The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6. NEW BUSINESS 07/15/2008 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAT OF EASEMENTS FOR WA TERMAINS AT LAKE CENTER PLAZA, 1699 WALL STREET, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, Lake Center Partners, LLC ("Owner") certifies that it is the owner of record of the property legally described in the Plat of Easements which is attached to this Resolution as "Exhibit A"; and PIN 08-23-203-039 WHEREAS, the "Owner" consents and approves the granting of easements as shown on "Exhibit A" to the Village of Mount Prospect for the purpose of construction, operation and maintenance of water main services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY: SECTION ONE: That the Plat of Easement for property located at 1699 Wall Street is hereby approved for appropriate execution and recording. Such Plat and its legal description are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution. SECTION TWO: 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 July, 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\RES\Plat of easement1699 wallstreetjuly2008.doc \) ~-' ,5~;, :~:.: .. -~~~5~ 5 1";, ~ ;: ~ ~ F,;.'. ~ \~. ,.. ,.,~ ~l>~ !oo:i.:-. ~~E .;...."":!. ~~ ~,~ ~.~~ ~ :3 ~t .~,~ '-I 11,:' , ~ ~. ,,, .'~ . 'f~ - " . !." ...., \' ., ~~ ~iit ;::.;:1''3: ~g ~ ~ i-~ ~:: ~;; ~!S~ ;J "~ 1:; ff ;\::: '" .r<. ,.4- .v; ~ f.. rr, e~!; ; ~t~ :: ~~_S ~ 5'i' ;' . ~$ ~wf 'n ?i ,i.,~ "'.. ~,~ :L~~ ~.~ ,. , $" "".... ,~'~ ~ ~ ~tff ..,. 1, .~: , ? r f :2<;' j:;',- _ _... '" t r: !!!l mflll il~2 ij~~~! O;:;tj~: ;, t, ....r~:~ t; :t.~" .. ~~"i;l I~H:; j~h~ 5H!~i ~ '1':& ~'H ::.~~#:~,~ ~=lEi: ~;!. t!U::t ;;,r~,~," .. '" ~-E'i '..;H:~ ~$~t. ,- IJ. -,<, ',' ,:\:i,,:~ ! fti:~ ~ , [$ ,Ji - ~':.~~:;:i i~!j it :it:' )"=.3 :~,!~:' il~ !;i !t ;~t: t~S;'3: ;i~:Et:!~.~~~~ IlWl1ljiilll1 2~1:~ f;l!!;>";': Il!11 ff"" ~ 'Z e<4 f. "i;; f: , . ~ . . I oJ i:' ii l :: :I :: ~:! ~ j~ :" ~.i: , ,~~~ ~ ~"~"C;'~ .:er ,;~"'" WALL STRffIT .~'~::~:~;l.; ,'; ~C,~.~'~7 J, .'. ~.: 1,~";:,i;~k~.:t.J~I\;i:,,:1.'l h'.'~'!o'~I<ut\,;u..,.t.1J 1'i,,'i_Jt ":!,,'..I;'lO '", w"r:'&~l., ~~ ~ ' J $ ~ I' 1 :'J~ eJ f : ~ ~ ~ ....~" .,",,'.. ~~L~'i ''II', ':;4 i; ~: r ;j.~ ~f ".j ~ ~-~ ~ ~ .~ ,-j: t ~ i, iLj ~ ; ~ ~IHn ~ f ,." , ~m:~ : . ;. i=hi1 ';_~~';lllf{'~ .. '!,"~- i ff Jl '. t.!.t .. '," ;, ' ;,;:h;t c.~.} 1'1.; ~i;t, ~",'h! in~t i ~~.i5 ;,J~g ~~~:t' ~r-,"',\,,~~,,1:' l~,:":f ,It_ ~ .'. i~ ~ ~.u ~~ ':; l: 4;~ '"~ :'2 ;,;-,- " I ..~.~ :': ..: ;~ ;,; ;...... ~ "f"; ,iT",. ,,"""'.J~ El,.loUWf?ST ROAD Rl'. B:s '.>;f li\;,(;, un l .&J;.4:IIf'.t:'~:, Inf .i..ti.~~ .,;1oI"iu ".t "h""".. l..,U) '. Jt ~.f'1o fit..,. ;, 6f A,> l.';~ ,J:.~ ";i.~f,, It ~ r-IIHf :::~tL: ;; ! :r', -.~'J"" ,.(>1; ~-~' :..... ~.. !lUUI'f~iHH'i, i llta_,..,,_. !tt':.._~. '." d,lt ~H. Ii ,i); ~. f'li:~I-"i'-t1"',J't f !.~{h.HI!f~f, Y-HrH;J:,df;'; ~ 'hfl!.ut~f-" ,~ ''''it ",t ;f' . .' ':' :~. ;t,;. heJ .~l',l" "'f},,;.q,?< " ~ J :~ . f~!:; J.<'; :..-.~i : l;. 1 ~ :~i!~ if i,:..' ..~rti t~F.tl, Ilj::~F~mt~ 'isi,:Zj ;>;i f ! !i~J [,i.:~ ,. i! ~ lHHHH ~~ =:Lt.~~::f }~ E-~'~~';_HJ~ ~.. ~i.~ ~.t.~{~~ ""~. HWi:~~ ~! ~-~~yfe:~ J.. ; ~ y i i2 t ~ i~ri [ , Jl;, ~'r-': i; ;~.:t~.::;'Fl i: tl!;.._',;:r.i.! _,; 1: !i l' ~';f"1i.'~1 '. ~; .j l~u'lf-"~ ;,~l' ;f,~~. _!';.~ ~.~,:rrfti~;(!~ : ~. it;; '": it 1 ~. :! fiIIIIIW!: WfiW <<;.-........' ,". "~ . .,..' . ,~"~ ...."...--..... t~;f}i~~~~~;lji; ~ it 1 f .l-.' .. I;, i"'! ~ {:t .", ~ tjt~iHtnH:.i; .! f ';:' ,;a.~~:i'l.!~lfi,..~ ~ ; % 1: :~r~;f f-,- ~...~) ~ i'r~i~:I~'!;:~~.tt:!:~ '1 ..h'j"', . t<.'f. ,.' i'~ ::T:f~,:~f.~rl.~i~ ~~~tHP;Wn~~ ~ I :: :~.. i;' :l.}! tl;i !.,: ') ~t .~I' ~f:~ r~ij.~ ~ :i ;;.-r):~..~ r j;;<_! fIr.; if.~ i; Iflilllll];!jf; ! r r; , ...' \.,.. : ~. r ,,- i"'" I~ ~ ',-; .tj1 ~O li""" lrtl ~> ~ ,(fJ ~~ !rt'3 ;~ '-:> en RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO AUTHORIZE THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO ACCEPT TITLE OF THE CENTRAL SCHOOL HOUSE LOCATED 101-103 SOUTH MAPLE STREET. MOUNT PROSPECT. ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is a home rule municipality and pursuant to the Illinois Constitution, Article VII, Section 8, has certain powers which it is exercising; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect and the Mount Prospect Historical Society ("Society") have a long history of cooperation and mutual support for the purpose of preserving the Village's history; and WHEREAS, the "Society" has obtained title to the historic Central School House and relocated it to Village-owned property located at 101-103 South Maple Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois for the aforementioned purpose; and WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be best served by acquiring title to the Central School House and its contents; and WHEREAS, the "Society" is the owner of the Central School House, and has agreed to sell the Central School and its contents to the Village of Mount Prospect for $1.00. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: Each of the Whereas paragraphs above are incorporated by reference into this Section 1 and made a part hereof as material and operative provisions of this Resolution. SECTION TWO: The Village of Mount Prospect agrees to purchase the Central School House and title to the building. SECTION THREE: Upon passage and approval of this Resolution by the appropriate vote of the corporate authorities, the Village Manager and Village Clerk are authorized and directed to execute and deliver such other instruments and documents as may be necessary or convenient to consummate the transfer of title to the Property to the Village of Mount Prospect, and the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution, together with a copy of the title to Central School House, to the Village of Mount Prospect, with the Cook County Recorder of Deeds. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED AND APPROVED this day of July, 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H :\CLKO\WI N\RES\centralschoolpu rchasefromMPHSJ uly2008 .doc E BILL OF SALE AND TITLE TO BUILDING The Mount Prospect Historical Society, formerly known as the Mount Prospect Historical Society of Elk Grove and Wheeling Townships, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation (the "Seller"), in consideration of ONE AND NO/100THS DOLLARS ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, does hereby sell, assign, transfer and set over unto the Village of Mount Prospect, an Illinois home rule municipal corporation, (the "Buyer") the following described personal property (the "Personalty") located in the Building, commonly known as the historic Central School Building: all heating, plumbing, air conditioning, electrical systems, existing lighting fixtures, including but not limited to: Wood framed building with shingled roof and bell tower bearing cross, along with all contents and fixtures, including 45 school desks and miscellaneous furniture, and said Building having been the original Central School, including Seller's right, title and interest in and to the Building, which Building has been relocated by Seller to 103 S. Maple Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Seller, hereby represents and warrants to Buyer that Seller is the absolute owner of the Personalty and the Building, that the Personalty and the Building are free and clear of all liens, charges and encumbrances, and that Seller has full rights, power and authority to sell and transfer title to and ownership of the Personalty and the Building, and to make this Bill of Sale and Title to the Building. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Seller has signed and sealed this Bill of Sale and Title to the Building as of the _ day of , 200_. By: Name: Title: Attest: Name: Title: STATE OF ILLINOIS) ) 55. COUNTY OF COOK ) I, the undersigned, a Notary Public, in and for the County and State aforesaid, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that and , are personally known to me be the and of the Mount Prospect Historical Society, an Illinois not-for-profit corporation (the "Corporation"), and are the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument, appeared before me this day in person and severally acknowledged that as such and respectively of the Corporation, they signed and delivered the said instrument and caused the seal of the Corporation to be affixed thereto, pursuant to authority given by the Board of Directors of the Corporation, and as their free and voluntary act, and as the free and voluntary act and deed of the Corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. Given under my hand and official seal, this day of ,2008. Notary Public My Commission Expires: iMllnllge:215533 _1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Fire Department FROM: FIRE CHIEF TO: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: JULY 11, 2008 SUBJECT: FIRE STATION 14 GROUND LEASE Attached for Village Board approval is a Ground Lease between the Village of Mou Prospect and River Trails Park District that will allow us use of land to construct a new F e Station 14 on the site just east of the current station. Included in Exhibit 2 of the Ground Lease is the School Land Lease that is a necessary component of our agreement. Exhibit 2 is an agreement between the River Trails Park District and River Trails School District 26, which was passed by the school district and park district. BackQround In an attempt to maintain the location for Fire Station 14 on the east side of the Canadian National Railway we began looking for parcels of land that could be used to construct a new fire station. Land is very difficult to come by in this desirable area. The prime property was the frontage of Tamarack Park, which is owned by the River Trails Park District. We approached the park district about using the proposed site and they were very amenable to helping us to find a way to make this land available. Their concern was for the ball field that we would encroach upon, thereby making it unusable for softball. The park district said that they could make the land available as long as we could find a location to replace the lost softball field. They recommended the grassy field located at River Trails Middle School. Discussions then took place between the school, park and village personnel, which ultimately lead to the attached Ground Lease. Ground Lease Terms The attached Ground Lease includes the following terms and conditions: 1. The agreement terms are in effect for ninety-nine (99) years with the following milestones: a. The park district cannot terminate the lease until after the 25th year. b. After the 25th year through the fiftieth year the park district can terminate the lease upon 5 years written notice. c. From the 51st year through the 99th year the park district can terminate the lease upon 24 months written notice. F Fire Station 14 Ground Lease July 11, 2008 Page 2 2. The Village agrees to pay all costs associated with the softball field improvements at the River Trails Middle School. The estimated cost is $200,000. 3. The rent shall be $10 per year for the land use. 4. If the softball field at River Trails Middle School is no longer available for park district use it shall be the Village's responsibility to acquire and improve a comparable alternative site for the remainder of the ninety-nine (99) year lease. The agreements outlined above provide Village residents with a new fire station site that will serve the community for years to come. This would not have been possible without the River Trails Park District and River Trails School District 26 Boards and staff. A tremendous amount of time and energy went into making this arrangement possible. Michael J. Figolah MFI Attachment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO ENTER INTO A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is a home rule municipality and pursuant to the Illinois Constitution, Article VII, Section has certain powers which it is exercising; and WHEREAS, Section 10 of Article VII of the Constitution of the State of Illinois and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act at ILCS 220/1 et.seq. allow and encourage intergovernmental cooperation; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect has deemed that the best interests of the Village may be served by entering into intergovernmental agreements; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect and the River Trails Park District agree that it would be in the best interests of the citizens to allow the Village of Mount Prospect to lease certain property owned by the River Trails Park District for the purpose of constructing, operating and maintaining a fire station for municipal use. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect are hereby authorized to execute the Ground Lease Agreement which is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit "A." SECTION TWO: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effective from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: PASSED and APPROVED this day of July, 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WI N\RES\lntergovt Agrmtgroundleasertpdju ly2008.doc GROUND LEASE THIS GROUND LEASE (the "Lease") is made and entered into this _ day of " 20_, (the "Effective Date") by and between the RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT, an Illinois Park District, (the "Lessor") and the VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois Municipal corporation, (the "Lessee"). Lessor and Lessee are sometimes referred to herein together as "Parties" or individually as "Party". RECITALS WHEREAS, the Lessee desires to lease certain real property owned by the Lessor, which is legally described on EXHIBIT 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Park Land"); and WHEREAS, the Lessee intends to construct, operate and maintain a fire station on the Park Land for Lessee's municipal purposes; and WHEREAS, the Lessee has agreed to cause School District No. 26 (the "School District") to lease to Lessor certain real property owned by the School District, which real property is legally described on EXHIBIT 2 attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "School Land"), by a written lease (the "School Land Lease"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to 70 ILCS 1205/10-7, and 50 ILCS 605/1 et seq., the Lessor may lease the Park Land to the Lessee for non-recreational municipal purposes for up to 99 years; provided that, real property of substantially the same size and of substantially the same suitability for park purposes is provided to the Lessor for park purposes without additional cost to the Lessor; - 1 - 5/29/2008 and WHEREAS, the Lessee has agreed that it will be responsible for all costs associated with the improvement of the School Land for the Lessors recreational purposes as hereinafter provided; and WHEREAS, the River Trails Park District, Lessor, and the Village of Mount Prospect, Lessee, are public agencies as that term is defined in the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (5 ILCS 220/1 et seq.); and WHEREAS, Article VII, Section 10 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and 5 ILCS 220/1 et seq. authorize units of local government to contract or otherwise associate among themselves to obtain or share services, to exercise, combine or transfer any power or function, in any manner not prohibited by law, to use their credit, revenues and other reserves to pay costs and to service debt related to intergovernmental activities; NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to Lessor's and Lessee's powers of intergovernmental cooperation and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by and between the Parties hereto as follows: 1. Recitals Incorporated. The Recitals hereinabove set forth shall be and are hereby incorporated in this Paragraph 1 as findings of fact as if said Recitals were fully set forth herein. 2. Lease of Park Land. Lessor does hereby demise and lease to Lessee, and Lessee does hereby lease from Lessor the Park Land for a term (the - 2- 5/29/2008 "Term") commencing on the Commencement Date (as defined herein Paragraph 4 hereof) and shall expire on the day immediately preceding the ninety ninth (99th) anniversary of the Commencement Date or on such earlier date upon which this Lease may be terminated as hereinafter provided (the "Expiration Date"). After the first twenty five (25) years through the fiftieth (50th) year, the Lessor may terminate the lease upon five (5) years written notice to the Lessee. From the fifty first (51st) year through the ninety ninth (99th) year, the Lessor may terminate the Lease upon twenty four (24) months written notice to the Lessee. 3. Use of Park Land. The Lessee covenants and agrees that the Park Land shall be used only for the purpose of the construction, operation and maintenance of a fire station and related facilities thereon (the "Fire Station Project"). Other than special events relating to the grand opening or other related fire activities, no other use of the Park Land by Lessee, its employees, its invitees or others shall be permitted by the Lessee, without the prior written consent of the Lessor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. All right and title of the Fire Station and related facilities shall be and remain in the name of the Lessee until the termination of the Lease. 4. School Land Improvements. The Lessee shall be solely responsible for all costs associated with improving the School Land for the Lessor's recreational purposes. The School Land shall be improved as shown on the Plans and Specifications attached to EXHIBIT 2, (the "School Land Park Improvements"). The School Land Park Improvements shall be completed by the Lessee, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Lessor and the School District. - 3 - 5/29/2008 The Parties recognize that the School Land will be leased by Lessor for a period less than the 50 year term of this Lease. Should the Lessor's use of the School Land for recreational purposes be terminated at any time during the term of this Lease, then the Lessee shall acquire and improve, at its sole cost and expense, a comparable alternative site for the Lessor's use for recreational purposes for the remainder of the 99 year term of this Lease. 5. Rent Payment. The rent shall be $10.00 per year. The Rent Payments, due and owing pursuant to this Lease, shall commence on the date that the Fire Station is first used for providing fire department-related services or at the time that a certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever is earlier. This Lease shall be deemed and construed to be a fully "net Lease," and Lessee shall pay to Lessor, absolutely net throughout the Term of this Lease, all Rent Payments, free of any charges, assessments, impositions or deductions of any kind and without abatement, deduction or setoff whatsoever in the manner set out above for payment of Rent, and under no circumstances or conditions, whether now existing or hereafter arising, or whether beyond the present contemplation of the Parties, shall Lessor be expected or required to make any payment of any kind whatsoever relating to the Park Land or be under any other obligation or liability hereunder or otherwise. Lessee shall pay all costs, expenses and charges of every kind and nature relating to the Park Land which may arise or become due or payable prior to, during or after (but attributable to a period falling within) the Term of this Lease, including all costs, expenses and charges related to all recorded or unrecorded agreements, easements, declarations, -4- 5/29/2008 restrictions or other matters affecting the title to the Park Land, and Lessee hereby agrees to indemnify Lessor against and hold Lessor harmless from all such costs, expenses and charges of every kind as described in the last sentence of this Paragraph 5. 6. Insurance. The Lessee shall maintain an insurance program that provides comparable coverage to that set forth in EXHIBIT 5. The Village acknowledges its undertakings pursuant to paragraphs 14 and 15 of this Ground Lease and that the obligations set forth in these paragraphs are fully enforceable despite the fact that the Village may be self-insured. 7. No Assiqnment. This Lease and the interest of Lessee in this Lease (or any portion thereof) shall not be sold, assigned or otherwise transferred, whether by operation of law or otherwise, without the prior express written consent of the Lessor's governing Board of Commissioners. 8. Construction of the Fire Station Proiect. Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the Approval Date (as that term is defined herein) of this Lease, Lessee and Lessor shall mutually agree upon a construction schedule ("Construction Schedule") for the construction of the Fire Station Project and such other improvements as may be required for the development of the Fire Station Project in accordance with the Site Plan that is to be attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4 and made a part hereof, which shall include certain milestone dates, including, without limitation, the date on which construction of the Fire Station Project shall commence, be Substantially Completed (as that term is defined herein). Should - 5 - 5/29/2008 the Parties be unable to agree on one or more of the aforesaid milestone dates within the aforesaid one hundred twenty (120) day period, then this Lease shall be automatically rendered null, void and of no further force or effect. 9. Maintenance of the Fire Station. A. Lessee shall keep and maintain the Fire Station and related facilities in good repair and condition in accordance with accepted Village of Mount Prospect municipal fire station standards, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Fire Station and related facilities and all water, sewer and gas connections, drainage facilities, pipes and mains which service the Fire Station and related facilities and shall put, keep and maintain the Fire Station and related facilities in good and safe order and working condition, and make all repairs therein and thereon, interior and exterior, structural and nonstructural, ordinary and extraordinary, foreseen and unforeseen, necessary to keep the same in good and safe order and working condition and to comply with all applicable Village of Mount Prospect municipal fire station standards. B. Lessor shall not be required to furnish any services, utilities or facilities whatsoever to the Fire Station and related facilities, nor shall Lessor have any duty or obligation to make any alteration, change, improvement, replacement, restoration or repair to, any improvements presently or hereafter located on the Park Land. Lessee assumes the full and sole responsibility for the condition, operation, repair, alteration, improvement, replacement, maintenance and management of the Fire Station Project and the Park Land. - 6 - 5/29/2008 10. Chanqes. Alterations and Additions. From and after Substantial Completion, Lessee shall not demolish, replace or alter the Fire Station Project as then constructed, or any part thereof, or make any addition thereto without the express written consent of the Lessor, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 11. Compliance with Laws. Lessee shall promptly comply with any and all applicable present and future laws, rules, orders, ordinances, directives, authorities, regulations, statutes, requirements, codes, orders, permits and authorizations, without regard to the nature of the work required to be done, extraordinary, as well as ordinary, of all federal, state, county or other Governmental Authorities now existing or hereafter created, affecting the Fire Station Project or affecting the construction, maintenance, use or occupation of the Fire Station. Lessee also shall comply with any and all provisions and requirements of any document of record or casualty, liability or other insurance policy required to be carried by Lessee under the provisions of this Lease. 12. Discharqe of Liens. Lessee shall not create or cause to be created any lien, encumbrance or charge upon the Park Land or the Fire Station Project, or any part thereof, Lessee shall not create or cause to be created any lien, encumbrance or charge upon any assets of Lessor or upon the Park Land relating to the construction of the Fire Station Project. If any mechanics', laborers' or materialmen's or any other lien, charge or encumbrance at any time shall be filed against the Fire Station Project or the Park - 7 - Land in connection with the construction of the Fire Station Project, or any part thereof, or against any assets of Lessor, then Lessee, within thirty (30) days after actual notice of the filing thereof, or such shorter period as may be required by statute, shall (i) cause the same to be discharged of record by payment, deposit, bond, order of a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise or (ii) contest the same. If Lessee shall fail to cause such lien to be discharged of record within the period aforesaid or to contest such lien, and if such lien shall continue for an additional ten (10) days after notice by Lessor to Lessee, then, in addition to any other right or remedy, Lessor may, but shall not be obligated to, discharge the same of record. Any amount so paid by Lessor, including all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lessor in connection therewith, together with interest thereon at the maximum statutory rate, from the respective dates of Lessoes making of the payment or incurring of the costs and expenses, shall constitute Rent payable by Lessee under this Lease and shall be paid by Lessee to Lessor on demand. 13. No Representations by Lessor. Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Lease, no representations, statements or warranties, written or oral, express or implied, have been made by or on behalf of Lessor in respect of the Park Land, the status of title thereof, except for the recorded documents which Lessee is required to comply with and which Lessee has been provided recorded copies of for review and approval as provided in Paragraph 11 above, the physical condition thereof, the zoning or other laws, regulations, rules - 8 - and orders applicable thereto, or the use that may be made of the Park Land, that Lessee has relied on no such representations, statements or warranties, and that Lessor shall in no event whatsoever be liable for any latent or patent defects in the Park Land. 14. Lessor Not Liable for Iniury or Damaqe. Etc. To the extent permitted by law, Lessor shall not in any event whatsoever be liable for any injury or damage to Lessee or to any other person happening in, on or about the Fire Station Project and its appurtenances, nor for any injury or damage to the Fire Station or to any property belonging to Lessee or any other person(s) which may arise from any other cause whatsoever, unless caused by the willful misconduct of Lessor, its officers, agents or employees. 15. Indemnification. Lessee shall not do or permit any act or thing to be done upon the Park Land which may subject Lessor to any liability or responsibility for injury, damage to persons or property, or to any liability by reason of any violation of law so as to fully protect Lessor against any such liability. Lessee shall indemnify and save Lessor and any agent, officer, or employee of Lessor (each a "Lessor Indemnified Party"Lharmless from and against any and all liabilities, suits, obligations, fines, damages, penalties, claims, costs, charges and expenses, including, without limitation, engineers', architects' and reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs and disbursements, which may be imposed upon or incurred by or asserted against any Lessor Indemnified Party during or after but attributable to a period of time falling within the Term of the Lease, arising from or related to this - 9 - Lease, the Fire Station Project, or the use of the Park Land for the Fire Station Project. 16. Events of Default and Remedies. A. Each of the following events shall be an "Event of Default" hereunder: (1) if Lessee shall fail to pay any installment of Rent within ten (10) days after notice thereof from Lessor; (2) if Lessee shall fail to make any other payment required to be paid by Lessee hereunder within twenty (20) days after notice thereof from Lessor to Lessee; (3) if Lessee shall fail to observe or perform one or more of the other material terms, conditions, covenants or agreements of this Lease and such failure shall not be cured by Lessee within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by Lessor to Lessee specifying such failure (unless such failure requires work to be performed, acts to be done or conditions to be removed which cannot either by their nature or by reason of Unavoidable Delays (as that term is defined herein) reasonably be performed, done or removed, as the case may be, within such thirty (30) day period, in which case no default shall be deemed to exist as long as Lessee shall have commenced curing the same within such thirty (30) day period and shall continuously prosecute the same to completion with reasonable diligence, subject to Unavoidable Delays); (4) to the extent permitted by law, if Lessee shall admit, in - 10- writing, that it is unable to pay its debts as such debts become due; (5) to the extent permitted by law, if Lessee shall make an assignment for the benefit of creditors; or (6) to the extent permitted by law, if Lessee shall file a voluntary petition under the United States Bankruptcy Code, as amended from time to time, or if such petition is filed against Lessee and an order for relief is entered, or if Lessee shall file any petition or answer seeking, consenting to or acquiescing in any reorganization, arrangement, composition, readjustment, liquidation, dissolution or similar relief under the present or any future federal Bankruptcy Code or any other present or future applicable federal, state or other statute or law, or shall seek or consent to or acquiesce to or suffer the appointment of any trustee, receiver, custodian, assignee, sequestrator, liquidator or other similar official of Lessee, of all or any substantial part of the Fire Station Project or any interest therein; B. If an Event of Default shall occur, the Lessor may elect, in its sole discretion, to proceed by appropriate judicial proceedings, either at law or in equity, (i) to enforce the performance or observance by the Lessee of the applicable provisions of this Lease; (ii) to terminate the Lease; or (iii) to recover damages for breach thereof, which costs shall include Lessor's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Lessor may pursue one or more of the foregoing remedies, and no remedy shall be deemed exclusive. C. No failure by either Party to insist upon the strict performance - 11 - by the other Party of any covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Lease or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a breach thereof, and no payment or acceptance of full or partial Rent during the continuance of any such breach, shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or of such covenant, agreement, term or condition. No covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Lease to be performed or completed by either party, and no breach thereof, shall be waived, altered or modified except by a written instrument executed by the other Party. No waiver of any breach shall affect or alter this Lease, but each and every covenant, agreement, term and condition of this Lease shall continue in full force and effect with respect to any other then existing or subsequent breach thereof. D. In the event of any breach or threatened breach by either Party of any of the covenants, agreements, terms or conditions contained in this Lease, the other Party shall be entitled to enjoin such breach or threatened breach and shall have the right to invoke any rights and remedies allowed at law or in equity or by statute. E. Each right and remedy of Lessor and Lessee provided for in this Lease shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other right or remedy provided for in this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise, and the exercise or beginning of the exercise by a Party of any of one or more of the rights or remedies provided for in this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise shall not preclude the simultaneous or later exercise by such Party of any or all other rights - 12 - or remedies provided for in this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. 17. Notices. Whenever it is provided in this Lease that a notice, demand, request, consent, approval or other communication (each of which is herein referred to as a "Notice) shall or may be given to or served upon either of the Parties by the other, and whenever either of the Parties shall desire to give or serve upon the other any Notice with respect hereto or the Fire Station Project, each such Notice shall be in writing and, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding, shall not be effective for any purpose unless given or served as follows: A. If given by Lessor, by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, personal delivery or by mailing the same to Lessee by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to Lessee at 50 S. Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois, Attn: Village Manager, with a copy thereof to Klein, Thorpe and Jenkins, Ltd.2O N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1660, Chicago, IL 60606, Attn: Everette M. Hill, Jr. and/or to such other address(es) and attorneys as Lessee may from time to time designate by Notice given to Lessor in the manner set forth below. B. If given by Lessee, by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, personal delivery or by mailing the same to Lessor by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to Lessor at 401 E. Camp McDonald Road, Prospect Heights, Illinois 60070-2508, Attn: Park - 13 - Director, with a copy thereof to Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess, LLP, 305 W. Briarcliff Road, Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440, and/or to such other address(es) and attorneys as Lessor may from time to time designate by Notice given to Lessee in the manner set forth below. C. Every Notice shall be deemed to have been given or served upon receipt or refusal of receipt if delivered personally, if delivered by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, one (1) Business Day (as that term is defined herein) after deposit with same, or if mailed, on the second Business Day after the same shall have been deposited in the United States mails in the manner aforesaid. 18. Hazardous Substances. A. Definitions. (1) "Claim" shall mean and include any demand, cause of action, proceeding or suit and the results thereof (i) for damages (actual or punitive), losses, injuries to person or property, damages to natural resources, fines, penalties, expenses, liabilities, interest, contribution or settlement (including, without limitation, attorneys' fees, expert witness fees, court costs and disbursements), (ii) for the costs of site investigations, feasibility studies, information requests, health or risk assessments, or Response actions, and (iii) for enforcing insurance, contribution, or indemnification agreements. (2) "Environmental Law" shall mean and include all federal, state and local statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules and - 14 - common law relating to environmental quality, health, safety, contamination and clean-up, including, without limitation, the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., and the Water Quality Act of 1987; the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act ("FIFRA"), 7 U.S.C. Section 136 et seq.; the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1401 et seq.; the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 4321 et seq.; the Noise Control Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 4901 et seq.; the Occupational Safety and Health Act ("OSHA"), 29 U.S.C. Section 651 et seq.; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq., as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984; the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 300f et seq.; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ("CERCLA"), 42 U.S.C. Section 9601 et seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act; the Radon Gas and Indoor Air Quality Research Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 2601 et seq.; the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. Section 2011 et seq.; the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, 42 U.S.C. Section 10101 et seq.; Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1 et seq.; and any other superfund and environmental clean-up statutes, with implementing regulations and guidelines. Environmental Laws shall also include all other state, regional, county, municipal and other local laws, regulations, ordinances permits and approvals, including - 15 - common law nuisance and trespass insofar as they are equivalent or similar to the federal laws recited above or purport to regulate Hazardous Materials or Releases or in the case of common law nuisance or trespass, as may be accepted in the applicable jurisdiction to redress environmental concerns and damages. (3) "Hazardous Materials" shall mean and include the following, including mixtures thereof: any hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, waste, byproduct, or constituent regulated under CERCLA; oil and petroleum products and natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas and synthetic gas usable for fuel; pesticides regulated under the FIFRA; asbestos and asbestos-containing materials, PCBs and other substances regulated under the TSCA; source material, special nuclear material, by-product material and any other radioactive materials or radioactive wastes, however produced, regulated under the Atomic Energy Act or the Nuclear Waste Policy Act; chemicals subject to the OSHA Hazard Communication Standard, 29 C.F.R. 9 1910.1200 et seq.; industrial process and pollution control wastes whether or not hazardous within the meaning of RCRA, any solid waste, whether waste, hazardous waste or other waste as defined in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1 et seq. and any other hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant regulated under any other Environmental Law. (4) "Manage" or "Management" means to generate, manufacture, process, treat, store, use, re-use, refine, recycle, reclaim, blend or - 16 - burn for energy recovery, incinerate, accumulate speculatively, transport, transfer, monitor, contain, excavate, dispose of or abandon Hazardous Materials. (5) "Release" or "Released" shall have the meaning given under any respective Environmental Law as described in 28.01 (b) and shall mean but is not limited to any actual or threatened spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, presence, dumping, migration from adjacent property or disposing of Hazardous Materials into the environment, as "environment" is defined in CERCLA. (6) "Response" or "Respond" shall mean action taken in compliance with Environmental Laws to correct, remove, remediate, cleanup, prevent, mitigate, monitor, evaluate, investigate, assess or abate the Release of a Hazardous Material. B. Lessee covenants that Lessee shall at its own cost comply with all Environmental Laws in connection with the construction, operation, management and maintenance of the Fire Station Project and shall not release any Hazardous Materials into the environment in violation of any Environmental Laws. No Hazardous Materials shall be stored or managed in violation of any Environmental Laws on the Park Land without the prior written consent of the Lessor. C. During the term of this Lease, Lessee shall promptly provide the Lessor with copies of all summons, citations, directives, information inquiries or requests, notices of potential responsibility, notices of violation or deficiency, orders - 17 - or decrees, claims, complaints, investigations, judgments, letters, notices of environmental liens or response actions in progress, and other communications, written or oral, actual or threatened, from the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency or other federal, state or local agency or authority or any other entity or individual, concerning (i) any Release of a Hazardous Material on or from the Fire Station Project; (ii) the imposition of any lien on the Fire Station Project; or (iii) any alleged violation of or responsibility under Environmental Laws. D. If Lessee's Management of Hazardous Materials at the Fire Station Project (i) gives rise to liability or to a Claim under any Environmental Law, (ii) causes a significant public health effect, or (iii) creates a nuisance or trespass, Lessee shall promptly take all applicable action in Response. Lessor shall have the right, but not the obligation, after providing Lessee with notice and a reasonable opportunity to cure, to enter onto the Fire Station Project or to take such other actions as it deems necessary or advisable to perform any and all Response action(s). All costs and expenses incurred by Lessor in the exercise of any such rights shall be payable by Lessee upon demand. E. Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless Lessor and its officers, agents and employees from all Claims suffered or incurred by any of the foregoing Persons arising from or attributable to (i) any breach by Lessee of any of its warranties, representations or covenants in this Section; (H) - 18 - noncompliance of the Fire Station Project or Lessee with any Environmental Laws; (Hi) any actual or alleged illness, disability, injury, or death of any person in any manner arising out of or allegedly arisen out of exposure to Hazardous Materials or other substances or conditions present at the Fire Station Project, caused by Lessee or any Person claiming by, through or under Lessee, regardless of when any such illness, disability, injury, or death shall have occurred or been incurred or manifested itself; and (iv) exposure to Hazardous Materials Managed or Released by Lessee or otherwise located or Released upon the Fire Station Project. In the event any Claims or other assertion of liability shall be made against Lessor for which Lessor is entitled to indemnity hereunder, Lessor shall immediately notify Lessee of such Claim or assertion of liability and thereupon Lessee shall, at its sole cost and expense, assume the defense of such Claim or assertion of liability and continue such defense at all times thereafter until completion. Lessee's obligations hereunder shall survive the termination or expiration of this Lease. 19. Consents and Approvals. All consents and approvals which may be given under this Lease shall, as a condition of their effectiveness, be in writing. The granting of any consent or approval by a Party to perform any act requiring consent or approval under the terms of this Lease, or the failure on the part of a Party to object to any such action taken without the required consent or approval, shall not be deemed a waiver by the Party whose consent was required of its right to require such consent or approval for any further similar act, - 19 - and each party hereby expressly covenants and warrants that as to all matters requiring the other Party's consent or approval under the terms of this Lease, the Party requiring the consent or approval shall secure such consent or approval for each and every happening of the event requiring such consent or approval and shall not claim any waiver on the part of the other Party of the requirement to secure such consent or approval. 20. Surrender at End of Term or early termination of Lease. A. Lessee shall, on the last day of the Term or upon the earlier termination of the Term, quit and surrender to Lessor the Park Land, together with the Fire Station and related facilities, free of all equipment, furniture and other personal property and in good order and condition, reasonable wear and tear, and free and clear of alllettings, occupancies, liens and encumbrances. B. On the last day of the Term or upon any earlier termination of the Lease or upon reentry by Lessor upon the Park Land, and the Fire Station and related facilities, fee simple title to the improvements, Fire Station and related facilities, to the extent not theretofore vested in Lessor pursuant to the terms of this Lease, shall revert to Lessor without the necessity of any further action by either party hereunder; provided, however, that upon Lessor's request, Lessee shall execute and deliver to Lessor (in recordable form) all documents necessary to evidence such conveyance, including, without limitation, a quitclaim deed and bill of sale. C. On the last day of the Term or upon any earlier - 20- termination of this Lease or upon a reentry by Lessor upon the Park Land pursuant to this Lease, Lessee, at its sole cost and expense, shall remove from the Park Land on or prior to such expiration, termination or re-entry all personal property situated thereon which is not owned by Lessee, and shall repair any damage caused by such removal. Any property not so removed shall become the property of Lessor, and Lessor may cause such property to be removed from the Park Land and disposed of, but the cost of any such removal and disposition and of repairing any damage caused by such removal shall be borne by Lessee, provided that Lessor sends Lessee Notice of such removal to provide the Lessee the opportunity to remove or repair such damage or dispose of such item. 21. Miscellaneous. A. The captions of this Lease are for convenience of reference only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of this Lease or in any way affect this Lease. B. This Lease may not be changed, modified or terminated orally, but only by a written instrument of change, modification or termination executed by the party against whom enforcement of any change, modification or termination is sought. C. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois, and the venue for any litigation involving this Lease shall lie only in the Circuit Court of Cook County. D. The agreements, terms, covenants and conditions herein shall - 21 - be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of, Lessor and Lessee and their respective successors and (except as otherwise provided herein) assigns. E. All references in this Lease to "Paragraphs" shall refer to the designated Paragraph(s), as the case may be, of this Lease. F. Unless specifically provided otherwise herein, any undertaking either required or permitted hereunder by either Lessor or Lessee shall include the obligation to pay for such undertaking. G. This Lease shall not be construed to create a partnership or joint venture between the parties, it being the intention of the parties only to create a Lessor and Lessee relationship. H. With respect to any provision of this Lease, time shall be of the essence. I. The provisions set forth in this Lease incorporate the full and complete understanding of the Parties to the exclusion of any terms or conditions not expressly set forth herein and supersede any prior negotiations, agreements or commitments by either Party with respect to this Lease. 22. Memorandum of Lease. The Parties agree to execute in recordable form a memorandum of lease setting forth the pertinent provisions of this Lease and shall be recorded against the Park Land. The cost of recording shall be borne by the Lessee. 23. Effective Date. This Lease shall be deemed dated and become effective on the date that the Lessor's President and Clerk have signed this - 22- Lease, which date shall be the date referenced next to their signatures attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. The following Exhibits, Schedules, Riders or attachments are hereby attached hereto and made a part hereof by reference. EXHIBIT 1 Legal Description of the Park Land EXHIBIT 2 School Land Lease EXHIBIT 3 Plans and Specs for School Land EXHIBIT 4 Site Plan (to be attached) EXHIBIT 5 Schedule of Insurance IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Lessor and Lessee have executed this Lease as of the day and year first written above. LESSOR: RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT President, Board of Park Commissioners ATTEST: Secretary, Board of Park Commissioners - 23 - LESSEE: VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT President Village Clerk EXHIBIT 2 LEASE d r-l),d?'A THIS LEASE is made and entered into this IS day Of~ 2008, by and between the RIVER TRAILS PARK DISTRICT (the "Lessee" or the "Park District") and the Board of Education of RIVER TRAILS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 26, Cook County, Illinois (the "Lessor" or the "School District"). WHEREAS, the Lessee desires to lease certain property owned by the School District, which is legally described on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "School Land Park Site"); and WHEREAS, the Village has agreed that the Village, pursuant to a separate Lease with the Park District, will be responsible for all costs associated with the improvement of the School Land for the Lessee's recreational purposes as hereinafter provided (the "Recreational Improvements"); and WHEREAS, the River Trails Park District (Lessee) and the School District are public agencies as that term is defmed in the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act (5 ILCS 220/1 et seq.); and WHEREAS, Article VII. Section 10 of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 and 5 ILCS 220/1 et seq. authorize units of local government to contract or otherwise associate among themselves to obtain or share services, to exercise, combine or transfer any power or function, in any manner not prohibited by law, to use their credit, revenues and other reserves to pay costs and to service debt related to intergovernmental activities: NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to their powers of intergovernmental cooperation and in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants hereinafter set forth, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1 40136411v140018S0 1. The recitals hereiDabove set forth shall be and are hereby incorporated in this Plragraph 1 81 findings of filet 81 if said recitals were fully set tDrth herein. 2. The School District hereby conveys a leasehold in the School Land Park Site subject to the terms contained herein to the Park District for an Initial Term coJDIDeDCing on November 1,2008 and terminating on October 31, 2033. The leasehold sball automatically be extended for a Second Term commencing OIl November 1,2033 and terminating on October 31, 2043, unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties in writing. Thereafter, the leasehold shall remain in effect until terminAted by either party with not less than one year's prior written notice to the other party. 3. The Park District shall pay the School District one dollar ($1.00) per Anmun as rent for the School Land Park Site. 4. The Park District shall use and operate the School Land Park Site solely for park purposes. The Park District shall be solely responsible for the maintenance of the School Land Park Site. This maintenance program will be consistent with the program instituted for all Park District land and facilities. S. The Village shall construct, or cause to be constructed, the Recreational Improvements on the School Land Park Site at the Vlllage's sole cost and expense pursuant to a separate' lease with the Park District. All Recreational I~vements, including but not limited to those depicted on the Plans and Specifications attached hereto 81 Exlnbit 2 and made apart bereo~ are subject to approval by the School District. In addition, the Park District sball provide portable restroom facilities at the School Land Park site during any such time that the School Land Park Site is used by the Park District. 2 -40136411 vi 4001150 e e e 6. The School District shall have priority usage of the Recreational Improvements on the School Land Park Site each day during the school year when classes are normally in session until 6:00 p.m., (a "School Day") and during school special events but excluding summer school. The Lessee shall have priority usage of the Recreational Improvements on any day of the year that is not a School Day and shall also have priority usage of the Recreational Improvements after 6:00 p.m. on any School Day unless there is a special event at the adjacent school. 7. Except with respect to School District sponsored activities occurring on the School Land Park Site, the Park District agrees to indemnify, and hold harmless the School District, its officers and employees, from any and all claims, damages, lawsuits or judgments arising from or related to any act or omission to act with respect to the School Land Park Site or any use or occupancy of the School Land Park Site by the Park District, its sublessees, licensees, invitees, or any other person using the School Land Park Site or any part of the School Land Park Site. Both parties are entitled to participate in the defense of any such claims or suits to the extent of their own interest. If the School District elects to defend itself: its defense shall not be deemed a waiver by the School District of any of its rights under the Indemnification herein set forth or other defenses as provided by law. 8. The Park District shall obtain and maintain continuously in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement. at the Park District's sole expense, general liability insurance coverage (of not less than one million dollars) through a risk management pool acceptable to the School District, naming the School District as an additional insured and protecting the School District against liability by reason of the Park District's wrongful conduct or failure to act incident to the Park District's use of the School Land Park Site or resulting from any accident or 3 40136411v14001850 incident occunina on or about the School Laud Parle Site u a result of the operations and activities oftbe Park District, or its sublessees, liceosees, or invitees, aud caused or arising out of any of their wrongful acts or omissioDS. Proof of insurance shall be provided on an annual basis. 9. Any and all improvements installed by or on behalf of the Park District on the School Land Park Site must be pre.approved by the School District aud shall be constructed in accordance with all applicable state, federal, and 1ocal1aws, regulations aud ordinances. 10. The School District agrees to cooperate fully with and to assist the Park District in applying for grants or other types of funding, which fundi", would be used by the Park District to improve the School Land Park Site for park purposes. 11. Prior to the expiration of the lease term, the Park District may remove, at its sole cost and expense, any fixture or other improvements located on the School Land Park Site which have been constIUcted or purchased by, or on behalf of; the Park District. Any portion of the School Land Park Site that is disturbed by the removal shall be graded and seeded by the Park District at its own expense and restored to as nearly as practicable to its original condition, or a condition which is approved by the School District, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. In the event the Park District fi1ils to remove such fIXtures or other improvements from the School Land Park Site as aforesaid, then the fixtures or other improvements shall be considered accretions to the real estate and shall immediately become the property of the School District. 12. It is hereby agreed by and between the parties that no lights shall be erected on the School Land Park Site. 13. The Park District and the School District do further agree that semi - annually (on or before January 30 and July 30 of each year (a representative of the Park District and a 4 401364llvl4001850 . e e representative of the School District shall meet to review the usage of the School Land Park Site and to coordinate the schedule of its use by both the School District and the Park District. Said meeting shall be held by the Superintendent of the School District and the Director of the Park District or their respective designees. 14. This Lease shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Illinois. 15. The provIsIons set forth in this Lease incorporate the full and complete understanding of the parties to the exclusion of any terms or conditions not expressly set forth herein and supersede any prior negotiations, agreements or commitments by either party with respect to this Lease. 16. The Lease shall not assignable without pre-approval of River Trails School District 26, the Board of Education of which shall have sole discretion as to whether or not to withho ld such approval. 17. Lessee shall promptly comply with any and all applicable present and future laws, rules, orders, ordinances, directives, authorities regulations, statutes, requirements, codes, orders, permits and authorizations, without regard to the nature of the work required to be done, extraordinary, as well as ordinary, of all federal, state, county or other Governmental Authorities now existing or hereafter created, affecting the School Land Park Site or affecting the construction, maintenance, use or occupation of the School Land Park Site. Lessee also shall comply with any and all provisions and requirements of any document of record or casualty, liability or other insurance policy required to be carried by Lessee under the provisions of this Lease. 5 40136411v14001850 18. LesIee shall not craste or cause to be created any lien, encumbnmce or charge . upon any assets of Lessor or upon the School Laud Park Site or any pert thereof. If any mechanics', laborers' or materialmen's or any other lien, charge or eDCUlDbrance at any time shall be filed against the improvements on the School Land Park Site or the Demised Premises in connection with said improvements or any part thereof: or against any assets of Lessor, then Lessee, within thirty (30) days after actual notice of the filing thereof: or such shorter period as may be required by statute, shall (i) cause the same to be discharged of record by payment, deposit, bond, order of a court of competent jurisdiction or otherwise (ii) contest the same. If Lessee shall fail to cause such lien to be discharged of record within the period aforesaid or to contest such lien, aDd if such lien shall continue for an additional ten (10) days after notice by Lessor to Lessee, then, in addition to any other right or remedy, Lessor may, but shall not be obligated to, discharge the same of record. Any amount so paid by Lessor, including all reasonable costs and expenses incurred by Lessor in connection therewith, together with e interest thereon at the JDB.Ximum statutory rate, from the respective dates of Lessor's ma.lring of the payment or incurring of the costs and expenses, shall constitute Rent payable by Lessee under this Lease and shall be paid by Lessee to Lessor on demand. 19. Except as otherwise expressly set forth in this Lease, no representations, statements or warranties, written or oral, express or iq)lied, have been made by or on behalf of Lessor in respect of the School Land Park Site, the status of title thereof except fur the recorded documents which Lessee is required to comply with, the physical condition thereof: the zoning or other Jaws, regulations, roles and orders applicable thereto, or the use that may be made of the School Land Park Site, that Lessee has relied on no such representations, statements or . 6 4013641lvl4001850 warranties, and that Lessor shall in no event whatsoever be liable for any latent or patent defects in the School Land Park Site. 20. In the event that Lessee shall fail to observe or perform one of more of the material terms, conditions, covenants or agreements of this Lease and such failures are not remedied by Lessee within thirty (30) days after written notice thereof by Lessor to Lessee specifying such failure (unless such failure requires work to be performed, acts to be done or conditions to be removed which cannot either by their nature or by reason of Unavoidable Delays reasonably be performed, done or removed as the case may be, within such thirty (30) day period, in which case no default shall be deemed to exist as long as Lessee shall have commenced curing the same within such thirty (30) day period and shall continuously prosecute the same to completion with reasonable diligence, subject to unavoidable Delays), then the Lessor may elect, in its sole discretion, to proceed by appropriate judicial proceedings, either at law or in equity, to: (i) to enforce the performance or observance by the Lessee of the applicable provisions of this Lease; (ii) to terminate the Lease; and/or (iii) to recover damages for breach thereof, which costs shall include Lessor's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. Lessor may pursue one or more of the foregoing remedies, and no remedy shall be deemed exclusive. 21. No failure by either Party to insist upon the strict performance by the other party of any covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Lease or to exercise any right or remedy consequent upon a beach thereof, and no payment or acceptance of full or partial rent-during the continuance of any such breach, shall constitute a waiver of any such breach or of such covenant, agreement, term, or condition. No covenant, agreement, term or condition of this Lease to be performed or completed by either party, and no breach thereof, shall be waived, altered or modified except by a written instrument executed by the other Party. No waiver of any breach 7 40136411vI4001850 shall affect or aler this Lease, but each and every covenant, apeement, term and CODdition of . this Lease shall continue in full force and effect with respect to any other then existing or subsequent breach thereof: 22. In the event of any breach or threateDcd breach by either party of any of the covenanta, agreements, terms or conditions contained in this Lease, the other Party shall be entitled to enjoin such breach or threatened breach and shall have the right to invoke any rights and remedies allowed at law or in equity or by statute. 23. Each right and remedy of Lessor and Lessee provided for in this Lease shall be cumulative and shall be in addition to every other right or remedy provided for in this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise, and the exercise or beginning of the exercise by a Party of any of one or more of the rights or remedies provided for in this Lease or now or hereafter existing at Jawor in equity or by statute or otherwise shall not preclude the simultaneous or later exercise by such Party of any or all other rights or remedies e provided for in this Lease or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. 24. Whenever it is provided in this Lease that a notice, demand, request, consent, approval or other conummication (each of which is herein referred to as a ''Notiee'') shall or may be given to or served upon either of the Parties by the other, and wheneVer either of the Parties shall desire to give or serve upon the other any Notice with respect hereto or the School Land Park Site, each such Notice shall be in writing and, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding, shall not be effective for any purpose unless given or served as follows: A If given by Lessor, by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, personal delivery or by mailing the same to Lessee by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return . 8 ~136411vl400IISO receipt requested, addressed to Lessee at 401 East Camp McDonald Road, Prospect Heights, Illinois, 60070-2508 Attn: Park Director, with a copy thereof to Tressler, Soderstrom, Maloney & Priess LLP, 305 West Briarcliff Road, Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440 and/or to such other address(es) and attorneys as Lessee may from time to time designate by Notice given to Lessor in the manner set forth below. B. If given by Lessee, by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, personal delivery or by mailing the same to Lessor by certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to Lessor at River Trails School District 26, 1900 East Kensington Road, Mt. Prospect, IL 60056, Attn: Superintendent, with a copy to Scott E. Nemanich, Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, 14 West Cass Street, 3rd Floor, Joliet, IL 60432, and/or to such other address(es) and attorneys as Lessor may from time to time designate by Notice given to Lessee in this manner set forth below. C. Every Notice shall be deemed to have been given or served upon receipt or refusal of receipt if delivered personally, if delivered by a nationally recognized overnight courier service, one (1) Business Day after deposit with same, or if mailed, on the second Business Day after the same shall have been deposited in the United States mails in the manner aforesaid. 25. This Lease may be amended in writing upon agreement of both of the parties hereto. 26. The parties hereto acknowledge that the Park District has or will have entered into a separate Ground Lease with the Village of Mount Prospect (see Exhibit 3). If said Ground Lease is declared null and void pursuant to Paragraph 8 of said Ground Lease, the parties hereto 9 40136411v14001850 hereby agree that this Lease shall also become im~te1y aud automatically null and void and . shall be of no further mrcc and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Lease and affixed their seals as of the day and year first written above. LESSOR: LESSEE: BOARD OF EDUCATION OF RIVER TRAILS SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 26 RIVER TRAILS PARK. DISTRICT ~ F D'JLQ~ President. Board of Education President. Board of Park Commissioners e ATTEST: ~ 11. ~4~ Secretary, Board of Education Secretary, Board of Park Commissioners . 10 4013641Ivl40018S0 EXHIBIT 3 -- Plans and Specs for School Land (Preliminary -- to be revised/finalized) ~-~ i5 11 III ..d --- ~ g ~ ~ iil _ ~ :n '1. c. ~~ \!l . 0 X ~~~ " .r 00: m III ::l. ::T t H~Uf niH~ " = :n ~ m III ~ r ~ ~ 3 [j' .....Tldo ..L Preliminary Design Plan C~O'l(:Ol"""'''''"",~,,,,,,,, P~j&d & CI&ilI Hamt I] NQIth PfOjlIcU1B07045 kallJ:1"..3Q' . D~ I IW1Mll' Qn"-"" 2 01l1Ml' CIMII\t_ Softball Field Development River Trails Park District Mount Prospect, Illinois ~ , I' lllI eo 10 IW- Brusseau Design Group, LLC \ ~AIlH>_ -1h0M9l IANMicml'IIIri'wIIpUp1 ,.""_Ao......_'_l.. in"m"I4ID'U.4J>7,. :..'.iF;J\....-- EXHIBIT 4 Site Plan Not Available -- to be attached later. EXHIBIT 5 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE IN FORCE December 31,2008 Deductiblel Specific Aggregate Self-Insured Excess Excess Expiration Policy Type of Coverage Carrier Retention Limit Limit Date Number Broker Premium Property & Inland Marine Federal Insurance I Chubb $25,000 $64,729,190 none 01/01/09 35826710 Arthur J. Gallagher $80,754 Workers' Compensation Safety National Insurance Co. $500,000 Statutory $1,000,000 01/01/09 SP-1 H74-IL Arthur J. Gallagher $42,437 General Liability N/A $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 Auto Liability N/A $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 Employment Practices Liability NIA $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 Police Professional Liability NIA $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 Public Officials Liability N/A $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 (Errors and Omissions) Fiduciary Liability - Police Pension Federal Insurance I Chubb $25,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 08/01/08 8158-5499 Arthur J. Gallagher $9,061 Fiduciary Liability - Fire Pension Federal Insurance I Chubb $25,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 08/01/08 8169-8992 Arthur J. Gallagher $10,378 Excess Liability High-level Excess Liability Pool $2,000,000 $12,000,000 $12,000,000 04/30109 nla nla $71,932 Public Employee Dishonesty ITT Hartford $5,000 $500,000 none 05/01/09 83BPEAD4895 Hobbs Group $2,423 Depositors Forgery ITT Hartford $1,000 $100,000 none 05/01/09 83BPEAD4895 Hobbs Group Incl. in above Public Officials Bond - President ITT Hartford $0 $100,000 $100,000 05/01/09 83BSBDK7589 Hobbs Group $400 Public Officials Bond - Manager ITT Hartford $0 $100,000 $100,000 05/01/09 83BSBCQ9763 Hobbs Group $400 Public Officials Bond - Treasurer ITT Hartford $0 $250,000 $250,000 05/01/09 83BSBAK8746 Hobbs Group $1,150 Contingent Tax Interruption Chubb $25,000 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 01/01/09 35826710 Arthur J. Gallagher Incl. in Prop Employee & Retiree Health Ins. Intergovernmental Personal $20,000 I Benefit Cooperative $75,000 none none 06/30108 nla nla Varied Third Party Administrators Workers Comp Claims Admin CCMSI Liability Claims Admin GAB Robins Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM J'""Mount Prospect -r '~ ~b. f....\1;rt, 11 IS 06 TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 7, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-II-08 - SIDEY ARD SETBACK V ARIA nON 100 N. SCHOOL STREET MR.MICHAEL RYAN - APPLICANT The petitioner, Mr. Michael Ryan, is seeking approval of a Side Yard Setback Variation, for the property located at 100 N. School Street. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, June 26, 2008, and by a vote of 5-0, with one member absent, recommended approval of a Side Yard Setback Variation for the property located at lOa N. School Street. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 15,2008 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. ~~J~oo~ H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\MEJ Mcmo\PZ-] ]-08 100 North SchooU'7070Rdoc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-ll-08 Hearing Date: June 26, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 100 N. School Street PETITIONER: Michael Ryan PUBLICATION DATE: May 7, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-34-416-018-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBER ABSENT: Keith Youngquist ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Patrick Ainsworth, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Michael Ryan, Mike Haaing Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2008 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-11-08, a request for a Variation (side yard set back) at 100 N. School Street, at 7:34 p.m. Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, stated that the property is located on the northwest corner of East Henry Street and North School Street. He showed the existing site conditions. Mr. Simmons said the home is presently a one story brick home with a driveway that fronts off of Henry Street. The area in question is the North property line. The one story room is approximately 14 feet x 14 feet and a deck extends off the room to the West. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner has proposed to expand this room to the West. Mr. Simmons said that the proposed expansion would extend 16 feet into the deck and would maintain the existing setback line along the North property line. This extension would increase the square footage of the house by approximately 225 feet. The existing Western end of the deck would remain as is so the size of the deck would decrease in size to ten feet in depth, but total number of impervious area on the site would not increase as part of the project. Mr. Simmons stated that the existing home was considered non-conforming based on the side yard setback that existed along the North property line. He said that the current room is five feet from the property line on the North side while seven feet is required. Mr. Simmons stated per Village Ordinance, a non-conforming structure cannot be expanded or constructed upon which would increase the non-conformity of the building. The proposed expansion would extend the amount of the home which is non-conforming on the North side by approximately 16 feet. Mr. Simmons showed a table of the R-1 zoning district bulk requirements: Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-11-08 Page 2 Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 29.86' No change Exterior 20' 20.19' No change Interior 7' 5' (north) 5' Rear 25' 47' 47' FAR 50% Maximum 22.8% 24.8% LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 35.6% 35.6% Mr. Simmons stated that the existing non-conforming setback was not applicable to the proposed room expansion; therefore, the expansion would require approval of a Variation. Mr. Simmons said Staff reviewed this matter with the Village's Legal Division due to the unique circumstances of this case. He stated in 1990, the Federal Government passed the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which established guidelines for providing access to individuals who may have disabilities or handicaps. In this case, the Petitioner is in a wheelchair and is requesting a Variation for his house to provide access to the facility. The Legal Division determined the applicability of ADA to zoning Variations. Based on legal review, Mr. Simmons stated that the Village must make reasonable accommodations in light of an applicant's disability when granting a Variation. Case law exists which demonstrates the Village may grant a Variation if demonstrated quality of life enhancement exists or the petitioners usability of space is increased. Mr. Simmons said Staff requested that the Petitioner provide information to show how a Variation would address his needs and how not granting a Variation would limit the use of home. Mr. Simmons said by Code, the Petitioner could expand the home to within seven feet for the North property line and not require a Variation. The proposal asked for a five foot setback to be consistent with the rest of the home along the North property line. Mr. Simmons stated that insufficient information was provided with the Petitioner's application on why the reduction of two feet to meet the set back requirement would not enhance the Petitioner's needs of accessing the home or limit the use of the home. Mr. Simmons said Staff believed that the justification for the Variation is not supported by the hardship standards listed in the zoning ordinance, nor does the legal history with ADAjustif)t the variation in this case. Mr. Simmons stated the Variation request for a five (5) foot interior side yard does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on this analysis, Staffrecommends that the P&Z deny the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a five (5) foot side yard setback along a portion of the north lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by Kabal Surveying Company, dated February 29, 2008 for the residence at 100 N. School Street, Case No. PZ-II-08." Chairman Rogers swore in Mike Ryan, 100 N. School Street, Mount Prospect, IL and Mike Haaning, 205 Forest Avenue, Mount Prospect, IL 60056. Mr. Haaning said that he appreciates Staffs' position. He believed that they are covering an existing structure, the deck which is already legal non-conforming. Mr. Haaning stated that they are covering an existing condition and not expanding. He said that they would be reducing the encroachment of the deck by a Y2 foot, this would increase the Petitioner's living space. Mr. Haaning stated that the Petitioner has his exercise equipment in the garage because it does not fit in any other areas of the home. This new room would allow the equipment to be utilized indoors despite weather conditions. Mr. Haaning said the proposed room would allow the Petitioner to have an office area if the Petitioner could not leave his home. He stated that egress/ingress is a current concern as Mr. Ryan can only enter his home through Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-11-08 Page 3 the garage. If the power went out on the home, Mr. Ryan could not enter or exit the home. Expanding the den would allow another point of access for the Petitioner. Mr. Haaning stated that if the room was expanded without the Variation, Mr. Ryan would not have the mobility that he needs to move within his home. Chairman Rogers confirmed with the Petitioner that a 12 foot section where the entry door would work. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner could have an entry door and still maintain the seven foot side yard. Mr. Haaning said the way the room was situated with the pipes, there would not be enough room to install a door. Chairman Rogers asked specifics about the exercise equipment. Mr. Ryan said he would like a set of three stations (machines). He was not able to utilize a park district or commercial facility. Mr. Ryan stated that each piece of the exercise equipment is approximately four by five feet. Joseph Donnelly asked Staff about the non-conforming structure. Mr. Simmons said that it may have been constructed before the zoning ordinance. With the existing structure, there were no Variations in the past that would justify the five foot set back. There was general discussion regarding the house because it is located on a comer lot. Ronald Roberts asked if the Petitioner has discussed this proposal with his neighbor. Mr. Ryan stated that the neighbor next to his house is supportive of the Variation. Mr. Roberts asked Staff if this case was properly noticed to the neighbors. Mr. Simmons said the case was properly noticed and Staff did receive feedback, no one was against the proposal. The neighbor directly adjacent to the proposed property wrote a letter of support. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 7:45 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-I1-08, a request for a Variation (Side yard set back), at 100 N. School Street. Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. Leo Floros believed this is a reasonable request since the five foot set back exists and the Petitioner is not increasing this; he saw no problem at all. Mr. Roberts said safety is an issue and the Petitioner needs an exit in case of a fire. He does not see an issue with the Variation since the neighbors did not object, especially the neighbor who would be directly affected by this. Marlys Haaland stated that an entry way was needed and hopes it works out for the Petitioner. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, NA YS: NONE Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing three additional cases Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11: 12 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H.\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minules\PZ-II-08 \IXl N School (Ryan Residence) Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 11-08 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: 100 N. School Street Michael Ryan Michael and Elizabeth Ryan PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: 03-34-416-018-0000 0.25 acres (10,920 square feet) ZONING: R1 Single Family Residence LAND USE: Single Family Residential REQUEST: Variation (Side Yard Setback) LOCATION MAP -- -.:: "03 11II 10411 z (/) o ':C 8 ,... EHENRYST,,_~ .- . ~ "13 ia r.,". ;"Hl~:::::::~:;~:::=~:":~,,.. ,..........." ' - 11II .. III 10 .....,1 , . . 1" 1. III 12 .. 10 "i". ,. """.~!lIt,.... II. _9 ".,.---,!;,.,..., """'''''''',-,,<,'/_,Y<i MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: BRIAN SIMMONS, AICP DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 11,2008 HEARING DATE: JUNE 26, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-ll-08 - VARIATION (SIDE YARD SETBACK) 100 N. SCHOOL STREET (RYAN RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the June 26, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Michael Ryan (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 100 N. School Street (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to encroach 2' into the required interior side yard. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the May 7, 2008 edition of the Journal & Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the northwest corner of School Street and Henry Street, and contains a single- family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single Family Residence and is bordered by the Rl District on all sides. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exhibits illustrate the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home, which is an expansion of a room in the north side of the property to enlarge the existing den. In order to accommodate the expansion, the addition would encroach into the required interior side yard. The existing structure encroaches into the interior side yard by two (2) feet. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to allow a five (5) foot side yard along the north lot line when the Zoning Ordinance requires a seven (7) foot side yard. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The Subject Property does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations. The principal structure encroaches into the interior side yard and is considered to be a legal nonconforming structure. The petitioner would not increase the degree of the encroachment (i.e. the room expansion would maintain its 2' encroachment into the setback), but would extend the wall of the den that encroaches into the yard to make a larger den. According to the definitions in the Zoning Ordinance, the east property line is the front property line and the south property line is considered the exterior side yard. This is important to note because the structure is situated in a way that the south yard coincides with the front of the house. PZ-II-08 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 3 The following table compares the Petitioner's proposal to the Rl Single Family Residence District's bulk requirements. Rl Single Family District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 29.86' No change Exterior 20' 20.19' No change Interior 7' 5' (north) 5' Rear 25' 47' 47' FAR 50% Maximum 22.8% 24.8% LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 35.6% 35.6% VARIATION STANDARDS 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. The following list is a summary of these findings: · Would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood in which the property is located; · Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and · Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Zoning Ordinance requires a seven (7) foot interior side yard for the proposed addition. In this case, the existing nonconforming setback for the existing addition is not applicable to the expansion. The Petitioner states in the attached application that the two (2) foot encroachment is necessary to construct a room expansion. The Petitioner explored whether the addition could be built with a seven (7) setback, but found that the accessibility to the room was not improved. The petitioner stated that there is only one other exit in the home that accommodates wheelchair accessibility. The proposed location on the lot is the only place where an addition makes sense: the garage makes expanding into the rear (west) difficult and would not create the accessibility that the petitioner is seeking. Building a second story onto the house is not a consideration for the petitioner because he is trying to improve wheelchair accessibility within the home. Staff reviewed the matter with our legal representation to determine if zoning variations may be granted to individuals with disabilities if the disability is the primary reason for justifying the variation. Per legal counsel, the Village must make reasonable accommodations in light of an applicant's disability when granting zoning variations. The Village may grant the application if the petitioner demonstrates that the requested variation will enhance the applicant's quality of life by reducing the effects of being wheelchair bound. Based on the information submitted with the application, staff believes that the petitioner has not fully demonstrated how the variation will address their needs. Greater detail of the floor plan is necessary in order to demonstrate how not granting the variation would reduce or prohibit the petitioner's use of the home. Based on the standards for reviewing a variation, and review of legal history regarding the American with Disabilities Act, staff believes there is insufficient evidence to support the requested sideyard setback variation. PZ-11-08 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The Variation request for a five (5) foot interior side yard does not meet the standards for a Variation contained in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance for the reasons previously noted. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z denv the following motion: "To approve a Variation to allow a five (5) foot side yard setback along a portion of the north lot line, as shown in the exhibit prepared by Kabal Surveying Company, dated February 29,2008 for the residence at 100 N. School Street, Case No. PZ-11-08." This case is Village Board final since the Variation exceeds 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. I concur: ~........ \ .~ . .! 're tor of Community Development lit H:\PLAN\Plallning &. Zoning COMM\P&z 2008\StalT Rcport\PZ-II-08 100 N School - V AR side yard.doc . ..,......"-...;.-~..-::...,..,,....'"'".- ,. ".-'-...._..__._._.~_.'"--.'-'-_...c.'-...........~___._""_...._ c~ .'" ;::'::":::-,~:~:~_->~''-'', VILLAGE OF IVfOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Variation Request P&Z Final The Planning & Zoning Commission has final administrative authority for all petitions for fence variations and variation requests that do not exceed twenty-five (25%) of a requirement stipulated by the Village's Zoning Ordinance. PETITION FOR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION REVIEW Common Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 100 N School Street Mt. Prospect IL 60056 Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) 03-34-416-018-0000 Z 0 .... Eo< i Legal Description (attach additional sheets ifnecessary) ~ Lot 26 in Frank Serafine Subdivision, a subdivision of part of the South half ofthe Southeast qJlarter of Section 34, Township 42 North Ranl!:e 11 East of the Third Princioal Meridian In Cook County. Illinois (Attached) r.il t:: fIl ~51 Name Telephone (day) ~~ llCl~ ...~---- '--"---'-"-'.-''-",-'~_...,._~ -~-"'-~'--'-~-'-~--~~~--- I Telephone (e;;;;'i"gJ--- ,~_,_~,"_~~.'''_'-''''_''',-~.-.-,___'-'o-----.- Corporation -". _."---._,-"",,,.~.'.-~-'''''',-'>".- ,- Street Address t ..,.-.-.,-_."'-,_--~~-"-,.,,,,,~,-'~_'~~"'-~ I E~i------~-- City State Zip Code - Interest in Property Z Name Telephone (day) 8 Michael Ryan (847) 797-4975 F-i i ~ Corporation Telephone (evening) ~~ (847) 788-0963 ~i Street Address Fax: 100 N School Street ~~ e,:)1 City State Zip Code Email ~ U Mount Ptospect IL 60056 ;;a Mike.g.ryan@honeywell.com Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax . Email Attorney . Z Name Telephone (day) . ~ ~ Address Fax il Email 0$1 ~~ ~5 Surveyor ~ Name Telephone (day) o 0 ~G) ~ ;) Address Fax UO </ Email = Engineer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Email Mount Prospect Departmutt ofC01'l.mmmt, D(;1fdopmcnt 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 i:'tUti::;i1,;;:5?;;';'~'iiLij;:"::i:i!+ii'!."ht::i:ill;jS.:;~~Jl~:"~D.~DiW,:",:~'1i:N:0iL'tl;{;:;il:t.i;;;::~"'t.t~~t?:itEEi1'0#;~;:"a.1&:U:.ili:;!,~~+;' ._ "~.",,~~,___....,......"^.._._.,.___._..^. h~"_'__.__ AFFIDA VIT OF OWNERSHIP COUNTY OF COOK ) ) STATE OF ILLINOIS ) I, -.-M,'chae- \ -+ ~ 11'ea1,etM ~ ~ e'laxt ) ) owner of the property ) 100 N. S0koo{ st, tJ\~ prospect) ::J:L loD05to , under oath, state that I am the sole ~an an authorized officer of the commonly described as and that such property is owned by , lA).e.,l( So ~i1AJ 0 as of this date. ~~.~ ~~~-~ Subscribed and sworn to before me this 2lf-/J) day of AP/l.1 L ,201il. -ofFlclAL'sEAl- -=: Scaletta ..... .... .fJubI. .... ...cllIInoII ~ 2I2It'2On ~ 5c(dUf1- Notary Public Mount Prospect Deparbnent of Community Development ~o South F.mer.::on Street. Mount Pmsnect TlIinois Phone 847.818.5328 Fax R47Jl1lt512Q Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Landscape Architect Name Telephone (day): Address Fax Email Code Section(s) for which Variation{s) is (are) Requested 14.402 Summary and Justification for Requested Variation(s) Applicant is in a motorized wheelchair: Applicant proposes to allow an addition of 16 feet that would extend his existing den. If granted this would allow the applicant to enter and exit his home by a secondary means. A t this time he is only able to access the home ~ r;;ril throul:h the fl:arage on his own. While this new entrance would make the ap.plicant's life easier it also is a real safety ~t; OS ~('t()r lutheo eov..nt of llV emergell<'Y aDd tt,.. gl'rqgp ;Ii "'<-,{'h'd "lppli,."nt h"" no Ulay to e~jt the hnm{" T astly iDcrellsing i~ the lli7P. ofthill room will allow applicant more treedom to get aronnd in the llpace and take filiI advantage of all ~ it's amenities ;;JO rI}..... E-l U -< Please note that the application will not be accepted until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. It is s1rongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village Staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness prior to submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition and all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant .~ A~'" 'l.. ~ Date 4-- ( ~ '\ l'2 D 1) ~ Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois 3 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 30'1 ~"~~'''~::=~''', '1, I i BATH' Ln -~_.~.~." "~'. .~....... "-",,,,,,-,,,.. < r~""~'~,=~..=::;r BED 3 ,> : Oil (.I.f. WI'U;6LeHwCw. A-tUs~,,~ 6c:r~tE ~ I GARAGE ~ . 0) .1 0) LIVING/DINING ROOM 18' -6" .. BED 2 ~ SA TH : ,.., I 8'_0. <0 BED 1 'i--. I - - 14'-5" lyll , [ f I : Deck i I P ..... I I . ~.........'-,____ ,_~~._ .....,:-:.._:_:-::::::: ,-;-:~_ .......:-:..... . I, UTILITY. LAUNDRY r~l~~o'FrK'TcHEN .~ 1=c'c~=Jij .." 5'-S"---./' .1 . 0 .- FAMILY ROOM {) , GARAGE b> I b> - :t" - BED 2 I BED 3 II ..::..:::::..:::::::::::::.Q.:: l . o .- I 'C-.l LIVING/DINING ROOM 18'-6" BED 1 I i . ~I .,.,...., .- .- .. _n 14' -5" I Land Surveying Services KABAL SURVEYING COMPANY fl31at .of ~ur-urPY 2411 Hawthorne Avenue Westchester, I1Iinois 60154 (708) 562-2652 Fu (708) 562-7314 Reglstr. tlon No. 1B4-003061 Lot 26 In Frllnk Serllfine Subdivision, 11 subdivision of pllrt of the South hlllf of the Southellst qUllrter of Section 34, Township 42 North, Rllnge 11, Ellst of the Third Prlnclplll Merldllln, In Cook County, Illinois. Aclclr"ss' 100 N. School Str"et, Mt. Prosp"ct .... :i1~ ow ~'" u_ Co ~ ..... ~.c ..... d:> ~o "'''\. f"\eo.s Ie r"ec 156,00 ". ...... . . .c .... :> ~o u'" ~gj "'0 ~ ..... ,,~ ~o ..... .c .... :> ~o u'" C ~'" ...OJ o ~ ..... ,,~ ~ 0 ..... \ OJ C ::; u ~o ~o .. ~o ~I' c , \0~ , If' Ii ....' c' ~, c, ~, ~, d, w, ::1 -, ~I =<, ...., ::>, . , .>1 , I I I , I I , I I I , , , , , ~... e/ "'c; ~e:"J(" o-~e<vo- ~~1' + Y.lk LIB South' .. of. .. Cross (Found) 2.0 South of Corner Hetlry (66' R.O.IN,) lll&!:lIl. I"leo.s = Meo.surecl rec: = recor-oI pch = porch R.O.\{. = right of wo.y cone = concrete ',j . ." . ." ~ ~ d ~ . o (\j~ ~E 58 ~"- o ~ ~.... o ~ ~ d uw ~ -P OJ OJ '- -P VJ Street .... ~ " w ,... '" o :< ~ > 10 'r Co 'I o '" " ":< ~ ". .~ ~ o~ o o~ 1''' ~ ~ E 0; Od lei U;" VJ~ "4 :. .-- \ ~ ." "5", 0.... "'~ g~ -'(IJ :<'" ~o >.. l -P '- o z Notch on Lot Line Extended This professlono.l service conforMs to the current Area. of property Is o.pproxll"lo.tely 10.920 squo.re feet illinois MinlMu'" sto.nclo.rols for 0. bounclo.ry survey IZI :r:s l~r~~~~~cI~:t:Sn~~:o~~~:~;e:r:';;v~;.t SURVEY UPDATED ~EBRUARY 29, 200B Pl"as" check leg.l Description with Deecl .ncl report .ny cllscr"pancy 11'I1'I"clla tely. Surveyed October 22 19~ 19~ Bullcllng loca tecl October 22 Scal,,' 1 Inch ?O ft. Ord"r No, 91;1174 Ord"r"cI By' RYlln. Owner ORIGINAL SEAL IN RED STATE O~ ILLINOIS COUNTY O~ COOK }... I, STEPHEN J. BALEK, an Illinois Prof"sslon.l l.ncl Surveyor, ht!reby certify tho.t I ho.ve surveyed the property ~escribed o.bove o.nol the plo.t hereon dro.wn Is 0. correct representation of SQld survey. DIMensions o.re In feet and oIeclMo.l po.rts thereof' a.nol o.re corr"ct"d to a t"l'Ip"ra tur" of 62 cI"gr"es F .hrenhelt, .<J!fJ J' 130M Illinois Prof" sional land Surv"yor No, 1712 My license explr"s on Nov"l'Ilo"r 30, 2008 I II ~ I'Z lilt' ,., : ~ i ~~ = Sl.C ., " 51. '( \ <I) - n1 r ~ ~" "'\0 ~~f',.. ~~l' _0.5 .. I"ec 70.00 f" 1"1I.M f" ence 0.50 South .. 0,16 Eo.s-t / _____~~~~~!_~~!=~~t~________ 5J ,- ". ~ F'ro./'Ie F'ence / Post 0.22 South fro./'Ie fence Post 0.23 South Line &. . . 4 .. :s .' " ~ ,'."" o. .. w.'~ . .... ..i....,,-:... ' /<' ,,'20;00' 3..........~...... "(J1. ;. I . . .. O"l . '.0-:>'" : <'q.. - "'Yk. . . .~ ~g .:' . t. ..:.' n ... . '. . . g'l;l s.a ::rift t'"' 0'" .CD. il '10')' 2 9:. I ~[\l .. .. fQ ~ "1 . . '< . -. .. . . .b ~ ~ ;'IJ i:J < " '.": ... (/) <+ "1 fQ fQ <+ 'J; ,. ."b ~ . rz .:: :;~ IOn ~ , ,.,J . Xo ~::s :3r .. ~o ~... .~ 3 ' 900-18'-03' /'Ie0.5 "'o.lk 0.97 Eas-t . 'A .....,.. ""70 OO~ '.. ..' b" . . .. f .0 I'leQS . rec ... . . WQlk /", , . : . ill' .:+ ..~ Cross (F'ound) 2,( Eo.st 0; Cornel" "'Qlk 1.00 SOU~ ~ .~ .:. .. 0.92 Eo.st . .~ I': ;1 North School (66' R.D.....> Street ~ ~ ~' ~ '. " ~ '" " ~ ~ ,> , , ',~ " .- ~ J ~ ~ s ~ i< ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::l "< , , rSl"ffj, \ ' , ' jg -- ~ ~ lIt ~ II ~a ,ij V~cr ~ t,.-.;: ~ o t' ' t~: ~;,' .:-'.' ',':'-:;': 'S " s. " C~ [] .. ! to-'-~' --- ,-,) o ~ :::t: ~ " I' .,. -.J Q ~ ' - < ~~ ~.. ~ c, ~, .. ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ \a ~i ! l~ . ~! \ ~ ;; ~,I :1'" ~ \.l.I Ol ~~ ~ ii ~~ ~ ~ ~... t r:: ~~ ~ L; t; ,~ ~ ~~ ~ '" ~ '" l': '" ~..\ ~'J1_~~~ e, '< Ie" -3~- lij~ ~ _,. ~ _ :!: ><... ~O< ,,~~ ~ ~ ~ '::t- 11(:] ~ ~ ~ A~ it ," ~ ~ ~ l j~ ~~;: III &"'-4 i[\ :;~~~~.,,~~ ~ '" ~~i1'~::!""~~ .' "'~~.. "- ::t f,)j ~x.-.."~.,,,~v(l::!~1:"" '" "N ~tJI:JN \ii~~..;j '<~~ Q '" iV . ;\ ",~:j~:'< ,- Iii ~"'~, ,~~:t > '.! ~~ '" ~ ,.. cl ~~.':j il ~ ~ ~ ~~~J~~I~~~ ~ ~~~ R~h~~"V1J~F ~~ " " '!: ,. ~"- "" . ~ ~ -.J ,,'" 1t1. , ~t1 0 ~ ~ - ~ ~ \t u ~"- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ('~ ~ E,1:. :j~'.:!{l~~C)"""n..J~~Q '..) ~ &~~ ~Q0~w~~~~~j~~~ i G @6) ~@ ~ "'JON ~~ . .Ikl.r.:.; Sf .. ~5 .il :j.aa"q.s ,."v..w jOOL.t::lS .-..o:.#'>""" 'l'_J:loao.Q "+~ """]~..- ~~OL: ~ . . L ~ '" .......SU1l.- --'J--'J . ~iIiI1-"/ '_J_J ~ ----- ......-.:JHI'IIlIl.s '\ 'I . !. ill + ~ L C . I "391"1'_/ l$'ll~J-"J !t..O~OL ,.... ...~ ~ lj ~ ~ . ..." \f ' " " Q " . 0 '<:( ~ . . . < 2. . Q ~ - ~ p. J e ':: j ,; ~ V L-/'4'O" ~ ~ J 1- ~ III "'.1 ~~ ....)...", ~ ~ \-- '" 1: ~ ""~ i~ "" V') '" ~ ~i ~ ~{: ~ ' t -:- ~~ ~ ~d ~~ I,~ ~ ~ 1 \' ! ill I f a ~t , \I'\! I\!II) H~ ti",''''II',j' \ '\)1, ~~~~I'I.>',~ .~ ~I.' !""....\-~.".,~~'....1 Ii'. ! ,J ! 11 f I i Ii" ! i @ i,i~ ~ I ( e~I^~-! I ~ ~ "i! ,0 I ~ 01 ~. I ~ i ~,li~rj~-I:"JJl) ~I I) LJ: ~ ! '; I]' ' \ I 'l 'l <!.L3 \!I'). ~ r" '" \:1. ~,.F.'_c_1 ' " I: , I,' , LLJ II..,' \ 'd=' ','I ..': :()~.~".. , ,. "" I 7--" kad 7/8/08 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 100 NORTH SCHOOL WHEREAS, Michael Ryan ("Petitioner") have filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 100 North School Street ("Subject Property") and legally described as follows: Lot 26 in Frank Serafine Subdivision, a subdivision of part of the South half of the Southeast quarter of Section 34, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number: 03-34-416-018-0000; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to allow for construction of an expansion of a room and create a five foot (5') side yard setback, as shown on the attached Exhibit A; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for the Variations being the subject of PZ-11-08 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26th day of June 2008, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the ih day of May 2008; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees ofthe Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request and have determined that it meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: C:A 100 N. School Street Page 2/2 SECTION ONE: The above recitals are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do grant the Variation, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow for a five (5') side yard setback as shown on the Site Plan, which shall be installed only in strict accordance with Exhibit "An. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\ORDINANCE2\Variation. 100 N School Street Side Yard Setback Addition.doc Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM ~ TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~.~~ " , S1~ FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 7, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-14-08 - PLAT OF SUBDIVISION 215 WESTGATE ROAD MR. ANGELO MANNELLA - APPLICANT The petitioner, Mr. Angelo Mannella, is seeking approval of a Plat of Subdivision, to subdiv ae the property located at 215 Westgate Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, June 26, 2008, and by a vote of 5-0, with one member absent, recommended approval of a Plat of Subdivision for the property located at 215 Westgate Road. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 15,2008 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. M~l~obk H"\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\MEJ Mcmo\PZ.14-08 2\ 5 Westgate Road_07070Kdoc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-14-08 Hearing Date: June 26, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 215 Westgate Road PETITIONER: Angelo Mannella PUBLICATION DATE: Not required; signs posted on-site June 12, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-35-401-057-0000 REQUEST: Subdivide one lot of record into two lots of record MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBER ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Patrick Ainsworth, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTY: Angelo Mannella Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2008 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-14-08, a request to subdivide one lot of record into two lots of records at 215 Westgate Road, at 7:47p.m. Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, showed an aerial of the existing property with the proposed property line. The existing site condition was a single family home with related improvements. Mr. Simmons said that the Petitioner seeks to subdivide the property into two lots. He presented a chart with requirements and indicated both lots would conform with the R-l Zoning District Bulk Regulations: Rl Single Proposed Proposed Family Existing (north lot) (south lot) Minimum Requirements Minimum Lot Size: 8,125 square 42,047 square 22,840 square 19,126 square feet feet feet feet Minimum Lot Width 65' 165 90' 75.36' Minimum Lot DeDth 120' 253' 253' 253' Mr. Simmons stated that after the Staff report was distributed, Staff had discussed a fee in lieu of detention requirement with the Petitioner. This new fee has been with the Village since 2006. Mr. Simmons said for any new building permits for residential or commercial properties, applicants are required to pay a fee in lieu of providing storm water detention on their property. In this proposed subdivision, a fee would be assessed for both lots which total approximately $37,000 for the property lot coverage on the proposed properties. Mr. Simmons stated that the Petitioner is requesting a waiver of this fee. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-ll-08 Page 2 Mr. Simmons said the proposed plats have been prepared according to all Village Codes and requirements noted in Sec. 15.304. Based on this, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Plat of Resubdivision, titled Mannella's Westgate Resubdivision, benefiting the property located at 215 Westgate, Case No. PZ-14-08." Mr. Simmons stated that Staff suggests that the fee in lieu detention not be waived. Chairman Rogers swore in Angelo Mannella, 215 Westgate Road, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Mannella stated that he is building a home for himself. He discussed the cost of detention fee. Chairman Rogers said water detention is a problem in the Village. He said the Village enforces everyone to add additional detention on their property if they are above a certain size to pay a fee. Chairman Rogers stated that the Petitioner has the alternative of providing detention on the property himself or paying the fee. Further discussion continued regarding the detention fee and it was determined that the Planning and Zoning Commission was not voting on the fee. They were voting on whether or not the Petitioner could subdivide the lot. The request for the waiver could be addressed by the Village Board. Leo Floros asked how the detention fee is calculated. Mr. Simmons said there is a fee schedule in the Village Code. It is based on maximum lot coverage in the zoning district. For R-l, Single Family Residential, the maximum lot coverage is 45 percent. The fee is based off how much lot coverage was on the property, based on the square footage. The Petitioner could potentially cover 9,000 square feet of their lot and the fee is calculated based on this maximum lot coverage. Chairman Rogers said there was a reason why the Petitioner would like to subdivide the property. Mr. Mannella stated that he is going to sell his current home and construct a new home without any stairs. Joseph Donnelly asked about a garage on a property line that he saw when Staff showed an aerial view. Mr. Mannella stated that the garage is no longer there, it is currently a slab. He confirmed that the driveway and slab would be removed. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public hearing was closed at 8:00 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve Case Number PZ-14-08, a request to Subdivide one lot of record into two lots of record at 215 Westgate Road. Marlys Haaland seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Donnelly, Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers, NAYS: NONE Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing two additional cases Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11: 12 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minulcs\PZ-14-08 215 Westgate Road (Angelo Mannella) '-.~' '~AI - r . ~'/j IJ Il1ry ILLL . I,fJlCi./I- .. VL~- m ~ ,-., "'f ,LfJUt VL!iJJLttJ1~4tJ7ifLuu~d~ >u, li!tl:tL -: t/.lLLl~~17V{~1- ,reLt:!t0 ,Ild! .Luj LU;kcftd' to--'i~!:!>.~.filf/1d'J!!&lJLI.'L,J1(fti"4I1.?f,/d.Ij~W~ ",.'", , ~./1l.1l}luv:kt!LtLl!tk)1L;ili-~71rLff-Jt.iuJ.IJI.i.LldU~-- -- -Uit.. tutfttbl/~/U21!ldaL aw..M!It-<LJ;I'-r'1L1-.--- - '" -W-JiL--k:~#&_.-l/k-lUttitL--;ttkAd-;i[Y{...J n . dL,WtltiJdcL' ttLfjl-7l1r.t4f1f.{;~~Z - ., . ..,.".', , .- ~./;l",L-IJ~L,r;!A_a~-'~-~tL-W-~-/?tJYl~" "'. -----.-~LoJitl-ltiutL2-iWI--~fb;kk!~'i}J.1A...o~~.-.- .. _ mu_ ., -__~L-w..-'1hI12n--L;.JIuv;nL-.Ae..t.(.lt./~-.-(k,,~" - -~.' =~==~=~ ====~~~~====- ...,---., ~...fWU.'~~-r"Rf~U~~-..fftUL..n-.-,--..- .-------...--.CL-rJk:111-----tL---llJl2r..t,.1L~c~~'.~-lJtid1&:tL-.!--'1Lf1tn____________,___________ ------l)-t1~--~(L_P.l'LcL.uuu::t~'-:~-;;/i~i4!.n.lm~.--.-------..--------.---- -.----- . _ dLA1L-~~~-~,-,~c-~---------.----'------'- -----.---------" - -- - .---LLl..,;-J-d--is-~-I-.&L,.~7~~------.------------ { , ~--~~~-, -T4iu-Aifi;b~=t1AiLZ;~7i;iil~I~~-,:~~:: ----------- ~--~---.iJ?f---d~-(.W4/l02.~~t12L4:~~?LI-~lUlL~-~.--.-------------,--- .-----.., ",' - --- -1uIJ)---7lr>>-Il~,#izul!~-t!d1LU,--{l!(f.-t!~&tfl_...---.-----,---.----. ---------- -- ~~~-~~.~~---------- . ...-ur1~.1KJ,,~-tjlL~'4LIh.~-, .......-.. -~:-'~=~~%~~~~~~~=:=:=: fL;d~tf~ l!dttlwtUL1;LMDdcL---- ........-- ..- ------.-k-tl,lJwcL~{.aL-I2~;--.~_'1'. --#.~L~~,%.~7i'--~.--..---~" ... --.--.,.- ___w._ .-----.. .... ...--. ..--..-.--------.- ..--~-Ltl.ftJX-.---/fP{fu-..-U.uvJ.t&- 'pOl.Of; _. '.__ '._,._"'_..._ __u.. _~._ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ-14-08 LOCATION: 215 Westgate Road PETITIONER: Angelo Mannella OWNERS: Angelo Mannella PARCEL #s: 03-35-401-057 -0000 LOT SIZES: Existing: 42,047 sq. ft (.96 acre) Proposed: 22,842 sq. ft (.52 acre) and 19,127 sq. ft (.44 acre) ZONING: Rl Single Family LAND USE: Single Family residence REQUEST: Subdivide one lot of record into two lots of record LOCATION MAP 312 310 . 301 . 308 , ~ 306 ;u 0 305 m 304 ~ ;u 0 .~ .!!: .~ m :0 ,0., i ! 210 . I 21. II. .- 11111.. P 130. I " 3Ut .I 30" II 22=1 . iI .- ~ ml II :1.1 .I 21t1 III 210 I III 20'1 II 2061 ..1I2:t MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: BRIAN SIMMONS, AICP, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 19,2008 HEARING DATE: JUNE 26, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-14-08 - PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the June 26, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting to review the application by Angelo Mannella (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 215 Westgate (the "Subject Property"). The petitioner is requesting that the lot be subdivided into two lots. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed by posting Public Hearing signs on each of the Subject Properties. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on Westgate Road, north of Ardyce Lane, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements on the south portion of the property. The Subject Property is zoned Rl Single-Family Residence and is bordered on the north, south, and east sides by the Rl District and bordered by the R4 District on the west side. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The petitioner is requesting to subdivide an existing lot of record into two lots of record. Both proposed lots will conform to the Rl zoning district requirements. The Village Code requires the Planning & Zoning Commission review the proposed plat and to forward a recommendation to the Village 13o~rd for their consideration and final action. PROPOSED LOT SIZES Both lots within the proposed subdivision will meet the Village's bulk requirements for the R-l Single-Family Residential Zoning District. The existing home on the property will remain on the southern parcel while a new how is proposed to be constructed on the northern parcel. Both structures will meet the lot coverage and setback requirements as specified in the R-l zoning district. The following table shows the lot size requirements of the R- 1 district, existing lot dimensions, and proposed lot dimensions. PZ-14-08 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 Page 3 Rl Single Proposed Proposed Family Existing (north lot) (south lot) Minimum Requirements Minimum Lot Size: 8,125 square 42,047 square 22,840 square 19,126 square feet feet feet feet Minimum Lot Width 65' 165 90' 75.36' Minimum Lot Depth 120' 253' 253' 253' PLATS OF VACATION AND RESUBDIVISION The proposed plats would divide one lot of record into two lots of record without creating zoning nonconformities. Staff reviewed the plats and found that the plats were prepared in accordance with the Village's standards. RECOMMENDATION The proposed plats have been prepared according to all Village Codes and requirements noted in Sec. 15.304. Based on this, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve the following motion: "To approve a Plat of Resubdivision, titled Mannella's Westgate Resubdivision,benefiting the property located at 215 Westgate, Case No. PZ-14-08." The Village Board's decision is final for this case. l ooney, AICP, Director of Community Development H:\PlAN\Plilullmg & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\SlaffRcporl\PZ-14-08 (215 Wcstgale. pial ofresub).doc -VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 RECEIVED Phone 847-818-5328 FAX 847-818-5329 Plat of Resubdivision Application MAY - 1 2008 Village of Mt. Prospect Z Case Number Q PZ - - E- ~,-.. Subdivision Name/Address ~-a "0 o ~ Date of Submission c.. u z!O: ........ ~e. ~ Hearing Date Q Z ... Petitioner - Name 4 f./ aFt 0 Corporation Telephone (day) . gy7 - <j). 7- '1.J. ~ Telephone (evening) 5' J4t1fF f-fJ Fax z o ... E- o( ~ " o c.. Z - Q Z ;:J o " ~ ::.::: u ~ CQ Street Address J'10. Zip Code & 00 S- ~ ( fL/EJTGl4-re State ;::L Email E' City WIT 9ft d5Pfic/ Nit If 15 Buyer Telephone (day) ~i./1-8:J1- Lf.tlf7 Telephone (evening) &' 1;7 - 91., - 4 c: Fax: Interest in Property: circle one Property Owner - Name r; i3 to Corporation Street Address U/I?~~rGJ4rE y2V. State Zip Code .-:j:/.-. I c (')~-- {, /{(I ,A! E Email -It? .Nl::' Surveyor/Engineer Namene$ S i.1RfI3-Y' eo, Address I ~ i :J,.At. J-/-c'1 r F'tJ'l ;Iii ,.j J/ G J7/1-il)< ,1..; 1l6-E 1::t" (pc') 06 y Telephone (day) g 'I7-g J 3 '- t) 7 r 1 Fax Email r= . SUBDIVISION NAME rnJ-Q,!f}//3.-l i1J. )5- UI ;J3'r(?~ riF I ' , f(j3. 5i/ e PI rJ Slo/'/ REAL ESTATE INDEX NO.: ~ 2- -- "3 5"' --~ ~ ~ -- ..Q... -L ..:L...- _ REAL ESTATE INDEX NO.: LOCATION OR ADDRESS: .'1J5"}'f, iLl;;; s~7 Gt4TE J~j} , LAND USE: EXISTING Sil'I6-t.l~ PI1J1t,'CY' / PROPOSED: ~INtf,:'(J:: {Cjf;1,nlY ZONING: EXISTING S/J/6-l-e F'w I'll I/. y , PROPOSED: Sf I" I-U7'- i::;jtIIILy TOTAL ACREAGE: C, q~ TOTAL # OF LOTS: :J- GROSS tl"~ 'it~ f} .!if 1 '/ . / Number of dwelling units: Single Family: ){ . Multifamily TWNHS_ If requesting an exception to Development Code requirements, list request and explain why it is necessary: Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division, Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff to review the process and so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested that approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant /:,j14tJL-"~ /1{a44,tt'c~ '.. I' Ifapplicant is not property owner: Date I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this application and the associated supporting material. Property Owner Date 2 Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847/392-6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois MANNELLA's I WESTGATE RESUBD/V/S/ON: Of THE HOIUM tIALF I EXcePT THE EMf *'0 FEET nEREOf I Of LOT . .. C, A. GOELZ PROSPECT GARDENS. BEING ... SI.l8llMIIION OF THI! WEST HA1.J' OF THE WEST KALF OF THe: SOIJTloIEA6T QUAR1'EA. TOGETHER 'MTM 'OlE !AST 211 OF THE /IIOlIl11l 2M OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUllfWEST QUMT'I!R Of ECT10N 35. TOWNSHIJ' 4Z NORTH, RANGI! 11 EAST OF tHE ntIRD PRMC!P.ll MERIllIAN, IN COOK COIJfrfIY, lLUNOlS. ./rP~ 7' ",,.,-,~ r'.:;.-....~~ N I M~j 1 -l , ' ~. i \-1. i ~ ~ ~ ~ )1 ~ PemllInent Tu Indu No. 03-35-401.()57~ Mail future tax bills 10: Angelo F. M8mella 215~Rorad ......-.. ..... k"'~9"L"/~~, ~~G4ZS'~~.A.#~/fii;<a...o..:.aia~ ....,-- 9fCf'. .'d1 L".~__ r~ i\ ~ / W E ~ "-..f/. "tau 7.6 s:;f,...t..",,,,,- 2 1:t-/~"5f,F'f. !-'6' t''''' _.I:DlOlFtnU """'"'"'. >( A'~.n_-:- E....~'"~ l--h~U---r I S fi/Je~,t</ft.,rL"r~.,f; \. ;' -- Mal1l1c//~$ ~$U~. ) I "'"" ,.~.....-....- / =~POlM'rPatFORSIGHAT\JRES :=e~~son"'PEWFORALL (FNn DRY PEN PREFEMEDl, SUI1eofll1inois ) )5S County of Cook) I ~ c:ertify that.11iJd no deferred instaImBnls of outstanding apeciaI assessmentS which remain u~..ins!. any at.. land in the pI8l of resubdivilion hereon shown ~ ::U~ProapeU, Cook County,lliooisthia_day of ",,,,CalIodD< StateafUlinois) JSS CouotyofCoolt) Plat ~ to resubdivi6ion awroved by the Mount Prospecl., Cook County, IHinois, Planmng and ZDning CcMrIrisSiOn this _ day of A. O. 2008. By Chairman PIInning 8nd zoning Commission -. \ficeChairman Stateoflllinois) )5S Coonty of Cook) Approved by the PresiDenland 8oan:I ofTl'UStIIIes oflhe vm. of Mount Prospect, ~~.~,llinDISatthere;ularm..tingl1eldthis_liayof_ B, Ple&ident Al1eot VlIIageCIerk Stale of Illinois l )5S County of Cook ) Approved bytheVdlage Engineer of the Village of Mount Prospect. Cook County, IIlinois,lns_dayaf AO.Z008. VillageEngineef I, ANG~LO F MANNElLA do hereby certify that I am the owner of the property desaIled hereon aoo that I nave caU&8d the saiel property to be ~ and resubdivided and do heIeby admOwIeOge and adoptthe same under ttJe style and title Mf80fl shown. Qatedthis_deyof AO.2Oll8. By, Owner: ANGELO F. MANNELLA SlaleoflltinOis) JSS CoontyOfCooll) I. a Notary PubliC in and fQfthe County in the State aforesaid. dO hereby certify that ANGELO F. MANNELLA penonaI/y knavm to me to be the same person whose nllne is subscribed to the foregoing cectificate ofownershlp, whoaclcnowledged1hatatlhetimeof&UCh appearance was owner of the property deSCllbed therein and IhaI he (or she) signeduld certificate as his (OI'her) own free and voIuntaJy act and deed, for tn._.oopurposestheteinll8tbth Given lBll1ef my halld end Notarial Sealthia_dayof A. D. 2008. Notary PubliC This DoeWD8nt suai tted tor recording by: Address ~ '" :..::t? ~ ~ '"';'-7 '.:;:"~: - .,..~":-_..---- --------- ~_==r:r~~--...- ~~, =ii!i:iJil=~''''''''''''"'"'-- .=.~=1.'i:.~~ :==------------'.--- -- -- !!~==r===--===r~ -~ii::-...:5~- ==~~~~-=.:::::=-= StateofllinOia 1 )5S County of Cook ) 1,~aProlessionlllIlinoiBLandSUrveyorNo.1705.dohereby certify thet I nave surveyed and I8SlbdMded the property desaibed in the aboYe caption in the manner repreMnt8d on !he plIt hereon drawn. I furtherCMtilythat the praperlyhenlindelcliled iawilhinhVilllge 1mb of Mount prospect, Cook Comly, UKnoll.nd also thIl: no part d salcI property is loc8tedwfthin.lJIIllHlftoodhuard_..idenlllilldby"F.aer.I~ Management /IqIncy. Property falls in ZOne'X".. per Community Number 170129IPl_perCommunlly ~ned No. 17031C0208-F (eIfIlctiyedate of Nowlmbeffl'.2OOO). The IbowptOJllllftyfallln ar.d8SChoo1 DlItrlcl: No. 26 and in Hlgh School District No. 214. Oimentlions Me shwIn WI feet and decmat J*tB thereof and ale IXIl"I8Ct8d to a tempelllture of 68 degrees Fahrenheit REflJRl'l PLAT TOI Villa&1 of JlO\Ul.t Prospect Co~'ty Development Depa.rtlllent 100 S. herson Stl'ee~ . kad 7/8/08 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FINAL PLAT OF RESUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 215 WESTGATE ROAD WHEREAS, the Petitioner, Angelo Mannella, has requested approval of a Final Plat of Resubdivision for the purpose of subdividing one lot to create two lots of record at 215 Westgate Road; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the resubdivision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the resubdivision of one lot into two lots of record is hereby granted for the property at 215 Westgate Road and the Final Plat of Resubdivision attached to this as Exhibit "A" is hereby approved for appropriate execution and recording. Such Plat and its legal description are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution. SECTION TWO: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Resolution with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION THREE: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its adoption, approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\RES\Plat of Resub- 215 Westgate Road.doc \-\ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM ~ TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 7, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-15-08 - CONDITIONAL USE FOR A PLANNED UNIT D RANDHURST VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER 999 N. ELMHURST ROAD CASTO LIFESTYLE PROPERTIES - APPLICANT The petitioner, Casto Lifestyle Properties, is seeking approval of a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development, Building Height and Setback Variations, Special Use for Signs Associated with a Large Development, Variation for Temporary Leasing Signs, Variation to Site Lighting and Illumination Standards, Fence Height Variation, and a Waiver of Street Lighting Requirement, for the Randhurst Village property located at 999 N. Elmhurst Road. The Planning and Zoning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the request on Thursday, June 26, 2008, and by a vote of 4-1, with one member absent, recommended auuroval of a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development, Building Height and Setback Variations, Special Use for Signs Associated with a Large Scale Development, Variation for Temporary Leasing Signs, Variation to Site Lighting and Illumination Standards, and denial of a Fence Height Variation and Waiver of Street Lighting Requirements. Details of the proceedings and items discussed during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing are included in the attached minutes. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 15, 2008 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. w- H\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 200S\MEJ Mcmo\PZ-15-0S Randhurst Village 999 N ElmhursUJ707OSdoc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-15-08 Hearing Date: June 26, 2008 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 999 N. Elmhurst Road PETITIONER: CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC, c/o Casto Lifestyle Properties PUBLICATION DATE: June 11, 2008 PIN NUMBER: 03-27 -401-266-0000 REQUESTS: 1) Conditional Use for a Commercial Planned Unit Development 2) Building Height and Setback Variations 3) Special Use for Signs Associated with a Large Scale Development 4) Variation for Temporary Leasing Signs 5) Variation to Increase Maximum Fence Height 6) Variation to Site Lighting and Illumination Standards 7) Waiver of Street Lighting Requirements MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts MEMBER ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: William Cooney, AICP, Director of Community Development Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Patrick Ainsworth, Planning Intern INTERESTED PARTIES: Aarti Kotak, Brett Hutchens, Arnold Gitten, David Galler, Jim Conroy, Lou Aboona, Dominic Fong, Marlene Friedrichs, Wes Pinchot, Richard Sassan, Linda Davis, Thomas Budzik, Mike Stratis, Ted Johnson, Tim Reber, Brian Swin, Kim Adams Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2008 meeting and Ronald Roberts seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0 with Joseph Donnelly abstaining. After hearing three previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-15-08, requests for: a Conditional Use for a Commercial Planned Unit Development, building height and setback Variations, and Special Use for signs associated with a large scale development at 999 N. Elmhurst Road, at 8:10 p.m. Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, gave a brief overview of different types of retail centers. He also summarized the history of Randhurst and stated the existing conditions that include several large big box stores. He indicated that several of the larger anchor stores will remain with the proposed project. Mr. Simmons said the status of the mall has decreased due to competition in the retail market. There has been a shift in both retail design and strategies. Mr. Simmons said the area demographics are still strong enough to support a mall. Mr. Simmons concluded by stating Casto Lifestyle Properties and JP Morgan would be presenting and encouraged the public to voice their opinions. Chairman Richard Rogers swore in Aarti Kotak, 203 N. LaSalle Street, Chicago, IL. Ms. Kotak introduced the development team for the proposed project. She said the subject property is approximately a 100 acre site and stated the property location. The applicant (Petitioner) is the owner of the property. The subject property is Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 2 currently zoned B-3 community shopping district with an amended Planned Unit Development (PUD). Ms. Kotak said the application proposed approximately 155,000 square feet of newly constructed retail with a total square footage of approximately 980,000 square feet at the site. Ms. Kotak stated the Petitioner is seeking the following approvals: 1) Conditional Use for a PUD with use exceptions and approval of a final plan for the PUD. 2) Residential uses allowed on the Chase bank building parcel and the existing AMC Theater parcel on the Northwest corner of the property. 