The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 10/22/2002****NOTE START TIME**** COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center Tuesday, October 22, 2002 '1000 West Central Road 7:00 p.m.. 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 Il. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 Ill. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. 2003 BUDGET DISCUSSION Opening Remarks - Gerald L. Farley, Mayor Budget Overview - Michael Janonis, Village Manager Budget Revenues/Expenditures - Douglas EIIsworth, Finance Director Human Services Department - Nancy Morgan, Human Services Director Village Administration - Michael Janonis, Village Manager Finance Department - Douglas EIIsworth, Finance Director Finance Commission Comments V. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VI. ADJOURNMENT ***For those wishing to call in with questions or comments during the Budget Hearing, please dial 1/847/870-5689.*** NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD UKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTIClPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392.6(~0, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. H:\GENICow~Agenda~102202 COW Budget Agenda.doc II. liE ¸IV. MINUTES COMMI'FrEE OF THE WHOLE SEPTEMBER 10, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Farley in the board room of the Central Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorrer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director Bill Cooney, Police Chief Richard Eddington and Village Attorney Everette Hill. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of Minutes from August 13, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Zadel and seconded by Trustee Wilks. Trustee Zadel requested a correction for a typo. Minutes were approved with the revision. Trustee Lohrstorfer abstained. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR VOLUNTEER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS Trustee Corcoran opened the discussion stating that he wanted to confirm that there is a trust relationship between the members of the Boards and Commissions to the Village Board and he wanted to make sure there was acknowledgment of any possible conflict of interest. He stated this idea came to him through the creation of the Community Relations Commission and thought that maybe the review should be extended to all advisory groups. He stated there is an informal process that has been utilized in the past but wanted to undertake confirmation of due-diligence for these individuals. He stated this is not targeted toward any individuals that are currently serving on any advisory boards or commissions but wanted to focus on the process in determining the necessary people for these purposes. He stated there are different levels of checks and they are dependent on the type of board or commission. Trustee Skowron stated that she supported the opportunity to at least discuss this and pointed out that many of the Boards are autonomous in their decision-making and there is impact upon all residents. She stated she has no reason to doubt the integrity of any person serving on any Board or Commission but thought it would be worthwhile to have a discussion regarding the process of appointment. 1 Trustee Corcoran suggested the authorization for a background check be provided as part of the application process. The background check would be done by an outside firm and all information would be forwarded to the Village Manager. He would compare the information found through the background check to the criteria stipulated for the individual position the person is applying for and if there is a question regarding the backgreund information and the criteria, the Village Manager and Mayor would discuss and, if necessary, bring to the Village Board for further clarification in a confidential setting. Mayor Farley described how the current process works since he has been Mayor. He stated he receives recommendations from other Trustees and various citizens that have expressed interest in serving. He is concerned that background checks may not find the information that it is intended to find and there still may be exposure, which Trustee Corcoren appeare to be trying to avoid. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some discussion regarding a more formal background check for adult advisors to the Youth Commission. There was some concern raised about background and credit checks for all volunteers. There was also a comment regarding what personal gain would be at risk by volunteers serving on various boards and commissions since the Village Board is the final decision point on many issues discussed by these boards and commissions. It was also suggested that consideretion be made for including a local ethics statement and economic interest statement for board and commission volunteers. There was a concern raised regarding how far back background checks should reach and what kind of liability the Village can be exposed to for incorrect information. There was also a concern raised about whether the information would remain confidential if something were to be found out. George Luteri, Chairman of the Solid Waste Commission, spoke. He stated the background checks do not pick up bad stuff regularly and he stated he will not volunteer in the future if background checks are mandated by the Village Board. George Busse, 111 South Maple, spoke. He is a member of the Finance Commission. He stated that he is opposed to background checks since all items forwarded to the Village Board are recommendations with the final decisions by the Village Board. On those Commissions which are the final decision groups, he felt maybe boards or commissions should be considered to be elected. He stated it is critical to encourage participation not discourege participation in the community. Reverend Tony Tolbert, 1'12 South Waverly, member of the Community Relations Commission, spoke. He stated that he has no objection to background checks as long as the Village Board and the Mayor are held to the same standard as the volunteers. He stated he cannot see any fiduciary responsibility of the various Board and Commission members and feels that the Mayor has the prerogative to dismiss these individuals if he is unhappy or the Board is unhappy with their performance. He suggested that the application form be revised to obtain additional information that would assist the Village Board in their decision-making process for volunteer appointments. 2 John Brennan, 520 South Prospect Manor, member of the Community Relations Commission, spoke. He expressed concern about the need to determine how extensive the background check is intended to be. Chris Lenz, 214 North Louis, Chairman of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, spoke. He stated that he does background checks for a living and there are many records that are considered public records. He stated a basic criminal background check and confirmation of credentials would not slow the precess and would likely be adequate. He stated that he would support an ethics statement and a conflict of interest statement by membere. He also stated that any background checks regarding Police and Fire applicants only include the background check going back ten years. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that a possible ad hoc greup be convened to develop standards for each Board and Commission and there is a need to have a signature confirming the data as submitted as correct. Other current volunteere have submitted comments via email for Village Board consideration and many of them have suggested revising the application to confirm that the information is true and correct. There has been a previous Board request for a conflict of interest seminar for all Board and Commission members which is yet to take place. Consensus of the Village Board was to review the application process and consider drafting an ethics statement and conflict of interest statement for review and possible inclusion in the application packet for future volunteers. DISCUSSION OF REGULATION OF MOTORIZED SCOOTERS Village Manager Janonis stated that the modifications submitted this evening in the Ordinance are arising out of a previous Committee of the Whole meeting. He also wanted to point out that there is no opportunity to distinguish between licensed vereus non-licensed operators but wheelchaire and motorized wheelchaire have been exempted along with the segway device and motorized scooters during parades. He stated the discussion this evening should clarify what the direction the Board wants regarding possible enforcement. Village Attorney Hill stated that motorized vehicles are banned from all sidewalks under State Code already and these scooters do not meet the threshold definition for vehicles that can be operated on streets. He stated the discussion could focus on whether tickets would be written under the State Code and possibly impact future driver's license records or be written under a local Ordinance whereby the adjudication could generally be addressed through a fine. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some concern regarding distinguishing between licensed drivers operating scooters versus non-licensed operators. There was some concern about writing tickets under the State Code and the impact on obtaining a future driver's license. There was also a comment made regarding possible insurance impact on either the parents or the operator of these scooters if damage or injury occurs, who would be responsible. 3 Police Chief Eddington spoke. He stated that there is some concern about the operation of these vehicles by young people and he would focus on enforcement on a complaint only basis. Arin Koon, 419 Oriole Lane, spoke. He stated that he rides a scooter that goes about eight miles an hour. He is a licensed driver and he utilizes the scooter to get to the train station and to go between his job downtown and the train station. He has never experienced a problem and would ask that the scooters not be banned in Mount Prospect. Jason Royster, 310 North Elm, spoke. He stated the issue seems to be the safe operation of the vehicle and maybe a driving course would affirm the ability of the operator similar to a motorcycle license course. Kevin Bolger, 510 North Prospect Avenue, spoke. He stated the purpose is to protect the users and other people that could be impacted by the operator and felt that enforcement and a possible impact upon driver's license was necessary. David Schein, 512 Na-Wa-Ta, spoke. He suggested that there should be some kind of parental responsibility to expressly accept liability for the operator so that the parent is fully aware of the responsibility. Brent Busse, tll South Maple, spoke. He stated that scooter operation is the same as bicycle operations and the rules should be based on education and safe operation of each. Sal Valconi, 112 North Eastwood, spoke. He is concerned about the outright ban and the impact on whether the parent has any decision regarding the operation. Chris Young, 509 North Fairview, spoke. He stated that he has used scooters for three years and is not aware of any safety statistics nationwide which makes them more dangerous than other vehicles. He stated they do make noise and feels that noise is the issue since there does not seem to be any complaints from other drivers who share the road with the vehicles. He suggested the Village consider registering the vehicles and let the operators prove themselves that they are able to operate the scooters in a safe manner. Julie Prumpus, 420 North Fairview, spoke. She stated there are regular drive-bys by groups of scooter operators and they are very noisy. She is concerned about possible conflicts between vehicle operators who conflict with scooter operators. She also mentioned there is some concern regarding the message that parents are sending to their kids regarding safe operation of the scooters. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he is concerned about the speed of the operators and not the safety protection. He has not seen any adults operating these vehicles in his experience. He stated there is some need for regulation otherwise more and more will continue to appear in the neighborhood. 4 Andy Darien, 618 North Pine, spoke. He stated you could retrofit the scooters with seats and turn signals and require everyone to wear helmets and operate at night to make them street legal. He stated that he operates his scooter under the restrictions outlined by his parents and does not have a problem. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a suggestion that since the scooters are already illegal according to State law, then it is the State Legislature's burden to try to address how they are defined in terms of operation. It was also stated that it is impractical for the Village to get into the business of registering and certifying the operators through some kind of regulation. Consensus of the Village Board was to utilize the existing State law for Police enforcement and monitor the enforcement situation and advise the Board if there are any changes. ~ VI. REVIEW OF SHED REGULATIONS Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the last discussion regarding the regulations. He stated that staff needed some direction on the suggestion of an appearance review and the penalty. He stated as the revisions have been promulgated a shed is considered part of the calculation for the 2% property lot coverage with a maximum shed size of 200 square feet. Consensus of the Village Board was to complete the Ordinance as directed but leave the penalty discussion for another time and utilize the Planning and Zoning Commission for input. VII. USE OF DRYVlT MATERIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION Village Manager Janonis stated the Board had previously suggested an outright prohibition on the use of the material and staff has drafted an Ordinance allowing for limited commercial application if it is installed properly. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an Ordinance for complete prohibition on the use of dryvit within the community. VIII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis reminded everyone of the September 11 Remembrance Ceremony and the Coffee with Council scheduled for September 14. IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS None. 5 X. DS/rcc CLOSED SESSION Motion made by Trustee Wilks and Seconded by Trustee Zadel to move into Closed Session to discuss Land Acquisition. Meeting was adjourned at 10:16 p.m. into Closed Session. ADJOURNMENT Reconvened into open session at 10:39 p.m. There was no further business and the Committee of the Whole meeting immediately adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 6 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION -'Nancy Morgan, Human Services Director Janet Abernethy, Deputy Human Services Director Presentation Outline Department Structure (See page 157 of the 2003 Proposed Budget) Statement of Functions and Responsibilities (See page 158 for the 2003 Proposed Budget) 200'1 Accomplishments (See page 158 of the 2003 Proposed Budget) 2002 Accomplishments (See page 159 of the 2003 Proposed Budget) 2003 Objectives (See page 160 of the 2003 Proposed Budget) Performance Measures (See page 161 of the 2003 Proposed Budget) Budget Highlights ..................................................................... 1 Significant Increases or Decreases in Specific Line Items .............. 2 Gross Revenue Produced from Programs .................................... 3 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT Budget Highlights The 2003 proposed budget is $756,285, which is a decrease of $75,201 or 9% of the 2002 budget. Subtracting the department's relocation expense of $65,000, the proposed 2003 budget would be $691,285. For the year 2001, the department's revenue was $92,386 or 11% of 2002 budget. For the year 2001, volunteers donated 8,434 service hours to the department, which is a 4.5% increase over last year. If calculated at a conservative rate of $8.00 per hour, the cost savings to the village was $67,468. The year 2001 department revenue plus volunteer service hours saved the Village $159,854. Funding through Grant. efforts remain a high priority for the programs developed Northwest Community HealthCare's Community Partnership HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT Significant Increases/Decrease in Specific Line Items Human Services Administration · Computer Pro,qrammin,q 0013101-540040 This line item was transferred to the new IT Division. Office Lease/Relocation Exp. 0013101-540921 This line item decreased from $130,000 to $65,000, a 50% reduction in anticipated expenses. Nursing/Health Services Home Delivered Meals 0013102-540335 Milea.qe Reimbursement Volunteers 0013102-540345 Due to long waiting' lists for this service, an additional Home Delivered Meal route has been added, which increased the two line items by a total of $2,900, which is a 1.3% increase. These line items are totally reimbursed by service fees. Senior Center Leisure Activities This Budget Category decreased by $13,545 or 19% from the 2002 budget due to the closing of the Senior Center and the relocation of Senior Center Leisure Activities from the Senior Center. All five Budget Categories Volunteer Recruitment 0013101, 02, 03,04, 05-540360 The $1,400 total Volunteer Recruitment Budget has been divided by the percentage of volunteer hours used by the five Budget Categories. A percentage of funds were transferred out of 0013104-540360 Volunteer Recruitment to create the four new line items. 