HomeMy WebLinkAbout0295_001MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
JANUARY 22, 1991
I. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 81.110— p.m: Present at the meeting were:
Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Ralph� 'AThur, "bark Busse, Timothy Corcoran,
Leo Floros, George Van Geem and Don Weibel. Also present at the meeting
were: Village Manager John Fulton Dixon, Assistant Village Manager John Burg,
Public Works Director Herb Weeks, Finance Director Dave Jepson, Planning and
Zoning Director Dave Clements, Inspection Services Director Chuck Bencic,
Economic Development Director Ken Fritz; Andy Mitchell of the Safety
Commission; Janet Hansen, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce;
four members of the press and 28 persons in the audience.
H. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of January 8, 1991 were
accepted and filed. Trustee Corcoran abstained from the voting.
III. CITIZMS TD BE HEARD
Paul Hoefert urged the Mayor and the Village Board to strongly campaign for the
passage of the Referendum on the new Fire and Police Station.
MIKWOTJ*A�AA
Trustee Corcoran moved, seconded by Trustee Van Geem to appoint a Flood
Control Investigative Committee to review the various projects recommended by
RJN Associates to determine whether the Projects should be undertaken. There
was a careful debate on the need for such a Committee. Members of the
audience were allowed to comment on this proposal. The motion was brought to
a vote: Ayes - Trustees Corcoran and Van Geem. Nays - Trustees Arthur,
Busse, Floros, Weibel and Mayor Farley. Motion failed.
Trustee Van Geem said that he would take it upon himself to form a Citizens'
Committee to review the Projects.
Trustee Corcoran suggested that the Village should ask for a second opinion by
an engineer to review the RJN Study. Trustee Corcoran moved, seconded by
Trustee Van Geem to authorize the staff to make inquiry into the cost for an
audit of the methodology and calculations performed by RJN Associates for
consideration by the Village Board. Trustee Floros indicated that he would only
support this recommendation if it would be at a low cost and all the Projects
would be reviewed including Central and Wa-Pella. Trustee Weibel agreed with
this assessment. Trustee Arthur was opposed to this audit. Trustee Busse agreed
with Trustee Floros but only if there is no delay in the proposed Projects.
Trustee Van Geem noted that he would not push for a Citizens' Committee if the
Board would approve a second opinion by another engineer. The original motion
by Trustee Corcoran regarding the seeking of a second opinion was brought to a
vote. Ayes - Trustees Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem and Weibel. Nays -
Trustee Arthur. Motion carried.
Village Manager Dixon then introduced the topic of Stormwater Management
Financing. He said it is very important for the Village to use the IEPA Loan
Program because this could reduce the cost by 25%. He said the Village could
not obtain loans under this program until October 1, 1991 and he recommended
beginning projects in the spring of 1992.
Finance Director Dave Jepson then explained the alternate financing plans.
The Committee then carefully discussed the various funding mechanisms. The
discussion was also opened up to comments by the public. The Committee began
,to focus on the use of a one-quarter percent Sales Tax to fund the Stormwater
Management Projects. Janet Hansen noted a concern on the part of the business
people in the community that a Sales Tax could hurt the various retail stores in
town. However, she felt a Sales Tax would be preferable to a Property Tax which
would be much more burdensome to businesses. She said she would like to
discuss the Tax with her Board and then comment at a future meeting.
During the discussion about the Sales Tax, Trustee Floros and Trustee Busse
indicated they would support a Sales Tax but they would like to see the
Restaurant Tax reduced by the equivalent one-quarter percent.
There was a discussion about funding the projects 100% through a Sales Tax and
no User Fee. The consensus of the Committee was to use this approach with the
exception of Trustee Van Geem.
Trustee Corcoran moved, seconded by Trustee Arthur, to recommend increasing
the Sales Tax by one-quarter percent across the board with a portion of the
money to be set aside for incentives for residential flood -proofing projects. It was
noted this motion would require that the additional one-quarter percent Sales Tax
would apply to the Restaurant Tax. The motion was brought to a vote: Ayes
Trustees Arthur, Corcoran, Van Geem, Weibel and Mayor Farley. Nays
Trustees Busse and Floros. Motion carried.
There was then a discussion about an incentive program such as the Rebate
Program used in Des Plaines to provide for Flood Control Projects by residents.
It was the consensus of the Committee to go along with this type of incentive
program and also to explore such a program for non-residential properties.
Finance Director Jepson indicated, that a certain amount of money could be
placed into the budget for people to sign up for the incentive program next year
on a first-come, first -serve basis. Mr. Jepson indicated that any Sales Tax would
become effective on September 1.
mffinff�_ - �__ �
Due to the late hour, Mayor Farley requested that the Street Lighting and the
Home Occupation Items be deferred to the next Committee of the Whole
meeting. He suggested these items be placed first on the Agenda and apologized
to those who were in attendance to discuss these issues.
Manager Dixon reported on the following:
1. There has been one meeting with the Fire Wage Committee, and we are
working toward an agreement.
2. Manager Dixon reported that former Village Manager Bob Eppley has been
hospitalized with a serious illness and advised where MT. Eppley can be reached.
Mlulyllt
There was no further discussion to come before the Committee of the Whole.
The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN P. BURG
Assistant Village Manager
JPB/rcw
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 18, 1991
SUBJECT: STREET LIGHTING
The Village specifies mercury vapor street lights for residential and high-pressure sodium
lights for commercial and industrial. Mercury vapor provides a white light and high-
pressure sodium provides a yellow/orange light.
