The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 07/25/2000 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mount Prospect Senior Center Tuesday, July 25, 2000 50 South Emerson Street 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Dennis Prikkel Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Irvana Wilks I1. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF JUNE 27, 2000 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. VILLAGE HALL/SENIOR CENTER DISCUSSION The Committee of the Whole meeting for this evening is the first of three scheduled meetings to discuss the future of the Village Hall and Senior Center. The other meetings are scheduled over the next several weeks in an effort to afford ample opportunity to the Village Board to gather community input regarding an appropriate course of action. The next meeting date is August 1, which will be a combination Village Board meeting and Committee of the Whole meeting. The final meeting on August 8 is a Committee of the Whole that will include not only the Village Hall discussion, but also the six-month budget review and 2001 Budget preview. Background r~aterials include a memorandum estimating the redevelopment potential of the Village Hall property and the projected financing option, if a new Village Hall were to be built. Based on the financial analysis the Village will soon pay off the bonds for the construction of the Public Works facility and the Police/Fire Building. Therefore, it may be possible to continue a similar debt load as is currentIy in place without a significant change in the normal property tax levy. It is likely that the first year or two may require the Village to capitalize interest in order to free up enough debt capacity to roll any Village Hall bonds into the existing debt load. The Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee has previously provided a report to the Village Board and a summary of the Committee's recommendations are included for informational purposes. One of the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Committee was the proposed solution for parking at a new Village Hall site. Much of the discussion focused on the use of underground parking and maximizing green space. Previous Village staff reports projected the possibility of a parking structure to be incorporated with a new VilJage Hall and existing public library parking. Additional background information is provided regarding possible parking options for the proposed site. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. The proposed series of meetings is intended to discuss the Ad Hoc recommendations and any other points the Village Board feels are important so that any decisions made can be costed out and included in the 2001 budget, as necessary. If a decision is made to move forward design options and space study decisions will need attention in the latter part of August and into September. A notice of this meeting and the proposed meetings on August 1 and 8 has been posted at the Senior Center. Letters !nviting any interested member of the Village Hall Ad Hoc committee has also been sent out regarding the proposed meetings. Appropriate Village staff members will be present to facilitate the discussion. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT H:\G EN\Cow~Agenda\072500 COW Agenda.doc MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE JUNE 27, 2000 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:15 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Dennis Prikkel and Irvana Wilks. Trustee Paul Hoefert arrived at 7:30 p.m. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Timothy Corcoran. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth, Fire Chief Michael Figolah, Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer, Community Development Director William Cooney, Television Services Coordinator Ross Rowe, MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey and Public Information Officer Maura Jandris. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from May 23, 2000. Motion was made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee Prikkel to approve the Minutes. Minutes were approved unanimously. Ill. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Richard Hendricks, 196 Christy Lane, Twin Oaks, Wisconsin, spoke. He stated that he has six cases pending before the Cook County Court system which all started with a charge signed by Village Manager Janonis on January 29, 2000. The Complaint that Mr. Janonis signed was for impersonating a public official. He is requesting the Village Board to drop the charges against him for being charged with impersonating a public official. He is also requesting that Deputy Chief Ron Richardson submit his resignation. George Smith, Six Jerry Drive, spoke. He stated there has been repeated abuse with 911 calls for trivial matters which has caused great disruption in the neighborhood due to Mr. Hendricks. Mr. Hendricks is constantly calling for non- emergencies and would suggest some type of action to discourage these activities. Recently Mr. Hendricks was cited for working on a vehicle on a public street and became very abusive to the Officer. He stated the Officer retained his professionalism throughout the incident. · Richard Anda, Four Jerry Drive, spoke. He stated that he is tired 'of the harassment and abuse of the 911 'system by Mr. Hendricks and stated that he showed absolutely no respect to Officer Favia who cited him for working on his vehicle in the public street. IV. 2001-2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Mayor Farley stated that residents should be encouraged to read beyond the headlines that will show up in the paper following this discussion and review the details of the suggestions and not react to the attention-getting headlines related He also stated that many of the items that are proposed have yet to be discussed by the Village Board; therefore, no funding has been committed to many of the proposals presented. Village Manager Janonis stated this is a rolling five-year plan that outlines possible future purchases and only forewarns the Village Board as to possible requests that may end up as part of the annual Budget discussions. He stated the Finance Commission has reviewed the projects within the last week and the majority of items are continuations and the discussions this evening will focus on changes in the document with major projects. Finance Director Doug EIIsworth provided a general overview of the document including the funding options and the various project types. He stated that numerous items are intended to be undertaken with funds from the Capital Improvement Fund. He stated that there are some issues that are beginning to occur with the Water Fund whereby the Fund cannot afford some of the proposed projects outlined in the document based on the normal rate increases that have been approved by the Board in recent years. The Water Fund is an enterprise Fund and is to be self-supporting and there are currently a number of capital improvement items necessary for the water system, which will soon need to be discussed for future funding. Finance Commission member Vince Grochocinski spoke. He outlined the recommendations from the Finance Commission including the support for the CIP process itself. He stated the Commission is in general agreement with the plan suggested by the staff but reserves the right to review the options as decisions are contemplated. He voiced a concern regarding the issues that were brought up regarding the combined sewer system and the need for further study. The Commission suggested the use of cash reserves for the first year of the sewer study and would recommend the continued funding of the Shared Sidewalk Replacement Program. He also stated the Commission would recommend any improvements to the Golf Road Fire Station be considered in 2001 instead of 2002 as recommended by staff. He stated the Commission would support consolidation of maintenance of vehicles and the Fire vehicles be' transferred to the Public Works garage and replace Station 14 with a smaller footprint. Police Chief Ronald Pavlock provided an overview of the purchases to be considered as part of the Police CIP. He stated the proposal is just a conclusion of the mobile data terminal purchases, which have been approved previously. Cable Production Coordinator Ross Rowe stated that the items which are being proposed as part of the CIP for the Television Services Division include the completion of the digital studio conversion and the suggestion of a purchase of a production vehicle for mobile pmgremming. MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton provided an overview of the desktop upgrades to be considered for 2001 whereby new Office Suite packages would need to be purchased and some additional memory upgrades for the desk top upgrades to occur. She also stated there is discussion underway regarding a four-year replacement for hardware to match the software schedule. She pointed that the 2003 Budget includes a Police and Fire building wiring upgrades to category 5. Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm highlighted the Fire Department's data link program for 2001 and 2002. Fire Chief Mike Figolah highlighted the proposed Station 12 improvements in 2002 and the possible replacement of Station 14 in 2003. Community Development Director Bill Cooney highlighted the requests from the Community Development Department for a voice permit system for 2001 so that people who have outstanding Permits may remotely determine Permit status without direct contact with the Village staff. He also highlighted the proposed expenditures for the Streetscape Program over the next several years. There was general discussion regarding the burying of electrical cables in the downtown area and the possible cost of such an endeavor. Public Works Director Glen Andler provided an overview of the numerous Public Works projects that are being considered. He said there is a need to repaint the 2,000,000 gallon water tank and to upgrade the water control system during 2001 and 2001. A revised interpretation by the Federal government by ADA ramps requires the Village to go back and replace some ramps that were done several years ago in initial compliance with the Federal ADA regulations. He also stated there is a Federal mandate requiring inspection of storm sewer systems to be completed within the next several years. General consensus of the Village Board was a concern regarding going back to correct sidewalk ramps due to the re-interpretation by the Federal government regarding ADA standards for sidewalks. There was also general discussion regarding the possible conflict of parkway'trees with power lines and cable lines. Village Manager Janonis pointed out that there are a number of infrastructure issues which are showing up in the CIP due to the overall age and previous priorities of the community. He stated the CIP will be presented to the Village Board for approval at the July 18 Village Board meeting, V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee will meet on June 29 at 7:00 p.m. to present its report to the Village Board. The 4th of July Carnival starts on June 29 and will run through July 4. There is no Village Board meeting on July 4. Public Works Director Glen Andler provided an update regarding construction on the Route 83 project with assistance from Assistant Village Manager Dave Strahl and Police Chief Ron Pavlock. VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Hoefert stated that sidewalks have been removed from around the Train Station and some areas in the downtown area. He stated the completion and restoration time frame necessary for these seems to be never ending and has become very difficult to walk throughout the downtown especially around the Train Station due to alt the work that is underway. He also stated that he has a concern regarding the ongoing shopping cart issue and does not feel it is necessary that the Village protect a business investment by continuing to retrieve carts on behalf of the businesses. It is critical that businesses contain the carts on their site. He also suggested the Village Board look into performing a survey regarding who pays the Real Estate Property Transfer Tax in other communities. VII. ADJOURNMENT No other business was transacted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:46 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc H:\GEN\Cow~Minutes\062700 COW Minutes.doc 4 III. Summary of Recommendations: 1. If a new Village Hall is to be built, it should be located in the downtown area bounded by Northwest Hwy, Central, and Emerson. (vote 12 to 0) 2. Parcel B is the preferred site for a new Village Hall based on its location and the fact that it is generally a public use block already and a limited amount of property will be removed from the tax rolls if constructed on the site. (vote 12 to 1) 3. Maximize the use of green space on Parcel B so a focal point of the' community is possible. The building footprint should enhance any green space that is created on the parcel. (vote 8 to 3 and one abstention) 4. Any parking that may be considered for Parcel B should be below grade. (vote 7 to 5) 5. No space should be reserved for recreational "drop-in" activities in a new Village Hall. (vote 12 to 0) 6. The Village Hall should be a stand-alone facility and not combined with an existing structure on Parcel B. (vote 8 to 3) 7. The footprint of a new Village Hall should enhance green space on Parcel B. (vote 12 to 0) 8. School District 57, the Mount Prospect Library Board and the Mount Prospect Village Board should meet in order to discuss possible shared use space on a possible third floor of the Mount Prospect · Library.