Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/13/1994 COW minutes MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DECEMBER 13, 1994 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Gerald Farley celled the meeting to order at 7 40 p m Present at the meeting were Mayor Gerald Farley, Trustees George Clowes, T~mothy Corcoran, M~chaele Skowron and Irvana Wilks Trustee Hoefert arnved at 8 37 p m Absent from the meeting was Trustee R~chard Hendncks Also present at the meeting were V~llage Manager M;chael Janon.s, Assistant to the V~llage Manager Dawd Strahl, Planmng D~rector Will~am Cooney, V~llage Planner M~chael S[ms and V;llage Engineer Jeffrey Wulbecker. II. MINUTES Acceptance of the M~nutes from November 22, 1994 Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Corcoran M~nutes approved III.CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None IV. MULTI-FAMILY DENSITY DISCUSSION Trustee Corcoran prowded an overview of h~s memo from September 27, 1994 Trustee Corcoran stated the purpose for his memo was to address basic Zoning standards for new projects and to possibly revise the PUD standards so that density ~s not ~ncreased to the detriment of Mount Prospect Also, he felt the V~llage should require a cesh contnbut~on from developers and not allow detenbon areas to be counted as open space by the developers Mayor Fa~ey stated he would like to take each ~tem on Trustee Corcoran's memo indlwdually so that each member of the Board had full opportumty to make their thoughts known on each ~tem Trustee Corcoran prowded an outhne show~ng the typical density of s~ngle-fam~ly, attached s~ngle-fam~ly, mulb-fam~ly and sen~or ~t~zen housing The analysis that he ~s refernng is based on a land value assumed at 30% of the total cost of the project Decrease the allowable density standard for mulb-fam~ly by 33% General d~scussion of the Board followed ~n which comments by numerous Board members were made Comments ~ncluded a maintenance of the rabo of the s~ngle-famlly homes to multi-family units that currently ex~st and not change the rabo toward more mulb-fam~ly un~ts Some members of the Board felt that the density that currently exists is comparable to other towns ~n the area Other comments ,ncluded the need to maintain or provide affordable housing to keep Mount Prospect's population static Also, some Board members expressed concern that the Board ~s forced to negobate down to a desirable dens,ty level at the brae of their approval of the project and felt ~t would make more sense to have spe~fic density regulations already in place w~thout having to negotiate on a case- by-case basis Consensus of the Village Board members requested a cost breakdown for housing based on each level of density. Also, the Board requested the Planning Depar~u.ent to provide an example of a development starling with open land where the optimum development could be illu=[r,~ted. Board members would consider discussing the dens'~¥ reduction further once the additional Information is made available. End the use of PUDs as a vehicle to ~ncrease density where there ~s not any d~rect benefit to the V~lla.qe Trustee Corcoran ~ntroduced the ~tem by stabng that PUDs are typically used to increase density and would I~ke the V~llage to define the benefits which ~t would derive from such a PUD approval ~n order for approval for the density ~ncrease General d~scuss~on of Board members ~ncluded a d~scuss~on which centered on defimng a benefit to the V~llage for the density change and what unique feature of the development the V~llage would benefit from For example, ~n some PUD developments, retail is mixed w~th residential but not ~n all cases However, the density ~ncrease ~s usually approved for PUDs w~thout a specific commumty benefit Consensus of the Village Board members requested the Planning Department to recommend some restzlctions which might be placed on PUDs In order to define clearly the bene;;L~ that the Village would receive from increased dens'~y. Once this Information is available, the Village Board would consider this Issue fuHfter. 2 Promote the preservation of open space, RX d~stncts and require developers to contribute to open space, community amemt~es and quahty of hfe ~mprovements General comments of the Board members included a d~scuss~on on whether developers should be required to prowde in-kind cash for community amen~bes or be required to maintain ex~st~ng open space w~th~n the proposed development However, other Board members felt that requmng impact fees would drive up the cost of housing Resident Steve PolE, 601 Wilshire Drive, spoke He comphmented the Board on d~scuss~ng the need for open space and he requested the Board to seriously consider requ~nng a donation because the V~llage ~s deficient ~n the number of acres which are designated as parkland He feels that ~mpact fees could be pooled by the Park D~stnct in order to purchase the necessary land for add~bonal parks to address the deficiency Trustee Corcoran stated further that he would hke to protect RX d~stncts from rezon~ng due to their s~ze and uniqueness w~th~n the V~llage Bill Cooney prowded the Board the basic information on the RX D~stnct stating ~t ~s the most restncbve zoning d~stnct w~th~n Mount Prospect RX requires a double lot s~ze when compared to an R-1 d~stnct Consensus of the Village Board was to define RX districts cleariy and focus on protecting RX district status. The Board wants to protect RX neighborhoods as much as possible. Board membem directed staff to review the various Districts and estimate potential development which may affect the status of RX Districts. Impact Fees General d~scusslon of the V~llage Board focused on the fact that impact fees drive up the cost of the development and members felt the donabon ~f, m fact, it ,s required should be identified d~rectly w~th the impact or the benefit the fees are supposed to prcwde Resident Steve Polit spoke again He stated that Sectmn 16 610 of the Mumc~pal Code requires each dwelhng umt to make a donation of $1,450 Bill Cooney stated the charge of $1,450 per unit ~s defined as a charge for the maintenance of pubhc fac~ht~es Consensus of the Village Board was to request staff review other towns' ordinances relating to Impact fees and report back to the Board with a proposal specifically Identifying the bener~s an Impact fee would provide. 