Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/01/2000 PC minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUN~ PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION [VIareh 1, 2000 CALL TO ORDER: The regular meeting of the Mount Prospect Plan Commission was called to order by Chairman Micbant Zadel at 7:32 p.m. at the Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. ROLL CALL: Present upon Roll Call: Michael Zadel, Chairman Antoinette Astreides Gat3' GrouwinkeI (7:45 p.m.) Edwin Janus William Reddy Carol Tortorello Absent: Frank Boege Louis Velasco Village Staff Present: Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Developmem Judy Coanolly, AICP, Planner Misty Das, Planner Others in Attendance: Robert Bush Ed Dowling Craig Farnsworth Tom George Mike Hildebram Mark Lattner Don McLean Janiee Stone Gem/Stone Ben Trapani Nancy Uxa APPROVAL OF ~S: Chairman Zadel opened the meeting and asked for comments on minutes from November 17, 1999 ang December }, 1999. As there were none, Bill Reddy moved to approve the minutes from November 17' and Carot Tortorello seconded the motion. The motioned carried 4-0 with Michael Zadel abstaining. Tonic Asterieds moved to approve the minutes from December 1, 1999 and Ed Janus seconded the motiom The motioned carried 4-0 with Bill Reddy abstaining. SUBDMSIONS: NONE OLD BUSINESS: NONE MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of March 1, 2000 Meeting Page 2 NEW BUSINESS: Development Code Exceptions,- St. Ra~mond's ParisId301 S. I-Oka Chairman Zadel introduced the first item of business and asked Judy Connolly m present an overview of the case, PC-01-2000, Ms. Connolly said that St. Raymond's Parish is in the process of expanding its facility and is subject to, current code requirements, She said the petitioner is in the initial stages of applying for a building permit and is seeking relief from Development Code requirements for storm water detention and streetlight installation, Ms. Connolly reviewed the storm water detention exception first. She said that the Development Code recognizes St. Raymond's proposed addition as a new development and requires detention for the whole site. The petitioner proposes to provide storm water detention for the new structures only. The petitioner would like to modify the parking lot along Elmhurst Road/Route 83 so the parking lot will store water on-site and not increase the amount of discharge into the combined sewers, She said that the project also presents the Village with an opportunity to incorporate corridor improvements along Elmhurst Road/Rt. 83'. The improvements could be a combination of landscaping and new fencing to screen the parking lot and enhance the Rt. 83 corridor. She said a landscape easement along the east side of the parking lot was not required: for approval of the storm water detention exception request but that the request would be in keeping with the proposed Corridor Guidelines. She said that providing detention for the new impervious surface only would be consistent with previous projects that included expansion of an existing facility. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the petitioner's request for an exception to the Development Code's storm water detention requirements. Ms. Connolly discussed the second part of the case, the petitioner's request m not install streetlights, as is required by the Development Code. She said that the petitioner feels that there is sufficient lighting 'at the site now and does not want to install new lights. Ms. ConnolIy said that although the existing lighting is consistent with the amount of lighting in the neighborhood, the source does not meet Development Code standards. She said that the existing streetlights are on ComEd poles and on the petitioner's property. According to the Developmem Code, the existing CornEd lights would be replaced with aluminum standard poles and would be placed at the intersections and mid-block where necessary. Ms. Connolly said that the current lighting sources were on private property or owned by CornEd and that the Village could not guarantee that the light source would always be available. She said that the petitioner's request does not meet the standards for a hardship and that granting the exception would be inconsistent with previous Village policy when other petitioner's sought relief from this requirement. Therefore, staff reeommands denial of the petitioner's request for an exception to Development Code requirements for streetlights. At a minimum, the petitioner could record a covenant agreeing to pay for the installation and fixtures if the Village determines that streetlights are necessary. Ms. Connolly said that representatives from St. Raymond% were in the audience to answer Plan Commissioffs questions and that Chuck Lindelof of the Village Engineering Division was also in attendance if the Plan Commission had questions about the storm water detention design. The Plan Commission asked for clarification on the storm water detention design. Mr. Lindelof reviewed the Development Code regulations relevant to the project. He said that increasing the amount of discharge to the Elmhurst Avenue sewer, decreasing the rate of discharge to the sewer from the parking lot, and storing water in the parking lot, would not impact the overall sewer system. Mr. Lindelof said that no more than eight inches of water would be stored in the "pooling-area" of the parking lot and that the proposed design meets code. He said that the parking lofs current elevation changes appear minimal beeanse the changes are spread over the MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of March 1, 2000 Meeting Page 3 length of the parking lot and that the existing topography is conducive to the petitioner's proposal. PIan Commission asked about the additional mn-off that would result from increased impervious surfaco at the church site- ~ relation to a reduction of groan space. Mr. Lindtlof said that there would be; sufficient storage in the parking lot to off, set the additional mn-offcreated' by the now impervious surfaces. Plan Commission asked about the impacts on the adjacent neighbors and said they were concerned that the existing capacity of the I-Oka sewer, the sewer in closest proximi~ to the addition,, may not adequately handle tho additional run-off. They said they were concerned that the neighbors would get water on their property if the sewer backed up. Mr. Lindelof said that past experience has shown that IDOT's sewer (in Route 83). which the I-Oka sewer empties into, has occasion, to back-up. However, the petitioner's dasign would not aggravate tho situation. The Plan Commission said they were not comfortable making a decision on the storm water detention exception without knowing the I-Oka Avenue sewer capacity and impacts on the neighboring properties from the additional mn-off in the chumh area. As the petitioner's engineering representative did, not have this information, there was discussion about researching the Plan Commission's question and