Throughout the community, there are 897 lights on wooden poles owned by
Commonwealth Edison for which the Village pays a monthly charge. Ninety-nine percent
of these are mercury vapor lights. Most of the Edison lights are residential and must
be mercury vapor by Village specifications. The annual cost for these lights is $87,600
which translates to $97.66 each per year or $8.14 per month.
The Village owns 414 street lights (including poles) plus an additional 23 street light
fixtures. Of these 437 lights, 123 are mercury vapor and 314 are high-pressure sodium.
Most of the Village -owned lights are on a flat rate based on the wattage and average
monthly hours of operation. Even if all the Village -owned mercury vapor lights were
converted to high-pressure sodium, the Village would save less than $1,000 per year.
However, the mercury vapor lights are mostly in residential areas per Village
specifications. High-pressure sodium lights are slightly more cost-effective when originally
installed or retrofitted and it would make sense to install high-pressure sodium lights
where appropriate and when the need arises.
As the attached Street Light List from Public Works indicates, the typical pole and light
assemblies including cobra and box lights range from $1,100 to $1,480. Another $12
would be added for the electric eye and anywhere from $5.38 to $43.41 would be added
for light bulbs. A typical new installation by a contractor including the concrete base,
electrical and labor would be about $3,500 or more. This original cost, of course, would
be carried by the developer if appropriate. A typical knockdown requiring total
replacement of the pole and light by the village would cost about $3,000.
Incidentally, the cobra lights can be aimed to restrict the light to any given area including
only the street from curb to curb. The box lights have the same versatility. The cobra
head and box lights are comparably priced.
JOHN P. BURG
JPB/rcw
attachment
Location
Height
Arm
Type of
Light
Cost of
Pole
Cost of
Head
Amount
On
Hand
N.W. Highway
40'
8'x10'
400 HPS
$1200
$280
20
2
N.W. Highway
40'
10,X10,
400 HPS
$1200
$280
50
2
Rts. 12 & 83
40'
15,
400 HPS
$1200
$280
5
Dempster/Algonquin 40'
15,
400 HPS
$1200
$280
6
S -Curve
27'
10,
400 Merc
$980
$300
27
2
Alter Prop.
W,
15'
400 HPS
$1100
$280
19
-
imperial Ct.
30'
15'
400 HPS
$1100
$280
1
Carboy
W,
15,
400 HPS
$1100
$280
1
Maple St. Lot
33'
Top of Pole Ht.
1000 HPS
$1600
$496
6
Maple St. Lot
33'
Top of Pole Ht.
2-400 HPS
$1600
$285
1
Midway Dr.
30'
15,
400 Merc
$1000
$280
2
Lonnquist/83
30'
15'
250 Merc
$1000
$250
1
Rand/Central
35'
15'
400 HPS
$1100
$280
33
2
Rand/Central
35'
is,
250 HPS
$1100
$280
6
-
Rand/Central
35'
15,
400 HPS
$1200
$280
9
Central (Rand to Wolf) 35,
15'
400 HPS
$1200
$280
9
(Not yet installed - under construction)
Brentwood
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
$260
16
1
Harvest Homes
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
14
Ct. Kennicott
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
4
Bonita Ct.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Frediani
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Linneman Rd.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
4
17 N. Elmhurst
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
1
Elm/Evergreen/
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
4
School
Craig Ct.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Bobby Ln.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
3
Weller Ln.
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
1
Crist Ct.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
St. Cecilia
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
3
Noah Tr.
25'
15,
250 Merc
$1100
260
5
Pendergast
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
1
Eastman Ct.
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
2
Tree Farm
25'
15'
250 Merc
$1100
260
11
Prospect Ave.
is,
Lantern
50 HPS
$850 (Complete)
15
Prospect Ave.
30'
Top of Pole 150/250 HPS
$1100
$280
14
Emerson
25'
6'
250 HPS
$1100
$280
4
Busse
25'
6'
250 HPS
$1100
$280
7
Wille
25'
6'
250 HPS
$1100
$280
5
Busse
is,
Top of pole
250 Mer
$1100
$280
1
Busse
12'
Top of pole
175 Mer
$1100
$280
1
Centennial Dr.
15,
Top of pole
70 HPS
$900
$200
3
Centennial Dr.
15,
Top of pole
70 HPS
$900
$200
2
OPUS
30'
10"
250 HPS
$1000
$280
16
1
OPUS
30'
10"
400 HPS
$1000
$280
38
Jogging Path
15,
6"
150 HPS
$900
$250
19
Wolf Rd. (Central toEuclid) - 9 light poles not yet
installed (under construction).
407 light poles (includes 18 under construction)
all village owned/maintained.
10 light poles in stock.
$11,050 original purchase Cost of poles in stock inventory.
8 different heights of poles; some
can be substituted if base template is identical
or a adapter plate is available.
Several different manufacturers models, and composition.
10/8/90
SERIES 30 POLES
IhancoTRUSS-STYLE ARMS
All brackets have 2" N.P.S.
Slipfitters unless otherwise
specified.
Wo11 Thickness: .188 inch in every
shoft except where otherwise
stated.
*Wall Thickness:.219 inch.
**Wall Thickness:.250 inch.
Nand hole included in chore
cot
olog numbers. Center of hand
hole 18" from ground.
tLuminaire Effective Projected Area
based on 80 mph wind velocity.
