HomeMy WebLinkAbout0753_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
OCTOBER 13, 1987
L ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 731 p.m. Present at the meeting were: Mayor
Carolyn Krause, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley, George Van Geem and
Theodore Wattenberg. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Leo Floras and
Norma Murauskis- Also present at the meeting were: Village Manager John Fulton
Dixon, Assistant to the Village Manager Michael Janonis, Director of Planning and
Zoning Steve Park, Director of Finance David Jepson, Director of Public Works
Herbert Weeks, 'Deputy Director of Public Works Glen Andler and Research
Assistant Michael Steklac. Also present were two persons from the print media.
MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of September 22, 1987 were
accepted and filed.
III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD
There being no citizens present who wished to address the Board on any item not
on the Agenda, the Committee moved on to the next item of business.
IV* FLOOD LOAN PROGRAM FINANCING
Committee members reviewed memos by Finance Director David Jepson regarding
developments in the Village's Flood Loan Program. Mr. Jepson reported that 54
applications for loans were accepted and that a total of $359,000 was loaned to
Village residents. It was Mr. Jepson's recommendation with the concurrence of the
Village Manager that the $359,000 be funded by borrowing $175,000 from the First
Chicago Bank of Mount Prospect and the other half of the money would be
financed through Village funds. The loan term from the First Chicago Bank of
Mount Prospect would be for a period of five years at a very attractive interest
rate. At the end of. the 10 -year program, the financing plan would provide for a
total of $+x,000 for loss and cost as well as repayment to the Bank and the Village
for any funds that were advanced.
There was brief discussion among Committee members regarding the available
financing options. At the completion of the discussion, there was consensus among
Committee members to proceed with funding the loan program along the
recommendations of the Finance Director.
VI.
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER STAMPS SALES AGENT
VI*,llag,e Manager John Fulton Dixon, reviewed with, Committopo
ee members' prSed,
guideli , nes for, the, sale of Real Estate, T'rans,fer Stamps in conjunction it the
rece'ntly enactied Real Est to Transfer Ord,inancee, It was the Vilflage, Manager's,
recommendavio,n that the Stamps 'be made avallable not only at V"illage Hall but
also at remote locations including the law offices of Pedersen and Houpt in
downtown Chicago and Golden Title Company in Mount Prospect. It was the
Village Manager's opinion that having multiple locations for the purchase of the
Stamp would relieve any hardship or burden that might result if the Stamp could
only be purchased at Village Hall* 1.
There was discussion among Committee members and Trustee Wattenberg indicated
that it was his recommendation that all title companies within Mount Prospect be
I tn
given the opportunity to sell the Village Transfer Stamp. The discussoended with
,,'
the consensus among Committee members to proceed with the ro rn mendations of
the Village Manager.
COMPUTER PURCHASES
The Committee members reviewed a memo by Finance Director David Jepson
outlining the proposed purchase of nine micro -computers as part of Phase One of
the English Computer Study. Mr. Jepson indicated that the proposed purchase of
the micro -computers at this time was less ambitious than recommended by the
English Study. It was his opinion, however, that the proposed computers would be
fully utilized by the various Departments receiving them. Mr. Jepson indicated
that one of the primary reasons for the purchase at this time was the fact that
the Village's current stock of Exxon word processors was beginning to experience an
go
inordinate amount of down-time due to failure of various component parts. The
expense for repairing these units was* beginning to become burdensome and the
purchase of the micro -computers would be a more cost-effective alternative.
Discussion among Committee members resulted in Trustee George Van Geem
requesting that serious consideration be given to purchasing hardware other than the
proposed IBM System Us. It was Trustee Van Geem's feeling that "clone"
computers currently on the market operate as effectively as IBM's products at a
substantially smaller cost. Mr. Jepson responded by saying that the IBM System 11
was available under the State contract for under $3,500 complete.
There was also general discussion regarding the eventual networking of these
micro -computers with each other and to the Village's IBM System 36. Mr. Jepson
indicated that current plans did not call for any type of linkage but that there was
a possibility lity in the future. Mr. Jepson also stated that where Departments needed
N 1 1
to access the Village's computer, it was much cheaper to purchase extra terminals
than it was to purchase the hardware needed to interface micro- computers to the
mainframe.
Trustee Arthur 'Indicated that he was in favor of the purchase of IBM equipment
because of its reliability and compatibility with the Village's mainframe computer.
After general discussion among Committee members, there was a consensus to
proceed with the recommendations of the Finance Director and the Village
Manager*
*W 2 -f#,
VII. CENTRAL ROAD IMPROVEMENTS - .AN TO WOLF
Committee members reviewed a memo by Public Works Director Herbert Weeks
regarding the proposed widening of Central Road between Rand and Wolf Roads,.
Mr. Weeks was proposing that the Village participate in Phase I Engineering Study
in order that it might remain on the priority list with the Northwest Municipal
Conference. Mr. Weeks also indicated that the City of Des Plaines had agreed to
pay for one-half of the local share of the cost for the Engineering Study, Once
the Study was completed and approved by IDOT, it was expected that the Road
widening would be scheduled within the next two to three years. Mr. Weeks also
indicated that once the Road improvements were completed, there would be a
jurisdictional transfer from the State to the Village of Mount Prospect* Thereafter,
the Village would be completely responsible for the repair, maintenance and control
of this particular stretch of Central Road.
Discussion among Committee members resulted in Trustees Farley and Van Geern
indicating they had some reservations regarding acceptance of a Road that bordered
on the City of Des Plaines for almost its entire length. Trustee Farley felt that
the City of Des Plaines should have some obligation for the repair and maintenance
of this Road and that the Village's acceptance of the Road was not totally
equitable. Mr. Weeks indicated that the widening was desirable because of the
traffic volume around St. Emily's Church and Grade School.
After general discussion, it was the consensus of Committee members to participate
in n Phase I Engineering Studies.
VIII. MSD INTERIM REPORT
I. Deputy Director of Public Works Glen Andler reviewed with Committee
members his memo covering the MSD Sewer Agreement Final Report.. This Report
outlined the cost of coming into compliance with MSD 'Inflow and infiltration
st anda, rd s Result of flow monitor -Ing indicated that there was approximately
$273,000 in repairs that were. needed in order to come into compliance with MSD
uid . efines-o Of this, $198,000 was improvements to the public sewer system and
74,000 to the private,. At this time, Mr. Andler stated that if the Village Board
accepted the final Report, it would be forwarded to the Metropolitan Sanitary
District for their approval and that the Village would then have to develop a plan
for corrective action of private sector sources by no later than January 1, 1988.
Mr. Andler estimated that the Engineering portion for this corrective action would
be no more than $20,000.
Discussion among Committee members resulted in a consensus accepting the final
Report and directing the staff to submit it to the Metropolitan Sanitary District
for their approval.
2. Prospect Meadows Sanitary District,. Deputy
Andler reviewed with Committee members his memo
and anaiysis, of the Prospect Meadows Sanitary Sewe
4, 10 i
there were extensive deft , cie,,ncies n the System and
mately $612,000 to correct,*, Of this cost, $566,000
and $4.x,000 would be private, share.
