HomeMy WebLinkAbout0836_001J
I
vo
..An dfta
oil imp
yRM�
rr
..
AW
,.,
r
Ol
of *
lot
Aft
to r
or � .w AWI
10
rr
ATA
Ito
AL
....
..
dill
•
,.1W
a
e
dill
4 III
AS
"All
Magiw w
i
rg
i
„ m t
Trustee fri
Shy , , Omani
outHistSoci��� �
trrr n' a t,
�:past
A, mf ci Wookond
�� t
00fert t dfs,cvss� P'ro��
tuy TP h
rNof,qu,
ccni t ter
a, C..:. I ,. C
Wa$
You
,nc Is' ,
mot.
ion
Mlnutes.doc
H.
.\GF t4�C,,Wlnvtes\8i 198 COW
12
Of
1,a,ge of Mount Pros
,pect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
MEMORANDUM
TO" MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: GLEN ANDLER, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
WILLIAM COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
MICHAEL FIGOLAH1 FIRE CHIEF
DATE: AUGUST 13, 1998
SUBJECT.- BUILDING PERMIT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
o
44b "Im,
# W
I - Communications Between Departments
2. Communications With Petitioners
3. Building Permits
4. Walk-through Permits
5. Site Development Permits
6. Boards and Commissions Review Process
7. Fire Sprinkler/Alarm Permits
8. Development Permit Fees
9. Expediting the Development Process
rifli
Weekly Development Meeting
Each,,Mond,ay morn' 0 1 ing and Planning Div],stons of Commull, ty Development�
ning representatives f the, Bufld,�
Engineering' Division of Pu'blJ',cWork1s,Fire Preventtoln Bureau, and the'Village Manager's office meetto discul$s
curren't atid, pend'i Ing development appl,"Ications. This meet I i I ng, which has been, conducted for several years, affords
each group the opportunity to share insights and concernsrelated to all otigoing projects,
Permit Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
August 13, 1998
Page 2
Review Statils'
Both the Engineering Division of Public Works and Fire Prevention Bureau share a progress report of their review
of current development proposals. This listing shows the type of application (sidewalk, water service, storm
sewer, etc.), the date on which plans were submitted, the review deadline, other agencies whose approva] is
required, etc. The list is useful to Building, and all of Coint'lititillty, Developtnent, since it is thefoca] Point for plart
submittals and subsequent questions related to review pro,gress. I'lle Conlint.ini"Ity Develo, rnent Department
maintains an overall status memo that provides weekly updates on,, all current develop mei it projects.
COMMUNICATIONS WITH PETITIONERS
Recent Enhancements
Review Letters
As described in the Development Coordinators Committee report-, petitioners receive plan review comments
separately froin several departments, and, divi'sforts. This practice allows thein to ex,pedlite plan approval by
beginning revisions on a part, of their plans, without, waiting for all comments''to be received. A problem caused
by this process 'I's that petitioners occasionally con fuse one group's acceptance of plans as Village-wiide approval.
To clarify this concern, all review letters noinclude a clear reniinder that the review does not constittitre,
permission to begin, work, and that other Divisions will be forwarding comments. For example, the statement on
Building Dwision, reviews states: "Pleaste be, advisil-d that, the comments fisted above reflect only those ofthe
Buildin�&,r Division and additional co gent- may, beforthcotningfrcin other Del artmenls.
Another recent change with the review letters is that they are now sent to property owners, in addition to the
design professionals (architects, engineers, etc.). This practice provides petitioners with additional information on
the status of their projects and the number of necessary corrections to their development plans.
Continue to Encourage Preapplication Meetings
All development applicants,, along with their, desig"n professlionals and contractors, are encouraged to participate in
preapplication meet , i , ngs for projects of any size. In many instances, staff conducts, these meetin,gs at the project
site 'in orderto maketthe meetings tnost productive., The meetings save, tihnefor the applicants and staff since
imany issues that mfight not otherwise a,ri,se until the, initial plan review can be 'easily addressed at the
preapplication meeting.
Contact Persons
Projects requiring review by multiple Village departments can, create firustratton on, the
,part, of applicants trying to,
get a status report on their review, since they do not know exactly who to call., Likewise, these multip,le contacts
and phone calls create a poor use of staff time. To resolve this problerna single contact person, will be as,signed,
to larszer projects requiring review by multiple departments. This approacli, happens as matter of course with
many projects. For example, those projects going t1irougli, it Plan Commission or ZoiiinBoard, of Appeals have
a * staff planner as a, contact. Likewise, as, described later, "Public, Works assigns a Project Engineer to serve as a
s,tngle point of contact, for site development permits. The determination of need for a contactperson, and the
assignment of that staff member, will be made by the Community Development and/or Public Works Director on
a case by case basis.
Recommended Enhancements
Lo iws
11 11111 111 Irl 11511 111 1 1111111111 1
I MWIMMYJ
Permit Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
August 13, 1998
Page 3
and zoning ordinances. The workshops would run for several hours and be Set up as either an overview of the
development process, or would focus on a particular aspect of development. The workshops will help those that
have gone, or will go through the development process by explaining many of the key points that are in the
Village's development related codes. In order to benefit those who may miss the session, it would be video taped
and made available at all times.
Revising Handouts and Applications
The Building Division plans to update its handouts and applications. The update is intended to make the forms
easier to complete, have them include more useful in -formation about Village codes, and generally improve their
appearance. This will be the latest in an ongoing effort to keep the forms current with changes to local and
national codes,,, and reflect comments from, 'those W110 use them. Sainple permit applications fior walk-through
permits are included as Attaclintent 3. Likewise, the Planning Division will be updafi11
cotnpleted for Zoning Roard of,A,ppeals and Plan, Commission requests. ng the applications to be
Information Packet
Along the lines of revised handouts the Community Development Department will be preparing an information
packet to distribute to developers of larger projects — such a handout already exists for residents doing home
improvement projects. The packet will include information such as contact people at the Village and other
agenctes, project teimhs, and' a list of Village doctiments, that can answer development questions (for example the
zon n
I g ordinances
development code, etc.). Fire Preventi"O"11 currently has a handout f contractors related to fire
protection, and it has proven very beneficial.
ry]*� MM01461101110
Recent Enhancements
Customer Service Improvements
The Building Division has recently taken several actions to make the permitting process more user friendly. The
latest improvements are:
1. Standards have been set up in the Building Division to keep a more controlled line at the building permit
counter. So far, the system has made the process more orderly for the building clerks and applicants.
2. The Building Division has instituted a regular article in the Village newsletter. The article will provide
residents with helpful hints about home maintenance and safety, and to remind them of the types of
improvements that require building permits.
3. Hours of the Building Division have been expanded to make staff available forquestions and inspections
between 7:30am and 5:00pm. In addition, inspectors are available until 7:30pm on two Tuesdays each month
to provide residents with the opportunity for evening inspections and permit application submittals.
4. The Building Division has started accepting pen -nit and plan review fees (by check) at the building counter.
This will save residents, business owners, and contractors from starting at the building counter, going to the
finance counter to pay fees and then returning to the building counter for their permits. This change also will
make better use of staff time in both Building and Finance. ,
Inspection Checklists
In order to increase the amount of information provided to those doing building projects, the Building Inspectors
providewritten tten inspection comments to the customer at the inspection. This is intended to reduce confusion as to
what corrections are required, what code requires those corrections, and maintain a written record of required
corrections. Fire Prevention also uses this format, for which it has received positive feedback.
Perin it Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
August 13, 1998
Page 4
Surveys
The Community Development Department has been conducting customer service surveys of those that have been
through the permitting process. The first type, a mail -back survey, is included with all final paper work
(Certificates of Occupancy and Completion) sent to property owners and contractors. Thisprovides an
opportunity for all those that have been through the process to comment to the Village (a copy of this survey form
is included as Attachment 4). The Fire Prevention Bureau is now in the process of conducting a similar mail -back
survey.
The Department Director and Deputy also conducted phone interviews last fall/winter with home owners and
businesses that had completed the process the previous summer. The surveys provided insights into customer
service needs like those outlined in this memo. The surveys, which were stopped temporarily when the files were
sent out to be microfilmed, will be started again in the fall for those who went through the permit process over
this summer.
Recommended Enhancements
Technological Enhancements
The Village is currently in negotiations with Systems Consultants, Inc. (SCI) to develop and install a
computerized information management system for the Village. One module of that system will be used by the
Community Development Department to track building permits and inspections. It can also be used to track
projects through the development approval process. At this time, the permit and inspections module is being
revised by the company, and projected to be available early in 1999. However, Community Development staff
has taken advantage of the opportunity to meet with the technician that is writing the new software. The company
was informed of how our permitting process works and how we envision using the software. This will help to
increase the software's compatibility with our procedures when it is installed.
This computerized permit and inspection tracking system will make other technological enhancements possible.
Two such items are currently included in the Village's Capital Improvements Plan — a voice permit system and
hand held computers. The first will allow customers to determine the status of permits, schedule inspections, and
leave messages any time of day. The second item will improve efficiency of both Community Development grid
Fire Prevention Bureau inspectors by eliminating the duplication of work (writing up inspection results) that
currently takes place. Another planned enhancement is to make building permit applications available on the
Village's internet site, which is currently in operation. Ultimately, it may be possible to allow residents to apply
for certain permits over the internet, without ever leaving their home.
A elditio n al Staffi,
The overview report on the development approval process included a survey of neighboring communities,
indicating their permit volumes and staffing loads. That survey showed that the Village of Mount Prospect is at
the low end of staffing in relation to number of permits issued. Current Building Division staff is continually
behind with day-to-day permit and inspection volumes (for example, it is only during the slower winter months
that smaller projects where "final inspections" were never requested are revisited to ensure proper construction or
installation). In addition, it is very difficult for the inspectors to devote additional time to new customer service
activities. To that end, an additional staff member in the Building Division would allow for significant
improvements in customer service.
The new position would be that of a Plans Examiner. This person, who would be knowledgeable in all building
disciplines, would review all building plans for compliance with the building code. Inspectors would be available
to conduct more scheduled inspections on a daily basis, help with property maintenance inspections, better
respond to residents' questions and complaints, and conduct other field work. In addition, the Plans Examiner
would serve as a single point of contact for the walk-through permits (removing the requirement for residents to
Permit Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
August 13, 1998
Page 5
also stop at the Planning and Engineering Divisions). Finally, the Plans Examiner would serve as a permit clerk,
checking complex submittals to ensure their completeness.
A new Plans Examiner position is desirable because it would take on some responsibilities of each member of the
Btttld'trig Divi's*i,on, allowing them to, more qtrickly aid thoroughly complete their other duties. Inaddition, by
b
I econein g ttie, t"OCLIS �Of the walk-th,]FOUgh permits, this position also would, relieve members of the Buildlna and
ilivisions of tie regular nterrup i E
ngineet sneering
fiotis to, their work days created by those permits. D*i
In contrast to adding new staff, the possibility of contracting out ",For plan reviewslervi,ces was considered. Having
0,
a third party conduct some or all of the building peri it plan reviews also wot,,,ild, free staff to conduct other
activities, as described above. The same would be true of reviews conducted by the Engineering Division of
Public Works. However, this option is considered inadequate for several reasons, including:
1) Third party review services have a client base of many communities, and will not necessarily be able to
conduct plan reviews faster than in-house staff.
2) The person conducting the review cannot be as familiar as in-house staff with the nuances of the
community, development codes, or even the petitioners. This would lead to a less complete review.
3) Having the reviews conducted off-site makes quality control difficult for Village staff that manage the
review process.
4) Third party reviewers often have to call with questions related to the project, local codes, sites, etc. This
consumes staff time and creates a situation in which Village staff have traded review time for
administrative time.
5) The petitioners waiting for their reviews to be completed will still call Village staff, who will be less able
to update them on progress of the review.
6) Coordination between plan review and field inspection becomes difficult when the review is conducted by
a third party.
�1_ VOINUT to K_
Recommended Enhancements - Reducing Required Stops
The challenges to the walk-through permit process were detailed in the permit process overview report. In
summary, these are permits issued for simple projects (sheds, fences, driveways, etc) and do not require Fire
Prevention's approval. However, the process creates difficulties for both residents (the need to visit multiple
Village Divisions and both the Village Hall and Public Works Building) and staff (causing numerous interruptions
to the work day).
As noted above, the most desirable improvement to the walk-through process would be to add the position of
Plans Examiner in the Building Division. However, a streamlined review process is worthwhile regardless of
whether additional staffing is feasible. Therefore, other enhancements will be implemented to the walk-through
process that will somewhat ease the problems described above. The first is that applications for straight -forward
removal and replacement of driveways or sidewalks will no longer require Planning Division sign -off. This
reduces the number of residents that must take their applications to the Planning Division. Secondly, permits for
fences., sheds, and remove and replace concrete work will not have to be taken to the Public Works Building. The
Engineering Division will provide the Building Division with a list of properties in the flood plain. Those outside
the area will not require Engineering's signature.
Permit Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
August 131 1998
Page 6
SITE DEVEWPMENT PERMITS
Recent Enhancements
Provide Staff Contact
Applicants have been confused and frustrated at the number of divisions and people reviewing any given plan set,
and the number of individual comments being returned by the Public Works Department. To reduce this
confusion, Public Works has channeled all reviews through a project engineer. The Project Engineer routes all
plans to the appropriate Division, and collects all review comments. All comments are then compiled into a single
response from Public Works. The Project Engineer then serves as the contact person for both the design
professional submitting the plans, and the Public Works review staff.
Issite Permits in Sections
In order to expedite the building and development process, many applicants with larger projects request that
permits be issued in sections — before their complete building and site plans have been submitted or completely
reviewed. This has already been partially done (as described below) by allowing fire alarm/sprinkler installation
as a separate process. In addition, the Village has and will continue to consider other partial permits requests on a
case by case basis. The most common such requests relate to demolishing a building or installing a new building
foundation prior to final approved plans. Likewise, at the other end of the process, the Village issues Temporary
Certificates of Occupancy. This allows projects that are very close to completion to be occupied while certain
building or site improvements are finished.
Zoning Board of Appeals Cases
In order to provide more detailed consideration by the Village's Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA.), the Engineering
Division now provides a memo describing their preliminary review of ZBA cases. In the memo, which is attached
to the ZBA staff report, Engineering provides their insights to the specific zoning request. This does not constitute
a complete or final engineering review for two reasons: 1) developers typically do not undertake final engineering
until they have received zoning approval (this reduces the developer's risk and expense), and 2) it is possible that
the project will not be approved by the ZBA and Village Board, or may not occur because of market or financial
reasons. Therefore, a detailed engineering review of preliminary plans will in all likelihood have to be redone.
Recommended Enhancements
Additional Staffing
The many site plan and engineering reviews conducted by the Engineering Division flow through a single plan
reviewer. That Project Engineer also has responsibility for a number of other activities. Public Works has taken
steps to relieve the Project Engineer of some tasks. Review of walk-through permits has been assigned to a
different member of the Engineering staff. In addition, Public Works is looking at reorganizing job assignments,
and is considering transferring the sidewalk program (currently under the Project Engineer) to Streets and
Buildings.
However, given the volume of plans to be reviewed and the frequency with which those submittals are
incomplete, one staff person still does not have enough time to complete the pending reviews (and re -reviews of
plans with corrections) to keep up with the pace of development activity. In addition, compared to other
communities, Engineering is under -staffed in relation to the development projects and issues they handle. An
additional Project Engineer would allow for both plan reviews and non -plan review tasks to be conducted more
quickly and thoroughly, providing more prompt service to residents and developers.
Permit Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
ALICYLISt 13 1998
Im I
Paa0e 7
Plan Review time -Frame
The Village's Development Code allows for a sixty day turnaround time for s ite/engi nee ring reviews. Tk
Bung Code allows for a twenty-two working day turnaround for building plan review. All department
involved in development approval endeavor to review plans as quickly and thoroughly as possible. It should bi
noted that while completing reviews quickly is important, a review that is not done thoroughly can ultimately adi
to the time and cost of a project if something is missed. This concern aside, the maximum time -frames often causi
conflict for petitioners looking for firm deadlines, and hoping to move their projects at a fast pace.
While is it understandable that development applicants would desire a short, firm time -frame for reviews, it woul
not be wise to set an arbitrary number of days. As described throughout this memo a number of steps hav
recently been taken to improve and shorten the review process. As is also noted here, the best way to reduc
review time is to add staff. In either case, the appropriate way to establish a review time -frame is to assess th 11
impact of improvements to the system that have and will be enacted. At that point the reviewing departments wi
better understand their capabilities and can identify an accurate review time.
