The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 09/26/2006 ~~~~~ I ~~~::i' ---~~~\ ,'If(.&J' I" '^' \ flh_ g'/ '~I "51 illiU,ll' ,( .Jl[,un! lJmy'~_ L.\~~ h--~ ~:trFrmirf~ 1UWWJ/ COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Irvana K. Wilks Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee John Korn Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2006 AND AUGUST 22,2006 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. SMOKING REGULATIONS DISCUSSION THIS IS A CONTINUA TlON OF THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETINGS OF MA Y 9, 2006 AND AUGUST 22, 2006. Last year, the Illinois Legislature amended the Illinois Indoor Clean Air Act (IICM) to allow municipalities to adopt local Public Smoking Regulations more stringent than those enumerated in the IICM. At that time, several members of the Village Board expressed a desire to have some discussion regarding the adoption of local regulations. Earlier this year, the Cook County Board of Commissioners adopted County-wide Public Smoking Regulations that will become effective in March 2007. The County smoking regulations will apply to Mount Prospect unless we choose to adopt our own regulations prior to the effective date of the County Act. The Village has three (3) basic options to consider. First, we can choose to do nothing and allow the County Act to become effective. Second, we can adopt local regulations that are more stringent than the County Act. Finally, we could maintain the status quo by declaring (through Ordinance) the Village adopts the IICM as the local standard. The County ban is fairly comprehensive in this scope, while the IICM is substantially more permissive. A number of area communities have recently adopted local bans with varying but similar degrees of stringency, Based on previous discussions, we feel we have taken the language agreed on and included this in our draft. Tuesday evening will mark the continuation of public discussions and consideration of a draft Ordinance regulating smoking in enclosed and related public places. Recognizing this topic is both high profile and somewhat controversial, efforts have been made to notify both the public and business community of the impending discussion and encourage all to participate in same. Specific notification has been given to the Chamber, Economic Development Commission, and entertainment/dining based businesses. The Village has also established an e-mail address (smokingregs@mountprospect.org) to facilitate commentary on the subject. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. V. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS/FEE IN LIEU OF STORMWATER DETENTION THIS IS A CONTINUA TlON OF THE DISCUSS/ON OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF JUNE 13, 2006. Based on increasing feedback from developers of smaller residential building projects (teardowns and small resubdivisions), staff would like to explore with the Village Board the concept of providing relief from certain storm water detention requirements by allowing for payment of a "fee in lieu of' providing the required storage on site. The "fee" would then be used to address storm water detention issues on a larger scale basis. Given the steadily increasing number of teardowns and small residential resubdivision projects, it is likely the fee will generate significant revenue that will allow the Village to undertake larger scale projects. The attached memorandum and back-up material will provide the basis for initial review. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VI. COM ED RATE HIKE In 1997, the Illinois Commerce Commission implemented a 1 O-year rate freeze on electricity as part of an effort to restructure the electrical industry in Illinois. This rate freeze is due to expire on January 1,2007. In preparation for this bellwether anniversary, Commonwealth Edison (ComEd) has conducted a rather unique "reverse auction" designed to establish new electricity rates. The results of this auction were announced by the Illinois Commerce Commission on September 15, 2006. Analysis of these results indicates that the Village of Mount Prospect can expect to incur rate increases of 49% or more for water and sewer pumping facilities and street lighting. (No back-up material.) Staff will be on hand to explain auction results and discuss available options to mitigate these increases. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION PROPERTY ACQUISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body." MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 8, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Irvana Wilks. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, John Korn, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels, Finance Director David Erb, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, Police Chief Richard Eddington, Deputy Police Chief Michael Semkiu, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Village Forester Sandy Clark and Fire Chief Michael Figolah. II. MINUTES Approval of Minutes of July 11, 2006. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Korn. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. EMERALD ASH BORER UPDATE Forestry Superintendent Sandy Clark provided an update to the Village Board from the previous discussions in June. She provided information regarding the comparison of the Asian Longhorn Beetle and Emerald Ash Borer. She stated this insect is much more difficult to identify and it lives under the bark and emerges from the bark periodically. She stated approximately 20% of the urban forest are Ash trees which could be vulnerable to this insect. She stated there is a readiness plan in place once an infestation has been identified. She also stated that the response for an infestation is under the control of the Department of Agriculture. Apparently, the Department is focusing on detection and preliminary estimates of cost and removal of the 4,500 public trees is in the neighborhood of $1.5 million. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested the notification be provided to residents that have Ash trees in front of their homes on the public right-of-way so they might be on the look out for the insect. They also voiced concern regarding local funding impact for removal of possibly infected trees. 1 V. CRIME FREE HOUSING PROGRAM Police Chief Richard Eddington provided a general summary of the Crime Free Housing Program. He stated in order to achieve reasonable goals, there would be need for a five-year commitment and the need to hire a coordinator to manage the process and training aspects related to this program. He stated there is a possibility that service calls may decrease along with crime complaints as long as quality-of-Iife improvements are identified. He also stated that the Police Department would be supportive of including a single-family rental program as part of this general initiative. Bill Cooney stated the five-year commitment is requested in order to get out to every property during the period. He stated there would be an increase in inspections which would apply to approximately 1100 properties, up from 230 properties at this time. He stated that an increase in the licensing fee could be considered to assist in funding an additional Inspector for these inspections. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was general consensus of the Board supporting the program. Lee Williams, 70 North Albert, spoke. He stated he supports the program and would like it to move forward as soon as possible. VI. 2006 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW AND 2007 PRE-BUDGET WORKSHOP 2006 Mid-Year Budqet Review Finance Director Dave Erb provided an overview of the 2006 Budget including the close out of the Village Hall Construction Project budget. He anticipates a General Fund surplus of 32% at the end of 2007. He has reduced his Sales Tax estimates by $600,000 and the Real Estate Transfer Tax revenue continues to be strong. He stated the Utility Tax revenues are leveling off and Building Fees and Licensing remains strong. He also stated the Village has enjoyed increased interest income over the previous year with the climbing interest rates. He also stated the enforcement and ticket revenue is down due to manpower shortages. He also stated that there is a change in the Budget whereby the Westbrook School Resource Officer has been discontinued, therefore, the revenue that was obtained through the School District has been discontinued. He stated other issues that need to be addressed include the necessity for a permanent funding source for the CIP. He stated the Water and Sewer Fund remains strong due to the changes made in 2004. He stated MFT funds are decreasing due to a shift in street improvement construction funds and the Parking System fund is currently operating in a deficit position with a limited balance to draw from. 2007 Forecast He stated the revenue estimates appear to be reasonable and there is a projection of a surplus of $573,000. He stated the changes to staffing and the increased energy costs project a Budget balance of 32% in the General Fund in 2007. The major 2007 issues include the CIP funding source, space needs evaluation, pent up demands for staffing and new programs and emergency preparedness. 2 Chuck Bennett, Chair of the Finance Commission, spoke. He stated it is good to hear about the surpluses and feels the Village must remain conservative. He suggested the difference between the 32% and the 25% fund balance policy is adequate for other purposes. He suggested a Budget Workshop early in 2007 to prepare for 2008. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated there is a Coffee with Council scheduled for August 12 in the Community Center from 9:00 a.m. until 11 :00 a.m. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Wilks commented on the Do It Yourself Sousa concert and the Boxwood Bash. VIII. The Closed Session was cancelled. IX. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:13 p.m. ~S;:bf1 DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 3 MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST 22, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Pro Tem Michael Zade!. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, John Korn, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron and Michael Zade!. Absent from the meeting was Mayor Irvana Wilks. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl and Management Intern Michael Dallas. II. MINUTES Request to defer approval of Minutes of August 8, 2006. Motion made by Trustee Corcoran and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Deferral was approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. SMOKING REGULATIONS DISCUSSION Village Manager Janonis stated this is a continuation of the May 9, 2006 discussion. He is requesting Village Board direction to staff as to the parameters for drafting of the Smoking Regulation Ordinance if they are so inclined to regulate. Invitations have been sent out to possibly impacted businesses and the public has been offered input through a dedicated e-mail address. Albert Harriet, National Director of the Illinois Food and Beverage Association, spoke. He suggests a comprehensive regulation that would allow for some consideration of smokers on the premises. He does not believe there is a need to protect the hospitality employees from smokers and would suggest avoiding an all-inclusive smoking ban within the Village. Paul Tate, 906 Sumac, spoke. He stated he has no financial investment in smoking but is opposed to smoking bans through government regulations. He feels that private property should be regulated by the owners based on their economic interests. 1 Jim Pappas, owner of Papp's Bar and Grill spoke. He stated Mount Prospect is a unique town and the Village has been willing to discuss programs with impacted persons previously and would hope the same would be true in this instance. He stated he is in a somewhat unique position because his establishment is directly across the street from Des Plaines which has no smoking regulations which could put him at an unfair competitive advantage. He stated that there could be a designated smoking area with smoke removal devices in place. Katherine Sawyer, Regional Vice President of the American Cancer Society, spoke. She wanted to congratulate the Board for considering the issue and stated smoking has been studied enough to show it is a health hazard and would support a 100% ban within the Village. Ted Pappas, co-owner of Papp's Bar and Grill, spoke. He stated that cancer exposures are everywhere and does not feel the Village should use California as an example for a 100% ban due to the weather conditions in the area. He also stated that he has seen the opposite data that business has declined in states where the ban was put in contrary to other comments. He stated he is concerned about government regulations on a chosen legal activity. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There has been opportunity to consider this topic and the freedom to act on one's behalf should be limited to the point where there is an impact on another individual. There is a concern that the regulation should be tempered. There was also a suggestion that the regulation could be drafted in several steps. The comment was made that there is no debate about the health effects of smoking. There could be an understanding that going to a specific location automatically accepts the fact that smoking will be taking place in that location as long as there is a separation of patrons for any other activity at such an establishment for the enjoyment of the other activities within the restaurant. The step-by-step hazard regulation is similar to how hazard regulations in the workplace were created and just as any other safety hazard exists, this should be regulated. It was also suggested that a clear zone be established around the front of buildings. There was a question about smoking regulation in outdoor eating areas and how such a ban would impact those areas. A comment was made about the wide variance in regulations among different communities and it was felt that balance should be struck for Mount Prospect. Village Manager Janonis stated there appears to be direction for regulation from the Board and he stated staff can draft an Ordinance for consideration that would exempt bars from the regulation as long as some kind of smoke removal device is present. Once that draft is presented, the Village Board could modify that as necessary to achieve the goals of the Board. He would anticipate a draft Ordinance returning to the Board between 30-45 days from now. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT None. 2 VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. VII. The Closed Session was cancelled. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m. ~~~~--uf DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 3 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM lVlount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: SEPTEMBER 21,2006 SUBJECT: DRAFT SMOKING ORDINANCES Staff had committed to bringing a draft smoking regulation ordinance back for consideration at the August 22, 2006 Committee of the Whole meeting. Based on the input from the Village Board two draft ordinances are presented for consideration and could be used as working drafts for mark-up and clarification. One draft, identified as Draft 1 is patterned after the consortium of several Northwest Suburban communities, including Schaumburg and Arlington Heights. Draft 1 includes more definitions clarifying public places and places of employment through specific listing. Draft 2 is written in such a manner as to prohibit smoking through the use broad descriptions that are all inclusive without specifically listing of areas of prohibition. Both versions contain the same penalty language. Each version is concise enough to be enacted as presented, but contain slightly different styles. Depending on the Board's wishes elements of each version may even be combined if there exists desirable language contained in a specific version compared to another. The Board had also expressed some desire to consider possible smoking exceptions for enclosed establishments with certain liquor licenses. Staff has prepared language, identified as Part 0, that may be considered with any consensus version of a draft ordinance. Staff direction requested is as follows: . Consensuses on the ordinance language that is adequately inclusive of acceptable regulation of smoking. . Consensus on the language defining any exceptions to smoking in enclosed areas to specific establishments previously granted certain liquor licenses and the conditions allowing such an exception. Appropriate staff and the Village Attorney will be present to participate in the discussion. ~~~-W David Strahl c: Village Manager Michael E. Janonis H:\VILM\SMOKING REGULATIONS\Smoking Ordinance Cover Memo 9-26-06 COW. doc teA(-( ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN CERTAIN AREAS IN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is a home rule unit pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois; and WHEREAS, the Village has authority and power to regulate for the protection of the public health and welfare; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of 65 ILCS 5/11-19.1-1-11, the Corporate Authorities of the Village have the authority to prescribe by ordinance the regulation of the use of lands connected with the emission of air contaminants and may abate operations, activities or uses causing air contamination; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees have found and determined that based upon the United States Environmental Agency's classification, secondhand smoke is a "Class A Carcinogen"; and WHEREAS, secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States and causes cancer, stroke and heart disease; and WHEREAS, employees who work in smoke filled businesses suffer a substantially higher risk of heart attack and higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as increased acute respiratory disease and measurable decrease in lung function; and H:\VILM\SMOKING REGULATIONS\MP Ord Prohibiting Smoking in Certain Places.DOC WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that secondhand smoke cannot be reduced to safe levels in businesses by high rates of ventilation; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect finds and declares that the purposes of this Ordinance are: (1) to protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in all public places and places of employment; and (2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breath smoke-free air which shall have priority over the desire to smoke. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT: SECTION ONE: Title. This Ordinance shall be known as "Clean Indoor Air Regulations" and shall be in addition to and not be limited by the provisions of any state, county or federal legislation, it being the intent of the President and Board of Trustees to strictly regulate indoor secondhand smoke. SECTION TWO: Definitions. The following words and phrases used in this ordinance shall have the following meanings: A. "Enclosed Area" means all space between a floor and a ceiling that is enclosed or semi-enclosed with (i) solid walls or windows (exclusive of doorways) which extend from floor to the ceiling, or (ii) solid walls with half wall partitions and no windows (exclusive of doorways) without limitation to lobbies and corridors. B. "Place of Employment" means any enclosed area under the control of a public or private employer where one or more employees are required or 2 permitted by an employer to work in the course of their employment and includes without limitation, work areas, private offices, auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, cafeterias, elevators, employee lounges, stairs, hallways, restrooms, medical facilities, private clubs and the interior of a vehicle of public conveyance. A private residence is not a "place of employment" unless the dwelling is also used partially or exclusively as a day care facility for children or adults, a health care facility or a home based business of any kind open to the public provided that rooms in nursing homes or long-term care facilities occupied by one or more persons who have requested in writing a room where smoking is permitted shall be considered private dwelling units. C. "Public Place" means any area that is open to and used by the general public, or any area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including without limitation: 1. vehicles of public conveyance, including Village owned vehicles. 2. common or public areas (including without limitation lobbies, hallways, reception areas, public restrooms, storage, laundry and elevators) of apartment buildings, condominiums, dormitory buildings, nursing home care facilities and other multiple family residential structures. 3. common or public areas (including without limitation lobbies, hallways, reception areas, public restrooms and elevators) or any building or structure that is accessible to the public including without limitation office, commercial and industrial buildings, banks and financial institutions, education institutions, health care facilities, such as hospitals, clinics and doctor's offices, museums, libraries, restaurants, polling places, government and Village-owned buildings, food stores, cafeterias, shopping malls, sports arenas, theaters, auditoriums, public transportation facilities, hotels, motels and retail and service establishments. 3 4. rooms, chambers, halls or other locations within which meetings, hearings or gathering are held, to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including specifically but without limitation, any enclosed area under the control of the Village of Mount Prospect where there is, in progress, any public meeting. Provided, however, that "Public Place" shall not include hotel or motel rooms designated as "smoking" provided that no more than twenty percent (20%) of the available rooms for rent in any single building shall be designated as "smoking rooms." D. "Secondhand smoke" or "Involuntary smoking" is a mixture of the smoke given off by the burning ends of a cigarette, pipe, cigar, bidis, and kreteks (side stream smoke) and the smoke emitted at the mouthpiece and exhaled from the lungs of smokers (mainstream smoke). E. "Smoking" means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe, weed, hookah or other lighted tobacco produce in any manner or in any form. SECTION THREE: Prohibition Within Distance of Public Places. Smoking is prohibited within fifteen (15) feet of any entrance to an enclosed area in which smoking is prohibited and also within fifteen (15) feet of any outdoor eating establishment or facility. SECTION FOUR: Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance, the following areas shall be exempted from its provision provided smoking is not limited or prohibited in such areas under the Illinois Clean Indoor Air Act or federal legislation: 4 a. Smoking areas incidental to the sale of tobacco in businesses where smoking is confined to the premises by water pipe or other smoking devices, provided, however that said smoking shall take place wholly within such enclosed premises. b. A private residence as hereinabove defined. c. Hotel and motel sleeping rooms subject to restrictions as hereinabove set forth. d. Private and semi-private rooms in nursing homes and long-term care facilities occupied by one or more persons, all of whom are smokers and have requested in writing to be placed or to remain as the case may be in a room where smoking is permitted. SECTION SIX: Posting of Signs. Every public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited by this Ordinance shall have posted at every entrance a conspicuous sign indicating "NO SMOKING". Such "NO SMOKING" signs shall have a white field with the words "No Smoking" printed in red letters four (4) inches high with a one-half (1/2) inch face or shall bear the international 'NO SMOKING" symbol which consists of a pictorial representation of a cigarette enclosed in a circle with a bar across it. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, deface or obscure any sign posted pursuant to the provisions of this Ordinance. The operator, manager or other person having control of an area where smoking is prohibited shall remove all ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia intended for use where smoking is prohibited. 5 SECTION SEVEN: Violations and Penalties. Any person who smokes in an area where smoking is prohibited by this Ordinance shall be punished by a fine as set forth in Appendix A, Division III. Any person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls public place or place of employment who fails to comply with the provisions of this Ordinance shall be fined as set forth in Appendix A, Division III. Each day on which a violation of this Ordinance occurs shall be considered a separate offense. The Village Manager is hereby further authorized to seek an injunction if he/she determines intentional and repeated violations of this Ordinance by the owner, manager or person in control of a public place or place of employment and may commence revocation proceedings for any license issued to a public place subject to licensing by the Village. SECTION EIGHT: Appendix A, Division III of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following Article _: Art. _ Smoking Prohibition Smoker violating Art. _: Not less than $100.00 nor more than $500.00 Property owner permitting Smoking in violation of Art. _: Not less than $250.00 nor more than $1000.00 SECTION NINE: All Ordinances inconsistent with this Ordinance be and they are hereby repealed. SECTION TEN: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. 6 AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk day of ,2006 Irvana K. Wilks, Village President 7 tRAr( :z ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING SMOKING IN CERTAIN AREAS IN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is a home rule unit pursuant to the provisions of Article VII, Section 6 of the Constitution of the State of Illinois; and WHEREAS, the Village has authority and power to regulate for the protection of the public health and welfare; and WH EREAS, pursuant to the provisions of 65 I LCS 5/11-19.1-1-11, the Corporate Authorities of the Village have the authority to prescribe by ordinance the regulation of the use of lands connected with the emission of air contaminants and may abate operations, activities or uses causing air contamination; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees have found and determined that based upon the United States Environmental Agency's classification, secondhand smoke is a "Class A Carcinogen"; and WHEREAS, secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States and causes cancer, stroke and heart disease; and WHEREAS, employees who work in smoke filled businesses suffer a substantially higher risk of heart attack and higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as increased acute respiratory disease and measurable decrease in lung function; and WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has determined that secondhand smoke cannot be reduced to safe levels in businesses by high rates of ventilation; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect find and declare that the purposes of this Ordinance are: (1) to protect the H:\VILM\SMOKING REGULATIONS\MP Ord Smoking Prohibited Redraft 9-20-06.DOC public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in all public places and places of employment; and (2) to guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breath smoke-free air which shall have priority over the desire to smoke. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT: SECTION ONE: A new Article _ entitled "Smoking" shall be added to of the Mount Prospect Village Code a Chapter entitled and shall be inserted and read as follows: ARTICLE Sec. TITLE Article to be known as "Clean Indoor Air Regulations" and shall be in addition to and not be limited by the provisions of any state, county or federal legislation, it being the intent of the President and Board of Trustees to strictly regulate indoor secondhand smoke. Sec. DEFINITIONS. The following words and phrases used in this Article shall have the following meanings: Enclosed Area: Any space between a floor and ceiling that is enclosed on all sides by any combination of solid walls, windows and/or doorways, including but not limited to, underground parking garages, elevators, and public buses, taxis and other vehicles of public conveyance. Private Dwellinq Unit Space: Any enclosed area intended for and used as actual living space, including but not limited to homes, apartments, retirement home, group homes and nursing home living quarters. Private Dwelling Unit Space shall not include hallways, lobbies or other common areas within an apartment building, retirement home group home or nursing home. Smokinq: The inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying of any lighted cigar, cigarette, pipe or other similar object. Sec. EXCEPTIONS The following Enclosed Areas are not subject to this Article: 2 A. Private Dwelling Unit Space, unless the Private Dwelling Unit Space is used as a licensed childcare, adult care or health care facility; and B. Retail tobacco stores utilized exclusively for the sale of tobacco products and accessories. C. Hotel or motel rooms designated as "smoking"; provided that no more than twenty percent (20%) of the available rooms for rent in any single building shall be designated as "smoking rooms". Sec. ENCLOSED AREA SMOKING PROHIBITED No person shall smoke in any Enclosed Area. No owner, operator or person in control of an Enclosed Area shall permit or take reasonable steps to stop smoking in that Enclosed Area. Sec. SMOKING NEAR ENCLOSED AREAS No Smoking shall be permitted within fifteen (15') feet of a door or window to any Enclosed Area where Smoking is not permitted or within fifteen (15') feet of a ventilation air intake to any building. Sec. RETALIATION PROHIBITED No person or employer may discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner retaliate against or discriminate against an employee, applicant for employment or customer because that employee, applicant or customer reports or attempts to prosecute a violation of this Article. Sec. POSTING OF SIGNS Every public place and place of employment where smoking is prohibited by this Article shall have posted at every entrance a conspicuous sign indicating "NO SMOKING". Such "NO SMOKING" signs shall have a white field with the words "No Smoking" printed in red letters four (4") inches high with a one-half (1/2") inch face or shall bear the international "NO SMOKING" symbol which consists of a pictorial representation of a cigarette enclosed in a circle with a bar across it. It shall be unlawful for any person to remove, deface or obscure any sign posted pursuant to the provisions of this Article. The operator, manager or other person having control of an area where smoking is prohibited shall remove all ashtrays and other smoking paraphernalia intended for use where smoking is prohibited. Sec. RIGHT TO DECLARE PREMISES NON-SMOKING Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, an owner, manager or other person in control of a building or an establishment, facility or outdoor area may declare that entire building, establishment, facility or outdoor area as a nonsmoking area by posting assign indicating "No Smoking" and no person shall smoke in any such place. If such a nonsmoking declaration is made, any violator shall be subject to the penalties set forth in Section 3 Sec. PENALTY Any person violating any provision of this Article shall be subject to a fine as set forth in Division III of Appendix A of the Mount Prospect Village Code. The Village may commence revocation proceedings for any license issued to a public place where more than three violations of this Article have occurred. SECTION 2: Appendix A, Division III of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following under Chapter _' Section Art. _ Smoking Prohibition Smoker violating Article _: Not less than $100.0 nor more than $500.00 Property owner Permitting Smoking in violation of Article Not less than $250.00 nor more than $1,000.00 SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the 61 st day after it is signed by the Mayor, except that for enclosed areas with a liquor license that permits a lounge or bar area, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the 1815t day after it is signed by the Mayor. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2006 Irvana K. Wilks, Village President ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk 4 PAR-( b D. Bar area of a restaurant, subject to the conditions of this Article: 1. The restaurant must have a physical bar where alcoholic beverages are served for immediate consumption. 2. The physical bar and the area adjacent to it shall be separated from the nonsmoking areas of the restaurant by a floor-to-ceiling solid wall or other barrier that does not allow smoke and other airborne particles to pass through to the nonsmoking area of the restaurant. Entrances and exits between smoking and nonsmoking areas must remain closed at all times except when in immediate use by a patron or employee. 3. The bar area of a restaurant shall have a heating, ventilation and air conditioning ("HV AC") system separate from the nonsmoking area of the restaurant. 4. The bar area of the restaurant shall not include any common area of the premises to which a nonsmoker may need access, including but not limited to entrances, exits, waiting areas, restrooms and access routes thereto. A bar area of a restaurant may have separate entrances, exits, waiting rooms and restrooms where smoking is allowed. H:\VILM\SMOKING REGULATIONS\MP Ord Language Bar Area Smoking.DOC Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS FEE IN LIEU OF STORMWATER DETENTION The topic of allowing a fee in lieu of providing stormwater detention for certain development and construction projects was brought before the Village Board at the June 13, 2006 Committee of the Whole Meeting. Attached for your reference are the information packet provided for that meeting and the Meeting Minutes. Several comments/questions were generated at that meeting. Staff has researched these issues and provides the following information for the Board's consideration. NWMC Survey Staff was directed to survey other communities to determine if they have implemented a Fee in Lieu option. Attached is a copy of the survey for your reference. Here is a summary of the responses: o 18 communities responded to the survey. o Of those 7 have considered implemented a Fee in Lieu option. o Of those only 5 have actually passed ordinances that allow this option. The other two indicated that they are where Mount Prospect finds itself, Fee in Lieu is under consideration, but the details have not been resolved yet. o The 5 communities vary as to the level of development/construction project that triggers the Fee in Lieu option. One community only allows this option in one area of the Village that is tributary to a regional lake that serves as a detention facility. 3 communities allow the Fee in Lieu option for subdivisions, new buildings, and parking lot expansions. One community allows this option for any construction project less than 1,000 square feet. And one community includes any new impervious surface such as garages, sheds, sidewalks, decks, driveways and patios. o 3 communities determine the fee based on the calculated required detention volume. 2 communities base the fee on the area of new impervious surface created by the project. o Each community calculated fees differently. Volume fees varied from $1 per cubic foot to the actual cost to construct the detention. Area fees ranged from $1.60 per square foot to $4 per square foot. o Projects that the fees have been utilized for include: expansion of other detention areas, transfer of detention from commercial to residential parcel and to retire the debt service on bonds purchased to fund regional stormwater management projects. Page 2 Proposed Development Code Modifications Fee in Lieu of Stormwater Detention September 20, 2006 Eligible Projects Where practical, staff believes that stormwater detention should be constructed for every project that meets the requirements of the Village Code. Only at the discretion of the Village Engineer and where it is not practical to construct the detention should the Fee in Lieu option be considered. Thus staff recommends that the threshold for all development projects to be considered for the Fee in Lieu option should be less than 1 acre in size. Staff also recommends that the Fee in Lieu apply to projects specific residential improvement projects, specifically new homes, tear down and rebuilds, building additions, and garages. These types of improvement can significantly increase the impervious surface area on a residential lot. Other smaller residential projects that only involve construction of patios, driveways, sidewalks, or sheds are not required by code to provide stormwater detention and it is not recommended that they be included in the Fee in Lieu option. Fee Amount Charging a fee per square foot (fe) of new impervious surface area created by a project appears to be the simplest and most equitable means of assessing the fee. Charging the fee based upon square foot (ft2) of new impervious surface would also create the possibility to assess this fee consistently over all new impervious surfaces, such as single family homes, detached garages, and building additions. A tiered approach to the fee would create the most reasonable system. o Development Projects less than 1 Acre: $2 per square foot of impervious surface. This would apply to projects that trigger the development Code including: . All commercial, industrial and multi-family developments . Additions greater than 25% of the existing building footprint to any commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family development . Parking lot expansions greater than 50% of the existing lot to any commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family development . Single family developments involving two (2) or more new units o Residential Improvements: $0.50 per square foot of impervious surface. (This would apply to individual projects including: . Single family new homes (including tear downs and rebuilds) . Single family home building additions . Single family garages Impact of Fee The charts submitted with the first meeting packet illustrate that the fee of $2 per fe of new impervious surface for development projects will typically result in an amount slightly less than the actual cost to construct the required detention facility. This fee is consistent with the costs the Village is currently paying for earthwork in the detention ponds in the Kensington Business Center. The $0.50 per ft2 for residential projects would generate fees in the amount of $350 for a typical detached garage, $200 for a typical building addition, and $2,000 to $5,000 for a typical new home. Page 3 Proposed Development Code Modifications Fee in Lieu of Stormwater Detention September 20, 2006 Collection of the Fee When a project is submitted for permit, the Engineering Staff will review the project, determine if it is eligible for the Fee in Lieu option and then determine the amount of the fee. The project review letter will inform the applicant that the fee is required. A copy of the review letter will be sent to the Finance Department. The applicant will be required to submit the fee prior to issuance of the permit. When the fee is received it will be sent on to the Finance Department where it will be deposited into a reserve account for future Stormwater Detention projects. Use of the Fee The Village staff will identify and evaluate potential projects and their benefit to the overall stormwater system and construct projects as the funds accumulate to an amount that can accomplish the projects. Examples of projects include, construction, enlargement or maintenance of stormwater detention basins; construction of relief storm sewers; flood control projects; combined sewer improvements; and drainage way improvements. Next Steps Staff looks forward to presenting this to the Village Board for their consideration at the September 26, 2006 Committee of the Whole Meeting and will be available to answer any questions. Upon concurrence by this Board, these Development Code modifications can be discussed by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their October 26th Meeting. This could then be brought for a first reading at a regular Village Board Meeting in November. -----; g~, ~UlbeCker Cc: Glen R. Andler, Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Deputy Public Works Director Chuck Lindelof, Project Engineer H:Engineering\Development\DevCode\Fee in Lieu06\MJMemo2 Mount Prospect ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER CHUCK LiNDELOF DATE: JUNE 9, 2006 SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS FEE IN LIEU OF STORMWATER DETENTION Current Code Requirements Most of the Village of Mount Prospect was developed prior to 1970, so most of the infrastructure, including the Village storm sewer system was installed more than 30 years ago. Consequently, most of the Village storm sewers were installed before the current storm sewer design standards were developed, and before stormwater detention regulations were enacted. Furthermore, much of the drainage of the central portions of the Village is carried by sewers combining stormwater and sanitary sewage. The current Village Codes were designed to both provide adequate drainage for any site to be developed, and to protect the neighboring properties by controlling the stormwater runoff entering the Village storm and combined sewer systems. This is accomplished primarily by requiring stormwater detention to be provided on site, as required by Sections 15.401 and 15.501 of the Village Code. (See attached.) The types of projects requiring stormwater detention are summarized below: - All commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family developments - Additions greater than 25% of the existing building footprint or parking lot expansions greater than 50% of the existing lot to any commercial, industrial, institutional, and multi-family development - Single family developments involving two (2) or more new units Current Code Implementation For projects requiring stormwater detention, the stormwater runoff is intercepted at various points around the site, and directed to a storage area. These storage areas then detain the water, and release it at a slow, controlled rate through a "restrictor". By controlling the discharge from a site in this way, the impact to the receiving system is reduced. The Village Code sets the maximum rate of discharge for a given site, and thereby drives the design of the restrictor. The difference between the rate of discharge through the restrictor and the actual amount of stormwater runoff must be stored on site. For larger sites, stormwater is stored in detention ponds, while stormwater is often stored in underground chambers, oversized sewers, and/or on the parking lot on smaller sites. In recent months, the Village has seen a dramatic rise in the number of small subdivisions; single family homes are being torn down, the lots subdivided, and two homes are then built. The Code does not give credit for redevelopment so any site to be developed or redeveloped is required to Page 2 Proposed Development Code Modifications Fee in Lieu of Stormwater Detention June 9, 2006 meet all Village Ordinances. As a result, these small subdivisions and redevelopment sites are required to provide stormwater detention. (See the attached summary for projects recently constructed or approved for construction.) Practical Limits to the Current Code Small sites, especially small residential subdivisions, present unique challenges and limitations to providing stormwater detention. Section 16.603.C.1.b of the Village Code requires that the restrictor controlling the discharge rate from a detention pond be no smaller than 2" in diameter. This size is recommended as the smallest permitted restrictor in the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) model ordinance because smaller restrictors would likely be prone to becoming blocked with debris, and create maintenance problems. Depending upon the details of the outlet design, a 2" diameter restrictor will typically discharge between 0.17 and 0.28 cubic foot per second (cfs). However, Section 16.602.B.1.b of the Village Code requires that the maximum discharge for a site be limited to 0.2 cfs per-acre developed (0.2 cfs/ac). Thus for a 1 acre site, the maximum allowable discharge is 0.2 cfs. Sites smaller than 1 acre would naturally require discharge rates smaller that 0.2 cfs, but these smaller discharge rates cannot be attained because the smallest restrictor permitted will still discharge approximately 0.2 cfs. Consequently, we can calculate smaller discharge rates, and associated detention volumes, but the minimum restrictor size of 2" effectively limits the performance of the detention system. Because of homeowners' tendencies to construct garages, sheds, additions, raised gardens, etc. in large open grassy areas, Section 16.603.A of the Village Code states that "Stormwater detention shall not be permitted in the side or rear yards of any single family residential properties". Stormwater detention on residential properties must therefore be placed underground. To insure that these underground storage chambers remain, and are maintained, an easement is often required. These chambers and easements restrict the use of the property prohibiting the construction of any permanent structures over the stormwater detention facilities. Furthermore, because the detention chambers serve both lots of a subdivision, it is common to install storm sewer along the common property line. These chambers are typically large, with little cover, so they are installed along a property line, it may not be possible to install a fence along that line. It is understood that any individual small site will have insignificant impact on the receiving drainage system. However, the Code was designed to best protect the current and future property owners. Small sites provide small volumes of storage, and therefore small benefit to the system, but as more small sites provide detention storage, the cumulative effect on the system may become significant. Fee in Lieu Rather than have stormwater detention provided on small sites, NIPC included in their model ordinance a mechanism for paying a fee in lieu of detention. This would allow an applicant to avoid the requirement to provide stormwater detention on site by paying a fee to the Village. The Village would then use this fee to benefit the Village's drainage system. Proposed Code Changes We propose that the Village Code be modified to allow a fee to be paid in lieu of providing stormwater detention for all projects less than 1 acre at the option of the Village Engineer. The 1 acre threshold is consistent with the practical design limits of a 2" restrictor. Having the fee be at the Page 3 Proposed Development Code Modifications Fee in Lieu of Stormwater Detention June 9, 2006 option of the Village Engineer preserves the flexibility to still require the detention in hydraulically sensitive areas. We also propose that the fee be assessed based upon the new impervious surface area. Charging a fee per square foot (fe) appears to be the simplest, and most equitable means of assessing the fee. Some items to consider: 1. Charging the fee based upon square foot ft2 of impervious surfaces would also create the possibility to assess this fee consistently over all new impervious surfaces, such as single family homes, detached garages, and building additions. 