2 Human Services Department Gross Revenue Produced from Programs in 2001 programs Community Partnership Grant Youth Activities-Local Donations Summer Adventure Registrations Summer Adventure CDBG Funds Mentor Program CDBG Funds Mentor Funds from Participants Flu Shots Elderh0no[ Donations to Senior Center Escrow Access to Care Polling Place Coffee Sales Pop Sales Photo Copies Cholesterol Testing Health Fair Lending Closet Home Delivered Meals Independent Classes Gross Funds Volunteer Services (8433.50 hours X $8.00) Total Funds and Services 1/2101 - 12131/01 $18,079.00 8,777.18 3,555.00 7,000.00 3,000.00 344.00 17,627.92 1,520.00 138.50 72.00 50.00 447.56 726.63 348.11 2,640.00 28.21 1,583.oo 20,652.00 5,796.50 $ 92,385.61' 67,468.00 $159,853.61 * 2001 gross revenue produced by this department is 11% of 2002 annual budget. 3 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE IncludinR: · Public Representation · Village Administration · Human Resources · Information Technology (IT) · Public Information · TV Services · Village Clerk 'Village Manager's Office 2003 Proposed Budget Presentation Outline · Department Functions Public Representation - 86 Village Manager's Office - 94 - Human Resources - Information Technology (IT) - Public Information TV Services - 107 Village Clerk- 115 · Department Structure and Personnel - 93 · 2001t2002 Accomplishments Village Manager's Office - 94 TV Services - 107 Village Clerk - 115 · 2003 Objectives Village Manager's Office - 95 TV Services - 107 Village Clerk - 107 · Budget Highlights · . Page 2 Village Manager's Office 2003 Proposed Budget Bud et Hi hli hts Public Representation/Advisory Boards & Commissions: Overall Budget Decrease of $1,301 (-1.2%) 2002 2003 Increase Percent Cate~lory Budget Budget (Decrease) Chan~le Wages & Benefits $38,495 $39,104 $609 1.6% Contractual $58,698 $59,138 $440 0.7% Commodities $8,275 $5,925 ($2,350) -28.4% Total $'105,468 $104,'167 ($1,301) -1.2% BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS · Personal Services This expenditure classification includes the provision for the annual salaries of the Mayor, Trustees, Liquor Commissioner, and a portion of the salary of the Administrative Assistant in the Village Manager's Offica. The Mayor's current annual salary is $5,500. The Mayor, as Local Liquor Commissioner, receives an additional $3,000 for serving in this capacity. Trustees appointed or elected to office after April 30,1999 receive $2,750. Contractual Services Contractual Services include organization membership dues for the Northwest Municipal Conference, Northeastern illinois Planning Commission and the illinois Municipal League. Membership to the U.S. Conference of Mayors was dropped this year. Also included in contractual services are one-half of the cost for the annual financial audit ($11,155) and $1,500 for Special Projects. The Special Projects Account is used for one-time expenditures approved by the Village Board. Civic donations, memorial gifts and the unity dinner are new items in this category. Commodities & Supplies Included in this expenditure classification are Office Supplies, Recognition Supplies and Other Supplies such as business cards, note pads, and subscriptions. Page 3 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE ADMINISTRATION Public Information Coordinator and Board of Trustees Vilhge Manager Administrative Assistant Illforll:lation '/ Technology Director Infonmtion 1 System Aml:~t I Assistant Village Manager Cable Netv~-k A&rinistrater Speda2a Assistant Cable Productiom Coordinator Deputy V'fllage I Village Adminiswation includes the Village Manager's Office as well as the Human Resources Division, Television Services Division and Village Clerk's Office. A new division, Information Technology (IT), will be established in 2003. The yillage ?.fznager's Office has thirteen full-rime employees, one part-time exiaployee and two interns. The rifle"of Management Information Systems Coordinator has been changed to Information Te¢tmology Director to reflect the duties in the new IT Division and two full-tlme en~loye~ from other deparlments have been transferte..fl tO IT to staff the division. Village Manager's Office 2003 Proposed Budget Bud_ et Highlights Village Manager's Office: Overall Budget Increa,se of $81,136 (12.6%) 2002 2003 Increase Percent Category Budget Budget (Decrease) Change Wages & Benefits $356,960 $354,680 ($2,280) -0.6% Contractual Services $280,389 $364,250 $83,861 29.9% Commodities and Supplies . $8~645 $8,200 ($445) -5.1% Total $645,994 $727,t30 $8t,136 12.6% BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS · Personal Services The Village Manager's Office Intern position has been eliminated from the 2003 Budget. Out-of-state travel has been suspended due to budget constraints. Contractual Services The budget for legal services for 2003 is estimated at $360,000, an increase of 33%, from the $270,380 budgeted for 2002. The increase can be attributed to an increase in hourly rates for the Village Attorney. Human Resources: Overall Budget Decrease of $15,973 (-5.9%) 2002 2003 Increase Percent Category Budget Budget (Decrease) Change Wages & Benefits $235,351 $222,332 ($13,019) -5.5% Contractual Services $34,134 $31,580 ($2,554) -7.5% .~ommodities and Supplies $2~000 $1,600 ($400) -20.0% Total $27t,485 $255,512 ($15,973) -5.9% BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS · * Personal Services This line item reflects a decrease of $3,000 in the Merit Pay pool line item. · Other Employee Costa Funding for Training was reduced from $24,000 in 2002 to $8,300 for 2003. Page 4 Village Manager's Office 2003 Proposed Budget Budget Hi hliRhts Information Technology (IT) Overall Budget Increase of $468,000 (252.4%) 2002 2003 Increase Percent Category Budget Budget (Decrease) Change Wages & Benefits $80,520 $206,187 $125,667 156.1% Contractual Services $98,738 $428,524 $329,786 334.0% Commodities and Supplies $6,160 $18,787 $12,627 205.0% Total $t85,418 $653,498 $468,080 252.4% BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS: · Personal Services Full time earnings within the Information Technology (IT) Division (formerly Management Information Systems) increased 146%. This reflects a transfer of a full time employee from both the Finance Department and the Public Works Department as the first step of consolidating all IT functions into one division Contractual Services Computer maintenance-of $121,214 in the IT Division reflects the associated maintenance costs of the equipment consolidated within IT. All of the computer maintenance lease payments that were charged to other Village Departments in the General Fund are now shown in the IT Division. These lease payments are $201,255 in 2003. Other Professional Services of $41,000 reflects the transfer of the par[ time PC Specialist from the Finance Department to IT. Public Information Overall Budget decrease of $38,521 (-21.3%) 2002 2003 Increase Percent Category Budget Budget (Decrease) Change Wages & Benefits $55,949 $59,206 $3,257 5.8% Contractual Services $118,028 $79,000 ($39,028) -33.1% Commodities and Supplies $6,770 $4,020 ($2,750) -40.6% Total $180,747 $142,226 ($38,521) -21.3% BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS: · Contractual Services Newsletter printing services are included in this line item. Newsletter printing costs are expected to be $50,000 in 2003. Commodities and Supplies in 2002, newsletter paper costs were shifted to the contractual line item, reducing the commodities line. Page 5 Village Manager's Office 2003 Proposed Budget Bud_qet Hi_ hli_ hts TV Services Overall Budget decrease of $23,839 (-11.6%) 2002 2003 Increase Percent Category · Budget Budget (Decrease) Change Wages & Benefits $136,546 $138,650 $2,104 1.5% Contractual Services $36,582 $21,514 ($15,068) -41.2% Commodities and Supplies $32,100 $21,225 ($10,875) -33.9% Total $206,228 $t81,389 ($23,839) -11.6% BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS: · Funding included in 2002 Budget for relocation expenses and leasing cost for temporary location. Division has now relocated and rent cost was lower than expected. · Equipment budget reduced from $13,750 to $7,000- while in temporary location, purchasing of equipment has been scaled back. · Intergovernmental Programming will increase in 2003 to include the River Trails Park District and Prospect Heights Park District. In 2003 total revenues of $61,700 will be received from the seven entities to offset the proposed $51,148 costs to provide these services. Village