioner Bill George and from that meeting there was the highlighted exhibit shown at the last meeting. Mr. George has indicated that at the meeting with Ms. Axley his intent was to see what could be done at that point to get the project moving without the Variation so that she could at least get moving on a portion of the project. Bill George indicated that the drawing he wrote on during that meeting was not part of the permit file, did not have dimensions, and was considered by him to be a design conception. He highlighted the driveway, the patio area behind the house that was set back 20', and the sidewalk connecting the two areas. Again the misunderstanding was Bill's belief that what he was doing was agreeing that these portions of the project could be done within code, going back to the permit drawing that was approved with the notation for 21' driveway and 20' setback for the patio. Ms. Axley took the drawing and went back and probably showed the contractor, and it was installed. Unfortunately, what is shown here in this drawing, if scaled out, is what exists today; the dimension of the driveway apron is approximately 33', the driveway itself at its widest point is 28-29'. In hindsight, from an administrative standpoint, the Petitioner went through this process in good faith, not in any back-handed manner, or on the sly. She did apply for a permit, she did call for her inspections, she did meet with Staff throughout the whole process, and she really did try to comply with the Village Code. We have reviewed this situation internally to determine how we can improve our process. Discussions have identified that in the future we should not be approving any plans that aren't drawn to scale or that are hand drawn without accurate dimensions because that's where the beginning of the problem started. Second, we need to cross out any areas that wouldn't meet Village Code regulations. Even though we wrote dimensions on the drawing, we should cross out areas that are not approved. And, finally in regards to the drawing from Mr. George, which I saw for the first time last month, we should not be approving or writing on plans that are not part of the permit file. Mr. George indicated that he did it in an attempt to help the Petitioner, but again, we should not be writing on plans that are not part of the permit file. Again, I wanted to come explain in greater detail to the Commission, that things were done in good faith on both sides, and I ask that you consider this Variation request based on the facts of the property. Comm. Rogers clarified this was an honest mistake in the process. Comm. Donnelley asked who typically takes out a permit, the contractor or the homeowner. Mr. Cooney indicated there is no "normal," that some contractors want the homeowners to get the permit while others will handle the permit themselves. Comm. Roberts asked if the Staff visits every property prior to issuing a permit, which might help avoid these types of problems. Mr. Cooney stated that this only occurs if there are questions up front about compliance. Chairman Juracek asked if the fence could be rebuilt in the future without a variance and if the firepit would be inside a permitted fence. The answer is no, the fence there now would not be allowed without a variation. The yard is unique in that the front yard as defined by Village Code, is acting as the rear yard and the home is set back 71'. On comer lots the fence must be in line with the building in the front yard. Typically on a comer lot, the home is flush with other homes on the street (Emerson in this case), but here the home is set back. Comm. Donnelly asked why the home has a Milburn address and not an Emerson address. The home is approximately 20-30 years old. The Zoning Ordinance defines front yard as the narrowest side of lot and addressing tends to follow that convention as well. If this were subdivided today, the address would be Emerson, but it was built with a Milburn address. The front yard setback is 70'; though required setback is 30'. This home could be added onto an additional 40 feet to the east if all other codes were met. Chairman Juracek noted as an aside that she had visited several homes in the general area of this home. She felt the 123 S. Elmhurst property was particularly attractive. In the future the Village may want to consider allowing ""'"<"""":'!,",:',-:",~:>'":m=''''''''''':'''''~='=~=;==''F""",-;r""",T"'-;===""''''===''''==.''''',-''::,~~,""--''"""==';O''',,,,,'fM~'""'',,,,,,==,,,,,~=~_,____~______~___._ Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 3 patios in exterior side yards as a Special Use because of the open feel it lends to a neighborhood - which she observes is better than a solid wood fence. She noted this for future consideration as a means to preserve the character of neighborhoods. Comm. Rogers noted that this would be a tough thing to enforce without an appearance review of those requests. As there were no more questions from the Commission, Chairman Juracek asked if the Petitioner had anything to add to the record. Stuart