Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3182_001Village Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Director of Community Development F SUBJECT: NON -CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES DATE: April 16, 1981 Our office has had several requests in the past year for variations on non -conforming residential structures. Currently several requests are pending having just been -filed. These structures require variations to legalize existing encroach- ments into required yards. The encroachments have been created by development either prior to annexation or before this department began enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Examples of these problems include: overhanging eaves, foundation walls, bay windows, fireplaces, etc.; which often go beyond a few inches and involve encroachments of several feet. Under the Zoning Ordinance provisions (Section 14.107.A) an individual cannot construct an addition to their home if the existing structure is in violation of the yard requirements. This serves to discourage homeowners from improving their property. -.--Often these :.residents are then faced with relocation in order to gain adequate room for their family.. -.It is obvious that we should be encouraging the upgrading of residential properties, not discouraging such. We feel, therefore, that some recognition should be given to these existing encroachments, that would eliminate the ne- cessity of requests for variations on structures that were a) built in the County and later annexed, or b) constructed, with the benefit of permit, within the Village. Leo Floros directed the Community Development Department at the April 13, 1981 Building Committee Meeting to proceed with a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance. This could be one item for inclusion in this revision. Our immediate question is whether you feel this is a reasonable addition to the Ordinance. If you feel this approach is reasonable, I'd like you to consider administratively accepting encroachments built previously in the County or in the Village (with proper permit) . t KHF:hg cc: Les Wuollett Steve Park Bill Amundsen 5/14/81 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 1. Establish an index for major sections. Table of Contents, already incorporated into the Municipal Code, should be revised to delete Section 16.602 through Section 16.625 and replaced with new Section 16.602 Definitions. 2. IDOT Road and Bridge Standards should be incorporated. See Item #2 attached. Delete Section 16.408 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.408 Streets. 3. Correct references to Building and Zoning Department by changing to Superintendent of Building and Director of Community Development. Title changes already incorporated in previous action. 4.µ Complete Engineering Standards should be referenced or incor- porated. Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. 5. Engineering plans and drawings should be made a part of the building application and be the official basis for all improve- ment inspections. See Item #5 attached. Add to Section 16.204.A. 6. Definitions should be added to clarify specific terms. See Item #6 attached. Delete Sections 16.602 through 16.625 in their entirety and replace with new Section 16.602 Definitions. 7. Authorization for "Stop Work Orders" should be included. See Item #7 attached. Delete Section 16.503 in its entirety and replace -with new Section '16.503 Inspection Procedures and Stogy -Work Order. - 8. Regulations for retention facilities should be included. See Item #8 attached. Delete Section 16.405.F.3 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.405.F.3 Grading Requirements. 9. The land and/or fees donation requirement should be mandatory for parks and optional for school donations according to the desires of the Village Board. See Item #9 attached. Delete Section 16.407 Introductory Paragraph in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.40-7 Introductory Paragraph. 10. The required fire flow residual pressure should be increased from 10 to 20 PSI. See Item #10 attached. Delete Section 16.417.D. in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.417.D. Fire Protection Reserve.--� 11. Require all public improvements to be installed prior to issuance of any building permits. Deleted. 12. Change improvement guarantees to eliminate a subdivision bond as an approved form of security. Incorporated into Item #13. 13. Include an inflation factor for construction costs and resultant improvement guarantees. See Item #13 attached. Delete Section 16.311.C.1 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.311.C.1. An Improvement Completion Guarantee. ---- 14. Village Standards for Manhole and Drainage Appurtenances should be included. See Item #14 attached. Delete Section 16.413 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.413. Manhole and Drainage Appurtenances. 15. Landscaping plans should be required for all multiple -family, commercial, and industrial development. See Item 115 attached. Delete Section 16.304.D.8. and renumber Section 16.304.D.9-13 to Section 16.304.D.8-1.2 respectively; -� Acs new Section 16.304.C.8; Delete Section 16.312.A.13-14 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.312.A.13-15; and Dele e motion -l- . -zrii .s entirety and replace with new Section 16.415 Landscaping 16. Require multiple -family, commercial, and industrial developments to provide supportive material for the development plan. Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. 17. Provide more specific regulations for the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. Held over. until Comprehensive: Revision to Development Code. 18. Require improvement guarantees be limited to cash escrow or letters of credit. Incorporated into Item #13. 19. Restrict the location of retention facilities to non -habitable lots. Incorporated into Item #8. 20. Require completion of major public improvements prior to issuance of any foundation permit. Deleted. 