The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 01/25/2005 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 South Emerson Street Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 23,2004 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT - TIF EXTENSION STATUS REPORT In both April and May of 2004, the Village Board considered and discussed the Final Report and Recommendations of the Downtown Redevelopment Ad hoc Committee - Phase II, issued in February 2004. One outcome of those deliberations was recognition that the redevelopment potential of three (3) of the five (5) identified sub-areas was severely limited by either the remaining life of the current TIF District (scheduled to dissolve in 2008) or their location outside of the current TIF boundaries. Knowing that time extensions for existing TIF Districts were possible through appropriate State Legislative action, the Village Board directed staff to explore the feasibility of seeking such an extension (the standard is an additional 13 years) as well as a concomitant expansion of the TIF District boundaries. Current Legislative protocol requires an interested municipality to consult with, and garner the "approval" of the local Elementary and High School Districts as a condition of seeking said extension (such approval from other affected taxing bodies is not required). While boundary expansion does not require Legislative approval (only compliance with TIF statutory requirements), it does in this case, for all practical purposes, require the approval of the same School Districts. For the last several months, staff has been crafting a TIF increment revenue sharing methodology that would be palatable, if not beneficial, to the School Districts as well as other affected taxing bodies; i.e., Library and Park District. From time to time, Village staff has consulted with School District staffs in furtherance of this objective. At this time, Village staff feels it has crafted a methodology that may be acceptable to the School Districts. Village staff is now prepared to present this methodology for Board review and concurrence in anticipation of making formal presentations to the School Boards of Districts 57 and 214. Both the Mount Prospect Public Library and Mt. Prospect Park District have been invited to attend the Committee of the Whole meeting. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODA TlON TO PARTlCIPA TE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 50 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TOD #847/392-6064. V. JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFER POLICY UPDATE For many years, the Village of Mount Prospect has been critical of both the Illinois Department of Transportation (I DOT) and, to a lesser extent, Cook County Highway Department (CCHD) policy of requiring jurisdictional transfer of certain roadways (usually unmarked State/County routes) as a precondition to necessary improvements, including roadway expansion, reconstruction and, in some cases, even routine maintenance. Jurisdictional transfer (JIT) is defined as transferring authority (traffic control) and obligation (future maintenance and reconstruction costs) from one taxing body to another, but not the transfer of the ownership of the land. Central Road in Mount Prospect is a graphic example of the J/T phenomenon. After much lobbying (with Mount Prospect being a particularly vocal critic) of past and present IDOT secretaries there has been a recent willingness by current IDOT Secretary, Tim Martin, to open a dialogue that might result in a more acceptable J/T Policy. Earlier this year, a Municipal/IDOT Task Force was formed to attempt to craft such a policy. Mount Prospect is represented on the Task Force. Recognizing that compromise on both sides will be required, a first step in the process is to assess the truly regional significance of the numerous unmarked State routes that run through just about every municipality in the region. The premise being that truly regional roadways should remain under IDOT jurisdiction while those with more local benefit should be subject to jurisdictional transfer. Northwest Municipal Conference members are being asked to review said roadways and make an initial, non-binding assessment of the regional v. local significance of same. Four unmarked State routes lie within Mount Prospect. Staff has put together an information package that will assist in discussion of this topic. VI. 2005 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT REVIEW With the coming of Spring (hopefully sooner rather than later!), Mount Prospect will undertake its annual Capital Improvement Program (CIP). From streets to sewers to retention pond rehabilitation and more, the Village will expend some $3.5 million on the upkeep of our critical infrastructure. Additionally, State and Federal agencies are planning other improvements within Mount Prospect's corporate boundaries. Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker will provide his annual CIP overview. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION PROPERTY DISPOSAL 51LCS 1202 (c) (6): "The setting of a price for sale or lease of property owned by the public body." IJ') '" c:c a;l co 0 O'lN..- NON l.() M,.... o ~ 0 l.() l.() l.() 0 O'l~~ CO 0 O'l ~ ~ ~ * (f) N- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ l.() ~ ~ ~- 05:6 ~ .[g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,.... ~ ~- ~... - 0. ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 8 ~*re ~ 8 gg g ~ g ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~~ ~ ~g ~ g N g ~ ~~ e ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..... ~ $ O'l O'l O'l 0 O'l~l.() c:c 0 0000 m O'l 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 T""""-~ M 0 0000 c:c l.() O'l,.... ~ c:c ~ ~ ~ 0 ~..-l.() l.() 0 0000 c:c O'l ~ 0 ~8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ gg~~ g ~ ~ ~ ~N ~ N N" C\I- . C\l- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ~~8 ~ g gggg g~ ~ i 0 ID ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~q~ l.() q qqqq ~~ ~ q ~ g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gM~ ~ ~~g~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ ~;; r-- l.() M. .... N ~ 3.!:2. ~ v Ov 0 0 ~ 0 O'lN..- c:c 000 000 000 ........ 0 N N ~ ~ 0 N ON 0 0 N 0 c:cmLO O'l 000 000 000 ....0') 0 N 0 0 <ll _ q qq q q q q <O.-r:Cl::!. '<t qqq qqq qO.q tq<<=!. q <<=!. '<l: 1--. ~~ ~ ~ ~~ g g ~ * ~I--~ ~g~ g~~ ~g~ ~ffi g ~ 8 ~ l~ ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ m N _ N ~ '<tl-- ~ ~ N ~ M I-- _ 00 0 0 co 0 lO_lO co 0 OONOO' '......C\l 0 c;:; s ~ ~ I-- I-- '<t 0 0 '<t 0 1--......00 ~ 0 00'<t00 MlO 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ q ~ q q ~ q q-r:~ '<t q qq~qq ~~ '<l: ~ . ~g 8 ~ ~ g 2 2 R ~ ~~N ~ 2~~g~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ l"" ~ ~ ~ I-- I-- ~ lO C\l ~ I--__~...... ~ ~ e 0' .... M""OlO lO 01.01.0 OOON 'NO' ~co '<t MM ~ m 1--0 OlO lO 0 00 00 lO I-- 1.0 00....1-- I-- m ~ - 1.0 M '<t1O OM MOM M '<t '<t N ~1O OO~ NOlO 28 g ~ ~~ ~~ ~ R ~ ~ ~ t ~~ ~~ ~ g g ~~ ~ - ~~ ~ ~ M I-- M ~ M ~ ..... - _N N - ~ ~ ~2 ~ ~~ ~ gg~ ~ ~~~ m '~g ~~' '2 ~ i ~ 2~o ~ ~ ~~ ~ g~ ~ ~gi i ~~ ~ g~ ~~ ~ i ~ g ~C\l 1.0 ~ M ~ lOW ~ ~lOM ~ ~ M q q ~ - - N co 0 0 - IOlO lO 0........ 0' '.... I--~ ....r--~~ lO 0 lO 0' 00 MOO IOlO lO 0 0 0 M N m'<t OOQMO lO 0 00 N.... c:: Iii ~ 1--. "~~q O. q . '<t ~ N.~ M"~qM. "<l: q q O. M. .~ ~~ S ~ ~ ~ !* * ~ I ~ ~ 1O~ ~C\l~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ "'. ..: ~ ..: ~-- X UJ ~ ~ ~ ~~g~ ~ g ~ ~ g ~~~ ~~ ~~~g g ~ ~ g ~ ~ - 0 0 ~WMQ m 0 '<t lONm....o MIOMO 0 lO lO I-- M ~~ ~ i g~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~*g ~ ~..:~~ g. ~ ~ ~ ..... C\l .... N C\I M I-- ~ C\llOOI-- 0 0 I-- 0 m ~ 001-- OOM C\l0 o~oom' 'lO I-- 0 I-- N lO 0100C\l 0 0 C\l 0 '<t '<t OWN MI-- lOO oo~moo 1.0 0 N ~ ~m ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '<t~~;~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ g ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ Q.... 00...... ~ .... ~~ : ~ ~ 00 m mo 00 lO 0 0 lO 0 I-- I-- 0......0 M~ OOO....Moo I-- m I-- _ & ~ ~g ~ ~ g g ~ g ~ g ~~~ ~~ ~ggg~~ ~ M N ~~ ~ ~ ~~ re ~ g g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~m~~~~ ~ ~ ~ "'.... ...... .... ~ " ~ """~oo C\l",," MOO MOM M 'N 1.0 00 00 00 mNO......OO N 0 0 N 0 I-- I-- lO M 00 00 ~m ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - 0.'- M ll') ,... ,... M ~ C\l lO 1.0 N ~ - ~~~g~re~~~g g~8 ~ ggggg ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~gg~~ ~ ~ ~ Iii ~~~~~~~g~~ ~~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~g~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi .... 1O~ C\l C\l ~ N 00 g ~g ~ '<t N...... 1.0 ~ . ~ > 51.0 ;:- __ ~ __ __ 1 ~ ~ ~ N ~ I~: ~ ~ ...Ill.. Z ..... l!! t5 I:: '00 C) E I:: W ~~ ~ ffi ~~ ~ g 5~ 0 ~ ~ 2~~~ > t;.... :it Ec:]Q) ~ =- Q;lI'l~;::- Ill;;;; g .c 2[="E 0 Cl W~ < l!!~ ~~ ~~i ~ ~ ~~~8 z I ~ fi E~ ~ ~a~~ m ffim ~ ~~~W ~l!!~~~ 8~~ ~0~ ~~!S~ ~ i III ~ ~~! ~SxE51 ~ ~~ ~ ~~Q~ ~~5g~~~~~ 5~~ ffi t5=-~~~ ~~~ ~ *~ ~ ~~ __~.c~Oc:~ ~ ~~ W ~~~~ I i!!~i~li! ill ~ ~~~i~ ~i,J0~fl.i~ t~~I~i~~I~i~11 i ~~ ~ ~ffi3~ I 1Il~~~I~~~i] ~]~ ~ %%~~i ~i!~~~~J~ ff~~~~;~~~$l~~i ~ ~& 5 ~~f~ '0 Q)~~~~355]j E~S ~ iimo~ zQ'~.~~~ie~~~~m~~iming!l::~m W m~ ~ ~ I:: ~ Ll.. ~ ~~&~ ~- ~lI'l~ ~mO~Q)~O~-~a~Q) 01::_ ~ m ~~~~ ~ jIg ~ii~* ~Jj~i~Blill!~I~~~~~~!~il g ~ ~ ~~~~ r ~& 5.... ~S~E~ ~.i~S~&55~~~~8~~~~z&~w~8.... w ~ j~i~ s 1 ffi sg~~ ! & ~ '" 0 0 ~ ~ m N N N 0 0 0 mm", 0 M "' 0- u m m m m 0 0 0 mmm 0 N M m {~ 0 0 0 lX!.C'1l>> 0 N. "' m " 1. .. 1. 0 ..; ..; M M '" oi t "' m m M m M m ~ N V N N N m m ",m :: eN .. .. .. N' .. 0. N ;:\ ;:\ ;:\ 0 0 0 M<ON 0 ;: N m ],.. 0 0 0 0 .....C\l<:') 0 ~ V N N N 0 0 0 ......""'.0) 0 M 0; '" '" '" '" <<i <<i -", '" ,; 00 " ON m M M M m <0 ~ ~ f:; .~~ "' m <0 "''''- ~. 0. .. .. .. N .. 0- ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~r:::~ 0 ~ N 8' u 0 m ~ ~ 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 20 <0 "' "' "' 0 N N omro 0 ~ ro ~ ..; 0; 0; 0; '" " " 0...... '" ,,; ,,; a; UN N 0 0 0 N "' <0 "' m ~ ~ <0 ro .~o v. 0 0 0 ~ m", 0 - "' eN .. .. .. N .. a. N 0 0 0 0 0 0 mMN 0 N 0;- 0- u m N N N 0 0 0 ~~:g 0 M ;;; 0 2", <0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 "' <0 " 00 00 00 '" " " m<o '" ..; ,,; ..; .~o M "' ;;; ;;; 0 N N <0"' ~ 0 m N "'- m - <0 m~ 0 - v. eN ..; ..; ..; oi .. 0. ~ N N N 0 0 0 M~<O 0 "' <0 N u 0 0 0 0 0 0 m<ON 0 v ~ m 2m "' "' "' 0 m m (,?~<<J 0 "'- ~ <0 a; ..; ..; ..; '" 1. .. ro~ '" " ~. u~ N 0 0 0 <0 <0 OIM ~ ;;; 0 .~o N. m m m v - v. ::: "'- eN ..; ..; ..; N ..; 0. m "' "' "' 0 0 0 ~~~ 0 <0 N ;; U <0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NM", 0 ~ 2~ .. ..; ..; 0 0 0 C'!<<'...... 0 <0 ~ "' ..; '" '" '" m", '" ,; ,,; a; .~o 0 "' "' "' N m 0 N ~ - <0 N N <0 <0 <0 ~ ~ <0 m M ::: N eN ..; ..; ..; oi ..; 0. - Ie 0 0 0 0 0 0 ",",<0 0 v 0;- m u m a; ;;; 0 0 0 ~~<O 0 N " m lE 0 mM~ 0 m ,; 8" oi oi ,,; ..; ,; c6ri '" '" ,; .. ~ 0 0 m 0 m ON ~ M N 0 "'- <0 <0 <0 M N m <0 M ~ ::: eN ..; ..; ..; oi ..; 0. - <= 0 ;;- <0 "~ <0 ;! v ~ 0 0 0 :llO<O 0 m m <= u ~ ~ 0 0 0 <0 M 0 "' m ;; ~ ~ m m m 0 M M "lC'!..... 0 m N " 2m ,; " " " '" ,; ,; ",m '" oi " a; ,; '"' x .~o M "' "' "' N " M m<o ~ M M M ~ ill '" v ~ v N v ~N. ~ <0 "'- eN ..; ..; ..; N ..; U. 0. i= ;;- ~ ~ ~ 0 0 0 ",",ro 0 m N N <0 u M "' "' "' 0 0 0 <o~o 0 "' N N 2v "' "' "' 0 M M ~"'tr--. 0 ~ "'- <0 ~ ,,; ,,; ,,; '" ,; 00 o~ '" " ;;; ,,; <<i .~o ro "' "' "' 0 N N ~ ~ ~ N m M ON !e- M M M N N v ~N ~ m ::: '" 0: ..; ..; ..; oi ..; m ro m ro 0 0 0 mm~ 0 N M '" ;;- u ~ " " " 0 0 0 ro~m 0 "' ~ m M 2M <0. 0 <'":!.q<D 0 m <0 v " " " " '" a; a; N_ '" oi <<i a; U ~ 0 0 0 ro M ;; m<o ~ N <0 m a; .~~ '" M M M - N ~ ~ - ~ ::: !e- o. ..; ..; ..; oi ..; Ie N :;; :;; 0 0 0 ~<om 0 ~ m 0;- m u "' 0 0 0 MNm 0 ~ "' 0 ~ 2N ro ro m 0 ~ ~ 1ll~<O 0 m M m. "'- .~o '" '" 0 '" 0 ,; 00 ;\,. 0 ~. oi ;: m " " " <0 v 0 ~ :: ro N " ~ N ~ ~ ~ M ::: '" eN ..; ..; ..; oi ..; 0. <0 ;: ;: ;: 0 0 0 ~~o 0 M "' <0 <0 L 0 0 0 0 _ m M 0 ~ M <0 ~ m M M M 0 ,,":~CCl 0 M ~ M. u_ 00 " " " 0 " " ~o 0 ..; ,; a; 0 '~?;l <0 v m "' _ <0 ~ :: "' m ::: ~ N M ~ O. N ::: " 0. ..; ..; ..; N ..; ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ",~m 0 01 "' m <0 u " II " 0 0 0 ",~o 0 ~ ~ 0 20 0 M "'- q~<D 0 "' <0 <0 m u~ <<i 0 0 0 .. 01 0_ 0 00 ,,; ,,; 00 - M M N <0 o~ ~ 0 " m <0 .~~ 0 0 ~ N M ~o ~ ::: ::: 0. ..; ..; oi ..; '" u ~ ;=- c ~ 0 <0 ~ ~ ~ .~~ Z " o N '" C 3LL " f(!. ~ c '5 ~ __ (l) ~ rr z g ~"E ~ u 0 W -.j:: <( ~ ~f:2 ~ -- ~ ..... m~~2 (; t!Z it E C "OJ ell <11 ~ ~ * 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~~~ffi co Ww <( ~~ &~ ~.2?~ . " ffi ~ - u E~ ~ ~~8E "' ill[fj z Q.::=(I)W 8 w ~ M ffi].3"2: ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~=~ w 0 ~g,~~ .;~~g]Q)~~e :i"gl rr ~gs z "' i35U-oJ,l ~~c 2 ~~ 5 ~~ ~~~~offi~~ " w :fu:\i=m ~~8=.s~"E~~ S ~ w ~'7~~~ >- ~t:: w' ~ " ~;~ ~~i'~<I1 ~~~I<I1fi~~!~K~~~ is ~[j~;;; ~~=~&.s~"g~ OJ e e z z w" " . .~ ~ ~ w ll~!i LLEX&g~~~8 j~~~~~~~w~~~ffi"g w rrz z ~g:~-E~Q)ffl~"O u.W :::I 0 O::I: .. > o~~~~Sc~~ f~~~~c~agIE~~x 0. 00. :'i QWo::!::: '" ~~~&~~6.s~J .~ S & w x rr ~[j) <( :ED::a..:: u c:lt~~1- ~-~0l~~g~&~~(l)~~~~m2~go6~~ w '" c U. ~ ~ u..z~z 0 c 0; " ~ "0 "0 ~ ~ ~!li~~B~~~&i~~~~~~~i!;~{ " w 0 ~~9Q u. ~ " Z a " .s ~ 35522 ~M~~~~&55~~~~8~~~E~&~~~8 ~ x " ol-u.(f.l c J!)rr 0 :gOOOO.5..5 w u. ~Zzffi "2 ~ c .~ ::!~~!< "'" " . &' ~ >O(,)w '" W Village of Mount Prospect TIF Boundaries Existing Proposed o 00 ~= ~". = > f"t-.""l ('D ('D oo~ w VI .. ~ :z Q..O n:4. ('D =" = ~ f"t-.('D ""l fIl ~ f"t-. -~ ~~ ~ = Q..('D . ""l =~t"jOO ... ~ a = ~~_O" =":::. ~ I ~ ('D fIl > ~ rl\ 0 ""l <-< ~ = ('D . ""l ~ ('DOO~ a=t.. ~~e:! = rt" 0 Q..=~ :z=~ o fIl 0" :4.~~ ~~~ ('D ('D ~ fIl = Q.. f"t-.=O" ...('D <-< I I I I I I In c'~ .:0].... .... ..... .. ; ~ ~ 81 !.... ......~,.. i! :l!:'E .~.. ..- ::l I ... I ;l:l c. .. .Fi- I . i M1plest ~nt"joo ~ g ~ 6- p.=t~> e:.. 0 ""l ~~~ ('D f"t-. .. = ""l = ~ t"j ('D rt" ~ ~O"f"t-. = ('D ~. Q..~Q.. = ('D ('D = ('D 0 fIl=~ fIl ('D 00=00 w = = ~ fIl 0" a~> t"j>~ a ~ ~ _ = N ~ = .. fIl ('D 00 0'" 0 = 0" = oo('Df"t-. f"t-.~=" ""l _ fIl ('D ~ :::. ~=;- ~~ = f"t-. ('D I >=:zO"oo -< 000 = ('D""l""l""l0" = f"t-.f"t-.Q.. I ="="('D"""- ; ~ ~ ~ ~ . a~ Q..~ f"t-.O"""" ~ =<-< .. = rjQ. ~ ~ ;'="O~ fIl~==" ... ~ f"t-. ('D Q.. <-< ('D ~ ('D 00 ""l fIl ~ W ... o =... ~ ~Q.. = =f"t-. (J.9,. = =" ('D fIl ('D ~ fIl ('D I . i ~ I See:- ~. 2. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 27, 2004 r ~ I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Matt Lawrie. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from April 13, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved. Trustee Zadel abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. Mayor Farley decided to take the items in a different order than the Agenda; therefore, Jurisdictional Transfer Policy discussion was moved to Item IV, while the Downtown Redevelopment Phase II Recommendations discussion was moved to Item V. IV. JURISD TIONAL TRANSFER POLICY DISCUSSION Village Engin r Jeff Wulbecker provided general background on numbered and unnumbered Sta routes within the Village. He stated there are 32 miles of State routes within the Village 0 hich 7.6 miles are unnumbered routes and 7.8 miles are Cook County routes. There e, there is a potential of transfer of all State and County routes. He stated the Village eady maintains some sections of these roads through agreement. He stated tha Central Road is in very poor shape. He stated the jurisdictional transfer is define s transferring authority and obligation from one taxing body to another but not the tr sfer of the ownership of the land. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) s informed the Village that no improvements will take place on Central Road without juri ictional transfer. Jurisdictional transfer allows for signage and regulation by the author! assuming control of the road. With that includes the maintenance of all curbs, gutter, ffic signals, and storm sewer, however, land ownership remains with the State. Obvious the future costs of repair shifts to the local government. There is a also a question regar the liability of the road when one entity maintains and regulates the road while yet anoth entity retains ownership of land for which the road sits. General comments from the Village Board members included th ollowing items: 1 It was no d that Central and Busse are not truly local roadways since they convey a significant vo e of traffic through the Village. The State has been approached several times by various ected officials of the Village to get the roads improved, however, all efforts have been uffed, therefore, the only remaining option is for a legislative solution. It was noted t Central Road needs total reconstruction. Wolf Road, which was accepted by the Villa 12 years ago, has remained in good shape with regular maintenance by the Village. It estimated that the cost of a five-lane profile with sewer work would be approximately $1.5 'lIion per mile with approximately $40,000 per mile for maintenance. Such a cost would ortize to an annual funding need that would generate a 12% tax increase to assume res sibilities for the roads in question. It was noted that the Village should work with the No est Municipal Conference and local legislators in an attempt to resolve this impasse. State has allowed the roads to deteriorate to such a manner that they are not willing to est the funds for necessary replacement and one would think that such disrepair does inc e liability to the State. Consensus of the Village Board was that the stance by the State. an unfundated mandate and is quite unreasonable and this information is for basI ackground and not necessarily for action at this time. V. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE-PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS Mayor Farley stated this is a follow up to the February 24 Committee of the Whole meeting. Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated staff is looking for direction from the Board regarding the five sub-areas that have been identified in the study. At least one opportunity exists for consideration of amending the TIF document to address development in one or more of the sub-areas. Mr.Cooney stated the process of redevelopment has been underway for nearly 30 years. The Ad Hoc Committee review included a Phase I report from 1998 that focused on the area bounded by Northwest Highway/Central/Emerson and Wille. The five sub-areas to be discussed this evening are as follows: . Sub-Area 1 considered the small triangle is bounded by Busse/Northwest Highway and Route 83. . Sub-Area 2 is the existing Village Hall lot. . Sub-Area 3 is the block that consists of the Bank One remote parking lot. . Sub-Area 4 is the Bank One block. . Sub-Area 5 is the area where Central Plaza exists. Sub-Area 1 Recommendations: The Committee had recommended a three-story development that includes a unified appearance with a vehicular closure of Busse and limiting access to pedestrians only and a parking lot off Northwest Highway with one level of retail and two stories of condominiums. 2 Ben Trapani, 222 South Pine, spoke. He stated the back of the buildings that face on to Busse shows a very poor appearance and he is proposing a more open appearance for the block. He would propose a development that would cover the entire block and not close Busse as a similar approach that Arlington Heights has undertaken. One alternate discussed by the Ad Hoc Committee was for a parking lot fronting on Northwest Highway which would have to be addressed as part of this development. He stated that he could put additional numbers together if the Village Board shows interest and he stated he has talked to the owners of the property on West Busse about relocation opportunities. George Busse, 111 South Maple, spoke. He stated the Committee wanted an open visual vista into the Busse Avenue area from Northwest Highway and wanted to retain some of historical buildings along Busse. He stated there are significant economic limitations due to the size of the block and based on that, the Committee wanted to retain some buildings of historical value. Tom Neitzke, 17 South Maple, spoke. He is the owner of the building at 22 West Busse. He stated that the businesses on the north side need the businesses on the south side of the street because they feed off one another and the area should be considered a Preservation District, not just a preservation row of historical buildings. He stated he would be better to either retain the whole District or eliminate all the buildings. He stated he is against any TIF expansion as a business owner and feels that TIFs create unrealistic market conditions for development. He stated that if development attractiveness already exists then the market would undertake such development and the creation TIFs artificially create markets for development. He stated much of the redevelopment that takes place within TIF Districts eliminates the uniqueness of businesses and he suggests the Village Board focus on other areas within the downtown before addressing the small triangle area. John Nowicki, 515 South School Street, spoke. He recently has purchased a new condominium unit in the Norwood development and would like to keep the existing businesses in the Busse Avenue area. He suggested retaining the existing facades with new buildings behind. He also suggested some consideration about subsidizing rents for existing businesses to move into the new developments with assistance in taxes and rents. Norm Kurtz, owner of 32 West Busse, spoke. He stated that the proposed plan may be trying to do too much on this limited space. He felt if the area is to be addressed, then the whole block should be included with some open space and he is supportive of a Trapani-style plan. He is concerned about a wall facing Route 83 and the appearance as if it might cut off that block. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was noted that several of the buildings that are considered Preservation Row or Preservation District has not been maintained well and are in serious states of disrepair. The Board has previously been very careful not to create a canyon effect and feels that a proper setback from the property lines will be necessary to ensure that such an effect is not created. There are several financial issues that need to be further investigated in order for complete analysis of the options for consideration. 3 There was some concern expressed about the proposed height of the Trapani proposal and the desire to avoid closing Busse Avenue to vehicular traffic. It was also noted that without the TIF, the downtown would not look like it does now and likely would not have changed from its appearance prior to any redevelopment occurring. The Board was quite patient in allowing the market to undertake redevelopment in the downtown for many years and such redevelopment until the Village got involved with the TIF. It was suggested that the small triangle be considered as the last area to be redeveloped and focus on other areas within the TIF that would have an improved return on investment. Sub-Area 2 Recommendations: This is the existing Village Hall block. It is anticipated that the Village Hall building will become available around August 1 and it is anticipated that the redevelopment of the Village Hall building will be an extension of the concept of the building along Northwest Highway. Village Manager Janonis stated that staff has been working with Norwood through the Option Agreement for the Village Hall site and anticipates that a final decision on moving forward regarding the site will be within the next 30 days. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He is concerned about the height of redevelopment and feels that the height should be similar to what is already along Northwest Highway. Max Ullrich, 319 South Pine, spoke. He is the owner of Van Driel's. He stated that the increase in taxes will impact on development and assessments will continue to rise, therefore, there is a built-in business factor to any redevelopment because of the increased price. Tim Scott, 600 East Evergreen, spoke. He felt that the area should be a mixed-use development and supports the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations for Sub-Area 2 and focus efforts on redeveloping the block as outlined in the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations. Sub-Area 3. This is the east side of Emerson between Central and Busse. Previous recommendations included row homes with green space at the south end of the block with a 50-foot setback from Central at the north end. The property would be approximately two and one-half stories, height of no more than 30 feet with vehicular access from the rear of the properties. Bill Blaine, 319 North Emerson, spoke. He complimented the Village Board in their efforts to date and appreciates the letter explaining the Village Board's position that was recently sent to all the petition signers. He feels there is a need to ensure that any green space be of a comparable size to the existing three lots so that there is a return on investment based on the ambiance of the area. He feels that whatever the Village Board's decision is on this block is what the Village Board will be remembered for in the future. He feels that the public commitment for a park is adequate as long as the lot at the south corner is of comparable size and the entire block is developed at the same time and not on a piecemeal fashion. 4 He suggested the Village Board retain the north end as open space until the south end of the property becomes available. Ron Ditthardt, 123 North Emerson, spoke. He also appreciated the letter from the Village Board explaining their position. He wanted to outline a few points that were not responded to in the letter. He felt that the Village Board was ignoring the citizens which at last count numbered approximately 2,000 people and the fact that they want a park on this location and the Board is risking a disagreement with the citizens. He also is concerned about how the property would be obtained for development on the south side and any open space on the south side would not match the size of the property available on the north side. He also felt the appearance is important in terms of economics including the retainage of mature trees on available sites. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he does not concur with SOS Mount Prospect's position and feels that green space should be closer to the center of the downtown which would mean the south end of the Emerson block where such property would complement downtown events. Rachel Toeppen, 409 South Hi-Lusi, spoke. She acknowledged that there is new space coming on line around the Village Hall but felt that the Keystone Plaza area on the west side is not a true gathering space and should not be considered as such. The Keystone Plaza area is not what you would consider a park. Tim Scott, 600 East Evergreen, spoke again. He stated he is a professional planner by trade and feels that the green space is important in the downtown and is supportive of a park on the south end of the block and the remainder of the block to be built as row homes does make sense from his standpoint. George Haas, 115 North Emerson, spoke. He felt that it is possible to retain open space at both ends of Emerson. Carol Jarosz, 122 North Stratton, spoke. As a School District member, she would be interested in the Board committing to a park in the downtown and retaining the current green space until new space becomes available. She feels there is a need to honor the founding fathers and the green space that will be developed by the Village so an acknowledgment of their contribution would be valuable. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: Several members of the Board complimented SOS Mount Prospect's position and their ability to generate dialogue with the Village Board. It was also noted that it is unlikely the three lots will be developed separately from the rest of the block. It was noted that the row homes will provide a transition space to the single-family homes. It was noted that the Village has started the process of obtaining the Bank One parking lot and will also start work soon on obtaining the two homes at the southern end. Several Board members felt that the development of the block simultaneously instead of piecemeal fashion was critical. Consensus of the Village Board was to support the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations for development of Sub-Area 3. 5 \ The remaining discussion of the other Sub-Areas will be discussed at a future ~ommittee of the Whole meeting. VI. VILLAGE MANGER'S REPORT None. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. VIII. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 6 MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MAY 11, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Community Development Director William Cooney and Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from April 27, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. IV. DOWNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE - PHASE II - RECOMMENDATION This is a continuation of the discussion from the April 27, 2004 Committee of the Whole meeting. Community Development Director Bill Cooney suggesting completing discussion of Sub- Area One and then move on to discussions on Sub-Areas Four and Five. Sub-Area One This is constituted by the small-triangle and the Committee recommended demolition of the buildings on the south side of Busse, however, TIF finances are such that there is some limitation about available funds to complete the recommendations of the Committee. He stated there is a difference between the plan of 1998 and 2004. The most recent plan included a pedestrian pass-through only along Busse with retail and condominiums compared to the first plan from 1998 that just discussed retail. He also pointed out that the Trapani plan, as presented at the previous meeting, takes the property on the north side of Busse. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: 1 There was concern about closing Busse to traffic and only allowing pedestrian traffic through. There was also some concern about the use of Village funds for renovation and whether there was enough in terms of historical value worth preserving. It was also noted that whatever occurs in terms of improvements, rents would undoubtedly increase thereby impacting existing tenants and/or owners. It was noted that there is a need to retain the character and offer opportunity for start-up businesses and this is a likely starting point. It was felt that this unique shopping experience could be capitalized on if the TIF threat was removed and the owners may possibly improve the buildings' appearance on their own. It was also noted that it would be more valuable for staff time to be devoted in other areas of the downtown at this time. Tom Zander, 208 North Forest, spoke. He stated he is a member of the Economic Development Commission and the EDC position is to encourage development but there is a concern about pedestrian-only access on Busse and the entire triangle should be redeveloped. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Board members suggested that there be additional financial pro-forma analysis completed for the area. There is also a need to discuss the possibilities of TIF adjustments with other taxing bodies and unless interest exists, there would be very little need to continue the discussion regarding this Sub-Area. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to complete a financial pro forma and approach other taxing bodies about extension of the TIF for this area of redevelopment. Sub-Area Four - Bank One Block The previous Committee did not review this area because it was not in the TIF. Bill Cooney stated that Bank One has considered selling the property in the past and may consider it in the future. There is a desire to continue retail on the first floor at the Emerson side with condominiums above and row homes on the east side of the block. In addition, the Bank wants to retain some presence on the site with a drive-thru facility. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was noted that there is a need to coordinate whatever change and appearance with the current new development sites, however, until there is some control over the property, there are few things the Village can do. Consensus of the Village Board was to discuss options available for the future once the site becomes available and/or under control of the Village. Sub-Area Five - Central Plaza This area is currently not in the TIF area and is ripe for redevelopment. Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated the Committee recommended the building be taken down and the interests moved west with parking behind any structure. 2 The Committee suggested possible TIF extension to include this site for redevelopment with a similar configuration as the Lofts and Shops development. Jim Uszler, Nine South Elm, Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Chamber of Commerce, spoke. He stated the Chamber's position is for the small triangle to be redeveloped initially and this is a critical parcel to focus on. The Chamber is also supportive of redevelopment of Central Plaza. Consensus of the Village Board was to approach other taxing bodies to determine interest in TIF extension and inclusion of the Central Plaza area in addition to putting together some general plans for redevelopment within the existing configuration. XT AMENDMENT DISCUSSION Bill C ney stated that the staff proposal recommends to limit residential flagpoles to one witH residential districts and commercial districts to three flagpoles. General dis ssion among Village Board members included the following items: There was conc n raised regarding the limit of two flags per pole in residential areas and the number 0 gs per pole in commercial districts. e Board was to allow up to three flags for residential areas on one pole and six fl s on commercial areas up to three flagpoles. Staff was also instructed to revie he Schaumburg flag Ordinance to determine whether there are any limitations t t should be considered for the width of frontage on various property districts wit . the community in relation to flags. Merrill Cotton, 2710 Briarwood Driv West, spoke. He is concerned about the height of the flagpoles proposed at the new ViII e Hall and wanted to ensure that the approval of this Text Amendment does not cause th Village to have to obtain a Variation for the Village Hall flagpoles. Drivewav Width Discussion Staff has proposed to include adjacent sidewalks as rt of the width calculation and limit the overall calculation to 45% lot coverage which wo d allow design options. Staff would consider the percentage of front lot area paved to reg ate the maximum widths of 26 feet with a minimum of eight feet. General discussion from Village Board members included the folio There was a concern regarding parking in the front yard and turning th parking pad. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to further refine the p entage of lot coverage with a formula that would be appropriate for various lot siz address the need to limit the front yard parking zone. 3 Staff had recomm ded a one-foot separation between driveway and patio or sidewalk. Staff feels that this uld be addressed through the percentage of lot coverage limitation defined as part of the riveway width. Maximum Size of Attach This can be limited by th FAR (floor to area ratio) definition revision and the bulk regulations that will be modifi d based on the previous discussions. VI. VILLAGE MANGER'S REPOR None. VII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Trustee Corcoran and Seconde by Trustee Skowron to move into Closed Session at 9:07 p.m. VIII. ADJOURNMENT The Board returned to Open Session at 10:26 p.m. witli 0 further business and adjourned the meeting adjourned at 10:27 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 4 , .Mount Prospect I ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER DATE: JANUARY 20, 2005 lOOT JURISDICTIONAL TRANSFERS JANUARY 25TH COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SUBJECT: Attached is a Memorandum from the Northwest Municipal Conference (NWMC) requesting the member communities to review a list of unmarked lOOT routes and comment as to our willingness to accept jurisdictional transfer of any of these roads. Included with the Memorandum is a list of the unmarked routes and a map. This effort is the result of the Council of Mayor's Subcommittee and lOOT working together to establish fair and consistent criteria for jurisdictional transfers. Specifically the NWMC is requesting the answers to the following 2 questions: · Which unmarked routes will the Village consider accepting jurisdictional transfer? · Would the Village accept the roads as is or would we require any improvements before we would accept jurisdiction? Since the NWMC has requested that the Village respond by January 28th, please place this on the agenda for the January 25th COW Meeting. dtb~ Cc: Glen R. Andler, Public Works Director X: Engineering\IDOT\JT\COW1-25-05mm NORTHWEST MUNICIPAL CONFERENCE 1616 East Golf Road Des Plaines, Illinois 60016 (847) 296-9200. Fax (847) 296-9207 www.nwmc-cog.org MEMBERS Antioch Arlington Heights Barrington Bartlett Buffalo Grove Carpentersville Cary Crystal Lake Deerfield Des Plaines Elk Gruve Twp. Elk Gruve Village Evanston Evanston Township Fox Lake Fox River Grove Glencee Glenview Grayslake Golr Hanover Park Hawthorn Woods Highland Park Hoffman Estates J nverness Lake Barrington Lake Forest Lake Zurich Libertyville Lincolnshire Lincolnwaod Morton Grove Mount Prospect New Trier Twp. Niles Northbrook Northfield Northfield T wp. Palatine Park Ridge Pruspect Heights Rolling Meadows Roselle Schaumburg skokie 8treamwood Vernon Hills Wheeiing Wilmette Winnetka President Elliott Hartstein Buffalo Grove Vice-President I rwin A. Bock Hanover Park Secretary Patricia A. Vance Evanston Township Treasurer Robert L. Irvin lincolnshire Executive Director Mark L. Fowler "Affiliate Member A Regional Association of Illinois Municipalities and Townships Representing a Population of Over One Million Memorandum TO: FROM: RE: DATE: City and Village Managers Mike Walczak, Program Associate for Transportation Jurisdictional Transfer January 12, 2005 The lllinois Department of Transportation has set a priority for 2005 to transfer jurisdiction on hundreds of unmarked state routes throughout northeastern Illinois to local municipalities or counties. At its most recent meeting in October, the Council of Mayors Jurisdictional Transfer Subcommittee agreed to work with IDOT to draft a policy that would provide criteria and guidelines for determining what roads could be transferred and the conditional requirements to the transfer. The criteria identified by the subcommittee include function of the roadway, length and connectivity ofthe roadway, traffic volumes, and presence of a significant number of bridges, retaining walls, guard walls, traffic signals, street lights, and sidewalks. The attached list shows unmarked state routes that are in or pass through your community. Unmarked state routes from the list that are on the Strategic Regional Arterial (SRA) System have not been included. Weare looking for initial feedback from your community in two areas. First, which roads on the list would you consider accepting jurisdiction on, and which are you opposed to? Second, what condition would a road have to be in for you to accept a transfer? Please remember, this is an unofficial list, and does not imply a commitment to take over these roads. Maps have been included to help identify routes, with pink indicating routes within your community, and blue as routes that continue from your community into a neighboring one or an unincorporated area. Due to scarce funding and other programming priorities, IDOT will likely want to transfer as many roads as possible. It is the intent of the Council of Mayors Subcommittee and this conference to ensure that municipalities are not unfairly burdened with the financial obligation to take over jurisdiction of unmarked state routes. Please respond with your list of potentially acceptable and unacceptable jurisdictional transfers and initial feedback on conditional requirements to me at mwa1czak@nwmc-cog.org or 847- 296-9200 by January 28th. Unmarked State Routes - Mount Prospect Street Limit 1 Limit 2 Designation Length Notes (Miles) BUSSE RD ILL 58 1-90 FAU 2660 1.5 Unmarked route continues south into Elk Grove Village to IL 72 CENTRAL RD MEIER RD VILLAGE LIMITS FAU 1300 0.07 Unmarked route continues (just east of Hatlen west into Arlington Heights Ave) to Kirchoff and east to CENTRAL RD VILLAGE LIMITS US 12 FAU 1300 2.31 Huber Lane in Glenview (just west of Busse Rd) KENSINGTON RD REGENCY DR WOLF RD F AU 1295 2.26 Unmarked route continues west into Arlington Heights to Forest Ave and east to US45 WOLF RD VILLAGE LIMITS VILLAGE LIMITS FAU 2692 1.58 Unmarked route continues north into Prospect Heights and Wheeling to US 45 and south into Des Plaines to Touhy MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 27, ~004 I. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:04 p.m., in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Public Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Michael Jacobs, Public Works Director G.len Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Matt Lawrie. II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from April 13, 2004. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Lohrstorfer. Minutes were approved. Trustee Zadel abstained. III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. Mayor Farley decided to take the items in a different order than the Agenda; therefore, Jurisdictional Transfer Policy discussion was moved to Item IV, while the Downtown Redevelopment Phase II Recommendations discussion was moved to Item V. ~URISDICTIONAL TRANSFER POLICY DISCUSSION ~ \ Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker provided general background on numbered and I unnumbered State routes within the Village. He stated there are 32 miles of State routes within the Village of which 7.6 miles are unnumbered routes and 7.8 miles are Cook County routes. Therefore, there is a potential of transfer of all State and County routes. He, stated the Village already maintains some sections of these roads through agreement. He stated that Central Road is in very poor shape. He stated the jurisdictional transfer is defined as transferring authority and obligation from one taxing body to another but not the transfer of the ownership of the land. The Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) has informed the Village that no improvements will take place on Central Road without jurisdictional transfer. Jurisdictional transfer allows for signage and regulation by the authority assuming control of the road. With that includes the maintenance of all curbs, gutter, traffic signals, and storm sewer, however, land ownership remains with the State. Obviously, the future costs of repair shifts to the local government. There is a also a question regarding the liability of the road when one entity maintains and regulates the road while yet another entity retains ownership of land for which the road sits. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: 1 It was noted that Central and Busse are not truly local roadways since they convey a significant volume of traffic through the Village. The State has been approached several times by various elected officials of the Village to get the roads improved, however, all efforts have been rebuffed, therefore, the only remaining option is for a legislative solution. It was noted that Central Road needs total reconstruction. Wolf Road, which was accepted by the Village 12 years ago, has remained in good shape with regular maintenance by the Village. It is estimated that the cost of a five-lane profile with sewer work would be approximately $1.5 million per mile with approximately $40,000 per mile for maintenance. Such a cost would amortize to an annual funding need that would generate a 12% tax increase to assume responsibilities for the roads in question. It was noted that the Village should work with the Northwest Municipal Conference and local legislators in an attempt to resolve this impasse. The State has allowed the roads to deteriorate to such a manner that they are not willing to invest the funds for necessary replacement and one would think that such disrepair does increase liability to the State. ljfonsensus of the Village Board was that the stance by the State is an unfundated mandate and is quite unreasonable and this information is for basic background and not necessarily for action at this time. V. D WNTOWN REDEVELOPMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE-PHASE II RE MENDATIONS is a follow up to the February 24 Committee of the Whole Community Develo ent Director Bill Cooney stated staff is looking for direction from the Board regarding five sub-areas that have been identified in the study. At least one opportunity exists consideration of amending the TIF document to address development in one or m e of the sub-areas. Mr. Cooney stated the process of redevelopment has been und ay for nearly 30 years. The Ad Hoc Committee review included a Phase I report from 98 that focused on the area bounded by Northwest Highway/Central/Emerson and Wille. The five sub-areas to be discussed this evening are as follows: . Sub-Area 1 considered the small is bounded by Busse/Northwest Highway and Route 83. . Sub-Area 2 is the existing Village Hall lot. . Sub-Area 3 is the block that consists of the Ba . Sub-Area 4 is the Bank One block. . Sub-Area 5 is the area where Central Plaza exists. Sub-Area 1 Recommendations: The Committee had recommended a three-story development that I ludes a unified appearance with a vehicular closure of Busse and limiting access to pe strians only and a parking lot off Northwest Highway with one level of retail and tw condominiums. 2 The Village of Mount Prospect Street Jurisdiction Map N W+E S ." '" ! , al GoW Rd 58 Kems Rd m McDonald Rd I.D.O.T. Streets Numbered Routes I NameH I Mileage I I Route 45, RiverRoad:12.0 1 R';u~e 12,nR~d R~ad 'I 2.5 I Route 83, Elmhurst Road ,15.7 I Route 83, Oakton Road :1 0.5 I Route~2,AlgonquinRoadil 1.6 I Route58, Golf Road II 2.7 1 Rou~e14,.N~rt~wes!..~':"YJ~.1 _~~ I. Total 117.1 Unnumbered Routes I NallleH I Mileage , I Kensington Road I 3.0 I I Busse (~outh ofGol!) Road II,S . _ J I Central Road I 3.2 J I Wolf Road 10,4 I I Total I 7.6 --.J .;;'_~1~ C.C.H.D. Streets ~ -... "",....-.--. INa.me. . 1 Camp McDonald Road 1 Euclid A venue H IB~~~ (N. ofG~lt) Road I Dempster Street I~~l. Pr()Sp~t Road _ ___ _ I .1 Mileage ___ '1 1.7.. . .. _..._. ..._ .. H___.l2.8~~ ___ __ __ On ___ _ .Il-~____H' 11.2 :11.2 --::_n__ Total.J1 8.2 Miles 1 Mount Prospect r ~ Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS FROM: VILLAGE ENGINEER DATE: JANUARY 19, 2005 2005 CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS JANUARY 25 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING SUBJECT: The construction season is soon to be upon us and for your information I have compiled a list and corresponding map of the public construction projects that have been scheduled for this year. I have attached copies for your use. The map depicts these Village projects: . Street Resurfacing (highlighted in red) . Other Village Projects (highlighted in blue) The map also depicts the following projects by other agencies (highlighted in green): - . Levee 37 Project by the Army Corps of Engineers . Central Road Resurfacing by lOOT No other agencies have scheduled any projects in Mount Prospect for this year. I will be at the January 25th meeting to provide a brief summary of each project and to answers any questions. ~ Cc: Glen R. Andler, Public Works Director X: Engineering\Projects l\2005constprojectmm V.llage e. .eIlR" prea.ect 1816 COMS1RUellOM PRill. IS lIST JANUARY 20, 2005 VILLAGE PROJECTS 1. 2005 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM (List attached) Work: 32 streets / 5.3 miles of intermittent curb repair and asphalt resurfacing at various locations throughout the Village. $2,198,000 Undetermined / Bid Opening February 22 Start work / March 2005 Completion / Sept. 2005 Cost: Contractor: Schedule: 2. 2005 BRIDGE REHABILITATION PROGRAM (Lincoln Street Bridge) Work: Structural repairs to the Lincoln Street Bridge. Cost: $175,000 Contractor: Undetermined / Bid Opening Spring Schedule: Start work / July 2005 Completion / August 2005 3. WALL STREET WATERMAIN IMPROVEMENTS, PHASE II Work: Replacement of existing watermain on Wall Street. Cost: $230,000 Contractor: Martam Construction Schedule: Start work / February 2005 Completion / May 2005 4. PROSPECT MEADOWS WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PHASE I Work: Replacement of existing watermain in first section of Prospect Meadows Subdivision. $407,000 Martam Construction Start work / January 2005 Cost: Contractor: Schedule: Completion / May 2005 5. TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS (Central Road & Northwest Highway and Euclid &Burning Bush) Work: Install pedestrian signals and cross walks. Cost: $30,000 Contractor: Meade Electric Schedule: Start work / March 2005 Completion / April 2005 6. KENSINGTON BUSINESS CENTER POND 3 IMPROVEMENTS (Business Center Drive and Slawin Court) Work: Dredging and bank stabilization. Cost: $170,000 Contractor: Undetermined / Bid Opening in March Schedule: Start work / March 2005 Completion / May 2005 7. 2005 SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS (Various locations throughout the Village) Work: Share/Cost Sidewalk Replacement Program, New Sidewalk Installation Program and CDBG Sidewalk Ramp Program. Cost: $187,500 Contractor: Undetermined / Bid Opening April 25 Schedule: Start work / June 2005 Completion / Sept. 2005 8. COMBINED SEWER REPAIR PROGRAM (Various locations throughout the Village) Work: Sewer point repairs and cured in place lining of existing combined sewers. This is contingent upon approval of $15,000,000 for repair of the entire combined sewer system. $500,000 Undetermined / Bid Opening in Fall Start work / Fall 2005 Completion / Winter 2005 Cost: Contractor: Schedule: lOOT PROJECTS 9. CENTRAL ROAD RESURFACING / lOOT (Kirchof Road to Arthur Ave and Busse Road to Rand Road) Work: Install pedestrian signals and cross walks. Cost: $2,575,000 Contractor: Undetermined / Bid Opening January 21 Schedule: Start work / February 2005 Completion / October 2005 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS 10. LEVEE 37 / US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. PHASE I (North of Palatine Road / west of River Road) Work: First phase of project to construct wall along the north side of Palatine Road to prevent flood water from flowing around Phase II levee wall on River Road. U ndetermi ned Undetermined / Bid Opening February or March 2005 Start work / April 2005 Completion / Fall 2005 Cost: Contractor: Schedule: 11. LEVEE 37 / US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PHASE II (Along River Road from Euclid to Palatine) Work: Construct levee wall and pump stations along the west side of River Road to protect subdivisions west of Des Plaines River. Undetermined Undetermined / Bid Opening date not set yet, Start work / undetermined Completion / undetermined Cost: Contractor: Schedule: - 2 - Village of Mount Prospect 2005 Street Resurfacing Program 2005.01.17 JM Street From To Length ASH DR BEECHWOOD DR CYPRESS DR 540 CEDAR LN WHEELING RD CRABTREE LN 1,080 ELMHURST AV MILBURN A V PROSPECT A V 1,430 EMERSON ST COUNTRY LN LONNQUIST BV 1,680 EVERGREEN A V SCHOOL ST OWEN ST 380 HIAWATHAAV MA NA WA TR ELMHURST RD 640 HI-LUSI AV LONNQUIST BV MAN-A-WA TR 660 HI-LUSI EXT MAN-A-WA TR HI-LUSI A V 195 HIGHLAND ST ELM ST RAND RD 330 KIOWA LN BURNING BUSH LN IVYLN 1,385 LARK DALE LN PROSPECT MANOR ELMHURST A V 670 LAVERGNE DR WILLOW LN PALM DR 875 MAIN ST BERKSHIRE LN COUNCIL TR 495 MAN-A-WA TR NAWATA AV WA-PELLA A V 750 MEMORY LN PINE ST MAIN ST 630 MEMORY LN DALE A V FOREST A V 1,320 MILBURN AV SEE GWUN A V WE-GO TR 350 NA-WA-TA AV MAN-A-WA TR LONNQUIST BV 565 OAK ST GREGORYST MEMORYLN 640 ORIOLE LN PROSPECT MANOR ELHURST A V 660 PROSPECT AV EMERSON ST MAPLE ST 450 REDWOOD A V DEMPSTER ST COTTONWOOD LN 875 ROSETREE LN ONEIDA LN MAYALN 800 SCOTT TE MEIER RD CAROL LN 460 SEE GWUN A V LONNQUIST BV BRIDGE 700 SENECA LN BURNING BUSH LN PARK DR 1,645 SHA-BONEE TR SCHOOL ST EDWARD ST 1,300 WA PELLA AV LINCOLN ST EVERGREEN A V 1,240 WA PELLA AV LONNQUIST BV MAN-A-WA TR 360 WAVERLY AV CENTRAL RD PROSPECT A V 1,400 WHEELING RD KENSINGTON RD EUCLID A V 2,575 WILLE ST GREGORYST MEMORYLN 640 Net Length (Ft.) of MFT Improvement Net Length (Mi.) of MFT Improvement 27,720 5.25 THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT QW1t~t?;$Pe~ 2005 CONSTRUCTION MAP ( -- ,../ ~ 1- r-- ")-1-> U- ~v 1 -......, J 1 ~ I I I I I -.l ';.''<0< ( 4 ( 10 ( 5 I ~ 2 I ... -... -... -... -Camp. CD~K,I"\,,, I 6 ~~~ .--- ~~ . \\~ T ~~N~ '~ .x~ ~ ~, ~~ r--::::t'- 'I""-- D ...~ to' ~ ~- "t'~ r ~ ~ r r ~~~ "- I \/~ t- ~ (9 I J--- r if I v~ " I I~ ~ "'~-'lll r- \-- ~-....., ,- lID! , ~\ l ) I H-1 .b I '\ \ --, ,H ,,, ~ ~r- I -1"-= - 1~ d- ,. -fuuUl , i ;; 1:1- ..... I C "'........... e.- rr"' ~:n. T ~( ~ 0, I I I o:::r:- -~ .... ~T I _______~n -L I 3 - ...... / ~ ~ Yq o 2005 Construction Proiect Map LeQend Village Projects 1) Street Resurfacing Program (See List) 2) 2005 Bridge Rehabilitation Program (Lincoln Street Bridge) p ~ 1 3) Wall Street Watermain Improvements Phase II ~ 4) Prospect Meadows Watermain Replacement Phase I ~ Ir 5) Traffic Signal Improvements 6) Kensington Business Center Pond 3 Improvements 7) 2005 Sidewalk Improvement Programs (Various Locations) 8) Combined Sewer Repair Program (Various Locations) lOOT Projects 9) Central Road Resurfacing Army Corps of Engineers Projects 10) Levy 37 Phase I 11) Levy 37 Phase II VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, January 27,2005 7:00 p.m. Village Hall Building 50 South Emerson Street Third Floor Executive Conference Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of December 2, 2004 ill Discussion Regarding Proposed 2005 Work Plan IV Discussion on Combine Sewer Repairs V Other Business VI Chairman's Report VII Finance Director's Report Vill Next Meeting: Thursday, February 24,2005,7:00 p.m. IX 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 DECEMBER 2, 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 Kom and Commissioners Charles Bennett, Ann Hull, Brian McPartlin, Tom Pekras and Ann Smilanic. Also present were Executive Director of the Mount Prospect Historical Society Gavin Kleespies, Members ofthe Historical Society Board of Directors Marilyn Genther and Walt Rutkowski, Vice President of Third Millennium Lance Leader, Director of Finance David Erb, Deputy Director of Finance Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. Commissioner Vince Grochocinski was absent. II. ApPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman John Kom stated the members would defer the approval of the minutes so that the Historical Society could make their presentation first. III. MOUNT PROSPECT HISTORICAL SOCIETY PRESENTATION Chairman John Kom began by introducing all present at the meeting. Chairman Kom also provided an overview of the Finance Commissions charge. Chairman Kom stated that in the past the Finance Commission has not had any input on the amount the Village gives to the Historical Society and that the commission would like an overview of how the Historical Society budgets and operates and any general background information that would provide an understanding of what the Historical Society provides. Director Marilyn Genther started by saying the Historical Society currently has one full time and one part time employee. There are also Board Directors that are working members who provide volunteer and charity work. The Directors are continually looking for ways to raise funds and recruit members. Chairman John Kom asked how Mount Prospects Historical Society compared to other communities. Executive Director Gavin Kleepsies stated that Mount Prospect is a small independent society which is very unusual. As comparison, Mr. Kleepsies said that the Arlington Heights Historical Society is funded by the Village, Park District and themselves. Chairman John Kom asked if the Historical Society ever applies for grants. Mr. Kleespies stated that they do and have received several grants in the past few years. Chairman John Kom thanked the members for coming in and making their presentation and added that in future years the Finance Commission would appreciate the Historical Society providing a similar written presentation prior to the village's budget process. Ms. Genther stated that the Historical Society could provide the annual review which commissioners received for this meeting. This annual review is prepared every year. Commissioner Brian McPartlin stated that he would like to see the Historical Society do a better job in their fund raising efforts, because he feels that Historical Society is an important part of the future of the village. Commissioner Ann Hull added that she felt it would be beneficial for the Historical Society to show how they spend the money the village gives them each year. Commissioner Hull also asked if the Historical Society has audited financial statements. Ms. Genther said they were audited. Commissioner Brian McPartlin asked how much the Historical Society had in reserves. Ms. Genther said there was approximately $40,000 invested. Following the Historical Society presentation Commissioner Charles Bennett motioned to approve the minutes of October 27, 2004. Commissioner Brian McPartlin seconded the motion and the minutes were accepted as presented. IV. THIRD MILLENNIUM PRESENT A nON ON E-P A Y Director of Finance David Erb began the presentation by explaining that Third Millennium provides water billing services for over 60 municipalities and that Mr. Leader was here to present on e-pay. Mr. Leader began by stating that e-pay would help provide the following benefits to the village: . Reduce lines and waiting when paying a bill . Reduce paper and postage costs . Provide access to bill paying 24 hours a day 7 days a week . Increase cash flow with access to money instantly Mr. Leader also added that people would be willing to use e-pay because it is easy to use, it provides the resident a choice in paying by debt card or credit card, it is a secure site and it provides residents confidentiality. Mr. Leader then provided a computer presentation that walked the members through the web site page and how to log in, navigate the web site and make a payment. Mr. Leader also provided a summary of the various capabilities of the software. Commissioner Brian McPartlin asked if the website would allow a resident to see a history report showing past usage. Mr. Leader stated that a resident would have the capability to look back 18 months and view a pdf file of their actual bill. Commissioner McPartlin also asked ifthere was a way to allow residents to enter their current reading on line. Mr. Leader stated that the website would be able to support the entering of a water meter reading. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked if the resident would have the ability to pay their bill on their own schedule, for example the third of each month. Mr. Leader stated that Third Millennium can set up the website any way the village wants and can allow for different variables. Mr. Leader further explained that the village could eventually use the website to allow residents and non residents to pay for parking tickets, vehicle sticker fees, permits or multi family refuse bills. Chairman John Korn asked how much it would cost to get this project up and running. Mr. Leader stated that it would cost the village $22,500 to purchase the system, there would be a $3,000 yearly fee for the system and a monthly service fee. Commissioner Charles Bennett asked how Third Millennium would help the village market this program to the residents. Mr. Leader stated that they could give presentations and appear on MPTV. V. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT Chairman John Korn distributed the Police Department's 2003 annual police report that was provided by Chief Eddington. Commissioner Ann Smilanic asked how the sales tax figures for this year compare to last years. Director of Finance David Erb stated that current figures are about 1 % higher than last year. Commissioner Brian McPartlin asked if there has been any increase yet in figures at Randhurst after the remodel. Mr. Erb stated that these figures will not be available until the next few months. 2 Chairman John Korn asked the members what they wanted on the agenda for the January 27,2005 meeting. Director of Finance David Erb stated that the members should use the meeting to set the schedule for the coming year. Mr. Erb also mentioned that they could use the January meeting to revisit the sewer repair program and set a time line for developing a plan. Chairman Korn added that the commission would need guidance from Village Manager Mike Janonis and/or Director of Public Works Glen Andler on when repairs will begin and how they will proceed and at what cost. VI. FINANCE DIRECTOR'S REPORT There was nothing to report. VII. OTHER BUSINESS Chairman John Korn wished everyone a happy holiday. Vill. NEXT MEETING: JANUARY 27, 2005 Commissioner Brian McPartlin motioned to adjourn which Commissioner Ann Hull seconded. The meeting was adjourned at 8:57 p.m. The next meeting will be Thursday, January 27,2005. Respectfully submitted, Lisa Burkemper Administrative Assistant Finance Department 3 MAYOR Gerald L. Farley VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron lrvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zade! Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 50 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 MEETING LOCATION: Mount Prospect Village Hall 50 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, IL 60056 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday January 27,2005 7:30 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2004 MEETING . PZ-36-04: 308 Hatlen / Thelen Residence (Porch) . PZ-39-04: I E. Rand Road / CVS Pharmacy / Special Use . PZ-40-04: 102 S. William Street / Cummings Residence / Variation . PZ-42-04: 505 N. Wille / Mazur Residence / Conditional Use (unenclosed porch). B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 11,2004 MEETING . PZ-43-04: 2020 E. Camp McDonald Road / READ Educational Center / Variations . PZ-45-04: 701 E. ShaBonee Trail / Galladora Residence / Variation III. OLD BUSINESS NONE IV. NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-46-04/1310 Burning Bush Lane / Drag Residence / Variation (oversized garage) NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. B. PZ-48-04 / Mitroff Group /1101 Linneman Road / Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development 70- Unit Townhome Development) / NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. C. PZ-49-04 / 7 N. Main Street / Licari Consolidation (one-lot subdivision). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. (continued to February 24, 2005 per the Village Attorney.) D. PZ-50-04 / River West / Condominium Conversion. NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. (Continued to February, 24, 2005 per Petitioner's request.) E. PZ-01-05 / 515 Deborah Lane / Morris Residence / Conditional Use (Porch). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. F. PZ-02-05 / 1-17 S. Emerson Street / Conditional Use (Planned Unit Development - Rowhome Development). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. G. PZ-03-05/1451 W. Lincoln St. / Conditional Use (Porch) & Variation (Garage Addition). NOTE: The Porch is P&Z Final but the Garage Addition is Village Board Final. H. PZ-04-05 / Mogielnicki Residence /510 W. Lonnquist Blvd / Conditional Use (Porch). NOTE: This case is Planning & Zoning Commission Final. V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS See Attached VI. 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 Prospec~ IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847-392-6064. Attachment V. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS . Z-39-041 CVS Pharmacy 1 Special Use: Village Board approved request 11/16/04 . PZ-40-04/102 S. William Street / Cummings Residence: Village Board approved 11/16/04 . PZ-43-04/ READ Educational Center: Village Board approved . PZ-26-04 / St. Paul Lutheran Church has been withdrawn due to a significant time lapse. The case will be re-activated and noticed upon receipt of revised drawings. . PZ-34-041 300 E. Rand Road 1 Robert Hsu Foundation, Inc. has been withdrawn due to a significant time lapse. The case will be re-activated and noticed upon receipt of updated/additional information. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-36-04 Hearing Date: October 28, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 308 Hatlen Avenue PETITIONER: Heidi Thelen PUBLICA TlON DATE: October 13, 2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 08-10-217-016-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use -Unenclosed Porch in front yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development; Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Heidi Thelen Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2004 meeting and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-26-04, Variations for the St. Paul Lutheran Church project. Matt Sledz made a motion to continue PZ-26-04 to November II, 2004; Richard Rogers seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-36-04, a request for a Conditional Use permit for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard. She noted that the request would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly reviewed the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the south side of Hatlen A venue, between Michael Street and Busse Road, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RI Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RI District. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the existing home, including a 2-story addition and an unenclosed front porch. The proposed porch would consist of a wood base, wood rails, columns, and a lattice skirt at the base of the porch. The proposed porch will extend 6' from the house, resulting in a 27' front yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. The existing home complies with the Village's zoning regulations, but the detached garage encroaches into the required side yard setback. The garage is allowed to remain in its current location because it is a legal non-conformity. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the proposed porch, the request has to meet the standards for a Conditional Use, which are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that Staff found that the proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-36-04 Page 2 Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 25' for the residence at 308 Hatlen Avenue, Case No. PZ-36-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. The Planning & Zoning Commissioners asked Staff: In looking at the original plans for the columns, the plans originally specified reinforced polymer that was stricken and replaced with wood. The Planning and Zoning asked for clarification on the materials change for the columns, it was determined that it was the petitioners' decision to use wood instead of reinforced polymer for the porch columns. Merrill Cotton noted that the Staff report had a discrepancy. He said that the setback shown on the plans and cited in the Staff report were different. He asked Staff to confirm the dimensions and draft the resolution accordingly, so the unenclosed porch would not encroach into the front yard more than the Zoning Ordinance permitted. Heidi Thelen, 308 Hatlen Avenue, was sworn in. She testified that they wanted to construct a 2-story addition, and that the design would fit with the neighborhood as opposed as to having just a flat front porch. Ms. Juracek asked if Ms. Thelen understood that the porch could not be enclosed at anytime. The Petitioner stated that they understood. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. Nobody came forward. There was no further discussion on this case and Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing. Merrill Cotten made a motion to approve the request for a Conditional Use permit that would allow an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 5-feet into the front yard setback, for the property located at 308 Hatlen A venue, Case No. PZ-36-04. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:36 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C\Documents and Seuings\kdewis\Local Settings\Tcmporary Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-36-04 308 Hallen Porch CU.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-39-04 Hearing Date: October 28, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: CVS Pharmacy 1 E. Rand Road PETITIONER: Kari Myers, Site Enhancement Services (Agent for CVS) PUBLICATION DATE: October 13,2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-34-200-001-0000 REQUEST: Special Use - Electronic Message Board Sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development; Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Kari Myers, Site Enhancement Services (Agent for CVS) Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2004 meeting and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-26-04, Variations for the St. Paul Lutheran Church project. Matt Sledz made a motion to continue PZ-26-04 to November 11, 2004; Richard Rogers seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. After hearing another case, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-39-04, a request for a Special Use permit for an electronic message board sign. She noted that the request would be Planning 7 Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that in the summer of 2000, the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the Petitioner's request for multiple wall signs on the north elevation. The Petitioner revised the package and the signs installed complied with the Village's Sign Code. The Petitioner is now seeking Special Use approval to install a freestanding sign with an electronic message board at the northwest comer of the Subject Property. Ms. Connolly said that the Petitioner is allowed to have one freestanding sign per street frontage. The existing freestanding sign on the Elmhurst Road frontage would be removed, but the freestanding sign on the Rand Road frontage would remain in its current location. The location and size of the proposed sign would comply with the Village's Sign Code regulations. The Petitioner's exhibit indicates that the overall height of the sign would measure no more than 12-feet from grade. The base of the sign will be red brick and capped with a standard masonry material. The electronic message board would include three lines of copy (text) used to advertise CVS's sale items and/or services. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the proposed sign, the P&Z would have to find that it met the standards listed in the Sign Code. She summarized the standards and said that the size and location of the sign Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-39-04 Page 2 complies with Sign Code regulations. The Village's Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposal and found that the electronic message board would not adversely impact traffic. In addition, Staff found that the design of the proposed sign would not create a negative impact on adjacent properties. However, the two freestanding sign materials (proposed and existing Rand Road frontage sign) will no longer match. In order to ensure that the proposed sign is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, Staff recommends that the base of the existing sign (Rand Road frontage) be modified to include a brick base. Ms. Connolly said that based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the proposed Special Use to permit an electronic message board for the CVS freestanding sign subject to the following conditions: I. Remove the existing CVS sign on the Elmhurst Road frontage; 2. Modify the existing Rand Road frontage freestanding sign so it has a brick base and matches the proposed freestanding sign; and 3. That the proposed sign comply with the standards listed in Sec. 7.330.A of the Sign Code. The Planning & Zoning Commission inquired whether the proposal complied with the 600-foot separation requirement from another electronic message board sign, as there was one such sign at Randhurst. It was confirmed that the Randhurst sign was removed and that the proposal complied with all Village Code requirements. Kari Myers, Site Enhancement Services, Agent for CVS, 3699 W. Lathrop, South Bend, IN, was sworn in. Ms. Myers reviewed the proposed sign elevations. She testified that the sign would comply with the Village's Sign Code regulations: the text would not flash; the text would not be continued from 'screen-to-screen' but would appear as one message at one time; the text would be displayed for a 10-15 second interval. There was general discussion regarding the sign and the existing signs. Mr. Cotten stated that he does not like electronic message board signs in general because he feels they cause traffic accidents and distract drivers. Mr. Rogers said that he did not like the location of the proposed sign. He said that the intersection experiences significantly high traffic volumes and that the electronic message board would not be appropriate at this location. Mr. Donnelly stated concerns regarding the location, the high traffic volume, and how the sign could cause traffic hazards. Mr. Sledz said that he would abstain from the vote because he works for a competitor of CVS. Chairperson Juracek told Ms. Myers that she had the option of asking for the case to be continued so she could meet with CVS and modify the proposal to address the Commissioner's concerns. Ms. Myers said that the Village's Traffic Engineer did not feel the sign posed a traffic hazard, which was stated in the Staff Report. Therefore, she did not feel any modifications to the sign would address the Commissioner's traffic concerns. She asked the P&Z vote on the request. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone was in the audience who wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. As there were none, she closed the Public Hearing at 8:02. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Special Use permit to install an electronic message board sign subject the conditions listed in the Staff Report, Case No. PZ-39-04. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-39-04 Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, and Rogers ABSTAIN: Sledz Motion was denied 3-1. At 8:36 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local SettingslTemporal)' Intemet Files\OLK2\PZ-39~04 I E. Rand Road CVS Elec Sign.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION *REVISED* CASE NO. PZ-40-04 Hearing Date: October 28, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 102 S. William Street PETITIONER: Tom & Katherine Cummings PUBLICATION DATE: October 13,2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 08-12-208-013-0000 REQUEST: Variation - Unenclosed Porch MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development; Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Tom Cummings and Dorothy Ceisel Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2004 meeting and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-26-04, Variations for the St. Paul Lutheran Church project. Matt Sledz made a motion to continue PZ-26-04 to November 11, 2004; Richard Rogers seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. After hearing two other cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-40-04, a request for a Variation for an unenclosed porch to encroach 9.47-feet into the front yard. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Petitioner's proposed improvements to the existing home are limited to replacing an existing porch with an unenclosed porch. The front setback of the proposed unenclosed porch would be the same as the existing porch, but the new porch would include a 2' overhang for a small portion of the porch. The Petitioner included the overhang to add architectural interest to the unenclosed porch. Also, the porch would be slightly modified to wrap-around the house and extend into the side yard. The portion of the porch that extends into the side yard meets setbacks regulations and does not require relief from zoning regulations. However, the front setback would be less than 2 I-feet. The Zoning Ordinance lists unenclosed porches that encroach no more than 5' into the required front yard setback as Conditional Uses and the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for the request. The proposed unenclosed porch requires a Variation and Village Board approval because it exceeds the scope of the parameters for a Conditional Use. In this case, the Petitioner proposes to rebuild the porch, but 'open it up' using a wood railing, and a combination of wood and stone columns instead of the solid wall that currently exists. The roofline of the house extends over the porch and this design dictates that the porch to be replaced using the same footprint as the existing porch. The floor would continue to be raised and a lattice would screen the base and extend into the ground. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson REVISED PZ-40-04 Page 2 The existing home does not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the existing porch encroaches into the required front yard and has a 22.2' setback. The Petitioner proposes to replace the porch to maintain the structural integrity of the house and the porch, but also include a 2' overhang as part of the new porch. The footprint of the porch would be 22.2' but the overhang extends almost 2' past the existing setback. The proposed unenclosed porch requires relief from the RA District's bulk regulations for the front yard setback. The porch would be constructed according to all applicable Village Codes. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the request, the request has to meet the standards for a Variation, which are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to replace a nonconforming structure and include a 2' overhang as part of the new structure. The Zoning Ordinance allows certain nonconforming structures to be replaced as long as the site meets lot coverage requirements. However, the proposed porch does not meet the nonconforming criteria listed in the Zoning Ordinance and a Variation is required. The Petitioner has explored different designs for the porch, but the design of the roof limits their options. The existing roof extends into the setback and the posts are load-bearing piers that carry the weight of the roof. In order to meet current zoning regulations, the roof would have to be significantly modified because the posts that extend into the required front yard ensure the structural integrity of the roofline. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 30-foot front yard for the house. However, the existing structure does not meet this requirement and the Petitioner would like to construct the porch almost ten-feet into the required setback, as it currently exists. Although the proposed encroachment is slightly more than the existing encroachment, the request meets the standards for a Variation because there is a hardship as defined by the Zoning Ordinance: which means that replacing the porch as required by the Zoning Ordinance would create a practical difficulty in meeting code requirements because of unusual circumstances such as the roofline. Ms. Connolly concluded by stating that Staff found that the Petitioner's request to improve the house and have an unclosed porch encroach into the front yard met the Variation standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance because the roofline creates a hardship, as defined by the Zoning Ordinance. Also, the footprint of the porch would be the same as the existing porch, and the two-foot overhang does not change the footprint of the porch. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a Variation to allow a 10' front yard setback for an unenclosed porch as shown on the Petitioner's exhibits for the residence at 102 S. William Street, Case No. PZ-40-04. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Tom Cummings, 102 S. William Street, Mount Prospect, and Dorothy Ceisel, 7339 N. School Street, Niles, IL were sworn in. Mr. Cummings reviewed the project and stated that the porch floor had to be replaced because it was deteriorating. He said that he and his wife wanted to take this opportunity to improve the aesthetics of the house by opening up the porch and making it more inviting. Ms. Ceisel reviewed the architectural elements of the project and compared the over hang to a bay window. She noted that the over hang would not extend to the ground and that the existing steps occupy more of the front yard than the over hang. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the age and style of the house, how the new porch would enhance the house, and that the roof prevented the new porch from complying with current regulations. There was discussion on how the porch and over hang would provide more 'green space' in the front yard than what currently exists. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone was in the audience who wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. Bob Leopold, 107 S. William Street, was sworn in. Mr. Leopold asked for clarification on the design of the porch and did not object to the Petitioner's request. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing and asked for a motion or further discussion. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson REVISED PZ-40-04 Page 3 Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the request for a Variation that would allow an unenclosed porch with a 2' over hang to encroach 9.47' into the required front yard, for the property located at 102 S. William Street, Case No. PZ-40-04. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Juracek, Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:36 p.m., Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Seuings\Temporary Intel1let Files\OLK2\PZ-40-04 102 S William Porch V AR.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-42-04 Hearing Date: October 28, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 505 N. Wille PETITIONERS: Kevin Wosz and Adrienne Mazur Wosz PUBLICATION DATE: October 13,2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-34-123-028-0000 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Unenclosed Porch to encroach into front yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development; Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Kevin W osz Adrienne Mazur Wosz Janette Mc Lysaught Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 23, 2004 meeting and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue PZ-26-04, Variations for the project. Matt Sledz made a motion to continue PZ-26-04 to November 11,2004; Richard Rogers seconded the motion. The motion was approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-26-04, a request for a Conditional Use permit for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the front yard. She noted that the request would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said that the Subject Property is located on the east side of Wille Street, between Highland Street and Memory Lane, and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single-Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA District. The Petitioner is proposing a number of improvements to the existing home, including a new detached garage, a 2-story addition, and an unenclosed front porch. The proposed porch has a stone and brick exterior with a concrete base and may also be accessed from the home's second story. Although the proposed porch design differs from other porches reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission, it meets the Village Code's definition of an unenclosed porch. The proposed porch will extend 5' from the house, resulting in a 25'3" front yard setback. Therefore, the proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval. The existing home complies with the Village's zoning regulations, and the new-detached garage will comply with zoning regulations. In addition, the Building Commissioner confirmed that the proposal to convert the existmg attached garage into a portico would comply with Village Codes. In order to approve the porch, the P&Z must find that it meets the standards for a Conditional Use, which are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that Staff found that the proposal would not adversely affect the Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-42-04 Page 2 character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision, or public streets, and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach into the required front yard, creating a front setback of no less than 25' for the residence at 505 N. Wille Street, Case No. PZ-42-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Kevin Wosz and Adrienne Mazur Wosz of 505 N. Wille, were sworn in. Mr. Wosz stated that they both have been residents of Mount Prospect for many years and have owned the house for 3 years. He said that they worked with the architect to get evel)'1:hing they desired in a home. He stated they also looked at other homes in the neighborhood, to ensure the addition would be complimentary. Ms. Mazur-Wosz stated this would be their dream home and that she always wanted a front porch. Richard Rogers stated that the Petitioners are making a substantial addition to the house. He said that the addition would significantly change the look of the existing house. He noted that it would be an expensive addition and the petitioner agreed. Mrs. Janette Mc Lysaught of 511 N. Wille Street was sworn in. She stated that she was shocked at the size of the house but commented that many ofthe homes being built are very large. She stated that the larger homes do not fit with the design of the neighborhood. She said that some of the neighbors are moving because the large homes are overshadowing their home. Ms. Juracek stated that it is a concern for the neighborhood when housing stock and housing styles change. She said that she has seen changes with the historical house tours. She said that the proposed porch is a different style, especially with the balcony. Chairperson Juracek asked if there were any further comments on this case. There was discussion regarding whether the balcony alone is permitted in the front yard. Staff said no, that it must meet 30' setback. It was determined that the proposal meets the definition of a porch and that the Zoning Ordinance does not prohibit access from the second story onto a porch. Ms. Juracek clarified that the a proposal is a 2 story unenclosed porch. Merrill Cotten asked whether the front walk met code. Staff confirmed that the walkway is a permitted encroachment and does not require special approval. Mrs. Juracek stated that the proposal meets bulk regulations, including lot coverage. There was discussion regarding how neighborhoods in Mount Prospect are changing, that there is a lot of re- investment in the Mount Prospect community. Ms. Juracek said the first house to change on the block may be surprising and noted that the porch is a different style, but that the style of house is nice. Mike Jacobs added that the only specific thing being considered is the porch addition to the house and that the style of the house is not under consideration. There was discussion regarding changes brought about due to teardowns and additions. The Planning and Zoning Division agreed that it is different looking porch because it has a balcony. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. Merrill Cotten made a motion to approve the request for a Conditional Use permit that would allow an unenclosed porch to encroach no more than 5-feet into the front yard setback, for the property located at 505 N. Wille Street, Case No. PZ-42-04. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:36 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner (-\Documents and Sellings\kdewis\Local SeltingslTempofmy Internet Files\OLK2\PZ~42.04 505 N Wille Mazur,doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-43-04 Hearing Date: November II, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 2020 Camp McDonald Road PETITIONER: Gregory Hubert, Read Educational Center PUBLICATION DATE: October 27, 2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 03-24-416-027-0000 REQUEST: Variations for setbacks, lot coverage, parking lot MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Gregory Hubert Jeff Whyte Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue approval of the minutes of the previous meeting and the two items of Old Business to the December 9th meeting. Joseph Donnelly moved and Matt Sledz seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-43-04, a request for Variations to setbacks, lot coverage, parking & lot. She noted that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. She said the Subject Property is located on the north side of Camp McDonald Road, between River Road and Park Drive, and contains a one-story school building with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned B3 Community Shopping and is bordered by the B3 District to the east and west, by the R4 Multi-Family District to the north, and the RI Single Family to the south, across Camp McDonald Road. The Subject Property is generally rectangular in shape and the existing building is currently set back 30' from the south (front) lot line, 40' from the west, and is located on the north (rear) and east (interior) lot lines. The existing parking lot is irregularly shaped and is setback from the west (interior) lot line between 4'-14'. Ms. Connolly said that the READ Educational Center is an existing Montessori school with a pre-school program for 3-5 year olds and a kindergarten to 5th grade curriculum. Also, the school offers a specialized program for deaf and hearing-impaired children. In an effort to improve access to the site and general site conditions at the Subject Property, the Petitioner proposes to create a drop-off area, add parking spaces by expanding the parking lot, reconfigure the access to the site, and relocate the garbage dumpster. The dumpster is currently located along the west elevation of the school building, towards the rear of the structure. The Petitioner proposes to modify the area where the dumpster is currently located and proposes to relocate the dumpster to the south area of the Subject Property. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate that the dumpster enclosure would be located 3' from the east (interior) lot line and approximately 6' from the south (front) lot line. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-43-04 Page 2 The dumpster would be screened with a 6' wood fence and have a concrete pad. The construction of the dumpster enclosure would comply with Village regulations, however, the proposed location requires relief from zoning regulations because the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' setback. The Petitioner proposes to locate the dumpster enclosure in the required front and side yard in an effort to maximize the number of parking spaces and for safety reasons. The proposed location would allow for an additional parking space and the dumpster would be located away from the students' play area. In addition, the proposed location minimizes potential sight obstructions. Although parking is certainly important to the school, Staff recommends that the dumpster be located within the parking lot area to maintain the established street view along Camp McDonald Road. Currently, the parking lot is not striped. Staff conducted a site visit and determined that the site currently parks at least 9 vehicles. It is Staffs understanding that a section of the paved surface is used for student outdoor activities, subject to the weather conditions, and vehicles generally do not park in close proximity to the play area. The Petitioner proposes to expand the play area and install a fence around the perimeter of the play area. The Petitioner proposes to expand the parking lot and provide 11 standard parking spaces and one handicap space. Site access would be reconfigured so vehicles would enter from the east driveway, drop-off the student (a teacher 'delivers' a student to the building), and then exit the site using the west driveway. The new parking spaces would be located 'head-in' along the west elevation of the school and additional spaces would be created along the west lot line. Staff and parents would use the parking spaces. The Petitioner proposes a 4' setback along the west lot line and a 20' wide drive aisle. It is important to note that, although the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10' setback and a 24' wide drive aisle, the proposed design, coupled with the reconfigured access to the site, would help to improve the interior circulation. Also, the dash striped walkway area is intended to minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts. The Petitioner is seeking a Variation to permit the 20' wide drive aisle and the 4' setback along the west lot line, which is adjacent to an animal clinic. The Petitioner proposes to plant evergreen bushes to minimize the impact of the encroachment on the adjacent property. Currently, a portion of the parking lot/paved area has a 4' setback, however, the new parking lot is required to meet current code regulations. Also, the 20' wide drive aisle is necessary to create the maximum number of parking spaces with minimal impact on the adjacent property. The Zoning Ordinance requires one parking space per employee and 8 VIsItor spaces. The school has 5 employees, therefore the Petitioner is required to have 13 parking spaces. Due to site constraints and existing conditions, the Petitioner proposes to provide 12 parking spaces and is seeking a Variation to permit one space less than the Zoning Ordinance requires for the Subject Property. The Petitioner's exhibits indicate that a permeable paver would be used for a portion of the drop-off area. The Petitioner's architect has provided information from the manufacturer to establish that the pavers are a permeable material. However, the Village Code does not recognize the proposed material as permeable and it is included in the impervious calculation. Although the Petitioner proposes to expand the parking lot and driveway (access to the site), the site will have an increase in 'green' because the play area will be expanded. The Engineering Division confirmed that, based on the information submitted by the Petitioner's architect, the base of the play area meets the Village's pervious definition. Although the Petitioner is decreasing the permeable area of the site from 21 % to 23%, a variation for lot coverage is still required because the proposal exceeds the 75% lot coverage limitation by 370 square feet. The existing building and parking lot do not comply with the Village's zoning regulations because the existing structures encroach into the required rear and side yards. The Petitioner does not propose any changes to the building, but is seeking approval to modify the parking lot and access to/from the site to improve the interior circulation. The proposed access and parking lot design is intended to minimize pedestrian-vehicle conflicts and create a safer parking lot. In order to approve the requests, the Board has to find they meet the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-43-04 Page 3 Ordinance. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the Petitioner is proposing to improve the site by creating more parking, reconfiguring the parking lot and access to/from the site, reducing lot coverage, and relocating the dumpster. The existing conditions create traffic congestion on-site, which then spills off-site and consequently adversely impacts vehicles traveling on Camp McDonald Road. The Petitioner has explored different designs for the drop-off area and worked with the Village's Engineering Division to arrive at a design that, although does not meet current Village Codes, improves the interior circulation of the site. The proposed changes would benefit the neighborhood by minimizing traffic conflicts on Camp McDonald Road, providing more on-site parking, and increasing green space. However, the width of the property and the location of the building limit the Petitioner's design options. Therefore, some of the requested Variations meet the standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance and the proposed landscaping would help minimize impacts of the encroachments on the adjacent properties (animal clinicand gas station). The Petitioner's requests for variations for: I) side yard setbacks, 2) lot coverage, 3) parking lot design, and 4) number of parking spaces meets the Variation standards listed in the Zoning Ordinance because the existing conditions and width of the lot limit the Petitioner's ability to arrive at a design that would comply with all zoning regulations. However, the proposed dumpster enclosure could be relocated to comply with Village Code. Based on these findings, Staff recommends the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend the Village Board deny the requested Variation for the dumpster location and approve Variations to allow: less parking spaces than are required by the Zoning Ordinance with the final count to be determined based on the dumpster location; a parking lot to encroach into the required side yard and have a 4' setback (west lot line), as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30,2004; 20' wide drive aisle as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004; and 77% lot coverage as indicated on the Petitioner's exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004 for the READ Educational Center at 2020 Camp McDonald Road, Case No. PZ-43-04. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Gregory Hubert, President of the Read Educational Center, was sworn in and thanked the Planning & Zoning Commission for hearing their request. He explained that theirs is the only school that teaches the deaf along with hard of hearing children. He said that it is important to maintain the site and to ensure the structure remains attractive and safe. He introduced their architect, Jeff Whyte. After being sworn in, Mr. Whyte said Judy had done a very good, very thorough job explaining the request. He showed current pictures of the facility and proposed drawings of the improvements. He also stated the reason for the requests was to install a turnaround away from traffic for the safety of the children and that the turnaround necessitated other changes in landscaping, paving, parking lot configuration, etc. Directional and traffic regulatory signs will be provided at the entrance and exit to help drivers easily negotiate the drop-off area. Mr. Whyte showed the planned landscaping and enlarged playground. He also showed the reconfigured dumpster location that would meet Village Code. He reviewed how another parking place would be possible if the Commission was agreeable to sacrificing a tree. Mr. Whyte explained their thoughts on why they thought the permeable surface they plan to use in the turnaround would alleviate any water retention problems caused by increased lot coverage. Mr. Whyte described the dumpster enclosure. Richard Rogers said he preferred the original planned location of the dumpster, but about four feet further back, rather than the new alternative. He also appreciated Mr. Whyte's efforts to save a tree in lieu of a parking space with added asphalt. Ms. Juracek agreed with the new dumpster location. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience wanted to address the Planning & Zoning Commission. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 8: 16 pm and asked for a motion or further discussion, especially on the dumpster. Mr. Rogers said he would make a motion that the dumpster maintain the required 10' front yard setback and three or four feet back from the side yard setback, or, the original position, but four feet further back. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-43-04 Page 4 Ms. Juracek said the motion before the Planning Zoning Commission by Richard Rogers is to approve the side yard Variation, provided the dumpster is not located in the 10-foot front yard setback. Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek, NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. Alternative three, where the dumpster is located no less than 3-feet from the east lot line, is recommended for approval to the Village Board. Ms. Juracek said she would entertain a motion to approve the Petitioner's request for Variations for the parking lot design, parking lot setback, one parking space, and lot coverage. Richard Rogers said that he is usually not in favor of circular driveways, but in this situation, the proposed design would improve access to/from the site. Mr. Rogers made a motion to approve Variations to allow: 1) the side yard setback for the parking lot as shown on the exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004, 2) the dumpster to encroach into the required side yard; 3) 77% lot coverage, 4) the parking lot design as shown on the exhibit prepared by Archi-Build, dated September 30, 2004, and 5) 12 parking spaces subject to the Petitioner relocating the dumpster at least 10' from the front lot line and no less than 3' from the east lot line for the property located at 2020 Camp McDonald Road, Case No. PZ-43-04. Joseph Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Juracek, Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 5-0. At 8:51 p.m., after hearing another case, Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AlCP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Settings\kdewis\Local Settings\Temporary Intel11el Files\OLK2\PZ-43-04 2020 Camp Me Donald Rd Read Educ Ctr.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-45-04 Hearing Date: November 11,2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 701 Sha-Bonee Trail PETITIONER: Michael Galladora PUBLICATION DATE: October 27, 2004 Journal/Topics PIN#: 08-12-407 -001-0000 REQUEST: Variations for exterior side yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Arlene Juracek Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Leo Floros Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Michael Galladora Roger Kruse Sophie Sagalia Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:37 p.m. Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to continue approval of the minutes of the previous meeting and the two items of Old Business to the December 9th meeting. Joseph Donnelly moved and Matt Sledz seconded the motion, which was approved 5-0. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-45-04, a request for Variation to the exterior side yard setback. She noted that the request would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. The Petitioner would like to remodel the existing home. The proposed improvements to the existing home include creating a great room, a new family room, and office on the basement/first floor and relocating the bedrooms, and adding a fourth bedroom and two sitting rooms to the second floor. The Petitioner is seeking relief from the exterior side yard setback to allow a portion of the proposed 2-story turret, garage, and second story master bedroom to encroach 4' 10" into the required 20' setback. Also, the stoop, which measures 16' at its widest point and 11' deep, exceeds the 8'x5' size permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed addition would be constructed using a variety of building materials. Some of the existing brick and siding would remain, but would be supplemented with brick face where necessary. Also, a stone turret would be added to the north elevation and the south and east elevations would be siding. The existing home meets the Village's zoning regulations, but the concrete stoop along the north elevation exceeds the current code definition for a stoop. However, the stoop would be removed as part of the remodeling project. The Petitioner proposes to remodel the house and encroach into the required 20' exterior side yard. The proposed 2-story turret, garage, second story master bedroom, and stoop require relief from the RA District's bulk regulations for the exterior side yard setback. Also, the Petitioner needs to confirm that the proposed home would not exceed the 28' height limitation, which is measured at the mid-point of the roof. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-45-04 Page 2 The Petitioner is proposing to extensively remodel the existing home, but the proposal does not meet the required 20' exterior side yard and would have a 15'2" setback. The Petitioner's application states that the relief from the Zoning Ordinance is necessary because they would like to remain in the community, and update the existing home to meet their current space requirements. Also, the Petitioner references two homes in the area that also do not meet the 20' exterior side yard setback. Staff researched the two properties and found that those I-story attached garages do not meet current code regulations. However, the garages were built as part of the original homes in 1955 and 1956. At that time, the Village Code had a "Side Lot Requirement of 10% oflot width, both sides except driveways - then 8' minimum required." One of the homes recently added an addition on to the rear of the home. However, the addition did not exceed the scope of the nonconforming regulations listed in the Zoning Ordinance and was permitted by the Zoning Ordinance. The. Petitioner states that he has explored different designs with his architect, but they could not arrive at an addition that met the Village's zoning regulations and the Petitioner's requirements. The Petitioner's application does not cite that a Variation is necessary due to the topography of the Subject Property or for structural reasons. Based on the information submitted by the Petitioner, the Variation is needed to accommodate the Petitioner's living requirements, which does not meet the Zoning Ordinance's definition of a hardship. Also, most lots in the RA District have 50' widths and the Subject Property measures 54' wide. The Petitioner's request to remodel the house and have an oversized stoop and a 2-story addition encroach 4'10" into the required exterior side yard fails to meet the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance as the proposed design originates from convenience as opposed to a physical land or structural limitation. The Petitioner has the option of scaling back the proposal and complying with the Village's Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission denv a Variation to allow a 15'2" exterior side yard as shown on the attached exhibits for the residence at 701 E. ShaBonee Trail, Case No. PZ-45-04. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Michael Galladora, 701 ShaBonee Trail, was sworn in. Mr. Galladora stated he and his wife and two children have lived in Mount Prospect for 17 years. He currently works out of his home and requires more space for his business. He would like to stay in Mount Prospect. Chairperson Arlene asked the Petitioner if he tried to move the office in another location, rather than pushing the garage forward. He replied that he needs closure between the houSe and his office. Arlene Juracek said she would be interested III hearing what impact the structure might have on the neighborhood. Sophie Sagalia was sworn in. She lives at 503 S. Louis directly behind the Galladora residence and said they have no objections to the addition and improvement to the residence. Roger Kruse of 515 S. Louis was sworn in and stated that he has been a resident of the Village of Mount Prospect since 1958. He said that he does not agree that the proposed improvement should be approved. There was extensive discussion regarding the size of the addition with respect to the size of the Subject Property and whether it would be more appropriate on a larger lot. The Commissions discussed the proposed front stoop and the materials. Several Commissioners stated that the stoop's design was too invasive because the solid stone 'railing' gave the impression of a wall. Several Commission stated their support of scaling back the size of the stoop to 5'x8' which meets zoning regulations, and using different materials. The Petitioner said that he did not want to change the entrance, but agreed to make the changes if the Commission would approve a Variation for the remainder of the project. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-45-04 Page 3 Richard Rogers made a motion to for a Variation to allow a 15'2" exterior side yard as shown on the attached exhibits with the stoop modified to no more than 5'x8' and constructed from an 'open' material for the residence at 701 E. ShaBonee Trail, Case No. PZ-45-04. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. The Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, and Sledz NAYS: Juracek Motion was approved 4-1. At 8:51 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner C:\Documents and Setlings\kdewis\Local Settings\TempofalY Internet Files\OLK2\PZ-45-04 701 ShaBonee Tr.doc