Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7. MEETING NOTICES 4/20/04 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, April 22, 2004 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 100 South Emerson Street 2nd Floor Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of March 25, 2004 III Old Business A. Completion of discussion on Revenue Alternatives IV Chairman's Report V Finance Director's Report VI New Business A. Discussion on TIF Extension Issues/Development VII Next Meeting: Thursday, May 27,2004,7:00 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 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, (847) 392-6000, ext. 5277, TDD (847) 392-6064. FINANCE COMMISSION DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING MARCH 25, 2004 VILLAGE HALL BUILDING DRAFT 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Those present included Chairman John Korn and Commissioners Charles Bennett, Vince Grochocinski, Ann Hull and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Finance Director David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioner Brian McPartlin arrived at 7: 10 and Commissioner Tom Pekras was absent. II. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Before the approval of the minutes it was noted that the March 25,2004 agenda incorrectly stated the approval of minutes was for the January 22, 2004 meeting instead of the February 26, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to approve the minutes of February 26,2004. Commissioner Ann Hull seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted with the correction of two typographical errors. III. DISCUSSION ON REVENUE OPTIONS AND LONG RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN II Long Range Financial Plan II Finance Director David Erb distributed copies of the Long Range Financial Plan II to the commission members. Mr. Erb then provided an overview of the plan and outlined several items of special focus. One item discussed was the Capital Improvements Plan, which has had no transfer from the general fund since 2002. A total of $1. 6 million in projects have been deferred since 2002. Mr. Erb stated the fund would have a deficit balance by 2005. Another item discussed was the Street Improvement Construction Fund that is currently being funded by the food and beverage tax and utility taxes. However, the first quarter cent of home rule sales tax will be available to fund projects in 2005. Also discussed was the Risk Management Fund, which has a $400,000 shortfall in 2004. The shortfall is due to the volume of liability/workman's comp claims as well as increases in health, liability and other insurance premiums. Mr. Erb mentioned that .the yillage is self insured up to $250,000, has excess insurance for $251,000 to $2,000,000 and anything over $2,000,000 is covered through the High Excess Liability Pool. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked where the money comes from to pay the self-insurance amount up to $250,000. Finance Director David Erb stated that the amount is funded and a reserve is set up within the financials. There was a discussion on the 2005 General Fund. Currently the projected deficit for 2005 is $1.0 million and the deficit is projected to grow to $4.63 million by 2009. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked if the village was being conservative in projecting state revenue assumptions. Mr. Erb stated that we are taking a very conservative approach to the state revenues. Mr. Erb stated that at the mid year budget review the village should have a more definite picture of the upcoming budget. Commissioner Ann Smilanic also asked what the significance of a 25% reserve on fund balance is. Mr. Erb stated that 25% allows for significant cash flow through the two installments of tax bills. Furthermore, GFOA recommends 25 % or 3 - 6 months of operative revenues, which is the norm. Revenue Alternatives Finance Director David Erb outlined several alternate revenue options such as direct billing of refuse, changes/increases in ambulance billing, adjusting the property tax levy for pensions and refuse, increases in local taxes and increases in business license fees. Chairman John Korn asked what the limitations were for increasing the home rule sales tax since it was just increased for the year beginning 2004. Mr. Erb stated that there are no limitations except that the tax must be raised in 1,4 % increments. Commissioner Ann Hull asked if it is necessary to look for revenue alternatives for the 2005 Budget that would start generating money sooner than needed or should the village wait to implement the increases. Mr. Erb stated that it would be fine to start now and plan for future potential deficits. Commissioner Ann Hull stated she was interested in a discussion on where the commission members stand on the refuse/property tax direct billing issue. Commissioner Brian McPartlin and Charles Bennett agree that a graduated refuse program starting now through 2009 would be more palatable. With the direct bill program evolving through 2009 as a cost share program the village could build a percentage for the first year another for the second, etc. This would allow the cost share to increase slowly. Finance Director David Erb stated that currently $167,000 is generated from business licensing and that there has not been a rate since 1986. Mr. Erb mentioned that we could discuss changing the fee structure if business license fees are to be increased. Commissioner Ann Hull stated that if the village is looking at increasing revenues maybe they should also make sure there aren't expenditures that should be looked at. She gave the example of funding for Capital Improvements. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked if some properties are taken off the TIF what happens to the money that was previously going to the TIF. Mr. Erb stated that the money would be divided among all the taxing districts once the properties were no longer in the TIF. In conclusion the members came up with a list of priorities they would like to see accomplished: 1. 2. 3. Balance the Budget Fund the Capital Improvements Plan Increase Fund Balance to the 25 % level. Commissioner Brian McPartlin stated that he thought all salaries and positions were frozen until further notice. Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer stated that salaries were not frozen; however, certain positions have remained open and unfilled. IV. CHAIRMAN'S REpORT There was nothing to report V. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REpORT There was nothing to report. V1. NEW BUSINESS There was nothing to report. VII. Next Meeting: April 22. 2004 Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Brian McPartlin seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 p.m. The next meeting is scheduled for April 22, 2004. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 2 MAYOR Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: Fax: TDD: 847/818-5328 847/818-5329 847/392-6064 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: MEETING DATE & TIME: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center Thursday 1000 W. Central Road April 22, 2004 Mount Prospect, IL 60056 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 25, 2004 MEETING A. PZ-05-04 1 501-507 Camp McDonald Road 1 Discovery Homes - townhomes. B. PZ-09-04/50 S. Emerson Street 1 VOMP 1 Sign Variation. C. PZ-1l-04/1802 Buckthorn Drive 1 Variation - rear yard setback. IV. OLD BUSINESS None V. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-08-04 1 747 Meier Road 1 Semar's Meier Meadows Resubdivision (creates a two-lot subdivision). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. B. PZ-12-04 11500 S. Busse Road 1 Lake Park Village 1 Variation (Parking) and Condominium Conversion. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. (Continued to May 27, 2004) C. PZ-13-04/999 N. Elmhurst Road 1 Randhurst Shopping Center 1 Amend PUD - signage and lighting. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. D. PZ-14-04/2 E. Rand Road 1 Phillips 66 Gas Station 1 Variations (bulk regulations). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. E. PZ-15-04/208 N. Maple St.1 Conditional Use (porch). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. F. PZ-17-04/500 S. Pine Street 1 Ritchie Residence 1 Variation (porch in exterior yard). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. G. PZ-19-04/620 Albion Lane 1 Miceli Residence 1 Conditional Use (porch). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS . PZ-41-031 Text Amendments -Village Board 2nd reading April 20th . PZ-05-041 Discovery Homes - Village Board 2nd reading April 20th 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, II., 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext 5328, TDD #847- 392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONtNG COMI\flSSION CASE NO. PZ-05-04 Hearing Date: March 25, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 501-507 Camp McDonald Road PETITIONER: Walter Wyszynski, Discovery Homes, Inc. (Contract Purchaser) PUBLICATION DATE: March 10,2004 PIN #: 03-28-201-025/015/021 REQUEST: Rezone to R3 Low-Density Residence; Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and Variation for Rear Yard (Parking) Setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Leo Floros Richard Roger Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Lorraine & Rich Hagen Norma Jarmer Ed Madden Larry & Pat Rubens Bruce Smith Dolores Tomaszewski Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0, with one abstention by Matt Sledz. At 7:32, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-O5-04, a request to rezone to R3 Low-Density Residence; a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and a Variation for a rear yard (parking) setback. She noted that the requests would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. The Petitioner is seeking: to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single-Family Residence to R3 Low-Density Residence; approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development; and Variation for rear yard, parking, setback. The Subject Property is located on the south side of Camp McDonald Road, between Rand and Schoenbeck Roads, and is directly west of the existing Old Orchard Country Club townhome development. The site currently contains a landscaping business and a day care center with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, the B3 Community Shopping District to the south, the Rl Single-Family Residence/PUD District to the east, and a multi-family residential development located within Prospect Heights to the north. The Subject Property was originally located within unincorporated Cook County and developed under County regulations. The Subject Property was annexed into Mount Prospect in 1999 as part of a larger annexation. As part of the larger annexation, all of the properties involved were zoned RX Single-Family Residence, as required Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-O5-04 Page 2 by State statute, although existing commercial businesses were in operation at the time of annexation. The Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of all of th.eex:i~ting structures on the Subject Property and the redevelopment of the site as a 22-unit townhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single-Family Residence and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R3 Low-Density Residence. The R3 district allows a maximum density of 13.5 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.8 units per acre, which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R3 District. In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. This request is due to the Village's Code requirement that two or more multi- family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved planned unit development. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development and requires formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. The site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 22-unit town home development. The development would consist of three 4-unit buildings and five 2-unit buildings located along a two-way private street that loops through the entire site. Each unit would have a separate entrance, two-car garage and two-car driveway, and a patio. The pavement width of the private street is 24-feet, which is consistent with the Village standards, and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The proposed development also includes a 5-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street and 11 guest parking spaces. The elevations indicate that the townhomes will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the private street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will.consist of wood siding, brick, and limestone. Also, balconies will be included on the front elevation of some of the units. The proposed site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Camp McDonald Road and have two entry points. The western driveway allows full vehicle access to/from the development and the eastern driveway limitS access to a right in/out only to minimizing potential conflicts with nearby Dale Avenue. The Cook County Highway Department has jurisdiction over Camp McDonald Road and will have to approve the proposed entrance/exit configuration. The site plan indicates that a portion of the Subject Property will be dedicated as part of the Camp McDonald Road right-of-way, as is required by the Village's Development Code. In addition, the required right-of-way improvements such as widening the existing street, installing sidewalk, etc. will be completed. The Petitioner's proposal indicates that all 22 units will contain three bedrooms. The Village Code requires 2 12 parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more. The Petitioner's proposal contains a total of 99 parking spaces (consisting of t\VO garage and two driveway parking spaces per unit, plus an additional 11 guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development). The proposed plan includes some guest parking spaces along the western edge of the development that do not meet the required 25- foot setback requirement. The Petitioner has requested a variation to allow for the proposed IS-foot setback. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The plan, however, does not include the required parkway trees planted every 40-feet in locations determined by the Village Forester along the Camp McDonald frontage. Typically, this requirement is met at the time of applying for permits. The landscape plan indicates that the proposed townhome development will be partially screened from Camp McDonald Road with evergreen trees. Also, the existing landscaping along the eastern edge of the Subject Property will be maintained to help buffer the new development from the neighboring Old Orchard Country Club townhome development. However, a privacy fence may be needed along the west lot line to screen the townhomes from the existing day care facility and nearby commercial uses. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-05-04 Page 3 The vast majority of the proposed development meets the R3 District's bulk regulations. Due to the Subject Property's unique shape, two of the proposed guest parking spaces encroach into the required rear yard setback. However, the townhomes, patios, and other guest parking spaces meet the required setbacks. It should also be noted that the proposed development complies with the Village Code's requirement that a minimum spacing of thirty feet between multi-family buildings be provided. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Subject Property is located out of a floodplain and the topography is relatively level. The proposed IS-foot rear yard does not meet the minimum setback regulations. The Petitioner has the option of eliminating two guest parking spaces to then comply with the Village's Regulations. However, the location of the two parking spaces and the amount of the encroachment would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Also, the proposed landscaping minimizes the view for the commercial properties located to the south and west of the Subject Property. The standards for Map Amendments are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the request is evaluated based on: Compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; the compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; the suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The Subject Property is adjacent to an existing multi-family residential development, abuts a commercial business located in an RX Single Family zoning district, and another commercial business located in the B3 district and has frontage onto a major arterial road. The proposed 22-unit town home development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with other developments recently approved in Mount Prospect. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Camp McDonald Road. The Subject Property would not be conducive to commercial development due to its limited size and surrounding uses. The proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Variation to permit a IS-foot rear yard to accommodate a Guest Parking Space as indicated on the site plan meets the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve the Variation request to permit a 15-foot rear yard as shown on the site plan and approve the request for a rezoning from RX to R3 and planned unit development for the Subject Property subject to the following: I) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Camp McDonald Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; 2) The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by OCGG Architects, L TD dated March 25, 2004 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. A privacy fence along the west lot line or significantly increased year-round landscaping. 3) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene J uracek, Chairperson PZ-OS-04 Page 4 4) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencles, including, but not limited to, IDOT, MWRD, CCHD. This concludes the Staff report; please note that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 501-507 Camp McDonald Road, Case No. PZ-05-04. Mr. Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if a fence should be required along the west and east lot lines as well as the south lot line. Ms. Connolly said the south lot line has an existing fence that was installed by Metro Federal Credit Union and that representatives from the adjacent Old Orchard townhomes were present at the meeting and indicated a desire for a fence to be located along the east lot line. Leo Floros asked if the multi-family development to the north is in Prospect Heights and Ms. Connolly said it is. Ms. Juracek asked if the Board had previously approved parking setback variations where there were no visible encroachments to those setbacks. Ms. Connolly said yes. Ms. Juracek asked the petitioner to come forward to present his proposal and address any concerns that may have been expressed by the Commission and public. She said she would swear in all speakers at one time. Walter Wyszynski and his architect were sworn in. Mr. Wyszynski said he spoke to members of the board of the adjoining condominium development and would be putting up fences where desired by those neighbors. The architect spoke at the easel and said they had started the proposed project with 28 town homes and reduced that number to 22 after consulting with Village Staff. He spoke about privacy fences and a proposed easement. They discussed landscaping with the Board and apologized for the absence of the Landscape Architect. They also explained the existence of a cross connection easement that is anticipated to be eliminated after a certain stage of construction of the townhomes; however, if it is not able to be eliminated it will have an adverse effect on a portion of the landscaping. The architect stated that 22 townhomes on a 2.S-acre site was a luxurious development compared to other projects they have done. He showed the elevations of the various townhome configurations and pictures of the materials used. He said the use ûfwood trim was just an aesthetic choice. Jason Dolan, Dolan Engineering, addressed drainage at the project site. He said it would be necessary for water to drain off the completed site at a slower rate than it does at the present time. He explained the detention and sanitary sewer system for the project. Mr. Floras asked what the price of the townhomes would be and Mr. Wyszynski said they would start at $350,000. Dolores Tomaszewski, President of the Old Orchard Homeowners Association, was sworn in. She complimented the petitioners on their planned development. She said a chain link fence would not be acceptable, that a cedar fence of the same size and type put in by Metro Credit Union would need to be continued. Also, with regard to drainage, she asked if there would be a berm or swale. She asked if there would be a connection to the Old Orchard storm sewer system. Mr. Wyszynski said they would put in a cedar fence. Mr. Dolan said the drainage water \vou[d be carried a\vay by a swale on the developer's property. Mr. Dolan described two methods of storm sewers they have planned for the project that do not include connecting to the Old Orchard sewer system. Michael Jacobs suggested that a specific condition be included in the Commission's recommendation regarding the extension of the existing fence on the Metro Federal Credit Union property. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 8: 1 0 Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-05-04 Page 5 Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the request for a Map Amendment to rezone the property at 501 to 507 Camp McDonald Road from RX to R3 Low-Density Residence. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floras, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NA YS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Richard Rogers made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve the request for a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development with all conditions imposed by Staff as well as: 1) A fence matching the size and style of the fence provided by Metro Credit Union be installed along the eastern property line (the fence could be eliminated if worked out with Old Orchard Homeowners Association); 2) Additional landscaping be provided along the development's east and south sides (to be worked out with Staff); and 3) a Variation for a Rear Yard (Parking) Setback. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NA YS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:50 p.m., Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. obs, AICP ector of Community Development H'PLANIPlanning & Zoning COMM'P&Z 2004'.'linutes\PZ-05-04 501-507 Camp McDonald Rd.