Recent Enhancements
Flexible ZBA Schedule
The pace at which projects requiring ZBA and Village Board review move through the approval process i
affected by the availability of ZBA meetings. The current approval process is depicted graphically in Attachme
5. The ZBA meets officially only once a month (the fourth Thursday). In cases where a project just misses
deadline to publish for a public hearing, waiting for the next monthly meeting can add several weeks to th
process. To accelerate some projects, the group has held special meetings on the second Thursday. These extr
meetings have complemented staff s efforts to shorten the approval process. I
Flexible Plat Review Scheduling
Plats of subdivision are reviewed by the Engineering and Planning Divisions prior to being presented to the Pla
Commission for their consideration and approval. In many ways the issues related to a subdivision application ar
similar to those of final engineering, which were described above. Preparing a plat, and subsequently reviewin
that plat are best done toward the end of the development review process. This is because the configuration of
property., the structures it will contain, and/or the location of utilities are generally in flux until late in the sit
design and review processes. Therefore, in order to expedite development approval, projects needing both zonin
and plat approval have been allowed to go through the zoning process ahead of the subdivision approval.
Recommended Enhancements
Zoning Board Meeting Schedule
Given that the ZBA has called several special meetings in the last several months to accommodate developer'
schedules, and the benefit to petitioners of greater flexibility in the ZBA schedule, the ZBA should formalize t
practice of having two meetings per month. I
Modify ZBAIPNn Commission Tasks
In some cases, petitioners need to seek approval of both the ZBA and Plan Commission for separate elements of
their proposals. For example, a development may require both rezoning (from the ZBA) and a plat of subdivision
(from the Plan Commission). The responsibilities of these bodies should be modified to eliminate the need to go
before both groups. Currently, accommodating this need requires complex scheduling. In addition, it has created
situations where little time for staff review is allowed and/or incomplete information has come to a reviewing
body.
Permit Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
AL1gUSt 13, 1998
Page 8
Eliminate Concurrency Vote
After a petition is passed from the ZBA or Plan Commission to the Village Board, it is heard at three separatc-P
meetings — each held two weeks apart. The first is a concurrency vote, at which the Village Board hears the
findings of the recommending body. This is commonly where the Village Board discusses the item in detail. The
concurrency vote is a local requirement that is somewhat unique to the Village of Mount Prospect. In most
communities, the first time that the Village Board hears a case is at the first reading of the ordinance, since the
public hearing took place at the ZBA meeting. After the concurrency vote, the ordinance granting the petition is
heard at two separate meetings (although the Board does entertain requests to waive the second reading). In order
to quicken total approval time, the Village Board should consider eliminating the concurrency vote, thereby
eliminating two, and sometimes three weeks from the process. If the Village Board does not feel that they, or the
public, has had sufficient time to review a particular petition, they have the authority to continue the matter to
another meeting.
MN 0 �1111, IN
iijawl �
As described here and in the development process overview, fire alarm/sprinkler permits are issued separately
from building and site development permits. This does not mean that the procedures are completely separate. In
fact, the Fire Prevention Bureau is an integral element of the plan review and approval process for relevant
projects. Issuing permits separately reflects the manner in which fire alarm/sprinkler contractors are hired by
developers (usually well after the project has begun construction). At this time, this aspect of the review and
permitting process works well and is not planned to be updated.
Recommended changes to permit fees for building and fire alarm/sprinkler permits were presented in the previous
report. Those recommendations include changing to more flat fees for building permits in order to clarify the
process for residents, businesses and contractors. In addition, they more accurately reflect the amount of
inspection and plan review effort that is required of Village staff. The Public Works Department and its
Engineering Division are continually working to simplify the site development fee schedule, and—wiff-continue to
do so. It is anticipated that upon Village Board approval, revised fees will be put into place in January 1, 1999
(including any relevant changes in site development fees). Changing the fee schedule at the first of the year avoids
creating ineques for those not expecting the changes during the construction season.
The input of developers and contractors to thi's process raised a number of questions and su orestions. Most of
91D
them focused on making the development process happen more quickly. Many of those comments have been
0
addressed by the recommendations in this memo or other actions of the Village. However 9 in many instances the
petitioner can act to expedite the process. Those instances, which would be addressed in the workshops noted
earlier,, are described below:
L, After a long review process, there are often revisions that need to be addressed. This happens because th
submittals are not prepared in compliance with the Village's development related ordinances. The Villag
has no choice but to send them back for corrections.
r
2. Inspections shouldfocus only on potential fire, safety and life hazards. While this approach might appea
shorter, it must be noted that many detailed inspection items also relate to issues of life safety and publi
health. Also inspections aimed at protecting a property owners investment must also be considered importani
Permit Review Process — Changes and Recommendations
August 13, 1998
Page 9
3. Plans draw'n by an architect would meet building codes and should be reviewed only on a super level.
I ficial le 1.
Unfortunately, it is staff s experience that having an architect draw plans does not ensure that they are
adequately prepared.
4. For single family subdivisions, the developer should he able to submit a preapproved site plan with their
application. A preapproved site plan would work well, except that the initial grading of a site often change
during the construction process. This change requires that a new review be conducted.
5. Contractors wouldh' "I mina pqymg higher fees if the application could be approved in a short thlie frame.
The ciffficulty with this suggestion't'S one of equity. It would not est benefit the applicant paying the rusl"'I &e,
but, would, pena,,1"11'ze'theresl*,den.,t that" does not (or cannot) pay such a fee to be moved ahead in the review line.
As described here, efforts aimed at improving the permit review and approval process are ongoing. The actions,
ve the development
suggestions, and recommendations, listed here describe the latest efforts (and plans) to impro
approval protess in Mo�unt Prospect. Staff believes that these recent enhancements Inave, addressed many oftlie,
*
conc,ems raised by our "o-ustomers�" by cla rtif yin,g and streamlining the permit process. In addition,, the
recommended modifications outlined in this memo will further enhance our service delivery capabilities.
The 1' n,
, pa
put, rovided by those have rticipatedin the aforementioned surveys, works'hops, and focus groups,
P
0
has proven, invaluable to our, recentefforts. We will continue to encourage public 'input as we move forward,, with,
the "implementation, of these process modification S. We would request that you forward this memo and the
previous report it references to the Village Board for their review and consideration at a future Committee of the
Whole meeting. We look forward to further discussing this matter.
abs
k\Vti\VO2YDEPIRCOMDEV\GEN\BUI]LDING\Permit Process Reportdoc
ATTACHMENTS
EIEC Minutes Related to Permitting and Plan Approval Processrw.r.��,,r��„�....w...w. �w..rw... Attachment l
Summary of Contractor Focus Group w.......N4b IW0#0,#4*0*0,.,.9M,0A,*"..r'#**##*r..*,*w,III,&.116.....� Attachment
Sample Walk -Through Permit Applications ...............................,.....' #**4'.x..s..q .* III, ..NINO0w0, IN,V ONION, ...rN's r.. ttach e t 3
Building Permit Process Survey Form rrrrr...........................NIN.40*A�..6..y.W*.#r.owww.�,O'.. ,�.,r:.-rr ���.��..ww.....Attachment 4
Boards and Commissions Approval Process Flog Chart ........ *141* . r M, 0 * . **,N,* r * * * 0, µ, r. .....#4 r w. Attachment 5
Overview of Building and Development Permit .Process .,........,10 0, -. w...9 Owl w .. r. *.... Attachment d
ATTACHMENT
EDC Minutes Related to Permitting and Plan Approval Process
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2nd Floor Conference Room, Village Hall
Thursday, August 6, 1998
8:00 a.m.
The meeting of the Economic Development Commission (EDC) of the Village of Mount Prospect was heR
on Thursday, August 6, 1998 in the second floor conference room of Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street,,
Mount Prospect, Illinois.
Chairman Norman Kurtz called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Commissioners, Bruce Gillilan, Norman
Kurtz and David Lindgren and Ben Trapani were present. Commissioner John Arndt and Patricia Biedar
were absent. Also present were William J. Cooney, Director of Community Development and Michael Blue,
Deputy Director of Community Development.
APPROVAL OF MIN`U'TES
MW"O
Mr. Trapani moved to approve the minutes of the May 7, 1998 meeting. Mr. Lindgren seconded the motion.
Mr. Gillilan indicated that he felt the minutes should be modified to reflect Mr. Trapani's comments that the
Village should pursue the acquisition of properties that are available for the ring road extension near the
intersection of Route 83 and Rand Road. Specifically, the Village should pursue the acquisition of properties
that are currently available and for sale. All Commission members agreed with the modification and voted
unanimously to approve the minutes as amended.
IQ — IMM 191
Mr. Cooney indicated he had distributed a copy of the most recent economic development update to the
Commissioners in their packet. Some of the projects discussed were the Big K Mart, Borders Books, Mrs.
P and Me, 3Com, Menard's and Auto Barn developments. In addition, Mr. Cooney explained that Lincoln
Technical Institute is reviewing multiple sites in town. Mr. Gillilan indicated he felt the former Windego
Hotel property may be appropriate for this use. Mr. Cooney stated he would look into that as an option.
DoWn'town,'Ike dievel men�t
Mr. Cooney explained that staff is continuing to work with property owners in the Phase I area of the
proposed redevelopment to determine price for acquisition. He stated that the Village is nearly complete
with appraisals for all these properties and the Village Board has authorized acquisition of several of these
parcels. Mr. Kurtz stated that he felt that the momentum that was created from the Ad Hoc Committee's
efforts was beginning to lose steam and that he felt that the Village Board needed to take action to
demonstrate that the Village is serious about this redevelopment. He inquired about the status of the
demolition of the recently purchased properties on the northeast comer of Northwest Highway and Route
83. Mr. Cooney indicated that the Public Works Department had disbursed demolition specs to various
companies and anticipates awarding a demolition contract by mid-September. All the Commission members
stressed that they felt it was very important that the Village keep the momentum moving forward and send
a positive message to the development community that the Village is interested in continuing redevelopment
of the downtown.
Economic Development Commission
Minutes
Page 2
NEW BUSINESS
Review of'Buildinil Pet-, mit and, Deve lonnient Reviliew, Prgeess,
Mr. Cooney stated that, since the May meeting, staff has met with several developers and subcontractors to
further review the Village's policies and regulations regarding the permit and development review process.
He indicated that the attached memo highlighted several recently enacted enhancements to the process and
proposed several recommended enhancements. He stated that the input of the various individuals that
participated in this process has been invaluable and he believed the recommendations provided in the
document would further improve the service delivery capability of the Village. He stated that Mr. Blue
would quickly run through the document and highlight some of the changes being proposed.
Mr. Blue discussed the various enhancements that have been implemented by the departments involved in
the permit and development review process. He stated that the focus has been on reducing the amount of
departments that have to review particular development items and improving the handouts and literature that
explains the process to individuals. He stated that the majority of the recommended enhancements relate
to technological improvements and additional staffing. He stated that the anticipated new computer program
that the Village is investing in should greatly improve the staff's ability to track permits and allow customers
to access information. He indicated that would depend on some of the requested technological purchases,
including voice permit systems and hand held computers. He stated the Village Board had tentatively
supported the purchase of these items in the recent CIP discussions, but that official authorization would be
needed in the upcoming budget discussions. He stated that staff is proposing the addition of two new staff
positions aimed at expediting the permit process for our customers. The first position would be a project
engineer. this individual would be primarily responsible for conducting engineering reviews and would free
up other staff positions in the Engineering Division to more adequately provide their services. The second
proposed staff position would be a plans examiner in the Building Division. This position would be
responsible for reviewing all building permit plans and acting as a conduit for customers requiring additional
counseling throughout the permitting process. This position would act as a liaison to individuals going
through the permit process and limit the necessary contact to one individual.
Mr. Trapani indicated he was pleased with the efforts of staff and thought that this issue has long been due
to be discussed. He stated that although there were frustrations in the development he was recently involved
in that having one contact person significantly improved the understanding and ability to complete that
project. He supported the addition of the two new staff positions and felt this would enable the turnaround
time for permits to be reduced significantly. He suggested that staff investigate eliminating certain practices
related to required escrows for completion of projects. The Commission generally discussed the overall
document and recommended forwarding it to the Village Board for their review and consideration. They
felt strongly that the additional staffing and improved technology were critical in order for the Village to
adequately provide services to the development community. Mr. Lindgren moved to recommend that the
Village Board adopt the recommendations as outlined in the staff report. Mr. Trapani seconded the motion.
It was passed unanimously.
Building Permit and Development Guide
Mr. Cooney discussed utilizing some of the economic development funds to create a Building Permit and
Development Guide similar to one done by the City of Chicago. He handed out the Chicago guide and asked
for comments. The general discussion was that, although the guide was helpful, the Chicago guide was very
MMME�
Economic Development Commission
Minutes
Page 3
thorough and may have too much information for the typical customer of the Village. The Economic
Development Commission suggested that staff look at smaller handouts and utilizing the internet as a
locat'lon for much of the Information that was being proposed in the other guide. They indicated, that the
printing costs of such a guide would be excessive and probably would not be worthwhile. Staff indicated
they would investigate other alternatives and report back to them at the next meeting.
Chamber, of Commerce Out *
1
hairma
, jj� �Ile �
Cn, 'I� It
There was no Chairman's report.
The Commission agreed that the next official meeting would be held on October 8, 1998. The meeting was
adjourned at 9:15 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
045
William J. Coon.ley, Jr., ICP
Director of Community Development
mmiWe "I
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2nd Floor Conference Room, Village Hall
Thursday, May 7, 1998
8:00 a.m.
The meeting of the'Econo,mic Development Commission (EDIC) ,r; Village of'Mount, Prospe
ul
wasi held on'Thux, sday, " 7, 19 9 8, Mthe second floor con&rence'room, of Village Hal 1 1; 1, 00 Soll
Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois,
Chailman. Norman Kurtz called the meeting to order at 8:00 am. Conu,,rnssloners Jolmm-ArIndt,
Patricia Biedar, Bruce Gillilan, Norman Kurtz and Ben Trapani were present'. Co ornnussi10,
or David
Lindgren was absent. Also present were Mayor'Gerald "Skip" Farley, William J. Cooney, Director
of Community Development, Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development, Bill
George, Building Coordinator, Paul Valentine, Fire Marshal, and Jeff Wulbecker, Village Engineer.
Mr. Trapani moved to approve the minutes of the February 5, 1998 meeting. Mr. Bruce Gillilan
seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Cooney distributed the most recent economic develop mentupdate to the Commissioners. There
*0
was general discussion regarding the following projects: Meijer, Menard's, 3Com, Walgreen's, the
downtown train station depot, Venture, Auto Barn, and the former Charlie Club health club. In
addition, there was discussion regarding the progress of the downtown redevelopment, efforts. Mr.
Cooney indicated that staff was working with the preferred developer, Town Centre LLC, and that
they hoped to finalize the redevelopment agreement within the next sixty days.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Cooney stated that staff had been working the past several months in an effort to review and
improve the permit and development review process in Mount Prospect. He stated that this is an
ongoing process and that several modifications have been made over the past year. He stated Mr.
Blue would provide a general overview of the staff report that was given to each of the members.
Mr. Blue stated that staff had been working with the business community, contractors and residents
41
in an effort to obtain their viewpoint on the pen -nit and development review process. He stated that,
Economic Development Commission
Minutes
P,-ige 2
1
while there is an inherent conflict between the Village and contractors through the permit process,
staff believed the process could be modified to significantly 'improve the communication between
all those involved in the process. He stated that it was the goal of the Village staff to devise a
process that was clearly understood and as short as possible while maintaining the integrity of the
Village's role of ensuring proper building standards are adhered to in the Village. Mr. Blue outlined
several steps that had currently been taken and indicated other areas that are under review. He
indicated that after the EDC has made comments staff would work over the following months to
devise a final recommendation and bring it back to the Economic Development Commission for their
review and approval.
The EDC raised several questions regarding Mr. Blue's presentation. Mr. Arndt indicated that it
would appear that the Building and Engineering Divisions are understaffed in relation to surrounding
communities in the northwest suburbs. He stated that the 800+ annual inspections conducted by our
inspectors was significantly higher than the average in the other communities. He stated it would
appear that hiring additional inspectors would be warranted to reduce the overall time for permit
reviews and the inspection process. Ms. Biedar indicated she had heard from many small businesses
that they are surprised by some of the Village requirements for locating their facilities in town. She
stated that often these smaller businesses enter into leases and then find out about these requirements
later. Mr. Cooney indicated that staff has prepared several handouts that are intended to clearly
describe Village requirements for various permits but that the Village is somewhat limited in what
they can do if the *individuals don't contact them prior to signing a lease. There was discussion
regarding providing this information to shopping center owners and requiring them to provide it to
tenants before they sign leases.
The Econo'rm*c Development Commission generally stated that they felt the document was well
written and thorough. They stated that they look forward to staff s final recommendation regarding
the process. Mr. Cooney said it is staffs goal to make the process understandable and as quick as
possible and that this would benefit the entire community. He stated staff would attempt to have the
final recommendation ready for their next meeting in July.
all tly;4 OU'D
Mr. Cooney displayed two boards that illustrated the proposed ring roads along the Rand Road
Corridor that have been discussed during the recent Rand Road Corridor Plan hearings. He
demonstrated one interior ring road that would connect the Wal-Mart and Mount Prospect Plaza
properties through to the future Menard's site. In addition, he discussed other ring road alternatives
near the Rand/Kensington/Rte. 83 intersection that would eliminate turning movements at this
intersection and improve the overall traffic flow. In addition, these ring roads would benefit the
surrounding business by providing them access With a traffic signal and eliminating unnecessary
curb cuts along Rand Road.