3) Variations for the following: maximum building height of 60 feet. A reduction in the front yard setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. Reduction in the existing side yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet for the existing Jewel building. 4) A waiver to permit the location of street lights at locations other than at the frontage as well as other relief to the illumination provisions for the lighting plans that have been submitted. 5) Special Use permit for signs associated with a large scale development and such other relief as may be necessary to accomplish or submit development plans. Chairman Rogers swore in all personnel at one-time testifying on behalf of the Petitioner. Brett Hutchens, President of Casto Lifestyle Properties, 401 N. Cattlemen Road, Sarasota, FL, discussed the needs for the re-development of Randhurst Mall. He also discussed the background of Casto Lifestyle Properties and his company's commitment to Mount Prospect by offering new restaurants, stores, offices, and a hotel. Mr. Hutchens stated the proposed development would provide convenience to shoppers and spur economic development with increased jobs and business opportunities. Mr. Hutchens made several comparisons of Randhurst Village (proposed project) and a mall that Casto re- developed several years ago in Winter Park, FL. Mr. Hutchens discussed Randhurst Village would contain mixed uses of retail, hospitality, offices and residential components in the future. He said he has been asked several times how he knows that this proposed development would work. Mr. Hutchens said his company looked at the market and the opportunity in mall re-development is only there if the real estate is good and the market is still strong. He provided and showed a comparative demographic analysis between Mount Prospect and Winter Park. Mr. Hutchens discussed the vision for Randhurst Village. Arnold Gitten, 116 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, FL, discussed the site. He mentioned that they are not changing traffic entrances into the site. There would be walking paths designed so people have a trail to walk through the entire shopping center. There would also be sidewalks added on site so residents from the surrounding neighborhoods could walk in safely along with crosswalks across Elmhurst and Euclid. Mr. Gitten said there would be a parking garage directly south of the theaters. David Galler, 116 Alhambra Circle, Coral Gables, FL, discussed the architectural elements and elevations. He discussed the signs that would be placed throughout the property. He said that there would be wider sidewalks down the Main Street area. Mr. Galler showed pictures that included site amenities and discussed the furniture and planters. Chairman Rogers asked if the elevations presented represented what would be built. He also wanted to clarify that the only difference would be signage or the color for a particular client. Mr. Galler said the only thing that might change would be if a retailer came in with a larger space. They might have to modify the elevation slightly to have the retailers' door centered where they might be showing a different color on the elevation. Mr. Galler said they submitted a design guideline booklet with the case for design criteria for retailers. He stated retailers need to conform to sign regulations, use of materials, and the way store fronts are designed. The buildings would be made with mostly brick and glass with stone at the base. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 3 Mr. Gitten discussed the brick work and representation in greater detail by showing the colors and a material sample board to the Planning and Zoning Commission members. Jim Conroy, Director of Development for Casto Lifestyle Properties Chicago, 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Mount Prospect, IL, stated that he has an office on site and will make himself available to the public. Mr. Conroy presented a three dimensional fly through of the proposed development. Mr. Conroy discussed the residential component for the proposed site. The original plans called for residential to be located above the retail along Main Street. He said that this was just not feasible due to construction costs. Mr. Conroy stated that residential is a needed component for the mixed use lifestyle. He said they looked at the Northwest corner of the site and they would be able to provide retail on the first floor with residential above. Mr. Conroy stated that they could segregate commercial and residential parking for this area. The preliminary plan included 200 apartment units and 12,000 to 20,000 square feet of retail. Mr. Conroy mentioned that Staff put together verbiage so the two Northwest corner parcels could possibly have residential zoning. He said they accepted Staffs five conditions for this proposed area. Ms. Kotak discussed the Conditional Use and Special Uses for signs. She said that the Conditional Uses have been addressed in the Petitioner's application. She requested that this application be included into the record for the proceeding. She stated additional uses do no represent more than 40 percent of the total floor area. The signs they construct would serve as a public convenience and they would not be detrimental to the safety, visibility, or general welfare. Ms. Kotak said the signs would be in harmony in scale with the architecture of the building and surrounding neighborhood. The location and size of the signs would not impede the adjacent properties. They would enhance the proposed development. Ms. Kotak stated the Special Use application conforms to the applicable regulations of the sign ordinance. She said the applicant, as far as the Special Use that they requested for the signs is a unique development being proposed along 5,000 linear feet of street frontage. Mr. Donnelly questioned the traffic flow through the property. He stated that the ring road disappears on the West side of the property. Mr. Conroy said that the ring road is difficult to manipulate with the development evolving over time. He stated that he would like to funnel traffic through the Main Street area. Mr. Conroy mentioned that they did retain the ring road coming off of Elmhurst and an area off of Kensington. He said there will be a substantial traffic flow for the theater. Mr. Donnelly said that ring roads typically do not have stop signs. He said people tend to cut through parking lots. He asked the Petitioners to address this. Mr. Conroy said there are currently huge gaps to the East ring road. Access points would be framed out by the building immediately East of Costco. He stated actual aisles would be better defined with the proposal. Mr. Conroy said he is willing to work with Staff in regards to the stop signs Mr. Donnelly addressed in front of the Home Depot store. Ronald Roberts said the whole idea is to get people out of their cars and create a pedestrian friendly environment. He thought it is great that the development is getting rid of most of the ring roads. Mr. Donnelly asked about outdoor sales. Mr. Conroy said part of the proposal and site plan included an area that they are requesting as seasonal outdoor display for Home Depot. This would include typical garden displays. Mr. Conroy stated that there would be outdoor dining areas along Main Street as well. Chairman Rogers said the issue is that Home Depot has to taken over part of the parking lot which has made it dangerous for pedestrian traffic and he wanted to know if something could be done about closing off a part of this area. Discussion continued regarding the seasonal area. William Cooney, Director of Community Development, said all outdoor sales areas have to come to the Village for review and comments. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 4 Mr. Donnelly recommended that the seasonal area be moved to the East side of the Home Depot store. He believed Home Depot needed a road like Jewel to move traffic through. Mr. Donnelly asked about the intersection of Rand, Kensington, and Elmhurst Roads, he wanted to know if the road could be expanded to get more cars into the development. Mr. Hutchens wanted to address the seasonal area; he said seven tenants have outdoor lease rights to outdoor sales. He stated that they would work with tenants regarding traffic flows. Lou Aboona, 9575 W. Higgins Road, Rosemont, IL, completed a comprehensive traffic study on the site. He said he has been working with Staff to upgrade the signal at Kensington. The signal currently operates independently from the signal at the triangle (Rand, Kensington, Elmhurst). He stated that he is also working with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The east bound traffic would have a protected left turn and they are not planning additional lanes at this time. Chairman Rogers believed one more lane would greatly help as Leo Floros concurred. Mr. Donnelly stated circles into the proposed development would not be a good move. Mr. Gitten said that they have added circles into their projects all over the United States. There are only two circles in the proposed development. He stated that these are not major intersections and they would mainly act as one-way circles. Mr. Gitten said they have not had accidents at their previous projects concerning the circles and does not foresee this being a problem. Chairman Rogers stated circles would help, they would even slow traffic. Mr. Galler said he has worked with Staff regarding the circle on the Chase bank site. There are four ways around the circle and agreed that the circles are just trying to calm the traffic as people head towards the theater. Chairman Rogers asked how the outdoor cafes and work areas would work with our region's climate. Mr. Hutchens said one of the most successful lifestyle mixed-use centers is in Columbus, OH. He stated that you would not eat outside in the wintertime, but it is very important to activate the street when the temperatures are warmer. Chairman Rogers asked how the Petitioner would handle snow removal. Mr. Conroy said they currently contract this out. They have a full-time operations manager who has reviewed the plans. Snow can be pushed out of the Main Street area and be moved to the outer areas of the parking lots. He stated that they will not have snow melting machines. They are comfortable that they can control the snow. Mr. Donnelly asked if there are any commitments for a hotel operator. Mr. Gitten said there is a hotel committed to the project. They would just have to finalize plans just like they do with other tenants. Mr. Donnelly asked if any restaurants were committed. Mr. Gitten said until the final lease is signed, they cannot release any names. Mr. Donnelly and Mr. Floros both had questions regarding the storage facility that has been referenced on the site plan. Mr. Conroy said the storage facility would be a three story fully self-contained building with heat and air conditioning. He stated there has been interest from three to four storage facility companies. Mr. Floros asked how a storage facility would meld with the proposed lifestyle center. Mr. Conroy said they want to bring in the residential component with the proposed project. People in the area might be interested in downsizing and have storage needs. Mr. Conroy stated the community itself has storage needs. He said area of the proposed storage facility was currently located on the least utilized portion of the site. A storage facility is a light and quiet user. Trucks would gain access to the building on the West side so they would be further away from the residential area along the Eastern property line. Mr. Conroy said this provided a nice buffer to the residents of the East and it would blend in with the rest of the architecture for the proposed development. Mr. Donnelly asked how the lights on top of the parking garage would be screened for the residents directly to the East. Mr. Gitten said lights would not be tall on the top of the parking garage. They would have the ability to Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 5 control lights and place them along the property line without any spillover. Mr. Conroy added that they will have cut off lenses to eliminate the glare. Mr. Gitten said the whole property line along the East would be fully landscaped. Mr. Conroy said there would be a six foot fence and additional landscaping across the street along the perimeter edge ofthe parking garage. There was discussion regarding the hotel. Mr. Gitten said it was a need especially for the Kensington Business Center. Mr. Donnelly confirmed that Casto and Chase owned the entire property. He wanted to know if the residential component was added, if it would be apartments and not condos because of shared ownership. It was confirmed that the residential area would be apartments. There was a discussion regarding lease agreements with the major anchors. Everything has been worked out for the proposed development. Chairman Rogers stated that the Petitioners have shown storm detention, lighting, and landscaping on the plans. He asked the Petitioner if they were in agreement with Staffs recommendations on the various items in this entire development plus the process of obtaining building permits. Mr. Conroy stated that they are providing seven to eight acres of storm detention and they are looking at an underground location. This location could be under the future parking garage or under one of the existing buildings in the basement. Mr. Conroy said they have been in contact with the Village Engineer and have toured other similar facilities in regards to the proposed underground detention. Mr. Conroy stated a complete photometric plan was submitted with the application. There may be some modifications to the original plans based on security concerns. Mr. Conroy said they are in agreement that they could comply with the Ordinances set forth by the Village of Mount Prospect. Chairman Rogers received a memo from Staff with some additional items. Mr. Conroy said they are in agreement of keeping the fence along the Eastern property line at six feet. Mr. Conroy stated that they still request a waiver for the street lighting. There was general discussion regarding the lighting along Kensington, Euclid, and Elmhurst Roads. Chairman Rogers said this is something that can be worked out with Staff and it is something to incorporate with the plans in order to get the approval. Chairman Rogers stated that residential on the Northwest corner is a good idea. He said as long as they meet the 30 units per acre, he thought the residential request should be included with the development. Chairman Rogers stated that the signs are too large, but he is willing to increase them from what is normally allowed. There was general discussion regarding signage. Mr. Roberts felt that more signage was necessary due to the segregated parking lots in the proposed plan. There was discussion on the sizes of the signs. The signs at the entrances would be 15 feet, Village Code allows 12 feet. Mr. Cooney provided Staffs input on the signage. He said Staff has been restrictive on signage throughout the Village. They have discussed the Randhurst signs at great length. Mr. Cooney stated the text on the signage basically conforms to code. Staff believed that the location is appropriate for these signs due to the importance of this shopping center. Mr. Donnelly asked about the sight lines with the monument signs. Mr. Gitten said signs are pushed back and would not interfere with sight lines. There was further discussion on the number of tenant names that could appear on the sign. The general consensus between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Petitioner was seven names. Mr. Floros asked why Randhurst has been a failure with other indoors malls being successful. Mr. Hutchens said when interstates where added, they had the ability to provide regional access. Indoor malls along interstates have Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 6 been very successful. Mr. Hutchens stated anchor stores drive traffic into the core of the malls so smaller stores could feed off of the traffic created. The rent for department stores tends to be very low while it is very high for smaller stores. Mr. Hutchens said the cost for maintaining the common areas of the mall is increasing due to heating and air conditioning. Smaller tenants have to support the costs of the common area. There was general discussion regarding the re-development of the mall. Chairman Rogers swore in Dominik Fong, 1172 Boxwood Drive, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Fong was concerned with the fence and landscaping along the eastern property line blocking his view and access of the mall. Chairman Rogers said people who live in residential areas next to malls or other properties generally like to be screened. Mr. Fong stated that he would like to have the construction completed as quickly as possible. Mr. Fong was also concerned with the construction hours. Mr. Cooney stated that construction hours were 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. per Village Ordinance. Chairman Rogers swore in Marlene Friedrichs, 320 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, IL. Ms. Friedrichs read in the newspaper that the proposal did not include any residential. She said the presentation now included 200 apartments rather than the 150 that were originally proposed. Ms. Friedrichs stated that the rest of the project is wonderful, but objected to any more apartments in Mount Prospect. Chairman Rogers swore in Wes Pinchot, 747 White gate, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Pinchot said he is impressed with the presentation and concept. He asked if the Main Street parking would be adequate for shopping. Mr. Gitten said there would be breezeways along Main Street to lead to adjacent parking areas. Mr. Pinchot asked if parking was adequate for all uses on the property. Mr. Gitten confirmed that parking was adequate and valet parking was included throughout the center. Mr. Donnelly asked where the office population would park. Mr. Hutchens said the office space users would park in the garage. The parking garage would be a shared use with the theater. There was general discussion on locations of the offices and distance from the parking areas. The office space users would be required to park in the garage. Mr. Hutchens said the mixed use concept is to go to the site, park, and create pedestrian traffic. Mr. Pinchot said he was concerned with the signage on Euclid Road for the residents to the North of the proposed site. Mr. Gitten said the sign would not bleed into the residential area. Mr. Pinchot appreciated the proposal and thought it would be a compliment for Mount Prospect. Mr. Donnelly asked about the existing signs for Jewel, Steak and Shake, and Borders. Mr. Conroy said the existing signs would remain, there were no plans to take these down. Chairman Rogers asked if the flags at the entry ways would be taken down, Mr. Conroy said they would. Mr. Hutchens stated there is currently an AMC sign near the Borders building. He said that Casto objected to the look of this sign and AMC allowed them to construct a different sign and move it to a different position. Mr. Donnelly requested a drawing of where all the signs would be located. Mr. Hutchens said they do not have this, but it is something that they could provide in the future. Chairman Rogers swore in Richard Sassan, 1004 N. Elmhurst Road, Mount Prospect, IL. Mr. Sassan said the plans were fabulous and he asked where signage would be along Elmhurst Road. Mr. Conroy said a freestanding pylon sign would be at the signalized intersection off of Elmhurst Road and a second pylon sign at the intersection by the Chase Bank building. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 7 Mr. Sassan wanted to know additional information regarding the buildings along the West property line adjacent to Elmhurst Road. Mr. Simmons said the buildings as proposed are to be setback 20 feet from the property line. The buildings would be screened in by landscaping. Mr. Sassan asked the Petitioner how his other projects have affected property values of the nearby residential neighborhoods. Mr. Hutchens said the property values have consistently gone up, more so with commercial. He believed that if nothing was done with Randhurst, the residential property values would fall. Mr. Hutchens believed that the proposed project would stabilize or increase residential property values because there would be more services nearby. Mr. Sassan said the proposed project is good for Mount Prospect. Chairman Rogers called for additional questions or comments; hearing none, the public comment portion of the hearing was closed. Chairman Rogers said he will entertain a motion, but would like it to include all of Staffs recommendations from both the Staff report dated June 18, 2008 and the Staff supplemental memo dated June 26, 2008. Chairman Rogers asked Mr. Donnelly if he had anything additional to add to the motion. Mr. Donnelly thought that the Petitioner would come back with a revised plan for the Planning and Zoning Commission to review with where the real signs would be located and fixing the road situation before they vote. Chairman Rogers said he would like to see the project proceed, otherwise there would be another month before it comes back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Rogers suggested that Staff review the signs and make sure that they are within reason. Mr. Cooney said the only signs that are in addition to the proposed plan would be the existing signs on site with the exception of the AMC sign which would be moved within a few feet from where it is currently located. Mr. Cooney confirmed this with the Petitioner. Mr. Donnelly said if the residential was not advertised, is the Planning and Zoning Commission prepared to vote on this. Mr. Cooney stated that Staff is fine with the way the Planned Unit Development was advertised in the newspaper. Mr. Donnelly said he is concerned that they have done this with other developments in the past. Chairman Rogers said he understands Mr. Donnelly's concern, but he believes Staff knows what the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to see regarding this development. Chairman Rogers said he would like to include the residential sketch in the motion and possible reduction of pylon signs at the main entry, but keeping at least seven tenant names on the sign itself. Mr. Donnelly asked if they are approving all the plans on the site plan the way that they are drawn. Mr. Cooney stated that they would be voting on the way the site plans are presented. Mr. Donnelly asked about phasing. There was general discussion on phasing for previous projects and Randhurst. Mr. Conroy said upon approval, he expected the outlots along Elmhurst Road, the Main Street retail and offices, the theater, and parking garage all to be completed by the Spring 2010. The storage facility adjacent to Costco would be delayed for strategic reasons because this is the area where construction materials and equipment would be stored. Once Main Street opens, the storage facility would be completed. Mr. Conroy stated they will have to wait on residential component until at least 2010 to develop the area by Chase Bank and the existing theaters. General discussion continued regarding construction dates and what was being voted on regarding residential. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the vote would give the Petitioner the right to look at residential for the Northwest corner of the property. Chairman Rogers said the Petitioner would be back in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission when the residential would be ready for review. There was general discussion on how the Planning and Zoning Commission would vote on Case Number PZ-15- 08. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 8 Mr. Donnelly asked for clarification regarding the maximum building height. Mr. Simmons said the maximum height Variation that the Petitioner requested was for 60 feet across the entire property. Mr. Simmons stated the hotel would be the tallest structure. With any future buildings, the height would be limited including the plans for residential. The 60 foot height is a blanket proposal, the storage facility and parking garage would not be this high. There was further discussion regarding the Variation for maximum height. Mr. Roberts said this is a packaged development. He stated that Commission has to be careful with all of the qualifications that are being piled on. Mr. Roberts does not believe adding all of these qualifications are a good idea, there are a lot of moving pieces. Mr. Roberts said that the Commission needs to trust Staff. Chairman Rogers agreed with Mr. Roberts, but he did not want a 60 foot building next to Boxwood. There was general discussion regarding the Variation for setbacks and the height of the proposed storage facility and parking garage. Mr. Conroy estimated that the storage facility would be around 40 feet in height. The theaters are going to exceed the 30 foot allowed height. Mr. Conroy said the Village of Mount Prospect only allows 30 feet in height unless a Variation is granted. He felt that a 60 foot Variation would provide flexibility and would allow the architectural accent of some towers along the development. Chairman Rogers asked if the Petitioner understood the concerns regarding residential and took them into consideration. Chairman Rogers also asked that if 60 feet were allowed on the entire site, the Petitioner would not build a 60 foot storage facility. Mr. Conroy understood the residential concerns and would not build a 60 foot storage facility. Mr. Donnelly said by giving a 60 foot Variation, it would stay with the property forever. Mr. Cooney suggested that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the site plan and elevations as submitted. Mr. Cooney understood that there is no elevation provided for the proposed storage facility, but it shall not exceed 60 feet. Chairman Rogers said the only way to resolve this is to let Staff use their best judgment knowing that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not want a 60 foot structure next to residential and let the architect design something appropriate that the Staff could approve or disapprove. Mr. Donnelly asked if the next owner of the property could raise the height of buildings without going before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Rogers said if a future owner decides to place a new building on the property, it would have to come back via the Planning and Zoning process. Mr. Donnelly asked what if the Petitioner decided to raise a tower in five years. Mr. Cooney stated prior to the Village Board meeting, Staff would ensure in the Ordinance that raising the height could not happen. Staff would also obtain schematic elevations. There was no further discussion. A motion was made and seconded to recommend approval of a Commercial Planned Unit Development, building height and setback Variations, Special Use for signs associated with a large scale development, Variation to allow brighter and taller parking lot lighting than permitted by code, and Variation to install two temporary leasing signs, for the property located at 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Randhurst Village Shopping Center, Case No. PZ-15-08, as detailed below: To Approve: 1) A Conditional Use permit for the Randhurst Village Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of approximately 979,500 square feet of retail subject to compliance with the following conditions: Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 9 A. All previous conditional uses for a planned unit development or associated amendments and variations on the subject property are hereby nullified by reference. B. Variation approval to allow: a. A maximum building height of 60 feet. b. A reduction in the required front yard building setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. c. A reduction in the required exterior side yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet for the existing Jewel retail building. C. Future development of the outIots, or building fa~ade of individual tenant spaces within the shopping center shall not require an amendment to the approved PUD but review shall be performed at an administrative level; if such future development or fa~ade plans are in general conformance with the design guidelines submitted by the petitioner and with the character of the previously approved development, then Village staff shall approve the same. In the event that Village staff determines a public hearing is necessary to review a proposed amendment, then a formal application shall be submitted to request an amendment to the approved PUD. D. In addition to land uses permitted within the B-3 Community Shopping Zoning District, the following use exceptions shall also be permitted within the proposed Planned Unit Development: a. Health services, clubs or gymnasiums b. Hotels and motels c. Medical and Dental Laboratories d. Parking lots and structures e. Outdoor display and sales of products the sale of which is a permitted use, subject to compliance with Village regulations pertaining to outdoor sales f. Game rooms g. Residential land uses subject to the following conditions: 1. Residential uses shall be restricted to the northwest comer of the property generally bounded by Euclid Road, Elmhurst Road, the northern access road entering from Elmhurst Road, and the central access road entering from Euclid Avenue. II. Residential uses shall be limited to a maximum density of 30 units per acre for the portion of the development constructed for residential use. 111. The maximum height for future residential uses shall conform to the maximum building height for the PUD. IV. Future development of residential shall be in general conformance with the design guidelines submitted by the petitioner for the PUD. v. Development approval of future residential uses shall be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the development agreement executed between the Village of Mount Prospect and the petitioner, including buy not limited to, public hearings and required public notification. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 10 E. In addition to the above use exceptions, the following uses shall be permitted as part of the proposed Planned Unit Development in the locations currently indicated on the site plans. Similar facilities proposed in the future will require an amendment to the PUD. a. Drive through facilities for two existing banking facilities and the proposed third outlot bank building. b. Drive through facility for the Jewel-Osco pharmacy. c. Self-Storage Facility for the building sited along the east property line adjacent to the existing Costco retail building and proposed parking structure. F. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the Petitioner shall provide final civil engineering drawings for review and approval by the Village. The engineering drawings shall include all site work including utilities, storm water detention, and associated improvements. G. Development of the site in general conformance with the site and landscape plans prepared by Woolpert Inc., dated June 17, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on June 17,2008. H. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the building elevations prepared by Beame Architectural Partnership, dated June 17,2008, and received by the Community Development Department on June 17,2008 with the following conditions: a. The architecture for the hotel shall be refined to provide more definition at the top of the structure and to take advantage of views upon entering the site. Current design lacks interest at the top of this building. b. The design of individual store fronts will be reviewed at the time a building permit is issued for each tenant space and shall be in general conformance with the design criteria packet prepared by Beame Architectural Partnership. I. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall submit revised photometric plans which incorporate the final site plan layout. Where feasible, light pole standards shall be placed in curbed islands. To provide uniformity across the property, light poles shall match the style, height, and illumination levels of those previously approved and installed in the Costco parking lot. J. The Petitioner shall construct all building and individual 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. Where applicable, the buildings will also require the installation of a stand pipe system. K. A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (1) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official, shall become null and void if no building permit is issued within the one (1) year requirement and improvements completed within a period of eighteen (18) months. 2) A Special Use to allow Signs Associated with a Large Scale Development. Said ground signs shall be designed in general conformance with the sign drawings prepared by Casto Lifestyle Properties, dated May 15, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on June 17, 2008. Future wall signs for individual tenant spaces shall conform to the Village's sign regulations. 3) A Variation to install two temporary leasing signs 180 square feet in size and 12 feet in height. Said temporary leasing signs shall be located at the southwest corner and northwest corner of the subject property and shall be removed following the completion of the project. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting June 26, 2008 PZ-15-08 Page 11 To Deny: 1) A Variation to increase the maximum fence height permitted along the east property line from six feet in height to eight feet in height. 2) A request to waive the Village's street lighting requirement along the rights-of-way of Elmhurst Road, Kensington Road, and Euclid Avenue adjacent to the subject property. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Haaland, Roberts, Rogers NAYS: Donnelly Motion was approved 4-1. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 11:12 p.m., seconded by Ronald Roberts. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ;if )1# Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2008\Minutes\PZ-15-08 999 N. Elmhmst Rd (Randhurst Village) Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 15-08 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 999 N. Elmhurst Road CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC, c/o Casto Lifestyle Properties Same as Petitioner Multiple 99.9 acres B-3 Community Shopping PUD Commercial - Randhurst Regional Shopping Mall I) Conditional Use for a Commercial Planned Unit Development 2) Building Height and Setback Variations 3) Special Use for Signs Associated with a Large Scale Development .f , r \...,..,\ t".~) " /". ---_:;~,"."\\~ /, -~' l ""<, "\, ~ -t-1 "',I .mrrn' Copyrghl (e) Village of MI. Prospect, IL o - 10021\ I LOCATION MAP 't, ,i . ''-'" , , \, "', " Subject Property .4 ----/ i) f--~-- -1\\ \~A , \-/ \ r-- \ Q \ ....--"\, --~\ \'-).' - - , , ... \........, ~ 1) " 1\ ./~ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: BRIAN SIMMONS, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 18, 2008 HEARING DATE: JUNE 26, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-15-08 - RANDHURST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the June 26, 2008 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC. (the "Petitioner"), regarding the property located at 999 N. Elmhurst Road known as the Randhurst Shopping Center. The Petitioner is seeking approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development to redevelop the subject property. The P&Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the June 12, 2008 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, the Petitioner has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and Staff has posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located northeast of the intersection of Rand Road and Elmhurst Road, and is generally bounded by Euclid A venue, Elmhurst Road, Kensington Road, and the Boxwood residential development. The property currently contains the existing Randhurst Shopping Center with related improvements. The Subject property is zoned B-3 Community Shopping, and is primarily bordered by the R-X Single Family District to the east and west, B-3 Community Shopping District to the south, and single family residential in the Village of Prospect Heights to the north. SUMMARY The Petitioner is proposing a partial redevelopment of the existing Randhurst Shopping Center. Under the proposed development plan, the interior portion of the mall will be demolished with the existing big-box retailers of Costco, Bed Bath and Beyond, and Carson's to remain. The existing outlot buildings will also remain with the exception of the AMC Movie Theatre which will be relocated to the eastern portion of the property. The amount of total building square footage for the entire development will increase from the existing 877,000 sq. ft. to 979,500 sq. ft as part of the redevelopment. The proposed mall will incorporate a lifestyle center design which will differ from the traditional enclosed mall which exists on the property today. Lifestyle centers are a recent trend in commercial development which incorporates retail, office, entertainment, restaurant, and sometimes residential uses. The proposed Randhurst Village will incorporate all of these uses in some form. While residential is currently not proposed, the potential exists for future outlot development of residential uses. Additionally, a hotel is proposed in the center of the development which will provide a quasi residential PZ-15-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 3 component to the project. Lifestyle centers in general utilize entertainment uses to attract customers to the facility, and the residential uses allow the centers to provide vibrancy to the development throughout the day. Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development The Subject Property is currently zoned B-3 Community Shopping and has received previous conditional use approvals for a commercial planned unit development (PUD). The Petitioner is' requesting to waive the previous conditional use permits and is requesting approval of a new conditional use permit for the proposed PUD. According to the Village's Zoning Code, a mixed commercial development requires approval of a planned unit development. The PUD process allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, which would require formal Village approval if any modifications were proposed to the development in the future. Currently the petitioners plan's illustrate that additional outlot buildings are proposed to the exterior of the site while no information has been provided in regards to their architectural design or landscaping. This information was excluded from the application packet as each building will be designed based on the future tenant needs of these locations. Under Village PUD regulations each outlot building would be required to go through the zoning process in order to amend the overall PUD; however, staff recommends a condition be included in the approval of the PUD which would allow for administrative review of the outlots in lieu of requiring review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Village Board. In the event that staff determines proposed uses or outlots require review by the Village Board, or additional variations are required, the formal PUD process can be utilized to amend the proposed plan. This process would limit both the number of future amendments to the PUD and necessity for public hearings requiring notification of all property owners surrounding the entire one hundred acre site. Site Plan The attached site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the Randhurst Village commercial development. As proposed, the central portion of the existing mall will be demolished and the southern entrance from Elmhurst Road will be extended through the center of the site. New commercial store fronts, pedestrian areas, and parking will be constructed on either side of this roadway which will create a "Main Street" feel to the development. The existing AMC theatre will be relocated to the northern end of this roadway to provide a prominent focal point for both pedestrians and motorists within the shopping center. The central corridor of the development will incorporate elements to enhance the pedestrian environment including decorative pavement, seating walls, planting beds, street furniture, and outdoor dining areas. Canopies and awnings over individual storefronts will also enhance the pedestrian experience in this area. The existing Bed, Bath and Beyond, Carson Pirie Scott, and Costco retail stores will remain on the property and will be incorporated into the new development. Surrounding the center, the existing parking lot will be reconfigured to both maximize the number of parking spaces and to improve traffic flow. New outlot buildings are proposed along Elmhurst Road that will accommodate future retail and restaurant uses. A new commercial building is proposed to the east of Costco that will face the Home Depot retail building and provide greater utilization ofthe parking lot located between the two buildings. Finally, a parking structure is proposed along the east property line which will serve the development and accommodate the majority of parking for the theatre. Loading zones will be located in recessed areas of the development and will be screened from view from adjacent roadways via either landscaping or other buildings within the development. To ensure minimal conflicts between motorists and truck traffic, deliveries should be scheduled during off-peak hours whenever possible. The petitioner will work with individual store owners to regulate when deliveries will be made to the property. The site plan also incorporates three vehicle drop-off areas. These drop-off areas are located in the circular drive in front of the hotel, near the T-intersection in the center of the development, and in the drive aisle adjacent to the PZ-15-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 4 movie theatre. These drop-off lanes may be utilized for vehicles which are dropping off and picking up passengers, or for valet operators at restaurants within the development. There also are seven parallel parking spaces provided in front of the Carson's store which could be utilized for valet operations in the evenings or during special events. To enhance the pedestrian environment, street furniture is utilized throughout the central main street area. Raised planting beds with seating walls, benches, planters, decorative light fixtures and trash receptacles are all incorporated to provide a unique pedestrian experience. Decorative pavements are utilized in portions of the site to enhance the pedestrian areas and an outdoor fireplace is proposed near outdoor dining areas in the center of the development. In total, the development will incorporate five pocket parks or plazas as pedestrian amenities. Building Design The proposed buildings will utilize an urban prairie style of architectural design. The center will incorporate architectural elements such as louvers, metal canopies, canvas awnings, balconies, and varying window and material types to provide interest to the buildings. Varying roof heights are utilized throughout the development to take advantage of unique views upon entering the development and also to break up the massing of the structures. Site furniture proposed on the property will incorporate design elements utilized on the building to provide greater symmetry between the buildings and the pedestrian streetscape. While the overall design of the center will be primarily urban in nature, individual storefronts will be designed when each tenant applies for their individual building permits to allow for branding of tenant spaces. The petitioner has provided a design criteria packet as part of their application which details requirements that future tenants of the shopping center will be required to adhere to in order to maintain a uniform cohesive look to the center. The petitioner continues to work with staff to refine the architecture of the building. Most notably staff believes that additional architectural interest should be incorporated into the design of the hotel to provide a more prominent entrance to the hotel which will be visible to vehicles entering the site from Elmhurst Road. Additionally, more detail needs to be provided at the top of the structure to provide definition at this area of the building. The petitioner is currently in negotiations with a hotel service provider that once completed, will be able to provide more solid plans for the hotel while also addressing these concerns. Site Access Access into the property from neighboring roadways will not significantly change from present conditions. Existing signalized intersections along Kensington Avenue, Elmhurst Road, and Euclid A venue will still provide the primary access points for the center. The existing ring-road system will be modified to provide more direct routes into the central commercial area, but will remain relatively intact to provide circulation around the site. Sidewalks will be added along both entrances to Elmhurst Road to provide pedestrian access from this street frontage into the development. Staff continues to discuss with the petitioner possible upgrades to the signalized intersection on Kensington Road to increase the efficiency of this signal and its relation to the intersection of Rand Road. Other minor improvements around the property include installation of pedestrian signals at traffic signals on Elmhurst Road and Euclid Avenue. Parking Parking for the development will be spread throughout the entire site. While parking spaces will be provided along the central drive through the center of the development, the majority of parking will be located on the periphery of the center. In total, 5,292 spaces will be provided in both structured and surface parking. The proposed parking will exceed code requirements by over 700 spaces. Parking for the hotel will be accommodated in underground spaces that are accessed by the main entrance to this building. A parking structure is proposed adjacent to the movie theatre to accommodate this facility. The surface parking lots have been reconfigured to pz- 15-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 5 create greater efficiency in the use of land and have incorporated landscaped areas to break up large expanses of pavement. Landscape Plan The Petitioner's landscape plan provides extensive new plant materials throughout the property. In total over 4,000 new plant materials, induding shade trees, ornamental trees, evergreen trees, shrubs, and perennial plantings are proposed. The redevelopment and reconfiguration of the site will require existing vegetation to be removed from the property, but where feasible existing plant materials will be transplanted to preserve some of the more established vegetation. Landscaping has been provided along either side of the main entrance to the shopping center leading up to the hotel entrance and "Main Street" portion of the development. Once matured, the landscaping will help to frame this view of the development. The primary shopping area will incorporate several shade and ornamental trees, as well as low growing perennials to soften the streetscape and provide an inviting pedestrian environment. To better screen the development per Village Codes, landscaping is proposed along the Elmhurst Road frontage and along the east property line adjacent to the Boxwood residential area. The Boxwood side will blend with existing landscaping near the Jewel property and will provide more of a year round screening. Additionally a six foot high board on board fence is also proposed along this property line to buffer the development from adjacent residential uses. Additional plant materials are also proposed in parking areas and along the foundations of existing buildings to bring the site closer to current standards. In particular, additional plantings are proposed around the Carson's and Bed, Bath, and Beyond retail stores to soften these facades. Overall, the proposed landscape improvements will significantly upgrade the plant materials located at the shopping center and will provide for an attractive streetscape. Storm water Detention To provide stormwater detention for the areas of the site that are being disturbed by the project, the petitioner is proposing to construct a stormwater vault under a portion of the mall. The vault will utilize a portion of the existing basement of the mall and will be designed to accommodate storm water volumes generated by a 100 year storm. The outflow pipe of the vault will connect to existing storm sewers along Elmhurst Road. The remainder of the existing basement will be either filled with fill materials to allow for development on the street level above, or converted to underground parking for the hotel. Two additional surface detention areas will provide additional storm water detention for the property and will incorporate native vegetation to assist in water filtration. Final design of the storm water detention area will be accommodated at the time of final engineering for the site. Signage The proposed development will incorporate several ground signs around the perimeter of the site to provide visibility for the shopping center. A total of four entry signs will be placed around the site including the eastern most driveway at Kensington Road, both entrances along Elmhurst Road, and the primary entrance from Euclid Avenue. Two additional corner signs will be placed adjacent to the intersection of Rand. Road and Elmhurst Road, and the intersection of Euc1id Avenue and Elmhurst Road. Internal to the property additional ground signs and two types of directional signs are proposed to direct traffic through the development. Four large directional signs are incorporated at locations upon entering the property to direct traffic flows to major tenants. Three of these signs are located along the northern circular drive. A fourth sign is located along the east property line. Nine smaller directional signs are scattered throughout the remainder of the property. Finally, the petitioner is proposing two additional ground signs within the center of the PZ-15-08 Planning & Zoning COlTImission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 6 development. These signs will be designed as spires to create a focal point for both pedestrians and motorists utilizing the property. The two spires will be approximately seven (7) feet wide at their base, and thirty-five (35) feet in height. The width of the spires will decrease towards the top of each sign limiting the bulk of each structure. The two spire signs will have limited visibility from the exterior of the site and are designed more as architectural features. Table 1: Proposed Si!ma!!e TvpeofShm Location(s) Hei!!ht Width SQuare Feet Primary Entry Sign (] . ]) South Elmhurst Road Entrance ] 5 ft 36 ft base 375 sq. ft. (25 ft sign area) Primary Entry Sign South Elmhurst Road Entrance 6.33 ft 7.5 ft 47 sq. ft. Lantern (2. ]) Secondary Entry Sign ] . East Kensington Entrance 20 ft ] 9 ft 380 sq. ft. (3.1 ) 2. North Elmhurst Entrance 3. Euclid Entrance Corner ID Sign (5.]) 1. Rand and Elmhurst Intersection ]4.33 ft 50 ft 715 sq. ft 2. Euclid and Elmhurst Intersection Carson Court Soire (6.1) Interior Courtvard bv Carson's 35 ft 7ft 245 sq. ft. ID Spire (6.2) Traffic Circle in Front of Hotel 33 ft 6.5 ft 2]4 SQ. ft. Directional Sign (7.]) Four Locations on Interior Ring 8ft 10.5 ft 84 sq. ft. Road Directional Sign (8.]) Varies Varies 4ft 1 0 SQ. ft. The Village's Sign Code provides provisions for large scale developments which allow these developments to apply for special use to increase both height and area of signs above the maximum standards permitted in the sign code. A special use may be granted provided that the following three standards are met: · Street Frontage: Five hundred (500) linear feet of street frontage. · Minimum Lot Size: Four (4) acres · Highway Oriented Business: Business must qualify or be classified as a highway oriented business serving a community or greater market base. Staff believes that these standards are satisfied by the subject property and therefore justify the requested larger signs. The subject property is one hundred acres in size and has over 5,000 linear feet of street frontage. Additionally, the shopping center is a regional center which serves a greater market base than other developments located within the Village. The proposed signs have been uniquely designed to blend with the architecture of the development and incorporate landscaping and lighting into their designs. Finally, the proposed signs will provide an overall uniform look to the shopping center as a whole. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING The Village Comprehensive Plan designates the property as Community Commercial Use. This land use designation is appropriate for developments on large sites that include large-scale "big-box" and "mixed-use" type developments that include smaller scale outlot parcels. The proposed mixed-use shopping center is designed with larger big-box tenants and small outlot parcels, as well as other retail, office, and hotel users within the central portion of the development. The proposed development therefore is consistent with this designation and is appropriate for the area. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE As previously mentioned, the petitioner is requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development within the B-3 Community Shopping Zoning District for the Randhurst Village project. As such, the standards for Planned Unit PZ-15-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 7 Developments (PUD's) would supersede the underlying zoning requirements. Per code, the maximum building height permitted is thirty (30) feet, while the highest proposed roof height wilJ be sixty (60) feet. Staff is supportive of this variation as the majority of the development wilJ average under the thirty (30) foot height restriction. Additionally, the taller building structures are located in the center of the development and wilJ have limited negative impacts on surrounding properties. The petitioner is also seeking a variation to the front yard setback from thirty (30) feet to twenty (20) feet. The proposed reduction in setback is located along the Elmhurst Road frontage and only appl ies to the three outlot buildings. Staff is supportive of this variation as the proposed design will provide a uniform street frontage of building setbacks along Elmhurst, and extensive landscaping has been provided to provide screen ing of these structures. Staff is also supportive of a reduction in the exterior side yard setback for the Jewel building from the required thirty (30) foot setback, to the existing fifteen (15) foot setback. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 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 of the vilJage 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. The proposal is consistent with the Village's Comprehensive Land Use Map and is compatible with the underlying zoning for the property. The mixed-use development wilJ be compatible with other retail developments that are located within the vicinity and will provide an updated shopping center on the property that will better compete in today's commercial market. PUD Use Exceptions The ordinance approving a PUD may provide for uses in the planned development which are not normally allowed in the underlying zoning district provided that the folJowing conditions are satisfied: · The proposed use exceptions enhance the quality of the planned unit development and are compatible with the primary uses. · Proposed use exceptions are not of a nature, nor are located, so as to create a detrimental influence to surrounding properties. · Proposed use exceptions shalJ not represent more than forty percent (40%) of the total floor area. No industrial uses shalJ be permitted. In addition to any use permitted in the B-3 Community Shopping Zoning District (the underlying district), the petitioner is requesting that the following uses be allowed as additional use exceptions within the PUD: I. Health services, clubs or gymnasiums 2. Hotels and motels PZ-15-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 8 3. Medical and Denta] Laboratories 4. Drive-Through Facilities (in connection with a bank, restaurant, and pharmacy use)* 5. Storage Facility* 6. Multifamily dwelling units on and above the ground floor* 7. Senior Housing on and above the ground floor* 8. Parking lots and structures 9. Outdoor display and sales of products the sale of which is a permitted use* 10. Game rooms Aside from items 5-7, all of the above uses are listed as conditional uses in the B-3 district. Staff believes these lIses would be compatible with the proposed development and concurs they can be added as use exceptions within the PUD. A storage facility is not listed as a conditional use, but would provide a good buffer use between residential properties to the east and the proposed retail development. Staff recommends that the proposed storage facility be approved as part of the proposed PUD, but that future facilities would require an amendment to the PUD. Therefore, staff does not recommend this use be incorporated into the use exceptions permitted on the entire property. Staff also recommends that access to any individual storage space for the proposed building be restricted to be from the interior of the building and that no exterior overhead doors into individual storage units be permitted. Staff also concurs that outdoor sales of products would be appropriate use in the center, but recommends that any outdoor sale of merchandise is required to comply with Section 14.311 of the Village Code which regulates these sales. Finally, staff is supportive of the proposed drive-through uses as demonstrated on the PUD plan, but does not recommend these be included as use exceptions in the PUD approval. The proposed bank and pharmacy drive through are acceptable but future drive throughs will require an amendment to the PUD. As previously discussed, lifestyle centers in general tend to incorporate residential components into their overall development scheme. While staff believes that these uses would be appropriate in this type of development, care should be taken in their future placement on the property. Because of the commercial nature of the shopping center, staff believes that any residential or senior housing component should require a future amendment to the PUD and not be a permitted use within the PUD. Incorporating residential into the project in the future will require stricter review of impact on neighboring properties, parking, and similar issues. Additionally, permitting residential by right would permit existing areas planned for office and or retail to be converted to residential without requiring an amendment to the overall PUD. RECOMMENDA nON The proposed Conditional Use for a Commercial Planned Unit Development meets the standards for this request as listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve the following motion: "To approve: I) A Conditional Use permit for the Randhurst Village Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of approximately 979,500 square feet of retail subject to compliance with the following conditions: A. All previous conditional uses for a planned unit development or associated amendments and variations on the subject property are hereby nullified by reference. B. Variation approval to allow: a. A maximum building height of 60 feet. b. A reduction in the required front yard building setback from 30 feet to 20 feet. c. A reduction in the required exterior side yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet for the existing Jewel retail building. PZ-] 5-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 9 C. Future development of the outlots, or building fayade of individual tenant spaces within the shopping center shall not require an amendment to the approved PUD but shall be performed at an administrative level. In the event that Village staff determines a public hearing is necessary to review a proposed amendment, then a formal application shall be submitted to request an amendment to the approved PUD. D. In addition to land uses permitted within the B-3 Community Shopping Zoning District, the following use exceptions shall also be permitted within the proposed Planned Unit Development: a. Health services, clubs or gymnasiums b. Hotels and motels c. Medical and Dental Laboratories d. Parking lots and structures e. Outdoor display and sales of products the sale of which is a permitted use, subject to compliance with Village regulations pertaining to outdoor sales f. Game rooms E. In addition to the above use exceptions, the following uses shall be permitted as part of the proposed Planned Unit Development in the locations currently indicated on the site plans. Similar facilities proposed in the future will require an amendment to the PUD. a. Drive through facilities for two existing banking facilities and the proposed third outlot bank building. b. Drive through facility for the Jewel-Osco pharmacy. c. Self-Storage Facility for the building sited along the east property line adjacent to the existing Costco retail building and proposed parking structure. F. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the petitioner shall provide final civil engineering drawings for review and approval by the Village. The engineering drawings shall include all site work including utilities, storm water detention, and associated improvements. G. Development of the site in general conformance with the site and landscape plans prepared by Woolpert Inc., dated June 17,2008 and received by the Community Development Department on June 17,2008. H. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the building elevations prepared by Beame Architectural Partnership, dated June 17,2008, and received by the Community Development Department on June 17,2008 with the following conditions: a. The architecture for the hotel shall be refined to provide more definition at the top of the structure and to take advantage of views upon entering the site. Current design lacks interest at the top of this building. b. The design of individual store fronts will be reviewed at the time a building permit is issued for each tenant space and shall be in general conformance with the design criteria packet prepared by Beame Architectural Partnership. I. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall submit revised photometric plans that incorporate final site plan layout and satisfy the Village's code requirements for illumination. Where feasible, light pole standards shall be placed in curbed islands. To provide uniformity across the property, light poles shall match the style and height of those previously installed in the Costco parking lot. PZ-15-08 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page I 0 J. The Petitioner shall construct all building and individual 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. Where applicable, the buildings will also require the installation of a stand pipe system. K. A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (I) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official, shall become null and void if no building permit is issued within the one (I) year requirement and improvements completed within a period of eighteen (18) months. 2) A Special Use to allow Signs Associated with a Large Scale Development. Said ground signs shall be designed in general conformance with the sign drawings prepared by Casto Lifestyle Properties, dated May 15, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on June 17, 2008. Future wall signs for individual tenant spaces shall conform to the Village's sign regulations. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, for the property commonly known as the 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ- 15-08. I concur: W~'7 ~, William 1. Cooney, AICP, irector of Community Development IiI H:\PLAN\Planning 8:. Zonlll!: COMM\P&Z 2{XlH\SlaIT Rcporl\PZ-15-0H Randhur5t Village,doc MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RICHARD ROGERS, CHAIRPERSON FROM: BRIAN SIMMONS, AICP, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPUTY DIRECTOR DATE: JUNE 26, 2008 HEARING DATE: JUNE 26, 2008 SUBJECT: PZ-15-08 - RANDHURST VILLAGE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BACKGROUND The following memo is intended to supplement the staff report prepared for the June 26, 2008, public hearing concerning the proposed Randhurst Village PUD. Following the completion of the staff report, Village staff has had additional discussions with the petitioner regarding the project that would require additional zoning relief. The additional items are highlighted as follows: Temporary Leasing Sign The petitioner is requesting to install two temporary leasing signs at the southwest and northwest corner of the subject property. Per code, the maximum size permissible for a temporary leasing sign is 50 square feet and 10 feet in height. As proposed, the petitioner is proposing two signs 180 square feet in size and 12 feet in height. Similar to the justification for the larger development signs, staff is supportive of the request for larger leasing signs due to the size of the development and impact on the regional market. The proposed signs are temporary, and would be removed following the completion of the project. Staff recommends approval of this request. Fence Height Variation The petitioner is currently proposing to install a six foot board on board fence along the east property line, adjacent to the Boxwood residential area. This fence is permissible by code and is the maximum height permitted. The petitioner has requested approval of a variation to have future flexibility to install an eight foot fence along this property line. Eight foot fences are permitted within the Village to screen industrial storage yards, and along property lines fronting railroad rights-of-way. Staff does not believe that an eight foot fence would be appropriate at this location. The proposed six foot fence and associated landscaping will provide sufficient buffering between the two properties. Staff recommends denial of this request. Waiver of Street Lighting Due to the scale of the proposed project, Village Code requires the petitioner to install street lighting along the right-of-way frontages of Elmhurst Road, Euclid Avenue, and Kensignton Road adjacent to the subject development. The intent of the ordinance is to provide street lighting of all major roadways within the Village and increase the safety of these roadways. The petitioner has requested a waiver of this requirement. Staff is not supportive of waiving the requirement outright, but is willing to consider placing a covenant on the property to PZ-15-08 Supplement Planning & Zoning Commission meeting June 26, 2008 Page 2 delay the installation of these fixtures for a set time period. The final agreement regarding installation of the light fixtures could be finalized as part of the development agreement between the petitioner and the Village. Therefore, staff does not support this variation, but will continue to discuss the matter with the petitioner prior to finalizing the development agreement. Staff recommends denial of this waiver request. Variation to Site Lighting Standards The petitioner is also requesting variations to the lighting standards on the property. Previously, variations to the lighting standards have been approved on the subject property for the Costco project. Staff is supportive of this request, contingent on the proposed lighting adhering to previous approvals on the property with respect to pole height and illumination levels. The approval of this variation will provide uniformity to site lighting across the entire property. Staff recommends approval of this request subject to the conditions listed in the staff report. Use Exceptions for Future Residential The petitioner has also requested that residential be included as a use exception as part of the PUD approval. The petitioner is seeking residential as a future use in the northwest corner of the property. The residential use would be limited to the height variation already requested over the entire development, and limited in density to a maximum of 30 units per acre (of the portion of the site developed for residential). Staff is receptive to future residential, but is concerned with the review process that would be necessary to approve the residential and permitting this use outright. Through discussions with the petitioner, the development agreement can be established to include language which would require a future residential component to return through the zoning process for site plan review, but not require an amendment to the entire PUD. At a minimum, notification could be required to the properties located immediately adjacent to the proposed residential component for a public hearing. Staff recommends approval of the petitioner's request to permit residential as a use exception in the PUD, provided that the following conditions be included prior to the development of residential on the property. 1. Residential uses shall be restricted to the northwest corner of the property generally bounded by Euclid A venue, Elmhurst Road, the northern access road from entering from Elmhurst Avenue, and the central access road entering from Euclid A venue. 2. Residential uses shall be limited to a maximum density of 30 units per acre for the portion of the development constructed for residential use. 3. The maximum height for future residential uses shall conform to the maximum building height for the PUD. 4. Future development of residential shall be in general conformance with the design guidelines submitted by the petitioner for PUD. 5. Development approval of future residential uses shall be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the development agreement executed between the Village of Mount Prospect and the petitioner, including but not limited to, public hearings and required public notification. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, for the property commonly known as the 999 N. Elmhurst Road, Case No. PZ-15-08. I concur: \j~l.~. William J. Cooney, AICP, irector ofCommul11ty Development VILLAGE OF'MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 50 S. Emerson Street Mount. Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval MQUot'" '~"'''' " .' . .. . . '. . ..'. , ..' ". .," ,.' ~;~\!);t?t~ ~;I)~'.': t"~:""<' , ~16 ~o ~'-' Hearing Date ~ Address(es) (Street Number, Street) 999 North Elmhurst Road Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) 99.9 B-3 877 ,089 Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side Z 15' 20' 10' 10 ' 0 ~ Building Height Lot Coverage (%) ~~mber of Parking Spaces i " 64' 21.49 ,'.. 5987 ~ . Adjacent Land Uses: , .- - ~ North South East West ~ Residential Commercial Residential Commercial/Residential Tax I.D. Number or County Assigned Pin Number(s) CI) ~ 03-27-401-271/261/262/040/265/264/267/268/269/270 ~ B Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) See Attached Z Name Telephone (day) 0 CLP/SPF Randhurst, LLC 941-552-2700 ~ Corporation ' , Telephone (evening) c/o Casto Lifestyl e Properti es o I. ~] Street Address Fax ~~ 401 N. Cattlemen Road #108 941-925-9562 ~ City State' Zip Code Email 01 ~ Sarasota FL 34232 mbaxter@castolp.com ~ Interest in Property u ~ Owner PARCEL 1: LOTS 1 AND 2 (EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT ONE THAT PART TAKEN BY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STATE OF ILLINOIS IN CASE NO. 87L51078 AND ALSO EXCEPTING FROM SAID LOT ONE THAT PART CONVEYED TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 29, 1995 AS DOCUMENT NO. 95664230) IN RANDHURST CENTER RESUBDIVISION - NO.1, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT ONE IN RAND HURST CENTER, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID RANDHURST CENTER RESUBDIVISION - NO. 1 RECORDED JULY 24, 1987 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS DOCUMENT NO. 87408581 AND REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF SAID COUNTY AS DOCUMENT NO. LR3637429. PARCEL 2: LOT 3 IN RANDHURST CENTER RESUBDIVISION - NO.1, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT ONE IN RANDHURST CENTER, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF SAID RANDHURST CENTER RESUBDIVISION - NO.1 RECORDED JULY 24, 1987 IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF DEEDS OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS DOCUMENT NO. 87408581 AND REGISTERED IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES OF SAID COUNTY AS DOCUMENT NO. LR3637429. PARCEL 3: NORTH 70 FEET OF THE WEST 70 FEET OF THE SOUTH 120 FEET OF THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 27, TOWNSHIP 42 NORTH, RANGE 11, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS SSL-DOCSI 1818749vl 06/20/07 II :38am ;it. Name Tolephone (day) ~ Same as applicant i' iJ Corporation 1'clcphoDCl (evening) I' Street Address Pax: Oty State Zip Code Bmall t:i Developer Same as applicant Name Telephone (day) , Address Pax . Entail 1, ~ . ,~ i,.,.. ~. .. ..' ".., .~, '; ,,- . ,.. . ;. Attoney DLA Piper US LLP . 312-368-7243 (Klawiter) Name Tclephono(daY)312_368_3447 (Kotak) 203 N. LaSalle Street #1900 Address Fax 312-630-7337 (Klawiter) Chicago, IL 60601 11?_?1\1..2'RA (KotlllC) richard. kl awi ter@dlapiper.con AUn: Richard Klawlter and Aartl Kotak BmaJl ~aarti.kot~~@dlaD1Der.com Surveyor l"clephonc (day) 847 -696-2480 Z Name George D. Harker & 'Associates ~I Address 1800 Woodland Avenue Fax ------ ~1 , ~I j)ark R1dqe. Il 60068-1909 , &nail ------ ~I Eal:lneer 630-424-9080 Name Woo 1 pert, Inc. Telephone (day) ~ Address lAl!; ~alJth Mevers Road. Suite 120 Fax 630-495-3731 ~I Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181-5226 t1m.reber@woolpert.com llq , . ElnaU Ardalted ' 306-444-7100 Name Beame Architectural Partnersl)lp Telephone (day): Address 116 Alhambra Circle, Suite J Fax 306-444-9803 , Coral Gables, FL 33134 AUn: David Galler .EmaU davldg@bapdeslgn.com Landscape Archlted Telephono (day): 704-3~-7000 NllMC 505De519n Charlotte, Inc. Address 2125 Southend Drive, Suite 351 Pax 704-348-7005 " , Charlo~te, Ne 28203 jbabinchak@505design.com BmalI , ,MOWlt Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect [ltlools . www.mountprospect.org 2 Phono 841.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TOO 847.392.6064 ,,', Proposed Conditional Use (as listed in the zoning district) , Planned Untt.,:Development Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) See' Attached 1;1 I~ ~ 0 006 , -< Hours of Operation , Varied based on use Address(es) (Street Number, Street) ~~ 999 North Elmhurst Rd. Site Area (Acres) Property Zoning Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use Q~ 99.9 B-3 979.492 979.492 ~ Setbacks: Front Rear Side Side ~~ 20' 55' 30' 30' (15' existing side . \ Building Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parking Spaces uw u........q 60' , 80' INW corner k 22.5 5386 J of sHe) Please note that the application will not be reviewed until this petition has been fully completed and all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment With ,the appropriate VlIIage staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the Information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, 'It Is requested that, approval be given to this 'request. The applicant Is the owner or authorized representati:ve of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. ' I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and In all materials submitted in association with this application are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge. Applicant See Attached Date 'Ij-It)'.. () r If applicant is not'property owner: " I hereby designate the applicant to act,as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) describ~d in this, application and the associateg supporting material. Property OWner Date Phone 847.818.5328 Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.392.6064 Mount Prospect Department of Community Development 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect Illinois ' www.mountprospect.org ,3 SIGNATURE PAGE TO APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL CLP/SPF RANDHURST LLC, a Delaware limited liability company By: CLP Randhurst LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, its managing member By: Casto Lifestyle Properties L.P " an Ohio limited partnership, its managing member By: CLP Management LLC, an Ohio limited liability company, its managing general partner ~ .~BY: cZ. ~: " 1. Brett Hutchens President CHG02\40242S08.1 Project Narrative: CLP/SPF Randhurst, LLC (the "Applicant") is undertaking the development of Randhurst Mall and creating Randhurst Village. The Applicant will retain approximately 577,000 square feet of retail (including several anchors), develop approximately 280,000 square feet of additional retail space and over 25,000 square feet of new restaurants, relocate and redevelop the existing AMC theater and develop a hotel of approximately 60,000 square feet. Randhurst Village will also include approximately 23,000 square feet of office and approximately 5386 parking spaces. The site has a lot area of approximately 99.9 acres, and the proposed development will have a floor area ratio of .36. The proposed development will substantially upgrade the existing Randhurst Mall and will create an attractive new development which will provide vital services to the residents of the Village of Mount Prospect and surrounding villages. The managing member of the Applicant, Casto Lifestyle Properties, L.P., ("Casto") is a pioneer in creating mixed use lifestyle developments with nearly eighty years of experience in successfully developing and managing commercial, industrial and residential real estate. Casto completed a similar mall renovation/reinvention at a property in Winter Park, Florida, formerly known as Winter Park Mall and now known as Winter Park Village, and also completed a comparably sized development known as Lakeside Village in Lakeland, Florida. CHG02\40244021.2 APPLICATION FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (CONDITIONAL USE APPROV ALl RANDHURST VILLAGE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: The Zoning Ordinance, in Sections 14.203.F.8 and 14.504, sets forth findings to be made in authorizing a Special Use for approval. Those findings are identified below and italicized. As indicated below, and as supplemented by the information in this application for a planned unit development/conditional use approval, Randhurst Village satisfies all of the findings set forth in Sections 14.203.F.8 and 14.504: 1. That the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the conditional use will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; The development of Randhurst Village will not be detrimental to, or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; instead, the development of Randhurst Village will greatly improve the public health and safety by reinvigorating an obsolete and declining shopping center and will positively impact the morals, comfort and general welfare by providing over 280,000 square feet of additional retail space and over 25,000 square feet of additional restaurant space for the benefit and convenience of the residents of the Village and surrounding villages. 