(vote 10 to 1 with 1 abstention) 9. Any future Village Hall building should not adversely impact any future Mount Prospect Library expansion. (vote 10 to 2) 4 III. Summary of Recommendations: (continued) 10.With the recommended elimination of the current senior center, the committee recommends that the Village Board investigate the social/recreational needs as they pertain to senior and youth activities. (vote 12 to 0) 11.Parcel C, current site of the Village Hall, be redeveloped and added to the tax rolls. (vote 12 to 0) 5 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: MAY 2, 2000 SUBJECT: NEW VILLAGE HALL FINANCING You requested that I provide an update on the stares of that portion of our outstanding general obligation debt which is. payable from property taxes. You also requested that I present a table showing projected debt service for each one million dollars of general obligation debt the Village issues. STATUS OF EXISTING G.O. DEBT There are two outstanding general obligation bond issues that are being funded through the annual property tax levy. There is the Series 1987A Citizens Capital Appreciation bond issue that funded a portion of the Public Works facility construction. There is also the Series 1993B Refunding bond issue that refinanced a portion of two bond issues related to the construction of the Public Works facility and the Police and Fire building. The following table shows future annual debt service payments payable from property taxes for the two bond issues referred to above. Debt Service Re, uirements Payable From Prop, ,rty Taxes Bor~d~ssue ~0010 ~00il' ~ 20'03 ~00~ 20~ 2006 1987A, PWFacility $ 47,000 $121,000 $112,000 $66,000 $67,000 $151,000 $405,000 $0 1993B, PW Facility 204,378 135,938 150,412 209,365 218,250 166,260 0 0 1993B, P & F Bldg. 450,906 452,103 449,820 451,299 452,306 452,067 0 0 TOTAL $702,284 $709,041 $712,232 $726,664 $737,556 $769,327 $405,000 $0 As you can see, we have relatively level debt service payments through the year 2005, when the Series 1993B bond issue is retired. The final payment on the Series 1987A bond issue comes the following year, that being 2006. ROJECTED DEBT SERVICE AND IMPACT ON TAXES The following two tables show projected annual debt service payments on various bond issue sizes at different interest rate assumptions. The current interest rates are in bold print. A table is presented for both a fifteen-year and a twenty-year repayment period. Projected Annual Debt Service Payments 15 Year General Obligation Bond In~Rate $iMilli0n Mill~ofi I~Mffiioh ~i~!i0n 4.80% $ 95,044 $475,220 $570,264 $665,308 $ 950,440 $1,045,484 5.05% $ 96,668 $483,340 $580,008 $676,676 $ 966,680 $1,063,348 Current Rate 5.30% $ 98,306 $491,530 $589,836 $688,142 $ 983,060 $1,081,366 5.55% $ 99,957 $499,785 $599,742 $699,699 $ 999,570 $1,099,527 5.80% $101,621 $508,105 $609,726 $711,347 $1,016,210 $1,117,831 Projected Annual Debt Service Payments 20 Year General Obligation Bond interest Rate $1 Million .$5 Million ~ Mil!ion $7 Million $1~OMilli0n: !$11Million ;, 5.10% $80,924 $404,620 $485,544 $566,468 $809,240 $890,164 5.35% $82,641 $413,205 $495,846 $578,487 $826,410 $909,051 Current Rate 5.60% $84,375 $421,875 $506,250 $590,625 $843,750 $928,125 5.85% $86,126 $430,630 $516,756 $602,882 $861,260 $947,386 6.10% $87,894 $439,470 $527,364 $615,258 $878,940 $966,834 As for the impact debt service will have on our tax levy and rate, for each $100,000 of debt service added onto the tax levy, the Village's tax rate will increase by just under one cent based upon our 1998 equalized assessed valuation of $1,058,023,690. This is an increase of 1.1% over our current tax rote of $0.90. Once we have a better idea of the anticipated cost of constructing a new village hall/senior center, I can provide a more detailed memorandum on the financing. Should you have any questions regarding this memorandum, please advise. copy: Dave Strahl, Assistant Village Manager I:\Corresp\IntlX2000~new village hall~Financing 5-3.do¢ 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DATE: JANUARY 6, 2000 SUBJECT: PROPERTY TAX IMPLICATIONS OF VILLAGE HALL SITE REDEVELOPMENT You requested that I prepare an analysis of the property tax implications should the Village Board decide to construct a new Village Hall/Senior Center and redevelop the current Village Hall site. To perform such an analysis, certain assumptions have to be made regarding tax rates, assessed values and the nature of the redevelopment project. Community Development Director Cooney suggested I base my analysis on the current Village Hall site being redeveloped as 40 condominiums and 16,000 square feet of commercial space. There are two main components to the analysis. We need to estimate how much property tax revenue would be generated by the redevelopment of the current Village Hall site, but we also must estimate the amount of property tax revenue that will be lost due to the Village's acquisition of the doctor's office building next to the Senior Center. Property Taxes Generated from Redevelopment For purposes of this analysis, we assume the forty condominiums will be completed in the years 2003 and 2004 and they will have an average sales price of $210,000. Upon their completion in the tax levy year 2004, we are estimating the residential units will have a total equalized assessed value (EAV) of $1,546,563. As for the commercial property, we are estimating the EAV to be $957,528. The total projected 2004 EAV for both the commercial space and the residential units is $2,504,091. We estimate the tax rate in 2004 to be $9.505, thereby generating total taxes of $238,025. The Village's share of the total taxes generated is estimated at $22,375 per year. Property_ Taxes No Longer Received from Doctor's Office Buildine The 1998 EAV of the doctor's office building was $336,767. The total taxes paid on the property for the 1998 levy was $32,188. For the 2004 levy year, we are projecting the doctor's office property will have an EAV of $392,805, and will pay total taxes in the amount of $37,338. The Village's share of the total taxes paid on the doctor's office property is estimated at $3,510. Implications of Tax Increment Financing District Both the current Village Hall and the Doctor's Office building are in the Village's tax increment financing district, which will not expire until 2008. Of the total taxes paid by the Doctor's Office, a little over $4,000 is being distributed to all affected taxing bodies each year. The balance is being eposited into the Village's Downtown Redevelopment Tax Increment Financing Fund. Until the year 2009, 100% of the property taxes generated by the Village Hall redevelopment project would go into the Village's TIF Fund. Summary_ of Property Tax Implications The following table summarizes the projected property taxes for the Doctor's Building and the redeveloped Village Hall project for the tax levy year 2004: Est. Property Taxes Doctor's Village Hall 2004 Levy Year Building Redevelopment Variance Total Taxes $37,338 $238,025 $200,687 TIF Taxes $33,254 $238,025 $204,771 Distributed Taxes $ 4,084 $ 0 $ (4,084) This table summarizes the projected property taxes for the tax levy year 2009, the first year after the end of the tax increment financing district: Est. Property Taxes Doctor's Village Hall 2009 Levy Year Building Redevelopment Variance Total Taxes $ 42,663 $271,971 $229,308 TIF Taxes $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Distributed Taxes $ 42,663 $271,971 $229,308 Conclusion The above tables show that the affected taxing bodies will receive higher property tax revenues from the redevelopment of the current Village Hall site. An additional $200,000 of property taxes will be generated beginning in 2004, with the amount growing slightly each year thereafter. However, it should be pointed out that this alone is not justification for constructing a new Village Hall/Senior Center. Of the $200,000 or so in additional property taxes per year, the Village's share will be somewhere near $20,000, far less than annual debt service requirements related to financing a new Village Hall/Senior Center. Douglas R. Ellsworth, CPA Director of Finance copy: Bill Cooney, Community Development Director David Strahl, Assistant Village Manager ~ ° ooo ~o~ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: WILLIAM J. COONEY .JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 20, 2000 SUBJECT: PROPOSED PARKING GARAGE IN DOWNTOWN Several concerns were raised recently by members of the Village Hall Ad Hoc Committee relating to a possible multi-level parking garage necessary to serve a Village Hall and other developments in the downtown. The concerns related primarily to aesthetics, specifically to the exterior fagade and the overall height of the structure. This memorandum is intended to provide background information for both of these concerns. The parking garage industry has come a long way in improving the architectural design &parking garages. Years ago, the primary, and many times only, concern when considering a parking structure was to maximize the number of spaces on a piece of property for as low as cost as was possible. In response to growing concerns with the visual impact that these structures created, designers have made concerted efforts to blend the facades of these structures with those of surrounding buildings. Varying the building materials, installing architecturally significant features and utilizing landscaping have all been successful techniques utilized to blend the parking structures with the surrounding streetscape. I have attached some pictures of sample parking garages that demonstrate these techniques. The second concern that the Committee raised related to the overall mass of a potential structure. The Committee did not want a "massive" structure constructed in our downtown that would overwhelm the Library and Village Hall buildings. I have attached a schematic site plan for a parking structure that would require a 140' x 280' pad. In order to park approximately 400 cars in the structure, the facility would need to have four levels. Assuming that we install one level of below grade parking and an "open air" top level, the overall height of the facility would be approximately 25' - 30' tall. This height is no greater than a typical two-story commercial building or single family home throughout the Village. I also understand that the Committee discussed the concept of constructing all of the parking underground. While that is certainly possible and would provide for more open space, there is a significant cost increase to accomplish this. The industry average in the Chicago area to construct above grade parking structures is approximately $38 per square foot. To construct parking one story below grade, the average square foot cost increases to approximately $50, a 31% increase. The cost to construct further levels below