The Economic Development Commission generally discussed the issue and supported the concept.
They 'Indicated that they believe that the ring roads would certainly benefit this area and maintain
MAY07
- - - - - - - - - - - -
1,
nere was, no Chm Manlys report,
tou,mwent
Economic Development Commission
Minutes
Page 3
The Co, ssion. a that the next officied meeting would be held on July 2, 1998. Therneeting
was adjourned atam.
RespectfWly submitted,
sib
Williana J. Cooney, Jr., AICP
Director of Commumty, Development
WJC:bhs
0
MINUTES
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
2nd Floor Conference Room, Village Hall
Thursday, May ;l, 1997
8:00 a.m.
rs
The meeting, of theEconorn "c Deve lopment Cwnmiss ion (EDC oftheVi ' I age of Mount Prospect was held on Tlbu day,
May 1, 1997in the second floor conference room,of Village, Hall, 100 South, Emerson, Street, Mount ProspectIlli i
11, 1 inois.
Chairman Norman Kurtz called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. Chairman Norman Kurtz, Patricia Biedar, David
Lindgren, Brian McCarthy and Ben Trapani were present. Members absent were John Arndt and Bruce Gillian.
Representing the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce Government Affair's Committee were Jack Halpin, Adelaide
Thulin and Brian We' inberg. Also present wereMayor Gerald, Farley, William, 1. Cooney, Director of Community
Development, Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Developmentand, Brad Paulson, Bulilding Coordinator.,
gtma-mix W0133B, gtw
A motion to approve the minutes of the March 11, 1997 meeting was made by a motion by David Lindgren, seconded
by Ben Trapani. The motion passed unanimously 5-0.
QLD RUSINES5 -
Mr. Cooney updated the Commission on current projects in the Kensington Business Center. These potential
developments include Sumitomo, Wace USA, Novocon, Northfield Labs and a new development by OPUS. In addition
Mr. Cooney updated the Commission on the United Airlines annexation project, the purchase of Terrace Supply, the
Streetscape Program, IllinoisRange and Dealer's Mart.
NEW BUSINE
Mr. Cooney provided a brief overview to the EDC and Chamber representatives regarding the proposed changes to the
Village Building & Ancillary Codes. He then introduced Mr. Paulson, Building Coordinator, who detailed the proposal.
Mr. Paulson indicated that one of the primary reasons that the Staff was proposing the adoption of the 1996 Code was
in response to the upcoming ISO review of the Building Division. He stated that ISO will be reviewing all Building
Departments throughout the country and assigning a rating similar to how they handle Fire Departments currently. He
indicated that this was primarily in response to the many natural disasters that have taken place in recent years, most
specifically the Hurricane Andrew in Florida. He indicated that a major component of the rating would be the codes
that are being enforced in each Village. He stated that if the Village would continue using the 1990 BOCA Codes that
ISO may reduced the Village's rating by as much as 40%. This reduced rating would impact property insurance rates
in the Village as does the Fire Department rating.
Mr. Paulson indicated that the 1996 BCCA Code was the result of many meetings held by BCCA International to
address current development techniques. He indicated that input was received by many professionals in the various
development fields. These professionals include contractors, architects, developers, building officials and many others.
He indicated that there are numerous changes that are encompassed in the 1996 Code versus the 1990 Code. These
changes reflect the changing building techniques and materials that continually evolve.
There was much discussion amongst the EDC and Chamber representatives regarding the benefit of adopting the 1996
Codes. The primary benefit appeared to be the impact on the insurance ratings for the Village. Mr. Lindgren stated he
felt that the EDC would not be doing its job if it did not do everything in its power to keep the cost of doing business
down in Mount Prospect. He stated that given the recent determination by ISO to rate the Building Divisions, that the
Village Board should revisit the budget for the Building Division to ensure that adequate staffing is available to maintain
a high rating. He stated that he believed that by not keeping current building codes and maintaining an appropriate staff
that the insurance rates in the Village would increase significantly and that it would be much more Cost effective to
address the issue upfront. 'Mere was no general concurrence with Mr. Lindgren's statements by members of the EDC.
and the Chamber.
Ms. Biedar indicated that she has had several discussions with local businesses about the difficulty of obtaining permits
in the Village. She stated that several of the current codes require retrofitting of buildings when new tenants occupy
space. There was discussion regarding what types of changes trigger code requirements for new occupants. Ms. Biedar
said she thought it would be beneficial if the Village required owners to make improvements versus tenants. Staff
indicated that the decision regarding who was to pay for the upgrades of a facility is negotiated between the owner and
tenant. The Village's role is to ensure that the improvements are installed properly. It was recommended that the
Chamber sponsor a seminar for property owners and tenants regarding building codes and various code requirements.
Mr. Cooney indicated that his staff would be happy to present a general overview of the building permit process and
requirements at a Chamber sponsored event.
Mr. Lindgren made a motion to recommend that the Village Board make it a practice to adopt the current Building &
Ancillary Codes and that they revisit the Building Division's budget to ensure that the Division is properly staffed to
address the components of the upcoming ISO rating program. Mr. Trapani seconded the motion and it passed
unanimously by a vote of 5-0.
Business Attraction Committee - No report.
Marketing Committee - No report.
Business Retention Committee - Mr. Cooney indicated that he had been working with Sumitomo and
Novocon in the Kensington Business Center regarding expansion of their facilities in Mount Prospect He
asked the Retention Committee if they were available for a retention visit to these properties during the
upcoming weeks. Mr. Lindgren said that he would be willing to meet with these businesses to inform hien
when a visit could be set up.
Mr. Halpin indicated that the Chamber of Commerce has decided not continue the Shop Mount Prospect Program. He
10
indicated that although the Program had been successful, finding continued funds to operate this program was difficult
and, therefore, Chamber has decided not to continue this program.
0
Mr. Kurtz's congratulated Mayor Farley on his recent successful write-in campaign re-election for Mayor. Ile other
Commission members shared in the congratulations. Mr. Kurtz added that there will be a social event prior to the May
6th Village Board Meeting at the Senior Center. The event is intended to provide Commission members an opportunity
to meet the new Trustees and congratulate the incumbents. Mr. Kurtz also inquired about the status of a downtown
meeting to discuss the redevelopment opportunities. Mayor Farley indicated that he was hoping for a May 31 st,
Saturday morning meeting to discuss this matter and that they would be in touch with the EDC if this were to be
finalized.
It was agreed that the next EDC meeting would be held on July 10, 1997.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 a.m.
R,sp ctfullysubmitted,,,
William L, Cooney, Jr., AJCP
Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENT
Summary of Contractor Focus gaup
SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONTRACTOR FOCUS GROUP: MAY 5, 1998
an S.,
Gri—cs - Opus North
Larry McKone - Gettysburg Development Corp.
Jeff Zurlindeh & have Hillstrom - Efraim Carlson & Son
Phil emar - emar Home Builders
Dan Tannhauser - J C Anderson
Jim Vinci & Bob Eckl - Pepper Construction Company
Question 1: What have you experienced to be the greatest difficulty in obtainingpermits
from the Village of Mount Prospect?
0 Different Departments holding on to the file too long can bog down the process.
0 Departments being overworked causes the permit process too take to long.
# Contractors are told only their "number in line" when calling about a permit.
# It can take 2 to 3 months for permits. This makes it hard to organize the trades, and creates
problems getting construction going before winter.
# After a long review process, there are often revisions that need to be addressed.
# When revisions are resubmitted, they go back to the last in line for approval.
It is difficult to get through to the different Departments to find out how the approval process
is going.
The review process doesn't match the development process of the contractors.
Work should be allowed to continue while waiting for approval of the spotted survey.
Too many people involved are in the approval process - there should be one contact person at
the Village.
Question 2: Have you encountered any problems during the inspection procedures in
Mount Prospect? Please be specific,
At the rough inspection, the inspectors should outline everything that needs to be corrected in
writing, so there are no surprised at the final inspection.
Inspectors shouldn't tell the contractors to check with other Departments to verify that the
work is acceptable, even though the contractor is following plans that have been approved
and permitted.
Inspectors should be consistent and not require things that are their personal preferences.
They should show the specific code that relates to what they are requiring.
Inspections should focus on fire, safety and life hazards. A CO shouldn't be disapproved at
final inspection for minor details like a door stop or carpet not being laid. In these cases,
temporary occupancy should be all -owed.
Inspections for footings should be allowed to be set up the morning of the inspection to help
contractors to schedule work.
Engineering staff are helpful when they go out to the site, they usually either approve or
disapprove right there.
Summai-y Of General Contractor Focus Group
May 5, 1998
Page Two
Question 3: What recommendations would you make to improve the permitting process?
The Village should hire a plan reviewer to expedite the review process and provide better
information when contractors call.
• The reviewer should check the plans drawn by an architect only on a superficial level, the
plans would be up to code since the architect did them.
The Village should accept a hold harmless letter either (by job or by year) to allow
contractors to do work prior to having final plans approved.
The_ Village should give out an information package which includes the names, duties and
telephone numbers of the Village employees that are involved in the approval process. All
applications, information on fees, an outline of the processes that are involved, and a list of
common "hot buttons" that come up with projects also should be included.
The Village should 'issue demo, foundation and shell permits so work can be started and
continue in a timely manner.
For single family subdivisions, the developer should be able to submit a pre approved
subdivision site plan with plans for permit approval. Then engineering's review would be
only done once for a subdivision.
Other Contractor recommendations and comments -
Being able to start construction and get the fire permits separately is good.
The quick information available from the Building Clerk Supervisor is very helpful.
People don't want to lease or build in Mount Prospect because of the long and difficult
permit process.
Reputable contractors with a good history in the Village should be given leeway on projects
to complete work requested by inspectors.
o Permit fees should be made known upon submission of application.
0 The Village should hold a pre construction meeting with contractors to let them know what
issues might come up during the review process.
o Permit fees should be charged by the square foot or value to help contractors budget
lo The Village should have a separate reviewer/inspector for residential and commercial/
industrial property, since there are different levels of complexity.
0 Water Reclamation District has new requirements that keep popping up.
0 Some questions that come back from Village are already indicated on theplans.
Bonds should not be required for private property curb work.
o Contractors should be able to make small changes to the plans at the Village, and not have to
resubmit the whole file.
0 The contractors wouldn't mind paying higher fees if the application could be approved in a
short time frame (two weeks).
H: GEN UILDING\GCRES PNS. DOC
ATTACHMENT
Sample Walk -Through Permit Applications
Q
Street Address State Zip Code
Phone Number Ownees, (or representative) Signature
re
Check one: Sub Contractor General Contractor
Company Name
'Street Address C''" State ZIP Code
Phone Number Business License Bond
Aar-o-yed- V=
Community Development
Engineering
FIRM Flood Hazard Zone
Base Flood Elevation
Forestry
Date
6.114A2211,
AJ,16.4 0�
P
�O
Only I driveway per lot, wi& a ma) =*um, of I curd -cut onto the street pavement per. Circular
or dual frontage driveways
g
may be permitted only by Conditional Use.
Max. Driveway LotV,
LotWjgfth MDW
Lot Widt
Z
Width (11dDW) 59' or less 21'
65-67 23'
711-720 25
60'-61' 21'
68'-69' 24!
73-75' 26
Z,11
0
621-64, 4M#
1 701 24.5'
76' or more 26
• Width of driveways servicine d= -car garages be pmmitted to be up to the same width as the garage„ but no 9matex
%ff
if than 32t, within 15' of the garages front elevation.
a !&&- tA.-..- -.A�!.
Parallel paving st* be pe—rmitted as wax to paved driveway surfaces.
• Private sections of the drive (from the sidewalk to the house) be aM*M=*UM 4* inch compacted Grade CJL 6 stone
base, with 4" concrete or 8" compacted Grade C.A. 6 stone base, with2" inch Chiss I bibuninous surface
Mount Prospect Department of Community Development
100 South Emerson Strieet, Mount Prospect Illinois
Ow
Phone 847/370-567"
Fax 847/919-53R
TDD 847/392-6064
A
• Driveway approaches (from street to property line) for single family residences must be constructed of:
a. A minimum 2" compacted Grade C. A. 6 stone base, with 6" concrete.
b. A minimum 8" compacted Grade C.A. 6 stone base, with 2" Class I Bituminous Surface.
Note: PEA GRAVEL IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE ALTERNATE.
• Prick pavers are acceptable if the homeowner signs the attached maintenance and responsibility waiver.
• Brick pavers must be constructed with a minimum 4" compacted Grade C.A. 6 stone base and 1- 11/2" sand.
".412 123.,1
• Sketch the driveway on a current plat of survey indicating width and length.
• The permit fee is S 15.00.The permit is good for one year.
• The following inspections are required:
Prepour - when subbase is installed and compacted; and
Final, when job is complete.
Call 870-5675 for an appointment at least 24 hours in advance.
Mount Prospect Dq mtnat of Community Development Phone 847/970-5675
100 Sou& Ememon Street, Motmt M%..A neq Fax 947/91 S -SM 6
TDD 947/395-244r t-
Ulty,
Street Address State Zip Code
Phone Number Ownees or represeatadve) Signature
11 11. .
........— ........
Phone Number Business License B - ond
qj=&
Community Development
oil Engineering
FIRM Flood Hazard Zone
Z
0 fign, I'd
A shed may not be placed on any easement.
Sheds are not permitted in front yards or required side yards.
0 A mn of a 3' separation from the principle structure must be makitainedl-
W
Z
am A shed can have a muhnum height of 10'.
Only one storage shed is allowed on a lot, in addition to a garage.
0 Z No accessory shed shall be larger than 120 square feet
0 Qniull al.-Rxetbaeks,f�jM, 14nift, W14 I
0. On lots 55in width or less, the shed must be set back 3' from any intefior side or rear lot line.
On lots greater in width than 55), the shed must be set back Y from any interior side or rear lot line.
Comer lots must maintain, a 2(Y mor sideyardL
•
Indicate the lomfion, of the shed on a current plat of survey.
The permit fee is $25.00. The permit is good for 1 year.
Inspections are reViired, call 970-5675 for an appointment at least 24 hours in advance.
Mount Prospect Department of ,yam num ,Developmcnt
100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois
Phone 9471VO-5675
Fix 847/818-5336
U M Community Development
Wk
0 Engineering
FIRM Flood Hazard Zone
Base Flood Elevation
Forestry
ate
- - - ........
Concrete sidewalks should be constructed of a minimum 4" Grade C.A. 6 stone base and 4" of concrete.
Brick pavers must be constructed of a minimum 4" compacted Grade C.A. 6 stone base and 1-1112" sand.
• Sidewalks up to 5' in width may encroach into the required front yard. Service walks up to 3' in width may encroach into
the required side and rear yards.
0 Sidewalks directly adjacent to driveways must be included as part of the total driveway width.
Note: PEA GRAVEL LS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE BASE MATERUL
5uhmitalis Naniki,mal, lnsj)eetiotns
Sketch sidewalk on plat of survey indicating width and length.
The permit fee is $15.00. The permit is good for I year.
• The following inspections are required:
Prepour - when subbase is installed and compacted; and
Final, when job is complete.
• Call 870-5675 for an appointment at least 24 hours in advance.
Mount Prospect Department of Community Development
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect Illinois
Phone 847/870-5675
Fax 847/818-5336
TDD 847/392-6064
F-4
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
Fence Permit
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 4/97
Valuation
Date Issued I
Type of Fence
First Name Last Name
Height of Fence
Street Address City state Zip Code
Phone Number owner's for representative Signature
1 40
WNWO
. . . . ......
Community Development
Engm*eertng
FIRM Flood, Hazard Zone
�m
A permit Is required for all new fences, and for the riephutment of swflons or pod& A perms is xot required to
replace Individual boards. If 50% or more of a feam is replamd► the entire fence mu.st meet cumut zoning requirements.
Ici t a n d I A c a t i o n.L4L.2, LO I J 1, 4,3, 0. 4,.J, 2,, 1 40J. -I
• The maxu""nurn height of a fence allowed, in Nfiyunt Prospect is 5.
• Under the following circumstances a 6 fence may be inAallod,,,s
&keg terial streets as designated in the Comprehensive Plan;
or to screen patios, providd I ffic fence is adjacent to the patio; mfirely behind the house; and no more than 18' long. Patio fcnm
may encroach into the required yard if a 15'setback is maintained.
• Fences are notpermitted in front yards.
• Along aderior side yards, fences must be entirely behind the house and have a MM' =*UM of a P set back almg the exterior side
yard lot line. A 10' iqbt triangle must be *hca a fence kdameds a driveway or right of way.
In and dr eascments. F
• Fences may constucted i public 11614 lowever, it is the property owncesresponst"bility to replace
the fence if the fence is reanoved, by a utility any.
• Fences located M* or across swami shall be a ura of 6' above grade.
• No more than one fence can be built on a lot lim
Phme 847/870-5675
Fax 847/818-5336
TDD 947/3 92-6W
• Electric and barbed wire fences are not permitted. Chain link fences shall be erected so that the barbs are on the bottom.