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMI\flSSION CASE NO. PZ-09-04 Hearing Date: March 25,2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 50 S. Emerson PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: March 10,2004 PIN#: 08-12-103-031 REQUEST: Variation for location of freestanding sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Leo Floras Richard Roger Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0, with one abstention by Matt Sledz. At 8:15, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-05-04, a request for a Variation for location of freestanding sign. She noted that the request would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. The Petitioner has requested a Variation for a freestanding sign to be located in a non-perpendicular manner near the northeast c,orner of Main Street and Busse Avenue. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the March 10, 2004 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has posted Public Hearing signs on the Subject Property. The Subject Property is zoned B5C Central Commercial Core. It is located on the north side of Busse Avenue, east of Main Street/Elmhurst Road. The Subject Property is bordered to the north, west and south by the B5C district and to the east by the B5 Central Commercial and R-l Single Family Residence districts. The Petitioner is proposing to construct a two-sided freestanding sign near the northeast intersection of Main Street & Busse A venue. The sign is one of the featured elements in the pedestrian plaza, which is located at the southwest comer of the new Village Hall site. In addition to the proposed sign, the plaza will include various streetscape and landscape improvements designed to highlight the new Village H all and parking deck. The proposed freestanding sign is in keeping with the Village's Corridor Design Guidelines, and will be similar in design to the Village's new gateway signs located at the intersections of Rand & Central Roads and Northwest Highway & Main Street. The Petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's Sign Code regulations that requires freestanding signs to be oriented perpendicular to the primary street right-of-way. For visibility and design purposes, the proposed Village Hall sign is a "V" shape. The Petitioner stated in their application that the shape of the sign and its Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-O9-04 Page 2 proposed location are necessary due to traffic volumes on Main Street, visibility constraints, and the need to provide sufficient identification for those visiting the new Village Hall. Required findings for sign variations are listed in the Sign Code. In order to approve the variation, the P&Z must find that: the sign allowed under code regulations will not reasonably identify the business; the hardship is created by unique circumstances and not serve as convenience to the petitioner, and is not created by the person presently having an interest in the sign or property; the variation will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood; the variation will not impair visibility to the adjacent property, increase the danger of traffic problems or endanger the public safety, or alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and be in harmony with the spirit and intent of this Chapter. The Subject Property is a unique use and it is located along a major thoroughfare. Therefore, a traditional freestanding sign may not sufficiently identify the new Village Hall as well as the proposed "V" shape sign. Staff reviewed the request and found that the size and materials of the freestanding sign comply with the Village's Sign Code regulations and that the proposed location would comply with the applicable setback requirements. In addition, the Village's Traffic Engineer determined t hat the proposed location of t he sign would not create sight obstructions. The sign design and materials would be in keeping with other recently constructed Village gateway signs and the proposed location would not be detrimental to other properties in the area. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the proposed location for the freestanding sign as indicated on the Petitioner's site plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers asked if the lighting for the sign and related improvements meets Village Code. Mr. Jacobs said that all proposed lighting will be reviewed to ensure it meets the Village's regulations. Mr. Jacobs also noted that the proposed sign and related lighting will be designed in such a way as to prevent any visual problems at the intersection of Busse Avenue and Main Street. Mr. Rogers asked if the front of the sign is lit. Ms. Juracek thought it would be lit the same way as the sign at Central & Northwest Highway. Mr. Jacobs indicated the sign would be lit the same way as the signs recently installed at the Rand & Central intersection and the train station. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 8:25. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the request for a Variation for location of freestanding sign. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floras, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:50 p.m., Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs, AICP Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner HIPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2004IMinutesIPZ-O9-04 VOMP Sign Location.