21. Remove all excess fill from excavation prior to issuance of any building permit. Held over until Comprehensive revision to Development Code. 22. Remove all construction debris prior to final grading. Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. 23. Illinois State Standards for water and sewer main construction should be incorporated. See Item #23 attached. Add to Section 16.410.D.1. N 24. Provide developers with a revised procedural memo to outline the Development Code process. Administrative function which does not require Board action. 25. Develop standards for maximum imp ; ervious surface on a property. To be considered in Comprehensive revision to Zoning Ordinance. 26: Develop standards on minimum size of parkway trees and permit developer to plant trees as required. Incorporated into Item #15. 27. Delete references to lot size standards in Development Code. See Item #7. Delete Section 16.403 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.403- Lots. 28. Consider public notification provision for requested modifications to Development Code. Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. 'Villa •e ofMc itProspect MountProsl/ect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Dev i lopment SUBJECT- PROCESSING OF' RESIDENTIAL._...,..�..w_ ,,� REHABILITATION LOANS DATE: April 27, 1 1-_�, You indicated that you had some concerns regarding the processing of loans for the Residential Rehabilitation -Program - ire., the staff time required, the paperwork involved, etc. Part of the reason that this particular financing technique (a deferred payment loan) is being recommended is because of its simplicity to administer. No payments are due on the loan until the property changes title, at which time the principal amount is returned to an account which is pre -designated in the loan agreement, between the homeowner and the Village. Any,pre-payment ofthe loan would occur in lump -sums at no more than annual intervals There is no interest to calculate. The only agreement the Village enters into is the loan agreement, which is secured by a second mortgage on the property. These two forms are -straightforward and are simply kept in the homeowner -'s file along with other documentation (of income, eligibility, feasibility for rehabilitation, approvals, etc.). The contract for actual work on the structure 3_s between the homeowner and contractor only; the Village is not a t�iird Party but is designated as a "special agent". The deferred payment loan technique minimizes the risk of loan defaults, as repayment comes from the proceeds of property sale and is secured by a second mortgage. Other communities which use this technique in the Chicago metropolitan area have had very little problem with loan defaults. In approving applications for the loan program, we will request and confirm information on employment, assets, liabilities, and credit history. I do not believe that for this type of rehabilitation f�L.nancing it will be necessary to contract with a bank or financial pgency to process the loans. The task that will require the most staff time will be determination and confirmation of income eligibility. Teresa's primary responsibility, when the program gets underway, will be the day-to-day administration of the rehabilitation pro- gram(s); and she should be able to handle the amount of paperwork Terrance L. Burghard - Page Two April 27, 1981 involved. If, however, at a later date we become involved in a more complicated loan Program involving interest, montl�ly payments, or leveraging of private funds -(as in the business loaq program), we may need to consider.contracting with a bond or agelcy for loan processing. We are prepared to get underway with the housing rehabilitation program as soon as you feel these points (and any other concerns you may have) have been satisfied, and after final Board approval of the guidelines. I KHF :hg TO: Mount Pn I) Ill;nois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM LEO FLOROS, CHAIP IAN OF BUILDING COL-4MITTI FROM- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUBJECT: PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR HOliSING REHABIL•I9 PROGIZA14 DATE: March Its 1981 '=Mr A'a The following are the general guidelines proposed by the Cor' unity 'Development staff for the dousing ; ehal-Al it_at.i..on Loan Prog :ase to be conducted as past of Mount Pro!qrect's Commumi_ty Deve-�iopillelit . Block Grant. We believe that the guidelines proposed here would be most accr-�ptable and Drovide the most benefit to those Mount Prospect residents who require some assistance in maintaining their hooves. These guidelines ar.e general in nature_ More de- tailed procedures in conformance, to these mentioned and Forms re- quiwrc.d for Vie Progrin-,i will be developed after_ approval by the Corrlrrlittee. Guidelines to cover different . categories of_ residential rehabilitatio ll (i.e. tultiple-fa.mi"i.y) will be developed in the future. ELIGIBL7�I tY .._a.__......-.w_...y 6 A. Any person who owns and occupies a d rcxl.l..i,ng Vrrµri t ( single- f aiaily, duplex, or townhouse) within the Village of MOUnt Prospect, or who owns and occupies a duplex, i.n whi-ch the other unit is rented to persons within the income quidel.ines, and whose total housc.-- hold income is within the income limits established by the U.S_' Dept. of Housing and Urban Develo_DmenL- (80% of the SMSA median) , shz_1--1 be- eligible to apply. B. The dwelling must have been damaged or deteriorated to a point where _t no longer meets the "One and 'L% -7o Family Duelling Code" that has been adopted and is used by the Village for existing dwellings-_ The dwelling rnus L- be in such condition that within the maximum amount of tare loan it can be brought into compliance With this code. According to federal regulations, the structure must be brought fully into compliance with the cold -i-n order to be counted toward conununity housing goals_ � C. The applicant must have ox•,,ned the property for aL least op.e year prior to application. Leo Floros - Page Two I -larch 11, 1981 D. Loans up to a maximum of $15,000 shall be permitted. The total amount loaned shall be used to correct: (1) existing code violations. All must be corrected. (2) anticipated code violations. If the inspector identifies problems- which will become code violatiorfs if 'not corrected immediately, these conditions may be correcLe upon agree- nent between the homeowner and Community Deve opment staff - (3) General Home Improvements. Up to 3.010 of the total amount of the loan may be used for general home improvements upon prior consultation with and approval by -f-he Community Development staff. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE The type of financial assistance shall be a deferred payment loan. Using this technique, the total cost of reliabilitAion is loaned to the applicant upon completion of work- The work contract is between the applicant and the contrac-tor; the -loan agreement is bet,.-7een the applicant and the Village. The loan is secured by a seco-rd mortgacfe or lien. The principal amount is repayable to the Village when the property charges title (i.e. at sale or deat--h), or may be repayed before this at annual inte ' rval.s if the hoTpeo,,;,ner so desires. The amount is returned at that time to a previousiy- designated Community Development account - The deferred payment loan technique is the most commonly used nethod for CDBG rehabilitation programs throughout the 'Chicago metropolitan -area. It has proven effective and accepLable in many co-m-munities- it is relatively easy to administer as there is no regular repayment process and little likelihood of default_ THEREEHABILITAION LOAN PROCESS 1. Preliminary application (basic eligibility information on income and needed repairs). 2. Telephone discussion with applicant; arrange inspection 3. Preliminarl, inspection to dotermine and write-up lis,- of Ij existing and anticipated violations of code and rtkni:-.+ut.-t housing standards. Interview with applicant to explain program, forms, etc. 5. Full application. Includes verification -of incoize assets, credit report, verification of property ownership. 6 Staff approval of application including feasi-bility of dw,ollincf for rehabilitation. I ` Leo Floros - Page Thru- Narch 11, 1981 7. Detailed work specification write-up and cost estimate from list prepared at inspection. 8. Applicant provides at least three itemized contrctor.'s estimates for work; compare to inspector's estim1te. 9. Contractor is chosen by agreement between Commun"lty Developi:ient staff and homeowner. Contract signed. 10. Promissory note/lien, security agreement, etc_ foI r loan is signed. 11. Inspector meets with contractor and homeowner at residence to go over all work to be done. 12. Fork begins. Inspection during work (at least once and before any interim payout) . 13. Final :inspection to insure that work is complete and satis- f_act-_ory, before payout. 14. Payout on receipt of contractor's bill by 7iomeownbr_ . Re case of contractor's lienis required he-�ore 'pay -out, APPROVAL G The Community Development stiff shall approve the' Ioan appiica- tior_ if all eligibility requirements are met. If there are any special circumstances or questions regarding the eligibility of an appli cant or the proposed ixnprovcrP.ents, the application shall be referred to the Building Committee for clarification and approval. }._:F: hg I-1UMBER - or - r PERSONS INCOME LIMITS FOR SECTION 8 (EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 1980 —an e– –, -'[–a -'M c I i e n ry F,11 Coun ti es LOWER *INCOME LIMITS of -in Household 15,326 17,441 19,221 20,412- 21,421 22,623) 23,824 *Also �nown as low, and moderate income Village of M. -ant Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Administrative Zoning and Development Code DATE: June 4, 1981 PROBLEM STATEMENT & CURRENT PRACTICES The current Village ordinances have several provisions which pre- sent problems for staff and residents in the reasonable enforce- ment of regulations. Three principle issues are involved. First, the development code does not adequately protect the Village in that many standards are not specified in the code, but rather are referenced an3used informally by staff. Second, several provisions of the zoning ordinance are inflexible and result in residents fol- lowing lengthy procedures to make improvements to their property. Third, some normal improvements are not adequately addressed in the current ordinance. The approach used by our department is to ensure that development occurring in the Village is of the highest standards possible; protecting the Village's existing residents who have made substantial investment in their homes and their community. Simul- taneously, we attempt to maintain reasonable requirements and ad- ministration. RECOMMENDED CHANGES The first administrative change recommended is reflected in the attached material on the development code. These items have been discussed at numerous Fire and Police Committee meetings. The in- formation includes the combined recommendations of the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Several of these items have been postponed until a comprehensive revision to the develop- ment code because of the level of detail necessary in analysis and recommendation. These recommendations are in a format suitable for amendment to the current text. The second change suggested involves a "grandfather" clause for existing single family structures. Many of the existing residences were constructed in Cook County or under previous administrations Page 2 - continued Administrative Zoning and Development Code June 4, 1981 where encroachments into the required yards were permitted. We have received many requests for additions and improvements which would first require a variation to cure the existing encroachment. This situation often results in an unreasonable hardship on the resident which has a negative effect on the upgrading of the homes in the Village. The variation request is time consuming and costly for all parties involved and normally will result in an approval as the requests are generally minor in nature. Two ordinances are involved in the third administrative change to be discussed. The fence ordinance restricts the