• Fences shall b -e conAmcted finished -side facing out except when placed adjacent to an arterial street.
Subtpita]s PermR3
a n d 1n s pggf
• Sketch the fence location on a current plat of survey. All physical improvements on the property line must be indicated.
• Indicate the fence materials and style (e.g.) board -on -board, chain- etc.
• The permit fee is $8.00. The permit is good for I year.
•A final Inspection is required when the work is completed.
• Call 870-5675 for an appointment at least 24 hours in advance.
Street
Street
Mount Ptospmt Deparwwat of Comm Devekpwat Phone 947/870-5675
100 South Emason &i*A, Mount hwpect Min� Fax 947/81 &5336
TDD 947/392-6064
Nv'rILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Patio/Terrace- Pen
M-MUNLITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
COL
f
P'-xr-mit Number
Z
IValuation
�sta- �-�
maims
CL'rcle one, New / Repair / Replace / Widen.
Street Add -ss city
State Zip Code
Phone Niumber
Owner'
s (ors repres ta tive)i Signature
t A d, d r e s, s city State . . ... ...
Code
Phone St=ber Business License Bond
Q
kftq Community Development
Cxd
Engineering
FMM Flood Hazard Zone
Base Flood Elevatiori
Forestry
pati
Platios,VenO pe*U,,cd,* M,
Pados musst be set back, 15T from the ricar prope� line*
Pados a6m.
ect reTilred sidqard setb
'dth.
P`=,,os directly a4jacmt to dtiv�,U must''bie included as part of total driveway W1
COncrete,'S'dewalks shouldbe constructed ofa minimum 4" Grade CA- 6 stone base and 4" of cojacmtc.
Brick pavers 3= acceptable if the hiomeow= sl*gns the maq�tcnamca and responsilBfty waiver.
Brick pavers must be co�mstructtd of a, # 4,
Minimum, 4" compacted Grade C.,k 6 stone base nd 1. 1112 " sand -
Mount Pros"pea Department of Co=unity Development
100 South Emerson Stme, Mount prwpect is
Phone 847/370-56-l'
.31
Fax 84713 1 8-r-.) 3
TDD 947/392-606
ATTACHMENT
In an effort to ensure that the Village is providing high quality, efficient service, we are
surveying individuals that have obtained building permits. We would very much
appreciate you completing this self addressed, postage paid questionnaire. Before
%_1
mailing, please fold and re -tape this card so that the return address is showing. Your
response will provide valuable feedback on contractor performance and the services
provided by the Village.
Please feel free to contact the Village if you have questions or wish to discuss
additional comments with a staff member. The Community Development Department
can be reached at (847)870-5668.
Thank you for your assistance,
William J. Cooney, AICP
Director of Community Development
Me
Rate your experiume: Excellent Goad Satis Pnnr accenjah
R
Permit Application Process 0 0 0 0 0
Inspection Process 0 0 0 0 0
Contractor Performance El 0 0 0 0
2. Who was your contractor?
3. Did you speak with a Village inspector? . .. ,, . 4 ., . �. o . . o, , � ��. . ., . . . . ., . . . �. 6 o. 6, Yin / No
4. Rate the service you received from: Excclient Gwd Sat is far-tary. Poor
Our Counter Personnel 0 0 11 0 0
Our Ins pec tors 0 13 0 0 a,
Your Contractor 0 0 0 0 0
5. Did you get a"Your Guide to Home Improvement" booklet? Yes / No
If so, did you find it useful? .............................. Yes /No
6. Com ments.-
ATTACHMENT
Boards and Commissions Approval Process Flow Chart
. ... .
.....
r
0
. . ..................
W)
0
:>
(D a)
>
a) cW /) ca. a)
E
0
0
0
- 0 cz
CU
cn r -
a)
a.)
a) E CD a)
U3
C
a) 0
CK3 CY)
-E
E
0 a)
E
CZ
E
MI. > a- U- CL
M
co
0 co
. . . .................................
....... ..
TWO
WOW
OR
. . . .. .. ....
I ..... . , ... ...
0
r
0
W)
0
:>
(D a)
>
a) cW /) ca. a)
E
0
0
0
- 0 cz
CU
cn r -
a)
a.)
a) E CD a)
U3
C
a) 0
CK3 CY)
-E
E
0 a)
E
CZ
E
MI. > a- U- CL
M
co
0 co
. . . .................................
....... ..
Wil
MOIAON'D-UIJ
W)
:>
(D a)
a)
b
E
0
0
CU
cn r -
CD
M 0
0
U3
C
a) 0
CK3 CY)
co
E
0 a)
E
E
MI. > a- U- CL
M
0
0
<
................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........
. . . .................................
....... ..
Wil
MOIAON'D-UIJ
III
IMPI
II
III
•
•
•
40
0
(3) M
11
(a 0 0
1 4
4
CL -0
(D
CU
-2
2
0. cn
-4--0
U)
40-
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
To WILLIAM COONS Y, AICP, DERECTOR OFCOMM U�NITYDEVELOPMENT
FROM: DEVELOPMENT COORDINATORS COMMI
DATE: MARCH 26, 1998
SUBJECT: OVERVIEW OF -BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT PROCESS
The analysis has been aimed at accomplis several objectives,-,
* Build on recent changes that streamlined the approval process and enhanced services to
applicants.
o Improve internal communications between the Village Departments and Divisions involved in
the review and permitting process.
# El e unnecessary steps M' the approval process.
o Increase communications with applicants early in the development process and throughout
review of the project.
o Improve record keeping related to the development and approvalprocess.
This memorandum describes steps that already have been taken to accomplish these objectives,
defines the issues that still must be addressed, and outlines steps bein considered for continued
19 9
improvement to the permit approval process. A follow-up report will be prepared that focusses on
the spect ific issues related to pern, ut review and' approval, and makes recommendations for improving
the process. This memorandumts,presented iffilour sections:
a
1. The Permit Process describes recent enhancements to the pen -rutting process.
2. Types of Permits goes into detail on the issues related to various development permits issued
by the Village, and describes some possible changes.
3. Fees outlines a proposal to revise the fees associated with building and development pennits.
4 truc�tmoT 6
Page 2
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
4. Related Divisions describes how the Planning and Environmental Health Divisions of the
Community Development Department are integrated into the development process to facilitate
the applicants' process.
1. THE PERMIT PROCESS
The permit review and approval process has been continually adjusted by the Village Departments
involved in its implementation* for several years. That effort has indicated a number of deficiencies
with the process. The process .as' it stood prior to resolving some of these problems is shown
graphically in Attachment 1. The problems with that process are described here.
Problems with Review Process
1. Applicants were required to submit a complete packet of information as part of their submittal
before any plan review would be conducted. This was not always possible since many projects
are done in stages. In particular, fire alarm and sprinkler drawings are rarely available at the start
of a larger project. Likewise, applicants were required to provide the names of all contractors
to work on a project, which was not always available,
2. All submitted plans and subsequent revisions were routed to all reviewing Departments, whether
or not the application required their review. This created delays because it was necessary to wait
for numerous reviewers to respond, even though they might not have comments. This problem
would be compounded *in the case of revised plans, which were routed for review by
Departments that did not have a specific need to see the changes (for example, the Fire
Department reviewing site plan revisions related to drainage).
3. Phe Building Division collected hand written comments of reviewers from other Departments
and transcribed them into a letter to the applicant when all the comments were received. Again,
this process was time consuming in that it required all comments to be received before a letter
could be sent to the applicant. In addition, since the letter came from the Building Division, all
%.f
questions from the applicant would first be directed to them. They would then have to forward
questions to the appropriate Departments.
4. Site development projects (storm water detention, grading, parking lot striping, etc.) were
initiated in Public Works. After being reviewed internally, they then would be routed to other
Departments in sequence. Revised plans would be reviewed the same way. As with other
aspects of the process, this routing procedure slowed the review and approval process. A further
issue was that files or records of approved projects were not maintained in a central area.
Page 3
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
Improvements to Review Process
In dir tresponse to the length of time ed, for, the rev"
requir iew process, a number of unprovements
havebeen made inrecent years. The c, nt reviewand approval process is shown grapWcall
Y
Attachinent 21, and the change'sAt I ncludes are: desenbed,below,
4
3. Since comments come to the applicant directly from the reviewing Department, their questions
and concerns can be addressed directly to the appropriate party. Also, this approach allows the
applicant to prepare Department specific revisions without waiting for all comments. For
"ample, an applicant 'that, has, comments from Public Works, need not Wait for the Building
Division to co mplete� 40 #
its review",, prior to begub�= g to correct its engw"eenng plans.
4. The process now allows for review to begin without information, that" will be necessary, but
not be available initially (like the names of all project subcontractors). Likewise, fire alarm and
sprinkler permits are now issued separately from the rest of the permittingprocess. The plans
for these items often are unavailable at the start of a project and can be adequately reviewed at
a later time, prior to occupancy. This change has added considerable flexibility to applicants3
scheduling needs.
5. A large amount of information about the review and approval process has been added to permit
applications and development handouts. The intent is that this information will help to answer
many of the questions and avoid problems residents have during the process. It should be noted
that this is an ongoing effort, and that existing permit applications and handouts will be revised
as a result of this latest assessment of the permitting process.
Page 4
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
Customer Service Surveys
As part of the overall effort to assess residents' reactions to the permitting process, a sample of last
I it applicants have been surveyed by phone. The survey responses (about 40 persons
summer s pernu
contacted so far) indicate that many residents don't deal With the permit process, as it is handled by
their contractor. Those residents that do go through the process generally are pleased, noting they
had no problems. Those who did indicate difficufty with the process typically had a unique situation
or were unclear on some part of the process or its requirements. The most common comment has
been fiustration with the need to go back and forth between Departments *in the Village Hall and to
Public Works for a permit.
Contractor Focus Group
A focus group meeting was held with eight contractors that do work within the Village of Mount
Prospect. The participants represented a number of different fields (pavm`g, roofing, electrical, etc.)
and commonly work on smaller projects directly for Village residents. The purpose of the meeting
was to hear their e)ts with our permng process, and to get their perceptions with how the
process works. Future meetings are planned with other contractors, particularly those who work on
larger scale projects in the Village.
The overall reaction to the permitting process in Mount Prospect was positive. Those at the meeting
noted that the clerks and inspectors are friendly and helpful.. Comments for improving the process
focussed on shorteningthe time needed to review plan , and improving communications between
contractors and Village staff. These findings confirm the Village's internal assessment of the
process, and reflect area that have been the target of on-going improvement efforts-,
2. TYPES OF PE TS
This section considers the four main development related pen -nits and their approval procedures:
A.Dufl # : Reviews and permits issued for construction of structures in the Village. This
permitting centers around the Building Division of the Community Development Department.
Be )Y'aJh,-JhrouLxh: Permits for smaller, less involved improvements such as fences, sheds,
driveways, sidewalks, etc.
Ce Nydnamgal: Reviews and permits related to development of a property and site improvements
that are required in the Development Code.
De
: i
Uff Review and approval of elements related to fire suppression systems.
Eirs A 0111
Page 5
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
M -rim.
17, 1 4 -WERE,
Given the broad range of construction items covered by building permits, and the number of
problems that are inherent to the construction permitting process, the question has been raised as to
whether any permits we are requiring could be eliminated. Thequestion is a complex one because
the permitting requirement is a local decision, and could theoretically be dropped. There are no State
or Federal laws that require the Village to have a Building Department, or to require construction
permits. There are only regulations that mandate that if we require these permits, certain rules and
guidelines must be followed,
In addition, there are regional and State entities, (including IDOTP MWRD, the Capital Development
Board and Department of Public Health) that would have serious concerns if we did not regulate
certain aspects of construction. Many of these agencies are understaffed and under -fluid ecb and look
to the local municipalities to ensure that their requirements are met.
The Village Board ultimately makes the decisions regarding what areas they wish staff to regulate,
as well as to what extent. Beyond that; the ability to adequately carry out theprogram depends on
having the staffing resources necessary to carry the related work load. In addition, the Insurance
Services Office's (ISO) review of the Building Division could be seriously impacted by any
reduction in our current efforts, with a potential subsequent effect upon the insurance rates for
Village property owners.
Permits are a service provided to residents to ensure quality work on the part of their contractors or
themselves. In some cases, poor workmanship can result in structural damage and create a large
expense for the homeowner. In other cases, residents' homes and safety can be compromised by
poor work.
How Mount Prospect's permit and review practices compare to other communities is sununarized
in two surveys conducted last fall. Attachment 3 is a memorandum. dated September 22, 1997 titled,
"Permit Requirement Survey", which identifies permits requirements for various communities.
Attachment 4 is a memorandum dated August 7, 1997 titled, "Permit Review Survey", which
describes the findings of a building department staffing survey of neighboring municipalities.
Page 6
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
Complaints are received on an occasional basis by the Village regarding the timeliness of the permit
fo
review process and the issues that arise during the inspections provided. Permits that most
commonly involve complaints are described here. Many of them are construction projects "
16 caught
in the act" without permits. Any "Stop Work Order" involves additional public interaction,
paperwork, fines, extensive staff time, and stress due to hostile homeowner/contractor
confrontations*
A
The intention of this descmdon, lis to cla nurY issues related, to these problem permits, and, to helpth,
Villap come 'to =solution on, whether or not we continue to regulate these activities. 11
*nn
related to safety or protectim
description of"each 't)W, of permit *includes Cole "issues (reasons
investments in property) and regulatory issues (describing the challenges of en&rcing the permit)
�1
Roofing
Roofing jobs are typically installed in the course of one to two days, and are
difficult to catch if no permit is obtained. Most contractors include verbiage in their contracts that
requires the homeowner to obtain the permit. This usually is not properly explained to these
homeowners. When a job is caught occurring without a permit it consumes a large amount of staff
time. In addition, a stopped roof project typically exposes the building structure to the elements.
It requires other projects to be dropped in order to verify the contractor's State license, bond and
insurance requirements, as well as the other associated paperwork necessary forpermit issuance.
Air Conditioners
Code Issue - The ,honing Ordinance regulates placement of air conditioners m* respect to the
potential for nuisance to neighboring properties. The Electrical Codes regulate the requirements for
their power supplies. Improper installation can create electrical/fire hazards, as was experienced just
last year when a house caught fire 'in the Village due to an improper replacement project done
without a permit.
These installations are also typically completed within one day, and the same
informational problem exists regarding who is responsible for the permit. Another issue that is
Page 7
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
4 AF
confrontedregards, the requirement for the submission of .p. of survey for these permits. Many
times thesesurveys arenot readily available to the homeowner, andthe Village may not have the
infbimatt 5 on record,led, on, rrucr ofiche, Ms delays the permit process signcantly, but the requirement
is, necessary tor enicmg the Zoning Ordinance.
Hot Water Heaters
Theseinstallations are also typically completed vn*thin, the same day', and, have
the same
pie confbsion as other one -day p *ects. Addffional' ate oIS' s
rqJ ly) ti e Stf 111
that these installations be performed by a State licensed plumber if thie Jo bi 'i's contractedi A
homeowner is allowed to do their own installations, but would still be subject to the same permit and
Code compliance issues. Many of the companies that do these installations do not utffize a licensed
plumber, due to the associated increased costs and the need to compete on price.
Driveway Replacements
Code_, - These installations are regulated by the Village Zoning Ordinance as well as the
40 a #
Mm=um construction requirements prescribed within the Development Code. Poor workmanship
on this item is a common complaint. Many of the complaints received occur on projects that were
done without benefit of a permit, which significantly limits the Village's ability to take enforcement
action against the contractor.
Issue Current staffing levels are the main comint on how far driveway installations
is 0
can be regulated. Inspections are currently limited to verifying zoning compliance, determinmig
proximately to street trees and utilities L"n"Aum, stone sub -base installation and
2 munmum thickness
of applied finish material. The aspects not regulated are measuri-ing slopes away from primary
structures and the presence of unsuitable soils not readily apparent under the installed sub -base.
Page 8
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
Interior Remodeling
Code Issues - These projects are usually undertaken by uninformed homeowners or contractors that
are seeking to avoid or that are unaware of the permit/inspection process. There are numerous
problems that could develop in these projects. These problems include potential hazards to
occupants or the property through improper installation of structural, electric, or plumbing elements.
I %
,gepwligory, ''s - These projects, being performed indoors, are difficult to identify if the permi
Iola!;
process is no�t bein fbIlowed., As �iith the problems inhmnt, in stopping roo J prpi
9 �fing *obs, these
ml
ec]
'usually *involve a gers neeff
residence being 'Iorn�up"* This, also trig 0
th,e d fbr stato dropwork , 0�
other projects,to review the remodelm*,g plans, (which are typically poorly drawn), fill out
necessAry paperwork and check for proper licenses, insurance and bonds.
Building and development "issues related to interior remodeling projects (and other ho
improvements) are expected to increase in the northeastern portion of the Village now that F •
E
has designated some of that area as a floodway. The designation constrains the total increase h
M
oe
value that a property owner can make to their property. This limit could have the effect o
encouraging property owners to perform home improvements without obtaining a building o
development permit from the Village.
