The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6. NEW BUSINESS 11/06/02 illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 1, 2002 PZ-30-02 - VARIATION (TURNAROUND PAD) 922 S. NAWATA CHARLES CONNELL - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-30-02, a request for a turnaround pad, as described in the attached meeting minutes and sketch. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their October 24, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located at the comer of Golf Road and NaWaTa. The proposed turnaround pad would encroach 9-feet into the exterior side yard, extend no more than 20-linear feet, and would be parallel to the existing house. The proposed turnaround pad requires Variation approval because it would encroach into the 20- foot exterior side yard setback. The Planning & Zoning Commission compared the differences and similarities between the original request for a circular driveway and the turnaround pad. They noted that a turnaround pad would help the petitioner access Golf Road in a safe manner, but expressed concerns about the turnaround pad being used as a parking pad. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Variation for the construction of a turnaround pad within 9-feet of the south property line (exterior side yard) at 922 S. NaWaTa, Case No. PZ-30-02 subject to the following condition: o that the turnaround pad not be used as a parking pad. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their November 6, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. ~2ooney, Sr.,'3klCP ASE NO. PZ-30-02 PETITIONER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES; lVHNUTES OF TRE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ~ PLANNING & ZONING C/~§i~ ~e Hearing Date: October 24, 2002 Joann & Charles Connell 922 S. NaWaTa 08-14-2144)24 Octob~;_9, 2002 Conditional use approval to allow the c0ns .t3~ucti0n of a new circul~ .driveway Merrill Cg~en Leo Floros Matthew Sledz Keith ¥oungquist Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Joann & Charl~.~9~n_.3~l~ Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 26 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The September meeting minutes were approved 64). At 7:32, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZr}p4)2, a request for a eonditionai use for a Circular driveway, and said the ease would be Village Board final. Judy Cormotly, Senior Planner, reported that the subject property is located at the nOrthwest comer of_G0~lf _Rp_a~ gn4 Na-Wa-Ta, and contains a single-family residence with an a/ti~hed garage. She said thiit the petitioner originally requested conditional use approval to allow the constmction.0f.a ~,~9~u..1.~dri~v..e~way to provide safer access onto Golf Road. However, Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) said that they would not issue a permit for second curb cut to access Golf Road. Therefore, the petitioner has changed the request and is ~eeldng a variation for a turnaround pad in the exterior side yard. She said that this requires approving a 9-foot setback to allow a 12-foot wide hnmaround pad as illustrated on tl!e ske~h.~ Ms. Cormolly summarized the stan4~.d.s ~fqr g ~..s..t~e_cl in_ ~the Zoniq, g Ordinance. She said that staff evaluated traffic patterns in this neighborhood. In this case, Golf Road is a state route and des~jgned to handle a high volume of vehicles. A 1998 traffic study docments that the awrage daily traffic volume on Golf Road in thi~_a!'ea, is }~,000 vehicles. Ms. Connolly norad that the subject property has 12~5-1ineer feet of ~rontage on Golf Road. The standard 16-foot wide driveway would remain, but an additional 122foot ~,.~d~J. wodld be installed. The drive??y and 12- foot wide pad would cover less than 35% of th~ ~!~ Yard, which is' in keeping with the Village's driveway lot coverage policy for front yards.. She said that the turnero.~u!3d pad would not have a negative impact on'the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The proposal would not ~4Eer..sely affect the neighborhood character or other surrounding properties. Ms. Cormolly stated that the high traffic volume in front of the petitioner's house is a unique situation and IDOT's unwillingness to issue a permit for a secpnd c~b. c.~.t...~t~a~w a ,~cJ~u~J~Y~way creates a hardship for the petitioner. Therefore. staff recommends that the P&Z recommend that the Village Board approve the lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-30-02 Arlene Juraeek, Chairperson Page 2 petitioner's request for a 9-foot exterior side yard setback to allow a turnaround pad. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this request. Mr. Rogers asked if the Village Attorney had approved the change from a conditional use for a circular driveway-~o a variation for a turnaround and could the case be heard without republishing a legal notice. Ms. Connolly said the Village Attorney had approved the change on the basis that the turnaround was a diminutive change and that people would have the same opportunity to participate in the zoning process regardless of the modification. Commissioners said that they could understand the safety reasons for the request, but that they would not want to see the turnaround used as a parking pad for cars or boats. Mr. Donnelly asked for the measurement between the sidewalk and the pad. Ms. Connolly said there would be a 10-foot separation. Charles Connell, 922 S. NaWaTa was sworn in and testified that they had originally wanted a circular driveway, bul IDOT had refused permission for a second curb cut. Therefore, they are asking for a variation for the next best solution to their problem, a turnaround. He said they have lived in Mount Prospect for thirty years and that traffic in front of his house has become worse each year. Mr. Connell said he was very grateful for all the help he received from staff. Mr. Floros asked if there were any other circular driveways on Golf Road. Ms. Connolly said yes, that there were two circular driveways directly across the street form the subject property. She said that when staff reported this fact to IDOT, ti~e IDOT representative could not confirm ho~ d~o~e driveways had been approved. Mr. Roger~ closed the public hearing at 7:45. The Commissioners discussed the case further and were of the opinion that this was not an unreasonable reqfies~, given the high-speed traffic, on Golf Road. Keith Youngquist moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of a Variation for roving a 9-foot setback to allow construction of a turnaround with the condition that it remain used as a turnaround pad and not become a parking pad, for the residence at 922 S. NaWaTa Case No. PZ-30-02. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donneliy, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 9:00 p.m., after hearing three more cases, Merrill Cotten made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~arbara Swiatek, l~lanning Secretary u~y CSnh~ y,,~ i r ann~r / Village of Mount ProsPect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - ?Z- 30 -02 LOCATION: PETITIONERS: OWNERS: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZONING: LAND USE: REQUEST: 922 S. NaWaTa Charles & Joan.ne Connell Charles & Joarme Cormell 08-14-214-024 0.21 acres (8,990 square feet) R1 Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Conditional Use - Circular driveway LOCATION MAP ~01 90O 903 902 905 · 904 907 90~ 909 9~ 911 910 913 912 915 914 917 916 919 918 921 920 913 922 Sunset Road 909 908 911 910 913 912 915 914 917 916 909 906 Golf R0ad 903 905 9o~ PZ-30-02' 922 S: NaWaTa · Connell Residence Condffional Use - Circular Driveway Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2002 HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-30-02- CONDITIONAL USE TO ALLOW A CIRCULAR DRIVE 922 S. NAWATA (CONNELL RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public heating has been scheduled for the October 24, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Joarm & Charles Connell (the "Petitioner") regarding the property located at 922 S. NaWaTa (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a new circular driveway. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the October 9, 2002 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property oWners within 250- feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located at the northwest comer of Golf Road and Na-Wa-Ta, and contains a single-family residence with an attached garage. The Subject Property is zoned R1 Single Family Residence and is bordered by the~l Single Family Dislrict on all sides. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner proposes to seal coat the existing driveway and add a circular 'leg' to the existing driveway to provide safer access onto Golf Road. The Petitioner states in the attached application that a circular drive is necessary for safety reasons and maintains that the circular configuration will allow them the ability to enter on to Golf Road in a safe manner. The circular portion of the driveway will be located directly east of the existing driveway and will measure 12-feet in width. The Petitioner will install new landscaping to enhance the exterior yard, but has not finalized the plant materials. In addition to obtaining Conditional Use approval from the Village, the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) must approve the request for a second curb cut on to Golf Road. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The.proposal does not in61ude modifying the existing home. Th~ Only change to the Bulk Regulations would be an increase in the amount of lot coverage. The table on fiae following page comPares thc Petitioner's proposal to · the Rt Single Family Residence district's lot coverage requirements. PZ-30-02 Meeting of October 24, 2002 Page 3 Ri Single Family District LOT COVERAGE LIMITATIONS Maximum Allowed 45% Existing 33% Proposed 40% Proposed Exterior Yard Lot Coverage 34% REGULATION FOR FRONT YARD DRIVEWAY COVERAGE 35% CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance. The section contains seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The circular drive is listed as a Conditional Use in the parking section of the Zoning Ordinance (Sec. 14.2215.A. 1). The following list is a summary of these findings: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental effect on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities and drainage and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. As with other circular drive requests, staff has evaluated traffic patterns in the subject property's neighborhood. In this case, Golf Road is a state route and designed to handle a high volume of vehicles. A 1998 traffic study documents that the average daily traffic volume on Golf Road (between Elmhurst Road/Rt. 83 and Busse Road) is 31,000 vehicles. The Subject Property has 125-linear feet frontage on Golf Road. The standard 16-foot wide driveway would remain, but an additional 12-foot wide section of driveway would be installed, which requires a second curb cut on to Golf Road. The driveways would cover less than 35% of the side yard and is in keeping with the Village's driveway lot coverage policy for front yards. The circular portion of the driveway would not have a negative impact on the adjacent area, utility provision or public streets. The essential character of the neighborhood would not be affected by the proposed Conditional Use, nor would it have any significant effect on the public welfare, as evidenced by the fact that there are several existing circular driveways on Golf Road in this neighborhood. Golf Road is designated as an arterial road and, therefore, is designed to handle greater traffic than a local road~ The high traffic volume and the existing eireular. driveways across the street from the Subject Property justifies granting the Conditional Use request. Z-30-02 Meeting of October 24, 2002 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION The proposed circular driveway meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F:8 of the Zoning Ordinance. 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 922 S. NaWaTa, Case No. PZ-30-02 subiect to the Petitioner obtaining the necessary approvals from IDOT. The Village Board's decision is final for this ease. William J. ~ooney, AICP, Director of Community Development VILLAGE OF MuUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, DEPARTMENT - Planning Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone 847.818.5328 FAX 847.818.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Case Number ' . · '.' . P&z , . ... Development Name/Address : ~. .. ' ' ': .: ~' "·' .' '.: Date of Submlssion . · ~ . .' .. : .' ::.. ';. :. 5:.: ~: ':' Hearing Date .:. Ad.dress(es) (Street Number, Street) Site Area (Acres) Property Zomg Total Building Sq. Ft. (Site) Front Rear Side Side ~ BulldOg Height Lot Cove. rage (%) I Number of Parking Spaces ~ Adjacent Land Uses: North South I East Wes z_ i Sm,,,~. ~Tttmih, Sf It.~ I S?g, tSFI~ ~ i Tax I~D. Number or ~unty Assigned Pin Number(s) ~ 08-14-214-024-0000 ~1 Legal Description (attach additional sheets if necessary) See attached legal descr±pt±on ~ Name Telephone (day) ~. Joaz~ne P. Con~el]~ 847 398 3057 Corporation Telephone (evening) Same Strew, ,~ddress Fax I. City .... State Zip Code Pager Mopnt Prospect 'rT. 60056' ~ Interest in Property m Owner Proposed Condi.tiona. 1 ~s.e £as li§ted .in the zo .ning district) Describe in Detail the Buildings and Activities ProPosed and How the Proposed Use Mo~ts the Attached Standards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) See attached drawinq from contractor for ~h~..q~ ~a~ 1~ This driveway will make it safer to enter Golf road, which has become increasingly busy, and would allow me to access property values. Two hor~es directl!~-~6-cr6s~-G6].-~ rohd now have circular driveways. A few shrubs will need to be moved, but these will be replace the residence. objective of this proposal. Ad,ess(es) (S~eet N~r, S~eoO Site ~ea (A~es) Propo~ Zo~g Total Buil~g Sq. Ft. (Site) Sq. Ft. Devoted to Proposed Use ~ ~ Setback:~ Front ~ Side Side BuH~g HeiSt ~t Coverage (%) Nmber of P~g Spaces Please note that the application will notbe reviewed until this petition has been fitly completed and all required plans and other materials have-been satisfactorily submitted to the pt.nnlng Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the petitioner schedule an appointment with the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy and completeness at the time of submittal. In consideration of the information contained in this petition as well as all supporting documentation, it is requested thnt approval be given to this request. The applicant is the owner or authorized representative of the owner of the property. The petitioner and the owner of the property grant employees of the Village of Mount Prospect and their agents permission to enter on the property during reasonable hours for visual inspection of the subject property. I hereby affirm that all information provided herein and in all materials submitted in association with this application are mae and accurate to the best of my lmowledge. If applicant is not property oWner: . . I hereby designate the applicant to act as my agent for the purpose of seeking the Variation(s) described in this apPlication and the associated Supporting material. . . Propeffty Owner Date Mount Prospect Department of Community Development I00 South Emerson Street, Mount Pr0spec't Illinois www.mountprospect.or g Phone 847.818.5328 .Fax 847.818.5329 TDD 847.3~2.6064 ?/_,//- : Y'O-'// " vwl 10/29/02 10/30/02 ORDINANCE NO.. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 922 sOUTH NA:WA'TA AVENUE WHEREAS, Joanne Connell (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Variation with respect to property located at 922 SoUth Na-Wa-Ta Avenue (hereinafter referred tO as the "Subject Property") and legally described as followS: Lot 110 in Schaville and Knuth, Inc. "Sunset Heights", a subdivision of the East 110 feet (as measured on the North line) of that part of the East % of the Northwest ¼ of Sec. 14, Township 41 North, Range 11, East of the 3rd Principal Meridian, lying North of the North line of Golf Road; also that part of the West % of the Northeast ¼ (except the East 7.38 chains thereof, as measured on the north line thereof) of Sec. 14, aforesaid, lying North of the North line of Golf Road~ in Cook County, IL. Property Index Number: 08-14-214-024-000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Variation to construct a turn-around pad; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Variation, being the subject of PZ Case No. 30-02, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th day of October, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 9th day of October, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ 30-02; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village 0f Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Variation would be in the best interest of the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. Page 2/2 922 S. Na-Wa-Ta Avenue SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation, as provided for in Section 14.306.E of the Village Code, to allow the construction of a turn around pad, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That before the issuance of a building permit relative to the Variation, the following conditions and/or wdtten documentation shall be fulfilled: 1. The turn-around pad shall not be utilized to store or park any vehicles. SECTION FOUR: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FIVE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 1, 2002 PZ-31-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 503 N. FOREST AVENUE BP, lAN Wi-IITE - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-31-02, a request for an unenclosed covered porch, as described in detail in the attached staffreport. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their October 24, 2002 meeting. The subject property is located in a single-family residential neighborhood. The proposed porch would encroach 2'2" into the front yard and extend almost the entire length of the house. The porch would be constructed from wood and have an overhang, railings, and columns. The proposed porch requires Conditional Use approval because it eneroacbes into the 30-foot front setback. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the petitioner's plans for a second story addition, tree preservation, and noted that the linear length of the porch complied with zoning regulations. (Zoning regulations require a minimum 25-foot setback and do not regulate the length of the porch.) The Commission stated that the porch would 'connect' the second story addition with the house and be an asset to the neighborhood. The Planning & Zoning Commission members voted 6-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve a request for a Conditional Use permit for the construction of an unenclosed covered porch within 27'10" feet of the front property line at 503 N. Forest Avenue, Case No. PZ-31-02. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their November 6, 2002 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. CASE NO. PZ-31-02 PETITIONER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MINUTES OF TH~ REGULAR MEETING OF Tgfl~, Hearing Date: October 24, 2002 Brian White 503 N. Forest Avenue 03-34-1 ! 6=~1_0._ Octob~ 9, 2002 Conditional use approval to allow construction of a new porch in the front yard. MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill Cotter_ Joseph Donneily Leo Fleros Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Richard Rogers, Vice Chairperson MIiIMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF M~MBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTEES: Brian White Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Joseph Dormelly made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 26 meeting, seconded by Keith Youngquist The September meeting minutes were approved 6-0. At 7:45, afar hearing another case, Mr. Rog6i's introduced Case No. PZ-31-02, a request for Conditional Use approval t6 allow co~don ofa newporch. Judy Counolly, Senior Planner, reported that the petitioner bas requested conditional use approval to allow the construction of a new porch in the front yard. During staff ~ew, it was determined that the project required relief from zoning bulk regulations for the interior side yard setback and.t~¢. _.am0_..un_ t..