2. That the conditional use will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity for the purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the neighborhood in which it is to be located; Randhurst Village will not be injurious to the uses and enjoyment of other property in the immediate vicinity nor diminish or impair property values. A vibrant shopping center will only encourage the use and enjoyment of surrounding property and will encourage an increase in the property values within a neighborhood that may have been negatively impacted by the decline of Randhurst Mall. 3. That the establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district; The establishment of the conditional use will not impede the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property. Randhurst Village will complement and enhance the existing Shopping Center, parking and circulation are all being designed to further support the normal and orderly development and improvement of the surrounding property for uses permitted in the district. 4. That adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage and/or necessary facilities have been or will be provided. As identified on the plans accompanying the application for Conditional Use Approval, adequate public utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities have been provided. A new 12" water main loop will be installed to provide fire protection for the development. Detention facilities will be provided for impacted impervious areas. 5. That adequate measures have been or will be taken to provide ingress and egress so designed as to minimize traffic congestion in the public streets.. As discussed in more detail in the traffic study conducted by KLOA, dated May, 2008, the proposed development provides adequate measures to provide ingress and egress designed to minimize traffic congestions in the public streets. The development will provide additional parking per the Village's CHG02\40243468.2 Zoning Ordinance and a total of approximately 5386 parking spaces (more than 400 spaces in excess of the Village's requirements.) The existing property is served by six full access drives (including three signalized access points) on Kensington Road, Elmhurst Road and Euclid Avenue, allowing an even distribution of traffic to avoid overburdening the existing system. 6. That the proposed conditional use is not contrary to the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village; (Section 15.504(A)(2) The proposed conditional use is not contrary to but rather fully supported by the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The Comprehensive Plan states, "Randhurst Mall, Downtown Mount Prospect, and the Kensington Business Park, all important commercial districts, are recognized as important to the Village's fiscal sustainability." Figure 2.18 of the Comprehensive Plan identifies Randhurst Mall as the highest principal taxpayer in the Village. Furthermore, the Comprehensive Plan includes the maintenance and attraction of retail and commercial services in the Village and the initiation of programs to encourage improvement of the condition of older existing commercial buildings and areas as objectives. The development of Randhurst Village will reverse the decline of Randhurst Mall, due to its high vacancy and tenant turnover, and will again create a productive, active central shopping center. 7. That the conditional use shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the district in which it is located, except as such regulations may, in each instance, be modified pursuant to the recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. (Section 15.504(A)(1) Other than those variations identified in this application, the planned unit development shall, in all other respects, conform to the applicable regulations of the B-3 Community Shopping District. 8. That the streets have been designed to avoid: (1) inconvenient or unsafe access to the planned unit development; (2) traffic congestion in the streets which adjoin the planned unit development and (3) an excessive burden on public parks, recreation areas, schools and other public facilities which serve or are proposed to serve the planned unit development. The development will utilize the existing access drives currently serving Randhurst Mall. With three signalized access drives to facilitate vehicular circulation and six full access drives to distribute the overall volume of traffic, the proposed development will have little impact on the adjoining roads currently serving Randhurst Mall. CHG02\40243468.2 . Randhurst Village Zoning Tabulation May 15,2008 Zoning Classification B-3 Existing PUD Lot Area 99.9047 acres (4,351,851 sf) Existing Building Sq Ft. 877,089 SF 979,492 SF proposed Existing Mall Parking 5987 Spaces Lot Coverage 21.49 % 22.5 % Green Space 5% req. 43,487 SF 48,419 SF provided Proposed Gross Area 1,583,577 SF (excludes basement parking) FAR .36 Building Height 30' allowed 52' main roof, +4' -0" top of parapet (60' highest tower feature) Set backs Required Proposed Front 30' 20' Rear 20' 55' Side (corner same as 10' 30' min. (15' @ existing front) Jewel Osco store) Proposed Area by Use New Retail 280,471 SF New Restaurant 25,200 SF 842 seats Theatre 58,655 SF 2500 seats Hotel 60,604 SF 105 rooms Office 23,713 SF Garage Deck 118,550 SF 2 levels (591 spaces) Garage Basement 71,775 SF 133 spaces Service & Mechanical 7,421 SF Self-Storage Building 126,000 SF Total Proposed New Area 772,389 SF Existing Retail to Remain 571,055 SF See attached breakdown Parking Tabulation Required Provided All Retail 3715 spaces (@4/l000SF) 4101 spaces Restaurant 313 spaces (@1/3 seats + 45) 326 spaces Theatre 625 spaces (@1/4 seats) 647 spaces* Hotel 120 spaces (@1/room + 20) 133 spaces** Office 95 spaces (@4/1000SF) 95 spaces Self-Storage Building 84 spaces (@1/1500SF) 84 spaces Total Parking 4952 spaces 5386 spaces *Includes parking deck * *Basement parking garage Permitted uses: Any use permitted in the B-3 Community Shopping District (including any use permitted in the B-2 Neighborhood Shopping District) and the following additional uses: a) Health services, clubs or gymnasiums b) Hotels and motels c) Medical and dental laboratories d) Drive-throughs (in connection with bank, restaurant and pharmacy uses) e) Storage facility t) Multifamily dwelling units on and above the ground floor g) Senior housing on and above the ground floor h) Parking lots and structures i) Outdoor display and sales of products the sale of which isa permitted use j) Game rooms CHG02\40250123.2 Aspects of the planned unit development that vary from the requirements of the B-3 Community Shopping District. Aspect Zoning Ordinance Proposed Development Reauirement Building height of the 30 feet 60 feet (existing mall is 64 retail/ office buildings along feet) Main Street Building height of the 30 feet 50 feet DroDosed AMC theater Building height of the 30 feet 80 feet Chase Bank office site and existing AMC theater site (residential development) Front setback ~o feet 20 feet Parking ratios for One bedroom units: 2 One bedroom units: 1 space residential use spaces per dwelling unit per dwelling unit Two bedroom units: 2 Two bedroom units: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit spaces per dwelling unit Three bedroom units: 2.5 Three bedroom units: 2 spaces per dwelling unit spaces per dwelling unit Maximum illumination 2-4 foot-candles Per Site Lighting levels for parking lot Photometric Plan prepared lighting (per Section by WLS Lighting 14. 221q-A) Uniformity ratios for 3:1 (average/minimum) Per Site Lighting parking lot lighting 12:1 (maximum/minimum) Photometric Plan prepared bv WLS Lighting Fence height (along east 6 feet (maximum) 8 feet (maximum) property line) Height of lighting Doles 30 feet 4Fi feet Location of site lighting Within the curbed island Outside curbed island or poles within a concrete base Number of residential units N/A 200 units Freestanding signs Height: 30 feet (maximum) Per 505 Sign Drawings and Sign Area: 150 square feet Design Guidelines. (maximum) Setback: 20 feet Building signs Per Sign Ordinance Per 505 Sign Drawings and Design Guidelines Landscape plantings 10 foot foundation Width oflandscape landscape plantings plantings varies per required at the perimeter of Landscape Plan buildings Landscape screening 6 foot landscaping screen 6 foot wood fence and intermittent landscaDinl:! Tree preservation Per Zoning Ordinance Per Landscape Plan CHG02\40250252.3 J => "1 r \ , , ~$ , ".. , '>'''''.i,-',.;...:jjJl "-' ~{9 e'1 &. '-', p If \ r;~ 'i~ ~ ~ l 1 ~~ l .l ~ ~~ ~ ~ t I ~ ~ f' ~ ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, CERTAIN VARIATIONS AND A SPECIAL USE FOR SIGNAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 999 NORTH ELMHURST ROAD, (RANDHURST), MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC, clo Lifestyle Properties ("Petitioner') has filed a petition for Conditional Use permit for a Commercial Planned Unit Development and Variations with respect to property located at 999 North Elmhurst Road ("Property'), and legally described as follows: Parcel 1 : Lots 1 and 2 (excepting from said lot one that part taken by Department of Transportation State of Illinois in Case No. 87L51078 and also excepting from said Lot One that part conveyed to the people of the State of Illinois, Department of Transportation pursuant to that certain quit claim deed recorded September 29,1995 as document No. 95664230) in Randhurst Center Resubdivision -No.1, being a Resubdivision of Lot One in Randhurst Center, being a subdivision of part of the southeast 1/4 of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois, according to the plat of said Randhurst Center Resubdivision -No. 1 recorded July 24,1987 in the office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County, Illinois as Document No. 87408581 and registered in the office of the Registrar of Titles of said County as document No. LR3637429. Parcel 2: Lot 3 in Randhurst Center Resubdivision - No.1, being a Resubdivision of Lot One in Randhurst Center, being a subdivision of part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois, according to the Plat of said Randhurst Center Resubdivision -No. 1 recorded July 24,1987 in the Office of the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County, Illinois as Document no. 87408581 and registered in the office of the Registrar of Titles of said County as document No. LR3637429. Parcel 3: North 70 feet of the West 70 feet of the South 120 feet of the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 27, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. Property Index Number(s): 03-27-401-040/261/262/264/265/267/268/269/270 03-27-401-271; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use permit for a Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of approximately 979,500 square feet of retail space; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks Variations to allow the following: 60' maximum building height, 20' front yard set back, 15' side yard setback, 8' maximum fence height, installation of temporary leasing signs, increased site lighting along the rights-of-way of Elmhurst Road, Kensington Road, and Euclid Avenue adjacent to the "Property" and a Special Use to allow signs associated with the sign drawings prepared by Casto Lifestyle Properties dated May 15, 2008; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the requests being the subject of PZ-15-08 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 26th day of June, 2008, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 12" day of June, 2008; and I WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings on the proposed Conditional Use permit, Variations and Special Use to the President and Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the requests meet the standards of the Village that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use permit for a Commercial Planned Unit Development, Variation and Special Use would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth above are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. (1) The Conditional Use permit for the Randhurst Village Commercial Planned Unit Development consisting of approximately 979,500 square feet of retail is approved subject to the following conditions: A. All previous conditional uses for a planned unit development or associated amendments and variations on the subject property are hereby declared null and void. B. Future development of the outlots and building fac;ade of individual tenant spaces within the shopping center shall not require an amendment to this Conditional Use but review shall be performed at an administrative level. If such future development or fac;ade plans are in general conformance with the design guidelines submitted by the petitioner and with the character of the previously approved development, then Village staff may approve the same. In the event that Village staff determines that a public hearing is necessary to review a proposed amendment, then a formal application shall be submitted to request an amendment to the approved PUD. C. In addition to land uses permitted within the B-3 Community Shopping Zoning District, the following use exceptions shall also be permitted within the proposed Planned Unit Development: 1. Health services, clubs or gymnasiums 2. Hotels and motels 3. Medical and Dental Laboratories 4. Parking lots and structures 5. Outdoor display and sales of products the sale of which is a permitted use, subject to compliance with village regulations pertaining to outdoor sales 6. Game rooms 7. Residential land uses subject to the following conditions: i. Residential uses shall be restricted to the northwest corner of the property generally bounded by Euclid Road, Elmhurst Road, the northern access road entering from Elmhurst Road, and the central access road entering from Euclid Avenue. 2 ii. Residential uses shall be limited to a maximum density of 30 units per acre for the portion of the development constructed for residential use. iii. The maximum height for future residential uses shall conform to the maximum building height for the PUD. iv. Future development of residential shall be in general conformance with the design guidelines submitted by the petitioner for the PUD as set forth in Exhibit "A". v. Development approval of future residential uses shall be in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Redevelopment Agreement executed between the Village of Mount Prospect and the Petitioner, including but not limited to, public hearings and required public notification. D. In addition to the above use exceptions, the following uses shall be permitted as part of the proposed Planned Unit Development only in the locations currently indicated on the Site Plan dated November 8, 2007, a copy of which is attached and made a part of this ordinance as Exhibit "B". Similar facilities proposed in the future will require an amendment to the PUD. a. Drive through facilities for two existing banking facilities and the proposed third outlot bank building. b. Drive through facility for the Jewel-Osco pharmacy. c. Self-Storage Facility for the building sited along the east property line adjacent to the existing Costco retail building and proposed parking structure. E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall provide final civil engineering drawings for review and approval by the village. The engineering drawings shall include all site work including utilities, storm water detention and associated improvements. F. Development of the site in general conformance with the site and landscape plans prepared by Wool pert Inc., dated June 17,2008. G. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the building elevations prepared by Beame Architectural Partnership, dated June 17, 2008. with the following conditions: 1. All final elevations must be approved by staff. Submitted elevations are accepted as preliminary, but greater detail will be required at the top of structures to create varying roof lines by incorporating architectural elements such as differences in wall heights, roof overhangs, canopies or cornices. In the event the Petitioner and staff cannot agree on the final architectural design, the Petitioner may request review and consideration by the Village Board. 3 2. The design of individual store fronts will be reviewed at the time a building permit is issued for each tenant space and shall be in general conformance with the design criteria packet prepared by Beame Architectural Partnership. H. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall submit revised photometric plans which incorporate the final site plan layout. Where feasible, light pole standards shall be placed in curbed islands. To provide uniformity across the property, light poles shall match the style, height, and illumination levels of those previously approved and installed in the Costco parking lot. I. The Petitioner shall construct all building and individual units according to all Village Codes and regulations. This shall include, 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. Where applicable, the buildings will also require the installation of a stand pipe system as determined by the Village Fire Marshal. J. The Developer must tender all submissions to enable the Village to issue a building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, within one (1) year from the date of adoption of this ordinance by the Village Board. The development approvals granted by this ordinance shall become null and void (without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official) if no building permit is issued within the one (1) year requirement. All improvements shall be completed within eighteen (18) months of receipt of the initial building permit. K. An approval pursuant to any requested review by a Village consultant, staff member, Board or Commission shall be an approval of only those items specified in any motion, resolution, and ordinance or written report. Under no circumstances shall such an approval be deemed to be the approval of any other matter by virtue of the fact that those other matters may appear on the supporting documents such as a site plan, engineering plan, or plat that was the subject of the review. Neither shall any such written approval be deemed to be an approval of any matter, which is within the jurisdiction of any other Village consultant, staff member, Board or Commission or any County, State or Federal Agency. L. made as follows: In addition, changes to the physical components of the project may only be 1. Minor Field Changes. Minor changes in location or size shown on an exhibit may be approved, in writing, by the Director of Community Development. Typically, a minor field change will not involve a percentage change greater than 3%. However, not all changes of less than 3% shall necessarily be deemed to be minor. The determination of the Director of Community Development as to whether a change is a minor field change shall be final. 2. Village Board Approved Changes. The Village Board may approve, without referral to the Planning & Zoning Commission, such other changes as it believes are in the best interest of the Village and which do not involve changes in actual numerical values set forth in the text of the Ordinance; and which do not have a substantial, direct impact on adjacent properties. The determination of the Village Board as to whether a requested change should be referred to the Planning & Zoning Commission shall be final. 4 3. Changes Requiring a Public Hearing. Any change involving a size, quantity or other numerical value found in the text of the Ordinance or any change having substantial, direct impact on adjacent properties shall not be made except after a public hearing before the Planning & Zoning Commission. Additionally, the Village Board or the Director of Community Development may refer any requested change to the Planning & Zoning Commission for public hearing when either believes it would be in the best interest of the Village to do so. SECTION TWO: Variations are hereby approved to allow: (1) A maximum building height of 60 feet; (2) A reduction in the required front yard building setback from 30 feet to 20 feet; and (3) A reduction in the required exterior side yard setback from 30 feet to 15 feet for the existing Jewel-Osco retail building. SECTION THREE: A Special Use is granted to allow Signs Associated with a Large Scale Development. Said ground signs shall be designed in general conformance with the sign drawings prepared by Casto Lifestyle Properties, dated May 15, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on June 17, 2008. Future wall signs for individual tenant spaces shall conform to the Village's sign regulations. SECTION FOUR: A Variation is granted to install two temporary leasing signs 180 square feet in size and 12 feet in height. The temporary leasing signs shall be located at the southwest corner and northwest corner of the subject property and shall be removed following the completion of the project. SECTION FIVE: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION SIX: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2008. Irvana K. Wilks Village President ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk '" Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department Mount Prospect MEMORANDUM ~ FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS~ VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: DATE: JULY 10,2008 RANDHURST VILLAGE REDEVELOPMENT - PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SUBJECT: Attached to this memorandum is a resolution that would approve a Redevelopment Agreement (R A) for the Randhurst Mall property, JP Morgan Chase and Casto Lifestyle Properties (Casto), joint owners of the Randhurst Mall, are proposing a significant redevelopment project for this property. Built 46 years ago in 1962, Randhurst has been and continues to be the primary commercial property in the Village. Casto is proposing a,$150 million renovation to the property, transforming the mall into a more contemporary lifestyle center, In order to accomplish this undertaking, Casto is requesting that the Village contribute $25 mimo~ in future project-generated revenues to the project. If approved, Casto would demolish the mall portion of Randhurst and construct a lifestyle shopping center that would include a new theater, a hotel, 2nd story office space and approximately 200,000 square feet of new retail/restaurant space. The project would maintain several existing retailers (Costco, Carsons, Bed Bath and Beyond and all the outlot tenants) and relocate the AMC Theater to east end of the property to become the focal point of the new lifestyle retail area. The Village initiated discussions with Casto regarding the proposed public/private partnership in 2007. While the Village was encouraged by the redevelopment proposal, a key premise to considering any public assistance for this project was that we must protect the sales tax revenue that currently is generated by the property ($3.65 million in FY 2007). Therefore any public assista'nce would have to be generated by new revenue produced by the redevelopment project. The attached term sheet and review memorandum from our financial consultant, The Laube Companies, provides greater detail of the proposed public financial participation. In summary, the term sheet commits the Village to provide $25 million towards this project with funds that are generated by the redevelopment. The funds would be pledged in non-recourse revenue bonds that would be backed by the following five revenue sources: 1. A quarter percent Business District Retailer's Occupation Tax (new tax on Randhurst only); 2. Incremental Local Distributive share of the sales taxes over $236.5 million (2007 base sales); 3. Hotel Tax (increase current rate Village-wide from 3% to 6%); 4. A 25 cent Amusement Tax on the sale of movie tickets (new Village-wide tax); 5. Food and Beverage Tax. It is important to note that the proposed $25 million in revenues would only be paid if the above sources generate this amount. The Village is not obliged to pay any monies from existing revenue sources or from any future sources if the above taxes do not generate their projected amounts. In addition, the :\ Village will continue to receive the current amount of sales taxes generated by the property ($3.65 million) plus approximately $1 million annually in new home rule sales taxes. After the revenue bonds are paid off, the Village will receive all revenues generated by Randhurst Village. I have attached a copy of the draft term sheet that details the scope of the terms to be included in the final RDA. The RDA will be provided to the Village Board for their consideration at their August 5th meeting. William J. Coney Jr. Director of Community Development RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND CLP/SPF RANDHURST LLC FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF RANDHURST MALL MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village has the authority, pursuant to the laws of the State of Illinois, to promote the health, safety and welfare of the Village and its inhabitants, to prevent the spread of blight, to encourage private development in order to enhance the local tax base, to increase employment, and to enter into contractual agreements with third parties for the purpose of achieving the aforesaid purposes; and WHEREAS, in order to serve the needs of the residential and business community the Village of Mount Prospect has determined that it would be in the best interest of the Village to enter into a Redevelopment Agreement with CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That the President and Board of Trustees do hereby authorize execution of a Redevelopment Agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and. CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC for the purpose of developing the Redevelopment Project Area as defined in the Agreement, a copy of which is attached and made a part of hereof as Exhibit "A". SECTION TWO: 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 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\RESOLUTION\randhurst village redevelopment agreement july 2008.doc CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC Village of Mount Prospect CLP/SPF Randhurst LLCNillage of Mount Prospect TERM SHEET The joint venture of Casto and JP Morgan has formed a single purpose entity of which Casto is a managing member, CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC (the "Developer"). The Developer intends to redevelop the 100 acre parcel presently known as Randhurst Mall (the "Property") located at the intersection of Rand Rd., Kensington Ave., and Elmhurst Rd. in the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Village"). 12. Deve)()})er' StaJe otOr~"niz'~tj(jn: I Developer is a Delaware limited liability company authorized to do business in the State of Illinois. 13. 'Developer Address: Casto Lifestyle Properties L.P. 401 North Cattlemen Road Suite 108 Sarasota, FL 34232 Attn: Mr. Brett Hutchens DLA Piper US LLP 203 N. LaSalle, Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60601 Attn: Mr. Richard Klawiter and Ms. Aarti Kotak 14. ",:Project: ":.:::.',,':'j' I Developer acquired and intends to redevelop the Property at a cost of approximately $154 million. The Property will be developed as a "Lifestyle Center". The redevelopment will consist of the following (collectively, the "Project"): · Redesign and construction of the existing multi-tenant building in the center of the Property. · Construction of a new theater which will anchor the lifestyle component · Re-tenanting of portions of the Property · Cause to be leased and constructed approximately 155,000 +/- square feet of newly constructed retail. · Cause to be constructed a 120 +/- room hotel DRAFT CHG02\40245171.4 Term Sheet 1 CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC Village of Mount Prospect 15.' ,Atquisitionof:Land: I JP Morgan owned the Property. JP Morgan contributed the land into the entity constituting the Developer, subject to the redevelopment moving forward on the terms set forth herein. 16. Busin,ess DiStrict: The Village will create a Business District corresponding to the boundaries of the Property, with the exception of the Costco property, in accordance with the Business District Development and Redevelopment Act, 65 ILCS 5/11 - 74.3 (the "Business District Act"). The Village agrees to hire an independent consultant to establish the eligibility of the Business District, perform any required studies and prepare any required plans, and cause all public hearings and Village Board meetings to be held as required by the Business District Act. Once established, the Village agrees to impose up to a 0.25% Business District Retailers' Occupation Tax (the "Business District Tax") generated by the Property sans Costco. 17. .Imposition of Additional Gener~IMuIiicipal Taxes, I The Village agrees to impose the following additional taxes: · Increase the Village-wide hotel tax to 6% total · Impose an amusement tax on the sale of tickets to an entertainment event, including the sale of movie theater tickets, in an amount of $0.25 per ticket. Is: VlIlageFim(ncing: ",I The Village shall issue a one or more series of Business District and Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (the "Bonds") and a Subordinate Note (the "Note") supported from the following pledges: · 100% of the Business District Tax · 100% of the Incremental Local Distributive Share of the Sales Taxes ("Incremental Sales Tax") · 100% of the Hotel Tax generated by the Project ("Hotel Taxes") · 100% of the Amusement Tax generated by the Project ("Amusement Taxes") · 100% of the Food and Beverage Tax generated by the Project ("F&B Taxes") Incremental Sales Taxes shall mean 1 00% of the Village's local distributive share of the Municipal Retailers' Occupation Tax associated with sales in excess of$236.5 million annually ("Base Sales Tax"). The Note shall be issued as follows: DRAFT CHG02\40245171.4 Term Sheet 2 CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC Village of Mount Prospect A. Note (Taxable). The Village will issue one or more taxable notes (the "Taxable Note") to Developer upon the closing of the redevelopment agreement (the "RDA") (the "Issuance Date") in an aggregate initial principal amount equal to the amount of the eligible costs as delineated in the Business District Plan which have been incurred by the Developer by the Issuance Date up to a maximum principal amount of $25,000,000, as evidenced by a certificate provided by the Developer and approved by the Village substantiating as much ("Certificate of Expenditure"). After the initial issuance of the Taxable Note, if the principal balance ofthe Taxable Note is less than $25,000,000, then the principal balance of the Taxable Note will be increased when the Village issues additional Certificate(s) of Expenditure, up to a maximum of $25,000,000. Eligible costs will be certified by the Developer to, and approved by, the Village on the Issuance Date and on a quarterly basis thereafter. Interest on the Taxable Note will accrue upon issuance at a rate equal to the median value of the 10-year Treasury constant maturity as published in the daily Federal Reserve Release for 15 business days prior to the Issuance Date plus 300 basis points (the "Taxable Note Interest Rate") and will compound semi-annually. The Taxable Note shall be payable from the Business District Taxes Incremental Sales Taxes, Hotel Taxes, F&B Taxes, and Amusement Taxes. The Taxable Note will begin to accrue interest upon the closing of the RDA, but no payments will be made until the Certificate(s) of Completion are issued as delineated below. The Taxable Note will have a first lien on the Business District Taxes, Incremental Sales Taxes, Hotel Taxes, F&B Taxes, and Amusement Taxes. Upon issuance of the Bonds ( as hereinafter defined), the lien of the Taxable Note will automatically subordinate to the liens of the Bonds with respect to the pledged payments to that series of bond issuance. Any Bonds that are issued by the Village will have a first lien on the pledged source of repayment to that Bond issuance. The Village may not prepay the Taxable Note for a period of 10-years at anytime without the Developer's consent. The principal value of the Taxable Note will be reduced by the net proceeds of the Bonds when issued (as discussed below in 3C). B. Assignment of Notes. The Taxable Note may be (i) assigned or pledged as collateral to any senior lender holding the Taxable Note, or, following the issuance of Certificate of Completion 2, (ii) sold or assigned to a qualified investor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Developer may transfer the Taxable Note at any time to (i) any entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Developer or (ii) any entity in which the majority equity interest is owned by the parties that have a majority equity interest in Developer. C. Revenue Bonds - Upon Developer's request, the Village shall issue at least two or more series of revenue bonds (the "Bonds") in the amount required to yield up to $25 million in net proceeds (after provision for debt service coverage, capitalized interest, debt service reserve fund, and closing costs) to retire all or a portion of the Taxable Note. The source of repayment for the Bonds will be the Business District Taxes, Incremental Sales Taxes, Amusement Taxes, F &B Taxes, and Hotel Taxes, which, when collected, are allocated to and paid to the Treasurer of the Village for deposit by the Treasurer into the special tax allocation fund specifically set up for the Project (the "Tax Allocation Fund"). The Village will issue one or more series of Business District revenue bonds that will have an amortization schedule of up to 23-years as allowed by the Business District Act. The Village will issue one or more series of Revenue Bonds supported by the Incremental Sales Taxes, Amusement Taxes, F&B Taxes, and Hotel taxes that will have an amortization of up to 30-years. DRAFT CHG02\40245171.4 Term Sheet 3 CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC Village of Mount Prospect To the extent issued, the Bonds will have first lien on the Business District Taxes, Incremental Sales Taxes, Hotel Taxes, F&B Taxes, and Amusement Taxes. Beginning on the date of issuance, the Village shall deposit all Business District Taxes, Incremental Sales Taxes, Hotel Taxes, F&B Taxes, and Amusement Taxes into the Tax Allocation Fund. The Bonds shall be issued by a qualified investment banker, chosen at the Village's sole discretion and reasonably acceptable to Developer, upon the later of (i) the Developer's request, (ii) the determination that the Bonds are marketable, and (iii) the issuance of Certificate of Completion 2. Typical market requirements are as follows: o A certain percentage of the Project shall be leased or sold to tenants, ground lessees and/or purchasers. o Developer and/or subsequent developers (in the case of a ground lease or pad sale) shall have secured a binding commitment from a construction lender to provide funds to construct the Project. o Developer or subsequent developers (in the case of a ground lease or pad sale) shall have entered into a lump sum agreement with a general contractor to construct the Project. o The Village will need to pledge the coverage to the 30-year revenue bonds to pay the principal down early after the call protection periods as may be required by the Village's bond underwriter to maintain marketability. The Village and Developer will make all reasonable efforts, to the extent possible, to ensure that the Bonds will be exempt from federal taxation under the IRS code. However, it is anticipated that the Bonds supported by the Business District Tax will not be tax-exempt. 19~ Eligible Costs -I The Village will reimburse Developer up to $25 million (exclusive of costs of issuance, capitalized interest, and debt service reserve fund) applicable toward the following costs: · Acquisition Payment - $20 million · Hard Costs of New Construction - $49 million · Site Preparation - $9.9 million · Subsurface and Basement Structure Renovation - $10 million · Tenant buyout costs (Steve and Barry's; Costco) - $1.75 million To establish its right to reimbursement, Developer shall submit to the Village such documentation as may be reasonably requested by the Village (including but not limited to lien waivers, cancelled checks, paid invoices, etc.) verifying the costs Developer has incurred in connection with the Project. The Village shall have 30 days after receipt of such information from Developer to recommend approval or disapproval of such request for reimbursement and, if a request is disapproved, to provide Developer in writing a detailed explanation as to why the Village will not or cannot recommend such reimbursement. Once approved, Developer will be reimbursed within 7 days. DRAFT CHG02\40245171.4 Term Sheet 4 CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC Village of Mount Prospect Il()'. ..ProjectTimeline: . .1 The following is an estimated timeline for the Project: Acquisition of Center - Completed Commencement of Construction - July, 2008 Completion of Construction - Summer, 2010 111. Other Pro]ectFinandng: I Developer will provide sufficient equity and construction financing so as to complete the Project as contemplated herein. In... . Completion .CertificateRequireDlents: Upon the satisfaction of the following conditions, the Village shall issue certificates evidencing completion ofthe Project: Certificate of Completion 1 - Upon the closing of the RDA and final approval of the zoning and entitlements, the Village shall issue an initial certificate of completion ("Certificate of Completion 1") and will begin making payments to the Taxable Note from Business District Taxes. Additionally, one or more series of Business District Tax Bonds shall be issued at Developer's request following the issuance of Certificate of Completion 1. Certificate of Completion 2 - A second certificate of completion ("Certificate of Completion 2") shall be issued upon the occurrence of the following: Developer shall have constructed and caused to be leased (or purchased) the following: . Construction of the shell building of the theater and executed lease agreement with theater operator . Construction of 80% of the shell buildings of the new retail space, approximately 124,000 square feet . Executed leases with 50% of the new retail space, approximately 77 ,500 square feet . Executed buyout of the Steve and Barry's lease (to be deemed completed in the Redevelopment Agreement) . Executed buyout of the existing Costco Sales Tax Rebate/Incentive Agreement in entirety Upon issuance of Certificate of Completion 2, the Village will begin making payments from Incremental Sales Taxes, Hotel Taxes, F&B Taxes, and Amusement Taxes to the Taxable Note. Additionally, one or more series of Bonds shall be issued from a pledge ofIncremental Sales Taxes, Hotel Taxes, F&B Taxes, and Amusement Taxes at Developer's request. DRAFT CHG02\40245171.4 Term Sheet 5 CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC Village of Mount Prospect The Village shall respond to Developer's request for both Certificates of Completion 1 and 2 within 15 days by issuing either such Certificate or a written statement detailing the ways in which the Project does not conform to the RDA and the measures which must be taken by Developer in order to obtain such Certificate. The Village shall respond to, and process, Developer's request for either Completion Certificate within said 15-day period or such Completion Certificate shall be deemed to have been issued. 113. Village ApPt'ovals: . .1 The Village agrees to expeditiously review plans and specifications for the Project and approve or reject in writing within 15 days. The Village agrees to provide written notice to Developer within the normal course of their approval process, not to exceed 15 days. Material change orders made by Developer to the Project shall be reported to the Village immediately by Developer. 