height of fences to five (5) feet except in very controlled circumstances, the Zoning Board of Appeals has heard numerous requests for a six (6) foot fence and, with one exception, granted all requests. The staff continually receives inquiries and requests for six foot fenr-e,s,,primarily ad- jacent to non -single-family developments or arterial streets. The second item which is not adequately addressed in the zoning or- dinance is provisions for accessory structures to single family res- idences. Garages, workshops, garden sheds, and other incidental buildings need further clarification. The location, size and num- ber of these accessory buildingsandtheir relationship to lot area should be addressed more completely than in the current ordinance. We would recommend the Commit -tee consider the abbve.items. The Community Development Staff is in a position to pursue these items in the immediate future. These are examples of the many changes which should be considered in the existing codes. They point out a part of the need for a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Or- dinance, Sign ordinance, Fence Ordinance and Development Code. Kenneth H. Fritz KHF :jvc Ar Encls. Village of Ma it Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JUNE 4; 1981 SUBJECT: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE PROCEDURES In making the transition to a Committee of the Whole system, there appears to be three items that may need further clarification. Without individual Committee assignments, we must manage the transition of zoning cases, liquor licenses and legislative updates. In the past, these matters were addressed by specific committees meeting on a monthly basis and accounted for a substantial amount of time in each of the committees. I recommend that they be handled in the future as follows: ZONING CASES - In reviewing this past year's number of zoning cases, their complexity, and their resolutions, the staff is confident that the bulk of the cases can be assigned directly to a Village Board Agenda under new business. As a general principle, those cases involving single family setbacks, three -car garages, yard requirements and the like are essentially straight forward and without significant controversy. I would expect that those kinds of cases can be reviewed expeditiously by the Board at a regular meeting particularly if the case is presented on the Agenda with adequate back-up information. We would propose that each case be properly identified and have attached a copy of the Zoning Board minutes, the staff report, a site plan if applicable, and a brief one paragraph covering statement outlining the issue and the recommended type of ordinance. Those cases having a broader appeal to the public interest, such as a major rezoning (St. John's, Rauenhorst, Trade Services) may well have to go to a Committee of the Whole so that the public feels it has sufficient exposure to all aspects of the case. If these kinds of topics go to a Cormiittee of the Whole, then there is no need, in my opinion, for a full recitation by the developer, staff, and citizens at the subsequent Village Board meeting. At the Village Board meeting, it may be appropriate then to simply call the case, cite the fact that it was discussed at a previous Committee of the Whole, ask if there is any new information and proceed with the vote. LIUOR LICENSES - Responsibility by statute for the administration Z; -f rests with the Village President. In many progressive communities, a procedure is followed that keeps the public and all the other elected officials informed as to the circumstances for issuing liquor licenses, creating new licenses and allowing new business operators to assume existing licenses. This is the process that we have in our community and it should be continued. By and large, the questions raised in the past governing liquor licenses can be assembled in a staff report from my office and presented to a regular Village Board meeting under the Mayor's report. In that way, the public and the elected officials will be kept informed of liquor license administration and will still have the opportunity to exercise policy discretion as to the number and quality of licenses created. With our procedure of two readings of ordinances, there is, in my opinion, no need that it also be discussed at a Committee of the Whole meeting. MONITORING OF LEGISLATION - In the past, legislative updates produce y the Illinois Municipal League and the Northwest Municipal Conference were distributed routinely to the Mayor and the Legislative Committee in an effort to broaden the awareness of pending legislation. We would suggest that copies of these reports be distributed to all elected officials on a timely basis. In reviewing the Agendas for the past year, the number of times the entire Board took a position on legislation at a public meeting has been fewer than we would have thought. We would propose that after we distribute the legislative updates to all the elected officials, the elected individuals could call the Manager's Office if they desire any intervention. Typically, at the beginning of each legislative session there is a great number of bills introduced that do not go very far and seldom get out of_ committee. My office typically has responded directly to the legislators only in those cases where we are sure of: public policy; i.e., Workers' Compensation, Home Rule challenges, labor bills, and pension changes. In those issues where there might be policy implications contrary to the consensus of the Board, we refer these matters to the Mayor; i.e., tax limitations, zoning implications, liquor matters, and other matters that may have a sensitive political quality. The Manager'B Office would recommend that we continue these existing policies with the additional distribution of the legislative reports to the other elected officials. We hope that these suggested items will clarify points of discussion regarding Committee of the Whole procedures and look forward to any additional input the elected officials might have. TLB/rcw i iiagt f r