Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MEETING NOTICES 03/20/2007 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, March 22, 2007 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson Street 1 st Floor Community Center I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of February 22,2007 III Communications & Petitions - Citizens to be Heard IV · Status Report on Crime Free Housing Program · Status Report on Direct Refuse Collection Program V Other Business VI Chairman's Report VII Finance Director's Report VIII Next Meeting: Thursday, April 26, 2007, 7:00 p.m. IX Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING FEBRUARY 22, 2007 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7 :05 p.m. Those present included Chairman Charles Bennett and Commissioners Wayne Gardner, Vince Grochocinski, John Kellerhals, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Daily Herald reporter Steve Zalusky, Director of Finance David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. II. ApPROV AL OF MINUTES Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to approve the minutes of November 8, 2006 as amended. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as amended. Commissioner Ann SmiIanic motioned to approve the minutes of January 25, 2007. Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. Commissioner John Kellerhals abstained. Commissioner Tom Pekras mentioned that the work plan incorrectly listed a meeting in November on the 23rd. The meeting is actually Thursday, November 22nd. III. COMMUNICA TIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There was nothing to report. IV. DISCUSSION REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUNDING SOURCE Chairman Charles Bennett began the discussion by opening the floor to a discussion on the various alternative revenue enhancements. Chairman Bennett listed the following revenues as a starting point for the discussion and asked the commission for their comments: 1. Property Taxes 2. Home Rule Sales Tax 3. Vehicle Sticker Increase 4. Food and Beverage Tax 5. Utility Taxes Commissioners Vince Grochocinski, Ann SmiIanic, Wayne Gardner and Tom Pekras agreed that the Village should not increase property taxes as a way of funding the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). Commissioner John Kellerhals added that he would like to see the Village increase property taxes to offset and eliminate the direct charge refuse bill. However, Commissioner Kellerhals added that he would not recommend the Village raise property taxes to raise funds for the CIP. Commissioner Tom Pekras stated that non-residents would help generate funds and relieve some of the burden to the residents if there was an increase in the Home Rule Sales Tax. Commissioner Pekras asked the Director of Finance which surrounding communities already have a I % Home Rule Sales Tax. Mr. Erb stated that Niles, Schaumburg and Morton Grove are a few that currently charge 1 %. Commissioner Pekras added that this revenue alternative adds the greatest amount of money. Chairman Charles Bennett added that an increase in the Home Rule Sales Tax applies to residents and non-residents. Chairman Bennett stated that money spent in Mount Prospect would generate additional Home Rule Sales Tax revenue and then the residents would directly benefit from the capital improvements made throughout the Village that the additional monies would provide. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski stated that he was not in favor of an increase in the Food and Beverage Tax because a 1 % increase would bring the total sales tax on Food and Beverage to 10.5%. Commissioner Grochocinski felt that the residents would not be in favor ofthe increase that would put the tax over 10%. Commissioner John Kellerhals asked ifthe Village could impose a tax on cigarettes. Mr. Erb stated that he was not aware of the ability to impose a tax and would check the feasibility of it. Commissioner Ann Smilanic stated that she would not be in favor of increasing the vehicle sticker fee. Commissioners Tom Pekras, Wayne Gardner and John Kellerhals agreed that they would not like to see such an increase. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski stated that he was indifferent to an increase. After a brief discussion related to increasing one or both utility taxes the commission agreed that an increase at this time would not be advisable due to recent increases in the utility rates. Commissioner John Kellerhals stated that he would be in favor of adding an additional I cent per gallon gas tax. Commissioner Ann Smilanic stated that when there is money left over at the end of the year from a new position that was not filled for the full 12 months or if an employee leaves and their salary isn't being paid for a certain amount of time, why not take this unexpected money and transfer it to the CIP fund. Chairman Charles Bennett suggested that maybe the commission would like to recommend that some of the General Fund surplus be transferred to the CIP as a one time transfer. Although doing this would not eliminate the need to find a dedicated source to continue to fund the CIP. Chairman Bennett challenged the commission to think about any programs that the Village might be doing that could be eliminated. Following the discussion Chairman Bennett advised that he would draft a proposal for submittal to the Village Board that would encourage the Board to implement the following: 1. Transfer General Fund surplus over and above 25% to the CIP. 2. Increase Home Rule Sales Tax by If4% and earmark the funds as a dedicated funding source for the CIP. 3. Encourage departmental review of any activities that could be eliminated or curtailed. Commissioner John Kellerhals stated that he would not be in favor of increasing the Home Rule Sales Tax right now and would recommend delaying an increase. V. OTHER BUSINESS There was nothing to report. VI. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT There was nothing to report. VII. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was nothing to report. VIII. Next Meeting: March 22, 2007 Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m. The next meeting will be Thursday, March 22, 2007. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 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 March 22, 2007 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2007 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-02-07 / Lake Center Plaza The Alter Group / Amend Special Use permit. B. PZ-04-07 / 5 N. Emerson St. / Mortellaro & Ryan Residence / Conditional Use (unenclosed porch). C. PZ-05-07/ 12 N. Maple St. / DeLegge Residence / Variation (side yard setback). D. Discussion of Draft Comprehensive Land Use Plan - Chapter 5. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-30-06 / 333 W. Rand Road / Autobarn / Variation (fence height). This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. V. NEW BUSINESS B. PZ-07-07 / 601 E. Kensington Road / NEPCO, Inc. / Conditional Use (Mixed Use Planned Unit Development). This case is Village Board Final. Continued to April 26, 2007. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-02-07 / Lake Center Plaza - Village Board approved the project March 6, 2007. e PZ-14-06/ 1040 W. Northwest Highway - case deferred by Village Board to May 1,2007. VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-02-07 Hearing Date: February 22, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: Lake Center Plaza (1630-1791 Wall Street, 500 Algonquin Road, 300-301 LaSalle Street, 1698-1700 S. Elmhurst Road) PETITIONER: Michael Ricamato, The Alter Group PUBLICATION DATE: January 10,2007 PIN NUMBERS: 08-23-203-017 /022/023/026/027 /028/029/030/031/032/033/034/035/ 036/037/038 REQUEST: 1) Amend Ord. 3831: buildings may be located in accordance with Sec. 14.2104 (current II District Bulk Regulations) 2) Amend Ord. 3831: allow more than 75% lot coverage for individual lots, but the entire Lake Center Plaza development shall not exceed 75% lot coverage overall MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Michael Ricamato, Richard Kost, Stephen Cross, Lawrence Freedman, Douglas Knoeppel, and Rolf Kilian Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 25,2007 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Chairperson Juracek stated she did not have any corrections to the minutes, but she wanted to make the Commissioners aware that the Village Board struck the Planning and Zoning Commission's condition of no over-night parking for Case Number PZ-01- 07 from the ordinance (approval) due to enforcement concerns. The minutes were approved 7-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue Cases PZ-30-06 to the March 22, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. After hearing two cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case PZ-02-07 at 7:53 p.m., a request to amend the original Special Use ordinance for the Lake Center Plaza industrial business park in order to locate the proposed buildings in accordance with the current II District Bulk Regulations, and to allow more than 75% lot coverage for an individual lot, with the entire Lake Center Plaza development not exceeding 75% lot coverage. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff memo. She said that the Subject Property, commonly known as the Lake Center Plaza, is located on the north side of Algonquin Road, between Elmhurst Road and Malmo Drive, and contains multiple lots of record. She said the Subject Property received zoning approval in 1987 to construct a Planned Unit Development that allowed for industrial, office, and office research businesses. The site Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-02-07 Page 2 was only partially developed and a high rise office building and a two-story building exist today. She stated that the Village Attorney reviewed the Village Codes and Ordinances and determined the provisions of the Special Use permit, Ordinance 3831, are still applicable because the Village Code did not list a time limit or expiration on Special Use permits when the project was approved in 1987. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner has presented plans to construct two warehouse buildings on the west side of Wall Street. The Petitioner's plans do not include developing the lots on the east side of Wall Street at this time. She stated that the proposed office/warehouse structures would cross multiple lot lines and the Subject Properties would need to be consolidated to comply with zoning requirements that prohibit structures from crossing lot lines. Six lots of record would be consolidated, creating a 2-10t subdivision, with the remainder of the industrial park still to be developed. She said the proposed Lot 2 calls for 81.01 % lot coverage which exceeds the 75% lot coverage limitation. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking to amend Ordinance 3831 to allow this lot to exceed the 75% lot coverage limitation. The overall Lake Center Plaza development would not exceed 75% lot coverage and the site would have a shared detention system. Ms. Connolly stated that in addition to the lot coverage modification, the Petitioner is seeking approval to delete provision D of Ordinance 3831 which states, "Building setbacks from interior roads shall not be less than the height of the building or 30 feet, whichever is greater." She said current zoning regulations only require a 30-foot setback in the II District, and the maximum building height is 30 feet. She stated that the Petitioner has submitted plans that indicate the buildings would be 37 feet at the highest point, which is permitted per Ordinance 3831, but Ordinance 3831 would require more than the 32-foot setback proposed for a portion of the building to be located on Lot 1. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's site plan shows two lots of record would be created from six lots. The Petitioner proposes a shared detention system for the entire Lake Center Plaza and the overall development would not exceed the 75% lot coverage limitation. She stated that a detention basin would be located on Lot 1 and it would serve multiple lots. The lots using this basin will be identified as part of the final engineering plans. Ms. Connolly stated that Lot 1 would contain a 147,932 square foot industrial office/warehouse and have 74.88% lot coverage. Building 1 would have varying setbacks from Wall Street because the street curves, but the smallest setback would be 32 feet from Wall Street, when Ordinance 3831 requires a setback equal to the building height. She said Lot 2 would contain a 108,732 square foot industrial office/warehouse and have 81.01% lot coverage, which exceeds the 75% limitation. Ms. Connolly said several parking fields are indicated on the plan on the proposed lots, but the Petitioner does not have specific tenants secured at this time. She stated that the number of parking spaces proposed complies with the Village's requirements for the amount of office space and warehouse area shown. Vehicles and trucks would access the site from Algonquin Road, LaSalle Street, or Montgomery Street. Trucks and vehicles could enter and exit from any of the access points, depending on their travel path and destination. She said the proposed loading docks would be located along the West elevation of both buildings, towards the abutting industrial businesses. Ms. Connolly stated that Engineering focused their review on the specific requests made by the applicants and will do a full engineering review when a building permit application is submitted to ensure code compliance. Staff found that too many times some design changes are made as a result of P&Z and/or Village Board reviews which requires Engineering to re-review the plans. In the case of Lake Center Plaza, Engineering reviewed the requests and has no objections to changing the setbacks or allowing less green space. She said that following a cursory review of the plans, Engineering provided additional comments as a courtesy, most of which can be addressed at time of building permit. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner prepared a traffic study, which was reviewed by the Village's Traffic Engineer. The study includes existing and proposed information on turning movements, or going through an intersection, impacted by the proposed project. A Level of Service value was assigned to the applicable intersections. Level of Service, or "LOS," is the anticipated delay for each vehicle to make a certain movement. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-02-07 Page 3 The LOS has a corresponding rating system, from A-F. She showed a table listing the letter and its corresponding time. She said the majority of Staffs comments from the initial Traffic Study have been addressed. However, the Village's Traffic Engineer found that the projected Level of Service for east-west left turns from LaSalle Street/Elmhurst Road remains undesirable. The movement was rated "F" because it will take 275.6 seconds and is expected to result in significant delays. Therefore, the Petitioner is asked to submit the plans and Traffic Impact Study to the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to determine if traffic signals can be installed at this intersection. Once that is done, staff asks that the Petitioner forward a copy of IDOT's comments to the V iIIage. She said the Traffic Engineer had further comments listed in the staff report that can be addressed by the Petitioner during the permit process. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's site plan indicates the site could accommodate 365 parking spaces; 197 on Lot 1 and 168 on Lot 2. Tenants for the buildings have not yet been finalized, but the Petitioner has agreed to provide parking in accordance with Village Code, as required for the use, based the use square footage and/or number of employees. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner submitted a tree survey, which documents the condition and form of the existing trees. The report shows the existing trees to be removed and notes their condition. She said the area is marked by poor forestry practices, meaning too many trees located too close together, impeding healthy growth, and a significant number of the trees are less than desirable species and in poor condition. She stated that although the Petitioner has agreed to save as many trees as possible, the configuration of the site development dictates removing many trees. Therefore, the Petitioner prepared a landscape plan that indicates a variety of plant species and mature trees to be planted throughout the site. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner proposes to install a 6-foot board-on-board fence along the northern lot line to provide screening for the adjacent multi-family development. A significant number of existing trees will remain and a cluster of 6-foot tall evergreen trees, various ornamental shrubs and trees will be planted in this area as well. She said the plan indicates the fence will be on the property line. However, the plan does not reflect the requirements listed in the Village Zoning Ordinance which requires the fence to be located not less than 8 feet from the property line. In addition to the fence, a continuous evergreen or dense deciduous hedge 3 feet in height needs to be planted 2.5 feet on center, and planted on the outside of the fence, facing the abutting residential zoning district, along the entire length of the fence. She said the code states that it is the Petitioner's responsibility to maintain this area and keep it free of weeds. The proposed landscape plan needs to be revised to comply with this code requirement. Ms. Connolly showed elevations indicating the general look of the proposed buildings. She said the buildings may be modified to accommodate a specific user, which could include relocating windows and/or adding windows. The buildings would be constructed from three different colored precast panels and include grey tinted glass windows. She stated that varying roof heights and recessing different areas of the building were incorporated into the building design to breakup the expansive fayade. The building materials and the building construction would comply with Village regulations. While Staff is not opposed to providing the Petitioner some flexibility with the final architectural design to meet tenants' needs, final administrative approval shall be required of the elevations prior to the issuance of building permits. Ms. Connolly stated that the shared detention design for the Lake Center Plaza development is intended to offset the additional lot coverage proposed for Lot 2 through future storm water detention improvements. The Petitioner attempted to create a development that was compatible with the existing uses and complied with Mount Prospect's Village Code regulations. However, Wall Street curves, which is why the Petitioner is seeking relief to allow the building to encroach 5 feet into the required setback for the area of the street that 'jogs' west. She showed a table that summarized the required setbacks for the II District and Iised the Petitioner's proposed setbacks. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-02-07 Page 4 Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner proposed to prepare a plat of resubdivision that creates 2-10ts of record. Staff recommends the Plat of Resubdivision include a cross access easement for the proposed Lots 1 and 2. Also, Wall Street is a public street and the cul-de-sac will need to be vacated in order to construct the project as shown. Staff supports the Village vacating the cul-de-sac and dedicating it to the Petitioner. The plat of vacation and plat of resubdivision will be prepared subject to Village Board approval of this zoning request. She said the Certificate of Occupancy will be granted subject to completing the plats. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said specific findings must be made in order to approve a Variation that relate to a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; a lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the project requires relief to allow a 32-foot building setback when 37 feet is required per Ord. 3831, and to allow 81.01% lot coverage when 75% is the code limitation. She said the Subject Property is a self-contained industrial park adjacent to industrial properties under Cook County jurisdiction. The shape of Lot 1 is irregular as Wall Street has a significant curve. The requested relief is based on a physical condition unique to the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's request for 81.01% lot coverage is uncharacteristic of developments occurring in Mount Prospect. However, the Petitioner notes in their application that the lot coverage for the overall Lake Center Plaza development will not exceed 75% as lot coverage will be reduced on other lots within the Lake Center Plaza development. She stated that the request was reviewed by the Village's Engineering Division, which does not object to the applicant's specific requests for eliminating the building setback requirements and allowing greater than 75% lot coverage. She said the engineering review focused only on the issues involving the applicant's specific requests. They found the preliminary calculations provided support the proposed design for the stormwater detention pond. Based on a cursory review of these calculations, it appears that the methodology seems appropriate. However, a thorough review will be performed when the calculations are completed (the calculations note that the outfall from the proposed pond was not included in the hydraulic modeling), and plans are submitted for permit. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff found that the proposal would not be out of character for the industrial park and it would not adversely impact other properties. The requested Variations are generally not applicable to other properties and the development is unique due to its size and the diverse land uses adjacent to the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly said based on the above analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board approve the following motion: "To approve: Modifications to Ordinance 3831 to allow: 1. a 32 foot setback for Building 1 as shown on the site plan prepared by Atwell-Hicks revision date January 24, 2007; 2. 