114. . Prior Expenditures: . The Village agrees to perform all necessary actions, including the passage of an inducement or intent resolution, if needed, to preserve the eligibility of any costs associated with the creation of the Business District and/or execution of the RDA. 115. CIQsingRequir.ements: Prior to execution of the RDA, Developer shall provide the Village with evidence of its financial condition, evidence of a commitment to senior construction financing and equity financing to complete the entire Project, a copy of the owner's title policy for the Property, DCC, tax and judgment searches, an opinion of legal counsel regarding Developer's authority to enter into the RDA, a certificate of insurance and other customary closing documents. 116~.Bi(t:Requlr~meJ1t: . I There are no bid requirements associated with the Project. Ilj~ ... ... himits;6n}DeveloperAction:? ... , /..,~, , ..,<." I Developer may not merge, liquidate, or consolidate any of its development entities in a way that will materially and adversely affect its ability to complete the Project until Certificate of Completion 2 has been issued. lIS. ... . Title CompaQY: .1 To be determined by Developer. DRAFT CHG02\40245171.4 Term Sheet 6 CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC Village of Mount Prospect 119.. . EscrowAgree.nehts~ Not applicable unless required by Developer's lender. 120. . . Future Bflnd'Issuances Related to,'iheOverall Proj~ct, . I Developer will assist the Village in future bond issuances (where financial information regarding development impacts bonding) related to any future bonding on the Project. In no event shall Developer be required to incur any out-of-pocket expenses. 121. . Event of Default: The RDA will contain event of default provisions customary for real estate transactions. DRAFT CHG02\40245171.4 Term Sheet 7 To: The Village of Mount Prospect Subject: Review of Proposed Randhurst Mall Redevelopment LAUBE cli::: g. flil IF" l~Nl .~ ~~s To: The Village of Mount Prospect From: Mike Laube Subject: Review and Analysis of the Development Economics for the Proposed Redevelopment of Randhurst Mall- Internal Confidential Memo Date: June 5, 2008 OVERVIEW The purpose of this memo is to provide an objective financial analysis ofthe proposal that Casto has provided to the Village of Mount Prospect for the redevelopment of Randhurst Mall. Our goals in our review are essentially two (2) fold - 1. To make sure that, if the Developer receives the commitment of the Village to his request or a reasonable amount, he will be able to reasonably finance and execute this project subject to market conditions, and 2. To provide reasonable assurances that the Developer, with the granting of the requisite municipal financing, is not making a beyond market range profit at the expense of the Village. The Developer is requesting $25 million in net bond proceeds from the Village. Our analysis ofthat request follows. To: The Village of Mount Prospect Subject: Review of Proposed Randhurst Mall Redevelopment DEVELOPMENT COSTS Analysis of the Projected Costs of the Project The total gross project cost of this development is $154 million. This includes an attribution of $45 million for land cost. Analysis of Land Cost The current structure ofthis project is that Casto has entered into a joint venture agreement with JP Morgan, the current owner of the center. This agreement contemplates that Casto make a payment to JP Morgan for the land of something much less than the true FMV and JP Morgan contribute the property into the deal for some level of back ended payment or profit distribution. As a result, the agreement contemplates that the net book value of the center be used as the land cost in the development pro-formas. The net book value attributed to this project as a cost is $45 million. This structure provides the deal with a clear advantage to appropriate development return on the overall deal. In order to show the order of magnitude of this, if you take the current NOI of the center of approximately $5.5 million in its current configuration and impute a 7.5% capitalization rate, you rough out a $73.5 million sale price. Although, under a joint venture agreement, it is very reasonable to assume that the difference in value is made up by the provision to share profits if the development is successful. We can also conclude that the JV structure puts a much lower up- front financial burden on the deal economics. Vertical Construction Costs The Developer is estimating that the vertical construction costs of the buildings that he is responsible for constructing ranges from $85 - $210 per square foot. Current market conditions show that hard construction costs for retail are $90 - $115 per square foot for the core, shell and mechanicals (commonly called the "vanilla box") and then interior finishes or tenant improvements range from $0 - $110 per square foot depending on the actual retailer going into the space. The higher end of the range is generally for lifestyle tenants, in which this development is being proposed. Based on these market averages, the Developer's cost are being estimated well within the reasonable range of where the market is today. Site Work The Developer is estimating that the site work will be $198,048 per acre and in addition to that $10 million is for sub-surface renovation. To: The Village of Mount Prospect Subject: Review of Proposed Randhurst Mall Redevelopment A general rule of thumb for site preparation costs is $5 per land square foot for a site that is essentially ready to go. That equates to about $220,000 per acre. One must also realize that site preparation vary greatly from site to site, particularly when you get into in-fill or redevelopment projects in areas that are already built and established. However, the estimates provided here seem very reasonable given "Greenfield" standards. The $10 million in sub-surface renovation is really an extraordinary cost of the site due to the sub-structures originally built under this center and the cost to renovate and covert them. We therefore, conclude that these costs are reasonably stated. Soft Costs There are many line items constituting the soft costs ranging from legal to interest paid. We look at the total of the soft costs in aggregate given that anyone line item within the soft cost budget can vary widely from budget to actual. However, when cost are estimated for any development project, the general rule is that soft costs should be about 25% ofthe hard costs being incurred by the Developer. The Developer is estimating that the soft costs they are incurring are 20.68% oftheir hard costs. We believe that this cost is being estimated very reasonably and well within market ranges. Developer Fee The Developer is proposing a $1.9 million developer fee. The market range for development fees are 3.5% - 5% of total costs being incurred by the Developer. The Developer's proposed fee is 2 % ofthe total costs. Thus it is under market. Also, in many cases, the development fee is often thought of as developer profit. When within market ranges, this is not the case. The investors that put equity into the project must receive a market rate or acceptable rate of return to attract their equity. The development fee is for the Developer's significant time, effort and overhead of putting a deal together. Many times the investors and the Developer are not the same. Therefore, To: The Village of Mount Prospect Subject: Review of Proposed Randhurst Mall Redevelopment in my opinion, a market rate development fee should be paid to the Developer which is in addition to the return to the capital to the investors. REVENUES Lease Rates The Developer is estimating that lease rates range from $15 psf at the low end to $26.69 psf. The average of these is about $20 psf. When you look at weighted averages of the rents for big box anchored retail power centers with the lifestyle component, you are generally seeing averages of $18 - $30 psf in markets similar to Mt. Prospect. Given where the market is today and how retailers are cutting back, it is very reasonable to assume that the high end of the range is not feasible as it may have been 3 or 4 years ago. The Developer is, for all practical purposes, at the mid-point of this range and therefore, I believe his pro-formas are very reasonable in that respect. Profit Levels The Developer has requested a municipal financing agreement that contemplates $25 million which would put them at an 8% return on total costs. · Total Developer Cost - ($154 million) · Less: Net Proceeds of Bonds - $25 million · Net Cost of Deal- ($129 million) · Total Projected Net Operating Income as Redeveloped - $10.3 million Total Return on Costs - 8% (NOI divided by $129 million) This methodology of calculating returns is very appropriate when the Developer is proposing to hold the property for a very long period of time. This is the case here. The current owner is part of the development entity, wherein the business model is not to developer and sell. We can also look at this on a static pro-forma sale type basis as follows: · Capitalized Value of NO I (using 7.5% cap) - $137.5 million · Less Net Cost of Project - $129 million · Total Estimated Profit on Sale - $8.5 million Total Profit Level- 6.6% ($8.5 million divided by $129 million) To: The Village of Mount Prospect Subject: Review of Proposed Randhurst Mall Redevelopment Benchmarking of Market Profit Levels There are many benchmarks of profit or return to capital for a real estate development project. Unleveraged rate of return on a long term hold basis is one of them. Others are static profit on costs, unleveraged internal rate of return on costs assuming a sale, leveraged return on equity, and others. These three are the most widely used. General market rates for these measures are currently as follows: . Unleveraged rate of return (assuming long term hold) - 10% - 12% . Static return on costs - 17% - 20% . Unleveraged internal rate of return on total project costs (assuming a sale)- 13.5% - 15% . Leveraged internal rate of return on equity - 25% - 30% All of these market based measures when calculated show the same level of profit or return to a developer in general terms. In other words, a 10% unleveraged rate of return (assuming long term hold), 17% static return on costs is approximately a 13% unleveraged IRR on costs (assuming sale), and a 25% leveraged IRR to equity. One way to benchmark and derive a market return is to use the Korpacz Survey, as published by PricewaterhouseCoopers. This is an annual report that shows the unleveraged IRR on a total project cost for a fully stabilized asset. In other words, this survey annually benchmarks what a institutional investor would require in terms of an IRR for a fully constructed and stabilized asset if they paid for it entirely with cash. This survey shows that the required return for an institutional investor to purchase a big box anchored power center hovers right around 11.5% unleveraged IRR. If then you add 100 - 150 basis points for construction risk and 100 - 150 basis points for lease and stabilization risk, you arrive at a market benchmark for return of 13.5% - 15% unleveraged IRR if one buys land and develops it. It is our conclusion that the profit levels being shown here are very reasonable and frankly, under current market rates for these types of redevelopments. Projections of Revenue and Structure Being Discussed Weare currently in discussions with the developer on the exact form of the reimbursement to them of the $25 million. Weare discussing revenue bonds and revenue notes that, by nature, are no recourse to the Village. That is if the pledges of cash flow assigned to repay them don't materialize in the amount we project, the developer note the bond/note holders do not have any claim against the Village. To: The Village of Mount Prospect Subject: Review of Proposed Randhurst Mall Redevelopment The pledges of cash flow to repay the securities are tied only to revenues generated by the redevelopment project. Therefore, ifthe developer does not perform, the value ofthe obligations is directly impacted negatively. Conversely, if the development goes better than planned, they are limited to $25 million (net proceeds) and the Village receives the project cash flow that is in excess of that repayment. The pledges from the Project are currently contemplated as follows: · Business District Tax - we are proposing to impose an additional Business District sales tax on Randhurst only in the amount of 0.25%. As part of the deal, Costco is being carved out ofthat imposition. (New tax) · Food and Beverage Tax - We are pledging all the food and beverage tax generated by the Project to the Notes/Bonds. (Existing 1% tax) · Hotel Tax - We are discussing to increase the hotel tax to 6% and pledge the hotel tax from the Project only to the notes/bonds. (Current tax - 3%, New tax - 6% total) · Amusement Tax - Weare proposing to impose a $0.25 amusement tax on theater tickets, which would also be pledged to the notes/bonds. (New tax) · Incremental Sales Tax - We are contemplating pledging the incremental local distributive share of the sales tax only. Incremental being defined as the sales taxes over what the center is currently producing. Therefore, the Village is out no money that is has right now. (2007 base sales of$236 million = $3.65 million in sales taxes) Note - there will be significant increases in sales tax generation, and no home rule sales tax is being pledged to this deal. That all inures to the Village. The Business District bonds/note would have a 23-year life as mandated by Illinois Statute and the remainder of the bonds would have a 3D-year life in order to achieve the required net proceeds of $25 to make the deal work. The bonds would be structured that, after a call protection period, that principal would be paid down early. Thus, if everything goes according to projections, the bonds could be paid down in about a 20- year timeframe. This structure and amortization periods will allow the Village to protect its current sales tax base and 100% of its home rule sales tax. One of our main goals throughout this negotiation is to preserve the Villages general revenues, primarily the main revenue of sales tax. Therefore, we have arrived at this structure at this point in time. This add-on Business District sales tax is a critical component to this deal if we are to preserve the Village's general sales tax. To give you an idea of the order of magnitude of this, every 0.25% represents approximately $4 million in net proceeds of bonds from this deal. If this tax were not able to be implemented for whatever reason, we would need to find $4 million from another Village general revenue source to replace it. However, we believe that this center can qualify for To: The Village of Mount Prospect Subject: Review of Proposed Randhurst Mall Redevelopment a Business District and it is a concept that the developer and retailers' don't typically make a deal breaking issue. It is my opinion that we are in the process of negotiating and achieving a structure that is: . No recourse to the Village . Only defeased by Project revenues . Protects the Village's interests in the general sales tax . Gives the developer the amount that they need to execute the deal . Gets the deal done for the benefit of all . Maintain the long-term viability of Randhurst CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMEDATIONS Based upon my review of the costs, revenues, value, increment and sales tax production of this proposed development, it is my opinion that a request of $25 million is very reasonable. Frankly, ifthey are to achieve current market rates of return, they should be requesting in range of$35 - $40 million. The Developer along with the current owner is very well capitalized and already owns the center and is a very good position to be able to finance and execute this project. Also, $25 million in the context of a $154 million total project or approximately 16% of total project cost is optically within the range of many other projects. Of which, this percentage of public contribution often is in the 20% - 25% range oftotal project costs, and sometimes higher. Therefore, I recommend that the $25 million (net proceeds) request by the Developer be seriously considered and a business deal worked out along the lines of the structure that is discussed above. MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~b. ~1~ '1 IS' ce FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 8, 2008 SUBJECT: PLAT OF EASEMENT 19 - 21 S. EMERSON STREET - NORTH OF BUSSE AVENUE The downtown streetscape required upgrading existing infrastructure to accommodate improvements. In order to provide the desired width of the street, an additional easement on the east side of Emerson was required for public utilities and sidewalks. A plat of easement providing a 5.5 feet easement along 19-21 S. Emerson Street has been prepared to provide such access. This 5.5 feet easement is consistent with the property to the north and provides the necessary area to install public improvements. The Plat of Easement requires Village Board review and approval. Attached is a copy of the Plat of Easement prepared by the Applicant. It denotes the location of the utility and sidewalk easement and includes the appropriate signature blocks. Staff has reviewed the plat and found it to be prepared according to all Village codes and requirements. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their July 15,2008 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. I L . If\J, CP H:\PLAN\Planning & Zoning COMMlP&Z 2008\MEJ MemolMEJ Memo (Plat of Easement - BusseEmerson).doc )( RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PLAT OF EASEMENT FOR 19-21 SOUTH EMERSON STREET. MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect required upgrading existing infrastructure to accommodate downtown streetscape improvements; and WHEREAS, to provide the desired width of the street, an additional easement of 5.5 feet is required for public utilities and sidewalks at 19-21 South Emerson Street; and WHEREAS, the Plat of Easement dated April 1, 2008 denotes the location of the utility and sidewalk easement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS A HOME RULE MUNICIPALITY: SECTION ONE: That the Plat of Easement for property located at 19-21 South Emerson is hereby approved for appropriate execution and recording. Such Plat and its legal description are incorporated into, and made a part of, this Resolution. SECTION TWO: 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 ,2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\RES\Plat of easement 1921 S Emerson Street.doc OF THE WEST 5.50 FEET OF LOTS 12 AND 13 IN BLOCK 5 IN BUSSE AND WJLl['S RESUBDIVlSIQN IN ~OUNT PROSPECT IN THE WEST 1/2 or SECTION 12. TOWNSHIP .., NORTH, RANG( 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN ACCORDINC TO THE PLAT Tl-IEREOF RECORDED MARCH 31, 1906 IN BOOK 92. PAGE 10 AS DOCUMENT NUMBER 3839591, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. PLAT OF EASEMENT " . ~ ~ il CRoss...r CORNER BUSSE CROSS AT /,CORNER VILLAGE CEN~~; ~I"IASE I-C I 71.S0 '" . I -(z f- t cr:: 0 Z SCALE l' ~ 20' rOUNDERS ROW SUBDIVISION f- W W 0:::: f- U) 589'2824 "E 5. :r' OC:::. I h ~ 1;1 I~I ~ffilS ~ II ~ ~'"i ~ 01 n ~ ;~~ PlCIW..AT'irl ..;~ ~!Ceu """" 8::' I:: g ~i~~ z I 1 Z uud ~ 1 ~~~~ ~ I ~em'" FI ~h15 -_:Y AT CClllNER , , 157.11 (157,1\) 21.47 ~ 13 P.LN 08-12-104-009-0000 19 S. EI.1[RSON STREET 151.11 157." 12 P,I.N. 08-12-104-010-0000 21 S. EMERSON STREET z o U) 0:::: W :2 w 5.50' S89'28'2J"E OJrNfi'R'S t'ERTlFlCA TE In'AmorlWlfOllJ) COt11m' OF COO<<) AVENUE 1 ftIISlS70camrl'THAT' JSnflGlJOIIIIat.!WVUlT'IZ DDaIIBD IN na AnllCHID BUlftII'rGIl'S c:anmcA~, AlfII EMS C,UJSIIlP ?HI .!WIE ft) IE stIRmE1l AS DIIlICAmI BY THE A'lTACHi1l PlAT'1lII1HJ USlSAlfIIPURPOSISnfIIlEDf SlT1ORftf, AND DCli5 HPDY ACIOfOILEDCf AJa) .tDGf"I" no: a.ua VfIIDD no: mu AND mu or 'pur 01' EdEXDfT'" ,.... CROSSAl, CQI;IN[R I lOT 2 "OUNl PROsP[Cl 5lAl[ BANK RESUBDIYlSION NO 2 mu ""'" NOTARY eElmFJCAfE !lrAft' or IWHIII!) ccruNNOrClJOJC) I, nil: lDIDIlISIG'HED, A /IIOT'ARf PUlIJC IN AIm J'OIt na CtI1OO"l'AIUI SfATE.tI'l:IBiUID, JXl HDaW CEIl'IUT nuT fH.tKI), ('M1E) AND 'H.dfI:j, 1'=) PEltSGff.W.Y KNOIJiI roM!, ro IIE_.wa: PIIISOlG IHGII'JWIE IS st/IISl:IlfBD ftlnlS J'OIlICOJIl'G lNmIl/IfEln'AB 1I'IJWl,.tPP&lJIID IID"QRrMi nfIS n.tY/N PallIIlIN AX1I A~ THAt' HE 8lCUG.um DEUYDIIZl no:.uoiI:IlI:lI PlotT All HIS OWH JJtIr AIUI vawln'AIW ACT, J'OJI mr USIS AND PlIJUlGIIS 7HEIlEIR AT RNml YJLl.AGE BCWID CERTWJCAfE SJ'An: or IWlllIS) COlIJn\"att'OOll') .t.PPROYID BY nm PJl&!IDDfT IJlD 8OlRl) at ntumES Of mr VWAGI' OF )101M PIlOSPm', nus_!LtYor VlWGE CO.LlECTOR'S CERTIFICATE STAftDf1WJllml) couJm'Of't'lXlIt) 1. , YlWGE COJJ.ICfll.R Of JIOtI1fT PfKlSJ'I:CT. fWJi'OJS, DO HIlW'Y CIRTIJ'l' fHA, natII'E ..tIlE JfO llIIJIrfq!Wft' nnIIW. TAXI:!. "" tINP..uD ct/1IRIJIrf' HHIIW. t'AIa, MO UNf'AJIl Ji'ORf'IIJD 'AXIS. JiO IOO'AlD llPfOCW, ~ .um NO IlIDaM.dlZ TAll' SAW AGAIJQT AIf)' or THE WlDIHCLUDElIIH7HrPUTHJ:JlIONJIJU,IJI DAm A' _ , lWNOIS, mlS_ flol,Y Gf' m.LA.G'COJUt'TOR GWIN l/JUIlR)f'f' HAJfD 4.NlI NOfAJlLU..... ... ,IO" JiOfAJIY PUSUC ,ZDlllI OJrNU'S CERTlFlCArE SJ'A"""JWIIlOIJ) S.S COllHTY01'~} nlISIS70CJJmF't7HAT JStxJ:llJHIRllrWDUlT'U DUClI/BIJ) IN fHI ATfACHl!l stmmOI'S eamnc."", AlID JWl CAUUP 1HJ .!WIE ft) lIE SUlmJ:Il ASIJI/DICAn:D BY ntt Arnu:HEIl PU'I'OR 7IlS UIIllANDP~ntRDllll'1l'G1ffH. AND DOIS HrIIDl' ACJOIOWl,EOOIAIUIAJlOJ"I' nIl.!oUllll.lfHR 1711' SI'l'U4ND nn.r OF "P1A7'QF&\!EIIEH'T" DAinm nus . ... "". mu mu Dir./NnRIJIG Cl'R'T'JIIi'ICJ.'!W :~Ofar~s.s. ..t.Pf'JIllVEII IW no: vu.uaE IHflINID or THf VWAllf or MOUNt p.."..ltT, lWNaIS ."'" ""'" NOTARY CERT'lJ'JCA fE ST'A1'I OF 1LUJIfOIS) COUJm'OFCOllJI:) I. 7'NI UJfDIIISIll1fED A NOT"'" PUIUC IN ANDmJl7HI COUJm'AJIl/ SftttAJ'ORl:!WD. DO HEIWn' (JWlI', l'7I!U) AlaI (PWfI), (Tm.IJ PE80JWLY JllfO.N TO MI. fa III ". SAKE .--oHS mIGSE IWlI IS IlmSCIDIll 10 nlllOBGClUfG DISnltIMDI7' AS ODD, APl'MIIIII .-oRI ME nus JMY JII' NIIIClII' AIfD ACIOfOIlIIlCIlI nu.r IS JH:IIEl) AJI) 1IGlWaIJI!'HE ANNDrIl pur AS HJS CD J'RIIANIlrDW1mUn'ACr,l'DRtHltIIIIAMDPllRPllIIS7HIRrlIlsrr1Ofrftl ldIIIIN'J'!AII1IISDVID JlURANIlOIWnID ftI1l1E YfU.AG' Clf'MlllMI'PIfOIPI'e!'AIOl1'O nl'OSE PllBLIC unun' CDMPAHID OPIIIMftlfG UJGID IlWfCtllllIROM nil YiLLoIGI OF 1KlUJft' ~, JlfCWDDfG, BUT' IIOT LIIII7IIl fD. AMIIImD, ,.,.".., ILUJiICIIS c.u COIlPAIfY MIll 7IIIIR suc:a:aau _ AISlGIfS OVER ..tLL ntr.t-..s IRDn HIRION AS 1'UIIUC urum AIfD PIIII.ICIIIlftAUr.....,." ftIlllmIII Ymf!'HE AVftIllIln' ftI CG.IIIftIUt'7'. B-t"llIm1RItT, ... ~. JMllfIIUIf MIl IIr""1: IIDDAUC ~ AfQ) YARIOlIS I/!IIJIT f'&tNlII8InIf _ JII!'IIIMtOH smIIS AND JJJCI.UIPll INIBI' AIfD/OIt lamMO' SPIRS ftICI1HDt mHMl'fMalAU.1IIC:8dY IWIBGI.IS. caJafBAlDfS. CllMfICIIl>>IS. AJIfII.WfCIIAJfIJ CImII.tnrUmIJII! A/IlI) AfIPI1IDWfCII A.I MAI'.1lDBD Ifa'DMa't fl'I &till YlLLlGE 0YI:Il, UPOJf, .uGIf01IIUIIIAND ftIIlOUllIf SoUD IlllUcarID.......,. ftlOlftIIR Jmff,. UM' OF ACCISS AC11C1S3 fIG ........,. JaIl' -=-ury ., &ta) I'lIlIIPIIDfT ftI IXlI1fl' or nil .d:lU _ AND tHllfI:HI' IIA1al CJWftD ftlcurDCml, flDfAlCDIIIlOYfAJll'ftIIlI,IIIIRlDOItonlEltPi..Ut!'S lIHJHE.IAIDlIIft'11IA,IJftIWIIIIJnt_CJIlDttJr>>for7HI_OIlIftIDlI!'IllrJD. IfO I'DIWmft' IllJII.DDliCS IIIW. BE I'UC2D ON &till IAIIMIM'. &U1l1ZlAlftD.wL1IIIUeI....lDl'DllftII~fI!l".1llIIftIfC l!IIIlIftOHAflJlYmllDlM J'lIft/JII IRA' lAID SUJlf'Aet JlI/fIftlIlIIII rt GIIMIIIN lilt ~ DI' IIPAJIINC, awJft'ADIfft: .tNII IIrPDMftNG lAID umrnD. IJfIItI All &UalINI' III UIID IlIftI RIt IIID MOl 0fI!I:I lInU1'JIS', !'HE onIIR umm' 1JfSfAW7IOIl1ILW. llJUBIIC!' ftI nil APPlOYAL or 7111 JIllAGI' AI to DlllGIf AND LOCAnllH AIm AlJ.IKIrAIJATHlItSARllUl.llCrto TNI 0IDDfAIfCES 0' !'HE VILUGIllJ'IfOllIfTPItClSJIItT. mtAllf IlIfGINII:R 1U."~"F.N'7' PRDVI!IIDNS GM:H UHDD JII' JW(ll AJfll JfDWlW. SUL. nlls DAI' Of ..... COUNTY RICORIWl'S CER'J'lFICATI' BfA1'I or lWHOIS} COUHTl' Of t'OClK} ntlSJNSftIl/IlIN7'HtIJIIIER amaartflGlcoll/m',1WHOfS. .ASm.&:IIf'OIIIlIalRDDltHlRI:CllIIIIR'S f'H1S_IMYOf' , ... SfA7t OFILWlOG COIJJI7'I' 0' coor 1,IIlIIJlTJ.IIclHJQtH,AlfBUlfOlJPlD11::IIJmW.1.tND1LIIYmlR. IDI11Y nu, I IUYI I'ftII'AIIIIl null ....., W J:oVIIlIJff PJIOIl' amc:w. ~ AMI) UV'GlIIIADGIf f'lIIUICD IfI' THE nIlUl Mal 11fjlr nuspur01'E.UIIIDft'CCIlIII'Cft.I'JIIPMIJIf7'lI&U!lJ'Ae!'S nw ~, F"EBRUARY 7 2007 IM7t: ROm!' J. McOO'OIlf. I.P./..s.,sn ~oJ . CE E!2~~l~~.l LTD. ..... 18750 ROHlWlNG ROAD, ROLLING MEADOWS ILLINOIS 60008 (847) 392-3570 F'AX (847) 392-8252 CIlrntlGHTCe;ol ~[IIESlGOl L'~ ILLIJClIS PfIl11"ESllllNl'ol. IJUICiIrI filM 11"-10.:1108 VJU.AGE OF YOUNT PROSPECT BUSSE " DERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT PLAT OF EASEYENT "2~7-07 ~ E:~'..; RJt.l t;: Mount Prospect ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: FLOODPlAIN ORDINANCE MODIFICATIONS TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER DATE: JULY 10. 2008 BACKGROUND The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has issued updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM's) for all of Cook County. The revised maps more accurately depict the floodplain areas for all communities including Mount Prospect. FEMA held open houses for local government officials and for the public at large to view and comment on the maps. The Village staff has reviewed the maps and has found them to be the best representation of the floodplain areas in the Village. FEMA has established an effective date for the maps as August 19, 2008. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requires that communities enact and enforce Floodplain Regulations in order to be eligible to participate in and receive the benefits of the NFIP. Mount Prospect accomplished this in 1977 by adopting Chapter 22 of the Village Ordinances entitled Floodplain Regulations. Periodically these regulations require modifications for various reasons. Ordinance amendments were approved by the Village in 1987. 1992, 2000 and most recently in 2007 when new Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FI RM) were prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for one specific waterway. These regulations specify that the regulated floodplain areas are those depicted on the FIRM maps. To avoid confusion when maps are modified, FEMA requires that our code reference the effective date of the most current map. Prior to the effective date of the maps. it will be necessary for the Village to modify the Village's Floodplain Regulations to formally adopt the new date of the maps. NEW MAPS FEATURES The new maps reflect new flood studies that were performed for the tributary waterways and creeks leading into the Des Plaines River. This new data was then overlaid onto aerial maps to provide more accuracy in determining the location of the floodplain limits especially in relation to individual properties and structures. More precise ground elevations were used to produce better contour maps to more accurately delineate the floodplain areas. L- , Page 2 ... Floodplain Ordinance Modifications July 10, 2008 IMPACTS OF NEW MAPS The Village staff has compared the new maps to the current maps that were adopted in 2000, and have identified the impacts to properties and structures within the Village. In general the impacts are very positive. Many properties and buildings currently located within the floodplain have been mapped outside of the floodplain. However, a few properties and buildings are now shown within the limits of the floodplain that are not in the current maps. The results are shown below. Properties removed from the floodplain: Buildings removed from floodplain limits: 123 193 Properties added within the floodplain: Buildings added within the floodplain: 6 11 Most of the changes occurred along Weller Creek, which saw a drop of 3' in the floodplain elevation, because of the restudy of the creek and the improved accuracy of the mapping techniques. RECOMMENDATIONS D Map Adoption: I recommend revisions to Chapter 22 of the Village Code to adopt the new maps and reflect the new effective date of August 19. 2008. Please place this on the agenda for the July 15th Village Board Meeting. Since this needs to be accomplished prior to the effective date of the maps which is August 19, 2008, I recommend that the second reading be waived so that this item can be approved prior to the effective date. D New Floodplain Properties Buildings: Similar to when the new maps Were adopted in 2000, I recommend that the Village prepare elevation certificates for the new buildings that have been included within the floodplain limits to determine if they are within the floodplain by actual ground elevations. If the elevations indicate that they should not be included within the floodplain, I recommend that the Village submit a Letter of Map Amendment (LaMA) to FEMA requesting that the building be removed from the floodplain. This is similar to what was accomplished when the maps were changes in 2000 as residents in the northeast section of the Village along the Des Plaines River and McDonald Creek Were impacted. I will be available at the July 15th Village Board meeting to ansWer any questions. Cc: . Glen R. Andler, Public Works Director H: Engineering\Drainage\Ordinance\Chapter22\2008Modifications\RecMm ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 22 ENTITLED "FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS" OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That Section 22.102, "Definitions" of Chapter 22 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the definitions of "Floodplain" and "Regulatory Floodway" in their entirety and inserting new definitions of "Floodplain" and "Regulatory Floodway," which shall be and read as follows: "FLOODPLAIN": That land typically adjacent to a body of water with ground surface elevations at or below the base flood or the 100-year frequency flood elevation. Floodplains may also include detached special flood hazard areas, ponding areas, etc. The floodplain is also known as the SFHA. The floodplains are those lands within the jurisdiction of the Village that are subject to inundation by the base flood or 100-year frequency flood. The SFHAs of the Village are generally identified as such for the Des Plaines River, Feehanville Ditch, Higgins Creek, McDonald Creek, McDonald Creek Tributary B and Weller Creek on the Cook County Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared by FEMA on Map Number 170131 C panels 0202J, 0203J, 0204J, 0206J, 0207J, 0208J, 0209J, 0211J, 0212J, 0214J and 0216J dated August 19, 2008. The SFHAs of those parts of unincorporated Cook County that are within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Village or that may be annexed into the Village are generally identified as such on panel number 0209J, 0212J and 0214J of the countywide Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared for Cook County by FEMA and dated August 19, 2008. "REGULATORY FLOODWAY": The channel, including on stream lakes and that portion of the floodplain adjacent to a stream or watercourse, as designated by IDNR/OWR, which is needed to store and convey the existing and anticipated future 1 OO-year frequency flood discharge with no more than a one-tenth foot (0.1 ') increase in stage due to the loss of flood conveyance or storage, and no more than a ten per cent (10%) increase in velocity. The floodways are designated for the Des Plaines River, Feehanville Ditch, Higgins Creek, McDonald Creek, McDonald Creek Tributary B and Weller Creek on the Cook County Flood Insurance Rate Map prepared by FEMA on Map Number 170131 C panels 0202J, 0203J, 0204J, 0206J, 0207J, 0208J, 0209J, 0211J, 0212J, 0214J and 0216J dated August 19, 2008. To locate the regulatory floodway boundary on any site, the regulatory floodway boundary should be scaled off the regulatory floodway map and located on the site plan using reference points common to both maps. Where interpretation is needed to determine the exact location of the regulatory floodway boundary, IDNR/OWR should be contacted for any interpretation. SECTION TWO: That Section 22.105, "Base Flood Elevation" of Chapter 22 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect as amended shall be further amended by deleting items A. and B. in their entirety and inserting new items A. and B., which shall be and read as follows: iManaae:175625 10 Amend Chapter 22 Page 2 of2 A. The base flood or 1 DO-year frequency flood elevation for the SFHAs of the Des Plaines River, Feehanville Ditch, McDonald Creek, McDonald Creek Tributary B, and Weller Creek shall be as delineated on the 1 DO-year flood profiles in the flood insurance study of Cook County prepared by FEMA and dated August 19, 2008 and such amendments to such study and maps as may be prepared from time to time. B. The base flood or 1 DO-year frequency flood elevation for the SFHAs of those parts of unincorporated Cook County that are within the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Village that may be annexed into the Village shall be as delineated on the 1 DO-year flood profiles in the flood insurance study of Cook County prepared by FEMA and dated August 19, 2008 and such amendments or revisions to such study and maps as may be prepared from time to time. SECTION THREE: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: PASSED and APPROVED this 15th day of July 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk H:\CLKO\WIN\ORDINANC\Chapter22amendfloodplainjuly2008.Doc iManage: 175625_1 0 ? Mount Prospect ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: PROJECT ENGINEER DATE: JULY 10, 2008 SUBJECT: JUNE SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING TRAFFIC STUDY AROUND ST. PAUL LUTHERAN SCHOOL & C The Safety Commission transmits their recommendation to eliminate the part-time one-way designations along School Street and Busse A venue adjacent to St. Paul Lutheran School and Church. In the summer of 2007, various traffic regulations were changed around St. Paul Lutheran School in an effort to enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety. At the time, the Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees requested that the Engineering Division perform a post-study in the spring of 2008 to determine the effect of the changes. Staff was asked to take into account school, church and park activities. School Activities - During the Engineering Division's observations of drop-off and pick-up, traffic conditions were orderly and safe for both parents and students. Issues such as motorists disobeying the one-way designation on Busse Avenue, students walking between cars, and traffic congestion on School Street and Elm Street have been solved. And other issues such as double-parking and parking close to crosswalks have been minimized. Overall, conditions have improved and the school continues to support the new traffic regulations. Church Activities - The church recently completed a renovation project to the building. While scheduled for a future phase, the parking lot was not expanded as part of the initial work. The Police Department observed traffic conditions on a Sunday morning and reported little problems. On-street parking was present but congestion along the streets was not evident. The one-way southbound designation along School Street from Central Road to Evergreen A venue on Sunday mornings, however, was routinely disobeyed even though signs are in place. There is also a one-way westbound designation along Busse Avenue from Elm Street to Owen Street according to Village Code though no signs are in place. This ordinance, too, was routinely disobeyed. Park Activities - The three streets that border Owen Park: Busse A venue, School Street and Owen Street all have a 2-hour parking limit from 7:00am-6:00pm Monday-Friday. The Engineering Division observed traffic conditions during weekday evenings and on a Saturday afternoon and did not see any issues. There were people at both the playground and ball field during our visits. On-street parking was observed but there was no congestion evident along the streets surrounding the park. "^' page 2 of2 June Safety Commission Meeting July 10, 2008 Resident Survey - As part of the post-study, 17 surveys were sent to nearby homes soliciting their feedback on the traffic regulation changes and their observations during school, church and park functions. Surveys were also sent to the school, church and park district. Three surveys were returned. All supported the changes made last year around the school. This issue was discussed at the June 9, 2008 Safety Commission Meeting. There were two residents in the audience to speak on this issue. One commented that the recent traffic regulation changes around the school have improved conditions and the other had no objections. After some discussion, the Safety Commission agreed that the new traffic regulations have enhanced safety and no further changes associated with school-related traffic were necessary. The remainder of the conversation focused on Sunday morning church-related traffic. Based on feedback from the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments as well as the residents in the audience, the Safety Commission concluded that doing away with the part-time one-way designations on School Street and Busse Avenue would eliminate the routine disobedience and confusion, allow residents easier access into and out of the neighborhood, and would not compromise safety. By a vote of 9-0, the Safety Commission recommends the following: · Repeal the ordinance that provides for a one-way westbound designation along Busse Avenue between Elm Street and Owen Street on Sundays from 7:00am and 1:00pm (Section 18.2003). · Repeal the ordinance that provides for a one-way southbound designation along School Street between Central Road and Evergreen Avenue on Sundays from 7:00am and 1:00pm (Section 18.2003). Since both the original and post-study surveys were sent only to those residents around the school, the Safety Commission asked that another survey be sent to those residents that would be directly affected by this latest recommendation. 24 surveys were, therefore, sent to nearby homes soliciting their feedback on the recommended changes to School Street and Busse Avenue. Surveys were also sent to the school, church and park district. The Engineering Division received comments from only two residents. One supported the change to eliminate the part-time one-way designations and the other opposed the change. The survey also indicated the recommendation would be presented to the Village Board of Trustees at the July 15th Village Board Meeting and invited the residents to attend. Please include this item on the July 15th Village Board Meeting Agenda. Enclosed is a location map for your reference. c: Director of Public Works Glen Andler Village Engineer JeffWulbecker Village Clerk Lisa Angell h: lengineeringltra./ficlsafecomm Irecs&min Vune08rec.