3 Detention Areas not Counted as Open Space Th~s was the final ~tem d~scussed from Trustee Corcoran's memo General d~scuss~on of Board members was that a change ,n the slope and a change in the d~stance from the umt to the detention area would reduce density. However, the change in the slope of the detention area would possibly create a hazardous area Consensus of the Village Board wes to request the staff to recommend possible revisions to the definition of detention and project the affect on density. V, REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT CODE This item was deferred due to the length of the discussion regarding mural.family density. VI. TAP-TV DISCUSSION Trustee Clowes prowded the background of this item He stated that the original ,dea was for h~gh school students to do television programming to address issues for junior h~gh students The options for programming included h~gh school students producing programs for jumor h~gh students, students using channel 6 fac~ht~es for production of programs or to ut~hze the community access opportumt~es at TCI Cable He stated that the original ~ntent of th~s project has become more comphcated than he first thought due to the amount of time and effort required to produce such a program There also arose numerous questions ~ncludmg how the message was to be gotten out and defining who the audience was and frequency of the programming Trustee Clowes stated that at th~s t, me, jumor h~gh and h~gh school representatives w~ll work together to determine what ~ssues they would hke to consider for programming and at th~s point, no one has dec~ded to proceed w~th the programming Some representatives are s~gned up to do the television training at TCI ,n preparation of th~s project or at least to get some ~dea of the t~me and effort involved in such programming At this time, Trustee Clowes is requesting no commitment from the Village of Mount Prospect. 4 VII. .RECALL ORDINANCE Mayor Farley introduced this item by stating that the discussion is to focus on whether an Ordinance should be put in place which allows c~bzens to remove elected officials who do not discharge their dubes according to the wishes of the c~bzens He stated that all Trustees and the Mayor would be subject to th;s Ordinance at the bme it ~s approved by the V~llage Board Manager Janonis stated that he has provided the Board members w~th a copy of a legal opinion drafted by She~la Beary of Pedersen and Houpt General d~scuss~on of the Board members followed m which the focus of the discussion was the percentage of voters' signatures which should be necessary on a pebbon m order to prompt a recall vote The ongmal Ordinance as drafted stated 45% of the number of votes ~n the last Mayorel elecbon would be the number necessary to get the ~tem of recall on the next ballot The members felt the percentage should be lowered and there was also some d~scuss~on relating to what the percentage would be based on (1) whether the number of voters reg;stered, or (2) the number of votes cast in a Mayoral elect~on Sheila Beary of Pedereen and Houpt stated there was a previous law m the Rewsed Statutes which allowed for recall based on the percentage of votes cast ~n the last Mayoral elecbon as the appropriate number of s~gnatures to get th~s ~tem on the ballot Therefore, the ongmal draft followed the basic law as ~t ong[nally existed The Courts struck down this law, however, the Court d~d state that setbng the number of s~gnatures necessary was legitimate Consensus of the Village Board was that the number of signatures necessary to put the recall question on the ballot would be 10% of the total number of registered voters at the last general election. Also, language should be added In which there is a moratorium when the petition cannot be circulated. The petition would not be valid if It Is circulated wi~in one year of the time the IndMdual who Is subject to the recall petition was originally elected or re-elected. Also, the recall petition could not be circulated within six months of an upcoming election in which the Individual subject to the recall is up for election. Trustee Wilks expressed her opposition to the concept of recall, and specifically the draft Ordinance She sa~d that recall should be cons[dered unconstitutional because ~t thwarts the wdl of the voters and their democrabcally-held elect~ons Trustee Clowes asked whether th~s Recall Ordinance apphes to L~brary Trustees Sheila Beary adwsed h~m that ~t does not 5 Consensus of the Village Board was to clar~ the language within the Ordinance as follows: Include language defining why the citizens want to recall the Individual; shorten the time to circulate the petition fi'om 120 days to 90 days; spell out the spec'~c language on the petition so that the statement coincides with the statement which will be Included on the ballot; the language for recall defining why the recall is necessary will be included in the Ordinance for c'(dzens to utilize. Finally, the Board directed staff to modify this Ordinance and to bring It forward for consideration at the first Village Board meefing in January of 1995. Protocol of Villa,qe Board Members Trustee Corcoran stated he supports some type of defined standards for Board members' actions wh~le carrying out their dubes as an elected official D~scuss~on of the Board members focused on the fact that a clear definition of appropnate standards should be considered before estabhsh~ng a protocol Consensus of the Village Board was to defer this Item and consider It at anoO~er fime once addiaonal information is available conceming protocol Issues of other municipalities. VIII. MANAGER°S REPORT Manager Janonis stated that the snow storm of December 6-7 caused a large amount of tree damage due to the wet snow and adwsed the Board that the Pubhc Works Department has spent approximately $9,500 to clean up damaged and broken trees IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Wilks wanted to clanfy the fact that the Linneman Road Pubhc meeting w~ll also take place on the Coffee w~th Coun=l meeting date A Motion was made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Clowes to adjourn the meeting into Closed Session to discuss Property Acquisition, Personnel and Litigation. Motion was Approved and Board adjourned into Closed Session at 11 33 p m The meebng was reconvened at 12 02 a m X. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 12 03 a m ,~'"DAVID 8TRAHL DS/rcc Assistant to the V~llage Manager 6