Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-09-08 Agenda;�..� GULAI2 MEETING NOTICE /AGENDA TO BE HELD AT THE RICHARD T. FLICKINGER MUNICIPAL CENTER SCANLON CONFERENCE ROOM The hour between 6:00 mad' OO pn is set aside for Executive Session per 1 -5 -7A of the Village of Morton Grove Municipal Code. If the flgenda does not include an Executive Session, the meeting will begin at 7.00 pm.) I. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Executive Session (if requested) a. Personnel Matters b. Review of Executive Session Minutes 4, Reconvene Niceting 5. Pledge of Allegiance 6. Roll Call - ,.pprova6 of ,Wnwes— 8. Special Reports a. Swearing in Ceremony for New Fire Lieutenant Dennis Kennedy to be Presented by Fire and Police Commission Chairperson Michael Simkins Richard T. Flickinger Municipal Center 6101 Capulina Avenue � Morton Grove. Illinois 60053 -2985 Tel: (847) 965 -4100 e TDD (847) 470 -5249 a Fax: (847)965 -4162 8. Special Reports (continued) b. Plan Commission Case 14 -13 Requests a Text Amendment to Section 12 -3 -5 of the Morton Grove Unified Development Code to Modify Regulations Regarding Fences within Front Yard Setbacks will be Presented by Plan Commission Chairperson Ron Farkas C. Presentation Pertaining to the Village's Community Outreach Taskforce to be made by Police Chief Michael Simo 9. Public Hearings 10. Residents' Comments (agenda items only) 11. President's Report — Administration, VorthivesiMunicilval Conference, Council ofA7ayo1-s, S17 -megie Plan, Comprehensive Plan a. Proclamation — Constitution Week — September 17 -23, 2014 b. Proclamation — Chamber of Commerce Week — September 8 -14, 2014 C, Mayoral Update /Review 12. Clerk's Report -- Conmunit, Relations Commission 13. Staff Reports a. Village Administrator Miscellaneous Reports and Updates b. Corporation Counsel 14 Reports by Trustees a. Crusiee Oa rear — h r, r Depco,nmCnt. Einergenei, A4anagemem 4srenL v, RED C enter. Fire and Police Commission Police lh11)artmCnr Pollee racrlity 11 omrnittee ('l7amflRr OfCammerce (I} u.stee 14 /iikol h. 'Trustee Marcus zldvisoijf C'omrnission on Aging. Family and Senior Services Department, finance Advi,mr_v Commission, Condonnniwn ssoc0110n Social Committee fahcrnatel (1 -ustec Toth) C. n rustee Pietron -- Appearance Corem.ssion, Building Dcpartnaent I ( -'omns "I 7 Lt Community and Economic Development Department, Branding /Markeung (Trustee Thil1) 14. Reports by Trustees (continued) d. Trustee Thill — Public Works Department, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County, Traffic Safety Commission, Waukegan Road 77F, Lehigh ✓'Ferris TIF. Dempster Street Corridor Plan (Trustee Pietron) 1) Resolution 14 -42 (Introduced September 8, 20.14) Authorizing the Execution of a Contract with Bolder Contractors, Inc. for Caldwell Avenue 12 inch and 20 inch Water Main River Crossing Project 2) Resolution 14 -43 (Introduced September 8, 20 1-4) Authorizing the Execution of a Contract with Ciorba Group, Inc. for Construction Engineering Services for Caldwell Avenue 12 inch and 20 inch Water Main River Crossing Project 3j Resolution 14 -44 (Introduced September 8, 2014) Authorizing the Execution of a Contract with Ciorba Group, Inc. for a Preliminary Engineering Services for the Savre - Foster Drainage Study 4) Ordinance 14 -19 (Introduced September 8, 2014) (First Reading) Amending Title 5, Chapter 13, Article A -2 and Title 5, Chapter 13, Article A -4. Entitled Traffic Schedules of the Municipal Code of the Village Trustee Toth — FYnance Department Capital Protrcts, Environmental Health .natural Resource ConZ17us,`ion (Trustee Marcus) f. Trustee Witko — Leval, Ilan Board o,i,gppeals, NIPSTA .Strategic Plarr, Committee, Economic Development Commission, Social Service Committee (Trustee Gr'ear) 1) Ordinance 14 -18 (Introduced September 8, 2014) (First Reading) Amending the Village's Unified Development Code, Sec. 12 -3 -5, to Modify Regulations Regarding fences within Front Yard Setbacks Resolution 14 -49 (Introduced September 8, 2014) Authorizino the Execution of an Agreement betwccr GovTemn 1 !SA, r i C and the i Iillage io PF(Wide a Liccnscd (-, urcal Social Worker 15. Other Business 16. Presentation of Warrants: Am ig t 25.3014 S 991) 330.37 Septemiber 8, 2014 $ 145,693.3 Total R,04,023.74 17. Residents' Comments 18. Executive Session — Personnel Matters, Labor Negotiations, Pending Litigation, and Real Estate 19. Adjournment -To ensure,full accessibility and equal participation for all interested citizens, individuals with disabilities who plan to attend and who require certain accommodations in order to observe and/or participate in this meeting, or who have questions regarding the accessibility of'these facilities, are requested to contact Susan or Marlene (8471470 -5220) promptly to allow the Village to make reasonable accommodations. CALL TO ORDER I & Village President Dan DiMaria called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the II. Council Chambers and led the Board in the Pledge of Allegiance. III, Village Clerk Ed Ramos called the roll. Present were: Trustees Bill Grear, She[ Marcus, John Pietron, John Thill, Maria Toth, and Janine Witko, IV. V VI. EXECUTIVE SESSION NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regarding the Minutes of the July 14, 2014 Regular Board Meeting, Trustee Toth moved, seconded by Trustee Witko, to accept the Minutes as presented. Upon the voice vote, the motion passed unanimously. 1 Audit Presentation by Sikich SPECIAL REPORTS a. Village Administrator Ryan Horne introduced Brian LeFevre from Sikich, the auditing firm used by the Village, to provide some highlights to the Board. The entire audit Is posted on the Village's website. The audit basically examines the Village's records and books to ensure that everything is in order. b. Mr. LeFevre thanked Mr. Horne for inviting him to make this presentation. He noted that the Village has, for the 251° consecutive year, received the Excellence in Financial Reporting from the Government Financial Officers Association. c. Mr. LeFevre said that, in the Financial section of the Audit Report is his firm's opinion of the Village's records, based on two sets of standards. One is the standards set by the American Institute for Certified Public Accounts, the other is the Financial Reporting standards from GASB. The highest /best level that can be achieved is "unmodified" and the Village is in that category. VI. SPECIAL REPORTS (continued) d. Mr. LeFevre went on to say that, unlike previous years, this year's audit does not include the Morton Grove Public Library, in accordance with GASB standards. He said that, within the financial statements, there are two sections. There is an overview section and then, more relevant, is the fund financial statements. These will be reviewed during the Village's first budget meeting. e. Mr. LeFevre said the Village is operationally "in balance," meaning that it's living within its means. He said that its investment policies are reasonable and its deposits are secured. The audit included a recommendation, to which the Village has responded. and he noted that suggestions from the prior year's audit have also been implemented. f Mr. LeFevre complimented the Village on having a very good and capable staff. Mayor DiMana asked if any of the Board members had any questions for Mr. LeFevre. g. Trustee Thill asked if the Village is financially in good shape. Mr. LeFevre said that the focus of the audit was on the Village's books and records, and the Village is in good shape there. Mayor DiMaria thanked Mr. LeFevre for the brevity of the presentation. h. Mr. Horne noted that the complete audit can be found on the Village's website under the Financial Department, listed as the 2013 CAFR (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report). Mayor DiMaria suggested the verbiage on the link be changed to "2013 Annual Audit" to make it easier for residents to find what they're looking for. VII, PUBLIC HEARINGS NONE Vill. RESIDENTS' COMMENTS (Agenda Items Only) NONE IX PRESIDENT'S REPORT Proclamation Mayor DiMana proclaimed August 2014 as "Morton Grove American Youth Soccer Organization, Region 794 'Team Lightning "' month in the Village, noting that "Team Lightning competed in the AYSO National Games and earned a second place win. He said the Village congratulates the team and is proud of their success. He piesented each team member, anc the coaches, with a certificate, pointing out, .'This is a good example of how far you can go when you work as a team." Minutes of Au ust 91,2014 B6ord Mooting', IX. PRESIDENT'S REPORT (continued) 2. Report on Nicer Gas —JULIE 811 Calls Mayor DiMaria said that Administrator Horne had told him that August 11 is National 811 Day. He encouraged everyone to "call before you dig ", JULIE will be out within 48 hours to mark the utilities so as to prevent service disruptions arising from construction projects. 3. Mayoral Update Mayor DiMaria said the Village's branding initiative is coming along very well. He encouraged residents to take the "Community Survey" which is online; a link can be found on the Village's website. Mayor DiMaria said the more input the Village gets, the better —this input will help the Village shape itself. He said it's important for everyone to get the word out about the Village's marketing /branding initiatives. Mayor DiMana offered his congratulations to the Finance Department, to its staff and department head, Remy Navarrete, for their assistance with the audit. X. CLERK'S REPORT Clerk Ramos reported that St. Martha's would be holding a Rummage Sale on August 22 -24. Hours are from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on August 22 and 23, and from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on August 24. Clerk Ramos said that donations and volunteers arestill needed, and said he had fliers for those who are interested. XI. STAFF REPORTS A. Village Administrator: Village Administrator Ryan Horne said the Village has been receiving reports of door -to -door solicitors. He said the Village requires a license for any person or company doing door -to -door solicitation. He reminded people that they are not required to open their door for these solicitors, and if they have any concerns at all, they should call 911. Mr. Horne said that Commonwealth Edison is required by federal law to maintain its rights -of- way. In Morton Grove, some of these rights -of -way are used by adjacent residents as extensions of their backyard. They are no longer allowed to do so. ComEd will begin doing maintenance on its Morton Grove rights -of -way in the next few weeks. Trustee Marcus said that he's known people who've used a Con-Ed right -of -way adjacent to their house as though it was part of their own yards. He said that it's very important for people to know the Village has no control over this; this is a ComEd issue. He pointed out that it is very important to keep the areas under and around power lines clear. He said if people wanted to make comments about this, they should contact ComEd. Minute8 ofAtmaust 11, 2014 Board Meeting XI. B. Corporation Counsel: STAFF REPORTS (continued) Corporation Counsel Liston had no report. XII. TRUSTEES' REPORTS A. TrusteeGrear. Trustee Grear had no formal report, but reminded residents to move their cars on street - sweeping days. He said it's not mandatory, but it would realty be helpful to Public Works' street crews. Joe Dahm of Public Works added that keeping the streets clean is part of the Village's overall storm water management program, because it helps keep the storm water sewers clear of debris. As a reminder, he said that Mondays and Tuesdays are street sweeping days east of the river. Wednesdays, Thursday, and Fridays are when the streets west of the river are done. B. Trustee Marcus, Trustee Marcus had no formal report, but encouraged people to visit the Farmers' Market on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. til noon. He commended the hard - working Farmers' Market committee for all that they do. C. Trustee Pietron: Trustee Pietron had no report. D Trustee Thill: Trustee Thill had no report Trustee Toth: Trustee Toth had no report. f` Mia'utasotAu us't11,30'14BoardMeeting`: XII. TRUSTEES' REPORTS (continued) F. Trustee Witko: 1. Trustee Witko presented Ordinance 14 -17, Amending the Village of Morton Grove Unified Development Code, Section 12 -15 -4, To Allow Certain Modifications to Existing Non - Conforming Structures to be Approved Administratively. This is the second reading of this Ordinance. Trustee Witko explained that this Ordinance will help streamline the Village's development review approval process for certain modifications to non - conforming structures, while preserv- ing the intent of the zoning code to allow for the orderly development and redevelopment of the Village, and will reducethe permit review time for such project, and improve allocation of staff resources. Trustee Witko moved to adopt Ordinance 14-17, seconded by Trustee Thill. Motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Tr. Grear acre Tr. Marcus acre Tr. Thill aye Tr. Toth aye XIII OTHER BUSINESS NONE X I V WARRANTS Trustee Toth presented two sets of Warrants, Tr. Pietron aye Tr. Witko acre First, the Warrant Register for July 28, 2014, in the amount of $697,389.41. She moved to approve these Warrants as presented, seconded by Trustee Witko. Motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Tr. Grear aye Tr. [!Marcus a re Tr. Pietron ave Tr. Thill aye Tr. Toth aerie Tr. Witko acre — Next the vNarrant Register for August 11, 2014, In the amount of $338,061.52. Trustee Toth moved to approve these Warrants as presented, seconded by Trustee Pietron. Motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Tr. Grear acre Tr. Marcus aye Tr. Pietron aye Tr. Thill acre Tr. Toth aye Tr. Witko aye 61 ` av Minutes of qugus €19, 2094 Board Meetin ` XV. RESIDENTS' COMMENTS Esfir Ksenozovsky, 8141 BeIleforte, asked what was going to be done about flooding in Morton Grove and when. She said she is a widow on a limited income. Her basement has flooded so often it's at the point where she has mold and rotting wood, and she can't afford to get it fixed. She noted that the mayor of Des Plaines has applied for and received federal funds to help with the flooding issues in Des Plaines, and wondered why Morton Grove couldn't do the same. Ms. Ksenozovsky was upset that the Village has never helped her, in all the years she's been a taxpayer. She said she's spoken with both Ryan Horne and the mayor but nothing's being done. She felt the Village just doesn't care. Mayor DiMaria responded that his administration has been working hard with the Village's State and Federal representatives to get similar funding, but it's a slow process. He said that Morton Grove does offer flood control assistance to its residents, and encouraged her to talk to Administrator Horne for more information. He said that it's absolutely not true that the Village doesn't care and doesn't help its residents. He said the Board wants to help and said he would speak with her after the meeting. 2. Georgianne Brunner, representing the Morton Grove Days Commission, thanked the Board, the Police Department, the Fire Department, and the Public Works Department for all their assistance and cooperation for the Morton Grove Days festivities. The weather was perfect, and she said that, next year, the Commission hopes to have another great event. Because the Commission will now be responsible for the fireworks display, she said the need for volunteers and donations will be even greater than it has been, and said she hoped the residents and community would step up to this new challenge. XV. ADJOURNMENT Trustee Marcus moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Trustee Toth. Motion passed: 6 ayes, 0 nays. Tr. Grear 2Yre Tr. Marcus acre Tr. Pietron ave Tr. Thill aye Tr. Toth ave Tr. Witko ave The meeting adjourned at 7:38 p.m. .Itr Minutei of Au ust 11, 3018 Boats MeeflnBl PASSED this 8th day of September, 2014. Trustee Grear Trustee Marcus Trustee Pietron Trustee Thill Trustee Toth Trustee Witko APPROVED by me this 8th day of September, 2014, Daniel P. DiMaria, Village President Board of Trustees. Morton Grove. Illinois APPROVED and FILED in my office this 9th day of September. 2014. Edilberto Ramos, Village Clerk Village of Morton Grove, Cook County, Illinois VMLIHeSM tem_sa Cases August 1, 2014 President and Board of Trustees Village of Morton Grove 61.01 Capulina Ave. Morton Grove, IL 60053 Fire and Police Commission • ,. SUBJECT: Appointment to the Rank of Fire Lieutenant Pursuant to the Rules and Regulations of the Board of Fire and Police Cormnissioners of the Village of Morton Grove, as amended, and pursuant to the Illinois Revised State Statutes, as amended, 65 LLCS 5/10 -2 =14, and reference to the former promotional register of eligibles for Lieutenant, dated 11- 05 -12, the following person who has previously been qualified and whose name appeared on the eigble promotional register is herewith appointed Lieutenant in the Fire Department of the Village of Morton Grove, Illinois, effective on the date following his name. DENNIS M. KENNEDY Effective date of appointment - August 4, 2014. Swearing in ceremony to be held at the Village Board meeting of September 8, 2014, at 7:00 p.m. B)ORDEROF THE BOARD OF F!RF AND POLICECOTv11v11SSIONFRd VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, ILLINOIS MICHAEL SIMKINS, Chairman Fire 5 Police Commission Copy to D. Kennedy Chief Friel R. Horne Richard T, Flickinger Municipal Center 6101 Capul,ina Avenue a Morton Grove, Illinois 60053 -2985 Tel: (847) 965 -4100 Fax: (847) 965 -4162 a��y(i�.a i�<t, Proposed Unified Development Code (Ordinance 07-07) to modify regulations regarding fences within front yard setbacks Commission Report Public Hearing Notice The Village provided Public Notice for the August 18, 2014 Plan Commission public hearing for PC 14 -13 in accordance with the Unified Development Code. The Pioneer Press published the public notice on July 31, 2014. As this request is for a text amendment, not a request for a specific site, no Dublic notice signs or notincation letters were required. Background and Application Overview Currently the Village Code does not permit fences in any part of the front yard (Section 12 -3 -5). For corner lots, through -lots, and other properties with multi - frontage, this provision extends to include any side or rear yard that abuts a street as these are considered "front yards" under zoning dimensional controls and related to fencing. Under the current code requirements, the owner of a corner lot, through lot or multi- frontage lot can seek a variance through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to enclose any portion of their front, street side yard and /or their rear yard with a fence, depending on the configuration of such lots. Recently, there have been numerous applications from property owners seeking variations to allow for a fence within a "required front yard," primarily and specifically to allow fences within a portion of the street side yard on corner lots. In order to try to seek balance between property owners' desire for privacy and the ordinance requirements, staff has proposed a text amendment to allow for some limited by -right fencing within the street side yards. As detailed in the staff memorandum to the Plan Commission, dated August 12, 2014 (Attachment A), the proposed amendment would allow fences to be permitted by right in portions of the street side yards of corner lots subject to the follow requirements: • The fence shall be no higher than 42 inches (3' — 6"); a The fence shall have a minimum opacity of 50% and not be made of chain -link material; • The fence shall not be located within 10 ft. by 10 ft. sight line triangles at any point where a vehicular or pedestrian access way intersects a driveway, alley, or any other vehicular or pedestrian access way; • The fence shall be allowed in that portion of the street side yard that is in line with and to the rear of the back portion of the principal structure, as measured at the point closest to the street side yard. Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment /Fences August 18, 2014 Public Hearing Dominick Argumedo, Zoning Administrator /Land -Use Planner, provided an overview of the Plan Commission staff memorandum dated August 12, 2014 (Attachment A). Mr. Argumedo noted the intent of the Village's prohibition on fences in the front yard is to maintain open space along the streetscape and to promote pedestrian and vehicular safety by minimizing the visual barriers. Current fence regulations, however, provide limited opportunities for owners of corner lots or multi- frontage lots to have fencing as the Unified Development Code specifies that side yards that abut streets are required to follow the requirements established for front yards. As noted above, property owners of corner lots often seek a variance to enclose a portion of their street side yard and /or their rear yard with a fence, depending on the configuration of such lots, to allow for some usable enclosed yard space. Mr. Argumedo testified that a number of cases have been filed before the ZBA to allow for fences within the street side yards of corner lots. Those applications which were approved by the ZBA often included conditions that were designed to preserve the intent of the ordinance to try to maintain an open streetscape and to protect pedestrian and vehicle safety. These conditions often included reductions to the proposed fence height; increasing setbacks of the fences from sidewalks, alleys, and /or driveways to provide clear "sight lines'; and provisions to try to increase fence opacity. Mr. Argumedo noted that based on the trends of the variance applications and the ZBA's actions on those they approved, staff initiated this tent amendment to allow fences in limited portions of the street side yards. This proposed amendment would enhance property owners' use of their property; help to provide uniformity to street side yard fence design and construction through establishment of height, material and opacity requirements; promote pedestrian /vehicular safety and reduce visual barriers; accommodate the Village of Morton Grove's desire for open yards along the streetscape; and to reduce permit review time on such applications. Mr. Argumedo noted the current regulation prohibiting fences in the front yard would remain. However, applicants may still seek variations to allow for extended street side yard fences or fences within front and rear yards that abut streets. In such cases, staff notes that by incorporating height, material and opacity requirements for the 'by -right street side yard fencing, the ZBA will have some criteria by which they can review the variance application in addition to reviewing them against the intent of the original ordinance - to preserve and enhance open streetscapes and promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. Mr. Argumedo also provided an overview of the diagrams, which were included in the staff memo, to illustrate which types of lots and /or configurations would be eligible for by -right fencing in the street side yard setback. Staff is proposing to include these diagrams in the updated ordinance. Public Hearing —Board Comment /Inquiry Chairman Farkas asked for questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Dorgan asked how the amendment impacts bushes or vegetation placed at the property line. Mr. Argumedo noted that per the Unified Development Code, a fence can include bushes and vegetation. Any planting of bushes along the property line for eligible lots under this proposed amendment would need to meet the height and opacity requirements. Staff would need Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment/ Fences to examine submissions and understand the potential future impact of such plantings (would the bushes grow together to provide for an opacity below 50% or grow to a height beyond 42 inches ?) before approval. Mr. Dorgan asked if the amendment would be retroactive and if fences currently placed on the property line would need to be adjusted /reduced to meet the forthcoming code. Staff noted that fences constructed before the Unified Development Code prohibited front yard fences would be legal non - conforming structures. Fences built after the ordinance prohibited fences in the front yard, without proper permits, are non- compliant and could be subject to code enforcement actions and /or subsequent removal. For fences comprised of vegetation, the same holds true except that even legal non- conforming organic fences are required to adhere to property maintenance standards. Commissioner Shimanski expressed concern that some vegetation that meets the Unified Development Code definition of a fence, but that would not meet the regulations of the proposed amendment, provides benefit as sound barriers for homes on busy streets. Nancy Radzevich, Community and Economic Development Director, acknowledged the validity of that point and noted the amendment is intended to strike a balance: to establish some limited ability to construct street side yard fences by- right, but to still allow property owners to seek variances for site specific challenges. Ms. Radzevich went on to say that staff initially discussed eliminating the ability for anyone to seek a variance for a front yard fence, but after further discussion staff recognized that the variance process exists to successfully examine appropriate circumstances where relief from the code may be appropriate. Commissioner Blonz inquired where a property owner could place a fence when a utility easement exists on the property. Ms. Radzevich noted that at present, staff first discusses an application with the Village's Public Works department to understand the likelihood of the easement being used in the future and then advises the applicant that H Village's Public Works department or a utility company needs to access that portion of property the fence would be removed and Village is under no obligation to repair or replace it. Commissioner Blonz inquired about the permitted fence height beyond the required front yard setback on lots that meet the eligibility requirements. Staff noted a fence beyond the required front yard setback in the side and rear yards could be built to a height of 6 ft, as stated in the existing code. Commissioner Blonz inquired if the proposed 10 ft. sight line triangle would be for driveways as well as alleys and roads; staff confirmed this would be the case. Commissioner Blonz inquired what style of fences would have 50% opacity. Staff noted that picket fences and wrought iron would be appropriate examples, but chain link fence would not be allowed by- right. If there is a debate over materials in a fence submission between the applicant and staff, the fence application would be forwarded to the ZBA for final determination.. Commissioner Blonz asked if a fence variance application that the ZBA had denied could be subsequently approved under this text amendment. Ms. Radzevich noted that there are specific requirements in the codes that prevent people from re- applying, after a denial, for a set time - frame or unless the application substantial changes. In this case, staff believes that a property owner who had been denied a street side yard fence could submit a new plan and gain approval by- right, if it complied with the proposed ordinance. Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment/ Fences Commissioner Shimanski sought clarification of the portion of the amendment that said the fence shall only be permitted to enclose that portion of the street side yard that is in line with and to the rear of the back portion of the principal structure. He noted that if a home had a staggered back exterior wall, then there may be questions as to which portion of the "rear part of the principal structure" would dictate for the by -right approval process. He suggested it should be the rear part of the principal structure, nearest the street side yard. Staff agreed this could be a point of contention and worked with the Commission to modify the amendment language to state, that it would be the rear of the principal structure, nearest to the street side yard. Commissioner Blonz inquired if the ZBA could grant front yard variances beyond the standards (height, opacity, location) in the proposed amendment. Ms. Radzevich noted that the Board could exceed the administrative approval limitations within the amendment. However, staff hopes that the ZBA would use these criteria as guidelines (for height, opacity and placement) in the determination of subsequent front yard fence variance applications. An example might be if the ZBA receives a variation application asking that the height be increased to 48 inches, if the ZBA believes the height waiver is warranted, the Board may make additional provisions, such as requiring an additional setback (i.e. 5 ft. from the property line) to help retain the intent of the original ordinance – to preserve open streetscapes and to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. Staff also confirmed that the amendment did not include any limitation on the extents of the waivers that could be requested or approved by the ZBA. Commissioner Khan inquired why the proposed amendment is not being extended to all corner lots instead of solely blocks that are entirely composed of street side vards. Ms. Radzevich noted that allowing all corner lots to be eligible for fences would conflict with the inherent intent of the ordinance – which is to preserve open front yards along the streescape. Allowing by -right fences along street side yards that abuts or aligns with a block of one of more true front yards could have adverse impacts on the abutters, who may not want a fence along their front yard, and on the overall streescape for that block. Owners of lots not eligible under this proposed amendment can still apply for a variance to try to enclose a portion of their street side yard. Public Hearing— Public Comment Chairperson Farkas asked if anyone was present that wanted to be heard on this case. No one asked to speak. Public Hearino —Board Discussion and Vote Chairperson Farkas asked for a motion to approve Case PC14 -13 Commissioner Blonz made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, PC #14 -13, with the requirements included in the staff memo dated August 12, 2014 with the modification to proposed Section 12- 3 -5 -B -b to read as 'The fence shall only be permitted to enclose "that portion of the street side yard that is in line with and behind the rear port on of the principal structure closest to the street side yard property line. ° Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dorgan. The amendment was recommended for approval by majority vote. (5 -0 -2; Commissioner Kahn abstained; Commissioner Gabriel absent) w_` y Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment /Fences PC 14 -13 PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE (AMENDER, PER PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) (New Text shown in bold /underlined format; any deleted text shown as strileeti}s format) 12 -3 -5: FENCES: Fences are permitted in all districts, subject to the following restrictions: A. No fence shall be allowed within any part of a required front yard or anv part of a required rear vard that front a str�ee}tt.. such as in the case of through lots or multi - frontage corner lots.— exeent "iTRCZ B- R -JSdC s=$r- d -n'[Yn CCLIL' =a'j Pr'eeC II.[p0- 46'QCB'a'�'Qb'Ik C'6 [6EY -OI ] eeo dA B. Fences shall be permitted within portions of the street side vard of corner lots which is defined as the vard abutting a street that does not meet the definition of "Lot Frontage" and "Lot Line, Rear" in accordance with Section 12 -17 -1 of the unified Development Code with the follow in requirements: a. The street side vard of a subiect property which is part of a block where the entire block face, between two public streets, includes only street side vards as shown in "Exhibit I — Eliaible Lots" but not on lots where the block face. between two public streets includes one or more front vard on lots with street frontage on three (3) sides where the street side vard is within the required front vard setbacks or on Through Lott as shown in "Exhibit 2 —Ineligible Lots" Exhibit 1: Eligible Lots rg 4 3. sa aw y I 660 -PC b C ` K m m m m f m t J (Addresses 894-5 and 6944 would be eligible for limited "bv- right " street side vard fence under this amendment) (Addresses 6600 would be eligible for limited "bV -right' street side vard fence under this amendment) Exhibit 2: Ineligible Lots vYiCp� 660 (Addresses 6600 would be eligible for limited "bV -right' street side vard fence under this amendment) Exhibit 2: Ineligible Lots vYiCp� Board GPI September « 214 my &4 Amendment/Fences under this amendment) » a V'24�\ y y \ Q4 QI \') m I § ©» O \. / » I, \ ~ : � \:- - - -- � {� V v /� (Address 8952 «A NOT .be limited n et side of e e r _� _6 _:mr et vard walso within u required front var d setback, +e r front and r (Addresses , and 8946 would NOT be eli2ible f/ ofront or rear var a fence under this amendment) . \3� ! �\ \� \ \\� (Addresses , and 8946 would NOT be eli2ible f/ ofront or rear var a fence under this amendment) Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment /Fences b. The fence shall on}v be permitted to enclose that portion of the street side vard that is in line with and behind the rear portion of the principal structure closest to the street side vard property line, as exemplified in "Exhibit 3 — Permitted Location of Street Side Yard Fences "; Lq ti } 1F Permitted P tt Locatum t Lr LO i IM y' LE - -- m _ -i �4� -' -------- _- " rermrrecl TY . ROH' — IRequretl REARS Fen( yarzl ) IZ p iced RP Nf 1 c. The fence shall not be hiaber than 42 inches (3 .5 ft.)' d. The fences shall have a minimum onacin, of 50% and shall not he made of chain link material; and e The fence shall not be located within 10 ft. by 40 ft sight line triangles at any point where the vehicular or pedestrian access way intersects a driveway alley, sidewalk or other vehicular or pedestrian access way. As exemplified by "Exhibit 4 — Si ht line Trian ie" Pnllv ,al Felde Rrir Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment/ Fences 14C. The table lists maximum fence heights for properties in the various zoning districts: Lot In Zonina District Residential Residential — within designated street side vard area, per Sec. 12- 3 -5.B. Commercial Manufacturing Abutting Lot In Zoning District .Residential % (Commercial Manufacturir 6 feet 7 feet 7 feet j 3' -6 "feet 3' -6" feet 3' -6" feet 7 feet ! 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet Eli. In no event shall any fence be placed or maintained in a location relative to a public or private street, alley, driveway or other means of egress such that the sight of oncoming vehicular er pedestriati traffic is impaired for users of such means of ingress and egress. PE. All fences mustbe installed in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code. BF. Anv appReations for variations to the fence requirements. included herewith shall be reviewed based on the foliowine: 1. The proposed fence variation shall meet with the intent of the design and development standards established in 12- 3 -5:B.. above 2. The proposed fence variation shall not have an adverse impact on the immediate abutters or the character of the surroundir_a neighborhood; 3. The proposed fence variation shall not create obstructions in required sight [fines at areas where a pedestrian or vehicular ways intersect with driveways, streets. alley¢ or other pedestrian or vehicular access way. To: Chairperson Farkas and Members of the Plan Commission From: Fancy Radzevich, AICP, Community & Economic Development birectorMA / Dominick Argumedo, AICP, Zoning Administrator /Land -Use Planner Date: August 12, 2014 Re: Plan Commission Case PC 14 -13: Proposed Text Amendment to Section 12- 3-5 of the Morton Grove Unified Development Code (Ordinance 07 -07) to modify regulations regarding fences within front yard setbacks STAFF MEMORANDUM Public Notice The Village provided Public Notice for the August lE, 2014 Plan Commission public hearing for PC 14 -13 in accordance with the Unified Development Code, The Pioneer Press published the public notice on July 31, 2014. As this request is for a text amendment, not a request or specific site, no public notice signs or notification letter were required. Background Section 12 -3 -5 -A of the Unified Development Code states, "No fence shah be allowed on any Part of a front yard, except where a side yard abutting a street also abuts a public alley of record." The Unified Development Code Section 12 -2 -6 -F states: "The side yard abutting a street 0173 comer lot shall be considered a front yai d far the purposes of the appiicable setback requirements of the zoning district within wnich it is located" In addition, Through Lots are defined as, "A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines along two (2) streets and which is not a corner lot On a through lot, both street lines shall be deemed front lot lines." In the case of corner lots, through lots and lots with three sides of street frontage are limited in the amount of yard space that can be enclosed by a fence when compared to standard interior lots. ired Front Yards Under the current code requirements, the owner of a corner lot or through lot or other similar lot with multiple street frontages needs to seek a variance to enclose any portion of their corner side yard and /or their rear yard with a fence, depending on the configuration of such lots. PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 While the intent of the current ordinance is to maintain open space along the streetscape and to promote pedestrian and vehicular safety by minimizing the visual barriers along public sidewalks and adjacent to alleys, driveways, etc., the Unified Development Code does not provide any guidelines for granting such variances for fences in the street side yards or rear yards of corner lots, through lots, or other lots with multiple frontage. Staff notes that there have been a number of cases filed before the ZBA to allow for fences within the street side yards, and in most cases the ZBA approved modified versions of the original applications. The changes typically involved reducing the height of the fences from 6 ft. to 4 ft. or less; moving such fences away from sidewalks, alleys, and /or driveways to provide some clear "sight lines" and reduce potential pedestrian - vehicular conflicts; and to encourage some opacity in the fences to create a more open feel and enhance aesthetics along the streetscape. Although current staff has not received applications for fences for rear or street side yards for through lots and /or multi- frontage lots, staff notes that similar issues with respect to potentially allowing fences along those yards that front public rights -of -way and are adjacent to sidewalks, alleys, etc. Based on the trends of the applications and the ZBA's actions on those which were approved, staff is proposing modifications to the fence regulations to allow fences in portions of the street side yards under certain circumstances in order to enhance property owners' use of their property; provide uniformity to street side yard fence design and construction; promote pedestrian /vehicular safety and reduce visual barriers within a drivers' sight lines; accommodate the Village of Moron Grove's desire for open yards along the streetscape; and to reduce permit review time on such variance cases. The overall regulation prohibiting fences in the front yard would remain, which applies to rear yards that front public streets (either through lots or other multi - frontage lots). However, applicants may still try to seek variations to aallow for fences in the front and rear yards that abut streets and /or to try to extend what would be permitted by right in the street side yards. The criteria established for by -right street yard fences in this forthcoming amendment should be used in the determination of appropriate variance approvals for front and rear yard cases. Discussion Proposed Amendment Staff proposes that fences be permitted by right In portions of the street side yards of corner IOUs, which is defined as the yard abutting a street that does not meet the definition of "Lot Frontage" defined as ° The front of a lot shalt be the boundary of a lot along a public smeer, for a comer /ot, the front of the lot shall be that boundary of a lot along a public street which provides the maximum lot depth "and "Lot Line, Rear," defined in part as "T,hat boundary of a lot which is most distance from, and is, or is approxlmately, parallel to, the front lot line... " in accordance with Section 12 -17 -1 of the Unified Development Code, and subject to the foliowing requirements: The street side yard of a subject property which is part of a block where the entire block face, between two public streets, includes only street side yards, as shown in "Exhibit 1 — Eligible Los," but not on lots where the block face, between two public streets, includes one or more front yard, on Jos with street frontage on three (3) sides where the street side yard is also within the required front yard setbacks, or on Through Los as shown in "Exhibit 2 — Inelbibie Los" PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 lie i r m m _ rn _w r' (Addresses 8945 and 8944 would be eligible for limited "b; -right "street side yard fence under this amendment) w i m F ,f r IF; yy 1_`� ' •'-- 6600 �r (Addr ass 6600 would be eligible for a limited "by -right " sheet side yard fence under this amendment) Addresses 8621 and 8601 would NOT be eligible for limited "by- right "street side yard fence under this amendment because the block face includes front yards) (Address 8952 would NOT be eligible r"ence under this amendment because required front yard setbao PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 for limited "by- right "street side yard the street side yard is also withm the along the front and rear) I? t (Addresses 8950 and 894- would RIOT be efialble for a by-right front or c mar yard fence under drys amendment because each street frontage is onsio'ered a front yard) The fence shall only be permitted to enclose that portion of the street side yard that is [inn, and to the rear of the back portion of the principal structure, as exemplif[ed in Exhibit 3 - Street Side Yard Fence Permitted Location ": Permitted PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff ReDOrt August 12, 2014 Fe"Med Fence Lonafian • The fence shall be no higher than 42 inches (3' • The fence shall have a minimum opacity of 50% and shall not be made of chain -iink material; • The fence shall not be located within sight line triangles of 10 ft. by 1.0 ft. at any point where 'the public sidewalk intersecIrs a driveway, alley, or any other vehlcuiar or pedestrian access way, as exemplified "Exhibit 4 — Sight Triangles ". 