Director of Public Works Glen
regarding the flow monitoring
r System. It is estimated that
that it would cost approxi -
was designated as public share
1XQ
0
Because of the current Special Service Area in this section for the water system,
it was felt that adding an additional tax on these residents would be onerous.
Therefore, it was proposed that there be some type of cost splitting between the
Village and the 174 homeowners in the Prospect Meadows Subdivision to cover the
cost of the necessary repairs. It was suggested that an additional sewer fee be
added to the residents' water bills over a ten year period*
W,
After general discussion ion arno,ng, Committee members, it was their consensus to
acce t the Report and, sub it it to 'the Metropolitan Sanitary District for their
p
approval. Further, when it came time to begin the repairs on the sewer system,
the Mayor, suggested that a, series of public meetings be held with the Prospect
Meadows" residents to explain to -them the, situation and what the alternatives were.
TEXT AMENDMENTS - ZONING AND FENCE
I
Planning and Zoning Director Stephen Park reviewed with Committee members his
report regarding proposed changes to the Village's Zoning, Sign, Fence and
Development Codes. These recommendations resulted in extensive study of the
Variation requests and the normal updating of the Code which was written in the
1970s.
Trustee Ralph Arthur suggested that the material was too extensive for the Board
to consider at one time. He suggested that the proposed changes be broken down
into smaller portions and that they be accompanied by extensive staff review and
recommendation. This was the consensus of Committee members. Mayor Krause
indicated that as the Codes have developed, they have become more technical in
nature and that she felt it necessary to rely on staff recommendations in those
0 f *
s I . appropriate to review Sign and
,peci, ic areas. However, she felt that it was
Development Code modifications at the Board level.
After brief discussion, it was the desire
proposed changes, over a series of Committee
recommendations from Village staff and the
ANY OTHER BUSINESS
of the Committee to schedule these
of the Whole meetings with specific
appropriate Advisory Commissions.
Trustee Theodore Wattenberg commented that he supported the letter the Mayor
had written to the Library Board regarding their proposed Debt Issue should they
succeed in their Referendum in November. Trustee Wattenberg also asked that a
volume of material relating to cable television be reduced.
Trustee Gerald Farley asked that the Board consider placing an Advisory
Referendum question on the next available election to gauge the citizen approval
for a specific Levy to help fund the activities of the Mount, Prospect' Historical
Society. Trustee Farley also asked that the staff study the possibility, of A, a Village
bus system like that currently operating, in Niles and being ,,stud,ied in Schaurnburgal
EM 4 -
XI* MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager John Fulton Dixon indicated that on October 29, at 7:30 p.m.,
representatives from Commonwealth Edison would be - in attendance to discuss power
outages within the Village.
XII. ADJOURNMENT
There being no other business to be conducted by the Committee of the Whole, the
meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
MEJ/rcw
Respectfully submitted,
MICHAEL E. JANONIS
Assistant to the Village Manager
on 5 -1
Village of Mtant Prospect
Mount Prospect, 111ino'Is
14jav 144, A*4*1 F**,jjta
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM: ASSISTANT TO THE VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: NOVEMBER 6, 1987
SUBJECT: INTRA -VILLAGE BUS SYSTEM - PRELIMINARY REPORT
At Trustee Farley's request, I undertook some preliminary research into the costs
and necessary steps required to start up an intra -Village bus system. I made
contact with persons from Metra/Pace, the Village of Niles and the Village of
Schaumburg. My preliminary findings are as follows.
Village of Niles. Niles offers a free intra -Village bus service which operates seven
days a week from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. This system operates three routes and
utillizes, six small coach -type buses. The annual ope,rating costs for the system are
ap roximately $500,000 with Metra/Pace reimbursing Niles some $200,000 annually.,
p
The remaining $300,000 is funded out of General Revenues. The local businesses do
not contribute any funds or otherwise support the operation of this system. Bus
drivers are employees of the Village with their salaries and other benefits being
paid for by the Village.
Village of Schaumbua. Schaumburg is currently in the early stages of studying the
implementation of an intra -Village bus system. Efforts are currently centered
around the coordination of existing Pace bus routes and the possible addition of a
shuttle between the Woodfield Corporate Center and the Woodfield Mall. Again,
there is no participation anticipated on the part of any private sector companies.
Obviously, if Schaumburg is successful in coordinating existing routes and creating a
new route between the Corporate Center and the 91all, there would be no direct
cost to the Village.
Metra/Pace. I spoke with Mr. Bill Reynolds who indicated that, to his knowledge,
Niles operated the only intra -Village bus system of its kind and that because it has
been in existence for many years, he is not exactly sure of how Mount Prospect
would go about making a bid for--shnii-ar- assistance -from -Pace. He did say,
however, that Pace had recently completed its planning and budgeting through fiscal
year 1988 and that any consideration of a proposal from Mount Prospect could take
one and one-half to two years for full review and approval - if approval was
forthcoming.
Before proceeding with further research in putting together a proposal, the Village
Board should make an initial determination to commit the necessary funds (between
$300,000 and $500,000 annually) necessary to undertake this project. Currently, the
Village has the benefit of the Senior Taxi Cab Program and a limited dial -a -ride
program to assist seniors and the disabled. In the past, Metra/Pace has attempted
to establish bus routes between various locations in the Village and the Chicago and
North Western train station in downtown Mount Prospect, however, most of those
have failed to garner the necessary ridership to justify the continued existence of
these routes. There are also several established bus routes which serve the
Randhurst Shopping Center. No established route currently services Mount
Prospect Plaza*
As an initial step, it may be preferable to work along the lines of Schaumburg and
see if the Village can review existing Pace routes within the Village in an effort to
better facilitate travel within the Village.
MR
MEJ/rcw
LAW OFFICES
EARL L. NEAL & ASSOCIATES
EARL L NEAL
MICHAEL 0 LEROY
ANNE L, FRED0
RICHARD F FRIEDMAN
LESTER K MCKEEVER. JR,
TERRANCE L. DIAMOND
LANGDON D. NEAL
DEBRA J LEONARD
JAMES MCVANff.JR
October 15, 1987
Honorable Carolyn He Krause
Mayor, Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson Street
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
7o'
t
4 C7�
0 -ft a # ON
I It WEST WASHINGTON STREET
SUITE t010
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60602
TELEPHONE _312141 7144
TELEFAX 64t 5137
Re: !�.itizens utillties.-Com"P-" "WL"af I11111inolls, No. 87-0168,
Before the Il-ino'is Commerce Commis,sio n
Dear Mayor Krause:
Basically, the proposed order approves the water supply
contract between the Village of Glenview and Citizens Utilities
Company of Illinoise In addition, the proposed order approves
the tariff filed, with certain 'insubstantial modifications,
0, 1 jib
Of
M--
01
4W
. 10,
7o'
t
4 C7�
0 -ft a # ON
I It WEST WASHINGTON STREET
SUITE t010
CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60602
TELEPHONE _312141 7144
TELEFAX 64t 5137
Re: !�.itizens utillties.-Com"P-" "WL"af I11111inolls, No. 87-0168,
Before the Il-ino'is Commerce Commis,sio n
Dear Mayor Krause:
Basically, the proposed order approves the water supply
contract between the Village of Glenview and Citizens Utilities
Company of Illinoise In addition, the proposed order approves
the tariff filed, with certain 'insubstantial modifications,
0, 1 jib
Of
M--
01
4W
Honorable
October i
Page Two
The proposed order also denies the petition of Allstate
Insurance !properties o the service
hearingarea of Citizens Utilities Company. The denial of this
petition is advantageous to Citizens' current customers because of
the high capital cost involved if Allstate is added to the
systemo
The ♦ took no action with respect
to the testimony concerningr
promises and poor service.. These matters, although • g an
impact related narrow
the Commission eo that of approval of .moi. ♦ ` Michigan water
supply contract. These comments will, however, be important d
relevant application . adjustment
�► 4
•
If you have any comments to the proposed order, kindly get
them to of prior to the r required
Very truly yours,
R►FF: nt
VILLAGE
cc: John F. Dixon w/encl .