~.f !~gQ~._erage- However, the petitioner has since revised the plans and only requires conditional use approval for the perch. Ms. Connolly said that the subject property is located on the east side Q!.F9 .rest. Ayegge, between Highland Street and Memory Lane and across from Prospeot HighSchool~ Si~o~iaid that it c0n~.S a single-family residence with related improvements. The existing home is currently set back aPproximately 33-feet from the front lot line and 4.48=feet from the side lot line. The petitioner proposes to add a sb6~6h.~.s~ggry'0iitb the house and would like_to i!!dude a porch to 'tie' the project together. She said that the potitioner proposes to cOnStruct a five-foot wicle .~u!~. ~en~q!~s_e.._d porch that would be almost the same linear length as the house. The proposed porch would encroach 2'2" into the required front yard and have a 5-foot side yard setback Since the petitioner modifi~ed th~!inear di~ensio_~_~.f~e porch and the size of the wood deck to meet setback requirements and lot coverage limitations, the project is in compliance with code regulations, except for the front yarctencroaohment. Ms. Cormolly said that in order to dPPr°ve the conditional ~ request, the porch must meet the ~andards ~ i~ ~ ......... Zoning Ordinance. She summarized thc standards and said.__~_3_' porch would not advcrseiy a~ff.ect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, Utilities or public ~t~-eets and that ~t complies with the C0mPrchens~ve ~ Plan and the Zoning Ordinance requirements. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-31-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Based on these findings, Ms. Connolly said that Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve a Conditional Use permit for a circular driveway for the residence at 503 N. Forest, Case No. PZ-31-02. She said that the Village Board's decision is final for this ease. Brian White, 503 N. Forest, was sworn in. He said that he was adding a second floor to his house and that he wanted to add a porch to unify the appearance. He stated that a porch less than 5' wide would not be practical as there would not be room for chairs. Mr. Rogers asked if ha would retain the old oak tree in front of his house. Mr. White said that the tree had been hit by lightning, had a large bare branch, and was dangerous because it was too close to the house. He said he was not sure about keeping the oak, but that he would be able to keep the birch tree. Mr. Floros agreed that the tree could be a danger to the roof of the house m a storm. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 7:50. Commission members discussed the request and agreed that the porch would be an attractive addition to the house and would enhance the neighborhood. Keith Youngquist clarified that the Zoning Ordinance does not regulate the linear dimension of unenclosed porches, but limits the amount of the encroachment so a nfimmum 25-foot front setback is maintained. Joseph Donnelly moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of a Conditional Use fo~ ~i pomh [~)i~ ';r~i~' residence at 503 N. Forest, Case No. PZ-31-02. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Ydungquist and Sledz NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. At 9:00 p.m., after hearing two more cases, Merrill Cotten made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Dormelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary ~u y Cormolly, Senior Planner. L-'~ Vffiage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - PZ- 31 -02 LOCATION: PETITIONER: OWNER: PARCEL #: LOT SIZE: ZOhlNG: LA.ND USE: REQUEST: 503 N. Forest Brian White Brian White 03-34-116-010 0.17 acres (7,239 square feet) RA Single Family Residence Single Family Residential Conditional Use - Porch in front yard LOCATION MAP s~ SOT SOS 409 4~ 40~ 402 S07 S06 SOS b2 413 412 411 410 Gregory Street · · · 'PZ-31=02 503 N. Forest Avenue White Residence ~ Conditional Use - Porch ·~ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2002 HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2002 SUBJECT: PZ-31-02 - CONDITIONAL USE (PORCH) 503 N. FOREST AVENUE (WHITE RESIDENCE) BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the October 24, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Brian White (the "Petitioner') regarding the property located at 503 N. Forest Avenue (the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner has requested Conditional Use approval to allow the construction of a new porch in the front yard. During staff review, it was determined that the project required relief from zoning bulk regulations for the interior side yard setback and the mount of lot coverage. The P&Z hearing was properly noticed in the October 9, 2002 edition of the. Journal Topics Newspaper. In addition, Staff has completed the required written notice to property owners within 250-feet and posted a Public Hearing sign on the Subject Property. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION The Subject Property is located on the east side of Forest Avenue, between Highland Strect and Memory Lane (across from Prospect High School), and contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered by the RA District to the north, south, and east, and by the RI District to the west (across Forest Avenue). The existing home on the Subject Property is currently set back approximately 33-fect from the front lot line (33.03') and 4AS-feet from the side (south) lot line. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The attached exba'bits outline the Petitioner's plans for the proposed addition and unenclosed from porch. The proposed improvements include extending the house to the east (using the same foolprint as the existing patio), adding a second story to a portion of the house, and installing a wood deck. In addition, the petitioner proposes to construct a 5' x 39.68' unenclosed porch that would be almost the same length as the front of the house. The proposed porch would encroach 2'2" into the required front yard, thus requiring Conditiona~ Use approval. The 'service walk is a permitted encroachment and does not require any special approval; GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE As previously noted, the existing setback along the south (interior) lot line is 4.48-feet. The table on the following page compares the Petitioner's proposal to the RA Single Family Residence district's bulk requirements. It is important to note that the Zoning Ordinance requires a five-foot side setback, but allows legal Z-31 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 24, 2002 Page 3 nonconformities, such as the existing 4.48-foot setback, to be extended upward only, (i.e. add a second story). The petitioner has agreed to modify the porch and wood deck in order to meet the five-foot interior side yard setback requirement and 50% lot coverage limitation. RA Single F~mily District Existing Proposed Minimum Requirements SETBACKS: Front 30' 33.03' 28.03' Interior 5' 10.36' north & Same for house 4.48' south 5' for new porch (south) Rear 25' 55' same LOT COVERAGE 50% Maximum 48% 50.3% (with 10.5'x12' deck) 50% (with 10'x10.5 deck) CONDITIONAL USE STANDARDS The standards for Conditional Uses are listed in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Conditional Use. The following list is a summary of these findings: · The Conditional Use will not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; · The Conditional Use will not be injurious to the use, enjoyment, or value of other properties in the vicinity or impede the orderly development of those properties; · Adequate provision of utilities, drainage, and design of access and egress to minimize congestion on Village streets; and · Compliance of the Conditional Use with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, and other Village Ordinances. The proposal would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public s~'eets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. RECOMMENDATION The proposed unenclosed porch meets the Conditional Use standards contained in Section 14.203.F.8 of the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Conditional Use for an unenclosed porch to encroach 2'2" into the required front yard for the residence at 503 N. Forest Avenue, Case No. PZ-31-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this ease. I concur: ' William J. ~ooney, AI~P, Director of Community Development VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT - plnnnlng Division 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone g47.818~328 FAX $47.815.5329 Application for Conditional Use Approval Address(es) (Slreet Number, Street) S~c~: *Fm~t R~ Side Side Adj~t ~ H~: Name Telephone (day) C. xgporation TclephOne(even~g) * ~7-*z~'~'- '~'~ ~ Intet~st in Propert~ N~ne Telephone (day) Corporation Telephone (evening) ~0 ~ StreetAddress Fax: City State Zip C~de Pager Developer Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Attorney Name Telephone (day) Address Fax i Surveyor i Name Telephone (day) Name Telephone (day) Address Fax Architect 'Name .~/'sofoA,~ ~- ~ocKl~y Telephone(day): Landscape Architect Name · · . Telcphono (day): Addre~ 'Fax Mount Prospect Department of Corem,miry Development Phone 847.818.5328 1 O0 ?~snh F. merr. on .~.~,~. Monnt Prn~nect Illinoi~ Fax g~7.gl g.5'¥2e/ roposed Conditional Use (as listed in tbe zonin~ district) Describe in Detail the Buildings end Activities Proposed and How the Proposed Use Meets the Attached Slandards for Conditional Use Approval (attach additional sheets if necessary) Hoo . uae. co oco -00 tto~r~ of Operation Address(es) (Street Number, SU~eO Site ~,rea (Acres) Property Zol~g To~ Building Sq. It. (Sbe) Scl. Ft. l~o~l to Proposed Use Setbacks: · Front Rear Side Side Buila~g Height Lot Coverage (%) Number of Parldng Spaces Please note that the application will not be reviewed until ~ p~titiun has been fully completed end all required plans and other materials have been satisfactorily submitted ~o the PInnnl-5 Division. Incomplete submittals will not be accepted. It is strongly suggested that the pe~tioner schedule en appointment wi~ the appropriate Village staff so that materials can be reviewed for accuracy mil completeness at the time of submittal. lo thls request. Tbe applicentistbe owner or enthorized representative ofthe owner ofthe proper~y. The petitiones and the owner ofthe property P4'aat employees of the Viliage of Mount Prospect and thelr agents permission to enter on the property during nmsonable hours for visual inspeedun of the subj~et prop~. I hereby at~rm that all information provided herein end in all materials submitted in association with this appliea&m are lrue and accura~ to t~; best of my knowled~e~ ~ Appncent -*~-'~ ~ ~-. - ~ Date .If appHcent is not l~ope~y ovmen I he~Oy desi~S~ejh¢ .applicant to a~ asmy agent for the purpose Of seekiag the Vadatlun(s) descn'bed in ~ applic~iun end the ' Property Owner Date Mount Prospeet Dapar~ment of Community Development Phone $4?.815.~328 !.04'-' i v ,O0'gg X'IVM 'ONO0 ~. L~$T ~LI::: VATION RESIDENCE .. NORTH ELEVATION v~ 10/29/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 503 NORTH FOREST AVENUE WHEREAS, Brian White (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit with respect to property located at 503 North Forest Avenue (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"), and legally described as follows: Lot 13 in Block 4 in Prospect Manor Subdivision of part of the South % of the West % of the West % of Sec. 34, Township 42 North, Range 11, E. of the 3rd Principal Meridian, as per plat thereof recorded March 6, 1926, as Doc. #9199191, in Cook County, Illinois Property Index Number: 03-34-116-010-000 and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks a Conditional Use permit to construct an unenclosed porch encroaching two feet and two inches (2'2") into the required front yard setback; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for Conditional Use permit being the subject of PZ Case No. 31-02 before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 24th day of October, 2002, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 9th day of October, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees in support of the request being the subject of PZ 31-02; and WHEREAS, the President and' Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given consideration to the request herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Conditional Use would be in the best interest of the Village. 'NOW, THEREFOREi BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK CQUNTY, ILLINOIS: . SECTION ONE: 'Ehe recitals set forth hereinab0ve are incorporated as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount ProsPect. Page 2/2 503 N. Forest Avenue SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Conditional Use permit, as provided for in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, to allow the construction of an unenclosed porch encroaching two feet and two inches (2'2") into the required front yard setback, as shown on the Site Plan, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A." SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Village President Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT NOVEMBER 1, 2002 PZ-33-02 - TEXT AMENDMENTS: 1, PUBLIC NOTICE 2. MAXIMUM SHED SIZE 3. PROViSIONS FOR CONVERTING ATTACHED GARAGES TO LIVING SPACE The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits the following recommendations for text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Case PZ-33-02: 1. legal notices: APPROVE (6-0); 2. provisions for converting attached garages to living space: DENY (4-2); 3. maximum shed size: APPROVE, but changed to 160 square feet for all properties (5-1), as described in detail in the attached staffreport. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their October 24, 2002 meetin.g. The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the benefits of simplifying the legal notices and how using a common address instead of a legal description would reduce publication costs and make the notices more user- friendly. The P&Z discussed the need for requiring garages, the aesthetic impact of parking cars in the front yard, and the impact of the code change on residents in great detail. After discussing this matter in detail they determined that proposed text amendment requiring residents to construct a new garage when converting an existing garage ~0 - livings space was too restrictive. The Commission also discussed increasing shed sizes and stated that they supported allowing larger sheds throughout the community. However, basing the shed size on lot size was unfair to some residents and that the 200 square foot limit was too large and likened it to the size ora garage. They therefore recommended modifying the current the current shed regulations to allow a maximum size garage of 160 square feet. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their · November 6, 2002 meeting. Staff vdll be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William~ J[~ooney, ~ MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING &ZONING COMMISSION CASE~NO. PZ-33-02 Hearing Date: October 24, 2002 PETITIONER: Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street PUBLICATION DATE: October 9, 2002 REQUEST: Text Amendment:. 1) public notices; 2) maximum shed size; 3) provisions for converting ~iitach~d garages to living space MEMBERS PRESENT: Merrill C6~eh Leo Floros ~ Ma~2~h~ ~ie~iz Keith youngqmst Richard Rog6r~, Vice Chairperson MEMBERS ABSENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: .... ~'udy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARr I'IESI Vice Chairperson Richard Rogers called the~meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Leo Floros made ~ motion to approve the mianieS of the September 26 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten; The september meeting mii/Uf~§ W~ at~lsrbv~ed 6- o. At 8:00, after hearing three cases, Mr. Rogers introduced Case No. PZ-33-02, a request for Text Amendments tO the Villag~ Code, and said the case.~9~l~d.~.~i_Jlage B6~d final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, d~scribed the requested Text Am~ndment~:..~ge~x~plained that three amendments Were~ being requested and that the_ f~irequest was to eliminate Legal Descriptions from public notices. Ms. Connolly explained that th~ Village cnrrently requires that a property's legal description be includdff6ii~a'publlc hearing notice~ Due to the length, content, and cost of publishing a property's legal description, 'Staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance bo amended to allow publishing the property's common addre~ in~ead. Shd said that a ~on~0n a~d~i.~ easi,er to unde~d ~an a. Jegal description and reduces the possibility of error. As an example, she said, a typo may nulhfy a legal notice and Create delays .for the petitioner while the notice i~ republished. Ms. Connolly said the Vi, l!~ge Attorney has reviewed this issue and de_termined that the elimination ora property's legal description from the publie'ri~fi~e'would be acceptable. B~edon the~info~rm.a~Ogn~gutlined above, stuff suggests Section 14.203. (3. 4 - Pub!j~He~g Procedures is ameBde_d. ~M.~.s~. ~.~n~&lly read the changes listed in the Staff memo and pointed out that the ~e_limli'~ii~gn ~o_t. l~,egal descriptions Will help to shorten the public notices, in some cases substantially, resulting in m~r,~ read~e-rfrie~ly notices and lower publishing Vice Chairman Rog~rs '§U~sted discussion andyg_t'm~.g on each requested amendment separately. Matt Sledz said eliminating the legal description from the published ads was a very good idea and Joseph Donnelly agreed. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to reco .. ~n!~_~ ~eg~ approval to the Village Board to amend Section 14.203.. ~., .4_7 _P~b~,~li.~c~ ......... Hearing Procedures, as prepared by staff. Keith Youngquist secon~e_d..tb~.mg~ti~n~.. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-33-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: ~otten. Donnelly, Floro~i ~ogers, Youngqmst and Sled~ NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Connolly explained the second requested amendment, Regulations regarding the conversion of attached garages into living space. She explained that the Building Division hhs received an increased number of permit applications regarding the conversion of an attached garage into living space. In some cases, the conversion of the garage into living space did not include constructing a new garage and the existing driveway was maintained and used for parking vehicles. She said that there have been other instances where a new' detached garage could not be constructed following the conversion of an attached garage into living space because there was insufficient space to accommodate a 9-foot wide driveway or the site would have exceeded lot coverage regulations. Ms. Connolly said the Village currently does not require existing residential properties to have a garage. As a result, demolishing and converting an existing garage into living space wl{h~fft dsnstructing a new garage is permitted. Staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to prevent situations where the conversion of an ex~sting garage is completed without the construction cfa new garage. Ms. Connolly pointed out that there are two potential options to address this situation: 1) require that a new garage be built as part cfa garage conversion project; or 2) require that the garage conversion project be done in such a manner that, at a minimum, a new one-ear garage~¢~>uld be built at a later date. ' Ms. Cormolly said that in order to ensure that a new garage is built as part of a garage conversion project, staff suggests that Sec. 14.304 - Bulk Regulations of the Zoning Code be modified and that a new subsection would be created. She read the changes listed in the Staff memo. Mr. Rogers said that most homes with attached garages in the Village do not have sufficient side yard to allow for a new 9' driveway m a detached garage. It was suggested that, as an alternative when side yard space is limited, room additions could be added to the back of a house or as a second story. Some CommisSion~rs s;~id it was not fair to limit room addition projects to a more costly way of building, i.e. building a second story and also putting residents through the expense of providing another detached garage or provisions for one. Mr. Donnelly asked ifa new driveway to the rear of the house could be less thfiii'9' wide wiih i~ermission from the Board. Ms. Connolly said that due to publication requirements that it was not possible to change the 9' width as called for in the Development Code at this meeting. She said that staff could research the possibility of reducing the minimum driveway width at the direction of the Commission. However~ the minimum width is based on industry standards and that a narrower driveway may ~ot be navigable. Several Commissioners cited examples of garage conversions with the driveway lef~ in place and used as a parking pad for many family cars. They pointed out that this amendment would preclude that happening in the future. Mr. Cotten stated that limiting the location of an addition and/or reqUiring that a garage be built at the time of the addition could force families with many children to move, possibly out of Mount Prospect. Matt Sledz made a motion to recommend approval to the Village Board to amend Section 14.304.E, Bulk Regulations, of the Zoning Code, that appropriate provision for replacement of a garage be completed before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. Leo Floros seconded the motion. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-33-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 UPON ROLL CALL!-~ -AYES: Floros and Sledz NAYS Cotton Dorihelly, Rogers, Youngquist Motion was denied 4-2. Ms. Connolly explained the third text amer~d~nt, regulations regarding the maximum allowable size ora shed. She' said that in response to an increased number of variation requests to install sheds larger than 120 square feet, staff researched the typical size of the most commonly sold sheds and the size limitations of other communities. The intent was to determine if the Village's existing 120 square foot limitation was still appx:opriate. The fmdings indicated that the Village's existing regulations do not correspond with. today's common shed sizes or the regulations of other communities. Ms. Connolly reported that various options to regulate shed sizes were discussed at recent Committee of the Whole meetings. Also discussed was prohibiting fiat roofs on sheds and garages. As a result of these discussions, staff proposes that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to permit the maximum sh~d size to correspond to the size'of the property, but capped at 200 square feet. In addition, that the code contain regulations regarding a shed and garage roof pitch. She said that the benefits of this approach would be the relativ~e ~ase i~a ~h~¢~h Staff ~a~n,d resid~n~ e.o_uld understand and apply the regulations in addition to allowing for larger sheds on larger lots. Staff also proposes that the Zoning Ordinance include definitions that w0~ld_help to restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in a storage shed. These definitions Would help to prevent the use of a larger size shed for a workshop or the storage ora vehicle. She read the definitions and the staff recommendation dura the Staff memu and summari?ed Iht standards fo~ text amendments to the Code .MS~ C0~i~iiY said flint staff recommends mat the l &Z recommend approval of the propused Text Amendments as detailed in the Staff m~0, ,a,.~,,a~d~x{ ~th_alo~i~[[age Board's decision is final for this case. ~Vlr. Cotten said it would not be,~f.a~ir~t9 li~iLs~mall~er properties to a smaller siz~ storage shed because a smaller house requires a larger storage area, Mr. Sledz said the amendment~w~.~e~a~e~d ~iE~right direction by sizing the shed to the size of the lot but that 200 s.f,. is too large for any property. Much discussion followed with varying ideas as to what size shed shq.~Id be all0~_e~ for 3yh~a.t ~si~ lot. Leo Floros reminded the Commissioners that the Commi~e~ qt~,~W~ ol,~e,~h~d~ spent many hours and many sessions agonizing over this matter and he was prepared to accept their firidings. Mr. Rogers closed the public hearing at 8:40 Joseph Donnelly moved to recommend to the Village Board approval of an amendment to Sec. 14.306.B to allow sheds no larger than I60 s f. Matt Sledz secondedthe mot~i~n~ UPON ROLL CALL: Motion was approved 6-1. AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Sledz NAYS: Floros At 9:00 p m, Merrill Cotten made a motion to adjourn, seconded by Joseph Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. ~arbara S~4i{~l~, Pla/ming Secretary ~'dy~onholly, Sen-io~'~lh~in'er? ~ /~ Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COIvIMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: OCTOBER 17, 2002 HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2002 PZ-33-02 - TEXT AMENDMENTS: 1. PUBLIC NOTICES 2. MAXIMUM SHED SIZE 3. PROVISIONS FOR CONVERTING ATTACHED GARAGES TO LIVING sPACE BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the October 24, 2002 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by the Village of Mount Prospect (the "Petitioner") for text amendments to the Village Code regarding the following: (1) public notice requirements; (2) proyisious for the conversion of an attached garage into living space; and (3) the maximum allowable shed size. The Planning & Zoning Commission. hearing was properly noticed in the October 9, 2002 edition of the Journal Topics Newspaper. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS 1. ELIMINATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS FROM PUBLIC NOTICES As you may be aware, the Village of Mount Prospect currently requires the inclusion of a property's legal description as part of a public hearing notice. Legal descriptions can often be very lengthy and confusing depending on the size, shape and number of parcels involved. In addition, the technical format of legal descriptions can be very difficult for an'average person to understand, thus most people are unable to gain much information from them. It should also be noted that retyping a formal legal description for use in a public notice allows for potential typographical errors due to their length and format. The inclusion of any typographical errors could render the legal description invalid and may challenge the integrity of the public notice. Another item for consideration regarding the elimination of legal descriptions from public notices relates to cost. The price of posting a legal notice is based on its length and the cost to publish some recent legal notices has exceeded $200. The elimination of legal descriptions will help to shorten the public notices, in some case substantially, resulting in more reader friendly notices and lower publishing costs, Summary Of Proposal Staff proposes tO amend the Village Code by eliminating the x~quirement that. a property's legal description be included in a public notice. In its place, the public notice.would include the property?s common address or other appropriate information when an address does not exist. The Village Attorney has reviewed this issue and determined that tile elimination of a property's legal description from the public notice Would be acceptable. As outlined in the attached letter, the Village Attorney has provided specific language for PZ-33-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 24, 2002 Page 2 amending the Village Code. Based on the information outlined above, Staff suggests Section 14.203. G. 4 ~ Public Hearing Procedures be amended as follows: 4. All published and mailed notices shall contain the case number assigned to the application, (delete this an~ !~ca~:: ~. t~ ~. ............. o- (add this text:) the common address of the property or in the event that there is no common address, an appropriate description of the location of the property, a brief statement on the nature of the public hearing, the name and address of the property owner, the petitioner and their legal representative, and the date, time and location of the public hearing. 2. REGULATIONS REGARDING THE CONVERSION OF ATTACHED GARAGES INTO LIVING SPACE Over the last several years, the Building Division has received a number of permit applications regarding the conversion of an attaehad garage into living space (such as a family room or bed room). In some cases, however, the proposed conversion of the garage into living space did not include the construction of a new garage. In these situations, the existing driveway was maintained and utilized as a parking area. In addition, there have been instances where following the conversion of an attached garage into living space, a new detached garage could not be constructed due to insufficient side yard width for a driveway or lot coverage limitations. Currently the Village does not require each residential property to have a garage, therefore, demolishing and/or converting an existing garag6 into living space without constructing a new garage is permitted. Staffproposes the Zoning Ordinance be amended in order to prevent situations Where the ennversion of an existing g~a'age is completed without the construction cfa new garage. Based On these circ~, ~0 potential options to address this situation include: 1) require that a new garage be built as part of a 'garage conversion' project; or 2) require that the 'garage conversion' project be done in such a manner that at a minimum a new one-ear garage (12'x20') could be built at a later date. Summary Of Proposal In order to ensure that a new garage is bUilt as Part of a 'garage conversi°n' project, Staff suggests fl~at Sec. 14.304 - Bulk Regulations of the Zoning Code be modified to include the following: 14304.E: Prior to issuing a Building Permit to convert an attached garage into living spaee' or the demolition of an existing detached garage, the property owner shall submit bUilding plans fora new garage (a 'one-car garage is the minimum acceptable size) and driveway~ A final Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for the new living space until such time that the new garage has been constructed and approved by the Village. 3. REGULATIONS REGARDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE OF A sH~D In response t~ an increased number of variation requests to install oversized sheds,, Staff regenfly rese~ched the typical size of today's most commonly sold sheds and the size limitations of other communities to determine if the Village's existing 120 square foot limitation is appropriate. The research indicated flaat the 'Village's existing ~'egulations do not correspond with today's common shed sizes or the regulations of other communities. . PZ-33-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 24, 200~' ; Page 3 During recent Committee of the Whole meetings, various options that could be utilized by the Village to regulate shed sizes were discussed (to assist in your review of this matter we have attached a copy of the Staff report previously prepared for the Board of Trustees in addition to COW meeting minutes). Also discussed was not permitting fiat roofs on sheds and garages. In light of these recent discussions, Staff proposes that the Village's Zoning Code be mended so that the permitted size of a shed correSPonds with the size of the property (with a maximum shed size of 200 square feet) and that the roof pitch regulations are created. The benefits of this approach would be the relative ease in which both Staff and the residents could understand and apply the regulations. This method would also allow for larger sheds on larger lots. In addition to amending the Village's specific size limitations, Staff also proposes that the Zoning Ordinance include definitions that would help to restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in a storage shed. These definitions would help to prevent the use of a larger size shed for a workshop or the storage of a vekiele. The Village Code currently defines accessory structures as "a subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure." The Village could modify the accessory structure definitions by adding text defining the permitted uses of garages and sheds. The following text provides one possible solution to this matter: Accessory Structure - A subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the nseof which is incidental Md accessory tO that Of a ~¢iP~i StrUcture. Sald ~tmctures may include, but are not limited to the following: o Garages - A stmctore.designed to house motor vehicles and to store items and equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upon. o Sheds - A structure that is designed to store household items and equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upon. ,Sg,mmary Of Proposal Staffproposes that Sec. 14.306: ACCESSORY STRUCTURES be modified as follows: Sec. 14.306.A: Paragraph A shall be amended by adding new subparagraphs (6) and (7) to Paragraph A which shall be and read as follows: 6. Shed Restrictions: A shed shall not be utilized to store motor vehicles or as office, work or living space. 7. Roof Pitch: N° accessory structure shall have a roof pitch of less than 3:12. Sec. 14.306.B. Restrictions In Residential Districts: Paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be deleted in their entirety and replaced with: (1) Maximum Size a. Garages: A detached private garage may be no larger th. an 672 square feet. b. Sheds: A.shed may be no larger than the smaller of the following: i. Two percent (2%) of the lot area; or iL 200 square feet. (2) Bulk Restrictions On lots fifty five feet (55') in width or less, detached accessory structures shall be setback three feet (3 ') from any interior side or rear lot line. On lots greater in width than fitly five Z-33-02 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting October 24, 2002 Page 4 feet (55'), detached accessory structures shall be set back five feet (5') from any interior side or rear lot line. No accessory structure shall be placed on any dedicated easement. Accessory structures shall be included in any maximum lot coverage calculation. Also, the definition section (Sec.14.2401) would be amended to include the definition for an accessory structure, garage and shed as outlined above. STANDARDS FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS Section 14.203.D.8.b lists standards for the P&Z to consider for text amendments to the Zoning Code. The standards relate to: · the general applicability of the amendment to the community, rather than an individual parcel; consistency of the amendment with objectives of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan; the degree to which the amendment would create non-conformity; · the degree to which the amendment would make the Zoning Code more permissive; and · consistency of the amendment with Village policy as established by previous rulings. The proposed amendments are applicable on a community-wide basis and do not impact a particular lot. Changes to the legal notices will make the notices more useful and user-friendly while also reducing costs; requiring a garage to be constructed as part of a garage conversion project will protect the character of the Village; and the change to allow larger sheds is consistent With current standards and other communities' regulations. Also, adding definitions will help clarify how residents are allowed to utilize sheds. In addition, the amendments are consistent with the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan because the changes protect and promote the health, safety, comfort, convenience, and general welfare of the residents of the Village, while still preserving the character of the community. The text amendments do not make the Zoning Ordinance more permissive and will allow for future improvements to be constructed in a safe manner. Therefore, the proposed amendments meet the Zoning Code Standards for Text Amendments. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, the P&Z can make positive findings with respect to the standards for Text Amendment in Section 14.2211. Therefore, Staff recommends approv~al of the proposed Text Amendments as detailed in this staff report. Willian~ j. Coone[r, AICP, Director of Community Development T~%'/OPFTC'~S KLEIN, THORPE AND JENKiNS, LTD. SUIT~ 1660 20 NORTH WACI~R DI~VE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 6060~2903 TELEPHONE {312} 984-6400 FA~N (312J 984-6444 September 19, 2002 .v~C F..~..l& 1'. )U~U~XK THOMAS ~ IV~ODY AATHUK C, THOP/'~ wRn'ER'S DIRECT DIAL Mr. Michael Jacobs Deputy Director of Community Development Village of Mount Prospect 100 S. Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056-3266 RE: Proposed Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance's public notice requirement Dear Mr. Jacobs: You recently asked if public notices for zoning purposes could be limited to stating the common address, rather than a legal description and address, as presently required in Public Hearing Procedures, Section 14.203G, of the Zoning Ordinance. Your concern was the likelihood of inaccuracy in a.publie notice when including a legal description, as well as your observation that citizens are best informed of the location of certain property by the common address, rather than a legal description. In addition, the Zoning Ordinance presently requires only an address in notices for administrative hearings to review minor variations. Based upon our research, public notice, stating only the common address, would be valid in these types of eases, as the applicable state statutes do not require a legal description; only the "particular location" is required. Therefore, I have drafted a proposed Ordinance to amend the Public Hearing Procedures, Section 14.203G in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 14.203(0), which applies tO public notices for variations, amendments, appeals, and conditional uses. The proposed ordinance would require a cmmmon address, rather than a legal description and address, but, in the event that a common address is not available, some other appropriate description must identify the location of the. property. Please advise Buzz Hill or me if this amendment meets your needs. I can be contacted at (312) 984-6468. Very truly yours, Enclosure C: Michael Janonis, Village Manager Everette M. Hill. lr. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 OF THE VILLAGE CODEOF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED:BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF Tm VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: That Subparagraph G(4) of Section 14.203, entitled "Procedures for Administrative Functions" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code, shall be deleted in its en~ety and a new subparagraph G(4) shall be' "~'~ ~"~ '~ inserted t .......... ~ fe!!