5 PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 Supports the Intent of Open Yards Morton Grove is a desirable place to live for a variety of reasons — including its housing stock and well maintained residential neighborhoods. The Village, like most other communities, enacted a prohibition on front yard fences to promote an open sense of community, to enhance the aesthetics and character of the public streetscapes, and eliminate vehicular and pedestrian obstructions along public right -of -ways. However, allowing limited fences, with defined development standards, in street side yards will also allow for some use of private recreation space while still complying with the intent of the current ordinance. The proposed text amendment will comply with the intent of the original ordinance prohibiting fences within required front yards and rear yards on through lots and /or multi- frontage lots where rear yards front streets, while allowing for some limited fencing in street side yards, under certain circumstances. Specifically, this amendment requires any fences permitted within the street side yards of corner lots, must be installed with a minimum 10 ft. by 10 ft. sight line triangle at all locations where an alley or driveway abuts a public sidewalk or other pedestrian or vehicular access way. This will ensure that vehicles and pedestrians will have clear visibility at potential vehicular /pedestrian conflict coins. To further reinforce the sight lines, the proposed maximum 42 inch (3' — 6'� height limit for street side yard fences complies with engineering standards for clear sight lines by drivers within vehicles. Further, the proposed 42 inch fence height limit, the 50% opacity requirement, the limitations on the location of the street side fencing promote=_ the Village's desire to maintain as much open space as possible along residential streetscapes. Finally, by limiting the by -right permitting to only those properties where the block face is made of only street side yards, this text amendment will limit the potential for fencing to be installed on a property, adjacent to another property owner's front yard. Staff believes that creating standards for installation of street side yard fencing, reflecting types of installations approved by the ZBA in the past and engineering best practices, will enhance overall neighborhood character. A 42 inch (3'- 6 ") fence height with 500/6 opacity limit will provide some sense of privacy and security and by prohibiting the installation of chain link fences within street side yards, the aesthetics and integrity of the residential neighborhoods and streetscapes will be preserved and maintained. Staff suggests that these base level standards be carried forward when the ZBA considers any applications to extend the street side yard fence area beyond what would be permitted by right, Through this proposed text amendment, staff is proposing to allow for limited street side yard fencing by right, as long as such fencing complies with certain criteria described above and in Attachment "A ". Residents would be allowed to seek variations from these provisions, through the ZBA, to potentially allow for more of the street side yard to be enclosed, to try to increase the height or to decrease the cpacty, etc. Those cases will still be heard and decided by the ZBA on a case-by-case basis. %n Gne r41rth Np ahhoring Mcrnicrpalltles This proposed text amendment regarding front and street side yard fencing is comparable to albeit a little more stringent than what is permitted by right in many neighboring communities. In researching fencing regulations, staff found that Park Ridge, Glenview, Niles, and Evanston all prohibit front yard fences, but permit street side yard fencing, on corner lots; while Skokie prohibits all front and corner side yard fences except at schools, public parks, governmental 6 PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 uses, and public utilities, required for the protection of the public in residential zoning districts. Des Plaines was the only community in the survey that allows fences in all front yards. While most of these communities allow for street side yard fences by right, each community has certain provisions that must be followed. For example, Evanston requires a 3 ft. sight triangle along alleys and Niles does not permit fences to beyond the front building line to a street or within 30 feet of a street intersection. The proposed amendment is in line with neighboring communities, but includes additional conditions to ensure compliance with the Village's desire of openness along public ways and to promote vehicular /pedestrian safety along driveways, public sidewalks and access ways. Benefit Summation The proposed text amendment upholds the Intent of the Village's ordinances which promote open yards along public right of ways while providing some balance to allow additional privacy and enclosure on residential corner lots. In addition, the amendment will' allow fence applications, which meet criteria to be reviewed and approved by -right and will promote the orderly development of the Village while streamlining the development approval process. Further this "text amendment will continue to allow residents to pursue variations related to street side yard fencing requirements and /or to try to install fencing within the front yard or rear yard of through lots or multi- frontage lots. The ZBA should use the proposed amendment criteria (42" in height, 50% opacity, with required 10 ft. sight triangles) and the overall intent of the original ordinance (to preserve and enhance open streetscapes) in the review of the appropriateness of fence variance applications. Recommendation If the Plan Commission supports this Xet almieindfilent, Staff suggests the fGilpVJing mGtiOn: Plan Commission recommends approval of Case #PC14 -l'3, for Text Amendments to Section 12- 3-5 of the Moron Grove Unified Development Code (Ordinance 07 -07) to allow fences in street corner side yards, which is defined as the yard abutting a street that does not meet the definition of "Lot Frontage" and "Lot Line Rear` in accordance with Section 12 -17 -1 of the Unined Development Code, in accordance with the requirements listed in "PC 1413 a,TTAi,_ ENT 'A' — Proposed Text A- iendrnent for Section 12 -3 -5 of the Unified Development. Code (Ord. #07 -07)." f�€chme€�ts; Application PC 14-13 ATTACHMENT °A" — Proposed Text Amendment for Section I.2 -3 5 of the Unified Development Code (Ord. #07 -07) sx .m 6{n" 12 -3 -5: FENCES: PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 Fences are permitted in all districts, subject to the following restrictions: A. No fence shall be allowed within any part of a required 'front yard or any part of a required rear yard that front a street. such as in the case of tbrouah -lots or multi- frontaLye corner lots. . B. Fences shall be permitted within portions of the street side vard of corner lots which is defined as the vard abutting a street that does not °meet the definition of "Lot Fro ntaae" and "Lot Line. Rear" in accordance with Section I2 -17 -1 of the Unified Development Code in accordance with thefollowin2 requirements: a. The street side vard of a subject property which is part of a block where the entire block face. between two public streets. includes nulv street side vards as shown in "Exhibit 1- EliQibleLots" but not on lots where the block face. between two public streets, includes one or more front vard. on lots with street fronta e on three (3) sides where the street side vard is within the,,required front vard setbacks. or on Through Lots as shown in "Exhibit 2 — Inelisible Lots" nnderthis amendment) PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 k tMM r �xsr r .- N (Addresses 6600 would be eligible for limited "bv- right" street side vard fence under this amendment) (Addresses 8621 and 8601 would NOT be eligible for limited "bv- eight" street side vard fence under this amendment) PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 (Address 8952 would NOT be eligible for limited' "bv - right" street side vard fence under this amendment because the street side vard is aiso within the reouired front vard setback along the front and rear) this amendment b. The fence. shall -oniv be permitted to enclose that portion of the street side vaa €i that is in line with the rear portion of the Principal structure. as exemnitaied in "Exhibit 3 — Permitted Location of Street Side Yard Fences ": Pevmttrcd Fencv �ncanon . -5. PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 CY) F. 1 _ � I rz 4Fence Ltl r FRONT ' RERR (N NT ' fi tYaTd) I I fRe9 � 11 IF naYU;N'. c. The fence shall not be higher than 42 inches (3.5 ft.): d. The fences shall have a minimum opacity of -50% and shalt not be made of chain iink material: and e. The fence shall not be located within sight line man les of 10 ft by 10 ft at anv Mint where. the pubiiesidewalk intersects a driveway..alley. or other vehicular or pedestrian access way. As exemplified bxT "Exhibit 4 Sight Line Trianuie" -- ewtmid rsze Arta PC14 -13 — Piai Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 44C. The table lists maximum fence heights for properties in the various zoning districts: Lot In Abuttina Lot In Zoning District ZonineDistrict i- 'Residential Commercial -- — } Manufacturing ti i Residential 6 feet 7 feet r et' Residential — within designated street 3' -6 "feed 3' -6" feet 3' -6" feet side vard area, per Sec. 12- 3 -5.B. Commercial 7 fee t 1 7 feet 7 feet anufac urine 7 fee + i'eet feet _ ----------- ER, in no event shall any fence be placed or maintained in a location relative to a public or private 'St,-eet, alley, driveway or other means of egress such that the sight of oncoming vehicular or pedestrian traffic is impaired for users of such means of ingress and egress. 9E. All fences must be installed in accordance with title 10, chanter 9 of this code. DF. Anv applications for variations to the fence reouirements, included herewith, shalt be reviewed based on the following: P. The proposed fence variation shall meet with the intent of the desieu and development standards established in 12- 3 -5:B.. above: Z. The proposed fence variation shall not have an adverse impact on the imnxediate abutters or the character of the surrounding neighborhood: 3. The proposed fence variation shall not create obstructions in reuuired sight lines at areas where siilewal`[ s or other public access ways intersect with driveways. streets. allevs, etc. Vifl ge of Yllolt ion Ga oTe WHEREAS, September 17, 2014, marks the two hundred twenty- seventh anniversary of the drafting of the United States Constitution by the Constitutional Convention; and WHEREAS, it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this outstanding document and its memorable anniversary, and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate the occasion; and WHEREAS, Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States designating September 17 through 23 as Constitution Week; NOW THEREFORE, 1, Daniel P. DiMaria, Mayor of the Village of Morton Grove, Illinois, do herby proclaim the week of September 17 through September 23, 2014, as CONSTITUTION WEED and asi< that all residents of the Viliaae reaffirm the ideals of the framers of the constitution had in 1787 by attentively protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our 'iberties, renlember;nt= that lost rlHht.5 i]'I aV nWeJer by iegalned, I7 WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the Village of Morton Grove. Daniel P. DiMaria, Village President Village of Moirfo on Grove WHEREAS, the Morton Grove Chamber of Commerce works with the businesses, merchants, and industry to advance the civic, economic, industrial, professional and cultural life of the Village of Morton Grove: and WHEREAS, chambers of commerce have contributed to the civic and economic life of Illinois for 175 years: and WHEREAS, this year marks the 95`s anniversary of the founding of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, the state's leading broad -based business organization; and WHEREAS, the chamber of commerce and its members provide citizens with a strong business environment that increases employment, the retail trade and commerce, and industrial growth in order to male the Village of Morton Grove a better place to live; and V HEREAS the chamber of commerce encourages the growth of existing industries, services, and commercial firms, and encourages new firms and individuals to locate in the Village of Morton Grove; and WHEREAS. the State of Illinois is the home to international chambers of commerce, the Great I,a1�es Region Office of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Illinois Chamber of Commerce, and more than 400 local chambers of commerce: and WH R SAS this veat in -Irks the 99`r an In; vcrsary of the IIIinois Associadon of Chamber of l nn :c1cc. xcrutpvcs, Li cLip_. r(1. Ve}oOP t M :: f_)LIM IIt,.i !(, chainbtf ,�f COn". ,.JrCe pl'Of1.S.il Jt7 al ,:a:d vC)W. I HE ;RF s OIZF I?ai:,iel ' DiMaria lvlavor or he `si of 'Nionon Grove do heretm "11J Will, ll: Seplonlbe `, Throu(?'1 c '1Jte:il"lh _4., �O ''. aS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE -WEE +K 11:: VSIlagC and Ccui JiYI Il5 i,...lil C.2u"«� �) J1C7 c,LiA:lls of lh IIIa?�'.,. of l`�lortori cki <)J:'. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the seal of the Village of Morton Grove. Daniel P. BiMaria, Village President Legislative Summary Resolution 14 -42 AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH BOLDER CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR CALDWELL AVENUE 12 -INCH AND 20-INCH WATER MAIN RIVER CROSSING PROJECT Introduced: September 8, 2014 Synopsis: To authorize the Village President to execute a contract with Bolder Contractors, Inc. for Caldwell Avenue 12 -Inch and 20 -Inch Water Main River Crossing Project. Purpose: I To replace the 12 -inch and 20 -inch parallel water mains distributing water to the east side of the Village_ Background: Resolution 10 -57 authorized a task order with Ciorba Group, Inc. to provide design fservices for the replacement of the 12 -inch and 20 -inch water mains crossing within Forest Preserve District of Cook County ( "District ") and under the North Branch Chicago River. The design was suspended in 2011 due to administrative difficulty obtaining a license for the water main to be replaced on District property. The i District approved License #1729 on .July 30, 2014. This contract was bid through a public process in accordance with the Village Code. The contract was advertised and sealed bids were received. The bid tabulation is attached as Exhibit "A ". The contract must conform to the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act. Change orders in the amount of seven percent of the awarded contract amount are anticipated. Authorization for staff to incorporate germane or unforeseen changes or those changes deemed by staff to be in the best interest of the Village and lawful is included in this resolution. Programs, Departments t Public Works. or Groups Affected Fiscal Impact: The estimated contract value is $1,182,377. Since this is a unit price contract, the final contract amount will be based on the actual quantity of work performed. Source of Funds: Amended 2014 Budget Account Number 405033 - 572020 (Improvements Jther Than Buiidngsi in 11 c amomrt of S1 350.000 Workload Impact: The Public Woks Department as part of then normal work activities will perfornn the management and implementation of the program. Administrator Approval as presented. Recommendation: First Read €ng: N -A Special Considerations or None Requirements: I Respectfully submitted: _ Reviewed by AnJ 'ne mi , Village Adnistrator -----" \e /2 _ Prepared by: Reviewed by Chris Tomich, Village Engineer Teresa DeMonte. Director Public Works Liston, Corporation Counsel t •► AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A CONTRACT WITH BOLDER CONTRACTORS, INC. FOR CALDWELL AVENUE 12 -INCH AND 20 -INCH WATER MAIN RIVER CROSSING PROJECT WHEREAS, the Village of Morton Grove (Village.), located in Cook County, Illinois, is a home rule unit of government under the provisions of Article 7 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its govermnent affairs, including but not limited to the power to tax and incur debt; and WHEREAS, Resolution 10 -57 authorized a task order with Ciorba Group, Inc. to provide design services for the replacement of the 1.2 -inch and 20 -inch water mains crossing within Forest Preserve District of Cook County and under the North Branch Chicago River; and WHEREAS, the Public Works Department advertised on the Village's wcbsite beginning August G, 2014, inviting bids on the "Caldwell Avenue 12 -Inch and 20 -Inch Water Main River Crossing Project "; and WHEREAS, twenty -three entities. contractors or suppliers obtained the bidding materials: and WHEREAS, five bids were received, publicly opened and read at the Public Woks Facility at 10:30 a.m. on Thursdav, August 28. 2014, with the tabulation of bids included in Exhibit "A' and WHr.REAS, the contract must conforrn to the Illinois Prevailing Wage Act: and WHEREAS. Bolder Contractors. Inc. is he low bidder with a bid amount of 81.182.377.00: and WHEREAS, Bolder Contractors.. Inc. has successfully completed North Station 20 -inch Feeder ivlain Relocation Pri}ject and Church Street at Metra Water Main Replacement for the Village in the past,. which each included comparable work for the work required for Caldwell Avenue I2 -inch and 20 -Inch Wafer !vlain River Crossing Project; and AH RI'AS. the quaidications and ay.01abijbiv of rile iow hidde1 has beet tcafiedi aril VJIlIniCAj.ILisi "caS011al)letoCY �Ctn :11U�eSeeabJcuuGeiLJUucidCUuU Cin:nla. FtaU . aC<1.L�:dl measures to complete the construction ofthe intended facility: and 'AI'.I'Rh S` iumc deia. , associaz: d a nth tCir 1 "1 a2J tl r('�'tl bl- t?.. 'l�t�lac?C FStlatd (}f �'ICC;I: CSai� change orders to the contract may undesirably increase the length of the duration of the work and length of duration of inconvenience to the public, and WHEREAS, it is reasonable to expect the cost of additional measures could add up to seven percent of the awarded contract amount:, and WHEREAS, funding for the above work is included in the Village of Morton Grove amended 2014 Budget as account number 405033 - 572020 Improvements Other Than Buildings in the amount of one million three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($1,350,000). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Corporate Authorities do hereby incorporate the foregoing WHEREAS clauses into this Resolution as though fully set forth therein thereby making the findings as hereinabove set forth. Section 2. The Village President of the Village of Morton Grove is hereby authorized to execute and the Village Clerk to attest to a contract with Bolder Contractors, Inc., 316 Cary Point Drive, Cary, Illinois, based upon their bid for the "Caldwell Avenue 12 -Inch and 20 -Inch Water Main River Crossing Project" in the amount of one million one hundred eighty -two thousand three hundred seventy -seven dollars ($1,l82,377,00). Section 3. The Village Administrator. Director of Public Works and Village Engineer are authorized to execute any and all Contract Change Orders in an aggregate amount not exceeding eighty- two thousand seven hundred sixty -seven dollars ($82,767) and which are necessary to meet the original intent of flee contract with Bolder Contractors, Inc. Section 4. The Village Administrator. Director of Public Works, Village Engineer and /or their designees are authorized to take all steps necessary to implement, supervise, and manage this contract. Section 5. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval. PASSIiD THIS 8 '' DAY OF SEPTEIMBI R 2014 Trustee Grear Trustee Marcus Trustee Piet; o0 Crnstce "ihl! II,rsteT h0H Trustee Wilk) 1PPROV€ D BY Mr I IiIS 8Ih " DAY OF SE l` FFMBFIR 2014 Daniel P. DiMaria, Village President Village of Morton Grove Cook County, Illinois ATTESTED and FILED in my office i his 9"' DAY O'F SEPTEMBER 2014 Ed Ramos, Village Clerk Village of Morton Grove Cook County, Illinois Q 2 x w >���.J I a4 if if If, fiI I I i I lr ID Ff if — 3 If � °� fIf ID v Ell. fi 5 If if cf,fr if I t Li _ ,I SI if or if If -„ iy 1 If �,� ICI„ l i Ul 41 If I If L 7-11 pp i< L O 7 1 7 _ J rw�n 1 If I If 14 If -' If r aF r = If v c If If `_ 3 _ - �- If, 11 u e t r Q 47 S Y. w Y P'a e-N ='m i� a� 1 £ €11 ar 131 6� 8 Kx X82 't e aaal I I ✓, F 41 cl I 1 L 1 I1 +111 T7 4 -t11 �1 II 1 �1 _ I T °le Ifi,� �' IF rv�Vi p ry pp cw rf L I I 21 IF 4 1 l IF Ir - - u t w i F 11' c 4 L 0 IF r eI F � � c 2�� Lu b IF � c _ _ Le(islative Summary AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE ACONTRACT WITH CIORBA GROUP, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CALDWELL AVENUE I2 -INCH AND 20 -INCH WATER MAIN RIVER CROSSING PROJECT Introduced: September 8, 2014 Synopsis: To authorize the Village President to execute a contract with Ciorba Group, Inc. for construction engineering services for Caldwell Avenue 12 -Inch and 20 -Inch Water Main River Crossing Project. Purpose: To observe and document construction activities for Caldwell Avenue 12 -Inch and 20 -Inch Water �� Main River Crossing Project Background: Resolution 14 -42 authorized execution of a construction contract with Bolder Contractors. Inc. to replace the I2 -inch and 20 -inch parallel water mains distributing water to the east side of the Village. The work required to observe and document construction activities would exceed the expertise and capacity of the Public Works Department Engineering Division. Exhibit "A" is a proposal from Ciorba Group. Inc: that includes the scope of work and costto perform the necessary work. Ciorba Goup co npleted the design for the project. is familiar with the unusual aspects that will be part of the construction and the coordination with the Forest Preserve District, is qualified to complete the scope of work and has completed these types of i projects for the Village in the past. 1)rograirls, Departs ftiblic Wo =.1:s Engin -cring Division or Groups Affected Fiscal Impact j S 74,790.00 Sanrce of Funds: Enterprise Fund Account Numb i 405033- 572020 (Improvements Other Than Buildings) Work €oad Impact: Fhe management and supervision of this contract will be performed by the I hgineering Division o[Pubhe Works Department as part of then- normal operations. h.dc�s =n E2wcon5�espei� 7 5npri!al is �,:•se�ae�d Special Consider or � None. Rec€asiresr€enFS: I ,r f Respectfully submitted: °� Reviewed bv: "� ! k� l n i I orne, Villaa;e Administrator Teresa Hoffman Liston, /Corporation Counsel Prepared by Chi i T omich, A illage F_ngmeer _ Reviewed byX d e,M d��� on1e, Du ctorof Public Workc RESOLUTION 14 -43 AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH CIORRA GROUP, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR CALDWELL AVENUE 12 -INCH AND 20 -INCII WATER MAIN RIVER CROSSING PROJECT WHEREAS, the Village of Morton Grove (Village), located in Cook County, Illinois, is a home rule unit of government under the provisions of Article 7 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government affairs, including but not limited to the power to tax and incur debt; and WHEREAS, Resolution 10 -57 authorized a task order with Ciorba Group, Inc. to provide design services for the replacement of the 12 -inch and 20 -inch water mains crossing within Forest Preserve District of Cook County and under the North Branch Chicago River; and WHEREAS. Resolution 14 -42 authorized execution of a construction contract with Bolder Contractors, Inc. to replace the 12 -inch and 20 -inch parallel water mains distributing water to the east side of the Village; and WHEREAS, the work required to observe and document construction activities would exceed the nertise and capacity of the Public Works Deparl_nent tarmneerin< Division; and Wl ICREAS Exhibit "A" is a proposal from Ciorba Group, Inc. that includes the scope of work and cost to perform the necessary word; and WHEREAS. Ciorba Group completed [lie design for the protect, is familiar with the unusual aspects that will be part of the construction and the coordination with the Forest Preserve District, is qualified to complete the scope of work and has coml_rleied these. types c f pro) cis o the Village ;rr the nal)t and L! AS the "_(il 4lopted P�i,Cj2etalio,<rt.sSl ;Sf OOO ill thcl nterpriscF=nd lccnunt40i 0;;- (lu,],IUTSr 1C:]tS Citl7er 1;1,111 I3 ii11 inc'). o d ic.lr 4�1r . �i`� i. }� If i �,�Ted, NU\ ,'I HI;RE?FORL I }; IT Rr:Si)I.VI:n By 1 "1IF, pRYSIi)1.N "I NF, I30'AlRD OF J lj J-Fl>S C }F "I IIIi VILLi1Ci1: C }P'.i(7R "I C }N C lROVI . C'E7C }I6 (' COj "4!'I'Y. ..5 FOl_L.OWS: SECTION 1: The Corporaie. Authorities do hereby ;ncorporatethe )rc <4oing WL ... Rt,,-\.S clausecs into this Resolution as though fully set forth therein thereby making the findings as heo inabove set forth. SECTION 2: The Corporate Authorities accept the negotiated proposal of Ciorba Group, Inc. to provide construction engineering services for Caldwell Avenue 12 -Inch And 20 -Inch Water Main River Crossing Project. SECTION 3: The Village Engineer is hereby authorized to execute a contract for professional services in a form acceptable to the Village Attorney for the scope of work, schedule and amount in Exhibit "A" with Ciorba Group, Inc. SECTION 4: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval. PASSED THIS 8`' DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 Trustee 'trustee rustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Grear Marcus P i error. Thill Toth Wirko MPROV111) BY MF, THUS 8"' DAY OF SEPTEMBER_ 2014 Daniel P. DiMaria Village President Village of Morton Grove Cook Cowlty, Illinois 1T'I ESTED and I II.L D in n.v office ) "' DAY 1 ) 1 SET I L:MBU 2014 112 a re iif .1 icil f 17. G 1 ove Cook County. Illinois Exhibit "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES CAL DWELL AVENUE " " WATER MAIN RIVER CROSSING PROJECT 1. Additional Final Design Engineering A. Topographic survey, including MWRD ground mat limits, existing pipeline alignment, and control points. B. Development of new control point sheets. C. Design modifications to west half of proposed water main project due to revised existing pipeline alignment. D. Revisions to MWRD ground mat design based on future MWRD project. Two contract addenda for bidding 2. Construction Engineering A. Construction Startup and Preconstruction Conference. 1 j Set -up project files and prepare for Preconstruction Conference. 2) Chair Preconstruction Conference with the Contractor and the Village of Morton Grove. Meeting minutes will be prepared and forwarded to all attendees. B. Construction Stakeout Stake the location of snow fence to be erected by others. The fence will be stake at 100 ft intervals and at all changes in direction. C. Construction Observation I Documentation ^_onstrtrctiorr Observation and Documentation is based on 1 ?_ weeks of full -time inspecno or Ovate main work and 2 weeks of pail -time lk spectic , or tree planting and seeding. 4) Maintain a daily diary describing the work accomplished each day. 2) Construction will be monitored for conformance with the contract documents, [DOT Standard Specifications and Village requirements. Measurements and calculations will be made daily and Inspector Daily Reports. 3) Monitor the sediment and erosion control and Print reports weekly a, after one- half inch rainfall, Page 1 of 2 Exhibit "q" SCOPE VI AWE. AVENUE 12" " WATER MAIN RIVER CROSSING PROJECT 4) Monitor traffic control as required for when work is adjacent a roadway. 5) Chair weekly meetings with the Village and the Contractor. Meeting minutes for inclusion in will be prepared and forwarded to all attendees. final 6) Pay item documentation format will be in accordance with IDOT procedures using. Change orders and pay estimates will be submitted to the Village for review and approval. 7) Review catalog cuts i shop drawings for conformance to the plans and specifications. Deficient submittals will be returned to the Contractor for correction. After final review, Ciorba will forward the submittals to the Village D. Proiect Closeout 1) Prepare a punch list of construction items that require correction before final acceptance of the project .T he site will be inspected for completion of punch list items with the Contractor notified of any Incomplete items- After the punch list is completed, a walk through will be conducted with the Village and the Contractor. Any concerns identified at the walk through will be resolved prior to acceptance of the improvement. 2) Prepare final documentation, papers for project acceptance by the Village. This Includes all material certifications and testing results, final quantity measurements, balancing change orders and final pay estimates. _. Record Drawings As construction proceeds, any modifications to the plans will be field measured and documented for inclusion in the fina' construction record drawings- The final construction record drawings will be provided as one paper set (24" x 36 "), ene reduced size (11" x 17) copies and one CD with all updated CAD files_ 3. Project Management Page 2 of 2 Exhibit "A" ra o�_ue,la .me n.te. n.e. Nh�,E I -ses a.oa XkM am,.11rs _ .sea mz _ E U Grand n o c Total z - w : 910 42 200 560 40 18 18 02 1, Topographic Survey Task Totals 25 4 9 12 020 Field Survey Subtotal: 22 I 4 9 9 i Site VisHS by Staff (3 -4 hours per viSlt) ( < 4 Horizonte' Topography (assume 200 -300 it per hour) i se � c 021 Process Survey Information Subtotal 5 i a Dow-,, Loading Total Station 10-2 his per down load every 2 -3 days of tops) 3 i I I I Z. Wafer Resources TaskTOtatl 54 22 32 I uSt Storm Wafer Pdellliy Design Subtotals l6 i i � 16 —� Erosion Conirot and Landscaping Sheets I 1e o32 Writer Main System Subtotal: 36 _ ie Water Main Design tz tz Water Main Sheets 26 i-- j m 16 4 I i3. Engineering Studies /Plans Task Total. 10 10 .: Specifications 8'=sti•nate< subtotal to � ) .y i 1 Spe Ti d m 6 (Water Rectufcwl TaskTotaul WS 26 0 S( Construction Engineering i 4 tt" O sLLCHOY $fG; flp Subtotal 8 E I Review Pars. Specif cab( nd Gunlr v. Jocrnn eats � Set Uo Pra'GOt Docu tfatior. A 4 It Get Pre`COnstructlOn Conference subtrus:' 15 I 2 ( 7 6 9i pp Preparation 6 4 2 Attendance 6 2 2 2 Meetng Minutes s 1 2 ra o�_ue,la .me n.te. n.e. Nh�,E I -ses a.oa XkM am,.11rs _ .sea mz CIORBA GROUP Exhibit "A a a . w ,<. .+rha�m-. -s.u,_ecs .no,<a. Ws? _ a:noe I It, 2o.. CIORBA GROUP _ u - Grand Total ¢ in - 082 Construction Stakeout Subtotal: 15 9 I I ,. Stake Snow Fence is 5 083 Construction Observation I Documentation subtotal'. 583 24 500 4 Resident Engineer (12 weeks it 5 is x 2.5 hrs/day) 150 ) *.5D Resident Engineer it weeks varrying hours during seeding) ! 5 5 Construction Englneer:s) (12 weeks it 5 days /week x 8 hrs/day) x t Engineers 480 480 1 Construction Engmeer(s) (1 weeks x 5 days /week x 4 hrs /day) x t Engineers 20 Za I Corstruchon Manager site visits (2 hrs /week x'2 weeks) 24 24 Snap Drawing Review 4 I , 084 Project Close -Out Subtotal: 64 25 i 38 Inspect Punch List Items 8 a 4 t Final Wan Through with Client 4 Pre -final and Final Pav Estimates t2 4 t e Complete Documentation Including Material Certification 40 is f 24 1 I 1 ees Construction Record Drawings >uomteP.� 20 i a t t Plan Sheets 4 r6 t 5. Project Management 8. Administration Task Total t6 15 l0 Pr .of ect Management & Administration subroom � 16 is r f ro 1 r'rojeci Manage enr a a . w ,<. .+rha�m-. -s.u,_ecs .no,<a. Ws? _ a:noe I It, 2o.. CIORBA GROUP _ Exhibit "A" W CIORBA GROUP C,- lino Engineers Hrm Dorbb Group, inc Client Village ofMoRon Grove Coobiv Cook Job No Gate 09/03/14 Ovemead Rate 144._11% riINltplEplY Factor Cost Estimate of Consultant Services tDbeGtl bOfMutopli TIMES DIRECT SERVICES % OF ITEM MANHOURS PAYROLL PAYROLL COSTS BY TOTAL GRAND I OTHERS TOTAL (A) (B) (C) (D (E) (C +D +E) awnoDnmar,n 25 $ 750.00 R 1,950.00 $ 7630 S 2,026.30 2.71 WereNOw.roex 54 $ 1,928.00 1 3 4,756.40 478540 8.36% trrun»erl2 u4umbwlam 10 $ 435.OGIS 1, ",31.00 P,E3i_00 iL 1% �cwswam,.Mnrv,. 8 1 $ 308.fl8 $ BC0.8O I ` 800.80 1 07 %t IPOroomlrxton cwibroom 15 $ 534.6013 1.389.701$ 11.301 i3 1,481.09 1.87 °NL sua: W,. Fun,:, 1 15 s 441D0. $ 1.146.CO I $ 35881 F 1,21160 1.62% s:mum oos aiul Dountonrmon _ g"d3 10.954.50 $ 49,273901 $ 5.12250 $ 54,39640 72 73 P�otema�amoul 1 64 A' 1.85000 $ 4,625.60 N 201.50 $' 5,027.18 672% Pananmu t 28 5 514.00 $ 1,336.401 �$__L336 .401 1.79% j' a ,mementor .swn'n 16 $ 104000 S '9ti400� ) $ 2,70400 3.62% 'OTALS I 9W (3 L6 S90U $ ° „3i 3. <0 $ 5 4 7 6601 1 $ 74_78p_00 I '00.00 %' Exhibit IN-HOUSE DIRECT COSTS Village of Morton Grove Caldwell Avenue 12" & 20" Water Main River Crossing Project PHASE III Topographic Survey Description Unit Unit CostQuant ity Extended Cost Vehicle (mileage) mile $ 0.565 20 $ 11.30 Vehicle (day) day $ 65.00 1 $ 65.00 Total: $ 76.30 Pre - Construction Conference Description Unit Unit CostQuant ity Extended Cost Vehicle (mileage) mile $ 0.565 20 $ 11.30 Total: $ 11.30 Stake Snow Fence Description Unit Unit CostQuant ity Extended Cost Vehicle (day) day $ 65.00 1 $ 65.00 65.00 onsiruction °r (i Observation! t_o. —kun tat(or. Description Unit Unit CostQuant ity Extended Cost _0PIC, sheei .., 0.'.,, 500 ., 50.00 Vehicle (mileage) m'de $ 0.57 1500 $ 647.50 Vehicle (day) - day $ 65.00 65 $ 41225.00 Total: $ 5.122.50 Caldwell Phase o-i CECS RevweD 09032.0'4 Asm ^Mousey' E CIORBA GROUP "o:; r Exhibit "A" IN -HOUSE DIRECT COSTS Village of Morton Grove Caldwell Avenue 12" & 20" Water Main River Crossing Project PHASE III Project Close -out Description Unit Unit CostQuant ity Extended Cost CADD Charges hour $ 15.00 8 $ 120.00 Full Size Prints sheet $ 1,25 20 $ 25.00 Vehicle (mileage). mile $ 0,585 100 $ 58.50 Total: $ 201.50 caid4ekPn- ase ucecs -Raosed 09032011, *ism. in. ouseDC CIORBA GROUP Exhibit "A" CIORBA GROUP ConsLslting Engineers FIRM NAME PRIME /SUPPLEM ENT Client CLASSIFICATION Ciorba Group, Inc. DATE Prime Village of Morton Grove ESCALATION FACTOR 0.00% �. EInajneennq 'I GiE'.n e. fi.50 W it;, Resour P o,:eC• r nMee! ^ i�'a tv Chief $43.50 $34.03, Jai Vei+ C.,i F \ni ?Ve!T ti.,� Enain22 I $22.50 CURRENT RATE I ESCALATED RATE $38.n0 $38.50 e. fi.50 $22.50 ^ _50 $43.50 $34.03, 534.00 S22.5C $22.50 S27?5 $27,25 09/03/14 Printed 9/3/2014 12:26 PM Le.aislative Summary — _ Resolution 14 -44 AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH CIORBA GROUP, INC FOR A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SAYRE- FOSTER DRAINAGE STUDY Introduced: September 8, 2014 Synopsis: To authorize the Village President to execute a contract with Ciorba Group, ]lie. for preliminary engineering services to study street flooding at Sayre Avenue and Foster Street. Purpose: To analyze the cause and scale of street flooding at the intersection of Sayre Avenue and Foster Street and to develop potential countermeasures to reduce or eliminate the effects of this flooding. Background: The vicinity of the intersection of Sayre Avenue and Foster Street is a low -lying area that experiences street flooding during frequently occurring rainfall events. This area relies solely on a storm sewer to convey the stormwater from the intersection. The drainage of this area can be compared to a bathtub with a partially- clogged drain. Because water can flow into the tub faster than it can move though the partially- clogged drain, water can accumulate in the tub until it spills over the top of the tub if the drain is unable to keep up with the flow from the faucet. This intersection has the potential to accumulate stormwater to a depth of approximately 3 feet before the excess depth can drain overland to lower parts of the watershed. At least 3 abutting properties have had significant amounts surface water enter the lower i levers of the buildings. At least one of these properties has sustained significant damage to the building and its contents, and inconvenience multiple times from this flooding. Approximately 50 properties in this vicinity experience street flooding and floodwater encroachments up to the buildinb_ Public \a /o!ks staff estimates this has occurred 5 times in the past 5 years. rile scope of the improvements exceeds the expertise and capacity of Village staff to perform this work, Exhibit "A" is a proposal from Ciorha Group, Inc. that includes the scope of work and cost to perfcrn the necessary work to be included ht a contract. The tangible work product from this study is intended to be a technical memorandum that i could be used by the Village to evaluate needs and to prioritize with other capital projects and to ultimately advance this project to an engineering design phase. Proyrarns, Departs Public U /orks f ngineerine Division or, Gruups Afi'ected Fisea; Impact: S 31.64& -10 N I ("JXCC1 Of Funds. ;ntcr prise trmcE ;account '�kunbcr 07034- 512140 Workload l opaet: The management and supervision of this contract will be performed by the Engineering Division of Public Works Department as part of their normal opt ations. A.dinin Recommend: Approval as 1 ,�sented. Special Consider or Nor Requirement Respectfully submitted: ( j�p-- '� Reviewed by: _ ' ' Rbllan J. je�e,'�IZv'l l lage Administrator 'Ter. sa Hoffman L iston, Corpo.ation Counsel Prepared b `' i I ) Reviewed by =` Chris Tomich, Village Engineer ,Andy DeMonte, Director of Public Works RESOLUTION 14 -44 AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH CIORBA GROUP, INC. FOR A PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR SAYRE - FOSTER DRAINAGE STUDY WHEREAS, the Village of Morton Grove (Village), located in Cook County, Illinois, is a home vile unit of government under the provisions of Article 7 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government affairs, including but not limited to the power to tax and incur debt; and WHEREAS, the vicinity of the intersection of Sayre Avenue and Foster Street is a low lying area that experiences street flooding during frequently occurring rainfall events; and WHEREAS, this area relies solely on a storm sewer to convey the stormwater from the intersection: and WHEREAS, this intersection has the potential to accumulate stormwater to a depth of approximately 3 feet before the excess depth can drain overland to lower parts of the watershed: and WHEREAS, at least 3 abutting properties have had significant amounts surface water enter the lower levels of the buildings; and WHEREAS, at least one of these properties has sustained significant damage to the building and its contents and inconvenience multiple times from this flooding; and WHEREAS, approximately 50 properties in this vicinity experience street flooding and floodwater encroachments up to the building; and WTIE REAS, public N� %orks staff estimates tins has occurred tn,mes in the past 5 yeaa s; and Ftk.ss 411.,- a ,cop rEfthe it , .�.t„ 7 et5 .x e: ,�u experti. a.1d apacip- n i,1 sle ti,arf to nrr-fo m this work: and .t. ? i a p.. Flt 4al tf6:' `ror "i9G ' " <�U' }. znC �� hteh in Clll CteS ..11C yCC'i3e, Of. wol k and cost to perform the neccssar� work to he included in a contract; and Wt ERE.AF. to, tangible work ,mroduei Con; this stud} is intended to be a teehnicnl memorarnduErE that could be used bs the Village to cratuatc needs and to pnontize with other capital projects and to ultimately advance this project to an. engineering design phase; and WHEREAS, the 2014 Amended Budget allocates $23,000 in the Enterprise Fund Account 405034- 552140. NOW. THEREFORE. BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Corporate Authorities do hereby incorporate the foregoing WHEREAS clauses into this Resolution as though fully set forth therein thereby making the findings as hereinabove set forth. SECTION 2: The Corporate Authorities accept the negotiated proposal of Ciorba Group, Inc. to analyze the cause and scale of street flooding at the intersection of Sayre Avenue and Foster Street and to develop potential countermeasures to reduce or eliminate the effects of this flooding. SECTION 3: The Village Engineer is hereby authorized to execute a contract for professional services in a form acceptable to the Village Attorney for the scope of work, schedule and amount in Exhibit `"A'" with Ciorba Group, inc. SECTION 4: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval. PASSED THIS S °i DAY OF SEPTEMI3ER.C]4 Trustee ' rustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Trustee Grear Marcus Fieti o1n ThiIl Toth Witko IT-' Daniel P. DiElaria, Viflaec Preside t Village of Morton Grove Cook Co_cr(v. Illinois ' IntS o"' l -1Y OF Sf'I TB /1PFR.O':4 Ed Ramos, Village Clerk Village of Morton Grove Cook County, Illinois EXHIBIT "All SAYRE AVENUE DRAINAGE STUDY SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE 11/5/2013 The Village of Morton Grove is interested in improving drainage and reducing flood damages in the vicinity of Sayre Avenue. Ciorba Group will conduct a feasibility study to assess the current drainage system capacity and flooding issues, develop and evaluate alternative approaches to alleviate the flooding, and select a preferred alternative. The study area is bounded by Golf Road to the north Waukegan Road to the east, Emerson Street to the south, and Harlem Avenue to the west. The following tasks will be performed as part of this work order: ® Collect survey data for the storm sewer system in the study area, including locations and rim and invert elevations of drainage structures. The Village's one-foot contour topography will be used in place of collecting detailed topographic survey information. Utilize the surveyed drainage system data to create an EPA -SWMM model to analyze the existing drainage system. The EPA -SWMM model will simulate both hydrology and hydraulics to determine the capacity of the existing system. The results of the existing system analysis will be compared to historical flooding information provided by the Village in order to calibrate the model. Once the existing conditions model has been calibrated, Ciorba will coordinate with the Village to develop potential drainage improvement alternatives. Alternatives are expected to include above and /or below ground stonmwater detention as well as upsizing existing storm sewers. Other potential approaches could include installation of permeable pavement on Simpson Street and reduction of tributary area to the Waukegan Road outlet. Alternatives could consist of similar practices built to achieve varying levels of protection. E Ciorba will utilize the EPA -SWMM model to analyze the drainage benefits of no to three potential ahernatives- Conceot level cost estir ates w!" be developed for ea , t_{ patine n order to perform a benefit /cost comparison analysis. Ciorba will coordinate w'dh the Village to select a preferred alternative. C;orba will cummarize the study In a technical memorandum, rncluding a narrative with exhibits and back -up calculations. Clorba's engineering fee for this work order will be $21,968 calculated based on contract hourly rates as shown in the following tabies. EXHIBIT "A" s Cost Estimate of CIORBA GROUP Consu t ng EI'1Cg.IIIEel s Consultant Services Firm Ciorba Group. inc Dale Client Village of Morton Grove County Cook Job No 20072 x j pIi2ECT SERVICES % OF j ITEM MANHOURS PAYROLL DOSTS BY TOTAL GRAND OTHERS TOTAL (A) (8) (0) (E) (CtD +E) vbxmg,, DZN Cmiecum ao„aainminn 4 $ 5 14.00 $ 514.001 2.34 %'. iopopepTm survey 1 74 $ 5,500.06 , 5 190.10 1 $ 5,690 10 25 90 %I vv lx s s S 13.206.00 w d 160 (S $ 14,046.00 63.95'/0 0G10A 4 S 572 0G $ 572.00 2.609% P:rneciMmn= mcR&namvsexW,io 6 $ 1.14440 $ 1.144.00 521% �___ TOTALS 250 R 20 936 CO f 4 1 C801L r $ 21,968.10 j 100.00% EXHIBIT "A" WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE Village of Morton Grove Sayre Avenue Drainage Study I � E 250 za 17 sa 64 ]s ]s 4.� Meetings, Data Colle"cin 8 Coordination Tasx TumLJ 4 2 2 9.t COOfHInaFI (vt j Coortlm =a1b0 w:1h Ownar 4 2 _ 2. Topographic Survey TasB T ° °'I' 74 ! 3 1 I X '" f ..aa Fiefd Survey sunmtuy M n t2 1 PrOjeCt SetuP f1-21f1etlr5 for PIf Eng B Part) hieft _ - t Site ViS6 by Staff fi4 nrurs for mS:f ES.P.b Sh "ortfolPoSms a a fP4 S M - P rcornfol fWnP 31 it 10 Drws ItSxt Inver y(6 -8 S o? t wi Proceas 5 ylnfarrratio s nmwr� s s Pov L g Tort: SIeO Pbrs PerdowrT "oad ewry2 3 d2ya of 10001 2 C)refL 0E %B' 4 r b (4 000 f I Peia a V) I 4 t f Water Resources t a0 1° I I ier 10 e + I a� ` i i ¢o Hyd 1 7 gi GH1tf II An'lmS v .ma on � T '2 r. . )TI3 dVd'2LfP Modtmo — _�_ 'I 1 ArSfnjNTTS AiIaiysi, fi'lfi(1 I— r' _ _ u 1 rv, rr9 U ar Sr _— " I_ =� I EXHIBIT "A" WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE Village of Morton Grove Sayre Avenue Drainage Study I i p.i I I _ i - - m, Stonnwater Facil ty Design subrltll � S- 4 ie ]Z Prooatd Drainage P a naives, s2 A ib 1 l 144 Rapa25 / Lwatlon D ainag_ Studios smemai a 4 tg 4 Dole lnaae lech Mere 24 12 e 9. QC /OA lukilule 4 t Water Resaurw5 __ ' to. Protect Management & Administration Ta +A oml 0 [ o Prolar Managernent 5 Pdm nlstrpt on sobmm 1 e Pmiee M. 1 IMi 11 li ITIN RECIORBA GROUP CrJnsuiting Engineers FIRM NAME PRIME /SUPPLEMENT Client CLASSIFICATION Ciorba Group, Inc. Prime Village of Morton Grove ESCALATION FACTOR 0.00% Project M<mipgei Senior Project Engineer Project Engineer 5enlor Engineer Sta" Engineer II Staff Engineer ! °_ngin2eri��c, 7ecl7nician i! Erng;neenng ',e'-41 c n Senior Str'�.