For 90 and 100 mph wind velocity,
'., see Application Recommendations.
SERIES 31 PLAIN BASE (Single Arm)
31.181
25
7 fo 4 Y
_..__...._
2Z
22
2
8
10 fo i t
�....
.._1.6_-..-
130
31-184
29
7104/a
22
2
10
10to 11 �
l,b
135
.,.,._.,. __....,,.....
31.187 25
._,.,,...._.,..
7 to 4 A
_.,._._.._.
0000..
22
. _..
Z
-1
..,
12
-Ti
._. _. _
l O to
3333_ ._ ,_....._
...__..';b.
140
31=199
25
25
8 to 4'/a
22
i
11 to 72 � '..
1.b
150
31.194
25 1
7to4%
22
2
15
101011
BTIo a'!3 27
2 12
31-202
_...__.__
25
_.._.5._...:
8 fro 41/a
_--15—.._e
22
2
2 .
11 i6 12...-
ls.
160
...
31-239
it
25
8 to 6
22
2
IS
11 to 127.
170
31-529
' 30
8 fo4'h
27
2
8
11 to 12 5
8 to 4x/x Z9
_ . _
160
31-565
30
8 to 6
27
2
8
11 to 12
75
170
31-532
30
8 to 4'/a
27
2
10
11 to 12
10 to 6 32
165
..._M......,......M.,..._...._,_m..._._,
31-568 30
8to6
__.
27'
2
3300...
10
_.......,...._._._..li
_11 to 12 73
....M..��
1
175
31-535
30 !
8 to 4'h
27
2
12
11 to 12170
9._.
1
2 12
37 571
30
B to 6 �
z]
- 2
12
11 to 12—
...
180
31 538 30
�1 Si5 j30
8 to 4 /a 27
8 fo 6 "'�' 17
trr2
'2
15w
15
_,....75
11 to 12
I7 to 12�'
a,8
180
90
31 697
31:697
321/x
8 to ela/
29
8
8 11 to 11 3
.1.>4
—20-
170
3/ 733
32'h
8 to 6
29
8
8
11 to 12
1...b
190
31-70032'l
'.'µ8
to 4'h
29
8
10
"
11 to 12
175
31 734
32'h
8 to 6
29
8
10
11 to 12�JY�7
1.
195
31 703'
32'Ja
8 to 4 /x
29�
8....
12�
11 la 12 1
180
.. .__....„.__._,,....�.....
Sr -739'.
32 %a
__�
8 to 6
.._,
29
03_30.
8
12
......_._. .3
11 fo 12 25.._
200
31-743
32%
8 to 6
29
8
-'8
19
11 l0 12
A
210
91-718"
32'/a
8 to 4'!3
29
15
11 to 12
215
31-853
35
8 to 41/2
32
2
8
11 to 12
185
31-889
35
8 to 6
32
2
8
11 to 12 7
146
31-868*
35
8 to 41/1
32
2
10
11 to 12 73
1.6
31-871
35
8 to 41/2
32
2
12
11 to 12 39
1.6
31-907*
35
8 to 6
32
2
12
11 to 12 73
1.6
A240
31-911*
35
8 to 6
32
2
15
i l fo 12 75
1.6
31-923** 35
8 fo 6
32
2
15
11 to 12 73
1.6
SERIES 32 PLAIN BASE (Twin Arm)
2S
7�3
7 l0 4 °/3 22
7 "!a
2 ? 8
.„
10 to 11
75 1.6
.,.
150
3300
25
_.
5
to 4 22
8 to 4'!x222
2 10
.�.,_........___.
10
101011
11 to 12
75 1.1
0003._ _._._..._
75 1.6
160
165
25
25
8 10,+1 "/a 222 Ii
8 fo 4'h 222 i 5
I t to 12
i l to 1
75 1 6
75 p 8
190
200
2S
8 to 41A 22
15
11 to r2
75 i
210
32-5_2_9 1 30
9 to 41/2 27
42T
2 8
11 io 12
7�5""�7,b
180
32.5321 30
8 to 41/3 27
1 rv2 10
11 to 12 1
75 1,485
0030
32 535 30
8 to 4' 27
J3
! 2 12
_
.. 11 l0 12 �'
75 0.6
_._ .. ...
�� 200
32 547'��30
BTIo a'!3 27
2 12
I1 l0 12
�
75 1
�- 220
32-562-- 3_w..W'�
** 0
_
8104/ 272
15
111012
75
32 697 321Jx
8 to 4'h 29
8 8
11 l0 12
75 9.4
190
..............,
32-709 321A
7,
32-7001 32'/x
.M_.
8 to 4% 29
8 to 4'/ 29
._. _
, 8 B 11 to 12
_
8 10 11 l0 12
._
75
7'
____
215
....w.._ _
200
._
32 7122'h 8 Ip 4 x/x 29 ' 8 1 10
.. .
32 71St' 32'la 8 fa 4x/x I 298 12
71 l0 12
11 to 12
_5_...__._..51.x.
75 �
7S 9
'="225
235
32-727-- 32'/3
8 to 4x/x Z9
_ . _
8 1Z
...
11 Io 12
75„ 1.