Benefits of Eliminating Permit Requirements
4
Removing any of the permits listed above would result in a significant, measurable increase "in the
ainount of time available for reviewing and responding to other permit submittals. There would also
be a corresponding reduction in the number of complaints received from residents and contractors
regarding their perception dmt the Village is being overly burdensome *in its permitting, requirements.
Detriments of Eliminating Permit Requirements
The Village regularly receives complaints regarding shoddy workmanship and lack of
responsiveness by contractors involving proJects, for which permits currently are not required. There
0'
is no mechanism in place to adequately respond to these complaints, and we can only provide the
telephone numbers of State agencies that may be capable of assisting. If we relinquish any existing
permitting requirements, we accordingly reduce the capacity to deal with the complaints associated
with these projects.
The Village of Mount Prospect does not currently require permits for the following work, based
upon our policies and staffing levels. In general, these items do not pose as serious a danger to
occupants, property, or other residents as items for which we do require permits. In addition,
Page 9
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
regulating them would seriously impact the Building Division's ability to adequately review,
approve, and inspect other permits.
Siding
The problems inherent in these projects typically relate to aesthetic issues, although some minor
insulation and structural problems can occur due to improper installations. Some municipalities
regulate these projects, but not many.
SofflulFascia Work
While similar to siding, these installations can be more problematic in that they can directly affect
proper ventilation of the roof structure. Improper roof ventilation can result in moisture buildup,
which can completely deteriorate the roof sheathing in as little as three years, resulting in a costly
replacement. Most municipalities do not regulate these installations, but far more do for this than
any of the other aspects listed within this section.
Gutters
The majority of the problems inherent M* these installations regard either development issues for
improper discharge onto neighboring properties or improper tie-ins to sanitary sewer lines.
Occasionally, bad installations can result in "ice -dams" that can cause roof damage and subsequent
water leakage into the building.
Window/.Door Replacement
The Village requires a permit if the window or door being replaced is a different size than the
existing, since this will affect a structuml elements of the building. Other issues are the thermal
insulation value of the building exterior and the protection from wind -driven rain leakage, which
can be affected as a result of shoddy workmanship.
TucApointing
These projects primarily deal with chimneys or brick facades. There are specific requirements
spelled out in the Codes that address the required materials and workmanship standards. Improper
installations can affect the life span of the masonry materials to be tuckpointed and can also lead to
"difficult to detect" rainwater intrusion.
Addition of Insulation
The Building Codes regulate the minimum insulation requirements for new buildings, but not
addition of insulation. Much of the Village's building stock was created before these updated
Page 10
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
2. The quality of the review is compromised in some cases by the walk-through process. Ite=k
such as easements and floodway boundaries are often not shown on the plat of survey submitted.
While staff would prefer to verify such items, the time required makes it impractical to do while
the applicant waits. In factall walk-throuLyh pe *ts,,aff'ect� wor , quallity and staff efficiency by
MU
requinng the staff to react limediately and put amide the proj"'ect on which they are currently
working,,,
It should be noted that aqy, ermit app - cati,
P 1i Oi ion, for a property located within a Speci al Flood
Hazard Area, (flood plain) will require additional review time, and should not be consi'dered a
Page 11
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
walk-through. To help identify these, the Building Division now has a list of all addresses
currently located within the flood plain.
3. Residents do notunderstand what
isrequutd, of them to obtain a permit. The pe epti n of the
plicantis that the Villageunreas . I rc 1,10
aP onably creates obstructions to the planned improvements.
Unfbrtunately, residents cannot be made aware of permit requiremen' tsbefore they contact us,
and the first contact is typically when the permit application is submlitttd.
4. In some cases, construction must be stopped. Whether the work stoppage is because a permit
was never issued, construction -is outside the scope of, or in violation of apermit that has been
issued, or other such reason, the tendency is again to perceive 'the, Village as interf6nng.
However, the resident must understand that a Village has onlyident-i"fied a problem,,naot created
the
one.
There will always be some residents that begin construction without a penrnit; the ViUage cannot
force anyone to apply for a permit before construction is started. In each case, our only recourse
is to stop work until a permit is obtained. Shm"larly, any work outside the scope of an approved
permit must also be stopped.
Review and approval of plans related to site improvements are addressed in the Public Works
Department. As with the rest of the process, most of the issues related to review of the site
development are over confusion with the process or how long it can take.
Typically, a project review is completed within 30 days of the date it is received, well within the 60
day deadline allowed by the Development Code. This 30 day average review period is required to
perform a high quality review, and is comparable to other commumfies. However, many applicants'
expectations appear to be that all reviews will be completed and approved within 14 days or less.
The conflict arises when the applicant fails to read the Development Code, or m" wire to find out the
typical review time before the contractor's schedule is set.
It must be understood that the review time required is dependent upon several factors, including the
quality of the petitioner's submittal and number of other submittals awaiting review. In some cases,
even the follow-up submittals are so poor that staff, in an effort to save time, assists in part of the
design. Both of these factors are beyond the staffs control, so occasional slow periods are
inevitable.
Other challenges related to this aspect of the permitting process are described below:
Page 12
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
Owners, developers, and, contractors have occastoIly expressed surpn,se and ftustration over
ttems reqwred by -the Development Code and detailed in review comments. Th
#•ey, claim to haw
ft ever been infb,rmed of the specific "" sues before they submitted their application for the per1n1t.
The most common, reason, f6r this confUsion,,s that, the applicant is unhmiliar,with the Villag
Development Code and, the requt"rements that, must be met to obtain a, pennit.. This occ
th
espite t1lage's velopIment Code is available at the Village Hall, and s
dthe fact dW ��t, e'V�` De
is available to meet and discuss Code requirements prior to submittal.
01
Often, applicants misconstrue ZBA approval for site plan approval. In several cases, applicants
have felt that site development review comments should have been noted, p�nor to the ZBA
hearing.
t. Appliucants have been, cohfUsed, and, ftstrated at, the number of Dqpartments/�IsiSPI s/peopl
revIewing any gi,ven, set,,o f,, plans, and the num b e r o f m*- d ii vii, d u a , 1, c, o,, m m e n, t s b,e, tuumm e, d•
a pp, icant, can ad dress one Department's comments, t1iink the plan is ready for resubmittal, ord
to receive another Department's comments later. This problem has been addressed by addi
a clarification to all correspondence that review and/or approval by one Department does nono
constitute approval by another.
In addition, Public Works has eliminated the need for review comments to be sent from each
separate division. They now channel all reviews through a project engineer. The project
engineer routes all plans to the appropriate division, and collects all review comments. All
comments are then compiled into a single response from Public Works. Ile project engineer
then serves as the contact person for both the design professional submitting the plans and the
Public Works review staff.
It should be noted that this process has been in place at Public Works since December and has
been working effectively.
Page 13
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
M,
q. IR
t In -
The Fire Department recently implemented some procedural changes 'that have 4
I
mproved the
permitting process. The most significant change has been the: abilityto*
,Issue separate pernuits for
all fire protection related work such as sprinklers, 'fire alarms, and standpipes. In the Past,,
construction could not begin until the Fire Department had, reviewed and approved the applicable,
fire protection drawings. However, the Fire Department, was informed by a, number of contractors
at the fire protection slubrontractors are not hired until the project begins. The change to, se ant
pernuts, allows contractors to siart: construction of building in parallel math the Fire Departmentls�
review of the fimm protection s. No fire protection work is allowed to takeplace with Fire
Department approval.
Another change was development of a handout for fire protection contractors(Attachment 5 ). The
handout was developed to act as a guide, and facilitate communication between the Fire Department
and the contractor. A preconstruction meeting to discuss fire protection requirements before the
construction documents are actually submitted is strongly recommended in the handout. Although
somewhat time consuming, this has shown to actually expedite the plan review process when
contractors used this service. The Fire Department has had positive responses from these meetings.
Contractors like knowing what is expected early in the project. The meeting also provides the Fire
Department an opportunity to document questions or issues, should any arise later in theproject.
As with other development permitting areas, it is imperative that contractors and developers have
an understanding of what is required for construction documents and certificate of occupancy
approval throughout the process. The Fire Department has had success with providing written
correspondence for each plan review that identifies drawing deficiencies as well as the requirements
for final inspection. As the project progresses and the fire prevention bureau conducts inspections,
written punch lists are created and provided to the contractor. Contractors have responded very
favorably to having written documentation of the inspection that notes all of the deficiencies for
corrective action. This written correspondence has also proven beneficial to the Fire Department in
establishing a documented history of issues to be corrected prior to final approval for occupancy.
The permit fee structure has not undergone a review and revision process since 1984. As a result,
the fee schedule has fallen well below typical local fees. In addition, the fee schedule can be made
easier for residents to understand, and have the fees be more reflective of the inspectional services
provided. Therefore, changes in the fee schedule are proposed that will bring them into line with
the regional averages, put them within the midpoint of the double -ring survey performed, and make
them simpler to use.
The user-friendly aspect is the most significant proposed revision for calculating the "new
construction" permit fees. This allows the homeowner and contractor a method to calculate building
Page 14
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
't costs independently, and eliminates unnecessary staff time involved in computing comp
permlex
and sometimes confusing fee schedules.
With that in mind, a proposed building permit review and inspection fee system would work as
follows:
1. All single-family project permits, except new construction and additions, will be a flat fee based
upon the work involved.. Sheds, decks, water heaters, bathroom remodels", etc. will have a
specific fee established-,
2. All new residential and commercial construction and additions will be based upon a square
footage provision. This fee will include all electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and structural
inspections, as well as plan review costs.
3. Trade specific construction for commercial projects will be subject to a base fee, with an
additional multiplier that is related to the extent of the work to be performed (i.e., number of
fixtures or circuits involved).
4. Fire Prevention plan review fees, which have not been revised since 1984, will be changed to
better reflect the cost of providing those review services. The changes will bring them more in
line with those charges in nearby communities.
5. NOTE: Revisions to site development fees are being calculated and will be included in a future
memorandum.
Attachments 6 and 7 outline scenarios that highlight the Village's existing fee schedules in
compArison to other local municipalities, as well as the proposed revisions. These surveys include
new single-family buildings, residential alterations and commercial "build -outs". Attachments 8
and 9 show the proposed fire prevention plan review fees and a survey of fees charged in
surrounding communities.
4. RELATED DMSIONS
The development review process often begins prior to any plans or documents being submitted to
the Building Division, Public Works, or Fire Department. Many times prospective applicants first
approach the Village through the Planning or Environmental Health Divisions of the Community
Development Department. Therefore, these divisions are incorporated into the development review
process as early as possible.
For example, a new commercial development in the Village likely will contact the Planning Division
to "test an idea" or get preliminary information about development requirements. Likewise, the
Environmental Health Division may be a first point of contact for potential restaurants. If not, they
are directed to meet with the Environmental Health Division early on in their process to -understand
Code requirements they will have to meet later. In addition, the Division's efforts M* Code
Page 15
March 26, 1998
Permit Review Process
enforcementand,inti ple,,fam,,'I'ly housing inspection may result in a property •owner conducting
improvements that requi,rea, building permit.
The Planning Division also is closely connected to the permlit pirocessby the development revle
orung, pp
process, which involves the Plan Commission and, the Z Board of Appeals. A rovals fro
&0
41 0
those bodies often are required prior to the permitting process,. Thisi's another actIVIlty that req irme
input from multiple Departments, and potentially can, create conhision fbr the applicant. u
This *1
especially true with large or complex projects, and is best offset by regular commurucation betwee
Departments and with the applicants.
A
CONCLUSION
The building and development review, permitting, and inspection processes *in Mount Prospect are
A very intricate group of activities. The fact that they combine a number of disciplines with various
national and local regulations is enough to make them complex and time consurnffig for those
professionals who facilitate the process. However, combi,ni g them with the expectations and needs
ulln
of residents and businesses in the c'ommumty makes the process that much more complicated.
The challenge to the Village is to apply the regulations fairly and uniformly, yet be open to the
conditions and situations that create the need for flexibility. The process must also be carried out
as quickly as possible to meet the needs of the many petitioners, but must be done carefully to
protect residentssafety and their investments. Faced with these challenges, the process is bound
to generate occasional frustration and conflict. It is the approach of the Village to that
frustration,by contimually, reviewl'*'ng andrevism*g the process to balance the many,needs' th,a�t have
been, describedm*, this annalysils'., T heref6re, this meu rn, should be seen as a step m* an, ongo,mg
process to improve the building and development procedures in Mount Prospect.
X:\USERS\COMDEV\CDADMRABLLrEM\PVVPMT3,RTF
ATTACHMENTS
Permit Process Prior to Recent ,Revision � � � ,
Permit Process After Recent Revisions 16 A 0 # # #
to Attacent
Permit Requa re ent Memoranda ,
Permit Review Memorandum . 01 10 * W w 4
Attachment 4
Fire Protection Review Checklists
Comparative Fee Schedules.No0aV
f - Attachment 6
Comparative Fees for Surrounding Communities
and Proposed Changes to Mount Prospect's Fee Schedule N�,
p' 0 111 0 ...Attachment7
F: re Prevention Plan Review Fees .1 # IR * * Il W A lip al # 0 0 W q * l0l ������ Attachment
Comparison of Fire Prevention Review Fees W 0 qP im,
�������������.Attachment's
tii
>
Cc
>
M c
c
(D m
0m
0 C r. At
(D 0
a CL
U�,
S2
r
L
Cl.
0 > m
8 0 2 U) .0
4" >v 2
U)
M0
U) Law CX 0
tmin
v (1)
-S
c r. . W. -S
m U)
'2
ca
0
ccc�v
ca 0 E m
m �A w E
75 0 m m
ip CL CL 8
te OL. 0 0 0
Como
r
M
M M 402.2 42
U)
m
CL'U C 0 0 to
r o
CL 1 0.
low aft--%
U) U)Cr`00
0 8
> a >
.0
C= E >
CL
WOOS 0
> cn
(a> CL 2.0 cn
E 0 E 00 0.0
0
M
Owcn <M
L.
IL IV-: C%j c4i
ow
L- 1
No—
C=
cu
0
w 0 cm 0 LD
w cu
c:
on CL ww 0.
W cu
V) L.I L
•
40.
W
VJ
0
CL
some m
> C:L
0
0 o
4a ,
1W2
0 U)
> a
Lo. -Am
m n,
E -
vi
CL
2
J)e
M
CL
to
0
r.
cc
0.
V- cq
*%=go
kf
ts!
ATTACHNENT 3
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, ](111noll
IN RO MEMORANDUM
TO: William L Cooney, Director of Community Development '
FROM: Brad Paulson, Building Coordinator
SUBJECT: Permit requirement survey
ft
DATE: September 22, 1997
The survey provided is a listing of co es that reflects* some of their pemaitfipg, requirements,,
This survey does not encompass the totality of their permit regulation, but addresses those types of
permits that are identified as having a questionable staff time vs. public safi* issue.
The following is an explanation of the categories:
1. Municipality
- The same communities that were called regarding their.,staaffing, vs. permit totals
were questioned. This provides another method of comparison to Mount Prospect. It should also
be noted that these questions relate to single -&m fly residential permits only.
2. Re -roofing - Some communities require permits only when a tear -off of the e7dsting shitWes
occurs. This rdLsA% an interesting issue, as it technically could alter the percentage numbers listed at
the bottom. If the question was if a permit was required to just apply another layer of shingles, the
number would then be 50%. not the 60.7% indicated. As mooned in the prior memo, there are
times that a tear -off shoul occur, and without *inspection the homeowner or contractor may not be
aware of this need.
3. Air conditioners - The question raised was for new allations only..
4. Hot water heaters - The question raised was for replacement only.
5. Patios/walics - The question raised was for private property work only.
6. Kitchen/bath remodels - The question raised was for cabinet/fixture replacement only, with no
alterations of the structural, plumbing or electrical systems to be performed.
7. Fences - No explanation needed.
8. Sheds - As with the re -roofing, if the communities that do not regulate sheds under 100 sq.ft. were
to be considered to be answering negatively, the number would be 92.8% instead of 100%. The
interesting aspect to this is whether anyone is actually measuring the sheds to see if they are in
compliance if no Permit is required.
o
8800 ou on 00888*88880 Deno 0 0 8 a a 0
. .
v� cry � v.► � � � � � � � � air
cu au a� au o �u o o a� a o ai a� a° au o ai o o +�► a�► air o
Q
cl 40
OC V=f
Ld
� 4
a u► v u a°� a �► �' '�
t cr L
12, 2!
w
04,1 U >'w
>'4
t�
�w �J Ct Ai Qi C� d� cu C� �U► �, C
79) °--�°� v y .4 o 'ter
4) ,.� 04 „y� w w CL 04 - batt
cu >w 2
.0
ATTACWCM 4
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: WHHarn Cooney, Director of Community Development
0-*FROM: Brad Paulson, Building Coordinator
Mchael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Developme]IM2 I
� ,
SUBJECT: Per Review Survey
DATE: August 7,1997
The Building Division conducted a survey of g and plan review pmctices of Buildinn��:-op
Departments for 27 nearby coMM I es. The survey presents a brief overview of departmenW
staffiniz, workloads, and permit turn -around 11e schedules. This memo presents the findi of
saw
survey, and also considers its relevance to the Village of Mount Prospect Buil g Divmon. This
effort is intended to provide insights as to the how our plan review process compares to those M'
do*
other communities, attempts to identify any opportunities to stre, mline our process,
4
It should be noted that there are a great many differences between commumfies that can impact the
validity of any direct comparison. Some of the major difkrences include the fact the some buil
departments only deal with construction, some address property maintenance, health, zoning or
issues
I . Some municipalities require permits for roofs,, sl or fences, while others do
not Furthermore, somedepartments utze part-time employees, while others contract independently
for services such as plan review. Many have staff with combined duties, such as code enforcemeW
and construction inspection. Some have individuals that are hired only to perform plan review,
while others share the plan review and inspection duties.