Clerk Overall Budget increase of $2,448 (1.7%) 2002 2003 Increase Percent Category .Budget Budget (Decrease) Change Wages & Benefits $111,675 $120,102 $8,427 7.5% Contractual Services $23,029 $1g,000 ($4,029) -17.5% Commodities and Supplies $9,800 $7,850 ($1,950) -19.9% Total $t44,504 $t46,952 $2,448 1.7% BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS: Village Clerk's Office Program The daily operation of the Village Clerk's Office includes: 1) Salaries, other compensation, and benefits for the Village Clerk and the Deputy Village Clerk; 2) codification of Village ordinances; 3) legal notices, and 4) supplies and postage for preparing and mailing agendas for Village Board meetings. Contractual Services Codification of ordinances is expected to cost $10,000 in 2003. The Village Clerk's share of the maintenance on the two large photocopiers is estimated at $5,000. Page 6 Village Manager's Office 2003 Proposed Budget Bud et Hi hli hts Village Manager's Office Budget Summary (including Public Representation, Village Manager's Office, Human Resources, Public Information, MIS) Increase Percent Category 2002 Budget 2003 Budget (Decrease) Change Wages & Benefits $767,275 $881,509 $114,437 14.9% Contractual Services $589,987 $962,492 $372,505 63.1% Commodities and Supplies $31~850 $38,'532 $6,682 21.0% Total $1,389,112 $t,882,533 $493,42t 35.5% Overall Village Manager's Office Budget Summary (including Public Representation, Village Manager's Office, Human Resources, Public Information, MIS, TV Services, Village Clerk) category Wages & Benefits Contractual Services Commodities and Supplies Total Increase Percent 2002 Budget 2003 Budget (Decrease) Change $1,015,496 $1,'140,261 $124,765 12.3% $649,598 $1,003,006 $353,408 54.4% $73,750 $67~607 ($6,143) -8.3% $t,738,844 $2,2t0,874 $472,030 27.1% * The majority of this increase is a result of the creation of the IT Division and the transfer of funds from other departments and line items. Without the IT Division, the Village Manager's Office budget increased $3,950 over FY 2002, an increase of 0.25% H:\GEN~BUDGET~2003~VMO 2003 Budget Summary.doc Page 7 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET FINANCE DEPARTMENT Douglas R. Ellsworth, Director of Finance Carol L Widmer, DepUty Finance Director FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET Presentation Outline · Department Structure and Personnel Can be found on page 121 of the Proposed Budget · Department Functions and Responsibilities Can be found on page 122 of the Proposed Budget · 2002 Accomplishments Can be found on page 123 of the Proposed Budget · 2002 Objectives Can be found on pages 123 and 124of the Proposed Budget · Performance Measures Can be found on page 124 of the Proposed Budget · Budget Highlights FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET ~udget HighlightsI · Finance Department Budget down 7.5% ($103,957) Inel:ease 2002 Budget 2003 Budget (Decrease) Percent Category (000's) (000's) (000's) Change Wages, Benefit $917 $903 $ (14) (1.5)% Contractual Services 190 80 (110) (57.9) Insurance 237 264 27 11.4 Commodities 30 25 (5) (16.7) Miscellaneous 19 17 (2) (10.5) Total $1,393 $1,289 $ (104) ( 7.5)% · The decrease of 7.5% is due to the consolidation oflnforixiation Technology functions within the Village Manager's Office budget. Excluding the expenditures transferred, the Finance Department budget is up 5.8%. · The largest increases are in health insurance, pensions and liability insurance. 2 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET udget Highlightsl Significant Increases/Decreases in Specific Line Items Finance Administration Longevity Pay (Acct. 500600, page 126) This account is down $2,150, or 83%, due to the fact the longevity expense has been allocated to the various programs based on salary distribution. In total, Finance Department longevity pay is down $200 from 2002. IMRF Pension Expense (Acct. 510200, page 126) The pension expense in this program is up 13.1%, due mostly to an 11.3% increase in the Village's contribution rate. The 2003 rate was set at 4.89%, compared to 4.39% for 2002. Medical Insurance (Acct. 510600, page 126) This account is increasing $2,928, or 28%, due to increased costs in the Village's health insurance premiums. Document Imaging (Acct. 540205, page 126) This account decreased from $2,300 to $1,000, a reduction of 56%. The decrease is due to a freeze on total contractual services. Computer Lease Payments (Acct. 540940. na~e 126~ This expense, budgeted at $15,992 in 2002 has been transferred to the Information Technology Division of the Village Manager's Office. Telephone Service (Acct. 550300, page 126) The budget for this line item has been increased to $7,600 from $6,100 to better reflect actual experience of the past few years. Accounting Full Time Earnings (Acct. 500000, page 128 Full time earnings are showing an increase of $34,804, or 15.3%. Included in the 2003 budget figure is the salary for the data entry clerk that was formerly charged to the Data Processing Division of the Finance Department. Also contributing to the increase is a 3.5% salary increase assumption for all employees. IMRF Pension Expense (Acct. 510200, page 128) The pension expense in this program is up $2,923, or 29%, due to the transfer of the data entry clerk and the 11% increase in the contribution rate. Medical Insurance (Acct. 510600, page 128 Medical insurance expense is up $18,696, or 53%, in this program due to the'Wansfer of the data entry clerk and a 28% increase in health Insurance premiums. 3 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2003 PROPOSED BUDGET Significant Increases/Decreases in Specific Line Items Data Processing (page 129) The Data Processing Division of the Finance Department is being eliminated in 2003. Therefore, all accounts appearing in this program have been reassigned to other areas. The data processing supervisor/network administrator is being transferred to the Village Manager's Office along with all expenditures related to the purchase, operation and maintenance of computers. The data entry clerk position has been reassigned to the Accounting Division of the Finance Department. Insurance Liability Insurance (Acct. 560102, page 130) This account is showing an increase of $27,318, or 11.8%, over the 2002 Budget. This is the line item that accounts for the entire General Fund's share of liability and property insurance. Due to an increase in the number of liability claims, defense costs, and an expected increase in our 2003 insurance premiums, the transfers to the Risk Management Fund have to be increased. Customer Service Overtime Earnings (Acct. 500300, page 131) Overtime earnings in this program is up $2,000, or 20%, due to the transfer of overtime from the Data Processing Division. The additional overtime being requested is used to enter vehicle sticker information during peak periods. IMRF Pension Expense (Acct. 510200~ page 131) The pension expense in this program is up $1,225, or 12.7% due to the 11% increase in the contribution rate and increased salaries and wages. Medical Insurance (Acct, 510600, page 131) This account is increasing $8,297, or 28%, due to increased health insurance premiums. Other Services (Acct. 540225, page 131) Included in this account is the funds for outsourcing of the printing and mailing of the vehicle sticker applications and follow-up mailing. The account is showing an increase of $4,000, or 38%. The majority of the increase can be attributed to the transfer of $3,500 from the Data Processing Division budget for temporary help entering vehicle sticker information during peak times. 