260
32 802 32'/x
101_0 6 29
8 15
14 to 15
75
300
32-8774- 35
8 to 4'/a 32
2 8
11 to 12
75
255
35
10 to 6 32
2 8
14 to 15
75 1,
250
_32-949
32-880 * 35 8 to 41/a 32
'.. 2 10
11 to 12
75 1,1
2b5
32-955 35
10 to 6 32
2 12
14 to 15
75 1.6
270
32-967* -35
10 to 32
2 12
14 to 15
75 1.6
305
32-956 35
10 fob 32
2 1 S
14 to 15
75 0.3
290
32-983** 35
10 to 6 32 1 2 15
14 fo 15
75 1.6
355
CALL OR WRITE FOR DETAILS ON 45' AND 50' MOUNTING HEIGHTS 3;80
30-1
MATERIAL
1. Shafts are one section design fabricated from a
weldable grade carbon steel structural tubing with a
uniform wall thickness. Material shall conform to
ASTM A•500 grade B with a minimum yield strength
of 46,000 P.S.I.
2. Base Plates are constructed of a structural quality
hot rolled carbon steel plate with a guaranteed mini-
mum yield strength of 36,000 P.S.I.
3. Anchor bolts are "L" bent bars having a minimum
yield strength of 50,000 P.S.I. furnished complete
with nuts and washers. Anchor bolt are galvanized
on threaded end.
FINISH
Poles are finished with a red oxide primer paint.
GENERAL
All poles have a reinforced handhole opening complete
with cover and grounding nut located 14" above the
base plate.
Consult factory regarding your product modifications
and any other requirements.
2" 12318•' 0.0.1
BC
f`
D s
A
A
P TTr
ANCHOR BOLT
w
1a•'
n
Mtg. HL
(FL}A
Catalog
No. 1
Shaft
sin
Be"
sin
(ln.}S
Bolt
Circle
(In.) BC
Anchor
Bolt Size
(in.) Dia. x Lgth.
EPA
Shipping
WL (Lbs.)
10
RPSO.10.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.0-10.0
.75 x 28
22.5
96
12
RPSO-12-4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
18.6
108
14
RPSO.14.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
14.5
120
16
RPSO.16.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
13.0
132
18
RPSO.18.4
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.0.10.0
.75 x 28
9.8
144
20
RPSO.204.11
4' x 4' x 11ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
7.0
156
20
RPSO.20-4
4' x 4' x 7ga
10.0
9.010.0
.75 x 28
12.0
222
20
RPSO-20-5
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.5.11.5
1 x 40
22.6
304
24
RPSO-24-4
4' x 4' x 7ga
10.0
9.010.0
„75 x 28
7.2
259
24
RPSO-24-5
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.5.11.5
1 x 40
14.9
351
24
RPSO.24.6
6' x 8' x 7ga
.2.0
11.012.0
1 x 40
24.5
418
30
RPS0305
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.5.11.5
1 x 40
10.6
422
30
RPSC 3"
6' x 6' x 7ga
12.0
11.012.0
1 x 40
17.8
503
35
RPS035S
5' x 5' x 7ga
11.5
10.511.5
1 x 40
4.9
490
35
RPS03"
8' x 6' x 7ga
120
11.012.0
1 x 40
9.5
575
39
RPS0396
6' x 6' x 7ga
12.0 1
11.012.0
1x40
8.4
633
C 0 t3lZ P
OOVM200-400 WATT
SWING -DOWN ROADWAY LIGHTING
46,
0 r 5 9,0/1"aCur2N
OVM Roadway fixtures with removable "Swing -
Down Power Bridge" assembly provide the most
desired features of a two -door fixture, neatly
packaged in a single -door unit. It permits removal
of the ballast power package, reducing fixture weight
at installation time, and presenting a "wide open"
housing for ease of installation and wiring. Its ease
of removal means reduced maintenance time in the
event replacement is necessary and it offers a simple
way to upgrade from one wattage to another as traffic
or application needs change.
Design Features
• Swing -Down Ballast Assembly—Ballast, capacitor
and starter are mounted on a hinged bridge
assembly held in place with an easily -removed
wingnut. Unit features a removable power pack
with power disconnect, and no tools are required
for removal or replacement.
• Die -Cast Aluminum Housing—Consists of a top
housing and a hinged, one-piece globe ring/access
door.
• Die -Cast Two -Position hatch -2 -position safety
latch is specially designed to be opened with the
gloved hand.
• Filtered Optical System—A dacron-polyester,
non -wicking, filtering gasket is positively held in
place on the reflector.
How to Specify: Roadway fixture is to be constructed of a die-cast
aluminum upper housing and a one-piece bottom door/globe ring,
hinged at the back and latched on the street side with a die-cast
aluminum 2 -position latch.
The fixture shall attach to either a 1 %" or 2" mast arm with a 4 -bolt.
2 -bracket mounting arrangement that will provide ease in leveling
with positive holding against severe impact or vibration.
A factory -installed birdguard shall fit snugly around either a 1'/,"
or 2" mounting tenon.
The optical system shall be sealed with a non -wicking, breathing
and filtering gasket of dacron-polyester, die -cut and overlaid
to eliminate voids that occur with butt -joining. Gaskets to be
L, 6H -r
• Removable Refractor—The OVM refractor is
prismed borosilicate glass and can be easily
removed for cleaning without tools. Polycarbonate
refractors are available as an option.
• Four-bolt/Two-bracket Slipfitter—An enclosed
slipfitter with 2 non -corrosive brackets and a4 -bolt
mounting assembly provides positive attachment
and easy leveling on 1'/," or 2" mounting arms.
• Fixed -in-place Birdguard—A factory -installed
plastic birdguard fits tightly around the 1 t/," or 2"
mounting arm. It is designed to keep out wasps as
well as birds.