Wolf, 3345 N. Arlington Heights Road, said he was appearing as the Petitioner's attorney. He wanted to point out that the original drawing included highlighting south of the boundary line. Additionally when work was stopped in July and Ms. Axley met with the Building Commissioner there were no measurements made as to the width of the driveway. If necessary, Mr. Nelson, who was with the Petitioner at several of the meetings is here this evening and available for questions. The Petitioner had only completed the work highlighted by the Building Department which included the entire driveway; he noted the driveway being replaced was 26' not 21'. He believes there are many unique features of this property which support the variance request. The Petitioner would run the risk of drainage problems and hitting a sewer line were she to move the patio. He noted she has expended sizable dollars on this project. If there had been just one mistake that would be her problem to deal with but with the multiplicity of mistakes she shouldn't be required to remove work already done. He believes that all factors required for a variance have been met and it has been established that there was no flagrant disregard for Village Code. He doesn't believe a precedent will be set. All of the neighbors affected by the project support it. He summarized that the uniqueness of the property, the hardship to the Petitioner, meeting Village Code requirements, meeting with Village Staff, the good faith effort to meet the code, along with the enhancement to the property all support the request. Chairman Juracek asked if he was able to give testimony for the Petitioner. He said no, he was making a statement as her Attorney but Ronald Nelson would. Mr. Nelson, of 200 N. Arlington Heights Road was sworn in, stating he was a close personal friend of Ms. Axley and had participated in several of the meetings. Comm. Donnelly asked Mr. Nelson if he thought Building Commissioner Bill George knew the dimensions of the drawing he had signed was 31'; Mr. Nelson said yes, it was his impression Bill George did know dimensions and there was discussion on the flare of the driveway to match the driveway width north of the sidewalk. The driveway above the sidewalk and the service walk north of the sidewalk was a replacement of existing; the garage is 27-29' wide. The apron was widened; it is Mr. Nelson's opinion that this was clearly known. Chairman Juracek clarified if the Commission should be discussing the driveway as public notice for the case had been for the patio section. Mr. Cooney replied that Village Attorney Buzz Hill had been consulted that he advised that the Commission could take action on both variations as notice had been given to surrounding property owners that variations were being sought. Comm. Roberts said he feels the Petitioner should be able to complete her project. The Commission asked Sr. Planner Judy Connolly if she was aware of the dimensions of the driveway at the meeting when Mr. George signed the drawing. She replied that she came in at the end of the meeting and does not recall dimensions being discussed when she was present. There being no further questions for the Petitioner or comment from the audience, at 8:31 the hearing was closed. Comm. Roberts stated he sees this as a transitional neighborhood; the privacy is there; the neighbors are for it; it's an attractive home; he supports the project. Comm. Rogers said he was opposed based on the fact that the work is in side yard and this is an extra wide driveway that is not allowed for others. He understands the Village's complicity in this item but this isn't a project he'd normally vote for. Comm. Donnelly said that at 6' off the sidewalk the firepit is built in an area that wouldn't be fenced if the fence is replaced; he has a concern for people walking down the street. He does believe there's an economic hardship on Milburn with the amount of cut through traffic the street sees so he can support the variance for the driveway but not for the patio area. Arlene Juracek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-32-05 Page 4 Comm. Flores says we need to look beyond the miscommunication and consider the facts of the lot in question. He thinks this is a good development which will benefit the property and the area and he has no problem supporting. Comm. Haaland said the neighbors are comfortable with the project, the fence and hedge are in place, the Petitioner acted in good faith and she can support. Comm. Youngquist said the Petitioner acted in good faith; regarding the apron, there was an existing tree there and he can understand the expansion of the driveway. He has less issue with the firepit as it will always be protected from view. This is unfortunate that the project is being discussed after construction has begun and the Petitioner needs to finish it as conceived and developed so far. Replacement of the fence was discussed and Mr. Cooney confirmed that if more than 50% of the fence was to be replaced at one time a Variation would be needed, but maintenance on smaller sections is allowed. The fence is a legal non-conforming use and there was a permit for the original fence. Chairman Juracek summarized that the Commission had learned that the driveway north of the sidewalk was a legal nonconforming use that could be replaced in kind, which makes it an unusual situation. The apron was symmetrical with the area to the north. Having lived on Emerson she understand the traffic in the area and to move the patio to the northeast would put it higher and closer to traffic, resulting in less privacy. She is comfortable with the proposal. A motion was made by Richard Rogers and seconded by Keith Youngquist to approve a Variation to allow a 6' exterior side yard for the proposed patio and a 33' wide driveway at the curb cut, as shown on the Petitioner's exhibits, for the residence at 90 E. Milburn Ave., Case No. PZ-32-05. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Roberts, Youngquist, Haaland, Juracek, NAYS: Rogers, Donnelly The motion was approved 5-2. The case will go before the Village Board on October 18,2005. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:00 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director C:\Documcllts and SCltiogs\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK2\PZ-32-05 90 E. Milburn - V AR - Ext Side yard (Sept Mcctillg).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-35-05 Hearing Date: September 22, 2005 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: August 10, 2005 REQUEST: Text Amendment to the Sign Code - Electronic Message Centers MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning Intern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Bill Cooney, AICP, Director, Community Development Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Minerya Armando Celaya Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the August 25,2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5- 0; Marlys Haaland and Chairperson Juracek abstained from the vote. After hearing three cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-35-05, text amendments to the Village's Sign Code for Electronic Message Centers. She said that the Village Board's decision was final for the request. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that as discussed at the August P&Z Meeting, recent technology improvements make electronic message center signs affordable and more durable than changeable copy signs. Consequently, the Village has experienced an increase in the number of Special Use applications for electronic message centers and anticipates receiving more requests in the future. Therefore, the proposed amendments to the Sign Code are intended to provide regulations that ensure the character of the Village is not adversely impacted by future electronic message centers, yet reflect changes in the sign industry. She said that Staff revised the text amendments to reflect discussion from the August P&Z meeting. However, Ronald Roberts had some suggestions and would like them included. Ms. Connolly presented changes to the proposed Text Amendment and incorporated Mr. Roberts' comments. The Commission discussed allowing graphics on the electronic message sign boards. It was decided that animated graphics were not allowed, but logos were permitted to be displayed. The text amendments were modified to read: Arlene Jurcek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-35-05 Page 2 A. Electronic Message Centers: 1. The electronic message center shall serve the public convenience at that location and shall be located no closer than six hundred feet (600') to another such device directed to the same street. 2. The sign message is not required to shall periodically include public service information such as time, temperature, date, weather, traffic conditions or other messages of interest to the traveling public, but such information may he displaved at the owner's discretion. 3. The electronic message center shall be designed and located such that the entire sign message will be legible to the motorists viewing the sign; the Planning & Zoning Commission mav require th(~ size of the sign face and amount of text to be modified to ensure the information is legible. In addition, the sign must he constructed from non-reflective materials and illuminated in a manner that does not create a glare. 4. The size of the sign must be approved bv the Planning & Zoning Commission and the sign structure shall othenvise conform to all applicable regulations as specified in this Chapter. 5. The sign message shall not consist of flashing, scintillating, chasing or animated lights or include animated I)ictorial graphics; the text shall be a uniform color and it cannot scroll unless specifically approved bv the Planning & Zoning Commission. The sign shall not change more frequently than once every tv/o (2) seconds fifteen (15) seconds. text shall appear in a uniform manner and be displaved subject to the sign's location and it shaH be displayed in a uniform manner. A shorter display time may be approved by the Planning & Zoning Commission when tramc patterns and/or volume ,"arrant a shorter display time. 6. Prior to applving for a Special Use permit, the Applicant shaH submit photos of the proposed sign as it would appear during the dav and the evening. Depending on the existing lighting levels at the proposed location, a dimmer setting may be required for the sign so tbe text is less bright at night. 