continuing the case to the next meeting. Ben Trapani explained the petitioner's tight timetable and asked that, since the design was reviewed and approved by the Village's Engineering Division, that the Plan Commission make a decision tonight. The Plan Commission said that they needed more information about the sewer capacity to make a decision about the Development Code exception request and Bill Reddy moved to end the discussion at this time and to continue further discussion of PC-01-2000 at the March 15, 2000 Plan Commission meeting. Tonic Asteriedas seconded the motion and the motion carried 6- 0. Mike Blue asked the Plan Commission if there were other questions or issues for the petitioner to research for the next meeting. Chairman Zadel polled the Plan Commission. The capacity issue was the only issue that had to be researched for the next meeting, and the Plan Commission would be supportive of the petitioner recording a covenant to pay for the streetlights at a later date if the Village determined that the lights were necessary. Corridor Design Guidelines- preliminary designs Chairman Zadel introduced the next item of business and asked Judy Connolly to summarize the stares of the pro.[ecL Ms~ Connolly said that tho Plan Commission toured tho corridors with the consulting group, Wolff Clemenls & Associates and Graf/X in early December. Based on that tour and their own research, the consultants presented~ preliminary findings and corridor conditions at the January 25th Committee of tho Whole meeting. Mike Blue said the purpose of tonight's presentation was to give the consultants feedback on their preliminary conceptual designs,. He said the consultants would revise the concepts according to tonight's discussion. Mr. Blue said that tho Plan COmmission was invited to the March 28~ Committee of the Whole meeting and that the consultants would present concept designs for Village Board and Plan Commission review. Frank Clements introduced his' associates, Craig Farnsworth and Don McLean, of Graf/X Corporation. Mr. McLean presented preliminary sign and banner concepts. He explained the thought process behind the designs and said that colors in the sign could be modified. He said that the revised sign would have a greater emphasis on "Mount" to distinguish Mount Prospect from neighboring communities. The Plan Commission said that they agreed with the direction of the concepts. There was discussion that the '~pictare" banners would be unique and help differentiate the village from other communities while promoting local activities and reflect the seasons or other events. MOUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minmes ofMarcl~ L 2000; Meet[n§ Page 4 Mr. Farnsworth presented information, about the focus areas,. He said that tho site, in relation to entry/exit to the Village and the amount of space available d'etermines the [eve[ of improvement. In some areas there was more spaco available and,' allowed for a more elaborate sign or gateway feature. Mr. Famsworth presented~ several locations for new signs and exphined how existing sign locations could be modified;. His presentation included examples of possible low-lying wall designs, landscaped areaS, and' improvements in the median. The main idea was that the signs, enhancement features, and landscape would be different throughout the Village, depending upon the amount of land available, the topography of the area and the relationship to entry into the Village. The improvements would be constructed of similar materials or incorporate elements of tho sign presented by Mr. McLean. Therefore, the Village had flexibility in making corridor improvements as budget constraints, redevelopment, or new businesses opportunities were presented, while still implementing unified; eorrid;or improvements. The Plan C~)mmission agreed' with the COnsultants' designs, with minor changes and; id'cas for improvement to partieular sites. Sub-recipient Monitoring Plan (CDBG~ Chairman Zadel asked; Misty Das, Plaunev, to begin the discussion of the CDBG subrecipient Monitoring Plan. Ms. Das explained that the new monitoring plan entailed four different procedures. The first was a monthly stares report from each public service sub-recipient, that detailed program expenditures, number of participants and accomplishments for that month. Ms. Das stated that all subreeipients had submitted their status reports for January 2000. The second monitoring procedure would be a semi-annual site visit from staff. Ms. Das said that the first of the semi-annual staff site visits was scheduled for June, 2000. At that time, staff would compile a formal report for the Plan Commission, detailing findings from the visit as well as a form summarizing the subreeipients monthly status reports from the previous six months. The third monitoring visit was a site visit from the Plan Commission CDBG sub-committee, made up of Tonie Asterides, Carol Tortorello, Bill Reddy and Gary Grouwinkek Ms. Das asked that, after each site visit, ~sub-committeee members report the visit to staff in order to keep a log of the visits. Tonic Asterides verified' she would monitor Camp Fire, Club RecPley~ and Boy Scouts and Carol Tortorell0 verified she would monitor Clayground and the Mentor Program. Ed Janus asked to be relieved of monitoring Access to Care and Bill Reddy volunteered to take his place. Gary Grouwinkel volunteered to monitor Resources for Communit~ Living and the Resource Center for the Elderly. Ms. Das explained to Plan Commission members that the fourth monitoring procedure was a questionnaire for the recipients of public service funding. This questionnaire would be completed anonymously during staWs site visit. Bill Reddy and Carol Tortorello asked that all applications and monthly status reports from each public service program also be sent to the appropriate CDBG sub-committee member. COMMENTS AND OTI-EER BUSINESS: Michael Blue explained that HUD has just recently visited the Village for a monitoring visit due to the fact that the Village had not been monitored by HUD in ten years. The monitoring visit was successful and HUD representatives reported no negative findings, only suggestions about record keeping and file management. Mr. Blue stated that HUD representatives had inquired about attending a Plan Commission meeting in order to give CDBG allocation suggestions. Chairman Zadel stated that Plan Commission would be interested in inviting HUD representatives OUNT PROSPECT PLAN COMMISSION Minutes of March 1, 2000 Meeting Page 5 to. ~ future Plan Commission meeting and the matter would need to be discussed at a future meeting. Mr. Blue also distributedi information and registration materials for Plan Commission training being conducted by the local professional planners association. Ed Janus moved to adjourn the meeting and Bill Reddy seconded the motion. The motion carried 6-0 and the meeting was adjourned at 9,:57 p.m. Michael Blue, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Ju~th M. ~2~nr~l[~, ~,ICP, Planner ~ Misty fi~, Pla~eU ~