~ws: 4. All published and mailed notices Shall contain the case number assigned to the application, the common address of the property or in the event that there is no common address, an appropriate description of the location of the property, a brief statement on the nature of the public hearing, the name and address of the property owner, the petitioner and their legal representative, and the date, time and location of the public hearing. SECTION 2: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the mm~ner provided by law~ AYES: NAYS: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Village President Village Clerk I;'Ordlnanc~ ~weadlng notice ~qukemmt in Zoning Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Senior Center 50 South Emerson Street COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, April 9, 2002 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L. Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF MARCH 26, 2002 II1. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS 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 foot maximum allowed by 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 Village 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 for 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 would be comfortable in administering either type of regulatory scheme. From a policy standpoint, the Village Board needs to determine whether overall lifestyle changes and demands in housing amenities dictates the need to modify current Village regulations. Appropriate staff will be on hand to answer.questions and facilitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDMDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE AT ~00 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILUNOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #84T/392-6064. II. III. 'MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 9, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Core, oran, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron and Irvana WiIks. Absent from the meeting were: Trustees Richard Lohrstorfer and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Deputy Community Development Director Mike Blue, Environmental Health Coordinator Bob Roels, Building Division Inspector Nick Licari, Fire Marshal Paul Valentine, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Village Engineer Jeff Wulbecker and Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from March 26, 2002. Trustee Hoefert requested several revisions regarding the Minutes and the description of the Village Hall project and asked that the approval of the Minutes be deferred until the revision is provided. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS Community Development Director Bill Cooney summarized the staff reseamh that he has obtained from other communities. This information was requested based on the frequency of requests for Variations that have come before the Village Board recentlY. He highlighted the fact that several towns approach shed regulations similar to Mount Prospect where the maximum square footage is used as the determining factor for administrative regulation. He also highlighted that several communities utilize a formula for maximum shed size computed on the property size and other accessory structures on the site. He also stated that a review of the market place has shown that there are sheds available within the parameters that Mount Prospect utilizes for shed regulations. He stated the formula for computing maximum size is more complex and would require additional staff explanation and generate larger sheds depending on the property size. He also suggested that if the formula were to be used, then there could be the Opportunity to create a band of various property sizes (based on square footage) unique to vadous shed sizes; General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was suppod expressed for considering an increase in the overall shed size compared to what is currently regulated. There was also discussion regarding the need to make the regulation easy to administer and maintain the required setback for larger sheds. There was a concern that with the larger shed sizes, there could be additional requests before the Board for Variations to allow such larger sheds on limited property that would necessitate encroachment in the setbacks. There were comments made regarding the need to keep the size of the shed below a typical garage size. Consensus of the Village Board was to consider an increase in the size but gather input from the Planning and Zoning Commission with guidance from the Village Board considering the larger sizes based on property square footage and maintenance of the setbacks. Walter Feder, 808 Lancaster, spoke. He would suggest the Board consider reducing the setback based on the size of the shed. Doug Doughty, 1431 Blackhawk, spoke. He stated that he has a larger shed and would not want to take stock what was available in the market place as a basis for determination of what size is appropriate. He also wanted to,point out that usage of sheds does change over time and the Village would not eliminate all Variation requests with a proposed change. V. pROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CODE MODIFICATIONS Village Manager Janonis introduced the topic by stating this has been a three- year process and the goal was to make the Code much more understandable and user-friendly. He also hoped that the revisions would .make the Code more equitable for application since the Code does touch on several Departments at all times. Project Engineer Chuck Lindelof provided a general overview to the Village Board regarding-the revision process and what changes were made. He said many of the changes were necessitated through staff review of the process and some changes were made through additional staff. He stated one of the main goals for changes for the Code over time was to reduce the turn-around time and confusion by users of the Code. He stated that 90% of the changes could be categorized as organizational in nature and the Code has been separated into two sections; one for site improvements and the other for site construction standards for better application. ~ .He also stated that much of the content changes are reflective of new materials and standard practices and would liketo complete the process pdor to the construction season for this year, 2 Meeting Location: Mount Prospect Senior Center 50 South Emerson Street COMMI'I-I'EE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Date and Time: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 7:00 p.m, I, CALL TO ORDER - ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald L, Farley Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Michaele Skowron Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michael Zadel II. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF APRIL 9, 2002 III. IV. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD .F_I..RST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT The financial health of the Village is of paramount importance to the Mayor and Board of Trustees and administration. Constant review of the ~!lage's financial positionwith regard to revenues and expenditures allows budgetary decisions to be made in an informed manner. To that end, the Village has engaged in quarterly reporting of the Village's financial position. As was the case last year, it is again especially important to be vigilant given the weakened national and local economies. Pending State legislation could also seriously impact our financial position. Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth has prepared a general overview of our revenue and exper~diture position based upon the recently completed first quarter. While it is eady in the year, and clear trends have not been established, there is enough information to begin looking for areas of cencem that medt Close scrutiny and some preliminary strategic discussion. Appropriate staff, will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. NOTE: ANY INDMDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTICIPATE, sHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFPICE AT ~ 00 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILDNOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392.6064. VI. ~l. VIII. STREETSCAPE UPDATE With the start of construction season, work will again begin on vadous downtown streetscape projects. Staffwould like to provide the Village Board and public with an oral status of both current and future projects. A PowerPoint presentation is planned. Also, Community Development Director Bill Cooney and Public Works Director Glen Andler will serve as tour guides. REVIEW OF ACCESSORY SHED REGULATIONS Eadier 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 foot maximum allowed by Code. Both cases also requested Variations to allow placement of the sheds in existing utitity 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 Village 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 for 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 would be comfortable in administering either type of regulatory scheme. From a policy standpoint, the Village Board needs to determine whether overall lifestyle changes and demands in housing amenities dictates the need to modify current Village regulations. The Village Board discussed this topic at the Apdl 9, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting. The general consensus reached at that time was the need to increase the current 120 square foot size limit. There was also general agreement that setback requirements be maintained. Still to be determined is maximum shed size and how that size is arrived at, by way of a formula, or a fixed maximum size. Refer to the Apdl 9 Committee of the Whole minutes included in this package. Appropriate ,-staff will be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VILLAGE .MANAGER'S REPORT ANY OTHER BUSINESS IX. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION PROPERTY AcQuISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). 'rThe purchase or lease of real property for the use of the public body." I1. II1.~ 'MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MAY 14, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called t° order at 7:03 plm. by Mayor Gerald Fadey. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowren, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director William Cooney, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth and Public Works Director Glen Andler. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from April 9, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Hoefert and seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Trustees Lohrstorfer and Zadel abstained. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. FIRST QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT Finance Director Doug EIIsworth provided a summary of revenue and expenditures to date for this current fiscal year. He stated that the revenue stream is such that it arrives at different times throughout the fiscal year so it is tough to estimate revenues this eady in the fiscal year since many arrive later on in the year. He stated that expenditures are easier to track dudng the first three months because they tend to be fairly stable throughout the year except for capital construction projects which happen during the construction season. He stated Preperty Tax receipts have dropped over time due to the numerous tax appeals that have been processed and approved. He stated that Sales Tax is not as far behind as previously estimated but still is lower than previous years. He stated at this point there is a still is a projection of a $640,000 General Fund deficit and would find it difficult to reinstate the Capital Improvement Fund transfer in 2003 with the current revenue scenario. He stated that rising Pension and Health Insurance costs will be an additiona! challenge for 2003. He stated that there still is a deficit projected for 2003 and stated that typical expenditures raise at a normal rate of ~t%. With reveDue~ being fiat, there is a need for approximately $1 mi oil of new m0neY each year to balance the budget. He stated that the initial projections of the General Fund do not include the transfer to the ClP for 2003 but there will be a need to address the ClP funding in the near futura. STREETSCAPE UPDATE Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of the Straetscape progress throughout the downtown to date along with projected timeframes for other improvements in the downtown. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There were significant positive comments regarding the appearance of the work in the downtown area as several Trustees relayed comments they have received from citizens as the projects start to take shape. There were also comments regarding the timing of the various work and the total time allotted for various improvements. Public Works Director Glen Andler stated that all the bdcks that were previously installed will soon be replaced since the bdcks do not meet the specifications of the contract. He stated the brick replacement will be at no cost to the Village and will be coordinated so to minimize disruption among downtown businesses. He stated that sections of the brick would be removed and then ~eplaced as the project moves throughout the downtown. ~. REVIEW OF SHED REGULATIONS Village Manager Michael Janonis stated this is a follow up of previous discussions based on some variation requests from several residents regarding larger sheds. Community Development has done much of the requested research by the Board for consideration of possible parameters for shed consideration. Community Development Director Bill Cooney provded the baseline information and the marketplace details of the various shed sizes. He also suggested there are several policy options regarding shed regulation. Among those are lot coverage limits as a factor on the shed size along with outright maximum square footage limits. General comments of the Village Board members included the following items: There was some discussion regarding maximum lot coverage including all structures. There was also a concern raised regarding the possible loophole of multiple structures in the 'case of a detached single-family car garage. There were comments made regarding the clarification of the hard surface necessary to utilize a garage versus an accessory structure such as a shed. There were also comments regarding the maintenance of the required setback regardless of the shed size to be considered. A suggestion was made to create various shed sizes based on the lot sizes in various bands or ranges of lot size. There was a concern raised regarding the percentage of lot coverage formula and a suggestion was made to use the break point of the lot size for the range criteria instead. There was also a suggestion simplifying the regulation whereby a maximum size would be defined and enforced, Doug Doughty, 1431 Blackhawk, spoke. He suggested a clarification for the structure height and to clearly define the difference between a shed and a garage. He also suggested the Village Board consider the size of the shed based on the lot size and coverage percentage for the individual lot. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was a discussion regarding the application of a possible formula regarding shed size based on square footage and lot coverage. A comment was also made regarding the definition of logic to allow reasonable maximum use of property by individual homeowners. Village Manager Michael Janonis stated that there could be an impact on the walkthrough permit process for sheds depending on the policy as defined by the Board and the likelihood that residents will not have the necessary information available in order for permit processing on a walk through basis. Consensus of the Village Board was to maintain the ten foot height of a shed, maintain the setbacks and consider how the formula would work based on lot size for a single accessory structure; i.e., shed. This proposal was presented to staff for further analysis to be brought back for additional consideration. VII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated the Public Works Open House is scheduled for May 18 from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. VIII. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Mayor Farley wanted to apologize to citizens and the Village Board about how he treated a person that appeared before the Board at the last meeting. He appreciated the civility that is typical of this Village Board but he had several extenuating circumstances that affected his judgment in running the meeting on · this particular night and would work not to repeat the situation again. 3 Village o! lvIount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: 1VII~L E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER ~ROM: DI2RECTOR OF CO~ DEVELOPMENT DATE: JULY 10, 2002 SUBJECT: SI~D REGULATIONS In light of the recent discussions by the Village Board on the topic of storage shed sizes, staff has further reviewed possible regulations that would provide greater flexibility to our residents while maintaining the integrity of our zoning regulations. The information provided below and in the attached documents is intended to provide the Village Board with sufficient information to make a final determination on this matter. Staff has reviewed four options that could be utilized by the Village to regulate shed sizes. These options include 1) adopting a maximum size that would apply to all lots (current regulation), 2) setting a lot size threshold (10,000 square feet) and allow one size shed for smaller lots and. a larger size shed for larger lots, 3) utilizing a formula method to calculate the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures C'Adington formula'') and 4) basing the maximum size of sheds upon a percentage of the lot size. Each of these options has its' own unique benefits and drawbacks which are outlined below. Staff also chose I0 varym= sized lots throughout the Village and applied the four options listed above to determine what size structures could be built under each scenario.. The actual plats of survey for each lot are attached to this memorandum to provide a visual aid to the Village Board. Options One size shed for all properties - The Village currently regulates sheds by setting a maximum size (120 square feet) for all properties and through various bulk regulations (lot coverage, sethaCks, etc.). This maximum size applies to all properties throughout the Village regardle~ of their resp~tive sizes. The Village couldmah~;, the status quo and keep the maximum si~ of the permitted storage sheds at 120 square feet or it could increaz~ the maximum size to a.larger number if so desired by the Village Board. L~ed below is a ohm that illu~xatea the lot coverage ratio of various size sheds in relation to the size of the ten lots that have been chosen for review:. Lot # ~ Lot Size 120 Sq. Pt t 150 Sq. Ft. 200 Sq. Ft. 250 Sq. Ft. 1'{ 7,205 1.67% 2.08% 2.78% 3.47% 2 7,426 1.62% 2.02% 2.69.% 3.37% 3 8,400 1.43% 1.79% 238% 2.98% 4 8,664 139% 1.73% 231% 2.89% 5 11,280 1.06% 133% 1.77% 2.22% ' 6 . 11 r325 1.06% ' 1.32% 1.77~ 2~21% 7 15,260 0.79% ' 0.98% 1.31% 1.64% 8 20,000 0.60% .0.75% 1.00% · 1.25% 9 20~130 · ['' 0.60% 0.75% 0.99% 1.24% 10 30,500] ' 0.39% 0.49% 0.66% 0.82% Benefits - This system is very easy mderstand and regulate since it does no(' rare the homeowner or Vzlhge staffto calculate the size of the shed t~ased upon the lot size or any other structures On the property. So long as the property doesn't exceed allowable lot coverage ratios, the owner can construct the maximum size shed. Drawbacks - This system does not take into account the various size lots that exist throughout town and therefore "penalizes" larger properties by restricting the maximum size of the shed to what would be allowed on the smallest of lots in town. The Village has recently received complaints that the current 120 square foot maximum is not large enough for today's needs. Set ma.