The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOW Agenda Packet 04/22/2003 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Mt. Prospect Community Center Tuesday, April 22, 2003 1000 West Central Road 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 APRIL 9, 2003 III. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD IV. LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN At the April 9, 2003 Committee of the Whole meeting, the administration presented a detailed overview of the Village's looming General Fund deficit for 2004 and succeeding years. Also presented was a preliminary Financial Plan designed to eliminate the deficit through a series of spending cuts and revenue enhancements. The various elements of the preliminary Financial Plan were derived from discussions by the Village Board at a series of workshops held earlier in the ~ear. The particular elements included in the Preliminary Plan represent "majority positions" by Board members and, in some cases, are not the unanimous view of the entire Board. The elements with the biggest differences of opinion are: (1) direct charge for garbage, (2) elimination of the vehicle sticker and (3) raising the Home Rule Sales Tax by .25%. The purpose of the April 22, 2003 Committee of the Whole meeting is to continue discussions that will lead to a "final" Financing Plan. Input from residents and the business community is being sought. Village Board members will also share their differing opinions on the appropriate elements of a final Financing Plan. (Verbia.qe from April 9, 2003 Committee of the V~hole Aqenda) With the adoption of the 2003 Municipal Budget last December, The Village Board and Administration reluctantly embraced the Village's first deficit spending plan in more than a decade. This conscious decision, in the face of a soft economy and shrinking revenues, was grounded in the desire to hold the line on substantive tax increases. It was also done with the knowledge that over the past several years, a conceded eft'od had been made to build up the Village's "rainy day fund" (General Fund fund balance). The 2003 Budget called for a draw down of $632,000 in General Fund surplus to cover ongoing operating expenses along with modest expenditure reductions as pad of a hold the line budget. NOTE: ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO ATTEND THIS MEETING BUT BECAUSE OF A DISABILITY NEEDS SOME ACCOMMODATION TO PARTIClPATE, SHOULD CONTACT THE VILLAGE MANAGER'S OFFICE A T 100 SOUTH EMERSON, MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS 60056, 847/392-6000, EXTENSION 5327, TDD #847/392-6064. Anticipating a continuing sluggish economy through next year, the 2004 Forecast Budget predicted a $1.3 million General Fund deficit (which has since grown to approximately $1.9 million due to a greater than anticipated shortfall in Home Rule Sales Tax revenues). With continued draw downs on General Fund surplus, an unsound fiscal practice, the Village Board committed to develop a Long-Term Financial Plan (five-year timeline) designed to bring revenues and expenditures into balance while maintaining the Village as an attractive community in which to live, work and operate a business. The goal for developing such a Plan was the end of the first quarter of 2003. Since the beginning of 2003, tl~e Finance Commission and Village Board have met (separately) on a number of occasions to analyze the various factors contributing to the current fiscal situation. As part of the process, these bodies, along with staff have developed a detailed methodology that includes review of revenue/expenditure trends, possible external impacts, scope/mix of services, new/necessary initiatives, benchmarking, cuts and/or tax increases. The analysis and discussions have been exhaustive. At the April 9 Committee of the Whole meeting, a preliminary Financial Plan will be presented and explained to the community. Subsequent Committee of the Whole meetings will be used to solicit public comment with an eye on fine-tuning the Plan to meet general communityexpectations. Appropriate staffwill be on hand to answer questions and facilitate discussion. V. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT VI. ANY OTHER BUSINESS VII. ADJOURNMENT II. III. IV. MINUTES COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE APRIL 9, 2003 CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor Gerald Farley, in the Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center, 1000 West Central Road. Present at the meeting were: Trustees Timothy Corcoran, Paul Hoefert, Richard Lohrstorfer, Michaele Skowron, Irvana Wilks and Michael Zadel. Staff members present included: Village Manager Michael Janonis, Assistant Village Manager David Strahl, Finance Director Doug EIIsworth, Deputy Finance Director Carol Widmer and Finance Administrative Assistant Lisa Burkemper. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approval of minutes from March 25, 2003. Motion was made by Trustee Lohrstorfer and Seconded by Trustee Skowron. Minutes were approved. Trustees Corcoran and Hoefert abstained. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD None. LONG-RANGE FINANCIAL PLAN DISCUSSION Mayor Farley stated this is a preliminary presentation of the tentative consensus plan that has arisen through several workshop sessions among the Village Board and staff. He stated it is anticipated that there will be significant discussion at the April 22 Committee of the Whole meeting whereby the publiC is encouraged to voice their opinions on the proposed Financial Plan. Village Manager Janonis stated that as part of the 2003 Budget creation, a commitment was made to review the 2004 Budget issues. Over the last several months, staff and the Village Board, in conjunction with the Finance Commission, have been looking at various options for consideration to address the projected 2004 Budget deficit. He stated this is the first public discussion but, again, the April 22 meeting will be available for additional public input. The presentation will be available to the public in both paper and electronic formats; He stated the three-year economic downtUrn has reduced revenues while service demands have not decreased in proportion to the revenue reductions. He stated the Village has the limited ability to reduce service level and the $1.9 million deficit projected in 2004 is projected to grow in future years. A review of the major revenue sources was highlighted and 80% of the General Fund is devoted to personnel expenses. He stated the Village has not made the CIP fund transfer for the last two years and there is a need to address this funding in the near term so that significant impacts do not affect the overall service delivery to residents. He stated several proposed initiatives have been II. Finance Director EIIsworth thanked the Village Board and staff and stated he was proud to be a member of the management team at the Village. CLOSED SESSION A Motion was made by Trustee Hoefert and Seconded by Trustee Skowron to move into Closed Session to discuss Personnel. Meeting recessed into Closed Session at 8:29 p.m. Meeting returned to Open Session at 8:48 p.m. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager DS/rcc Long Range Financial Plan Statement of Problem · 3 Year Economic Downturn (Slow/No growth) - Local - State - National Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Statement of Problem · Demands for service remain constant - Police/Fire Service Calls -At-Risk Families, Youth, Seniors - Basic Services (snow removal, inspections, property maintenance, street sweeping) Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon_~ Range Financial Plan Statement of Problem · These factors contribute to a projected General Fund Deficit of $1.9 million in 2004 and ~rowin_~ in succeeding years. Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon Ran eFinancial Plan Statement of Problem 2003 Operating Deficit $632,000 - State Income Tax -State Photo Processing Tax - State Use Tax - State Replacement Tax - Investment Income Village of Mount Prospect (421,000) (108,000) (65,000) (50,000) (80,000) April 2003 Lon.q Ran.qe Financial Plan Statement of Problem 2004 Projected Deficit - Carry over of 2003 Deficit - Expenditures Exceed Revenue - Delay of Costco Sales Tax - Home Rule Sales Tax Shortfall - Additional Sales Tax Declines - Interest Income Declines - State Income Tax Gains $1 ~920,000 (632,000) (586,000) (370,000) (202,000) (164,000) (15,ooo) 49,000 Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan General Fund Projected Operating Deficits 2004 Revenues $29,508,58; Expenditures 31,428129; Def ct ($1,919,710); 2005 2006 2007 2008 $30,296,623 $31,102,012 $3t,867,892 $32,477,433 32,858,449 34,322,434 35,949,541 37,682,366 ($2,561,82; ($3,220,422) ($4,081,649) ($5,204,933} Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan General Fund Expenditures by Object Line Item 2003 Budget % of Total Personal Services $t8,368~505 61.2% Employee Benefits 5,446,253 18.1% Miscelleneous Pensions 39,757 0~1% Other Em ployee Costs 262,677 0.9' Subtotal 24,~f7,192 80.3% Contractual Services 4,438,014 14.8~ Utilities 303~320 1.0% Supplies 486,435 1.6%; Property and Casualty 264,120 0.9% Other Expenses 8,000 0.0% Capital Expenditures 236,347 0.8% Interfund Transfers 170,000 0.6% Total Expenditures $30,023,428 100.0% Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Importance of General Fund · General Fund is main funding source for most basic municipal services · General fund revenues come from 72 different "unrestricted" funding sources. Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan Importance of General Fund General Fund revenues CANNOT be derived from "restricted" funding sources. Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan Restricted Funds · Restricted by Law - Motor Fuel Tax Fund - Block Grant Funds _ - Asset Seizure Funds - Police and Fire Pension Funds Village of Mount Prospect I0 April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan Restricted Funds (continued) · Restricted by Policy - Refuse Fund - Debt Service Funds -Capital Projects Funds - Water and Sewer Fund Village of Mount Prospect ~ ~ April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan Restricted Funds (continued) · Restricted by Policy - Parking System Fund -Vehicle Maintenance Fund -Vehicle & Computer Replacement Funds - Risk Management Fund ~tllage of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan · Actions Taken to Date - Finance Commission -Village Board - Staff Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Preparing for a Rainy Day · Recent Steps - Build up fund balances - Restrict General Fund spending - Freeze staffing levels 60 Days (non-public safety) - Defer Capital Improvements - Fully fund replacement funds Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan Methodology · Continually monitor deficit projections iContinually monitor revenue projections without Costco Assess potential external impacts Identify New/Necessary Initiatives Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Methodology · Review/Readjust Scope/Mix of Services (Cuts) · Determine Total Revenues Requir~.d · Determine Need for Revenue Enhancements (Increases) · Develop Multi-Year Plan Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan External Impacts · Economy · World Events · Springfield/Washington · No Costco · Unexpected Loss of Large Sales Tax Payer Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan New/Necessary Initiatives $550,000 $500,000 · ClF Funding Source · Police Traffic Unit · Fire 5-Year Plan - Staffing - Relocate Station 14 $200,000 $~85,ooo (Per year Debt Service) Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan New/Necessary Initiatives Retiree Health Care Levee 37 Randhurst Sub Triangle Feasibility Study (continued) $305,000 +$300,000 $ 75,000 North/Southside Resource Center Alter Property YMCA Teen Center $ 25,000 Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon Ran e Financial Plan General Fund Projected Operating Deficits With New/Necessary Initiatives 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Revenues $29~508,582 $30~296,623 $31,102,012 $31~867~892 $32~477~433 Expenditures 31,428,292 32,858,449 34,322,434 35,949,54t 37,682,36~ New Initiatives 575,000 576,000 577,040 578,t22 579,246 Deficit ($2,494,7101 ($3,137,826) ($3,797,462) ($4,659,771) ($5,784,1791 Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 10 Long Range Financial Plan Review Scope of Services (Cuts?) · Benchmarking Data · Guiding Principles · Review/Readjust Scope/Mix of Services Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon Ran e F'mancial Plan Benchmarking Data - Park Ridge Survey · Expenditures - Calculates per capita expenditures for the twelve participating communities. - Based upon budgeted operating expenditures, including libraries. - Mount Prospect - 3rd Lowest at $1,129 - 20% below mean cost of $1,382. Village of Mount Prospect ~ April 2003 Lon RanRe Financial Plan Benchmarking Data - Park Ridge Survey (continued) [ COSTO~ I 2003 ADJUSTED POPULATION GOVERNMENT 2 OAK PARK 92.110.460 52.524' 1.753.68 3 NILES 52,225.66.~ ......... 3~:0..68: __ 1.736.92 , .-4 .... DO.W._.~N E_[~S_G._R.._O.V_E_ ....... ~.?,798.~27 ..... 48.~64 ........ :1,3_9.0..34 ..... _.5_ .A_RLINGTON HEIGHTS 104..474.:~.14 ......... 76.0~1 ....... 1.3.7-4:1.0 ..... 6 .... NORTHBROOK ._.44..724,321 ....... 33,435 ...... 1.3.3.7.65. 7 SKOKIE 82~499~911 63~348 1~302.33 9 NAPERVlLLE 158.673.757 1_3..5.:.!.~ 1' ...... .1.173.87 10 MOUNT PROSPECT 63.530,070 .... 56.265 ...... 1~1..2.9_. 1.2 ..... 1._1__ .P. ALATI_NE_. ................. 7!.169,610. 65.479 1.086.91 . .1~_..PAR. K RIDqE ~.9 9.16.70p ..... _3.7..,?.7.;i_ ......... 1.:0...5§:~.5 V'dlage of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Ran.qe Financial Plan Benchmarking Data - Park Ridge Survey (continued) · Revenues - Annual revenues received from a homeowner - Mount Prospect ranked 5th - Average home $1,032 ~dlage of Mount Prospect ~ q April 2003 Lon_Q Range Financial Plan Benchmarking Data Comparison of Full-Time Equivalent Survey Total FTE! Municipality Population 1000 Pop. Arlington Heights 76,031 6.21 Buffalo Grove 42,909 5.59 Des Plaines 56,720 7.65 Elk Grove Village 34,727 10.48 Evanston 74,239 11.77 Glenview 41,847 7.93 Hoffrnan Estates 49,495 6.57 Morton Grove 22,451 8.75 Palatine 65,479 5,59 Park Ridge 37,775 6.91 Rolling Meadows 23,140 14.78 Schaumburg 75,386 8.58 Wheeling 34,496 6.99 Mount Prospect 56,265 5.73 Average 8.45 Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Benchmarking Data Tax Rate Comparison (2001 Tax Levy) Municipality Total Tax Ranking Total Tax Rate Ranking Rate (Excluding Refuse) Hoffman Estates $1.00 1 $0.970 1 Park Ridge $0.99 2 $0.763 6 Wheeling $0.84 3 $0.842 2 Mount Prospect $0.84 4 $0.638 7 Skokie $0.83 5 $0.828 3 Des Plaines $0.82 6 $0.818 4 Arlington Hts. $0.73 7 $0.728 5 Glenview $0.55 8 $0.545 8 Elk Grove $0.48 9 $0.481 9 Niles $0.39 10 $0~2t8 t0 Schaumburg $0.00 11 $0.000 1 t Village of Mount Prospect A ~? April 2003 Lon~ Range Financial Plan Village Of Mount Prospect Property Tax Levies (In Order of Priority) · Debt Service - Public Buildings · Police and Firefighter Pensions · Refuse Disposal (20% of levy = $2.25 million) · General Operations Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan Guiding Principles · Priority to Maintain Core Services · Maintain Integrity of Long-Term Funding Initiatives - Computer Replacement - Vehicle Replacement - Road Improvement Fund Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 LonR Ran.qe Financial Plan Guiding Principles (continued) · Limit Draw-downs of General Fund Fund Balance to one- time emergency ~ituations (not part of multi year fix). · Restore G.F. Fund Balance to 25% as soon as practicable. Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Ran.qe Financial Plan Guiding Principles (continued) · Limit reliance on Property Tax (main $ source for overlapping entities). · Look to user fees where feasible and equitable. ~ · Keep Ion.g. te. rm Iivability of commun,ty ,n forefront. ~ tqllage of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Ran_~e Financial Plan Review/Readjust Scope/Mix of Services · Review 778 separate services/tasks covering 7 operating departments · Determine whether essential or non- essential - 59 deemed non-essential - Total savings less than $100,000 - Main impact to community/civic services Village of Mount Prospect ~ I April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Review/Readjust Scope/Mix of Services (continued) · Greater reductions involve cutting essential services - Whole/partial elimination of departments or functions - Consider specific cuts vs. staff initiated cuts · $500,000 reduction target established (2004) Village of Mount Prospect ~C~ April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan General Fund Projected Operating Deficits with New Initiatives and Staff Initiated Cuts 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Revenues $29,508,582 i $30,296,623 $31,102,012 $31,867,892 $32,477,433 Expenditures 31,428,292 32,858,44S 34,322,43~1 35,9491541 37,682,366 New Initiatives 575,000 576,000 577,040 578,122 579,246 Deficit ($2,494,7101 ($3,137,8261 ($3,797,4621 ($4,659,771) ($5,784,179) Expenditure Cuts $500~000 $515,000 $530,450 $546,364 $562,754 Remalnln~lDeflcit ($1,99;4~7t01 ($2,622,8261 ($3,267,0t21 ($4,1t3~407) ($5,221,425) Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan General Fund Operating Deficit Summary of Actions - Tentative Board Plan 2004 2005 2006 2007 PROJECTED DEFICITS ilncludingl new tnitiatives and planned cuts) ($t,994,7t0] ($2,622,826] ($3,267,012] ($4,1t3.407) Revenue Enhancements Capture of existing revenues Food and Bev Tax - No sunset 10106 (,25%) $0 $0 $43~t12 $17%895 Telecommr Tax - No sunset 10104 (1 .$%) $147~712 $596~760 $602~725 $608~753 Utility Tax - No sunset t0104 (1.3%) $t64/125 $663r065 $669~696 $676~393 Municipal MFr No sunset t0106 ($.01) $0 $0 $40~000 $160~000 Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan General Fund Operating Deficit Summary of Actions - Tentative Board Plan T;~x increases 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Increase Property Tax ~ 2,5% (not4,8%} ($249r448) {$258r179) ($267~15}($276~568'~ ($286A48) HomeRuleSalesTaxlncreaseof0.25% $1~326r000 $1~352,520 $1~379~570 $1r407~162 $1~435,305 RefuseCollecflonLev¥Capture/DirectRefuseB01s $2r333r925 $2~1S,612$215001159 $2r$87p664 $21678~235 ~lllage of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan General Fund Operating Deficit Summary of Actions - Tentative Board Plan User Fee increases ~Decreases) 2004 2005 2006 2007 VehlalaSflckerElimlnatlon ~S1,140,000; 15t,t40,000] 451,t40,0001 45t,140,000; i$1,t40,000; Replace Street Improv. Fund Vehicle Sticker Revenue ($228A00'~ f$228,0001 (S228,0001 $0 $0 TotalRevenueEnhancements $2,354,314 $3,401,771~ $3,600,047 $4,199AgS$4,324,70~ N ET OPERATING SU RPLU S)DEFIClT S359,604 $778,95; $333,035 $05,ag; Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Example of Cost Impact Preliminary Board Proposal - Initial 4.8% Property Tax Increase (sss,000 EAV) $ 21 - Reduction of Property Tax Increase (sss,000 EAV) (10) - Home Rule Sales Tax Increase ¢0.2SO/o ofss,000) 12 - Direct Bill for Refuse Collection (Estimate)178 - Elimination of Vehicle Sticker (Assumes 2 cars) (72) Net Cost to Resident Village of Mount Prospect $129.00/year $10.751month April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan General Fund Operating Deficit Summary of Actions - Finance Commission Plan 2004 2005 2006 2007 2006 CUR~ENTPROJECTEDOPERATINGDEFICrr ($1.919,7101;($2.56t,825) ($3.220,422] ($4,08t.649: ($5A04,633 Capture o~'exisflng revenues Te~ecomm, Tax - No sunset 10/04 (1.$%) $147,713 $566,759 $602,726 $608,753 $614,841 Utility Tax - NO sunset 10/04 (1,3%) $164,125 $663,065 $669,696 $676,393 $683,157 Village of Mount Prospect ~ ~ April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan General Fund Operating Deficit Summary of Actions - Finance Commission Plan Village of Mount Prospect April 2003 Lon.q Range Financial Plan General Fund Operating Deficit Summary of Actions - Finance Commission Plan 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Expenditure (Increases) Reductions : TransfertoCapit~llmprovemenfeFund ($550,~00) ($550,000( ($550,000j ($S50,300) ($550,000) Reduce CIP Transfer - Corridor Imp. $200,00it$0 $0 $0 $0 Reduce Foresby Budget by 10% $141.6t4 $147.957 $154,846 $161,606$168,878 Reduce Overitme by tit% $107.243 $110.907 $114,882 $11it~903 $123.064 Reduce Comrtmnlty & Civi~ Expenses by10% $14.981 $15.430 $15,893 $16,370 $16.861 Total Expenditure Changes ($56,162)($275.586] ($264,879} ($253.12t) ($24t.197) NET OPERATING SURPLUS/DEFICIT $59,391 $265.400 ($277,091} ($790,598) $1.790.423) Village of Mount Prospect ~ 0 April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Example of Cost Impact Finance Commission Proposal - Initial 4.8% Property Tax Increase ($55,000 EAV) $ 21 - Telecom. Tax Increase (~.?so/, on $831mo) 1 8 - Direct Bill for Refuse Collection (Estimate)178 - Elimination of Vehicle Sticker (Assumes 2 cars) (72) Net Cost to Resident $145.001year $12.08/month Village of Mount Prospect ~ I April 2003 Long Range Financial Plan Develop Multi-Year Plan (next 4 months) - Continue to monitor Revenue/Deficit projections - Finance Commission recommendations - Solicit Public Comment - Finalize plan parameters by mid-year (August) - Implement plan as part of 2004 budget Village of Mount Prospect ~ ~ April 2003 MAYOR Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele Skowron kvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 AGENDA MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING LOCATION: Mt. Prospect Park District Community Center 1000 W. Central Road Mount Prospect, IL 60056 I. CALL TO ORDER VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK Velrna W. Lowe Phone: 847/818-5328 Fax: 847/818-5329 TDD: 847/392-6064 MEETING DATE & TIME: Thursday April 24, 2003 7:30 p.m. II. III. VI. ROLLCALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF MARCH 27, 2003 MEETING A. PZ-48-02 / 1850 W. Golf Road / Rezone, Resubdivide & Dev. Code Exception. B. PZ-05-03 / 121 S. Elmhurst Avenue / Knipple Residence / Conditional Use (porch). C. PZ-06-03 / 1800 W. Central Road / RBTC (Skil Bosch) / Variations (signs). OLD BUSINESS A. None NEW BUSINESS A. PZ-08-03 / 312 N. Oak Street / Jorgenson Residence / Variation (side yard setback). NOTE: This case is P& Z Final. B. PZ-09-03 / 404 S. Wille St. / Sulak Residence / Conditional Use (Front porch). NOTE: This case ts Village Board Final. C. PZ-10-03 / 316 N. Elm St. / Spencer Residence / Conditional Use (Front porch). NOTE: This case IS Village Board Final. D. PZ-11-03 / 1909 Bonita Ave. / Millonzi Residence / Variation (side yard setback). NOTE: This case IS P& Z Final. E. PZ-12-03 / 407 S. Carol Lane / Eddington Residence / Variation (double fence). NOTE: This case is P& Z Final. F. PZ-13-03 / VOMP / Text Amendment (lighting regulations). NOTE: This case is Village Board Final. QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS · PZ-48-02 / 1850 W. Golf Rd.: Ist reading by Village Board 4/15; 2nd reading 5/6/03. · PZ-05-03 / 121 S. Elmhurst Ave.: Village Board waived 2~a reading and approved 4/15/03. VII. ADJOURNMENT Any individual who would like to attend this meeting, but because of a disability needs some accommodation to participate, should contact the Community Development Department at 100 S. Emerson, Mount Prospect, IL 60056, 847-392-6000, Ext 5328, TDD #847- 392-6064. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-48-02 PETITIONER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PROPERTY OWNER: PARCEL #: PUBLICATION DATE: REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: INTERESTED PARTIES: Hearing Date: March 27, 2003 Frank Chilelli 3 Watercrest Ct. South Barrington, IL 60010 1850 W. Golf Rd. Frank Chilelli 08-15-200-014 March 12, 2003 Rezone & Resubdivide Property into 3 lots and Development Code Exception Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development John & Jeanette Blunda Adele Bryczek Frank Chilelli Anthony LoBosco Sandy Martin Carol & Michael Wilcox Ray & Camille Swidron Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 27 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The February meeting minutes were approved 6-0. At 7:33, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-48-02, a request to rezone and resubdivide a property into 3 lots in addition to seeking an exception to a Development Code requirement. She said that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, explained that the subject property is located on the north side of Golf Road, east of Meier Road. She said that it contains a single-family residence with related improvements and is zoned RX Single Family Residence. The Subject Property is bordered by the RX disthct to the west and R1 Single Family Residence to the east and north. She noted that the Subject Property is one of the few remaining parcels on Golf Road with an RX zoning classification and that the petitioner proposes to rezone it from RX to RI. The RX district requires a minimum lot size of 17,500 s.f. while the R1 district requires 8,t25 s.f. She said that the petitioner would like to demolish the existing residence and subdivide the property to create a 3-lot subdivision. However, two of the proposed lots would exceed the depth-to-width ratio listed in the Development Code because of the manner in which the surrounding lots were developed, the subject property's large lot size, and the petitioner seeking to meet village codes regulations. Ms. Cormolly explained that the petitioner could have subdivided the subject property to create more than the proposed 3 lots and still meet minimum lot size regulations, but this would have created an irregular design of access to some of the lots and required traveling across another property. She said that the petitioner simplified the design and created larger lots to ensure safe ingress and egress to and from the proposed lots. Two of the homes would front on Golf Road and would share a 20' wide curb-cut per Illinois Department of Transportation requirements. She noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-48-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 design has not been finalized, but a 10' wide driveway on each lot would meet Village requirements. She said that the third lot would front onto and have access from Deborah Lane. Ms. Connolly said the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map designates the subject property as single family residence. The petitioner's proposed Map Amendment and Resubdivision requests are in keeping with the Village's designation. Other departments reviewed the case and the Fire Department noted that the proposed homes and sites would have to be constructed according to Village regulations. In addition, the Engineering Division had no objections to the rezoning and Development Code exception. They found that the plat was prepared in accordance with Village Codes. Ms. Connolly explained that in order to approve the project, the request must meet the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that the proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the subject property. The proposal is consistent with the general development trend and meets the Village's Comprehensive Plan requirements. Although the proposed lot sizes are larger than the adjacent properties, the lot depth will provide a buffer from Golf Road, which is a highly traveled major arterial road. Ms. Connolly reviewed the plat of resubdivision and said that the petitioner seeks to create 3 lots of record by subdividing the subject property. She said that the plat was prepared in accordance with the Development Code requirements, but the petitioner is seeking relief from the Development Code regulations for the lot depth-to-width ratio. The Development Code permits exceptions to Development Code regulations in cases of hardship, "caused by conditions uniquely attributable to the land under consideration, would be imposed upon an applicant by compliance with these regulations and upon a finding that there are alternate feasible means of fulfilling the purpose and spirit of the regulations to protect the public health, safety and welfare...". She said that the request must meet the standards for an exception listed in the Development Code. Ms. Connolly summarized the standards and said that the subject property measures more than one acre in size and exceeds the rmnimum requirements of the RX zoning district. She said that the petitioner has designed the 3-lot subdivision in a manner that exceeds the 2-1/2 to 1 depth-to-width ratio required by the Development Code because of the manner in which the adjacent properties were subdivided, in addition to the Village's policy of requiring direct access onto each lot of record. She noted that the staff report has specific measurements and said that basically Lot 1 is 28' too deep, Lot 2 is 50' too deep, but Lot 3 which fronts onto Deborah Lane meets Code. Ms. Connolly said that the increased lot depth for the properties that front onto Golf Road is a unique circumstance generally not applicable to most properties in the Village. She said that Golf Road is a major zfrterial road with a high traffic volume and that the increased lot depth will allow the petitioner to construct the proposed homes further away from the road, which will help to buffer the vehicle noise. She said that the proposed lot depths would not have a detrimental impact on the public health, safety or general welfare. The increased lot depth would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, or utility provision and it would be in compliance with the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission make a recommendation to the Village Board to approve a Map Amendment, Plat of Resubdivision, and Development Code exception for the property located at 1850 W. Golf Road, Case No. PZ-48-02. The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Frank Chilelli, 3 Watercrest Ct., South Barrington, was sworn in and testified that he was in agreement with the case presentation provided by Ms. Connolly. He briefly described the homes he planned to construct. Ms. Juracek inquired about his construction experience. He replied that he studied architecture and designed and built his home and business but this would be his first subdivision. He said he is not a builder and that he is in the grocery business. He said he has owned the property for a year and is considering building the home on Deborah Lane for himself. Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-48-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 Ms. Juracek pointed out this was a straightforward request for a subdivision with no requests for variations for setbacks, etc. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. Ray Swidron, 808 Kennicott, came for~vard and was sworn in. He stated he has lived in his home, which abuts the northeast corner of the subject property, for five years. He said that he is concerned about water runoff. He presented pictures that showed pooling in the yard and said his backyard is unusable during rainy periods. He said that he installed drain tiles for this problem, but that hasn't resolved the issue. He said that another 50% of housing added to the area would exacerbate the problem. Ms. Juracek asked Mr. Chilelli if the subject property was on septic and whether he planned to connect the ne~v houses to the sewer system. He confirmed that the property is currently on a septic system and said the new homes would be connected to the sewer system. Ms. Juracek asked if that would lessen the water drainage problem. Ms. Connolly clarified that the Development Code does not allow new developments to create additional run-off or flooding issues for adjacent properties. She noted that the adjacent properties would not receive additional water as a result of the new development. Ms. Connolly said she had referred Mr. Swidron to the project engineer before the start of the meeting and encouraged him to contact