Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutVI. Meeting Notices 02/24/2009 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, February 26,2009 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson Street 1 st Floor Community Center I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of October 29, 2008 Meeting of January 22, 2009 III Update on Fire Station 14 and Companion Projects . Construction . Financing IV Other Business V Chairman's Report VI Finance Director's Report VII Next Meeting: Thursday, March 26,2009, 7:00 p.m. VIII Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate should contact the Finance Director's Office at 50 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE MEETING OCTOBER 29, 2008 1 ST FLOOR COMMUNITY CENTER I. CALL TO ORDER The Finance Commission meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Those present included Chairman Vince Grochocinski and Commissioners Pam Bazan, Tom Pekras, Ann Smilanic, John Kellerhals, Wayne Gardner and Don Ocwieja. Village staff was not present at the meeting. II. ApPROV AL OF MINUTES A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 9, 2008 was made by Commissioner Pekras and seconded by Commissioner Smilanic, and the minutes were accepted as presented. A motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of October 16, 2008 was made by Commissioner Pekras and seconded by Commissioner Smilanic, and the minutes were accepted as presented. The minutes of October 23, 2008 were deferred. III. 2009 VILLAGE BUDGET DISCUSSION The following items from the various budget meetings will be commented upon by the Chairman in his report to the Village Board: Although the Village's current financial condition is strong, the U.S. economy is tipping toward a technical recession with increasing unemployment and unprecedented financial turmoil in the stock markets. The Commission member's urge the Village Board to undertake some level of pre planning for a contingency budget in the event that shortfalls in revenue develop. As the budget reflects a small increase in sales tax and state income tax from the 2008 budget, the Commission would like to have a contingency plan in place should these figures actually decrease. As discussed, the plan should assume a 10% to 20% decrease in sales and income tax revenues or approximately $2 - $3 million. Another area of concern as a contingency is the Police and Fire Pension plans. These investments have taken a substantial hit in the markets. If the values of these plans do not rebound in the next few years, the funding required to make up for these costs could bring substantial pressure on the real estate tax levies, which in turn put pressure on the general fund levies. The following items were discussed as possible contingency planning topics: There was a discussion regarding deferring the $900,000 purchase of the Tower Truck. Given that the old engine could have a value of approximately $250,000, the Commission felt that an engine with such a high value surely indicates that its useful life could be extended by at least a year or two. The Commission would recommend that a cost benefit analysis be prepared to support the need to replace this vehicle. There was a discussion related to the purchase of several fixed in place generators for the sites of standby water wells. The cost for each of these generators is approximately $500,000. The generators would only be needed in the event the City of Chicago water supplies are interrupted and the power supplies to the pumps at the wells are also eliminated. The Commission feels that the extreme unlikelihood of these twin disasters occurring makes the spending of this money unnecessary. In addition, the storms of the summer of 2008 shut down the power to the sewage waste lifting stations, and with no way to power these pumps the raw sewage flowed into residents basements. Therefore, the Commission recommends that at a minimum the purchase of the fixed generators for the water supply be postponed and the money be spent to secure emergency power options for the sewage lift stations. Another area of contingency planning discussed is to view the general fund balance as the source of covering the temporary decreases in revenues. The fund balances of a few years ago were significantly lower in actual and percentage terms and several funds were nonexistent or had no identified revenue sources. The Village has taxed its resident's significant amounts to build these fund balances. One of the functions of these funds is to cover unanticipated changes in financial developments, and decreases in fund balances can be made whole over time. The revenue streams of the Village are relatively constant when compared to other taxing bodies and revenue sources are also rather consistent and not particularly subject to longer term disruptions. Short term decreases in fund balances to maintain Village services should not be viewed as a dire situation. The Commission expressed support for the new marketing plan as outlined in the budget and also the increase in downtown festivals. The Commission also reiterated their recommendation to review the fee structure for inspections, especially re-inspections due to violations. Lastly, the Commission discussed its support of the need for a new Fire Station 14. Also mentioned was that the administration is employing numerous good planning ideas to keep the cost of the new station at a minimum. The Commission also mentioned that their lack of support for the Emergency Operations Center has not changed, however they were pleased to hear that the hardened nature of the building will be in line with reasonable risk assessments. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT There was nothing to report. V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT There was nothing to report. VI. OTHER BUSINESS There was nothing to report. VII. NEXT MEETING: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 4,2008 (TENTATIVE) There being no further business to come before the Finance Commission, Commissioner Bazan motioned to adjourn which was seconded by Commissioner Pekras. The motion passed and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. Respectively submitted, Vincent Grochocinski Chairman, Finance Commission FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING JANUARY 22, 2009 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. Those present included Chairman Vince Grochocinski and Commissioners Pam Bazan, Don Ocwieja, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Director of Finance David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Lynn Jarog and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioners Wayne Gardner and John Kellerhals were absent. II. ApPROV AL OF MINUTES There was a discussion regarding a typographical error on page one ofthe minutes. Commissioner Tom Pekras motioned to approve the minutes of October 23,2008 as corrected. Commissioner Ann Smilanic seconded the motion and the minutes were approved as corrected. III. DISCUSSION REGARDING PROPOSED 2009 WORK PLAN Chairman Vince Grochocinski began the discussion by asking the members if they had any suggested topics to add to the work plan. Commissioner Ann Smilanic suggested a meeting to discuss the progress of Fire Station 14 and would like to have Chief Figolah give an update on the project. Director of Finance David Erb stated that the recent public meeting regarding Station 14 was well attended and there were many positive comments at the meeting. Mr. Erb added that the Village is a candidate for a $1 million grant to be used for the Emergency Operations Center. Commissioner Ann Smilanic would like to have a discussion on the Neighborhood Resource Center to update the Commission on the progress of the program. Mr. Erb stated that the Village is finalizing the intergovernmental agreement with the Library, finalizing the lease with the strip mall and the agreements with the various partners. Mr. Erb stated that the April 23, 2009 meeting will be cancelled and in its place will be the joint workshop with the Village Board on April 28, 2009. Commissioner Don Ocwieja asked about funding the pension funds and how the economy has had an impact on the various funds. Mr. Erb stated that the Police and Fire Pension Funds lost $6.7 million and $6.3 million respectively and that pension funds can be discussed at the July meeting. Commissioner Tom Pekras asked what was happening with Levee 37. Mr. Erb stated thatthe Village is about to establish the escrow to satisfy the Army Corps of Engineers. The Village has purchased land from SW ANCC and will in turn give it to Cook County in a land swap. Approximately $600,000 will be spent between the land purchase and the escrow to develop the project. After input from the various members of the Commission, the 2009 work plan was set (see attached). IV. OTHER BUSINESS There was nothing to report. V. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT There was nothing to report VI. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT There was nothing to report. VII. Next Meeting: February 26. 2009 Commissioner Ann Smilanic motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Tom Pekras seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. The next meeting will be Thursday, February 26,2009. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS FOR 2009 January 22. 2009 . Development of 2009 Work Plan February 26. 2009 . Update on Fire Station 14 . Financing Plan for Fire Station 14 and Companion Projects March 26. 2009 . Neighborhood Resource Center . Treasurer's Report Presentation April 23. 2009 (cancelled to participate in ioint workshop with VB on 4/28) . Mav 28. 2009 . Follow-Up to Joint Workshop June 25. 2009 . Review Draft CIP Julv 23. 2009 . Review Annual Audit . Mid- Year Budget Review . Discussion on Pension Plans AU2ust 27. 2009 . . September 24. 2009 . Pre-2009 Budget Discussion . VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA ITEMS FOR 2009 October 15. 2009 . Review Proposed Budget . October 22. 2009 . Review Proposed Budget . October 29. 2009 . Review Proposed Budget . November 5. 2009 . Review Proposed Budget (Commission members only) . November 26. 2009 . Cancelled - Thanksgiving Day December 3. 2009 . Review Proposed Budget (if necessary) . December 24. 2009 . Cancelled - Christmas Eve MAYOR lrvana K. Wilks VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Paul Wm. Hoefer! Arlene A. Juracek A. John Kom John J. Matuszak Steven S. Polit Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK M. Lisa Angell Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TOO: 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday February 26, 2009 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROV AL OF MINUTES OF JANUARY 22, 2009 P&Z MEETING A. PZ-27-08/1201 Burning Bush Lane 1 Zlatka Pavlovic 1 Plat of Easements B. PZ-30-08 11816 Bonita Avenue 1 Lane Residence 1 Variation (Front Yard Setback) C. PZ-28-08/1924 & 2000 E. Kensington Road 1 Village of Mount Prospect 1 Variations (Fire Station) IV. OLD BUSINESS A. PZ-30-08 1 1816 Bonita Avenue 1 Lane Residence 1 Reconsideration of condition of approval requiring petitioner to plat the property as a single lot of record. This case is Planning & Zoning Final. B. PZ-29-08 1 501 Midway Drive 1 Serkan Aykan - Niagara Educational Services 1 Conditional Use (Community Center and school). This case is Village Board Final. V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-26-08 1 2410 E. Rand Road 1 The Twins Group Properties, LLC 1 Plat of Consolidation. This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-07-09 1 916 S. Owen Street 1 Yogi Patel 1 Variation (Side Yard Setback). This case is Village Board Final. C. PZ-06-091 606 W. Northwest Highway 1 John Graham 1 Sign Variations. This case is Planning & Zoning Final. D. PZ-05-09 1 800 N. River Road 1 Kenneth Brandeis - Jakl Brandeis Architects 1 Conditional Use (Drive Through) and Variation (Parking). 