-dmum size for smallHarge lots - One option the Village could consider is to permit larger sheds on larger lots. The Village could establish a lpt size threshold, say lO,O00 square feet, and permit one size shed (150 square feet) on lots smaller than that and a lhrger size shed (200 square feet) on lots greater in total area. Benefits - This system would enable homeowners on larger lots to construct larger sheds that would house yard equipment that is necessary to maintain those lots. Drawbacks - This system would penalize properties that are just under the threshold size (in this case lots that are 9,900 square feet) and would appear to be more arbitrary than the other options. In addition, owners of smaller properties that have one car garages often complain that they have the greatest need for the larger sheds since they do not have enough space to store their belongings. "Arlington" formula - Several surrounding communities utilize a formula to determine the maximum allowable shed size. These formulas typically multiply the lot width by the required rear yard setback by a locally determined ratio that generates the maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures (lot width x rear yard setback x ratio = maximum allowable square footage for accessory structures). Other accessory structures include detached garages, driveways, patios, pools, etc. The following chart demonstrates the square footage that would be possible on the sample ten lots with a 40% and 30% ratio applied. ; .Lot # Lot Size Rear lot width Rear Setback .4 ratio [ .$ ratio I 7,205 55 25 550 413 2 7~426 62 25 620 465 3 8,664 57 25 570 428 4 10,275 75 25 750 563 5 11,280 80 25 800 600 6 11,325 75 25 750 563 7 15,260 70. 25 700 525 $ 20,000 100 30 1,200 900 9 20,130 122 30 1~464 l~09g 10 30,500 100 30 1,200 900 Benefits - This system takes into account the size of the property and typically enables owners of larger lots to construct larger sheds. It also looks at the amount of other structures that are located in the rear yard and specifically limits the amount of lot coverage in that portion of the property. This system also provides homeowners greater flexibility in choosing what types of accessory structures they desire to comet on their property. Drawbacks - The greatest drawback to this system is that it penalizes owners that have detached garages that are located in the rear yard while'allowing very large sheds on those'properties that have been developed with attsehed garages. In the above chart, lots #3 (with both ratios) and #7 (with the 30% ratio) would not be allowed to comet a shed because they have detached garages that use up the allowable square footage for accessory' ~uetures. 'If the Village Board wishes to pursue this system, I would recommend that we adopt a maximum ~ize shed on any lot (250 square feet) so.that we don't have situations where a property owner could comet very large 2 £ structures. I would also note that t/'- system would be more difficult for hen(~''.' mers to understand since they would have to calculate how large their garage could be based np~ a variety ofi;actors. Utilize a percentage of the lot size - A resident at one of the recent Committee oftbe Whole meetings raised this proposal. The resident proposed that we allow sheds to be constructed no greater in size than 2% of the total lot area. Therefore an owner could construct a 200 'square foot shed on a 10,000 square foot lot. Listed below is a chart that demonstrates the'maximum size shed that would be permitted on our 10 sample lots. Lot # Lot Size 1 7,205 144 2 7,426 149 3 8,664 173 4 10,275 206 5 1],280 226 6 11,325 227 7 15,260 305 $ 20,000 4OO 9 20,130 403 10 30,500 610 Benefits - This system would be relatively easy to regulate and understand from a staff and resident standpoint. It would also allow for larger sheds on larger lots. If the Village adopted this system with a maximum allowable shed size for any lot (250 square feet) then this system could be very effective. Drawbacks - If the Village did not apply a maximum size limit with this system, owners of large lots could build very large sheds. There are a few lots in town that are close to an acre is size which would be allowed sheds exceeding 800 square feet under this system. . - Definitions Several Trustees raised concerns that if we increase the size of storage sheds that these larger structures could be utilized to store vehicles and/or to create office space or workshops. In order to address this concern, .the Village could adopt definitions for garages and sheds that would restrict the types of uses that would be permitted in these structures. The Village C~de currently defines accessory structures as "a subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure". The Village could modify the accessory structure definition by adding text defining the permitted uses of garages and sheds. 'l'he followlng text providas one possible solution to this matter: Accessory Structure - A subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, bUt are not limited to the following: Garages - A structure designed to house motor vehicles and to store household items and equipment necessary to maintain .and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upon. Sheds - A structure that is designed to store household items and equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the propen'y that it is located upon~ The sheds shall not be utilized, to store automobiles or to locate office, work or living space. ecommendation /.. (~' Staffrecommends that the Village Board modify our codes to allow sheds to be constructed no greater in size than 2% of the total lot area or 250 square feet, whichever is less. This system provides for varying size sheds and would be easily understood by our residents. In addition, staff recommends that the Village modify the accessory structure definition to further define garages and sheds as listed above. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at a future Committee of the Whole meeting. Lot#1 Lot #2 Lot #3 · ' I Lot #4 Lot #5 00'0~ 00'B8=¥ Lot #6 O0'g/-. Lot #7 Lot #8 Lot #9 Lot #10 ££ II. III. IV. MINUTES COMMII-I'EE OF THE WHOLE AUGUST t3, 2002 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was celled to older at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor Farley in the conference room of 'the C_,er{tral Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Absent from the meeting was: Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer. Staff members present included ~sistant Village Manager David Strahl, Community Development Director Bill Cooney, Finance Director Douglas EIIsworth, Deputy Police Chief Ronald Richardson, Deputy Fire Chief John Malcolm, Public Works Director Glen Andler, Deputy Public Works Director Sean Dorsey, Human Sen, ices Director Nancy Morgan, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer and Village Clerk Velma Lowe. APPROVAL OF MINUTES APl~roval of Minutes from July 9, 2002. Motion made by Trustee Skowron and seconded by Trustee Corcomn.' Trustee Hoafert abstained, Minutes were approved. ,C ,rI'IZEN$ TO BE HEARD None. DISCUSSION ON BAN OF MOTOR-DRIVEN SCOOTERS Mayor Farley provided an introduction and general information on the background of the proposal as submitted. Deputy Chief Ron Richardson spoke~ He stated that the Police are somewhat limited at this point in regulating these so-called vehicles because they fall within the gap of the definition of a vehicle by the Illinois Vehicle Code. He stated that from the Police perspective the opportunity to utilize such an Ordinance to educate ~nd enforce, if necessary, would be an important tool for their use. He stated that the Police'have received seven to ten complaints per week and would cetegorize the complaints as not overwhelming the resources of the Department at this time. He stated that the Hoffman Estates Ordinance example allows for several options for enforcement and that ordinance example is supported by the Police Department for that reasori. He stated the difference between the enforcement options for bicycle riders and these scooters are the fact that the scooters operate at much higher speeds than bicycles. John Korn, 30'1 North William, spoke. He stated that he has appeared before the Board previously to request an Ordinance regulating these items and Is supportive of the Ordinance as drafted. 7 1 Brian Buchanan, 302 North Prospect Manor spoke. He is also in favor of a ban on the scooters end has experienced these scooters being operated irresponsibly 'by groups of operators traveling on the streets and sidewalks. Kevin Bolger, 5'10 North Prospect Manor, spoke. He supports the ban and is concerned that these will continue to increase in number unless they are regulated. He has also seen the operators utilizing these scooters in packs or groups and completely ignore all roles of the read. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was a discussion regarding the application of the Illinois Vehicle Code. There was also a discussion regarding whether the segway which was recentlY approved for sidewalk use by the General Assembly is included Or not inCluded in the proposed draft prohibition. There was also discussion regarding the use of such similar devices by Post Office employees or adults who operate these vehicles within the rules of the road. There was also a concern raised regarding similar type devices operated for legitimate purposes and the Beard wanted 'to make sore this proposed Ordinance does not eliminate those opportunities. Consensus of the Village Board was to continue to consider the ban but to request staff to provide some additional research to ensure that the proposal includes a prohibition on the Items that the Board is focused on. SHED REGULATION DISCUSSION Community Development Dlrectoi Bill Cooney provided a revieW of the staff analysis with the four options that staff has researched extensively. He stated that staff is recommending a 2% lot coverage option with a 250 square foot maximum. General comments from the Village Board members included the following items: There was a concern that setbacks and. lot coverage requirements must apply regardless of what would be relaxed to allow larger sheds. There was also a concern raised regarding the actual usage of the shed and the height of such a structure. Concern was raised about the increase in size from 120 square feet'to the 250 square foot proposal. It was suggested that the garage be included as part of the tot coverage · ca[culatlon if the staff proposal is to move forward. There were comments regarding general appearance review of the structures as preferred. A preference was made for simpler regulations in order to alloW residents easy understanding of what the marJmum size and application is for what they may consider for use on their property. Consensus of the Village Board Included~the following: Setback must be maintained as required in the Village Code for any change in shed square footage consideration; The Village Board is comfortable with the 2% lot coverage limitation for sheds.. That way, the lot size can be incorporated .in{o the consideration of the shed Size. The height of th& shed will be clearly described in the Village Code. Definition of acceptable uses will be Included In the Code revision. 2 Consideration of appearance review over a specific square footage as recommended by staff. However, this component of the proposed regulation change should not be developed at the e~pense of completing the remaining regulations and moving forward. Consequences for violation of the shed regulation Is the structure must be brought into compliance and the current enforcement structure of double fines eliminated. Dave $chein, 512 Na-Wa-Ta, spoke. He stated that he is not sure that the Shed Code needs to .be altered but would suggest that there may be insurance implications that impact residents that want larger sheds and such impacts should be considered. 2002 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEWI2003 PRE-BUDGET WORKSHOP 2002 Mid-Year..Bud.qet Review Finance Director Doug El[sworth went through the revenue estimates so far for this fiscal year and acknowledges that revenues are significantly down from the previous year. He stated that the budget situation is a lack of revenue not excessive expenditures. He stated that at this point he estimates the General Fund revenues to be below $440,000 of the original estimate for the year and that expenses are projected to be approximately $64,000 over budget. He stated that as previously directed by the Village Board, there will.be some reserves utilized down to the 25% level for Village Hall funding. He also stated that the Property Tax receipts have gone down substantially due to the appeal process and he has increased his percentage of loss to 1-1/2% compared to the previous 1%. He stated that State Income Tax is down 12% compared to the previous year. He stated that expenditures are running ahead of budget for the legal fees catego~J and the relocation expenses for the TV Services Division. He stated that the Board will likely sea a Budget Amendment in the near future that includes the funding for the purchase of the medical building adjacent to the Senior Center. The Village staff is also awaiting proceeds from the sale of the third piece of property for the Norwood development. Finally, ha stated that Home Rule Sales Tax is down 12%. This money is utilized for ~lcod.control purposes. ~003, ,P,,re-BudRet Workshop Finance Director 'Doug EIIsworth stated that revenues are not keeping pace with expenditures and the projected shortfall for 2003 is currently at $1.2 million. He stated that Pension Levies are scheduled to increase due to investment shortfalls. He stated that of the typical programmed increase of P~operbj Tax at 3.5%, the General Fund would only receive $81,000 of new money and he is suggesting the Board consider transferring any savings that may be realized through the Refuse Program into the -General Fund to assist in covering expenditures. He stated staff will continue to refine the budget as information becomes available. He stated there will be significant difficulty to present a balanced budget and staff has undertaken a no Increase in all commodities approach, however, with two-thirds of the budget considered as personnel costs, it is difficult to make significant impact with those limitations. 3 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Mt. Prospect Park Distdct 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. Fadey Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Paul Hoefert Trustee Richard Lohrstorfer Trustee Michaele Skowr~n Trustee Irvana Wilks Trustee Michael Zadel II. III. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING OF AUGUST 15!.2002 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR VOLUNTEER BOARDS/COMMISSIONS 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 ~l 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 deta~ded discussion of this topic. The attached information packet includes a "thought staffer" memorandum from Trustee Corcoran, background information on curre~ 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. NOTE: ANY INDMDUAL 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 ~ O0 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD ;~r7/392-6064. We are seeking consensus ~rom Village Board members on how to proceed with changes, if any, to the review criteria. Letters have been sent to ail 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 sh~re 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 neighJ~oring 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 oertain 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 Aprtl 9, May 14 and AUgust 13, 2002 Committee of the Whole meetings. The attached draft Ordinance contains a numberof 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 formulawherein 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 de/initions, which clarify and distinguish sheds from other accessory structures. Appropriate staff will be in attendance to answer questions and facilitate discussion. VII. .P.ROH BITION ON USE OF DRYVlT (EIFS) This item was previously discussed at the April 9, 2002 Committee of the Whole meeting. At that time, the Village ·Board directed staff to 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. VIII. .VI. LLAGE MANAGER'S 'REPORT" IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS X. ADJOURNMENT CLOSED SESSION LAND ACQUISITION 5 ILCS 120/2 (c) (5). 'q'he purchase or lease of real proPerty for the use of the public body." Ih i11. MINUTES COMMI'I'rEE 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 Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowren, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included Village Manager Michael Janonis, A=sistant Village MaSager David Strahl, Community Development Director Bill Cooney, Police Chief Richard Eddington and Village Attorney Everette Hill. APP .ROYAL 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 · ...po!nted out that many. of the Boards'are autonomous in their decision-making and there · ' .~ iS i .mpa.ct upon all residents. '~he stated shel has no re, son to doubt the integrity.of any person servthg .~n any Board dr commlssion but ~h0ught'it would be w(~rttw~ile to have a discussion ?egarding the~process of appointment.. ' 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, Chalrman 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 n~t slow the process and would likely be adequate. He Stated that he W0~id support ~n'ethl~ Statement and a conflict of interest statement by members. 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 group 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 volunteers 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 ali Board and Comm!~sion members which is yet to take place. Consensus of the Village Board was to review th~ 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. .D..!SCUSSION 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 versus non-licensed operators but wheelchairs and motorized wheelchairs have been exempted a!ong wilh the eegv~y device and. motorized Sco(~.ters during parades. He stated .the d,scusslon this evening should clarify what the d,rection the BOard wants regarding possible enforcement. Village Attorney Hill stated that motorized vehicles are banned from all sid. ewalks 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 ~ i~1 'ordin~ ~ereby the adjudication could generally be addressed through a fine. General coF~. 'merits from Ullage Board me..robe .m'.i. nduded ~he. following items: · There ~vas so~e concem regarding, distinguiShing .l~-:~ween licen~.ed ddvers opemtihg ' scooters versus nonqicensed operators. There was some' concern about writing tickets under the State Code and the.impac~ 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. Vi. VII. Andy Darien, 6t8 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 hls 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. REVIEW OF SHED REGULATIONS Community Development Director Bill Cooney provided a summary of [he 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. USE. OF DRYVIT MATERIAL FOR CONSTRUCTION Village Manager Janonis stated the Board had previously suggested an outdght 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 IX. Village Manager Janonis reminded everyone of the September 11 Remembrance Ceremony and the Coffee with Council scheduled for September 14. ANY OTHER BUSINESS · None. 10/31/02 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 14 (ZONING) OF THE VII I AGE QODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WHEREAS, the Petitioner (Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect) has filed an application for certain text amendments to Chapter 14 (Zoning) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect to amend various regulations; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner seeks amendments to the following Sections of the Village Code: Section 14.203 Section 14.304 Section 14.306 PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS BULK REGULATIONS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the proposed amendments, being the subject of PZ Case No. 33-02, before the Planning and Zoning Board CommissiOn On October 24, 2002, pursuant to due and proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Pm.