81.01% lot coverage for the proposed Lot 2 as shown on the site plan prepared by Atwell- Hicks revision date January 24,2007 subject to the overall Lake Center Plaza development not exceeding 75% lot coverage. for the properties located at 1630-1791 Wall Street, 500 Algonquin Road, 300-301 LaSalle Street, 1698-1700 S. Elmhurst Road, Case Number PZ-02-07, subject to the following: 1. The Petitioner shall develop the site in general conformance with the following plans: a. The site plan and elevations prepared by Harris Architects, revision date January 24, 2007 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-02-07 Page 5 b. The landscape plan prepared by Signature Design Group revision date January 24, 2007 but revised to comply with Village Code Section 14.2104.E. 2. The Petitioner shall revise the photometric plan to comply with Village Code Section 14.314 & 14.2219. 3. The Petitioner shall prepare a Plat of Vacation (bulb of cul-de-sac) and a Plat of Resubdivision that consolidates the Subject Properties and creates a 2-lot subdivision, and 4. Prior to applying for building permits, the Petitioner shall provide final elevations for administrative review and approval. 5. The Petitioner shall develop the site in accordance with all applicable Village Codes and requirements, including, but not limited to: Fire Prevention Code regulations, lighting regulations, Sign Code regulations, Building Code, and Development Code regulations, which may require minor modifications to the site to comply with all development requirements and traffic concerns detailed in the Village Code and in the Engineering Division's review comments before approval of the site engineering plans can be given." She stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers stated he wanted to make sure that when the lots are subdivided, that they remain part of the Lake Center Plaza development to prevent one of the lots being sold, and therefore being non-conforming due to lot coverage. Ms. Connolly said a Covenant linking the lots together through an association and tying them to the Lake Center Plaza development could address that concern. Chairperson Juracek stated that since a specific lot is not being flagged to offset the additional lot coverage needed, she asked what steps would be in place to ensure the entire Lake Center Plaza development would not exceed 75% lot coverage. Ms. Connolly stated that the Building Division software can flag each of the addresses and the overall lot coverage would be calculated as the site was developed. Chairperson Juracek stated the Covenant is going to have to be very clear so future Commissions understand what is to be done. There were no further questions for Staff. Chairperson Juracek swore in all interested parties. Attorney Lawrence Freedman, 77 West Washington Street, Chicago, Illinois, gave a brief history of the property. He said the Alter Group has owned this property for over 30 years and the Special Use is now more than 20 years old. He stated the intention for this site has always been office/commercial. He said there had been several discussions over the years to change the land use from everything from retail to residential uses, but the market has not been there. He stated that the group is more than agreeable to preparing a Covenant to record the modifications to the Special Use if they felt the ordinance did not address the Commissioners' concerns. Mr. Rogers asked if the Petitioner is agreeable to moving the fence and providing the additional landscaping to comply with Village Code. Mr. Freedman stated that the Petitioner is agreeable to the landscaping changes. Mr. Rogers also asked if the Petitioner has any objection to going to mOT and requesting signalization of the LaSalle/Emerson intersection. Mr. Freedman said the group is more than willing to submit the Traffic Impact Study to mOT. The project's Traffic Engineer Rolf Kilian, 3100 West Higgins Road, Hoffman Estates, Illinois stated that based on experience, the traffic volume may not be significant enough for IDOT to approve the signalization. He said the traffic volume for LaSalle is 20 cars per hour. He stated that it is not that unusual for such a small driveway entering onto a major arterial street to have significant wait times. He said currently the LaSalle/Elmhurst left turn has a wait time over 160 seconds. He stated that computer analysis does not account for breaks in traffic; therefore the calculated left-turn wait time of 275 seconds is significantly higher than what the actual wait time will be. There was general discussion regarding traffic Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-02-07 Page 6 movement at other commercial centers in the area. Mr. Rogers said consideration may need to be given to making the LaSalle/Elmhurst intersection a right-tum-only. Chairperson Juracek stated that there is not enough data to make that determination at this time. There was general discussion regarding the Lake Center Plaza's employees generating the extra traffic volume. Mr. Rogers reiterated he would like the group to submit the study to mOT for signalization consideration and provide moT's response to Village Staff. Leo Floros asked if there would be any improvements to Montgomery A venue. Mr. Kilian stated that less than 25% of the traffic to the site is generated from Montgomery. He said Lake Center Plaza has three points of access. Bill Johnston, Manager of Arlington Heights Tennis Center at 2831 Malmo, Arlington Heights, Illinois, stated that the Tennis Center supports the project and this is a great improvement to the neighborhood. He questioned the drainage of the site and asked if it will affect the drainage ditch that runs through the Tennis Center. Steve Cross of Atwell Hicks, 1245 East Diehl Road, Naperville, Illinois, stated the drainage channel is located outside the Alter property along the west property line, and within the Alter property on the north side. Mr. Cross stated there will be no changes made to the drainage channel that is not on The Alter Group's property and the proposed development will not increase the amount of drainage to that channel. There was general discussion regarding the existing drainage ditch. Mr. Johnston said the Tennis Center is looking forward to the project progressing and welcomed it to the neighborhood. Chairperson Juracek called for additional questions from the audience. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:37 p.m. Mr. Rogers stated that this building fits well into the lot and that he does not have a problem with the 32- foot setback. He said he is concerned that the development will create a traffic flow issue onto Elmhurst Road, but that overtime will work itself out. He said the project will be a real asset to Mount Prospect. Mr. Floros asked who The Alter Group foresees as potential tenants. Michael Ricamato representing the Alter Group said ideally they would like to see one to three tenants per building and predicts marketing to a freight-forwarding type business in light of the O'Hare expansion. Chairperson Juracek requested that the Alter Group clear and maintain the pedestrian sidewalks in the area. She said the sidewalks are frequently snow covered and icy, causing pedestrians to walk in the street on Route 83; Mr. Ricamato said he would work with the maintenance staff to ensure the sidewalks are properly maintained. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-02-07, amending Ordinance 3831 with the recommended conditions for the property at 1630-1791 Wall Street, 500 Algonquin Road, 300-301 LaSalle Street, and 1698-1700 S. Elmhurst Road. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. Following discussion of the Comprehensive Land Use Update, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9: 15 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 SCllings\kdc\vis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK6B\PZ.02.07 Alter-Lake Center.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-04-07 Hearing Date: February 22, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5 N. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Denise Mortellaro & Thomas Ryan PUBLICATION DATE: January 10,2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-34-411-010-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch in front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Mar1ys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Denise Mortellaro and Thomas Ryan Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2007 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Chairperson Juracek stated she did not have any corrections to the minutes, but she wanted to make the Commissioners aware that the Village Board struck the Planning and Zoning Commission's condition of no over-night parking for Case Number PZ-01- 07 from the ordinance (approval) due to enforcement concerns. The minutes were approved 7-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue Cases PZ-30-06 to the March 22, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. Chairperson Juracek introduced Case PZ- 04-07, a request for a Conditional Use at 5 North Emerson Street, at 7:35 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the east side of Emerson Street, between Central Road and Henry Street, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the existing home, including expanding the second story and adding an unenclosed front porch. The proposed porch would extend along a portion of the front elevation of the house and then wrap around it. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate the porch would have a concrete base, a railing, and consist of stone and wood pillars. The proposed porch will extend 5 feet from the house, resulting in a 25-foot front yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Ms. Connolly stated that the home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the interior side yard is less than the required 5 feet. Also, the detached garage encroaches into the required side yard setback. The structures are allowed to remain in their current location because they are legal non-conformities. However, Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-04-07 Page 2 the Petitioner intends to replace the garage in the future with a larger, detached garage that will meet the required setbacks. Ms. Connolly said Staff reviewed the future garage and driveway improvements. The proposal complies with the Village's zoning regulations subject to the patio and the structure perpendicular to the driveway being constructed of a different material than the driveway. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for Conditional Uses as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that these standards must be met in order to approve a Conditional Use. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff conducted a site visit and found that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets. Also, the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly said, based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard resulting in a 25-foot setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan and elevations prepared by Mark Landhauser, date stamped January 29, 2007, for the residence at 5 North Emerson Street, Case Number PZ-04-07." She said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairperson Juracek asked if the Commission had questions for Staff; there were none. Chairperson Juracek swore in the Petitioners Denise Mortellaro and Thomas Ryan, property owners of 5 North Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. The Petitioners gave a brief history of their proposed project. Mr. Ryan stated they are planning a home addition and the porch is part of this project. He said they have been conscientious to ensure the design of the addition and porch blends with the existing home and to maintain the character of the neighborhood. Chairperson Juracek called for additional questions. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:41 p.m. Richard Rogers asked if the Petitioners were aware of the fact that the porch must remain unenclosed and understood that the patio must be a different material than the driveway to prevent parking on the patio. Mr. Ryan confirmed that they are aware of these conditions. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-04-07 a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch at 5 North Emerson Street, as presented by Staff. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing two additional cases and discussing the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:15 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 SCllmgs\kdcwis\Local Sctlings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK6B\PZM04-07 5 N Emerson St.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05-07 Hearing Date: February 22, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 12 N. Emerson Street PETITIONER: Sandra DeLegge PUBLICATION DATE: January 10,2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-34-411-028-0000 & 03-34-411-025-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Bob F1ubacker Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2007 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Chairperson Juracek stated she did not have any corrections to the minutes, but she wanted to make the Commissioners aware that the Village Board struck the Planning and Zoning Commission's condition of no over-night parking for Case Number PZ-01- 07 from the ordinance (approval) due to enforcement concerns. The minutes were approved 7-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue Case PZ-30-06 to the March 22, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairperson Juracek introduced Case PZ-04-07, a request for a Variation at 12 N. Maple Street at 7:42 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the west side of Maple Street, between Henry Street and Central Road, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 District to the south and the RA Single Family District to the north, west, and east. The Subject Property has a typical rectangular shape, but consists of two lots of record. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's exhibits illustrate the proposed improvements to the existing home, which include an addition to the rear of the house and expanding the second story to accommodate a Master Bedroom and an additional bedroom. Also, the parking pad that is adjacent to the existing I-car garage would be removed and a 2-car garage would be constructed in the same general location. In order to accommodate a second car, the proposed garage would encroach 1.5 feet into the required side yard. Therefore, the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a 5-foot side yard along the south lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6.5-foot side yard. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2007 PZ-05-07 Page 2 Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The site consists of two lots of record, which will need to be consolidated, the parking pad is located in a required side yard, and the I-car garage encroaches 6 inches into the front setback. The garage and the parking pad are legal nonconforming structures that are allowed to remain and be repaired and maintained. Although the proposed 2- car garage would have the same side yard setback as the parking pad, the nonconforming side yard setback is not transferable to the new garage. Ms. Connolly said the existing garage currently does not have living space above it and it is a slab on grade design. The proposed 2-car garage needs to be rebuilt due to structural requirements and will be shifted back to comply with the 30-foot front yard setback requirement. She showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the RI Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements indicating that site would be well below the lot coverage limitation and the only relief needed would be for the south side yard setback. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards for a Variation as listed in the Zoning Ordinance relating to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Ms. Connolly stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 6.5-foot interior side yard for the proposed garage. In this case, the existing nonconforming setback for the parking pad is not applicable to the new garage and the 5- foot setback cannot be maintained unless a Variation is granted. However, since the proposed garage needs to be rebuilt, it will be designed to comply with the-30 foot front yard setback requirement, and will not encroach into the front yard like the existing garage currently encroaches. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner stated in their application that the 1.5-foot encroachment is necessary to construct a 2-car garage. The Petitioner explored whether the garage could be built with a 6.5-foot setback, but found the 1.5-foot difference would make it difficult to negotiate exiting/entering a vehicle when a second vehicle was parked in the garage. Therefore, the proposed garage was designed to have the smallest footprint and still accommodate a second vehicle without significant modification to the existing house. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property is bordered by the RA District on three sides. The minimum side yard setback in the RA District is 5 feet, which is consistent with the Petitioner's request and the minimum setback required for a detached garage for a lot wider than 55 feet. The Petitioner has the option of constructing a detached 2-car garage, but decided not to pursue that design as the attached garage is preferred. Ms. Connolly said the possibility of rezoning the Subject Property from Rl to RA was discussed. The RA District calls for a minimum lot width of 50 feet and allows no less than a 5-foot interior side yard; the Rl District calls for a 65-foot minimum lot width and bases the interior side yard on the lot width. However, Staff could not support rezoning the Subject Property as the size and general development of the Subject Property is more in keeping with the Rl District than the RA District. Ms. Connolly showed an exhibit that depicted the location of the RA and Rl properties in the Petitioner's neighborhood. She said that while it is unusual to have an isolated pocket of a zoning district, the exhibit illustrates that the lot sizes that are zoned Rl would be uncharacteristic if rezoned to RA. Ms. Connolly stated that 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 the garage being large enough to accommodate two vehicles and being able to maneuver inside the garage. This could be interpreted as a convenience. However, the Building Commissioner confirmed that significant structural modification would be necessary to shift the existing house so the 2-car garage would meet the required setback. Therefore, the design of the existing structure limits the Petitioner's ability to comply with the required setback due to the physical Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22,2007 PZ-05-07 Page 3 modifications necessary to modify the house to comply with current zoning regulations. These circumstances create a hardship. Ms. Connolly stated that the Variation request for a 5-foot interior side yard meets the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance and Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a 5-foot side yard setback along a portion of the south lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by Robert Flubacker Architects Limited, dated February I, 2007 for the residence at 12 North Maple Street, Case Number PZ-05-07." Ms. Connolly said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. Chairperson Juracek asked if a detached garage would be allowed with a 5-foot setback; Ms. Connolly confirmed a 5' setback would be permitted. Joseph Donnelly asked if the property immediately north of the Subject property has a 5-foot setback. Ms. Connolly stated it is zoned RA and a 5' setback is permitted per the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Juracek swore in the project architect Bob Flubacker, 1835 Rohling Road, Rolling Meadows, Illinois. He thanked Staff for their thorough presentation. Mr. Flubacker gave a brief history of the project and stated that the attached garage configuration was chosen to preserve large trees on the property. Richard Rogers asked what the width of the garage is; Mr. Flubacker said the garage is 21.5 feet on the inside. There was discussion on garage sizes and minimum space requirements. Mr. Rogers stated that in most cases he would support the Petitioner complying with the Zoning Ordinance regulations and have the required 6.5' setback. However, since the property is surrounded by properties in the RA district with 5-foot side yards, he supports the Variation request because the setback is in character with the adjacent properties. Chairperson Juracek called for additional questions. Hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. Mr. Rogers made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-05-07 for a Variation at 12 North Maple Street, as presented by Staff. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, Youngquist, Juracek NA YS: None Motion was approved 7-0. After hearing one additional case and discussion the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9:15 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:\Documents and Settings\kdcwis\Local Scttings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK6B\PZ..Q5-07 12 N Maple.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE Hearing Date: February 22, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 50 South Emerson Street PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to approve the minutes of the January 25, 2007 meeting and Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Chairperson Juracek stated she had no corrections, but wanted to note that the Planning and Zoning Commission placed a condition of no over-night parking at the property for Case Number PZ-OI-07 and the Village Board removed the condition due to enforcement concerns. The motion was approved 7-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to continue Case PZ-30-06 to the March 22, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 7-0. After hearing three previous cases, Chairperson Juracek introduced the Comprehensive Land Use Plan update discussion at 8:40 p.m. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that tonight's discussion will be regarding the draft of Chapter 5 that was sent in the Commission's packets. He said the Draft Implementation Program updates that found in the 1998 Plan by: reorganizing the strategies into the four Plan Elements; removing irrelevant or completed actions; and adding new strategies created from input received from the public, focus groups, and other meetings with Village Staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the Village Board. Mr. Zawila stated that the Draft Implementation Program is sorted into the four plan elements that have been used throughout the update of the Plan: Housing and Residential Areas; Economic Development; Transportation and Infrastructure; and Community Facilities, Services, & Open Space Implementation Strategies are categorized into four different types: Action - which can be acted upon to produce a result; Village Board Action - which reflects a policy which must be adopted by the Village Board; Special Study Needs - which requires additional study to determine best course of action; and Coordination - which requires ongoing coordination with other parties outside Village Staff. The table also indicates from which goals and objectives each strategy is derived. In addition, the table indicates whether the strategy should occur in the short term - within 3 years; long term - within 4 - 5 years; or is ongoing. He stated that the Village department or any other agencies/groups that will lead implementation are then listed for each strategy. Mr. Zawila opened the floor for discussion. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2006 Comprehensive Land Use Update Discussion Page 2 Chairperson Juracek asked how the new ideas were sorted into Chapter 5. Mr. Zawila stated they are sorted by similar relationship to the objectives in Chapter 3, and by the projected timing ofthe goal. Chairperson Juracek asked how the measurement of these goals is being tracked. Mr. Zawila stated that the reformatting of the objectives table essentially provides a check list for each department to track progress. Chairperson Juracek stated that the Commission is happy to see that so many of the suggestions from the focus group meetings held in the past several months have been added to the update. There was general discussion regarding timing and tracking of meeting the objectives. There was discussion regarding Goal A: "To provide a diverse housing inventory and attractive living environment that supports the local population and accommodates a reasonable level of growth and change. " Chairperson Juracek again asked if there were measures in place to ensure objectives are met. Ellen Divita explained that several of these objectives are on-going marketing tools, for example, when developers approach the Village seeking development projects staff is able to identify things the community would like to see such as senior housing. Others such as those related to the Village Community Development Block Grant Program are a regular course of action in administering the Community Block Grant and are required for the Village to receive federal funding. The Commission Discussed Goal B: "To create viable commercial districts throughout the Village which provide employment opportunities, needed goods and services, and diversified tax revenues which are sufficient to sustain Village services and minimize the reliance on property tax. " Mr. Zawila stated that several of these goals were generated from the focus group meetings. Chairperson Juracek asked if the River Road Corridor was going to be indicated as a commercial district. Ms. Divita stated the residents in that area indicated a need for more local conveniences. There was general discussion regarding the opportunities in the area, including recreation trails. Ms. Divita stated the Land Use Plan calls for the area to be a mix of uses. Joseph Donnelly suggested the wording be changed to "redevelopment" versus "commercial redevelopment" since the intention is mixed use. The group then discussed Goal C: "To develop an industrial base which provides employment opportunities and diversified tax revenues, which are sufficient to sustain Village services and minimize the reliance on property tax. " Mr. Zawila stated this Goal discusses the industrial aspect of the commercial development. He stated a key strategy in this section is to promote the Kensington Business Park. Chairperson Juracek asked how we can get a more global focus to benefit Kensington, but would also fall in the area outside of the Business Park. She suggested promoting other services that would benefit Kensington as a whole. Ms. Divita suggested adding a statement to Goal B that would promote or recruit commercial and retail business amenities such as restaurants and hotels. There was general discussion regarding locations outside of Kensington for business-related amenities. Height and massing of business oriented hotels in other communities were discussed and the Commission questioned if the zoning ordinance would allow such developments in the Village. There was additional discussion regarding hotel location and building height. Ms. Divita asked if the Commission specifically wished the implementation strategies to include a review of building heights allowed in the zoning ordinance with the upcoming update of the Zoning Ordinance. Chairperson Juracek stated it would be prudent to review building height so that the Zoning Code does not discourage a development. There was discussion regarding Goal D: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22,2006 Comprehensive Land Use Update Discussion Page 3 "To provide a balanced transportation system which provides for safe and efficient movement of vehicles and pedestrians, supports surrounding land development, and enhances regional transportation facilities. " Mr. Zawila stated all of the focus groups provided great input on this Goal. Ms. Divita stated that Staff has been doing an excellent job writing grants for improvements. Chairperson Juracek asked if it is anyone Staff member's job to write grant applications. Ms. Divita stated that various members of the Public Works and Community Development Department write the grants as they come up. Ronald Roberts asked if there were any north-south bus routes in the Village. Mr. Zawila stated there is a portion of one route that runs into Kensington Business Park and continues along Wolf, but north-south service is a serious gap in bus service within the Village. He stated we have applied for a grant with RT A to fill some of the service gaps. Ms. Divita stated that the bus routes also lack a central transfer point in the Village. Chairperson Juracek asked if the Village disseminates bus route information. Mr. Zawila stated there is a link on the Village website. Mr. Rogers suggested making sure bus schedules are available at convenient locations such as Village Hall and the train station. Keith Youngquist stated that this area is the only part of the Plan that discusses pedestrian traffic and he wants to make sure it calls out access across the railroad tracks. He said most of this section deals with public transportation and does not really call out the importance of pedestrian traffic. Ms. Divita asked if he would like to see a specific statement regarding pedestrian traffic and safety in the downtown. The Commission agreed they would like an additional statement regarding pedestrian traffic downtown. Chairperson Juracek stated that she would also like to see signage regulations for downtown reviewed as well. She said it is sometime difficult to see signs on downtown businesses with the parkway trees. She suggested revisiting the use of sandwich signs elsewhere in the community outside of the downtown. There was general discussion regarding tree height and business signage. Several commissioners stated they wished the trees