Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/26/1973 VB minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES April 26~ 1973 Special meeting of the Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect called by Mayor Teichert on Tuesday, April 24, 1973, pursuant to Chapter 2. "The Board of Trustees" Section 2.103 "Meetings" of the Municipal Code of Mount Prospect, for the purpose of holding public hearings on annexations of property located south of Algonquin Road, east of Nordic Road and south of Carboy Road, and property located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Elmhurst Road and Oakton Street. There ~as a court reporter present at this public hearing to make a verbatim report of the proceedings, which will be available for review in the office of the Village Clerk. CALL TO OR~ER The meetiag was called co order at 8:30 P.M. INVOCATION TrusTee Scholten gave the invocation. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Ahem Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Abs~nt: Richardson The public hearings were continued from the special meeting of April 5, 1973. Trustee Link, seconded by Trustee Scholten, moved for passage of Resolutisn #18-73: A RESOLUTION DIRECTING THE EXECUTION OF AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT REGULATING THE ANNEXATIDN OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON MAP 47-S IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Upon roll call: Ayes~ Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. A petition for annexation dated as of this date was filed with the Village Clerk. Trustee Ahern, seconded by Trustee Link, moved To waive the requirements of two readings of the ordinance of annexation. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Link, seconded by Trustee Ahern, moved for passage of Ordinance 2417: AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF ALGONQUIN ROAD, EAST OF NORDIC ROAD AND SOUTH OF CARBOY ROAD Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. rustee Furst, seconded by Trustee Scholten, moved to authorize the Village President and Clerk to sign and attest the plat of anneXation for properties commonly known as Nordic Road properties. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Following the above, a public hearing was held on the annexation off,he property located at the northwest corner of the~ intersection of Elmhurst Road and Oakton Street, known as The Colony - developers, Lincoln Property Company. Trustee Ahern, seconded by Trustee Scholten, moved for passage of Resolution #19-73: A RESOLUTION ~IRECT!M2[~HE .EXECUTION OF AN ANNEXATION AGREEMENT:REGULATING THEANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON MAP 47'S IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT A correction of a typographical error in Section One was made to change Exhibit "I" to Exhibit."A". Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahem Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Mr, Frank Cinino, 115 S. HiLusi, spoke in objection to the proposed annexation of the Colony 31.747 acres, on the grounds ~f high density, airplane noise, and not being in conformity with the NIPC plan for that location. A petition for annexation to the Village of Mount Pros- pect dated February"26, 1973 was presented to the Clerk for filing. Trustee Link, seconded by Trustee Ahern, moved for waiver of the rules requiring two readings of an ordinance relating to the above property. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Scholten, seconded by Trustee Furst, moved for passage of Ordinance 2418: AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF ELMHURST ROAD AND OAKTON STREET Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert ~otion carried. Trustee Ahern, seconded by Trustee Link, moved to authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest the plat of annexation of the property at the north- west corner of the intersection of Elmhurst Road and Oakton Street. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Schotten Teichert Motion carried. April 26, 1973 hree exhibits were received for both the Nordic Road property and the Colony property vo be admitted into evi- dence by the Board and attached to the agreemenv proper. Trustee Ahern, seconded by Trustee Link, moved for waiver of ~wo readings of an ordinance rezoning the Nordic Road property from RX to I-1. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Scholten, seconded by Trustee Furst, moved for passage of Ordinance 2419: AN ORDINANCE DESIGNATING AS I-1 PORTZONS OF MAP 47-S OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahem Anderson Furst Link Scholten Tei~hert Motion carried. Trustae Scholten, seconded by Trustee Ahem, moved to waive the rulas requiring two readings of an ordinance relating to the Colony property. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahem Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichsrt Motion carried. Trustee Ahem, seconded by Trustee Link, moved for passage of Ordinance 2420: AN ORDINANCE AMENDING MAP u?-S OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PRDSPECT Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Ahern, seconded by Trustee Link, moved for waive of the rules regarding a matter not on the agenda for the purpose of taking Board action to obtain an appraisal of property known as the Central~ School site. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahem Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Furst, seconded by Trustee Anderson, moved To authorize the Village Manager to obtain an appraiser to determine the value of the Central School property. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Scholten Teichert Motion carried. The Village Manager was requested To make available ~o the Board the s~a~us of the present building and deter~ mine what information District #57 could furnish relating To the property. April 26, 1973 OR INFORMATION ONLY Quarterly meeting of the Mayor and Board bf Trustees with the Commissions and Committees is schedut~ed f0r Ju~e 2nd. ADJOURNMENT Truste~ Link~ ~econded ky Trustee Sch01ten, ~moved the meeting be adjourned. Time: 10:10 P.M. Unanimous. DONALD W. GOODMAN Village Clerk April 26, 1973 BEFORE THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MOUNT PROSPECT, ILLINOIS STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the Municipal Building, Mount Prospect, Illinois, on Thursday, April 26, 1973, at 8:00 o'clock P.M. PRESENT: MR. ROBERT D. TEICHERT, Mayor MR. ROBERT J. EPPLEY, Village Manager MR. JOHN J. ZIMMERMAN, Village Attorney MR. DANIEL J. AHERN, Trustee MR. PATRICK J. LINK, Trustee MR. KENNETH V. SCHOLTEN, Trustee MR. DONALD B. FURST, Trustee MR. GEORGE B. ANDERSON, Trustee MR. DONALD W. GOODMAN, Village Clerk MRS. MARIE T. HARD, Deputy Village Clerk 2 MAYOR TEICHERT: The Special Meeting of the Village Board of Mount Prospect of April 26, 1973, will please come to order. The Invocation will be given by Trustee Scholten. . . . Invocation . . . MAYOR TEICHERT: Will the Clerk please call the roll. . . . Roll Call . . . MAYOR TEICHERT: There is a quorum, and before we start, if there is anyone up here intending to attend the Board of Appeals Meeting, you will be advised that the Board of Appeals is meeting downstairs in the Clerk's Office. The meeting tonight is a Special Board Meeting, is a continuation of the public hearings already in progress and continued to this date certain on properties generally known as the Nordic Road Properties and another property at the north- west corner of Oakton and 83, and both of these are for preannexation agreements concerning the properties in question. The first agenda item would be, then, the consideration of the Nordic 3 Road Properties. Mr. Zimmerman, do you want to recap the -- MR. ZIMMERMAN: Briefly, without going paragraph for paragraph, again, through the pre- annexation agreement, it is basically an agreement that upon the execution of the agreement, the Village will annex the property. There is a petition here today signed by all of the owners of record. There are no electors on the property. The agreement further indicates that the properties will be rezoned from RX to light industrial which is the I1 District, and that thereafter there will be variation ordinances in line to be passed at some future date, whenever the owners of the unimproved property, its vacant lots, desire to construct buildings on them, so that they will be placed in the same position with respect to setbacks as they are in the County and will be able to build the same as their neigh- bors, and, again, this is for Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 in the Elmhurst - Algonquin Industrial Park Unit 2. 4 If there are any questions of the Board of Trustees, I would be happy at this time to try and answer them. TRUSTEE LINK: Question. Curiosity. Lot No. 10, John, why is that not included? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Lot No. 10 at the time of the original negotiations for this property some two years ago -- almost three years ago now -- was not developed, and we had a difficult time or would have in locating the owners. So, we ignored them, quite frankly. They weren't necessary for us in obtaining these easement areas for water main con- struction. This is a lot that is south of Carboy Road and immediately adjacent to and west of Lot 9 which is one of the William A. Dogood Company lots. So, we dealt just with Mr. Dogood and his corporation. I am sure that Lot 10 will annex if they are approached. I don't know why they would not. MAYOR TEICHERT: Any other questions on the Nordic Road industrial properties along 5 Nordic Road? Are there any comments from citizens concerning Nordic Road preannexation agreement and annexation? What is the next resolution number, Mr. Clerk? MR. GOODMAN: 18 -73. MAYOR TEICHERT: 18- MR. GOODMAN: -- 73. MAYOR TEICHERT: Resolution 18 -73 is a resolution directing the execution of an annexation agreement regulating the annexation of properties located on Map 47 -S in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Mount Prospect, and this is the property that has commonly been termed the Nordic Road Properties. The Chair would entertain a motion for the passage of Resolution 18 -73. TRUSTEE LINK: So move. TRUSTEE SCHOLTEN: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: Moved and seconded. Discussion? The Clerk please call the roll. 6 . . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . . MAYOR TEICHERT: Did you call my name on that roll call on that one? MR. GOODMAN: Mayor Teichert? MAYOR TEICHERT: Aye. In conformity with Resolution 18 -73, the annexation agreements have now been executed, and it would be appropriate now to receive the petition for annexation. MR. ZIMMERMAN: I have here the petition for annexation, dated today and signed by the owners of record. I would like to file that with the Village Clerk at this time. MAYOR TEICHERT: Having signed now the annexation agreement, and on the petition for annexation, the next item would be an ordinance annexing the property generally located south of Algonquin Road, east of Nordic Road and south of Carboy Road. That ordinance number would be 2417. The first hearing, these ordinances 7 were available to the Board and could be considered the first reading. So that there is no doubt as to that, I would ask the Board to -- the Chair would entertain a motion, waiving the rules requiring two readings of an ordinance. TRUSTEE AHERN: So move. TRUSTEE LINK: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: Moved and seconded for waiver. Will the Clerk please call the roll? . . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . . MR. GOODMAN: Carried unanimously. MAYOR TEICHERT: The Chair will enter- tain the motion for the passage of Ordinance 2417 which is an ordinance annexing the property gener- ally located south of Algonquin, east of Nordic Road and south of Carboy Road. TRUSTEE LINK: So move. TRUSTEE AHERN: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Will the Clerk please call the roll. 8 . . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . . MR. GOODMAN: Carried unanimously. MAYOR TEICHERT: The motion carries. Mr. Clerk, there is a plat of annexa- tion. Copies were supplied with the previous public hearing. Gentlemen, you have this, and the Chair would entertain a motion authorizing the Village President and the Village Clerk to sign and attest the plat of annexation for the properties commonly known as the "Nordic Road Properties ". TRUSTEE FURST: So move. TRUSTEE SCHOLTEN: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: Moved and seconded. Discussion? The Clerk please call the roll. . . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . . MR. GOODMAN: Carried unanimously. MAYOR TEICHERT: Did you call -- MR. GOODMAN: Mayor Teichert. MAYOR TEICHERT: Aye. 9 Now, those four documents, that property now known as Nordic Road Industrial Properties has, in fact, been annexed to the Village of Mount Pros- pect, and the documents will be recorded tomorrow. The subsequent ordinance dealing with, in fact, variations of zoning will be handled at a later date and mostly on request of the petitioners involved. The next order of business would be a resolution directing the execution of an annexation agreement regulating the annexation of property located on Map 47 -S in the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Mount Prospect, Resolution number would be 19 -73, Marie? MRS. HARD: Yes, sir . MAYOR TEICHERT: That is the property that is now popularly known as "The Colony" and located on the northwest corner of 83 and Oakton. The Chair would entertain a motion for the passage of Resolution 19 -73. TRUSTEE AHERN: So move. TRUSTEE SCHOLTEN: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Zimmerman. 10 MR. ZIMMERMAN: Mr. Mayor and Board, there is one small typo on this resolution. It refers to Exhibit I, in Section 1, Line 4. That should be a capital letter A. MAYOR TEICHERT: All right. Let your agreement show that what was previously known as Exhibit I is Exhibit A in Section 1 of the resolu- tion. I think as a matter of in the discus- sion stage of this resolution, because this reso- lution will, in effect, authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign and attest the agreement, as such, this would be the appropriate time, I believe, to discuss, in fact, the agreement which is exhibited and which was published in the newspapers verbatim. There have been some slight changes made, but this is the agreement that was published. Everyone has the agreement, and I suspect has gone through it. Are there any questions? The agree- ment, of