unt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois" tea,; INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager _ FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: NON -CONFORMING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES DATE: April 16, 1981 Our office has had several requests in the past year for variations on non -conforming residential structures. Currently several requests are pending having just been filed. These structures require variations to legalize existing encroach- ments into required yards. The encroachments have been created by development either prior to annexation or before this department began enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance. Examples of these problems include: overhanging eaves, foundation walls, bay windows, fireplaces, etc.; which often go beyond a few inches and involve encroachments of several feet. Under the Zoning Ordinance provisions (Section 14.107.A) an individual cannot construct an addition to their home if the existing structure is in violation of the yard requirements. This serves to discourage homeowners from improving their property. Often these residents are then faced with relocation in order to gain adequate room for their family. It is obvious that we should be encouraging the upgrading of residential properties, not discouraging such. We feel, therefore, that some recognition should be given to these existing encroachments, that would eliminate the ne- cessity of requests for variations on structures that were a) built in the County and later annexed, or b) constructed, with the benefit of permit, within the Village. Leo Floros directed the Community Development Department at the April 13, 1981 Building Committee Meeting to proceed with a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance. This could be one item for inclusion in this revision. Our immediate question is whether you feel this is a reasonable addition to - the Ordinance. If you feel this approach is reasonable, I'd like you to consider administratively accepting encroachments built previously in the County or in the Village (with proper permit). i KHF: hg cc: Les Wuollett Steve Park Bill Amundsen Q PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS 5/14/81. 1. Establish an index for major sections. Table of Contents, already incorporated into the Municipal Code, should be revised to delete Section 16.602 through Section 16.625 and replaced with new Section 16.602 Definitions. 2. IDOT Road and Bridge Standards should be incorporated. See Item #2 attached. Delete Section 16.408 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.408 Streets. 3. Correct references to Building and Zoning Department by changing to Superintendent of Building and Director of Community Development. Title changes already incorporated in previous action. 4. Complete Engineering Standards should be referenced or incor- porated. Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. -5. Engineering plans and drawings should be made a part of the building application and be the official basis for all improve- ment inspections. See Item #5 attached. Add to Section 16.204.A. 6. Definitions should be added to clarify specific terms. See Item 46 attached. Delete Sections 16.602 through 16.625 in their entirety and replace with new Section 16.602 Definitions. 7. Authorization for "Stop Work Orders" should be included. See Item #7 attached. Delete Section 16.503 in its entirety and replace -with new Section 16.50*3 Inspection Procedures and St Work Order. 8. Regulations for retention facilities should be included. See Item #8 attached. Delete Section 16.405.F.3 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.405.F.3 Grading�auirements. 9. The land and/or fees donation requirement should be mandatory for parks and optional for school donations according to the desires of the Village Board. See Item #9 attached. Delete Section 16.407 Introductory Paragraph in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.407 Introductory Paragraph. 10. The required fire flow residual pressure should be increased from 10 to 20 PSI. See Item #10 attached. Delete Section 16.417.D. in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.417.D. Fire Protection Reserve. - 11. Require all public improvements to be installed prior to issuance of any building permits. Deleted. 12. Change improvement guarantees to eliminate a subdivision bond as an approved form of security. Incorporated into Item #13. 13. Include an inflation factor for construction costs and resultant improvement guarantees. See Item #13 attached. Delete Section 16.311.C.1 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.311.C.1. An Improvement Completion Guarantee.-� ---- - .._.__........www..-�-.,.....�.._.__.... 14. Village Standards for Manhole and Drainage Appurtenances should be included. See Item #14 attached. Delete Section 16.413 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.413. Manhole and Drainage Appurtenances. 15. Landscaping plans should be required for all multiple -family, commercial, and industrial development. See Item #15 attached. Delete Section 16.304.D.8. and renumber Section 16.304.D.9-13 to Section 16.304.D.8-12 respectively; Add new Section 16.304.C.8; Delete Section 16.312.A.13-14 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.312.A.13-15; and Delete""ection�6m.4�in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.415 Landscaping 16. Require multiple -family, commercial, and industrial developments to provide supportive material for the development plan. Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. 17. Provide more specific regulations for the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy. Held over -until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. 18. Require improvement guarantees be limited to cash escrow or letters of credit. Incorporated into Item #13. 19. Restrict the location of retention facilities to:non-habitable lots. Incorporated into Item #8. 20. Require completion of major public improvements prior to issuance of any foundation permit. Deleted. 