on Northwest Highway were allowed to grow tall and create a canopy - this would then allow for business signage to be seen underneath the tree canopy, rather than the trees blocking signs. Next, the group discussed Goal E: "To maintain a public infrastructure system that efficiently provides utilities, public improvements and flood control required by the Community. " Mr. Zawila said this section makes statements regarding flood control, Levy 37, and the Village supporting efforts for that project. He said this section also includes Public Works programs for public improvements. He stated this section also mentions the potential annexation areas and how public services would be provided to those potential annexation areas. There was general discussion regarding creeks in the Village. Lastly, the group discussed Goal F: "To provide a system of facilities that ensures for efficient delivery of public services and open space, enhancing the quality of life within the community. " Mr. Zawila stated this section had a lot of carry-over from the 1998 Plan and includes ideas brought forth during the focus group discussion. The Commission had no comments on this section. Chairperson Juracek asked what happens with the Comprehensive Plan Update now. Mr. Zawila said a final draft will be sent out to several people for comments. There is a regular scheduled review meeting on March 22, 2007 and then the final public hearing is April 12, 2007. After the April meeting, the Plan will go to the Village Board. There was no further discussion on the Comprehensive Land Use update. Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting February 22, 2006 Comprehensive Land Use Update Discussion Page 4 Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn at 9: 15 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 Scttings\kdcwis\Local Sctlings\Tcmporary Internet Filcs\OLK6BlMinulcs 02-22.07 PZ_doc Village of Mount Prospect 112 E. Northwest Highway Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 BOARD OF FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSIONERS Phone 847/870-5656 MEETING NOTICE DATE: LOCATION: March 22, 2007, Thursday Police & Fire Headquarters 112 E. Northwest Highway Police/Fire Training Room 3:00 p.m. TIME: AGENDA Disciplinary Hearing MOUNT PROSPECT BOARD OF FIRE & POLICE COMMISSIONERS r;1.~Krm~ ROBERT McKILLOP, Chairman J-,2. c:J7 Date VILLAGE CLERK NOTIFIED BY: ~~o~ Date: POSTED BY: c~~-4-.~I2 Date ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA nON TO P ARTICIP A TE SHOULD CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AT 112 E. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY, MOUNT PROSPECT. 847870-5656. TDD 847 392-1269 MINUTES COFFEE WITH COUNCIL SATURDAY, MARCH 10,2007 9:00 A.M. COMMUNITY CENTER, VILLAGE HALL, 50 SOUTH EMERSON STREET Mayor Irvana Wilks called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. Village Trustees present were Paul Hoefert, John Korn, and Richard Lohrstorfer. Representing Village staff were Assistant Village Manager David Strahl and Director of Public Works Glen Andler. Residents in Attendance Ken Koeppen Nicole Logisz Steve Long Jim Chylik Carol Tortorello Andy & Kimberly Skic Roger Kruse Roy Stobe David Schein Sarah Corcoran Ms. Swiatek Linneman Rd. Barberry Ln. Park Dr. Locust Ln. S. Elmhurst Ave. N. Owen St. S. Louis St. N. Lancaster S. NaWaTa Ave. Hill St. N. Pine St. Ken Koeppen, S. Linneman Rd., asked if the Village has any plans for widening Cypress Dr. at Golf to a full width street and allowing two-way traffic. Mr. Andler informed Mr. Koeppen that the owner of the lot on the southwest corner (where the old barn is) owns the property to the middle of the street and until he tears the barn down and redevelops that lot, the street can not be widened. Nicole Logisz, Barberry Ln; Steve Long, Park Dr & Sarah Corcoran, Hill St., are all members of the Village's Youth Commission and came to the meeting to say hello and observe. Jim Chylik, Locust Ln., had two areas of concern. The first was the absence of snow removal off the sidewalks adjacent to Golf Rd. in front of the shopping center at Golf and Busse Rd. and the apartments west of Oakwood. Mr. Chylik asked if the Village has an ordinance requiring property owners to clear their sidewalks? Mr. Andler informed Mr. Chylik that the Village has Coffee with Council Minutes 3-10-07 Page 2 of3 no such ordinance. The clearing of snow from public sidewalks is strickly voluntary. Mr. Andler said he would contact the two property owners and ask for their cooperation during future snow events. Mr. Chylik's second concern was a safety issue along Busse Rd. north of Golf Rd. Busse Rd. narrows from four lanes to two lanes north of Golf and in his opinion there should be more signage warning motorists of this lane reduction. Mr. Andler told Mr. Chylik that Bussed Rd. is owned and controlled by Cook County Highway Department and he will contact them about his concerns. If signs are missing Mr. Andler will see that the county replaces them and also discuss the possibility of additional signage. Mr. Chylik thanked the Village and also complimented the Public Works Department on their snow removal efforts and the repairing of broken watermains. Carol Tortorello, S. Elmhurst Ave., just came to say hello and visit. Andy & Kimberly Skic, N. Owen St., came to observe and thank the Village for their support by approving funds for the Property Maintenance Environmental Health Inspector. Roger Kruse, S. Louis St., update the board on his ongoing concern with vehicles parking illegally over night on Shabonee between William St. and Edward St. Mr. Kruse reported seventeen (17) vehicles on Shabonee, six (6) of which had no Village stickers and two (2) with no front license plate. Mr. Kruse also stated that there is a red van parked on Shabonee and it is there night and day and only moves when it is red tagged. Mr. Kruse complimented the Police Department on the amount of DUI and speeding tickets they have issued. Mr. Kruse asked the Village if we were aware of an abandoned car on the old State Farm Insurance property. It appears it is now being vandalized. Mr. Strahl will inform the Police Department about the parked vehicles and abandoned vehicle. Roy Stobe, N. Lancaster, wanted to inform the Village about speeders on his block. Since the Village changed the spacing of the stop sign on his block, cars have two blocks before they have to stop and he feels this additional space is contributing to their speeding. Mr. Andler responded that this area is soon to be reevaluated including new traffic counts and speed checks, as a follow up to the stop sign changes. In the meantime Mr. Andler will request the Police Department to do some selective speeding enforcement in this area. David Schein, S. NaWaTa, wanted to let the Village know he fully supports how the Village Board is handling AT&T Project Lightspeed. Ms. Swiatek, N. Pine St., came to tell the Village about his ongoing problem with Nicor and a gas leak on his block. Since last October Ms. Swiatek has been after Nicor to fix their leak. They did come out and make a partial repair but it is still leaking. Mr. Strahl said he had previously been in contact with Nicor and thought the repairs had been made. Mr. Strahl will contact them again and get this matter resolved. Coffee with Council Minutes 3-10-07 Page 3 ad The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 am. Respectfully Submitted, Glen R. Andler Director of Public Works C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\COFFEE W COUNCIL MINUTES 3-1 0-07.DOC