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 50 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-27-08 Hearing Date: January 22, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1201 Burning Bush Lane PETITIONER: Zlatka Pavlovic PUBLICATION DATE: Not required; sign posted on-site January 7, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 03-25-402-048-0000 REQUEST: Plat of Easement Vacation and Easement Dedication, titled "Plat of Easements" MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTY: Zlatka Pavlovic Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He introduced the newest Planning and Zoning Commission member, William Beattie. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes ofthe October 23,2008 meeting; Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to continue Case PZ-29-08 to the February 26, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-27-08, a request for a Plat of Vacation and a Plat of Dedication at 1201 Burning Bush Lane, at 7:37 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the Petitioner was applying for approval of a Plat of Easements at 1201 Burning Bush Lane. The current property owner applied for a building permit in 2008 to construct a new single-family residence. Staff denied the permit because the proposed home would be encroaching onto the existing ten foot easement. Therefore, the Petitioner was seeking to vacate the easement in order to construct the home. Ms. Andrade showed the Plat of Easements where the Petitioner would vacate the existing ten foot easement and dedicate a five foot easement along the rear property line for public utilities and drainage. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended approval of the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers asked if the Plat was reviewed and approved by Engineering. Ms. Andrade stated yes and the plat will require Engineering's signature on the plat. Mr. Donnelly asked if there was an easement that ran along the side of the property. Ms. Andrade said there was an easement along the north end of the subject property. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-27-08 Page 2 Chairman Rogers swore in Zlatka Pavlovic, 1901 E. Euclid, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Pavlovic stated she was the former owner of the subject property. She said she was trying to remove the easement so the current owner could build a large home on the site and not interfere with the current easement. Ms. Pavlovic stated she visited with all the applicable utility companies that agreed and signed off on the plats. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the Petitioner was creating a new lot of record. He asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case and brought it back to the board. Keith Youngquist said the case was straightforward. The only way to build on the property would be to remove the current ten foot easement. William Beattie asked about the easement that runs north of the subject property. He wanted to make sure there was enough room between both properties. Chairman Rogers said there is a five foot easement on the subject location and a five foot easement on the property to the north. This gives a ten foot easement total that is standard for side yards. Leo Floros made a motion to approve a Plat of Easement Vacation and Easement Dedication, titled Plat of Easements, for the property at 1201 Burning Bush Lane. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, Case Number PZ-27-08. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: NONE Motion was approved 5-0. After hearing two additional cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:41 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-28-08 Hearing Date: January 22, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESSES: 1924 & 2000 E. Kensington Road PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2009 PIN NUMBERS: 03-25-409-055-0000 & 03-25-400-019-0000 REQUESTS: Variations (Front Yard, Side Yard, Height, and Lot Coverage) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Deputy Chief John Malcolm and Christina Park Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He introduced the newest Planning and Zoning Commission member, William Beattie. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 23,2008 meeting; Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to continue Case PZ-29-08 to the February 26, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. After hearing two previous cases, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-28-08, a request for Variations (Front Yard, Side Yard, Height, and Lot Coverage) at 1924- 2000 E. Kensington Road, at 8: 17 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner, stated the Petitioner for this case was the Village of Mount Prospect. The request was for numerous Variations to the front yard, side yard, height, and lot coverage. The subject property consisted of two parcels. The first is known as 2000 E. Kensington; presently owned by the Village. The parcel is zoned R-4 Multi Family Residential and is where the current Fire Station 14 is located. The lot coverage and use are nonconforming to the R4 district requirements. The second parcel is 1924 E. Kensington, presently owned by the River Trails Park District. The parcel is zoned C-R Conservation Recreation and presently consists of a public park. Ms. Andrade said the Fire Department took into consideration numerous factors when looking for a location 'for the new fire station. The residents requested to keep the station on the east side of the railroad tracks and keep a close proximity to the current fire station. Ms. Andrade stated the Fire Department had criteria for the location: appropriate zoning, large enough, affordability, and quick response times. It was determined that 1924 E. Kensington was the best location based on the criteria. Ms. Andrade said based on ownership issues with the Park District, the Village could not purchase the Park District property or a parcel of the property. Therefore, the Village was unable to consolidate the two subject parcels. Ms. Andrade stated that the Park District requested to maintain as much open area on the parcel. The proposed location of the new fire station would be on the Southeast corner of the Park District's property. Ms. Andrade said the existing ownership and parcel configuration would remain as it is. The Fire Department has Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-28-08 Page 2 signed a ground lease agreement with the Park District. The proposed parking would be shared. Ms. Andrade said that the existing fire station would be demolished upon completion of the proposed fire station. The Village has also agreed to install a new athletic field at the River Trails Middle School. Ms. Andrade showed the proposed site plan. She stated due to the east property line of the Park District parcel, the Village requested a Variance for the side yard setback from the required fifty 50 feet to 37 feet. She said the Village wanted to preserve as much open space to the north of the proposed station and the Fire Station would be in need of a front yard setback from the required 50 feet to 33 feet. Ms. Andrade showed a chart of the C-R Zoning District Bulk Requirements: C-R Conservation Recreation Proposed on Proposed District Park District Including Village Minimum Requirements Property Property SETBACKS Front 50' 33' 33' 257' west 257' west Interior 50' 37' east 150' east Rear 50' 241 ' 241 ' HEIGHT 30' Maximum 30'4" Main roof 30'4" Main roof 41 '6" Hose Tower 41 '6" Hose Tower LOT COVERAGE 25% Maximum 27% 25% Ms. Andrade said the main roof would be four inches over the required 30 foot maximum allowed and the hose tower would be 41 feet 6 inches. The lot coverage of 27% would be over the maximum 25% allowed. Ms. Andrade stated when taking in consideration of the Village parcel and if the property line between the two properties did not exist, two of the Variations requested would not be necessary. The only Variations needed would be the front yard setback and the height. Ms. Andrade showed the proposed building elevations. She said the building would be a prairie style to be consistent with the surrounding residential homes in the area. It would be constructed out of brick, stone veneer, and glass. Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner proposed to improve the area with landscaping. Primarily there would be shade trees around the perimeter of the site and a mixture of plants around the foundation of the building. There would be additional landscaping around the detention area. Ms. Andrade read the Variation standards listed in the zoning code. She stated that the proposed fire station would be a public benefit to the community and would be designed to protect the public welfare and the neighborhood character. Ms. Andrade said Staff recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission approve Variations for the Front Yard Setback, the Side Yard Setback, the Height, and the Lot Coverage. Chairman Rogers confirmed with Staff that there are theoretically two Variations due to the Village land, but all four needed to be approved for this case. Keith Youngquist asked if the existing butler building (north on the Village property) would be staying. Ms. Andrade stated that this building would stay with no additional changes besides new pavement around it. William Beattie asked what is on the Park District land where the proposed fire station will be built. Ms. Andrade said that it is an open grass area with an existing shed that would be demolished. Joseph Donnelly stated that the area is used for youth soccer practice. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-28-08 Page 3 Chairman Rogers swore in John Malcolm, Deputy Fire Chief for the Village of Mount Prospect's Fire Department. Deputy Chief Malcolm provided some background information on the project. He said the new fire station consisted of a portion of the Tamarack Trails Park that is owned by the River Trails Park District; as well as the current fire station location that has been discussed. Deputy Chief Malcolm stated the site was selected based on location and the residents on the east side did not want the station moved. He said the Tamarack Trails property was the only available site east of the railroad tracks that would be large enough to accommodate a fire station. Deputy Chief Malcolm stated the Village was unable to consolidate the parcels as mentioned which resulted in the need of the four Variations. He said the Fire Department would only use a small portion of the land; by law, the Park District could not sell the land without going to a public referendum. The Park District did not want to obtain ownership ofthe Village property because they did not want to add additional land or buildings to maintain. Deputy Chief Malcolm stated that the Park District's desire to assist the Village resulted in the lease agreement. The Park District agreed to a 99 year lease at a rate of$10 per year for the property. As previously discussed, the Village would construct an athletic field at the River Trails Middle School. He said the Park District wanted to maintain the soccer fields north of the proposed fire station. Deputy Chief Malcolm discussed the property line that runs through the center of the new site. He said without the property line, the side yard setback would be greater than 50 feet and the lot coverage would be reduced to 25%. Deputy Chief Malcolm stated the need for the height Variation. He said the highest part of the building would be needed for the hose tower. The fire hoses are fifty feet in length and need to be draped over to dry. They need to be off the ground and have an area above to hang. Deputy Chief Malcolm said that the Park District uses 50% of the butler building. The remaining 50% is utilized primarily by Public Works and the Fire Department. He stated that a landscaped green screen will be placed around this building to try and improve the look of the structure. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the intent is to keep the land that the current fire station is on as part of the project for detention. He said this would justify the side yard and lot coverage requirements. Chairman Rogers said the height limitation is normal for the Fire Department to have a tower for training and the draining of fire hoses. He stated the only issue is having the station closer to the road, but understands why the Park District wants to maintain the land to the north. Mr. Donnelly said it looked like the proposed fire station would be moved three feet back from its current location. Since the proposal is on a C-R lot, its requiring the setback to be further back. If it was zoned for the R- 4 District which the existing fire station is located on, it would meet the 30 foot setback requirement. Mr. Youngquist stated his only concern was for the extra butler building. He said it is much bigger than a shed, but he said reusing the building is good since it is serviceable. Mr. Beattie asked about the project timetable. Deputy Chief Malcolm said the next goal would be to go to the Village Board. He stated there should be a guaranteed price from the Construction Manager at that point. Based on approval, he hopes to break ground after that. Deputy Chief Malcolm believed it could be ready by the first quarter of2010. Mr. Beattie questioned if the existing fire station would be tom down after the proposed fire station is built. Deputy Chief Malcolm stated that the Fire Department would operate out of the old station until the proposed station is ready to go. Operations would not be interfered by the move. Mr. Beattie asked how long it would take to tear down the old fire station and construct the detention pond. Deputy Chief Malcolm said he did not know the actual time, he does not believe it would take too long. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case and brought it back to the board. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-28-08 Page 4 Mr. Beattie made a motion; seconded by Mr. Donnelly to approve: A. Variation approval to allow: a. A maximum building height of 41 '6". b. A reduction in the required front yard building setback from 50 feet to 33 feet. c. A reduction in the required side yard setback from 50 feet to 37 feet along the east property line. d. An increase in the lot coverage from 25% to 27%. B. Prior to the issuance of a development permit, the petitioner shall provide final civil engineering drawings for review and approval by the Village. The engineering drawings shall include all site work including utilities, storm water detention, and associated improvements. C. Development of the site in general conformance with the site and landscape plans prepared by SRBL Architects LTD., dated October 31, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on December II, 2008. D. Development of the elevations in general conformance with the building elevations prepared by SRBL Architects LTD., dated October 31, 2008 and received by the Community Development Department on December 11, 2008. E. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the petitioner shall submit revised photometric plans that satisfy the Village's code requirements for illumination. F. The Petitioner shall construct the building according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to: the installation of automatic fire sprinklers, standpipes and a fire alarm systems located and constructed according to Development and Fire Code standards. G. A building permit, in accordance with the current regulations and requirements of the Village of Mount Prospect, must be issued within one (1) year from the date of adoption of the enabling ordinance by the Village Board which authorized the development proposal. The development approvals granted herein, without need for further action by any Village board, commission or official shall become null and void if no building permit is issued within the one (1) year requirement. H. Sign permits, in accordance with the Village's sign regulations, shall be issued for each proposed sign. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, 1924 & 2000 E. Kensington Road, Case No. PZ-28-08. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floros, Youngquist, Rogers NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:41 p.m., seconded by Mr. Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-30-08 Hearing Date: January 22, 2009 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1816 Bonita Avenue PETITIONER: Rhonda Lane PUBLICATION DATE: January 7, 2009 PIN NUMBER: 08-10-205-026-0000 REQUEST: Variation (Front Yard Setback) MEMBERS PRESENT: Richard Rogers, Chair William Beattie Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Marlys Haaland Ronald Roberts ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Brian Simmons, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Consuelo Andrade, Development Review Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Rhonda Lane and Steve Virgilio Chairman Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. He introduced the newest Planning and Zoning Commission member, William Beattie. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the October 23, 2008 meeting; Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Mr. Donnelly made a motion to continue Case PZ-29-08 to the February 26, 2009 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting; Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. After hearing one previous case, Chairman Rogers introduced Case PZ-30-08, a request for a Variation (Front Yard Setback) at 1816 Bonita Avenue, at 7:45 p.m. Consuelo Andrade, Development Planner, said the Petitioner is the property owner for the subject property. The Petitioner was requesting a front yard setback Variation for a porch. Ms. Andrade stated the property is zoned R- 1 Single Family Residential. The property consists of a single family residence with a detached garage. The existing structure is non-conforming because it does not comply with the required front yard setback in the R-l district and because the house was constructed across property lines. Ms. Andrade said the property size is irregular as the front and rear property lines differ in width. The depth of the property varies as well. The front property line is not linear in nature; the front setback for the home differs. Ms. Andrade stated that the setback at the Southeast comer of the home is 29.06 feet, closer to the center it is approximately 28 feet, and at the Southwest comer of the home the setback is 29.42 feet. Ms. Andrade said in 2008, the Petitioner applied for a building permit for numerous improvements including a building addition to the rear of the home, a deck, front stoop, and front porch. Staff approved the permit, with the exception of the front porch as it did not satisfy the required 25 foot front yard setback, which is a condition of approval of a Conditional Use for a front unenclosed porch. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to construct a porch encroaching five feet into the existing legal nonconforming front setback. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 2 Ms. Andrade showed a detailed site plan of the proposed porch. The porch would be located next to a five foot by eight foot stoop that is permitted by code. The porch would measure five feet out from the house and would be eleven feet four inches wide. Ms. Andrade stated that the front yard setback at the Southeast comer of the porch would be 24.06 feet and the Southwest comer of the porch would be approximately 23 feet. Ms. Andrade showed a table comparing the R-l District's bulk requirements with the petitioner's proposal: R-l Single Family District Existing Proposed Porch Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' house 29.42' at the SW comer 23' at the SW corner 25' porch 29.06' at the SE comer 24.06' at the SE corner 10' or 10% lot width 9' (west) 40' (west) Interior (whichever is less) 18.42' (east) 18' (east) Rear 25' 106' from the deck No change LOT COVERAGE 45% Maximum 22.3% 22.7% Ms. Andrade stated the Petitioner's proposal would satisfy the bulk requirements, with the exception of the front yard setback of the porch. Ms. Andrade summarized the Variation standards. Staff did not find that the proposed setback Variation complied with the standards listed in the zoning code; therefore Staff did not see a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Andrade showed a picture of other homes and their setbacks along Bonita Avenue. Most of the homes in the area have an existing 29 or 30 foot setback. The proposed porch would significantly reduce the front setback to approximately 23 feet. Ms. Andrade said that Staff recommended denial of the motion listed in the Staff Report. Chairman Rogers stated part of the problem was that the building is already non-conforming and extends into the front yard setback. He said that the Planning and Zoning Commission has been allowing a five foot encroachment into the front yard from the original 30 foot setback. He stated that this case, the Petitioner could legally install a 3 foot unenclosed porch for a Conditional Use. The five feet encroaches into the 25 foot setback. Chairman Rogers confirmed that the Petitioner was requesting a 23 foot setback in lieu of a 25 foot setback. Ms. Andrade stated that this was correct. Mr. Donnelly said the stoop in the front has to be a five foot minimum. Ms. Andrade stated the zoning ordinance allows a five foot by eight foot maximum size. The existing stoop measures approximately less than the five feet by eight feet. The stoop is permitted to encroach in the front yard. Ms. Andrade said the stoop would be demolished with the proposed improvements on the site. Mr. Beattie confirmed that the addition of the porch makes a difference in this case. Chairman Floros asked if Staff had heard anything from the neighbors. Ms Andrade stated that she had not received any phone calls or objections from the neighbors regarding the Petitioner's request. Chairman Rogers swore in Rhonda Lane and Steve Virgilio of 1816 Bonita Lane, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Ms. Lane stated that they are building a second story, back mud room, and a porch. She wanted to add character for her home. Ms. Lane stated that they have been working with an architect who originally designed a covered stoop and a porch with no roof. She decided this was not what they wanted since she knew this would not get approved. Ms. Lane said the house sits on a concave curve and sits back; the proposed porch would not stick out. She stated Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 3 that the houses on both sides are single story homes; the owners of these properties are both in favor of the proposed porch. She wanted the porch to increase front yard activity. Mr. Virgilio said he wanted to improve the aesthetics of the home without overdoing it. He also wanted to create front yard activity. Chairman Rogers said he applauded what the Petitioners were trying to do here. He stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission was trying to maintain an open area between the houses. Chairman Rogers said the Planning and Zoning Commission has allowed unenclosed porches to create the atmosphere that the Petitioners have mentioned. He finds it difficult to go beyond the 25 foot setback. Chairman Rogers asked the Petitioners if they could live with a three foot porch in lieu of a five foot porch; this would solve the problem. Mr. Virgilio stated that they have looked at a smaller porch, but they have a front bay window where the porch would be located. He said it would be very expensive to remove and replace with a flat window. Mr. Virgilio stated that he does not find a three foot porch desirable; it would be very tight and not add the look that they are striving for. He looked at this with the architect and contractor; there was no other resolution as a redesign