21. Remove all excess fill from excavation prior to issuance of any building permit. Held over until Comprehensive revision to Development Code. 22. Remove all construction debris prior to final grading. Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. 23. Illinois State Standards for water and sewer main construction should be incorporated. See Item #23 attached. Add to Section 16.410.D.1. 24, Provide developers with a revised procedural memo to outline the Development Code process. Administrative function which,does not require Board action. 25. Develop standards for maximum impervious surface on a property. To be considered in Comprehensive revision to Zoning Ordinance. 26. Develop standards on minimum size of parkway trees and permit developer to plant trees as required. Incorporated into Item #15. 27. Delete references to lot size standards in Development Code. See Item #7. Delete Section 16.403 in its entirety and replace with new Section 16.403- Dots. 28. Consider public notification provision for requested modifications to Development Code, Held over until Comprehensive Revision to Development Code. a. 'Vil agt. -if C punt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, DiDev lopment SUBJECT: PROCESSING OF IDENTIAL REHABILITATION LOANS p DATE: April 27, 19 ­_...,,_ � .. You indicated that you had some concerns regarding the processing of loans for the Residential Rehabilitation -Program - ire., the staff time required, the paperwork involved; etc. Part of the reason that this particular financing technique (a deferred payment loan) is being recommended is because of its simplicity to administer. No payments are due on 'the loan until the property changes title, at which time the principal amount is returned to an account which is pre -designated in the loan agreement, between the homeowner and the Village. Any pre -payment of the loan would occur in lump -sums at no more than annual intervals. There is no interest -to calculate. The only agreement the Village enters into is the loan agreement, -which is secured by a. second mortgage on the property. These two forms are straightforward and are simply kept in the homeowner's file along with other documentation (of income, eligibility, feasibility for rehabilitation, approvals, etc.). The contract for actual work on the structure is between the homeowner and contractor only; the Village is not a third party but is designated as a "special agent". The deferred payment loan technique minimizes the risk of loan defaults, as repayment comes from the proceeds of property sale and is secured by a second mortgage. Other communities which use this technique in the Chicago metropolitan area have had very little problem with loan defaults. In approving a plications for the loan program, we will request and confirm information on employment, assets, liabilities, and credit history. I do not believe that for this type of rehabilitation financing it will be necessary to contract with a bank or financial agency to process the loans. The task that will require the most"staff time will be determination and confirmation of income eligibility. Teresa's primary responsibility, when the program gets underway, will be the day-to-day administration of the rehabilitation pro- gram(s); and she should be able to handle the amount of paperwork Terrance L. Burghard - Page Two April 27, 1981 involved. If, however, at a later date we become involved in a more complicated loan program involving interest, mont ly payments, or leveraging of private funds (as in the business loa program), we may need to consider.contracting with a bond or agency for loan processing. We are prepared. -to get underway with the housing rehabilitation program as soon as you feel these points (and any other concerns you may have) have been satisfied, and after final Board approval of the guidelines. ' KHF:hg `Qli3jas�t �o' Prosper r _ � ¢ Aou, Is ect Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: LEO FLOROS, CHAIM-1AId OF BUILDING COI• MITTEE FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUBJECT: PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR HOUSIr;G REHABIL-ITATI N LOAN PROGRA14 I DATE: March 11, 1981 The following are the general guidelines proposed by the Community, 'Development stzdf f fol- the Housing ;Rehabilitation Loan Program to be conducted as part of Mount Prospect's Community Development Block Grant. We believe that the guidelines proposed here would be most acceptable and provide the most benefit to those Mount Prospect residents who require some assistance in maintaining their hc.)P.ies. These guidelines are general_ in nature_ IvTore de- tailed pr_-occdutres in conformance to these mentioned and Forms re- quired for tiie� Progran will be developed after_ approval by the Corulittee. Guidelines to cover different categories of residential rehabil_itatiori (i.e. multiple -family) will be developed in the future. ELIGIBILITY A. Any parson who owns and occupies a dwelling unit (single-family, duplex, or townhouse.-rv-ithin the Village of Mount Prospect, or who owns and occupies a duplex in which the other unit is rented to persons within the income guidelines, and whose total house- hold income is within the income limits established by the U.S_' Deot. of Housing and Urban Development (80% of the SMSA median), shall be -eligible to apply. B The dwelling must have been darnaged or deteriora-Led to a point where it no longer meets the "One and 1%7o Family Dwelling Code" that has been adopted and is used by the Village for existing dwellings.