~pP. ct ~21Z~sL&J~ on the 9th day of October, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees of t~e Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have considered the requests being the subject of PZ-33-02. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OFTHE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECTi COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SuSC_TJ.O.I:~LQ.I:~.: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. ~:~[OJ3L~DNQ: Section 14.203.G.4 entitled "PUBLIC Chapter 14, is hereby amended, and shall read as follows: HEARING PROCEDURES" of All published and mailed notices shall contain the case number assigned to the app cat on the comm® address 0{ the Pr°~ 0~in :t~e e~ent that there is no common address, an appropriate description of the location of the property, a bdef statement on the natB[e 0f ~he, public hearing, the name and address of the. property owner, the .petitioners. and their legal representatixe, and the date, time and location of the public hearing." Page 2/3 Ch. 14, Text amendment ~EC~: Section 14.304 entitled "BULK REGULATIONS" of Chapter 14, is hereby further amended by adding a new Subsection 14.304.E, which shall read as follows: "E. Prior to issuing a Building Permit to convert an attached garage into living space, or the demolition of an existing detached garage, the property owner shall submit building plans for a new garage (a one-car garage is the minimum acceptable size) and driveway. A final Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued for the new living space until such time that the new garage has been constructed and approved by the Village." ~EC~: Section 14.306.A entitled "ACCESSORY STRUCTURES" of Chapter 14, is hereby further amended by adding new Subparagraphs 141306;A.6 and ~14.306~A.7, which shall read as follows: "6, Shed Restrictions: A shed shall not be utilized to store motor vehicles or as office, work or living space. 7. Roof Pitch: No accessory structure shall have a roof pitch of less than 3:12." S.~: Section 14.306.B entitled "ACCESSORY STRUCTURES" of Chapter 14, is hereby further amended by deleting Subsection 14;306.B.1 and Subsection 14.306.B.2 in their entirety, and adding new Subsections 14.306.B.1 and 14.306;B.2 which shall read as follows: ' "1. Maximum Size: a. Garages: A detached pdvate garage may be no larger than 160 square feet. b. Sheds: A shed may be no larger than the smaller of the following: i. Two percent (2%) of the lot area; or ii. Two-hundred (200) square feet. Bulk Restrictions: On lots fifty-five feet (55') in width or less, detached accessory structures shall be set back three feet (3') from any interior side or rear lot line. On lots greater in width than fifty-five feet (55'), detached acceSsory Structures shall be set back five feet (5') from any intedor side or rear lot line. No accessory structure shall be placed on any dedicated easement. Accessory structures shall be included in any maximum lot coverage calculation." Page 3/3 Ch. 14, Text amendment ~: Section 14.2401 of Article XXIV, entitled "DEFINITIONS, shall be amended to include, in subsequent alphabetical order, the following definitions: "ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: A subordinate structure detached from but located on the same lot as the principal structure, the use of which is incidental and accessory to that of a principal structure. Said structures may include, but are not limited to garages and sheds, as further defined by Village Code. GARAGE: A structure designed to house motor vehicles and to store items and equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the primary structure and the property that it is located upon. SHED: A structure that is designed to store household items and equipment necessary to maintain and upkeep the pdmary structure and the property that it is located upon." ~L~: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, do hereby grant approval of text amendments to Section 14.203, Section 14.304, Section 14.306, and Section 14.2401 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect. ~: The Village Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to record a certified copy of this Ordinance with the Recorder of Deeds of Cook County. ~: This Ordinance shall be in full rome and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVEDthis day of ,2002. ATTEST: Veima W. Lowe, Village Clerk Gerald L. Fadey, Village President O: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER WILLIAM J. COONEY JR., DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN~ OCTOBER 30, 2002 A. W. ZENGELER, INC. - INDUCEMENT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COOK COUNTY CLASS 6 PROPERTY TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATION Staff has been working with representatives from A. W. Zengeler, Inc. in an effort to relocate their Industrial Uniform Rental and Cleaning facilities to Mount Prospect. They are currently located in multiple facilities in Chicago and are proposing to consolidate their facilities into a new building in the Kensington Business Center. They are requesting support from the Village in the form of an inducement resolution so that they may pursue the Class 6 designation from Cook County. A. W. Zengeler is proposing to construct a 67,000 square foot office and warehousing facility at 420 Kingston Court. They are one of the few remaining independent uniform rental operations in the Chicago area and serve over 1,800 customers. They intend to invest over $6 million dollars to construct the new facility and will employ over 90 individuals in this new facility. I have attached a cover le{ter, company brochure and color rendering of the proposed facility for the Village Board's review and consideration. Staff and A. W. Zengeler representatives will be present at the November 6th meeting to further discuss this matter. ~3)i'lliam' J.* Cooney Jr~ H:Lt~DMN~ILLXMEMOSXawzengeler.~l~ss6-103002.doe October 25, 2002 GOSCHI & GOSCHI, LTD. ATTORNEYS AT LAW I ~0 SOUTH LASALLE: STREET SUITE; ] CHICAGO, ILLINOIS ~iO603 Village of Mt. Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mt. Prospect, IL 60056 Attn: Mr. William Cooney Re: A. W. Zengeler, Inc. Request for the consent of Mt. Prospect and support for a Class 6b Application Dear Mr. Cooney: On behalf of my client, A. W. Zengeler, Inc., an Illinois corporation, we respectfully request. that the Village of Mt. Prospect consider and pass a resolution or ordinance, as appropriate, supporting and consenting to my client's Class 6b Application being made to James M. Houlihan, Cook County Assessor, concerning their acquisition and development of that certain vacant property commonly known as:420 Kingston Court, Mt. Prospect, Illinois, consisting of approximately 5 acres in the Kensington Business Center (legal description attached hereto). A W Zengeler Inc ....... · . , . as an Industrial Umform Rental & Cleaning ousmess servmgnumerous industries throughout the greater Chicago Metropolitan area (seebrnchure attached). TheCompany currently operates sixteendeliveryroutes and services about 1,800 customers. The Companyis one of the few remaining independent uniform rental operations in the Chicago area~ While approximately 98% of the uniform rental items offered are laundered, using regular water and non- toxic detergents, for the other 2% A. W. Zengeler, Inc. uses a"petroleum-based" solvent in their dry cleaning operation. This solvent, while more expensive, is considered to be gentler on the clothing, but more importantiy, it is environmentally safe compared to alternative perchioroethylene (pete)- based solvents used by most other dry-cleaning facilities. In addition, the Company maintains reclamation equipment, which allows up to 80% of the solvent to be reused. OSCHI & GOSCH'I, LTD. Village of Mt. Prospect October 25, 2002 Page 2 In addition, A. W. Zengeler, Inc. is a catalog merchant of corporate "embroidered" clothing. This is a new line of business for the Company and I have attached one of their brochures reflecting some of the merchandise they offer. There is a 183 page catalog of their full line of merchandise as well. The Company supplies uniforms through Red Kap, the industry's largest manufacturer of occupational apparel in America (the catalog is 100 pages, but can be provided upon request). They currently operate out ora facility in Chicago, Illinois, at 5427 North Broadway Avenue, where they, and their predecessors, have been in the Industrial Uniform Rental business for over twenty-eight (28) years. They would expect to have a minimum of Ninety (90) employees at the new plant in Mt. Prospect. I am also enclosing a copy of the survey, proposed "plant layout" and "building elevation- front view" for your perusal. My client advises me that full architectural drawings and site plan have already been provided to the Village. The acquisition cost for the property is approximatley $816,000.00 with a contemplated closing date of November 11, 2002. They plan to develop the site with a 61,700 square foot facility with approximately 7,400 square feet of office space. Construction should commence shortly after acquisition and upon receipt of the proper permits. The facility will also be outfitted with the newest "state-of-the-art" equipment offered in the industry. Should you require any additional information for the Village's consideration of my client's Class 6b Application please do not hesitate to contact me. On behalf of my client, we look forward to your support and a long and prosperous tenure In Mt. Prospect. Very truly yours, PEG~g enc. cc:Lawrence R. Lechner, President A. W. Zengeler, Inc. LEGAL DESCRIPTION LOT THREE IN KENSINGTON CENTER - RESUBDIVISION TWENTY-FIVE IN PART OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION THIRTY-FIVE, TOWNSHIP FORTY-TWO NORTH, RANGE ELEVEN, EAST OF THE THIRD PRINCIPAL MERIDIAN, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT FILED FOR RECORD FEBRUARY I, 1989 IN THE OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF TITLES AS DOCUMENT NO. LR-3770802, ALL IN COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. Containing 213,921 Square Fee or 4.9109 Acres More or Less. COMMONLY KNOWN AS: 420 Kingston Court Mt. Prospect, Illinois Permanent Index No. 03-35-200-051 a.w. zengeler inc. A,W. Zengeler...Where quality and service count, A.W. Zengeler is the "Premier" provider of garment programs to all industries. With our expertise and modern facilities we can provide your organization with the best in uniform service. Let us show you how our service can enhance your company image, promote employee morale and help to identify your personnel. A.W. Zengeler Uniform Rental will provide: High Quality Garments Using only the highest quality garments we assure you a better fit and appearance. Complete Deliveries With A.W. Zengeler, soiled garments are counted in order to eliminate shortages. Dependable Repairs All garments are inspected by our quality control depadmenl employees. Rips, broken zippers, and torn belt loops are mended quickly and professionally. Fair and Concise Billing There are no hidden charges...you know exactly what you are paying each and every week. On-Time Delivery Prompt on-time delivery is guaranteed by our long term route representative staff. Personal Attention A.W. Zengeler is small enough to care and big enough to get the job d0~e right for you! -" '"Consistent QUalitY 'and Dependable Service ota Fair Price.!" Garments Available For Rental, Lease, Or Direct Purchase Work shirts & pants Jackets Lab Coats Shop Coats Smocks Blazers Lapel Coats Coveralls Chef's Wear Aprons & Towels Executive Wear Casual Wear "One Source Service" For All Your Needs: Floor Mat Rental Lower maintenance costs with entrance mats and runners. Stop dirt, dust, and grit from tracking throughout your building. Dust Mop Rental Keep costs down on your sealed floors with chemically treated dusl mops. Shop Towel Rental Renting wipers can reduce your paper or rag cost and give you a consistent size, shape and texture. Linen Roll Towel Service & Soap Products Linen roll towels and soapproduds offer your organization a cost effective and efficient means for washing and drying 'hands. Customer Goods Service We will clean and maintain your non-rental garments, gloves and.even handle your personal dry cleaning needs. : FaShion DeSign. consultation" .: .. .. .. · .,, Our sales representative will be glad to help you design a new image for your employees. Call us today! 1-800-479-3525 i 10~29~02 10/30/02 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A.W. ZENGELER, 420 KINGSTON COURT, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS, MAKING APPLICATION FQR COOK COUNTY CLASS 6 TAX ABATEMENT WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect encourages community development to provide for economic growth and career opportunities; and WHEREAS, through property tax incentives offered by Cook County, various opportunities exist for new businesses to become established in Mount Prospect, Cook County; and WHEREAS, without the Cook County property tax incentives, Mount Prospect is at a competitive disadvantage with the neighboring counties of Lake and DuPage in attracting industrial development; and WHEREAS, A.W. Zingier has requested the Village of Mount Prospect to support their application for a Class 6 real property classification at 420 Kingston Court; and WHEREAS, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect believe that their request is in the best interest of the economic development in the Village of Mount Prospect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby support and consent to the application of A.W. Zengeler, located at 420 Kingston Court, for a Class 6 Property Classification from Cook County, which allows a 16% assessment level for years one through eight, 23% for year nine, and 30% for year ten, for the properly legally described as follows: Lot Three in Kensington Center- Resubdivision 25 in part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the 3'd Principal Meridian, according to the plat filed for record February 1,1989 in the Office of the Registrar of Titles as Document No. LR-3770802, all in Cook County, Illinois; and .Containing 213,921 square feet or 4,9109 acres more or less. Permanent Index Number Permanent Index No.03-35-200-051 Page 2/2 Class 6 Tax Abatement SECTION TWO: That the Village of Mount Prospect supports industrial growth, increased employment and economic development and this proposed development is in furtherance of this goal. The Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect further finds that this incentive is necessary for development to occur on the Subject Property. SECTION THREE: That development of the property is subject to compliance with all requirements of the I-1 (Light Industrial) District and development standards of the Kensington Center for Business. SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this . day of ,2002. Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk illage of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DAVID STRAHL, ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: CABLE PRODUCTION COORDINATOR DATE: OCTOBER 23, 2002 SUBJECT: DISTRICT 59 TO PROVIDE TELEVISION PROGRAMMING PRODUCTION SERVICES INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETVVEEN VILLAGE SCHOOL Attached please find a revised agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect and School District 59 to provide television production services through June 30, 2003 similar to those currently provided to the Mount Prospect Park District, the Mount Prospect Public Library and School Districts 26, 57. School District 59 has changed their contract to only include a monthly magazine show, and the option for further programming at an Ala-Carte rate. Due to the nature of the Ala-Carte programming, District 59 will be billed on December 1, March 1, and June 1. MPTV will need to provide an invoice and coordinate it through finance. Attached please find a copy of the agreement for submittal to the Village Board for approval. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you. c: Velma Lowe, Village Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 50-01 AUTHORIZING THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TO ADOPT AN AMENDED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT WITH SCHOOL DISTRICT 59 FOR GOVERNMENT ACCESS CABLE TV SERVICE PRODUCTION WHEREAS, on August 21, 2001, the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect (hereinafter referred to as "the Village") determined that it was in the best interests of the Village to enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement') with School District 59 (hereinafter referred to as "District 59") for the production of District 59's activities on the Village's government access cable television channel; and WHEREAS, the Agreement was approved for a period beginning September 1, 2001 and ending July 1, 2002; and WHEREAS, the Agreement originally approved has subsequently been renewed and amended to provide television production services for a term beginning September 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003, with School District 59 contributing amounts set forth in Intergovernmental Agreement attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution as "Exhibit A." WHEREAS, said Agreement, as amended, is a direct benefit to the Village of Mount Prospect and its residents by providing extensive coverage of services, programs, and governmental proceedings throughout the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: ~ The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect are hereby authorized to execute the amended Intergovernmental Agreement with School District 59, attached hereto and made a part of this Resolution as Exhibit "A." VOMP/Distdct 59 Agrmt. Page 2/2 ~i~3JT_LO.J~: That this Resolution shall be in full rome and effective from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Farley Mayor Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT MPTV - MOUNT PROSPECT GOVERNMENT TELEVISION COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 59 LETTER OF AGREEMENT - TELEVISION PRODUCTION SERVICES This document represents an agreement between the Village of Mount Prospect (hereinafter referred to as "Village") and Community Consolidated School District 59 (hereinafter referred to as ,District 59!') to participate in programming and production activities for the Village's government access cable television channel (hereinafter referred to as "MpTV") for a period beginning September 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003. The agreement is as follows: District 59 will contribute funding assistance for television production services coordinated by the Village's Community Producer and supervised by the Village's Cable Production Coordinator for a pedod beginning September 1, 2002 and ending June 30, 2003 based on the following scale: Programming RUNNING-TIME OF Ten (10) minutes or less in length - $100.00 Programming RUNNING-TIME OF more than ten (10) minutes to twenty (20) minutes or less in length - $150.00 Programming RUNNING-TIME OF more than twenty (20) minutes or more to 30 minutes in length - $200.00 Programming RUNNING-TIME OF more than thirty (30) minutes in length - $200.00 plus $100.00 for every additional ten minutes or less. PAYMENTS for services rendered, BASED UPON ACTUAL BILLING STATEMENTS, will be made by Distdct 59 to the Village for television production services BY the following dates: December 1, 2002; March 1,2003; and June 1, 2003. DISTRICT 59 SHALL RECEIVE A $1,300 CREDIT PRIOR TO ANY PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED UNDER THIS AGREEMENT. Mount Prospect Government Television will perform the following functions: 1) The Community Producer will produce programming for District 59 to be shown on MPTV2, the Village's educational access channel on a regular basis under the' supervision of the Village's Cable Production Coordinator. The Community Producer will be considered an employee of the Village and Village projects will be first priodty of the posiflon~ PROGRAMMNG PURCHASED BY DISTRICT 59 .BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF SAID SCHOOL DISTRICT: 2) District 59, PRIOR TO ANY PRODUCTION WORK BY MPTV shall determine the subject matter of programming produced. Programming produced that District 59 decides should not be aired will still count towards the agreement, and will be charged to District 59. DISTRICT 59 RESERVES THE RIGHT TO PRE-SELECT ALL PROGRAMMING PRIOR TO FINAL PRODUCTION. 