grade increases more dramatically, depending upon soil conditions and other factors (my sources were hesitant to provide a specific dollar amount due to the uncertainty of conditions). I trust that this memorandum and attachments will provide the Village Board and Ad Hoc Committee with the information that they need to further review this information. Please forward this memorandum to the Village Board for their review and consideration at the July 25th meeting. Staff will be present at that meeting to further discuss this matter. I' (/~ HC Ramp Up Fro~ Street Level 7 """""' HC 8,500 sq. fL Village Green E BUSSE AV ~" Street/1 st Level 114 spaces kad 8/12/99 RESOLUTION NO. 40-cj9 a RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AN OPTION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND NORWOOD CONTRUCTION, INC. FOR THE OPTION TO PURCHASE CERTAIN VILLAGE PROPERTY AT 117 SOUTH MAIN STREET WHEREAS, The Village of Mount Prospect has established a Tax Increment Financing Distdct for the purpose of redeveloping the downtown district; and WHEREAS, in order to implement the best plan for the redevelopment area, the Village of Mount Prospect has entered into an Agreement with Norwood Construction, Inc.; and WHEREAS, Norwood C°~struction, Inc. has expressed a desire to purchase certain Village property if particular conditions are satisfied; and WHEREAS, the Village is willing to permit Norwood to have the first opportunity to purchase the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees do hereby authorize execution of an Option Agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and Norwood Construction, Inc. for the purchase of property at 117 South Main Street in the Village of Mount Prospect, a copy of which Option Agreement is attached hereto and hereby 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: Corcoran, }toefert, Lohrstorfer, Skowron NAYS: Wilks ABSENT: Nocchi PASSED and APPROVED this 17th day of August , 1999. Village President ATTEST: VeiTma W. Lowe Village Clerk OPTION AGREEMENT T~-[IS OPTION AGREEMENT (the "O,p, tion Agreement"), is made and entered into this/~ day of tt/tL~e~fi~ , 1999 ("Effective Date ), by and between NO,,R, WOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC., ah ll~[nois corporation, or its nominee or aSsignee ("PurchaSer'), and THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an Illinois Municipal Co~poration ("Village"). WlTNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Village holds fee simple title to that certain parcel of real estate consisting of approximately acres commonly known aS the "Village Hall Parcel", including a portion of the land located at 117 S. Main S~eet, in the Village of Meant Prospect; County of Cook, and State of illinois, which parcel is legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof (the "Option Parcel"); and WHEREAS, the Village desires to grant to Purchaser, end PurchaSer desires to acquire from the Village, an 8-year exclusive option to purchase the Option Parcel, on the terms and conditions herein set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the Option Payment; aS hereinafrer defined, and the covenents and agreements of the parties here~ contained, Purchaser and the Village hereby covenant and ag~.ee aS follows: 1. Grsnt of Option. The Village hereby irrevocably grants to Purchaser a first and exclusive option (hereinafter the "Option") to purchase the Option Parcel for a period of eight (8) years ("Option Period") commencing on the Effective Date and terminating eight (8) years thereafter, upon the terms end conditions set forth herein, for the "Purchase Price" equal to the sum of.' (a) $10,000 per residential unit constructed on the Option Parcel ("Residential PurchaSe Price") for the first year of the Option, subject to adjustment aS set forth in sUbsection (c) below; plus Co) $10.00 per square foot of commercial space constructed on the Option Parcel ("Commercial Purchase Price") for the first year of the Option, subject to adjustment as set foxth in subsection (c) below. (c) The Residential Purchase Price and the Commercial Purchase Price (collectively the "Prices") shall be adjusted each year of the Option (en "Option Year"), aS follows: (i) for each of the second through fifth Option Years, the Prices shall be increaSed over the Prices for the immediately prior Option Year by seven and one-half percent (7.5%); and (ii) for each of the sixth through eighth Option Years, the Prices shall be increaSed over the Prices for the immediately prior option Year to the extent of the percentage of inerense in the Consumer Price Index (as defined in subsection (d) below), but in no event less than two percent (2%). (d) As used in this Option Agreement, the term "Consumer Price Index" shall mean the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Chicago, Illinois and Indiana-All Items- Series A (1982-84=100) prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. ha the event that said index shall no longer be published with a base year of 1982-84, the parties shall compute, by reference to data available from said Bureau of Labor Statistics, the actual percentage of increase in such consumer prices during the period in question. If said index shall cease to be published, the parties shall use aS the Consumer Price Index hereunder, the most comparable index then published by the United States Government. or in the absence of same, the index commonly used in connection with other mixed-use (rasidential/commercial) developments in the Chicago, Illinois metropolitan area. (e) As used in this Option Agreement, the phrases "Residential Purchase Price", "Commercial Purchase Price", and "Purchase Price" shall be deemed to refer to said Prices, as adjusted pursuant to Section l(e) above. 2. Option Payment. (a) As consideration for the Option, Purchaser shall pay to the Village the amount of One Hundred Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($100,000.00)(the "Option Payment") not later than three (3) business days aider this Option Agreement is signed by the parties. (b) Subject to the provisions of Section 2(c) below, sixty-seven percent (67%) of the Option Payment shall be refundable and deposited with Intercounty National Tire Insurance Company or another title company acceptable to Purchaser ("Title Company") pursuant to a strict joint order escrow agreement, in form and substance acceptable to the parties hereto, and Co) thirty-three percent (33%) shall be non-refundable and paid tO the Village. (c) In the event that Purchaser defaults under the Agreement for the Sale and Redeve!opment of Land dated of even date herewith ("Redevelopment Agreement") by and between Purchaser and the Village pertaining to Phase lB of the Downtown Mount Prospect Redevelopment Project ("Phase lB"), Purchaser's Option hereunder shall terminate, and the option Payment shall be forfeited by Purchaser and retained by the Village. (d) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this option Agreement, if the option Parcel does not become available for purchase and development by the expiration of the Option Period or the parties fail to reneh an agreement on a Contract (as defined in Section 3(a) hereof), then sixty-seven percent (67%) of the Option Payment shall be refunded and promptly returned to Purchaser by the Village. 3. Exercise of Option. (a) Provided that Purchaser has made the Option Payment v,4thin the time period specified in Section 2(a) above, Purchaser may exercise the Option by delivexy of written notice tothe Village of Purchaser's intent to so exercise the option not later t~m five (5) business days after Purchaser receives written notice fa'om the Village that the Option Parcel is available for purchase and development. Within thirty (30) days after the Village's receipt of Purchaser's exercise of the Option, the Village and Purchaser shall use their best efforts to execute a real estate sale contract (the "Contract"), at the Purchase Price (as defined in Section 1 above) and upon such other terms to be negotiated between the parties. The Contract shall provide, among other things, (i) for a closing not later than one hundred eighty (180) days a_~er the execution of the Contract, and (ii) that the entire Option Payment (without interest) shall be applied to the Purchase Price at closing. (b) In the event that the Option is not exercised by Purchaser in the manner provided herein, then (i) this Option Agreement and this Option shall, ~4thout further action of either party, automatically terminate and thereai=~er be null and void and of no further force or effect, (ii) the VilIage shall retain thirty-three percent (33%) of the Option Payment, (iii) sixty-seven percent 2 (67%) of the Option Payment shall be promptly refunded and returned to Purchaser, and (iv) neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereander or with respect to the Option. 4. Architectural Harmon? with Phase lB. As a material inducement to the grant of the Option by the Village, Purchaser has agreed that the improvements to be constructed on the Option Parcel shall be substantially similar and harmonious in architectural design, elements and concept with the improvements on Phase lB. 5. No TIF Assistance. Both parties acknowledge that there shall be no TIF Assistance provided for the Option Parcel above and beyond what is specifically stated in this Agreement. 6. Covenants Running with the Land~ Specific Performance. The covenants and agreements of the Village under this Option Agreement are intended to be and shall be covenants pruning with the land with respect to the Option Parcel and shall be binding upon the Village, its representatives, successors and assigns. This Option Agreement and the Conttact to be entered into pursuant hereto shall be specifically enforceable by Purchaser, its representatives, successors and assigns. 7. Memorandum. The parties hereby agree that a Memorandum of this Option Agreement, in the form attached hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit B, shall be executed by Purchaser and the Village and recorded. 8. :Successors and Assigns. All the terms and conditions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective representatives, successors and assigns. 9. Severabili~. In the event that any term or provision of this Option Agreement is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable (in whole or in its application to a particular party or circumstance), the remaining t~ms and provisions of this Option Agreement or the application thereof to different parties or circumstances, as the case may be, shall not be a_fleeted thereby and this Option Agreement shall remain in full force and effect in all other respects. 10. No Merger. The terms and provisions of this Option Agreement shall survive the entirety, and shall not merge or be deemed to merge, into the Contract for tbe Option Parcel. 11. Assignment. Purchaser may not assign this Agreement, without the prior consent of the Village, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. 12. Notices, Any notice, demand or request required or permitted to be given hereunder to a party shall be in writing and hand delivered or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, to the party at the following address: If to Purchaser: Norwood Construction, Inc. 7458 N. Harlem Avenue Chicago, IL 60631 Attention: Brace J. Adreani, President With a copy to: Linda Yi Condon, Esq. Norwood Construction, Inc. 7458 N. Harlem Avenue Chicago, IL 60631 3 If to the Village: Village of Mount Prospect · Arm: Village Manager 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, [L 60056 With a copy to: Mayor Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 Any notice, demand or request given by hand delivery shall be deemed received ulmn such personal service. Any notice, demand or request sent by registered or certified mail shall be deemed given when deposited in the mail. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Option Agreement as of the day and year first above written. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ~ NORWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC., an ll~cipal ~rpo//~fiy~ en llllnois corporation ~. Farlq}, Major / / Bruce J. Adreani; President / Attest: - Velffaa W. Lowe, Village Clerk 4 EXHIBIT B TO OPTION AGREEMENT MEMORANDUM OF OPTION AGREEMENT THIS MEMORANDUM OF OPTION AGREEMENT is made this day of 1999, by and between NORWOOD CONSTRUCTION, INC., an Illinois corporation, or its nominee or assignee ("Purchaser"), and THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, an minois Municipal Corporation (the "ViHage')~ WITNESSETH: THAT, by that certain Option Agreement of even date herewith by and between the Village and Purchaser (the "Option Agreement"), the Village has granted to Purchaser, and Purchaser has acquired from the Village a first and exclusive 8-year option (the "Option") to acquire the real estate described on Exhibit 1 attached hereto and made a pm-t hereof(the ',Option Parcel"), upon the t~m~s and subject to the conditions set forth in the Option Agreement. THAT, no lease, mortgage, lien or other encumbrance affecting the Option Parcel which is created or entered into after the date hereof and prior to the expiration of the Option ~ha]! be valid or effective without obtaining the prior written consent of Purchaser; ali such leases, mortgages, liens and other encumbrances shall be void and of no force or effect against Purchaser or Purchaser's interest in the Option Parcel .. THAT, the covenants and agreements of the Village under the Agreement are covenants I~mn~ng with the land and shall be binding upon the Village and the Village's representatives, successors and assigns. 'tHAT, this Memorandum of Option Agreement is executed and recorded in accordance with the terms of the Option Agreement solely for the purpose of giving notice of the existence thereof and shall not supersede or in any way modify the terms or conditions of the Option Agreement. IN WI'INESS WHEREOF, the Village and Purchaser have caused this Memorandum of Option Agreement to be executed as of the date first above written. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT,/-) NORWOOD CONSTRUCTION, 1NC., an nlin pal an nlinois corporation -Gerald L. learley, Ma~or / BrUce J. Adreani, President / Attest: ,/ Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk 6 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) )SS. COUNTY OF COOK ) The undersigned, a Notm'y Public in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby certify that Bruce J. Adreani, the President of Norwood Construction, Inc.., personally known to me to be the same perSOns whOse name is subscribed to the foregoing insmunent as such President, appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that he signed and delivered said instnunent as his own free and voluntary act, and as the free and voluntary act of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of ,1999. NotaryPublic STATE or ILLINOIS ) )ss. COUNTY OF COOK ) The undersigned, a Notmy Public in and for said County, in the State aforesaid, do hereby c~xti~y that and , the Mayor und Village Clerk, respectively, of the Village of Mount ProSpect, personally known to me to be the same persons whose names are subscribed to the foregoing instrument as such Mayor and Village Clerk, reSpectively, appeared before me this day in person and acknowledged that they signed and delivered said insmunent as their own free and voluntary act, and as the free and voluntary act of said municipal corporation, for the uses and purposes therein set forth. GIVEN under my hand and seal this day of ,1999: Notary Public 7 L~TS 1, 4, 5, ~ 6 EXCEPT THE WEST 8.5 FEET T~EROF) IN BLOCK 13 IN BUSSE ~ WI~E'S ~S~DI~SION IN ~0~ PROSP~ IN ~ ~ST ~/2 OF SEC ~2, ~S~IP ~i PARCEL 1: LOT 10 EXCEPTING THAT PART OF ~ EAST 26 1/2 FEET LYING SOU'i'~( OF THE NORTH 70 FEET T~EP. EOF, A~D E~CEPT T~AT PART LYING WEST OF T~E EAST 26 1/2 FEET AI~D SOUTH OF THE NORTH 44 FEET %'"n'ER~OF IN BLOCK 13 IN BUSSE A~D WI?.~R,S RESUBDIVISION IN MOUNT PROSPECT IN THE WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, P.D/~GE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS PARCEL 2: A STRIP OF LAND 8 1/2 FEET IN WIDTH OFF THE WEST END 0F LOT 6 OF BLOCK 13 IN BUSSE AND WI?.?.R'S P. ESUBDMSION IN MOU~T PROSPECT, IN TH~ WEST 1/2 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL ~ERIDIAN, IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS ALSO A STRIP OF LA~TD 8 1/2 FEET IN WIDTH OFF THE WEST END OF ~ NORTH 23 FEET OF LOT 9 IN BLOCK 13 IN BUSSE A~D WILLE'S RESUBDIVISION AFORESAID IN COOK COUI~fY, ILLINOIS PARCEL 3: THE NORTH 30 FEET OF LOTS 9 AND 10 AND THE SOu'rm 12 FEET OF THE NORTH 42 FEET OF LOTS 9 AND 10 IN BLOCK 15 OF ~T. PROSPECT, A SUBDIVISION IN T~E WEST 1/2 OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN IN COOK COUB~fY, ILLINOIS PARCEL 4: ~ N 42 FEET OF THE W 22 FEET OF LOT 8 IN BLK 15 IN MOUNT PROSPECT SUBDMSION OF PART OF ~ N W 1/4 NORTH OF RAILROAD IN THE N E 1/4 OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 41 NORTH, RANGE 11 EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, IN COOK COUI~fY, ILLINOIS. MAYOR Ggald L. F~ley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. J~onis TRUSTEES Timothy$. Corcoran Viii g f M p Sp V AGECLE Hoef a e o ount ro ect Rieh~d M. Lohr~orfg ~en.~ ~. ~, Community Development Department Phone: 847/818-532s Michaele W. Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 Zrwma K. W~ks 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Senior Center Thursday 50 South Emerson Street July 27, 2000 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Minutes of~une 22, 2000 1. ZBA-08-2000 / Text Amendments to the Zoning Code Section 14.1702 and 14.311. 2. ZBA-13-2000 / Text Amendment to Section 14.2219 of the Zoning Ordinance. 3. ZBA-16-2000 / Gfippo Residence / 1104 S. Church Kd. 4. ZBA-20-2000 / Siavelis Residence / 802 S. William St. / Variation to construct a garage in the side setback. 5. ZBA-21-2000 / Road Runner / 2400 Terminal Drive / Amend Conditional Use for a cartage facility. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. ZBA-05-2000 / Text Amendment to the Zoning Code Sections 14.701/ 14.702/ 14.703/ 14.704 and create Section 14.705. NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final V. NEW BUSINESS A. ZBA-22-2000 / Hejduk Residence / 604 Wilshire St. / Variation to construct an oversized detached garage. NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final B. ZBA-24-2000 / John Kouchoukos / 630 W. Rand Rd. / Conditional Use to construct a Citgo Gas Station and Variation to construct a canopy in setback. NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final C. ZBA-23-2000 / Zabest Commercial Group / 791 Rand Road / Map Amendment from R-1 to B-3. NOTE: This Case is Village Board Final VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. C:\TMPW-27-2000.doe MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-08-2000 Hearing Date: June 22, 2000 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: June 7, 2000 and April 10, 2000 DAILYHER/ILD REQUEST: Text Amendments to the Zoning Code Section 14.1702 and 14.311 MElVEBERS PRESENT: Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, Senior Planner INTERESTED pARTI'F..S: None .. Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the May 25, 2000 meeting were approved. At 8:05, under Old Business, Ms. Juracek inlroduced Case ZBA-08-2000, a request for Text Amendments to the Zoning Code Section 14.1702 and 14.311 Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the case, stating that notice had been provided in the newspaper. Ms. Connolly said that in conjunction with the downtown redevelopment, staff has been reviewing that part of the Village Code dealing with outside dining. The way the Code is written, outdoor dining is technically prohibited. Therefore, staff has undertaken a text amendment to write this into the Code, as it would be a desirable addition to the district. She pointed out that several restaurants now offer outside dining in the B-3 zoning district. They have not been a nuisance to surrounding neighborhoods. With the amendment, a plan would need to be submitted with. the location of the tables, distance from property line, hours of operation, and garbage pick-up consistent with our Code. The furniture will need to be removed when not in use. Permission could be revoked with a 14 day notice. The permit would be good for one year. Outdoor dining would be a positive attribute in the downtown and other B-3 areas. Staff recommends approval of the Text Amendment. Ms. Juracak said that downtown Chicago outdoor cafes have shrubbery, greens, etc., to define the dining area. She noted provisions for such definition are not included in this ordinance and asked if the landscape ordinance take care of those needs. Ms. Connolly answered that if a physical barrier is needed it would be recommended on acase by case basis when the plan'is submitted. Michael Blue,' Deputy Director Of Community Development, said that the 'idea was not to put an extra onus on the restaurant owner. If there is need to require barriers, it would be required at the time of the permit. Keith Youngquis~ said he is heavily involved with the Chicago caf~ ordinance requirements, which are often too burdensome. He said he expected the owners would work with the Village if they want to offe~ this service. Ms. Juracgk said we de~'mitely need to attract people to the downtown area. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-08-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Leo Floros made a motion to recommend approval for a Text Amendment to Sections 14.1702 and 14.311 of the Zoning Code. Elizabeth Luxem seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Village Board's decision is final in this ease. At 8:15 p.m., Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-13-2000 Hearing Date: June 22, 2000 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: June 7 and April 10, 2000 D~4ILYHERALD REQUEST: Text Amendment to Zoning Code Section 14.2219 to provide minimum standards for parking lot lighting MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Flores Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the May 25, 2000 meeting were approved. At 8:10, after hearing two eases under New Business and another case under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case ZBA-13-2000, a Text Amendment to ZOning Code Section 14.2219 to provide minimum standards for parking lot lighting Judy Cormolly, Senior Planner, introduced the ease, stating that notice had been provided in the newspaper. She stated that Village Code currently provides two guidelines for parking lot lighting: all the lighting must be kept on the property and cannot "spill" onto surrounding properties, and parking lot lights must be turned off between the hours of I lpm and 7am. The Police Department expressed concerns with the existing provisions, as the lighting can provide security during the night. At the request of the Village Board, staff undertook a review of the Village's current lighting requirements and now proposes this Text Amendment, which is based on other communities' ordinances, the lighting standards and model ordinances of the Illuminating Engineers Society of America ([ES) and other professional organizations. This proposed amendment would put the Village into a proactive situation where new applicants proposing a parking lot would need to present a lighting plan, the glare and the luminaires of the proposed fixtures, and the foot candles of the proposed fixtures to ensure code compliance. If.there is a complaint from a neighbor or an inconsistency with the code, the Village can use a light meter to check for compliance. The Text Amendment is intended to protect residents against light trespass, provide for security of parking lot users, and protect Village aesthetics. Staff recommends approval of the Text Amendment. Arlene Juracek pointed out that removal of the'rdquirement that parking lot lighting be turned off from 11pm to 7am did not mandate that the owner, must leave the lights on during those hours. She said these standards wer~ a good enhancement to the Code. Elizabeth Luxem made a motion to. recommend approval to allow Text Amendment to Zoning Code Section 14.2219. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: '. ' ' - AYES: Fl0ros~ Luxem, Youngquist, and Jfiraeek NAYs~ None oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 13-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Motion was approved 4-0. Village Board's decision is final in this case. At 8:15 p.m., Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-16-2000 Hearing Date: June 22, 2000 PETITIONER: Bob & Kathy Grippo 1104 S. Church Road PUBLICATION DATE: June 7, 2000 D,4II-,YHER.41.,D REQUEST: Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the minimum 15' rear yard setback and 7' into the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback required by Code. ME1VIBERS PRESENT: Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Bob Grippo Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the May 25, 2000 meeting were approved. Ms. Jumcek announced Case ZBA-16-2000, a request for a Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the minimum 15' rear yard setback and 7' into the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback required by Code. Ms. Juracek stated that this case had come before the May 25 meeting but ZBA members had found it difficult to support the requested two variations. They had suggested a shorter pool with a nan'ower deck, set back further from the exterior side yard. ZBA members asked the petitioner to come forward at the next Zoning Board meeting with an adjusted request, and the case was tabled to this meeting;. · Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, introduced the amended request for Variations. She stated that the subject property is an existing single-story home on an 84' X 120' lot on a residential street and with a rear setback of approximately 40'. Ms. Connolly described the petitioner's proposal to construct a 16' X 32' pool. The revisions show that the pool will be 13' from the ~xterior sideyard where code requires 20', and 7' from the rear lot line where the code requires 15'. The pool will be surrotmded by a 4' concrete deck in the rear yard. She pointed.out that the actual encroachment into the sideyard by the pool would be 3' with the 4' deck making a 7' encroachment. Staff continues to find that the submittal does not support a f'mding of a hardship and, therefore, recommends that the ZBA recommend to the Village Board denial of the proposed Variations to permit a pool to encroach eight (8) feet into the required 15' rear setback and seven feet (7) into the required 20~. exterior side setback for the residence at 1104 Church Street, Case No. ZBA-16- 2000. The Village Board's decision is final for this ease. Bob Grippo was sworn in and testified that he had changed hi~ plans and moved the proposed pool 3' to the north. He stated his contractor told him that was the best be could do without ripping out the existing patio. He said this change puts the pool within 3' of the sideyard setback. Michael Blue responded that a 3' carriage walk is a permitted encroachment in the yard. The applicant is proposing a 4' deck, if the deck were reduced to 3', it could be considered a carriage walk and that would be a permitted encroachment. Mr. Blue said the 3' of the deck itself could be in the yard. oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 16-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Mr. Grippo said the 4' deck could be cut down to 3' on the south side of the pool. He said that would put the pool within 3' oftbe 20' setback. He said he would put ora 5' privacy fence and would not need to rip out the patio and not be too close to the back door of his house. Mr. Grippo said that he did not want to reduce the size of the pool any more, as it will be a small size, just 17,000 gallons. Arlene Juraeek said she was heartened to hear that Mr. Grippo was willing to reduce the deck to 3'. She said it makes the requested variation less egregious. She reminded the petitioner that, at the last meeting, the Board had not been concerned about the encroachment into the rear setback but the sideyard is really on the street and that the Board was concerned with how that would work. By shortening the deck to 3' on that end, it can be considered as just a 3' enereaehment on the sideyard, which would be a significant improvement, Mr. Grippo said that there would be no diving board, and that the pool would be just 6' at the deep end. He asked if any Board members had seen the pool at 1026 Church, which is similar to what he plans to do with his area. He also said that the pool has been there for 13 years, is 6' from sidewalk, and that there have been no complaints. Leo Floros said he had gone to see the neighbor's property and could barely see the pool. Mr. Floros asked Mr. Grippo if his neighbors objected to the plan. Mr. Grippo said no, they wanted him to put in the pool. Ms. Juraeek said the neighbors had two opportunities to voice any objection, as this was the second hearing of the Leo Floros made a m~tion to recommend approval of Case ZBA-16-2006, a Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the minimum 15' rear yard setback and 3' into the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback, with the condition that petitioner reduce the width oftbe deck along the sideyard from 4' to 3'. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Village Board's decision is final in this case. At 8:15 p.m., Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek~ Planning Secretary Ju~ Eo~n61i~fSg,~n~or-P]ar~ner ~'~'~' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT zONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-16-2000 Hearing Date: May 25, 2000 PETITIONER: Bob & Kathy Grippo 1104 S: Church Road PUBLICATION DATE: May 8, 2000 D,41LYHERA£D REQUEST: Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the minimum 15' rear yard setback and 10' imo the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback required by Code. 1VIEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson M~EMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF M~EMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development Jeffery Perkins, Planner 131TERESTED PARTIES: ' Bob, Kathy & Rim Grippo Nick & Lorraine Diakoumis Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:32 p.m. Minutes of the April 27, 2000 meeting were approved. Ms. Suracek announced Cases ZBA-08-2000 and ZBA-13-2000, which were postponed to this meeting at the April 27 meeting, would be postponed indefinitely. At 7:40, after hearing another case, Ms. Juracek introduced Case ZBA-16-2000, a request for a Variation to permit the construction of a swimming pool that would encroach 8' into the minimum 15' rear yard setback and 10' into the minimum 20' side exterior yard setback required by Code. Jeffery PerkLns, Planner, introduced the case, stating that notice had been provided through the newspaper, mailing and signs on the property. He indicated that (be subject property is an existing single-story home on an 84' X 120' lot on a residential ~'eet and with a rear setback of approximately 40'. He described the petitioner's proposal to construct a 16' X 32"pool, surrounded by a 4' concrete deck in the rear'yard. He stated that the proposed Iocation'of the pool and deck would encroach 10' into the 20' exterior side setback and eight feet into the 15' rear setback required by the R1 district. Mr. Perkins outlined the petitioner's reasons for the proposed Variation. He stated that the petitioner's motivation for the request is to retain most of their existing patioand to keep the proposed pool away from the rear door of the house. He stated that, although the proposed pool would not be likely to have a negative effect on the neigl~borhood or public welfare, no particular condition of the lot makes the proposed encroachment necessary. He described how the petitioner could con,ruer a pool in the rear yard without the proposed Variations and added that, for that reason, no hardship exists. Based on the lack of a hardship, Mr. Perkins gave Staff's recommendation of denial of the proposed Variations and added that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. oning Board of Appeals ZBA- 16-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Bob Grippe was sworn in and testified that ho had lived in his home for seventeen years and explained what he wanted to do concerning installing an in ground pool in his yard. He pointed out a similar situation at 106 Chumh Road, where a Variation was granted several years ago. He said none of his neighbors objected to his plan. Nick Diakoumis, 1103 S. Chumh Rd., was sworn in, stated Mr. Grippe maintains his property impeccably, and his proposed request would add value to the neighborhood and Mount Prospect if granted. ZBA members indicated they found it difficult to support two rather significant variations. They had several suggestions for the proposal, particularly that it should be set back further from the exterior side yard. A shorter pool with a narrower deck was also suggested. ZBA members asked the petitioner to discuss the recommended revisions to his plans with staffand come forward at the next Zoning Board meeting with an adjusted request. Richard Rogers made a motion to table Case ZBA-16-2000, to allow the petitioner time to consider alternative plans. Elizabeth Luxem seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Flores, Luxem, Youngquist, Rogers, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Case No. ZBA-16-2000 will be tabled to the June 22,2000 meeting. At 9:20 p.m., aRer hearing three more cases, Elizabeth Luxem made motion to adjourn seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Michael Blu~ .... Community Development Deputy Director MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-20-2000 Hearing Date: June 22, 2000 PETITIONER: Steve Ziavelis 802 S. William St. PUBLICATION DATE: June 7, 2000 DA[LYHER.4LD REQUEST: Variation to permit a detached garage to encroach into a required sideyard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Florus Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson IVIEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotton Richard Rogers STAFF IVIE1VIBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Steve & Marlo Siavelis Chairperson Arlene Suracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the May 25, 2000 meeting were approved. At 7:45, Ms. Juraeek announced Case ZBA-20-2000, a request for a Variation to permit the construction of a detached garage to encroach into a required sideyard setback. Judy Counolly, Senior Planner, stating that notice had been provided in the form of a newspaper ad, mailed notices, and a sign on the subject property. She described the petitioner's reasons for the proposed Variation to permit a detached garage to encroach into a required sideyard setback. She said the petitioner wished to demolish his existing garage and construct a new garage on the existing slab, which is 2.97' offthe lot line. Current code requires a setback 5'. In order to construct the new garage, petitioner would need a Variation. She stated that the petitioner's motivation for the request is to retain a brick wall and dock that connects the garage to the house. This property is in flood plain; however, the petitioner will not be changing the size or location of the garage so flood plain regulations do not apply. Although the proposed Variation may not have a negative effect on neighborhood character, the submittal does not support a finding of hardship, as required by the Variation standards in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the ZBA recommend to the Village Board denial Of the propOSed Variations to permit a detached garage to encroach approximately 2' into a required sideyard setback. The Village Board's doclsion is final for this case. Steve Siavelis was sworn in and testified his garage was badly deteriorated and needed to be replaced. He also stated that the slab is in good condition and 'he planned to build the new garage on the old slab. He reiterated his desire to keep the wood deck and brick fence conneeting the garage tothe house. He .also stated that moving the locatiOn of the' garage' would make it impossible to back-out without hitting the house... Mr. Floros asked i~ha had built the original garage and Mr.. Siavelis said that the garage was there when he had bought the house. Mr. Floros asked how old tho garagewas and Mr, Siavelis responded that it was 25 -30 years old' Mr. Finros inquired if the neighbor, who is building a two-car garage, had any objoctions to his pi .ans to replace the garage · . in the same location. Mr, Siavelis/aid he did not. ' oning Board of