The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5. NEW BUSINESS 4/6/04 {f MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO: MICHAELE. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: APRIL 2, 2004 SUBJECT: RESTRICTIVE COVENANT - PUBLIC SIDEWALK 1905 EUCLID AVENUE ZLATKA PAVLOVIC - APPLICANT The Development Code requires the Applicant to improve the right-of-way as part of the redevelopment of the Subject Property. However, the existing public sidewalk system does not exist in this immediate area, therefore installing public sidewalk at this time would not be practical. The Village Code has provisions for instances where this type situation arises and allows for the installation of the required improvement at a later date. Attached please find a copy of the Restrictive Covenant where the Applicant agrees to pay for the installation of the required sidewalk when the Village requires such improvement. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their April 6, 2004 meeting. Staff will be present to answer any questions related to this matter. . H:IPLAN\Covenant MEJ Memo (1905 Euclid).doc B ~ vwl 4/1/04 4/2/04 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A RESTRICTIVE COVENANT FOR SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AT 1905 EUCLID AVENUE WHEREAS, applicant, Zlatka Pavlovic, has received approval from appropriate Village of Mount Prospect departments, to construct a new single-family home on the Subject Property, located at 1905 Euclid Avenue; and WHEREAS, Chapter 16 (Development Code) of the Village Code of Mount Prospect requires installation of sidewalks in conjunction with the development of property; and WHEREAS, in certain instances the installation of public improvements, including but not limited to sidewalks, is not feasible at the time of development, however the developer is required to provide those improvements as such time as the Village, Cook County, or Illinois Department of Transportation deems appropriate; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Board of Trustees have determined that the best interests of the Village would be served by having the developer enter into a Restrictive Covenant, a copy of which is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", guaranteeing the installation of specified improvements at such a time as deemed reasonable and proper. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE' The Mayor and Board of Trustees do hereby authorize execution of a Restrictive Covenant, a copy of which Restrictive Covenant is attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as Exhibit "A", for property commonly known as 1905 Euclid Avenue, which Restrictive Covenant guarantees the installation of public improvements in the form of sidewalks at such time as deemed necessary. ~ 1905 Euclid Avenue Page 2/2 SECTION TWO' The Village Clerk is hereby directed to record with the Recorder of Deeds, a fully executed copy of the Agreement being the subject of this Resolution. SECTION THREE' 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 April, 2004. Gerald L. Farley Mayor ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:IGLKOIfliesIWINIRESIRestrict've Gov, 1905 Euclid,Apr04 doc ;;( '" RESTRICTIVE COVENANT BY AND BET'VEEN THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS AND THE OWNER-DEVELOPER OF CERTAIN PROPERTY WITHIN SAID VILLAGE REGARDING COMPLETION OF REQUIRED PUBLIC IMPROVEl\IENTS PERTAINING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SAID PROPERTY 1905 Euclid Avenue WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 15 entitled "Subdivision, Development and Site Improvement Procedures" of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois certain public improvements are required to be constructed and installed by owners and developers of property within the Village, as part of the approval for the development of such property; and WHEREAS, the schedule for accomplishing the construction and installation of such public improvements by the owner-developer of the property under development is often in conflict with other public improvement projects adjacent to or within the vicinity of said property so as to render the accomplishment of such public improvements by the owner-developer to be practically or economically unfeasible until the same can be combined with or scheduled so as to conform with such other public improvements affecting the subject property under development; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois provides that in lieu of a cash escrow, letter of credit or development bond, the owner-developer may execute a restrictive covenant to be recorded and to run with the land as a guarantee that the required public improvements shall be completed with respect to the property under development. NOW, THEREFORE, in accordance with the provisions of the said Chapter 15 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the Undersigned, Owner Developer does hereby covenant with the Village of Mount Prospect, an Illinois municipal corporation, as foJIows: 1. The Undersigned is the Owner and Developer of the following described property within the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, to wit: Lot 15 in Alten's Euclid Avenue Subdivision of that part of the South 133.5 feet of the Northeast Quarter of Section 25, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois. 2. A plan of development of the described property by the Undersigned has been approved by the ViJIage of Mount Prospect, which approval includes the completion of the following public improvements contained in and provided as a part of the plans, to whit: To purchase and install sidewalks according to and as required by ViJIage Code when requested to do so by the Village of Mount Prospect. 3. For a period of twenty (20) years commencing from the date hereof, the Undersigned shall undertake the above stated improvements with sixty (60) days after being so advised by the Village of Mount Prospect to commence such const-ruction and installation work, and shall continue said work without interruption or delay, until the improvements are completed in a satisfactory manner and in accordance with approved plans and specifications pertaining thereto; or pay a proportionate share of the required improvements by other contractors. 4. This Covenant to complete the said public improvements as herein contained shall run with the said property; and for the period of time as set forth herein. Nothing in this Covenant shall in any way prevent the alienation or sale of the subject property or any portion thereof, except that said sale shall be subject to the provisions hereof and to the plan of development pertaining to the property, and the new owner shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. 5. This Covenant shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their successors and assigns in title and interest and the provisions hereof shall be enforceable in a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons seeking to violate the same including an action for injunctive relief, specific performance or to recover damages or other fines and penalties as may be established in such violation, In the event that the owner-developer of the subject property fails to complete the required improvements or pay a proportionate share of the required improvements by other contractors within the specified time periods herein, the value of such improvements shall be entered as a lien against the property due and payable within sixty (60) days after notification to proceed with the improvements. IN \VITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals this 18th day of December, 2003, OWNER-DEVELOPER VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS VILLAGE PRESIDENT ATTEST: Village Clerk ~ MEMORANDUM Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department TO: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER P"bl H~ 4 b 04 FROM: DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: APRIL 2, 2004 SUBJECT: PZ-05-04 - MAP AMENDMENT, CONDITIONAL USE, VARIATION 501-507 CAMP Mc DONALD ROAD DISCOVERY POINT, LLC - APPLICANT The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve Case PZ-05-04, a request for: 1) A Map Amendment to rezone from RX Single-Family Residence to R3 Low-Density Residence; 2) A Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development, and 3) A variation to allow a IS-foot parking setback along a portion of the south lot line, all to allow the development of 501-507 Camp McDonald Road (the "Subject Property") as a 22-unit townhome development. The Planning & Zoning Commission heard the request at their March 25,2004 meeting. The Subject Property is located on the south side of Camp McDonald Road, between Rand and Schoenbeck Roads. The Petitioner is seeking to construct a 22-unit townhome development. In order to develop the site as proposed, the Petitioner is requesting to rezone the site from RX to R3, approval of a Conditional Use to allow the proposed planned unit development, and relief from zoning regulations to allow two (2) guest parking spaces to encroach into a portion of the required rear yard, The Planning & Zoning Commission discussed the Petitioner's request for the proposed townhome development in detail. They discussed the proposed landscape plan and how additional landscaping was needed in several areas of the development. In addition, the President of the Old Orchard Country Club Village (OOCCV) indicated concerns regarding utility connections, storm water detention, and installing a fence along the common property line between the two developments. The Petitioner agreed to increase landscaping throughout the proposed development and to install a fence that matches the existing fence at the Metro Federal Credit Union. It was also agreed that the fence could be eliminated if the OOCCV concluded that the fence was no longer preferred following modifications to the proposed landscape plan. After reviewing the case, the Planning & Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Village Board approve the request for: 1) A Map Amendment to rezone from RX to R3; 2) A Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and 3) A variation to allow a IS-foot parking setback along a portion of the south lot line, subject to the following conditions: 1) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of dedication that dedicates the Camp McDonald Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; PZ-05-04 / 501-507 Camp McDonald Road April 2, 2004 Page 2 2) The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by OCGG Architects, L TD dated March 25, 2004 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. A privacy fence along the west lot line or significantly increased year-round landscaping; c. A privacy fence along the east lot line that matches the existing fence at the Metro Federal Credit Union (this fence may be eliminated if agreed to, in writing, by the Old Orchard Country Club Homeowners Association); d. A privacy fence along the west and south lot lines in locations that do not conflict with access easements; 3) Revise the landscape plan to include significantly more landscaping, especially trees, along the east and south lot lines. 4) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and 5) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, IDOT, MWRD and CCHD. Please forward this memorandum and attachments to the Village Board for their review and consideration at their April 6, 2004 meeting. StaffwiJI be present to answer any questions related to this matter. William J. /jc H:IPLA"'Planning & Zoning COMM\P&Z 2004c'vlEJ Momos\PZ-O5-04 MEJ MEMO (501-507 Cnnp McDonald R~,d TownllOnics).doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & zoI~ÎÑG COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-O5-04 Hearing Date: March 25, 2004 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 501-507 Camp McDonald Road PETITIONER: Walter Wyszynski, Discovery Homes, Inc. (Contract Purchaser) PUBLICATION DATE: March 10,2004 PIN#: 03-28-201-025 IOl5 1021 REQUEST: Rezone to R3 Low-Density Residence; Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and Variation for Rear Yard (Parking) Setback MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Leo Floros Richard Roger Matthew Sledz Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Joseph DonneIly STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: Lorraine & Rich Hagen Nonna Jarmer Ed Madden Larry & Pat Rubens Bruce Smith Dolores Tomaszewski Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2004 meeting and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0, with one abstention by Matt Sledz. At 7:32, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-05-04, a request to rezone to R3 Low-Density Residence; a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and a Variation for a rear yard (parking) setback. She noted that the requests would be Village Board final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, presented the case. The Petitioner is seeking: to rezone the Subject Property from RX Single-Family Residence to R3 Low-Density Residence; approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development; and Variation for rear yard, parking, setback. The Subject Property is located on the south side of Camp McDonald Road, between Rand and Schoenbeck Roads, and is directly west of the existing Old Orchard Country Club townhome development. The site currently contains a landscaping business and a day care center with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, the B3 Community Shopping District to the south, the R1 Single-Family ResidencelPUD District to the east, and a multi-family residential development located within Prospect Heights to the north. The Subject Property was originally located within unincorporated Cook County and developed under County regulations. The Subject Property was annexed into Mount Prospect in 1999 as part of a larger annexation. As part of the larger annexation, all of the properties involved were zoned RX Single-Family Residence, as required Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-05-04 Page 2 by State statute, although existing commercial businesses were in operation at the time of annexation. The Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of aU of the existing structures on the Subject Property and the redevelopment of the site as a 22-unit townhome development. The Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single-Family Residence and the Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R3 Low-Density Residence. The R3 district allows a maximum density of 13.5 dweJIing units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.8 units per acre, which fans below the maximum density permitted within the R3 District. In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. This request is due to the Village's Code requirement that two or more multi- family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved planned unit development. The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development and requires formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. The site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 22-unit townhome development. The development would consist of three 4-unit buildings and five 2-unit buildings located along a two-way private street that loops through the entire site. Each unit would have a separate entrance, two-car garage and two-car driveway, and a patio. The pavement width of the private street is 24-feet, which is consistent with the Village standards, and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The proposed development also includes a 5-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street and 11 guest parking spaces. The elevations indicate that the townhomes will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the private street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of wood siding, brick, and limestone. Also, balconies will be included on the front elevation of some of the units. The proposed site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Camp McDonald Road and have two entry points. The western driveway allows full vehicle access to/from the development and the eastern driveway limits access to a right in/out only to minimizing potential conflicts with nearby Dale Avenue. The Cook County Highway Department has jurisdiction over Camp McDonald Road and will have to approve the proposed entrance/exit configuration. The site plan indicates that a portion of the Subject Property will be dedicated as part of the Camp McDonald Road right-of-way, as is required by the Village's Development Code. In addition, the required right-of-way improvements such as widening the existing street, installing sidewalk, etc. will be completed. The Petitioner's proposal indicates that aJl22 units will contain three bedrooms. The Village Code requires 2 Y2 parking spaces per dwelling unit for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more. The Petitioner's proposal contains a total of 99 parking spaces (consisting of two garage and two driveway parking spaces per unit, plus an additional II guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development). The proposed plan includes some guest parking spaces along the western edge of the development that do not meet the required 25- foot setback requirement. The Petitioner has requested a variation to allow for the proposed 15-foot setback. The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The plan, however, does not include the required parkway trees planted every 40-feet in locations determined by the Village Forester along the Camp McDonald frontage. Typically, this requirement is met at the time of applying for permits. The landscape plan indicates that the proposed town home development will be partially screened from Camp McDonald Road with evergreen trees. Also, the existing landscaping along the eastern edge of the Subject Property will be maintained to help buffer the new development from the neighboring Old Orchard Country Club townhome development. However, a privacy fence may be needed along the west lot line to screen the townhomes from the existing day care facility and nearby commercial uses. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-OS-04 Page 3 The vast majority of the proposed development meets the R3 District's bulk regulations. Due to the Subject Property's unique shape, two of the proposed guest parking spaces encroach into the required rear yard setback. However, the townhomes, patios, and other guest parking spaces meet the required setbacks. It should also be noted that the proposed development complies with the Village Code's requirement that a minimum spacing of thirty feet between multi-family buildings be provided. The standards for a Variation are listed in the Zoning Ordinance and relate to: a hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; lack of desire to increase financial gain; and protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Subject Property is located out of a floodplain and the topography is relatively level. The proposed IS-foot rear yard does not meet the minimum setback regulations. The Petitioner has the option of eliminating two guest parking spaces to then comply with the Village's Regulations. However, the location of the two parking spaces and the amount of the encroachment would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Also, the proposed landscaping minimizes the view for the commercial properties located to the south and west of the Subject Property. The standards for Map Amendments are listed in the Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendment is proposed, the request is evaluated based on: Compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; the compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; the suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. The Subject Property is adjacent to an existing multi-family residential development, abuts a commercial business located in an RX Single Family zoning district, and another commercial business located in the B3 district and has frontage onto a major arterial road. The proposed 22-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with other developments recently approved in Mount Prospect. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Camp McDonald Road. The Subject Property would not be conducive to commercial development due to its limited size and surrounding uses. The proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Variation to permit a IS-foot rear yard to accommodate a Guest Parking Space as indicated on the site plan meets the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve the Variation request to permit a IS-foot rear yard as shown on the site plan and approve the request for a rezoning from RX to R3 and planned unit development for the Subject Property subject to the following: I) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Camp McDonald Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; 2) The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by OCGG Architects, L TD dated March 25, 2004 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. A privacy fence along the west lot line or significantly increased year-round landscaping. 3) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-05-04 Page 4 4) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencIes, including, but not limited to, mOT, MWRD, CCHD. This concludes the Staff report; please note that the Village Board's decision is final for this case, 501-507 Camp McDonald Road, Case No. PZ-05-04. Mr. Rogers asked Ms. Connolly if a fence should be required along the west and east lot lines as well as the south lot line. Ms. Connolly said the south lot line has an existing fence that was installed by Metro Federal Credit Union and that representatives from the adjacent Old Orchard townhomes were present at the meeting and indicated a desire for a fence to be located along the east lot line. Leo Floros asked if the multi-family development to the north is in Prospect Heights and Ms. Connolly said it is. Ms. Juracek asked if the Board had previously approved parking setback variations where there were no visible encroachments to those setbacks. Ms. Connolly said yes. Ms. Juracek asked the petitioner to come forward to present his proposal and address any concerns that may have been expressed by the Commission and public. She said she would swear in all speakers at one time. Walter Wyszynski and his architect were sworn in. Mr. Wyszynski said he spoke to members of the board of the adjoining condominium development and would be putting up fences where desired by those neighbors. The architect spoke at the easel and said they had started the proposed project with 28 townhomes and reduced that number to 22 after consulting with VilJage Staff. He spoke about privacy fences and a proposed easement. They discussed landscaping with the Board and apologized for the absence of the Landscape Architect. They also explained the existence of a cross connection easement that is anticipated to be eliminated after a certain stage of construction of the townhomes; however, if it is not able to be eliminated it will have an adverse effect on a portion of the landscaping. The architect stated that 22 townhomes on a 2.5-acre site was a luxurious development compared to other projects they have done. He showed the elevations of the various townhome configurations and pictures of the materials used. He said the use of wood trim was just an aesthetic choice. Jason Dolan, Dolan Engineering, addressed drainage at the project site. He said it would be necessary for water to drain off the completed site at a slower rate than it does at the present time. He explained the detention and sanitary sewer system for the project. Mr. Floros asked what the price of the townhomes would be and Mr. Wyszynski said they would start at $350,000. Dolores Tomaszewski, President of the Old Orchard Homeowners Association, was sworn in. She complimented the petitioners on their planned development. She said a chain link fence would not be acceptable, that a cedar fence of the same size and type put in by Metro Credit Union would need to be continued. Also, with regard to drainage, she asked if there would be a berm or swale. She asked if there would be a connection to the Old Orchard storm sewer system. Mr. Wyszynski said they would put in a cedar fence. Mr. Dolan said the drainage water would be carried away by a swale on the developer's property. Mr. Dolan described two methods of storm sewers they have planned for the project that do not include connecting to the Old Orchard sewer system. Michael Jacobs suggested that a specific condition be included in the Commission's recommendation regarding the extension of the existing fence on the Metro Federal Credit Union property. Ms. Juracek closed the Public Hearing at 8: I 0 Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department CASE SUMMARY - pz- 05-04 LOCATION: 501-507 Camp McDonald Road PETITIONER: Walter Wyszynski, Discovery Homes, Inc. (Contract Purchaser) OWNERS: Thomas Koch and George & Geraldine Podlin PARCEL #8: 03-28-20 1 -0 1 5, 03-28-201-021 & 03-28-201-025 LOT SIZE: 2.5 acres (after Camp McDonald Road right-of-way dedication) ZONING: RX Single-Family Residence LAND USE: Landscape Business and Day Care Center REQUEST: I) Rezone to R3 Low-Density Residence; 2) Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development; and 3) Variation for Rear Yard (Parking) Setback LOCATION MAP 't ~ 0 ::::: ~ ,;i. OJ ~ ~ ;;¡ := ;:¡ ~ -. ...- Villageaound¡ EZa Out c' ViUage " Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM TO: MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ARLENE JURACEK, CHAIRPERSON FROM: JUDY CONNOLLY, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE: MARCH l8, 2004 HEARING DATE: MARCH 25, 2004 SUBJECT: PZ-05-04: REZONE (RX TO RJ), CONDITIONAL USE (PUD) & SETBACK V ARIA TION (PARKING) TO ALLOW A 22-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT 501-507 CAMP MCDONALD ROAD BACKGROUND A public hearing has been scheduled for the March 25, 2004 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting to review the application by Discovery Homes (the "Petitioner"), regarding the properties located at 501-507 Camp McDonald Road (collectively the "Subject Property"). The Petitioner is seeking: I) To rezone the Subject Property from RX Single-Family Residence to R3 Low-Density Residence; 2) Approval of a Conditional Use permit for a Planned Unit Development; and 3) Variation for rear yard (parking) setback. The P&Z Commission hearing was properly noticed in the March 10,2004 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 south side of Camp McDonald Road, between Rand and Schoenbeck Roads, and is directly west of the existing Old Orchard Country Club townhome development. The site currently contains a landscaping business and a day care center with related improvements. The Subject Property is zoned RX Single-Family Residence and is bordered by the RX District to the west, the B3 Community Shopping District (Metro Credit Union) to the south, the Rl Single-Family ResidencelPUD District (Old Orchard Country Club townhomes) to the east, and a multi-family residential development (Brandenberry Park East Condominiums) located within Arlington Heights to the north. The Subject Property was originally located within unincorporated Cook County and developed under the County's regulations. The Subject Property was annexed into Mount Prospect in 1999 as part of a larger annexation (which included other parcels in the triangular shaped area near the intersection of Camp McDonald and Rand Roads). As part of the larger annexation, all of the properties involved were zoned RX Single-Family Residence (as required by State statutes) although existing commercial businesses were in operation at the time of annexation. SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The Petitioner's proposal includes the demolition of all of the existing structures on the Subject Property and the redevelopment of the site as a 22-unit townhome development. The various elements of the proposal, including requested relief from the Village's regulations, are outlined below: PZ-05-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting March 25,2004 Page 3 Rezoning Request - As noted previously, the Subject Property is currently zoned RX Single-Family Residence. The Petitioner is requesting approval to rezone the Subject Property to R3 Low-Density Residence, which allows a maximum density of 13.5 dwelling units per acre for multi-family developments. The Petitioner's proposal includes a density of 8.8 units per acre (22 units/2.5acres), which falls below the maximum density permitted within the R3 District. Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development - In addition to the requested rezoning, the Petitioner is also requesting approval of a Conditional Use for a Planned Unit Development. This request is due to the Village Code's requirement that two or more multi-family residential buildings may be located on the same zoning lot only as part of an approved planned unit development (PUD). The PUD process also allows for unified zoning control over the entire development, thus requiring formal Village approval if any modifications to the development are proposed in the future. Site Plan - The attached site plan illustrates the proposed layout for the 22-unit townhome development. The development would consist of three 4-unit buildings and five 2-unit buildings located along a two-way private street that loops through the entire site. Each unit would have a separate entrance, two-car garage and two-car driveway, and a patio. The pavement width of the private street is 24-feet (consistent with the Village standards) and allows for 2-way traffic throughout the development. The proposed development also includes a 5-foot wide sidewalk on one side of the street and II guest parking spaces. Building Design - The enclosed elevations indicate that the townhomes will have peaked roofs and each unit will have a front-loading 2-car garage, accessed from the private street. The building materials for the exterior elevations will consist of wood siding, brick, and limestone. Also, balconies will be included on the front elevation of some of the units. Site Access - The proposed site plan indicates that the development will be accessed from Camp McDonald Road and have two entry points. The western driveway allows full vehicle access to/from the development and the eastern driveway limits access to a right in/out only (thus minimizing potential conflicts with nearby Dale Avenue). The Cook County Highway Department (CCHD) has jurisdiction over Camp McDonald Road and will have to approve the proposed entrance/exit configuration. Right-of- W ay Improvements - The site plan indicates that a portion of the Subject Property will be dedicated as part of the Camp McDonald Road right-of-way, as is required by the Village's Development Code. In addition, the required right-of-way improvements (widening the existing street, installing sidewalk, etc.) will be completed. Although Camp McDonald Road is under CCHD jurisdiction, the south half of the street must also be dedicated and improved to Village standards. As noted previously, CCHD approval is required for all right-of-way improvements (including the proposed connections to Camp McDonald Road). Parking - The Petitioner's proposal indicates that all 22 units will contain three bedrooms. The Village Code requires 2 1/2 parking spaces per dwelling unit (for multiple-family dwellings containing 3 bedrooms or more). The Petitioner's proposal contains a total of 99 parking spaces (consisting of two garage and two driveway parkil)g spaces per unit, plus an additional 11 guest parking spaces dispersed throughout the development). The proposed plan includes some guest parking spaces along the western edge ofthe development that do not meet the required 25-foot setback requirement. The Petitioner has requested a variation to allow for the proposed IS-foot setback. Landscape Plan - The Petitioner's landscape plan indicates that a variety of new landscaping materials will be planted throughout the development. The plan, however, does not include the required parkway trees (planted every 40-feet in locations determined by the Village Forester) along the Camp McDonald frontage. Typically, this requirement is met at the time of applying for permits. PZ-05-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting March 25, 2004 Page 4 The landscape plan indicates that the proposed townhome development will be partially screened from Camp McDonald Road with evergreen trees. Also, the existing landscaping along the eastern edge of the Subject Property will be maintained to help buffer the new development from the neighboring Old Orchard Country Club townhome development. However, a privacy fence may be needed along the west lot line to screen the townhomes from the existing day care facility and nearby commercial uses. GENERAL ZONING COMPLIANCE The table on the following page provides zoning district information for the property's proposed zonIng classification and summarizes the proposed setbacks. R3 Low Density Residence District Minimum Requirements Proposed SETBACKS: Front 30' 30' (with improved right-of-way) Interior 10' or 10% of lot width - which ever is less 10' to 15' Rear 25' 15' to 45' DENSITY l3.5/acre 8.8/acre LOT COVERAGE ~O% Maximum 50% The vast majority of the proposed development meets the R3 District's bulk regulations. Due to the Subject Property's unique shape, two of the proposed guest parking spaces encroach into the required rear yard setback. However, the townhomes, patios, and other guest parking spaces meet the required setbacks. It should also be noted that the proposed development complies with the Village Code's requirement that a minimum spacing of thirty feet (30') between multi-family buildings be provided. VARIATION STANDARDS The standards for a Variation are listed in Section 14.203.C.9 of the Village Zoning Ordinance and include seven specific findings that must be made in order to approve a Variation. The following list is a summary of these findings: . A hardship due to the physical surroundings, shape, or topographical conditions of a specific property not generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning district and not created by any person presently having an interest in the property; Lack of desire to increase financial gain; and . . Protection of the public welfare, other property, and neighborhood character. The Subject Property is located out of a floodplain and the topography is relatively level. The proposed IS-foot rear yard does not meet the minimum setback regulations. The Petitioner has the option of eliminating two guest parking spaces to then comply with the Village's Regulations. However, the location of the two parking spaces and the amount of the encroachment would not adversely impact the adjacent properties. Also, the proposed landscaping minimizes the view for the commercial properties located to the south and west of the Subject Property . MAP AMENDMENT STANDARDS The standards for Map Amendments are listed in Section 14.203.D.8.a of the Village Zoning Ordinance. When a Map Amendmènt is proposed, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall make findings based upon the evidence presented to it in each specific case with respect to, but not limited to, the following matters: PZ-05-04 Planning & Zoning Commission meeting March 25, 2004 Page 5 . The compatibility with existing uses and zoning classifications of property within the general area of the property in question; The compatibility of the surrounding property with the permitted uses listed in the proposed zoning classification; . . The suitability of the property in question to the uses permitted under the existing and proposed zoning classifications; and Consistency with the trend of development in the general area of the property in question, and the objectives of the current Comprehensive Plan for the Village. . The Subject Property is adjacent to an existing multi-family residential development, abuts a commercial business located in an RX Single Family zoning district, and another commercial business located in the B3 district and has frontage onto a major arterial road. The proposed 22-unit townhome development, with minor design modifications, would be an appropriate use for the Subject Property and would be consistent with recently approved developments approved in the Village. The proposal meets the standards for a Map Amendment because it is compatible with existing properties within the general area of the Subject Property and provides an adequate transition from Camp McDonald Road. The Subject Property would not be conducive to commercial development due to its limited size and surrounding uses. RECOMMENDATION The proposed rezoning meets the standards for a Map Amendment listed in the Zoning Ordinance. The Variation to permit a 15-foot rear yard to accommodate a Guest Parking Space as indicated on the site meets the standards for a Variation listed in the Zoning Ordinance. Based on these findings, Staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommend that the Village Board approve the Variation request to permit a 15-foot rear yard as shown on the site plan and approve the request to rezone the Subject Property from RX to R3 subject to the following: 1) Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of vacation that dedicates the Camp McDonald Road right-of-way as required by the Development Code; 2) The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by OCGG Architects, L TD dated March 25, 2004 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. A privacy fence along the west lot line or significantly increased year-round landscaping. 3) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and 4) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, IDOT, MWRD, CCHD. The Village Board's decision is final for this case, 501-507 Camp McDonald Road Road, Case No. PZ-05-04. I concur: Wi II ia~~n1AI br:f' Comm un ity Deve topment Ijc H,\PLAN\Pbnning & Zoning COMM'P&Z 20N\Sl3fT MemoIPZ"'5-<'. MEMO (Ca~ McDonaJd To"nhomcs . Discovery PoinJ).doc APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL LOCATION OF PROPERTY DISCOVERY POINTE TO\VNHOMES 501-507 W. CAMJ> MCDONALD, MT. PROSPECT (A PROPOSED 26 TOWNHOME DEVELOP:MENT) DISCOVERY HOMES., INC. 15 N. NORTHWEST HWY. P ARK RIDGE, IL 60068 PH. (847) 530-5300 FX. (847) 823-1517 VILL~.LL\.GE OF l._JuNT PROSPEC'- COrvilvn.T.N1T~{ DEVELOPIvfi-.N""T DE?_~'Q..TMENT - Plar...ning'Dívisíon 100 S. Em="son Street , Moum P:ospec1:. Illinois 600Sá Phone 8':'-,818.5328 F...I..X 8i.l.í.813,5329 i\.pplication for ConditionalUse i\pproval z ç - :...- ..:: ;:..., ;;..-= ~õ 0 ~ '- ~ z~ ;:;š ~ ~ z ,I r- N b 111..a.se l urn er II ~ I P&L - - \ r'e,¡",loom~'1t "Ta.'11"¡4ddr"~s ,'1'-' -Á ,"".. ...,.. '"'. I . DaLe of Submission Hearing Date z Is l¡... 1< ~ 1,1 ~ I~ - (J') - I~ I~ l~ I ,-, II - 11 11 ¡i I Address(es) (Street Number, SITe::!) I 501-507 W.Camp McDonald, Site A.rea (Acres) I !:h'OD"'rT)! ¡orunD' 2. '56' , ~ Á ,-' : R..~ = It :::è.b~cl_.. I! ~ . Q, """'. II From 40 ~ Buiiaing p;e~~~ i Adjacent :"and Uses: ¡: North', \ South 'I E:lS"i: ' I Residç:mtia1.'I" Commercial Resid Ii Ta;< 1.D, Nwnbe" or County Assigned Pin Nwnber(s) I 03-28-201-025 03-.8-201-015 ! ' ' II Legal Description Carmcn addirional shee!s if necessary) i attached I, Ii Ii il ~ Ii Mount Prospect I TO1:a1 Building j§" i~ ~Slœ) IRe"" I' -. I LoT covera~~5(%) I, Side 10' \ Number or"?arKi~g Sç¡ac::s I Side \ 10' 30 ' \ West ' Commercial 01-?R-201-02J ('X ¡'(Ii) i í ~ I, A I I: z II :: ii' :: : ..... ,:1' ~ , , ;: :: ¡ ~ ,~ ,i - -.: ,1 ž; ,I :: - :, - ' ,¡ :::: :1 :-: :j '-' II:':: :i :.. I::: , - ii "lam" ll' - i Teie::none (dav' I . 847-530-5300 W p\L\\:YL \ \ " \'i.J\ X 1 N ,>"-- \ \ r'\'E. t-\ô"r.... II ':Jrpon:¡:¡on ~ Discovery Homes, Inc. i Ii :::: ,-,.."". "cd ,..,,"'- il -..--..-" .--~ Ii 15 N. Northwest Hwy ,. I Tele:::hone (eve:-ling) I 847-530-5300 I Scare I Z~p C;)ae ! ILl 60068 : rev I -" 847-823-1517 \ ?:ge~ I ii Cirv II ~ark Ridge ': Ii ¡¡¡œ~es, in ?ro?e:cy :1 Ii Contract Purchase of Property" I ~ ¡.... , .,.;;, I et:., I' ~ ~ ~é 1 - >- II ,- - ~ Z ~ ~ = Õ : := ;.- I"" - I ë:3 I '.... Ie i::j II II \ Te \ e (day) Ii Name ,( .' ) ¡Ii SEE ATT. _.:lED l...e)ok¡61í$' e '" Co I (TWO SEP ARA TE O\'tNERS) , 1\ Corporation (. -. - .. ! (!)' íH.oK;\$ \J. ""=> CH \.&' c'¡.(¡I)¡ r' ß ) \1 <Y G~oØi6 ~ ú~R..A(,OI~~ D£.:I1oo\ (eI'Hlðr.¿ I I Scree: ).ddress i \ Telephone (,evening) I ¡ :::1::'(: \ I Page:- I i II City \1 ii' Deveioper I N'~rn'" I' L Q, .1,- I I I State I , 7' - ' i .:..1D ',- oo.e I . I Discoverv Homes Tdephone (day) 15 No Nnr~nwP~T Hwy Fax Address Park Ridge, IL ,60068 I I II Attorney 1 I Name I ! P.C. Telephone (day) Wvszvnsk'; & þ,ssociat""s. 15 N. Northwest Hwy Fax I .Address ¡ ì I !I \ Ii 11'1 Z I' Sur/ever 1 N- . I : lame ! ~ I i 'Ii ~ 1 II Adciress ~ ':¡; I a ~ '\ 1 ~,~ II I -- -;:: \'1 E . I 3 ~ i ngweer ì ::, ~ III Name I ~ ~ I \ ,:; t 'Ii!: Address I~:::: I -J I 'I I, d II \11 1\ Arenite!:! I I' N \\111 ame I I Add"" 1\ li\ 'II II :1 ' 'I !\ LJnåsc:J.1Je A,rchitec~ \1 Ii NJ.:7le' TO BE RETAINED 11 II Ii I! Adcre;:s Ii 'i 11 II II \I !i II Park Ridae, IL 60068 847-530-5300 847-823-1517 847-823-1505 RÄ7-823-151' W.C.DOLAND ENGINEERS INC. Te!ephone (day) 1 I h~ I 509 E. Dundee Rd PalaTin~ 11 60074 847-991-5088 847-934-3427 \ Telephone (day) W.C. DOLAND ENGINEERS INC. 509 E. Dundee Rd Fax, I I I ' I ~" (') Ii e:e::mone i cay: , ,- I \ Fax \ I ì \ OCGG ARCHITECTS, LTD. #29f), 853 SANDERS RD NORTHBROOK, IL 60062 I T~:"-.n' on" (,-:~",. 1 ,-._~ ~ , -'-v I' I . .. ¡ :;~ '" ! --.. I i I I Mount Dros;:¡e:: Jepa:-r.mem of ::ommuni,y De'/¡:lopmer:: 100 Semr, Emecson Scree:. Moum ?rospe:: [lliDois ., 847-991-5088 847-934-3427 847-480-2212 847-513-6666 847-480-2212 847-513-6666 0' - " ' C' ?hor:e .J~ ,.;, .;.. F.::: '3,;,-;',3: 3,. Tn" "",,'"7 ~::¡- , II ?roposed CondiLionai USe (as lisl:ed in the zoning disII",ic,) ¡ . - ,-'7")' , P U f\ 1,1 ,~e $, DE-!Vi {A¡ l . ,{J :1 Deo- ';"" ;m '"'e~aï ~h" Bu'ìa'm' cr< ar 0.'\ ~' i ;,,1:1~ - d d ~T -th'" P " 'r~ "'1 ' .' "~,,, . i _,-nu~' '-' - .1 . ~ 1. :;- n .~C.IV.rhS~. opo;:,e an !:'10W ~ ropos~a ,....,se ~Y ee!s ,ne Ar-cac:¡ec. :;:¡ëan,:aras ,C: I Condirionai Use Approval (arcach additional sheets ifnecessarj) , II i, II 'I II - I i '. ~ I ~ ~'I ~ ~ II -, --, I üi E I u <: Developer desires to improve the subject property with 26 l\.lxury townhomes.G.S,~;- ¡;'\\ù..~e& ~\u.",~ 5et A TTACH£6 h"e. , . , e ~l"'\ \ ~11" D ..)G'AI\I~~ ç;, c-' ~Z :-.... - '...I CJ)- ,..i- - .... I r-1 '~ 11 êij ~ ,I C. ..... ]1 - 'i ::.. 0 Ig~ 1::"- I, I ' I I Ham, oWp,~rion !~ II II Addressees) (Streer Number, Street) I 501-507 Camp McDonald 1,1 Sire .-\rea ::Ac:es) !I Property Zoning \ II 2.56 R3 II rS¿tbac:~(S: II From 30' \ Rear 25' II Building 3~e;gÌl! I LOT covera¡; ~~/~ 5 Residences Road Toral Buiiding Sq. Pt. (Sire) 551861.5 \ Sq. rL De'/med ro ?ropose¿ Us I 55,700 \ Side 20' & 10' I Number o~P5arking Spaces I Side 25' & 10' Please note that the application wi1l not be reviewed untn this peIirion has been fully completed and all required plans and athe:" :n~!e:-i: have been satisfactorily submitted to the Planning Division. Incomplete submittals will nor be accepted. It is strongly suggested :;¡~t: petitione:- schedule an appoimrne:1r with the appropriate Viìlage staff so thar materials can be reviewed for accuracy and compleær.ess at' time of submittaL [n consideration orrhe lnÎOrmation comained in this perition as wel! as all supporting documentation, ir is requestd thaI apc:Jrovai 'ce gÍ\ to this request. The applic::mr is ,he owne:- or authorized representative orthe owner orthe property. The peIiEioner and ~.he owne:" oT prope!"!'! gram employees o[,he Village afll/1ount Prospect and their agems permission ro enœ:" on me property during re~onabie r:cr: visual lnspec::ion of the sllDjec: property. ' [ here',ov afflITI1 that a!l information QJ-efidedhe:-ein~ ail materials submitted in association with this aDDiicarion are ::-ue an: accumr~, ro rhe 'J::st oÏ,:ny ~ì~~~ ~ / -~- , ' .. Applicant -<:']:~~~ h ~~ Dare /-/1-09 , ¿/"./ P ~,/ ... [f apoii:::mr LS no: proper:;: ownè:-: /// : [lere:;;: desig-n..ãre the 10plic:an: ,0 act as my age:1[ fa:- the purpose of seeking the V:J.riarion(s) desc:-ioed in ,his :.p::i:::::.rion :nè. associmeci supporLing :na:erial. Prop:::::;; Owne: - - II r::íÞ nil.." t: ~~\~I"i ~ 0...." .... See attached Dare Moum Prosee::: :)eDamne:1t of Community Deveioprnem lOa South ::l11e:son Scree,. ivíounc ?rospe::: Illinois ",^vw, iTIounmrosoec,.org :; Phor.eS~7.3:3.5 F:l~:S':':7,3'S,.: TùC 3.17.3:::.6 RESPONSES TO STANDARDS FOR MAP AMENDMENT APPROVAL 1. The subject property would be very compatible with the surrounding area. The subject properties are now improved with a single family residence, a landscaping business and landscaping equipment storage, and with a ranch home that had long time ago been converted to a child care facility. The adjacent properties are improved with townhomes/duplexes (PUD) to the East, with a bank facility and a fimess/office building to the South and Southwest, a childcare facility to the West, and an apartment/condominium complex to the North. The proposed development would be bounded at least on t\VO sides by multifamily residential developments. The entire area is comprised of many residential developments and office/retail establishments which cater to the residents. 2. The zoning in the area is RX to the Southwest, West, North. Zoning is R-l to the East, and its B-3 to the South. The proposed development which asks for R-3 zoning district would simply build on the continued improvement of the area with residential properties. 3. The subject and adjacent properties currently zoned RX are improved with an assortment of different properties: single family building, lawn care facility, a bank, childcare facility, fitness facility, restaurant, U-Hall rental facility, to townhome/duplèx development. The development of the property under current zoning is very limiting and would not utilize the property to its fullest potential which would benefit the subject property and the adjacent properties. 4. The entire area is already improved with many residential developments and servicing office/retail establishments on the major streets. The proposed development is made off of W. Camp McDonald which is not on a major street and which does not provide a viable commercial setting/development. The proposed development would only extend the residential construction that already exists to the Northwest, North, and East ofthe subject property. Although under current zoning, the development is very assorted, the proposed development would attempt to unify portion of the area as a planned unit development. 5. As noted in paragraph 1 hereof, the proposed development would be a smooth transition from residential to retail and office properties. The property is already adjacent to other residential developments and would fit nicely within the neighborhood. Furthermore, the proposed development would only enhance the viability of the area and the commercial establishments that would service it. 6, Although the current Comprehensive Plan for that portion of Mount Prospect is unknown, it would appear that the proposed development would smoothly fit into the area which is bounded on at least two sides with a planned unit development oftownhomes/duplexes and an apartment/condominium complex. 7. The proposed development would fit into the proposed zoning classification. The proposed area of development is 2.56 acres and would accommodate the development of26 to\mhomes as proposed on the plans. .? 114- q l> . 11. I/,D / r A .DJDÍ tJ /~& L») ,, "-"-"'..-., (}) ------ ) .oU¡"¡¡\?J{,!lhILO~~!~e:~O~'2r::A!;" ,._/ , // / \ ,Y --_..~~~..._--,.. -, Ii J y~? TH L IN!; OF THE: .- A : PÂV~MË'iT I' - T¡' ,r" l' I ~'I ¡', ,7 ' I (jl /' _.. \j Hor<i!: SH':¡IJI.r)~~ i~ i }/" \ 'i'F'<JW¡O IROll PI!"E ~~~ce:w~~ .;.,~~ oJ' Il( I).~:! IlDRTH ANi:) I , 1.4? ë:AS r I' "0<,£ -; J :\' ,EI<Ct 3~'~ !OtIT ¡~ ~ I'"\! 1° !:TONE , , '~VI ~ I"- ~'-'J ¡ ,.: ,~~ I ~u I ~i I ~51 tT; >~ I 0.. I " ¡ "Q8C1! ....., I \, ~I!'I.O""'" ~C..~ -( >£' r'" NORTH EAST iJ4SE:CTION ze~42-11-, ,(,.~ If ;~'9 . .::.: . -.:::..::. ~ / / ,"", A~PHAI. r 0 0 m I'i ""J,J" " ;" , , 'oj I: I. "" r- ~" ~ '_1.'1' GROUND 24,71 '" PARCEL C ~""~",,~,,,""~" I ~ ~ .-",.. ..~.. ' '. ", ". " r øQOO rtlOÇ(- - ",' '" ? I ',',., ....!:! ~ ; ',', .,: ~ ,I ,.."~,,,,"'..,','~51 ~ , ~~ ;..",' .,,' Iii I ~~.<' <::':~:'<>,~'7~~i ,"'" f]24"" ,,',,1 S~OR,~ aRIC~ WI:H, ~A$~,MENT"'", "" ,2:~e, ~ :!:3,83', ~" ',,',',' " O,~2" "." ' I ' , '-., ~ ¡.. N " rei m .... N !:! " 'oð'" "" :: ~ " " " ~ ,4:3,74, I .... 1" :2GA"\ 2,O~ , I I I IRCEL: 8 I: ~ .. " - ..- ,... ~ ! ~ ! u STO 0 0 . ,.-<:1<0£ ~ ..., 0 I "". 'Ie", ", ."",.', Q ~ME PLAY HOUSE'","-,,' q ""-"""""""'.~I .... , , , , " " '. '" I. I I I I- !:TONE !~~ 'MU" I ~ \ ~ J 1r:.:',~ ~",R ue ~ \ r\T-'~~~~E 1~6- ..oeo RE~~IMING 'o/ÂL~ if i ~ . n:uP"Qu( rQ~~-1 I -II'" ; I:P""~ : li~ .,....,,1 I :' ¡ Ii;: : I pu.yc,F!OLJ'IO ';'- ¡ ~:~:5.H~ r;;~s ~, i I ~ - jll \1 ' ¡ \. ~Q~ ,~~£:~~:}:'Z<:~~i ~ ~...~~r ~~~~t L" --',- ."., --,--",-,..._X~ .--- ',' I" 1,:-' ",.,,! ~ pc.,,! 0,1: ""AT ," - ...!..,-v 36_0.~ I :,~. '." ~ :H-""UW: :~r \, i { r.:C"d:~.'-"c:..ct;Q,go¡:""'T"_ð.áEldT 111.69' Ne,,-'\!>.O4"Y /1',.. ! 'o;C~:>,K.LI"':' L""}~I',cUl4o,ItO~"'I"I!:O,Q7"uR"" :1,' I -"., . c.;!! [A~T I~ 0 I as..""T ....,.... A<~,T ,.0"(:1 ; 0:1 I ._~"'I 0 , 0 VI /' ", I \ - -- r 03/11/2004 11;:54 18475' :' Dce;:: I "V:: r';::'i~c //1 --------- u~ ,~ r!?cÝ ~ -- -;¡--~ -- --~~~~~ u¿ - --- ---..~ -----.....""" \7 /~- ~iiØø:ffi~¡;:.w:~ - ~fj{f:w;W% ;:f;}}}j:ß%'Ø>?J: ;J%V --t.i'/ ;:::;;fj{¿;;; .Û--/ L,"JØf'~~ ~ W,;,~,~J~$.,~ 1 .~i#.i,:{,~ ç>;;:;;;~ v/~/¿i iO 1:~;::,-;::;:;:;;':X::/;;;:';;;;;;;~¿ , -, " ¿¿¿;<~1 I//;~ (///I///--//~/>: v//,/ ~ 'I v.'///////////////- II " /////. v-;;;n - 'J ' t,;/,/>;;:///<':::;;»,;,;;~7, '" ", " 7J<:,;/,/;;;,; r/////, . - ofll'I,-;,;'//I/----,'--'-.'-///,/ ,/, " v.;// / /' / " I;/X;:/~:/;';;/);</>'-;"--:;;;' , ~":::/x/~ ~//'; <) ~ I ^ f;;//;;/;;//.--:~~;;;;~ - <) 7 <! 'Í':;:-'?~ 1;';;;;/ <> , ~,~'/:;:,,;/;:-.ø.>~@y.//;- /. ç ,> 1¡_.;>,/,-'; W/Ø W-- ' /.9y,.$ ~/;,:'?/;;//;/ 7"7777' ;;::;'/.;;'; ~,,/:j,;;? ~,--/~' , ,;/:~,;{:;:;;>;;:;:f;)//'/' 1::/.... ;::;:::: C ;;,;:':;>;--,' u;;ø, J..- ó ~;:~;;;;/;;:,>;;;;;;~ ~ ';;;,:( ~/ {¡ " - r'/'r¿/././"/;/>////././//--//./ "/.',';' r// , /',///,,-//./.-;///,;I//., //./" c ç ." /,;/;-~ /,;;;; 0 0 . Y, ;;:;;.;;;;;;.-:.;.x':;:/~//;'/ .. . I ;::-'-//,:i" v.W~ ^ :/ v/////;:;;;-////;/;/,/, /1/ 0 v <1 ////"',, r:;:// \//;:;-;//;/';'/::;;Y,~' '1 ~;,I"';:/,.,,,,;; ¡//// <-,>////////;/1-//'/// ". ' /..//:? '.<-;:.-;.:: '" v " c<{(';7~);j;;///-X;-;/;¿ ~ 0 , : 0 " /:;'<,/: i//'; -' , , /;' '/ ;'-4'{:J' ........ ~:¿"Í///;::////1 ~,~ /;/> '/"////-:///I/,/,/ ~.,J>,/://.-/ ~:;-/;'/;/>::-:' ,',' " ~~,//" ///// ',/.'/< ~/::,::z,~,;~:,;,::Ø,',;; /,//.,'-/,/,I:;:"~~/ '\<¿'~/.~,"',:X"",-;;-:(;;,:;;;.-;;-;;,////7////'" ~ '<';>¿'""',7,/,'-7,,;;,>.;',<',//;',,>,/"">"'/',<,,',>'>,',',:.:'. /;/;:/.'x/,;//;-;;, //./«/j/ V,/;;'I/;;/:-:.;,/;I////.I). Q J""",;//;""""'/////"'//"/" ". r;{~ø, ;-;:-{@?:?;:-;:;(1;: /. /' ' -O;\f},;:~/.-/~d;.::~;;~;j fi ~;;;;;;~~:.:};::?;;;;~;:¿:/:;:: /@,'~--;Z;;¿' //1/:-///:);// ,////", "",///I/I/////~'/;'//¡ -::: ////////1///////"///' ~i;/~/1,/~¿/{«~(¿~,/, ;¿~>/,;; /,-:;,~~:;,',j;// -- '\\;:; /;ççf.:::;,-;¿::ß,}/;;, :';;:,'-::?,>,:;,' , .... r~~;;;r¿ú;:¿;::;;:/,;;;;;;;;:,-;',. ~;;;:>.;; z¿.,;" /. /', );/,///// ':::"'//////////;;//'/'//1. r'////1-----V///«;'/'----/./~;" ~> ,~~~~ ',/.",", . (.. //,«-;-//'l, ;.--;::-;,://.;;,;:.;:////'/>-;::-::-;, í/://' ',' , ,-, " ' .' /;/) '1 Cl '0" :;.;;:;<; " )~?- ;~1 6 ">,," >;;;;&: ,«.XI. ;;;'-/1 ,J [i ¿~:y///,/,< ; , r,---?;--;;'" ~ i;\ l' " ///<'-:' .' ì "1,«/ ;. //, .. 1,(\ ,<> 0) ---/',/>,/;;, LOo- ARE"', 'O~,:2 sr- ¡ \~ ~~" ~ "Y')~é//</",;2f: SR=EN ARE"" 54.6'" s.p I,\,'~, \,_f~" :.!t r,f',~3':, - ;~_~f~~~,;,:,..",~ E3,l.iiLDi~;G c.C~'/Eç:~tJ...SE: ~..~'-', ~ ~ c: ,I," .., ,;;o¡' L 'n:"c"= . I"~ ,.. . - '£'::>:::;'1(...; '::;>¡ -.,;,-;,-",;"~",,~""'-"-':",,, -.'- "-,"::;"'-"';;::::O;""AJ'.::'.-"~/" /'-,",," ""',",/.,',/,"',/,',,/' :;~~~;~ "'AL<S "~, ~- - - ~iJ), ~ ;. :, ýdß/, ~~ii;:~ I..t.P"'¡'; ,=,.,'. '/";:':~,." """,1'" 0'/<: ~,/.",;1(j' < < ":,/,,/,,,;~ RO,""D AREA ¡é488 S,'" ' J 50% c.C'/ER:=D 50% CPë~~ ,',', , ,'" "--> ,,-0; :>:,;:.";' ".--"".',.'...',' ,', ,/,::,'--"-",~;:~- "" '~ ~, """- " ", ',,- ~ " EJ3-11-EJ4 15: 51 RECEIVED FROM:1S475136665 P.Ð2 Page 1 of 1 Janonis, Mike .------ From: Cooney, Bill Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 20048:34 AM To: Janonis, Mike; Clinger, Roberta; Lowe, Velma Subject: FW: 501-507 Camp McDonald (Rezone and PUD Request) ~b. HI ~~ 'fIr. 04 -----Original Message----- From: waldemar wyszynski [mailto:wyszynskilaw@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7: 13 PM To: Cooney, Bill Subject: 501-507 Camp McDonald (Rezone and PUD Request) Dear Mr. Cooney: I am one of the principals at Discovery Homes, lnc, the developer of the proposed 22-unit townhome development at 501-507 W. Camp McDonald. I have been infonned that the next hearing date for the Village Board is set for April 6, 2004. I am requesting that the Village Board waive the second reading requirement and take final action on April 6, 2004. Please ask the board to approve this request. We will be dropping off all the new packets by end of the day on April 1, 2004. Should you have any questions, please call me at 847-530-5300. Thank you for your time, Discovery Homes, Inc. By Waldemar (Walter) Wyszynski ----------------------------------'--'--.--..----.. --'^'------"--------- Do you Yahoo!? Y~hQQJFiJHHIÇ~T~xÇ~nt~r - File online. File on time. 3/31/2004 vwl 4/1/04 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501-507 CAMP MCDONALD ROAD WHEREAS, the Discovery Homes, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner), has filed an application to rezone certain property generally located at 505-507 Camp McDonald Road (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property'), and legally described as follows: Parcel 1: The North 415 feet of the east 223.37 feet of that part lying east and north, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the north 33 feet thereof taken for roadway purposes, in Cook County, IL. Parcel 2: The North 213 feet (as measured on the East & West lines thereof) of the following tract of land: the West 111.69 feet of the east 335.06 feet of that part lying east and north of Rand Road of the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the north 33 feet thereof taken for roadway purposes, in Cook County, IL. Parcel 3: The East 36 feet of the North 208 feet, of the West 96.14 feet of the East 431.20 feet, as measured on the west and north lines thereof, of that part of the west half of the northeast quarter, lying northeasterly of the line of Rand Road, of Section 28, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the north 33 feet thereof taken for roadway purposes, in Cook County, IL. Property Index Numbers: 03-28-201-025 03-28-201-015 03-28-201-021 ; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner has requested the Subject Property be rezoned from R-X (Single Family Residence) to R-3 (Low Density Residence) District; and WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for rezoning being the subject of PZ-05-04, before the Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 25th day of March, 2004, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10th day of March, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and recommendation to approve the request, to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have considered the request being the subject of PZ-05-04 and have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect would be served by granting said request. e 501-507 Camp McDonald Road Page 2/2 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 herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION TWO: The Official Zoning Map of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, as amended, is hereby further amended by reclassifying the property being the subject of this Ordinance from R-X (Single Family Residential) to R-3 (Low Density Residence) District. SECTION THREE: 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 APPROVED this day of April, 2004. Gerald L. Farley Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe Village Clerk H:ICLKOIfilesIWINIORDINANCIREZONE 501-507 CampMcDonald Rd,twnhms,AprO4.doc ý WVL 3/31104 04/1104 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 501-507 CAMP MCDONALD ROAD WHEREAS, the Discovery Homes, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Petitioner") , has filed a petition for a Conditional Use permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development and a Variation with respect to property generally known as 501-507 Camp McDonald Road, (hereinafter referred to as "Subject Property"); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows: Parcel 1: The North 415 feet of the east 223.37 feet of that part lying east and north, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the north 33 feet thereof taken for roadway purposes, in Cook County, IL. Parcel 2: The North 213 feet (as measured on the East & West lines thereof) of the following tract of land: the West 111.69 feet of the east 335.06 feet of that part lying east and north of Rand Road of the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 28, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the north 33 feet thereof taken for roadway purposes, in Cook County, IL. . Parcel 3: The East 36 feet of the North 208 feet, of the West 96.14 feet of the East 431.20 feet, as measured on the west and north lines thereof, of that part of the west half of the northeast quarter, lying northeasterly of the line of Rand Road, of Section 28, Township 42 North, Range 11 East of the Third Principal Meridian, except the north 33 feet thereof taken for roadway purposes, in Cook County, IL. Property Index Numbers: 03-28-201-025 03-28-201-015 03-28-201-021 ; and WHEREAS, the Petitioner desires to develop the Subject Property as a residential Planned Unit Development consisting of twenty-two (22) townhomes; and WHEREAS, the proposal requires relief from the Village's zoning regulations for a Variation to allow a fifteen-foot (15') rear yard setback, less than the twenty-five foot (25') minimum setback required by Village Code; and fð ~ Page 2/3 501~507 Camp McDonald Road WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held on the request for a Conditional Use permit, designated as PZ-05-04, before the Mount Prospect Planning and Zoning Commission on the 25th day of March, 2004, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof having been published in the Mount Prospect Journal & Topics on the 10th day of March, 2004; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission has submitted its findings and positive recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That 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. SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant a Variation, as provided in Section 14.203.C.7 of the Village Code, to allow a fifteen-foot (15') rear yard setback, less than the twenty-five foot (25') minimum setback required by the Mount Prospect Village Code, 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 Conditional Use Permit in the nature of a Planned Unit Development being the subject of this Ordinance is subject to the following conditions: d. Prior to obtaining the first Certificate of Occupancy, the Petitioner must prepare a plat of dedication that dedicates the Camp McDonald Road right-af-way as required by the Development Code; The site is developed in accordance with the elevations and plans prepared by OCGG Architects, L TD dated March 25,2004 but revised to reflect: a. Right-of-way improvements as required by the Development Code; b. A privacy fence along the west lot line or significantly increased year- round landscaping; A privacy fence along the east lot line that matches the existing fence at the Metro Federal Credit Union (this fence may be eliminated if agreed to, in writing, by the Old Orchard Country Club Homeowners Association); A privacy fence along the west and south lot lines in locations that do not conflict with access easements; 1) 2) c. r Page 3/3 501-507 Camp McDonald Road 3) Revise the landscape plan to include significantly more landscaping, especially trees, along the east and south lot lines. 4) The units are constructed according to all Village Codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the installation of sprinklers; and 5) The Petitioner obtains permits from all appropriate agencies, including, but not limited to, IDOT, MWRD, CCHD. SECTION FOUR: That the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby grant approval of a Conditional Use permit, as provided in Section 14.203.F.7 of the Village Code, for a Planned Unit Development for a twenty-two (22) unit town home development, as depicted in the Site Plan prepared by OCGG Architects, L TD, dated March 25, 2004, as revised. 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 APPROVED this day of April, 2004. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk H:ICLKOlfi!esIWINIORDINANCIConUse,PUD,501-507 CampMcDonald Rd,lownhomes.doc Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois ~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MICHAEL JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ":ß Þ. JJ~ +/b(o4 DATE: MARCH 18, 2004 WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASE SUBJECT: PURPOSE: To present for the Board's consideration an ordinance increasing the Village's water and sewer rates. BACKGROUND: Since 1990 the Village has followed the practice of approving moderate annual increases in water and sewer rates, as opposed to implementing large increases periodically. The 2004 Budget includes an anticipated 4% increase in water and sewer rates. The Village enacted water and sewer rate increases of 4.0% in each of the past seven years. DISCUSSION: The following table illustrates the recommended rates as reflected in the proposed ordinance. Current Rate Proposed Rate Percent Inside Villaae Per 1,000 Gallons Per 1,000 Gallons Change Water $3.77 $3.93 4.2% Sewer $0.38 $0.39 2.6% Combined $4.15 $4.32 4.0% Current Rate Proposed Rate Percent Outside Villaae Per 1,000 Gallons Per 1,000 Gallons Change Water $7.54 $7.85 4.1% Sewer $0.38 $0.39 2.6% Combined $7.92 $8.24 4.0% ¡:; Water and Sewer Rate Increase March 18, 2004 Page 2 For Village sewer users not connected to the Village's water system, the monthly charge per dwelling unit would be $3.39, an increase of 4.0% over the current rate of $3.26. If a Mount Prospect household uses 16,000 gallons of water over a two-month period, their bimonthly water and sewer usage fee would be $69.12, an increase of $2.72. No increase is being proposed for the monthly availability charge assessed customers outside of Special Service Area No.5. For most customers, those with a 5/8" water line, the charge will remain at $10. Upon adoption of the ordinance we will place a notice of the pending increase on all water bills issued in April and May. The new rates would take effect for those bills rendered on or after June 1, 2004. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board approve the attached ordinance increasing water and sewer rates effective for bills rendered on or after June 1, 2004. 1/ /. ¡ /" f ¿"""" ,/ '/,.1 ~ It; n / t..,/'t. ,-ç '~'~l- t/ {....c.", DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DOE/ 1:\Water & SewerlBoard Memo - March 2004.doc r ..' ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND WATER AND SEWER RATES SET FORTH IN APPENDIX A, DIVISION II OF THE VILLAGE CODE Passed and approved by the President and Board of Trustees the - day of April, 2004. Published in pamphlet form by authority of the corporate authorities of the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois, the day of April, 2004. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND WATER AND SEWER RATES SET FORTH IN APPENDIX A, DIVISION II OF THE VILLAGE CODE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Section 22.504.2 entitled "Water Rates" of Appendix A, Division II of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended in its entirety; so that hereinafter said Section 22.504.2 of Appendix A, Division II shall be and read as follows: " Sec. 22.504.2 WATER RATES: A. All Village users within the village, having a direct or indirect connection with village water mains or pipes: $3.93 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed or portion thereof. All village users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with village water mains or pipes: $7.85 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed or portion thereof. All village users located outside the boundaries of Special Service Area Number 5 shall pay an additional monthly availability charge based upon the size of the water meter as follows: 5/8 inch meter % inch meter I inch meter 1 Y2 inch meter 2 inch meter 3 inch meter 4 inch meter 6 inch meter 8 inch meter $ 10.00 $ 15.00 $ 27.50 $ 42.50 $ 87.00 $150.00 $250.00 $475.00 $990.00 B. Hook-up charge for water furnished by the truckload: $10.00." SECTION TWO: That Section 22.504.3 entitled "Sewer Rates" of Appendix A, Division II of the Village Code, as amended, is hereby further amended in its entirety; so that hereinafter said Section 22.504.3 of Appendix A, Division II shall be and read as follows: " Sec.22.504.3 SEWER RATES: All village sewer users within the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village sewer and water mains or pipes: $0.39 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed or portion thereof. C. " All village sewer users within the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes and not with the vilJage water mains or pipes: $3.39 per month per dwelling unit. All village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's water and sewer mains or pipes: $0.39 per 1,000 gallons of water consumed or portion thereof. All village sewer users outside the corporate limits of the village having a direct or indirect connection with the village's sewer mains or pipes, but not with village water mains or pipes: $3.39 per month per dwelling unit." SECTION THREE: That the fees set forth in this Ordinance shall be applied to all water and sewer bills rendered on or after June 1, 2004. SECTION FOUR: That 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 APPROVED this day of ,2004. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma W. Lowe, Village Clerk 2 II' ¡, Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: MARCH 18, 2004 FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TO: SUBJECT: TRANSFER OF PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND VOLUME CAP PURPOSE: To present for the Village Board's consideration an ordinance that would reserve and transfer the Village's 2004 private activity bond volume cap to Stern Brothers & Co. DISCUSSION: The Internal Revenue Code allows state and local governments to issue tax-exempt debt for the benefit of certain qualified private development projects. These projects include the acquisition or construction of industrial facilities and apartments for low and moderate-income families. The amount of such private activity debt issued in any given year cannot exceed the equivalent of $80 per resident. The Village's private activity bond volume cap is currently $4,501,200. According to the regulations, any volume cap not used or committed by a municipality by April 30th is automatically transferred to the state government. If a community does not have any specific projects that would qualify for the tax exempt financing, it can cede, or transfer, the volume cap to another community. Over the past several years, it has become common for municipalities to transfer their unused volume cap to other municipalities in exchange for a fee. The fee is actually paid by the ultimate beneficiary of the tax-exempt financing. The amount of the fee paid depends upon the economy and the current interest rate environment. For the past few years, the fee received for the Village's cap has been 2%. The Village of Mount Prospect has ceded its authority to other governments the past four years. We recently received a request from Stern Brothers & Co. to cede our entire 2004 volume cap to them to assist in the financing of an affordable multi-family housing project in Elgin, Illinois. Stern Brothers & Co. is willing to pay to the Village a fee of 1 %, or $45,012.00, upon the closing of the bonds. This is different than in past years where the offer was 2% and payment was made upon passage of the Ordinance. The change 1= 2004 Private Activity Bond Volume Cap. 3/22/2004 ~age 2 , is due to the lack of a significant demand for the öonding authority an-d a backlog of available cap. At this point we have two options. Accept the offer from Stern Brothers & Co. at 1 % or reserve the cap and negotiate the sale of the cap later in the year if a project requiring this type of financing becomes available. The Village has not been approached by any company interested in our volume cap for a project in Mount Prospect. Nor have we been approached by any other investment banker about ceding our 2004 volume cap to them. SUMMARY: The Village has a total of $4,501 ,200 of private activity bond volume cap to use or transfer between now and April 30th. Stern Brothers & Co. has offered to purchase our volume cap to help finance an affordable housing project in Elgin. Stern Brothers has agreed to pay the Village a 1% fee, or $45,012. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board adopt the attached draft ordinance transferring the Village's private activity bond volume cap for 2004 to Stern Brothers & Co. DAVID O. ERB DIRECTOR OF FINANCE DOE/ Attach, 1:\Private Activity Bonds\Memo to Janonis - March 2004,doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE RËSERVING VOLUME CAP IN CONNECTION WITH PRIVATE ACTIVITY BOND ISSUES, AND RELATED MATTERS. WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois (the "Municipality') , is a municipality and a home rule unit of government under Section 6 of Article VII of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois; and WHEREAS, Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code'), provides that the Municipality has volume cap equal to $80.00 per resident of the Municipality in each calendar year, which volume cap may be reserved and allocated to certain tax-exempt private activity bonds; and WHEREAS, the Illinois Private Activity Bond Allocation Act, 30 Illinois Compiled Statutes 1998, 345/1 et seq., as supplemented and amended (the "Act'), provides that a home rule unit of government may transfer its allocation of volume cap to any other home rule unit of government, the State of Illinois or any agency thereof or any non- home rule unit of government; and WHEREAS, it is now deemed necessary and desirable by the Municipality to reserve all of its volume cap allocation for calendar year 2004 to be applied toward the issuance of private activity bonds (the "Bonds'), as provided in this Ordinance, or to be transferred, as permitted by this Ordinance; Now, THEREFORE, Be It Ordained by the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, as follows: SECTION 1. That, pursuant to Section 146 of the Code and the Act, the entire volume cap of the Municipality for calendar year 2004 is hereby reserved by the Municipality, which shall use or transfer such volume cap in such manner as shall be directed by Stern Brothers & Co., without any further action required on the part of the Municipality, and the adoption of this Ordinance shall be deemed to be an alJocation of such volume cap to the issuance of the Bonds or such other bonds; provided, that any such transfer shall be evidenced by a written instrument executed by the Mayor or any other proper officer or employee of the Municipality; provided further, that, upon the closing of the bonds, there shall be paid to the Municipality a fee by the obligor of the bonds of 1.00% of the volume cap so reserved. SECTION 2, That the Municipality shall maintain a written record of this Ordinance in its records during the term that the Bonds or any other such bonds to which such volume cap is allocated remain outstanding. -l- ~ SECTION 3. That the President, the Village Clerk and all other proper officers, officials, agents and employees of the Municipality are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents and certificates as may be necessary to further the purposes and intent of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. That the provisions of this Ordinance are hereby declared to be separable, and if any section, phrase or provision of this Ordinance shall for any reason be declared to be invalid, such declaration shall not affect the remainder of the sections, phrases and provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. That all ordinances, resolutions or orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict, hereby superseded; and that this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its adoption and approval. AYES: NAYES: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of April, 2004. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: [SEAL] Velma W, Lowe, Village Clerk -2- Village of Mount Prospect Community Development Department MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: 'Bb ~" MICHAEL E. ¡AN ONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER L.o r «-10 I.f WILLIAM J. COONEY, DIRECTOR ~. MARCH 31, 2004 . ~~) PZ-41-03: VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE VILLAGE CODE TO: FROM: DATE: BACKGROUND The Planning & Zoning Commission transmits their recommendation to approve case PZ-41-03, a request for various Text Amendments to the Village Code, as described in detail within this report. The Planning & Zoning Commission last heard the request at their February 26, 2004 meeting. The proposed Text Amendments involve the following: .¡' Outdoor Storage on Residential Properties .¡' Home Occupations .¡' Daycare Facilities .¡' Maintenance of Landscaping .¡' Unenclosed Front Porches .¡' Service Walk & Sidewalk Width .¡' Administrative Subdivisions .¡' Flags & Flagpoles .¡' Storage of Commercial Trailers in Residential Zoning Districts .¡' Arbors and Trellises .¡' Attached Garages .¡' Driveway Widths .¡' Permitted Fence Locations .¡' Double Fences .¡' FAR and Related Definitions .¡' Pavement Separation .¡' Conversion of Attached Garages into Living Space .¡' No Trespassing Signs .¡' Compost Pile Locations .¡' Gravel Driveways .¡' Location of Port- A-Pots .¡' Residential Construction Site Fencing As you may recall, prior to review by the Planning & Zoning Commission, Staff forwarded the various items identified above to the Ví1Iage Board to obtain some initial feedback and direction prior to proceeding with the formal amendment process. These items were reviewed by the Board during the September 9, 2003 and December 9,2003 Committee of the Whole meetings (see attached copy of meeting minutes). To assist in your review of the proposed amendments to the Village Code, this memo has been formatted to include the following information for each of the issues identified above: . A summary of each amendment to be considered; . An outline of the Village's current regulations; . Staffs initial recommendations; . The Village Board's initial comments; and . The final recommendations by the Village's Planning & Zoning Commission. Staffwill be present at the April 6th Board meeting to review each issue in detail and answer any questions. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 2 of 20 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS Issue: Outdoor Storaee on Residential Properties - One of the issues that is often at the heart of property maintenance complaints relates to outdoor storage. The accumulation of debris can often upset neighboring property owners; however, items that are viewed as unacceptable can vary greatly from person to person. In an effort to address this issue staff recommends that language be included in the VilJage Code that identifies what specific items can be stored outside on residential properties. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: P&Z Recommendation: None Section 14.311.C. Outdoor Storaee on Residential Properties - Outdoor storage on residential properties is prohibited except for the following: lawn and garden equipment and materials, garbage cans, grills and portabJe fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools, children's play equipment, and other items similar to the above as determined by the Community Development Director. For regulations regarding the storage of commercial vehicles, or recreational vehicles and equipment please refer to Article XXII of this Code. Consensus of the Village Board was to endorse Staff's recommendation to define permissible outdoor storage items on residential properties. The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations regarding Outdoor Storage on Residential Properties and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Issue: Home Occupations - The Village Code currently contains regulations with regards to Home Occupations. These existing regulations are intended to minimize the potential impacts that a Home Occupation could have on surrounding properties. A strict reading of the current regulations would indicate that employees, other than family members residing at the home, are not allowed to report to the home to work in the home. What Staff is starting to find is that some home occupations have employees reporting to the home and then being sent off to work at another location, thus not officially working "in the home". Although staff believes that the current regulations were intended to prohibit this type of activity, the actual wording is somewhat vague and has led to some debate between Staff and residents. It should be noted that in trying to create regulations that wiJI successfuHy address the issues outlined above, Staff is also trying to craft language that could not be interpreted as prohibiting carpooling activities. Based on these various issues the following amendments to the Village's Home Occupation regulations are recommended. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: 14.307: HOME OCCUPATIONS - Standard E: No person shaH be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit, and no employees other than persons residing on the premises shall report to work at or near the premises. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that no nonresident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and to minimize the traffic generated by the home occupation. 14.307: HOME OCCUPATIONS - Standard E: No person shaH be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit, and no employees other than persons residing on the premises shaH report to work at or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or to be dispatched to work at another location. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that no nonresident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 3 of 20 to minimize the traffic generated by the home occupation. No routine attendance of employees associated with any home occupation shall be allowed at the premises of the home occupation. "Routine Attendance" shall mean that the conduct of the home occupation requires non-domiciled persons to visit the premises of the home occupation as part of the regular conduct of the occupation, without regard to the number, frequency or duration of such visits. Board Comments: The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommendation to include additional language within Standard E of the Village's Home Occupation regulations. P&Z Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding Home Occupations and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Issue: Day Care Facilities - In reviewing the Village Code's current regulations regarding day care facilities there are some inconsistencies with the terms and definitions used. These inconsistencies have created some issues in reviewing and enforcing the Village's current regulations. The Village Code currently allows "Limited Daycare" facilities to operate within the Village's various residential zoning districts. These facilities are limited to a maximum of 8 children per household (including the family's natural and adopted children as well as all other persons under the age of 12). The Village Code also includes "Daycare Homes" as a conditional use in the residential districts; however, the term "Daycare Home" is not defined within the code. Staff s interpretation would be that "Daycare Homes" would refer to an in-home daycare facility that would provide service to more than 8 children. In reviewing the State's current regulations with regards to in home daycare facilities, a single employee can provide daycare services to a maximum of 8 children. A facility serving more than 8 children would then be required to provide additional staff. When considering larger in-home daycare facilities within the Village's residential districts, Staff believes that daycare facilities serving more than 8 children could negatively impact a residential neighborhood's character due to increased traffic and related activities. In addition, a facility with more than 8 children is required to provide additional staff which could be in direct conflict with the Village's Home Occupation regulations that prohibit employees (other than family members) to report to a home in conjunction with a home occupation. Due to these circumstances Staff suggests the existing regulations be modified to allow in-home daycare facil ities (Limited Daycare), serving no more than 8 children, as a permitted use and eliminate the allowance for larger in-home daycare facilities in residential districts. Existing Regulations: Section 14.2401 - Definitions DA YCARE CENTER: A building where care, protection, and supervision are provided on a regular schedule at least twice a week to at least eight (8) preschool or elementary school age children or both, including children of the adult provider, or persons with disabilities related to age who require supervision for a period ofless than twenty-four (24) hours per day. DA YCARE, LIMITED RESIDENTIAL: A daycare home is a family home which receives a maximum of eight (8) children for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of children is charged. The maximum of eight (8) children includes the family's natural or adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12). The term does not include facilities which receive only children from a single household. Daycare homes should meet all applicable Village and State requirements. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 4 of 20 Staff Recommendation: Section 14.2401 - Definitions: LIMITED DA YCARE DA YCARE, LIMITED RESIDENTL^.L: A Limited Daycare facility is a daycare residential home is a family home which that receives a maximum of eight (8) children for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of children is charged. The maximum of eight (8) children includes the family's natural or adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12). The term does not include facilities which receive only children from a single household. Limited Daycare facilities shall Daycare homes should meet all applicable Village, County and State requirements. In addition to the proposed definitions above, the inclusion of "Daycare Homes" as Conditional Uses in the R-X, R-l, R-A, R-2 and R-3 Districts will be eliminated (the term "Daycare Home" is not defined within the Code). Board Comments: The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding amendments to the existing regulations for daycare facilities. P&Z Recommendation: P&Z Commission concurred with Staffs recommendation regarding Limited Daycare facilities, however, they noted that the proposed language would prohibit Daycare Centers in churches or other non-residential buildings if they were located within a residential zoning district. To address this issue the P&Z Commission recommended the following modification to the definition of Daycare Center: Section 14.240 I - Definitions DA YCARE CENTER: A non-residential building where care, protection, and supervision are provided on a regular schedule at least twice a week to at least eight (8) preschool or elementary school age children or both, including children of the adult provider, or persons with disabilities related to age who require supervision for a period ofless than twenty-four (24) hours per day. In addition to the proposed modification to the definition of Daycare Center, the P&Z Commission recommended that the Conditional Use section of the R-X, R- I, R-A, R-2 and R-3 Districts be amended as follows (these amendments will be consistent with the recommended amendments to the Code's definition section): Sections 14.803.A, 14.903.A, 14.1003.A, 14.1103.A, 14.l203.A: "Daycare Homes" Sections l4.803.A, 14.903.A, 14.1O03.A: "Daycare Center" The P&Z Commission recommended approval' of the amendments regarding Limited Daycare, Daycare Center and Daycare Homes by a vote of 6-0. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 5 of 20 Issue: Landscapin2: - Maintenance vs. Replacement - Within the Zoning Code's landscaping regulations there is specific language regarding thè> maintenance of plantïnaierials. The. existing language included in the Code is somewhat general and does not specifically address the issue of replacement of either dead, dying or diseased landscaping. Staff recommends that the code be amended to include specific language that would require the replacement of any landscaping to be consistent with the originally approved plan, if one exists, or in similar kind to the landscaping material being removed (this would not apply to single-family homes). The intent is to require the ongoing maintenance of landscaping throughout the Village, while specifically prohibiting the removal of landscaping materials under the guise of maintenance. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: BOaTtl Comments: P&Z Recommendation: Section I4.2304:D. Maintenance of Plant Materials - The owner of the premises shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of an landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse disposal areas, walls, fences, etc. as may be required by the provisions of this Article A. A means of irrigating plant material shall be provided. Installation of an automatic underground sprinkling system is recommended. Section 14.2304:0. Maintenance of Plant Materials - The owner of the premises shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse disposal areas, walls, fences, etc. as may be required by the provisions of this article the Village. When any existing landscaping materials are removed they must be replaced in similar kind and quantity. A means of irrigating plant material shall be provided. Installation of an automatic underground sprinkling system is recommended. (Note: This amendment would not apply to single-family residential properties.) The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation. The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding landscaping and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Issue: Unenclosed Front Porches - As you may recall, the Village Code currently allows unenclosed front porches to encroach up to five feet into a required front yard. This encroachment, however, requires review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and approval by the Board of Trustees. In reviewing the recent history of conditional use applications for unenclosed front porches, Staff has found that each application during the past two years has been approved (all with unanimous approval by both the Planning & Zoning Commission as well as the Board of Trustees). In light of these statistics it has been recommended that the Conditional Use approval process for front porches be revised to require P&Z review and approval only. This revised approach will still allow for a formal review procedure, but will reduce the amount of time needed to complete the process for the Applicant. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Unenclosed porches, encroaching no more than five feet into the required front setbacks, are allowed as a Conditional Use in theR-X, R-1, R-A, R-2, R-3 and R- 4 Districts. Create the following Code section that would grant the Planning & Zoning Commission final administrative authority when reviewing Conditional Use requests for unenclosed front porches: Section 14.202.B.4. - To hear and decide as final administrative authority, all Conditional Use petitions to allow the construction of an attached unenclosed front porch encroaching up to five feet (5') into the required PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6,2004 Page 6 of 20 Board Comments: P&Z Recommendation: front setback, with respect to single-family residences with an approved certificate of occupancy that was issued prior to May 18, 1999. The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommendation to allow the Planning & Zoning Commission final administrative authority for Conditional Use requests for unenclosed front porches. The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding the review process for Conditional Use petitions to allow attached unenclosed front porches and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Issue: Service Walk/Sidewalk Width Limitations - The Village Code contains existing limitations with regards to the permitted width of service walks/sidewalks that may be located within required front, side and rear yards. In reviewing recent permit applications Staff has found that homes on corner lots are often oriented (garage, front door/porch) toward the lot's exterior side yard rather than the front yard. The existing regulations, however, only allow a larger sidewalk, step or handicap ramp width within the required front yard. It is Staff's recommendation that the existing regulations be amended to allow sidewalks, service walks, steps and handicap ramps with a maximum width of 5 feet to encroach into the required front and exterior side yards. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: P&Z Recommendation: Section 14.306.EA - Service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps up to five feet (5') in width may encroach in the required front yard; service walks, sidewalks, and steps up to three feet (3') in width may encroach in the required side and rear yards. Section 14.306.EA - Service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps up to five feet (5') in width may encroach in the required front and exterior side yards; service walks, sidewalks, and steps up to three feet (3') in width may encroach in the required interior side and rear yards. This specific issue was not previously reviewed by the Village Board. The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations regarding modifications to the regulations regarding service walk, sidewalk and handicap ramp encroachments into required yards by a vote of 6-0. Issue: Administrative Subdivisions - Staff occasionally encounters properties that may appear as a single lot, but in actuality they consist of two or more parcels. When reviewing any type of development proposal for these properties, including building additions, decks garages, etc., it is often difficult for staff to apply the required setbacks due to the property's configuration. Due to these circumstances Staff has traditionally required that the property owner apply for a Plat of Consolidation that would create a single lot of record from the existing multiple lots. The Plat of Consolidation process; however, currently requires review and recommendation by the Planning & Zoning Commission and final approval by the Board of Trustees. This review and approval process can often create delays and additional expenses for the property owner. As a result Staff is suggesting that the ViJlage's Development Code be amended to allow administrative subdivisions under specific circumstances. This process would still require the preparation and recordation of a Plat of Consolidation, but, under certain circumstances, would eliminate the need for review by the P&Z Commission and approval by the Board. The existing regulations and proposed amendments are outlined below: ExistÎ1tg Regulations: Preliminary Plat/Final Plat approvals require review and recommendation by the Village's Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by the Board of Trustees. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 7 of 20 Staff Recommendation: Development Code - Section 16.202: Definitions: Administrative Subdivision - A subdivision that may be approved by the Director of Community Development and does not require a public meeting before the Planning & Zoning Commission or approval by the Board of Trustees. Create the following section: Section 16.308: Administrative Subdivision - An Administrative Subdivision shall be permitted in the following instances: a. An adjustment of a lot line between two (2) adjoining lots; or b. The consolidation of two (2) or more lots, parcels or tracts of land, either in whole or part, into a single lot of record, when all of the properties are under the same ownership. With respect to the above, an Administrative Subdivision is permissible only if no non-conformities are created with respect to these regulations. Board Comments: The Village Board concurred with Staffs recommended amendments regarding administrative subdivision review. P&Z Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff s recommendations regarding Administrative Subdivisions and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Issue: Flaes & FlaeDoles - The Village Code does not currently restrict the height or number of flagpoles, as well as the number of flags, within any of the single-family or multi-family residential districts. The code specifically excludes flagpoles from the various residential district height limitations (along with chimneys, steeples and radio/television antennas attached to the principal structure). In addition, the Village Code is also silent with regards to flags and flagpoles within other zoning districts. Existing Regulations: R-X, R-l, R-A, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts - Height Limitations, Exceptions: The following shall be excluded from the Zoning District's height limitations: a) Chimneys; b) Flagpoles; c) Steeples; and d) Radio and television antennas attached to the principal structures. Other Zoning Districts: No existing regulations Staff Recommendation: Sign Code - Section 7.205:E. Flags: Residential Districts: A maximum of one flagpole, which shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, shall be permitted per zoning lot. No more than two (2) flags shall be displayed qn a single-family property at one time, and each flag shall not exceed a maximum size of three (3) feet by five (5) feet. Non-Residential Districts: A maximum of three (3) flagpoles, with no more than two (2) flags on a pole, shall be permitted per zoning lot. The maximum PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 8 of 20 height permitted for the flagpole shall not exceed the District's height limitations for pril1cipal structures. For flags flown from a flagpole, such flagpole shall be a minimum of four (4) times the length of the flag. In addition to the limitations outlined above, the following restrictions would apply to flags and flag poles within all zoning districts: ]) Location: Flagpoles or flag supports shall not be located within a required interior side yard. A flagpole or flag support shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet (5') from any property line. Flags and flagpoles shall be located in such a manner that no portion of the flag will project over any property line or contact any other structure when fully extended. Roof mounted flagpoles or flag supports are prohibited. 2) Display of flags of the United States shall conform to all applicable Federal statutes regarding the use and display of the United States flag. Board Comments: The Board generally concurred with Staff's recommendation, but suggested additional research be done to determine a typical maximum height for residential flagpoles. P&Z Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendations regarding flags and flagpoles and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0. Issue: Commercial Trailers in Residential Districts - As you may be aware, the Village Code currently contains specific regulations regarding the storage of commercial vehicles and trailers within residential zoning districts. Staff is recommending that the Village Code be amended to specifically prohibit the outdoor storage of commercial trailers within any of the Village's residential zoning districts. To help clarify the regulations, Staff is also recommending specific definitions for both Commercial Vehicles and Commercial Trailers. If the proposed amendment were supported, the Village Code would then allow the outdoor storage of no more than one (I) commercial vehicle within a residential zoning district and prohibit the outdoor storage of commercial trailers. Existing Regulations: Section] 4.2208:D.1. Rear: Trailers or other attachments shall be prohibited on the rear of a commercial vehicle when parked in a residential district. Staff Recommendation: Storage Limitations: All commercial trailers parked or stored on a zoning lot in a residential district shall, at all times, be parked in a fully enclosed garage. Section 14.240 I: Definitions: Commercial Trailer - Any trailer, (1) carrying work equipment such as ladders, snowplows, hand or mechanical tools; (2) carrying work machinery on or affixed to the outside of the trailer; (3) containing a refrigeration unit or other motorized compressor; or (4) being used for storage shall be considered commercial trailers. None of the following shall be considered a commercial trailer: (a) a recreation trailer that is not included within the above categories; and (b) Mount Prospect police or fire trailers. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 9 of20 Board Comments: P&Z Recommendation: The Village Board supported amending the Village Code's regulations regarding the storage of commercial trailers in residential districts, but suggested consideration be given to creating restrictions based on the size of the trailer rather than its use. After discussing various potential approaches to this issue the P&Z Commission concurred with Staff s initial recommendation regarding the storage of commercial trailers in residential zoning districts (by a vote of 6-0). In addition, the P&Z Commission also recommended (by a vote of 6-0) that the Village pursue amending the Vi1lage Code's regulations regarding the storage of recreational vehicles in residential districts (including a limit on the amount of time that recreational vehicles, including boats and RVs, could be stored on residential driveways). Issue: Arbors & Trellises - The Village Code does not contain any regulations regarding arbors or trellises. Although the Code does not specifically address this issue, there have been several requests in the past to install various types of arbors/trellises within residential properties. In reviewing these proposals staff is often forced to fall back on the existing fence regulations because no specific regulations for arbors/trellises exist. This approach; however, often does not adequately address the issue given that the Code's maximum fence height is five (5) feet. Most pròposals for arbors/trellis often exceed seven (7) feet in height because the arbor/trellis is incorporated into a gate/entrance feature, thus requiring a minimum clearance of 7 feet. To address this issue staff recommends that Village Code be amended to include specific regulations that allow arbors/trellises, but limits their size and location: Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: P&Z Recommendation: None Section l4.304 D. Regulations for Fences and Walls: l. Height and Location: j. Arbors/Trellises - A maximum of one arbor or trellis, not exceeding eight (8) feet in height or ten (10) feet in width, shall be permitted except in any required front yard. Consensus of the Village Board was for Staff and the Planning & Zoning Commission to review this matter further to determine an appropriate approach. Section 14.304 D. Regulations for Fences and Walls I. Height and Location: j. Arbors/Trellises - Arbors and trellises, not exceeding a height of ten (10) feet, shall be permitted except in any required front yard. Section 14.240 I - Definitions: Arbor/Trellis: A decorative feature, constructed from latticed or patterned materials, that is no more than fifty percent (50%) opaque. The P&Z Commission recommended approval of these amendments regarding arbors/trellises by a vote of 6-0. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6,2004 Page 10 of20 Issue: Attached Gara!!es - The Zoning Code currently contains specific language with regards to attached 3-car garages within the R-X, R-l and R-2 Districts; however, the language is different within the R-A, R-3 and R-4 Districts. Specifically, the Zoning Code lists "Single-Family Dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3- car garage" as a permitted use in the R-X, R-l and R-2 Districts, while only "Single-Family Dwellings" are listed as a permitted use in the R-A, R-3 and R-4 Districts. In reviewing these current regulations one could interpret that the code specifically requires 3-car attached garages in the R-X, R-l and R-2 Districts, while there is no limitation on the size of attached garages in the other residential districts. To address this issue Staff suggests the Code be amended by eliminating the specific reference to the size of attached garages in the R-X, R-l and R-2 Districts and include "Single-Family Dwellings, with or without attached garages" as a permitted use in the R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts. This approach will specifically reference garages as a permitted use in the residential districts, but will not specifically limit the size of garages. It should be noted that the existing regulations regarding the maximum permitted size of detached garages would not be impacted by the amendments suggested above. Existing Regulations: The term "Single-Family Dwellings, including dwellings with an attached 3-car garage" is listed as a permitted use in the R-X, R-l & R-2 Districts and "Single- Family Dwellings" is listed as a permitted use in the R-A, R-3 & R-4 Districts. Staff Recommendation: The R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts will be amended to eliminate all current references to single-family residences as permitted uses and the following use will be listed as a permitted use in each of the Districts: Sections 14.802, 14.902,14.1 l02: "Single family detached d\vellings, including d\yellings with an attached three (3) car garage" "Single-Family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" Sections 14.1002, 14.1202, 14.1302: "Single family detached d\"vcllings" "Single-Family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" Board Comments: The Board supported Staffs recommended modifications to the Village Code, but requested that the P&Z Commission also review the issue of limiting the overall size of an attached garage within the Village's residential zoning districts. P&Z Recommendation: The R-X, R-A, R-l, R-2, R-3 and R-4 Districts will be amended to eliminate all current references to single-family residences as permitted uses and the following use will be listed as a permitted use in each of the Districts: "Single-Family Dwellings, with or without attached garages" The P&Z Commission recommended approval by a vote of 5-1. In addition to the existing language regarding garages, the P&Z Commission also discussed the issue of limiting the size of attached garages within single-family residential districts. Following discussion of this issue (and potential restrictions on the size of attached garages) the Commission determined that the issue of ~ PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 11 of 20 garage size is not as important as the visual impact from the street. To address this issue the P&Z Commission recommends that the following limitation (by a vote of 6-0) be included within the Village Code that would allow no more than a 3-car garage to face the street (including the front and exterior side yards). Limitations Reeardine Attached Garaees In Sinele-Family Residential Districts: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of a single and double door; or c) a triple door. Issue: Driveway Width - The Village Code currently limits the maximum permitted driveway width to 35% of the lot width (there are special exceptions for lots less than 60 feet or greater than 75 feet in width). The code includes an exception for driveways that serve three car garages, allowing a maximum driveway width that would match the width of the garage, but no greater than 32-feet, within IS-feet of the garage's front elevation. The driveway width must then be tapered to a width no greater than the maximum allowable driveway width as would normally be aHowed by Code. This approach is designed to result in driveway widths that are in keeping with the property and do not overly impact the surrounding neighborhood. However, recent trends in home design have seen an increase in both the size (2, 3 and 4 car) and orientation (front, side and rear load garages). With this in mind Staff believes that the following amendments to the Village's driveway width limitations are warranted. Existing Regulations: Sections 14.2215:A.3 and 14.2215:A.3.a - Driveways in the R-X, R-A, R-I and R-2 Districts shall conform to the following requirements: 3. Width: Driveway width shall be determined by the maximum front yard lot coverage of 35% for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shaH be 21 feet. Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shaH have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. a. Width of driveways serving 3-car garages shall be permitted to be up to the same width as the garage, no greater than 32 feet, within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between garage doors plus 2 feet. The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line as set forth hereinabove. Staff Recommendation: Sections 14.2215:A.3 and 14.22l5:A.3.a 3. Width: Driveway width shaH be determined by the maximum front yard lot coverage of limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback line, for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shaH be 21 feet. Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. a. 'Nidth of Driveways serving ~ garages with a width greater than the maximum permitted driveway width in Section 14.2215:A.3.a may shalt be permitted to be up to the same width as the garage, no greater than 32 feet, within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 12 of 20 Board Comments: P&Z Recommendation: width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between the garage doors, plus 2 feet on either side. The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line as set forth hereinabove. General consensus of the Board was to have the garage width regulations correspond with restrictions regarding garage size and try to minimize excess pavement. The P&Z Commission concurred with Staffs recommendations regarding driveway width (by a vote of 6-0), but questioned if the proposed limitations could address all of the potential garage/driveway configurations. Following a brief discussion, the Commission noted that in those instances where the proposed driveway width regulations could not address the specific design of a garage and driveway, the property owner could request relief from the Code. Issue: Permitted Fence Locations - Staff has encountered several issues related to the Village's fence regulations over the past few years. The proposed amendments outlined below are intended to provide some greater flexibility with regards to fence locations, while also trying to maintain the character of the Village's residential neighborhoods. A common point of contention is with the Village's current requirement that fences must be placed along a lot line, providing property owners with little flexibility in regards to the placement of a fence within their yard. In addition, the Code's current fence regulations for corner lots warrant review due to the potential impacts on surrounding properties by allowing fences in exterior side yards even though they may abut the front yard of an adjoining property. Existing Regulations: (see attached diagram) Staff Recommendation: (see attached diagram) Section 14.304:D.l.e - Fences up to five (5) feet in height are permitted in the following locations: (1) Along the interior lot lines, behind the front line of the principal building. (2) On corner lots, placed entirely behind the principal building and setback one- foot from property line along exterior side yard. Section 14.304:D.l.e - Fences up to five (5) feet in height will be permitted as follows, and as shown on exhibit 14.304Dlb in section 14.2501 oftbis chapter: (1) Rear & Interior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in the rear and interior side yards, provided any fence is located behind the front line of the principal building structure. If a fence is not located along a property line then sufficient access must be provided to the area between fence and property line to allow for proper maintenance. (2) Exterior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard, provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal building and setback one-foot from the property line along the exterior side yard. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 13 of 20 Board Comments: Consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation and gather input from the Planning & Zoning Commission. P&Z Recommendation: (see attached diagram) Section 14.304:D.l.e - Fences up to five (5) feet in height will be permitted as follows, and as shown on exhibit l4.304Dlb in section 14.2501 of this chapter: (1) Rear & Interior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in the rear and interior side yards, provided any fence is located behind the front line of the principal building structure. If a fence is not located along a property line then sufficient access must be provided to the area between fence and property line to allow for proper maintenance. (2) Exterior Side Yards - Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard, provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal building and setback one-foot from the property line along the exterior side yard. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staff's recommendation; however, the Commission recommended that fencing not be permitted in the exterior side yard in front of the rear line ofthe principal structure (please refer to attached diagram). In addition to the regulations recommended by Staff, the P&Z Commission also recommended approval of the following restrictions for "Fenceable Area" to prohibit the creation of dog runs. Section 14.304.D.1.d.: Fenceable Area: Under no circumstances shall a fence enclose an area that is less than 50% of the maximum fenceable area of a residentially zoned property. This limitation shall not apply to fencing around swimming pools. The P&Z Commission recommended approval of these two amendments by votes of 6-0 and 4-0 respectively. Issue: Double Fences - The Village Code currently indicates "no more than one fence shall be allowed along a lot line on a zoning lot". Staff has interpreted this language as to permit only one fence along a common (side or rear) property line. The issue created by this limitation/interpretation is that a property owner cannot install a fence along a property line where a fence on the neighboring property already exists (unless the existing fence is removed or a variation granted). The major concern expressed by residents is that they are often forced to live with their neighbor's fence, even if it is in poor condition or of a height or style that they don't like. This current policy promotes a "first come first served" approach to regulating perimeter fences within the Village. The second issue with the existing language is that Staff has interpreted the Code to allow only one fence on a property. In those cases where a property contains an existing perimeter fence, any other fencing within the yard would be prohibited based on the current limitations regarding double fences. In response to these issues Staff suggests that the existing language allowing no more than one fence along a lot line be removed. Existing Regulations: Section 14.304:D.l.d - No more than one fence shall be allowed along a lot line on a zoning lot. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 14 of 20 Staff Recommendation: Eliminate the existing language (Section 14.304:D.l.d) that permits only one fence along a lot line - thus allowing multiple fences along a common property line as well as multiple fences on a single property. Board Comments: Consensus of the Village Board was to allow multiple fences as recommended by Staff. P&Z Recommendation: The Planning & Zoning Commission concurred with Staffs recommendation and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0 to eliminate the existing language within the Village Code that prohibits double fences. Issue: FAR and Related Definitions - The Village of Mount Prospect continues to see a tremendous amount of construction activity related to single-family dwellings (including additions and construction of new single-family homes). The recent trend in development has been to maximize the amount of living space within single-family homes, often pushing the edge on a variety of bulk regulations (including setbacks, height and FAR). As a result we have found some items within the Village Code that should be reviewed to ensure our regulations are resulting in the desired limitations on the size of single-family homes. Existing Regulations: Attic: The space between the ceiling beams of the top story, and the roof rafters, and containing no habitable room. Basement: That portion of a building which is partly or completely below grade. Floor Area Ratio (FAR): Determined by dividing the number of square feet of gross floor area of living space in all buildings on a lot by the square feet of area of that lot. Floor Area (Gross): The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a building, including principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall exclude: A. Areas used for storage of building, mechanical and HV AC equipment; B. Interior parking areas; C. Interior loading docks; and D. Basements and garages in single-family dwellings. Habitable Room: A room designed and intended for use and/or occupied by one or more persons for living, sleeping, eating or cooking; includes kitchens serving dwelling units, but does not include bathrooms, water closet compartments, laundries, pantries, storage rooms or below grade recreation rooms. Height: The vertical distance, measured in feet, from the base grade to the average height of a flat, mansard or gambrel roof or the midpoint of a hip or gable roof. Story: That portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 15 of20 Staff Recommendation: I) Definition of Gross Floor Area: As noted in the definition of Gross Floor Area, garages and basements are specifically excluded when calculating the Gross Floor Area for a single family home. The exclusion of garages can have a noticeable impact on the overall size of a home that is permitted within the Village's single-family residential zoning districts. To help illustrate the impact that excluding garages from the FAR limitations can have on the overall size of a home, Staff has prepared the attached table that compares two different development scenarios. As outlined in the table, Scenario 1 illustrates the potential maximum development of a new home in the R-l District when garages are excluded from the FAR calculation, while Scenario 2 includes the garage area when calculating the total FAR of the house. To address this issue Staffrecommends the following amendments to the existing definition of Gross Floor Area: Floor Area (Gross): The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a building, including principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall exclude: a. Areas used for storage of building, mechanical and HV AC equipment; b. Interior parking areas; c. Interior loading docks; d. Unenclosed porches; and e. Basements and garages in single-family dwellings. 2) Definition of Basement & Related Issues: The Village Code currently defines a basement as "that portion of a building which is partly or completely below grade." This definition does not differentiate between a typical basement that is almost entirely below grade and an "English Basement" which has a substantial portion of its living area above grade. With the specific exclusion of basements from the definition of gross floor area, a home with an English Basement or a split-level home could contain a significant amount of living area that would not be included when calculating FAR. To address this issue Staff recommends the following definition: BASEMENT: That portion of a building having more than half (1/2) of its floor- to-ceiling height below the average level of the adjoining finished grade. 3) Definition of Story & Related Issues: As noted above, the Village's existing definition of story is "that portion of a building included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above." Based on this definition one could argue that a typical 2-story home with an attic could actually be considered a 3-story home. This interpretation would then conflict with the Village Code's existing height limitations and the manner in which they are applied. Another related issue is the recent desire to include living space (such as a rec/play room or finished storage area) within the "attic" of a home. In reviewing these proposals the Village's existing regulations do not specifically address this issue. To address these "story" related issues staff suggests the Board consider the following definitions: STORY: That portion of a building, excluding attics and basements, included between the upper surface of a floor and the upper surface of the floor or roof next above. PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 16 of 20 ATTIC: The space between the ceiling beams of the top story, and the roof rafters, and containing R&-babitable reem area over no more than 50% of the floor area. Board Comments: The Board recognized the need to review these issues in greater detail and requested detailed input from the P&Z Commission. The Board focused primarily on the issues of defining "basement" and whether or not open porches should be included when determining FAR. The Board noted that the definition of FAR (and related terms) where designed to address the massing of a house and that this idea should be considered when reviewing related terms and definitions. P&Z Recommendation: I) Amend Section 14.240 I as follows: Floor Area (Gross): The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a building, including principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall exclude: a. Areas used for storage of building, mechanical and HV AC equipment; b. Interior parking areas; c. Interior loading docks; d. Unenclosed porches; and e. Basements and garages in single-family dwellings. 2) Amend Section 21.50 I as follows: BASEMENT: That portion of a building which is partly or completely below grade having no more than three (3) feet of its floor-to-ceiling height above the average level of the adjoining finished grade. 3) Amend Sections 14.805.D.l, 14.905.D.J, 14.1005.D.l, 14.11O5.D.l, 14.1205.D.l, 14.305.D.J, 14.1304.D.l as follows: Existing Height Regulations: Zoning District: Height Limitations Maximum Height *: Number of Stories: 35 feet or 3 stories - whichever is less 28 feet or 2 stories - whichever is less RX Rl, RA & R-2 R-3: Single-Family Multi-Family 28 feet 35 feet 34 feet or or or 2 stories - whichever is less 3 stories - whichever is less 3 stories - whichever is less R-4 * Note: Maximum height is measured to the mid-point of the roof PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6,2004 Page] 7 of 20 Proposed Height Regulations: Zoning District: RX Rl, RA & R-2 R-3: Single-Family Multi-Family R-4 Height Limitations Maximum Height *: Nun:¡ber of Stories: 35 feet or 3 stories whichever is less 28 feet or 2 stories \vhichever is less 28 feet 35 feet 34 feet or or or 2 stories whichever is less 3 stories "whichever is less 3 stories whichever is less * Note: Maximum height is measured to the mid-point of the roof P&Z Comments: This approach would eliminate the conflicts within the Zoning Code as they relate to applying the regulations for building height and number of stories within the RX, RI, RA, R2, R3 and R4 zoning districts. The P&Z Commission noted that the overall height of the structure is the primary concern, not how the living space within the structure is divided up. This approach would also address the issues related to defining terms such as "story" and "attic". Issue: Pavement Separation - The Village Code contains specific regulations regarding a variety of paved surfaces, including, but not limited to, driveways, patios, stoops and service walks. The issue that often confronts Staff, however, is how to clearly delineate one type of pavement from another when the pavement areas are adjacent to each other. For example, if a driveway serving a detached garage in the rear of a property is located directly adjacent to a patio, it is possible for the patio area to become (either temporarily or permanently) a parking pad seeing that a vehicle could access the patio area directly from the driveway. Another example would be if a homeowner would like to place a small concrete pad along the side of their house as an area to locate their garbage cans. If the proposed pad was to be located directly adjacent to a stoop or service walk, the total paved area may exceed the size limitations for each individual element (service walk, stoop and concrete pad). To address the scenarios outlined above Staff ha~ required a minimum separation of I-foot between paved areas; however, no formal language addressing this issue is included in the Village Code. In response Staff suggested specific language be included in the Village Code to require a minimum I-foot separation between different pavement areas. It should be noted that this separation requirement would not apply to those situations where pavement connections are needed (such as where a service walk would connect to either driveway and/or patio). Existing Regulations: None Staff Recommendation: A minimum separation of I-foot shall be provided between all paved areas (including driveways, patios, service walks, etc.). This requirement shall not apply in those situations where pavement connections are needed to provide pedestrian access from one paved surface to another. Board Comments: Following discussion with Staff regarding this issue, the consensus of the Village Board was to require a minimum separation of 2 feet. P&Z Recommendation: The general consensus of the Commission was that a pavement separation of I or 2 feet would not prevent the potential storage of vehicles on various paved surfaces, thus requiring a specific pavement separation within the Village Code would not be beneficial. Issue: Conversion of Gara!!es Into Livin!! Space - The Village continues to see the occasional proposal to convert an existing attached garage into living space. In reviewing these requests the homeowner is currently not PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 18 of 20 required to remove the garage door, provided all applicable building and health safety regulations are met. For those that choose to maintain the existing garage door it can often result in a poor design and an unattractive exterior appearance. As a result, Staff recommends the Building Code be amended to require removal of the garage door and the use of exterior building materials that are consistent in both material and color with the remaining portion ofthe home's exterior. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: P&Z Recommendation: None. Conversion of Attached Garage to Living Space - For any attached garage that is to be converted into living space, the garage door must be removed and replaced with materials that are consistent in color and material with the exterior of the existing home. The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation. During review of this issue the P&Z Commission referred to their previous recommendation to the Village Board to require the construction of a new garage (either attached or detached) if an existing garage were converted to living space. The Commission noted that their previously recommended approach would address Staffs concerns due to the Code's current restrictions on multiple garages. Additional Amendments to the Villaf!e Code In addition to the various Text Amendments outlined above, Staff has recommended amending other areas of the Village Code. The following amendments did not require review and recommendation by the Village's Planning & Zoning Commission, but were previously forwarded to the Village Board for initial feedback. Issue: No Trespassin!! Si!!ns on Residential Properties - Staff has recently experienced problems with property owners displaying several "No Trespassing" signs on their property. The display of numerous signs can become unsightly and redundant. In response, Staff suggests language be included within the Village's Sign Code that will limit the number of "No Trespassing" signs that can be displayed. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: None Section 7.306: No more than four signs shall be permitted on any single- family residential lot and under no circumstances shall the total sign area exceed six square feet. No more than one sign shall be permitted along each front, rear or side property line. The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation. Issue: Compost Pile Locations - The Village does not currently have any type of regulation with regards to the location of a compost pile on a property. Due to the characteristics of a compost pile, and their potential impacts on adjoining properties, staff suggests the Village adopt regulations that would require a minimum setback of five feet from any side or rear property line. Existing Regulations: None PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - April 6, 2004 Page 19 of 20 Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: Section PM 302.10: When locating a compost pile a minimum setback of five (5) feet must be provided. Compost piles are not permitted within a required front yard. The Village Board concurred with Staff s recommendation. Issue: Gravel Driveways - As you may be aware, there are still a few remaining gravel driveways within the Village. The Code currently requires all driveways and parking areas to be paved; however, several unpaved driveways still exist that were initially constructed prior to the Village's current regulations. Although the Village's Development Code would require that a gravel driveway be paved once it wears out, what is often the case is that property owners will continually maintain a gravel driveway by slowly adding additional gravel over time. It is often difficult for the Village to then prove what gravel was existing and what gravel was new, seeing that both the old and new gravel blend together. To address this issue Staff is recommending that language be included in the Village Code that would require the phasing out of gravel driveways, with a specific date set at which point any existing gravel driveway or parking area would be required to be paved. An initial suggestion would be to establish a compliance date of January I, 2009, at which time all previously existing gravel driveways would have to be paved. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: None Section - of the Development Code: Require that all existing gravel driveways be paved by January 1,2009. The Board generally concurred with Staff s recommendation but suggested that sufficient notification be given to property owners with existing gravel driveways. Issue: Location of Port-a-pots - As with compost piles, the Village does not have any specific regulations with regards to permitted locations for port-a-pots on properties during construction activity. This issue has resulted in several complaints from Village residents when a port-a-pot is located in close proximity to an existing, occupied home within an established neighbor. To address this issue Staff suggests specific requirements be included in the local amendments to prohibit port-a-pots from being located in required side yards and within any right-of- way. Existing Regulations: Staff Recommendation: Board Comments: None Amend the Illinois State Plumbing Code to include the following: Section 890.810.C.ix - Port-a-pots shall not be located within any required side yard or within any right-of-way. The consensus ofthe Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation. Issue: Residential Construction Site Fencine: - Due to the recent trends of large scale development and redevelopment projects within the Village's single family-residential areas there has been concerns raised in regards to access to construction sites. The recently adopted 2000 International Building Code contains specific requirements for fencing of commercial/industrial development sites; however, no specific requirements are included within the single-family construction guidelines. Due to these circumstances Staff is recommending that we include a fencing requirement of a minimum of four (4) feet for all substantial single-family development projects (including new construction, teardowns, and major additions). Existing Regulations: None PZ-41-03: Various Text Amendments Village Board - A pri 1 6, 2004 Page 20 of 20 Staff Recommendation: Amend the 2000 International Residential Code to include the following: Subsection R328 - Construction Site Fencing: A minimum perimeter fencing of five (5) feet in height shall be required for all substantial single-family development projects, including, but not limited to, new construction, teardowns, and major additions. The required fencing shall be maintained until the structure is properly secured. Board Comments: The consensus of the Village Board was to support Staffs recommendation. RECOMMEND A TION As outlined within this memo, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended to the Village Board to approve the various Text Amendments outlined in this report (Case No. PZ-41-03). The Village Board's decision is final for this case. Staff looks forward to reviewing these various issues with the Village Board during the April 6th meeting. In addition to the attached exhibits, Staff will present additional information during the meeting to help clarify the various proposed amendments. I concur: William J irector of Community Development H:/Plan/Planning & Zoning COMM/P&Z 2004/StaffMemos/PZ-41-03 MEJ MEMO (various Text Amendments) ~ ~ :S ~ LIJ C]) ~ c.8 C]) ÇQ . . ~ 0 .~ 00 .~ > .~ ~ ~ r./l C]) > .~ td b 00 .~ ~ .~ S ~ < I . I I . I I I Street ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s: ..... ~ ~ ~ .t: ,.:::: ~ .,..,. ~ .,..,. .;;:0. ,..,. ~ ~ OJ I'j¡ < . . ~ 0 .~ r:J:J .~ ;> .~ ~ ~ ifJ OJ ;> .~ ~ fj r:J:J .~ ~ .~ s ~ < Street ~ Arbors & Trellises ~ Existinf! Ref!ulations: None fJ:!!posed Amendment: Arbors and trellises, not exceeding a height of 10 feet, shall be permitted except in any required front yard. Existing Regulations Fence Regulations for Interior Lots Recommendation: ~ '" .~ ..-. ~C) ~....... ~~ ~cu i co E i') Ct: C) 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ -..;¡ ~ & CU ,. tc: ~ -S -W -~ ~ I:::: -~ -..;¡ ~ ~ ~ e ~ ~ J9 ~ -+-' ¡::: ro ...... () I-; I-; ~ < 0 ¡::: ~ ...... () ""0 IZ! () ;:j U 0 ¡::: ~ ~ II II II ~ ~ .~ ~ ..... ..... C) ~....... ~~ 2'1::: Ct:~ 0 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -5: ~ -~ ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ,~ ~ ....... ¡:: ro . ¡:: () p;. -< g ¡:: ~ ..-< () '"0 IZJ () ;::::$ U 0 ¡:: ~ ~ II 1\ II I Existing Defmition of Basement I - Grade - Basement: That portion of a building which is partly or completely below grade. Proposed Definition of Basement - -. Grade - - -- When" A" is 3 feet or less level is considered a Basement When "A" is greater than 3 feet level is not considered a Basement I FAR: Proposed Definition ~ Proposed Definition: Floor Area (Gross) - The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a building, including principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall exclude: a) Areas used for storage of building, mechanical and HV AC equipment; b) ., c) d) e) Interior loading docks; Unenclosed porches; and Basements and garages in single-family dwellings. FAR Analysis: Excluding Garages VS. Including Garages. Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Zoning District Maximum FAR Lot Area Lot Dimensions Maximum Home Size R-1 R-1 0.5 (excluding garage) 0.5 (including garage) 8,125 sq. ft. 8,125 sq. ft. 65' wide x 125' deep 65' wide x 125' deep 4,062.5 sq. ft. (excluding garage) 4,062.5 sq. ft. (including garage) Drh.eway (26' wide x 30' long) PatiolDeck Front Stoop Rear Stoop Service Walk 780 sq. ft. 175 sq. ft. (10' X 17.5') 40 sq. ft. (5' X 8') 15 sq. ft. (5' X 3') 240 sq. ft. (3' X 80') 1,250 sq. ft. 780 sq. ft. 550 sq. ft. (22' X 25') 40 sq. ft. (5' X 8') 15 sq. ft. (5' X 3') 240 sq. ft. (3' X 80') 1,625 sq. ft. Living Area Garage Paved Areas 4,062.5 sq. ft. 748 sq. ft. 1,250 sq. ft. 3,314.5 sq. ft. 748 sq. ft. 1,625 sq. ft. A.ddress: 1400 W. Lincoln Lot Size: 34,935 square feet Zoning: R-X Maximum FAR = 0.35 Total Area {including garage): 6,188 sq. ft. FAR (including garage): 0.18 Total Area ( excluding garage): 5,176 sq. ft. FAR (excluding garage): 0.15 Address: 409 Helena Zoning: R-1 Lot Size: 9,032 square feet Maximum FAR = 0.5 Total Area (including garage): 5,101 sq. ft. Total Area (excluding garage): 4,540 sq. ft. FAR (including garage): 0.56 FAR (excluding garage): 0.5 Zoning: R-l Lot Size: 10,300 square feet Maximum FAR = 0.5 Address: 420 Larkdale Total Area (including garage): 4,673 sq. ft. Total Area (excluding garage): 4,156 sq. ft. FAR (including garage): 0.45 F A~ (excluding garage): 0.4 Address: 404 S. WaPella Dot Size: 10,750 square feet Zoning: R-A Maximum FAR = 0.5 Total Area (including garage): 4,576 sq. ft. Total Area (excluding garage): 3,789 sq. ft. FAR (including garage): 0.43 FAR (excluding garage): 0.35 Committee of the Whole Meeting Minutes: September 9,2003 & December 9,2003 . (O~-,ff;NurES S£PT. ',200) There was a discussion regarding the impoundment fee and possible safety concerns for street use. There was also discussion regarding the enforcement success in other communities. There was a concern regarding motorized wheelchairs to ensure that such wheelchairs would not be considered illegal for enforcement purposes. Police Chief Eddington stated that he has received 31 calls since April 1, 2003, and feels that there would have been more calls if the response from the Police had been that they do not have the enforcement power to address the complaint calls. He did state that 75% of the calls occurred during rush hour. He stated that if the Village Board desires enforcement of motorized scooters, he would like to have the tools necessary for such enforcement and in order to effectuate enforcement, he is recommending a total ban on public property. John Korn, 301 North William, spoke. He stated that he has previously spoken to the Board regarding safety concerns of the users and feels that there may be additional issues that should be discussed regarding utilization of altering vehicles which are not street legal also in the future. General consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to review and define regulations necessary for the effective enforcement of banning motorized scooters from all public property. Angela Limberopoulos, Des Plaines resident, spoke. She stated that her son, Louis, was struck by a SUV while riding a scooter and died on July 4, 2002. She stated that he was riding his scooter on the evening of July 3. She stated that he would have been at risk whether he was on a scooter or riding a bicycle and banning of scooters does not necessarily make them any easier to see than someone on a bicycle. She would suggest consideration and enforcement of scooter riders wearing reflectors, lights and helmets with prohibition for use after dark. She currently is involved in litigation regarding the driver who struck her son and feels that scooters should not be banned without consideration of the users. ~V. PROPERTY-RELATED CODE AMENDMENTS AND COMPANION ISSUES Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that the majority of the items to be discussed this evening are a direct result of experience in dealing with residents with unique issues or circumstances and staff is seeking. direction from the Village Board to either address the issues or define the intent. Fence Location The permitted location of a fence is from the lot line attached to the house. However, recent issues with residents who do not want to enclose the entire lot and a desire not to place the fence on the lot line have occurred along with corner lot issues where the fence cannot be extended beyond the front of the building. Staff recommendation is to allow fences to be installed in the rear and interior side yards provided the fence is located behind the front line of the principal structure. If the fence is not located along the property line, then sufficient access must be provided to the area between the fence and the property line to allow for proper maintenance. 2 Exterior Side Yard Fences Staff had recommended fences must be installed in the exterior side yard provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal structure. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established by the adjacent lot which ever is less. Mr. Cooney stated that endorsing the staff recommendations would allow flexibility of residents to fence any portion of their lot and not necessarily enclose the lot at the lot line. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Several comments were made regarding the opportunity for flexibility for the residents. There was a concern raised about the appropriate wording to ensure that the flexibility can be understood by the average resident and it was suggested that simple diagrams be included for residents' use during the permitting process. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation as requested and gather input from the Planning and Zoning Commission for further discussion before the Village Board. Permitted Residential Fence Heiqhts Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated that many residents have requested the flexibility to install a six-foot fence versus a five-foot fence and have al§q voic::ê<:l,,§,ome concern regarding the manufacturing limitations of a five-foot fence versus a six-footfênçe. Staff is recommending a maximum fence height of six feet permitted within an interior side yard, exterior side yard and rear yard. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: Three Trustees felt that the existing fence limitation of five feet is adequate while two Trustees felt that the flexibility of residents to have up to six feet was permissible. Consensus of the Village Board was to keep the existing fence height regulations in place at five feet. Double Fences Mr. Cooney stated that the current Village regulations allow only one fence along the lot line and cannot put another fence adjacent to an existing fence. Staff recommendation is to allow multiple fences along the common property line. Mr. Cooney also stated that in many cases, the first person who puts a fence up along the rear property line dictates the type of fence for other adjacent property owners who may want to put a fence up in the future. 3 General comments from Village Board members included the following items: The majority of Board members were supportive of the change to allow double fences, however, it was mentioned that maintenance could become an issue and would require the necessary enforcement. Consensus of the Village Board was to allow multiple fences along the common property line as requested by staff. Doa Runs Mr. Cooney stated that there are no existing regulations and dog runs are prohibited within the Village's current fence regulations. He is recommending appropriate language to allow dog runs to be permitted under specific conditions. He stated that staff is proposing dog runs shall be permitted within single-family residential distr'icts provided they are located entirely behind the principal structure and shall not encroach into the required side or rear yard setbacks. He also is recommending that the dog runs be at least five feet from the property line. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There were concerns raised regarding accumulation of waste and the possible additional issues connected with installation and maintenance of dog runs. Consensus of the Village Board was not to change the existing regulations concerning dog runs, thereby; they remain prohibited under the Village's current fence regulations. Outdoor Storaae on Residential Properties Mr. Cooney stated that it is currently a property maintenance issue that has caused extensive confusion among staff to enforce such regulations because of the varying interpretations of what should and can be stored outdoors. He stated currently there are no regulations defining outdoor storage. He stated staff is recommending outdoor storage on residential property be prohibited except for lawn and garden equipment and materials, grills and portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools and children's play equipment. These outdoor storage regulations shall not apply to vehicles, recreational equipment or recreational vehicle trailers. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that firewood be added as a permitted outdoor storage item. 4 Consensus of the Village Board was to endorse the staff rec()mmendéltion for creation of a definition of permissible outdoor storage items. "No Trespassin~" Si~ns on Residential Properties Mr. Cooney stated there are currently no regulations regulating "No Trespassing" signs on residential properties. Staff is suggesting no more than four signs shall be permitted on any single-family residential lot and under no circumstances shall the total sign area exceed six feet. No more than one sign shall be permitted along each front, rear or side property line. These limitations do not apply political signs or seasonal displays. Consensus of the Village Board was to limit the number of signs per side of the home and compliance of the size of the sign would be consistent with the Sign Code. Home Occupations Mr. Cooney is requesting that the regulations be clarified to address employees reporting to a home for employment purposes. Staff recommendation includes additional language to the existing Ordinance such as, "employees shall not report to the residence or be dispatched from the residence to another location for work purposes." Also, "no routine attendance of employees associated with any home occupation shall be allowed at the premises of the home occupation." "Routine attendance" shall mean that the conduct of the home occupation requires non-domiciled persons to visit the premises of a home occupation as part of the regulation conduct of the occupation without regard to the number, frequency or duration of such visits. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendations with the additional language regarding home occupation use. Day Care Facilities Mr. Cooney stated that the current regulations limit the number of children to eight at a day care center at the home. The State requires that if there are more than eight children, additional staff is necessary. Staff is recommending that the limit be set for eight children which would match the State requirements. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation, however, it was mentioned that there would be a need to address adult day care centers in the near future. 5 Landscaping - Maintenance vs. Replacement Mr. Cooney stated the current language provides that maintenance of plant materials is rather general. It does not specifically address the issue of replacement of either dead or dying or diseased landscaping. Staff recommends the Code be amended to include specific language that would require the replacement of any landscaping to be consistent with the originally approved plan if one exists, or in similar kind, to landscaping material being removed. The intent is to require the ongoing maintenance of landscaping throughout the Village while specifically prohibiting the removal of landscaping materials under the guise of maintenance. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation. Driveway Width The Village Code currently limits the maximum permitted driveway to 35% of the lot width. There are special exceptions for lots less than 60 feet or greater than 75 feet in width however. The Code includes an exception for driveways that serve three- car garages allowing a maximum driveway width that would match the width of the garage no greater than 32 feet within fifteen feet of the garage's front elevation. The driveway width must then be tapered to a width no greater than the maximum allowable driveway width as would normally be allowed by Code. This approach is designed to reduce the driveway width that is in keeping with the property and do not overly impact the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that recent trends in home design have seen an increase in the number of two, three and four-car and orientation of front, side and rear-load garages. With this in mind, staff believes it is necessary to address the driveway width issue to be consistent with the front of the garage and the width at the curb. General consensus of the Village Board was to clarify the definition of a three- car garage with the necessary functionality of such a garage and further develop the language to minimize excess pavement or access to the garage from the street. Attached Garages Staff is recommending elimination of current references to single-family residences as permitted uses with attached or detached garages and consolidate the definition of single-family dwellings with attached or detached garages. This would eliminate the specific reference to the three-car garage. 6 Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation for deletion of the reference specific to a three-car garage. Pavement Separation Mr. Cooney stated there are currently Code regulations defining a paved surface but the regulations do not clearly delineate one pavement type from another where pavement types are adjacent to one another. For example, if a driveway is serving a detached garage at the rear of the property which is located directly adjacent to a patio, it is possible for the patio area to become either temporarily or permanently a parking pad allowing the vehicle access to the patio area directly from the driveway. Staff is recommending a separation of at least 24" between paved areas such as driveways, patios and service walks. Twenty-four inches is consistent with the typical width of a lawnmower so the area can be maintain~d. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the staff recommendation of a separation of at least 24" between driveway pavement and patio surface. Unenclosed Front Porches Mr. Cooney stated that the Village Code currently allows unenclosed front. porches to encroach up to five feet into the required front yard. However, this encroachment requires review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the Board of Trustees. In reviewing the recent history of Conditional Use applications for unenclosed front porches, staff has found that each application during the past two years has been approved, all with unanimous approval by both the Planning and Zoning Commission as well as the Board of Trustees. In light of these statistics, staff is recommending that the Planning and Zoning Commission be final on such structures thereby not requiring the Village Board final approval. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation and allow Planning and Zoning Commission to be final on unenclosed front porches. Compost Pile Locations Mr. Cooney stated there are currently no regulations regarding the location of a compost pile on a property. He is suggesting that the compost pile regulations include a minimum setback Of at least five feet and not permitted within the front yard. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept the staff recommendation of the five-foot setback and the prohibition in the front yard. 7 Gravel Driveways Mr. Cooney is suggesting that there are few remaining gravel driveways in the Village and the current Development Code requires gravel driveways to be repaired once they are worn out, however, it is difficult to enforce such a regulation whereby the owner can just add additional gravel and then continue with the gravel driveway indefinitely. To address this issue, staff is recommending that language be included in the Village Code phasing out gravel driveways with a date specific so that the driveway can be paved. Staff is suggesting a compliance date of January 1,2009. Consensus of the Village Board was to support the phase-out period with proper notification to residents and suggested assistance to the residents if necessary. The Board also wanted to know how many gravel driveways actually exist so they would have an idea of how many residents would be impacted by such a phase-out. Flaapoles and Flaas Mr. Cooney stated the Village Code does not currently restrict the height or number of flagpoles as well as the numbel"öf flags within the single-family or multi-family districts. He also stated that the Code excludes flagpoles from various residential height limitations such as chimneys, steeples and radio/television antennas attached to the principal structure. In addition, the Code is silent with regards to flags and flagpoles within other zoning districts. Staff is recommending a maximum of one flagpole per lot with not more than two flags per pole with the maximum flagpole height not exceeding the District's height limitations for principal structures. For non-residential properties, the recommendation is a maximum of three flagpoles with no more than two flags per pole per zoning lot. Again, the maximum height permitted for flagpoles shall not exceed the District's height limitations for principal structures. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: There was some discussion regarding the standard height in the various zoning districts and possible restriction on the flag size. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to research typical heights of flagpoles and flag size in order to address possible noise created by the flagpole and flag, but was supportive of staff recommendation. 8 Location of Port-a-Pots Mr. Cooney stated the Village does not currently have any specific regulations regarding the permitted locations for port-a-pots on properties during construction activity. Staff is recommending that port-a-pots cannot be located either in the permitted side yards or within any right-of-way. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation for location of port-a-pots. Residential Construction Site Fencing Mr. Cooney stated that there are curreotly no regulations in the Village Code regarding fencing around construction sites of single-family residential homes. Staff is recommending that when such site fencing is installed, it is maintained for safety concerns and it be a minimum of four feet for new c()nstrljctioQ, teardowns and major additions. Consensus of the Village Board was to support staff recommendation. CDBG Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan and Repayment ReQuirements Mr. Cooney stated that the repayment period is solely a Village regulation and is not required by HUD as part of the CDBG program. He stated the current repayment period created a 20-year repayment time limit, however, he stated that there would be no adverse impact if the repayment of the loan would be made at the time the property is sold versus requiring a repayment after the 20-year period. Staff is recommending that the time limit for repayment be eliminated entirely, thus requiring repayment of the loan only at the time of the sale of the property. Consensus of the Village Board was to allow repayment of the no interest loan at the time of sale or title change and the loan would be callable if the loan holder were not to reside in the home. Merrill Cotten, 2710 Briarwood Drive West, spoke. He stated that he appreciates the Board's effort in going through so many issues this evening and complimented the Board on considering all the needs of the residents without adversely impacting their ability to enjoy their own property. 9 VI. VII. VIII. DS/rcc Village Manager Janonis stated that many of the items would need to go before the Planning and Zoning Commission for input prior to bringing it back to the Village Board. That would be the next steps in the process so many of these items may be coming back in small increments. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated Coffee with Council is scheduled for September 13, from 9:00 a.m. to 11 :00 a.m. at the Village Hall, second floor conference room. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Skowron wanted to thank Trustee Hoefert for his assistance in Mayor Pro Tem efforts for the evening and keeping the discussion succinct and focused on a conclusion for each item. Trustee Wilks requested some discUssion about removable speed bumps in the near future. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 10:09 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DAVID STRAHL Assistant Village Manager 10 ... Cow - ~iJUTES: 1)~c. If, 2. 003 ~ VII. POTENTIAL CODE AMENDMENTS Community Development Director Bill Cooney stated this discussion is a continuation of the previous Code potpourri discussion which took place almost two months ago. Administrative Subdivisions Staff occasionally encounters properties that may appear to be a single lot but in actuality they consist of two or more parcels. When reviewing any type of development proposal for these properties including additions, deck projects, etc., it is óftendifficult for staff to apply the required setbacks due to the property's configuration. Due to these circumstances, staff has traditionally required that the property owner apply for a Plat of Consolidation that would create a single lot of record from the existing multiple lots. The Plat of Consolidation process, however, currently requires review and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission and final approval by the Board of Trustees. This review and approval process can create delays and additional expenses for the property owner. As a result, staff is requesting the Village's Development Code be amended to allow administrative subdivisions under specific circumstances. The process would still require the preparation and recordation of the Plat of Consolidation but under certain circumstances would eliminate the need for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and approval by the Village Board. The existing regulations and proposed amendments are as follows: ExistinQ ReQulations Preliminary Plat/Final Plat approvals require review and recommendation by the Village's Planning and Zoning Commission and final action by the Board of Trustees. Proposed Amendments Staff proposes that an Administrative Subdivision is a subdivision that may be approved by the Director of Community Development and does not require a public meeting before the Planning and Zoning Commission or approval by the Village Board of Trustees. The definition of Administrative Subdivision is: Administrative Subdivision shall be: A. An adjustment of a lot line between two (2) adjoining lots; and B. The consolidation of two or more lots, parcels or tracts of land, either in whole or part, into a single lot of record, when all of the properties are under the same ownership. With respect to Administrative Subdivision be permitted, it shall be permitted only if; (1) no non-conformities are created with respect to these regulations; and (2) the entire length of the subdivision fronts on an existing street. 3 Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation for Administrative Subdivision review. .. Conversion of Garaqes into Livinq Space It is not uncommon to see property owners convert garages into living spaces. In reviewing the requests for conversion, it was found that there are no provisions to remove the garage door as long as all applicable building and health safety regulations are met. Staff is recommending that the Building Code be amended to require removal of the garage door and the use of exterior building materials that are consistent in both material and color with the remaining portion of the home's exterior. Previous discussion included the possibility of driveway pad removal, however, there would be coordination issues necessary as documented by staff. Consensus of the Village Board was to accept staff recommendation for conversion of attached garages into living space. Commercial Trailers in Residential Districts Village Code currently contains specific regulations regarding the storage of commercial vehicles and trailers within Residential Zoning Districts. Staff is recommending the Village Code be amended to specifically prohibit the outdoor storage of commercial trailers within any of the Village's Residential Zoning Districts. To help clarify the regulations, staff is also recommending specific definitions for both commercial vehicles and commercial trailers. The proposed amendment would allow for outdoor storage of no more than one commercial vehicle within a residential zoning district and prohibit the outdoor storage of commercial trailers. The definition of a commercial trailer is any trailer (1) containing work equipment such as ladders, snow plows and/or mechanical tools to carrying of work machinery on or affixed to the outside of the trailer, (3) containing a refrigeration unit or other motorized compressor, or (4) being used for storage shall be considered commercialjn;¡ilers. None of the following shall be considered a commercial trailer: (a) recreational trailer that is not included within the above categories, (b) government trailers, or (c) police or fire trailers. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that staff consider utilizing an envelope size for consideration of trailer size similar to what is utilized for commercial vehicle?c:lnd rE??i.cJ~ntial properties. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to create a definition defining trailers within a specific measurement envelope. Arbors and Trellises The Village Code currently does not contain any regulations regarding arbors or trellises. Currently, staff is utilizing fence regulations and applying Code requirements to installation of arbors and trellises. Staff is proposing specific regulations defining arbors and trellises which also limits their size and location. Staff is requesting arbors and trellises be a maximum one arbor or trellis not exceeding eight feet in height or ten feet in width and shall be permitted except in any required front yard. 4 General comments from Village Board members included the following item: There was a question whether trellises should be even considered for a regulation. It was also suggested that a clearer definition separating what is a fence from what is a trellis should be considered. It was also suggested that additional location elements be considered and specific materials. Consensus of the Village Board was to request additional staff review to further hone the definitions for clarification purposes. FAR and Related Definitions Staff continues to see a large amount of construction activity related to single-family dwellings including additions and construction of new single-family homes. The recent trend in development has been to maximize the amount of living space within single-family homes often pushing the edge on a variety of bulk regulations including setbacks, height and floor- area-ratio (FAR). Part of the clarification necessary is the need to consider the entire bulk on the property along with the entire footprint upon the property. Such definition would include garages, basements and attics. General comments from Village Board members included the following items: It was suggested that since the basement is part of the living space, it should be considered in the overall bulk square footage for the property based on the ceiling height of the basement. It was also suggested that there is a need to address the massing of the house including the porch as part of the FAR. It was questioned whether the basement should be part of the FAR since it is already part of the building mass even though it is below grade. There were comments that there would still need to be some kind of regulation on the depth of the basement. There was also discussion regarding the definition of an attic and story within the building as determined by usable livable space now or in the future. Consensus of the Village Board was to direct staff to consider a porch as part of the FAR possibly at a reduced percentage of the total and get additional Planning and Zoning Commission input. The Village Board further directed staff to review basement and story (attic definitions) to address massing concerns. VIII. VILLAGE MANAGER'S REPORT Village Manager Janonis stated that Winter Festival Parade on December 6 was successful and the next Coffee with Council is December 13. IX. ANY OTHER BUSINESS Trustee Wilks commented on the recent passing of former Senator Paul Simon and requested the Village Board consider a Resolution of Condolences to the family. 5 Planning &. Zoning Commission Meeting Minutes: February 12, 2004 &. February 26, 2004 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-41-03 Hearing Date: February 12,2004 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 28, 2004 REQUEST: MEMBERS PRESENT: Various Text Amendments to the Village Code Arlene Juracek, Chairperson Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBER PRESENT: Michael Jacobs, AICP, Deputy Director of Community Development INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:33 p.m. Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-41-03, saying this would be one case proposing approximately 16 text amendments to the Village Code and that the Village Board's decision would be final for all of the amendments. She said each amendment would be discussed separately and voted on before discussing the next, leaving those they were stymied on for last. Michael Jacobs noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission had previously reviewed these various amendments during their public workshop meetings on October 9, 2003 and January 8, 2004. Following the January 8, 2004 meeting the P&Z Commission directed Staff to prepare specific language for their review during tonight's public hearing. Mr. Jacobs noted the first issue to consider was amendments to the Village Code regarding permitted fence locations. He noted that the proposed amendments have been designed to allow some greater flexibility for property owners within the Village. Mr. Jacobs stated that the current interpretation of the Village Code requires that fences be located on the property line, and that no more than one fence can be located along a property line. The proposed amendments will address both interior and corner lots. The proposed amendments regarding interior lots will allow fences to be located anywhere on the property except within the required front yard, and for those who do not wish to place their fence along a property line, sufficient access to the area must be maintained to allow for proper maintenance. Mr. Jacobs noted that the only change to regulations regarding corner lots relates to those circumstances where a property's exterior side yard abuts the front yard of a neighboring property. The Code currently allows fences within the exterior side yard regardless of its location. This existing regulation has allowed fences to be located in an exterior side yard even though it abuts a neighboring property's front yard. Allowing fences in these locations can have a detrimental impact on the adjoining property as well as the overall character of the neighborhood. To address this issue the proposed fence amendments will continue to allow fences within an exterior side yard, except if the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot. In those instances where the exterior side yard abuts a front yard then a fence will not be allowed any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. Mr. Jacobs then reviewed the proposed amendment that would allow double fences along a common property line or multiple fences on a single property. He indicated that the only remaining concern with the proposed amendments related to the issue of dog runs, and the fact thatthe proposed regulations would allow someone to create an enclosed Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 2 area to serve as a dog run. Mr. Jacobs suggested that if the Commission was uncomfortable with the proposed regulations the issue of multiple fences and dog runs could be continued to the next meeting, providing staff some additional time to review the issue. Keith Youngquist had a question regarding dog runs and said he was not opposed to language specifically prohibiting dog runs. Richard Rogers suggested adding a sentence disaJIowing dog runs. Ms. Juracek suggested dealing with the fence locations at this meeting and deferring the double fence issue to another meeting. The Commission members agreed. Ms. Juracek noted for the record that no audience member came to address the issue. Joe Donnelly made a motion to approve the permitted fence locations and Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek made a motion to table the double fence location until the next meeting and Leo Floros seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, DonneJIy, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the proposed amendments regarding outdoor storage on residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that outdoor storage is often the main issue when addressing complaints regarding property maintenance. The Village Code currently contains limited language to address outdoor storage on residential properties. In response, specific language has been proposed that will limit whattypes of items can be stored outdoors on residential properties. Mr. Jacobs stated that the proposed language would permit outdoor storage of the following items: lawn and garden equipment and materials, garbage cans, griJJs and portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools, children's play equipment and other items similar to these as determined by the Community Development Director. Mr. Jacobs noted that these proposed regulations would not apply to vehicles, recreational vehicles and/òr trailers, and recreational equipment. Commission members discussed many items usually found stored outside and some not usually found stored on private property. Mr. Youngquist asked if the amendment couldn't be interpreted to mean junk could be stored on private property in thirty or more garbage cans. Members ventured the opinion that "household tools" could be widely interpreted. Mr. Cotten said a gasoline-powered generator could be considered in that category today. Ms. Juracek said the Commission's previous discussions had generally focused on going with the proposed language, noting that the issue of vehicular and recreational vehicle storage would be discussed as part of another section within the Code. The Commissioners requested that the proposed language be modified to cross-reference the appropriate sections within the Code regarding vehicle storage. Richard Rogers made a motion and Keith Youngquist seconded it. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the home occupation segment of the text amendments. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 3 Mr. Jacobs stated that the Village Code currently contains specific regulations regarding home occupations. He noted there have been several recent issues regarding employees showing up to a home occupation to then be dispatched to another site. This practice is not adequately addressed in the current regulations, thus Staff has proposed some additional language be included within the Code's home occupation regulations. Specifically, the proposed language would prohibit employees, other than those persons residing on the premises, from reporting to work at or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or to be dispatched to work at another location. Commission members confirmed that service workers such as baby sitters, home care nurses, etc., were not affected by this ruling. Ms. Juracek observed that all members seemed to be in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Mr. Rogers so moved and Mr. Youngquist seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek then introduced the next section regarding daycare regulations. Mr. Jacobs said that the Village's existing regulations contain some inconsistencies with regard to terms, definitions, and conflict with the home occupation regulations. Mr. Jacobs noted that the proposed amendments to the daycare regulations relate to two different issues. The first part of the proposed amendments relate to the existing definition of Limited Residential Daycare. The second portion of the proposed amendments would eliminate Daycare Centers as a Conditional Use in the residential districts since they conflict with the Village's regulations regarding home daycare and are not in keeping with the character of the Village's residential neighborhoods. Ms. Juracek asked if someone wanted a Daycare Center in a residential area would they have to request a variation. Mr. Jacobs said that the proposed amendments would prohibit daycare centers from residential districts and the only means of relief from that in the future would be a text amendment. Mr. Jacobs reiterated that no more than 8 children would be allowed in a daycare facility in a residential district. Ms. Juracek pointed out this might preclude churches from operating daycare facilities for more than 8 children and be more drastic than actually intended by this amendment. Mr. Jacobs agreed this might need to be revisited. Mr. Floros asked what change would be included in the revised amendment. It was suggested that the definition of Daycare Center be amended to read "anon-residential building...". Ms. Juracek asked for a motion to adopt the proposed definition of Daycare Center with the addition of the word non-residential, to adopt staff's definition of Limited Daycare Facility and to not adopt Staff's disallowance of daycare centers in the Village's residential districts. Joe Donnelly so moved and Keith Younquist seconded. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs said the next item related to maintenance and replacement of landscaping materials. Mr. Jacobs noted that the Village's existing property maintenance ,regulations require the maintenance of landscaping in non-residential districts. The code, however, does not differ~ntiate between maintenance and removal. To help maintain the benefits of the existing landscaping within the VilJáge's non single-family residential properties, Staff has suggested the Code be amended to require the replacement of dead or damaged materials in similar kind and quafitity rather than allowing them to be simply removed. Ms. Juracek said landscaping should be similar, not identical. Mr. Rogers said landscaping design changes through the years and flexibility is needed. Mr. Youngquist said residents could not be required to replace a dead tree with the same size tree. Ms. Juracek said all members were in agreement with this amendment and asked for a motion. Richard Rogers moved to approve the amendment and Keith Youngquist seconded. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ..41-03 Page 4 UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the next item by saying that there were two issues to consider regardihg attached garages. The first relates to an inconsistency within the code that lists "single-family dweJIings, including dwellings with an attached 3-car garage" as a permitted use in some of the residential districts while only "single-family dwellings" are listed as a permitted use in other residential districts. To address this issue StaffI:eC9}llm~Dds th~çgd~þel:lJ11.t;:J:14ed!0 include "Single-Family dwellings, with attached or detached garages" as a permitted use in all of the single-family residential zoning districts. The second issue relates to limiting the size of garages in single-family residential districts. Based on the Commission's previous discussions the proposed amendments will allow attached garages fronting public rights-of- way, not exceeding an exterior appearance of a three car garage while there would be no limitation on the size of an attached garage that did not front a public right-of-way. Ms. Juracek noted the proposed revision of "single-family dweJIings, with attached or detached garages" could be interpreted as requiring all single-family homes to have a garage. Mr. Jacobs said the Code currently requires homes to provide off-street parking but not necessarily a garage. He said the Code has existing regulations regarding the permitted size of detached garages. Much discussion ensued as to whether a garage should be required. Richard Rogers made motion to approve staff's definition of single-family dwellings as written, with attached or detached garages as a permitted use, seconded by Merrill Cotten. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES Donnelly, Floros, and Juracek NAYS: Cotten, Rogers, Youngquist Motion was tied 3-3. Motion was not approved. Joseph Donnelly made a motion to amend the wording to read with or without attached or detached garage as a permitted use, seconded by Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: Juracek. Motion was approved 5-1. Joseph Donnelly moved that if there are two public rights-of-way there can only be three garage doors total facing those right-of-ways, Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Driveway width was the next subject. Mr. Jacobs said that based on the proposed amendments regarding attached garages, corresponding amendments would be required for the Village's driveway width regulations. Mr. Jacobs summarized the proposed amendments, indicating that in most cases the regulations would not change except for those garages that would exceed the standard driveway width regulations. In those cases a maximum driveway would be allowed to have a width the same as the width of the garage within 15 feet of the garage's front eJevation. The garage width would be determined by measuring the width of the garage doors, the separation between the doors, plus an additional 2 feet on either side. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 5 Merrill Cotten asked if turning radius was checked when 15' the width was determined. Mr. Jacobs said that the most common configurations were considered but it was difficult to think of every scenario. Mr. Cotten said large SUVs and Hummers might not be accommodated by this size of driveway. Mr. Jacobs said someone could request a variation in that case. Mr. Younquist said 15 feet would be adequate unless someone owned a school bus. Mr. Rogers agreed. Keith Youngquist made amotion to approve the amendment as written, Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, pavement separation between various sections of allowed pavement. Mr. Jacobs noted that Staff had initially recommended an amendment to the Village Code that would require a specified separation between paved areas that were intended for different uses, such as a driveway and patio. Mr. Jacobs stated that although Staff supported an amendment the Planning & Zoning Commission determined it was not necessary. Due to these circumstances the Commission did not recommend any amendments to the Code regarding this matter. Ms. Juracek introduced the next section, unenclosed front porches. Mr. Jacobs said that the Village Code currently requires Conditional Use approval for front porches that are to be located within a required front yard. To help expedite the review process it has been suggested that the Planning & Zoning Commission be the final review body on these requests, thus eliminating the need for the requests to be forwarded to the Village Board for review and approval. Richard Rogers made motion to accept the proposed amendments and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek introduced the next subject, flags and flagpoles. Mr. Jacobs indicated that the Village Code currently contains limited regulations regarding flags and flagpoles. The proposed regulations would create specific regulations regarding flags and flagpoles for residential and non-residential zoning districts. For residential districts the proposed regulations would permit a maximum of one flagpole per lot, containing no more than two flags. The maximum height for flagpoles in residential districts shall not exceed 20 feet. With regards to non-residential districts the proposed regulations would allow a maximum of three poles, with no more than two flags per pole. The maximum height shall not exceed the district's height limitations for the principal structure. In addition to the specific district restrictions, the proposed regulations include limitations on location. Flagpoles and flag supports shall not be located within a required yard interior side yard, and shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet from any property line. Roof mounted flagpoles or flag supports shall be prohibited. With regards to the total number of flags, no more than two flags shall be displayed on a single-family residential property at one time. Richard Rogers noted the exhibit that indicated a maximum size of 3 feet by 5 feet for flags on single-family residential properties. Mr. Jacobs noted that the size restriction of 3 feet by 5 feet should also be considered as part of the proposed amendments. Richard Rogers made a motion that flags on residential property shall not exceed 3 'x5', Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 6 NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. MerriU Cotten made a motion to accept the amendments proposed on flags and flagpoles by staff, seconded by, Richard Rogers. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the proposed amendments to service walks and sidewalk limitations. After some questions by MerriU Cotten on step and stoop widths, Keith Youngquist moved to accept the proposed amendment and Joe Donnelly seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the proposed amendments to administrative subdivisions. Mr. Rogers asked if the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Commission would sign the Plat of Subdivision if it were approved by administration. Mr. Jacobs said the ViUage Manager or Director of Community Development would sign it. Ms. Juracek said many of these subdivisions are so perfunctory it is time-consuming to have people go through the complete process. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the proposed amendment and Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the proposed amendment for the conversion of garages to Jiving spaces. Commission members thought residents should not be required to change the outside appearance of the house if they convert the garage to Jiving space because a future resident may reconvert the space. The amendment was tabled. Mr. Jacobs reviewed the next segment, commercial trailers in residential districts. Keith Youngquist made a motion to accept Staff s amendment to require commercial trailers to be kept inside garages in residential districts. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Richard Rogers made a motion that the ViUage Board consider limiting the amount of time a boat or recreational trailer may be kept on a residential driveway. Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 7 Mr. Jacobs introduced the amendment to the segment on arbors and trellises. Commission members agreed that in certain cases trellises would be allowed in a front yard. Ms. Juracek thought a Community Development discretionary clause would be helpful to this segment. Commission members agreed that wording should be added that in situations where you could have a fence, such as an interior side yard, you could have a trellis or arbor. Richard Rogers made motion to accept the amendment with that change in wording and Merrill Cotten seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Mr. Jacobs introduced the last issue, FAR and some related definitions. Commission members discussed sizes and heights of various new construction projects in the Village and as it compares to other Codes in other areas of the country. Keith Youngquist said he thought garages were used mainly for storage and not for cars. Mr. Jacobs said they could vote separately on any portion of the amendment, the basement, the height, etc., or the entire amendment at once. Joe Donnelley mad a motion to approve all phases of the FAR amendment. Richard Rogers seconded the motion UPON ROLL CALL: A YES: Cotten, Donnelly, Floros, Rogers, Youngquist and J uracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 6-0. Ms. Juracek summarized by saying the Commission had tabled the fence amendments as they relate to dog runs and recommended to Village Board to address recreational trailers and vehicles. At 9:40 p.m Joe Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Keith Youngquist. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. Michael Ja obs, AICP Deputy D'/ ector Community Development H:IPLANIPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2003\MinutesIPZ.41-03 VaMP Various Text Amendments.doc MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CASE NO. PZ-41-03 Hearing Date: February 26, 2004 PETITIONERS: Village of Mount Prospect PUBLICATION DATE: January 28, 2004 REQUEST: Continued Review of Various Text Amendments to the Village Code MEMBERS PRESENT: Arlene Juracek, Chair Joseph Donnelly Richard Rogers Keith Youngquist MEMBERS ABSENT: Merrill Cotten Leo Floros Matthew Sledz STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Judy Connolly, AICP, Senior Planner INTERESTED PARTIES: None Chairperson Arlene Juracek called the meeting to order at 7:34 p.m. Richard Rogers made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 22 and February 12,2004 meetings with one minor correction. Keith Youngquist seconded the motion. The minutes were approved 4-0. At 7:38, under Old Business, Ms. Juracek introduced Case No. PZ-41-03, saying this was a continued review of a text amendment to the fence regulations of the Village Code and that the Village Board's decision would be final. Judy Connolly, Senior Planner, reviewed the Staff Memo on behalf of Michael Jacobs, Deputy Director of Community Development. Ms. Connolly said that the Planning & Zoning Commission held a public hearing on February 12,2004 to review a number of Village initiated text amendments. The P&Z recommended approval of a number of amendments, but directed Staff to review the potential issue of "dog runs" as it relates to the pending amendments regarding the Village's fence regulations. Ms. Connolly said that Staff reviewed a number of alternatives with the Village Attorney. It was determined that the real issue of dog runs relates to the confinement of an animal to a limited area. Staff determined that the most appropriate approach would be to regulate the size of an area that could be enclosed by a fence rather than trying to define the term "dog run" or "animal exercise area". To address this issue, Staff recommends that fenceable area read: Fenceable Area: Under no circumstances shall a fence enclose an area that is less than 50% of the maximum fenceable area of a residentially zoned property. This limitation shall not apply to fencing around swimming pools. Ms. Connolly said that this change would still provide property owners with increased flexibility in locating a fence on their property, but would address the issues and concerns related to dog runs. Staff recommends that the language be incorporated into the pending text amendments that were recommended by the P&Z Commission during the February lih meeting. Ms. Juracek said the Village historically has never allowed dog runs, but now that multiple fencing will be allowed Staff feels the need for this wording for clarification purposes. Ms. Juracek asked Planning & Zoning Commissioners whether vegetable or flower gardens needed to be excluded from the proposed fence regulations. The Commissioners discussed the proposed modification, but decided to recommend that the Village Board adopt the text as proposed in the Staff Memo. Planning & Zoning Commission Arlene Juracek, Chairperson PZ-41-03 Page 2 No audience members came forward to speak on this matter. Ms. Juracek closed the hearing at 7:42. Joe Donnelley made a motion to recommend that the Village Board approve this portion of the amendment. Richard Rogers seconded the motion. UPON ROLL CALL: AYES: Donnelly, Rogers, Youngquist and Juracek NAYS: None Motion was approved 4-0. Ms. Juracek said this is a positive recommendation to the Village Board and this case will be considered with all the other Text Amendment recommendations discussed at the February lib meeting. At 9:30 p.m. Joseph Donnelly made motion to adjourn, seconded by Richard Rogers. The motion was approved by a voice vote and the meeting was adjourned. H:IPLANlPlanning & Zoning COMMIP&Z 2004IMinutesIPZ.41.03 VaMP Var.Text.Amend.mtg.2.doc ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7, CHAPTER 14, CHAPTER 16 AND CHAPTER 21 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Article II, Section 7.205 entitled "Exempt Signs" of Chapter 7 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph E entitled "Flags" in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following new paragraph E entitled "Flags" which shall be and read as follows: E. Flags: Residential Districts: A maximum of one flagpole, which shall not exceed twenty (20) feet in height, shall be permitted per zoning lot. No more than two (2) flags shall be displayed on a single-family property at one time, and each flag shall not exceed a maximum size of three (3) feet by five (5) feet. Non-Residential Districts: A maximum of three (3) flagpoles, with no more than two (2) flags on a pole, shall be permitted per zoning lot. The maximum height permitted for the flagpole shall not exceed the District's height limitations for principal structures. For flags flown from a flagpole, such flagpole shall be a minimum of four (4) times the length of the flag. In addition to the limitations outlined above, the following restrictions would apply to flags and flag poles within all zoning districts: 1. Location: Flagpoles or flag supports shall not be located within a required interior side yard. A flagpole or flag support shall maintain a minimum setback of five feet (5') from any property line. Flags and flagpoles shall be located in such a manner that no portion of the flag will project over any property line or contact any other structure when fully extended. Roof mounted flagpoles or flag supports are prohibited. 2. Display of flags of the United States shall conform to all applicable Federal statutes regarding the use and display of the United States flag. ¡Manage 127528 1 (j SECTION 2: Article III, Section 7.306 entitled "Signs on Residential Properties" of Chapter 7 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be added as a new Section 7.306 and shall be and read as follows: 7.306. SIGNS ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. No more than four permitted signs shall be allowed on any single-family residential lot and under no circumstances shall the total sign area exceed six square feet. No more than one sign shall be permitted along each front, rear or side property line. SECTION 3: Article III, Section 14.304 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting the existing subparagraph D(1 )(d) under Section 14.304 entirely and inserting the following new subparagraph D(1)(d) to be and read as follows: d. FENCEABLE AREA: Under no circumstances shall a fence enclose an area that is less than 50% of the maximum fenceable area of a residentially zoned property. This limitation shall not apply to fencing around swimming pools. SECTION 4: Article III, Section 14.304 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting the existing subparagraph D(1 )(e) under Section 14.304 entirely and inserting the following new subparagraph D(1 )(e) to be and read as follows: e. Fences up to five (5) feet in height will be permitted as follows, and as shown on Exhibit 14.304D1 b in Section 14.2501 of this Chapter: ¡Manage ]27528 I 1. Rear and Interior Side Yards. Fences may be installed in the rear and interior side yards, provided any fence is located behind the front line of the principal building structure. If a fence is not located along a property line then sufficient access must be provided to the area between 2 fence and property line to allow for proper maintenance. 2. Exterior Side Yards. Fences may be installed in an exterior side yard, provided that the fence is placed behind the front line of the principal building and setback one-foot from the property line along the exterior side yard. If the exterior side yard abuts the front yard of an adjacent lot, the fence shall not be located any closer to the exterior side yard lot line than either the building line established by the principal structure or the front yard established for the adjacent lot, whichever is less. SECTION 5: Article II, Section 14-202 entitled "Administrative Bodies and Specific Duties" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding a new subparagraph (4) to paragraph (B) entitled "Planning and Zoning Commission" which shall be and read as follows: 4. To hear and decide as final administrative authority, all Conditional Use petitions to allow the construction of an attached unenclosed front porch encroaching up to five feet (5') into the required front setback, with respect to single-family residences with an approved certificate of occupancy that was issued prior to May 18, 1999. SECTION 6: Article III, Section 14-304 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding a new subparagraph U) to paragraph (D)(1) which new subparagraph U) shall be and read as follows: j. ArborsfTrellises. Arbors and trellises, not exceeding a height of ten (10) feet, shall be permitted except in any required front yard. SECTION 7: Article III, Section 14-306 entitled "Accessory Structures" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting subparagraph (E)(4) of Section 14-306 and inserting in lieu thereof, the following new subparagraph (E)(4) which shall be and read as follows: 4. Service walks, sidewalks, steps and handicap ramps up to five feet (5') in width may encroach in the required front and exterior side yards; service ¡Manage 127528 1 3 walks, sidewalks, and steps up to three feet (3') in width may encroach in the required interior side and rear yards. SECTION 8: Article III, Section 14-307 entitled "Standards for Home Occupations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph (E) in its entirety and inserting a new paragraph (E) and shall be and read as follows: E, No person shall be employed other than a member of the immediate family residing in the dwelling unit, and no employees other than persons residing on the premise shall report to work at or near the premises, either for work to be completed within the residence or to be dispatched to work at another location. The purpose of this standard is to ensure that no nonresident comes to a dwelling for employment purposes, and to minimize the traffic generated by the home occupation. No routine attendance of employees associated with any home occupation shall be allowed at the premises of the home occupation. "Routine Attendance" shall mean that the conduct of the home occupation requires non- domiciled persons to visit the premises of the home occupation as part of the regular conduct of the occupation, without regard to the number, frequency or duration of such visits. SECTION 9: Article III, Section 14-311 entitled "Outdoor Sales and Storage" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding a new paragraph C entitled "Outdoor Storage on Residential Properties" and shall be and read as follows: C. Outdoor Storage on Residential Property. Outdoor storage on residential properties is prohibited except for the following: lawn and garden equipment and materials, garbage cans, grills and portable fireplaces, patio furniture, household tools, children's play equipment, and other items similar to the above as determined by the Community Development Director. For regulations regarding the storage of commercial vehicles, or recreational vehicles and equipment please refer to Article XXII of this Code. SECTION 10: Article VIII, Section 14-802 entitled "Permitted Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Single-family detached dwellings, including dwellings with an attached three (3) car garage" from ¡Manage 127528 1 4 paragraph A and inserting "Single-family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" in lieu thereof. SECTION 11: Article VIII, Section 14-803 entitled "Conditional Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Daycare Homes" from paragraph A and inserting "Daycare Center" in lieu thereof. SECTION 12: Article VIII, Section 14-804 entitled "Uses Permitted in Limited Circumstances" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following language to paragraph A: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of a single and double door; or c) a triple door. SECTION 13: Article VIII, Section 14-805 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph (D)(1) entitled "Residential Buildings" in its entirety and inserting the following new paragraph (D)(1) which shall be and read as follows: 1. Residential Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed thirty five feet (35'). SECTION 14: Article IX, Section 14-902 entitled "Permitted Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Single-family detached dwellings, including dwellings with an attached three (3) car garage" from paragraph A and inserting "Single-family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" in lieu thereof. SECTION 15: Article IX, Section 14-903 entitled "Conditional Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Daycare Homes" ¡Manage 127528 I 5 from paragraph A and inserting "Daycare Center" in lieu thereof. SECTION 16: Article IX, Section 14-904 entitled "Uses Permitted in Limited Circumstances" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following language to paragraph A: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of a single and double door; or c) a triple door. SECTION 17: Article IX, Section 14-905 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph (D)(1) entitled "Residential Buildings" in its entirety and inserting the following new paragraph (D)(1) which shall be and read as follows: 1. Residential Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty-eight feet (28'). SECTION 18: Article X, Section 14-1002 entitled "Permitted Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Single family detached dwellings" from paragraph A and inserting "Single-family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" in lieu thereof. SECTION 19: Article X, Section 14-1003 entitled "Conditional Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Daycare Homes" from paragraph A and inserting "Daycare Center" in lieu thereof. SECTION 20: Article X, Section 14-1004 entitled "Uses Permitted in Limited Circumstances" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following language to paragraph A: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of a single and ¡Manage 127528 1 6 double door; or c) a triple door. SECTION 21: Article X, Section 14-1005, entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph (D)(1) entitled "Residential Buildings" in its entirety and inserting the following new paragraph (D)(1) which shall be and read as follows: 1. Residential Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty-eight feet (28'). SECTION 22: Article XI, Section 14-1102 entitled "Permitted Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Single-family detached dwellings, including dwellings with an attached three (3) car garage" from paragraph A and inserting "Single-family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" in lieu thereof. SECTION 23: Article XI, Section 14-1103 entitled "Conditional Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Daycare Homes" from paragraph A. SECTION 24: Article XI, Section 14-1104 entitled "Uses Permitted in Limited Circumstances" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following language to paragraph A: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of a single and double door; or c) a triple door. SECTION 25: Article XI, Section 14-1105 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph (D)(1) entitled "Residential Buildings" in its entirety and inserting the following ¡Manage 127528 1 7 new paragraph (D)(1) which shall be and read as follows: 1. Residential Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty-eight feet (28'). SECTION 26: Article XII, Section 14-1202 entitled "Permitted Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Single family detached dwellings" from paragraph A and inserting "Single-family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" in lieu thereof. SECTION 27: Article XII, Section 14-1203 entitled "Conditional Uses" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Daycare Homes" from paragraph A. SECTION 28: Article XIII, Section 14-1204 entitled "Uses Permitted in Limited Circumstances" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following language to paragraph A: Attached garages fronting on public rights-of-way shall not have more than one of the following: a) three (3) single doors; b) a combination of a single and double door; or c) a triple door. SECTION 29: Article XII, Section 14-1205 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraphs (D)(1) and (D)(2) in their entirety and inserting the following new paragraphs (D)(1) and (D)(2) which shall be and read as follows: 1. Single-Family and Two-Family Buildings: The maximum height of a residential building shall not exceed twenty-eight feet (28'). 2. Multi-Family Buildings: The maximum height of a multi-family building shall not exceed thirty-five feet (35'). SECTION 30: Article XIII, Section 14-1302 entitled "Permitted Uses" of iManage 127528 1 8 Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting "Single family detached dwellings" from paragraph A and inserting "Single-family detached dwellings, with or without attached garages" in lieu thereof. SECTION 31: Article XIII, Section 14-1304 entitled "Bulk Regulations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph (D)(1) in its entirety and inserting the following new paragraph (D)(1) which shall be and read as follows: 1. The maximum height of a multi-family building shall not exceed thirty- four feet (34'). SECTION 32: Article XXII, Section 14-2208 entitled "Parking of Commercial Vehicles in Residential Districts" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended adding a new paragraph G entitled "Commercial Trailer Storage Limitations" and re-Iettering the current paragraph G entitled "Application of Home Occupancy Standards" to read paragraph H. The new paragraph G shall be and read as follows: G. Commercial Trailer; Storage Limitations. All commercial trailers parked or stored on a zoning lot in a residential district shall, at all times, be parked in a fully enclosed garage. SECTION 33: Article XXII, Section 14-2215 entitled "Driveways" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting subparagraphs (A)(3) and (A)(3)(a) entitled "Width" in their entirety and by adding new subparagraphs (A)(3) and (A)(3)(a) entitled "Width" in lieu thereof which shall be and read as follows: 3. Width: Driveway width shall be limited to 35% of the lot width, as measured at the required front setback line, for all lots with widths of 60 to 75 feet. The maximum driveway width for lots less than 60 feet in width shall be 21 feet. Lots which exceed 75 feet in width shall have a maximum driveway width of 26 feet. ¡Manage 127528 ) 9 a. Driveways serving garages with a width greater than the maximum permitted driveway width may be the same width as the garage, within 15 feet of the garage's front elevation. The garage width is determined by measuring the width of the garage doors plus, if applicable, the separation between the garage doors, plus 2 feet on either side. The driveway width must be tapered to no greater than the maximum width at the lot line as set forth hereinabove. SECTION 34: Article XXIII, Section 14-2304 entitled "Design Criteria" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting paragraph (D) entitled "Maintenance of Plant Material" in its entirety and by adding a new paragraph (D) entitled "Maintenance of Plant Materials" in lieu thereof which shall be and read as follows: D. Maintenance of Plant Materials. The owner of premises shall be responsible for the maintenance, repair and replacement of all landscaping materials and barriers, including refuse disposal areas, walls, fences, etc. as may be required by the Village. When any existing landscaping materials are removed from a non-single family residential property, they must be replaced in similar kind and quantity. A means of irrigating plant material shall be provided. Installation of an automatic underground sprinkling system is recommended. SECTION 35: Article XXIV, Section 14-2401 entitled "Purpose" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding a new definition to be placed alphabetically and shall be and read as follows: ARBOR/TRELLlS: A decorative feature, constructed from latticed or patterned materials, that is no more than fifty percent (50%) opaque. SECTION 36: Article XXIV, Section 14-2401 entitled "Purpose" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding a new definition to be placed alphabetically and shall be and read as follows: COMMERCIAL TRAILER: Any trailer, (1) carrying work equipment such as ladders, snowplows, hand or mechanical tools; (2) carrying work machinery on or affixed to the outside of the trailer; (3) containing a refrigeration unit or other ¡Manage 127528 1 10 motorized compressor; or (4) being used for storage shall be considered commercial trailers. None of the following shall be considered a commercial trailer: (a) a recreation trailer that is not included within the above categories; and (b) Mount Prospect police or fire trailers. SECTION 37: Article XXIV, Section 14-2401 entitled "Purpose" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding a word to the current definition of "DA YCARE CENTER". The new first sentence shall now read "A non- residential building where care, ..." SECTION 38: Article XXIV, Section 14-2401 entitled "Purpose" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting the current definition of "Floor Area (Gross)" and adding in lieu thereof a new definition of "Floor Area (Gross)" which shall be and read as follows: FLOOR AREA (GROSS): The sum of the gross horizontal living space of all floors of a building, including principal and accessory uses and storage areas as measured from the exterior walls. Gross floor area shall exclude: a. Areas used for storage of building, mechanical and HVAC equipment; b. Interior loading docks; c. Basements in single-family dwellings; and d. Unenclosed porches. SECTION 39: Article XXIV, Section 14-2401 entitled "Purpose" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting the definition of 'DA YCARE, LIMITED RESIDENTIAL" in its entirety and by adding a new definition entitled "LIMITED DAYCARE" to be placed alphabetically and shall be and read as follows: LIMITED DAYCARE: A Limited Daycare facility is a residential home that receives a maximum of eight (8) children for less than twenty-four (24) hours per day where tuition, fees, or other forms of compensation for the care of children is ¡Manage 127528 I 11 charged. The maximum of eight (8) children includes the family's natural or adopted children and all other persons under the age of twelve (12). The term does not include facilities which receive only children from a single household. Limited Daycare facilities shall meet all applicable Village, County and State requirements. SECTION 40: Article XXV, Section 14.2501 entitled "Illustrations" of Chapter 14 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting the existing Exhibit 14.304D1 b and a new (a) and (b) under "1. Permitted Five (5) foot fences" shall be inserted as attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 41: Article II, Section 16.202 entitled "Definitions" of Chapter 16 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding a new definition entitled "Administrative Subdivision" which shall be inserted alphabetically and shall be and read as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION: A subdivision that may be approved by the Director of Community Development and does not require a public meeting before the Planning & Zoning Commission or approval by the Board of Trustees. SECTION 42: A new Section 15.310 entitled "Administrative Subdivision" shall be added to Article III entitled "Subdivision Procedures and Standards" of Chapter 15 of the Mount Prospect Village Code which shall be and read as follows: 15.310 ADMINISTRATIVE SUBDIVISION. An administrative Subdivision shall be permitted in the following instances: a. An adjustment of a lot line between two (2) adjoining lots; or b. The consolidation of two (2) or more lots, parcels or tracts of land, either in whole or part, into a single lot of record, when all of the properties are under the same ownership. With respect to the above, an Administrative Subdivision is permissible only if no non-conformities are created with respect to these regulations. A final plat would still be required. ¡Manage 127528 1 12 I SECTION 43: Article I, Section 21.105 entitled "Illinois Plumbing Code Adopted" of the Village of Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following new subparagraph (iv) to paragraph (C) of Section 890.810 of the Illinois State Plumbing Code which shall be and read as follows: 890.810.C.iv. Ports-a-pots shall not be located within any required side yard or within any right-of-way. SECTION 44: Article I, Section 21.106 entitled "2000 International Residential Code Adopted" of the Village of Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following paragraph 8 to Section 21.106 which shall be and read as follows: R328 - Construction Site Fencing: A minimum perimeter fencing of five (5) feet in height shall be required for all substantial single-family development projects, including, but not limited to, new construction, teardowns, and major additions. The required fencing shall be maintained until the structure is properly secured. The remaining two paragraphs shall be renumbered. SECTION 45: Article V, Section 21.501 entitled "Definitions of Words and Phrases" of Chapter 21 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by deleting the definition of "BASEMENT" and inserting in lieu thereof, the following new definition of "BASEMENT" to be and read as follows: BASEMENT: That portion of a building having no more than three (3) feet of its floor-to-ceiling height above the average level of the adjoining finished grade. SECTION 46: Article VI, Section 21.603 entitled "International Property Maintenance Code Adopted: Amendments" of Chapter 21 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the following new "PM 302.10" which shall be inserted in numerical order and shall be and read as follows: PM 302.10 Location of Compost Piles. When locating a compost pile a minimum setback of five (5) feet must be provided. Compost piles are not permitted within a required front yard. ¡Manage 127528 I 13 SECTION 47: Article Section 21.603 entitled "International Property Maintenance Code Adopted: Amendments" of Chapter 21 of the Village of Mount Prospect Village Code shall be amended by adding the new section "302.3.1" which shall be inserted in numerical order and shall be and read as follows: Gravel Driveways and Parking Lots: Any existing gravel driveway or parking lot shall be paved, in compliance with all applicable sections of the Village Code, by January 1, 2009. SECTION 48: That 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 APPROVED this - day of ,2004. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma Lowe, Village Clerk iManage 127528 1 14 14.2501 EXHIBIT 14.304Dlb (Option A: Staff Recommendation) 1. PERMITTED FIVE (5) FOOT FENCES (please refer to section 14.304.D for additional information) a. Interior Lot b. Corner Lots Scenario A Scenario B . . . . . House . . . . . . . . ..... CU ~ ~ House ..... CU ~ oW .... ~ House . . . . . Street Street Street Scenario A: When exterior side yard of property abuts the front yard of the adjoining property. Scenario B: When exterior side yard of property abuts the exterior side yard of the adjoining property. 2. PERMITTED SIX (6) FOOT FENCES* (please refer to section 14.304.D for additional information) a. Inside Required Yards b. Patio Screening** Rear Yard Rear Yard 15' minimum setback for patio or deck - - - -r."""".""."" - --- . , . ---- - - --------- . , I I : House I I . + Side Yards ------ Front Yard Front Yard Street Street * Six (6) foot fences are also permitted along rear or exterior side lot lines where abutting an arterial road. ** Patio screening may not exceed 18 feet in total length. Source: Village of Mount Prospect - Community Development Department (4/2004) 14.2501 EXHIBIT 14.304Dlb (Option B: P&Z Recommendation) 1. PERMITTED FIVE (5) FOOT FENCES (please refer to section 14.304.D for additional information) a. Interior Lot b. Corner Lots Scenario A Scenario B House . . . Hòuse . . . . . . . . t ~ ~ House . . . .... CU ~ ~ . . . . . . Street Street Street Scenario A: When exterior side yard of property abuts the front yard of the adjoining property. Scenario B: When exterior side yard of property abuts the exterior side yard of the adjoining property. 2. PERMITTED SIX (6) FOOT FENCES* (please refer to section 14.304.D for additional information) a. Inside Required Yards b. Patio Screening* * . . ..t I I I , . I I I I I , , ----~ ~---- Side Yards is' minimum setback for patio or deck Rear Yard - - - - r."""".""."" - - -- . t . Front Yard Front Yard Street Street * Six (6) foot fences are also permitted along rear or exterior side lot lines where abutting an arterial road. ** Patio screening may not exceed 18 feet in total length. Source: Village of ¡}fount Prospect - Community Development Department (4/2004) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 1 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION 1: Section 1.104 entitled "President Pro Tem" of Chapter 1 of the Mount Prospect Village Code shall be deleted in its entirety and a new Section 1.104, entitled "Designated President Pro Tem" shall be added to Chapter 1 of the Mount Prospect Village Code which shall be and read as follows: Sec. 1.104. Designated President Pro Tern. A. Policy Statement. Good government demands, in the absence or disability of the Village President, that another elected official be continuously and readily available to fulfill the duties of the Office of Village President, especially in cases of emergency. The person selected to act in the stead of the Village President should be an experienced and committed trustee who has an excellent record of attendance at Village Board meetings. This person should also have a demonstrated ability to conduct and facilitate meetings and to make decisions in emergency situations. B. Creation of Office: Powers and Duties. There shall be in the Village an office known as Designated President Pro Tem. One Trustee shall be elected to such office and shall be authorized to perform the functions and duties the Village President is empowered to perform, but only under the following circumstances: 1. The Village President is absent from the Village and, for the purpose or implementing the authority of the Designated President Pro Tem, has notified the Village Manager's office of such absence; or 2. The Village Manager has been notified that the Village President is under a temporary disability which prevents the President from performing his or her duties; or 3. Immediate action is required of the Village President and good faith attempts by the office of the Village Manager to locate him or her have been unsuccessful within the time in which the action is required. .1-f- " C. Qualifications. 1. No person shall be appointed to the office of the Designated President Pro Tem unless he or she is a duly elected or appointed trustee of the Village of Mount Prospect. 2. Any person who has filed a nominating petition for the office of Village President shall be ineligible to occupy the office of Designated President Pro Tem. If a Designated President Pro Tem files nominating petitions for the Office of Village President, the office of Designated President Pro Tem shall immediately and automatically become vacant and shall be filled for the remainder of the term by following the procedures set forth in paragraph D "Selection." 3. A person who has not completed at least 365 days in office, as a Trustee, shall not be eligible for nomination as Designated President Pro Tem unless all of those trustees who are qualified have declined nomination for the office. D. Selection. selected as follows: The Designated President Pro T em shall be 1. The Village President or any Trustee, acting in open session, may nominate without comment, a trustee for the office of Designated President Pro Tem; provided that in all instances the President shall have the right to make the first nomination. No Trustee may nominate or second the nomination of himself or herself. 2. Upon receiving a second, the nominated Trustee shall become a candidate for this office. Nominations may then continue until a motion to close nominations is approved. 3. Nominations shall be closed on the motion, second and the majority vote of Trustees present at the meeting. 4. Discussion and consideration of the candidates and their qualifications may be discussed in open or upon appropriate vote of the President and Board of Trustees in closed session as provided by paragraph (c)3 of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, but the final vote must be taken in open session. 5. Upon the close of discussion, the Village Clerk shall call the vote on each nominated candidate in the order in which the nominations were made and seconded. Abstentions shall be counted as a "No" vote. 2 Balloting shall continue until one of the candidates receives four affirmative votes of the President and Trustees voting jointly. That person shall become Designated President Pro Tem. No additional oath or bond shall be required. E. Term of Office. The initial term of office of the Designated Pro Tem shall commence on the day of appointment and terminate June 30 of 2005 or until a successor has been selected. Thereafter, the Designated President Pro Tem shall be elected at the first regular meeting in June, take office on July 1 st and serve until June 30th of the following year or until a successor has been selected. The Designated President Pro Tem may be removed at any time by four affirmative votes of the President and trustees voting jointly. If such removal occurs, a successor shall be expeditiously selected for the remainder of the term in accordance with Paragraph D "Selection". F. Acting Village President, Vacancy. If a vacancy occurs in the office of Village President, the Designated President Pro Tem, may, in the sole discretion of the trustees, serve as Acting Village President until such time as a successor to fill the vacancy has been duly elected and has qualified; or the trustees may select a new Acting Village President at any time during the vacancy. G. Absence or Disability of Designated President Pro Tem. If anyone of the circumstances described in (1), (2) or (3) of Subsection B of Section 1.104 is found to exist as to both the Village President and the Designated President Pro Tern, the Board of Trustees shall elect one of its members to act as President Pro Tem, who during the absence or disability of the President and the Designated President Pro Tern shall, temporarily perform the duties of the President. SECTION 2: That 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 APPROVED this - day of ,2004. Gerald L. Farley, Village President ATTEST: Velma Lowe, Village Clerk 3