7. Menu boards used at drive-thru lanes and signs used bv gas stations to displav gasoline prices only do not require a Special Use permit. Information shall be displayed in a static manner (no motion llermitted), have a uniform color, and illumination levels cannot exceed surrounding light levels. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed text amendments as modified during the September 22, 2005 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting, Case No. PZ-35-05; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judith M. Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ikd C:\DocumenlS and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK2\PZ-35-05 (Text Amendment September Meeting dcc message center signs).doc -.~5""~"~~___V"-"""''''"''''"'''''''''''_~'''='=>'=<'__~''='=='',~,=","'''__'''=,,=r~,..~.'''''''O'''"''-:'+'i"!~;:~~''==,t:e:"".,=.,..,...,...,,,..~_____^,,,,,,_,.~.N~"_'__,______.._~__"___._____ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-33-05 Hearing Date: September 22, 2005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 900 Business Center Drive PETITIONERlPROPERTY OWNER: International Gymnastics / Eugene Klein PUBLICATION DATE: September 7, 2005 PIN #: 03-35-104-007-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use (Vocational School- Gymnastics School) MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning Intern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Bill Cooney, AICP, Director, Community Development Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Eugene Klein, Lori Catrintza, Alex Kotliar, Natalya Kuchinskaya Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the August 25,2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5- 0; Marlys Haaland and Chairperson Juracek abstained from the vote. At 7:33 pm, Chair Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-33-05, a request for a Conditional Use permit to operate a gymnastics school in the 11 Limited Industrial District. She said that the Village Board's decision was final for the request. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the north side of Business Center Drive, in the Kensington Business Center, and includes an office/former manufacturing building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned 11 Limited Industrial and is bordered by the 11 district on all sides. The Petitioner proposes to modify a portion of the 43,000 sq. ft. building and operate a gymnastics school. However, the Zoning Ordinance requires Conditional Use approval for a vocational school and a gymnastics school is classified as a vocational school. As part of the Conditional Use application, the Petitioner submitted a floor plan that indicates the general layout of the gymnastics school. It will include areas specified for floor exercises, tumbling pits, and equipment. In addition, there will be three offices and a Parents Room. A four (4) foot wood fence will separate the exercise areas and is intended to minimize conflicts with students practicing from people walking through the gym. The Petitioner has provided a general description of the school's programs, the staffs qualifications, and information on how the school will operate: there will be 3 teachers and a maximum of 30 students at one time. The school will be open from 9am to 9pm Monday through Friday and 9am to 3 pm Saturday. Most parents will drop the student off and pick them up later when their program is complete. .-....","",~'~''''.,~'"'<=,,__~=..,"''''''''..'w,'''''",.,.,...,..=,='.,','=.or.,~"".'_ Arlene Jurcek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-33-05 Page 2 However, there is a room available if they opt to stay at the school and watch their child. Only classes and practices will be held on-site; competitions or performance events will be held off-site. The building includes one other tenant, Cingular/AT&T Wireless Service Center. The 29,008 sq. ft. facility has 10 parking spaces allocated to them as part of their lease; the Petitioner would have 47 spaces allocated to them as part of their lease. The leasing agent stated additional spaces could be made available to the Petitioner subject to AT&T's approval. The table in the Staff Report summarizes the square footage for the types of use and corresponding parking requirement. There are 12 'extra' parking spaces. The building was constructed in 1981 and currently includes fire sprinklers. However, the fire alarm and sprinkler systems will have to be modified because the proposed gymnastics school is a change in use from the previous tenant and there are different code requirements for a gymnastics school. In addition, the Fire Department requires the Petitioner to submit an egress study with their Building permit application. Also, the Petitioner must clarify where the spectator viewing area will be if events will be held on-site. While these are Building permit issues to be addressed as part of the permit process, these requirements are included as part of the Staff Report in an effort to ensure the Petitioner is aware of the requirements and submits a complete Building permit application. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses. She said that other departments reviewed the Petitioner's proposal and did not object to the use or find that it would have an adverse impact on the adjacent tenants or properties. The proposed school, as described in the Petitioner's application, would have minimal impact on the adjacent properties. She said that it is important that the enrollment levels cannot increase to an amount that would exceed the Village's parking requirement. Therefore, the Petitioner will be required to limit enrollment. Per the proposed lease, there are 47 parking spaces allocated to the school. Based on the information submitted by the Petitioner, it is reasonable to expect 1 teacher per 10 students; therefore the maximum enrollment cannot exceed 44 students and 5 teachers. Ms. Connolly said that the proposed gymnastics school meets the Conditional Use standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance subject to complying with specific conditions. She said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Conditional Use permit for a gymnastics school at 900 Business Center Drive, Case No. PZ-33-05 subject to the following conditions: 1) No more than 44 students and 5 teachers attend the facility at one time unless other parking arrangements have been agreed upon with the property owner and approved by Village Staff; 2) The Petitioner submits an egress study as part of the Building permit application and modifies the tenant space in accordance to all applicable building and fire codes for a new assembly occupancy." Ms. Connolly concluded her presentation and stated that the case is Village Board final. The Commissioners did not have any questions for Staff, so the Petitioner was asked to address the Commission. Eugene Klein, 5440 N. Cumberland, Chicago, IL, was sworn in. He stated that he was the attorney for the Petitioner, Natalya Kuchinskaya. Mr. Klein went into great detail about Ms. Kuchinskaya's credentials and experience as a coach, an instructor, and former Olympian. He reviewed the classes that would be offered at the International Gymnastics School and other programs that would be offered. He said that they reviewed the conditions of approval listed in the Staff Report and agreed to follow them. He asked whether the Commissioners had any questions. C,=,q"';"_~;CF,C;=","=.""'''''''''=~~:,~~,_~~~=""=~=""=',,,,,,,<=='.,,=.''''''''''''~~~_,____,,__~_,____ Arlene Jurcek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-33-05 Page 3 Leo Floros asked whether gymnastics is offered at the area high schools. Mr. Klein said he was not sure, but that the programs offered at the International Gymnastics School would be supplemental to any competitive programs. He said that Ms. Kuchinskaya's goal in opening the school is to teach children, but not necessarily for competitions. Ronald Roberts said that gymnastics is offered at Prospect High School, but the International Gymnastics School is a great facility to have in Mount Prospect. Chairperson Juracek asked whether the proposed fence intended to separate activities would pose a safety hazard if someone ran into it or fell on it. Mr. Kotliar, a representative of the International Gymnastics School, was sworn in. Through Mr. Klein's translation, it was learned that the fence would not be a tall fence and that it is intended to keep parents out of the practice areas. He said there would be padding over and around the fence. He compared it to a corral-type fence and described it as not a solid, sturdy fence, but more like a space delineator. Ms. Juracek said that based on the Petitioner's experience in the field of gymnastics and knowledge of the sport, she was satisfied that that the fence would not pose a safety hazard. Keith Youngquist asked whether the school could be rented out for birthday parties or similar events. The Petitioner said yes, but that the school was intended for the instruction of gymnastics. There was discussion if the site could accommodate the parties and whether additional parking would be needed to comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The Petitioner stated that they would comply with the Village's parking regulations if they were to make the school available for non-school/teaching events. Chairperson Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Commission. Since no one wanted to address the Commission, she closed the public hearing at 7:55pm. Richard Rogers said the gymnastics school would benefit the community and that Ms. Kuchinskaya's credentials would help make it a success. He said he was glad to see this type of use in the Village. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Conditional Use permit for a gymnastics school at 900 Business Center Drive, Case No. PZ-33-05 subject to the following conditions: 1) No more than 44 students and 5 teachers attend the facility at one time unless other parking arrangements have been agreed upon with the property owner and approved by Village Staff; 2) The Petitioner submits an egress study as part of the Building permit application and modifies the tenant space in accordance to all applicable building and fire codes for a new assembly occupancy. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. The case will go to Village Board for their consideration After hearing three more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 9 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judith M. Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ikd C:\Docnmcnts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK2\PZ-33-05 (900 Business Center Drive CU - Gym School).doc "=""""""""""";:fi7:.I.'~";":W'~'''-M''''''>~'~''''''''_,,,,",,,''''===~S''=''''_''''"-'''''''''''===''',",\''''''''='''''''=,;"},'';=;:;77''';'''7'''''~''''''''=_':'''''''''''''''''''''''_'''''''''''''',<",,,,",,',,,,,,,,,,_ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-36-05 Hearing Date: September 22, 2005 PETITIONER: Chicago Signs, on behalf of Bed Bath & Beyond PUBLICATION DATE: September 7, 2005 REQUEST: Variation - oversized wall sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jill Baty, Planning Intern Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Bill Cooney, AICP, Director, Community Development Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: George Vytlacil Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the August 25, 2005 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5- 0; Marlys Haaland and Chairperson Juracek abstained from the vote. After hearing one case, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-36-05, a Variation request to install an oversized wall sign. She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was final for the request. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, summarized the case. She said that the Subject Property is located at the northeast comer of Rand and Elmhurst Roads, between Kensington Road and Euclid Avenue, and contains a regional shopping mall with multiple outlots. She said that the Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping PUD and is bordered to the north by single-family residential, to the east by the RX Single Family District, to the west by the RX & RI Single-Family Districts and the B4 Corridor Commercial District, and to the south by the B3 and B4 Commercial Districts and the RX Single Family District. The Petitioner's tenant space, the former Circuit City store, is located along the west elevation of the mall, and is setback approximately 400' from Elmhurst Road. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner's exhibits call for two new wall signs to be installed on the north and west elevations of the building. She said the proposed Bed Bath & Beyond wall signs include white text placed over a black tile background. She showed an example of an existing store that is the same as the Petitioner's proposal. Ms. Connolly reported that the Sign Code allows signs to cover 50% of the signable area, up to 150 square feet. She said that Staff reviewed the proposal and found that the wall sign for the west elevation exceeds the maximum square footage permitted by the Village's Sign Code. However, the size of the wall sign proposed for the north elevation complies with Sign Code regulations. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 289 sq. ft. wall sign on the west elevation of the building. Arlene Jurcek, Acting Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting September 22, 2005 PZ-36-05 Page 2 Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation and said that the west elevation of the building measures slightly more than 60 linear feet and the signable area measures approximately 673 sq. f1. The Petitioner is seeking relief from code regulations that limit the maximum size of a wall sign to 150 square feet and would like to install a sign that measures 289 square feet, which is 43% of the signable area. In the past, the Village has granted Variations for larger wall signs when businesses were located a significant distance from the right-of-way and had large front elevations. Ms. Connolly said that the table in the Staff Report provided details on Variations for wall signs that were approved since 1993. Ms. Connolly said that the table indicates that the proposed wall sign would cover a significant amount of the signable area. However, the size of the Bed, Bath & Beyond sign would not be uncharacteristic in comparison to other oversized signs approved by the Village or wall signs currently found at Randhurs1. In addition, the Petitioner's store is setback approximately 400' from the road, which is a condition typical of other wall signs that obtained Variations for larger wall signs. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve the proposed 289 sq. f1. wall sign for the west elevation of Bed Bath & Beyond as submitted by the Petitioner, for the tenant space 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ-36-05." George Vytlacil, Chicago Sign Company, 26 W 535 S1. Charles Road, Wheaton, IL, was sworn in. He said that the Staff presentation was very thorough and described the request very well. He said he would answer questions from the Commissioners. Richard Rogers asked Mr. Vytlacil to clarify the color scheme for the proposed wall signs. Mr. Vytlacil said the colors would be very similar to the colors used at the Chicago Ridge Mall, which was the picture used in Staffs presentation. He said the letters would be white, placed on a black tile background. Mr. Rogers clarified that the black tile was considered part of the building elevation and not the sign. Chairperson Juracek summarized the case and stated that the proposal was typical of signs used at other Bed Bath & Beyond stores. She said the Variation request was similar to other Variations requests reviewed by the Commission. She asked if anyone in the audience had questions or wanted to address the Commission. As there were none, she closed the Public Hearing at 8pm. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed 289 sq. ft. wall sign for the west elevation of Bed Bath & Beyond as submitted by the Petitioner, for the tenant space 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ-36-05 because the store is setback 400' from the street and because the size of the sign is similar to other wall signs at Randhurst; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing two more cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9 pm, seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judith M. Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ikd C\Documcnts and Scttings\kdc\',is\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Intcmct Filcs\OLK2\PZ-36-05 (Bcd bath Beyond V AR wall Sigll).doc ~'~''"'"''''''''''';''''''''-~''''''''''''''''''<".-''''''''='===''''=-~==='=''''~'''''~'=='"",,''''''''".''''=~='''' VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, October 27,2005 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building ****Community Center**** 1 st Floor 50 South Emerson I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - October 20, 2005 ill Review of the Proposed 2006 Village Budget (Police and Fire) IV Chairman's Report V Finance Director's Report VI Other Business VII Next Meeting: Thursday, December 1,2005 (Tentative) 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. ~"""-"""''''"='''''''O=''=''''''''"''-''''''~='''^"'''''''=''''''''''''''~===_.,=~~~.:<:;",.,..,-.".4'~_"_'<"=""=="'-"-=-=A"""""';,'''''''''-""''''"'''_''''_=.,~~"=,==,----="~=-,=,_,~,, FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING OCTOBER 13, 2005 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.rn. Those present included Chairman Charles Bennett and Commissioners Vince Grochocinski, John Kellerhals, Tom Pekras, Rich Micelli, Ann Smilanic and Lee Williams. Also present were Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Director of Community Development Bill Cooney, Deputy Director of Community Development Ellen Divita, Director of Human Services Nancy Morgan, Deputy Director of Human Services Jan Abernathy, Information Technology Director Joan Middleton, Director of Finance David Erb, and Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer. Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper was absent. II. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to approve the minutes of September 22, 2005. Commissioner Lee Williams seconded the motion. Discussion took place regarding the comments in the minutes regarding the workshop of the Village Board which several Finance Commissioners attended. Commissioners Smilanic and Kellerhals commented about the process followed at the workshop and Village Manager Janonis explained why various procedures were followed. There being no recommended changes to the minutes, the motion to approve was called to a vote, and the minutes were accepted as presented. III. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED 2006 VILLAGE BUDGET Overview Village Manager Mike Janonis began the review of the 2006 budget by commenting about the review process and indicating follow up would be provided if commissioners wanted more in depth information on any budget topic. He also indicated that the addition of the Property Maintenance Inspector had been inadvertently omitted from the budget and this would be corrected in next drafts. In addition, Manager Janonis indicated that a balanced budget would normally be presented, but because of the uncertainty of direction on the key issue of revenue enhancements, the proposed budget is being presented at this time with a deficit for the year in the general fund pending decisions by the Village Board. Expenditures are included as proposed including the addition of several staff positions. Director of Finance David Erb presented the introduction to the budget including the time table for budget review and various exhibits regarding summary information and an overall explanation of the budgeting process for revenues and department expenditures. Commissioner Kellerhals asked about the process used to obtain the 2007 forecast budget and Director Erb explained it was not a straight percent increase but a reasoned projection following many of the same concepts and assumptions used in the 2006 budget modified for known or anticipated changes in factors governing the level of expenditures and revenues. Commissioners Micelli and Kellerhals questioned Director Erb about the costs of energy in the budget and Director Erb explained that the budget had been adjusted to the extent possible for the generally expected increases we are seeing in the markets for these commodities. Community Development Director Bill Cooney and Deputy Director Ellen Divita presented the budget for the Community Development Department which would include the new staffing position of the Property Maintenance Inspector. Chairman Bennett commented that the Commission would appreciate having a more formal justification for this new position. Commissioner Pekras inquired as to the enforcement process and the possibility of fines, and Deputy Director Divita explained that the revenue from fines would be minimal as the intent is to obtain compliance, and in many cases to correct social problems and obtain appropriate help for those experiencing property maintenance problems. Commissioner Kellerhals commented that he wished to pass along compliments expressed by his neighbor regarding the outstanding work of two building inspectors on the neighbor's recent home remodeling. "~",_,~"~="""",.,"",...,c,"__~_~__,,,_,___,,,,,,,-<,,,,,,~=,,,,~,,,,,,,,,,,~,,,'_"''''''''''''''~'_'''',''S''','='' Human Services Director Nancy Morgan and Deputy Director Jan Abernathy presented the budget for the Human Services Department. Specific discussions were held regarding the flu shot program and the new Medicare Drug Program. Various Commissioners noted the small increase in the department's budget and complemented the presenters on the work they do for the less fortunate in our community. Villafle Administration Village Manager Mike Janonis, Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl and Director ofIT Joan Middleton presented the various portions of the budget under the heading of Village Administration. Commissioner Kellerhals inquired if the administration had considered modifying many of the various fringe benefits available to Village employees to simplify the process and bring the Village more in line with the private sector. Manager Janonis explained the long standing existence of many of these benefits and the fact that many ofthem are included in union negotiated contracts. Also, the fact that many surrounding communities offer these benefits to their employees means that the elimination of these benefits would tend to make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified individuals to work for the Village. Finance Department and Non-Departmental Director David Erb and Deputy Director Carol Widmer presented the Finance Department budget and the various non- departmental expenses: Debt Service, Pensions and Insurance. Commissioner Kellerhals indicated that he would like to obtain a more in depth understanding of the debt financing in the Village and Director Erb expressed his willingness to provide whatever information and briefing might be desired. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT There was nothing to report. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was nothing to report. VI. OTHER BUSINESS There was nothing to report. VII. NEXT MEETING: OCTOBER 20, 2005 There being no further business to come before the Finance Commission, Commissioner LeeWilliams motioned to adjourn which was seconded by Commissioner Tom Pekras. The motion passed and the meeting was adjourned at 11 :35 p.m. Respectively submitted, Vincent Grochocinski Secretary, Finance Commission 2 <'~'-~'''''''"'<;';;-''''~''''''='>'"~'~^=~'=''~=;.,=,.o,=-""","",=""",,==="''''i''';<;,,,(~={~.,,,,,~.,,",$~'''''''''~'''''="_~_''~__.=><<_~_~_____'___M_.___._^.~__...________ Public Meeting Agenda October 26, 2005 7:00 P.M. Village Hall - 50 South Emerson Street Proposed Mount Prospect Downtown TIF Amendment #3 Mount Prospect, Illinois 1. Introduction 2. Purpose of the Meeting 3. Explanations, Description and Summary ofTIF Under Illinois Law 4. Reviewing of Next Steps and Timetable - Including Joint Review Board and Public Hearing 5. Identification of Village Sources of Information, Including Interested Parties Registry 6. Questions and Comments 7. Adjournment "',"..,..,..".,-"A"'"''''_'''~''~'''''''._rY~<."~ek''.',"'^""~'.'='''~-~~.r''..'''',",,_~r^>~'_~''''''''~'''-'''__~'''''~__M.''''~''---'___'__''''_~_~.~''__"~_~.~~"~...,~="",=,_..,.,"~"'-~~--"'---'--"---__~~___"_"'~'M"_"""'_'_'"_._.._