• Floating Anodized Aluminum Reflector—The
reflector is hydroformed of high quality reflector
aluminum and anodized to provide ease of cleaning
and continued performance. The reflector is spring -
mounted and "floats" into a sealed position as the
door is closed.
• Encapsulated Starters—The critical components
of the High Pressure Sodium starter are safely
encapsulated in an epoxy compound protecting
them from mechanical and environmental abuse.
• Porcelain Terminal Block—The low resistance
"tunnel -type" compression terminals are electro-
plated for use with either copper or aluminum
supply leads. These "tunnel -type" terminals are
mounted on a solid, glazed porcelain terminal
block which resists dirt accumulation and "voltage
tracking."
cemented full perimeter to the reflector seat with no metallic
clips or fasteners.
The unit shall be prewired to a porcelain terminal block with
"tunnel -type" compression terminals to accept incoming
supply lines.
The design shall provide an easily -removed ballast bridge
assembly, hinged for safety and held in place with hardware
requiring no tools for removal.
Photocontrol receptacles where required shall be provided with
a stop to prevent rotation beyond 3500 and shall be UL approved.
Starting aids where required shall be fully encapsulated to protect
the components against physical damage and attack by adverse
atmospheric conditions.
RCLSUCCESSOR
The RCL Series cutoff luminaire has been designed t0 meet new
or retrofit roadway and general off-street area lighting applications.
Combining aesthetics with durability and energy efficiency, the RCL
has a one-piece die-cast aluminum housing which ensures watertight
protection for the electrical components.
• Roadway distributions Type I, II & III medium cutoff available.
• True cutoff area lighting photometrics available -Suffix AC.
• Hinged, die-cast door encloses the gasketed reflector for a tight
fit and clean appearance.
• Utilizes a wide variety of HID lamp type and wattage combinations.
• Die-cast spring latches allow opening of the door without tools.
• Removable swing -down ballast assembly simplifies maintenance.
• Dark bronze enamel finish is standard.
ORDERING INFORMATION:
Jl
The following example illustrates the correct way to enter an order for an RCL fixture: RCL25SC73D.
1 ST, 2ND & 3RD
4TH 8 5TH DIGITS 5TH DIGIT=
7TH DIGIT=
BTH DIGIT=
9TH DIGIT=
10TH DIGIT=
DIGITS=
LAMP LAMP
BALLAST
VOLTAGE
PHOTOMETRIC
CUTOFF
PRODUCT FAMILY
WATTAGE TYPE
TYPE
DISTRIBUTION
CLASSIFICATION
RCL
25=250 Watts S=HPS
C=CW
7=277 Volts
3=Type III
D=Medium Cutoff
CATALOG
LAMP LAMP
BALLAST
VOLTAGE' PHOTOMETRIC' INPUT
POWER
NETWT. SHIPPING
NUMBER WATTAGE TYPE
TYPE
DISTRIBUTION
WATTS
FACTOR
(LBS.) VOLUME
RCL70SP23D3
70 HPS
HI REACTHPF
120
III MCO
97
H
31
RCL10SP23D3
100 HPS
HI REACTHPF
120
III MCO
130
H
31
RCL15SP23D3
150 HPS
HI REACT HPF
120
III MCO
194
H
33
RCL20SC23D
200 HPS
CW
120
III MCO
250
H
38 Packed
RCL25SC23D
250 HPS
CW
120
III MCO
300
H
38 1/ctn.
RCL31 SC23D
310 HPS
CW
120
III MCO
370
H
44 1.65 cu. ft.
RCL40SC230
400 HPS
CW
120
111 MCO
465
H
46
RCL17MW23D
175 MET, HAL./MERC.
CWA
120
III MCO
215
H
32
RCL17RW23D
175 SUPER MET. HAL.
CWA
120
111 MCO
215
H
32
RCL25MW23D
250 MET, HAL./MERC.
CWA
120
III MCO
295
H
34
RCL25RW230
250 SUPER MET. HAL.
CWA
120
III MCO
295
H
34
RCL40MW23D
400 MET. HAL./MERC,
CWA
120
III MCO
460
H
38
RCL40RW23D
400 SUPER MET. HAL.
CWA
120
III MCO
460
H
38
1 -Other voltages available—Change 8TH DIGIT in catalog number to: 0=208, 4=240, 7=277, 8=480 volts.
N=Multi-tapped (wired at 277 volts).
2 -For Type 18 11 MCO distributions, change 9TH DIGIT to: 1=Type I, 2=Type II.
For area light cutoff distribution, change 9TH & 10TH DIGITS to AC (metal halide limited to tubular lamp only).
3 -Available in 120 -volt normal power factor reactor design—consult factory.
A 1
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
K
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN FULTON DIXON
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: JANUARY 16, 1991
SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATIONS
In a survey of Home Occupation Regulations conducted by the Northwest Municipal
Conference in October, it was discovered that 19 of 23 communities responding allow
home occupations based upon performance standards in many cases similar to what has
been recommended by the Zoning Board of Appeals and staff. Six of the nineteen
communities charge a License Fee ranging from $25 to $50 annually. I discussed the fee
with Dave Jepson who felt that $25 would adequately cover our expenses.
If the Board approves a fee, I would recommend performing inspections only on an as -
needed or complaint basis.