him about the matter. Mr. Cotten said the driveways and roofs would accelerate the water runoff. Mr. Cotten suggested imposing a condition to improve the runoff situation. Jeanette Blunda, 804 S. Kennicott, was sworn in and said that she and her husband were original owners on Kennicott and can attest to the water problem. She said that they were told originally that a swale would be installed on her property, but that was never done. All the neighbors attempted to alleviate the situation by installing drain tiles. She said that she was concerned that the experienced builder who constructed their homes was unable to deal with the water problem and that the proposed construction would be done by an inexperienced builder. Sandy Martin, 811 S. Deborah Lane, was sworn in. She wanted an explanation of the proposed access to the Deborah Lane home. Mr. Chilelli illustrated the location of the proposed driveway to the side-loading garage using the slide of the site. Ms. Blunda reiterated her concern that a well-qualified builder be contracted for this project. Ms. Juracek informed neighbors that this hearing was for the rezoning and resubdividing of the property and actual construction would need to be permitted, inspected, and meet the Village Codes. Carol Wilcox, 808 Deborah, was s~vorn in and said they were never given a plan to see what would be built. She asked when they ~vould see plans. Ms. Connolly explained that several of the neighbors did come to the Planning office before the P&Z meeting and reviewed the file. Staff provided these neighbors with multiple copies of the application and plans. Ms. Connolly provided Ms. Wilcox with a copy of the staff memo and plans. Ms. Juracek closed the public hearing at 8:12. Merrill Cotten asked Ms. Connolly when the original subdivision had been built. Ms. Connolly said it had been subdivided and built in two phases, beginning in the 1960s through the 1980s. Matt Sledz noted that several valid concerns had been raised and said conditions should be imposed to ensure that the drainage problems be addressed. He also said setbacks should be included in the vote to ensure the houses are set far from Golf Road. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-48-02 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Matt Sledz moved to amend the Map Amendment approval to include the conditions that 1) Village Engineering Staff inspect the site and work with the petitioner to help improve the area's existing drainage problems, and 2) establish a setback of at least 50' for the two proposed lots that front onto Golf Road for the property at 1850 W. Golf Road, Case No. PZ-48-02. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers moved to approve the Map Amendment approval as amended. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers moved to recommend that the Village Board approve the request for a Development Code exception for the property at 1850 W. Golf Road, Case No. PZ-48-02. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Dormelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers moved to recommend that the Village Board approve the Plat of Resubdivision to create 3-lots of record, for the property at 1850 W. Central Road, Case No. PZ-48-02. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek confirmed that this case would go before the Village Board on Wednesday, April 15. At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner H:\GEN\PLANN1NG\Planning & Zoning COM3~?&Z 2003\Minute$\l~Z-48-02 1850 W Golf Rd..doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-05~03 Hearing Date: March 27, 2003 PETITIONER: Brian Knipple PROPERTY ADDRESS: 121 S. Elmhurst Avenue PROPERTY OWNER: Brian Knipple PARCEL #: 08-12-112-021 PUBLICATION DATE: March 12, 2003 REQUEST: Conditional Use approval to construct a porch in the front yard setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Brian and Ann Knipple Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 27 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The February meeting minutes were approved 6-0. At 8:17, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-05-03, a request for Conditional Use approval to construct a porch that would encroach on the front yard setback. She said that the request would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner presented the case. She described the subject property as being located on the east side of Elmhurst Avenue, between Evergreen and Prospect Avenues, and said that it contains a single-family residence with related improvements. The subject property is zoned RA Single Family Residence and is bordered on all sides by the RA district. She said that the existing home on the subject property is currently set back approximately 30-feet from the front lot line, 5-feet from the south lot line and 9.5-feet from the north lot line. The petitioner plans to add on to the existing house and include an unenclosed front porch. She said that the proposed porch would encroach 5' into the required front yard, which requires Conditional Use approval. The existing home and addition comply with zoning regulations and are summarized in the staff report. Ms. Connolly said the standards for Conditional Uses are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. She summarized the standards and said that locating an unenclosed porch 5-feet in the front yard would not adversely affect the character of the surrounding neighborhood, utility provision or public streets and the proposed Conditional Use will be in compliance ;v/th the Village's Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. She said that 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 5-feet into the required front yard for the residence at 121 S. Elmhurst Avenue, Case No. PZ-05-03. She noted that the Village Board's decision is final for this case. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-05-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 Mr. & Mrs. Brian Knipple, 121 S. Elmhurst Ave., were sworn in and testified that they want to put an addition on their home and would like to add a front porch that would encroach into the required setback. Mr. Rogers asked the petitioners if they understood that the porch could never be enclosed. The petitioners said they understood this condition of approval. Ms. Juracek asked i£anyone in the audience had questions. There being none, she closed the public hearing at 8:19. Richard Rogers moved to recommend that the Village Board approve the request for a Conditional Use to construct an unenclosed porch that would encroach 5-feet in the front yard setback at 121 S. Elmhurst Avenue, Case No. PZ-05-03. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Village Board's decision will be final. At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner C:[Documents and Sctting~\KDewis.DOMAIN~cal Settlngs\Temporar7 [ntemet Files\OLK2\PZ-05-03 121 S. Elmhta'st Avenu. doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-06-03 Hearing Date: March 27, 2003 PETITIONER: Glenn Robechini Advertising Products95 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1800 Central Road PROPERTY OWNER: Franklin Partners, LLC PARCEL#: 03-33-300-073 PUBLICATION DATE: March 12, 2003 REQUEST: Variations from the Sign Code MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Joseph Donnelly Leo Floros Richard Rogers Matthew Sledz MEMBERS ABSENT: Keith Youngquist STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: Terry Doyle David Luepke Glenn Robechini Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:31 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 27 meeting, seconded by Merrill Cotten. The February meeting minutes were approved 6-0. At 8:21, after hearing two cases, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-06-03, a request for Variations from the Sign Code. She said that the requests would be P&Z final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case, describing the subject property as the former 3Corn facility located on the north side of Central Road. She said it is an industrial building with related improvements. The property owner has submitted information indicating that the building will be divided internally to accommodate up to five new tenants, including the petitioner. Ms. Connolly said that the petitioner is seeking relief from the Village's Sign Code regulations and noted that the staff memo provides specific details for the requests and the code regulations. She presented a brief overview of the variation requests and said that the request basically consists of allowing two freestanding signs when code allows for one; the proposed second freestanding sign would be 21-feet tall when code allows signs up to 12-feet in height; the existing freestanding sign would be modified so the sign face exceeds the 75 sq.ft, permitted by code; and the wall sign on Central Road would measure over 500 sq. ft. when code permits up to 150 sq.ft. Ms. Connolly said that the Commission must find that the requests meet the standards listed in the Sign Code in order to approve these variations. She summarized the standards listed in the Sign Code and discussed each variation request. She said that the Variation for the 2nd freestanding sign would be in keeping with Sign Code regulations Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-06-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 2 because the subject property has more than 900 linear feet of frontage on Central Road. She said that the proposed second freestanding sign would be located 550-feet to the west of the existing sign and noted that the P&Z recently granted variations to allow two freestanrhng signs for properties that had expansive frontages on major arterial streets. She said that the petitioner's request is similar to previous cases because the site has significant frontage on Central Road. Also, as with the previous cases, the second sign would be used exclusively for a single user. She said that the request was different from previous cases because the site's existing freestanding sign will be modified to include 'BOSCH' but not all of its subsidiary companies, which the proposed second freestanding sign would include. She then presented the request for the height of the 2na freestanding sign. Ms. Connolly explained that the requested height of the proposed second freestanding sign is 2t-feet and the maximum permitted height for any sign in the Village of Mount Prospect is 12-feet. She said that in the past, the Village has granted variations to allow signs up to 15-feet for larger properties such as the Mount Prospect Plaza Sign, which has expansive frontage on multiple streets and is set significantly back from the road. She said that the Petitioner's request is different from previous requests because the 21-foot tall sign is not intended to attract shoppers to the site, but to promote and identify the company. Ms. Connolly said that a taller sign might be appropriate for the site because it would be in keeping with the large scale of the existing building, but the requested 21-foot height is excessive and does not meet the standards for a variation listed in the Sign Code. Ms. Cormolly reviewed the Variation request for the existing freestanding sign. She said that the existing sign structure contains a single sign panel that measures 45 sq.ft, and also includes two architectural panels. To identify both the petitioner and other future tenants, the petitioner is proposing that the sign be modified to include a total of three sign panels. She said that each panel would be 45 sq.ft, and the total sign area would be 135 sq. ft. Two of the proposed panels would identify multiple future tenants, while RBTC, "BOSCH", would have its o~vn panel. She said that the petitioner would have to significantly modify the existing freestanding sign structure in order to meet code requirements, and identify all building tenants. Ms. Connolly said the front elevation on Central Road measures slightly more than 540 linear feet and that the signable area measures 66' x 23'. She said that the petitioner is seeking relief from code regulations that limit the maximum size of a wall sign to 150 sq.ft, and would like to install a sign that measures 506.69 sq.ft. She said that the actual text measures almost 348 square feet, which is less than 23% of the signable area. She explained that the petitioner's request is in keeping with other Variations granted for oversized wall signs that were located on buildings with expansive elevations and were located a significant distance from the road; the building is located almost 300' from Central Road. Ms. Connolly said the staff report lists specific variations granted for wall signs and that the Petitioner's actual text measurement is similar with previous requests. Based on this analysis, Ms. Connolly said that staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission approve the proposed 506.69 sq.ft, wall sign as shown on the Petitioner's exhibit; approve the Variation request for a second freestanding sign for the location shown on the Petitioner's exhibit; deny the Variation request for the proposed height of the freestanding ground sign; and approve the Variation to modify the existing freestanding sign to accommodate all building tenants as shown on the attached exhibit. She said that the Planning & Zoning Commission's decision is final for this case. Richard Rogers said these requests are an affront to everything the Village changed when they adopted the Sign Code in the 1980s. He said that the 21' sign and the wall sign are huge and are exactly what the Board did not want in the Village. He expressed dismay that these signs had been proposed. Glenn Robechini, Advertising Products, 1390 Howard St, Elk Grove, Terry Doyle, Doyle Signs, 232 Interstate, Addison, and David Luepke, Robert Bosch-Corporation, 4300 W. Peterson, Chicago, were sworn in. Mr. Robechini said he was responsible for the design of the signs. He asked the Commission to consider the extreme size of the frontage of the building and said that they tried to incorporate the design of the sign into the design of the building, which was difficult. He said that when viewed from the street, the graphics are not as overwhelming as when they are Planning & Zoning Commission PZ-06-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 3 seen from the parking lot. He said they are attempting to utilize the present sign over the front entrance without having to replace the entire structure. He said the pylon sign size and design is also in harmony with the building and that this location is Robert Bosch's North American headquarters and that brand identity is very important to them. Ms. Juracek agreed that the signs were not so overwhelming when seen in place on the building from the street as when presented as a graphic. She said Bosch's occupying this space was a good use of the existing property. Ms. Juracek asked if they have similar signs at other buildings. Mr. Luepke said the wall and pylon signs were the type of signs used by their company nation-wide. Mr. Rogers said very rarely has the Village allowed a 15' freestanding sign, but this is a request for 2 large signs on the same road. He said one sign of 15' or 2 signs of 12' may be appropriate, but he would not support the 500 sq.ft, wall sign. He said that the square footage of the sign should be reduced substantially. He said that lowering the pylon sign to 12' would offer more recognition from passers-by. Mr. Robechini said they do have an alternate plan for a shorter pylon to bring it down to 15' but he does not think the ~vall signs are too large for the size of the building. Leo Floros stated his objections to the size of the wall sign despite the fact that this is the largest building in Mount Prospect. He said that to allo~v this sign would take the Village back fifteen or twenty years in signage improvement. Matt Sledz said there is a large residential complex across the street from the facility. He asked how late the signs would be lit-up. Mr. Robechini said probably from dusk to da~vn. Mr. Sledz said that would be all the more reason to limit the size of the signs and reduce the wall sign by one-third. Mr. Luebke said it was important to the corporation that all four brands of tools be represented on the sign and reducing the size of the sign would reduce the brand logos to an unrecognizable size. Mr. Robechini asked if an agreement could be made for a smaller pylon sign and reducing the large wall sign to 3-panels. Ms. Juracek asked if anyone in the audience had questions. There being none, she closed the public hearing at 9:10. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow an oversized wall sign for the property at 1800 W. Central Road, Case No. PZ-06-03 with the condition it be reduced to 6-panels, the words Bosch, Skil, Dremel and Vermont-American be reduced proportionately. Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. Joe Donnelly moved to accept the request for a Variation to construct a second freestanding sign for the property at 1800 W. Central Road, Case No. PZ-06-03. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. lanning & Zoning Commission PZ-06-03 Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Page 4 Leo Floros moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow a 21' sign for the property at 1800 W. Central Road, Case No. PZ-06-03. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: None NAYS: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz and Juracek Motion was denied 6-0. P&Z decision is final. Joseph Donnelly moved to approve the request for a Variation to allow a 15' sign for the property at 1800 W. Central Road, Case No. PZ-06-03. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. Richard Rogers moved to approve the request for a Variation to modify the existing freestanding sign to accommodate all of the building tenants as sho~vn on the attached exhibits with the conditions that the base of the sign follows requirements for landscaping and other regulations for freestanding signs for the property at 1800 W. Central Road, Case No. PZ-06-03. Matt Sledz seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Dormelly, Floros, Rogers, Sledz, and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. P&Z decision is final. At 9:12 p.m, Leo Floros made motion to adjourn, seconded by Joe Donnelly. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Barbara Swiatek, Planning Secretary Judy Connolly, Senior Planner H:\GENXPLANNiNGkPIanning & Zoning COMlV~P&Z 2003Wiinutes\PZ-06-03 1800 W Central Rd.do¢ MAYOR Gerald L. Farley TRUSTEES Timothy J. Corcoran Paul Wm. Hoefert Richard M. Lohrstorfer Michaele W~ Skowron Irvana K. Wilks Michael A. Zadel VILLAGE MANAGER Michael E. Janonis VILLAGE CLERK Velma W. Lowe Village of Mount Prospect 100 South Emerson Street Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 Phone:(847)392~000 Fax: (847)818-5336 TDD: (847)392-6064 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FINANCE COMMISSION THE FINANCE COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR APRIL 24, 2003 HAS BEEN CANCELLED AND RESCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY APRIL 10, 2003 AT VILLAGE HALL 100 SOUTH EMERSON STREET 2nd FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM