The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 07/24/2007 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, July 24,2007 Immediately following Special Meeting I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Irvana K. Wilks Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee John Korn Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Arlene Juracek Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MAY 8, 2007 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. 2008-2012 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN In 1997, the Village Board formally adopted its first comprehensive 5-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). In previous years, the Village used a number of separate documents in its capital projects planning. While each of these documents was useful in its own right, none offered an overall picture of the Village's capital needs. The establishment of a 5-year Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) provides a comprehensive view ofthe Village's capital needs for consecutive rolling five-year windows. The proposed 2008-2012 CIP is generally comprised of projects that involve the purchase or construction of long-lived, tangible assets at a cost of $25,000 or more. The total cost of all requests for all years included in the plan is approximately $58.1 million. Many of the requests in the plan are simply continuations of established projects. Others are projects not currently in progress but have been discussed by the Village Board on previous occasions. Some requests are being presented for the first time through the CIP. Given that the CIP is intended to afford a comprehensive view of the Village's capital needs, it is fitting that all of these project requests be included in the proposed plan. Of the $58.1 million of project requests included in the proposed CIP, $38.8 million, or 66.7%, is for the continuation of established projects including approximately $14.9 million for street resurfacing. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TION TO PARTICIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064 2 A project's inclusion in the CIP does not guarantee its funding and accomplishment. The CIP is a planning document. As such, it is subject to change. The CIP is reviewed and updated on an annual basis. The next CIP will cover the years 2009 through 2013. 2008 project requests included in the proposed CIP amount to $22.6 million, an increase of $8.7 from the first year projects in the 2007-2011 CIP. This is mainly due to the Fire Station #14, Public Works Expansion and Emergency Operations Center projects totaling $11.7 million. Of the $22.6 million proposed for 2008, $9.1 million (40.3%) is for the continuation of established projects including $3.1 million for the street program. It should be noted that approximately $3.7 million in capital projects to be paid from the Capital Improvements Fund scheduled between 2002 and 2007 have been deferred to out years due to a lack of a permanent funding source for such projects. Reserves in this Fund that support mid-level capital projects are expected to be depleted by early 2008. The proposed 2008-2012 CIP was distributed on June 8, 2007 to the Finance Commission and the Village Board. The Finance Commission held a meeting on June 27,2007 to review the proposed document. Copies of the draft minutes from the Commission's meetings will be provided separately. Once the Committee of the Whole completes its review of the proposed 2008-2012 CIP, it will be presented to the Village Board for formal acceptance on August 7, 2007. Staff will make a presentation on the projects included in the five-year plan and will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION LAND ACQUISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5) - The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body, including meetings held for the purpose of discussing whether a particular parcel should be acquired. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES May 8, 2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Wilks. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Paul Hoefert, John Kom, Richard LOhrstorfer, Michaele Skowron and Michael Zadel. Trustee Timothy Corcoran was absent. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Public Works Administrative Superintendent Jason Leib, Community Director Bill Cooney, Community Development Deputy Director Ellen Divita, and Long Range Planner Jason Zawila. II. MINUTES Approval of Minutes of April 10, 2007. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved. . III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None IV. COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE BID SPECIFICATIONS Jason Lelb, Public Works Administrative Superintendent spoke. He stated the bid spec information includes an opportunity for an exclusive commercial waste hauler which. would bill the businesses directly. He stated the bid package has already been sent out to Arc Disposal and Arc has submitted an initial response which is currently under evaluation. The program is slated to begin approximately September 1, 2007 and continue through December 31, 2015 which would coincide with the residential contract cycle. He stated the hauler would not be responsible for any hazardous or specialized waste that may be generated from a specific business. Staff has sent out surveys to the business license holders to get some idea on the number of waste haulers and the number of containers and volume of waste. He stated the results of the surveys were utilized to draft the bid specs. He said the change over to a new waste hauler would include changing out dumpsters which would probably require dividing the community into zones so that each current hauler would have the opportunity to change out their dumpsters by a specific date before replaced by a new dumpster from the new hauler. Those details are still being discussed and worked out. He stated the cost of the service would include the contractor rates, tipping fee, administrative fees, and would be phased in over the coming year but would not impact National Contract Services contracts. A national contract would typically be a waste contract by a national company, for example, a fast food establishment that would pick up waste for all fast food establishments of that franchisee. Such contracts would not be affected by this new program. He stated once the review of the initial proposal is completed staff will report out to the Village Board in June 2007 as to the next steps necessary to continue the progress toward an exclusive contract. 1 General comments from the Village Board members included the following items. It was noted that the exclusive business hauling contract arrangement has been very successful in other communities and no doubt would be beneficial to Mount Prospect businesses. There was discussion regarding separate agreements for large amount of scrap metal and how such agreements would be impacted by the exclusive hauling contract. There was also discussion as to how existing multi-year agreements would become void once the exclusive contract was approved. There was also discussion regarding the possibility of combining dumpsters due to limited space among adjacent businesses. It W8$ recommended that additional legal research be undertaken to ensure the Village is on solid ground regarding voiding existing waste hauling contracts of businesses. This item was provided for information only and additional information will be provided in June to the Village Board. V. EMERALD ASH BORER ~ND THE CQLLECnON OF LOGS J_on Lelb, Administrative Superintendent for Public Works spoke. He stated that SWANCC is changing its disposal and collection of bundled logs over 3.5 inches in diameter. He stated that SWANCC is currently in the quarantine zone and transporting logs into or out of the quarantine zone is a violation. SWANCC has stopped accepting logs as of April 30, 2007. He stated that the collection of logs would now be part of the brush program which are picked up by ARC and handled by a separate disposal subcontractor capable of handling the logs and yard waste and is in compliance with any Emerald Ash Borer issues. This item was provided for information only to the Village Board and requires no action at this time. VI. 2007 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE Community Development Director, William Cooney stated this is a draft document as presented th.is evening and is the culmination of an eight month process by the planning staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission. He stated the Comp Plan is a general plan for development/redevelopment throughout the community. J..on z.wlla, Long Range Planner spoke. He provided Ii summary of the various portions of the document in an overview of the plan elements itself. He also included the mandated elements which are required within a comprehe~sive plan. He pointed out that the plan includes a Vision Statement and comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission members. He stated the plan includes updated land use categories for better understanding of what is the trend. This item was provided for information only to the Village Board at this time. He stated the plan should be finalized in the next several months at which time it would be brought before the Village Board for final approval. VII. ADJOURNMENT Motion made by Trustee Hoefert seconded by Trustee Kom to move into closed session at 9:45 p.m. -.: ~-~"~ J ~-ttf DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MINUTES July 10,2007 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. in the Village Board Room of Village Hall, 50 South Emerson Street, by Mayor Wilks. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Juracek and Michael Zadel. Also present was Village Manager Michael Janonis. Mayor Wilks announced that due to the lack of quorum no official business could be conducted. The Mayor did note that citizens had come to the meeting to share concerns with the Village Board and, as such, would allow them to speak under "Citizens To Be Heard". II. MINUTES Due to a lack of quorum the Minutes of May 8, 2007 were not approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Ms. Pat Layne, resident of Centennial Apartments spoke. She expressed concern with the noise of delivery trucks at Petco in the early morning hours. She asked that the Village Board consider an Ordinance prohibiting early morning deliveries. Village Manager Michael Janonis indicated that staff would research this matter and bring to the Village Board a recommendation for time restrictions. Mr. Roger Kruz, 515 South Louis spoke. He inquired about the set back of the property at 701 East Prospect Avenue. Mr. Kruz was informed that this case would be discussed at the July 17 Village Board meeting. IV. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Mount Prospect INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: VILLAGE BOARD AND FINANCE COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JUNE 8, 2007 SUBJECT: PROPOSED CIP: 2008-2012 Attached hereto is the proposed 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The projects being considered for the year 2008 total $22,576,634. The five-year total for all projects is $58,124,947. We encourage you to read the Manager's transmittal letter beginning on page ii. This correspondence describes the purpose of the CIP, highlights some of the more significant projects, and reviews project funding. To help you evaluate our ability to fund the requested projects we have again provided five-year financial forecasts for the major operating and capital project funds that provide funding for the CIP. These forecasts can be found in Section H of the document. In general, the projects being presented directly relate to the monies expected to be available. However, from reviewing the CIP requests in conjunction with the five-year financial forecasts I would like to direct your attention to several project areas. General Fund Proiects The CI P is showing the five-year average of projects being paid from General Fund revenues as $338,000. This is typical of the amount of capital projects funded by the General Fund on an annual basis. I would like to point out the five-year financial forecast for the General Fund. This forecast is showing an operating deficit in 2009 of $565,229 with annual deficits increasing each subsequent year through 2012 ($3,688,383). See the complete five-year forecast for the General Fund beginning on page H-1. Motor Fuel Tax Fund (ME.Il Receipts from motor fuel taxes beginning in 2008 are expected to remain flat through 2012. Due to the flattening of the motor fuel taxes, the Fund has annual deficits for every year of the forecast. This will force a draw down on fund balance to where fund balance becomes negative in 2010. This is significant as the MFT Fund supports approximately one-half of the funding for the annual street program. Originally to be finished in 2005, the completion of the street program was pushed back to 2009 due to budget constraints. Shortfalls in MFT funding for the street program will be made up using monies from the Street Improvement Construction Fund. Proposed CIP June 8, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Capital Improvement Fund The Capital Improvement Fund is meant to support intermediate sized capital expenditures for various departments that are non-recurring in nature. Some examples of these projects are Firing Range Improvements, Phone System Upgrade and Detention Pond Improvements. Since the General Fund discontinued the annual capital transfer, $3.7 million of these intermediate sized projects have been deferred. In addition, the projects that have been funded, which are higher priority items, have drawn down the fund balance to where it will become negative early in 2008. A new annual funding source of between $750,000 and $1.0 million is needed to support this capital program into the future. Street Improvement Construction Fund Proiects The forecast for the Street Improvement Fund (H-11) is showing a positive fund balance of $405,344 by the end of 2012. This is the result of debt service for street related projects being paid off in 2004 and the projected completion in 2009 of the formal street program started in 1995. Moving forward beginning in 2010, there will be sufficient funding to support ongoing maintenance of the Village streets and also slowly rebuild fund balance, which was intentionally drawn down as part of the Village Hall financing plan. Flood Control Construction Fund Proiects Fund balance for this Fund projected to be $564,397 at December 31,2007. Three larger size flood control projects for Prospect Meadows ($600,000), Levee 37 ($310,000), and McDonald Creek ($1,500,000) are planned over the next five years. Although funding from the % cent sales tax (portion not allocated for debt service) becomes available in 2010, there are temporary shortfalls in 2009 and 2011 that need to be addressed. After 2011, sufficient funding is available to support the ongoing flood control program. Water and Sewer Fund There are several large capital projects included in the CIP for 2008-2012. The first is the ongoing Combined Sewer Improvement project started in 2005. The total cost of the project was originally estimated at $15.0 million and expected to take 10 years to complete. Funding for this project comes from a $5 per month sewer construction fee and basic sewer usage fee. Based on early results, the overall costs may come in lower than originally estimated and completion could occur before the planned 10 years. Other major projects include ongoing sewer and water main replacements/rehab averaging $806,000 per year and emergency generators for water pumping stations at approximately $360,000 per year through 2011. The cash and investment balance is projected to remain relatively level over the five-year period and end 2012 with approximately $4.3 million. C:\Documents and Settings\djarosz\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB1\2008-2012 crp - Board Memo June 2007.doc Proposed CIP June 8,2007 Page 3 of 3 Bond Proceeds The CIP is showing three new projects to be funded by bond proceeds. They are the construction of a new Fire Station 14 at $7.9 million, expansion of the Public Works vehicle maintenance building at $2.2 million and construction of an Emergency Operations Center for approximately $1.7 million. All three projects are slated to begin in 2008. The CIP does not address the tax increases that would be associated with issuing bonds for these projects. Meetings to review the CIP are scheduled for June 27 (Finance Commission) and July 10 (Village Board). Staff looks forward to discussing the project submittals and their impact to operations. David O. Erb Director of Finance Copy: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager Dave Strahl, Assistant Village Manager Carol L. Widmer, Deputy Finance Director Department Directors C:\Documents and Settings\djarosz\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKB1\2008-2012 CIP - Board Memo June 2007.doc Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone: 847/392-6000 www.mountprospect.org DATE: July 5, 2007 TO: Mayor and Board of Trustees FROM: Finance Commission SUBJECT: Funding the CIP In regard to the issue of a continuing funding source for capital improvements, the commission has looked at a number of options, including home rule sales taxes, fund balance, refuse collections, vehicle stickers, and projected budget surpluses. We believe that one of our most critical capital improvement needs at the present time is related to Fire Station #14. We recommend that the village move ahead as soon as possible this year with the necessary public hearings on this issue, so that as soon as the space study is released, we can move ahead on this critical need. We believe that the projected fund balance should be reduced from over 30% to 25% by the end of this year, and that most of these excess funds be dedicated to the cost of the new fire station. This will minimize the extent of bonding necessary for this project and will save substantial interest costs for our village. We recommend that the village consider raising the home rule sales tax 0.25% in order to generate a continuing source of funding for capital improvements. The home rule sales tax is currently 0.75% and divided up into several components for village projects, one of which is our street improvement program, along with several others. Many other communities have already raised their rate to 1 % and we would simply be consistent with the regional trend. The additional 0.25% tax will generate approximately $1.3 million annually. In addition, the sales tax would impact anyone buying goods or services in Mount Prospect, not just our residents. In order for the increase in the rate to go into effect January 1, 2008, the Village Board will need to approve the required ordinance and file with the State of Illinois by October 1, 2007. Chuck Bennett Chairman Finance Commission MPPD PENSION BOARD MEETING MONDAY JULY 23, 2007 VILLAGE HALL CONFERENCE ROOM AGENDA 1. REVIEW LAST MEETINGS MINUTES 2. BECKER BURKE PRESENTATION 3. TREASURERS REPORT 4. DISABILITY APPLICANT UPDATES 5. ELECTION OF NEW OFFICERS 6. NEW BUSINESS AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND BOARD REGULAR MEETING Monday, July 23, 2007 Fire Department Conference Room 2nd FLOOR *** 8:30 A.M. *** I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL CHIEF FIGOLAH DA VID ERB DON BURGER SAM BAAS JEFF RICKER III. APPROVE AGENDA IV. APPROVE MINUTES A. Regular Meeting, Octoberl6, 2006 B. Regular Meeting, January 15,2007 C. Regular Meeting, April 23, 2007 V. TREASURER'S REPORT A. Approve Treasure's report B. Quarterly financial report VI. COMMITTEE REPORTS A. MEDICAL COMMITTEE: Don Burger, Sam Baas B. LEGAL COMMITTEE: Chief Figolah VII. OLD BUSINESS VIII. NEW BUSINESS A. Request by F/F Jeffery Wiley to be accepted to the Pension fund IV. ADJOURNMENT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT FIREFIGHTERS PENSION FUND BOARD April 23, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 8:40 A.M. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: David Erb, Treasurer Sam Baas, Firefighter Jeff Ricker, Firefighter Absent: Mike Figolah, Chief Donald Burger, Secretary Others Present: Rick Potter, Becker, Burke & Associates Cary Collins, Pension Board Attorney David Erb was elected to act as President Pro-Tern in the absence of Chief Figolah. This was motioned by Ricker and Seconded by Baas. APPROVE AGENDA Ricker, seconded by Baas moved to approve the agenda as presented. Upon roll call: Ayes: David Erb, Jeff Ricker, and Sam Baas. Nays: None Motion Carried APPROVE MINUTES The approval of the minutes for the October 16,2006 and January 15,2007 meetings were deferred till the next regular meeting. The appropriate board members were not on hand to approve the minutes. TREASURER'S REPORT Ricker, seconded by Baas to approve the treasure's report of April, 2007 Upon roll call: Ayes: David Erb, Jeff Ricker and Sam Baas Nays: None Motion Carried TREASURER'S REPORT (cont.) David Erb presented the financial statement for -March 31, 2007. As of March 31, 2006 the Fund had net assets with a market value totaling $40.9 million. Of this amount, $11.2 million was under management by Capital Gains and $10.7 million was under management by Segall Bryant. As if March 31, 2006 there is an unrealized gain on the fund's portfolio totaling $426,251. This is up from the $41,005 in unrealized losses reported last quarter. The fund's net assets increased $841,652 for the 1st quarter and year to date. Total revenues for this quarter were $1,491,557. Revenues from property taxes in the amount of$553,167 accounted for most of the receipts in the first quarter. Expenditures for pension benefits accounted for $644,516 of total expenditures during the 1 st quarter. Other operating expensed including investment advisor cost, legal fees and bank charges totaled $5,389. Disbursements for the past three months total $5,388.91. Rick Potter presented the quarterly Flash report on the pension fund portfolio. Based on the portfolio's current allocation of the unconstitutionality of Sudan legislation restricting pension funds from holding certain investments it was recommended the Fund reinstate the quarterly transfer from equities. Erb, seconded by Ricker to approve the reinstatement of the quarterly transfers. Upon roll call: Ayes: David Erb, Jeff Ricker and Sam Baas Nays: None Motion Carried COMMITTEE REPORTS No committee reports were presented. OLD BUSINESS No Old Business was conducted. NEW BUSINESS There is a request by FIF Brennen Kenneally to be accepted to the Pension fund. Ricker, seconded by Baas moved to approve this request. Upon roll call: Ayes: David Erb, Sam Baas and Jeff Ricker. Nays: None Motion Carried There is a request by F IF Eric Schmidt to be accepted to the Pension fund. Ricker, seconded by Baas moved to approve this request. NEW BUSINESS (coot.) Upon roll call: Ayes: David Erb, Sam Baas and Jeff Ricker. Nays: None Motion Carried There was a brief discussion on the Sudan Divestiture Act and it's finding as being unconstitutional. The law was declared unconstitutional because it interfered with the federal government's authority over foreign affairs and commerce. ADJOURNMENT Ricker, seconded by Baas moved to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 09:20 A.M. Respectfully Submitted, David Erb, Treasurer VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, July 26, 2007 7:00pm Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson I st Floor Community Center I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - June 27, 2007 III Mid- Y ear Budget Review IV Review Annual Audit V Chairman's Report VI Finance Director's Report VII Other Business VIII Next Meeting: August 23,2007 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 JUNE 27, 2007 PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:06 p.m. Those present included Chairman Charles Bennett and Commissioners Wayne Gardner, Vince Grochocinski, John Kellerhals, Tom Pekras, Ann Smilanic. Also present were Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl, Information Technology Director Joan Middleton, Community Development Director Bill Cooney, Fire Chief Mike Figolah, Battalion Chief/Training Officer Chris Trudy, Fire Marshall Paul Valentine, Administrative Analyst Christina Park, Deputy Chief of Police Michael Semkiu, Commander Tim Janowick, Human Services Director Nancy Morgan, Human Services Deputy Director Jan Abernathy, Director of Public Works Glen Andler, Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey, Director of Finance David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Also present were Daily Herald Reporter Steve Zalusky and resident Don Ocwieja. II. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner John Kellerhals motioned to approve the minutes of March 22,2007. Commissioner Wayne Gardner seconded the motion, while Chairman Charles Bennett abstained. The minutes were accepted as presented. III. REVIEW OF PROPOSED (2008-2012) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN AND DISCUSSION ON DEPARTMENTAL ISSUES - INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL Summary Director of Finance David Erb provided a brief summary of the CIP and advised that departments would be presenting their CIP items along with any internal and external issues. Human Services Director of Human Services Nancy Morgan provided an overview ofthe Human Services department. Ms. Morgan outlined the department's tasks, community outreach programs, health screening programs, food pantry and flu shot program. Ms. Morgan spoke about Human Services involvement in the Crime Free Housing Program. Human Services is available to provide social services to residents that are involved in the crime free housing process. Deputy Director Jan Abernathy mentioned that the department was recently awarded grant money that will allow the department to purchase several laptops for use out in the community especially during home service visits. Community Develooment Director of Community Development Bill Cooney began by outlining the department programs that appear in the CIP, which are a continuation of programs from previous years. The three projects include 1) Downtown Redevelopment Programs 2) Corridor Improvements and 3) Streetscape Program. Mr. Cooney provided an update on the two new inspectors that have been hired. The sidewalk inspector has started a systematic inspection on the south side of town. Mr. Cooney also provided an update on the adjudication program and various developments throughout the Village. Mr. Cooney advised that the adjudication program has been very effective and in 2007 there have been 50 tickets from Community Development and 14 tickets from Finance issued. Police Department Deputy Chief Mike Semkiu began the discussion on items the department has in the 2008 - 2012 proposed CIP. Mr. Semkiu specifically discussed the need for a new range firing control system, citation interface system, electronic access system and furniture replacement. Mr. Semkiu discussed the Crime Free Housing Program and said that 145 people have attended the seminar as of June 21. Mr. Semkiu added that the feedback from the participants of the program has been positive. Mr. Semkiu also outlined several grants that have been applied for or received this year. Fire Department Fire Chief Mike Figolah began with a summary of the department's items in the 2008 - 2012 Capital Improvements Plan. Chief Figolah spoke about the new Fire Station 14, Public Works expansion and the Emergency Operations Center. Chief Figolah also mentioned two grants that have been applied for. The first grant is for video conferencing equipment and would cover 80% of the costs ofthe equipment. The other grant is the MABIS Division I grant opportunity which is a $1 ,000,000 grant on behalf of all MABIS communities to link the communities together. Chief Figolah also mentioned that the facilities study was done, however they are waiting until all agreements were in place before the study is made public. There was a lengthy discussion among the Commission members regarding the study and the availability of the results. There was a general consensus among the members that they were not happy that they have not seen the results of the study and planning seems to be moving forward on the project. Chief Figolah stated that the study was meant to be a catalyst to developing a good plan. The idea was to present the result of the study along with a plan. ChiefFigolah provided the members with an update on the part-time disaster management position. In the few months that Tom Janetske has been with the Village he has helped in coordinating the pharmaceutical distribution plan that was recently tested and is also the coordinator of the National Incident Management System. Mr. Janetske has also received grant money for the medical reserve corp. and is completing the re- write of the emergency operations plan. Various members of the commission expressed concern of the cost ofthe proposed new Fire Station 14, Public Works expansion and Emergency Operations Center. There was concern over the current costs for the projects as compared to previously projected costs. Public Works 2 Director of Public Works Glen Andler began with brief discussion on internal and external issues. Mr. Andler then briefly highlighted several ofthe items in the crp pertaining to Public Works. Mr. Andler discussed the Flood Control programs and explained the neighborhood traffic program, which has been successful. Mr. Andler discussed the Emerald Ash Borer issue and outlined the 10 year plan to address the problem and discussed how the department would handle the worse case scenario. Administration Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl stated that the Village would be bringing in a consultant by the end of the year to develop a plan to replace the current phone system. Mr. Strahl then asked the members if they had any questions related to the administration projects in the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Plan. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked for an explanation of what the employee fitness equipment program was. Mr. Strahl stated that it is a component of a wellness program that the Village is currently rolling out to the employees. Director ofInformation Technology Joan Middleton provided an update on the status ofprojects that the new IT person was handling. Ms. Middleton also outlined several of the projects that were designated as Computer - Hardware/Software projects in the 2008-2012 Capital Improvements Plan. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT Chairman Charles Bennett stated that he would like the members to refer to the Village Manager's letter in the Proposed CIP that says it is critical that the Village find a funding source for the CIP. After a brief discussion, the Commission agreed to continue to recommend a 1/4% increase in the home rule sales tax rate be earmarked as a funding source for the CIP, furthermore; they agreed that the Village should spend down reserves to 25% to help fund some critical CIP projects. There was also a general consensus among the members that they would like to hold off on making any recommendations related to Fire Station 14 until the results of the space needs study were available. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT There was nothing to report. VI. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner John Kellerhals stated that he would like to recommend that when the results ofthe space needs study are released the Commission hold a special meeting to discuss the results. VII. Next Meeting: July 26, 2007 Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Vince Grochocinski seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:52 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for July 26,2007. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 3 MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene Juracek A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer 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 TOO: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Mount Prospect Village Hall Thursday 50 S. Emerson Street July 26, 2007 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL-CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF JUNE 28, 2007 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-33-06/ 1013 Cypress / Plat of Resubdivision B. PZ-15-07 / 701 E. Prospect Ave. Map Amendment Conditional Use C. PZ-16-07 / 401 E. Kensington Road Map Amendment Conditional Use D. PZ-18-07/ 500 Midway Drive / Special Use (Off Premises Business Identification Signs) E. PZ-19-07/ 585 Slawin Ct / Variation (side yard setback) F. PZ-20-07 / 20 N. Wille Street / Conditional Use (Unenclosed Porch) G. PZ-2l-07 / 2 N. Elm St. / Variation (fence in front yard) H. PZ-22-07/ 114 Bobby Lane / Conditional Use (unenclosed porch) I. PZ-23-07 / Outdoor Dining / Text Amendment to require outdoor dining permits J. PZ-24-07 / Unenclosed Front Porches / Text Amendment to allow Administrative Review IV. OLD BUSINESS V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-25-07 / 625 Slawin Ct / Search Development / Conditional Use (Vocational School). This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-26-07 /Busse & Dempster / Variation (size and location of signs) / Alpine Apartments. This case is Planning & Zoning Final. C. PZ-27-07 / 307 Berkshire Lane / Conditional Use (Unenclosed Porch) / Cooper Residence. This case is Planning & Zoning Final. D. PZ-28-07/ 1030 Linneman Road / Variation (Oversized garage) / Mulcrone Residence. This case is Planning & Zoning Final. E. PZ-29-07 / 143 W. Prospect Ave. / Off-site Parking Agreement / Boulevard Cafe. This case is Planning & Zoning Final. F. PZ-3l-07/ 1661 Feehanville Dr. / Variation (Height of Wall Sign) / Mizkan Americas. This case is Planning & Zoning Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS 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, II., 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-33-06 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1013 Cypress Drive PETITIONER: Cathleen Schiro PIN NUMBERS: 08-14-128-008/08-14-128-007/08-14-128-019 / 08-14-128-020 REQUEST: 1) Village to vacate 20' pedestrian right-of-way; 2) Consolidate vacated land with the 4 adjacent lots MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Cathy Schiro, Wendy Formanski Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-33-06, a request for the Village to vacate a 20-foot pedestrian right-of-way and consolidate the vacated land with the four adjacent properties at 1011 Cypress, 1013 Cypress, 1010 Lancaster, and 1012 Lancaster, at 7:39 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Properties consist of four lots of record that are located south of Golf Road, north of Ash Drive; two lots are located on Cypress Drive and two lots are located on Lancaster Street. Each of the Subject Properties contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Properties are zoned Rl Single-Family Residence and are bordered on all sides by the Rl District. There is a 20-foot wide pedestrian right-of-way that was intended to be a walkway that is located between the Subject Properties. It is currently grassed over and used and maintained only by the applicants. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner contacted the Village and requested the Village vacate the pedestrian right-of- way/walkway. The area in question is located between four homes and the walkway was never installed. Per Village policy, the Petitioner prepared a Plat of Vacation that vacates the right-of-way and gives each adjacent property Y2 of the right-of-way. In this case, there are four properties, so each of the properties would receive a 10-foot x 113-foot portion. She said a four-lot plat ofresubdivision was prepared that consolidates the soon-to-be vacated land with each of the Subject Properties. The Village Code requires the Planning & Zoning Commission review the proposed plats and forward a recommendation to the Village Board for their consideration and final action. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Properties currently meet the Village's minimum lot size requirements. However, the properties do not comply with the Village's minimum 120-foot lot depth requirement. She showed Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-33-06 Page 2 a table comparing the current lot size to the proposed lot size and shows that the lot size would continue to comply with Village regulations, but the lot depth would remain unchanged. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed plats would: I) vacate an undeveloped pedestrian right-of-way and equally divide that land among the four adjacent property owners, and 2) consolidate the vacated pedestrian right-of-way with the adjacent properties. Staff reviewed the plats and found that the plats were prepared in accordance with the Village's Development Code requirements. Based on this, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Plat of Vacation and a Plat of Resubdivision, titled Schiro's Resubdivision, benefiting the properties located at 101 1 Cypress Drive, 1013 Cypress Drive, 1010 Lancaster Street, and 1012 Lancaster Street, Case Number PZ-33-06." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers asked the Commission if they had questions for Staff. There were no questions. Chairman Rogers swore in Cathy Schiro of 1 0 13 Cypress Drive. Ms. Schiro stated that the Petitioners are requesting approval of the Vacation and Resubdivision because the land in question has never been developed to its original intent as a walkway, the neighbors currently maintain the parcel, and most importantly, the property owners not owning the land limits improvements the homeowners can make to their property. As an example, Ms. Schiro stated that when she applied for a concrete permit, she could not improve her lot as desired because she didn't own the adjacent land, although she maintained it, and the proposed new concrete would exceed the Village's lot coverage limit. Chairman Rogers asked if the neighbors maintain this parcel; Ms. Schiro confirmed that they do maintain the property. Mr. Rogers asked if one of the adjacent properties had a fence; Ms. Schiro stated that her property does have a fence and they intend to keep the fence in place. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. There were none and the Public Hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. Ronald Roberts made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-33-06, a request for a Vacation and Resubdivision at 10 I 3 Cypress Drive, as presented by Staff. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. Leo Floros asked if this type of Vacation/Resubdivision has been done in this area before. Ms. Connolly confirmed this would be consistent with previous Village Board actions. Mr. Roberts and Ms. Haaland both indicated they live in the area and agree this is an appropriate action. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Roberts, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing nine additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temponuy Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ.33-06 1013 Cyprcsuloc;: MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-15-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 E. Prospect Avenue PETITIONER: Structures Construction LLC / Tim Loucopoulos PUBLICATION DATE: May 9, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-12-428-004-0000 REQUEST: 1) Rezone from 11 Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: George Wiedemann, Rodger Kruse, Steve Hautzinger, Tim Loucopoulos, Mark Hopkins, Tom Manion, Helen Lenz, Myroslava Lenz, Matt Bradley Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing six previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-15-07, a request for Rezoning from II to R4 and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 701 East Prospect Avenue, at 8:32 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located at the intersection of Prospect Avenue and Edward Street, and currently contains a vacant industrial office/warehouse building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned 11 Limited Industrial and is bordered by the R1 Single Family District to the east, R3 Low Density Residential to the south, and R4 Multi-family to the west. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site as a 12-unit rowhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned 11 Limited Industrial, and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R4 Multi-family. The R4 district allows a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. She said the Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 13 units per acre (12 units/0.92 acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R4 District. Ms. Connolly stated that in addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the rowhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 2 same zoning lot only as part of an approved PUD. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Connolly showed a site plan illustrating the proposed layout for the 12-unit rowhome development. The development would consist of three groups of 4-unit buildings: one group would have frontage along Prospect A venue, the second group would have frontage along Edward Street, and the third group would be accessed from the existing alley, but have frontage to an interior courtyard area. Each of the rowhome units would have a separate entrance, a two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. She said the pavement width of the access aisle/driveway throughout the development is 22-feet and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development, although the Village Code requires a 24-foot width for 2-way traffic. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed site plan indicates that the buildings will be located 12-feet from the Prospect Avenue property line, 10-feet from the Edward Street property line, and approximately 9-feet from the alley lot line. She showed a table listing the Bulk Regulations for the R4 District and showed that all of the proposed setbacks require relief from the R4 Bulk Regulations. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.9% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The project is subject to all development requirements as detailed in Sec. 15.402 of the Village Code. Ms. Connolly showed elevations indicating the architectural composition of the rowhomes. The units are 3-story rowhomes, with attached rear loading garages on the first floor, and a deck above it. She said each building will have a flat roof, but the height of the roofline will vary for each individual unit, and the end units include a turret. The overall average height of the buildings is 36-feet, 4-inches and requires relief from the Zoning Ordinance as the height limitation in the R4 District is 34-feet from the mid-point of the roof. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of stone, and two different types of brick as well as decorative trim. Ms. Connolly stated that in response to Staff comments, the Petitioner prepared a turn radius plan showing that vehicles can access all of the garages. The Petitioner took a field measurement and confirmed a 20-foot wide alley width, which meets the Fire Department's requirement for access. Currently, there are utilities that would block access to the rear garages, and plans to relocate the utilities will be reviewed as part of the Building permit process. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal indicates that there will be at least two types of floor plans for the rowhomes. Each unit would include at least 3 bedrooms plus a bonus room, which could be converted to a bedroom or an office. She stated that the Village Code requires 2 Y2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more. The Petitioner's proposal contains a 2-car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per unit. In addition, the Petitioner's plans indicate 15 on-street parking spaces are available along the south side of Prospect Ave. and the west side of Edward Street. However, the on-street spaces are not available for overnight parking. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The plan was revised to reflect a 5-foot fence along the west lot line, which complies with the minimum fence height limitation. Ms. Connolly said the property is located along a collector street and it is adjacent to an apartment complex, townhomes, and single family residences. The recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the subject properties as Multi-family Residential, which allows for the R4 zoning district. She stated, as previously noted, the proposal does not comply with the R4 Bulk Regulations and requires relief from the Code. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 3 Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: . The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; . The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; . The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and . Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property is adjacent to an existing townhome development, a multi-family apartment building, and across the street from single-family residences. It would be consistent with recent developments approved in the Village and it would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property. She said the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area ofthe Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: . The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; . The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan ofthe village for the area containing the subject site; . That the proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. . That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. She said the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the rowhomes are in keeping with previously approved redevelopment projects in the downtown area of the Village. Although the proposal does not comply with the R4 Zoning District regulations, the project location is in close proximity to the B5 District and the proposal has similar setbacks as other recently approved rowhome developments. However, it is unclear how the project creates a public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; she stated that previously approved PUD projects included off-site improvements when it was not possible to provide an on- site amenity. She said there are many options available to the developer. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 4 "To approve: I) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from 11 Limited Industrial to R4 Multi-family Residence; 2) a Conditional Use permit for a 12-unit rowhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall: I. prepare and submit a turning radius plan; [met] 2. update the Site Plan to note the actual alley width; [met] 3. identify the public benefit as noted in Sec. 14.501; B. Variation approval to allow: 1. 12' Front yard 2. 8' Interior side yard 3. 10' Exterior side yard 4. 9' Rear yard 5. 22' Drive aisle width 6. 36'4":!:: Building Height C. Development of the site in general conformance with the site plan and landscape prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8, 2007. D. Development of the units in general conformance with the floor plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8, 2007; E. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the plans prepared by HKM Architects and Planners, revision date June 8,2007; F. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development; G. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval that include text stating on-street over night parking is prohibited; H. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; and I. The alley and rear drive will be a dedicated 20-foot Fire Lane." Ms. Connolly stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 701 E. Prospect Avenue, Case Number PZ-15-07. Chairman Rogers asked why the project is being recommended for approval when none of the setback requirements have been meet. Ms. Connolly stated that this project is very similar to and consistent with other Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 5 rowhome products in the area and due to its proximity to the B5 District, which has no setback requirements, Staff felt this project fit into the area. Mary McCabe asked what the lot coverage requirement is in the II District. Ms. Connolly said the 11 District has a 75% lot coverage requirement. The Subject Property currently is close to 90% lot coverage and the proposed project will take it down to less than 50%. Leo Floros asked if the Fire Department has signed off on this project. Ms. Connolly confirmed the Fire Department approval, subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Chairman Rogers swore Mark Hopkins of HKM Architects at 43 South Vail Street, Arlington Heights, Illinois. Mr. Hopkins thanked Staff for a thorough presentation. He stated he would like to focus his presentation on some of the design concepts of the project. He showed exhibits displaying the traditional style of the brownstone-style rowhomes. He explained that several of the mature trees on the property will be maintained in the proposed project. The open space indicated on the exhibits are added greenspace to decrease lot coverage. He gave a brief overview of the floor plans for the three-story units. He showed elevations and gave a summary of the proposed building materials. Chairman Rogers stated that he likes the project and it is a good mix that will fit into the development of the downtown. He asked for clarification on the materials being used to face the turrets. Mr. Hopkins stated that the material is a cementitious hardy board. Chairman Rogers asked if the roofing over the entry ways are shingle- roofs. Mr. Hopkins confirmed the entrances have shingle-roofs. Chairman Rogers asked for clarification on the existing trees in the landscape plan. Mr. Hopkins stated those trees are currently located in the parking lot in landscape plots. Leo Floros asked who the target market is for these townhomes. Mr. Hopkins said they will be geared at young professionals and empty-nesters that are willing to climb stairs. Mr. Floros asked what the price range is on the units. Mr. Hopkins stated that pricing will start in the mid-$500,000 range. Mr. Floros asked if the new median being placed on Prospect Avenue will affect the parking at the townhomes. Ms. Connolly stated that the Engineering Division indicated there is currently no intention to extend the median plantings that far down Prospect Avenue. Ronald Roberts asked if the current building is vacant and how long it has been vacant. Chairman Rogers swore in Tim Loucopoulos, owner of 701 East Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Loucopoulos stated that the building has been vacant for nearly two years. There was general discussion regarding previous tenants. Mr. Loucopoulos said they have owned the property for six months and could not confirm previous occupants or tenants. Marlys Haaland stated that the project is very appealing and will make a nice addition to the downtown. Mr. Roberts concurred. Mary McCabe said that the existing building has an industrial appearance and does not fit into the character of the neighborhood; the proposed rowhomes will fit into the area. Ms. Connolly asked the Petitioner to clarify where the HVAC units will be located. Mr. Hopkins said the condensers will be located on the roof, behind the parapets. Mr. Roberts asked if any of the condensers would be visible from the street; Mr. Hopkins stated that the condensers would be concealed by the parapets and would not be visible from the street or sidewalk. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-15-07 Page 6 Chairman Rogers called for questions or comments from the audience. Chairman Rogers swore in George Wiedemann of 801 E. Prospect Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Wiedemann said he understands that this corner does need to be redeveloped and agrees that townhomes are most likely the best fit for the property. He does not agree with the proposed 10-foot setback along Edward Street. He stated that this development, with the proposed setbacks, does not fit in with character of the neighborhood. He also said the height of this project is out of character with the neighborhood. He offered suggestions to the Petitioner on ways to address these concerns. Mr. Wiedemann also indicated that he has concerns that the Staff memo was unable to identify the public benefit of this project as sited in Village Code Section 14.501 and would like more information regarding this requirement. He stated that he is also concerned with the parking for the proposed development. He is concerned that the new parking lot entrances and the on-street parking will create a blind spot and that the additional traffic volume will be more than the neighborhood streets and alley's can handle. There was general discussion regarding the parking in the area. Mr. Wiedemann concluded by stating that unless the setbacks is changed to 25-feet along Edward Street and the parking concerns are addressed, he would like to see the Commission vote "no" on this project. Chairman Rogers swore in Thomas Manion of 501 S. Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Manion stated he has similar concerns regarding the parking in the neighborhood. He said he had been on a committee when the neighborhood had issues with the DMS building. He stated that he does not feel the parking issue has been fully addressed; he would like to see "No Parking" signs posted in front of some of the single family homes. Chairman Rogers clarified that the project is providing more parking per unit without including the on-street parking than the Code requires. Mr. Manion said he does not want additional parking conflicts to start in the neighborhood. Chairman Rogers swore in Rodger Kruse of 515 South Louis Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Kruse stated he is not in favor of the proposed setbacks of the project, but parking is a nightmare in the neighborhood and he is most concerned about the parking. He stated in the morning there are 15 cars parked on Sha Bonee Trail, creating a one-lane situation. Chairman Rogers asked who is parking in the street; Mr. Kruse stated that it is the residents of the Sha Bonee condos. Chairman Rogers swore in Matt Bradley of 714 East Sha Bonee Trail, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Bradley said his driveway exits into the alley directly across from the proposed townhome. He said his vehicle requires a wide turning radius and he currently uses the parking lot to assist in turning his vehicle. He stated the proposed driveways will make the turn radius into his garage a tight turn. Chairman Rogers swore in Myroslava Lenz 420 South Edward Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Lenz stated she lives directly behind the entrance of the proposed townhomes. She is concerned that the project will add a lot of traffic. Chairman Rogers asked if they have adequate parking for their tenants. Ms. Lenz confirmed there is enough parking, but she is worried about the traffic increase in the alley and added difficulty to snow removal. She also asked how the refuse collection would be handled for the new development. Chairman Rogers deferred to Mr. Hopkins to address resident concerns. Mr. Hopkins stated the 10-foot setback is required to maintain the aesthetics of the project and keep the relationship with stairs and the sidewalk. He said they had explored the idea of moving the units back, but that would require the garages being moved to face Edward Street. Mr. Hopkins said pushing the units back would increase lot coverage and would not fit on the lot as well. Mr. stated if the units on Edward Street were pushed back, there would not be adequate room to maneuver cars in and out of the garages. There was general discussion regarding setbacks and configuration of the project. Mr. Hopkins said from a planning standpoint, this layout is very similar to other suburban-center developments. He said this is a nice transition from urban center of Mount Prospect to the suburban neighborhood aspect of Mount Prospect. Richard Rogers, Chainnan Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-I5-07 Page 7 Mr. Hopkins stated that garbage cans will be stored inside the garages and the trash collector will pull the truck into the development's driveway to collect the refuse. Chainnan Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:28 p.m. Leo FIoros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-I5-07 granting rezoning and a Conditional Use at 701 East Prospect Avenue. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. Chainnan Rogers stated that he sees the benefit of having this type of transitional space between the downtown area and the single family residence and understands that residents don't necessarily want this in their backyard, but it has to occur somewhere, and this project is attractive and fits into the character of the neighborhood. He said this project will not resolve the existing parking situation, but the Planning and Zoning Commission does not have control over parking regulations. He stated that the parking issue would need to be brought to the Village's attention and handled in the proper manner. Mr. Floros stated that he prefers this design to having the garages in front of the properties. He also said he would like Staff to take note of the residents concerns regarding the parking along Edward Street and pass that along to the Village Board. Ms. Connolly stated that she already directed Mr. Wiedemann to speak to Matt Lawrie, Village Traffic Engineer, regarding his parking concerns. There was general discussion regarding the overnight parking in the neighborhood. Chainnan Rogers stated that the Petitioner understands there are conditions attached to this approval and the Petitioner concurred. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\LocaI Senings\Temponuy Internet F'iles\OLK6B\PZ-l.5-07 70) E Prospect.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF mE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-16-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 401 E. Kensington PETITIONER: Terra Development Services PUBLICATION DATE: May 9, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-201-008-0000 REQUEST: 1) Rezone from RX Single Family to R2 Attached Single Family 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Fred Biermann, Luella Biermann, Viola Ribando, Steve Polit, James Vivirito, Jeff Lee, Pamela Self, Tom Buckley, Dave Block, Bill Schneider, Chris Kim, H. Robert Reszke Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing seven previous Cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-16-07, a request for Rezoning from RX to R2 Attached Single Family and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 401 East Kensington Road, at 9:28 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the south side of Kensington Road, between Rand Road and Wilshire Drive, and currently contains a vacant single family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single Family and is bordered by the B3 Community Shopping District to the west and north, and by the Rl Single Family District to the south and east. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of the existing building and the redevelopment of the site as an II-unit townhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single Family, and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R2 Attached Single Family. The R2 district allows a maximum density of 10 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 5.5 units per acre, which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R2 District. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-I6-07 Page 2 Ms. Connolly stated that in addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for the townhome development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved PUD. She said the PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Ms. Connolly showed a site plan illustrating the proposed layout for the II-unit townhome development. The development would consist of two clusters of townhomes: one cluster would have 6 units and the second cluster would have 5 units. Each of the townhome units would have a separate entrance, a front-loading two-car garage, and a two-car driveway. The units would be setback approximately 77-feet from the Kensington Road lot line. She said a 24-foot wide drive aisle would run parallel to Kensington Road, in front of the units, and there would be two driveways/access points from Kensington Road; a right-in, right-out for the eastern drive and full access for the western drive. Ms. Connolly stated that the lot west of the Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is intended to retain its B3 zoning designation. The Village Board granted a Conditional Use permit to operate a Community Center for the lot west of the Subject Property. However, the facility was not built and the Conditional Use permit has since expired. She said the proposed townhome site plan indicates that the western access point for the townhomes would extend to the adjacent lot of record, and the driveway would be located on the adjacent lot. Therefore, a cross access agreement is required to ensure perpetual access for the proposed townhome development. Also, Staff recommends that the road and driveway on the adjacent lot to the west be configured and installed to accommodate vehicles from the anticipated drive aisle from the south. Ms. Connolly showed a table listing the Bulk Regulations for the R2 District and the table showed that the units comply with the R2 Bulk Regulations, but the guest parking spaces encroach into the required front yard. The Petitioner's site plan indicates that the project would have approximately 49.5% lot coverage, which is below the 50% limitation. The project is subject to all development requirements as detailed in Section 15.402 of the Village Code, which includes, but is not limited to providing storm water detention and street lights, if applicable. She then showed elevations indicating the architectural composition of the townhomes. The units are 2-stories tall, measure approximately 25-feet wide, and have 2-car front loading garages. The building materials for the exterior elevations consist of stone, brick and stucco for the second story. The units include an unfinished basement and a IO-foot x IO-foot deck located along the rear elevation ofthe building. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's proposal indicates that each unit would include 3 bedrooms on the second floor plus a den on the first floor. The Village Code requires 2 ~ parking spaces per dwelling unit. The Petitioner's proposal contains a 2-car garage plus two driveway parking spaces per unit. In addition, the Petitioner's plans indicate 11 guest parking spaces are available on-site. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of shrubs, shade and evergreen trees will be planted along the perimeter of the Subject Property and the foundation of the buildings. The landscape plan indicates that deciduous shrubs and a IO-foot wide band of evergreen shrubs will be planted along the Kensington Road frontage to screen the guest parking. Since the garages also face Kensington Road, efforts must be made to screen the garages and enhance the view from the road; she said Staff recommends the landscape plan be modified accordingly. Also, any shrubs planted along the public sidewalk should be no taller than 36-inches, including berm height, to avoid creating sight obstructions for vehicles exiting onto Kensington Road. She said the plan indicates that a fence would be installed along the south and east lot line, but not along the west lot line. However, the fence material and height are not noted. The maximum fence height allowed between residential properties is 5-feet and the proposed fence would need to comply with the 5-foot height limitation. Staff suggests Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-16-07 Page 3 extending the fence along the west lot line, up to the front setback of the unit to screen the development from the adjacent driveway. Ms. Connolly stated that the Petitioner has submitted preliminary storm water detention plans and is working with the Village Engineer to arrive at a design that will comply with Village Code regulations. A final design is typically submitted as part of the Building Permit process, and this issue shall be addressed prior to permit submittal. It should be stressed that the proposed development will be subject to all development requirements, as detailed in Section 15.402 of the Village Code. Ms. Connolly said the property is located along an arterial street and it is adjacent to single family residences and commercial properties. The recently updated Comprehensive Land Use Map designates the Subject Property as Single Family Residential Development and allows for the R2 Zoning District. Ms. Connolly said, as previously noted, the proposal does not comply with the R2 Bulk Regulations because the guest parking encroaches into the front setback. She showed a table providing zoning district information for the property's proposed zoning classification and summarized the proposed setbacks. Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: . The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; . The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; . The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and . Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives ofthe current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. Ms. Connolly said the Subject Property is adjacent to existing single family residential and commercial properties, and is across the street from the Randhurst Shopping Center. The proposed townhomes would be consistent with recent in-fill developments approved in the Village and it would be an appropriate transitional use for the Subject Property. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly stated that the standards for approving a Planned Unit Development are listed in Section 14.504 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Planned Unit Development. These standards relate to: . The proposed development complies with the regulations of the district or districts in which it is to be located; . The principal use in the proposed planned unit development is consistent with the recommendations of the comprehensive plan ofthe village for the area containing the subject site; . That the proposed planned unit development is in the public interest and is consistent with the purposes of this zoning ordinance. . That the streets have been designed to avoid inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development and for the surrounding neighborhood; and that the development does not create an Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-I6-07 Page 4 excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools, and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. Ms. Connolly said the proposal is consistent with the recently updated Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map. Also, the townhomes are in keeping with other previously approved townhome projects in the Village. Although the proposal does not comply with the R2 Zoning District regulations because the guest parking encroaches into the required front setback, the project location is in close proximity to commercial properties and the parking setback would have minimal impact on the adjacent properties when screened appropriately. However, it is unclear how the project creates a public benefit as noted in Section 14.501 of the Village Code. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposed Map Amendment and Conditional Use requests meet the standards for each request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve: 1) a Map Amendment to rezone the property from RX Single Family to R2 Attached Single Family; 2) a Conditional Use permit for an II-unit townhome Planned Unit Development subject to the following: A. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall identify the public benefit as noted in Section 14.501; B. Prior to Village Board review, the Petitioner shall prepare elevations that specifies the building materials and documents the townhomes comply with the Village's 28-foot height limitation; C. Approving a Variation to permit a 10- foot front setback for the guest parking spaces; D. Development of the site and floor plans in general conformance with the plans prepared by Terra Architects revision date June 1,2007 but revised to include a 20-foot wide fire lane/no parking in the drive aisle requirement; E. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the exhibits prepared by Terra Architects revision date June 1, 2007; F. Development of the site in general conformance with the landscape plan prepared by Pamela Self, revision date May 30, 2007, but revised to include materials that screen the garages and enhance the view from the road; G. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a plat of dedication that dedicates an additionalI7-foot of right of way (ROW) to provide a fulllOO-foot ROW for Kensington Road; H. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a lighting plan that complies with the Village's lighting regulations for the lighting within the development and includes low level lighting and 4' fixtures for the areas adjacent to the guest parking; I. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit homeowner's association documents for Staff review and approval; J. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must submit a cross access agreement and plat of easement to ensure perpetual access to/from the western driveway; K. The Petitioner shall construct all units according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, fire hydrants and roads must be located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards; and L. Prior to Village Board review, the Property Owner shall pay all outstanding property maintenance fines and provide proof that the site will be maintained on a consistent basis." Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-16-07 Page 5 Ms. Connolly said the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 401 E. Kensington Road, Case Number PZ- 16-07. Chairman Rogers stated that the parking is in the front yard and asked if the road is in the front yard as well. Ms. Connolly stated that a drive aisle is a permitted encroachment. Chairman Rogers also stated that if the guest spaces were done with parallel parking, they could be located 20-feet off the front lot line versus 10-feet. There was general discussion regarding the different parking configuration. Chairman Rogers swore in Bill Schneider of Terra Architects at 14044 Petronella Lane, Libertyville, Illinois. Mr. Schneider thanked Staff for their comprehensive report. He summarized the project and stated that this is an 11- unit project, reduced from the original request for a 15-unit project. He stated that the required standards in the Village Code for each request have been met. He stated that he did not interpret the public benefit requirement, as listed in Section 14.501 to be a developer donation. He said he feels Terra Development meets this requirement by providing sidewalks and landscape improvements to a dilapidated property. He also stated they are required to make a Village Donation under Code Section 15.807 of$1350 per unit for a total of $29,700. Chairman Rogers swore in David Block of Terra Architects at 14044 Petronella Lane, Libertyville, Illinois. He stated the project consists of 11 units in two clusters. He said the easement to the west will remain as-is and they will be obtaining perpetual easement to the Subject Property. He stated the project is under the maximum lot coverage requirement. He agreed to extend the fence along west property line, that preliminary engineering has been completed, and they agree to the requirements in the staff report. He said they prepared a landscape plan and that it was developed per the required screening requirements listed in the Village Code. Chairman Rogers swore in Pamela Self, Landscape Architect of 1 Ann Court, Hawthorne Woods, Illinois. Ms. Self gave a brief summary of the proposed landscape plan, stating that it will soften the appearance of the development. Chairman Rogers asked where the planting bed will be located. Ms. Self said the continuous planting bed is 10 to 12-feet wide and contains several large trees within this same planting line. Chairman Rogers stated that it is unfortunate the garages face Kensington Road and he would like to see additional screening to soften the vast elevation. Ms. Self showed elevations with the mature landscaping in place, providing screening from the road. There was general discussion regarding the types of landscaping material that could be used. Ms. Self showed additional elevations of the foundation and perimeter landscaping. She stated that the plan exceeds the Village's requirements for landscaping and believes it has succeeded in softening the architecture of the development. Mr. Block provided an overview of the architecture and building materials for the project. He stated the building height is in compliance with Village Code. He showed exhibits depicting the floor plans of the available units. He stated there are 5 parking spaces per unit: two in the garage, two in the parking pad, and one guest space per unit. Ronald Roberts asked if there were elevation views of what the residential neighbors to the south would see. Mr. Block showed an elevation without the fence in place. He stated he could develop a rendering and get it to the Commissioners. He also stated they are adding more landscaping that what is required by Village Code. Ms. Self stated the proposed trees and shrubbery will provide 100% screening at maturity. Chairman Rogers asked how long the owner has owned the property. Mr. Block stated that it has been less than one year. Chairman Rogers stated that there were several mature trees on this lot that were taken down and he appreciates the fact that they are adding several trees back to the property. He said he would like to see more landscaping added to the Kensington Road frontage to screen the vast expanse of garage doors. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-16-07 Page 6 Chairman Rogers swore in Fred Biermann of 410 Garwood, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Biermann stated that his wife's family had owned the Subject Property since 1866. He gave a brief history ofthe Subject Property and stated that the sale of the Subject Property to Dr. Hsu ended a long family history with this land. Mr. Biermann stated that the application listed Dr. Robert Hsu as the owner of the Subject Property, but wanted to point out that at the closing ofthe property, the owner was listed as the Taiwanese-American Cultural Center. Mr. Biermann stated that he had no concerns with the proposed development until he reviewed the landscaping plans. He said he is not happy with the location ofthe detention area. He would prefer to see that located more to the west closer to the commercial properties, rather than directly behind their house. He asked if the detention area will be an open pond or if it will be underground, and asked if it would drain to Kensington Road. Chairman Rogers swore in Steve Polit of 601 North Wilshire Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. He thanked the Commission for their time and listening to the residents. Mr. Polit stated that this project requires a lot of "Tender Loving Care" because this project has not had much "TLC" when the 80+ mature trees on the property were taken down without regard for the future land use. He stated that he does not believe the traffic study is accurate; it still states there are 15 townhomes, that the residential numbers are artificially low, and the west side access point does not address the future use of that property. He said there is no information regarding the traffic on the eastern side of the property. He stated that he feels the project does not provide for public safety in regard to traffic issues. Mr. Po lit said that over 65 mature trees were taken off the site and the owner needs to take steps to return the site to the previous condition. He said he feels the Petitioner, not the Village, should have to provide the parkway trees, as retribution for the dozens of mature trees he had removed from the property. Mr. Po lit stated that he has concerns with water drainage from the site. He said the residents do not know if the water that currently runs into the 2 acre site will continue to do so. He did commend the architects on the project designs and appreciates that the elevations that face the single family residences are beautiful. Chairman Rogers swore in Paul Stonis of 606 North Windsor Drive, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Stonis asked if the small western portion of the site is rezoned, but not developed at this time, what will be the future of that property. He asked what the possibility of something less desirable than the Cultural Center going in would be. He stated that the Petitioner took down several mature trees on his property at the time he cleared the site, with the promise that landscaping improvements were made when the site was developed. He wants to know what would be allowed on that site in the future. Chairman Rogers said there is nothing currently planned, but the redevelopment would need to come before the Commission for approval if the proposal was not a permitted use. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner to address concerns raised tonight. In regards to water detention, Mr. Block stated that the on-site detention will be more than adequate for the largest rains and they have very capable detention facilities planned for this property. In addressing the traffic concerns, Mr. Block stated that KLOA conducted the traffic study and they are more than capable in providing traffic information. He said the proposed easement will be designed to be extended to the southern properties in the future; however he cannot speak to the future use of this parcel. Chairman Rogers asked if Dr. Hsu is the owner of the property. Mr. Block stated that he cannot speak for Dr. Hsu, but indicated that Dr. Hsu works with many LLCs. Ms. Connolly stated that the Village transfer stamp record does show Dr. Robert Hsu as the owner of 40 I East Kensington. Chairman Rogers asked if there is an Ordinance in place regarding the removal of the trees from the Property. Ms. Connolly replied the Subject Property is zoned as residential and tree removal is allowed without a permit. Chairman Rogers asked if Dr. Hsu, as owner, was responsible for the authorization of the tree removal. Mr. Schneider stated to the best of his knowledge, Dr. Hsu did authorize the tree removal. Chairman Rogers stated he would like to add an additional landscape requirement to this site to account for the mature trees that were removed. He said he would like to require larger trees for replacement; a 4" diameter tree versus the 2.5" diameter requirement. Ms. Self said she would need concession for oak trees as they are not available in sizes Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-16-07 Page 7 over 3". Mr. Rogers said for oak trees, he could accept the 2.5" requirement, but for all other trees would like to require the 4" diameter tree. He would also like to require landscaping 50% over the Code requirement. Mr. Schneider stated that the Petitioner will be paying for the parkway trees, but the Village takes care of the installation of those trees. Mr. Polit stated he understands that the water that generates on the Petitioner's property must be dealt with by the Petitioner; however he is concerned with the water that flows through the project, particularly during construction. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 10:32 p.m. Mary McCabe made a motion to approve a request for Rezoning from RX to R2 Attached Single Family and a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development at 401 East Kensington Road, Case Number PZ-I6-07, with the additional conditions presented this evening. Leo Floros seconded the motion. Mr. Floros stated that he does not support this proposal until Dr. Hsu speaks to the Case. He said there are several unanswered questions that Dr. Hsu needs to address. Mr. Roberts stated that he does not like seeing the zoning changing from single family to a higher density district. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated that there is currently a $1,000 fee levied on the property for grass mowing and the project cannot go before the Village Board until the fees are paid. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers Motion was disapproved 5-0. After hearing two additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at II :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Scttings\Temporary Internet FiJes\OLK6B\PZ-I6-07 401 E Kensington.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-18-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 500 Midway Drive & 2100 S. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER: Society of Critical Care PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2007 PIN NUMBERS: 08-23-402-016-0000 & 08-23-402-015-0000 REQUEST: 1) Special Use: Off Premise Business Identification Sign (Sec. 7.330.E) 2) Variation: proposed sign is within 100 feet of existing sign on benefiting lot (Sec. 7.305.A.4) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Diana Hughes, James Gilman Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-18-07, a request for an off premise sign and a sign Variation at 500 Midway Drive at 7:45 p.m. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the northwest comer of Midway Drive, formerly known as DB Drive, and South Elmhurst Road and contains a three story office building. An existing freestanding sign for First Bank is located 91 feet north of the Midway Drive property line and set back 15 feet from the Elmhurst Road property line. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 district on the west side and B4 District on the north side. There is a sign easement between the Subject Property and the adjacent lot. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner recently purchased the office building located on 500 Midway Drive and was issued a building permit for an interior renovation. Due to the setback from Elmhurst Road, the Petitioner is seeking approval to install an off site freestanding sign on the Subject Property. There is a sign easement agreement between First Bank and the Society of Critical Care, which allows for off site signage. The agreement was recorded last December and is still applicable. The sign is intended to direct traffic traveling on Elmhurst Road (Route 83) to the location for the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-18-07 Page 2 Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed freestanding sign will be located on the north side of Midway Drive, 10- feet from the south lot line and37-feet from the east lot line. The brick sign base will be 3.25-feet from grade and the overall sign height measures 8.16-feet The sign face measures 49.2 square feet. First Bank currently has an existing freestanding sign with frontage on Elmhurst Road. The proposed off site sign for the Society of Critical Care will have frontage on Midway Drive and will be located 81-feet from the First Bank Sign. The Sign Code does allow two freestanding signs, one per street frontage, on the Subject Property. However, the sign code also requires that no freestanding sign shall be within 100-feet to another freestanding sign on a lot. Therefore the Petitioner is requesting relief to allow a freestanding sign that would otherwise not be permitted in the proposed location. The plans submitted do not indicate whether the area around the sign will be landscaped, as required by the Sign Code. Mr. Zawila said in order to approve the Petitioner's request, the Planning & Zoning Commission has to find that the proposed freestanding sign meets the criteria for a Variation because the location of the sign is not permitted within 100-feet to another freestanding sign on a lot. Required findings for sign variations are contained in Section 7.725 of the Village of Mount Prospect Sign Code. The section contains specific findings, that must be made in order to approve a variation. These standards relate to: . The sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; . The hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as a convenience to the petitioner, and is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; . The variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; and . The variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. Mr. Zawila stated that Staff found that the location of office building and signage that is permitted by the Sign Code would make it difficult for the Petitioner to direct the attention of the heavy traffic that travels on Elmhurst Road (Route 83). Therefore, the requested relief is in keeping for the Sign Code's intent. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner's request would not adversely impact the neighborhood or the adjacent properties. The Petitioner's submittal did not include landscaping for the area around the base of the sign. The Sign Code requires the base of freestanding signs to be landscaped. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Petitioner submit a landscape plan, as required by the Sign Code, before a Sign Permit may be issued. Mr. Zawila stated that in order to approve the request for off premise signage, the Planning & Zoning Commission has to find that it meets the standards for a Special Use. Required findings for Special Use requests are contained in Section 7.720 of the Village's Sign Code; these relate to: . The sign must direct attention to a business on a lot adjacent to the lot on which the sign is located; . The sign must be located on a lot which is adjacent to a major arterial street; . The number of freestanding signs permitted by this article shall not be increased by the placement of the off premises sign; . The lot on which the business to be benefited by the off premises sign must not have any frontage on an arterial street; . An easement or license must be granted allowing the placement of the off premises sign; and . The sign may contain changeable copy as provided for in subsection 7325E of this article. Mr. Zawila stated that the Petitioner's request meets the above standards. Once again, Staff found that the location of office building and signage that is permitted by the Sign Code would make it difficult for the Petitioner to Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-18-07 Page 3 direct the attention of the heavy traffic that travels on Elmhurst Road (Route 83). Therefore, the requested relief is in keeping for the Sign Code's intent (Sec. 7.101) primarily because the proposed sign would facilitate "effective communication between the public and the environment through a sign which is appropriate for the type of street on which they are located." Mr. Zawila said based on the above analysis, the proposed sign meets the standards for a Variation and Special Use. Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a freestanding sign to be located within 100 feet of the existing sign on the benefiting lot and to approve a special use permit to allow an off premise signage for the property at 2100 S. Elmhurst benefiting the properties located at 500 Midway Drive subject to the following condition: Prior to obtaining a Sign Permit, the Petitioner shall submit a landscape plan that shows the base of the sign will be landscaped as required by the Sign Code." He said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. The Commission had no questions for Staff. Chairman Rogers swore in Diana Hughes, Director of The Society for Critical Care and James Gilman from Design Group Signs. Mr. Gilman stated they will demolish the existing sign cabinet to construct the proposed brick sign. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner is aware that they will need to landscape the sign area. Mr. Gilman confirmed that they will landscape the signed area. Leo Floros asked if they are currently occupying the building. Ms. Hughes stated that they are in the process of renovating the space and hope to be in by September. Ronald Roberts asked if this location will be used primarily as business offices. Ms. Hughes confirmed that this will be office space. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 7:53 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-18-07 a request for a Special Use and Variation at 500 Midway Drive and 2100 S. Elmhurst Road. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing eight additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnts and Settings\kdewis\LocaJ Settings\Temponuy Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-18...o7 500 Midway Drive.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-19-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 585 Slawin Court PETITIONER: First Industrial Realty Trust, Don Tadish PUBLICATION DATE: June 13, 2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-35-104-052-0000 & 03-35-104-054-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Side Yard Setback (locate parking 3' from lot line) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Don Tadish Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-19-07, a request for a sideyard setback Variation at 585 Slawin Court, at 7:54 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property consists of two lots of record and is located at the southeast edge of the Slawin Court cul-de-sac bulb, in the Kensington Business Center. The Subject Property contains a one-story office/warehouse masonry building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned II Limited Industrial and is bordered on all sides by the II District. Ms. Connolly said the Petitioner is in the process of securing a tenant for the Subject Property. The tenant is currently located at an adjacent property on Slawin Court, and would like to move to the Subject Property to accommodate their expanding business operations. However, for internal business requirements, the tenant requires more parking than is currently provided on-site. She stated that due to physical site constraints, the only viable location for the additional parking is along the west lot line of the Subject Property. The proposed parking stalls would encroach into the required 10-foot landscape setback and have a 3-foot setback. She said the Petitioner owns the abutting property, 580 Slawin Court, and proposes to extensively landscape the 13-feet between the two properties. The request requires Variation approval because the proposed parking will encroach into the required 10-foot landscaping setback. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because it consists of two lots of record, and the existing building crosses the lot line. The lot is not a legal lot of record as defined by the Village Code, and will have to be consolidated to a one-lot subdivision in order to comply with Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-19-07 Page 2 Zoning Code regulations for building on a legal lot of record. The consolidation process would be done administratively and does not require further action by the Planning and Zoning Commission. She showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the II Limited Industrial District's bulk and parking requirements. The table illustrated that the Petitioner's request complies with lot coverage limitations and exceeds the Village's parking requirements. Ms. Connolly said the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. She summarized these findings: . 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 Petitioner researched alternative locations to locate the additional parking, but found that the detention pond, numerous easements, and the adjacent creek limited development options. Therefore, the proposed location was the 'default option' because the other areas ofthe Subject Property are unbuildable. Ms. Connolly said Staff contacted the proposed tenant and learned that they intend to use the building as a sales office and would have a significant number of international clients visit the facility. Consequently, they anticipate needing more parking than the minimum amount required per the Village Code. She stated that adequate parking in general has been an issue for a few other properties in the Kensington Business Center, and has led to limited redevelopment opportunities/prolonged vacancies. She said in this case, the amount of parking is not an issue since the site will be well below the Village's 75% lot coverage limitation. However, locating the parking in a required side yard requires code relief. Ms. Connolly stated that the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10-foot landscape setback along the parking lot perimeter to screen vehicles and to provide a buffer for the adjacent properties. In this case, the Petitioner owns both properties and proposes to add a variety of landscape material on the adjacent lot to screen the vehicles and provide a buffer. Also, the Subject Properties are located at the bulb of a cul-de-sac, which presents limited views for other properties, and the site is located in an industrial business park. Ms. Connolly said the proposed encroachment may not be perceived as meeting the definition of a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance because the request is based on the tenant's internal requirements and could be interpreted as a convenience. However, the Kensington Business Center (KBC) was initially developed as an industrial-office park and the parking was designed for less intensive users. As the character and nature of the KBC changes to more of an office-only park, Staff anticipates future tenants will require additional parking. Ms. Connolly stated that the Engineering Division reviewed the request and found that the scope of improvements would require the Petitioner to improve the site as required by Sec. 15.501 of the Village's Development Code. Among these requirements is the need to provide storm water detention for the new impervious surface created, which is slightly more than 1,500 square feet. She said the Petitioner is aware of and has agreed to make these changes as required by code. Ms. Connolly stated that the proposal to construct parking stalls in a required side yard setback meets the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance because the detention pond, easements, and location of the existing building create physical limitations to expanding the parking lot. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-19-07 Page 3 "To approve a Variation permitting a 3-foot landscape setback along the west lot line as shown in the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by SGM Architects dated April 20, 2006, and landscaped as shown on the Petitioner's landscape plan prepared by Teska Associates date stamped May 21, 2007, for the property located at 585 Slawin Court, Case Number PZ-19-07." Ms. Connolly said the storm water detention and site consolidation will be addressed at time of Building permit. The Village Board's decision is final for this case because the setback is more than 25% of the Village Code requirement. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner is proposing new parking. Ms. Connolly confirmed it would be a new parking area. Chairman Rogers swore in Don Tadish, property manager for 585 and 580 Slawin Court. Mr. Tadish stated they wish to expand the parking to accommodate Siemens Corporation business expansion. He said that there are limitations to the site and the required sideyard is the only buildable space on the lot. Chairman Rogers asked if Siemans will be occupying both spaces. Mr. Tadish said they will be moving into the larger, 585 Slawin Court building. Mr. Floros asked how many parking spaces this project IS creating. Mr. Taddish stated this will create approximately 34 new spaces. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:03 p.m. Mary McCabe made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-19-07 granting a sideyard setback Variation at 585 Slawin Court. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Roberts, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing seven additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnts and Settings\kdewisu..ocal Settings\Temporary Internet Filcs\OLK6B\PZ-19"()7 58S Slawin Cowt.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-20-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 20 N. Wille PETITIONER: Jane M. Richter PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03-34-330-013-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch in front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Jane Richter, MaryAnn Richter Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-20-07, a request for a Conditional Use at 20 N. Wille Street at 8:04 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the east side of Wille Street, between Central Road and Henry Street, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The lot consists of two parcels: a 33-foot vacated street and a 27-foot parcel. 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 to add an unenclosed front porch to the existing home. The porch would be elevated approximately 2.5-feet from grade, and would extend along the front elevation of the house. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate the porch would have a wood base, railings, and pillars. The porch would extend 5-feet into the required front setback, resulting in a 25-foot front yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. Ms. Connolly stated that the Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the concrete block patio encroaches into the 5-foot interior side yard and the lot is not a legal lot of record as defined by the Village Code. The patio is allowed to remain in its current location because it is a legal non-conformity. However, the parcels will have to be consolidated to a one-lot subdivision in order to comply with Zoning Code regulations for building on a legal lot of record. The consolidation process would be done administratively and Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-20-07 Page 2 does not require further action by the P&Z. She showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single-Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Ms. Connolly said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She summarized these findings: . The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; . The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; . There would be adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and . There would be compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff found 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 the proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section l4.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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' setback, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan and elevations prepared by Mark Kozaczka, date stamped May 31, 2007, for the residence at 20 N. Wille Street, Case Number PZ- 20-07, with the condition that the Subject Property is consolidated to a one-lot subdivision." Ms. Connolly stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers asked for clarification that the consolidation to a one-lot subdivision is a condition for approval. Ms. Connolly confirmed that is correct. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner, Jane Richter of 20 N. Wille Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Richter stated she would like to add the front porch to their home to increase the value of their home and their neighborhood and promote interaction with their neighbors. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioner to confirm that she is aware the porch must remain unenclosed. Ms. Richter confirmed. Chairman Rogers also stated that the Petitioner must also consolidate her property into a one- lot subdivision as a condition ofthis approval. Ms. Richter was agreeable to this. Leo Floros asked if other improvements were being done at the same time. Ms. Richter said the front porch is the only planned improvement. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:09 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-20-07, a request for a Conditional Use, as presented by Staff, for 20 N. Wille Street. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-20-07 Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing six additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documenls and Settings\kdewis\LocaJ Settings\Tcmporary Internet FUes\OLK6B\Pz..20-o7 20 N Wille.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-21-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2 N. Elm Street PETITIONER: Dennis & Joyce Wietrecki PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2007 PIN NUMBERS: 03- 34-412-019-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Locate Fence in Front Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Joyce Wietrecki, Dennis Wietrecki Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing four previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-21-07, a request for a Variation at 2 N. Elm Street at 8: 10 p.m. Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the northwest comer of Elm 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 on all sides by single-family residential. The side of the lot facing Central Road is considered the front yard because the Village Code defines the shorter lot line, separating a lot from the street, as the front lot line. The side of the lot facing Elm Street is therefore considered the exterior side yard. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a fence to encroach in the front yard setback of the Subject Property. He showed an exhibit indicating the location of the existing 5 foot fence, which complies with the Village regulations. The Petitioner proposes to remove the portion of the fence that is currently behind the front 30' setback line, parallel to Central Road. The proposed fence will originate from the southeast corner of the principal building and continue south, in the required front setback, to the south property line adjacent to the Central Road right-of-way. He said the Petitioner prepared an exhibit that shows the fence will be setback 19 feet from the public sidewalk located in the right-of-way. The fence would then continue west along the south property line and wrap along a portion of the west lot line for 30 linear feet and connect with the existing wood fence. The proposal also includes landscaping along the outside ofthe fence located on the south lot line. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-21-07 Page 2 Mr. Zawila stated that the standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. He summarized these findings: . 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 ofthe public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Mr. Zawila said the Petitioner notes that the fence is needed for privacy and safety from the heavy traffic of Central Road and provides details in the application. The Village Traffic Engineer reviewed the site plan and determined that the proposed fence would not create a sight obstruction for the driveway serving the single-family residence at 202 E. Central, located immediately west of the subject property. Therefore, the proposed fence would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed fence would also not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, as there are several properties that currently have fences installed along the south property line adjacent to Central Road, with landscaping along the outside of the fence. However, these fences are installed in what is considered the exterior side yard for these properties. Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard, provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal building and set back one foot from the property line along the exterior side yard. The Petitioner's proposes to install the fence, in a similar manner to these properties, along the south property line ofthe subject property. Mr. Zawila said while Staff can appreciate the concern for safety expressed by the Petitioner, the location of the existing fence meets the zoning requirements in Chapter 14.304.0, and the location of the residence on the lot provides a reasonable amount of fenceable area. The residence is situated on the lot with the primary entrance of the house facing Elm Street, the exterior side yard of the property. The Petitioner considers Elm Street as the front yard, an expectation which is not unique to the Subject Property. There are several properties located in the Village on comer lots with similar conditions. The need for privacy is also unique to this Petitioner, and not the Subject Property itself. The Petitioner has the option of installing landscape to provide privacy and a buffer from Central Road. Mr. Zawila stated that although the proposed fence does not adversely affect neighborhood character nor is it detrimental to the public welfare, the location of the primary residence on the lot does not create a hardship necessary to expand the fence into the Code defined front yard. Therefore this proposal does not meet the Variation standards contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation request to allow a fence to encroach in the front yard setback of the Subject Property residence at 2 N. Elm, Case Number PZ-27-07." Mr. Zawila said the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers said as the way he sees it, the proposed fence would extend the existing fence to Central Road. Mr. Zawila stated that the proposed fence would stop 19 feet from the sidewalk on Central Road. Chairman Rogers asked if there are other, similar, fences in the area. Mr. Zawila said there are three other fences on that side of Central Road between Mt. Prospect Road and Elmhurst Avenue. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioners Joyce and Dennis Wietrecki of 2 N. Elm Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Wietrecki stated that they have lived in the home for 17 years, and while they now understand how the front yard is determined, they were not aware of the unusual layout of their lot at the time of purchase. She Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-2l-07 Page 3 gave a brief history of the property and the placement of the house. They would like to add the proposed fence for safety of their grandchildren and pets. Mr. Wietrecki showed several exhibits with the proposed fence virtually- installed on the property. He also showed exhibits comparing the proposed fencing versus using landscaping only. The Wietrecki's stated that they prefer installing the fence with low shrubbery and landscaping; not only because of aesthetics, but because fence with low shrubbery would not block the neighbor's view. Ms. Wietrecki stated that the neighbor at 202 E. Central Road also prefers the fence with low landscaping. Chairman Rogers states that he prefers using the taller landscaping versus the fencing and he is concerned about setting a precedent. Mr. Wietrecki said the landscaping will soften the appearance ofthe fence. Ronald Roberts asked if the 6-foot fence is permitted. Mr. Zawila stated the 6-foot fence is allowed along the Central Road frontage because it is on an arterial street. Leo Floros asked if any of the neighbors were here this evening to object. The Wietrecki' s stated that none of the neighbors are present, but none of them had objection to the fence. Chairman Rogers called for additional comments or questions. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:22 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-2l-07, a request for a Variation, as presented by Staff, for 2 N. Elm Street. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. Mr. Roberts stated he is inclined to approve the request based on the frontage along an arterial street. He said this was a well designed, attractive option. Chairman Rogers stated he would prefer to see just landscaping versus a fence and landscaping. Mr. Roberts said the landscaping alone would not provide adequate fencing for animals or the children. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts NAYS: Rogers Motion was approved 4-1. After hearing five additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\DocumenlS and SettingslJedewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-2 J -07 2 N Elm.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-22-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 114 Bobby Lane PETITIONER: Nicholas M. Scamarcia PUBLICATION DATE: June 13, 2007 PIN NUMBER: 08-11-113-027-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch in front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Joseph Donnelly Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Nick Scamarcia, Tom Buckley Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing five previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-22-07, a request for a Conditional Use at 114 Bobby Lane at 8:23 p.m. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, stated that the Subject Property is located on the east side of Bobby Lane, between Busse and Cleven A venues, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the R1 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 approximately 22-feet of the front elevation of the house, with a concrete base and two columns, one column at each end of the porch. The proposed porch will extend slightly more than 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 Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because a portion of the existing house encroaches slightly into the interior side yard. The house is allowed to remain in its current location because it is a legal non-conformity. Also, Sec. 14.402.B allows the Petitioner to only add a second story addition while maintaining the existing nonconforming setback, as opposed to also adding a first floor addition with the nonconforming setback. She showed a table comparing the Petitioner's proposal to the R1 Single-Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-22-07 Page 2 Ms. Connolly said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section l4.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. She summarized these findings: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development ofthose properties; · There would be adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · There would be compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. Ms. Connolly stated that Staff found 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. 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 Thomas Buckley Architect & Associates, dated February 5, 2007, for the residence at 114 Bobby Lane, Case Number PZ-22-07." Ms. Connolly stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers stated that as he understands it, only the porch is encroaching into the 30-foot set back, not the house. Ms. Connolly confirmed that is correct. Chairman Rogers swore in the Petitioner Nick Scamarcia of 114 Bobby Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Mr. Scamarcia briefly reviewed the project. He stated they would like the unenclosed to not only provide shelter while entering and exiting the house, but to also enjoy the front yard of their home as a family. Chairman Rogers swore in Thomas Buckley of Thomas Buckley Architect & Associates. Mr. Buckley stated that the second floor addition will not encroach into the 30-foot front yard setback. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments. Hearing none, the Public Hearing was closed at 8:29 p.m. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-22-07, a request for a Conditional Use, as presented by Staff, for I 14 Bobby Lane. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. Chairman Rogers stated he wants the Petitioner to understand that the porch must remain unenclosed. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: Motion was approved 5-0 After hearing four additional cases, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documcnts and Scttings\kdewis\LocaI Seltings\Temponuy Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-22-07 114 Bobby Lane.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF mE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-23-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PETITIONER: The Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: June 13,2007 REQUEST: Text Amendment; Outdoor Dining Requirements MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing eight previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-23-07, a request for a Text Amendment at 10:32 p.m. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development stated that the purpose of the text amendment is to change Section 14.311 of the Zoning Code to require permits for Outdoor Dining only on Public Right Of Way and to no longer require them when on private property. The text amendment was properly noticed in the June 13,2007 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. Ms. Divita said the Village of Mount Prospect's regulations permit outdoor dining on both public and private property. This amendment proposes a change to Section 14.311 which would require outdoor dining permits for areas within the public right-of-way only, and not on private property. Despite this proposed amendment, all outdoor dining operations, whether on public or private property will be inspected by the Village Health Division staff on an annual basis to insure they comply with all sections of the Village Code. If a liquor licensee wishes to serve or permit the consumption of liquor in an outdoor dining area, he must first contact the Village Manager's Office to determine whether he needs to obtain a special permit from the Local Liquor Control Commissioner (Section 13.117 requires permission if the outdoor dining area is within 300-feet from any property zoned residential). Ms. Divita said the only text change is outdoor dining on private property no longer requires an annual application. All outdoor dining, whether on public or private property must still comply with these current requirements: · Annual inspections by Village Health Department · Alcoholic beverages subject to all requirements of chapter 13 .Outdoor dining with liquor requires special permit from Liquor Commissioner if within 300' from any property zoned residential (Section 13.117) Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-23-07 Page 2 -Dining will be on the same zoning lot as the restaurant, not encroaching on neighbors -Cannot be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of nearby residents or persons working or shopping in the vicinity -Must meet all applicable village and state health requirements -Barricades, landscaping will be used to define the area and enhance aesthetic appeal -Outdoor Dining will not extend before 6:00 A.M. or later than II :00 P.M. and no music or noise will be audible on adjacent properties -Furniture must be of materials and colors in harmony with the principal and adjacent structures, of sturdy construction designed to withstand a minimum wind pressure of not less than 30 pounds per square inch, and easily removable during winter months and/or if required - Adjacent walkways and sidewalks must be a minimum of 5 feet wide - Adequate refuse disposal must be provided for -May be revoked at any time on 14 days notice for failure to comply -Exempt from applicable parking requirements. If needed, must provide for off-site parking on nearby nonresidential properties. - Advertising or promotional features limited to umbrellas or canopies. Ms. Divita stated that in addition to the above requirements, Outdoor Dining on public property still must submit an annual application, proof of insurance, and accept responsibility for any damage to the public right of way. The application should include a site plan, proposed hours of operation, construction/appearance of all furniture, and provisions for refuse disposal. The insurance certificate must be for $1,000,000 general liability insurance and $30,000 of dramshop insurance. The Village must be named as an additional insured against liability resulting from dining permit. Ms. Divita said the permittee would submit a written statement acknowledging responsibility and agreeing to maintain the sidewalk and keep it free of obstructions, to comply with all Village and State codes, and to restore public sidewalk to original state when operation of dining area ceases. Ms. Divita said Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Village Code lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. These standards relate to: - The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; - Consistency of the amendment with objectives ofthe Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; - The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity; - The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; and - Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. Ms. Divita stated that the proposal to amend the Village's existing outdoor dining regulations would be applicable on a community-wide basis and would be consistent with the Village's previous requirements, maintaining health and safety on the public right of way. Ms. Divita said the proposed text amendment meets the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-23-07 Page 3 "To approve the text amendments as outlined above for case PZ-23-07 which would only require a permit for outdoor dining on the Public Right of Way. Outdoor dining on private property would be allowed ifthe outdoor dining area is in conformance with all sections of the Village Code." She stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Chairman Rogers asked if we are seeing more applications for outdoor dining. Ms. Divita confirmed that the Village continues to receive several applications each year. There was general discussion regarding the establishments in the Village that currently have outdoor dining. Chairman Rogers asked if the purpose of this Text Amendment is to insure safe Outdoor Dining on Public Property. Ms. Divita stated the current ordinance already does this, the purpose of this Text Amendment is to drop the application and insurance requirement for Outdoor Dining on private property. There was general discussion regarding Public Right of Way versus private property. Ms. Divita said the public Right of Way is generally the area between the sidewalk and the street. Downtown zoning has a zero-lot line requirement for the front yard and these buildings are often right up to the sidewalk. Marlys Haaland made a motion to approve the Text Amendment, as presented, for PZ-23-07. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, McCabe, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing one additional case, Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documenls and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-23-07 TeXl Amend Ouldoor Dining.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-24-07 Hearing Date: June 28, 2007 PETITIONER: The Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: June 13, 2007 REQUEST: Text Amendment; Outdoor Dining Requirements MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chairperson Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Mary McCabe Ronald Roberts MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Judith Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development Jason Zawila, Long Range Planner Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Marlys Haaland moved to approve the minutes of the May 24, 2007 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. After hearing nine previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-24-07, a request for a Text Amendment at 10:42p.m. Ellen Divita, Deputy Director of Community Development stated that the Village of Mount Prospect regulations (Section 14.202.B.4) allow for the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve a conditional use permit for unenclosed front porches that encroach up to five (5) feet in the required front yard setback. This amendment proposes a change to allow unenclosed porches in the required front yard with "administrative review and approval" from the Director of Community Development. Neighbors would still receive written notice of the proposal with the date and time of the administrative hearing. Staff would continue the same level of review and base recommendations on materials and design and safety concerns such as potential site obstructions. Administrative review would reduce approval time and costs for our residents, and free up the Planning and Zoning Commission agenda. Ms. Divita said in 2001 the Village Board approved changes to the Village Code creating provisions for an unenclosed porch to be constructed on an existing house in the required front yard. The approval process entailed applying for a Conditional Use permit and limiting the encroachment to 5-feet into the required front yard, with the condition that the porch remains unenclosed. The application was reviewed by Staff, then forwarded to the then Zoning Board of Appeals (the precursor to the Planning & Zoning Commission). A Public Hearing was held and the ZBA made a recommendation to the Village Board; the Village Board's decision was final. The zoning approval process took between 90 to 120 days, depending on meeting dates, and then the applicant would apply for a building permit. In 2004 the Village Board approved a code change that allowed the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to be final for unenclosed porches. This change shortened the approval process for the applicant. It currently takes between 30 to 60 days to get zoning approval for an unenclosed porch. Once the P&Z approves the request, the applicant may apply for a building permit. Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-24-07 Page 2 Ms. Divita said since the Village Code was changed in 2004, the Village has received 20 Conditional Use applications for unenclosed porches and all have been approved. Staff recommendation and the Commission decisions have been based on whether quality materials were being used, confirming the encroachment would not create a sight obstruction, and whether the design blended with the existing house and neighboring houses. Ms. Divita stated that in considering the upcoming revisions for the Village zoning ordinance at their April 10, 2007 Committee of the Whole Meeting, the Village Board agreed that further streamlining this process makes sense. At the April 26, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioners agreed this makes sense. Staff has met with the Village Attorney to identify this proposed process. As presented here, it most resembles the process used for minor variances and includes a public notice and hearing component and due process with appeals to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Currently administrative hearings are used for the Director of Community Development to consider "Minor Variations." She said the review process for a front porch within the required front yard setback cannot however be considered a variation because: 14.203.C.9.b. "The conditions upon which an application for a variation are based are unique to the property for which the variation is sought and are not generally applicable to other property within the same zoning classification." Ms. Divita stated that virtually all homes in the Village are set back thirty feet from the front property line so this is not a unique situation. Rather, unenclosed front porches in the required front yard are one of the two situations which qualify as a "conditional use:" 14.203.F.1.b. "Uses entirely private in character but ofa nature that their operation may present a different impact upon adjoining properties or the neighborhood in general." Ms. Divita said that currently Conditional Use approval may only be granted by the Village Board, and in the case of front porches, conditional uses approval is granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Village Attorney has advised to leave this system in tact and to create 14.316 as a special category to allow administrative review of unenclosed front porches in the required front yard. This new process will be referred to as an "Administrative Conditional Use" and follows: . Requests would be reviewed by Staff for conformance to Standards including lack of site obstruction, materials, design, and aesthetics. · Notices would be mailed to neighbors within 100' of the Subject Property. . A Public Hearing sign would be posted on the Subject Property. . A Staff Report would be prepared and presented at an open hearing. . The approval process would take approximately 3 weeks and the Director of Community Development's decision is final, but may be appealed to the P&Z. Ms. Divita said Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Village Code lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. These standards relate to: · The general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; · Consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; · The degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity; · The degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; and Richard Rogers, Chairman Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 28, 2007 PZ-24-07 Page 3 . Consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. Ms. Divita stated that the proposal to amend the Village's existing process of reviewing of unenclosed front porches would be applicable on a community-wide basis and would be consistent with the Village's previous requirements, maintaining health and safety for the neighbors at large. Ms. Divita said the proposed text amendment meets the standards contained in Section 14.203.D.8.b of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve the text amendments as outlined above for Case Number PZ-24-07 which would allow administrative review of unenclosed porches in the required front yard setback to encroach up to 5-feet. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. She stated that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Mr. Roberts asked if the encroachment was greater than 5-feet, the case would still need to come before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Ms. Divita confirmed and stated in addition, that if the porch was also part of another zoning case, it would come before the Planning and Zoning Commission, rather than sort the porch out from the zoning case. Mary McCabe stated she had a question regarding item HI in the Staff memo. She asked about the verbiage allowing the permit to be revoked without final action from the Village Board. Ms. Divita stated the new process combined the notice component of a variation and the standards and process of a conditional use. Mr. Roberts clarified that the eighteen month standard is existing language and there is no change; he clarified that revocation of the Conditional Use comes from the Village Board ifthe project has not been significantly completed within 18 months or no further action taken to extend the conditional use permit. Ms. Divita stated his interpretation is correct. Chairman Rogers closed the public hearing at 11 :00 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve a Text Amendment, Case Number PZ-24-07. Mary McCabe seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Roberts, McCabe, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Ronald Roberts made a motion to adjourn at 11 :04 p.m., seconded by Mary McCabe. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Stacey Dunn, Community Development Administrative Assistant C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\LocaJ Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\PZ-24-07 Text Amend Front Porch Admin Cond Use.doc MINUTES VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COFFEE WITH COUNCIL SATURDAY, July 17, 2007 9:00 AM Community Room, Village Hall Meeting convened at 9:00 AM. Those present: Mayor Wilks, Trustee Arlene Juracek, Trustee Lohrstorfer, Assistant Village Manager Strahl, and Fire Chief Mike Figolah. Residents in Attendance: Carol Tortorello South Elmhurst Avenue David Schein North Na- Wa-Ta Avenue Don Burger Bob-O-Link Kimberly & Andy Skic North Owen Street John Dunn Jr. North Owen Street Kimberly & Andy Skic, North Owen Street had no specific issues. Don Burger, Bob-O-Link explained that he and his wife have been discussing their complaints about the Auto Barn (333 West Rand Road) with the Village Board since 2001 and problems continue to exist. The outstanding issues include: . New fence not stained . Cars parked in fire lanes . Fan on roof runs late into the evening and is very loud . Garbage trucks in early morning . Pneumatic tool noise . Honking horns constantly Trustee Juracek stated that the staining of the fence is required by Village code since approval was conditional. Staff will follow-up. The fire department will follow up with enforcement of proper signage for fire lanes. Mr. Burger was also told by Auto Barn that a timer was placed on the roof fan so as to eliminate the noise after hours. Staff will follow up with Auto Barn regarding proper timer settings. Carol Tortorello, South Elmhurst Avenue expressed concern regarding property maintenance of a home at the corner of Evergreen & I-Oka. Ms. Tortorello also noted the potential safety hazards created by candy being thrown during the 4th of July parade; children run into the streets to get the candy. Trustee Juracek explained each of the groups participating in the parade are given instructions as how to hand out the candy on the other side of the curb. However, due to the pace of the parade this can be difficult. Ms. Tortorello asked if all Village and park district personnel are required to wear seatbelts. Mr. Strahl explained that in addition to the state law, all Village employees are required to wear seatbelts. Ms. Tortorello stated that she has observed Village employees not wearing the belts. John Dunn, North Owen Street asked when the Village plans on allowing the use of credit cards to pay water bills. Mr. Strahl stated the Village has been accepting credit cards for a while. Mr. Dunn was glad to hear about the enhancement. Mr. Dunn also inquired into paying water bills through automatic checking account withdrawal. Mr. Strahl stated that there is significant costs associated with automatic withdraw payments and it was felt that there weren't too many residents that would take advantage of the program. The Village is working on the ability to pay by credit card via the Village web-site. Mr. Dunn stated that would have tremendous value. Mr. Dunn asked why not all of the handicap signs in the Village conform to the newest state law. It was explained that the Village handicap signs are up to the current law. Some signs on private property may not be up to date and the Village doesn't have jurisdiction on private property. Mr. Dunn asked about the Village policy in regards to maintaining residential sewer lines from the house to the main sewer line. Mr. Strahl explained that the owner is responsible for the line leading from the house. Mr. Schein stated that he just received an estimate to replace his sewer pipe and it was $8,000 to $10,000. Trustee Lohrstorfer explained that the Illinois American Water Company offers annual insurance to the residents to cover the repair/replacement of the sewer line from the home. Trustee Lohrstorfer estimated the insurance at about $140 annually. Mayor Wilks stated that this matter may be appropriate for future Village Board discussion. David Schein, North Na-Wa-Ta expressed his interest in turning Randhurst into a butterfly garden, zoo and water park. A brief discussion took place. Mr. Schein asked about the policy of allowing residents to plant a garden in the Village-owned parkway. He stated he is seeing more and more gardens in the parkways. Mr. Schein asked if there was a local ordinance regarding the use of temporary portable storage units, i.e. PODS. Staff advised that there currently may not be any municipal guidelines regarding their use, but will review. Mr. Schein questioned why the police were checking for vehicle stickers at the golf course recently. Staff advised Mr. Schein that the police department has several methods of vehicle sticker enforcement. A lengthy discussion ensued about the cost effectiveness of having the police perform vehicle sticker enforcement. It was stated that while the vehicle sticker program has been talked about for years, as long as these stickers are required there will be enforcement. Mr. Schein stated he was going to have to personally pay to have a feral cat euthanized because it is once again pregnant and he is very concerned about the feral cat population in his area. He suggested the Village develop a program to reduce the feral cat population through a service fee assessed to all residents. He stated that he would be willing to pay a fee for such a service. Mayor Wilks suggested this matter be an item for Village Board discussion. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 a.m. Respectfully Submitted, Michael J. Figolah Fire Chief TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene A. Juracek A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks Mount Prospect VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 www.mountprospect.org Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 o R D E R OF 8 U SIN E S S SPECIAL MEETING Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday July 24,2007 7:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Mayor Irvana K. Wilks Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee A. John Korn Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Arlene Juracek Trustee Michael Zadel III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. 151 reading of AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF OF PROPERTY THROUGH CONDEMNATION OR OTHERWISE IN THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, 6 -18 West Busse Avenue. This property is located in Sub Area #1. (EXHIBIT A) B. A RESOLUTION WAIVING OBJECTION TO NORTHFIELD WOODS SANITARY (EXHIBIT B) DISTRICT'S SPECIAL USE FOR SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION AND GENERATOR RELOCATION AT WILLOW AND SANDERS ROADS IN GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS This resolution waives the Village's statutory thirty-day time period within which to file comments in regard to the Northfield Woods Sanitary District's Special Use petition. V. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT ***** ANY INDIVIDUAL WITH A DISABILITY WHO WOULD LIKE TO A TTEND THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 50 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, 847/392-6000, TDD 847/392-6064 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY THROUGH CONDEMNATION OR OTHERWISE IN THE TAX INCREMENT REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois has heretofore adopted Ordinance Number 3554 adopting the District No. 1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project, and Ordinance Number 3555 entitled "An Ordinance Designating District No.1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area in the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois", and Ordinance Number 3556 entitled "An Ordinance Adopting Tax Increment Financing for the District No. 1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project in the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois all of which are incorporated herein in their entirety. WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has determined that the above-mentioned Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project which were the subject matter of the public hearings is in the best interests of the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect and is a public purpose; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is empowered, pursuant to the Real Property Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act, PISI 79-1525, appearing as Section 11- 74.4-1 et. seq., of Chapter 65, Illinois Compiled Statutes 2003, (hereinafter the "Act") to acquire by purchase, donation, lease or eminent domain real property within the redevelopment project area; and WHEREAS, the implementation of the aforementioned Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Project would attract to the Village of Mount Prospect additional commercial ventures, increase business for commercial ventures currently established within the Village, strengthen the property and non-property tax and income bases, and would provide jobs for the Village residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COUNTY OF COOK, STATE OF ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS, as follows: SECTION 1: That it is hereby determined that the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project previously adopted be established, maintained, controlled, managed and operated within the corporate limits of the Village of Mount Prospect within the District Number 1 Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area as described in Ordinance Nos. 3554, 3555 and 3556 and that said Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project be occupied, improved, used and developed in a manner necessary and convenient for public use. f\ SECTION 2: That under the authority vested in the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, through the statutes of the State of Illinois and the home rule power and ordinances of the Village, it is hereby determined that pursuant to the Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project it is necessary and desirable that the Village shall acquire title to and possession of certain real property commonly known as 6-18 West Busse Avenue, Mount Prospect, Illinois, Permanent Index 08-12- 102-062-0000, and legally described in the Exhibit which is attached hereto and made a part hereof and hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property", which property is within the foregoing Tax Increment Redevelopment Project Area and is necessary, required and needed to achieve the objectives of the foregoing Tax Increment Redevelopment Plan and Redevelopment Project, and which property lies wholly within the limits of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION 3: That the Village Attorney or such other persons as he may designate are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to negotiate personally or through its representatives for and on behalf of said Village with the owner or owners of the Subject Property for the purchase and acquisition thereofby said Village. SECTION 4: That in the event the said Village Attorney or his designee are unable to agree with the owner or owners of said real property as to the compensation thereof, then title to and possession of the Subject Property shall be acquired by the Village of Mount Prospect through condemnation, and authorization is hereby given to institute proceedings in any court of competent jurisdiction to acquire title to and possession of the Subject Property for the Village in accordance with the Act, the eminent domain laws of the State of Illinois and the ordinances of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION 5: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. Passed by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois and approved by the President thereof this th day of 2007 . Ayes: Nays: Absent: Approved: Richard M. Lohrstorfer Mayor Pro Tem Attest: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk Exhibit" A" Legal Description for parcel 08-12-102-062-0000 That part of Lot 4 in Mount Prospect Central District Subdivision of part of the west half of Section 12, Township 41 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian according to the plat thereof recorded December 23, 1949 as document 1275902, lying southerly of the westerly extension of the southernmost line of Lot 2 in said Mount Prospect Central District Subdivision, all in Cook County Illinois. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION WAIVING OBJECTION TO NORTHFIELD WOODS SANITARY DISTRICT'S SPECIAL USE FOR SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION AND GENERATOR RELOCATION AT WILLOW AND SANDERS ROADS IN GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Northfield Woods Sanitary District (the "District") has applied to the Cook County Building & Zoning Department for a special use (the "Special Use") to relocate its sanitary sewer lift station and generator, which is present located at the northeast corner of Willow and Sanders Road in Glenview, Illinois, slightly to the north and east to accommodate the Illinois Department of Transportations' reconstruction of that intersection; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has a statutory right to object or give comments in regard to that Special Use petition, pursuant to; and WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect believe that this Special Use request will have little, if any, impact on the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Village"), as it located outside the corporate boundaries of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE: That the Village President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby waive the Village of Mount Prospect's statutory right to object or other otherwise make comments to the Special Use. SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Northfield Woods Sanitary District. SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2007. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: illl".:lln~n.Ct.'1Q77nQ 1 B M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION WAIVING OBJECTION TO NORTHFIELD WOODS SANITARY DISTRICT'S SPECIAL USE FOR SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION AND GENERATOR RELOCATION AT WILLOW AND SANDERS ROADS IN GLENVIEW.ILLlNOIS WHEREAS, the Northfield Woods Sanitary District (the "District") has applied to the Cook County Building & Zoning Department for a special use (the "Special Use") to relocate its sanitary sewer lift station and generator, which is present located at the northeast corner of Willow and Sanders Road in Glenview, Illinois, slightly to the north and east to accommodate the Illinois Department of Transportations' reconstruction of that intersection; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect has a statutory right to object or give comments in regard to that Special Use petition, pursuant to the procedures of the Cook County Zoning Board of Appeals; and WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect believe that this Special Use request will have little, if any, impact on the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Village"), as it located outside the corporate boundaries of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE VILLAGE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION ONE: That the Village President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby waive the Village of Mount Prospect's statutory right to object or other otherwise make comments to the Special Use. SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby directed to provide a copy of this Resolution to the Northfield Woods Sanitary District. SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2007. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk iManage:197709_1 DOWNING &. BULMASH P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL D. DOWNING * GENE M. BULMASH .JACKIE LE FEVRE OF COUNSEL: ROBERT .J. DOWNING GUARANTEE TRUST BUILDING 1275 MILWAUKEE AVENUE SU ITE 300 GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS 60025 TELEPHONE: (B47) 803-3320 FAX: (847) 803-6267 PARALEGALS: DIANE M. MEYER MARY ELLEN PROSZEK . AL.SO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN July 17, 2007 Mr. Michael Janonis, Village Manager Village ofMt. Prospect 50 S. Emerson Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Re: Northfield Woods Sanitary District Sanitary Sewer Lift Station and Generator Relocation Northeast Corner of Willow and Sanders Roads Dear Mr. Janonis: As you may have been previously informed, this law firm represents the Northfield Woods Sanitary District (the "District"). The District, at the request of the Illinois Department of Transportation ("IDOT") is in the process of relocating the District's existing sanitary sewer lift station and generator. The current sanitary sewer lift station and generator are located at the northeast corner of Willow and Sanders Road in Glenview and will be moved slightly to the north and east to accommodate IDOT's reconstruction of that intersection. As part Jt the relocation process, the District has filed an application with the Cook County Building & Zoning Department for a Special Use. The public hearing on that application has been scheduled for August 20, 2007 at 3:00 p.m. at the Glenview Village Hall. Copies of the existing site condition and proposed site relocation are enclosed for your review. In order to expedite the hearing process, we are asking that your Village Board or City Council waive your statutory thirty-day time period within which to file comments and provide us with a written statement, by way of resolution, that either you have no objection to the above-stated sanitary sewer lift station relocation and special use or any comments you may have. Please direct correspondence to the undersigned, or my partner, Michael Downing at 1275 Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 300, Glenview, Illinois 60025. DOWNING & BULMASH P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. Michael Janonis July 17,2007 Page 2 Feel free to call me or Mike Downing should you have any questions; my direct extension is 23 and Mr. Downing's extension is 19. Time is of the essence and thank you in advance for your cooperation. Siijerely, t__. lYtUU 11.1>-~1U~,k' GeneM. Bulmash . '-TJ GMB/mep cc: Michael D. Downing Frank Ness, President, Northfield Woods Sanitary District Joseph Fagan, Trustee, Northfield Woods Sanitary District Alan Beutelspacher, Trustee, Northfield Woods Sanitary District DOWNING & BULMASH P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW MICHAEL D. DOWNING * GENE M. eULMASH JACKIE LE FEVRE OF COUNSEL: ROBERT J. DOWNING GUARANTEE TRUST BUILDING 1275 MILWAUKEE AVENUE SUITE 300 GLENVIEW, ILLINOIS 60025 TELEPHONE: (847) 603-3320 FAX: (847) 603-6267 PARALEGALS: DIANE M. MEYER MARY ELLEN PROSZEK . ALSO ADMITTED IN WISCONSIN July 17,2007 Ms. Debra 1. Ford, Village Clerk Village of North brook 1225 Cedar Northbrook, IL 60062 Re: Northfield Woods Sanitary District Sanitary Sewer Lift Station and Generator Relocation Northeast Corner of Willow and Sanders Roads Dear Ms. Ford: As you may have been previously informed, this law firm represents the Northfield Woods Sanitary . District (the "District"). The District, at the request of the Illinois Department of Transportation ("IDOT") is in the process of relocating the District's existing sanitary sewer lift station and generator. The current sanitary sewer lift station and generator are located at the northeast comer of Willow and Sanders Road in Glenview and will be moved slightly to the north and east to accommodate IDOT's reconstruction of that intersection. Notice of this action was mailed to you on April 27, 2007. As part of the relocation process, the District has filed an application with the Cook County Building & Zoning Department for a Special Use. The public hearing on that application has been scheduled for August 20,2007 at 3:00 p.m. at the Glenview Village Hall. Copies of the existing site condition and proposed site relocation are enclosed for your review. In order to expedite the hearing process, we are asking that your Village Board or City Council waive your statutory thirty-day time period within which to file comments and provide us with a written statement, by way of resolution, that either you have no objection to the above-stated sanitary sewer lift station relocation and special use or any comments you may have. Please direct correspondence to the undersigned, or my partner, Michael Downing at 1275 Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 300, Glenview, Illinois 60025. \ <<=- \ ALL ABONDONED SEWERS SHALL BE PLlJGGED\ AT BOTH ENOS. WITH A MIMIMUM OF 2 FEET \ LONG NON SHRINK CONCRETE OR MORTAR PLlJGs. '~ .J ( IN FEET ) I inch = 20ft. '~. \ \ \ .1' \ 1654.52' \ ~639.931 \.__/ \ PROPSED TEMPORARY \ S~N~T ~y SEWER EASEMENT\ I I' '-\ 1658.77' \ ,64~.92, ,64~.52, \.__1 '__I ASPHALT (lft1V[ tNTRANCE t,..,I\."" .'0.,,,,,,,, 0'0"''\.';>' N ~ ~ ..'~ ~ ~ I , \ \ " ~ T8M I , 1654.04 , ,64519, \._5_1 \ \ , \ \ \ , \ \ .,0 -" OpOST Op~1 " ~~ ~:.: ~..~ .............................:.'\. .." ~; ~~ 812.29 /--- -\ ,- ~~p' 1~~.~8' 642.20 \641.83/ \,~!:!// '-_/ ..... --"~.-\ ....... \ ..........\ t...... .;> .\>.0, \ ....\. \ \ \ ,~~"". . ....,. \ - \ - '- -"'''''-NEWly.. CREATED \ '- SANITARY SEWER "- ~.~:SE"E~T~ 8' "- . 3, ~~'\ ." .' .......,t..... I / ~ 4'-5"x5'-0'" ...... 0'\ ....\..~~.p \ '" \~~' \~ COHeRE.,.. OS TO S. REM Iof'D \ ONE Cl NORTHBR( \ \ '" ~. /"- ..... (j) oJ>1' .- " " ,- " ._,"\ 'VU ........ . '", . .' . . t ~t/ ........... ..... .... ............... .......... ,-)~'\... ~~'\~ " ~.l' ." ,-' .> ," ,- .-;" . ," ." \ ""... ........ ~... PRO~SED-i 430+00 ---- EXISTING SITE CONDITION 'x-Jf-ll--lt'-X-lHf-;lf- DEMOLITION LEGEND EXISTING SANITARY SEWER TO BE ABANDONED IN PLACE L -- WILLOW ROAD ~- I . 16 8' ~.).31 CONCRE TE ,MEDIAN EXISTING It REMOVE FRAME AND LID AND SANITARY MANHOLE TO BE PLUGGED AND FILLED WITH TRENCH BACKFILL I , 1646.B9' - ,637.34{ \639.13~{46 ~, \._N_I \_E_J \641.'331 "~- _/ ClC1SllHl;~sroR""5Cw[R . ------< -- / S:;.:~ ,539.34/ , / .8' :JTOR.... SEWER I IN -<~s LF or 6. 5~~1_90X PROPOSED SITE TBM \ \ \ f ' \1 ~1'l i i \ \ (IN FEET) \ ' -. ~ '" \ ---, /~54.52\ ,639.93/ \ \. - _I PORARY \ PRQPSED TEE~tER EASEMENT\ I SANITARY S '-1 ---I 1 877\ \ 165 '92 '644.52/ \64~. / \_~J \ \ \ - ~, DR<'" "Hl"~" _' ASPH ~~ !?,. 1.-,'- .." .' OPOS! " tJ~'\.' ....\ ..J .................. .........~'!-.... .." ~~ ~1 to ~ 1+00 1+20 1+40 1+60 TE:MPORARY ORi:E~ " 81r. SlJRFA ~. 811: 8IMS~E 6" CA-6 ..1o.p~'1 OF 86.24 SAWClJT 25of:" ANO RETAiN ClJRB. RE~4' GU TTE:R. EXISTING ...... 0" .....>:.... IfINOCR cnON 'J" /' ....WgrWAY ~ACroR) iv' C ONE CUll NORTHBROOI ~"'J'I ." PROPOSCo"k'!:1:/r, _ - - - - - ----...; - - ~...~ - ~." ~-- --- ............................ '..''(1 ---.; of ---<---...::; , ". .~. CONs~""Qy ey n:Jt. '. Ii., .>. .....'..,.>,.:..,.:. . ". .....*'11' ~l);>"'Cl'Gll>) '('(BY 7tUWA Y "'. "'. '. CONTRACTOR) '. :..'.il! .., " .'0"'" " .' " \ <. "" \ RELOCATION L ",. .10 -0- t>'t.:~ . ..<!i """[P~ EXISTING R.~;... ..=:::;....~...,_ [XEL!~llfrtE_ _ PROPOSEOJ 430+00 ----- WIllOW ROAD CONCRrTE ,MEDIAN EXISTING ~ 411" Stcmu S[~" / 16 ,6 \ (XIS1lHC ~ STORM SCWER --( TIN R. --< IO~ lP OF" 6" S"'Y"''''r . 1.90: