Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2. DRAFT MINUTES 08/05/08 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT August 5, 2008 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Wilks called the meeting to order at 7: 11 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Irvana Wilks Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Arlene Juracek Trustee John Korn Trustee Steve Polit Trustee Michael ladel PLEDGE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Trustee Juracek led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION INVOCATION Trustee Korn gave the Invocation. MINUTES APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee ladel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held June 17, 2008. Upon roll call: Ayes: Hoefert, Juracek, Wilks, ladel Nays: None Abstain: Corcoran, Korn Present: Polit Motion carried. Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Polit, moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held July 1S, 2008. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Juracek, Korn, Polit, ladel Nays: None Abstain: Hoefert Motion carried. APPROVE BILLS APPROVE BILLS Mayor Wilks stated the next item on the agenda, "APPROVE BILLS" was noted by an asterisk, and unless there was a request to remove an item(s), all items further listed in that manner would be considered with one (1) vote, as business item "IX. CONSENT AGENDA" MAYOR'S REPORT MAYOR'S REPORT APPOINTMENTS APPOINTMENTS Mayor Wilks presented the following reappointments for Village Board approval: Sister Cities Commission Reappointments Lorrie Huber Term expires August 2012 Michael Karsen Term expires August 2012 1 Sister Cities Commission (continued) Reappointments Cindy Kiel Term expires August 2012 Paul Seils Term expires August 2012 Paula and Gary Randant Term expires August 2010 Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Zadel, moved to approve the appointments as listed above. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Po lit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD CITIZENS TO BE Mr. Mal Houlec HEARD 927 Quince Lane Mr. Houlec welcomed Trustee Polit to his new position as a member of the Village Board of Trustees. He stated Trustee Polit was well-suited for the job. Mr. Lloyd Levin 1777 Crystal Lane Mr. Levin anticipates a glut of televisions will be discarded when television stations stop broadcasting on analog airwaves and begin broadcasting only in digital. He thinks most people will discard their old TVs rather than purchase the converter box when the change occurs in February 2009. Mr. Levin encouraged the Village Board to initiate measures to manage the disposal of the unwanted TVs. Trustee Corcoran who also serves as the Vice Chair of the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) Board of Directors, assured Mr. Levin that the agency has well-established environmental programs available to member communities for disposal of unwanted TVs; electronic recycling events and collection services. Trustee Corcoran also provided an overview of the other environmentally sound and cost effective programs SWANCC offers its member communities; medication, light bulbs and landscape waste disposal. He encouraged Mr. Levin and other interested residents to check SWANCC's website at www.swancc.org for more information on environmental programs SWANCC offers residents of member communities. CONSENT AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Zadel, moved to approve the following business items: 1. Bills dated July 10 - 28, 2008 BILLS Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Polit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. OLD BUSINESS OLD BUSINESS Mayor Wilks stated Item A PZ-14-08, 215 Westgate Road, "A Resolution Granting a Plat of Resubdivision for property located at 215 Westgate Road" as listed on the Agenda had been deferred from the July 15, 2008 Village Board meeting to this evening's meeting. However, staff is again requesting deferral of this item until the August 19, 2008 Village Board meeting. PZ-14-08,215 WESTGATE RD. 2 PZ-15-08, 999 NORTH ELMHURST RD., RANDHURST VILLAGE AMEND CHAPTER 18, (TRAFFIC) Community Development Director William Cooney stated the petitioner has asked for additional time as he continues to review the Village's storm water detention requirements. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Zadel, moved for approval to defer PZ-14- 08, 215 Westgate Road to the August 19, 2008 Village Board meeting. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Po lit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Mayor Wilks stated staff is requesting deferral of PZ-15-08, 999 North Elmhurst Road, Randhurst Village, Item B1. "An Ordinance Granting a Conditional Use Permit, Certain Variations and a Special Use for Signage" for property located at 999 North Elmhurst Road, and Item B2. "A Resolution Authorizing the Village of Mount Prospect to Enter into a Redevelopment Agreement with CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC, c/o Casto" until the August 19, 2008 Village Board meeting. Mr. Cooney stated the petitioner for PZ-15-08 had requested additional time to review the Redevelopment Agreement. As Items B1 and B2 are to be considered at the same time, staff requested deferral of both items under PZ, 15-08 until the August 19, 2008 Village Board meeting. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Zadel, moved for approval to defer PZ-15- 08, B1. "An Ordinance Granting a Conditional Use Permit, Certain Variations and a Special Use for Signage for property located at 999 North Elmhurst Road, to the August 19, 2008 Village Board meeting. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Polit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Zadel, moved for approval to defer PZ-15- 08, B2. "A Resolution Authorizing the Village of Mount Prospect to Enter into a Redevelopment Agreement with CLP/SPF Randhurst LLC, c/o Casto for property located at 999 North Elmhurst Road, to the August 19, 2008 Village Board meeting. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Polit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Mayor Wilks presented for a second (2nd) reading an ordinance amending Chapter 18 (Traffic Code). This ordinance eliminates the one-way designations along School Street and Busse Avenue adjacent to St. Paul Lutheran School and Church. Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker stated that since the first (1) reading of the ordinance at the July 15, 2008 Village Board meeting staff had contacted the Church, and a website was set-up for parishioners to comment on the proposed traffic changes. The Church reiterated their preference to remain neutral on this issue and no comments were received from parishioners. Mr. Wulbecker stated the Police Department observed traffic conditions around the Church on Sunday, August 3rd: while some motorists followed the one-way regulations, it was routinely violated by many others. The one-way restriction caused confusion concerning parking on the East side of School Street, with some motorists parked heading southbound on the east side of School Street and others parked facing northbound on that same side of the street. 3 ORD 5703 NEW BUSINESS PZ-20-08, 1808 Hopi Lane Mr. Wulbecker stated staff recommend approval of the proposed ordinance which would eliminate (1) the one-way westbound designation along Busse Avenue between Elm Street and Owen Street on Sundays from 7:00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m. and the one-way southbound designation along School Street between Central Road and Evergreen Avenue on Sundays from 7:00 a.m. and 1 :00 p.m. Mr. Wulbecker stated, if approved staff would communicate these changes to the church and signs indicating two (2) way traffic would be posted. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Zadel moved for approval of Ordinance No. 5703: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC CODE) OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT NEW BUSINESS Mayor Wilks presented for first (1st) readings: (1) an ordinance granting a variation (side yard setback) and (2) an ordinance granting a variation for lot coverage for property located at 1808 Hopi Lane. Mr. Cooney provided background information stating the petitioner is seeking approval of a variation to decrease the side yard setback from 7.5 feet to 1 foot for the patio located along the west property line and a variation to increase the maximum lot coverage of 45% to 55%. The other non-conforming issues on the property; accessory structure setbacks for the gazebo, frame deck and patio around the pool were also noted. Mr. Cooney stated that in May 2007 the petitioner applied for a permit to replace the frame deck located on the west side of the pool with a patio. The permit request was denied (1) the lot coverage would exceed the maximum allowed and (2) the existing deck did not meet the required side yard set back. The petitioner constructed the brick paver patio without a permit. The petitioner is seeking the variations to allow the structure to remain. Mr. Cooney stated bulk regulations do not apply; the wooden deck was considered a structure, therefore, its replacement, the new patio must meet current lot coverage requirements. The petitioner's request was presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on July 24, 2008 and the following recommendations were made by the Commission: By a 6-0 vote the Commission recommended approval of a variation to decrease the side yard setback from 7.5 to 1 for the patio located along the west property line. By a 6-0 vote the Commission recommended denial of a variation to increase the maximum lot coverage of 45% to 55%. Mrs. Carol Hommerding, petitioner, presented her request for a variation for side yard setback to allow the brick paver patio. She questioned and was concerned with the Village's report that stated she needed a variation for lot coverage. Mrs. Hommerding stated she was told both verbally and in writing by Village staff that per Village Code maximum lot coverage is 45%; she is in compliance with the 45% lot coverage. A copy of her written comments and support documentation are attached and made part of these minutes. A discussion was conducted between the Village Board and Mrs. Hommerding relative to the following issues: · Denial of Mrs. Hommerding's May 2007 permit request to replace wooden deck with a patio; wooden deck was a legal non-conforming structure. . Mrs. Hommerding's decision to proceed and complete project after Village denied building permit. 4 . Some of the accessory structures on petitioner's property - no Village records. Replacement of wooden deck - legal non-conforming requirements Lot coverage requirements - miscommunication between staff and petitioner Village's 25 million dollar Flood Control Improvements - 45% lot coverage requirements, permeable surfaces, and other standards established to protect residents' homes from flooding. Lot coverage variation - if approved goes with the land forever. Tear down of existing home would allow new home to cover 55% of lot rather than 45%. . . . . Mr. Cooney provided clarification on questions regarding the Village's building code. · Legal non-conforming structures - if completely torn down the replacement has to meet current Village Code. [The petitioner's original wooden deck was "legal non-conforming. The replacement must meet Village Code - the current brick paver patio does not meet Village Code. . Permit process and appeal process - residents must receive permit from Village for building projects. If plans do not meet Village Code residents can work with staff to modify plans to meet code or apply for a variance. If the Planning and Zoning Commission recommends denial of the variance a resident can take the request to the Village Board. In response to questions from the Village Board, Mrs. Hommerding stated she proceeded with the project without the appropriate Village permit because she felt the Village offered no other options, she indicated staff told her she had no recourse. In addition, she stated the accessory structures in question were on the property when she moved there in 1974; her deceased husband purchased the property in 1964. [She will provide a blue print of the original pool drawing, approved by the Village in 1979.] Carla Hommerding 1808 Hopi Lane Ms. Hommerding spoke in support of her mother's request. She stated in addition to the Village's miscommunication regarding lot coverage, staff did not try to help her mother comply with Village's requirements; her permit was denied, staff offered no options for recourse. The replacement of the wooden deck was necessary for safety purposes; the replacement and configuration of patio was optimal for a safe environment. Kathryn Reilly 1823 Hopi Lane Ms. Reilly spoke in support of Mrs. Hommerding's request. She stated the wooden deck was a hazard and Mrs. Hommerding replaced the deck with the patio to provide a safer environment. Ms. Reilly asked what could be done to resolve the matter. Staff replied the patio would need to be brought into compliance with Village Code. Edwin Malszewski 1810 Hopi Lane Mr. Malszewski spoke in support of Mrs. Hommerding's request stating he has lived in his home since 1967. He stated Mrs. Hommerding is a good neighbor, takes excellent care of her property and the patio should not be an issue. Members of the Village Board responded that lot coverage is a critical issue in the Village's flood control efforts. The Village Board carefully examined lot coverage and its impact on flood control improvements before implementing the existing regulations. And, while the Village Board will hear requests for variations for lot coverage, the Village Board seeks consistent enforcement of the existing lot coverage requirements. 5 AMEND CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC) FIRE LANES ORD 5704 MANAGER'S REPORT OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Wilks stated the second (2nd) reading of the ordinances would be held at the August 19, 2008 Village Board meeting. It was suggested that staff and Mrs. Hommerding meet prior to that meeting to discuss some of the conflicting information that was presented. Mrs. Hommerding requested deferral of the second (2nd) reading until the September 2, 2008 Village Board meeting. Trustee Hoefert, seconded by Trustee Korn, moved for approval to defer the second reading of (1) an ordinance granting a variation (side yard setback) and (2) an ordinance granting a variation for lot coverage for property located at 1808 Hopi Lane until the September 2,2008 Village Board meeting. Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Polit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Mr. Steve Moder 1833 Basswood Lane Mr. Moder addressed the Village Board regarding ownership of the water and sewers in their area. Village Manager Janonis stated Illinois American Water owns the water system and sanitary sewers but the Village owns/maintains the storm water sewers. Mayor Wilks presented for a first (1 st) reading an ordinance amending Chapter 18 (Traffic Code. This ordinance amends Section 18.2014 entitled Scheduled XIV Fire Lanes" of the Village Code by adding fire lanes created by new construction or renovation since the last fire lane update in 2000. Village Manager Janonis stated the ordinance includes the addition of 22 new fire lanes that have been created as a result of building construction and/or renovation. He noted that the fire lane for the designated area between 20 South Main and 11 South Wille was included in this ordinance. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Zadel, moved to waive the rule requiring two (2) readings of an ordinance: Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Polit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. Trustee Korn, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved for approval of Ordinance No. 5704: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 18 (TRAFFIC) OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE CODE Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Polit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis noted the following: · Coffee with Council Saturday, August 11th, 9:00 a.m. - 11 :00 a.m. OTHER BUSINESS None. 6 CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION Mayor Wilks asked for a motion to enter Closed Session to discuss Land Acquisition 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5), Litigation 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (11) and Personnel 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). Trustee Zadel, seconded by Trustee Juracek, moved to meet in Closed Session to discuss Land Acquisition 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5), Litigation 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (11) and Personnel 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (1). Upon roll call: Ayes: Corcoran, Hoefert, Juracek, Korn, Polit, Zadel Nays: None Motion carried. The Village Board entered Closed Session at 9: 17 p. m. ADJOURN ADJOURN The Village Board reconvened in Open Session at 9:43 p.m.; there being no further business to discuss the August 5, 2008 Village Board meeting adjourned at 9:44 p.m. M. Lisa Angell Village Clerk 7 ~ "P/'"<P'O;J/.?rV kr-Y 6-y . '# 0'~.'C':. .".,/ f'/..(- . (Jro I T5f;~ ~r-c-b ~r ~2.. c:JcJ~of. /rrCJO' ~// (c/~)llii ?// /~c;jf :3c,cyr-q' ~;?c9 ?/~;j When I received a copy of the case summary of my application Kr variation of zoning on Monday, July 21, and it statedI was applying for a variation on green space coverage, I was very concerned. The report stated that residential areas required 55% green space. I had been consistently told 45% green space was required It was specifically stated as 45% in the letter I received from the village regarding my request for a pennitfor the brickpavermrtiQ My letter of May 11, 2007, stated, <'fn your zoning District ofRl that would be 45% of your property must be exposed"green?' space. (Exhibit A) My reply was that I could prove that I had 45% green space. The village did not want to consider or acknowledge. my request and continued to deny any further discus$ion I was also told by the employees of the village that the code stated that! could replace my deck.- which was in dire need of repair or replacement, as long as I made it the exact saDre <'footprint" andconst;ruct it out of the exact same. materials. as long as I mettherequirementof 45% green space.. (EXHIBIT B) The village did not feel I met the "green space" requirement; therefore, they continued to deny me. A friend, who is an architect, assw'ed me that I did have the 45% green space coventge, The denying of the permit did not make "good practical sense" to me. I was asking for a permit to make the deck in a smaller footprint and out of permeable product with less maintenance and more attractive aesthetically _ Therefore, I based my.application for variation in zoning on the printed material and ve.rbalinformatiou given to me by the community development department OVER 45% of my property is .covered in green space, whichis included on my application.. As the vi.llage states, I have 9,730 square feet of lot size~ 45% of that is 4,378.5 and I have 4, 523.75. Therefore, the green space meets the requirements, and I am not requesting a variation of zoning for that purpose. O'leX' The former deck was there for'~9 years. I am asking for variation of zoning to have this brick-paver patio remain in that same area The brick-paver patio-is further away from the lot line than the wood deck, it is less square foot coverage, and does not encroach on anyone's property or affect anyone adjacent to the property and I meet the required 45% green space coverage, The deck around the swimming pool is labered4lOn-confonnin,g in the report. I have the originaJ. of what was Sllbnlltted to th~ village at the time the pennit was granted and finally approved by the Mt. Prospect Village in 1979; thercrfore, I take issue with inferring this was not approved aitd non-conforming in this report, In the summary report of my case on pag~ 4, they illdicatemy previous deck was elevated and allowed water to pass underneath; yet, I was told this could not count as green space. This report indicates the brick pavers WQuld restrict surface.flows and may cause drainage issues. I believe.we ~ll acknowledge the fact