Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2002 COW agendaCOMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center 1000 West Central Road Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, September 10, 2002 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 13, 2002 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR VOLUNTEER BOARDS/COMMISSIONS NOTE: Several months ago, Trustee Timothy Corcoran raised concerns with the longstanding method of reviewing the background and credentials of potential Village volunteer Board and Commission members. Current practice consists of having interested candidates fill out an Appointee Information Sheet and sitting with the Mayor for an interview. This practice has been unchanged for well over a decade, if not longer. Trustee Corcoran's desire to have the Village Board consider stricter standards comes from the recent private sector financial scandals where corporate boards of directors were severely criticized for not taking their fiduciary responsibilities more seriously. On the public sector side, the same need for strict fiscal oversight is obvious. Beyond that, there is also a feeling on the part of some Village Board members that greater review should be directed at the backgrounds of individuals, who through appointment to any one of ten (10) duly constituted Village advisory Boards and Commissions, are placed in the position of "advisors" to the Mayor and Board of Trustees on a wide range of issues vital to the well being of the community. At this point, members of the Village Board are divided on the need and/or scope of heightened review criteria. Tuesday evening's meeting provides an initial forum for detailed discussion of this topic. The attached information packet includes a "thought starter" memorandum from Trustee Corcoran, background information on current criteria, information on the Village's background checking policy for new hire employees and a survey of the Northwest Municipal Conference communities regarding their background checking criteria for volunteer boards and commissions. ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T '100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. VI. We are seeking consensus from Village Board members on how to proceed with changes, if any, to the review criteria. Letters have been sent to all current Board and Commission members inviting them to attend the meeting and participate in the discussion. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. REGULATION OF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS This item was previously discussed at the August 13, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting. The attached draft Ordinance contains a number of changes reflective of the August 13 discussion. The reworked draft and other background material was also reviewed and discussed by the Youth Commission at their September 4, 2002 meeting. Youth Commission members may be in attendance to share their initial thoughts on the proposed Ordinance. During the past several years, the popularity of motor-driven scooters (a.k.a. go-peds or motorized skate boards) has skyrocketed. Along with the proliferation of these (vehicles), has come complaints from all parts of the community regarding the inherent danger in these vehicles and the sometimes-reckless manner in which they are operated. The Village had, in the past, received a small number of requests seeking the strict regulation or outright ban of these vehicles in the Village. Other neighboring communities such as Des Plaines and Hoffman Estates, have taken an aggressive stance in banning the use of these vehicles on public property and have begun aggressive enforcement. With the tragic death this past June of a Des Plaines youth who was struck by an automobile while on such a motorized scooter the need to consider the strict regulation or outright banning of same has arisen anew. Given the most prevalent users of these devices are pre-teen/young teenagers (pre- driver's license), there is a wide spectrum of driving skills at play and no formal/uniform mechanism for training said users. The Police Chief has recommended an outright ban of these devices. Village Attorney Everette Hill, in consultation with Chief Eddington, has drafted an Ordinance banning the use of these devices, which is modeled after the Hoffman Estates prohibition. Besides banning the use of these devices on public ways, the Ordinance also provides for fines and the ability of the Police to impound said vehicles under certain circumstances. A staff report and draft Ordinance are provided for your review. Appropriate staff will be In attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion. REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS This topic has been previously discussed at the April 9, May 14 and August 13, 2002 Committee of the Whole meetings. The attached draft Ordinance contains a number of changes reflective of the August 13 discussion. While it appears that the material regulations (size, setback, definitions) have been agreed to by Board members, staff seeks further direction regarding concerns raised about regulation of appearance and penalties for work without a permit. Information regarding the open items is included in the information package. Earlier this year, two Variation requests for the size and placement of sheds came to the Village Board for consideration. In each case, the sheds' respective sizes greatly exceeded the current 120 square feet maximum allowed by the Code. Both cases also requested Variations to allow placement of the sheds in existing utility easements or setback areas. These cases and the issues they raised prompted considerable discussion among Village Board members. As a result of that discussion, the two shed variation cases were tabled, and staff was directed to research whether the current shed regulations were outdated as to both allowable maximum size of a shed and its placement on one's property. As a result, staff surveyed surrounding communities regarding their regulatory schemes and found that two methods of regulation prevailed. Some communities simply state the maximum allowable size of a shed, regardless of lot size, with the only other limiting factor being overall lot coverage. Other communities followed a formula wherein the maximum size of a shed was determined by multiplying lot size by some factor to determine maximum shed size, again with overall lot coverage being a limiting factor. Staff indicated it could be comfortable administering either type of regulatory scheme. The May 14 discussion resulted in direction to staff to develop regulations within a "formula" framework plus an overall "not- to-exceed" maximum shed size. Staff went back and reworked all previously discussed options and tested same against ten randomly selected lots throughout the Village. The attached staff report reviews each of those options and their impact on these sample lots. Staff's recommendation calls for shed size not to exceed 2% of the lot area along with not-to-exceed maximums. An additional limiting factor would be current lot coverage limitations. Additionally, staff is recommending new definitions, which clarify and distinguish sheds from other accessory structures. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VII. PROHIBITION ON USE OF DRYVIT (EIFS) This item was previously discussed at the April 9, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that time, the Village Board directed staffto draft an Ordinance prohibiting the use of Dryvit (EIFS) for all building applications (residential and commercial). At this time staff is requesting that the Village Board consider a modified prohibition that would allow for the limited use of a "water managed" Dryvit (EIFS) system in commercial applications subject to strict regulation. Draft Ordinances along with additional background information is provided. One of the 2001 Committee of the Whole discussion topics not addressed last year was whether the Village should regulate (prohibit) the use of EIFS as an acceptable construction material on buildings in the Village. Discussion of this topic resulted from a number of high- profile media reports indicating that this manmade building material was defective and resulted in long-term maintenance and in some cases health-related issues (mold). Board members continued to express an interest in reviewing this topic. Staff has provided background material and will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION LAND ACQUISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). "The purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body."