2. Charging a fee of $2.00 per ft2 of impervious surfaces would be consistent with the costs the Village is currently paying for earthwork in the detention ponds in the Kensington Business Center. However, even though this fee is in line with current construction costs, it could be seen as excessive in some cases. It may be possible to mitigate the fees for the smallest projects by either of the following: A. Credit could be given for existing impervious surfaces, so the fee would only be based on the net increase in impervious surface. This should not apply to commercial, industrial, or multi-family, and a new decrease in impervious surface should not necessarily warrant a rebate. B. A lesser fee rate could be established for residential sites. Some other municipalities have adopted this fee in lieu of detention into their ordinances, but the implementation varies greatly. Of the municipalities surveyed, the fee ranges from $1.22 per ft2 (Palatine) to $13.16 per ft2 (Park Ridge). (See attached summary.) We will be happy to answer any questions you may have. ~~ Chuck Lindelof C:\Documents and Settings\clindelo\My Documents\DevCode\Fee in Lieu 06\Prelimlnfo-1.doc 15.401 15.402 ARTICLE IV DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION: 15.401 : Scope Of Development Regulations Development Requirements Development Plan Appeals From Decision On Development Plan Public Right Of Way Standards Fees 15.402: 15.403: 15.404: 15.405: 15.406: 15.401 : SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS: All develop- ments shall be constructed in accordance with the standards set forth in this chapter. No person shall commence or cause to be commenced any of the following develop- ments within the corporate limits of the village unless a development plan has been approved by the director of community development. Development regulations apply to: A. Any residential development of any parcel of land involving construction of two (2) or more dwelling units. S. Any commercial, industrial, multi-fami- ly residential, or institutional develop- ment of any parcel of land involving the construction of any new build- ing(s) or structure(s). Exempt from this are auxiliary structures such as garages and storage facilities for an existing building provided that the footprint area of the auxiliary structure does not exceed twenty five percent (25%) (cumulative) of the footprint --) area of the primary structure(s). Auxil- iary structures exempt from the re- quirements of section 15.402 of this article shall be subject to the require- ments of section 15.502 of this chap- ter. C. Any development involving the expan- sion by more than twenty five percent (25%) (cumulative) of the footprint of an existing commercial, industrial, multi-family residential, or institutional structure. D. Any new parking lot or parking lot expansion (cumulative) greater than fifty percent (50%) of the original park- ing lot area, and greater than two thousand (2,000) square feet in area. E. Any existing structure to be converted to condominium ownership as de- scribed in section 15.307 of this chap- ter. (Ord. 5253, 5-21-2002) 15.402: DEVELOPMENT REQUIRE- MENTS: Any development as defined in section 15.401 of this article will be required to provide the following: A. All requirements listed under section 15.502, "Site Improvement Require- ments", of this chapter. S. Storm water detention for the entire site. Existing S5C zoning districts shall be exempt from this requirement, and shall only have to provide storm water detention for any increase in Village of Mount Prospect March 2003 15.402 15.403 impervious surface, in accordance with subsection 15.502A of this chap- ter. the surveyor, licensed professional engineer, architect or planner who prepared the plan. C. Curb and gutter around the perimeter of all parking lots and driveways. d. Zoning classifications of the parcel and of adjacent property. D. Parking lot lighting. E. Streetlights. e. Present uses of the parcel and of adjacent land. F. Site landscaping. f. The following signature block: G. All construction shall comply with the construction specifications contained in chapter 16 of this code, and the tree protection standards contained in chapter 9 of this code. (Ord. 5253, 5-21-2002) State of Illinois ) ) SS County of Cook ) Approved by the Director of Community Development of the Vil- lage of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, this day of , 20 . 15.403: DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Any person proposing to develop any property within the corporate limits of the village of a type enumerated in section 15.401 of this article shall file with the de- partment of community development a development plan, in a quantity and form as required, as follows: Director of Community Development 2. Existing Conditions: The following conditions, if found to exist on the parcel, shall be shown on the plan, as needed for the particular site: A. Content: a. Date of preparation, north point, and scale of drawing, which shall be no less than one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100'). a. The location, width and names of all streets within or adjacent to the parcel, together with easements, pub- lic utility and railroad rights of way and other important features such as storm sewers, municipal boundary lines, lot corners and monuments, and trunk diameter and location of existing parkway trees. 1. General Information: The following general information, where applicable, shall be shown on the development plan: b. Legal description of the parcel. b. All easements denoted by fine intermittent lines, clearly identified, and if already of record, the recorded references as to use and location of such easements, the width of the easement, its length and bearing, and c. The name and address of the owner of record, the applicant, and March 2003 Village of Mount Prospect 15.501 15.502 ARTICLE V SITE IMPROVEMENT PROCEDURES AND REQUIREMENTS SECTION: 15.501 : Scope Of Site Improvement Regulations Site Improvement Requirements Fees 15.502: 15.503: 15.501: SCOPE OF SITE IMPROVE- MENT REGULATIONS: All improvements shall be constructed in ac- cordance with the standards set forth in this chapter. No person shall commence or cause to be commenced any of the follow- ing improvements within the corporate limits of the village unless a site plan has been approved by the director of community development. Improvement regulations apply to: A. Any construction of a single-family residence on a single parcel of land. B. Any auxiliary structure such as garag- es and storage facilities for an existing building provided that the footprint area of the auxiliary structure does not exceed twenty five percent (25%) (cumulative) of the footprint area of the primary structure(s). C. Any construction involving the expan- sion of the footprint by less than twen- ty five percent (25%) (cumulative) of an existing commercial, industrial, or multi-family residential structure. ) _/ D. Any parking lot expansion (cumula- tive) less than fifty percent (50%) of the original parking lot area. E. Any installation, extension, or im- provement of a utility main or service. (Ord. 5253,5-21-2002) 15.502: SITE IMPROVEMENT RE- QUIREMENTS: Any site im- provement as defined in section 15.501 of this article will be required to provide the following: A. Storm water detention for the net increase in impervious surface. Ex- empt from this requirement shall be improvements consisting of the con- struction of a single-family home. B. Full right of way improvements includ- ing the following: 1. Pavement widening as needed. 2. Curb and gutter installation as needed. 3. Public sidewalk along the public right of way adjacent to the site. This sidewalk must be extended along the entire length of the property, even if the scope of improvements would not otherwise extend that far. The side- walk must be installed through any asphalt driveways, but may be gapped at existing concrete driveways. Village of Mount Prospect March 2003 PROPOSED FEE IN LIEU OF DETENTION IMPACTS New Required Estimated Estimate of Proposed Impervious Storage Construction Fee in Lieu Amounts Developments/Improvements Site Area Area Volume Cost Rate = $2.00 Rate = $1.00 (acres) (acres) (ac-ft) Residential Subdivisions Gettysburg on Edgewood1 0.52 0.26 0.08 $ 31,100.00 $ 22,651.20 $ 11,325.60 (901 Edgewood Lane) (max. lot coverage) Kelly's Subdivision2 0.44 0.22 0.07 $ 28,200.00 $ 19,166.40 $ 9,583.20 (416 S. Maple Street) (max. lot coverage) Viken's Subdivision3 0.56 0.28 0.11 ? $ 24,393.60 $ 12,196.80 (1209 W. Lincoln Street) (max. lot coverage) Westgate Subdivision3 0.96 0.48 0.22 $ 60,000.00 $ 41,817.60 $ 20,908.80 (309 Westgate Road) (max. lot coverage) Residential Improvements New Single Family Home 1.64 0.82 0.00 $ - $ 71,438.40 $ 35,719.20 (115 Busse Road1) (max. lot coverage) New Single Family Home 0.46 0.23 0.00 $ - $ 20,037.60 $ 10,018.80 (1016 Meadow Ln.2) (max. lot coverage) New Single Family Home 0.19 0.095 0.00 $ - $ 8,276.40 $ 4,138.20 (207 Bobby Ln.3) (max. lot coverage) Detached Garage varies 0.015 0.00 $ - $ 1,344.00 $ 672.00 (Maximum Permitted Size, 672 ft2) Building Expansion varies 0.009 0.00 $ - $ 800.00 $ 400.00 (Assumed Typical Size of 20' x 20' = 400 ft2) New Required Estimated Estimate of Proposed Impervious Storage Construction Fee in Lieu Amounts Developments/Improvements Site Area Area Volume Cost Rate = $2.00 Rate = $1.00 (acres) (acres) (ac-ft) Commercial/Industrial X-Press-O International1 0.24 0.095 0.056 $ 5,200.00 $ 8,276.40 $ 4,138.20 (199 W. Rand Rd.) Phil/ips 662 0.51 0.34 0.16 ? $ 29,620.80 $ 14,810.40 (2 E. Rand Rd.) Taco Bel/2 0.53 0.38 0.17 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,105.60 $ 16,552.80 (2410 E. Rand Rd.) Notes 1 Construction completed 2 Currently under construction 3 Currently under review COMPARISON OF POSSIBLE FEE RATES 1 ft2 of new impervious surface generates 0.38 ft3 of required storage Community Hoffman Estates $ 1.00 Ift3 of storage $ 2.63 1ft2 of new impervious $ 43,560.00 lac-ft Park Ridge $ 5.00 Ift3 of storage $ 13.16 1ft2 of new impervious $ 217,800.00 lac-ft Northbrook $ 0.61 Ift3 of storage $ 1.60 Iff of new impervious $ 26,484.48 lac-ft Palatine $ 0.46 1ft3 of storage $ 1.22 Ift2 of new impervious $ 20,186.00 lac-ft $60/yd3 Earthwork $15/yd3 Earthwork $ 2.22 Ift3 of storage $ 0.56 Ift3 of storage $ 5.85 Iff of new impervious $ 1.46 Iff of new impervious $ 96,800.00 lac-ft $ 24,200.00 lac-ft Note: Undelined amounts indicate the basis on which the fee is developed. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JUNE 13, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Irvana Wilks called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. Present: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, A. John Korn, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michael Skowron. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Zade. Staff members present: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker, Public Works Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof, Public Works Administrative Superintendent Jason Leib, Community Development Director William Cooney and Village Clerk Lisa Angell. II. MINUTES · April 25, 2006 meeting minutes. Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Skowron, moved to approve the April 25, 2006 meeting minutes. Trustee Lohrstorfer abstained. The minutes were approved. · May 9, 2006 meeting minutes. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Hoefert, moved to approve the May 9, 2006 meeting minutes. Trustee Lohrstorfer abstained. The minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. MAPLE STREET PARKING LOT - PARKING ACCOMMODATION REQUEST Village Manager Michael Janonis presented the request from Mr. Ramesh Gandhi, President of the Mount Prospect Townhome Association regarding the parking agreement between the townhome association and the Village of Mount Prospect. Mr. Gandhi has, on behalf of the association, requested the Village establish a pro-rated system for the Maple Street Parking tags so residents and related parties of the townhome association can purchase parking privileges for only the months needed between April and November of each year. To accommodate the request for the pro-rated system, Mr. Janonis stated the agreement would have to be renegotiated. If the agreement is reopened to allow for the pro-rated option staff is recommending the fee for parking also be adjusted to reflect the recent increase in fees now charged in the commuter lot, $1.50 per day. The annual cost under the existing agreement is $120, approximately 50% of the actual current cost to commuters. Mr. Gahndi thanked the Village Board for considering his request. He stated the intent of the request was to assist those families with college age children who only need parking privileges for a limited time during the summer rather than the full eight (8) month period. In support of Mr. Gahndi's request to incorporate a pro-rated system, the Village Board recommended the parking agreement include an adjustable fee structure based on the 1st day of the month parking usage begins, through the end of the agreement period. The Village Board also concurred with staffs recommendation to increase the annual rate for the parking privileges. However, in discussing an appropriate fee increase the Village Board took into consideration that per the agreement, parking is only permitted during non-peak hours; 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. Therefore, a fee of $.75 per day was recommended. In reaching consensus in support of the pro-rated fee structure and a $.75 per day fee, the parking agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and the Mount Prospect Townhome Association will be presented for Village Board action at the June 20, 2006 Village Board meeting. V. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS/FEE IN LIEU OF STORMWATER DETENTION In response to feedback from developers of teardowns and small residential resubdivision projects, Village Manager Michael Janonis stated, Village staff have explored the concept of providing relief from certain stormwater detention requirements by allowing for payment of a "fee in lieu of' providing the required storage on site. Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided an overview of the factors staff considered. in evaluating use of a "fee in lieu of' concept. He noted the fee in lieu of stormwater detention approach is included in the Northeast Illinois Planning Commission (NIPC) model ordinance for stormwater detention. 1. Current stormwater detention requirements · small residential subdivisions face unique challenges and limitations in providing the required stormwater detention 2. Staff Perspective · smaller subdivisions cannot provide the required detention volume due to release rate constraints · installation of smaller, less effective systems could be eliminated · staff would have discretion to accept fee in lieu of on site detention · fees could be determined based on impact to the drainage system 3. Homeowners Perspective · eliminate responsibility and expense to maintain system 4. Builiders Perspective · minimize loss of land for the construction above ground stormwater detention Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof presented the proposed changes to the Village Code which would allow a fee to be paid in lieu of providing stormwater detention for all projects less than one (1) acre at the option of the Village Engineer. He noted the one (1) acre threshold is consistent with the practical design limits of the 2'" restrictor required by Village Code, and having the fee be at the option of the Village Engineer preserves the flexibility to still require detention in hydraulically sensitive areas. Mr. Lindelof continued, stating staff propose the "fee" assessed be based on, a project's new impervious surface area. Stating a per square foot fee seemed to be the simplest and most equitable means of assessing the fee, the fee could be implemented utilizing a layered approach; one rate for developed projects and another for residential improvements. He added, many neighboring communities have adopted the fee in lieu of detention and the NIPC recommends the fee system. The Village Board responded with several questions/comments specific to: · impact the fee in lieu of stormwater detention would have in providing adequate drainage to residential developments and protecting the neighboring properties from stormwater runoff · what is occurring in other communities · impact of maximum impervious surface lot coverage fee to residents doing home improvements fees collected may not be applied in neighborhood where fees were generated; accumulated funds would be used for stormwater improvements in other areas of the Village establish dedicated account for fees rather than Village's General Fund. · use accumulated money for improvements rather than maintenance of stormwater detention systems At the Village Board's request staff will coordinate a survey through the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC) to gain a broader knowledge of what other member communities are doing to address this issue. Data compiled from the survey and other follow-up information will be brought back to the Village Board for continued discussion of the fee in lieu of stormwater detention. VI. REFUSE COLLECTION PROGRAM/ADDITIONAL WHEELED CART POLICY OPTIONS Village. Manager Michael Janonis stated with the recent implementation of the Village's new automated collection system, residents are inquiring about the availability of a second (2nd) wheeled cart for refuse. Program policy requires refuse and recyclables be placed in the wheeled carts for collection. For some families, the maximum cart size issued, (1) 95-gallon for refuse and (1) 65-gallon for recycling may not accommodate the volume of waste generated on a weekly basis. Public Works Administrative Superintendent Jason Leib, presented three (3) options to address the availability and use of multiple carts for refuse and recycling storage and collection. 1. Resident pays an annual fee of $60 per additional refuse cart regardless of size, to cover disposal fee. 2. Resident pays a one (1) time rental fee for each refuse cart, pricing based on purchase price of the cart. 3. Resident pays a one (1) time rental fee for each recycling cart based on the purchase price of the cart. In considering the three (3) options the Village Board discussed the intent of the wheeled cart system and how the proposed fees for additional carts may appear counter to the programs objective to provide residents with unlimited refuse collection at no additional cost and increase the volume of recyclables collected. To accommodate residents request for additional carts and be consistent with the objectives of the residential solid waste program the Village Board supported the following policies for use of the additional carts. Refuse Carts Additional refuse carts will be provided for a one (1) time rental fee of $25.00 Recvclinq Carts One (1) additional recycling cart will be provided at no cost; thereafter one (1) time rental fee of $25.00 per cart Staff will discuss availability of a 95 gallon wheeled cart for recycling with ARC Disposal. Staff will also provide the Village Board with monthly reports tracking the volume of recyclables collected. It was recommended the data also be available on the Village's web site. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Michael Janonis reviewed the memo from Public Works Superintendent of Forestry/Grounds Sandy Clark regarding the Emerald Ash Borer. The bug, responsible for the loss of thousands of Emerald Ash Trees in neighboring states has been recently found in Illinois. To minimize the impact of an infestation, Ms. Clark has been working with other Illinois state agencies on an action plan to prevent/control damage should an infestation occur. Mr. Janonis stated the Village has prepared public information to educate residents on what the bug and an infested tree look like. The information will be on the Village's web site and displays will be set up at Public Works and Village Hall. VIII. OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Wilks presented Mr. Janonis with an Honorable Mention Award from the Northwest Suburban United Way. The Village of Mount Prospect was honored recently for being one of the top contributing municipalities. Mayor Wilks recognized Mr. Janonis for his leadership in getting employee involvement. Mr. Janonis in turn acknowledged staff for their contributions to United Way. IX. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Wilks stated there was no longer a need for discussion of Property Acquisition as listed under Closed Session. However, the Closed Session would be held to discuss Personnel 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer, moved to meet in Closed Session. By a unanimous vote, the Village Board entered into Closed Session at 9:30 p.m. X. ADJOURNMENT The Village Board reconvened in Open Session at 9:55 p.m., there being no further business to discuss the June 13, 2006 Committee of the Whole Board meeting was immediately adjourned. MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wrn. Hoefert A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday September 28, 2006 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF AUGUST 24, 2006 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-2l-06 / 2838 S. Briarwood Drive East / Zaucha Residence / Variation B. PZ-24-06 / 215 S. George Street / Lorenzini Residence / Variation C. PZ-25-06 / 2410 E. Rand Road / Taco Bell Restaurant / Variation D. Extension ofPZ-10-05 zoning approval: allow the expansion at 100-112 S. School Street IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-14-06/ 1040 W. Northwest Highway / Mount Prospect Development Group / Map Amendment & Conditional Use (townhome development). This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-17-06 / Text Amendment (Fee in lieu of storm water detention - Chapters 15 & 16) / Village of Mount Prospect. THIS CASE WILL BE CONTINUED UNTIL OCTOBER 26, 2006. V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-26-06/ 1800 S. Elmhurst Road / Amcore Bank / Conditional Use and Variations (drive-thru and landscape setback). This case is Village Board Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individnal who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-21-06 Hearing Date: August 24, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2838 S. Briarwood Drive East PETITIONERS: Bruno and Karen Zaucha PUBLICATION DATE: July 12, 2006 PIN NUMBERS: 08-22-200-128-0000 & 08-22-200-051-0000 REQUESTS: Variations (Rear Yard Setback and Lot Coverage) MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary Johnson Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Bruno and Karen Zaucha Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.rn. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the July 27, 2006 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0, with Ronald Roberts, Keith Youngquist, and Arlene Juracek abstaining from the vote. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue cases PZ-14-06 and PZ-17-06 to the September 28, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The motion was approved 8-0. Chairperson Juracek introduced Case Number PZ-21-06 at 7:35 p.m.; a request to construct a patio requiring relief from the required setback and lot coverage limitation. This Case was continued from the July 27, 2006 Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairperson Juracek thanked the Commission for a good discussion regarding this case during the last meeting. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, said the Subject Property was developed under Cook County regulations and was later annexed into Mount Prospect. He stated that the Subject Property is comprised of two (2) parcels. It is located on the west side of Briarwood Drive East, south of Algonquin Road, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. He said the Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the R1 District. He stated that the Subject Property abuts a private lake, Lake Briarwood, and measures 10,593.8 square feet, which exceeds the minimum lot size required by zoning regulations; however, the Subject Property has a substandard lot depth and measures only 112.7 feet although the minimum lot depth required by Village Code is 125 feet. Mr. Zawila stated that since the July Planning & Zoning meeting, the Petitioner reduced the size of the proposed patio. Also, as part of the proposal, a portion of the rear service walk will be removed. He said the amount of the service walk pavement to be removed and the size of the existing wood deck to be removed are approximately the Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 PZ-21-06 (2) Page 2 same size of the proposed patio. He showed an exhibit illustrating the Petitioner's proposal to install a 240 square foot patio zero (0) feet from the rear lot line. Mr. Zawila stated that Staff confirmed with the Village Attorney that the replacement of the deck with a patio is an "alteration" under the Village Code. He said the Petitioner has the right to make the alteration as long as they do not expand the nonconforming rear setback. He stated they do not need any action as to the rear yard setback; however, it is not just an alteration; it is also a "replacement" as contemplated by the last paragraph of Village Code Section 14.402. As such, it must meet the lot coverage requirements, which it does not. He said that necessitates a Variation, which is the within the jurisdiction of Planning & Zoning Commission, and their determination is final because the request is less than 25 percent of the Village Code regulation. Mr. Zawila stated that the Petitioner proposes to remove an old wood deck that is located on the rear lot line as well as a portion of a service walk in order to construct a 240 square foot patio and maintain the same amount of lot coverage. He said Staff conducted a site inspection and observed that several homes in the area have similar structures in the required rear yard. Mr. Zawila stated that as the Petitioner explains in their application, the Subject Property is a lake front property and the Village's regulations do not include provisions for this type of development. In addition, the Subject Property was developed under County regulations, which creates challenges when the site is later required to conform to another jurisdiction's regulations. He said the Petitioner's revised design indicates their intent to comply with Village Codes within the physical constraints ofthe Subject Property. Mr. Zawila stated that the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to maintain the existing amount oflot coverage, which exceeds the 45 percent limitation for the Rl District. He said lot coverage is an important consideration because it impacts the aesthetics of a property as well as runoff. He stated in this situation, Lake Briarwood is a floodplain, and portions of the Subject Property are located in the floodplain. Mr. Zawila stated that since the July P&Z meeting, the Petitioner has met with an Engineer, who has done a significant amount of floodplain work in Mount Prospect. He said after conducting a site inspection, the Engineer informed the Petitioner that compensatory storage would most likely not be required; however, plans were not submitted for Staff review, so Staff cannot confirm the Engineer's determination. Nevertheless, compensatory storage is a building permit issue that would need to be resolved if Variation approval is granted. Mr. Zawila said Staff found that replacing the wood deck with a similar size patio would meet the standards for a Variation because the site was developed under County regulations and the site would maintain the existing amount of lot coverage. He stated that the Village's Engineering Division did not object to maintaining the existing amount of lot coverage. Mr. Zawila said the Variation request to maintain the existing amount of lot coverage meets the standards for a Variation contained in Village Code Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance because the Petitioner is not increasing the intensity of the required Variation to replace the wood deck with a similar structure. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to maintain the existing amount oflot coverage, which is 48.7 percent, to allow for the construction of a 240 square foot brick paver patio to be located in the required rear setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan, date stamped August 7,2006, for the residence at 2838 Brim-wood Drive East, Case Number PZ-21-06, subject to the Petitioner consolidating the site and creating a one-lot subdivision." Mr. Zm,vila said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25 percent of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 PZ-21-06 (2) Page 3 Chairperson Juracek asked if the Commission had questions for Staff. Joseph Donnelly asked if the consolidation is necessary since the patio is only located on one side of the property. Mr. Zawila stated that the consolidation is necessary to calculate lot coverage and to consider approval for the zoning regulations. There was further discussion regarding consolidation of the two lots and consensus was voiced by Mr. Zaucha and the Commission that consolidation of the lots was the correct course of action. Mr. Donnelly asked if the way the Commission is approving the 45 percent lot coverage would allow the Petitioner the option of taking out the patio and putting on a 240 square foot addition. Mr. Zawila stated that the Petitioner would need to come back before the Planning and Zoning Commission because this approval pertains to a patio only. Mr. Donnelly asked if any additional correspondence had been received from the neighbors. Mr. Zawila stated that no new correspondence from neighbors came in on this case. Chairperson Juracek asked the Petitioner ifhe would like to address the Commission. Bruno Zaucha, 2838 South Briarwood Drive East, Mount Prospect, Illinois was sworn in before the Commission at the July 27, 2006 meeting. Mr. Zaucha gave a brief summary on the process of revising his submission. He stated that he worked closely with an engineer during the revision process. Mr. Rogers asked if any portion of the patio was going to be raised above ground level. Mr. Zaucha stated that the new patio would be flush with the ground. Mr. Rogers stated that this proposed plan would actually reduce the amount of compensatory storage needed for the property. Mr. Rogers thanked Mr. Zaucha for revising his plans and working with Staff. Mr. Donnelly thanked the Petitioner for his willingness to revise his plans. Chairperson Juracek called for additional comments on the Case. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation to maintain the existing 48.7 percent lot coverage, to allow for the construction of a 240 square foot brick paver patio to be located in the required rear setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan, for the residence at 2838 Briarwood Drive East, Case Number PZ- 21-06, subject to the Petitioner consolidating the site and creating a one-lot subdivision. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Johnson, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 8-0. After hearing three additional cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\DOCUlllcnts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scttillgs\Tcmporarylntcmct Filcs\OLK6B\PZ-21-02 (2) 2838 S Briarwood Dr East-doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-24-06 Hearing Date: August 24, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 215 South George Street PETITIONERS: Michael and Elizabeth Lorenzini PUBLICATION DATE: August 9,2006 PIN NUMBER: 08-12- 219-008-0000 REQUESTS: Variations (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo F10ros Marlys Haaland Mary Johnson Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Michael and Elizabeth Lorenzini Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the July 27,2006 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0, with Ronald Roberts, Keith Youngquist, and Arlene Juracek abstaining from the vote. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue cases PZ-14-06 and PZ-17-06 to the September 28, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The motion was approved 8-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case Number PZ-24-06 at 7:45 p.m.; a request for a Variation to locate an attached garage in the required side yard. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the eastside of George Street, between Evergreen and Milburn Avenues, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. He said the Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. He stated that the Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape and the existing home is currently set back approximately 30 feet from the west lot line, 4.9 feet from the north and south lot lines, and approximately 80 feet from the east lot line. Mr. Zawi1a showed exhibits illustrating the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home, which include demolishing the existing one-car attached garage and reconstructing a new one-car garage in the same general location. He said the Petitioner also proposes expanding the house to include a new mud room on the first floor and an office and storage area on the second floor. He stated that the existing garage does not currently have living space above it and it is a slab on grade design, which cannot support the proposed second story addition. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 PZ-24-06 Page 2 Mr. Zawila said the existing garage currently encroaches into the required side yard and has a 4.8-foot setback. He stated that Village Code Section 14.402.B allows the Petitioner to maintain the nonconforming 4.8-foot setback for the addition, for both the first and second floors because the lot measures less than 55 feet in width. He said the Petitioner proposes a slight increase in the footprint and the plans indicate a 3.9-foot setback for the garage and second story addition. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 3.9-foot side yard along the north lot line. Mr. Zawila said the Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the existing attached garage on the north lot line and the existing house along the south lot line both encroach into the required 5-foot side yard. He showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Mr. Zawila stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 5-foot interior side yard for new construction. He said in this case, the existing nonconforming setback is permitted by code to be maintained; however, the proposed addition encroaches 10 inches into the nonconforming setback, resulting in a 3-foot, II-inch side yard. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner states in their application that the additional encroachment is necessary to provide an easier vehicle entry into the garage. He stated that the existing garage door width measures 7-feet, 7-inches and the proposed width would be 8-feet, which is the current standard size. He stated that the Petitioner researched whether the addition could be redesigned so the front entry would be shifted, allowing the garage to meet the required setback; however, the necessary structural modifications to the existing house would be significant and the resulting front elevation could adversely impact the look of the house, depending on the viewer's perspective. Mr. Zawila said one option, not addressed in the Petitioner's application, is demolishing the attached garage and constructing a detached garage. He stated that Staff discussed this alternative with the Petitioner before the Petitioner submitted an application for a Variation and it was Staffs understanding that the Petitioner preferred the attached garage, even though it was a one-car, because they wanted to maintain as much green space as possible in their back yard. He said a site inspection confirmed grade changes would be needed to construct a detached garage in the backyard. He stated that the front portion of the property, up to the patio, is higher and then the lot slopes downward; most likely to keep water away from the house and to be retained in the backyard. Mr. Zawila stated that other departments reviewed the request and did not object to the requested Variation; however, Engineering cited concerns about correctly directing down spouts and installing a service walk along side the garage. He said Engineering stated, "If the sidewalk is installed along the side of the house, nearly the entire side yard would be paved. All stormwater from this area would most likely runoff into the neighbor's yard. Consequently, we suggest not installing the sidewalk along the side of the house." Mr. Zawila said Staff encourages the Petitioner to explore alternative designs or materials to address Engineering's comment. Mr. Zawila said the proposed encroachment may not be perceived as meeting the definition of a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the request is based on providing an easier vehicle entry into the garage. He stated that this could be interpreted as a convenience; however, the Building Commissioner confirmed that significant structural modification would be necessary to shift the entryway so the garage would meet the required setback. Therefore, he said, the design of the existing structure limits the Petitioner's ability to comply with the required setback due to the physical modifications necessary to modify the house to comply with current zoning regulations. He stated these circumstances create a hardship. Mr. Zawila also said the character of this type of house and other houses in this neighborhood could be adversely impacted if the existing house was modified and the garage shifted over so as to comply with the required setback. He stated that granting the requested Variation would help protect the neighborhood character. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 PZ-24-06 Page 3 Mr. Zawila stated that the Variation request for a 3-foot, II-inch interior side yard meets the standards for a Variation contained in Section I4.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance because the style of the house and the physical modifications required to meet zoning regulations prevents the Petitioner from meeting the required setback for an attached garage. He said based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 3-foot, II-inch side yard setback along the north lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by J. Reibel, AIA, Architect, dated July 28,2006, but revised to address Engineering's comment concerning the service walk, for the residence at 215 S. George Street, Case Number PZ-24-06." Mr. Zawila said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25 percent of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked if the Commission had questions for Staff. There were no questions for Staff. Chairperson Juracek swore in Petitioner Michael Lorenzini, 215 S. George Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Lorenzini gave a brief synopsis of the options he explored prior to submitting this Variation application. Chairperson Juracek asked if the neighbor to the north of his property had any objections to the proposed addition. Mr. Lorenzini stated the current owner is living out-of-state, but did submit a letter indicating no objection to the project, with the condition that the new windows are off-set, as to not align directly with his windows and that a large tree be removed. A copy of the letter was provided in the Commission's packets. Mr. Rogers asked if there is any opportunity to save the large tree in the side yard. Mr. Lorenzini stated that the tree could be trimmed instead of being removed, however the root system could be damaged in the process of digging the new foundation. The Commission held general discussion regarding the benefit of preserving the tree. Keith Youngquist supported comments from the Engineering Department regarding direction ofthe downspouts. Chairperson Juracek called for comments from the audience on this case. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 pm. Richard Rogers stated that generally he would not be in favor of going into the side yard, but in light of the current size of the garage door, this is a reasonable request. Keith Youngquist concurred and said in the long-run this is a very favorable option. Chair Juracek stated that this renovation maintains the character of the home. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation to allow a 3-foot, II-inch side yard setback along the north lot line, as presented, with revisions to address Engineering's comment concerning the service walk, for the residence at 215 S. George Street, Case Number PZ-24-06. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Johnson, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 8-0. After hearing two additional cases, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnls and Scaings\kdcwis\Local Scttillgs\Tclllporary Inlcmct Filcs\OLK6B\PZ-24~06 215 S Gexlfgc St - V<lrialioll.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-06 Hearing Date: August 24, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2410 East Rand Road PETITIONERS: Bright Light Sign Co. on behalf of Taco Bell PUBLICATION DATE: August 9,2006 PIN NUMBERS: 03-28-201-014-0000 & 03-28-201-020-0000 REQUESTS: Variation for menu board sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary Johnson Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Bill Holly (Bright Lights Sign Co.) and Judy Krupica (The Twins Group) Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the July 27,2006 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0, with Ronald Roberts, Keith Youngquist, and Arlene Juracek abstaining from the vote. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue cases PZ-14-06 and PZ-17-06 to the September 28, 2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The motion was approved 8-0. After hearing two previous cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case Number PZ-25-06 at 8:02 p.m.; a request for a Variation to construct a 26.3 square foot menu board sign when the Sign Code limits the size of menu boards to 16 square feet. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is comprised of two parcels and has an irregular shape. He said it is located on the north side of Rand Road, between Camp McDonald and Schoenbeck Roads and the site contains a newly constructed Taco Bell restaurant with a drive-thru. He stated that the Subject Property was rezoned last year to B3 Community Shopping and obtained Conditional Use and Variation approval to construct the new Taco Bell restaurant. He said the Subject Property is bordered to the north, east, and west by RX Single Family zoning, and a golf course to the south in Arlington Heights. He stated that the Subject Property and surrounding properties were already developed as commercial and retail uses when the Village of Mount Prospect annexed them in 1999. Mr. Zawila stated that the Petitioner proposes to install a menu board sign that lists the food, prices, and 'combo- deals' for the Taco Bell Restaurant. He said the Petitioner originally applied for a menu board sign that measured more than 50 square feet, but after meeting with Staff, the request was scaled back to a 26.3 square foot menu board sign. He said the Sign Code limits the size of a menu board to 16 square feet; therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation for the proposed sign. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 PZ-24-06 Page 2 Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed sign would measure less than 7-feet in height from grade. He said it would be located in the rear of the property, and would not be visible from Rand Road. Also, the Petitioner's improvement plans call for installing a 6-foot solid wood and PVC fence along the rear lot line, creating a physical buffer between the adjacent commercial properties and the menu board sign. Mr. Zawila said in order to approve the request, the Planning & Zoning Commission has to find that the request meets the standards for a Variation as listed in the Sign Code. He said the menu board sign would be installed towards the rear of the property, and a 6-foot solid fence would help limit the sign's impact on the adjacent properties. He stated that the size of the proposed sign is in keeping with a Variation request granted to the Togos/Dunkin Donuts at 820 E. Rand Road. He stated that in this case, although the Petitioner does not provide an explanation why the additional square footage is necessary, the exhibit indicates extra signface space is necessary to post the combo-deals in addition to the regular menu items. Mr. Zawila stated that the Variation request to install a 26.3 square foot menu board sign meets the standards for a Variation contained in Section 7.725 of the Sign Code because the menu board sign would not adversely impact the adjacent properties or create traffic problems. In fact, the slightly larger menu board sign may improve the drive-thru traffic flow by assisting customers when placing their orders. He stated that based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow the construction of a 26.3 square foot menu board as shown on the exhibit prepared by Trisect Engineering, date stamped July 28, 2006, and installed as shown on the Petitioner's Site Plan revision date May 31, 2006 for the property at 2410 E. Rand Road, Case Number PZ-25-06." Mr. Zawila said the Planning & Zoning's decision is final for this case. Chairperson Juracek asked if the Commission had questions for Staff. There were no questions for Staff. Chairperson Juracek swore in Bill Holly of Bright Light Signs, 310 Tulsa Road, Lake Zurich, Illinois. Chairperson Juracek asked Mr. Holly to explain the need for a variance from the sign code. Mr. Holly stated that the original plan called for a much bigger sign with wing-like extensions, but after meeting with Staff, the project was scaled back to the sign under review tonight. He stated that the content of the signface requires additional space to provide customers ease-of-reading. He stated that this design is standard for the design of the new Taco Bell image. Chairperson Juracek stated that the Commission appreciates the Petitioner's willingness to work with Staff on scaling back the size of the sign. Joseph Donnelly asked if this sign has a digital "order-confirmation" area. Mr. Holly stated that this sign does not have a digital area. He stated that there is a speaker box to place the order and he believes that if there were to be a digital order-confirmation board, it may be in that speaker stand. Richard Rogers asked ifMr. Holly represents Taco Bell or the sign company. Mr. Holly stated that he is representing the sign company. Mr. Rogers asked if there was a second sign in the plans. Mr. Holly stated that the sign before the Commission tonight does not contain the speaker box or a digital read out. Mr. Donnelly asked if the menu board was meant to face the fourth or fifth car in the drive-thru line. Mr. Holly said that the sign is actually designed to sit just to the front of the fifth car. Mr. Donnelly stated the old sign used to face a commercial property, but the new sign will be more oriented towards the playground and a residential area. He stated that the Commission historically asked for some type of landscape screening to buffer the light to residential area. Mr. Holly stated that the proposed six-foot sign is a solid sign and should provide screening. Mr. Donnelly asked if there were additional screening that could be provided. Mr. Holly stated that as the sign contractor, this would be out of his scope of authority to provide additional information. Mr. Donnelly asked what the hours of the store would be. Again, Mr. Holly stated that as the sign contractor, he does not have the authority to answer operational questions. Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 PZ-24-06 Page 3 Chairperson Juracek swore in Judy Krupica, a representative of the Twin's Group, 2410 East Rand Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Krupica stated that the proposed fence is not in place yet. It is a solid PVC fence and should provide adequate screening. She stated that the old menu board at this location was significantly larger than this proposed sign. Chairperson Juracek stated that this sign is a smaller sign and is considerably further from the lot line than the old sign. There was further discussion regarding the location of the previous menu board sign, the proposed location of the new sign, and the light output from the new sign and the potential for screening shrubbery. Mr. Rogers suggested dense evergreen shrubs be planted along the property line to provide additional screening to the neighbors. Ms. Krupica stated that the owner would be agreeable to planting some type of screening shrubbery to keep his project moving along. Mr. Rogers stated he would like to add a condition to the approval requiring the planting of 8-10, 6-foot tall, dense evergreen shrubbery along the lot line. Chairperson Juracek suggested a condition of approval be that the Petitioner work with Staff to supplement the site plan with additional evergreen shrubbery screening. Chairperson Juracek called for comments from the audience on this case. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve a Variation to allow the construction of a 26.3 square foot menu board as shown, with the condition that the Petitioner work with Staff to supplement the site plan with additional screening for the residential area to the northeast of the property, for the property at 2410 E. Rand Road, Case Number PZ-25-06. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Johnson, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 8-0. After hearing one additional case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnts and Scnings\kdcwis\Local Scuings\Tclllporary Internet Filcs\OLK6B\PZ~25-06 Taco Bcl12410 E Rand ~ VaLdoc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-IO-05 Hearing Date: August 24, 2006 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100-112 South School Street PETITIONERS: 81. Paul Lutheran Church REQUEST: Extension of Zoning Approval for Case PZ-l 0-05 MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Mar1ys Haaland Mary Johnson Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Jason Zawi1a, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Greg O'Brien Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the July 27,2006 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0, with Ronald Roberts, Keith Youngquist, and Arlene Juracek abstaining from the vote. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue cases PZ-14-06 and PZ-17-06 to the September 28,2006, Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. The motion was approved 8-0. After hearing three previous cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case Number PZ-lO-05 at 8:23 p.m.; a request to extend the Zoning Approval of Case PZ-l 0-05. Mr. Zawi1a stated that the Petitioner received zoning approval to expand the St. Paul Lutheran Church facility at 100 - 112 S. School Street last year. He said Ordinance 5492 granted Variations for setbacks, the amount of on- site parking provided, and a Development Code Exception to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface only. He stated that the Petitioner is requesting approval to implement the approved design in two (2) phases over five (5) years. Mr. Zawila said Phase I includes the complete renovation of the existing structure, including a fully sprinkled building, an elevator, handicap ramps and bathroom. He stated that while Phase II is underway, the Church staff would occupy the residence at 112 S. School Street. He said Phase II would include the addition and the major site improvements including demolition of the two residences, storm water detention, and a new parking lot. He showed exhibits illustrating the proposed phases. Mr. Zawi1a stated that the Village Board reviewed the request at a recent Village Board meeting. Per Section l4.203.C.13 of the Village Code, the Village Board directed Staff to have the extension request go before the Planning & Zoning Commission for their consideration and approval. Mr. Zawi1a said Staff reviewed the Petitioner's exhibits and discussed the Village's building permit requirements with the Petitioner. He stated that Staff does not object to the request, subject to the Petitioner providing the Fire Department a letter stating the single family dwelling units being used as offices is a temporary situation, and that Arlene Juracek, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting August 24, 2006 PZ-lO-05 (2) Page 2 the dwellings will be brought up to current Village Codes should the Church decide against implementing Phase II of the expansion project. Mr. Zawila stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this request. Chairperson Juracek asked if the Commission had questions for Staff. There were no questions for Staff. Chairperson Juracek swore in Greg O'Brien, 2 West Hiawatha, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. O'Brien, representing the church, gave a brief synopsis of the project since the approval of Case PZ-lO-05. Mr. O'Brien stated that the primary delays in finishing the project have been financial obstacles in completing the project in one phase. He provided a summary of the phases to be completed. He stated that the Fire Prevention Bureau has been out for inspection on the house at 108 School Street to be used as office space during construction. Chairperson Juracek stated that neighbors had expressed concerns during the original hearing process and asked if there had been any feedback on this request. Mr. O'Brien stated that the original concerns were with the building design, not the construction timeline. He stated that the project will continue as approved in Case Number PZ-lO- 05, they are asking for an extension on the timeline. Mr. Rogers stated that he understands the necessity of working on this project in phases. He said he supports the project and wishes the Petitioner well in the five-year phase in project. Mr. O'Brien stated that the church's commitment is to complete Phase I, payoff that project and move into Phase II. Leo Floros asked what the expected timeframe is for Phase 1. Mr. O'Brien stated they are anticipating a nine month completion. There was general discussion regarding the construction and permitting process of the project. Mr. O'Brien thanked Staff for their willingness to work with the congregation on this project. Chairperson Juracek called for comments from the audience on this case. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:35 pm. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the request to extend the Zoning Approval for Case Number PZ-lO-05 for five years. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Johnson, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 8-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 8:45 p.m., seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcuts and Scttings\kdcwis\Local Scuings\Tcmporary Intcmct Filcs\OLK6B\PZ~lO-05 100-112 School St - Sl Paul OlUrch,doc MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. I-Ioefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Michael A. ZadeJ VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 28, 2006 HAS BEEN CANCELLED Phone: (847) 392-6000 Fax: (847) 818-5336 TDD: (847) 392-6064 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. J anonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 www.mountprospect.org Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY OPEN HOUSE Meeting Location: Lincoln Jr. High School, Resource Center 700 West Lincoln Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Meeting Date and Time: Wednesday September 27, 2006 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. Neighborhood Traffic Study: Zones 7 & 12 Open House with Mount Prospect Village Board and Staff Traffic Zone 7 Bounded by Central Road/NW Highway/Melas Park Traffic Zone 12 Bounded by Central Road/NW Highway/Route 83/Lincoln Street/Busse Road Any individual with a disability who would like to attend this meeting should contact the Village Manager's office at 50 South Emerson Street, 847/392-6000, TOO 847/392-6064. MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W. Skowron Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 www.mountprospect.or!? Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC STUDY OPEN HOUSE Meeting Location: Village Hall, Community Center 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Meeting Date and Time: Monday September 25, 2006 6:00 - 8:00 P.M. Neighborhood Traffic Study: Zone13 Open House with Mount Prospect Village Board and Staff Traffic Zone 13 Bounded by Central Road/Mount Prospect Road/Northwest Highway Any individual with a disability who would like to attend this meeting should contact the Village Manager's office at 50 South Emerson Street, 847/392-6000, TOO 847/392-6064. MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 MINUTES Comprehensive Plan Workshop Committee of the Whole Joint Meeting with Planning and Zoning Commission Board Room, Village Hall Tuesday, September 12, 2006 6:30 p.m. A meeting to discuss the Village of Mount Prospect Comprehensive Plan Land Use Update was held on Tuesday, September 12, 2006 in the Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Irvana Wilks called the meeting to order at 6:38 PM and welcomed everyone to the planning workshop, a j oint meeting between the Village Board Committee of the Whole and the Planning and Zoning Commission. She welcomed attendees from those two groups as well as members of the community and the Press that were in the audience. She stated that planning documents are very important for government and for Mount Prospect as a community: "Looking at the plan we can see what we've done in the past, what we can improve on, and how other planning documents meld with our land use planning." She acknowledged that after these early meetings the Planning and Zoning Commission will play the major roll in moving the plan forward. She encouraged the public to download documents from the Village website and to provide input. II. ROLL CALL In lieu of roll call, Mayor Wilks asked the attendees to introduce themselves and their affiliation with the Village. Attendees were as follows: Village Board Mayor Irvana Wilks Michaele Skowron John Korn Paul Hoefert Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman Arlene Juracek Mary Johnson Keith Youngquist Ron Roberts Marlys Haaland Comprehensive Plan Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 2 of7 September 12,2006 Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Village of Mount Prospect Staff William Cooney, Community Development Director Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Stacey Dunn, Administrative Assistant Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director, Community Development III. INTRODUCTION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN Community Development Director William Cooney provided an introduction to the Comprehensive Land Use Planning process. Mr. Cooney stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission is responsible for the process which will continue through next year. The process is open to the public. He stated that at this meeting the attendees will break into small groups and those members of the community in attendance can join a group discussion if they choose. Staff will scribe during the small group discussions and create minutes from the meeting. There will be a lot of dialogue over the many months to come discussing specific issues, especially relating to the commercial and industrial corridors of the communities. He stated that there are several redevelopment projects underway throughout the Village right now. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is a guide which helps us review these projects and that the Plan is the foundation leading to a favorable or not favorable decision. He said in the case of an unfavorable decision where the owner should appeal to the court, the courts look at the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and how zoning and other decisions are reviewed. Mr. Cooney said the full plan was reviewed 10 years ago, which is standard for a mature community like Mount Prospect. In that time, however, three sub-area plans have been created for Central Road, Rand Road and Downtown. Mr. Cooney discussed what makes a Comprehensive Plan: it is generalized, comprehensive and long term. He said the plan is not just looking five years out, but 20 years into the future. He stated that 20 years seems a long time, but in reality it is not; just consider how much the community has changed in the past 20 years.... and how much it will change in the coming 20 years. Mr. Cooney stated that the Plan is a policy guide; at times a different decision is made when an actual development proposal is reviewed, but the review always starts with "what does the plan say?" He said the plan is a tangible representation of what the community wants to be. The Comprehensive Land Use Plan is not the zoning map. He said it is not just the Land Use Map; the Land Use Map identifies land uses which may relate to more than one zoning classification, for example low density housing can include one of several zoning districts. Mr. Cooney stated that the Comprehensive Plan guides us when considering requests to change zoning, expansion of major infrastructure, location of new infrastructure, annexation and when considering major public or private investments where essential supporting facilities such as access roads and parking are needed. IV. TIME LINE AND PROCESS TO BE UNDERTAKEN Mr. Cooney said the first part of the planning process is the "Situational Analysis - where are we now?" He stated that this process has been on going for several months. Staff has been reviewing trends and looking at where the market is trying to take us. Staff has been holding Comprehensive Plan Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 3 of7 September 12,2006 focus groups and meeting one-on-one with key stakeholders such as owners of Randhurst, Mount Prospect Plaza, and other commercial and industrial properties. He said Staff has also been talking to the Chamber of Commerce, downtown Merchants Group, and the Economic Development Commission. Mr. Cooney said staff is now in the stage of "Goal Setting;" asking what issues the community sees. He stated once possibilities have been determined, staff will look at where we can realistically go. Staff is also setting short-term and long-term strategies to get there. At the next meeting we'll look at a map identifying land parcels of interest which staff thinks may be of interest to the development community. Mr. Cooney stated that data gathering will include what the community wishes to see as redevelopment continues. He said staff will be reviewing and setting implementation strategies and then creating the Final Plan. It will contain an Official Land Use Map and Document text. He indicated that late this year the Planning and Zoning Commission will begin hosting Public Meetings & Public Hearings. Staff hopes to see a plan referred to the Village Board in spring of next year for adoption. He stated that the plan will include four elements: Housing, Economic Development, Infrastructure and Transportation, and Public Facilities and Open Space. The attendees broke into groups to discuss issues and opportunities for each element. V. GOALS FOR THE EVENING: The attendees divided into four groups with one Trustee at each of the four tables set around the room. Planning staff was assigned to each group to scribe the discussion. The group broke into small groups at 6:45 p.m. Discussion questions were assigned to each group. VI. BREAKOUT GROUPS The four groups met individually discussing the 5 questions posed by planning staff. VII. BREAK A short break was taken with the group reconvening at 7:50 p.m. VIII. REPORTING BACK Group 2, which had discussed Economic Development reported back first, was represented by John Korn. Trustee Korn presented feedback from Group 2's first discussion question which was - What are the economic engines in the Mount Prospect economy? . Major shopping plazas (including Randhurst Shopping Center, DiMucci properties, Mount Prospect Plaza); . Kensington Business Center; . Light industrial businesses and potential developments in south Mount Prospect; . Transportation systems (including Metra, Pace, and alternative transportation). Trustee Korn presented feedback from Group 2's second discussion question which was - What trends do you see in the general economy? . Retail businesses appear to be offering less a selection of goods in Mount Prospect than other communities; . "Life-Style Center" developments in other communities; . Mount Prospect has a more diverse population to serve goods and services; . People appear to be buying more goods online or through mail-order; . People appear to be dining out more. Trustee Korn presented feedback from Group 2's third discussion question which was - What issues face the Mount Prospect Business Community? Comprehensive Plan Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 4 of7 September 12, 2006 · The Village lacks a "critical mass" of businesses. For example - the downtown has a small footprint; · The Village lacks "destinations;" · The Village has a problematic traffic flow, especially downtown and near Randhurst; . The parking in downtown is inadequate; · The configuration of Randhurst Shopping Center is difficult to navigate; · Mount Prospect is not a "self contained" community, neighboring communities affect what types of development could occur in the Village; · Housing sales are slowing down. Trustee KOill presented feedback from Group 2' s fourth discussion question which was - What do you like best about availability of goods and services in Mount Prospect? · The Village offers a good variety of goods and services; · The Village is convenient to navigate for goods and services; · There are several breakfast dining options. Trustee KOill presented feedback from Group 2's fifth discussion question which was - What unmet needs and/or business opportunities do you see for Mount Prospect? · There is a need for more upscale dining options; · There is a need for destination retail stores; i.e. the community could use more upscale shopping, "outlet" retail, "lifestyle centers" and electronic stores. Group 4, which had discussed Community Facilities and Open Space reported back next and was represented by Rich Rogers. Mr. Rogers presented feedback from Group 4's discussion. Mr. Rogers stated that Group 4's first two questions were closely related: What are the strengths of the Community Facilities in Mount Prospect and what are the strengths of the Parks and Open Space in Mount Prospect? · Even with divided districts, they work well together. There is great coordination with the schools; · There is a good selection of facilities and open spaces available. Mr. Rogers presented feedback from Group 4's third discussion question which was - What do you like best about the Community Facilities, Parks and Open Space found in Mount Prospect? . Work well with other districts and schools; . Clean, safe and well maintained; · Membership reciprocity between the park districts; . User friendly websites. Mr. Rogers presented feedback from Group 4's fourth discussion question which was - What issues face the Mount Prospect community in maintaining healthy community facilities and a wide variety of parks and open space? . Rising energy costs could put a damper on maintenance. For example - fuel cost for mowing grass and heating/cooling facilities; . A leveling-off or decrease in the housing market decreased revenue for maintenance and operations; . Lack of parking at some of the parks and facilities; . The amount oflocker theft that occurs at the recreational centers. Comprehensive Plan Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 5 of7 September 12,2006 Mr. Rogers presented feedback from Group 4's fifth discussion question which was - What unmet needs (and/or opportunities) do you see for new community facilities, parks or open space? · The wave pool is starting to show it's age and may need repair; · There are enough facilities per-se, but need more bike pathslinterconnectivity between parks/facilities; · An outdoor in-line skating rink for hockey; · An outdoor ice skating rink with warming house; . More challenging golf courses; · There was general discussion about the practicality of "pocket parks." Group 1, which had discussed Housing, was represented by Trustee Micheale Skowron. Trustee Skowron presented feedback from Group l's first discussion question which was - Why do people move to Mount Prospect? . Location; . Schools; . Expressway; . NW Metra line; . Stability of property taxes; . Distance to Chicago; · Residents liked the size of Mount Prospect in the 1960s; · Affordability of Mount Prospect - compared to neighboring communities, such as Arlington Heights (however the pricing gap is becoming smaller); · A majority of Mount Prospect is served by Lake Michigan Water; . Sound infrastructure (still a need to upgrade sanitary). Trustee Skowron presented feedback from Group l's second discussion question which was - What trends do you see in the housing market? · Homes are becoming larger with additions and teardowns; · Several houses are being upgraded with improvements, such as landscaping, new doors, windows, and driveway installations; . Development of new condominiums; · Condominium conversions from apartment buildings; · Homes with one car garages - construction of additional spaces for vehicles (permitted and not permitted); . Dramatic slow down in home purchases over $300,000; · Residents "down-sizing"/moving out of their single family homes - due to retirement, increased mortgages, over-speculation of home prices, maintenance, and a need for first floor master bedrooms. Trustee Skowron presented feedback from Group l's third discussion question which was - What housing issues face the community? . Affordability of all housing types - becoming too expensive; . Quality of the housing stock - becoming functionally obsolete; . Age and maintenance of homes; . Small homes are being purchased for major upgrades, rather than new homes further out or are purchased for tear down and rebuild - ultimately raising the housing prices. Younger families are purchasing further away from Mount Prospect because of cheaper housing prices elsewhere; Comprehensive Plan Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 60f7 September 12,2006 · The Village does not offer housing for multi-generational families; · There is not a large variety of housing styles; · The Zoning code does not allow for housing mixes in neighborhoods; · Village departments need flexibility in decision making as it relates to housing; · There is a lack of parking options for single family housing - due the large amount of one car garage homes; · There is the potential for decreases in CDBG funding which could negatively affect lower income residents in the Village. Trustee Skowron presented feedback from Group l's fourth discussion question which was - What do you like best about living in Mount Prospect? · Good government - fiscally responsible; . Clean, small, quiet, and pretty; . Nice Village Hall; . Walkable; . Conservative town; · Deliveries of services are consistent and often taken for granted - including leaf pickup; . Trees; . Good schools. Trustee Skowron presented feedback from Group l's fifth discussion question which was - What unmet needs and/or housing opportunities do you see for Mount Prospect? · There is an opportunity for the construction of duplexes; · There is a need for a grocery store downtown; · There is a need for a sanitary system upgrade; · There is a need to expand the first time buyer program and the availability of affordable mortgages. Group 3, which had discussed Infrastructure and Transportation reported back next, represented by Judy Connolly. Ms. Connolly presented feedback from Group l's first discussion question which was - What are the strengths of our transportation systems in Mount Prospect? · The commuter train system is cost effective, makes it easy for city residents to reverse commute, and attracts residents; · The Village is centrally located, making it easy to travel to other communities. Ms. Connolly presented feedback from Group l's second discussion question which was -What are the strengths of our infrastructure systems in Mount Prospect? . Well maintained streets; · Sewer, sanitary, and stormwater systems are well maintained and are offered at a nominal fee. Ms. Connolly presented feedback from Group l's third discussion question which was - What do you like best about the infrastructure services and the transportation network found in Mount Prospect? · Public Works Department is quick to respond to service emergencies such as snow removal, water main breakages, and bridge repair; . The good infrastructure services and transportation network provide a positive image/perception of the community. Comprehensive Plan Workshop Committee of the Whole Meeting Page 7 of7 September 12, 2006 Ms. Connolly presented feedback from Group l's fourth discussion question which was - What issues face the infrastructure and transportation systems in Mount Prospect? · There needs to be better/safer connectivity at major arterial streets - specifically Mount Prospect Plaza, and Randhurst Shopping Center and its surrounding area; · The Village has a poor bus system - there is a need for more stops, better advertising and a local shuttle service to businesses is needed; · The bike path system is poorly defined; · Crossing the downtown railroad tracks is problematic; · The Village cannot control maintenance of State and County roads. Ms. Connolly presented feedback from Group l's fifth discussion question which was - What unmet needs and/or opportunities do you see for Mount Prospect's infrastructure and transportation systems? · There is an opportunity to increase the bus service, including shuttle service; · There may be an opportunity to change control over certain county and state roads; · There is a need for better signal coordination, especially at major intersections; · There is a need to improve the bike path system in the Village; · There may be an opportunity to move the train station or better coordinate vehicle traffic and train movements; · There may be an opportunity to create cut-through roads near the RandlKensingtonlRoute 83 intersection; · There is a need for better connection of shopping centers - perhaps through frontage roads. IX. QUESTIONS AND ADJOURN There was general discussion regarding the number of single family homes versus multi-family units. Mayor Wilks stated that according to the information provided by staff, there is a total of 21,900 dwelling units in the Village with 15,400 being owner-occupied and 6,100 being renter occupied. Mr. Cooney asked for further questions or comments. Hearing none, the meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.rn. Respectfully submitted, Stacey Dunn, Administrative Assistant Community Development Department