JOHN P. BURG
JPB/rcw
Village of Mount Prospect
m
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER JOHN P. BURG
FROM: EVERETTE M. HILI, JR., ESQ.
DATE: JANUARY 10, 1991
SUBJECT: HOME OCCUPATIONS
Dave Clements and I have discussed on numerous occasions a "standards" approach
rather than an exclusionary approach to home occupations. I have also reviewed Dave's
memo to the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Zoning Board of Appeals' Minutes with
respect to that issue.
From a legal standpoint, I concur wholeheartedly with Dave's approach.
An additional question has arisen as to whether or not the Village may license home
occupations, even if we do not provide formal mandatory periodic inspections of the
premises. Typically licensing fees must be related to some required performance on the
part of a municipality such as inspections. However, I believe that a reasonable license
fee may be justified even if formal inspections are not required of the premises on the
following basis:
It is an appropriate and reasonable exercise of municipal power to maintain
a list of all home occupations within the Village. This is significant for
Police and Fire purposes and also for tax purposes. There is a cost to the
Village associated with keeping such a list.
2. Even though there may not be formal inspections, there may be an
increased burden on the Village staff to make informal "drive-by" type of
inspections to assure that parking and signage standards are being observed.
3. It is reasonable to anticipate that from time to time, there will be
neighborhood complaints concerning specific home occupations and case by
case inspections may often be necessary to assure compliance with our
standards.
It is my opinion that a license fee based upon some reasonable estimate of what these
costs might be would be valid.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
EYE' ,E E:.' jLI, JR., ESQ.
EN4H/rcw
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT—
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER (K I
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DATE: DECEMBER 18, 1990
SUBJECT: ZBA.96-A-90, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
The Zoning Board of Appeals transmits, for your consideration, their recommendation on
three amendments to the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
1. Amend Section 14.503.8. to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from
8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in all residential districts, and
add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain
performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602.
3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add
a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602.
The Zoning Board considered the amendments at their meeting of December 13, 1990. At
the meeting, David Clements, Director of Planning and Zoning, explained the purpose of
the proposed amendments as follows:
An earlier meeting time would allow the Zoning Board to handle more business at
the regular meetings and potentially avoid special meetings during busy months. It
would also reflect recent practice of the Zoning Board.
Amendment 2
This would establish performance standards to regulate home occupations that
currently occur inconspicuously since the Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance does not
allow them outright. Staff feels that many home-based businesses are compatible in
residential zoning districts provided they meet certain performance standards relative
to number of employees; signage display; noise; outside storage; traffic generation,
and other factors which could impact the neighborhood. Staff feels that measuring
the appropriateness of a business based on its impact is preferable to developing an
exhaustive list of permitted/excluded home occupations.
Amendment 3
John Fulton Dixon
Page 2
Amendment 3
Under current regulations, when physical improvements, such as a room addition, are
proposed on property consisting of more than one lot, but under single ownership,
the owner must consolidate the lots in order to get a building permit. This situation
usually occurs when two older, narrow lots have been developed as a single unit.
Staff does not feel that there is a public benefit to requiring lot consolidation in many
of these situations. The Plan Commission agrees that many lot consolidations are
unnecessary except in cases where easements or street dedications are required.
The proposed definition of "zoning lot" would recognize single tracts of land as
buildable units for zoning purposes (setbacks, number of buildings on a lot, etc.). A
zoning lot would not necessarily coincide exactly with one lot of record.
Also at the meeting, Janet Hansen of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, stated
support for Amendment 2 but suggested that one employee (non -family) be allowed for each
home occupation, rather than staffs suggestion that no, non -family members be employed
in home occupations. Tom McGovern of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission presented
testimony in favor of Amendment 3.
The Zoning Board discussed each amendment separately. They generally agreed that the
amendments, as proposed, should be approved, but suggested some changes to the home
occupation performance standards listed in the staff memo.
Accordingly, by a 5-0 vote the Zoning Board of Appeals recommends that the Village Board
approved the three proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to include the following
changes to the performance standards for home occupations as proposed by staff:
1. Delete Item #3: "No mechanical or electrical equipment shall be used or stored
except such as permissible for domestic or household purposes."
2. To allow one non -family employee at a time, rather than a prohibition on any
employees.
DMC:hg 0
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
ZBA CASE NO. 96-A-90
Hearing Date: December 13, 1990
PETITIONER:
Village of Mount Prospect
SUBJECT PROPERTY:
100 South Emerson
PUBLICATION DATE:
November 27, 1990
REQUEST:
Amend Section 14.503.B. to
change the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting time from 8:00
p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Amend the
existing regulations for home
occupations in all residential
districts, and add standards to
allow home occupations in
residential districts subject to
certain performance standards,
and appropriate definition in
Section 14.2602. Amend Section
14.101.G to clarify the
interpretation of lot
consolidations, and add a
definition of "zoning lot" to
Section 14.2602.
ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT,:
Gilbert Basnik, Chairman
Peter Lannon
Richard Pratt
Ronald Cassidy
Robert Brettrager
ABSENT:
Lois Brothers
Micheale Skowron
OBJECTORS/INTERESTED PARTIES: Margaret Gaweke, 416 S. Mt.
Prospect Road. Janet Hansen, Chamber of Commerce.
Chairman Basnik introduced this case stating that the
petitioner is requesting amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Amend Section 14.503.B to change the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting time from 8:00 P.m. to 7:30 p.m.