�ct� are :�; Engine,c - -� Structure., _: ng i.,e�... Senior C DD Tec;nniclir Cocstruc{'ian Service Coordinator Resiaent Engineer ii! Reehe`lt Engl.r,eei II Res! e!n Fnolneer Cm-TStr;ctinn Engineer F'n:rC}= C'nief netrumer,t Persar i Rod iJ r *r CURRENT RATE I ESCALATED RATE 8143.00 $ 143.00 5124.00 $124.00 $114.00 $114,00 $87.00 $87.00 $77.00 $77.00 $68.00 $68.00 $1,3.00 $83.00 $54.00 $54.00 $9C!O.QE) $100.00 $00.00 $80.00 $90.0 J $90.00 .5124.Op $124.00 S 14.00 $114 -00 $57.00 $87.00 00 $77.00 Y+68. Lei! $68.00 $83.001 $83.00 5;02.00 $62.00 DATE 11/05/13 EXHIBIT "p rl IN -HOUSE DIRECT COSTS Village of Morton Grove Sayre Avenue Drainage Study PHASE Topographic Survev Description Unit Unit CostQuant ity Extended Cost Vehicle (mileage) mile $ 0 51 20 $ 10.10 Vehicle (day) day $ 45.00 4 $ 180.00 Total: $ 180.10 Water Resources Description Unit Unit CostQuant ity Extended Cost CADD Charges hour $ 15.00 52 $ 780.00 Conies s!7ee4 $ 0.10 600 S 60.00 Total: $ 840.00 Legislative Summary _ — -- - - - -_ ORDINANCE 14 -19 AMENDING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE A -2 AND TITLE 5, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE A -4, ENTITLED TRAFFIC SCHEDULES OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE Introduced Objective Purpose Background Programs, Departs or Groups Affected Fiscal Impact Source of Funds Workload Impact i Admin Recommend Second Readin;; Specia6 Considerations (L- Requirements September 8, 2014 To amend Title 5, Chapter 13, Article A entitled "Traffic Schedules" of the Municipal Code To change the intersection of Greenwood Avenue and Ottawa Avenue from 2 -way stop control to 4 -way stop control The Traffic Safety Commission received a request for stop signs on Greenwood Avenue at its intersection with Ottawa Avenue. This intersection is currently designated in the Municipal Code to be 2 -way stop control on Ottawa Avenue. The Traffic Safety Commission concurred with the petitioner's request and recommended the Village of Morton Grove establish 4 -way stop control on Greenwood Avenue at its intersection with Ottawa Avenue, Public Works S 100 General Fund Account # 025017-563 1 3O None. Approval as presented. Required — Municipal Code Change None. Respectfully submitted: Reviewed Ryan .7- Lorne, Village Administraror Chris Tomich, Village Engineer Director Public Works stop, Corporation Counsel - -- —s Reviewed by: Prepared by: Chris Tomich, Village Engineer Director Public Works stop, Corporation Counsel ORDINANCE 14 -19 AMENDING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE A -2 AND TITLE 5, CHAPTER 13, ARTICLE A-4, ENTITLED TRAFFIC SCHEDULES OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE WHEREAS, the Village of Morton Grove (VILLAGE), located in Cook County, Illinois, is a home rule unit of government under the provisions of Article 7 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government affairs, including but not limited to the power to tax and incur debt; and WHEREAS, the Village established the Traffic Safety Commission to receive, review, and present recommendations to the President and Board of Trusteesregarding requests or inquiries on matters involving traffic safety, including requests for installation of traffic control devices; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Safety Commission received a request for stop signs on Greenwood Avenue at its intersection with Ottawa Avenue: and WHEREAS, Municipal Code title 5, Chapter 13, Article A -2 designates Ottawa Avenue at its intersection with Greenwood Avenue as a two -w av stop intersection; and Wl IEREAS. the Traffic Safety Commission, at its r °gularly scheduled meeting held on August 7. 2014. at 7:00 p.m. at the Richard T. Ehckin er ruricipal Center, considered the abor referenced request; and WHEREAS, notifications of the meeting; were sent to residents in the area; and W. IERLAS tlic aral a Safety Comimssioll conctlt_c: wi h the 1),utioul s reqt_klsl and _���_c�1. %l dze7 t,ateof ",�or�u� Cc _ �tahrrsh w��I , ^up coruol �n Gr�_� „�sT�od yr anue, at its section IV11h Otuwa Av nn and WHt,REAS, the C,orpoi ate Authorities h rs e determined it is reasonable and approprafe to uljda:e and :ill7cnd �i L11 t)i..,'1 �i, . ,.� t7_(� A. , 1 :h.' M�.i _i), tl C` )��� A ia:� 1!2� e rs (�,"tfJn Grove as set (girth in this Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The Corporate Authorities do hereby incorporate the foregoing WHEREAS clauses into this Ordinance as though fully set forth therein thereby making the findings as hereinabove set forth. SECTION 2: Title 5, Chapter 13, Article A -2 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to delete the following: Street At Its Intersection With Ottawa Avenue Greenwood Avenue SECTION 2: Title 5, Chapter 13, Article A -4 of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to add the following: Street At Its Intersection With Greenwood Avenue Ottawa Avenue SECTION 3: The Director of Public Works is authorized and directed to take such action necessary to install and maintain the above mentioned signs as directed by the Village President. SECTION 4: This Ordinance shah be in Hill force and effeet from and upon its passage and approval. i'ASSED I:IIS 22nd DAY O 'ef'PTEMBr'R 2014 Trttstee T =, ustee Trustee 1 rustecr Trnstoe 2 uste�. Grear Witko Viarcu 4';e!] -on FlA i oth APPROF 1'1� t3Y %41. 1111''° "nd I3AS OF 4FMI tY BFP. 3014 Daniel P. DiMaria, Village President Village of Morton Grove Cools County, Illinois ATTESTED and FILED in my office This 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 Ed Ramos, Village Clerk Village of Morton Grove Cook County, Illinois Legislative Summary Ordinance 14 -18 AMENDING THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, SEC. 12 -3 -51 TO MODIFY REGULATIONS REGARDING FENCES WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACKS Introduction: September 8, 2014 Synopsis: This ordinance will approve a text amendment to allow administrative review and approval of fences in the street side yard of corner lots or multi- frontage lots, based on certain criteria and requirements. Such by -right fences would be limited to 42 inches (Y — 67) in height; have a inininnun of 50% opacity: provide IO ft. by 10 ft. sight line triangles at any point where two pedestrian or vehicular access ways intersects (i.e. sidewalks, driveways, streets, alleys, etc.); and only enclose that portion of the street side and adjacent rear yard that is in line with and behind the rear portion of the principal structure, closest to the street side yard property line. Purpose: i The Village code currently prohibits fences in front yards and an)/ side or rear yard that abuts a street This ordinance will allow for a by- right review process for limited fiencing within portions of street side yards, on eligible corner or multi - frontage lots, while preserving the intent ofthe original ordinance —to promote open yards and enhanced stieetscapes along streets and to ensure pedestrian and vehicular safety along sidewalks, streets, alleys, driveways and other access ways by minimizing visual obstructions. Backaround: The Village of Morton Grove Unified Development Code prohibits fences within the required front yard setback (Section 12 -3 -5). Fureher. die code requires that side and rear yards jthat abut a street, such as for corner lots, through lots, and o ±hei multi - frontage lots, must Comply with front yard dimensional conuals througli zoning and the fence ordinance. Recently. there have been a number of variance applications filed with the Zoning Board o1' Appeals (ZliA) to allow for fences within the street side yards of corner lots, and in most cases the ZBA approved modified versions of the original applications. 'I he ZBA's changes typically s involved li Wring the lance heisdit: ensurirng'he F vices were located an ad °quate distance from sidewalks, alleys, driveways, or other access ways: and increasing the opacity in the fences to aeate a more open feel and enhance aesthetics along the streetscape. The proposed text amendment will allow administrative review and approval of limited Fences within the street side yard of a corner or multi - frontage lot, which is defined as the yard abutting a street that does not meet the definition of "Lot Frontage" and "Lot Line, Rear " in accordance with Section 12 -17 -1 of the I ni led Development Code, and with the following 4 reauirem eras. The su �et side yrrd of s subject propeNN is part of a block where the entire block £ace, bettyLC' IH'r.) pUbtiu StICCLS ❑tCludfi$ OnI1 StJ "eet lade v a.Cd .3llt nOt oil (()tS wl'IU� ilOCli , .11� face, b.a;seen i's) ntbhc Streets, Inc Mardi's one of mole irorii vard15, on ott, with �rCeet. frontage en three r i sides where the stied side yard is also within the -equircd font yard setbacks. ar on Throueh Lots: 2. The fence shalt oniv be permuted to enclose that portion of the street side vard tl at is in line with and behind flie rear of the back portion of the principal suuctule crosest ter the weer ;id ° V, ! (7 pl'0pi:7-tA llTle; j3. "Cne fence small be no higher than 42 inches 6 4. The tenca shall have a minimum opacity of ;0 °vo and shall not be made of chain -link material; 5. The fence shall not be located within 10 ft _ by 10 ft, sight line triangles at an )/ point where Programs, Departs or Groups Affected Fiscal Impact: Source of Funds: Workload Impact: Admin Recommend: Second Reading: Special Consider or Requirements: Submitted bv: Prepared by: the vehicular or pedestrian access way intersects a driveway, alley, sidewalk, or any other vehicular or pedestrian access way. This text amendment provides for a more streamlined review process for such applications while maintaining the intent and integrity of the Unified Development Code, and is consistent with fence regulations in many neighboring communities. PC 414 -13 was presented to the Plan Commission for public hearing on August 18, 2014. There was no public comment and the Plan Commission voted to recommend approval of the text amendment to the Village Board, with one minor amendment, which has been incorporated into this current draft ordinance. (5 -0 -2; Kahn abstaining; Gabriel absent). Community and Economic Department N/A N/A These amendments will be implemented by the Community and Economic Development in the normal course of business. Approval as presented September 22, 2014, required — 'Municipal Code Book change None 4oine, Reviewed by Village Administrator Teresa Hoffman Liston, Corporation Counsel and Economic Development Director 1'1 WHEREAS, the Village of Morton Grove (Village), located in Cook County, Illinois, is a home rule unit of government under the provisions of Article 7 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, can exercise any power and perform any function pertaining to its government affairs, including but not limited to the power to tax and incur debt; and WHEREAS, the Village continuously reviews and, as it deems necessary, updates existing Municipal Codes to assure they are kept current and relevant; and WHEREAS, the applicant. Village of Morton Grove, has made a proper application to the Plan Commission in case number PC14 -13 to consider and recommend the adoption of a text amendment to the Villaue of Motion Grove Unified Development Code, Section 12 -3 -5, to modify regulations regarding fences within required front yard setbacks: and WHEREAS, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code upon public notice duly published in the Pionccr Press, a newspaper of general circulation in the Village of Morton. Grove which publication took place on July 31, 2014, a public hearing was conducted on August 18, 2014 relative to the above referenced case at which time all concerned parties were eiven the opportunity to present and express their views for the consideration of the Plan Connnission. As a result of said hearing, the Plan Commission made certain recommendations and conditions throtioll a report dated August 21. 2014 ll con of which ,s attached he°rcto and made a hart hereo and lnc lied as 1 7 nibit „A. and WilER1 S. -lemon 12 -3 -f 1 of the i .} If] cd,tevclopm ell t Code prohibits rcnecs within 1ri} par- i O)- a at>rll yard, w..iCll. a }U PdeS :;Kie and r6 . \a:'ds that abut G St. C.bi oil C,t)1'ne:r (itS, through lots. and multi - frontage lots 'Sections 12-2 -6 and 12 -17) wherebv such lots may have nvited yard sp lcc which can o— enclosed bt n fence., b, right: and WHEREAS, the intent of ordinance which 1 rohiNts fences within front, side or ya'd that abu %s a. stre. -' is to nipinfain in open view' line aioiig public rif?hts -o -way, to enhance file aesthetics of the streetscape, and to promote pedestrian and vehicular safety by minimizing visual obstructions along sidewalks, alley, driveways, streets. etc.; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) has received several variance applications from property owners seeking approval of some limited fencing within street side yards and after consideration of the applications, many of which were approved provided that such fencing did not have an adverse impact on the immediate abutters, did not cause any perceived obstructions with necessary sight lines, included some level opacity and were limited in height as a means to maintain some openness along the streetscapes and to ensure continued pedestrian and vehicular safety; and WHEREAS, staff reviewed the trends o'f' these past ZBA decisions along with fence regulations from several neighboring communities and determined that limited fencing within the street side yard setback could be permitted by right, based on certain requirements and standards, without compromising the intent of the original ordinance; and WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment regarding street side yard fencing is comparable to what is permitted by right in many neighboring communities but includes additional conditions to ensure compliance with the Village's goal and intent to maintain openness along public ways and to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety along driveways, sidewalks, alleys, street, and other access ways; and WHEREAS, the proposed requirements for administrative approval of street side Yard einces are in tine with the. street side yard variance applications and associated conditions approved by the ZBA and provide souse level of consistency of design for such fences, which will enhance the aesthetics of the streetscape; and yt/HERAS, the proposed text amendment upholds the intent of the Village's ordinances V.11Ch hl Olnilte Or1UI Vil,rd5 dnl ::�J �nLC CJ ac .t,uC9 al f'il,' I:�ltbtl ,g:7 iS -G A'�d_' VIA I l�l. IAV 1: . some opportmnitt for additional prisaci and enclosure iihiu portions of street side v rrds; and 3, I ERE 1w_ the o.c all regu'Lation piornbiting ,cis In +hc front \a3-(! ,A+owd rain aau Property owners may still seel< variances to the ordinance through the ZBA to a110w for fences in front and rear yards that abut streets and /or to tv to extend or alter the amour^_ or tape of fencing .hat woad ?:e perimi icd b+ i Ight iii. Ahi it Ott. idu Ya'd ,flip. pJTIF,RAS, 'The Corporate Authorities have concluded that the proposed amendment will preserve the intent of the Unified Development Code to allow for the orderly development and redevelopment of the Village while streamlining the development approval process; and WHEREAS, the Corporate Authorities have considered this matter at a public meeting and find the text amendment, when evaluated in the context of the whole Village, serves the public good; and WHEREAS, the Village is desirous of assuring all policies are kept current and relevant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, COOK COUN'T'Y, ILLINOIS, AS FOLLOWS: SECTION l: The Corporate Authorities do hereby incorporate the foregoing WHEREAS clauses into this Ordinance, as thouah ,fully set forth herein, thereby making the findings as hereinabove set forth: SECTION 2: Title 12 entitled Unified Development Code, Chapter 3, entitled Regulation ofSpcclfzc Uses in All Zoning Districls, Section entitled Fences of the Municipal Code is hereby amended by modifying this section as follows: 12 -3 -7: FENCES: I ences are permitted in all districts, subject to the following restrictions: A. No fence shall be allowed within any part of a required fi-ont yard or anv part of a required rear N7ard that front a street, such as in the case of through dots or multi - frontage Corner lots.�B aid ^ ��3 ^E• ado a e aAv�t' B. Fences shall be permitted within portions of the street side card of corner lots w =hich is defined as the -yard abuttinI4 a street that does not ineet the definition of "Lot Frontave" and "Lot Line. Rear" in accordance with Section 12 -17 -1 of the Unified Development Code, with the following requirements: a. The street .side yard of a subject property which k part or a bloc €c where tilt entire block face, between two public streets, includes only street side yards as shown in "Exhibit I — Eligible hots" but not on lots where the block face, between two nublic streets includes one or more Lrout *yard, on lots with_ street frontage on three (3) sides where the street side yard is within the required front hard setbacks, or on Through Lots as shown in "Exhibit 2 — Ineligible Lots" Exhibit 1: Eligible Lots T c m � 5 and 894 would be eligible for limited "by- risht" street sid dd be eligible for limited "b` - right" street this amendment) rv; dd be eligible for limited "b` - right" street this amendment) (Address 8952 would NOT be eligible for limited "by - right" street side vard fence under this amendment heeanqe thrA sfrQet6de v9rd iv qkn w[fhin 1ho Y- on..;rAd f „an r1 (Addresses 8950 and 8946 would NOT be eligible for a bj- -right front or rear yard fence under this amendment) b. The fence shall onhv be neranitted to enclose that portion of the street side yard that is in line with and behind the rear oortiou of the txrire ^ig�aE sta�uetnre closest fta_the sty-eel side yard property Fine, as cxemniif'ied in "Exhibit '—Permitted l,oeation of Street Side Yard Fences” ®S'H'PPS' Cl[lP V+ vtl 'f aQT a paYv l% VJ 1C. 2 ju t! Q: c. The fence shalt not be Higher than 42 inches {3.5 ft.); d. The fences shall have a minimum opacitk of 50% and sliall not be made of C. "Exhibit 4— Sight Line Triangle" Exhibit 4: 10 ft. Sight Triangles t�7 G�7 Q L s.. "O`er L7 I Ul l% VJ 1C. 2 ju t! Q: c. The fence shalt not be Higher than 42 inches {3.5 ft.); d. The fences shall have a minimum opacitk of 50% and sliall not be made of C. "Exhibit 4— Sight Line Triangle" Exhibit 4: 10 ft. Sight Triangles t�7 G�7 9C. The table lists maximum fence heights for properties in the various zoning districts: Lot In Zomn r District Residential Residential— within designated street side yard area, per See. 12- 3 -5.5. Commercial Manufacturing Abutting Lot In Zoning District Residential Commercial Manufacturing 6 feet 7 feet 7 feet 3'- g"feet 3' -6" feet 3' -6" feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet CD. In no event shall any fence be placed or maintained in a location relative to a public or private street, alley. driveway or other means of egress such that the sight of oncoming vehicular or pedestrian traffic is impaired for users of such means of inor ess and em ess. BE. All fences must be installed in accordance with title 10, chapter 9 of this code. DF, Any applications for variations to the fence requirements, included herewith. shall be of the 2. The proposed fence variation shall not -have an adverse impact on the ina nediate abutters or the character of the surrounding neighborhood• 3. The proposed fence variation shall not create obstructions in required sight lines at areas where a pedestrian or vehicular ways intersect with driveways, streets, allevs, or other- pedestrian or vehicular access wav f' SSF,L) jTJIS 221id 1)A )F Q.1'1'"I'I'1\4131 R 201 Trustee Trustee rlicl is E't 1 rll5i:ee Trustee Great Witi<o Pietron ThiII Trustee Toth APPROVED BY ME THIS 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 Daniel P. DiMaria, Village President Village of Morton Grove Cook County, Illinois ATTESTED and FILED in my office This 23rd DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2014 Ed Ramos, Village Clerk Village of Morton Grove Cook County, Illinois village Grove Department of Community Development To: Village President and Board of Trustees = / From: Ronald L. Farkas, Chairperson, Plan Commission % Nancy Radzevieh, AICP, Community and Economic Development Director Dominick A. Argumedo, AICP, Zoning Administrator /Land -lase Planner Date: September 2, 2014 Re: PC14-13 — Proposed Text Amendment to Section 12-3-5 of the Morton Grove Unified Development Code (Ordinance 07-07) to modify regulations regarding fences within front f setbacks Commission Repot Public Hearing Notice The Village provided Public Notice for the .August 18, 2014 Ran Commission public hearing for PC 14 -13 in accordance with the Unified Development Code. The Pioneer Press published the public notice on July 31, 2014. As this request is for a text amendment, not a request for a specific site, no public notice signs or notification letter were required. Background and Application Overview Currently the Village Code does not permit fences in any part of the front yard (Section 12 -3 -5), r=or corner lots, through -lots, and other properties with multi- frontage, this prevision extends to include any side or rear 'yard that abuts a street as these are considered "front yards" under zoning dimensional controls and related to fencing. Under the current code requirements, the owner of a corner lot, through lot or multi- frontage lot can seek a variance through the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) to enclose any portion of their front, street side yard and /or their rear yard with a fence, depending on the configuration of such lots. Recently, there have been nurnerous applications from property owners seeking vanations to allow for a fence within a °required front yard," primarily and specificaliy to allow fences within a portion of the street side yard on corner lots. In order to try to seek balance between property owners' desire for privacy and the ordinance requirements, staff has proposed a text amendment to allow for some limited Dy -I ignt rencing within tie sheet side yards. As detailed in the staff memorandum to the Plan Commission, dated August 12, 2014 (Attachment A), the proposed amendment would allow fences to be permitted by right in portions of the street `.side 'yards of Corner lots subject to the T '� r , _ 1n5 ;1 J 'ei he . fence shall be no higher than 42 inches (3' — 5`j; The fence shall have a minichhum opacity of 50% and not be made of chain -link material; The fence shall not be located within 10 ft. by 10 ft. sight line triangles at any point where a vehicular or pedestrian access way intersects a driveway, alley, or any other vehicular or pedestrian access way; The fence shall be allowed in that portion of the street side yard that is in line with and to the rear of the back portion of the principal structure, as measured at the point closest to the street side yard. Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment/ Fences August 18, 2014 Public Hearing Dominick Argumedo, Zoning Administrator /Land -Use Planner, provided an overview of the Plan Commission staff memorandum dated August 12, 2014 (Attachment A). Mr. Argumedo noted the intent of the Village's prohibition on fences in the front yard is to maintain open space along the streetscape and to promote pedestrian and vehicular safety by minimizing the visual barriers. Current fence regulations, however, provide limited opportunities for owners of corner lots or multi- frontage lots to have fencing as the Unified Development Code specifies that side yards that abut streets are required to follow the requirements established for front yards. As noted above, property owners of corner lots often seek a variance to enclose a portion of their street side yard and /or their rear yard with a fence, depending on the configuration of such lots, to allow for some usable enclosed yard space. Mr. Argumedo testified that a number of cases have been filed before the ZBA to allow for fences within the street side yards of corner lots. Those applications which were approved by the ZBA often included conditions that were designed to preserve the intent of the ordinance to try to maintain an open streetscape and to protect pedestrian and vehicle safety. These conditions often Included reductions to the proposed fence height; increasing setbacks of the fences from sidewalks, alleys, and /or driveways to provide clear "sight lines'; and provisions to try to increase fence opacity. Mr. Argumedo noted that based on the trends of the variance applications and the ZBA's actions on those they approved, staff initiated this text amendment to allow fences in limited portions of the street side yards. This proposed amendment would enhance property owners' use of their property; help to provide uniformity to street side yard fence design and construction through establishment of height, material and opacity requirements; promote pedestrian /vehicular safety and reduce visual barriers; accommodate the Village of Morton Grove's desire for open yards along the streetscape; and to reduce permit review time on such applications. Mr. Argumedo noted the current regulation prohibiting fences in the front yard would remain. However, applicants may still seek variations to allow for extended street side yard fences or fences within front and rear yards that abut streets. In such cases, staff notes that by nCOI- DOrating heloht, mate"ial and opacity requirements for 'Me by-right street side yard fencing, the ZBA will have some criteria by which they can review the variance application in addition to eviewing them against the intent of the original ordinance - to preserve and enhance open streetscapes and promote venlCuiar and pedestrian safety, Mr. Argumedo also provided an overview of the diagrams, which were included in the staff memo, to illustrate which types of lots and /or configurations would be eligible for by -right fencing in the street side yard setback. Staff is proposing to include these diagrams in the updated ordinance. Public Hearing —Board Comment /Inouiry Chairman Farkas asked for questions from the commissioners. Commissioner Dorgan asked how the amendment impacts bushes or vegetation placed at the property line. Mr. Argumedo noted that per the Unified Development Code, a fence can include bushes and vegetation. Any planting of bushes along the property line for eligible lots under this proposed amendment would need to meet the height and opacity requirements. Staff would need Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment/ Fences to examine submissions and understand the potential future impact of such plantings (would the bushes grow together to provide for an opacity below 50% or grow to a height beyond 42 inches ?) before approval. Mr. Dorgan asked if the amendment would be retroactive and if fences currently placed on the property line would need to be adjusted /reduced to meet the forthcoming code. Staff noted that fences constructed before the Unified Development Code prohibited front yard fences would be legal non- conforming structures. Fences built after the ordinance prohibited fences in the front yard, without proper permits, are non - compliant and could be subject to code enforcement actions and /or subsequent removal. For fences comprised of vegetation, the same holds true except that even legal non - conforming organic fences are required to adhere to property maintenance standards. Commissioner Shimanski expressed concern that some vegetation that meets the Unified Development Code definition of a fence, but that would not meet the regulations of the proposed amendment, provides benent as sound barriers for homes on busy streets. Nancy Radzevich, Community and Economic Development Director, acknowledged the validity of that point and noted the amendment is intended to strike a balance: to establish some limited ability to construct street side yard fences by- right, but to still allow property owners to seek variances for site specific challenges. Ms. Radzevich went on to say that staff initially discussed eliminating the ability for anyone to seek a variance for a front yard fence, but after further discussion staff recognized that the variance process exists to successfully examine appropriate circumstances where relief from the code may be appropriate. Commissioner Blonz insulted where a property owner could place a fence when a utility easement exists on the property, Ms. Radzevich noted that at present, staff first discusses an application with the Village's Public Works department to understand the likelihood of the easement being used in the future and then advises the applicant that if Village's Public Works department or a utility company needs to access that portion of property the fence would be removed and Village is under no obligation to repair or replace it. Commissioner Blonz inquired about the permitted fence height beyond the required front yard setback on lots that meet the eligibility requirements. Staff noted a fence beyond the required front yard setback in the side and rear yards could be built to a height of 6 ft. as stated in the :�Xisting a }de. COmmISSlOner BiOn7 Inquire'' :f th ' - -oposed 10 i`_. sig`i' ine `triangle viould be for dnveways as well as, alleys and road ; staff rli:14rr?ed this VYCluld ke ti Ye: case. lAmmiSs;Gner Blonz inquire.; :Pvrhat style of fences would have 50% opacity. Staff noted that picket fences and wrought iron would be appropriate examples, but chain link fence would not be allowed by- right, If there is a debate over materials in a fence submission between the applicant and staff, the fence application would be fortinrarded to the ZBA for nnal determination. Commissioner Blonz asked if a fence variance application that the ZBA had denied could be subsequently approved under this text amendment, Ms. Radzevich noted that there are specific requirements in the codes that prevent people from re- applying, after a denial, for a set time - frame or unless the application substantial changes. In this case, staff believes that a property owner who had been denied a street side yard fence could submit a new plan and gain approval by- right, if it complied with the proposed ordinance. Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment /Fences Commissioner Shimanski sought clarification of the portion of the amendment that said the fence shall only be permitted to enclose that portion of the street side yard that is in line with and to the rear of the back portion of the principal structure. He noted that if a home had a staggered back exterior wall, then there may be questions as to which portion of the "rear part of the principal structure" would dictate for the by -right approval process. He suggested it should be the rear part of the principal structure, nearest the street side yard. Staff agreed this could be a point of contention and worked with the Commission to modify the amendment language to state, that it would be the rear of the principal structure nearest to the street side yard Commissioner Blonz inquired if the ZBA could grant front yard variances beyond the standards (height, opacity, location) in the proposed amendment. Ms. Radzevich noted that the Board could exceed the administrative approval limitations within the amendment. However, staff hopes that the ZBA would use these criteria as guidelines (for height, opacity and placement) in the I of subsequent front yard fence variance applications. An example might be if the ZBA receives a variation application asking that the height be increased to 48 inches, if the ZBA believes the height waiver is warranted, the Board may make additional provisions, such as requiring an additional setback (i.e. 5 ft. from the property line) to help retain the intent of the original ordinance – to preserve open streetscapes and to promote vehicular and pedestrian safety. Staff also confirmed that the amendment did not include any limitation on the extents of the waivers that could be requested or approved by the ZBA. Commissioner Khan inquired why the proposed amendment is not being extended to all corner ots instead of solely blocks that are entirely composed of street side yards. Ms. Radzevich noted that allowing all corner lots to be eligible for fences would conflict with the inherent intent of the ordinance – which is to preserve open front yards along the streetscape. Allowing by -right fences along street side yards that abuts or aligns with a block of one of more true front yards could have adverse impacts on the abutters, who may not want a fence along their front yard, and on the overall streetscape for that block. Owners of lots not eligible under this proposed amendment can still apply for a variance to try to enclose a portion of their street side yard. Public Hearing — Public Comment Chairperson Farkas asked if anyone was present that wanted to be heard on this case. No one asked t0 speak. public Hearino —Boar~ Discussion and Votes Chairperson Farkas asked for a motion to app, p r v_ _ase _. Commissioner Blonz made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment, PC#14 -13, with the requirements included in the staff memo dated August 12, 2014 vvith the modification to proposed Section 12- 3 -5 -B -b to read as "The fence shall only be permltted to enclose that,Oo, lion of the street side yaro' that is in line with and behlnd the rear pc o�i of the principal structure closest to the street side yard prooerfy line, " Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dorgan. The amendment was recommended for approval by majority vote. (5 -0 -2; Commissioner Kahn abstained; Commissioner Gabriel absent) Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment /Fences PC 14 -13 PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT LANGUAGE (-AMENDED, PER PLAN C081MISSION RECOMMENDATION) (New Text shown in bold /underlined fornlat; any deleted text shown as ;t.f:. i g format) 12 -3 -5: FENCES: Fences are permitted in all districts, subject to the Following restrictions: A. No fence shall be allowed within any part of a required front yard or any Dart of a required rear vard that front a street such as in the case of through tots or mutt frontage corner lots �.,c.,...., n:a a �. ,.,- ..,,., «,.i,.a ,i...a,. tin• n R. Fences shall be permitted within portions of the street side vard of corner Iots which is defined as the yard abutting a street that does not meet the definition of "Lot Frontage" and "Lot Line Rear" in accordance with Section 12 -17 -1 of the t3nified Development Code with the following requirements: a. The street side vard of .a subiect property which is Dart of a block where the entire block face. between two public streets includes only street side vatds as shown in "Exhibit 1 Eli0ble Lots" but not on lots where the block face between two public streets includes one or more front yard. on Lots with street frontage on three (31 sides where the street side yard is within the required front vard setbacks or on Through Lots as shown in "Exhibit 2 — Ineligible Lots" Exhibit 1: Eligible Lots Lo o -r rt w _ m m J w m 7 ro i i rn (/addresses 8445 and 9944 would be eligible for limited °bv- rrght' street si e sand fen,,, Dud r this amendment} (Addresses 6606 would be eligible for limited "bv- rigbt" street side vard fence under this amendment) Exhibit 2: Ineligible Lots Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment /Fences i 59 S° 5933 509 5920 052 r M (Addresses 8621 and 8601 would NOT be eligible for Iimited "bv- rieht" street tide yard fence under this amendment) s3 Zoo a i e 1w (Address 8952 would NOT be eiiRible for limited "bv- riaht" street side yard fence under this amendment because the street side yard is also within the reuuired front vard setback aionr the front and read (Addresses 8950 and 8946 would NOT be ehaible for a by -right front or rear vard fence under thi amendment) a (Addresses 8950 and 8946 would NOT be ehaible for a by -right front or rear vard fence under thi amendment) Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment /Fences b. The fence shall only be permitted to enclose that portion of the street side vard that is in line with and behind the rear- portion of the principal structure closest to the street side vard property line as exemplified in "Exhibit 3 — Permitted Location of Street Side Yard Fences "; w Permilled 4once Lilt c. The fence shall not he hiahcr than 42 inches (1; ft 1� d. 'rile fences shall have a minimum opacity of Q °/= w made of chair -sink material' _. The fence and shall not be iocated wathip I h ft. by I G FtI � at any loin* where the vehicular or pedestrian access way Intersects a drwewav alley sidewalk or other vehicniar or pedestrian ac ss w ay 4 exensx€likaed byr "Exhibit 4_ Siakt l jne �,�rren IF e it v „r Font r o or ,. ­.ITMI c. The fence shall not he hiahcr than 42 inches (1; ft 1� d. 'rile fences shall have a minimum opacity of Q °/= and shall nrt he made of chair -sink material' _. The fence and shall not be iocated wathip I h ft. by I G FtI si "ht fine trianules at any loin* where the vehicular or pedestrian access way Intersects a drwewav alley sidewalk or other vehicniar or pedestrian ac ss w ay 4 exensx€likaed byr "Exhibit 4_ Siakt l jne \10 IL Board Report- September 2, 2014 PC #14 -13: Text Amendment/ Fences IBC. The table lists maximum fence heights for properties in the various zoning districts: Lot In Zoning District Residential Residential — within designated street side vard area. per Sec. I2-3 -5.B. Commercial Manufacturing Abutting Lot In Zoning District Residential [Commercial IManufacturn 6 feet �7 feet 7 feet 3' -6 11feet 3' -6" feet 3'4" feet 7feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 7 Feet GD. In no event shall any fence be placed or maintained in a location relative to a public or p'.vote street, a ley, driveway or other means of egress such that the sight of oncoming vehicular or pe estrian traftltc is impaired for users of quch means of inLrress and egress. PE. All fences must be installed in accordance with title 10, ehmter 9 of this code. 9F. Anv applications for variations to the fence reauirements included herewith shalt be reviewed based on the following: 1. The proposed fence variation shall meet with the intent of the design and develOpment standards established in 12- 3 -5:B.. above• '. The proposed fence variation shall not have ar adverse impact on the immediate abutters or the character of the surrounding neiVhborhood• 3 The proposed fence variation shall not create obstructions in required sight lines at areas where a pedestrian or vehicular ways intersect with driveways streets allevs or other pedestrian or vehicular access way. > AT IA4 �}"rp4� ,,/ ti,, To: Chairperson Farkas and Members of the Plan Commission From: fancy Radzevich, AICP, Community & Economic Development Director/h Dominick Argumedo, AICP, Zoning Administrator /Land -Use Planner Ij Date: August 12, 2014 Re: Plan Commission Case PC 14 -13: Proposed Text Amendment to Section 12- 3-5 of the Morton Grove Unified Development Code (Ordinance 07 -07) to modify regulations regarding fences within front yard setbacks STAFF MEMORANDUM Public Notice The Village provided Public Notice for the August 18, 2014 Plan Commission public hearing for PC 1411 in accordance with the Unified Development Code. The Pioneer Press published the public notice on July 31, 2014. As this request is for a text amendment, not a request for a specific site, no public notice signs or notification letters were required. Backoround Section 12 -3 -5 -A of the Unified Development Code states, "No fence shall be allowed on anv part of a front yard, except where a side yard abutting a street also abuts a public alley of record." The Unified Development Code Section 12 -2 -6 -F states: "The side yard abutting a street on a corner lot shall be considered a front Yard for the purposes of the applicable setback requirements of the zoning district within which it is located" In addition, Through Lots are defined as, "A lot which has a pair of opposite lot lines along two (2) streets and which is not a comer lot On a through lot, both street lines sl•all be deemed front lot l /neS " In the case of corner lots, through lots and lots with three sides of street frontage are limited in the amount of yard space that can be enclosed by a fence when compared to standard interior lots. rds Under the current code requirements, the owner of a corner lot or through lot or other similar lot with multiple street frontages needs to seek a variance to enclose any portion of their corner side yard and /or their rear yard with a fence, depending on the configw ation of such lots. PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 While the intent of the current ordinance is to maintain open space along the streetscape and to promote pedestrian and vehicular safety by minimizing the visual barriers along public sidewalks and adjacent to alleys, driveways, etc., the Unified Development Code does not provide any guidelines for granting such variances for fences in the street side yards or rear yards of corner lots, through lots, or other lots with multiple frontage. Staff notes that there have been a number of cases filed before the ZBA to allow for fences within the street side yards, and in most cases the ZBA approved modified versions of the original applications. The changes typically involved reducing the height of the fences from 6 ft. to 4 ft. or less; moving such fences away from sidewalks, alleys, and /or driveways to provide some clear "sight lines" and reduce potential pedestrian - vehicular conflicts; and to encourage some opacity in the fences to create a more open feel and enhance aesthetics along the streetscape. Although current staff has not received applications for fences for rear or street side yards for through lots and /or multi - frontage lots, staff notes that similar issues with respect to potentially allowing fences along those yards that front public rights -of -way and are adjacent to sidewalks, alleys, etc. Based on the trends of the applications and the ZBA's actions on those which were approved, staff is proposing modifications to the fence regulations to allow fences in portions of the street side yards under certain circumstances in order to enhance property owners' use of their property; provide uniformity to street side yard fence design and construction; promote pedestrian /vehicular safety and reduce visual barriers within a drivers' sight lines; accommodate the village of Morton Grove's desire for open yards along the streetscape; and to reduce permit review time on such variance cases. The overall regulation prohibiting fences in the front yard would remain, which applies to rear yards that front public streets (either through lots or other multi - frontage lots). However, applicants may still try to seek variations to allow for fences in the front and rear yards that abut streets and /or to try to extend what would be permitted by right in the street side yards. The criteria established for by -right street yard fences in this forthcoming amendment should be used in the determination of appropriate variance approvals for front and rear yard cases. Discussion Proposed A n7BPJrn7e1-7tq Staff proposes that fences be permitted by right in portions of the street side yards of corner ots, which is defined as the yard abutting a street that does not meet the definition of °Lot 7rontage" defined as The front of o lot shall be tho boundary of a lot along a publlc stroof, fcr a corner lot the front of the lot shall be that boundary of a lot along a public stroot wh /of prowdes 'the maximum lot depth "and "Lot Line, Rear," defined in part as "That boundary of a lot which is most distance from, and is, or is approximately, parallel to, the front lot llne_. " in accordance with Sec ion 12 -17 -1 of the Unified Development Code, and subject to the following requirements: The street side yard of a subject f race, between two public streets, — Eligible Lots," but not on lots includes one or more front yard, the street side yard is also within as shown in "Exhibit 2 — Ineligible roperty which is part of a blod< where -the entire Klock, Includes only street side yards, as shown in "Exhibit 1 where the block face, between two public streets, on lots with street frontage on three (3) sides where the required front yard setbacks, or on Through Lots Lots" PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 (Addresses 8945 and 8944 would be eligible for limited "by- right "street side yard fence under this amendment) (Addiess 5600 would be eligible for a limited "b -nght'street side Vard fence under Chis amendment) (Addresses 8621 and 8601 would NOi be eligloi� forlir,7ited by right "street Side yard fence under this amendment because the block face includes front ya!'d5) -,a 680D __j (Addiess 5600 would be eligible for a limited "b -nght'street side Vard fence under Chis amendment) (Addresses 8621 and 8601 would NOi be eligloi� forlir,7ited by right "street Side yard fence under this amendment because the block face includes front ya!'d5) -,a PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 (Address 8952 would NOT be eligible for limited "by- right"street side yard fence under this amendment because