3) The Community Producer will meet with officials from District 59 on a regular basis to determine what types of programming are to be produced Programming produced for District 59 will be scheduled by MPTV to balance with other programming as much as possible, but Village programming will remain first priority. VIDEOTAPING OF DISTRICT 59 PROGRAMS, ACTIVITIES AND/OR EVENTS WILL TAKE PLACE AT DISRICT 59 SCHOOLS OR LOCATIONS WHERE DISTRICT 59 EVENTS TAKE PLACE. SCHEDULING OF PRODUCTIONS BY MPTV shall be the sole responsibility of the Village. 4) The Community Producer will maintain and update information messages for District 59 on MPTV's Community Information Guide and in the Cable Views Village newsletter insert. 5) The Community Producer will coordinate volunteer efforts to produce the District 59 programming. 6) District 59 will ask for volunteers to be trained by the Community Producer to help increase the volunteer pool available to produce programming. 7) The Community Producer will provide, on a monthly basis, a report of all production activities for the entities involved in this agreement including number and length of programs produced, pre-production and post- production hours, training of volunteers and interaction with District 59 staff. District 59 may approach and distribute programming produced under this agreement to other cable television providers/local cable channels within its coverage area. District 59 will inform MPTV of any distribution and provide scheduled playback times. If either party to this agreement becomes dissatisfied with the level of service provided, the entity must put the specific grievance in wdting and forward it to the other party for review. Either party may withdraw from the agreement provided a ninety (90) day written withdraw notice is forwarded to the other party prior to withdrawa! from the agreement This agreement shall expire on June 30, 2003. All undersigned parties are hereby committed for the length of the agreement, unless one or more parties withdraws under the withdraw provisions of this agreement. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT 59 By. By Title Title RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC LIBRARY AND THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PARKING AT 10 SOUTH EMERSON STREET, MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS WHEREAS, the Mount Prospect Public Library (Library) is the owner of property commonly known as 10 South Emerson Street ("Library property") and the Village of Mount Prospect (Village) owns property commonly known as 50 South Emerson Street along with other adjacent and contiguous properties ("Village property"); and WHEREAS, the Library and the Village contemplate undertaking improvements to their respective properties, to wit, the Library is expanding and renovating the existing Library facility, and the Village is demolishing the existing Senior Center and adjacent building and constructing a new Village Hall and Community Center; and WHEREAS, also contemplated is the construction of a multi-level parking structure ("parking structure") to be located partially on Library property and partially on Village property that will benefit both Library and Village projects as well as benefit both ongoing and future Central Business District redevelopment efforts; and WHEREAS, the Library and Village are desirous of entering into a Ground Lease Agreement that would allow the Village to construct the parking structure on a portion of Library property, said Land Ground establishing the rights and obligations of the Library and the Village respectively; and WHEREAS execution of said Ground Lease is in the best interests of the Library and the Village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount · Prospect do hereby authorize execution of a Ground Lease Agreement for the purpose of facilitating construction of a parking structure on a portion of Library land, and said Ground Lease shall be for an initial period of twenty (20) years, as set forth in the Lease, a copy of which is attached heretO and hereby made a part of Exhibit SECTION TVVO: passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its ,2002. ATTEST: Gerald L. Fadey, Mayor Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk THE GROUND LEASE AGREEMENT (EXHIBIT I) BETWEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT AND THE MOUNT PROSPECT LIBRARY WILL BE DISTRIBUTED AT THE VILLAGE BOARD MEETING WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 6, 2002 illage of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL JANONIS DIRECTOR OF FINANCE OCTOBER 29, 2002 2002 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 2 PURPOSE: To present a recommendation the annual budget for the fiscal year beginning January 1~ 2002 and ending December 31, 2002 be amended. BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 5227, adopted December 18, 2001, established the annual budget for the year ending December 31,2002. Ordinance No. 5249, adopted on April 16, 2002 amended the 2002 budget. DISCUSSION: We find it necessary to recommend the 2002 budget be further amended to reflect various actions approved by the Village Board over the past several months and to take into account material variances in certain revenue and expenditure accounts that have recently surfaced. The most significant budget changes being requested deal with the bond refunding that took place earlier this year. The budget needs to be amended to reflect the early retirement of the refunded debt and the issuance of the new debt. Also reflected in the proposed changes is the decision not to issue debt in 2002 for the completion of the village hall and parking deck project. This financing is now being proposed for early 2003. A proposed ordinance amending the 2002 Annual Budget is attached for the Board's consideration. This document includes the budget changes you have reviewed and recommended be brought to the Board. In total, we are increasing our revenue projections by $575,671453 and increasing the budget for expenditures by $4,681,396. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board adopt the proposed ordinance amending the 2002 Annual DOUG/LAS R. ELLSWORTH, CPA. ' Copy: Finance Commission Department Directors ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE MAKING CERTAIN AMENDMENTS TO THE ANNUAL BUDGET ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JANUARY 1, 2002 AND ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2002 WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 2342 which sets the finances of the Village under the "Budget Officer System"; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the aforesaid Ordinance and the Statutes of the State of Illinois an annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January l, 2002 and ending December 31, 2002 was adopted through the passage of Ordinance No. 5227 approved by the Corporate Authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect on December 18, 2001; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have passed and approved Ordinance No. 5249 on April 16, 2002, amending the annual budget for the fiscal year commencing January l, 2002 and ending December 31, 2002; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have further reviewed certain additions and changes to the aforesaid budget for the fiscal year beginning January I, 2002 and ending December 31, 2002; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect believe the changes, as specified on the attached January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 Budget Amendment No. 2 to be in the best interest of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the Village has now revised the revenue projections or has reserves in each of the Funds in which the budget is being increased adequate in amount to cover the budget changes reflected in Budget Amendment No. 2, attached hereto. NOW THEREFORE BE 1T ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the fiscal year budget for January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 for the' Village of Mount Pr6spect is hereby .amended, as detailed on Budget Amendment No. 2 attached hereto. SECTION TWO: That this ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by law. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of _,2002. ATTEST Gerald L. Farley, Village President Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 2 Fiscal Year January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 Revenues Item No. 1 2 Fund/Pm~lmm/Classification Account # Communlb/ Development Block Grant Fund Intergovernmental Revenues 0700000-433000 Investment Income 0700000-460100 Other Revenue 0700000-483000 All other CDBG Fund accounts Total CDBG Fund Account Description Block Grant Receipts Interest Income Program Income Original Ameeded Revenue Increase Revenue Estimate (Decrease) Es~mnte 404.465 366.807 771.272 0 10 10 56.800 (6.80O) 50.000 0 0 0 461~265 360~017 821,282 0 7.000 7,000 0 250 25O 0 0 0 0 7~.~_._ 7~250 3 4 Asset Seizure Fund Fines and Forfeits Investment Income All other Asset Seizure Fund accounts Total Asset Seizure Fund 0800000-450450 0800000-4601 t0 DEA Shared Funds Fund Fines and Forfeits 0850000-450460 All other DEA Shared Funds Fund accounts Total DEA Shared Funds Fund Seized Assets Interest- IPTIP DEA shared Assets 0 12,000 12,000 0 0 0 0 12,000 12.000 DUI Fine Fund Fines and Forfeits Investment Income All other DUI Fine Fund accounts Total DUI Fine Fund 0860000-450465 0860000-460110 DUI Fines Interest- IPTIP 0 6,3OO 6,3OO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6~s00 6~300 8 9 10 Series f993B Debt Service Fund Propetty Ta~es 1700000-400100 Investment Income 1700000-460100 Other Financing Sources 1700000-494150 All other Series 199313 Debt Sendce Fued accounts Total Series 1993B Debt Service Fund Property Taxes - Current Interest Income Refunding Bond Proceeds 542,500 (300,827) 241,673 13,509 (11o822) 1.687 0 2,286.429 2.286,429 5,000 0 5,000 561 ~009 1 ~973~780 2~534~789 Belles 2002B Debt Service Fund 11 Properly Taxes 2000000-400100 12 Property Taxes 2000000-400200 13 Investment Income 2000000460110 14 Other Financing Sources 2000000-490517 All other Series 2002B Debt Service Fund accounts Total Series 2002B Debt Service Fund Pmpor[y Taxes - Current Property Taxes - Prior Interest- IPTIP Transfer- 1993B Debt Ser. 0 300,000 300,000 0 4,504 4,504 0 4,881 4,881 0 459,821 459.82t 0 0 0 Series 2002A Debt Service Fund 15 Other Taxes 2300000.413100 16 Investment Income 2300000-460110 17. ~. Other. FinancingSource~ . . 2300000-490525 · · All o~t~ Series 2002A Debt Sewlce Fund accounts ' . To~l Sorles 2002A Debt ~wine FUnd Property Tax Increment Interest- IPTIP Transfer:- 1993A Debt Set. 0 136,300 136,300 0 3,~ 3,m4 0 369.832 360.832 0 0 0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 2 Fiscal Year January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 Revenues Item No. Fund/Proilram/Classification Account # Account Description 18 19 20 Series t993A Debt Service Fund Other Taxes 2500000-413t 00 Investment income 2500000-460100 Other Financing Sources 2500000-494150 All other Series 1993A Debt Service Fund accounts Total Series 1993A Debt Service Fund Property Tax Increment Interest tnccme Refunding Bond Proceeds 21 22 23 Series 1993B Debt Service Fund Other Taxes 3200000-410100 Investment Income 3200000-460100 Other Financing Sources 3200000-494150 All other Series 1993B Debt Service Fund accounts Total Series 1993B Debt Service Fund Original Amended Revenue Increase Revenue Estimate (Decrerase) Estimate 24 25 26 Series f994A Debt Service Fund Other Taxes 3300000-410100 Investment Income 3300000-460100 Other Financing Sources 3200000-494150 All other Series 1994A Debt Service Fund accounts Total Series 1994A Debt Service Fund 234,334 (136,300) 98,034 9,691 (8,237) t ,454 0 635,064 635,064 0 0 0 244,025 490,527 734,552 Series 2002B Debt Service Fund 27 Other Taxes 4000000-410100 28 Investment Income 4000000-460110 29 Other Financing Sources 4000000-490532 30 Other Financing Sources 4000000-490533 All other Series 2002B Debt Service Fund accounts Total Series 2002B Debt Service Fund HR Sales Tax 1 276,000 (207,623) 68,377 Interest Income 5,814 (5,355) 459 Refunding Bond Proceeds 0 t,050,705 t,050,705 0 0 0 HR Sales Tax 1 Interest Income Refunding Bond Proceeds HR Sales Tax 1 interest - IPTIP Transfer- 1993B Debt Ser. Transfer- 1994A Debt Set. Series f9g4A Debt Service Fund 31 Other Taxes 4100000-410200 HR Sales Tax 2 32 investment Income 4100000-460100 Interest Income 33 Other Financing Sources 4100000-494150 Refunding Bond Proceeds All other Sedes 19g4A Debt Service Fund accounts Total Series 1994A Debt Service Fund Series 2002B Debt Service Fund 34 Other Taxes 4400000-410200 HR Sales Tax 2 35 Investment Income 4400000-460110 Interest - IPTIP 36 Other Financing Sources 4400000-490541 Transfer- 1994A Debt Ser. All other Series 2002B Debt Service Fund acc~Jnts Total Series 2002B Debt Service Fund Set/es 2002 Project Fund 37: investment Inceme . 5260000-460100 Interest Inceme 38 Other Finanolng $oumes 5260000-494100 Bond Proceeds All other .~e'rles 2902 Project Fund accounts Total Series ~,2 project Fund 281,814 837,727 t,119,541 245,696 (196,547) 49, t51 4,249 (4,025) 224 0 525,053 625,053 0 0 0 249,947__ 324~481 574~428 0 245,000 245,000 0 3,662 3,662 0 173,840 173,840 0 97,120 97,~20 0 0 0 0 519~622 519~622 669,500 (525,927) 143,573 23,17f (22,025) 1,146 0 1,700,170 1,700,t70 0 0 0 692~67~ I~t52~218 1~844~889 0 346,839 346,839 0 5,469 5,469 0 397,852 397.852 0 0 0 0 750,160 750,160 73,293 · (73,293) 0 6,315,000 (8,3~5,000) 0 0 0 '0 ' ' 813881293 , (8~388~293) 0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 2 Fiscal Year January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 Revenues item 39 FundlPm~lram/Classification Account # Capital Improvement Construction Fund Investment Income 5300000-460100 All o~her Capital Improvement Construction Fund accounts Total Capital Improvement Construction Fund Account Descdption Interest Income Odgieal Amended Revenue Increase Revenue Estimate (Decrease) Estimata 0 2,100 2,100 0 0 0 0 2,100 2~100 40 41 Downtown Redevelopment Construction Fund Other Taxes 5500000-413100 Property Tax Increment Other Financing Sources 5500000-494600 Sale of Property All other Downtown Redevelopment Construction Fund accounts Total Downtown Redevelopment Construction Fund 0 23,640 23,640 0 1,225,000 1,225,000 1 ~000 0 1,000 1 ~000 1,248~640 1 ~249~640 Total Estimated Revenues Funds being changed All other Village Budget accounts Total Estimated Revenues After Changes 10,880,024 61,499~385 72~379~409 575,671 11,455,695 0 61,499,385 575~671 72,9557080 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 2 Fiscal Year January 1, 2002 through December 3t, 2002 Expenditures Item No. F un d/Pr(x:J ram/Class Eicatio n General Fund Village Manager's Office - Legal Cee~ra~tual Services Village Manager's Off~e - MIS 2 Conbactual Services Human Se;vices - Administration 3 Contractual Serve;es Pctice Departmellt- Administration 4 Other Employee Costs Police Department - Crime prev. 5 Other Employee Costs All other General Fund Accounts Total General Fund Current Ameaded Budget I~rease Bu~ge~ Account # Account Description Amount (Decrease) Ameest 0011102-540085 Laga~ - General Counsel 185,000 73,000 258,000 0011104-540655 Tetephone Maintenance 5,000 3,3t8 8,318 001310t-540§21 Office Lease - Relocation 130,000 (80,000) 50,000 0014101-520000 Training 53,200 8,196 61,396 0014103-520010 Community Pciiclng Train. 4,200 700 4,900 28,216865 0 28,2~6,865 28,594,265 5,214 28,599.47~9 Refuse Disposal Fund Refuse Disposal Coo{factual Services 0305601-540877 All cther Refuse Disposal Fund Accounts Total Refuse Disposal Fund FEed Costs - SWANCC Motor Fuel Tax Fund Street Improvements Infrastructure 0507706-690005 522,500 (t55,510) 366,99O 2,886,371 0 2,886.371 3,408,_~.__871 (155,5t0) 3,253,36~1 Street Ught improvements 359,603 (t19,303) 240,300 t0 Infrastructure 0507706-690007 Ail o{her Motor Fuel Tax Fund Accounts To~J Motor Fuel Tax Fund Addison Court Improvements 220,003 (220,000) 0 2,136,603 0 2,136.603 2,716,2~, (339.303) 2~____=~___~ Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Fund Village Improvements & Equip. Other Equipment 0607701,670074 I~-cer video cameras All other Local Law Enforcement B!ock Grant Fund Accounts To{al Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Fund 18,410 7,036 25,446 0 0 0 Police Investigations Other Equipment 0804104-670181 Ail efher Asset Seizure Fund Accounts 18.41~0 7,03~6 25.44~6 DUI Fine Fund po;Ye Patrct Other Equipment All efher DUI Fine Fund Accounts Total DUI Fine Fund O~her Equipment 0 7,808 7,808 0 0 0 0864102-670151 Other Equipment Community Development Block Grant Fund CDBG Accessibility and Neighborhood Improve. t2 In~ 0702306-690001 13 InfrasbucflJre 0702306-690020 Ail o~her CDBG Accounts Total CDBG Fund Series 1993B ~ebt ~e~lce Fund Debt 8e~e - Property Taxes 14 Bond Pfl~clpal ; 15 Boncl P~lnctgat 16 thtemst E~cmnee 1708102-710240 lg938 1708102~-710250 1993B Prr~ 1708t 02,72~251 19936 Interest 0 7,808 7,808 0 700 700 0 0 0 0 700 700 Streetlight Improvements 80,000 160,258 240,258 Boxwood Streef~ights 73.007 (73,007) 0 603,784 0 00~784 756,551 87,19t 844.042 t20,~00 (120,600) ' 0 377,500 (377,5OO) 0 29,512 (19,547) ' 1~,265 72,321 (47,422) 24,899 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 2 Fiscal Year Janua~ t, 2002 through December 31, 2002 Expenditures Item No. 18 19 F un~/pr~j ram/Ctessi~catinn Accoant # Interfund Transtets 1708102-800200 Other Financing Uses 1708102-810100 All other Sehes 19938 Debt Sen;ce Fund Accounts Total Series t503B Debt Se;vice Fund Account Description Transfer to 2002B D/S Bond Pdnclpal - Refanding 20 21 22 23 Bond Financing Costs 2502~ Bond Pr;nclpal 2002B Bond Interest 2002B Bank Fee 24 25 26 27 Bond Financing Costs 2002A Bond Principal 2502A Bond Interest 2502A Bank Fee Budget Increase Budg~ Amount (Decrease) .Nnount 0 459,821 459,821 0 2.286,200 2~86200 34 35 36 37 Series 1993B De~ Service Fund Debt Sewlce - Home Rute Sates Tax t ~ond Pltaslpal 3208104-710410 Interest E.,<i~nse 3208104-72041 t Iote~fum:l Tmesfem 3208104-800400 Othe~ Rnancthg Uses 3208104-810100 0 t2,752 12.752 0 498,100 498,100 0 35,502 35,902 0 750 750 0 0 0 Series fgg4A Debt Service Fund Debt Sef~ce - Home Rule Sales Tax 1 38 Bond Pdnctpal 3308104-710415 39 Interest ~ 3308104-720416 40 Iote~and Transfers 3308104-800400 41 Other Flnam:teg Uses 3308104-810100 NI othe? Series 1994A Debt Sei~ce Fund Accour~s Oe~t Sew'c:e * Home Rute Sains T~x 1 Totdi ~edas ¶996A De~ Sel~ce Ful~d 0 3,542 3,542 0 450,050 45~.050 0 8,7Q6 8,706 0 t,888 t,588 0 0 1 503A P~clpal 40,500 (40,000) 0 1950A F)di'tclpal 390,000 (350,500) t993A Interest 3,765 (2,468) 1,297 1993A Interest 24,165 (15,842) 8.323 Transfer to 2002A D/S 0 369~832 369,832 Bond Principal - Refunding 0 635,050 635,000 1,000 0 1,000 4~,50__~0 ~,622 ~m5,482 19938 Prindedi 257.00O (257.000) 0 t993B Interest 46,892 (30;733) t6.t59 Tranefer to 2002B D/~ 0 t73.840 173.840 Bond Pflnclpal - Refuncll~ 0 i ,050,600 1,050,600 5OO 0 5OO 304,392 936,70~7 1,24t.099 1994A P~nclpal 155,000 (155,500) 0 1994A Interest 22,760 (14,922) 7,838 Transfer to 2002B D/S 0 97,t20 97,120 Bond Principal - Refunding 0 525.000 _=,~.e~0 · 178,250 . 