2. Amend the existing regulations for hose occupations
in all residential districts, and add standards to
allow home occupations in residential districts
subject to certain performance standards, and
appropriate definition in Section 14.2602.2
3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation
of lot consolidations, and add a definition of
"zoning lot" to Section 14.2602.
ZBA-96-A-90
December 13, 1990
Page 2 of 3
The petitioner, David Clements, Director of Planning and
Zoning, presented the case stating that the first request has
to be formally changed in the Zoning ordinance, to reflect
the current meeting time.
Mr. Clements stated that the second request is to allow home
businesses in certain situations, noting that the Planning
and Zoning department receives many calls regarding this and
they must tell them this is not allowed. He noted that in the
community a wide range of inconspicuous home businesses
exist, many of which have Illinois revenue numbers. Home
based businesses vary from contractor's offices, part-time
caterers, artist studios, to computer consultants Staff
typically becomes aware of home occupation if it is one that
disturbs neighbors. Theses matters are investigated on a
complaint basis. It would be appropriate to amend the Zoning
Ordinance to allow home occupations, if the home-based
business met certain standards. For example, a home
occupation should have no employees, display no sign, nor
have any retail sales on premise. Also, no home occupation
should include storage of supplies or inventory. Many
communities regulate home occupations based on such
performance standards, and this would be a reasonable
approach for Mount Prospect to consider.
Mr. Clements then introduced Mrs Janet Hansen, executive
director with the Chamber of Mount Prospect. Mrs. Hansen
stated that the Chamber of commerce had voted in favor of
allowing home businesses in the Village of Mount Prospect and
presented the Board with facts founded by the Chamber of
Commerce. The Board then reviewed the comments made by the
Chamber of Commerce. They also separately considered the
standards presented in the staff memo.
Mr. Clements stated that amendment * 3 and the definition of
14zoninglot" would allow, existing properties consisting of
more than one lot, under single ownership, to be considered
as a single buildable unit for zoning and building permit
purposes. Under current regulations, when physical
improvements, such as a room addition, are proposed on
property consisting of more than one,lot, but under single
ownership, the owner must consolidate the lots in order to
get a building permit. This situation usually occurs when two
older, narrow lots have been developed as a single unit.
Staff does not feel that there is a public benefit to
requiring lot consolidations in many of theses situations.
Tom McGovern of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission stated
that the Plan Commission agrees with staffs proposal and
feels that many lot consolidations are unnecessary except in
ZBA-96-A-90
December 13, 1990
Page 3 of 3
cases where easements or street dedications are required.
The Board then generally discussed the amendments noting that
for amendment number 2 they make the following changes to the
standards listed in the memo from staff:
1. Delete item *3 pertaining to mechanical and
electrical equipment. They felt item # 4 would
cover any problems associated with the use of such
equipment.
2. Change item # 6 to allow on non -family member
employee at one time rather than no non -family
employees as suggested by staff.
Chairman Basnik then entertained a motion to grant the
petitioners request with the changes to Amendment 2 as
discussed..
Mr. Cassidy moved. Mr. Lannon seconded.
UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Lannon, Pratt, Cassidy, Brettrager,
Basnik
NAYS: None
Motion carried by a vote of 5-0.
This case must still be heard before the Village Board.
Michelle Thompson
Recording Secretary
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT
Mount Prospect, Illinois
TO: MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
GIL BASNIK, CHAIRMAN W --
FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
MkOW111:021 I �1=
This application for amendments to the Zoning ordinance was filed by the Village of Mount
Prospect. Three amendments are proposed as follows:
1. Amend Section 14.503.B. to change the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time from
8:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.
2. Amend the existing regulations for home occupations in all residential districts, and
add standards to allow home occupations in residential districts subject to certain
performance standards, and appropriate definition in Section 14.2602.
3. Amend Section 14.101.G to clarify the interpretation of lot consolidations, and add
a definition of "zoning lot" to Section 14.2602.
These amendments will be discussed individually.
ro�411
The Zoning Ordinance establishes the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting time as 8:00
p.m. In August of 1990, the Zoning Board determined that the meeting time should
be changed to 7:30 p.m., to perhaps handle more business at the regular meetings,
in hopes of avoiding special meetings every mouth during the busy spring and
summer season. This amendment merely changes the meeting time as stated in the
Zoning Ordinance.
The Chamber has suggested that the Village consider adopting standards that would
allow home occupations. On August 28, 1990 Janet Hansen, Chamber Executive
Director, preUm'ftwfly discussed home occupations at a Committee -of -the -Whole
meeting. At that time, the, Village Board determined it would be appropriate to refer
the matter to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a public hearing.
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 2
At the present time, Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance prohibits home occupations,
and offices in homes, "except that a surgeon, physician, dentist, lawyer, clergyman,
or other professional person using his residence for consultation, emergency
treatment or the performance of religious rites only, and not for the gcneral practigg
of the profession."
However, what we find in the community is a wide range of inconspicuous home
based businesses, many of which have Illinois revenue numbers. Home based
businesses vary from contractor's offices, part-time caterers, artist studios, to
computer consultants. Staff typically becomes aware of home occupation if it is one
that disturbs neighbors. These matters are investigated on a complaint basis.
The difficulty with the present requirements is that well-meaning residents call the
Village Hall and inquire about opening a home business, and are advised that the
Zoning Ordinance does not allow home occupations. In many cases, these residents
are aware of other home occupations in the Village, and do not understand why they
cannot gain approval.