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 ENTITLED 'TRAFFIC CODE' OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ACTING IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR HOME RULE POWERS: SECTION ONE: That Section 18.2003, "SCHEDULE III - One-Way Streets," of Chapter 18 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting the following: "Name of Street Busse Avenue Direction of Traffic Movement Westbound Description Btw. Elm and Owen Street (Sundays only Btw 7 A.M. and 1 P.M. School Street Southbound Btw. Central Rd. and Evergreen St. (Sundays only Btw. 7 A. M. and 1 P.M." SECTION TWO: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of 2008. Irvana K. Wilks Mayor ATTEST: M. Lisa Angell, Village Clerk C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6B\CH 18 St Paul traffic study july 2008.doc TRAFFIC STUDY AT ST. PAUL LUTHERAN SCHOOL & CHURCH ~ CENTRAL RD I- UI l&I oJ n. 4: I CJ BUSSE AV ... o EVERGREEN AV EXISTING TRAFFIC REGULATIONS ... ONE-WAY STREET 7AM.1PM SUNDAYS STOP SIGN NO STOPPING. STANDING. PARKING ANY TIME NO STOPPING. STANDING. PARKING SCHOOL DAYS 8AM-4PM . - - I I- UI oJ o o J: U UI I- UI Z l&I ~ o ~ ... ... ~ OWEN PARK o - NO PARKING - DROP-oFF/PICK-UP ZONE SCHOOL DAYS BAM-4PM NO PARKING - ARE LANE NO PARKING 7AM-6PM M-F 2-HOUR PARKING 7AM-6PM M-F 15-MINUTE PARKING SCHOOL DAYS BAM-4PM - - - - I Director Glen R. Andler Mount Prospect ~ Deputy Director Sean P. Dorsey Mount Prospect Public Works Department 1700 W. Central Road, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-2229 MINUTES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION DRAFT CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Safety Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Monday, June 9, 2008. ROLL CALL Commissioner Keane informed the Commission that Commissioner Bencic had reached his term limit as Chairman and that he (Commissioner Keane) was recently appointed by Mayor Wilks to represent the Commission as the new Chairman. Present upon roll call: John Keane Chuck Bencic Angel Campos Robert Fisher Fred Pampel Carol Tortorello Mike Etemo Buz Livingston Paul Bures Matt Lawrie Absent: None Others in Attendance: Michael Landgraf Carol Lynch APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Police Department Representative Fire Department Representative Public Works Representative Traffic Engineer - Staff Liaison 21 S. School Street 919 S. Maple Street Commissioner Bencic, seconded by Commissioner Tortorello, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Safety Commission held on December 10, 2007. The minutes were approved by a vote of 8-0 with Commissioner Pampel abstaining. Phone 847/870-5640 Fax 847/253-9377 www.mountprospect.org CITIZENS TO BE HEARD There was no one in attendance that spoke on an issue not on the agenda. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business to discuss. NEW BUSINESS A) TRAFFIC STUDY AT ST. PAUL LUTHERAN SCHOOL 1) Background Information In the summer of 2007, various traffic regulations were changed around St. Paul Lutheran School in an effort to enhance pedestrian and vehicular safety. The Safety Commission and Village Board of Trustees requested that the Engineering Staff perform a post-study in the spring of 2008 to determine the effect of the changes. Staff was asked to take into account school, church and park activities. 2) Current Traffic Regulations 1. Busse Avenue in front of the school was converted from a one-way westbound street during specific times of the school day to a two-way street at all times during the school day. 2. There is now a 15-Minute Parking School Days 8:00am-4:00pm parking regulation along the north side of Busse Avenue between Elm Street and School Street. 3. There is now a No Parking Drop-Off / Pick-Up Zone School Days 8:00am-4:00pm parking regulation along the west side of School Street between Busse Avenue and Central Road excluding the first 196' north of Busse Avenue and first 150' south of Central Road. 4. There is now a No Stopping, Standing, Parking School Days 8:00am-4:00pm parking regulation along the south side of Busse Avenue between Elm Street and School Street, the east side of School Street between Busse Avenue and Central Road, and the west side of Elm Street from Busse Avenue to a point 150' north. 5. There is a two-hour parking limit Monday-Friday 7:00am-6:00pm on many of the streets in the neighborhood. 6. School Street from Central Road to Evergreen Avenue is one-way southbound and Busse Avenue from Elm Street to Owen Street is one-way westbound on Sundays from 7:00am- 1 :OOpm. 3) Observation & Evaluation School Activities - During the Engineering Staffs observations of drop-off and pick-up, traffic conditions were orderly and safe for both parents and students. Issues such as motorists disobeying the one-way designation on Busse A venue, students walking between cars, and traffic congestion on School Street and Elm Street have been solved. And other issues such as double-parking and parking close to crosswalks have been minimized. During our visits, parents were observed to park illegally on only a few occasions. Overall, however, conditions have improved. Church Activities - The church has recently completed a renovation project to the building. While scheduled for a future phase, the parking lot was not expanded as part of the initial work. The Police Department observed traffic conditions on a Sunday morning and reported little problems. On-street parking I was present but congestion along the streets was not evident. The one-way southbound designation along School Street from Central Road to Evergreen Avenue on Sunday mornings, however, was routinely disobeyed even though signs are in place. There is also a one-way westbound designation along Busse Avenue from Elm Street to Owen Street according to Village Code though no signs are in place. This ordinance, too, was routinely disobeyed. Park Activities- The three streets that border Owen Park: Busse A venue, School Street and Owen Street all have a 2-hour parking limit from 7:00am-6:00pm Monday-Friday. The Engineering Staff observed traffic conditions during weekday evenings and on a Saturday afternoon and did not see any issues. There were people at both the playground and ball field during our visits. On-street parking was observed but there was no congestion evident along the streets surrounding the park. ResidentlParent Survey - As part of the post-study, 17 surveys were sent to nearby homes soliciting their feedback on the traffic regulation changes and their observations during school, church and park functions. Surveys were also sent to the school, church and park district. 3 surveys were returned. All support the changes made last year. One commented that the one-way designation along School Street is not adhered to and another one commented that some parents to do not follow the parking restrictions during the school day. 4) Recommendations School - Based on the Engineering Staff's observations, the new traffic regulations appear to be effective in creating an orderly and safe environment. No further traffic regulation changes are recommended. However, it would be beneficial to remind parents via letter prior to the start of the school year to not park close to crosswalks and to not double-park. Police Department presence at the beginning of the school year would help to reinforce the traffic regulations. Church - The one-way designations on Sunday mornings along School Street and Busse Avenue are recommended to be removed to allow for two-way traffic at all times. The one-way designations were put into place in 1971 but appear to not be of benefit today. Since some residents affected by this potential change are outside the current notification area, it is recommended that they be informed and that this issue be discussed in greater detail at a future Safety Commission Meeting. Further, we would want to inform the church of the potential change as well. There are no other changes to the traffic regulations recommended around the church. Park - No traffic-related issues were observed during the Engineering Staff's visits to the park. Also, a representative of the park district was not aware of any issues. There are no changes to the traffic regulations recommended around the park. 5) Discussion Chairman Keane introduced the issue and opened the discussion to the public. Michael Landgraf, 21 S. School Street, supports the changes to the traffic regulations associated with school drop-off and pick-up activities. With respect to Sunday morning traffic, there is a lot of on-street parking on School Street. The one-way designation during this time should be signed better or eliminated to allow for two-way traffic because many motorists don't follow the existing signs. Further, he believes there should be some consideration for limiting parking on one side of School Street during Sunday mornings. Carol Lynch, 919 S. Maple Street, is a member of St. Paul Lutheran Church and was not aware Busse Avenue is designated a one-way street on Sunday mornings. Chairman Keane asked Traffic Engineer Lawrie to present Staff s study and recommendations. Traffic Engineer Lawrie then shared with the Commission Staff s observations and recommendations. Chairman Keane brought the issue back to the Commission. There was consensus from the Commission that the traffic regulations around the school have been effective in creating a safe environment. The discussion then focused on church activities. Traffic Engineer Lawrie commented that limiting parking to one side of School Street and Busse A venue on Sunday mornings would displace many vehicles. With the church and school parking lots full, on-street parking would extend further into the neighborhood. Commissioner Bencic and others said they thought Busse Avenue was wider than School Street and two-way traffic could be maintained even with parking on both sides of the street. One issue with School Street is that there are many driveways and allowing parking on both sides of the street can make it difficult for residents to maneuver in and out of their driveways. There was a question about emergency vehicle access. Battalion Chief Livingston said there was an alarm at St. Paul Lutheran Church on a recent Sunday morning and the Fire Department was able to negotiate School Street even with vehicles parked on both sides of the street. Commissioner Fisher commented that allowing parking on both sides of the street prevented thru traffic during the Fire Department's response. This created a safe situation for the personnel. Sergeant Eterno commented that residents on other streets may also want parking restrictions if parking is limited on School Street and Busse Avenue. Chairman Keane told the Commission there are a couple of issues to consider. First, should the Sunday morning one-way designation on School Street and Busse Avenue be eliminated and, second, should parking restrictions be enacted on streets around the church. Traffic Engineer Lawrie reiterated Staffs recommendation to convert School Street and Busse Avenue to two-way streets on Sunday mornings and to allow on-street parking to remain as is. Sergeant Eterno supports two-way streets because motorists are more likely to disobey the part- time one-way designation because it can be confusing. Commissioner Tortorello asked if the parking regulations did not change could the Police Department review the situation in the fall to determine if any restrictions are necessary. Traffic Engineer Lawrie and Sergeant Eterno responded that Staff could again review the issue in the fall. There was consensus from the Commission that School Street and Busse Avenue should be designated two-way streets at all times including on Sunday mornings. Traffic Engineer Lawrie suggested that those residents who are outside the current survey area but who would be affected by this change be notified before the change. After some further discussion, Commissioner Bencic, seconded by Commissioner Pampel, moved to remove the Sunday morning one-way designations on School Street between Central Road and Evergreen A venue, and on Busse Avenue between Owen Street and Elm Street resulting in both streets having a two-way designation at all times. Also, a notice is to be sent to the affected properties and allow for a two-week period for feedback. If there are no objections, Staff is to present the change to the Village Board of Trustees for final approval. If there are objections, Staff is to bring the issue back to the Safety Commission for further discussion. Finally, there are no recommended changes to the parking regulations at this time. Staff, ( however, is to review the parking situation around the church in the fall to determine whether any parking restrictions are necessary. The motion was approved by a vote of 9-0. Commissioner Fisher asked that the church be notified of the change to the one-way designation so that the parishioners can also be made aware. COMMISSION ISSUES Chairman Keane requested the Commission choose a new Vice Chair. This person would facilitate the meetings in the absence of the Chairman. After some discussion, there was consensus that Commissioner Bencic would serve as Vice Chairman. Traffic Engineer Lawrie updated the Commission on the status of the Neighborhood Traffic Study. He indicated the next Open House would be in September or October. Commissioner Tortorello asked that Staff review whether any portion of Evergreen Avenue in front of St. Mark Church is a designated Fire Lane. If so, she requested that it be signed accordingly. ADJOURNMENT . With no further business to discuss, the Safety Commission voted 9-0 to adjourn at 8:05 p.m. upon the motion of Commissioner Pampel. Commissioner Bencic seconded the motion. Respectfully submitted, Matthew P. Lawrie, P.E. Traffic Engineer h:\engineering\traffic\safety _ commission\recs&mins\june08min.doc " VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT SAFETY COMMISSION MEETING ATTENDANCE SHEET June 9, 2008 NAME ADDRESS PHONE NUMBER Mike- ~4Jj'J ~~dJ 2.} Sc,k oc> I 91q s. YrtOfLt s~. Mount Prospect INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ~1). ~(~~ 'l IS ce TO: VILLAGE BOARD AND FINANCE COMMISSION DATE: JUNE 6, 2008 (UPDATED) SUBJECT: PROPOSED CIP: 2009-2013 Attached hereto is the proposed 2009-2013 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The ojects being considered for the year 2009 total $21,989,401. The five-year total for all projects is $57,178,404. 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 CIP is showing the five-year average of projects being paid from General Fund revenues as $407,000 (A-1 0). This is typical ofthe 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 $907,727 with annual deficits increasing each subsequent year through 2013 ($3,759,017). See the complete five-year forecast for the General Fund beginning on page H-1. Motor Fuel Tax Fund (MFT) Receipts from motor fuel taxes beginning in 2008 are expected to remain flat through 2013. Due to the flattening of the motor fuel taxes, the Fund has annual deficits for every year of the forecast. This is significant as the MFT Fund supports approximately one-half of the funding for the annual street program. Originally to be finished in 2006, 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 6, 2008 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 Detention Pond Improvements, PW Emergency Generator and Video Conferencing between the three fire stations. From 2002 through 2007 approximately $3.7 million in projects were deferred due to discontinuing the General Fund transfer. In 2007, the Village Board approved a permanent funding source for these mid-sized capital projects. An additional X percent home rule sales tax was implemented beginning January 2008 that will generated approximately $1.3 million annually. A portion of the revenue will be allocated towards building up the fund balance for the Capital Improvement Fund and the Village's two Parking Funds. Approximately $1.0 million annually will be available for capital projects. Projects included in the five-year plan after 2010 will need to be further prioritized with some deferrals to bring the total annual amount down to what can be supported with current revenue streams. Street Improvement Construction Fund Proiects The forecast for the Street Improvement Fund (H-11) is showing a positive fund balance of $483,274 at the end of 2008, but the fund balance will become a deficit by the end of 2009 due to slowing revenues. Revenue to support the program comes from the state and local motor fuel tax and X percent home rule sales tax. Each of these revenue sources are expected to either decline (home rule sales tax) or remain flat (state motor fuel tax) over the next year resulting in fewer funds available to fund the street program. Adjustments to the amount of work planned each year will be necessary if these revenue sources do not rebound during 2009. Flood Control Construction Fund Proiects Fund balance for this Fund is projected to be $81,511 at December 31,2008 (H-12). Two larger size flood control projects for Prospect Meadows ($600,000) and McDonald Creek ($1 ,500,000) are planned over the next five years. Although funding from the X 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 2009-2013. The first is the ongoing Combined Sewer Improvement project started in 2005. The total cost for the project was originally estimated at $15 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 $813,000 per year and emergency generators for water pumping stations at approximately $360,000 per year through 2011. Water tank rehab totaling $1 .3 million is also included in the five-year forecast for the Water and Sewer Fund. The cash and investment balance is projected to remain relatively level over the five-year period and end 2013 with approximately $3.5 million. 1:\CIP\2009-2013\2009-2013 CIP - Board Memo July 2008.doc Proposed CIP June 6, 2008 Page 3 of 3 Fundina to be Determined The CIP is showing five new projects were funding has yet to be determined. These projects include the construction of a new Fire Station 14 at $8.6 million, expansion of the Public Works vehicle maintenance building at $2.3 million and construction of an Emergency Operations Center for approximately $2.1 million. A funding source also needs to be identified for the Ash removal/replacement program expected to cost $4 million over a ten-year period. All five projects are slated to begin in 2009 and 2010. Meetings to review the CIP were held on June 18 with the Finance Commission and on July 8 with the Village Board. Staff was on hand at both meetings to discuss project submittals and answer questions from the Commission and Board members. No changes were made to the proposed document as a result of the two meetings. It is important to note that although a project is included in the final CIP document, it does not guarantee funding and completion. Only if sufficient funds are available will a project be included in the annual budget. Funding decisions will not be finalized until later this year. Please let me know ifthere are any questions regarding the Proposed CIP. Thanks. J~~.~ David O. Erb Director of Finance Copy: Michael E. Janonis, Village Manager I :\CIP\2009-2013\2009-2013 CIP - Board Memo July 2008.doc VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN PROPOSED 2009 - 2013 June 2008 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 2009 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN VILLAGE OFFICIALS MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran, Jr. Paul Wm. Hoefen Arlene A. Juracek A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstoifer Michael A. Zadel ADMINISTRATION Michael E. Janonis David O. Erb William J. Cooney, Jr. Nancy M. Morgan John K. Dahlberg Michael J. Figolah Glen R. Andler M. Lisa Angell Village Manager Finance Director/Treasurer Community Development Director Human Services Director Chief of Police Fire Chief Public Works Director Village Clerk MA YOR Irvana K. Wilks Mount Prospect VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Arlene A. Juracek A. John Korn Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michael A. Zadel ~ VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/392-6000 Fax: 847/392-6022 TOO: 847/392-6064 www.mountprospect.org Village of Mount Prospect 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 June 6, 2008 The Honorable Irvana K. Wilks, Village President, Board of Trustees, Finance Commission Members, and Residents of the Village of Mount Prospect 1 am very pleased to forward to you a copy of the 2009-2013 Capital Improvements Plan (CIP) of the Village of Mount Prospect. This is the Village's twelfth CIP. The CIP gives us a clear, comprehensive view of our long- term capital needs and a firm basis from which to begin the preparation of the next year's operating budget. The total cost for all proposed projects in the 2009-2013 CIP is $57,178,404. The Concept of a CIP The CIP is our plan for capital expenditures/projects over the upcoming five years. We have defined capital expenditures/projects, in general, as the purchase or construction of long-lived, high-cost, tangible assets. For our purposes, "long-lived" implies a useful life in excess of one year. "High-cost" means that the project amounts to at least $25,000. "Tangible" assets exclude contractual services except those that are necessary for putting a tangible asset into service. The guidelines for capital expenditures/projects have been relaxed in certain instances so as to include certain items in the CIP that otherwise would not meet our basic definition of a capital item. For the first instance, departments were asked to state any need for an addition to the Village's vehicle fleet as a CIP project request even if the cost of the vehicle concerned would be less than $25,000. We have used this convention because the purchase of a vehicle represents a substantial commitment on the part of the Village. Once a vehicle is recognized as an operational need, lease payments to the Vehicle Replacement Fund (internal service fund charges) become necessary in the budget programs of the operating departments so as to provide for the replacement of the vehicle. In other words, we start programming the financial means to replace a vehicle in the year following its purchase. Given the continuing financial implications of adding a vehicle to the Village fleet, proposals for additions to the fleet should be closely scrutinized. The second instance of relaxation of the capital project guidelines relates to certain high-cost projects that do not necessarily give rise to a tangible asset but are related to maintaining capital assets. This has been done simply to document the other large capital-related expenses that confront us. The best example of such a project included in this CIP is Sewer Main Rehabilitation (page F-5). In addition, Information Technology (IT) related projects are now part of the CIP. Many of these projects have costs that fall below the $25,000 threshold, but are being included to coordinate IT purchases among the different 11 departments. This will also ensure that additions to the computer system are picked up in computer replacement program, similar to the way replacement vehicle purchases are made using the vehicle replacement fund. A project's inclusion in the CIP does not, in and of itself, commit the Village to funding and accomplishing it. As stated above, the CIP identifies our capital needs. Available funds, taxing capacity, and debt capacity may require that some projects ultimately be deferred beyond the years in which they are initially programmed for accomplishment in the CIP. Even so, the CIP will have served its purpose as a planning tool. However, projects programmed for the first year of the CIP (the year 2009 in the case of this 2009-2013 document) take on special importance because they must be addressed in the next year's Village operating budget. To help understand the impact the proposed project/expenditure would have on the Village's finances, detailed five-year financial forecasts for all major operating and capital funds have been included in this document and can be found in Section H (Five-Year Financial Forecast). The Review Process The process that we have put in place to yield the CIP closely parallels what has been the Village's traditional budget process. For the 2009-2013 CIP, the operating departments submitted their project requests to the Finance Department. The Finance Department compiled the project requests. A staff review team consisting of the Village Manager, Assistant Village Manager, Director of Finance and Deputy Finance Director then meet with each of the departments to discuss the requests. The proposed CIP is then distributed to the Village Board and Finance Commission for consideration (without a commitment to funding all included projects). The Project Requests You will note that most of the project requests included in the 2008-2012 CIP reappear in the 2009-2013 document. In some cases, a project scheduled for a particular year has been accelerated or deferred based upon the staffs reassessment of Village needs. In other cases, the cost of a project may have changed due to our obtaining more complete information about it. Refinements such as these are an appropriate part of the capital projects planning process. The CIP is a working document. Our intent is to update it annually to reflect the current needs of the Village and the best information available. There are a few aspects of the 2009-2013 CIP that I would like to highlight. · Street Improvement Program (page F-2). This submittal is part of the continuation of the street revitalization program approved by the Board in early 1997. The amount allocated for resurfacing has decreased from the original program spending plan. The street program is funded with a combination of MFT and Street Improvement funds. Revenue shortfalls in 2001 - 2004 had forced the Street Improvement Fund to reduce its contribution from the original plan amount. As a result, the expected completion date of the original program has been pushed backed from 2006 to 2009. Revenue shortfalls are again having an impact on the timely completion of the original program. If revenue from the home rule sales tax and the state motor fuel tax do not rebound during 2009, the program may again need to be extended an additional year (into 2010). The 2009-2013 CIP is showing a total of$14.95 million being spent on resurfacing over the five-year period. · Flood Control Program (page F-4). Over the next five years, only two large-scale flood control improvement projects are anticipated. Year two of the Prospect Meadows storm sewer and ditch improvements project is scheduled for 2009. Total cost of the project is estimated at $600,000. The second large-scale project included in the 2009-2013 CIP is the McDonald Creek Bank Stabilization. This project is estimated to cost $1.5 million. Due to limited resources, this and other large-scale projects have been deferred until a dedicated funding source becomes available. The dedicated funding source is a ~ percent home rule sales tax that is currently used to support debt service issued for flood control related projects. A portion of the revenue becomes available during 2010 when several of the issues are expected to be paid off. 1ll . Combined Sewer Improvements (page F-3). A study of the combined sewer service area revealed significant structural deterioration of main line pipes and manholes. A combined sewer evaluation study was completed in 2004 and the results of this study were used to identify potential problems and prioritize repairs. Category 5 (immediate attention needed) defects were first addressed in 2006 and were completed in 2007. Category 4 (severe, although not as immediate) defects are expected to be addressed beginning in 2007 - 2009. Category 3 (less immediate) defects are to be corrected during 2010 - 2013. The total amount of the project was initially estimated to be $15,000,000. Pricing during the early, most critical phases has been favorable and the total cost for the program will likely come in below original estimates. Funding for the project comes from an increase in the sewer rate and a $5.00 per month sewer construction fee. . New Fire Station (page D-2). Due to the needed improvements of station 14, it is recommended that the V illage pursue construction of a new fire station. A space needs study was competed in 2007 to determine an appropriate size of the facility and provide an estimated cost of construction. It is estimated a new fire station will cost $8.6 million. It is anticipated that surplus funds on hand will provide seed money for the project and partially offset the cost of construction. The majority of funding has yet to be determined, but is expected to come from the issuance of general obligation bonds. . Public Works Expansion (page D-3). A companion project to fire station 14 is the expansion of the Public Works maintenance facility. Once a new fire station 14 is constructed, additional maintenance facilities will be needed to service fire vehicles. Currently, Fire Department fleet repairs are performed at station 14. Combining the vehicle maintenance operations of Fire and PW makes better economic sense than trying to maintain two separate facilities. The cost of the project is estimated to be $2.3 million. The timing of the project is tied to the completion of the new fire station. This project was included as part ofthe space needs study to come up with the estimated cost. . Emergency Operations Center (page D-4). A final related project to fire station 14 and the expansion of the Public Works maintenance facility is the construction of an Emergency Operations Center (EOC). The existing EOC is too small and is poorly located. A new state of the art facility with a remote location will improve the Village's ability to respond to multi-tiered emergencies. This project was also included as part of the space needs study. The cost of the project is estimated to be $2.1 million. . Ash Tree Removals and Replacement (pages F-15 and F-16). The Emerald Ash Borer is an exotic beetle that was discovered in southeastern Michigan near Detroit in the summer of 2002. The adult beetle nibbles on ash foliage but cause little damage. The larvae (the immature stage) feed on the inner bark of ash trees, disrupting the tree's ability to transport water and nutrients. This destructive pest was first found in Illinois in June 2006, in Kane County. Since then it has been found in Wilmette, Evanston and Winnetka. In response to these announcements, the Village of Mount Prospect is attempting to minimize the impact on its tree population by establishing a systematic tree removal and replacement program for its Ash population. This ten-year program will remove and replace all Ash trees on public property (4,251 trees). Current pricing for tree removal is $378 and for tree replacement is $286. Total estimated cost for the ten-year program (with inflation) is approximately $4.0 million. Sources of Funds The 2009-2013 CIP includes a summary of "Projects by Sources of Funds" (pages A-I0 through A-12). This summary provides an overview of the potential demands upon the Village's financial resources. A few comments are warranted with regard to the "Projects by Sources of Funds" summary. To further assist the reader in understanding the affordability of the proposed projects, five-year financial forecasts are included in this document in Section H. . General Fund. The General Fund is the Village's primary operating fund. The only capital projects charged to the General Fund are those to be undertaken each and every year, although the level of funding from one yeare IV to the next may vary. Some of the projects charged directly to the General Fund include IT projects (G2-G4, G6- G10 and GI2-15), sidewalk improvements (F-6 and F-9), tree planting (F-ll) and Aerial Photogrammetry (F-28). There is typically $300,000 to $400,000 worth of projects charged to the General Fund each year. The General Fund five-year forecast (H-2) is showing a preliminary deficit of $907,727 for 2009. It is expected that this deficit will be addressed during the budget process to bring the budget into balance. · Capital Improvement Fund. The Capital Improvement Fund is the Village's fund for "intermediate sized" capital expenditures that are either nonrecurring or expected to end at a determinable point in the future. It is not a fund through which bond proceeds are expended. Large capital purchases would generally be made through a bond proceeds fund. Prior to 2001, the Village was able to transfer excess General Fund revenues to the Capital Improvement Fund. However, stalled revenues resulted in our having to discontinue the transfer beginning with the 2002 fiscal year. From 2002 through 2007 approximately $3.7 million in projects were deferred due to discontinuing the General Fund transfer. In 2007, the Village Board approved a permanent funding source for these mid-sized capital projects. An additional y.j percent home rule sales tax was implemented beginning January 2008 that will generated approximately $1.3 million annually. It is intended to allocate a portion of the revenue towards building up the fund balance for both the Capital Improvement Fund and the Village's two Parking Funds. Approximately $1.0 million is available for capital projects. Fund balance at the end of 2007 in the Capital Improvement Fund was $411,805. At the end of 2009 fund balance is expected to grow to $841,230. Fund balance shall be maintained at 50% of the five-year average for capital expenditures supported by this fund to a maximum of $1 million. Further prioritizing of projects is needed in 2010 to ensure the goal of fund balance stabilization is met. · Motor Fuel Tax Fund and Street Improvement Construction Fund. The street maintenance and resurfacing programs are supported primarily from these two funds. Revenue to support the programs comes from the state and local motor fuel tax and y.j percent home rule sales tax. As mentioned earlier in this transmittal, both of these revenue sources are expected to decline (home rule sales tax) or remain flat (state motor fuel tax) over the next couple years resulting in fewer funds available for program. Adjustments to the amount of work planned each year will be necessary if these revenue sources do not rebound during 2009. · Water and Sewer Fund. There are numerous projects listed in the CIP as being funded out of the Water and Sewer Fund since they directly relate to our providing water and sanitary sewer service to customers. The 2009- 2013 CIP is showing projects valued at an average of $2.6 million per year over the next five years. The Water and Sewer Fund had a cash and investment balance of $5.4 million at the end of 2007. Our five-year financial forecast for this fund is shown on pages H-13 thru H-16. The current rate structure is sufficient to support ongoing operations as well as the capital projects proposed in the five-year plan. A great deal of staff time and effort has been invested in the development of the 2009-2013 CIP. Certainly, the investment has been a prudent one. The CIP gives us a clear picture of the Village's capital needs for the next several years. Meetings with the Village Board and Finance Commission to discuss the Proposed CIP will provide further direction leading in the budget process for 2009. v 2009 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Structure of the Document and the Project Request Form Conceptually, there are two ways of organizing the various project requests: by requesting department or by project type. Organization by department is most useful to the Village for management purposes. Therefore, after the summaries section of the CIP, project requests are organized by department and set off in separate sections. The summaries section begins with a recapitulation of project requests by department on page A-I. However, immediately following this recapitulation, beginning on page A-2, are several summaries by project type group. These summaries provide the alternate view of the project requests. The project type groups are: Water and Sanitary Sewer, Flood Control and related projects, Street Construction/Reconstruction and Resurfacing, Public Buildings, Computer Hardware and Software, Equipment, and Miscellaneous. In the final pages of the summaries section, pages A-I0 through A-12, the project requests are listed by their sources of funds. Each departmental section begins with a summary of the project requests. Most of the blocks on the project request form are self-explanatory. However, some elaboration about certain blocks may be helpful. . Project Name. In this block, each project is given a short title followed by an "(E)" if it is the continuation of an established project or an "(N)" if it is a new project. Until funds are provided for a project for at least one year in the Village operating budget, the project is considered to be new. . Project Type Code. As stated above, each project or portion of a project has been assigned to a project type group. Each group has a specific project type code. These codes are detailed on page viii. Projects or portions thereof with the same project type code are presented in separate summaries on pages A-3 through A-9. . Description. This block provides a more detailed description of the project than is possible in the "Project Name" block. . 2009 Dept. Priority. Because projects for which amounts have been requested for 2009 must be considered for funding during the formulation of the 2009 Village Budget, they take on special importance. To facilitate the evaluation of these projects, the departments have prioritized them with "1" being the highest priority, "2" the next highest, and so on. The priorities have been assigned without regard to source of funds. This has been done to provide an overall picture of the relative importance of each project from the department's perspective. . Annual Dollar Impact Upon the Operating Budget. Operating expenditures may come with the purchase or construction of a capital asset. For example, annual maintenance agreements are necessary with many items of equipment. In some circumstances, the purchase of a capital asset may enable the Village to reduce operating expenditures. Information provided in this block addresses those effects. . Source of Funds. A potential source of funds has been indicated for most projects. For some projects, multiple potential sources are shown. VI 2009- 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Project Type Codes 1. Water and Sanitary Sewer: 10 - Water System 20 - Sanitary System 2. Flood Control and Related Projects: 30 - Flood Control Projects 40 - Storm Sewer 3. Street and Related Projects: 50 - Street Construction and Reconstruction 60 - Resurfacing/Curbs & Gutters/Sidewalks 4. Public Buildings: 70 - Construction of and Improvements to Public Buildings 5. Equipment: 80 - Computer Hardware/Software 85 - Vehicles and Automotive Equipment 90 - Non-Automotive Equipment (excluding computer hardware/software) 6. Miscellaneous: 00 - Miscellaneous VB 2009 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN Equipment Replacement Guidelines Pickups/Vans 10 years Squad Cars 2 years Pool Cars 5 years Other Cars 8 years or 50,000 miles Aerials 15 years Trailers 15 years Small Dumps 12 years Special Purpose Trucks 10 years Sweepers 12 years Large Dumps 15 years Tractors 15 years Leaf Machines 15 years Other Equipment (depending upon usage) 6-20 years Computer Hardware/Software 3-5 years Vlll VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN CALENDAR 2009 ACTION DATE Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Worksheets forwarded to Department Directors Completed Computer CIP Worksheets returned to Finance Department Remaining completed CIP Worksheets returned to Finance Department Department CIP reviews with Village Manager and Finance Director Complete Proposed CIP Amounts Deliver Proposed CIP to Village Board and Finance Commission Review Proposed CIP with Finance Commission Committee of the Whole - CIP Review Session Acceptance of Proposed CIP at Village Board Meeting CIP available for distribution IX 3/7/08 3/21/08 4/4/08 5/12/08 to 5/16/08 5/23/08 6/6/08 6/18/08 7/8/08 7/15/08 8/8/08 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2009 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN SUMMARY OF PROJECT REQUESTS Recapitulation by Department Department 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total Administration 0 0 0 0 0 0 Community Development 160,000 210,000 310,000 310,000 310,000 1,300,000 Fire 13,104,340 100,000 115,000 58,000 25,000 13,402,340 Police 74,000 64,000 0 0 0 138,000 Public Works 8,220,061 7,818,325 8,629,442 8,462,843 7,376,893 40,507,564 Information Technology 431,000 1,025,800 356,200 8,700 8,800 1,830,500 Total 21,989,401 9,218,125 9,410,642 8,839,543 7,720,693 57,178,404 A-I