Appeals ZBA-20-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Arlene Juracek explained that when staff makes their evaluation of petitioners' requests they must be careful that the criteria present~ a true hardship as defined by code. She said she realized it would be an actual hardship for the petitioner to relocate the garage. Ms. Juraeek pointed out the petitioner's plan would be a straightforward one to one replacement. Mr. Flores ~aid he agreed, that this case met the layman's definition of hardship and he saw no problem with replacing the garage. Keith Youngquist said the property was very close to lot coverage and to move the garage back would increase the amount of lot coverage. He said he concurred with other board member's comments. Elizabeth Luxem made a motion to recommend approval of the request to permit a detached garage to encroach into a required sideyard setback. Leo Flores seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Flores, Luxem, Youngquist, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. The Village Board's decision is final for Case ZBA-20-2000. At 8:15 p.m., Leo Flores made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ol,,SeniorPi ery MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO. ZBA-21-2000 Hearing Date: June 22, 2000 PETITIONER: Maggie Fillman P, oadmnner Express, Inc. POB 7295 Rosemont, IL 60018 PUBLICATION DATE: June 7, 2000 DAILY HERALD REQUEST: Amend Conditional Use Approval for a cartage facility to allow construction of additional buildings MEMBERS PRESENT: Leo Floros Elizabeth Luxem Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cottan Richard Rogers STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Patrick Brankin John & Maggie Filhnan Joe Delay, 2416 Terminal Drive Chairperson Arlene Suracek called the meet/ng to order at 7:35 p.m. Minutes of the May 25, 2000 meeting were approved. At 7:50, after hearing two other cases, Ms. Inracek announced Case ZBA-21-2000, a request to amend a Conditional Use for a ~artage facility to allow construction of additiunal huildings. Judy Connotly, Senior Planner, introduced the case and explained the Conditional Use permit was originally approved in August of 1999. She said at this time, the petitioner plans to construct a 4,800 sq.fr, garage to perform safety checks and regular maintenance for the tracks scheduled to go in and out oftbe Road Runner facility. Ms. Connolly explained that, since these plans were not included in the original Conditional Use, the petitioner must apply for a new one. She said that the proposed garage would meet the Zoning Code setback requirements and would be located further away from the frontage than the existing building. Hours of operation Would remain the same. The number of trucks will not be increased. Afrer the garage and parking lot are constructed, the petitioner will complete all landscape requirements of the original Conditional Use. Upon review of this case, the Village staff had concerns about possible accidents at Oakton & Badger Dr. Much of the area is monitored by Des Plaines police however, in the area monitored by Mount Prospect, approximately 20 accidents have been reported in the last 5 years. Increased. activity may impact traffic flow and may require additional safety measures to minimize the risk of accidents. Ms; Connolly Concluded that the petitlone~s reques~ is in compliance with .Conditional Use requirements, therefore, staff recomnlends approval of the petitioner's request with the 3 conditions listed in staffs report, including tha{ they pay their portion of any traffic impact analysis oi improvements. 'Arlene Juracek asked for Clarification regarding accidehts. She noted staffs report indicated only two accidents in the intersection of Badger Rd. and Oskton, but 20 in the larger radius of Terminal Drive, Busse and Oakton. Ms. Juracck said, based on that, we cannot attribute the large amount of accidents to Road Runner's Irucks.. Zoning Board of Appeals ZBA-21-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Patrick Brankin, attorney with the law firm of Schain, Burney, Ross and Citron in Chicago, was sworn in and testified that, at the original case to request a Conditional Use, discussion arose regarding a future structure to conduct pre and post road checks, safety tests and truck maintenance. He said tonight's request is for a Conditional Use to erect that structure. Mr. Brankin said the proposed garage is a shed type design of steel construction and will be used solely for road safety checks, which are very important. He said he wanted to state for the record that since the facility opened in January, 2000, there have been no accidents with Road Runner trucks. He said the petitioners had reviewed staffs report and agreed to the conditions related to the Development and Fire Codes and landscaping. They do have concerns regarding the covenantrequiting Road Runner to pay their fair share of a traffic study plus traffic signals. Road Runner proposes a cap on the amount. The petitioner proposes a cap of $2,500 or some amount the Board deems reasonable. Arlene Juraeek said the Board would take that under advisement and ask staffto explain the fair share concept. She said we were happy to see the business up and running and viable and can understand the need to establish this building, Ms. Connolly said when staff originally proposed the fair share it was divided equally between the number of property owners in that area. Upon further consideration, it was thought that the share should be proportional to the amount of traffic each property generates. A fair share could be based on the number of trucks using the road on a daily basis. If a traffic study is conducted, the consultant could be advised to look at who is generating the traffic to determine the fair share of each property, Ms. Juracek asked if the state or county would be involved in the traffic study. Michael Blue, Deputy Director of Community Development, said it is necessary to meet IDOT warrants in order to get a traffic light. He said the traffic study would determine if the situation meets those warrants. He also said the study would identify the volume of traffic and the potential impact of the Road Runner trucks on tho severity of accidents. Mr. Blue said it was staffs opinion that those who benefit from the study and signals would need to support the endeavor. Elizabeth Luxem asked how soon the study would be done, since the cost of one would be continually ris!ng. Michael Blue said it could be done this year or next but that no steps had been taken to start the process. Ms. Luxem asked if it would feasible to set a cap of $2,500 without knowing the expense involved. Mr. Blue said that, in discussions among staff, it was thought that $5,000 would be a reasonable cap for Road Runner. Ms Suracek said the public hearing was not the place to negotiate the amount of the cap and asked if the Board would agree, as a condition of approval of recommendation to the Village Board, that the petitioner and staff come to an agreement about the amount of the cap before the case goes to the Village Board. Board members agreed. Pat Brankin said the petitioners agreed that they would continue to work with Village staff to arrive at an agreeable amonnt. Elizabeth Luxem made a motion to recommend approval of Case ZBA-21-2000, to amend a Conditional Use approval for a cartage facility, with the condition that petitioner come to agreement with staff on a dollar amount for the proposed covenant. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Luxem, Youngquist, and J'uracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Village Board's decision is f'mal in this case. oning Board of Appeals ZBA-21-2000 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 At 8:15 p.m., Leo Flores made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~l~ty Conill, ~eni~r Planner ' ~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, July 27, 2000 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2nd Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - June 22, 2000 III Review of 1999 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report IV Mid-Year Budget Review V Chairman's Report VI Finance Director's Report VII Other Business VIII Next Meeting: August 24, 2000 NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE cOgIMIsSION Minutes of the Meeting June 22, 2000 Village Hall Building I. Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and Commissioners Charles Bennett, George Busse, Vince Grochocinski, and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Police Sergeant Michael Semkiu, Cable Production Coordinator Ross Rowe, MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton, Fire Chief Mike Figolah, Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm, Director of Community Development Director Bill Cooney, and Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey. Also present were Finance Director Douglas Ellsworth and Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer. VilIage Manager Michael Janonis arrived at 8:15 and Community Development Deputy Director Mike Blue arrived at 8:40. Finance Commissioner Betty Launer was absent and Commissioner Tom Pekras was excused. II Approval of Minutes The minutes of May 25, 2000 were approved as submitted. John Korn requested minutes reflect "excused absences", late arrivals and early departures. Ann Smilanic motioned to accept and Vince Grochocinski seconded the motion. All other Coinmissioners were in favor of the motion. III Review of Proposed Capital Improvements Plan (2001-2005) Director of Finance Doug Ellsworth began with a brief overview of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP). The plan is a planning tool used to evaluate the Villages long-term capital needs. The CIP does not commit funding. Included in the CIP are items that are long lived in nature and generally in excess of $25,000. Currently the Village has $52,177,628 proposed for the five-year period. There is $i7,138,377 is being requested for 2001 and $12,764,717 in 2002. Mr. Ellsworth stated there are several sources available for obtaining funds for the CIP program. One of the sources is the General Fund, contributes approximately $300,000 per year. Another source available is the Capital Improvement Fund, which will end 2000 with a fund balance of $2, t00,000. Other sources are the Motor Fuel Tax and the Water and Sewer Fund. Currently, Motor Fuel Tax expenditures should match revenues. The Water and Sewer Fund will be able to support capital projects of $800,000 and $1,000,000 per year if the 'tillage continues the policy of moderate annual rate hikes of 4%. The proposed 2001-2005 CIP is .showing projects valued at an average of $1,700,000 per year. To afford the programs and to make up the deficit, rates would have to increase by 17% in one year. The major factor that is driving this deficit is the planned combined sewer system improvements. Miscellaneous grants and the possible sale of the current Village Hall would aisc provide a source of funds for the CIP. Police Department Police Sergeant Michael Semkiu discussed the need for the final two mobile data terminals for the squad cars. These terminals would replace two "dummy" terminals that were originally purchased in the I980's. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked about the status of obtaining in car video cameras. Mr. Ellsworth mentioned that a $50,000 grant has been secured for the purchase of 10 or 11 cameras. Commissioner George Busse asked if there would be additional costs associated with the cameras besides the init/al purchase. Mr. Ellsworth stated that there would be ongoing costs related to record retention and review of videotapes. Television Services Cable Production Coordinator Ross Rowe began by discussing the completion of the digital conversion that was started last year. The Village has already improved their signal and has updated the equipment. Therefore, what remains in the conversion is the purchase of the accessories. Some of the accessories that are needed are digital monitors, additional software, and hardware, 3-D modeling, and semi permanent racks. Chairman Korn asked why the figures are identical to last years figures. Mr. Rowe stated that their needs have not changed and that prices have come down a little since last year, allowing them to purchase more updated equipment models. Mr. Rowe's plan also included the purchase of a remote production vehicle that would be a studio on wheels. According to Mr. Rowe this vehicle could cut production time at remote locations by 50%. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski asked about the difference in the amoant of Cable TV revenues versus their expenditures. Mr. Rowe stated that there is currently a $5,000 profit made from cable fees. Furthermore, both the Park District and the Library contribute $8,400 per year each to help pay for some of the salary of the producer. MIS MIS Coordinator Joan Middleton discussed the need for a new Desktop Operating System. Currently the system is scheduled to be upgraded every four years. Scheduled for next year is the upgrade from Windows 95 to Windows NT Professional Office Suite, along with memory upgrades. Anticipated costs for these upgrades are approximately $56,000 in the year 2001. Fire Department Fire Chief Mike Figolah and Deputy Chief John Malcolm began by discussing the need to pumha~e Apparatus Data Links. The department needs to purchase a total of five more, three in the year 2001 and two in the year 2002. Deputy Chief Malcolm discussed the on going need for turn out gear replacement. On average 10 - 12 sets are replaced on an annual basis for approximately $13,000. Commissioner Bennett raised the questions as to why this expense appears on the CIP's, since the expense is less than $25,000. Chief Figolah stated that the on going expense adds up to and exceeds $25,000 over the life of the CIP. Another issue discussed is improvements needed at Fire Station #12. Heating, air conditioning and new windows replacements totaling $150,000 are proposed in the year 2002. Chairman Korn and Commissioner Bennett agree that the station is in need of improvements. They both suggested that maybe the improvements should be moved up to 2001 and started earlier than anticipated. Chief Figolah stated that he felt it would not be economically feasible at that time. Chief Figolah stated that the new Station 14 is scheduled to be built in 2003. After the new station is built, all Fire vehicle maintenance would move to Public Works. The Fire Department believes that it would be more cost effective to move the mechanics bay to Public Works. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked why Public Works is not currently maintaining the Fire Department' s Vehicles. Chief Figolah stated that the mechanics for Fke Department have special training and skills for the upkeep of their specific vehicles. According to Chief Figolah the highest priority in their department's operating budget is the addition of an engine at Station 13 instead of a squad. This addition would require the department to hire three additional people to man the engine (1 additional person per shift). By adding this engine mutual aid calls by Prospect Heights would significantly drop. The Village would be able to respond themselves to calls and not get help from Prospect Heights. Presently Prospect Heights provides assistance to the Village much more often than we provide assistance to them. Because they respond to our mutual aid ealls more often, Prospect Heights would like additional money. Although with the additional money they would not add additional staff, they would take care of their own needs first. Community Development Community Development Director Bill Cooney started by discussing the Streetscape Program and Facade and Interior Buildout Prograns currently under way. Streetscape improvements are scheduled through out the TIF starting at Northwest Highway and Central and continuing to the east side of Emerson and Northwest Highway to School Street and to the east side of Wille Street. Mr. Cooney also discussed the final designs for the beautification of the entrance corners to the Village. There are 12 corners throughout the perimeter of the Village that are being beautified with pocket landscaping, signs and a stone wall with keystone. Commission Ann Smilanic asked if the keystone or signs would have the new Village design logo. Mr. Cooney stated that it would have the new logo. He also stated that what would appear on the keystone is still under debate. The final issue discussed by Mr. Cooney involved plans for a new Village Hall. The rough plan allows for a 40,000 square foot facility with three levels (one down and two up). Additionally, there would be a 400 space parldng deck with four levels. $6,000,000 has been proposed for the Village Hall project at $3,000,000 per year for two years. Commissioner George Busse asked if the $6,000,000 figure is realistic~ Mr. Cooney feels comfortable with that figure and stated that it was not a low-end figure. 3 Public Works Deputy Director of Public Works Sean Dorsey began by stating that the projected Street Reconstruction program costs have been increased in this year's CIP's by 3.5 % for the year 2001. They had initially anticipated a 3% increase over last year, however they are now allowing for 3.5% more for a total of 7.5% over last year. Commissioner George Busse asked about the long-term schedule for reconstruction of streets. Sean stated that the plan is not to reconstruct streets after 2001; in the future the streets will only need resurfacing. Mr. Dorsey discussed the water tank rehabilitation project scheduled for 2001. He stated the funds needed for 2001 were increased due to the need for a complete recoating of the interior of the tank. This year the tank was drained and inspected. They found that the interior coating was deteriorated. Another project discussed was the Maple Street Parking Lot Improvements. The original cost was estimated a $65,000 last year, it is now slated for 2001 for $100,000. The project will also include the purchase and installation of an updated collection system. The biggest project Public Works currently faces is the Combined Sewer System. This system is designed to accept both sanitary and storm water. Mr. Dorsey stated there is approximately 75-80 miles of pipe (some clay, some concrete) that was constructed from the 1920's to the i940's. Currently the system doesn't have many problems, although as the Village works in these areas problems may develop. Chairman John Korn asked whether the government would force the Village to separate the combined system. Mr. Dorsey stated the government would not force us to. Additionally, Commissioner George Busse asked whether the Village planned to replace the system or just leave it. Mr. Dorsey said that the Village currently is planning to inspect, analyze and evaluate the system in 2001 and 2002. If there are no problems found the system wilt be Ieft as is. If problems are found they will need to be fixed starting in 2003. Mr. Dorsey stated that as part of the Clean Water Act the Federal government requires the Village to regulate the storm sewer system. This requires inspecting, mapping out the system and providing information on where they discharge and into what water areas. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if there would be more work to be done after the mapping is completed. Mr. Dorsey stated that it would be a one-time job, once it was completed they would be done. Following each departments discussion, Chairman John Korn stated he wanted input from the Finance Commission to prepare for Tuesday's Village Board Meeting. Commissioner George Busse moved that the money needed for the first year's inspection of the combined sewer system water be taken out of cash reserves. Commissioner Ann Smilanic seconded the motion. All Commissioners responded in favor of the motion. Commissioner George Busse moved to recommend moving the repairs needed at Fire Station 12 from 2002 to 2001. Commissioner Charles Bennett seeonded the motion, stating the benefits to staff morale more than offset delaying the project. All Commissioners responded in favor of the motion. Chairman John Korn stated the Finance Commission needed to appoint a Secretary as well as fill two vacancies within the Commission. The members of the Commission moved to defer discussion on the subject until additional members were present. V Discussion Regarding Commission's Duties and Responsibilities Chairman John Korn began tt~e discussion regarding the articles of the Finance Commission. Section 5.60i regarding the creation and purpose of the Finance Commission was agreed to be acceptable with no changes. Regarding Section 5.602- Membership, the Commission agreed to keep nine voting members. The Commission also agreed to stagger terms so they are 2 years, 2 years then 3 years. Furthermore, the Commission moved and agreed to have Paragraph B, regarding the ex officio and nonvoting members, removed from the articles. The Commission accepts and agrees to Section 5.603 Paragraphs A and C. Regarding Paragraph B, the Commission states they will use the Roberts Rule of Order. Chairman John Korn suggested the addition of Paragraph D that would state that the Commission meets on the fourth Thursday of each month and such other meetings as required. All members were in agreement. Regarding Section 5.604-Duties and Responsibilities, the Cornmission agreed that Paragraph A was obsolete. The Paragraph should state that the Finance Commission is able review and make recommendations regarding the budget without the aid of a subcommittee. Paragraphs B and C were approved and Paragraph D was deleted from the Articles. V Chairman's Report Chairman John Korn and the Finance Commission wished to thank Commissioners Ann Smilanic and Vince Grochocinski for their service and time spent on the Village Hall Adhoc Committee. Commissioner Ann Smilanic reported that on Thursday June 29~ there would be a joint meeting with the Board to discuss the final draft of the Adhoc proposal. Chairman John Korn asked that he be provided with a copy of the Finance Commission's membership list. VI Finance Director's Report Finance Director Doug Ellsworth distributed a memo confirming the AA3 Bond Rating from Moody. Mr. Ellsworth also distributed a copy of the 1999 Audit with a memo summarizing the report to each Commissioner. VII Other Business There was no other business discussed. VIII Next Meeting: July 2'/, 2000 The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for July 27, 2000 at 7:00 p. m. Re~ectfully submitt ~ed~ Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant 5 MAYOR ~ VILLAGE MANAGER Gerald L. Farley ~ Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES VILLAGE CLERK Timothy $. Coreoran Velma Lowe Pau wm. oef Village of Mount Prospect Pdchard M~ Lohrstorfer Derails e. Prikkel Community Development Department Phone: 847/$18-5328 Michaale W. Skowron Fax: 847/818-5329 Irvan~ K. w~ks 100 South EmersOn Street Mount ProspeCt, Illinois 60056 TDD: 847/392-6064 BUSINESS DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CANCELLATION NOTICE THE MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, JULY 26, 2000 HAS BEEN CANCELLED. AN AGENDA WILL BE SENT PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING. Dated this 19th day of July, 2000. MINUTES FLOATING COFFEE WITH COUNCIL Saturday, July 8, 2000 9:00 a.m. Location 1 - 2nd Floor Conference Room, Village Hall Mayor Gerald "Skip" Farley convened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. Those present were: Trustees Timothy Coreoran, Michaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks. Representing staff were Assistant Village Manager David Strahl and Chief of Police Ronald Pavlock. Residents present were: Rosemary Koenig, 1813 N. Laurel Drive Robert Storr, 105 S. Edward Chris Lenz, 214 N. Louis A1 Engherg, 1801 Hopi Tim & Julie Gagne, 103 S. Edward Don Maxwell, 632 S. Edward Richard Van Dyke, 22 S. Edward Tom Grafton, Dana Point Jim Cauified, 219 N. Pine Michael Zielinski, 10 S. Wille, #304 Anne Marie Hazl, 104 S. Edward Joyce Pinz, 2003 Woodview David Schein, 700 Ivan_hoe Tom McGovem, 200 S. Pine Chris Arnold, 102 S. Edward Rosemary Koenig, 1813 N. Laurel Drive, presented a petition signed by several neighbors (see attached) requesting that the Village Board create a new ordinance covering the construction and location of dog runs. She indicated that the homeowner at 1815 N. Laurel Dr/ye placed numerous patio blocks outside their attached garage door as well as a pit in which they place animal waste. She was concerned about the odor from this pit during the months of July, August and September. During the past month she had called Community Development and was advised that their inspection did not fred any violations of any existing ordinance. She has approached her neighbor at 1815 N. Laurel and gave her two weeks to clean up the area. It was at that time that she called Community Development and made the formal complaint. Mayor Farley and the Trustees present suggested that this matter be turned over to mediation. The Village Mediator Lisa Angell will be contacted and asked to follow up on this concern. Community Development Deputy Director Mike Blue will also be asked to look further into this concern regarding side yard dog runs. Robert Storr, 105 S. Edward; Tim & Julie Gagne, 103 S. Edward; Anne Marie Hazl, 104 S. Edward; Chris Arnold, 102 S. Edward, wished to discuss sewer problems they had during a recent rainfall that resulted in damage to their basements. They were asking for some relief from the damage and looking for ways to prevent it in the future. They were referred to the Public Works Director and other Village staff for some resolution to their problems. Director Andler met with one of the residents immediately after the Coffee with Council meetings. Chris Lenz, 214 N. Louis, asked for a solution to large trucks parking in the front parking lot of Menards overnight. He was not sure whether it was covered in the various agreements approving their plans, but asked if the Village could look into it. This matter was passed on to Planning for a review of the agreements between Menards and the Village. He also expressed a concern with the construction at Emerson and Northwest Highway, but did notice that the gaps in the sidewalk had been corrected on this date. He mentioned there will be a meeting regarding a new development going in at Rand and Louis. The meeting will take place on July 17, 2000 at the Mount Prospect Library. He was advised that he should go to the meeting and listen to what they have to present, and then attend the following meetings that will be necessary for the completion of any project. Al Engberg, 1801 Hopi, gave his views on how space could be saved regarding the new Village Hall proposal. The Mayor mentioned that he was certainly welcome to attend any public meetings relative to this project and express his opinions. Mr. Engberg also asked what perimeters had been established for cleaning McDonald Creek. He mentioned he had found large amounts of debris behind his house in the creek and had cleaned this area, placing the debris on the shore. He wanted to know how the Village chose areas to be cleaned up by subcontractors, and who he should call to assist him in cleaning up the debris. Public Works Director Andler will be advised to contact Mr. Engherg. Don Maxwell, 632 S. Edwards, advised that recently he had a serious termite problem at his home and had contracted a local business who assisted him in removing the termites. He was concerned, however, because termites are subterranean and could move from his house to others in the neighborhood. He suggested that our newsletter carry an article about this problem. The Mayor and Trustees present suggested that this information be given to our Public Information Officer for a possible future publication. He also expressed his concern about continuing noise from O'Hare that has been growing louder over the past several months. The Mayor and Trustees present explained the Village's involvement and that, in fact, Mayor Farley and Trustees Wilks and Skowron serve on the O'Hare Noise Committee and that problems are monitored on a continuous basis. Trustee Skowron suggested that the resident come back to the Village Hall during the week and review a copies of the many reports that have been issued by this Committee. Trustee Wilks explained that the Village of Mount Prospect is deeply involved in this issue and would certainly appreciate any input from the residents. Joyce Pinz, 2003 Woodview, stated she stopped by the meeting to simply say thanks to the Village Board for all their efforts in preventing flooding in her area. She wanted to congratulate the Board and staff for a job well done. Mayor Farley stated we are continuing to work on flooding in all parts of the Village as this is a concern of the Village Board. 2 Tom Grafton, Dana Point & Jim Caulfield, 219 N. Pine, wanted to correct a recent newspaper article that stated the Senior Center was not necessary to the community. Mr. Graftun and Mr. Caulfied reported that 27 different organizations meet at the Senior Center and certainly there is a need for this facility in the future. They also indicated that it is necessary to have perking for the seniors and seniors do not like underground parking. Mayor Farley stated that he is planning on bringing this subject up for discussion at the July 25, 2000 Committee of the Whole meeting. Michael Zielinski, 10 S. Wille Street, #304, came to see a meeting and wanted to thank the Village for keeping a lot of the greenery in downtown. David Schein, 700 Ivanhoe, wanted to advise the residents that Mount Prospect has a large population of black squirrels, and suggested signs be put up in the St. Raymond's area warning of their existence. He will be following up on this at a later date. Tom McGovern, 200 S. Pine Street, expressed his concern that when a person has a piece of property in Mount Prospect that is actually a lot and a half and wants to do something with the property, they have to go through a process of consolidation. In his opinion, this is an imposition on the taxpayer and there is no reason for a citizen to go through this process. He worked for the assessor's office for 22 years and is retired, and found that only a couple of cities have this type of legislation. The Mayor stated that he doesn't know the actual historical reason for this legislation, but asked Mr. McGovern to write it up and forward it to the Village Manager for review. The resident stated he would do so. The meeting at Location 1 adjourned at 10:25 a.m. 3 LOCATION 2 - ROBERT FROST SOUTH, 1308 S. CYPRESS DRIVE The Floating Coffee with Council was reeonvened at 10:45 a.m. by Mayor Farley. Trustee Irvana Wilks was present. Representing staff were Assistant Village Manager David Struhl, Public Works Director Glen Andler and Chief of Police Ronald Pavlock. Village residents in attendance were: Wilhelm Follmer, 1008 W. Ash June Richards, 1412 S. Hickory Mary Collins, 1103 Ash Harry Ahem, 1419 Cypress Ray O'Brien, 1414 Cypress John & Connie Creen, 1015 Church Tim Gagne, 103 S. Edward Wilhelm Foiler, 1008 W. Ash, expressed a concern about the lack of presence of police cars in the area and that on the Fourth of July over 100 people were behind Frost South School. Mayor Farley advised the resident that if there is an incident, police squads are always available to respond immediately. The Police Chief indicated he will check the reports to see if there were, in fact, any problems reported at the school on the Fourth of July. Mike Gray, Robert Frost School Custodian, was asked by Mike Collins, 1103 Ash to describe the activities that have been occurring around the school this past week. Mr. Gray stated that they have been tagged at least six times during the past couple of weeks, and last inght someone not only sprayed graffiti on the back of the school, but also cut down the American flag. A report was taken by the Police Deparmaent on each of these incidents. Mr. Gray stated there apparently was quite a lot of activity behind the school since on the night of July 4-5 it took him and two other maintenance workers eight hours to clean up the debris. He reported this to his supervisor, but was not sure whether or not it was reported to the Police Department. He attempts to keep the weeds down in the grassy area behind the school to preclude individuals from hiding in those areas. The maintenance staff does remove all graffiti immediately and works with the police in an attempt to prevent future problems. He realizes that most of the problems occur when the custodians are not present at the school. During the summer custodians are only present Monday through Friday during daylight hours and do not work on holidays: He understands that the neighbors may not call because of the large, fifteen feet tall bushes in the back that block their view of the school property. He stated that although things have been better this past year, he is afraid they are starting to deteriorate again. The Chief of Police stated that he would pass this on to his shifts and ask his crime prevention officers to meet with school staff in an attempt to prevent any further vandalism. A special watch will also be initiated that will call for officers to walk the school grounds in the evening hours. The Public Works Director will work with school custodian staff to assist them in removing the graffiti. Public Works has the appropriate chemicals that make the removal of graffiti more efficient without damaging the property. 4 une Richards, 1412 S. Hickory, explained that she had attended the Village Hall discussions and does utilize the Senior Center. She wanted to express her opinion that the seniors do need some kind of community center. Mayor Farley indicated that the seniors were never told that they do not need a center and that the newspaper report was not factual as to the feelings of the Board and the Senior Citizens. He further stated that the Board has never made any comments as far as he knows to eliminate the Senior Center. Trustee Wilks added that there certainly is a time when all citizens will need the services ora Senior Community Center. She indicated there have been suggestions that a third level be added to the library for these programs. She emphasized that Mount Prospect is one of the few communities that have a core of over 700 seniors that are very involved in the community. Mike Collins, 1103 Ash, expressed concerns about property maintenance on the south side and pointed to a residence in the 1000 block of Cypress as an example. He also mentioned a home on Golf Road that has several cars in its fi:ont yard with "for sale" signs on them. He expressed concerns that leashes on dogs are too long and that we should have part-time people that could walk the neighborhood and look for violations. Mayor Farley explained that residents should call in violations so that staff can review them and take appropriate action. The information relative to the home on Cypress and Golf Road will be passed on to Community Development for review. He also explained that property maintenance cases are difficult to process through the court system, but that the Village has a good track record on following through on these complaints. The other neighbors present expressed concerns about traffic and mischievous incidents occurring in their neighborhoods, but felt that the Village is doing a good job in taking care of existing problems. Village staff will review Frost South School property issues and step up maintenance review as well as police patrol in the area. Mayor Farley adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a.m. Chief of Police RWP:jd Attachments etition to the Board- City of Mount Prospect, IL July 7, 2000 Ladies and Gentlemen: We request that the Board give considemlion to an Addendum to an existing oramnce or create a new ordiaance/regulation ceveriag the coustmction of a dog patio and/or dog nm. This regulation would prohibit construction of dog patio within grassy areas between homes and/or toward the front yard of any home ia Mt. Prospect. The homeowner at 1815 N. Laurel Drive placed numerous patio blocks outside their atlached garage door as well as a pit ia which they place the residue. It is unsightly as well as odorous and will become even more so with the heat of the upcoming months (July, August, and September). The homes ia our area have nice size backyards which can easily be used for their animals' waste (dog patios, dog runs, etc.) We would like to preclude this neighbor or any future neighbor from installing this type of structure between two homes as well as buildiag this structure toward the front yard of any home, especially since the backyard affords them ample space for their animals. ~._ Address o.,,,.x. 18 io