452,t~ 630,4~8 209~880 0 210.380 soo .~ VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 2 Fiscal Year January 1, 2002 through December 3t, 2002 Expenditures Item NO. F und/Pragram/Classlfl cat lo n Account # Account DescrIpUon 43 44 45 46 Series 2002B Debt Service Fund Debt Se~lce - Home Rule Sales Tax 1 Contractual Services 4008104.540025 Bond Principal 4008104-7t 0276 Interest Expanse 4008104-720276 Bank and Fiscal Fees 4008104-730276 All other Sedes 2002B Debt Service Fund Accounts Total Sedes 2002B Debt Service Fund Bond Financing Costs 2002B Bond Pdnc!pal 2002B Bond Interest 2002B Bank Fee 47 48 49 50 Series ~994A Debt Se/vice Fund Debt Service - Home Rule Sales Tax 2 Bond Pdncipal 4108105-710501 Interest Expense 4108t05.720502 tstedund Transfers 4108105-800440 Other Financing Uses 4108105-810100 All ether Series 1994A Debt Se~ce Fund Accounts Total Series 1994A Debt Service Fund Current Amended Budget Increase Budget Amount (D~crease) Amount 51 52 53 54 Series 2002B Debt Service Fund Debt Sewlce - Home Rule Sales Tax 2 Contractual Sei~4ces 4408105-.540025 Bond Principal 4408105-710276 Interest Expanse 4408105-720276 Bank and ~ Fees 4408105-730276 All other Series 2002B Debt Se~Ice Fund Accounts Total Series 20028 Debt Ser,4ce Fund 0 8,788 8,788 0 412,000 412,000 0 23,777 23,777 0 750 750 0 0 0 0 445,315 445.315 55 56 57 58 Capital Improvement Fund Village improvements Buildlag Improvements Building Improvements Other Equipment Infrastructure All other Capltsl Improve. Fd. A~counts Total Capital Improvement Fund 5107701-640003 5107701-840020 5107701~70021 5107702-690005 t994A Pdnetpal 545,000 (545,000) 0 1994A Interest 73,678 (48,298) 25,380 Transfer to 2002B D/S 0 397,852 397,852 Bond Principal - Refunding 0 1,700,000 1,700,000 500 0 500 59 60 Series 2001 Project Fund ViSage Improvements & Equip. Bulldtsg Improvements 5257701-640015 62 Setfes 2~02 Project Fund Village Improvements & Equip. Contractual Services 5267701-540025 All other Sedes 2002 Project Fund Accounts Station 12 Improvements Property Acq,- Village Hall Cardiac Monitom Reslde~fal Street Lights 63¸ 619,t7~8 __1,504,554 2,123,732 0 9,482 9,482 0 545,000 545,000 0 24,186 24,186 0 750 750 0 0 0 ~0 579,41~8 57g,41~8 0 380,266 380,266 0 673,500 673,500 0 75,000 75,000 786,697 (678,697) t(~,O00 1.4o2,t68 o 1. .1 8 Village Hall/Ce,mm Center 2,600,000 (1;500,0C0) 1,1~0,g00 Pad(lng Structure 1,500,000 (1,000,000) 5~0,000 Demo0§on & Site Work 0 300,000 300,000 555,420 0 555,42O 4,655,4~20 (2.200,000) 2,455,420 Bond FiaancingCosts Capital Improvements Construction Fund visage Impmvemeflts & Equip. 'Bul~ag Improvements ' 5307701-840003 Station 12 Improvements · Ail e~er Capital Improvement~ Co~s~uc~on Fund Accounts T~al Capital Ir~r~s ~ Flail Flood Conlrol Pro~ects 102,705 (102,705) 0 0 0 0 102,705_ , (102.705) O~ 0 0 0 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Budget Amendment No. 2 Fiscal Year January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2002 Expenditures Item No. Fund/pr~ram/Classlilcation Account # 64 Infrastructure 5907704-690007 65 Infrastructure 5907704-690101 66 Infrastmcture 5907704.690110 67 Infrastructure 5907704-690111 All ather Ficq3d Control Constr. Fd accounts Total Ftsnd Control Constr. Fund Account Description Addlso~ Ccurt Improvements Weller Creek Design Melas ParldCrumley Impr Wedgnwood Improve. Water and Sewer Fund Water Admlnistmtinn 68 Other Expendlturas 6105501-592041 1993 Bonds - Interest 69 Other Expenditures 6105501-..~2042 2002B Refunding Interest 70 Bond Principal 6105501-710040 1993 Bo~ds - principal 71 Bond Principal 6105501-710276 2002B B°nd Principal Water DIsblbuUon M & R 72 Other Equipment 6105505-670038 Bo~3ster Pump/Pane{ Repl. Water & Sewer Improvements 73 Contra~ual Services 6105510-540777 Sewer Repair 74 Dtstdbuticn Systems 6105510-680007 Addison Court Improve. 75 Dlsfllbutlon Systems 6105510-680010 Combined Sewer improve. All ~her Water and Sewer Fd accounts Tatal Water and Sewer Fund 76 Parking Revenue Fund Public Wo nV.s- Paddng Lot Maintenance Con.actual Services 6305111-540910 Risk Management Fund Casual~y & Property Program 77 insurance 6908501-560102 78 Insurance 6908501-560103 Ua bility Insurarr. e HELP Excess Liability Wo~e~ Comp Insurance We~rke~s Comp Cla~ns HMO Medical Claims Total Village Budget after Changes Amount (Decrease) Ameunt t20,000 (120,000) 0 0 30,162 30.162 100,000 100,000 200.000 2,704,099 (254,838) 2.449~61 17.312 (1t.341) 5,971 0 5,945 5.945 104.900 (104,900) 0 104,900 t04.900 600,000 (250,000) 350,000 250,000 t0,747 290,747 80,000 (80,000) 0 750,000 (500,000) 250.000 7,230,950 0 7~30,950 9.063,162 (824,649~) 8,2~8,5t.~_3 15,000 8,200 23,200 493,318 0 4.93.3t8 6os~___.__~s 8,2oo 6~6~_____~ 115,850 3,000 118.850 74.54O 9,0OO 83540 25.000 8.342 33,342 150,000 188,300 338.300 225,000 45,000 270.00O 824.613 (22,470) 8~2.143 2,147,263 89,567 2.236.830 325,827 0 325,827 3,888,093 320.73__9 4,208.832 61,127.438 4,681,396 65,808,834 14,165,778 0 t4.165,778 75,293.21______..~6 4,681,396 7,,974,6t__2 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE OCTOBER 21, 2002 DETERMINATION OF ESTIMATED TAX LEVY PURPOSE: To request the Village Board determine the estimated amount of money needed to be raised by taxation for the 2002 levy year. BACKGROUND: The Property Tax Reform Act requires the corporate authorities of local governments within Cook County to estimate how much money is necessary to be raised by taxation upon taxable property at least thirty (30) days prior to adoption of the actual levy ordinance. If the amount is higher than the previous year's property tax extension, a public hearing is required and notice of the increase and the public hearing then has to be published in the local newspaper. DISCUSSION: The 2003 proposed budget was prepared assuming a Village property tax levy of $11,010,747, net of certain debt service tax levy abatements. This represents an increase of 4.8% over the 2001 extended levy. Following is a summary of the proposed 2002 tax levy for the Village: Levy Purpose 20~2 ~Vy Esti~ate Increase General Corporate $ 6,074,610 5.4% Garbage 2,289,820 (8.3) Debt Service 851,988 24.1 Police Pension 674,653 17.6 Firefighters' Pension 919,676 12.3 Total Village Levy $'11,010,747 . 4.8% The Village's tax rate for the 2002 levy is estimated, at $0.875, compared to $0.837 for 2001 .. The. increase for a home with an equalized assessed value of $55,400 in levy year 2001 (approximate market value of $250,000) would be approximately $20. The total tax to be paid to the Village is stimated Tax Levy October 21,2002 Page 2 estimated at $446. At the time the proposed budget was prepared and distributed, the Library Board had not yet voted on their budget and tax levy request. We have since received notification of their tax levy request. Attached is a copy of their correspondence. The Library is requesting a levy of $5,894,023, representing an increase of 33.4% over the 2001 levy. This figure includes the 2% addition for loss and costs. Following is a summary of the proposed 2002 tax levy for the Library: ? Increase Library Operating Fund $3,616,430 (5.7)% Pensions 321,700 7.2 Insurance and Audit 51,600 17.2 Maintenance & Repair 251,574 5.0 Total Operations $4,241,304 (4.0)% Debt Service 1,652,719 N/A Total Library Levy $5,894,023 33.4% The Library's tax rate for the 2002 levy is estimated to be $0.469, compared to $0.352 for levy year 2001. The increase for a home with an equalized assessed value of $55,400 in levy year 2001 would be approximately $65. The total amount to be paid to the Library is estimated at $260. After the Village Board establishes the tentative tax levy we can publish the notice of the Truth In Taxation public hearing. This hearing is scheduled for Tuesday, December 3, 2002 pursuant to Statute. It should be pointed out that this is just a determination of the tentative levy. The Board can still decrease the levy as they deem appropriate based on the upcoming budget workshops and public hearings. They could also raise the levy, but an additional notice needs to be published in the newspaper. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board authorize staff to publish the notice of public hearing on the proposed 2002 tax levy based upon a tentative levy of $16,904,770. This represents an overall increase of 13.3%. DOUGLAS R. ELLSWORTH CPA I:\Taxes\Property~2002 Levy~levy determination memo.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2002 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AND CERTIFYING THE 2003 BUDGET AND 2002 TAX LEVY DETERMINATION WHEREAS, heretofore the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library, Mount Prospect, Illinois, at open and public meetings have considered the financing requirements of the Mount Prospect Library for the year commencing January 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library has determined the financial requirements of the Mount Prospect Public Library for the ensuing year and has caused to be made, a statement thereof, a copy of which is attached hereto and marked "Exhibit A," for inclusion in the 2003 budget of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library has further determined the amount of money which in its judgment, it will be necessary to levy for library purposes in the 2002 taxlevy ordinance to be adopted by the Prasident and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC LIBRARY, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT: SECTION ONE: That the financial requirements for library purposes of the Mount Prospect Public Library require the budget for the year commencing January 1,2003, and ending December 31, 2003, the sum of 26,171,713 such to be included within the 2003 Budget of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois. SECTION TWO: That the amount of money hereby determined by the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library to be necessary for library purposes and to be included in the 2002 Tax Levy Ordinance of the Village of Mount Prospect (taking into consideration other income from accumulations from the prior year, anticipated taxshrinkage, fines, non-resident fees, and maintenance, repairs, and alterations of library buildings and equipment) and for the collection and deposit to the LIBRARY, totals 5,778,454 (of which 315,390 is for the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund payments for employees of the Mount Prospect Public Library pursuant to Section 5/7-171, Chapter 40 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes; 246,641 is for the maintenance repairs, and alterations of the library buildings and equipment, pursuant to Section 5/3-4 of Chapter 75 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes; and 50,590 is for insurance and audit fees pursuant to Section 5/4-14 of Chapter 75 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes; and 1,620,313 is for debt service on General Obligation Ubrary Bonds, Ser~es 2002 of the Village of Mount Prospect). In accordance with Chapter 75, Section 5/3-5 of the Illinois Compiled Statutes we request that the amount of 5,778,454 so determined be levied and collected in like manner with the other general tsmes of the Village of Mount Prospect and that such ta~s be paid directly by the County Collector to the Library fund. E~pendituras from the LIBRARY FUNDS shall be under the direction of the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library. SECTION THREE: That the Secretary of the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library file a copy of this Resolution, with the Village Clerk of the Village of Mount Prospect, for transmittal to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION FOUR: That, if necessary, a committee hereof confer with the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount prospect or a c~mmittee th.e. reof, or appear b~fore the said v'diage Board, as may be neCe..~sary in conjunction with the enactment of the 2003 Budget a/,,d 2002 Levy; .. ECTION FIVE: That if any part or parts of this Resolution shall be held to be unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity of the remaining parts of this Resolution. The Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library hereby declares that it would have passed the remaining parts of this Resolution if it had known that such part or parts thereof would be declared unconstitutional. SECTION SIX: That this Resolution shall be in full fome and effect as of October '17, 2002. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: Luted, Draznin, Everett, Hinaber, Klein, OZag None Walters PASSED THIS '17t~ day of October, 2002. The undersigned, President of the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library, Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, does certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the vote specified at a legally convened meeting of the Board of Trustees of the Mount Prospect Public Library held at the Mount Prospect Public Library Building on the 17~ day of October, 2002. Laura L. Luted, President MOUNT PROSPECT PUBLIC UBRARY EXHIBIT A 2003 BUDGET AND 2002 TAX LEVY DETERMINATION 2003 Budget Income From 2002 Tax Levy Tax Levy Amount Other Sources Request Purpose LIBRARY GENERAL FUND Salaries & Benefits Salaries $ 2,676,200 Medical Insurance and Umemployment 190,500 Pensions 321 ~700 $ 3,188,400 --- $ 2,676,200 Library Services 190,500 Library Services 6~310 315~390 IMRF & FICA 6~310 $ 3,182,090 Other Administration Expenses Audit & Insurance Postage & Printing Contractual Services Library Supplies Other Operating Expenses $ 51,600 $ 1,010 $ 50,590 Insurance & Audit $ 50,400 --- 50,400 Library Services $ 148,800 --- 148,800 Library Services $ 54,600 .... 54,600 Library Services 78~600 78~600 Library Services $ 384,000 $ 1 ~010 $ 382~990 Building Expenses Utilities Building Maintenance Equipment Maintenance Equipment and Equipment Rental Other $ 63,000 ~,, $ 63,000 Library Services 25,000 ---- 25,000 Library Services 44,500 44,500 Library Services 96,900 96,900 Library Services 12~000 ........ 12~000 Library Services $ 241,400 $ 0 $ 241,400 Ubrary Materials Books Audio-Visual Other $ 338,400 $ 338,400 Library Services $ 79,400 $ 79,400 Ubrary Services 119~800 ........ 119~800 Library Services $ 537~600 $ 0 $ 537,600 Contingencies and Other Contingencies Funds from Other Sources $ 300,000 $ 300,000 $ Ubrary Services , · $ 432~580 (432~580) Library Services $ 3007000 $ 732~580 $ (4321580) TOTALS - GENERAL FUND $ 4~651~400 $ 739,900 $ 3,911,500 LIBRARY GIFT FUND Library Special Projects ConUngencies TOTALS - GIFTFuND $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 200,000 · $ 300,000 ' $ '300,000 $ 0 Exhibit A - 1 of 2 LIBRARY BUILDING & EQUIPMENT FUND Building & Equipment Projects Tmns to Library General Fund Contingencies TOTALS - BLDG & EQUIP FUND 100,000 100,000 200,000 53,359 146,641 300,000 300,000 --- $ 600,000 $ 353~359 $ 246~641 Bldg Maint & Repair Bldg Maint & Repair LIBRARY DEBT SERVICE FUND Debt Service Expense Pdncipal Payment Interest Payment TOTALS - DEBT SERVICE FUND $ 185,000 1,435,313 $ 1~620~313 --- $ 185,000 1,435,313 $ 0 $ 1,620,313 $ 19,000,000 $ 0 $ t9,000,000 $ 0 Bonds & Interest Bonds & Interest LIBRARY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Capital Outlay New Library Project TOTALS - CAPITAL PROJECTS $ 19,000,00(~... $ 19,000,000 ALL FUNDS - TOTALS $ 26,t71~713 $ 20,393,259 $ 5,778,454 1. Library Fund Levy Library Services IMRF & FICA Insurance & Audit Building Maint & Repair Total Library Fund Levy 2. Library Bonds and Interest Levy TOTAL LIBRARY TAX LEVY TAX LEVY Levy Request SUMMARY 2% Loss Tax Levy $ 3,545,520 $ 70,910 $ 3,616,430 315,390 6,310 321,700 50,590 1,010 51,600 246~641 4,933 251,574 $ 4,158,141 $ 83,163 $ 4,241,304 1~620,313 32,406 1,652,719 $ 5,778,4~ $ 115,86~9 _$ 5,894,023 Exhibit A - 2 of 2 MOUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMAL MEMORANDUM CHF 02-466 CONTROL NUMBER. TO: FROM: SUBJECT: DATE: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER CHIEF OF POLICE 2002 LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT PUBLIC HEARING 30 OCTOBER O2 For the sixth consecutive year the Police Department has applied for a federal Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG). This grant is a formula grant xvhere the award is based on the number of criminal offenses reported in the Village. Under the provisions of the 2002 LLEBG, the department is eligible to receive an award of $12,173. The grant also requires a Village "match" of $1,353. Under the provisions of the block grant program the department must spend its award in one of the following seven purpose areas: supporting law enforcement (including the purchase of police equipment); enhancing security measures at special risk locations; establishing or supporting drag courts; enhancing the adjudication of cases involving violent offenders; establishing multi- jurisdictional task forces; establishing community crime prevention programs; and obtaining indemnification insurance for police officers. Over the past six years the department has used its block grant awards to supplement Village funds in the purchase of police equipment, specifically, in-car laptop computers for the marked patrol and investigative squad cars. It is the department's intention to spend the 2002 block grant award in the same purpose area. Specifically, the 2002 award will be combined with Capital Improvements funds to purchase eight laptop computers for the patrol sergeants. The total cost of this purchase, which is planned for 2003, is estimated to be $24,000. The 2002 LLEBG award process carries two main requirements: 1) that the department form an Advisory Board to review the proposed allocation of the grant funds and, 2) that a Public Hearing be held on the proposed use of the grant award funds. The Bureau of Justice Administration (BJA), which is responsible for overseeing the grant, specified the Advisory Board must include representatives from the following organizations: 1. the local law enforcement agency; 2. the local ProseCutOr,s office; '... 3. the ~oeal court system; - · · 4.' · thc local public school systcm;:mad, ' ' 5. a community group active in crime·prevention. OUNT PROSPECT POLICE DEPARTMENT FORMAL MEMORANDUM CHF 02-466 CONTROL NUMBER Officer Roscop, the chairperson, reported the Advisory Board unanimously endorsed the purpose area for the grant funds selected by the department in its grant application, that is, the purchase of equipment or technology directly related to basic law enforcement functions. The Public Hearing requirement is intended to encourage public input on the proposed use of the ~ant award. Specifically, the department is seeking either public approval for purchase of in-car laptop computers or suggestions for alternative, uses for the grant award. Although the grant stipulates the final decision for the use of the funds lies with the Chief of Police, all public comments, suggestions and recommendations will be given due consideration. If the Public Hearing does not result in a compelling reason to amend the department's chosen purpose area for the grant funds, the department will notify the BJA that it has satisfied the grant application requirements and will request the release of the grant funds. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me. RICHARD EDDINGTON Notice Of Public Headng NOTICE IS HEREBY given that the Village of Mount Pros- pect Board of Trustees will hold a public hearing on Wednes- day, November 6, 2002 at the Mount. Prospect Park District facility, 1000 W. CentraJ Road to receive public comments and recommendations regarding he Police Department's pro- )osed use of a $12,173 Local _aw Enforcement Block Grant award to purchase technology or equipment directly related to basic law enforcement func- tions. Any interested parties may attend and will be heard. SIGNED AND DATED this 24th day of October 2002. Veima Lowe, Village Clerk Published in the Daily Herald October 24, 2002. (2909238)N