For all these reasons, the review of survey findings must take a broad approach. Please note
more detailed comparisons could be conducted for specific aspects of the review process, or to
consider a particular element of another community's process.
The table showing the results of the survey includes the categories described below. This
information was gathered by an informal phone survey with the *individual directly in charge of the
building pemiit process. Note that population and permit data have been rounded off to make the
information more usable and reflect the fact that these figures vary annually.
MuniciPalitYROPUlAtion: This infon-nation is used for basic comp *
ansons and analysis of data.
0
We currently utilize the Building Coordinator as an oversight for the plan review and 'inspection
processes. This position fills the gaps where necessary, and oversees the daily procedures to ens=
basic continuity and, co,nfbmu*ty with adopted ordinances and accepted construction practices. This
individual also handles the m4jonty of thephone calls that are generated by problerns with pIan
reviews, inspections, and permits in process. This person also deals with the pre -submission and
pre-coruqmction meetings as necessary. This individual also is responsible for the oversight of the
clerical staff.
Bill Cooney
Page Three
A,
Review, Times#Most,towns surveyed do not have an oMim"*based reAm'responsedmeo, Thiiir
Hre641vWiew * timvrydqP=dent, upon the t111 fyd thociated
A,
workload. lie fime fiame
in Parenthes"I"S, in tht gvemp time for pernift revim
Whd*sury =,jyb=, ma"'Wriabla to conside4, it does poWnumber ntmesang
fictors relaftd, to, bow the Village ofmount �Plolvect� compar" to 10flier co to &C
per
SIIttig,procew il n #
1) Mount Prospect reviews and issues an above average number ofpermits,
0 #
2) The Village's Buil g Division a below ave e number of staff.
a * 0
3) The number of permits issued per Buil g Division staff member is much higher in Mount
Prospect,
4) The Wm around time for plan review in Mount Prospect is only slightly longer tlf naverage,
OOOM% OOM%
qqt C4
Nr qRr C4 en q4t Cn en
Col
C 44, C4 • C4 eq 4 Sl t-%4 eq en C4
C.." C %004 %ftoko* %MONO %004 %rmo %ft�
%ftwo %olool Sftolp %400 %-op *Zoo
4.06
A � C? C'� � C► C� C? CMi C� C� +� CAD a a a a
624 1426 IWU
04 04
Lu
Cn rAn Gn Cn CO2 CO) Cn Cn W
0 0 0 4) 0 4) 4) 43 4)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V1.1 wo
%%Moo %ftwoo
G-19
A"r-11
V--4
";r tn tn m m Cq 'Tr tlkk- m VAO t%% m w m Nt qCr W.4 \0
<D C) CD C� C) CD C)
4*0 CD C:0 CD tn C� C> C> Co C) 4= 4=
C) \0 xn tn C� C= CN W) W) (o to CD W) CD Wl 00
ft 4% 4% 0% 0% ft 44 ob
440 *moo q� 4� 4=6 4� quo ow 4w 410
q� 400 4m 4� qow 4w 4� 44M 400 440 4m q4w
440 4W 41=MW 4m 4� 4m Aw
CA
Nr
v
Cn
Cn
M
00 m m
Cl
m wl m C4
CD M*
m m C114
t*%- M C*4
CN M M C*44
C) (M en C) 00
C'.4 Nr M kn
CN4
w -w C-*.
oo -Rtr
00
>
OOOM% OOM%
qqt C4
Nr qRr C4 en q4t Cn en
Col
C 44, C4 • C4 eq 4 Sl t-%4 eq en C4
C.." C %004 %ftoko* %MONO %004 %rmo %ft�
%ftwo %olool Sftolp %400 %-op *Zoo
4.06
A � C? C'� � C► C� C? CMi C� C� +� CAD a a a a
624 1426 IWU
04 04
Lu
Cn rAn Gn Cn CO2 CO) Cn Cn W
0 0 0 4) 0 4) 4) 43 4)
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
V1.1 wo
%%Moo %ftwoo
G-19
A"r-11
V--4
";r tn tn m m Cq 'Tr tlkk- m VAO t%% m w m Nt qCr W.4 \0
<D C) CD C� C) CD C)
4*0 CD C:0 CD tn C� C> C> Co C) 4= 4=
C) \0 xn tn C� C= CN W) W) (o to CD W) CD Wl 00
ft 4% 4% 0% 0% ft 44 ob
440 *moo q� 4� 4=6 4� quo ow 4w 410
q� 400 4m 4� qow 4w 4� 44M 400 440 4m q4w
440 4W 41=MW 4m 4� 4m Aw
CA
v
Cn
Cn
tu
>
lu
►
snood
CA
gas"
v
0-14
4u
MOM"
ou
Wo
Ey
1.0a
m .6
(J E 2 -�E
r-
son*
79
Mom"!
lu U
U
C
0.4
Cn CA
>
ATTACHMENT 5
112 E. NORniWEST FUGHWAY., MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056
NUCHAEL J. FIGOLAH
FIRE CFHEF
ADMINISTRA11ON 847/870-5660 SMOKIE D CTORS SAVE LIVES
PREMRSMON 847/818-5253 IS YOURS WORMNG?
FAX - 847/818-5240 IT OFTEN
Dear Sprinkler and/or Fire Alarm Contractor:
Many items are often omitted with the fire aLum, sprinkler and standpipe documents that result in
Amiftw%proval of the submittal. The documents must be prepared in accordarltm with NFPA 13, Standard
f+or the Installation of Automatic -Sprinklm, 1994 tim NFPA 72, NatimW Fire Alarm Codes and
when applicable, NFPA 14, Standard for the Installation of $tandes, 1990 Edition, NFPA 20,
Standard for the Installation of stn gal Fire Pumps, 1990 Edition.
I
All construction documents must be submitted to Village Hall, which is located at 100 S. Emerson.
1 encourage preplanning consultations to projects before plans are finished and submitted. Please
contact the Fire Prevention Bureau to request an appointment.
The following check list has been developed to help facilitate a prompt fire alarm, sprinkler and
standpipe review and subsequent approvaL
Please ensure each item below is shown on the construction documents or addressed with notations
where appropriate.
,SvdWdcr an!d,,,Stand,n,'*Ives.,S,Vstems,
No combustible construction is allowed above the ceilings, below floors, or m" any concealed
spaces unless protected by sprinklers.
dr A
NFPA 13, 44-5.1
13 For building occupancy, all sprinklers have their deflectors, installed below roof and/or
ceiling lies between 12" to 220 makunum depending on the qW of roof and/or
construction classification. Thisrequirement, applies to all occupied and unoccupied areas of the
building.
Village Requioemen,t
NFPA 13, 44.1.4
Provide a scaled site plan to the Fire Department for review showing the Siamese connection
location.
The fire department connection shall be located on the front of the building.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.201 (1)
The fire department connections shall be arranged so that the use of any single fire
department connection shall supply all sprinkler/standpipe systems within the
building.
BOCA 916.2
• The fire department connection shall not be obstructed by bushes or other
landscaping.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24-201 (1)
The fire department connections shall be located from 18" to 42'r maximum above
the ground.
Krr" A I 'I A A
Page 2
The fire department connection hose threads shall be NST fluvads.
NFPA 13,, 2-8.1
Provide a baR d,np on the fire department connection piping. It shall be located
between the check valve and the firede connection, at the lowest point in
the piping.
NFPA 13, 4-7.2.5
Provide a sign mounted above the fire department connection. The sign shall read
"Automatic Sprinkler" and/or "Standpipe". Where the building or group of
buildings served by more then one connection, a sign be provided to indicate
the area in which the fiie department connection serves.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24-201 (1)
Yin Ucate the location of the fire department connection on the site plan.
NFPA 13, 6-1
Provide a white strobe directly above the fire department connection. The strobe
shall, be approved for outdoor use and emit a minimum of 75 dela of light.'
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.201 (1)
In addition to the Siamese connection, provide a 5 *inch Stortz coupling. Both
connections shall be provided with a check valve.
Village Fire Prevention Code.. 24.201 ('I}
Provide wet and/or dry inspector's test connections.
NFPA 13.. 4-7-4.2; 4-7-4.3
Provide hanger details and locations.
NFPA 13, 6-1
The stock of spare sprinklers shall include all types and ratings installed and be as foEbws:
o For systems with not over 300 sprinklers, not than � sprinklers.
* For systems with 300 to 1000 sprinklers, not less than 12 sprink*s.
o, For systems with over 1000 sprinklers, not less than 24 sprinklers.
NFPA 13, 2-2.7.3
Provide sprinkler protection in all rooms and areas.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.201 (C)
Provide auxiliary drains on all trapped piping sections of the sprinkler system
NFPA 1314-6-3.5
Provide hydraulic calculations to the site of the flow test. Indicate hydraulic reference points
on the drawings that correspond to the calculations.
NFPA 13, 6-2
Provide a hydraulic nameplate on the system riser.
NFPA 13, 8-5
Sprinklers shall be installed under ducts, decks, overhead doors, and other obstructions over 4 ft.
wide.
NFPA 13, 4-4.1-3.2.1
Page 3
Provide details of the racking system that is to be installed. NFPA 13, 6-1. Det must
include:
Type of storage racks (single, double row)
Type of shelves (solid, open)
Rack height
Isle width
Type of commodity stored
Flue spacing
C3 The sprffiklersystem s�allbe connected, to an, a, proved UL listed central station. The fire
P
department recommends Noithwest Central, Dispatch.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24-201 W
Provide supervision to all, waterflow devices on each sprinkler and standpipe system riser.
Verify that waterflow devices are installed on all risers.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.201 (E)
The Contractor shall provide the Fire Prevention Bureau with a certificate stating that the fire
protection systems are installed in compliance with NFPA standards and BOCA code
requirements after all acceptance tests have been conducted.
Village Requirement
NFPA 13, 8-1
C3 The following tests must be conducted and witnessed by the Fire Prevention Bureau. Contact the
Fire Prevention Bureau 48 hours in advance to- witness all testing. Per village Ordinance, d
shall be no movement of supplies into the facility and/or material until the fire suppressicM
system is functional and fully supervised. A certificate of occupancy will not be granted until the
testing documentation is provided to the Fire Prevention Bureau:
a. Hydrostatically test the underground and overhead systems' pq:)Mg with water at not
less than 200 psi for 2 hours. On dry pipe systems, also provide an air hydrostatic test
NFPA 13.,8-2.2; 8-2.3
b. When the systents are complete, provide a 2' main drain test~ Complete a 2" main drain
test form and provide a copy to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
NFPA 13, 8-2
c. When the systems are complete, provide wet and dry pipe system inspector's tests. Dry
pipe systems shall deliver water to the inspector's test connection within 60 seconds.
Complete an inspector's test and dry pipe trip test report, and provide a copy to the Fire
Prevention Bureau.
NFPA 13, 8-2.4.2
d. Provide a certificate from the installing contractor after all underground mains have
been flushed before connection IS made to the sprinkler system, piping. Failure to have,
the FirePreventilon, Bureau wiltness the flushing will, require the system to be reflutshed
and sprinkler piping dismantled.
NFPA 13, 8-2
e. After the fire pump is installed, provide a complete fire pump discharge test.
NFPA 20,4-6
Provide a recent seasonal low waterflow test for use in the hydraulic calculations. Include date,
time and location of test.
NFPA 13, 7-2.1
Page 4
All sprinkler risers and associated equipment shall be located in a separate room with a
nunnnum of one hour construction
Village Fire Prevention Code, 23.201 G (1)
Rooms containing fire protection control equipment be provided with direct access the
exterior of the building. All doors leading to the sprhWer control equipment sh4 bear a sign
w 'th 4" letters ' dicating'"sprinkler room. Additional si
I In gn, age, may be, rNuibre�d-
Village Fire Prevention Code, 23-201 G (2)
The
e
followinitms pertain to building
g s
with fin
0 Provide a hy graph sheet showh% supply and denuind curves cluding the pump
dischar•ge supply curve-
NFPA
0 0
The M pump suction pressure not &U below 20 psi MUUMUnIL
Village Requirement
C3 1he fire pump shall be located in a minimum two (2) hour rated room and provided wi
emergency lighting. Provide room construction de
NFPA 20
F1 80-5
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.201 (G)
The fim pump suction and discharge piping g comply with NFPA 20, Table 2-20.
Provide a fire pump bypass.
NFPA 20, 2-9.4
Pro,vide an OS&Y gate valve on the fire pump suction piping.
NFPA 20, 2-9.5
Provide a check valve on the fire pump discharge.
NFPA 20, 2-10.4
Provide an indicating control valve on the system side of the ge check valve.
NFPA 20, 2-10.5
Provide a fire pump relief valve if a diesel fire pump is being used and/or the system pressure
exceeds the system's dieseling pressure.
NFPA 20, 2-13
Provide a fire pump relief valve. It shall be located between the fire pump and the pump
discharge check valve.
NFPA 20,2-13
CJ Provide an outside hose valve test header.
NFPA 20, 2-14.3
Provide a jockey pump to maintain system pressure.
NFPA 20, 2-19
Page 5
Provide details on the fire pump feeder electrical supply . Also submit details to the Village
* A A
Building DIIV`LSI , "On.
Supply conductors shaH be physical1y routed outside buildings and shall be installed
as service entrance conductm awith Article 230 of NFPA 7o. Where
i
supply conductors cannot be Ph yska4y routed outsidebulildings, the , shall be
permitte d to be -routed. through bluildinp, w�here installed, urider,, or enclosed withl'in,
not less than, 2,M*. (50'.8 mm) of" concrete in, accordance with Article, 230 of NFpA 70.,
,Provide details, and catalog cuts on the firepump controller.
NFPA 20, 14!!143,
Provide the following trouble ala rizz,
Fire pump motor ninning
Loss of line power
• Phase reversal
NFPA 20.. 7-4.7
IF Subject to final on' -site -field, inspection, and full, earm,system, test wiftwssed b,y theFI-re
Preverttion'Buream'The contractor, simn pro '* a minim ''i
vide um of two alarm symxm personneL,
a Pair of two-way, radios, and aU necessary
alarm system devi*ce. equipmentto provide, complete, tesfing of, each,,
qq
"W
lit i'F*1 M s,
:4 trod
•
41
All wiring shall be provided in conduit in areas subjected to physical damage.
NFPA 70, Article 760
NFPA 72,,1-5.3.4
BOCA 918.6
❑ The alarm system shall be connected to an, approved UL listed central station and transnu,"t
both fire and trouble signals. Comb I"'nation burglar and fix,e alarm systems, automatic
dialers and radio transmitted monitoring signals shall be prohibited. The fire department
recommends Northwest, Central Dispatch. A certificate of occupancy will not be granted
until this connection hasbeen made and tested.
I I ; I I -% ry cb r- 1 r a P r,,,& , eb r, & ; -. , i" , A , SIA 'In -t A / A X
Page 6
C3 Locate the fire alarm panel adjacent to the front entrance. The fire alarm panel capable of
performing all necessary functions shall be easily accessible and visibly located within 10
feet from the fire department entrance in the building. The exact location of the fire alarm
control panel and controls shall be reviewed and approved by the Mount Prospect Fire
Prevention Bureau.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.203 (C)
Provide sequence of operation chart with written operating instruction to perform the
necessary features of the fire alarm panel. The operating instructions, a complete fire
alarm zone map, and other applicable information shall be framed and mounted widtin one
foot of the fire alarm control panel. Central station and building contact phone numbers
shall be provided inside the alarm control panel.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24-203 (C)
Manual pull stations shall be located not more than S' from each exiiL Manual fire alarm
boxes shall, be distributed throughout the protected area so that they are unobstructed and
readily accessible. They shall be located in the normal path of exit from the area with a
manual fire alarin boxes at each exit on each floor. Additional manual fire alarm boxes
shall be provided so that travel distance to the nearest fire alarm box will not be in excess
of 200 feet measured horizontally on the same floor.
NFPA 72, 5-8.1.2
Manual pull stations shall be located a maximum of 54" and ammininum, of 42" above floor
level.