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMI\flSSION CASE NO. PZ-ll-04 Hearing Date: March 25, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1802 Buckthorn PETITIONER: PUBLICATION DATE: Skalniak March 10, 2004 PIN#: 03-24-311-005 REQUEST: Variation for rear yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Leo Floros Richard Roger Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly ST AFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Architects Skalniak Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0, with one abstention by Matt Sledz. At 8:27, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-ll-04, a request for a Variation for a rear yard setback. She noted that the request would be P&Z final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. The Subject Property is located at the intersection of Rosetree Lane and Buckthorn Drive. The property is irregular in shape, zoned R1 Single Family Residence, and is bordered by the R1 District on all sides. The Petitioner \vould like to add onto the house. However, the southwest comer of the proposed addition to the rear of the home would encroach six feet into the required 25-foot rear yard setback. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit the proposed 19- foot setback. The Petitioner stated in their application that the Variation is needed in order to maintain the character of the house and preserve the view from the existing family room windows. The Petitioner's floor plans indicate that the addition would create a master bedroom above the home's existing one-story portion and a Great Room on the main floor. The house currently is a tri-Ievel and extensive modifications would be required for the proposed addition to comply with the Village's zoning regulations. Also, shifting the addition north would significantly impact existing windows along the rear elevation of the house. The existing house and related improvements comply with current zoning regulations. However, the Petitioner is seeking relief from code requirements for the rear yard setback in order to build the proposed 19' x 28.37' addition. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and relate to: a hardship due to the physical Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-ll-04 Page 2 surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Petitioner is proposing to increase the size of the house, resulting in a 19-foot setback for a portion of the rear yard. The Subject Property is irregularly shaped and the house is situated off-center on the Subject Property. The manner in which the house is located on the Subject Property, the lot's irregular shape, and the fact that the house is a multi-level structure, create challenges for locating an addition that would meet current zoning regulations. The Zoning Ordinance defines a hardship as "a practical difficulty in meeting the requirements of this chapter because of unusual surroundings or condition of the property involved, or by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a zoning lot, or because of unique topography, underground conditions or other unusual circumstances". The Subject Property is irregularly shaped and the manner in which the house is situated on the lot are somewhat unique conditions generally not found among the majority of the houses in Mount Prospect. Although the Petitioner has the option of locating the addition further north along the rear elevation, this would require extensive modifications to the house and could possibly change the character of the structure. In the past, the Planning & Zoning Commission has granted Variations for similar requests because the Variation was minor, and only a small portion of the addition encroached into a required setback. The Petitioner's request is similar to other Variation requests approved by the P&Z because the amount of the encroachment is minor, the shape of the lot is irregular, and the style of the house and how it is situated on the Subject Property create difficulties in meeting code requirements. Based on this analysis, Staff recommends that the P&Z approve a Variation to allow a 19' x 28.37' addition to encroach 6-feet into the required 25' rear setback as shown on the site plan prepared by Feng-Mierzwinski Architects for the residence at 1802 Buckthorn Drive, Case No. PZ-Il-O4. The P&Z Commission's decision is final for this case. Board members asked Ms. Connolly if any neighbors had voiced disapproval to this request but they had not. Board members were disappointed to see that the petitioner was not present to state their case. Mr. Rogers thought the addition could have been pushed further to the northeast and not encroached into the setback. Ms. Connolly said staff had worked with the petitioner and they had reduced the size of the addition quite a bit and would affect the balance of the building to move the addition any further. The architects for 1802 Buckthorn did arrive at that time and were sworn in. The architect said they did attempt to encroach just 1-2 feet into the setback but this solutionis much simpler in terms of framing, construction, interior plans, window configuration, etc. Ms. Connolly explained that in conversations with the owners they had already scaled back the family room addition to a bare minimum of 19' from the original 26' they had actually wanted. Mr. Youngquist said the site is the problem not the addition. Mr. Sledz agreed. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 8:47. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Variation to the rear yard setback. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-ll-04 Page 3 At 8:50 p.m., Richard Rogers made motion to adjourn, seconded by Matt Sledz. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Jacobs AICP Deputy Director of Community Development H:IPLANlPlanning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004IMinutesIPZ.!!-O4 1802 Buckthorn Skalniak Resid nee. doc fi I /// /l.U~1i1(¿. . / ICP, Senior Planner - V