It would be appropriate to amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow home occupations,
if the home-based business met certain standards. For example, a home occupation
should have no employees, display no sign, nor have any retail sales on premise.
Also, no home occupation should include storage of supplies or inventory.
Many communities regulate home occupations based on such performance standards,
and this would be a reasonable approach for Mount Prospect to consider. A survey
of members of the Northwest Municipal Conference indicates that virtually every
municipality has provisions to allow home occupations.
It is recommended that the following Sections be amended:
Amendment to ADD Home Occupations, as defined herein, to the following
Sections as permitted uses:
R -X 14.1001A R-2 14.1301A
R-1 14.1101A R-3 14.1401A
R -A 14.1201A R4 14.1501A
Amendment to DELETE Home Occupations from the following Sections, as
specifically excluded uses:
R -X 14.1001.8.5 R-2 14.1301.13.4
R-1 14.1101.B.5 R-3 14.1401.B.5
R -A 14.1201.B.5 R-4 14.1501.B.5
ADD to Section 14.2602 the following definition:
Home OccuVation - Home Occupations to be permitted in all
residential zoning districts, subject to the following definition and
performance standards:
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals Page 3
Home Qccunatlon is an accessory use conducted completely within a
dwelling unit, carried on by any member of the immediate family
residing on the premises, clearly incidental and secondary to the use
of the dwelling for residential purposes. The following standards shall
govern the operation of a home occupation:
1. There should be no sign, display or alteration that will indicate
from the exterior that the home is being utilized in whole or in
part for any purpose other than that of a dwelling.
2. No substantial amount of stock in trade shall be kept or
commodities sold.
3. No mechanical or electrical equipment shall be used or stored
except such as permissible for domestic or household purposes.
4. No offensive noise, vibration, smoke fumes, odor, heat or glare
or electrical interference shall be noticeable at or beyond the
property line.
5. No explosive or combustible materials shall be used.
6. No person shall be employed other than a member of the
immediate family residing on the premises.
7. No outside storage of any kind related to the home occupation
shall be permitted.
8. The home occupation shall not generate traffic or parking in
excess of what is normal in a residential neighborhood.
9. The home occupation shall not utilize more than 25 percent of
the gross floor area of the dwelling unit.
10. A professional person may use his residence for infrequent
consultation, emergency treatment, or performance of religious
rites, but not for the general practice of his profession.
Staff believes it is best to regulate home occupations based on such performance
standards, because this provides a measurement of impact on a neighborhood. This
is considered preferable to creating a lengthy list of permitted home occupations,
which might not be able to list every reasonable home business.
Amendment 3
The Scope of Regulations of the Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.101.G, states that it
is unlawful "to construct one building on more than one lot, or to occupy more than
one lot by more than one main use." This is being interpreted to mean that a
principal building, such as a house, cannot be on more than 1 lot, or the portion of
any lot. For example, there are marry homes built on two 25 foot lots. If a resident,
Gil Basnik, Chairman
Mount Prospect Zoning Board of Appeals
Page 4
in such an example, hopes to add a room addition, current policy requires that the
two 25 foot lots be consolidated or combined into a 50 foot lot. In consolidating the
two 25 foot lots into one 50 foot lot, the resident then has only one building on one
lot, meeting the intent of the current requirement. This is an expensive and
unnecessary burden for a property owner. If a home has existed for years on two 25
foot lots, or some similar example, and it is being properly assessed, there is no
public benefit to having the property owner consolidate the parcel, in order to get
a building permit for a room addition or other improvement.
The Plan Commission has reviewed a number of such lot consolidations over the
years, and does not believe such a requirement is necessary. However, the Plan
Commission notes that consolidation plats should be done if there is the need for
easements or street dedications. The Plan Commission recommends that the Zoning
Board take appropriate action to amend Section 14.101 to eliminate the lot
consolidation requirement.
Staff recommends that Section 14.2602, Definitions, be amended to add a definition
of "zoning lot", as follows:
.oninis a single tract of land located within a single block which (at the
time of filing for a building permit) is designated by its owner or developer
as a tract to be used, developed, or built upon as a unit, under single
ownership or control. Therefore, a "zoning lot or lots" may or may not
coincide with a lot of record.
With this definition, a tract of land is designated a buildable unit for zoning purposes,
thus not having to coincide exactly with one lot of record.
In researching this matter, staff found that a number of other suburban municipalities
utilize a zoning lot definition for similar purposes.
Further, staff recommends that the statement found in 14.101.G be deleted.
DMC:hg
Rhone: 70E3 / 392-6000
Fax: 70e / 392-6022
NOTICE
THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE HALL WILL BE CLOSED ON MONDAY,
FEBRUARY 18, 1991 IN OBSERVANCE OF PRESIDENTS' DAY.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk
MAYOR
GERALD L. PARLEY
TRUSTEES
RALPH W ARTHUR
MARK W BUSSE
TIMOTHY J. CORCORAN
LEO FLOPOS
GEORGE A. VAN GEEM
THEODORE J WATTENBERG
Village of Mount Prospect
VILLAGE MANAGER
JOHN FULTON DIXON
VILLAGE CLERK
100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
CAROL A. FIELDS
Rhone: 70E3 / 392-6000
Fax: 70e / 392-6022
NOTICE
THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE HALL WILL BE CLOSED ON MONDAY,
FEBRUARY 18, 1991 IN OBSERVANCE OF PRESIDENTS' DAY.
Carol A. Fields
Village Clerk