rp µ ery
STATZ OF ILLINOIS
lihnois Commerce Commission
527 EAST CAPITOL. AVIMNUIK'
P.O. 00X 192"00
SPRIl'NGFIlCLO, ILLINOIS 62794-#280
October 13, 1987
CITIZENS UTILITIES COMPANY OF ILLINOIS
87-0168
Application for the .approval of a water supply
agreement with the Village of Glenview and of a
procedure to recover the costs for water purchased
under the agreement and for other relief.
Daniel J. Kucera Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois
Chapman 6 Cutler C T Corporation System
Attorneys at Law 208 South LaSalle Street
I11 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60604
Chicago, IL 60603
Ronald E. Walsh, Attorney
Citizens Utilities Company of
Illinois
P.O. Box 3801, High Ridge Park
Stamford, CT 06905
Dear Sir/Madam:
Attached is a copy of the Hearing Examiner's proposed Order in the
above matter.
The Hearing Examiner's proposed Order is being sent to you pursuant to
the Commission's Rules of Practice (83 Ill. Adm. Code 200). Your case is a
"contested case" or "licensing proceeding" as defined in Section 200.40 of the
Rules and, therefore, the Hearing Examiner is required under Section 200.820 to
issue a proposed Order to all parties.
Under Section 200.830 of the Rules, exceptions to the proposed Order
and replies thereto may be filed by the parties within the time periods
established by the rule or such other times as fixed by the Hearing Examiner.
The times for filing exceptions and replies are fixed at seven (7) days and
seven (7) days, respectively,
m
Rose
Chief Clerk
RMC:sv
Hearina Examiner: Ms. Tate
CC: /Arl L. Neal, Special Asst. Corp. Counsel, Village of Mt. Prospect, 111 W.
Washington St., Suite 1010, Chicago, IL 60602
George J. Casson, Jr., Allstate Insurance Company, Bell, Boyd & Lloyd,
70 W. Madison St., Chicago, IL 60602
Mr. Stack - Rate Design Section
,%.^ 1 0A 0 #. q 0
STATE OF ILLINOIS
ILLINOIS COMMERCE COMMISSION
Citizens Utilities Company of
Illinois •
i
Application for the approval of a 87--0168
water supply agreement with the
Village of Glenview and of a •
procedure to recover the casts for
water purchased under the agree.•
ment and for other relief.
By the Commission:
On April 8, 1987, Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois
(*Petitioner") filed its verified application requesting that the
Illinois Commerce Commission (*Commission*) approve a Lake
Michigan water supply agreement (*Agreement*) between Petitioner
and the village of Glenview ("Glenview") and of a tariff
procedure to recover the costs for water purchased by Petitioner
under the Agreement,
Pursuant to notice as required by law and the rules and
regulations of this Commission, this matter came on for hearing
before a duly authorized Hearing Examiner of this Commission at
the Commission's Chicago offices on June 4, 1987. Petitioner was
represented by counsel. Appearances were entered by Garret
G+orniak of the Auditing Section Staff of the Accounting
Department and by Thomas stack of the Rate Design Section of the
Rate Review Department, both of the Public Utilities Division of
the Commission, An appearance also was entered by counsel for
the Village of Mount Prospect (*Mount Prospect*), whose Petition
to Intervene was granted without objection.
On July 8', 1987, Mount Prospect filed a motion for a field
hearing, which was granted July 17, 1987 over Petitioner's
written objections, On July 29, 1987, Allstate Insurance Co.
(*Allstate") filed a Petition to Intervene. An evening field
hearing was held August 6, 1987 at Hersey High School, Arlington
Heights, Illinois, at which caunscl for Allstate appeared.
On September 3, 1987, a hearing was held at the Commission's
Chicago offices, at which time Allstate's Petition to Intervene
was granted over Petitioner's written objections, At the
conclusion of a full and public hearing, the matter was marked
Heard and Taken" on September 3, 1987.
Petitioner herein is a corporation duly created, organized
and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of
Illinois with its principal office in Addison, Illinois. It is a
iiN+G EXAMINER"3
PHOPOSED ORDER
public utility within the meaning of the Illinois Public
Utilities Act, It is engaged in the business of furnishing water
and sanitary sewer service in various municipalities and
unincorporated areas of Cook, DuPage and Will Counties, Illinois."
Petitioner, pursuant to various orders of the Commission,
holds certificates of public convenience and necessity to
construct, operate and maintain water supply and distribution
systems and sewage collection and treatment systems in portions
of Cook, DuPage and Will Counties,
Petitioner presently serves approximately 23400 water
customers within a total of ll service areas, including
approximately 7v200 water customers in one of its service areas
identified as *Chicago Suburban". The Chicago Suburban service
area comprises portions of the village of Mount Prospect, the
City of Prospect Heights and unincorporated areas in Wheeling
Township, Cook County, Illinois,
The Agreement
Petitioner has received an allocation of Lake Michigan water
for its Chicago suburban service area from the Illinois
Department of Transportation ("IDOT"). The allocation amounts
increase gradually from 2.000 million gallons per day (mgd) in
accounting year 1907 to 2.477 mgd in accounting year 2020.
Petitioner has entered into the Agreement with Glenview
whereby Glenview will provide Petitioner with Lake Michigan
water, pursuant to the above-mentioned IDOT allocation, to supply
Petitioner's needs for its Chicago Suburban service area. The
Agreement was received in evidence as Exhibit A. Glenview
obtains its Lake Michigan water pursuant to a Water Service
Contract with the village of Wilmette,
Petitioner's Agreement with Glenview contains certain
conditions precedent. Among other things, the Agreement is
conditioned upon the approval of the Agreement by the Commission
and the approval by the Commission of a procedure by which
Petitioner can recover the cost for water purchased under the
Agreement, as well as associated costs for conversion to a _Lake
Michigan, water supply.