- The dwelling n►usL be in such condition that within the maximum amount of the 10an it can be brought in;o compliance with this code. According to federal r_egul_atioris, 'the structure must be brought fully into compliance with the codd in order to be counted toward conununity housing goals_ � C. The applicant must have ormecl the property for at lue:ls-L or.e year prior to application. Leo Floros - Page Two March 11, 1981 D. Loans up to a maximum of $15,000 shall be permitted. The total amount loaned shall be used to correct: (1) existing code violations. All must be corrected. (2) anticipated code violations. If the inspectoa identifies problems, which will become code violat:ios if 'not corrected immediately, these conditions xsaEy be c~orrec.l:: upon ac a:ee- sent between the homeowner and, Community l eve opment staff. (3) General Home Improvements. Up to 10% of the total amount, of the loan may be used for general home improvements upon prior consultation with and approval by the Community Development staff. TYPE OF ASSISTANCE I The type of financial assistance shall be a deferred payment loan. Using this technique, the total cost of rehabilitation is loaned to the applicant upon completion of work. The work contract is between the applicant and the contractor; the loan agreement is between the applicant and the Village. The loan is secured by a second n,ortgacfe or Tien. The principal amount is repayable to the Village when the property cihanges title (i -e. at sale or death), or may be repayed before this at anr3ual intervals if the homeo,,;ner so desires. The amount is returned at that. time to a previously - designated Community Development account. � j The deferred payment loan tE!chnique is the most commonly used nethod for CDBG rehabilitation programs throughout the 'Chicago metropolitan area. It has proven effective and acceptable in many communities. It is relatively easy to administer as -there is no regular repayment process and little likelihood of default. THE PMHABILITAION LOAN PROCESS 1. Preliminary application (basic eligibility information on income and needed repairs). 2. Telephone discussion with applicant; arrange inspection_ 3. Preliminary inspection to determine and write-up list, of all existing and anticipated violations of code and mihimui }rousing standards. 4. Interview with applicant to e>. -plain program, appli'cat.ion forris, etc. 5. Full application_ Includes verification -of Inco_ .o anl-' a_ sets, credit report, verification of property O.,!ne r_ -hip. Staff approval of application includin;r felrsibility of dwell.inc: for rehabilitsation. Leo Floros - rage _ee I -larch 11, 1981 7. Detailed work specification write-up and cost estimate from list prepared at inspection. 8. Applicant provides at least three itemized contractor's estimates for work; compare to inspector's estimdte_ 9. Contractor is chosen by agreement between Commun'pty Development staff and homeowner. Contract signed. i 10. Promissory note/lien, security agreer:lent, etc_ for loan is signed. 11.. Inspector meets with contractor and homeowner at residence to go over all work to be done. 12. T:or_k begins. Inspection during work (at least once and before any interim payout) . 13. Final :inspection to insure that work is complete and satis- factory, before payout. . 14. Payout on receipt of contractor's bill by homeownbr_ . Rcl ease of contractcr's 1.iep i�-:, r_ecyitired before p<Iyout, APPROVAL The Community Development staff shall approve the�loan applica- tion_ if all eligibility requirements are met. If there are any special circumstances or questions regarding the eligibility- of an applicant or the proposed improvements, the application shall be referred to the Building Committee for clarification and approval. KI.F: hg H' W, i 3 E R OF PERSONS INCOME LIMITS FOR SECTION 8 (EFFECTIVE JULY —Kane`-,-­-Lak,-e, McHry, Will enCounties90 ) LOI� I IER *INCOHE LIMITS o°Idian1qcome) Household i -S " 350.....-" 56"""",-" 15,326 17,441 19,221 20,412- 21,421 22,623) 23,824 *Also knovil, as low and moderate income k Porff r=. me Village of _ ,ount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Director, Community Development SUBJECT: Administrative Zoning and Development Code DATE: June a, 1981 PROBLEM STATEMENT & CURRENT PRACTICES The current Village ordinances have several provisions which pre- sent problems for staff and residents in the reasonable enforce- ment of regulations. Three principle issues are involved. First, the development code does not adequately protect the Village in that many standards are not specified in the code, but rather are referenced and used informally by staff. Second, several provisions of the zoning ordinance are inflexible and result in residents fol- lowing lengthy procedures to make improvements to their property. Third, some normal improvements are not adequately addressed in the current ordinance. The approach used by our department is to ensure that development occurring in the Village is of the highest standards possible; protecting the Village's existing residents who have made substantial investment in their homes and their community. Simul- taneously, we attempt to maintain reasonable requirements and ad- ministration. RECOMMENDED CHANGES The first administrative change recommended is reflected in the attached material on the development code. These items have been discussed at numerous Fire and Police Committee meetings. The in- formation includes the combined recommendations of the Community Development and Public Works Departments. Several of these items have been postponed until a comprehensive revision to the develop- ment code because of the level of detail necessary in analysis and recommendation. These recommendations are in a format suitable for amendment to the current text. The second change suggested involves a "grandfather" clause for existing single family structures. Many of the existing residences were constructed in Cook County or under previous administrations Page 2 - continued Administrative Zoning and Development Code June 4, 1981 where encroachments into the required yards were permitted. We have received many requests for additions and improvements which would first require a variation to cure the existing encroachment. This situation often results in an unreasonable hardship on the resident which has a negative effect on the upgrading of the homes in the Village. The variation request is time consuming and costly for all parties involved and normally will result in an approval as the requests are generally minor in nature. Two ordinances are involved in the third administrative change to be discussed. The fence ordinance