NFPA 72, 5-8.1.1
Provide supervm0ion to tamper devices on all sprinkler system control valves.
Village Fire Prevention Code 24-201 (E)
NFPA 72., 3-8-6.5
Provide supervision to all waterflow devices on each sprinkler and standpipe system riser.
Village Fire Prevention Code 24.201 (E)
NFPA 72, 3-8.6
Provide a white strobe directly above the fire department connection. The strobe shall
be approved for outdoor use and emit a nu*n=*um of 75 candela of light The strobe shall
operate upon activation of the sprinkler waterflow alarm.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.200 (1)
The central control station shall include controls for the following-. one and two way voice
systems; fire detection and alarm system annunciator panels; status indicators and controls
for air handling systems; controls for unlocking all stairway doors; sprinkler valve and
waterflow annunciator panels.
NFPA 72, 3-12.6-5.2
ID Provide battery back-up emergency power supply to the alarm system. Batteries shall
maintain system operation for 24 hours on a local central station or proprietary system and
60 hours on an auxiliary or remote station system. At the end of that time the system shall
be capable of operating the indicating devices for 5 minutes.
NFPA 72, 1-5-2.6
0 Provide stand-by power battery calculations.
NFPA 72, 1-5
Page 7
13 All, required duct detectors shaU be provided with, a rernote testing and reset, device located
5 feet above the fmili'shed floor directly below the duct detector. All new and exiistilng
HVAC equipment containing smoke detection devices shall be. labeled to cormspond to the
fire alarm annunciation displayed at the alarm, pane�l,. The, Ubels shall 'be, clearly visible
from the floor leveL Corresponding numbers, shaU also be permanently provided,on each,
roof top unit.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24-203 (F)
NFPA 72, 5-10-6.4
C3 Provide complete wire counts on the plan view for each cnixvi"L
NFPA 72, 1-7.1.1
Provide complete riser diagram with W=** g details.
NFPA 72, 1-7.1.1
Provide UL listing and cut sheets on all fire alamequipment and devices.
NFPA 72, 1-5-1.2
All electrical work must meet current national electrical code requirentents, and be ins ted
by the Village electrical inspector.
NFPA 72, 1-5-5.4
Indicate the location of the end of line resistors.,
NFPA 72f1-7.1.1
Provide the central station UL listing certificate. NOTE: A certificate of occupancy will not be
granted without this certification.
Village Fire Prevention Code, 24.203 A (4)
Special, electrical wiring - All buildings 35 feet in height and or four stories or greater shall
be provided with, non energized, wr m!gto provide emergency, power, forfire fighting, and
11,
other fire departcaent use. Non energized outlets shall'be located, �m,, each stairwell, at, each
floor level and at ground level, all inWoxuiected, in the following umner.
a Provide a National Electrical Manufacturers Association approved weather proof
corrosion resistant male receptacle with a map -type waterproof cover installed
adjacent to the fire department sprinkler connection (but not so as to interfere with
same) and color coded red.
b. Provide a National Electrical Manufacturers Association approved weather proof
corrosion resistant female receptacle with a snap -type waterproof cover installed in
each stairwell, eat each floor level and color coded red.
c. If these installations above are not flush mounted, a waterproof enclosure shall be
provided.
uM
I T.H.W. #8 in three-fourths inch (3/4") conduit, with ground from conduit to neutral;
if conduit is exposed is shall be heavy wall; if conduit ids concealed is shall be thin
wall; the wire size is for buildings up to one hundred feet (100') in height.
2. T.H.W. #6 in one inch (1") conduit, with ground from conduit to neutral; if conduit is
exposed is shall be heavy wall; if conduit is concealed is shall be thin wall; the
wire size is for buildings over one hundred feet (100') in height.
ATTACHMENT
COMPARATIVE FEE SCHIEDULES
3796 SQ, FT. SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND
199180 SQ, FT. INTERIOR COMMERCIAL BUILD -OUT
Bensenville
$
1650.00
$
3250-00
Wheeling
$
1462.10
$
4356-36
Elk Grove Village
$
1990.00
$
6908.66
Park Ridge
$
2116.50
$
7107.15
Rolling Meadows
$
1708.00
$
7326.67
Prospect Heights
$
3796-00
$
7730.00
Des Plaines
$
1173.00
$
8051.00
Arlington Heights
$
2966.00
$
8009.60
Mount Prospect
$
1542.00
$
4960.50
(current)
Proposed
$
1898.00
$
7672,00
Average
$
2044.88
$6410.77
I
This comparison was developed using a "model" redevelopment project using the fee structures of
Mount Prospect and other municipalities. This approach to composing fees was used because the
methoM s of calculating construction fees are complex and vary between towns.
The fees described above are for building permit and plan review fimctions only, and do not include
any water tap on,, sewer connection or fire protection related costs. The proposed schedule is based
upon a flat square foot fee, which would be $.50/sq.ft. for residential and $.40/sq.ft. for commercial
work.
b
�
�► CL
G7
C4
CW
N
N
rl
cl
p
C`J
C`J
OQLo
N
4'1
�
`
CV
N
C"
t`wl
04I
N
CV
(D +
N
14D 0 +
Cy
• •
�
q�
d)
�
Q
CL
�
I' Q
Q
Cy cid
•
>
4.4
C5
I
C"4
Who
lilt0
�
• CC7�
C7 C_3
t� •+C�
QW
G7
�
C�
C7
C7
�'7
C'�
Cy
�► ��„
cid
"�- � �
�
�7
.
C`�
>
>
C>
.......... . .......... . .
r-
c- o
��
I r- a +
Cv
7
C) c
c�
c
6zCd
`>>
o
C7
0
C� >
a
w
cy
c
C> C>
c
C7 >
:� o
C� > ,
v
000>
+
�.
a'
V
0
�
c�
c;
o
c
cf
r'v
,
�
�
. toa'
a
�I
cr
� •
x
au
au
�..
Cy
C�C>
0
C>
C)C>
C>
C)
a�
�,
Cy..,
c�
C>
c)
C)
,
>I.r
o
C�
cv
CD
.
j
+C) cd
5 at
• /
'✓
11w.""y
'II�ira.
hJ
/J
rwC>
✓ ✓
C)
'/*yy,. �
"�w*,,y✓ rVyi
Cyti�. ��w/
Cy
�
\ 1
4-4
W V
■n
4 4-1
W 0
m
W V
00 C)
/
W 0
C4
CA
.,,.
'+
C+ Cd
cdtont
Q/
'*r
ti./ �i r^a
cd ~�✓
'✓ �'+�
� C�>
C) >
.� �ti`M
C'y� /hC7
'1.
CD
C> (0
0
C0
•+
"",.,, ,Cly
In
/0
-+,,, cd
w",
c.+ >
"*+..,,,
!
✓
/CD
r>
■0
/C) lC>,
r>
/>
•CD
+u"►
t` O
C"J
CV r- C>
ca ca
Cd
co
++.y
r�✓y
,
�'�✓+.�
'��.+✓�M�
4.r w�
"✓+�
`w�r�y cis
S/.�✓+�
/
„„
�
�y
�y�ti+/y
.
✓�
/may,
.✓
C)
�+.+ w7r ��y i'
,,r�
y��✓+y ( j
.✓ `>
yC>
0000kms✓
/
�.�i
00r�
I
ccs
0
cocri
to
rte.
.
ri CJ"S
- �"0
Lau
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
A Ft M
FIRE DEPARTMENT AWACH, ENT' 8
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ep,
TO: WILLIAM COONEY, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: MICHAEL FIGOLAH, FIRE CHIEF
DATE: MARCH 4, 1998
SUBJECT: FIRE PREVENTION PLAN REVIEW FEES
The following are proposed fire prevention plan review fees. Our existing fees have not increased
since 1984.
i
Plan Review TZEe
l
ExistinsPan Review Fees
.......... 0 11 1 1 0 00, 11 000
I Proposed Plan Review fe'e' s-
I ml
Number of sprin1ders
Number of sprin1ders,
Automatic
1-20
$50
1-20
$ 75
Sprinkler
21-100
$50
21-100
$100
Systems
101-200
$60
101200
$123
201-300
$70
201-300
$150
301400
$80
301400
$175
401500
$90
401-500
$200
aver 500
+$10
over 500
$225
per 100
+$25
1
100
00 00, 0 0
Standpipe
$25 per riser
$45 per riser
---------- -
Fire pumps
$30 per pump
$75 per pump
Misc.
$25 + $6.00 per 1,000 valuation
$50
Suppression System
Fire Alarm
$50
$75
Kitchen Hood
No charge
$50
�i Underground tanks
No charge
$35
install/remove
Other projects requiring fire
No charge
..........
$35
department review
Re -inspection
$25
$40
Attached is a comparison fee schedule of neighboring communities.
RPV/nn
c�
.rte.'
'i"
00
d
Ln
u
00
00
...
N
CL
W
Ln
^�
w
(U
N
' ;' . `�
. I
r4
ci its
�
u"1
1
cn
(0
>
Ln
wet,
Ln
oj
f
'
>
C�
f
C
i�
d
NtA
I
I
N
% cU`
♦ �
ryn
"j
pLo
i
3�
[[5
fa.
gbJ4
bA
`
rA
y,
r --ii
GFi
00
INA
6A
+ppj
if}
H9 r
q�
djr
qJ
f"1,
W
1."W cu
U
kocl
Ln
�..
•ti m
Qv�•
r„
1'0 c3 C►
bA
w "
d+
est
i+i
r
C, j
f
t�j
f
0 tn•G
u
1-rCJ
tib
, p
wQ
} • ti ,
b
t't3
r -r
+
N
N
cn
0
(Al
r•.y
G�7
yr
tw , ..r
cn
W
CA
r-4
tn540
fir,
r-4
.� iii =
`rw,
,
L.. i -r r.•..
�r
rN
r"
cf)
Qj
0 0 4
w
cco
ry
U*)
ril
U)
CA
Ln
Lf)
in
+ •>.
Ul)
I
V)
fel �
aj..y
�
fR�
6F?-
v
"0
Lr).0
Lr)
Ln
>
aj
>
M
� c�
�°
.....
I
sir
Q)
oj
a,+
flu
w
cz
IL
n IWA 11 11111111111; i1 11111;
JL V _n 16
Trustees Irvana Wilks and Paul Hoefert called the meeting to order at 9:00 AM. Representing
staff was Michael Janonis, Village err and John Malcolm, Deputy Fire Chief Village
residents in attendance were':
Walt Trendota, 1518 Mura Lane
Bob Nuccio, Box 1232, Arfington Heights
Jim Corman, 1348 Indigo Dri*ve
Mr. Walt Trendota, 1518 Mura Lane. Mr. Trendota h as been experiencing flooding problems
# 0
in his home. Pro ect Engineer Chuck Lindelof 9 has been out in this area and has designed two
retention basins to the rear of Mr. Trendota's property. Mr. Trendota would like to see the
retention basins closer to the easement and not in his backyard. Mr. Trendota feels that the
retention basins, as drawn, would be tootlose to'his home. Mr. Trendota attributes part of the
6
problem to his neighbors raising the grade in their backyards by 6 to 12 inches.
Mr. Trendota has been dealing with this problem for 15 months and would like this issue
resolved. The Village Manager will speak to the Village Engineer and The Village Attorney on
Monday, August 10, 1998, regarding this issue and will follow up with Mr. Trendota. The
Village Manager, Village Engineer, and the , I
V*Ilage Attorney contacted Mr. Trendota and have
been working with the parties involved to resolve this issue.
A N a
SA S
40
Coffee with Council Minutes
Page 2
August 8, 1998
Mr. Jim Corman, 1348 Indigo Drive. Mr. Corman presented copies of a letter he submitted
Metra regarding the proposed Wisconsin Central Track Expansion. His proposal (copies
attached), suggested constructing the second track on the west side of the existing track. Mr. J.
r. 0
Patrick McAtee, the Senior u %irector of Planning and Real Estate Development for Metra, will
forward Mr. Corman's proposal to their Chief Engineer for review. There will be a, meeting on I
this topic on August 19, 1998, at 7:30 PM at the Senior Center, 50 South Emerson Street.
There being no further issues to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11 -WOO AM.
il
Respectfully submitted,
Malcolm
Deputy Fi*re Chief
. ... ... ... .... I �1 �� , " " —'w . . . . .... ......... ,
547 W.. Jackson Blvd, Chicago, Illinois 60661 Telephone,.'� 312-322-6900 TTY# 1-;312-322-6774
Mr. James P. Corman
1348 Indigo Drive
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
RE: PROPOSED WISCONSIN CENTRAL TRACK EXPANSION
Dear Mr. Corman:
Metra is in receipt of your letter of July 29, 1998 regarding the addition of a second
track in Mt. Prospect. Your proposal for constructing the second track on the west side
of the existing track will be forwarded to our Chief Engineer for review.
We appreciate your teen on to this project.
Sincerely,
�.rick McAtee
Senior Director
Planning and Real Estate Development
4,
cc: W. K. Tupper - Engineering
CADOCSUTPRMCORMAKRES
Metra is the registered service mark for the Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation.
Il..w�:, r ,VII. �;^•w^µ,, V��.. oirywr
.. IOm..�..' mIV� Vlumi IIVVuIVIVlu.. .,.. .II°IIu� III,
lllVIIiVSIIIIVllllII
IVVIIIWI m. *u`..
_
,,..e...:,,......r ,r.,.a'.rr.M�r�rr ...,..»»r, r-rrnw:mmrv«rrin,;.,.,.. ,,,.,.rrr.Ma. ,7,7,7,7, ,.rrrrwi..rr ..., ,i. .i rrrrr„
wW
Wr
Wtl M'
�16
1
N',
r,
Aar
i
11
„.,,,. ,...,� „��.�� . .. ..... .;.,' ":�.
, M+ _ �,, .. , � _www ,. ��..a�,,..�,a � �����wwrvrv�
..
. iiiiiiiii m iiiiiiii iiiiiiii..iaiii . . . . .« .�....
.
"06 1 1.., '4� . I—
lk-/11-47
................... . . . ... . .......
...m ` ..:r�...
m mun �� � �r�r, m_. > mr.. ..�,......m�r....,,wr, :,,,,
rc
w
rv�n� , �.r �,��. m,�._... �r�rn.rrrrmm. w�
I
M M'
NP'dM
�v rt e r ..
��rv' �� rt ,:;zt�:v rtrrrtrrtrr�� m.. u:� imr:. mnmm;m;m'r�mr «ar mn .. ,uw rr nm':mrcn auiiarrl^'vi�;rv�r � wvvn.',mrvmm mvr'.vnwvrvr. .. 'vv'v. in vri.. rt.v.. vvvvva ry na »m m., mmm ver vi,
V V
,.wm�m�rw�nar..rr..wrw.mnw�ww�mry
u
�w
r�r
�nnnnw-,.„�Mrn„nnr� wwnr�mm.mmmmmmmmmmmmmm.nmm „..«««rm a mmm,mm mmmm
//,
,........._,,..m::::�,.:,r .�y,�„_-•mm�mm„mmm„mmmmmm:��m rvmmnmm�m.mm,�«��«:
i
0
,:::: ..... :.�: .. rw.mm « � ......vww,w.vcsuw...rmi.wu: «rrtrav �mmf «rnr m �rtr �r rtrr m«rwu r:rrt:�.,n Nr� «rr r rtra o mr �m �rtni rrmmmmwmm .vrrrmm uvmwrvvrvwamm.rommmmvrmvr rmr «......�, v. . . ............
vvvaaav, v r r gym-- � n.. rrvvnri mm'r.+rmm�wo nvi�nr .m r vwvvvvw,n'mmm'mmru�wvvvr vrnmv rvry in mm m': a rtor: «rrrrr r r « r m r ........ ..... ,
Zj
.
c e r
I�
ryey ,yrs_
ig
Lv,
M14� .iitlly
.:.,.,.. mm^,mr'... i�ivn*~'+.•.,.
R r vwrrnmn .. nnnrnov mmv',wnnnmmu�...............................x mmm n nn uwww.w.w�iuv.
is r iJe i...
�.
wh,
Cie
rn.mmn�n�rvr;n. . .. ........�~
�: � _. .�.. m� rrnr � ......
... ...._ .� _ ..._.. m . mm �.�. .... - .__.�....
_ nrva�m�rr _� . � Mn �m�r�r���n.�'��............................ mm .........................................
,
�« �r;r �. rt� .rm�„��m , �nrr.r �, rn,« ��"r��`, n _ r m rt�.