Transmission facilities will be constructed by Petitioner
between Petitioner's and Glenvi+ew's water systems to enable
Petitioner to take delivery of Lake Michigan water from
Glenview.
Lake Michigan water as a source of supply is aesthetically
superior to the well water presently available to the Petitioner,
ME
"'i' 0 0
In rddition# the deep wells, which « primary present supply
to the Chicago
Suburban system, ,win levels
naturally occurring radium which exceed state and federal primary
trinking water standards.ofthe radiumPetitioner's
supply,present the IllinoisEnvironmental! i
w
w •Petitioner's
i ChicagoSuburbansystem on
whereby water main extensions to serve existing i new
developments cannot ill made,w caused hardship inasmuch
as requests from developers for main extensions and water service
cannot be satisfied byPetitionerbecause of Restricted
Status.
The Lake Michigan water to be supplied by Glenview is of high
water quality state and federal water quality
enablestandards. Conversion to a Lake Michigan water supply will
water .. to serve new
l :. s
MichiganProposed tarif f schedules which provide f or a Lake Mich igan
water supply charge to recover -the cost of providing Lake
to Petitioner's customers.. • i Suburban
area
received were intoevidence
necessaryMichigan water supply charge is « Petitioner
f
be compensated for the incremental cost of providing Lake
Michigan water,
The rate
per thousand gallons water charged
F-Eletitioner.change rom timetotime«allowed
iti i
I� ` purchased water price
adjustment clauser as w therefore
necessary so that Petitioner can adjust the Lake Michigan water
supply w►reflect changesi i
purchased water
use
as
as changes actual company water and unaccounted ow
for water,
Neither Mr.
w approval
Agreement or of Each,
ade certain recommendations, all of which Petitioner
•
Gorniakrecommended that (1)within 45 days i
of each reconciliation year, Petitioner should file with th
the
Commission w statement showing ."
determination
reconciliation balance year, statement i
a) over/under collection for reconciliation year
collection balance i
HEARING EXAMINER'S
PROPOSED ORDER
87--0168
refunded/collected from year previous to the
reconciliation year; and that
(2) unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, Petitioner should
include the reconciliation balance A --factor in the computation of
its rates and file it with the Commission in the 45 days
following such reconciliation year.
Mr. Stack had three recommendations: (1) in the event that a
portion of the Chicago suburban system is sold or taken by
eminent domain, any costs incurred under the minimum purchase
provision of the Agreement with respect to the portion of the
system sold or taken shall not be passed on to Petitioner's
remaining customers (2) changes in the Lake Michigan water supply
charge set forth in the form of tariff which is Exhibit C should
be filed with the Commission as tariff revisions 45 days prior to
their effective date* and (3) the amount of company use and
unaccounted for water recovered through the Lake Michigan water
supply charge should be limited to 13%.
Petitioner has agreed to all of staff's recommendations. No
party objects to them and the Commission finds them reasonable.
The requirement that all revisions to the form of tariff which is
Exhibit C shall be filed 45 days before the effective date shall
not preclude special permission requests to allow the tarif'f's to
become effective on shorter notice. The form of tariff which is
Exhibit C should be revised as follows
(1) The sentence in section III "Effective on the date of
any subsequent purchased water rate increase or decrease the Lake
Michigan water supply charge will be recomputed" shall be revised
to read "'Upon any subsequent purchased water rate increase or
decrease, the Lake Michigan water supply charge will be
recomputed.
(2) The phrase in section III "Effective on the date of any
purchased water rate increase or decrease, the construction water
supply charge shall be recalculated as follows:* shall be revised
to read "Upon any purchased water rate increase or decrease, the
construction water supply charge shall be recalculated as
follows:".
Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect does not object to the Agreement or to the
tariff. It agrees that the Lake Michigan water supply will be
beneficial, At the field hearing it presented one witness, the
mayor, who expressed certain concerns. The Commission has
considered Mount Prospect's concerns but finds that they, in
fact, provide no reason for disapproval of Petitioner's proposal.
MARING MMINER°S
PROPOSED ORDER
Mount Prospect repeatedly expressed concern about the
provision of the Agreement for disconnection by Glenview, if
Petitioner should fail to pay its bills for water supply from
Glenview, The Commission finds that this concern is not valid.
Petitioner is a viable public utility with ample Financial
resources to make all valid payments to Glenview. Disconnection
could be made only after notice, so inadvertent nonpayment would
be cured promptly. If an invoice is in dispute, the Agreement
provides a specific resolution mechanism, with payment of the
disputed amount into escrow.
Another concern was expressed over the possible mixing of
well water with lake water. This concern should not exist. The
wells will be placed in service only if, within the first five
years, the lake water limit on demand is exceeded and Wilmette
requests Glenview to limit its supply to Petitioner, or if there
is an interruption in delivery, All uses of the wells are
monitored. There are meters at each well. Reports are made to
IDOT. IDOT regulations do not allow the use of well water to'
supplement a lake water supply after Five years of operation,
except in an emergency, Where is no benefit or incentive for
Petitioner to use well water, as the lake water supply charge
collected from customers is paid to Glenview. The charge is
based solely on cosh to Petitioner, Any over -collection or
under -collection of revenues generated by the Lake Water Supply
Charge is recorded in the tariff A* factor and the rate is
adjusted at the end of each year under the true- -up mechanism.
Another concern expressed was over water pressure.
Petitioner presented evidence, based on investigation of its
pressure records, that it has no pressure problem. It performed
an extensive computerized distribution system analysis in
conjunction with the project. Taking Lake water from Glenview
will have no adverse impact on system pressure in the future.
Further, Petitioner determined that the delivery point in its
system is the best location.
Field Hearing
Comments were offered by many members of the public at the
field hearing. Many commented on the poor esthetic quality of
Citizens' present water supply. This confirms the advisability
of substituting Lake Michigan water for well water. The esthetic
concerns, together with the radiation content of the well water,
which is the subJect of a proceeding before the Pollution Control
Board, mare clear the need for Citizens to proceed in fulfilling
the contract with Glenview*
Others at the field hearing commented on the quality of
service provided bCitizens, its failure to respond to
he-ARING EXAMINER'S
PROPOSED ORDER
complaints or fulfill its prior promises to furnish lake water,
and its rates for water and sewer service.
Allstate
Allstate's position is based solely upon its objection to the
provision of the Agreement that Petitioner will not expand its
certificated area east of the Des Plaines River, with minor
exceptions.
Allstate owns substantial property in unincorporated Cook
County east of the Des Plaines River and adjoining Glenview. Its
existing complex (Plaza North and Plaza South) is bounded on the
west side by Sanders Road and on the east side by Glenview,
Allstate has a new building under construction (Plaza West)
across Sanders Road from the existing complex.
Allstate is not a customer of Petitioner nor is its propertyR
located within Petitioner's certificated service area. Its
property is not adjacent to Citizens' service area but is
adjacent to and within Glenview's service area. Allstate owns
and operates its awn deep well water supply and distribution
system, which it states, is adequate and meets all standards.
Allstate testified that it has no present desire to take
water service From Petitioner. It is satisfied with drilling and
using its own wells. It has applied to the State for, and
received, a permit to drill a new deep well for Plaza West.