restricts the height of :fences to five (5) feet except in very controlled circumstances, the Zoning Board of Appeals has heard numerous requests for a six (6) :foot fence and, with one exception, granted all requests. The staff continually receives inquiries and requests for six foot fenc.e.s, primarily ad- jacent to non -single-family developments or arterial streets. The second item which is not adequately addressed in the zoning or- dinance is provisions for accessory structures to single family res- idences. Garages, workshops, garden sheds, and other incidental buildings need further clarification. The location, size and num- ber of these accessory buildings and their relationship to lot area should be addressed more completely than in the current ordinance. We would recommend the Committee consider the above items. The Community Development Staff is in a position to pursue these items in the immediate future. These are examples of the many changes " which should be considered in the existing codes. They point out a part of the need for a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Or- dinance, Sign Ordinance, Fence Ordinance and Development Code. Kenneth H. Fritz KHF:jvcb.n Encls. Village if P. unt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JUNE 4, 1981 SUBJECT: COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE PROCEDURES In making the transition to a Committee of the Whole system, there appears to be three items that may need further clarification. Without individual Committee assignments, we must manage the transition of zoning cases, liquor licenses and legislative updates. In the past, these matters were addressed by, specific committees meeting on a monthly basis and accounted for a substantial amount of time in each of the committees. I recommend that they be handled in the future as follows: ZONING CASES - In reviewing this past year's number of zoning cases, their complexity, and their resolutions, the staff is confident that the bulk of the cases can be assigned directly to a Village Board Agenda under new business. As a general principle, those cases involving single family setbacks, three -car garages, yard requirements and the like are essentially straight forward and without significant controversy. I would expect that those kinds of cases can be reviewed expeditiously by the Board at a regular meeting particularly if the case is presented on the Agenda with adequate back-up information. We would propose that each case be properly identified and have attached a copy of the Zoning Board minutes, the staff report, a site plan if applicable, and a brief one paragraph covering statement outlining the issue and the recommended type of ordinance. Those cases having a broader appeal to the public interest, such as a major rezoning (St. John's, Rauenhorst, Trade Services) may well have to go to a Committee of the Whole so that the public feels it has sufficient exposure to all aspects of the case. If these kinds of topics go to a Committee of the Whole, then there is no need, in my opinion, for a full recitation by the developer, staff, and citizens at the subsequent Village Board meeting. At the Village Board meeting, it may be appropriate then to simply call the case, cite the fact that it was discussed at a previous Coimmittee of the Whole, ask if there is any new information and proceed with the vote. LI 01R LICENSES-- Responsibility by statute for the administration f quo° icenses rests with the Village President. In many progressive communities, a procedure is followed that keeps the public and all the other elected officials informed as to the circumstances for issuing liquor licenses, creating new licenses and allowing new business operators to assume existing licenses. This is the process that we have in our community and it should be continued. By and large, the questions raised in the past governing liquor licenses can be assembled in a staff report from my office and presented to a regular Village Board meeting under the Mayor's report. In that way, the public and the elected officials will be kept informed of liquor license administration and will still have the opportunity to exercise policy discretion as to the number and quality of licenses created. With our procedure of two readings of ordinances, there is, in my opinion, no need that it also be discussed at a Committee of the Whole meeting. MONITORING OF LEGISLATION - In the past, legislative updates produced byheIllinois Municipal League and the Northwest Municipal Conference were distributed routinely to the Mayor and the Legislative Committee in an effort to broaden the awareness of pending legislation. We would suggest that copies of these reports be distributed to all elected officials on a timely basis. In reviewing the Agendas for the past year, the number of times the entire Board took a position on legislation at a public meeting has been fewer than we would have thought. We would propose that after we distribute the legislative updates to all the elected officials, the elected individuals could call the Manager's Office if they desire any intervention. Typically, at the beginning of each legislative session there is a great number of bills introduced that do not go very far and seldom get out of. committee. My office typically has responded directly to the legislators only in those cases where we are sure of public policy; i.e., Workers' Compensation, Home Rule challenges, labor bills, and pension changes. In those issues where there might be policy implications contrary to the consensus of the Board, we refer these matters to the Mayor; i.e., tax limitations, zoning implications, liquor matters, and other matters that may have a sensitive political quality. The Manager' -s Office would recommend that we continue these existing policies with the additional distribution of the legislative reports to the other elected officials. We hope that these suggested items will clarify points of discussion regarding Committee of the Whole procedures and look forward to any additional input the elected officials might have. TLB/rcw