the street side yard is also within the required front yard setback along the front and rear) kr. (Addresses 8950 and 8946 would NOT be eligible for a b)l-right front or rear yard fence under this amendment because each street frontage is considered a Front yard) The fence shall only be permitted to enclose that portion of the street side yard that is in fine and to the rear of the back portion of the principal structure, as exempEif €ed in _xhibit 3 -- Sne..et Side Yard Fence Pe, rnifted Location ": n.. 6601 PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 nennrtrrr-rr� n(-e. rrnnin o� C: The fence shall be no higher than 42 inches (3' — 6'�; The fence shall have a minimum opacity of 50% and shall not be made of chain -link material; The fence shall not be located within sight line triangles of 10 ft. by 10 ft. at any point where the public sidewalk intersects a driveway, alley, or any oti7er vehicular or pedestrian access way, as exemplified `Exhibit 4 — Sight Triangles ". td, ' Hcrmaletl .encn LOCal or - rG.' I rr $EAR �Raa d Frnnm ��" The fence shall be no higher than 42 inches (3' — 6'�; The fence shall have a minimum opacity of 50% and shall not be made of chain -link material; The fence shall not be located within sight line triangles of 10 ft. by 10 ft. at any point where the public sidewalk intersects a driveway, alley, or any oti7er vehicular or pedestrian access way, as exemplified `Exhibit 4 — Sight Triangles ". PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 Supports the Intent of Open Yards Morton Grove is a desirable place to live for a variety of reasons — including its housing stock and well maintained residential neighborhoods. The Village, like most other communities, enacted a prohibition on front yard fences to promote an open sense of community, to enhance the aesthetics and character of the public streetscapes, and eliminate vehicular and pedestrian obstructions along public right -of -ways. However, allowing limited fences, with defined development standards, in street side yards will also allow for some use of private recreation space while still complying with the intent of the current ordinance. The proposed text amendment will comply with the intent of the original ordinance prohibiting fences within required front yards and rear yards on through lots and /or multi - frontage lots where rear yards front streets, while allowing for some limited fencing in street side yards, under certain circumstances. Specifically, this amendment requires any fences permitted within the street side yards of corner lots, must be installed with a minimum 10 ft. by 10 ft, sight line triangle at all locations where an alley or driveway abuts a public sidewalk or other pedestrian or vehicular access way. This will ensure that vehicles and pedestrians will have clear visibility at potential vehicular /pedestrian conflict points. To further reinforce the sight lines, the proposed maximum 42 inch (3' — 6 ") height limit for street side yard fences complies with engineering standards for clear sight lines by drivers within vehicles, Further, the proposed 42 inch fence height limit, the 50% opacity requirement, the limitations on the location of the street side fencing promotes the Village's desire to maintain as much open space as possible along residential streetscapes. Finally, by limiting the by -right permitting to only those properties where the block face is made of only street side yards, this text amendment will limit the potential for fencing to be installed on a property, adjacent to another property owner's front yard. Staff believes that creating standards for installation of street side yard fencing, reflecting types of installations approved by the ZBA in the past and engineering 'best practices, will enhance overall neighborhood character. A 92 inch (3'- 51� fence height with 50% opacity limit will provide some sense of privacy and security and by prohibiting the installation of chain fink: fences within street side yards, the aesthetics and integrity of the residential neighborhoods and streetscapes will be preserved and maintained. Staff suggests that these base level standards be carried forward when the ZBA considers any applications to extend the street side yard €once area beyond what would be permitted by right. Through this proposed text amendment, staff Is proposing to allow for limited street side yard fencing by right, as long as such fencing complies with certain criteria described above and In Attachment "A ". Residents would be allowed to seek variations from these provisions, through the ZBA, to potentially allow for more of the street side yard to be enclosed, to try to increase the height or to decrease the opacity, etc. Those cases will still be heard and decided by the ZBA on a case -by -case balls. In line with fJeighbonng Nrunidpalitles This proposed text amendment regarding front and street side yard fencing is comparable to albeit a little more stringent than what is permitted by right in many neighboring communities. In. researching fencing regulations, staff found that Park Ridge, Glenview, Niles, and Evanston all prohibit front yard fences, but permit street side yard fencing, on, corner lots; while Skokie prohibits all front and corner side yard fences except at schools, public parks, governmental 6 - ry PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 uses, and public utilities, required for the Protection of the public in residential zoning districts. Des Plaines was the only community in the survey that allows fences in all front yards. While most of these communities allow for street side yard fences by right, each community has certain provisions that must be followed. For example, Evanston requires a 3 ft. sight triangle along alleys and Niles does not permit fences to beyond the front building line to a street or within 30 feet of a street intersection. The proposed amendment is in line with neighboring communities, but includes additional conditions to ensure compliance with the Village's desire of openness along public ways and to promote vehicular /pedestrian safety along driveways, public sidewalks and access ways. Benefit Summation The proposed text amendment upholds the intent of the Village's ordinances which promote open yards along public right of ways while providing some balance to allow additional privacy and enclosure on residential corner lots. in addition, the amendment will allow fence applications, which meet criteria to be reviewed and approved by -right and will promote the orderly development of the Village while streamlining the development approval process. Further this text amendment will continue to allow residents to pursue variations related to street side yard fencing requirements and /or to try to install fencing within the front yard or rear yard of through lots or multi - frontage lots. The ZBA should use the proposed amendment criteria (42" in height, 50% opacity, with required 10 ft, sight triangles) and the overall intent of the original ordinance (to preserve and enhance open streetscapes) in the review of the appropriateness of fence variance applications. Recommendation if the Plan Commission supports this text amendment, Staff suggests the following motion: Plan Commission recommends approval of Case #PC14 -13, for Text Amendments to Section 12- 3-5 of the Moron Grove Unified Development Code (Ordinance 07 -07) to allow fences in street corner side yards, which is defined as the yard abutting a street that does not meet the definition of "Lot Frontage" and "Lot Line Rear" in, accordance vvith Section 12 -17 -1 of the Unified Development Code, in accordance with the requirements listed in "PC 14 -13 A i ACHMEN T 'A' — Proposed Tex, Ame_ncm ent mi" Sectmn iI) of the Uninec Developn`lem Code (Ord. #07 -07)." ttac�naents: Application PC 14 -13 ATTACHMENT "A" - Proposed Text Amendment for Section 17 -3 -5 of the Unified Development Code (Ord. #07 -07) PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 PC 14 -13 ATTACHMENT "A" PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT FOR SECTION 12 -3- 5 OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE (ORD. #07 -07) 12 -3 -5: FENCES: Fences are permitted in all districts, subject to the following restrictions: A. No fence shall be allowed within any part of a required front yard or any nart of a required rear yard that front a street, such as in the case of through lots or multi - fronts e corner lots. . D. Fences shall be permitted within portions of the street side yard of corner lots which is in accordance with the following reouirements: a. The street side yard of a subject: property which is part of a block where the entire block face, between two public streets. includes only street side vards as shown in "Exhibit 1 — Eligible Lots" but not on lots where the block face, between two public streets. includes one or more front vard, on lots with street fronta eon three (3) sides where the street - side vard is within the required front vard setbaelcc or on Through Lots as shown in "Exhibit 2 — Tneli0ble Lots" J fAddressec 84451 and 894 would be _ eligible for iimited " In rialst " street side yard fence ender this a M e dnlen I .tea PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 J ro re m (Addresses 6600 would be eligible for limited "bv- riuht" street side yard fence under this amendment) m- 5937 59 3 5528 5925 5921 s ddresses $6Z1 and fr6 ®1 wvon3d IyQ ' be. eEiRabie %r Finaited "F v -s7i6i t" street cdde ware, fence vadee this angendnaen4} v PC14 -13 — Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 { Address 5952 would NOT be eliaibie for limited "`bv- right" street side vard fence under this amendment because the street side vard isaisowithin the reguired front vard setback alona the front and rear) (Addresses 59S0 and 8946 would NOT be eflgible for by -right front or rear yard fence under this amendment) b. The fence shall oniv be permitted to ,enclose that pw- ion of the street side vard 'ha` is in line with the rear portion of the principal structure as exeanpliiaed in "rxhibi` 3 - -? errnitted Location of Street ,Side Ward Fences'. 9' ul S {,`} � e t once Looafipt � In" Frk0. jr ul PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 i it 1"� FenCa Locallcn 1 c, FRONT r '. IRequ mtl .—""Y� ' REAR LFOn;. yard) IR q If Fr 1 10. SOS �� y a r^^ t I 91 :�ry r�,e. x +1. mdFlm c. The fence shall..notbe higher than.42 inches f3.,,' ft.); d. The fences shall have a minimum Opacity of 50°/ and shall not be made of chain - link material; and e. The fence shall notice located withinsfaht fine triangles of fOft. by 30 ft. at any point where the public sidewalk intersects adriveway. aflev, or other vehicular or pedestrian access way. As exemplified bv "Exhibit 4 —Sight Line Trianafe" i) PC14 -13 - Plan Commission Staff Report August 12, 2014 BC. The table Lists maximum fence heights for properties in the various zoning districts: Lot In Zoning District Residential Residential - within designated street side vard area. ner Sec. 12- 3 -5.$. Commercial Manufacturing j Abutting Lot In Zoning District [l Residentia Commercial Manufacturing 6 feet 7 feet, 7 feet 3'4 "feet �� 35-6" feet 3' -6" feet �7 feet I 7 feet 7 feet 7 feet 1 7 fee? i 7 feet CB. In no event shall any fence be placed or maintained in a location relative to a public or private street, alley. driveway or other means of egress such that the sight of oncoming vehicular or Pedestrian traffic is impaired for users of such means of ingress and egress. BE. All fences most be installed in accordance with title 10, chapter- 9 of this code. BF. Any applications for variations to the fence requirements. included herewith, shalt be reviewed based on the fo'llowina: 1. The proposed fence variation shall meet with the intent of the design and development standards established in 12- 3- 5:13., above; The proposed fence variation shall not have an adverse impact on the immediate abutters or the character of the surrounding neizhborhood: 3. The proposed fence variation shall not create obstructions in required sight lines at areas where side, aldcs or other public access evaes intersect with driveways. streets. alleys. etc. " Legislative Summary Resolution 14 -45 AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVTEMP USA, LLC AND THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, ILLINOIS TO PROVIDE A LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER Introduced: September 8, 2014 Synopsis: This resolution will authorize a contract with GovTemps USA LLC. to provide a Licensed Clinical Social Worker on a temporary and temp -to -hire position through December 31, 2014, Purpose: Adoption of this resolution will provide for the filling of an immediate need for a Social Worker for the benefit of the residents. Background: I The Village contracted for social services through the North Shore Senior Center at a cost of 57,000 per month. The North Shore Senior Center opted to terminate this contract effective August 31, 2014. iThe Village from time -to -time has used GovTemps USA, LLC to provide temporary personnel to fill various needs throughout the Village. GovTemps USA, LLC provides for the advertising, recruitment and selection, and related services of qualified individuals on a contract basis. The Village and GovTemps have negotiated all agreement to engage the services of a Licensed jClinical Social Worker through the end of the year. This individual will not be considered a Village employee but Will be the sole employee of GovTemps. I 6 I le V illuge will a011611ue to assess the need for social services and how best rp fill such a need. Programs, Depts Administration, Family Services or Groups Affected: Fiscal Impact: Gov Temps USA will be paid $26,460 ($42.00 per hour for 35 hours per week) for the use of a f "temp" to provide continued social work services to Village residents. The Village WILL NOT be responsible for the associated employee benefit costs such as worker's compensation, social security, health care, life insurance, pension, etc. If /wren the "temp" is offered full - time cmplovmelil with the Village the Village v, ill pay a one -time "placement fee' Source of' 11 unds: i Lmnihl & Senior Services, 026026: 55120, Counseling & Social Scn ices. Contractual Workiw i intiracf. uie and impleinantai:oll of the igreernent will be performed m the Admit ,nation and Finance Dcpaitsents as part of their normal work activities_ Admin Recommend: Approval as picsenied. second Readmo: Not Rcutlll'ed Speeial Consider. or None Requirements: Respectfully Submitted: ;Mdlage AyaJ Administrator Prepared by: Teresa Hoffman Liston, Corporation Counsel AUTHORIZATION FOR THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN GOVTEMPUSA, LLC AND THE VILLAGE OF MORTON GROVE, ILLINOIS TO PROVIDE A LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER WHEREAS, the Village of Morton Grove (Village), located in Cook County, Illinois, is a home rule unit of government under the provisions of Article 7 of the 1970 Constitution of the State of Illinois, can exercise any power and perform any Function pertaining to its government affairs, including but not limited to the power to tax, purchase, and incur debt', and WHEREAS the Village of Morton Grove from time -to -time needs persons to perform work for the Village on a temporary oil- "as needed" basis; and WHEREAS, GovTemps USA, LLC of Deerfield. Illinois is able to provide advertising, recruitment and selection and related services of qualified individuals to provide services for the Village on a contract basis; and WHEREAS, Village staff and GovTemps USA, LLC have negotiated an agreement to engage the services to supply °worksite employees" to fill Village 1ao si ors or complete assignments for the Village; and WHEREAS, the worksite employee shall remain an employee of Gm Tenms t;SA, LLC and shall not be considered an emplovee of the Village. GovTemps USA.. LLC shall have the sole authority to assign and /or remove and discipline the worksite employee. WHEREAS, this resolution, once adopted, will authorize the Village Administrator to execute professional services agreements with GovTemps USA. LLC to provide a Licensed Clinical Social Worker fm the ,'iiia()c tlrrouoh eceinh r -0, NC)W TIII.RITOE�L BF 11 RL50I_VED I3Y Till. TIRE IFIEN`' .11\D BOARD OF i'RI'iS 11 yS t_ >I i'iYI `dII L,.Ci OF '1<3R'1:1 CiRC)Vt, COOJ� i'01 1' l JJN C)Iv; AS FOIJ,OWS: SF3CTION 1 : The Corporate Authorities do hereby incorporate the for cgoing WI IEREAS clauses into this Resolution as though futiy set torch Tcr ° ii: thereby making the findings as hereinabove set forth. SECTION 2: The Village Administrator is hereby authorized to execute a contract with GovTemps USA, LLC in substantial conformity with Attachment "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 3: The Village Administrator or his designee is hereby authorized to take all appropriate actions to implement the contract(s). SECTION 4: This Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and upon its passage and approval. PASSED THIS 8"' DAY OF September 2014. Trustee Gear Trustee Marcus Trustee Pietron Trustee Thill 'Trustee Toth Trustee Witko APPROVED BY ME THIS 8`° day of September 2014 Daniel P. DiMaria, Village President Village of Oo; ion Grove Cook County. Illinois ATTESTED and FILES in my office his 4 °i day of September 2014 Ed Ramos. 'iiiaae C'Icrk Villag of Morton Ci w Cool: County' Illinois EMPLOYEE LEASING AGREEMENT THIS EMPLOYEE LEASING AGREEMENT of September 2014 ( "Effective Date ") by and between liability company ( "GovTemp "), and Village of ) (GovTemp and the Municipality _ may be referred collectively as the "Parties ") RECITALS (this "Agreement ") is made this 2nd day GOVTEMPUSA, LLC, an Illinois limited Lorton Grove, IL (the "Municipality ") to herein individually as "Party" and The Municipality desires to lease certain employees of GovTemp to assist the Municipality in its operations and GovTemp desires to lease certain of its employees to the Municipality on the terms and conditions contained herein. Employee from GovTemp's AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth below, and other good and valuable considerations, the receipt and sufficiency of which are mutually acknowledged by the Parties, the Parties hereby agree as follows: SECTION I SCOPE OF AGREEMENT Section 1.01. Worksite Employee. The Municipality hereby agrees to engage the services of GovTemp to provide, and GovTemp hereby agrees to supply to the Municipality, the personnel fully identified on Exhibit A hereto. hereinafter the "Worksite Employee. Exhibit A to this Agreement shall further identify the employment position and /or assignment ( "Assignment ") the Worksite Employee shall fill at the Municipality and shall further identify the base compensation for each Worksite Employee, as of the effective date of this Agreement. Exhibit A may be amended from time to time by a replacement Exhibit A signed by both GovTemp and the Mtaucipality. GovTemp shall have the sole authority to assign and/or remove the Worksite Employee, provided, however that the Municipality may request. in writing, that Gov'L:,mp reroc e or reassign the storks e hnnployer, such request shall not he unreasonably withheld by GovTemp. The Parties hereto understand and acknowledge that the Worksite Employee shall be subject to the nfunicipality's day -to -day supervision. Section 1.02. independent Contractor. GovTemp is and shall remain an independent contractor, and not an employee, agent, partner of or joint venturer with, the Municipality. Gov`femp shall have no authority to bind the Municipality to any commitment, contract.. Qi ce Critt Or dt 1 I ��iih gal ii��t 3,S -11Gut the Mn.;ClpaL, S �lpleSS �i„tEtii. C 111sBn1:. SECTION 2 SERVICES AND OBLIGATIONS OF GOVTEMP AND MUNICIPALITY Section 2.01. Payment of Wages. GovTemp shall timely pay the wages and related payroll taxes of the Worksite Employee from GovTemp's own account in accordance with federal and Illinois law and GovTemp's standard payroll practices. GovTemp shall withhold from such wages all applicable taxes and other deductions elected by the Worksite Employee. GovTemp shall timely forward all deductions to the appropriate recipient as required by law. The Municipality hereby acknowledges that GovTemp may engage a financial entity to maintain its financing and record keeping services, which may include the payment of wages and related payroll taxes in accordance with this Section 2.01. The Municipality agrees to cooperate with any such financial entity to ensure timely payment of (i) wages and related payroll taxes pursuant to this Section 2.01, and (ii) Fees pursuant to Section 3.03. Section 2.02. Workers' Compensation. To the extent required by applicable law, GovTemp shall maintain and administer workers' compensation, safety and health programs. GovTemp shall maintain in effect workers' compensation coverage covering all Worksite Employee and complete and file all required workers' compensation forms and reports. Section 2.03. Employee Benefits. GovTemp shall provide to Worksite Employee those employee benefits fully identified on Exhibit B hereto. GovTemp may amend or terminate any of its employee benefit plans according to their terms. All employee benefits, including severance benefits for Worksite Employee will be included in Fees payable to GovTemp under Section 3.01 of this Agreement Section 2.04. Maintenance and Retention of Payroll and Benefit Records. GovTemp shall maintain complete records of all wages and benefits paid and personnel actions taken by GovTemp in connection with any of the Worksite Employee, shall retain control of such records at such GovTemp location as shall be determined solely by GovTemp, and shall make such records available as required by applicable federal, state or local laws. Section 2.05. Other Obligations of GovTemp. GovTemp shah be responsible for compliance with any federal, state and local law that may apply to its Worksite Employee(s), Section 2.06. Direction and Control, The Parties agree and acknowledge that the Municipality has the right of direction and control over the Worksite Employee, including matters of discipline, excluding removal or cassignmcnt, as provided for by Section 1.01. The Worksite Employee shall be supervised; direct]), and indirectly. and exclusively by the Municipality's supervisor"` and managerial employees. Section 107. Obligations of the Municipslitti, As part of , the en.plotec leasing reiationship. the Municipality hereby covenants, agrees and acknowledges: (a) The Municipality shall comply with OSHA and all other health and safety laws. .cgnlaiions.. ordinances, di cim. s, and rLies applicable to the `A)oIl,Site 'Employee or to his or her place of work. The Municipality agrees to comply, at its expense, with all health and safety directives from GoVremp's internal and external loss control specialists. GovTemp's workers' compensation carrier, or any government agency having jurisdiction over the place of work. The Municipality shall provide and ensure use of all personal protective equipment as required by any federal, state or local law, regulation, ordinance, directive, or rule or as deemed necessary by GovTemp's workers' compensation carrier. GovTemp and GovTemp's insurance carriers shall 2 have the right to inspect the Municipality's premises to ensure that the Worksite Employee is not exposed to an unsafe work place. In no way shall GovTemp's rights under this paragraph affect the Municipality's obligations to the Worksite Employees under applicable law or to GovTemp under this Agreement; (b) The Municipality shall be responsible for compliance with any applicable federal, state and local law that may apply to the Worksite Employee(s); (c) The Municipality shall retain the right to exert sufficient direction and control over the Worksite Employee as is necessary to conduct the Municipality's business and operations, without which, the Municipality would be unable to conduct its business, operation or comply with any applicable iicensure, regulatory or statutory requirements; (d) The Municipality shall not have the right to remove or reassign the Worksite Employee unless mutually agreed to in wr t ng by GovTemp and the Municipality h1 accordance with Section 1.01: (e) The Municipality agrees that the Municipality shah pay no wages, salaries or other forms of direct or indirect compensation, including employee benefits, to Worksite Employee; (i) The Municipality shall report to GovTemp any injury to any Worksite Employee of which it has knowledge within twenty -four (24) hours of acquiring such knowledge. If a Worksite Employ ee is injured in the course o'£ performing services for the Municipality. the Municipality and Godfemp shall follow the procedures and practices regarding in uy claims and reporting. as determined by GovTemp, Upon receipt of notification from Gov "temp or its insurance carrier that an injured Worksite Employee is able to return to work and perform "tight duty," the Municipality shall immediately make available an appropriate light duty work assignment for such Worksite Employee to the extent required or permitted by any applicable law: and (Q) The Municipality shall report all on -the -job illnesses, accidents and injuries of the Worksite Employee to Godfemp within 1wcnty -four (24) hours following notification of said injury by ent aloye o eo 1 ee' m- repesentative. S CTIO N 3 FEES PAYABLRP' TO GOV"FEN/W Secti(in ;x.01. flees. The 1Vlunicipality hereby agrees to pa.v , GovTemp fees for the services provided under this Agreement as follows: i fjUd )n Exhibit A as an uo d; !I- !,L (b) Any employee benefits Godfemp paid to the Worksite Employee as identified on Exhibit B hereto, including.. but not limited to, salary; wages; commissions; bonuses; sick pay: workers' compensation, health and other insurance premiums, payroll, unemployment, FICA and other taxes; vacation pay: overtime pay; severance pay; monthly automobile allowances, and any other compensation or benefits payable under any applicable GovTemp pension and welfare benefit 3 plan or federal, state or local laws covering the Worksite Employee. Section 3.02. Increase in Fees. GovTemp may increase fees to the extent and equal to any mandated tax increases, e.g. FICA, FUTA, Stale Unemployment taxes when they become effective. GovTemp may also adjust employer benefit contribution amounts by providing the Municipality with a written thirty (30) day notice, provided, such changes in employer benefit contribution amounts apply broadly to all GovTemp employees. Section 3.03. Payment Method. Following the close of each month during the term of this Agreement, GovTemp shall provide the Municipality a written invoice for the fees owed by the Municipality pursuant to this Agreement for the prior month. Within thirty (30) days following receipt of such invoice, the Municipality shall pay all invoiced amounts by check, wire transfer or electronic funds transfer to GovTemp to an account or lockbox as designated on the invoice. SECTION 4 INSURANCE Section 4.01. General and Professional Liability Insurance. The Municipality shal maintain in full forcee and effect at all times during the term of this Agreement a Comprehensive (or Commercial) General Liability and Professional Liability (if applicable) insurance policy or policies (tile "Policies"). with minimum coverage in the amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence, 53.000,000 aggregate. At a minimum, the Policies shall insure against bodily injury and property darnaec liability caused by on- pr:rnises business operations, completed operations and /or products or professional service and non -owned automobile coverage. Section 4.02. Certificate of Insurance. Upon request, the Municipality shall provide GovTemp with one or more Certificates of insurance, verifying the Mur ictpaiity's compliance with the provisions of Section 4.01. Section 4.01 Autornol Municipal or personal vehicle "01inic,ipalit% r s11a maintain in Worksite Employee, GovTemp and property damage He Liability Insurance. If the Worksite Fmployee drives a for try reason in connection with his or her Assrum27cnt. the erred au omobre 1,iaC>iiih� insurance which she l insure the and the Municipality against liahrhty far bodily mi,urjr, death SECTION 3 DURATION AND l'i?RMINATiON OF AGREEMENT Section "" € 1, l ffecOvE� and 7 crininaocin Mme r;l' rrrr r ri-If ski l kt,CIOMt, ( "it,C on September 2, 2014 and shall continue in effect for four (4) rnonths, until December 31, 2014 or until it is terminated in accordance, with the remaining provisions of this Section 5. For the purposes of the Agreement, the date on which this Agreement expires and/or is terminated shall be referred to as the "Termination Date." This agreement may be extended for additional one (1) year terms upon agreement of the patties. Future agreements will run consistent with the Village's fiscal year, .January 1 through December 31. 4 Section 5.02. Termination of Agreement for Failure to Pay Fees. If the Municipality fails to timely pay the fees required under this Agreement, GovTemp may give the Municipality notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for such failure and if such failure is remedied within ten (10) days, the notice shall be of no further effect. If such failure is not remedied within the ten (10) day period, GovTernp shall have the right to terminate the Agreement upon expiration of such remedy period. Section 5.03. Termination of Agreement for Material Breach. If either Party materially breaches this Agreement, the non - breaching Party shall give the breaching Parry notice of its intent to terminate this Agreement for such breach and if such breach is remedied within ten (10) days, the notice shall be of no further effect. Lf such breach is not remedied within the ten (10) day period, the non - breaching Party shall have the right to immediately tern nate the Agreement upon expiration of such remedy period. Section 5.04. Termination of Agreement to execute Temp -to -Hire Arrangement. At the end of the term of the agreement, as outlined in Section 5.01, the Village of Morton Grove may hire the Employee as a permanent employee of the Village. If the Village exercises this option, the sum of two weeks gross salary is payable to GovTempsUSA. LLC within thirty (30) days of the permanent employment date. If the Villages wishes to hire the 'Employee as a permanent employee of the Village prior to the end of the Temp -to -Hire an:angnent, then an additional fee of 10% of the two weeks gross salary figure is payable to GovTempsUSA, LLC. If tl:e Village does not exercise the Tcmp -To Hire Arrangement by the end of the contract_ as outlined in Section 5.01. it agrees not to extend an offer of employment to the Employee for two years after the conclusion of this agreement If an offer is made within two years after the conclusion of this agreement, as outlined in Section 5.01, then the two weeks gross salary fee is payable to Gov' empstJSA, LLC within thirty (30) days of the permanent employment date. SECTION 6 NON - SOLICITATION Section 6.01. Non - Solicitation. The Municipality acKno ledges GovTemp s :egitilnate. .merest in prole Ling its busmes: ;or a reasonably time following the terminunon of this agreement. Accordingly. the Municipality agrees that during the terns of th s Agreement and for period of two f? vears !nci ,flfte-, file %lunlcipahl, shall Dot solicit. request, entice or induce Nor KC k i IriI —))W C`� 10 :U1n"IMLI'Le IIIS 01 IICt eInp10SMCflt Wnili :.11U GO I Shall lac Municipality hire Worksitc Employee CIS an employee. Section 6.02. InEunctive Relief. The Munf(�ipaliiy c.o(,)nizes that tht rights and '!liti ac ACS ;rEllit(.d ill tliiL� .%gi C..,.;r]lc.:?I arc? Ol d S�`Y(SIaI. unique, dnd 3xt1'aCi d'I],Er'i' ailacl'!:r.. th. Loss of which cannot reasonably or adequately be compensated for in damages in any action at law. Accordingly, the Municipality understands and agrees that Gov] emp shall be entitled to equitable relief, including a Temporary restraining order and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, to prevent or enjoin a breach of Section 6.0 1 this Agreement. The Municipality also understands and agrees that any such equitable relief shall be in addition to, and not in substitution for, any other relief to which the Gov' emp may be entitled. 5 Section 6.03. Survival. The provision of this Section 6 shall survive any termination of this Agreement. SECTION 7 DISCLOSURE AND INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS Section 7.01. Indemnification by GovTemp. GovTemp agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the Municipality and its related entities or their agents, representatives or employees (the "Municipality Parties ") handless from and against all claims, liabilities, damages, attorney's fees, costs and expenses ('Losses ") (a) arising out of GovTemp's breach of its obligations under this Agreement, (b) related to the actions or conduct of GovTemp and its related business entities, their agents, representatives, and employees (the "GovTemp Patties "), taken or not taken with respect to the Worksite Employees that relate to events or incidents occurring prior or subsequent to the term of this Agreement, and (c) arising from any act or omission on the part of GovTemp or anv of the GovTemp Parties. Section 7.02. Indemnification by the Municipality. The Municipality agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the GovTemp Parties harmless from and against all Losses (a) arising out of the Municipality's breach of its obligations under this Agreement, (b) relating to any activities or conditions associated with the Assignment, including without limitation, the Worksite Employee workers' compensation claims, and (c) arising from any act or omission on the part of the Municipality or any of the Municipality Parties. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Municipality shall have no obligations to the GovTemp Parties under this Section with respect to Losses arising out of events or incidents occurring before or after the term of this Agreement. Section 7.03. Indemnification Procedures. The Party that is seeking indemnity (the "indemnified Party ") from the other Party (time "Indemnifying Party ") pursuant to this Section 7, shall give the Indemnifying Party prompt notice of any such claim, allow the Indemnifying Party to control the defense or settlement of such claim and cooperate with the Indemnifying Party in all matters related thereto; provided however that, prior to the Indemni'fying Party assuming such defense and upon the request of the indernni bed Party, the Indemnifying Pal rt shall demonstrate to the reasonable satisfaction of the Indemnified Par y tha � the indemnifying Party (a) is able to fully pay the reasonably anticipated indemnity amounts under this Section 7 and (b) takes steps satisfactory to the Indemnified Party to ensure its continued ability to pay such amounts. In the event the Indemnifying Party does not control tide defense, the Indemnified Party may defend against anv such claim at the Indemnifying Party's cost and expense, and the Indemnifying Party shall filly cooperate with the Indemnified ratty, at no charge to the Indemnified Party, M cefendr,.g sucri otcrrtal !loss. znclad no wi.hou.?imitatx n Using re_'LS0jjz2blc comnr�rrial efforts to keep the relevant Worksite Employe; available. In the event the Indemnifying Party controls the defense, the Indemnified Party shall be entitled, at its own cxpense, to participate in, but not control, such defense. The failure to promptly notify the Indemnifying Party of any claim pursuant to this Section shall not relieve such Indemnifying Party of any indemnification obligation that it may have to the Indemnified Party, except to the extent that the Indemnifying Patty demonstrates that the defense of such action has been materially prejudiced by the I Indemnified Party's failure to timely give such notice. Section 7.04. Survival of Indemnification Provisions. The provisions of this Section 7 shall survive the expiration or other termination of this Agreement. SECTION 8 ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS Section 8.01. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended at any time and from time to time, but any amendment must be in writing and signed by all of the Parties to this Agreement, except for changes to the fees as set forth in Section 3. Section 8.02. Binding ,Effect. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the Parties and their respective heirs.. successors, representatives and assign. Neither Party may assign its rights o2' delegate its duties hereunder without the express written consent of the other Party, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. Section 8.03. Counterpart Execution. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. This Agreement may be executed and delivered via facsimile. Section 8.04, Definitions. 'Ferins and phrases defined in any pa"t of this Agreement shall have the defined meanings wherever used throughout the Agreement The terms "hereunder" and "herein" and similar tents used in this Agreement shall refer to this Agreement in its entirety and not mereln to the section, subsection or paragraph in which the tern is used. Section 8.05. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement be weep he Partics regarding Gov'Temp's provision of Workshe Employee to the Municipality, and contains all of the terms, conditions, covenants, stipulations, understandings and provisions agreed upon by the Parties. This Agreement supersedes and takes precedence over all proposals. memorandum agreements. tentativ • agreements. and oral agreements between the Parties. made Prior lo and inCludin2 the Gai E: hereof and not Pcci ficall; idea -icd and m0orporai�' nn. Wi "itrnQ into this AiTre-cmen; No agent. or 1 iilesentatl\ e of `dither Party hcl'C'i0 has authority to make, and the Parties shall nm ire hound by or liable for. any statement, representation promise, or AsTr(sCyllord not _p i cafl� roe, forth in this A�,?�C,uml;'nt. 7 Section 8.06. Further Assurances. Each of the Parties shall execute and deliver any and all additional papers, documents, and other assurances and shall do any and all acts and things reasonably necessary in connection with the performances of their obligations hereunder and to carry out the intent of the parties hereto. Section 8.07. Gender. Whenever the context herein so requires, the masculine, feminine or neuter gender and the singular and plural number shall each be deemed to include the other. Section 8.08. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall either be served personally or delivered by certified first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid and return receipt requested or by overnight delivery service. Notices also may effectively be given by transmittal over electronic transmitting devices such as Telex or facsimile machine if the Party to whom the notice is being sent has such a device in its office, provided that a complete copy of any notice shall be mailed in the sane manner as required for a mailed notice. Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three days from mailing date. Notices shall be directed to the Parties at their respective addresses shown below. A Party may change its address for notice by giving written notice to the other Party in accordance with this Section. If to GovTemp: GOVTEMPUSA, LLC 500 Lake Cool: Road, Suite 350 Deerfield, Illinois 60015 Attention: Joellen C. Earl Telephone: 847 -580 -4248 Facsimile: 866- 803 -1500 If to the Municipality: Village of Morton Grove 6101 Capulma Avenue Morton Grove. IL 60053 Attention: Ryan Horne Telephone: (847) 470 -5220 acsimite: (8471 96� -416:2 Section 8.O9. Section Headinhs. Section and other headings contained in this Agreement _rre for 2T erence purpose's onjY and shall not afwcl in am, wav the meamnta or inter;nrctation of fl as Agreement. Section 8.10. Severabflif.y. If any part or condition of this Agreement is held to be void, valid JI rnoper *115 e. such hall t1(17 r fact a r Ct61cr p�(wis.ron 11U1'e(1(, which sinarl� contrrnue. i(} ne effective as though such void, invalid or inoperative part, clause or condition had not been made. Section 8.11. Waiver of' Provisions. The failure by one Party to require performance by the other Party shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any such breach, nor of any subsequent breach by the other Party of any provision of this Agreement. Such waiver shall not affect the validity of this Agreement, nor prejudice either Party's rights in connection with any subsequent 8 action. Any provision of this Agreement may be waived if, but only if, such waiver is in writing signed by the Party against whom the waiver is to be effective. Section 8.12. Confidentiality. Each Party shall protect the confidentiality of the other's records and information and shall not disclose confidential information without the prior written consent of the other Party. Each Party shall reasonably cooperate with the other Party regarding any Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request calling for production of documents related to this Agreement. Section 8.13. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the Laws of the State of Illinois applicable to contracts made and to be performed entirely within such state, except the law of conflicts. Section 8.14. Arbitration. (a) Negotiation/Arbitration Process. The parties will attempt to settle any dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, or the breach thereof, through good faith negotiation between the parties. If settlement cannot be reached through good faith negotiation within thirty (30) days after the initial receipt by the allegedly offending party of written notice of the dispute, the controversy or claim shall be settled by binding arbitration conducted before a single arbitrator who is knowledgeable in employment law. Either party may submit the dispute to arbitration. The arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the then applicablee rules and regulations of the American Arbitration Association ( "AAA "). The arbitration will be held in Lake County, . Illinois- The arbitrator shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties.. but if they are unable to agree on an arbitrator, the arbitrator shall be appointed by AAA. AlI arbitration proceedings shall be closed to the public and confidential. All records relating thereto shall be permanently sealed, except as necessary to obtain court confirmation of the arbitrator's decision. (b) Arbitration Award. The arbitrator will be bound by the terms and conditions of this Agreement and shall havc no power, in renderina his or her award, to alter or depart from any express provision of this Agreement, and his or her failure to observe this limitation shall constitute grounds for vacating the award. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the arbitrator shall apply the law specified in Section 8.3. The arbi ator will not be em }lowered to award punitive dan,n.ges cxcept for willful miscondnef I tip .1nld'am Of ire .t �IL'at 'I o�].l i] I ='e llnai Mid binding upon fhe part e5 and Itldgnlerit up-n the: 6ward ma\ be entered In and court have o n risdiction thereof ISl,oIlalures on followinz pugs/ 9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written. GOVTEMPUSA,LLC, an Illinois limited liability company By: Name:.loellen C. Earl Title: President /Co -owner MUNICIPALITY By: Name: _Daniel P. DiMaria Title: Village President 10 EXHIBIT A Worksite Employee and Base Compensation WORKSI'TE EMPLOYEE: Debbie Alberts POSITION /ASSIGNMENT: Temp -to -Hire Social Services Manager (LCSW) - Outreach BASE COMPENSA'T'ION: S42.00_l2er hour. Homy are expected to be 35 per week, _ Emplovee will be aidweeklvfor horns worked only. Hours - should _be emailed to _ God /Tem.p.sUSA oo the t londav after the prior work week to uavrolhagovtempsusa.coin. Villa(e will be irvoicl_every other week for hours w0l-ked Payment may be remitted to GovTempsUSA via check or ACK _ ")R1v1 OF POST i IJN: Senternber 2G 1.4= i�ecember 31.2014 Employer may elected to extend the worksite emplovee's assignment per the initial agreement Employee may be hired as a permanent enlIlvee of the Villa;te at the end of the term or any time during the nitial geriod, with 2 weei<s notice given_.__ F5v: IS\ date: Daic: l v ( d This Exhibit A fully replaces all Exhibits A for the same Worksite Employee dated prior to the date of the Company's signature above. Exhibit EXHIBIT B Summary of Benefits Exhibit