Further, Allstate's only witness was unable to furnish any
figures as to the cost to build the facilities. necessary to
connect this area or what impact such a connection would have
upon pumping capacity, or what Allstate's water demands might be.
Allstate's contention, therefore, is that at some unknown
date in the future it may wish to seek water service from
Citizens and does not wish to be foreclosed from that
possibility.
The Commission finds that Allstate's position is based on
speculation and is without merit. Petitioner presented evidence
that the purpose of the subject contract provision is to avoid
unnecessary duplication of facilities, of Gler view already in
place.
Glenview has water mains on three sides of Allstate's new
project. On the east side, there is a 12 inch water main in
Sanders Road, along the entire boundary. Can the immediate south
side, there is an 8 inch water main. On the north, there is an 8
inch water main in Winkelman Read.
6
EXAMINER'S
PROPOSED OADER
Glenview is willing to serve the Allstate property,
Petitioner's Exhibit 4 is a copy of a letter from the Village
Attorney for Glenview confirming that Glenview's 12 inch water
main in Sanders Read is mediately adjacent to the entire west
boundary of the existing Allstate complex and the entire east
boundary of the new Allstate building. It further states that
Glenview already is servicing customers with this main across the
street from part of the Allstate complex. The letter confirms
that Glenview is ready, willing and able to serve the Allstate
property. Allstate has been in negotiations with Glenview for
water service.
Allstate has prepared engineering to connect to Glenview's 12
inch water main, Petitioner's Exhibit 5 is a copy of an
engineering drawing furnished to Petitioner by Allstate. It
shows a connection of Allstate's new project to Glenview's 12
inch water main in Sanders Road, The drawing states that it was
issued for permit approval and work bids in October and November,
1986.
Petitioner is not able to serve the Allstate complex without
constructing new facilities, The existing facilities of
Pititioner east of the Des Plaines River would not be adequate to
serve Allstate. Additional facilities, including a new crossing
of the river would be required, at a total cost .of approximately
$1,000,0000 Further, Petitioner's IDOT Lake Michigan water
allocation permit does include the Allstate property.
Allstate's existing complex and new building are bath located
within the certificated area of a farmer public utility known as
Northfield Woods Water and Utility, Inc. (*Northfield Foods").
Glenview's 12 inch water main in Sanders Road originally was
constructed and owned by Northfield Woods, Northfield Woods was
acquired in 1977 by Glenview, which is the successor to all its
property, operations and rights.
Petitioner could -not serve Allstate with its present well
water source of supply, due to restricted status imposed by the
Illinois Environmental protection Agency because of radium.
Under all the circumstances, the Commission finds the subject
provision of the Agreement to be reasonable, logical and in the
public interest. Allstate has its awn water Pystem, u1nich by its
own admission is satisfactory, It has been in negotiation with
both Glenview and Prospect Heights for alternative water
supplies. It has no present desire for water service from
Citizens, Thus, Allstate's objection is speculative and
unsupported by the evidence.
HEARING,EXAMINEWS
PROPOSED ORDER
FINDINGS
The Commission, having examined the entire record herein and
being fully advised in the premises, is of the opinion and finds
that
I) Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois, petitioner
herein, is an Illinois corporation engaged in the
business of providing water and sanitary sewer service
in various service areas, including in its Chicago
Suburban service area comprising portions of the village
of Mount prospect, City of Prospect Heights and
unincorporated areas of Wheeling Township, Cook County,
Illinois and is a public utility within the meaning of
The Illinois Public Utilities Act;
(2) the Commission has jurisdiction of Petitioner and of the
subject matter of this petition;
(3) the recitals of fact hereinabove set Forth are supported
by the evidence introduced in the record herein and are
hereby adopted as findings of fact
(4) the Agreement, admitted into evidence in this proceeding
as Exhibit A. is an agreement under which Petitioner
will obtain from Glenview a Lake Michigan water supply
for its Chicago suburban service area;
(5) the proposed Agreement, and the terms and provisions
therein, are reasonable and in the best interests of the
customers served by Petitioner and should be approved*
(6) the proposed tariff providing for a Lake Michigan water
supply charge, admitted into evidence as Exhibit C. is
reasonable and should be approved, subject to the
following revisions:
(a) The sentence in Section III *Effective on the date
of any subsequent purchased water rate increase or
decrease the Lake Michigan water supply charge will
be recomputed shall be revised to read "Upon any
subsequent purchased water rate increase or
dc,�rease the Lake Michigan water supply charge will
be recomputed*;
(b) The phrase in Section III *Effective on the date of
any purchased water rate increase or decrease, the
construction water supply charge shall be
recalculated as follows:" shall be revised to read
Upon any purchased water rate increase or
decrease, the construction water supply charge
shall be recalculated as follows:*,
i ARING EXAMINER'S
RROPOSEO ORDER
(7) Petitioner should file the tariff described in Finding
(6) at such time as to be effective when Lake water
under the Agreement is available to the custbmers
(8) all revisions to the tariff described in Finding (6)
shall be filed with the Commission at least 4 5 days
prior to their effective date, subject to any request
for special permission to allow effectiveness upon
shorter notice*
(9) the amount of company use and unaccounted for r wat+er
recovered through the Lake Michigan water supply charge
shall be limited to 13%
(10) in the event that a portion of the Chicago Suburban
water system is sold or taken by eminent domain,
incurredcosts under the minimum purchase provision
takenthe Agreement with respect to the part 16on of the system
sold or shall passed Petitioner's
remaining
(11) within 45 days after the end of each reconciliation
year, Petitioner shall file with the Commission a
statement showing the determination of the
reconciliation balance for such year. The statement
shall show:
over/under(a) 11 w
(b) aver/under collection balance still to be
refunded/collected from year previous to the
reconciliation year,
Unless otherwise ordered by the Commission, Petitioner
shah, include the reconciliation balance Am -factor in the
computation of its rates and file with the Commission in
the 45 days following such reconciliation year
(12) all objections, exceptionst petitions and motions made
in this proceeding which remain undisposed of should .e
considered #-a be disposed of consistent with the
d
IT Is THEREFORE ORDERED that approval of the Commission be,
and hereby is granted, of the Agreement which is Exhibit A.
IT Is FURTHER ORDERED that approval of the Commission be , and
hereby is granted, of the tariff which is Exhibit C, subject to
the revisions set forth in Finding ( 6) , to be filed so as to be
effective when Lake Michigan water is available to the customers
"A
PROPOSED ORDER
under the •subjecto the terms of this
firder contained in Pindings (8)p (9),and (11).
By Order of the Commission ! of
TO: JOHN FULTON DIXON 9 VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: STEPHEN Me PARKv PLANNING AND ZONING DIRECTOR
SUBJECT. TEXT AMENDMENTS
DATE. 0
NOVEMBER 6, 1987
1p
ff
ra
SMP:hg
1 6
TEXT AMENDMENT
ATTACHMENT
I'm Amend Section 14.305, 14a,602*Cv2v 14a702eCs2j 14.803,,C,.2 and
14.902. C.2 by deleting the section in their entirely and sub-
stituting as follows:
"Fees shall be paid with any application or request as esta-
blished by ordinance of the Village Board .1'
2. Amend Section 14.2602.B to modify the existing definitions
of "'ceiling level 'height and maxi um height"', and add a new defi-
nition. of -"'building, height" and modify the requirements of all
Residential Districts regarding height,.
"Height: The following definitions shall be used to deter-
mine the height of buildings and structures permitted under
this Chapter.
A. Ceiling Level Height: The vertical distance of a
building or structure as measured in feet, from the
finished grade to the finished bottom edge of the uppermost
ceiling line of the top -most habitable room in the top -most
story of a building,
B. Building Structure Height: The vertical distance
of a building or structure as measured in feet, from the
finished grade to the highest point of the roof or parapet,
if a flat, mansard, or gambrel roof, or the point midway
between the ridge line and the eave line if a hip or gable
roof. Mechanical penthouses, chimneys and steeples shall
not be included in measuring the height of buildings,
Ce Overall Building, Structure Height: The vertical
distance of a building or structure as measured, in feet,
from the finished grade to the highest point of the
structure, regardless of the type of structure or roof
system. Mechanical penthouses, chimneys, and steeples shall
not be included in measuring the height of buildings."
39 ADD to each Residential Zoning District height requirement:
"For any single family detached or for any duplex residence
building which exceeds an overall height of thirty (30)
feet, as measured from the average elevation of the finished
grade within twenty (20) feet of the structure, said
building shall be set back an additional two (2) feet beyond
the minimum yard requirement for each one (1) foot of over-
all height above thirty (30) feet,"
4. ADD definition of finished grade to Section 14.2602.B:
The average elevation of the sidewalk running the length of
the front yard of a lot or in the case of no sidewalks on
the property, the average elevation of the crown of the
street adjacent to the front yard of the property,
20
5e Sections 14.1002.D. 14*110291, 14*1202*1p 1491302o1v
14,1402,D, and 14.1503.D shall be revised to add the following:
11
0 0
"Patios, balconies, wood decks may encroach in the required
rear yard; provided the minimum distance between the rear
property line and the near edge of the structure is fifteen
(15) feet, and that no such structure 10s located over or
upon an easement."
"A service walk, not exceeding thirty-six (36) inches in
width, may encroach in the required front, side or rear
yards to gain access to entrances or provide better accessieft
billaty for maintenance."
6,9 Section 14,2602. Shall be revised to add the following
definition.
TERRACEe "A landscape treatment of mounded earth, rock
wall, railroad tie wall, or other retaining device
used to modify st'eep grade differences on a lot. A
terrace shall not include a patio or deck surface,"
4/22/$7
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
11
FEE SCHEDULE
$ 50
DATE
PROJECT/REQUEST
LAST CHANGED
VARIANCE
$ 250
<17000 S.F.
1978
>17000 S.F.
1978
<1 ACRE
1978
>1 ACRE
1978
ALL FENCES
1978
ALL SINGLE FAMILY
N.A.
SPECIAL USE
$ 250
ALL SINGLE FAMILY
1978
<20000 S.F.
1978
20000 S.F. - 1 AC.
1978
<1 ACRE
1978
1 - 5 ACRES
1978
5 - 10 ACRES
1978
10 - 15 ACRES
1978
>15 ACRES
1978
REZONING
$2500
<1 ACRE
1978
1 - 5 ACRES
1978
5 - 10 ACRES
1978
10 -- 15 ACRES
1978
>15 ACRES
1978
TEXT AMENDMENT
1978
SPECIAL HEARING
1978
APPEAL
1978
FIELD CHANGE
N . A .
ZONING COMPLIANCE FEES
ALL SINGLE FAMILY
1978
ALL OTHERS
1978
PARKING SPACE FEE
19$8
FEE SCHEDULE
$ 50
N.A.
$ 200
N.A.
N.A.
$ 250
N.A.
$ 500
$ 50
$ 100
N.A.
$ 100
N.A.
$ 100
$ 25
$ 100
$ 125
$ 250
N.A.
$ 250
$ 250
$.500
$ 900
$1250
$1200
$1500
$150p
$2500
$ 125
$ 250
$ 700
$ 500
$ 900
$1250
$1200
$1500
$1500
$2500
$ 200 $ 500
$ 250 $ 250
NONE $ 250
$ 25 $ 50
$ 75 $ 150
$1800 ?400
3.
I
.Of
I ;, I 11� 111111111111�l III III
4, Z4 1
April, 1987
EF
Sco]2e of Regulations* The off-street parking and loading
rovi,sion
P s , o t, ord,inance shall apply as follows:
For all buildings and structures erected and all uses of
land established after the effective date of this ordinance
or amendment t'ro accessory parking and loading
facilities shall be 'Provided, as required by this Article.
However', whet -e a bu,il,ding Permit has been issued prior to
the e ffect"I've date, of' ts ordinance, and provided that
constfuction Is, begun within six months of such effective
date and diligently prosecuted to completion, parking and
loading, facilt ties as required, hereinafter need not be
pro�vfded.
When the intensity of use of any building, structure or
premises Is lncrea,se,d through additional dwelling units,
r,o,s,s floor arr capacity, or other units of
measurement specified herein for requTred, parking or loading
facilfties, parking and loading facillt�ie,,s as required
berein, shall be provided for such increase in intensitty, of
use.
Whenever the existing use of a building or structure which
has been provided with the required number of off -,street
parking and loading spaces shall hereafter be changed, to a
new use, parking or loading facilities shall be requAred as
provided for such u,se�. However, If the building or
st,ruct�ure was erected, prior to the effective date of this
ordinance, additional parking, or l ing fa i1t are
man,da,tory only i amount by which the uirements of
the new use would exceed those for, the existing, use I*f the
latter were subiect to the parking and loading provAsions of
this ordinance. VM
Existing Parkin and Loading Facilities,
.. . . ............ ....... ...... g a Of f -streetparking or
loading tacil tie -s- w c were in ei7stence on the effective date
of this ordinance or wereprovided voluntarily after such
effective date shall not hereafter be reduced below the require-
ments of this ordinance for a similar. new building or use,
Downt,own District Nonew Conforminj In the Downtown District, when
existing t1, or space '1' rite sified abd cannot conform to the
parking requirements, the owner may request to donate to the
Village parking funds, The fee for each such parking space shall
be determined by the Village Bo,ard,,
Permissive nand Load
in Parkin Loan Facilities
. . ..... I....-., ENIM111,11-1 IM 011 - Is 01 I'll - Nothing in this
ordinance shall be !deemed to "prevent the untary establishment
of off" street parking or loading facilities to serve any existing
use of land or builAings, provided that all regulations herein
governing the location, design, improvement and operation of such
facilities are adhered to.
FEE-.
Damage or Destruction. For any conforming or legally non-
ji 11' IN
con tormin-g building or use which is in existence on the effective
date of this ordinance which subsequently thereto is damaged or
partially -destroyed to the extent of less than fifty percent of
its replacement value by fire, collapse, explosion or other
cause, and which is reconstructed, re-established or repaired,
of f --street parking or loading facilities need not be provided,
except that parking or toading facilities equivalent to any
maintained at the time ofsuch damage or destruction shall be
restored or continued in operation. However, in the event the
principal building or structure is damaged or destroyed by any
means of fifty (50) percent or more of its replacement value, it
shall be necessary to provide parking or loading facilities as
required by this ordinance for equivalent new uses or con-
struction; provided, however, that if the principal building or
structure contains more than one use, parking and loading
facilities, as required by this ordinance, need be provided only
for those uses which have been damaged or destroyed to the extent
of fifty percent (50%) or more Of their replacement value.
off-site Remote Par Facilities Where required parking
ac ]LIL'ties are prove on or - "` the lot on which the
'-f—ITth e "' t han
building or use served by such facilities is located, they shall
i
be and remain n the same possession or ownership as the lot
occupied by the building or use to which the said facilities are
necessary.
1. Such lot upon which said parking facilities are proposed
shall be located within one thousand feet (1,000') of the
lot on which the building or use served by such facilities
0.
is located and such lot must first be zoned a Parking
District designation before the approval of the President
and Board of Trustees may be sought,
2. An applicant for off -premises parking facilities as is
allowed in a Parking District shall be required to guarantee
that the off-,premises parking lot shall be used solely in
con jun,ction with the building or use served by such off -
premises facilities. This guarantee shall be given and
established pursuant to the following procedure: k
a. Warranty Deed (or Trustee's Deed in the case of a
lot held in a land trust) for the o.ff-premises parking lot
to a third party from the owner.
b . Warranty Deed (or Trustee's.Deed in the case of a
lot held in a land trust) for the said off -premises parking
lot from the aforementioned tlftl�rd party to the applicant,
which deed shall contain the following restrictive covenants:
(1) This tract is to be used solely as an
off-street parking facility in conjunction with the use of
land legally described ,
(Insert legal description for lot(s) to be served by these
parking faciliCies).
(2) These restrictions or covenants are to run
with the land and shall be binding on all the parties and
all firms claiming under them, including the Village, a
Municipal corporation.
(3) I f the part les thereto, or any of them, or
their heirs or assigns shall violate or attempt to violate
any of the covenants herein, it shall be lawful for the
other parties hereto including the Village to prosecute any
proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons
violating or attempting to violate any such covenant, and
either to prevent him or them from so doing or to recover
damages or other dues for such violation,
3. Such guarantee must be .furnished to the Zoning Board of
Appeals of the Village for its consideration in making i t s
recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village.
Parkin Area Desig-'13 It shall be the responsibility of the
ann ng a Zoning %rector to review plans for all parking lots
to ensure compliance with, the parking section of these regu-
tat ions and his approval must be obtained before building permit
issuance. The arrangement, character, extent, width, grade and
location of all parking areas shall be considered in relation to
existing and planned streets, to reasonable circulation to
t ra f f is with in and adjacent to parking areas, to separation of
parking, loading, and drive -up stacking, to topographical
conditions, to runoff of storm water, pµubl i c convenience and
safety, and in their appropriate relations to the proposed uses
of the area to be served. - All traffic intersections and con-
fluences must encourage safe and efficient traffic flow. Any
such submission u t comply with the requirements of this
ordinance and the Development Code.
ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS.* PARKING
Parking o f Vehicles in Reoll"sidential Districts. No truck, recrea-
t lona ve c e, commerC a ve ic, a or trawlers with license
plates �►�v ing a Aross we i h t or licensed wei h t in excess of
8,001 lbs . , or ra ers shall e par a or stored on an
residential premises except when making a delivery, rendering a
service at such premises, or when a recreational vehicle is being
cleaned by the owner for a period not to exceed three days . The
storage of a vehicle meeting the above criteria, by the operator
of said vehicle at his place of residence shall not constitute
the making or rendering of a service and shall be prohibited. Any
recreational vehicle, commercial vehicle or trailer under 8,000
U
lbs. in gross or licensed weight shall be permitted in garage
storage only. Personal use vehicles such as pickups and vans,
are not subject to this restriction,
Re air and Service No motor vehicle repair- work of a commercial
nature shall- be permitted in conjunction with off-astreet parking
facilities provided.
Handicap_Parking, At least one handicapped parking stall shall be
provid-ed- i,p of fostreet parking areas larger than 15 spates,
01 ##Additio ,al 'han&i,ca, ie,d parking shall be provided at the rate of
PIP
2, of' the to�tal number of stalls. Handicapped parking stalls
s, h a 1, 1. be, at least 12 feet by, 18 feet for 900 parking, and shall
be proportionately larger at the other angles as per Figure I
hereinafter adopted in this Article. All stalls shall be
appropriately marked and, signed, be located in close proximity to
the principal building, and shall offer barrier free access to
the principal building. A designation of handicapped parking
stalls shall constitute consent by the property owner to the
enforcement of the restriction of such spaces to handicapped
motorists by the Village.
CnMRutation of Required Parking and Load inLSp,aces
Use Chart #1 to calculate the number of spaces required for each
use. Chart #2 should be used to determine how many loading
spaces are necessary for each use.
When determination of the number of off-street parking spaces
required by this ordinance results in a, requixem.ent of a frac-o
tional space, it shall be counted as, one, ?a
br7, k in g sp a, c e Such
required parking spaces shall not, e, used 'o parking of trucks,
trailers, or passenger vehicles oped 'by any buisiness, or use
on the property. Where a use S,as vebicles; including, but not
limited to; delivery, service, or sale"s vehicles, additional
pa'rktnig sha,11 ble provided in an amount not less than the number
of vehicles, used by the bus,iness.1 Such additional parking shall
be located, away from adjacent, roads and screened from residential
districts, or developments,
CHART 11 - PARKING REQUIREMENTS
4/1000 sq. ft. unless otherwise listed below
Assembly, laboratory area
1/1000 sq, ft,
Auto Uses
Auto Service Statf)ns including repair 5/service bay
shops, muffler and brake shops, to
ire,
sales and installation, painting/auto
body transmission shops
Oil Change Service
5/1000 sq. ft. plus
I stacking space per
service bay
Motor Vehicle Sales or Rental
1/1000 sq. ft. of
Agency
lot area plus any
additional for
service area.
Car Wash - Self Serve
1 space per bay plus
2 stacking spaces
per bay
Car Wash -Tunnel
stacking spaces for
20 minutes of
waiting (3 min0 avg.
per car)
` Banks, Drive-through
3o6/1000 plus 5
•
stacking spaces per
station
Barber/Beauty Shops
5/1000 sq. ft.
Funeral Homes
1/50 sq. ft. of
Furniture Stores
2/1000 sq, ft.
Golf Courses
3 per hole plus
additional for club-
house, restaurant/
bar
Hotels, Motels, Motor Lodges
1 space per guest
`
room plus additional
space for assembly
rooms at 1/125 sq,
f t. and restaurants
and/or- lounges as
necessary
Library, Museum, Art Gallery
2/1000 sq. ft.
Medical Offices
5/1000 sq, ft.
Office Building -Less than 30,000 sq. ft.
Total compilation of
each individual use
30,000 - 60,000 sq. ft.
4/1000 sq, ft.
above 60,000 sq. ft.
3.5/1000 sq. ft.
Tele-marketing or other similar
5/1000 sq, ft.
Office Use
Public Parks
Recreational Facilities, convention halls,
dance halls, skating rinks, assembly halls,
gymnasiums, bowling alley, arcades,
10/1000 sq. ft..floor
swimming pools
area
M
19
Residential
Single Family
Duplex
Mul t i- farm ly
2 bedrooms or less
more than 2 bedrooms/dens
R, -v5 Senior Citizen Housing
Restaurants
Class IV
Class III
Class II
Class I
Drive—through
Schools
Comm'ercial School/Training Facility
(Including dance, music, art)
Elementary School
High School
College/University
Day Care
Shopping Center less than 30,.000 sq. £t.
30,000 - 150,000 sq.ft'o
150,000 and above
Tennis Courts
Theatre, Auditorium, Church
Nursing Home
M orgy. -I iWIM 10
10' =1111 `
2 per unit
2 per unit
2 per unit
2 plus 1/2 for each
den/bedroom over 2
3/4 of' a space per I
bedroom or e f f i
ciency unit
space per 2 bedroom
unit
15/1000
15/1000
10/1000
10/1000
13.5/1000 plus 7
stacking spaces from
window
1/75 sq. ft. floor
area
1/staff member
1/4 students
1/2 students
1/staff member
compilation of each
0
individual use
4ml/2/1000
4/1000
2 per court
1/3 seats plus
additional of 2/1000
sq. f t for other
areas
1/1500 sq, ft,
1. Banks, Off'
ices, Bus inesst Professional and Governmental:
10 100t000 1 12 x 35
100 500 , OCC
each 100,000 1--additional 12 x 35
500,000 and above
for each 500,000 1 additional 12 x 35
ON
ED
1 F,
7rl,
2. Retail stores (unless otherwise specified, Restaurants, Auto
Service Stations
5 10sOOO 1 12 x 35
10 30,000 2 12 x 35
30 40,000 2 12-x 50
40 100t000 3 12 x 50
100,000 plus 1 additional 12 x 50 for each
200,000 or fraction thereof
��r 3* Warehouse and Storage Bul,ldings, Laboratory, Assembly Plant,
Product Repair Shops
5 10,000 1 12 x 35
10 40,000 1 12 x 50
40 100t000 2 12 x 50
100,000 plus 1 additional 12 x 50 for each
100,000 or fraction thereof
4. Recreational facilities, Convention halls, Dance halls,
Skatin,g, rinks, Assembly Halls, Gymnasiums, Auditoriums,
Bowling Alleys, Theatre
10 209000 1 12 x 35
20 100p000 1 12 x 50
200,000 plus 1 additional 12 x 50 for each
additional 100,000 or fraction
thereof
5e Hotels, Motels, Motor Lodges
10 - 200t000
200,000 plus
1 12 x 35
1 additional 12 x 35 for every
200,000
If the above use contains any of the following: retail shop,
convention halls, exhibition balls, 'business professional
office, then
10 20 000 1 12.x 35
20,000 150,000 1 12 x 50
150,000 or above 1 additional 12 x 50 for each
150,000 or fraction thereof
640 -Schools, hospitals or other similar institutional buildings •
;
and multi�family buildings
20,000 2+0,00+0 1 12 x 50
200,0001 plus 1 additional 12 x 50 for each
200,000 sq. ft.
F]
Ts Shopping Centers
59000 - 25,000 1 12 x 35
25,000 - 200p000 1 12 x 35 plus 1 12 x 50
2009000 -, 400v000 2 12 x 35 plus 2 12 x 50
400,000 plus I additional 12 x 50 for every
100,000 addition
8. Motor Vehicle Sales, Rental and Machinery Sales
8,000:- 25,000 1 12 x 50
25,000 plus 1 additional 12 x 50 space for
each 25,000 sq. ft.
Land Banking
#
dP
3Er--3U Y W
Construction and Des n
The construction and layout of the
parki,ng lot shali c orm to all Development Code requirements,
# ON a
Refer to the Development Code for spec11` ics
All driveways must conform to the requirements set forth in th
Development Code,
Residential
In a Res Iden I'al District the maximum drth is'
20' iveway wi
Industrial
The driveway wid,th for an lond,ustrial building, shall b(��
adequate to maneuver trucks in and out of the site. Drive-
ways which exceed thirty feet (30') must be approved by tht
Planning and Zoning Director,
Other
All other uses shall have driveways, of 24' wIdth
lane) . When more than 2 lanes are approved on, the ba'sis of
need, each lane shall be '12" wide, A dri"veway, more than 2,
lanes wide must be physically divided to provide for safe
vehicular movement,
1%, A
o
W
94 q 111111"il! I N MLILRnmom ��'ALT K.,
'Y a r id s Off street parking
ir ed yard. Setbacks shall
District requirement,
spaces may not be located in any
comply with the specific Zoning
Wheel Guards. Parking spaces shall be provided with wheel guards
III IN — womm""
or bumper guards where concrete curbs are not required so that no
part of parked vehicles will encroach on an adjacent sidewalk*
Li 'hu
n" All parking,
,R, A
Bu i lot lighting shall comply with the
ng Code and Development Code of the Village of Mount
Pxospect,, 10
91 L
Curbs and Gutters* Combination concrete curb and gutter or
concrete barr"10111elIrl curb is required around the perimeter of all
parking lots and around all, is''lands, provided that with approval
of the Director of Planning and Zoning this requirement may be
deferred as part of a staged development. Where alternatives t*
concrete curb and gutter are demonstrated to r appropriatc
and recommended by the Village Engineer, said alternatives may b��
approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning,
0 -i "F ,
. . ...... ..
T.
v.
Maintenance. Upon, completion, all parking areas shall be
properLy maintained at all times, without pot holes, broken
curbing or other irregularities.
Screening and Landscapt 0 All open -automobile parking areas
I I., OMWO IN
containing more than ur parking spaces shall be effectively
screened as per the requirements contained in the landscape
section of the Development Code.
9
vcrorzJ
oc
r-4
4J
r -I 4J
f-4 ra
r --q
4J
r-4 r-4 4J
r4 eq cl
U) r -i 4J
r-4 U)
(V
M 4J
cn ro
ON (Cl ro
41 >,
0) M z
41 tor"
fli 0
41
a
sr� VP4
0 41 -rq
0 Aj
9 41
:1 -H -P4
41
U3
94
4 :rw
m
Eri
0 4 ODA:
Andle
B
c
D
E
F
G
L
45°
9
18.5
12
12.7
48
1593
15
18
60 0
9
19*8
16
10s4
52
17m6
15
18
90°
9
18.0
22
58
22
18
9