4 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION AGENDA Thursday, October 24, 2002 7:00 p.m. PLEASE NOTE CHANGE IN MEETING LOCATION Police/Fire Building 112 East Northwest Highway 1st Floor Training Room I Call to Order II Approval of Minutes - Meeting of October 17, 2002 111 Review of the Proposed 2003 Village Budget (Community Development, Police, Fire) IV Chairman's Report V Finance Director's Report VI Other Business Next Meeting: Thursday, November 7, 2002, 7:00 p.m. VITI Adjournment NOTE: Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but beCause ora disabilityneeds 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. MAYOR Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Win, Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Miehaele Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel MEETING LOCATION: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center 1000 W. Central Road Mount Prospect, IL 60056 CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 Sonth Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday October 24, 2002 7:30 p.m. VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES SEPTEMBER 26, 2002 MEETING A. PZ-25-02 / 407 S. Carol Lane (Eddington Residence) / Fence Variation (Double Fence). [This case was Planning & Zoning Final - no appeal submitted..] B. PZ-26-02 / 216 Yates Lane (Asanin Residence) / Conditional Use (Circular Drive). [The ]st reading was October 15th and final action will be taken November 6th.] C. PZ-27-02 / 115 S. Busse Road (Tsambarlis Residence) Conditional Use (Circular Driveway). [Village Board voted the project October 15th and waived the 2ne reading.] D. PZ-28-02/Maple Crest Townhomes (Maple Court & Highland Street)/Special Use (Development Sign). [This case was Planning & Zoning Final.] E. PZ-29~02 / 1817 Bonita (Tenuta Residence) / Conditional Use (Porch). [Village Board voted the project October 15th and waived the 2~a reading.] · 915 S. Owen, request for an oversized garage and setback variation: Setback was approved, but 768 sq ft garage was denied. · 105 Prospect Ave, Conditional Use to construct Miller Townhomes: the Conditional Use approval was extended for three months. IV. OLD BUSINESS A. None V. NEW BUSINESS B. PZ-30-02 / 922 S. NaWaTa (Connell Residence) / Conditional Use (Circular Drive). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. C.PZ-31-02 / 503 N. Forest (White Residence) / Conditional Use (Porch). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. D.PZ-32-02 / 709 S. WaPella (Van Wetering Residence) / Variation (Porch). NOTE: This ease is Planning & Zoning Final. E. PZ-33-02 / Text amendments (Village of Mount Prospect) / change to legal notice, require garages, and increase shed sizes. NOTE: This ease is Village Board Final. VI. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to anend this meeting, but because Of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext. 5328, TDD #847- 392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-25-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Rich & Sue Eddington PROPERTY ADDRESS: 407 Carol Lane PARCEL NUMBER: 08-I0-415-012 PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQUEST: Variation - Double Fence MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERSABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Rich & Sue Eddington John Massong Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 7:33, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-25-02, a request for a Variation to allow a second fence along the rear lot line of the property. She said the case was Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is located on the east side of Carol Lane and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. She said the property is zoned RI Single Family Residence and is bordered by the R1 Single Family District on all sides. The property abuts two single family residences, each of which have their own chain link fences. Ms. Connolly said one of the existing fences measures three-feet in height and the other fence measures four feet in height. The petitioner would like to construct a 5-foot wooden fence along their rear lot line. The proposed fence would match the existing wooden fence along the petitioner's interior lot lines. She said that the zoning ordinance permits only one fence per lot line and that the petitioner is seeking a variation to allow two fences along the same lot line. The petitioner investigated removing the existing chain link fences, but found that it would require replacing more than the two fences that abut the subject property. She said that the lots on Carol and Deborah Lanes do not 'line up' and that each property abuts at least two other lots insteadof the typical 'one-to-one' line-up. In order to meet zoning regulations and have only one fence per lot line, the petitioner would have to replace two fences that · impact at least four other properties, 405 Carol Lane, 409 Carol Lane, 404 Deb0rali Lane, and 406 Deborah Lane. Ms; connolly explained that in order to approve the Variation, the Planning & Zoning Commission must find that the request meets the standards for a variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She said that the standards relate to a hardship that is created by the physical surroundings, shape, or conditions of the specific property and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-25-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Ms. Connolly said that the Zoning Ordinance permits only one fence per lot line for several reasons. The primary reason is to ensure that the fence and surrounding area is maintained. She said that in this case, the chain link fences provide the Deborah Lane property owners with adequate means to maintain their existing fence and surrounding area. The proposed wooden fence will not limit access to the existing fences and typically requires minimal maintenance if left untreated. Another reason that the Zoning Ordinance allows only one fence per lot line is due to aesthetic reasons. Ms. Connolly said that the neighbor at 406 Deborah indicated to staffthat they do not object to the Petitioner's request to install a new fence, but the other neighbor at 404 Deborah sent an e-mail stating an objection to the request. However, the Petitioner noted in the application that both neighbors have bushes that will screen the proposed wooden fence. Ms. Connolly summarized the case and stated that the petitioner proposes to construct a new wooden fence adjacent to existing chain link fences that are located on the mar lot line to ensure the petitioner's dogs do not leave the yard. The petitioner looked into removing the existing chain link fences, but found this required replacing multiple fences and/or impacting several neighboring properties. In reviewing the situation, Staff concluded that the petitioner tried to comply with Village code requirements, but was unsuccessful. She said that the manner in which the lots were platted would require replacing multiple fences and that installing a second fence along the lot line will not adversely impact the character of the neighborhood or the public welfare since the existing fence and the proposed fence allow for both to be maintained. Ms. Connolly relayed Staff's recommendation that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve a Variation for a second perimeter fence along the rear lot line for the residence at 407 Carol Lane, Case No. PZ-25-02. She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek said the platting for this block is unusual and asked if it existed anywhere else in the Village. Ms. Connolly ~said it appears to be common in the area of this subdivision, but that it may occur in other areas of the Village, too. Richard Eddington, 407 Carol Lane, was sworn in and testified that they own large dogs and were concerned that the dogs' barking disturbed the neighbors. He said that he thought a wood fence would screen the neighbors' yards from the dogs' line of sight, which would reduce the barking. The chain link fences cannot be removed because it would involve more properties than just the two neighbors to the mar. He said the neighbor at 406 Deborah Lane approved of the fence and that the neighbor from 404 Deborah Lane was here to express his concerns. Richard Rogers asked if the dog jumps the fence. Mr. Eddington said no. Ms. Juracek asked if the existing chain link fences were different heights and Mr. Eddington said yes. Ms. Juracek asked about the side fences. Mr. Eddington said when they moved in they erected a fence on one side to match the one on the other side2 Leo Floros asked the height of the side fences. Mr. Eddington said they were 5' with latticework on the top, and said that he would like to install the same fence along the rear property line so the fence would match. Merrill Cotten asked if the smooth side of the fence was on the outside and was told it was a solid wood fence, so both sides would be smooth. Joseph Donnelly asked if the neighbors had complained about the dog barking. Mr. Eddington said no and that there was no concern that the dog would bite the neighbors. Mr. Cotten asked for the distance between the fences. Mr. Eddington said he was not sure of that measurement. Mr. Cotfen said that to place them directly next to each other would be better than lea¥ing a spa~e because'the space W°uld be difficult to maintain. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone from the audience wished to speak. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-25-02 Page 3 John Massong, 404 S. Deborah Lane, was sworn in. He stated that he has lived in his home for 16 years. He said that when Mr. Eddington talked to him about the fence he told Mr. Eddington that he was strongly opposed to a second fence. Mr. Massong said listening to the dogs bark was better than looking at a double fence. Mr. Massong said he was also concerned about future maintenance between the fences. He shared with the Commission a petition signed by other neighbors who opposed the petitioner's request. Ms. Juracek noted there were many signatures from neighbors on Deborah & Lincoln Streets on the petition. Matt Sledz asked if a double fence had been approved anywhere else in this neighborhood. Ms. Connolly said not in this neighborhood, but that the Zoning Board of Appeals approved a request for a double fence last year for a property on George Street. She said that the petitioner wanted to install a solid wood fence, but that the neighbor, who had two dogs, would not remove his split rail fence. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 7:50 p.m. Mr. Rogers said this would solve the problem of one continuous fence on this property and create a two-fence problem of different heights on adjoining properties, so there is no easy solution. Mr. Youngquist said this would create an aesthetic issue for the properties in the back. Richard Rogers suggested putting slats in the chain link fence to stop the dog from seeing neighborhood activity and reduce their barking. Richard Rogers moved to approve a Variation to permit a second perimeter fence along the rear lot line for the residence at 407 S. Carol Lane, Case No. PZ-25-02. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and Juracek Motion was denied 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., after hearing four more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary JuflY ~2onnolly, S~nl-or Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-26-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin PROPERTY ADDRESS: 216 Yates Lane PARCEL NUMBER: 03-35-413-016 PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Circular Driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERSABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 7:57, after hearing another case, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-26-02, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct a new cimular driveway. She said the case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is located on the west side of Yates lane, directly across from Jeffery Drive cul-de-sac. She said that the existing home on the subject property is currently set back slightly more than 30-feet from the front lot line and includes a standard 16.5' wide driveway. The petitioner is currently adding on to the existing house and the addition meets Village Codes, however, the cimular driveway requires Conditional Use approval. She said that the proposed circular driveway measures 12-feet wide and would connect to the standard driveway. The standard driveway and circular driveway would cover 50.6% of the front yard, but the site complies with overall lot coverage regulations. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve the Conditional Use, the driveway must meet the standards for a Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and reported that Staff evaluated traffic patterns in the neighborhood of the Subject Property, which is consistent with other requests for circular driveways. She said that in this case, Staffdid not find that a circular driveway is needed to resolve traffic.or safety issues since the Subject Property is onla local street, which typically does not have a high traffic volume. Also, this request is different from Other eiroular driveway requests previously considered becanse the lot is not oversized or have an oversized lot width. A site visit confirmed that the proposed cimular driveway would not be consistent with the character &the neighborhood since it would require more pavement in the front yard than is characteristic Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-26-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 of other nearby properties. In addition, the Petitioner's reasons for requesting a circular driveway relate to the number of vehicles they own and for aesthetics associated with the addition. Ms. Connolly said that although the proposed circular driveway would not have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, it is not needed as a solution to a traffic safety issue or because the street has a substandard right-of- way or pavement width, which was the case in previous requests. She said that the Petitioner's reasons for the circular driveway are for convenience and that the circular drive would not be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. Therefore, Staff recommends that the Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to deny a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 216 Yates Lane, Case No. PZ-26-02. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers said that based on the design submitted for review that the petitioner would probably get fewer cars on a circular drive than on the present driveway. Ms. Connolly said she reviewed alternatives to the circular driveway with the petitioner before accepting the Conditional Use application. She said that one alternative was a wider, standard driveway and that the Zoning Ordinance permitted driveways up to 26-feet for the size of the petitioner's lot. Nebojsa & Slavica Asanin were sworn in. Mr. Asanin said there is no way to park four cars on their driveway and a circular drive would be useful when they have company and have to move cars around. He said that with the addition to the house that the house would be bigger and a circular driveway would be more proportional. They said they didn't want to remove a large tree from the front yard, which would be necessary if they made the driveway larger. Ms. Juracek said she agreed with Mr. Rogers that a 12' wide driveway would not allow easy movement of cars parked in the driveway. Keith Youngquist said if they made a 26' driveway starting at the northern edge of their current garage door and moved it towards the west property line it would be a wider driveway and could be done with brick pavers to be more decorative, and get more cars on the driveway than a circular one. He said that aesthetically, this would be a much better solution and that it would enhance their addition. Ms. Juracek agreed and said that they would have much more green space in their front yard. Leo Floros also concurred with the previous statements and said that he was sympathetic to their parking problem, but that the circular drive would not be wise from a planning standpoint. Mrs. Asanin said there were some circular driveways in the vicinity on the same lot size and asked when and why those had been approved. Mr. Floros said those driveways might have been in place when annexed into the Village or installed before circular driveway required special approval. Ms. Juracek said it was not productive at this venue to attempt to guess why those circular driveways had been approved. She suggested the petitioners research previous cases with the appropriate Village Depratment. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:13 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use to permit a circular driveway for the residence at 216 Yates Lane, Case No. PZ-26-02: Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-26-02 Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: Juracek Motion was denied 7-0. AYES: None NAYS: Cotten, D0nnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and At 8:50 p.m., after hearing three more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-27-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Nick & Liz Tsambarlis 1423 Semar Court PROPERTY ADDRESS: 115 S. Busse Road PARCEL NUMBER: 08-11-100-014 PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Circular Driveway MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Nick & Liz Tsambarlis M. Harnvanich Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floras made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz~ and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 8:14, after hearing two cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-27-02, a request for a Conditional Use to allow a circular driveway and said the case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is located on the east side of Busse Road, south of Central and north of Bonita. She said that the Petitioner proposes to demolish the existing home and construct a new home with a side loading garage and a circular driveway. Although the new driveway will maintain a single curb cut onto Busse Road, the proposed configuration of the driveway requires Conditional Use approval. The Petitioner states in the application that a circular drive is necessary for safety reasons and maintains that the circular configuration will allow them the ability to enter and/or exit Busse Road in a safe manner. Ms. Connolly said that the circular portion of the driveway will be setback 140-feet from the front lot line and will not be easily visible from Busse Road. She said that the Petitioner is in the process of designing the landscaping for the front yard and anticipates screening the circular portion of the driveway, which will be constructed with decorative pavers..Ms. Conn011y reported.that the new home and related improvements would comply with'zoning regulations..She said that in order to approve the Conditiorial Use, the driveway must meet the standards for a Conditional Use listed in ' the Zoning'Ordinance and then summarized the standards. Ms. Connolly reported that staff evaluated traffic patterns in the neighborhood. She Said that Busse Road is a very busy road that has limited on street parking and that the posted speed limit is 35 mph. The subject property has Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-27-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 100-linear feet of frontage onto Busse Road, which exceeds the RX District's minimum requirement of 85-feet. Ms. Counolly said that the standard 22-foot wide driveway would have only one curb cut onto Busse Road and would cover 22% of the front yard. She said that this amount of front yard lot coverage is in keeping with the Village's policy of open, 'green' front-yards. Also, the circular portion of the driveway will be setback 140-feet from the front lot line. Ms. Connolly said the circular portion of the driveway would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The proposed Conditional Use would not affect the essential character of the neighborhood, nor would it have any significant effect on the public welfare. She said that Busse Road is designated as an arterial road and, therefore designed to handle greater traffic than a local road. Also, the limited on-street parking justifies granting the Conditional Use request. She said that based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for a circular driveway for the residence at 115 S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-27-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Ms. Juracek said three differences distinguish this request from the previous circular driveway case: (1) the heavy traffic on Bussee Road, (2) the large setback, and (3) the amount of front yard coverage. Richard Rogers said the existing driveway serves the property to the south and asked what would happen to the shared driveway when the petitioner removed their portion of the driveway. Ms. Connolly said that the existing, shared driveway is 20' wide and that the petitioner will saw cut the 10-feet on their property and that the remaining 10-feet of driveway will continue to serve the adjacent property. She said that the driveway width meets code regulations. Liz & Nick Tsambarlis, 1423 Semar Court, were sworn in. Mrs. Tsambartis said at present there is one driveway that splits to two. She said that they have a current plat of survey that shows the existing driveway and noted that it is split down the center, with 10-feet on their property and 10-feet on the adjacent property. They plan to put a new circular driveway to enable them to turn around in front of the home rather than backing out onto Busse. She said that this driveway would also provide parking for guests, which is not available on Busse Rd. Their property has 100' frontage on Busse Road and is 740' deep. Mr. Tsambarlis presented the Commission with the current plat of survey. Ms. Juracek remarked that the design was a creative use of the property. Mr. Rogers commented on the beautiful trees on the property. Ms. Tsambarlis said they would keep as many trees as possible. Mr. Floros asked how long they had lived on Semar Court. Ms. Tsambarlis responded 7 years and that they loved the neighbors, the area, and want to remain close by. Mr. Floros asked if the neighbor to the south had objections to the request. He was told that the Church had bought the property and that the pastor lives in it and has no objections. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:24 p.m. Mr. Rogers said the new house is designed very well, that the deep setback from Busse Road and circular driveway with a single entry makes sense. He urged the petitioners to save as many trees as possible. Joseph Donnelly moved to make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use to permit a circular driveway for the residence at 115' S. Busse Road, Case No. PZ-27-02. Keith Y0ungquist seconded the motion~ lanning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson PZ-27-02 Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: Juraeek AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., after hearing two more cases, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Ju7 ~onn'oll~}, Senior Planner MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-28-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Patricia Dekiermenjian 609 Maple Court for Maplecrest Homeowners Association PROPERTY ADDRESS: Maple Court & Highland Street PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQUEST: Special Use - Development Sign MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: Patrieia Dekiermenjian Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floras made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4-0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 8:25, after hearing three cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-28~02, a request for a Special Use to allow the construction of a new development identification sign. She said the case would be Planning & Zoning Commission final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is located on Maple Court, east of Main Street and north of Highland Street. She said that the existing development contains residential townhomes and is bordered by commercial, single family residences, and another townhome development. Ms. Connolly said that the townhome association would like to install a sign that identifies the Maplecrest Townhome Development. According to Sign Code regulations, Special Use approval is required before the proposed sign can be installed. Ms. Connolly reported that the proposed sign would be 4'4" tall, 4' wide, and measure 10 square feet. The proposed sign location is six-feet from the Maple Court curb and three-feet from a driveway. She said that Sign Code regulations require the sign be located outside of the ten-foot sight triangle, which is measured from the right-of-way, and that the sign is located at least five-feet from the exterior property line. Ms. Connolly said that although Maple Court is a private street, the location of the sign cannot create a sight obstruction. In this case, Staffrecommends that the sign be relocated so the location complies with Sign Code regulations, regardless of right-of-way or private street Ms. Connolly said that in order to approve ~he request, the CommissiOners must' find that it meets the standards listed in the Sign Code. She summarized the standards and said that the proposed sign is in keeping with the character of the Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-28-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 neighborhood and would not create a negative impact on adjacent properties. She said that the size of the sign complies with Sign Code regulations, but the location is a concern since it could create a sight obstruction. Ms. Connolly said that based on review of the Special Use standards, the proposed sign meets the standards for a Special Use. She relayed staff's recommendation that the Planning & Commission approve the proposed Special Use to permit a freestanding, development identification sign at the Maplecrest Townhomes, located at Maple Court and Highland Street subject to the following conditions: I. The sign be rel~~a~ed ~ut ~f the ten-f~~t sight triangle and setba~k at least ~ve-feet fr~m the sidewa~k. 2. Submit a detailed landscape plan as required by the Sign Code. Merrill Cotten asked if the sign will be lit and Ms. Connolly said she did not think so, but that the petitioner could confirm this detail. Ms. Juracek asked if the proposed sign might be a graffiti target. Ms. Connolly said if the sign is vandalized that the association is required to remove any graffiti and maintain the sign. Patricia Dekiermenjian, 611 Maple Court, Linda Kaplan, 609 Maple Court, and Pankaj Patel, 632 Maple Court, the association president, were sworn in and testified that they all worked hard to keep up their townhome development. They stated that each townhome is individually owned and that they police the area to avoid problems despite the fact that Maplecrest is adjacent to another townhome association that has many problems. Ms. Dekiermenjian said that many people think Maplecrest is part of the other townhome development, which has an adverse impact on their property values. She said that they want to identify their development as Maplecrest. Ms. Juracek asked if the sign would be lit. Ms. Dekiermenjian said no, it would not be lit. Richard Rogers said he applauds the Maplecrest owners' efforts in maintaining their property and asked if they were willing to relocate the sign back 5' from the sidewalk and put a planting bed around the base, as required by code. Ms. Dekiermenjian said yes. Joseph Donnelly asked if the "towing" sign would be removed. Ms. Dekiermenjian said yes. Leo Floros said he was familiar with the development and wanted to commend them on their upkeep of the property. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:35. Richard Rogers moved for approval of a Special Use to permit a freestanding development identification sign at the Maplecrest Townhomes, Case No. PZ-27-02, subject to the following conditions: 1. The sign be relocated out of the 10' sight triangle and setback at least 5' from the sidewalk, and 2. A detailed landscape plan be submitted, as required by the Sign Code. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-28-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and Juracek NAYS:None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., after hearing another case, Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motiOn was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary 'Ju/d~ ~om~oil~, Senior elhner ~J/ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-29-02 Hearing Date: September 26, 2002 PETITIONER: Frank Neuman & John Tenuta 204 S. Evergreen Arlington Heights., 1L 60005 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1817 Bonita PARCEL NUMBER: 08-I 0-209~001 PUBLICATION DATE: September 11, 2002 REQUEST: Conditional Use - Porch in Front Yard MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Arlene Juracek, Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Planning INTERESTED PARTIES: FrankNeuman John Tenuta Chairperson Arlene Juraeek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 22 meeting, seconded by Richard Rogers. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 25 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The August minutes were approved 4~0 with Rich Rogers, Matt Sledz, and Keith Youngquist abstaining. The July minutes were approved 6-0 with Joe Donnelly abstaining. At 8:35, after hearing four cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-29-02, a request for a Conditional Use for a porch to encroach 4' into the required front setback and said the case would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is an existing home located at the southwest comer of Bonita and Hatlen Avenues. She said that the existing home is currently set back 30.05'from the front lot line. The petitioner is in the process of adding onto the existing structure and proposes to construct a 4'x9' unenclosed porch or portico. She said that the pomh would be located in the center of the house and that the unenclosed, roofed structure would encroach 4' into the required front setback, and that the stairs extend further into the setback. The stairs and service walk are permitted encroachments, and do not require any special approval. She said that the porch requires Conditional Use approval because it will encroach 4' into the 30' setback. Other than the proposed porch, the existing home and addition' comply with zoning regulations. Ms. Connolly said that in order to approye the Conditional Use request, the Porch must meet the standards for a' Conditional Use listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standardo and said that Staff found that the porch would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utilities or public streets and that it complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-29-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Based on these findings, Ms. Connolly relayed Staff's recommendation that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a Conditional Use permit for an unenclosed pomh to encroach four-feet into the required front setback for the residence at 1817 Bonita Drive, Case No. PZ-29-02. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. Keith Youngquist asked if the porch/portico structure was part of the Building Permit application. Ms. Connolly said when the Building Permit was issued, it was Conditionally Approved to allow a 5'x5' stoop. She said that another department reviewed the permit and was not sure of the details, and said that perhaps the petitioner decided the 5'x5' stoop was not a sufficient width and came forward for the conditional use at a later date. Ms. Connolly said that the Village has issued building permits for additions and allowed the work to proceed while the petitioner pursued Conditional Use approval for the porch. John Tenuta, 204 S. Evergreen and Frank Neuman, 2407 S. Cedar Glen Heights in Arlington Heights, and Joe Pisaro, 904 S. Roselle Road in Schaumburg, were sworn in. Mr. Tenuta explained that Mr. Neuman was originally going to live in the house, but it was larger than he requires so now they will sell it. Mr. Tenuta said the drawings submitted to the Building Division for review showed the portico and that they were under the impression that the portico shown on the plans met code regulations. Then it came to their attention that the size of the portico was beyond the 5'x5' approved by the Building Division. Mr. Tenuta said that they feel a portico larger than 5'x5' would look better and conform to the new home size. Mr. Tenuta said the house would not have EIFS as was originally approved and shown on the drawings. He said that they were informed that the Village was in the process of not permitting new buildings be constructed with EIFS in the near future, so he substituted all brick instead. Ms. Juracek asked if the location of the pomh/portico would be the same as the pre-existing porch. Mr. Tenuta responded yes. Mr. Tenuta said the original house had been 1,100 s.f. and the new addition would increase it to 3,500 square feet. Ms. Juracek pointed out that the R-1 zoning permits 45% lot coverage and that this home would have 36% coverage and that the setbacks meet the requirements and only the porch needs the Conditional Use approval. Mr. Rogers asked if they understood and would inform the future buyers of the house, that the porch could never be enclosed. Mr: Tenutu responded yes. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had come to address this case. Dale Draznin, 220 S. Hatlen, was sworn in. She said that her home was kitty corner to this house and that the neighborhood is an area of smaller homes and larger yards. She said that this is now an extremely large home with very little yard. She said since the house was being allowed to have such a large addition that the porch should be confined to what Village Codes requires. Ms. Draznin said that the house was too big and detrimental to the neighborhood. Ms. Juracek said the Conditional Use would be for the porch portion only. She said that the other part of the addition was within Code and permitted by right. She asked for the size of the new porch and was told 6'x9' and that the old one had been 5'x5'. She asked if this had really been a tear down or an addition. The three builders responded it was an addition and that they had kept the same walls and floor deck. Ms. Draznin called out to ask Mr. Tenuta how many feet the house had been raised up. Mr. Pisaro responded 16"-18" in order to provide a 9' basement, which is the current standard. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-29-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Mr. Rogers said the proposed portico was within the character of the house. He said very large homes are now being built all over and are allowed by Code. Mr. Youngquist pointed out that the Zoning Ordinance permits unenclosed porches that receive Conditional Use approval to encroach five-feet into the front setback and that the porch could be 4' wide as proposed, but 20' long if desired. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:48 p.m. Richard Rogers moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach 4-feet into the required front setback for the residence at 1817 Bonita Drive Case No. PZ-29-02. Leo Flo!'os seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 7-0. At 8:50 p.m., Joseph Donnelly made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~arbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary - -- /~ucVy CoMol[y/Senior Planner