� �
. ............ . . . ........ . . . .............. . . . ........ ......... ........ . ... ... .. . . ........ ........ . .. ........... ... ........ . . . . ................
r
w �„"'r», rr .,,,�� �. �,m �"r ,mw. _W, rt �"� � � .,..,...� «,�rt ...,,,, .. _.._ _ ....�. _. ��
� �._�_ �_ _ __ _�..,� ��” ..�.� �_' a.... ,�.r. ,. �” er
G,
,.a .::::: .. .. ....rt; .. �������rmmrcr�m m� ;w �mmm'rii�nvrvrvrvrvrvrv,mm mrrri wr ernrm. m,�vmn rmw ran. rcn ��rm nv ,« ........ ,pyoµ':
,,...r+;w r�oormmm rmmlr�'MM” "
rrrrr«mr :rtmrA mm', ro
....,�::: w ...............:::..�.. r,,..... r. ... •r^wn, vnrr+ro� mmRr mmmrnn m
tl
1�
a
wN
��; r. n. .rt rtr��..«. ,v�,«�..�rmr�mm vr.rvn. n mm. ^nm �� rrrnry "ra �nu �rcm„m�irw ,,:..,:.:a. iivn.v� ..w... �w vin�a": ,vmiv mrvv rr "r�. nnnnn yr v. ananannnmrvu�r iv, vim'm'm'xnr an«rr � rt�er mr m .�..
...N. ..� .mn..n�mn�+�r nr mv+�. a rmr r� . r-m� .:... «r s�u.� r a ma�mrrn rtrt._.
f
� r
J�
rr rmmnn
m«w. �.rn
r
r
,
r� �rtr �,�� ; ������armrr ...
'�' � w ....... �, M ... , �.rnP ��, � , ,m � ..
f
;14 1111111041
'Mv ew hp el
r
ii * 4-K
K
4v
r
. ..........
. . . . .............. ........ . . . . . . . . .. ........ . . ........... . ... ...... ... . . ..... . . . ........ .. .. .................. ... . . . ........... . . ........ . . ............ . .. . ........ . . . . .........
Y .....�n-....�_,.. ��.�,,����-,`�,,�«R��««�R <<,���_�R�R�R�R�R�R�R�R�R�R�R�R�R�R������, ..___...._-___. ,�. . . .,r„...
C3 L.J
W G -f
C1C
cn
`%tel
in
L
(0 Axa
or.
�
�K)
O C7
00
cO tt7 �
r
w
P4
z
N W
m P4
WOLFRD 4 -PACE 9,60 CREE LANEUCELANE �z
to to
to
M Go col co
to
co
m to
LA_ rrwrwwrryw4. ; U
} nrrrrrrrr U rrrrrirrr
y �®
W lC CG?
~ N CV V-4
UMN 8W9 � �o ,0.
CIO LZ co
om
a
4"W OW Mmi* -M# l**M* *AM& mop -ANN*, NNW mww MAW �**Ww A"ow#
rl
�w
a
�-o
r
0
Fz r7
$V1. L r Ac& Ars
to
W
z�
Y d
CL
J
Z�Wrerrrrnrrrr
C3 0 d Cw
Li Er
C uj
ci
,::E
��
Li
to7 ............. 12 -Ln 0
,
~h N [3"`oz cvCn NCa� 3r,,
LLJCLI � z 2 a ...0 o ..._,CL CK) � u7 o � � * � � ,�- � �
► 4 Q. N ,� N [L CV(yo r- NCO .-
I 1
U') 14- fe) N C7 0 00 n to Kn •r te) CEJ rn co n (0 to qdr PI)
r: r- r: r: 416 co cn (6 co 6 ui di vi ui ui uri Lri ui t1i ui
N N N N N N
N N N N N CV N N N CV N N N N N N N N N N
a i
A 'A - Im
... .n��...
. . .. . . . ..
7
.1'3s* rive c /A
��M 5-ool
92 ?lei
E-0 a
-/coo
CIO'
4-6 14? y co,
24 46, 627-r>
]�rl z
?4 7S
h5
0—.64—,s� HE 75
40 ZY
MEETING LOCATION-,
2-nd Floor Conference Room
Village Hall
100 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
1. CALL TO ORDER
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Downtown Re'dev&lo
TMqpf Update
11. Train Stafion—, 'Update
s Bakery
MEETING DATE & TIME,
Wednesday
August 26, 1998
730 p.m.
MAYOR
Gerald L. Farley
Adw
VILLAGE MANAGER
TRUSTEES
Michael E. Jai onis
George A. Clowes
Timothy J. Corcoran
Paul Wni. Hoefert
o fm''Ount,prosect
p
VILLAGE CLERK
M
Richard C. Lolirstorfer
COMMunity Deverpmeint
Daniel A. Nocchi
Irvana, K. Wilks
Depar'tment
100 SOUthEmerson Street Mount Prospect) Illinois
Phone:847/818-5328
Fax,:-, 847/818-5329
60056
TDD: 847/392-6064
MEETING LOCATION-,
2-nd Floor Conference Room
Village Hall
100 South Emerson Street
Mount Prospect, IL 60056
1. CALL TO ORDER
IV. NEW BUSINESS
Downtown Re'dev&lo
TMqpf Update
11. Train Stafion—, 'Update
s Bakery
MEETING DATE & TIME,
Wednesday
August 26, 1998
730 p.m.
111 1!1 I 111 WT i��iiiqii mwm "Ism1
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
Phone: 847/818-5328
Fax: 847/818-5329
TDD: 847/392-6064
0
MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIMEM
Senior Center Thursday
50 South Emerson Street August 27, 1998
Mount Prospect, IL 60056 730 p.m. -
WIASII
I H -11 MI -I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Minutes of August 13,1998 meeting
ZBA- I 5-98/Randhurst Shopping Mall/999 North Elmhurst Road
Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow construction of a
Borders Book Store.
Vhp QUESTIONS .SND COMMENTS
..... . ..... . .. . ........... ..................... ............. ....
. . ........ .......... . ..... .......
Any individual who would like to attend thi's meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation
to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect,
IL 60056,847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-60640
...............
............... .. . ..... iiiiiii"MiliI
\�Vfi,\VO2\DEP'ACOMDEV\(")'EN\Pl,.NG\7,BA\agerida,doc
1.
111 1!1 I 111 WT i��iiiqii mwm "Ism1
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
Phone: 847/818-5328
Fax: 847/818-5329
TDD: 847/392-6064
0
MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIMEM
Senior Center Thursday
50 South Emerson Street August 27, 1998
Mount Prospect, IL 60056 730 p.m. -
WIASII
I H -11 MI -I
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Minutes of August 13,1998 meeting
ZBA- I 5-98/Randhurst Shopping Mall/999 North Elmhurst Road
Amendment to a Planned Unit Development (PUD) to allow construction of a
Borders Book Store.
Vhp QUESTIONS .SND COMMENTS
..... . ..... . .. . ........... ..................... ............. ....
. . ........ .......... . ..... .......
Any individual who would like to attend thi's meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation
to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect,
IL 60056,847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-60640
...............
............... .. . ..... iiiiiii"MiliI
\�Vfi,\VO2\DEP'ACOMDEV\(")'EN\Pl,.NG\7,BA\agerida,doc
10
Review of Development Approval and Permit Review Processes
a
Village of Mount Prospect Village Board
r"
Committee of the Whole meeting on i uesday, August 25, 1998 — 7 0-0 3 Opm
At
Mount Prospect Senior Citizen Center — 50 S. Emerson Street
The Mount Prospect Village Board vVill hear a presentation from staff regarding the development
0
approval and permit review processes in the Village. Staff has been reviewi*ng this matter and seeking
public comment for several months. The Village Board will be discussing this topic at the meeting.
The discussion will, 'Include the roles of the Village's various boards and commissions. You are
a
invited to hear the presentation and participate in the discussion.
If you have any questions on this matter please call Bi'll Cooney, Director of Community
Development at (847) 818-5328.
jjj11111.1.1 1, 1
MAYOR
Gerald L. Farley
Al
VILLAGE MANAGER
Michael E. Janonis
'TRUSTEES
George A. Clewes
Timothy J. Corcoran
'V'i*lla,g,e of'' Mount Pros'p' 4"T
VILLAGE CLERK
Paul Wrn. Hoefert
Richard M. Lohrstorfer
Uommunity vevelomeat Department
Phone: 847/818-5328
Daniel A. Nocchi
Irvana K. Wilks
100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
Fax, 847/818 -5329
TDD: 847/392-6064
10
Review of Development Approval and Permit Review Processes
a
Village of Mount Prospect Village Board
r"
Committee of the Whole meeting on i uesday, August 25, 1998 — 7 0-0 3 Opm
At
Mount Prospect Senior Citizen Center — 50 S. Emerson Street
The Mount Prospect Village Board vVill hear a presentation from staff regarding the development
0
approval and permit review processes in the Village. Staff has been reviewi*ng this matter and seeking
public comment for several months. The Village Board will be discussing this topic at the meeting.
The discussion will, 'Include the roles of the Village's various boards and commissions. You are
a
invited to hear the presentation and participate in the discussion.
If you have any questions on this matter please call Bi'll Cooney, Director of Community
Development at (847) 818-5328.
jjj11111.1.1 1, 1
REVISED 9116198
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AUGUST 25, 1998
MIN
A1701 00''SK
Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Present at the meeting were:
Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Daniel Nocchi and Irvana Wilks. Trustee George
Clowes arrived at 7:36 p.m. Absent at the meeting were: Trustee Hoefert and
Lohrstorfer. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael E. Janonis,
Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Fire Marshal
Paul Valentine, Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy
Community Development Director Michael Blue, Building Coordinator Bill George,
Planning Coordinator Dan Ungerleider, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village
Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof.
Approval of Minutes from August 11, 1998. Motion made by Trustee Clowes and
Seconded by Trustee Nocchi to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved
unanimously with Trustee Corcoran abstaining.
Village Manager Janonis provided a general overview of the topic stating that this
discussion comes about by way of numerous requests from Trustees during the end
of the year Committee of the Whole subject suggestions. He said that there is a
significant portion of the Village Code dedicated to Building Permit processing and
Development Review process. He stated there are approximately 30 staff members
who spend most or all of their time dealing with Development issues within the
Village. He stated that many of the Codes which the Village must follow are
mandates from other governmental bodies. He stated the Codes are for protection
of property and persons and are many times viewed by persons the Village deals
with as an unnecessary intrusion. Because the Village staff must serve diverse
groups with diverse interests in applying the Codes, there is a need to work together
to discuss probable improvements to the processing of such requests.
He stated that attention that is generated through the review process is not
necessarily unique to Mount Prospect but is fairly common in other communities.
He stated it is fairly common for a large number of people to apply for Permits
without significant knowledge about how the process is to work which is inherent to
some conflicts. There is typically a great deal of hand -holding by staff to assist
people as they go through the process. Much of the discussion in terms of how to
improve the system has found that the Village tends to be an easy foil and blamed
for many of the delays unnecessarily.
Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that various members of
his staff have reviewed the process extensively over the past year. He stated that
different points of views were encouraged through discussions with focus groups,
the EDC, the Chamber of Commerce, surveys and general input. The surveys that
were undertaken by staff included calls to persons who had recently completed the
process, persons who were contractors regarding permit requests and a general
survey which was available at the Building Permits desk at the Village Hall. The
findings which were realized through the surveys and focus groups included the
following items.
1. Increase level of communications with applicants.
2. Increase or continue strong internal communications among staff.
3. Shorten the time frame of the process.
4. Build on recent customer service enhancements.
5. Focus on time frame enhancements by issuing Permits in sections.
C. Address walk-through Permit process by reducing the need for separate
Planning and Public Works review.
7. Continue surveys to determine progress and develop better cooperation
between the Village and builders.
With all the enhancements which are addressed in the back-up material, there still
is a need to consider additional personnel to further enhance the service because
many of the enhancements which have been implemented have proved successful
but do not address all the findings which have been identified through the research.
David Lundgren, 743 White Oak Court, spoke. He stated that he is a Commission
member for the EDC and as a representative of the EDC, he fully supports the staff
recommendations and would support increased staff to meet the demands of the
customers. He would further encourage the continuation of customer service
surveys and the web page to be developed as a component for follow-up and
dissemination of information.
2
Brian Weinberg, Vice President of the Governmental Affairs Committee for the
Chamber of Commerce, spoke. He would like to commend staff for looking at
different ways to shorten the process and is encouraged by the staffs ability to look
at the process with a critical eye.
Adelaide Thulin, Chairperson of the Sign Review Board, spoke. She stated that
she fully supports the changes as recommended by staff.
Hal Predovich, 200 East Lonnquist, spoke. He stated that he is a member of
BDDRC and is encouraged by the enhanced communication efforts highlighted and
supports the recommended changes.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items.
There was question inquiring whether the need for additional staff would continue
to be necessary in a scenario where there was an economic down turn and the level
of building may decrease.
Village Manager Janonis responded by stating the staff tracks performance
measures of service plus the reinvestment in the homes is a good sign that even
with an economic down turn, people will continue to focus on their largest
investment, their home. He stated with any economic down turn, there would be a
review to determine whether reorganization would maximize the staff usage and
attrition is always a possibility.
Trustee Corcoran stated that he has experienced numerous complaints from
contractors regarding the process. He supports an annual survey of the process
and wholeheartedly supports involving customers to gain a perspective on the
process. He encourages the staff to consider technological enhancements and the
standardization of all forms even the consideration of working with the Northwest
Municipal Conference to standardize forms for all communities. He stated that he
endorses the request from staff for additional personnel and combining some
advisory commissions with like functions.
Trustee Nocchi asked whether the Plan Commission and ZBA had had the
opportunity to review the suggestions as proposed by staff.
Community Development Director Cooney stated that he did not go to each
individual Commission but wanted some direction prior to advising these other
advisory groups of possible changes.
K
Trustee Clowes stated that he was pleased with the recommendations and
supported the enhanced customer service focus in addition to the additional use of
technology. He stated he is reluctant to add staff and would like to see other
enhancements implemented and staff only added as a last resort. He suggested
a review of workloads to determine how to obtain additional productivity by staff and
he would support the elimination of the concurrence vote by the Board as
suggested.
Trustee Wilks stated that she liked the top to bottom review which has taken place
and suggested a review to determine whether some Permits could be eliminated.
She feels that each advisory commission has a role and feels that some steps could
be eliminated through joint commissions. She would support the removal of the
concurrence vote only if the Board did not waive a second reading.
Community Development Director Cooney stated that the Village does not have
to issue permits. It is a policy decision by the Village Board. He stated that much
work is done without a Permit and there are significant risks involved with such work
and there may be less value to eliminate or reduce the hassle factor associated with
Permit processing and focus instead on the value of Permits/inspections. Mr.
Cooney also stated that of the two positions suggested, he feels the Project
Engineer would be their priority of the two positions.
General comments from the Village Board members included the following items'.
There was a suggestion to review the structure in other communities to determine
whether longer hours for service without additional staff works better than other
opportunities. There was also a question as to whether regulations have changed
over the last five years which would impact overall staff work load.
General consensus of the Village Board was to support the staff
recommendations as submitted but to bring back the recommendations as
part of another Committee of the Whole meeting in which all members are
present so that a final determination can be made.
Village Manager Janonis stated he will forward the report to the various Board and
Commissions as part of an Agenda in order to solicit input and provide any
feedback to the Village Board.
=9A
Trustee Nocchi inquired as to what the status was of the ComEd meeting in terms
of the promised follow up from them. He also wanted to thank Representative
Krause and Village staff for coordinating the Metra meeting.
Village Manager Janonis responded by stating that he has received an interim
status letter from ComEd and they are working to complete pulling the information
together by the end of August.
Trustee Nocchi wanted to comment on a recent memorandum distributed by
Trustee Wilks about a proposed rebate of $250,000 to residents for 1999. He
stated that revenues only exceed expenditures at this time and there is still a need
to address the under -funding of capital projects and vehicles. He does not want to
tie the hands of the Village Board at this time. He would like to review staffing
proposals and see if the surplus as projected is a single -year event or could be a
trend. He wanted to avoid any suggestion that that the appearance of such a
recommendation by Trustee Wilks could be perceived as an election year tactic.
Trustee Clowes stated that he objected to the suggestion that Trustee Wilks'
proposal was an election year tactic. He also stated that the increase in the
Property Tax last year was for a short-term problem which has now been alleviated.
He supports a thorough review of options relating to the revenue surplus.
Trustee Wilks stated that the change from deficit to surplus was significant but a
rebate in the vehicle sticker could be a one-time give back to residents who have
been supportive of Village activities in the past.
Trustee Corcoran stated that regardless of how the surplus or windfall may be
addressed, there remains a need to address the under -funding of capital projects
and vehicle replacements. He stated there is a need to take some pressure off
these items for one year and to look at a permanent funding source.
TACI, A; 4 ,
Village Manager Janonis stated there is a Citizens' Utility Board Area code
informational meeting scheduled for August 27 at the Mount Prospect Public Library
beginning at 7:00 p.m.
A motion was made by Trustee Corcoran and seconded by Trustee Nocchi to enter
into a closed session to discuss property acquisition. Motion approved. The
meeting was adjourned into closed session at 9:39 p.m.
The committee of the Whole was reconvened into open session at 10:39 p.m.
There was no further business.
5
- - L0,11MUNTAU'l
A motion was made by Trustee Wilks, and Seconded by Trustee Corcoran to
adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m.
H:\GEN\Cow\M1nutes\81198 COW Minutes.doc
Respectfully submitted,
DAVID STRAHL
Assistant Village Manager
10