would mean a teardown would have to occur. He would not want to go this way due to the high costs. Chairman Rogers said the Petitioners were at a disadvantage because the builder built the house too close to the street. Mr. Donnelly asked ifthe porch area would have a roof over it. Ms. Lane said it would have a roof. Mr. Donnelly stated that the drawings did not show a roof over the porch; only a roof over the stoop. Ms. Lane stated that the porch was originally designed without a roof, but decided that a roof would look better. Mr. Donnelly stated that the reason why a porch without a roof wouldn't look right was that you end up with a front deck; not a front porch. Porches have roofs, decks don't. He stated the home is too close to the road due to the curve and because of the curve the porch wouldn't stick out too much. He said this would be a hardship for the Petitioner. There was general discussion regarding the curve of the road and the setbacks of the surrounding homes. Chairman Rogers stated that the problem was that the houses across the street are also setback 29 feet and if they allow this they set a precedent for the people across the street. With a precedent, the board wouldn't be able to say no to the people across the street that are on the convex part of the road. Out of suddenly they would be really closing up that streetscape. Mr. Beattie asked the Petitioners without a porch, this project would be a tear down. Mr. Beattie confirmed with the Petitioners that they could have a stoop without the porch and the house would not be a teardown. Mr. Youngquist asked what the roof looked like because the drawings that the Planning and Zoning Commission had were not accurate because a lattice was shown over the porch instead of a roof. There was general discussion regarding the roof Ms. Lane stated that there were a few cases where the Board approved side yard or front yard setback Variations. There was general discussion regarding precedent setting cases that involved Variations for front yard setbacks. Chariman Rogers stated that the property didn't fit that, because the property was on a street with a lot of 29' setbacks. Mr. Donnelly stated that the stoop is legal at 23 feet, where the major problem is. He said the front porch is less than a foot. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 4 Chairman Rogers confirmed that the stoop is legal and can be in the front yard. He asked if the Petitioners could I ive with a four foot porch instead of a three of five foot porch so that they would stay behind the 25 foot setback. Mr. Virgilio stated that a three foot porch gives them 1.4 feet from the bay window to the end of the porch. He said this would not be practical; a four foot porch only adds another foot. Mr. Youngquist stated there is an exemption to porches, five feet was the determining size based on what the Petitioners have discussed about being able to utilize the space. He said going shorter does not work. Mr. Youngquist stated a lot of porches in town are five feet into the setback and extend across the entire home. This situation is only about half of the house. He said there is a hardship due to the curvature ofthe front property line with the house being built closer to the road. Mr. Floros stated there was a hardship with this case. He said in the past, five feet has been the optimum size. Mr. Floros stated by asking the Petitioners to go smaller would impose a hardship on them. He does not have a problem with approving this request. Mr. Beattie had concerns not knowing what the porch would look like because the drawings showed a roof over the stoop but no roof over the porch. Mr. Virgilio said it would be a covered trellis look, angled at a 15 degree pitch. It would not extend beyond that porch and would be shingled. Chairman Rogers asked if the gable in the middle would have a flat roof or shed type roof for the remainder of the porch. Ms. Lane stated that it would not be flat; 15 degrees may be too flat as it would angle up. There was further discussion regarding the roof. Brian Simmons, Deputy Director of Community Development, discussed the design perspective. He pointed out the gable above the entrance with the peak; he said the Petitioners could have a roof that matches that pitch, but it would be against the house. It would slop down towards the front of the porch so there would be the same slope across that actually would slope away from the structure. Mr. Beattie confirmed with the Petitioners that the roof of the porch would not be as high as the gable. Chairman Rogers stated that his major concern was not to set a precedent with this case. He stated that the Petitioners' situation entailed the inside of a curve and limited street frontage for the home; something the houses on the opposite side of the street do not have. They have the widest section of the property on the street, while the Petitioner had the smallest portion of the property on the street. This would not set a precedent for other homes on Bonita to allow them to extend out beyond the 25 foot setback. Mr. Youngquist wanted the record to reflect that the porch is only half the width of the house; it is not an entire structure along the whole front of the house. Chairman Rogers said a good portion of the porch is four feet; the Petitioners would only be extending a foot over the limit rather than two feet. Richard Rogers, Chair Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting January 22, 2009 PZ-30-08 Page 5 Mr. Virgilio stated the stoop would be 5 feet by 8 feet regardless. The encroachment there is two feet into the setback. He said as it tailors off to the Southeast comer of the house it becomes a half of a foot difference at that very comer. Chairman Rogers stated the porch would be encroaching one foot in the comer and two feet in the center. Mr. Donnelly said the two feet is the stoop and not the porch. Chairman Rogers asked if there was anyone in the audience to address this case. Hearing none, he closed the public portion of the case and brought it back to the board. Mr. Floros made a motion; seconded by Mr. Youngquist to approve a Variation to allow a 23 to 24.06 foot front yard setback for an unenclosed porch, as shown on the Petitioner's site plan for the residence at 1816 Bonita Avenue, Case No. PZ-30-08, subject to the following condition: 1. The Subject Property shall be platted as one lot. A final plat is required to be submitted for review and approval. Chairman Rogers wanted to include in the motion that this case involved an interior concave curve, so the Planning and Zoning Commission was not setting a precedent for future porches. Mr. Donnelly said that the unenclosed porch could never be enclosed. Ms. Andrade discussed the condition placed in the motion. Staff recommended that the property be platted as a lot of record since the house was constructed along property lines of Lot 9 and Lot 10. There was general discussion regarding the creation of a lot of record. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Beattie, Donnelly, Floras, Youngquist, Rogers NA YS: NONE Motion was approved 5-0. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision was final for this case because the amount of the Variation does not exceed 25% of the Zoning Ordinance requirement. After hearing one additional case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn at 8:41 p.m., seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Ryan Kast, Community Development Administrative Assistant MINUTES VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COFFEE WITH COUNCIL SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 14,2009 9:00 A.M. Village Hall Community Center The meeting convened at 9:00 a.m. Those present were Mayor Irvana Wilks, Trustees Arlene Juracek, John Matuszak and Steven Polit. Representing the Village were Village Manager Michael Janonis and Human Services Director Nancy Morgan. Residents in Attendance Jim Corman Jim Chylik Ken Koeppen Rodger Kruse Carol Tortorello Maria Matuszak Thomas Tezky Don Burger Lee Williams David Schein Indigo Drive Locust Lane Linneman Road South Louis Street South Elmhurst Avenue South Golfview Place North School Street Bob-Q-Link Road Verde Court NaWaTa Avenue Jim Corman requested that the stop sign at Indigo Dr. at Corktree Ln. remain because the street is long and straight and the stop sign was installed to calm traffic. Zone 2 recommendations are to remove the sign. There was a general discussion and Village Manager Janonis stated that the Village does not use stop signs to control speed. Jim Chylik had three issues. 1) There is a sight obstruction due to the Pace bus shelter at the corner of Palm Dr. and Golf Rd. He brought pictures. He requested to have the shelter moved to the other side of tree. There was a general discussion with the conclusion that the Village would check into this matter. 2) He had asked the Finance Dept. why his water bill was an estimated meter read, and was told that his meter read had not been received. After a general discussion it was suggested that he could report the meter read on line through the Village's web site. 3) He raised a concern that non- shoveled sidewalks, especially along Golf Rd. and Busse Rd., are especially dangerous and requested the Village pass an ordinance requiring residents to shovel public sidewalks, at least on busy streets. After a general discussion involving enforcement issues and the burden to the elderly and disabled, Village Manager Janonis agreed to review this issue for commercial streets but not for residential streets. Ken Koeppen had three issues. 1) He asked if the Village was vying for a Casino. After a discussion involving the Village's reasons for not to pursuing the Casino, Mr. Koeppen was satisfied. 2) He complimented the Police Department for stopping many violators on the Linneman Rd. at Huntington Commons Rd. stop sign. 3) He asked about the vehicle sticker program and after a discussion, the Mayor said that the Village will keep the program. Roger Kruse asked where used CFL bulbs can be disposed. All three Trustees and Village Manager Janonis stated that Home Depot and Public Works accept used CFL bulbs. He gave his thanks to the Police Department for ticketing drivers without licenses or car insurance. Carol Tortorello asked if the Village will receive stimulus money for projects like the new Fire Station. Mayor Wilks responded that the Village will request stimulus money if it is logical. Trustee Juracek stated that the Village has projects on the list. Maria Matuszak asked how the new fire truck is different from the old one. Mayor Wilks stated that the old one had seen a lot of action. Fire Fighter Don Burger offered to give Maria a tour of the fire station and trucks. Thomas Teski observed that the driveway of the new home at Central Rd. and Albert St. is in a bad location. Village Manager stated that there is a driveway on Albert St. and that the driveway on Central will need to be removed before occupancy. Don Burger had nothing to discuss. Lee Williams notified the Council that he moved back in Village two and one half years ago. Arlene Juracek, speaking for Ms. Carol Rojo, raised a concern about confusing street names. Ms. Rojo's street was once called Meyer, but now it is Edgewood Ln. The post office claims Edgewood is Ave. not Ln., however the street sign reads Ln. The Village Manager said that it will be checked out. David Schein said that the gateway sign at Northwest Highway along the tracks west of Mount Prospect Rd. is leaning. He complimented Public Works for being on top of a road repair at 83 and Sha-bonee Tr. He was told that the CERT volunteers will maintain the green emergency boxes. Steve Polit reported that he clarified a neighbor's misconception about FEMA, saying that FEMA reimburses the Village for its first responder's activity. As there was no more business to address, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 a.m. ;ry;:bmitted ~ Nanc~or / Human S 'ces Director H:NLOUcoffeewithcouncil 2.09