that brick-pavers with sand between each brick absorbS the water rapidly.and does not .cause drainage issues. It they did, then the village of Mt. Prospect would not have replaced their many sidewalks and entrances to the new village buildin&with brick pavers. I feel a patio is needed at the end of this pool for two reasons: (l)Poolsupervision by myself and Qther parents for children (I have a granddaugher that lives with m.e,and we have many neighbo.rs and friends who havechildrel1,. who enjoy swim.ming.and it allows a, place for adults to sit close hy and watch (2) it does not open up vacant space at the end of the pool, where children could be running or playing ball or other games and.accidentally fall into the pool. It places .a dosed offarea.at the end of the pool. Therefore, Lamrequesting a variation for the.sideyard setback for the brick paver patio because of the particular physical surroundings and slrapeof the property that a hardship would result if the strict letter of the regulations on the sideyard setback was to be applied # ~ MAYOR Irvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert A. John Kom Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Building Division 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, lllinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/870-5675 Fax: 847/870-6620 TDD: 847/392-6064 May 11, 2007 Caroline (Wallace) Hommerding 1808 Hopi Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Re: 1808 HOPI Dear Ms. Hommerding, Thanks you for your inquiry; I have reviewed your project to remove your existing deck and build a patio in its place. Per our phone conversation today I mentioned that there were a few guidelines that would restrict this from happening. They are as follows: f'Kh/lC-fo,'f- A :#.,. Allproperties have to have so much "green" space exposed. Tn your Zoning District afRl that would be 45% oi your proPerty must be exposed "green" spa~. Your property is coming in 569 sq feet over the allowed amoWlt or 50% covered. · In the Zoning Code under chapter 14.402: NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES: Buildings and Structures which do not conform tq- the bulk regulations of any zoning district or any other provision of this Chapter shall be subject to the following regulations: A. Ability to Continue Nonconforming Building or Structure: Any lawfully established nonconforming building or structure which is devoted to a permitted use in a zoning district may continue to be used for any permitted use. B. Enlargement, Repair, Alterations and Replacement: Any nonconforming building or structure may be enlarged, maintained, repaired or altered, provided that no such enlargement, maintenance, repair or alteration shall either create an additional nonconformity or increase the extent of the existing nonconformi!Y. However, on lots fifty five feet (55') or less in width, a nonconforming building or structure may be extended with the J established setback in a reqnired rear yard or side yard, provided that snch nonconformity is no more than " fifty percent (50%) of the required setback. t: xh: bt 1- ;::< In residential zoning districts, existing nonconforming driveways, patios a~idewalks 1Jl,ay be replaced in thti !lame location. without complyin with the bulkre lations of this Cha ter. However, any such replacement structure mu a licable lot covera e requirements. · The above last statement would apply to your project because you want to make it a patio. So we would then see it as existing. August 5,2008 Mount Prospect Village Board 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Re:PZ-20-08/1808 Hopi lane / Hommerding Residence / Side Yard Setback Variation for accessory structure (patio) I am writing in strong support of the above named variation for the residence owned by Mrs. Caroline Hommerding. Due to my work schedule, I am unable to attend the meeting today during which this variation will be discussed. For this reason, I submit my input in letter form. I have lived in and owned my home at 1804 Hopi lane for twenty-six years as a neighbor to Caroline Hommerding. Throughout these years, her residence has been one of the best kept, most attractive homes on the block. One need only visit her home and back yard to witness the hard work, and both tasteful and useful improvements that characterize Mrs. Hommerding's care for her property and contribution to her neighborhood. Mrs. Hommerding is a kind, caring, and diligent neighbor who has the best interests of her community at heart. She is the kind of neighbor anyone would wish to live near. Her use of green materials in this age of global warming is to be commended. If, indeed, according to proper surveys, her green space meets requirements, she is not infringing on anyone else's property, and drainage is appropriate, I strongly urge the Village Board to grant the variation in question. Frankly, it would be a shameful waste of time, money, and an attractive property upgrade to force her to rip out her patio. Respectfully submitted, ur~d.~ Karen H. Perry U 1804 Hopi lane Mount Prospect, II 60056 847-699-7716 karen@kpcoach.biz