course, reflects the exhibits that we saw in the first portion of the public hearing a couple or two weeks ago, and everyone has, I believe, received a report from the Plan 11 Commission which was a report, dated April 20, 1973, a four -page report which, in effect, was a recommen- dation for approval subject to compliance with the Planned Unit Development Ordinance, or for the pur- pose of this Board, therefore, must be, perhaps, construed in the form of a denial. While it is a positive structure, it is conditioned on full compliance with the planned unit development, and, therefore, if any of the specifications were not met, the recommendation would fall, and they involve variations, and those variations were the subject of public hearings held by the Board of Appeals under Case 73 -10A and reported to this Board, also, in a four -page report. There has been, subsequently, a minority report issued, and since it is hand- written, I suspect there are no copies other than the one I received which I received just prior to the meeting here. It was on my desk. So, I will read the minority report to the Board. You may recall that the recommendation from the Plan Commission was on a seven to one vote with one absent, and that the one vote 12 against it was by Robert McBride, and this is his minority report. "On Friday, April 20, 1973, the Plan Commission of Mount Prospect voted seven to one in favor of recommending approval of the Trustees of said project, based on certain contingencies. There are several very good reasons for this decision discussed in the report, including (1) density based on gross annex area, rather than net lot area; (2) unsufficient parking, both residential and commercial areas; (3) lack of fire lanes, and (4) excessive floor area. "1 am in complete agreement with the other commissioners as to the specific objec- tions. The Planned Unit Development Ordinance is written in a manner which does not allow the Commission any elbow room to deviate from the 11 major rules. No value judgment can be made in the Commission's decision. "There is, however, another consi- deration involved in my decision to vote 13 against approval. This parcel of ground, even though its annexation may seem to be terribly important to the Village, is not appropriately located for any type of resi- dential use. It lies directly below the landing pattern for O'Hare's runway E32R, a distance of only 2.8 miles from touchdown. The height of descending planes varies from 1,000 to 3,000 feet, depending on, seemingly, the size of airplane. 747's and DC -10's come in lower than any others. The pattern only exists when the wind is southerly. If it is northerly, then, they are taking off in this direction and make twice as much noise. "There are any number of reports by both the government agencies as well as private groups which direct our attention to the very undesirable sound and other characteristics of major airports. Many such groups exist in our neighboring communities, and these people are twice as far from the runways. 14 "The developer in this case is one of the best in the country, and under normal circumstances would provide Mount Prospect with an excellent project for which we could all be proud. "As an architect and land planner, myself, I cannot in good conscience recommend that residential people be allowed to suffer the physical and mental torment of monitoring the rush hour in the sky. "I will trust the Trustees will take into consideration every one of the essential materials before making their decision. "Robert McBride." Speaking to the points that were made in the Plan Commission, it is quite true that the planned unit development under your old set -up which will now be rectified May 1st under our reorganization, but under the set -up that we have suffered under for many years, the Plan Commission is, in fact, our Zoning Board, and our Board of Appeals is the Board charged with variations and special uses, and this has le d, of course, to the 15 quandary wherein zoning, the Plan Commission, even if they favor a project, if it does not comply with all of the standards set forth in the ordinance, they cannot recommend its passage. So, we have constantly been in the posture of having planned unit developments, specifically, that, in fact -- any zoning which requires a variation to be going through two bodies at the same time, the Plan Commission and the Board of Appeals. Sometimes those Boards -- the Commission and the Boards -- don't see eye to eye. They come to different conclusions. Sometimes, to the same conclusions, but in different paths, and in the present case, of course, each of the objections set forth by the Plan Commission is quite properly set forth since it is beyond the standards set forth in the Planned Unit Development Ordinance and which the Plan Commissioners cannot vary. Some of those items were taken up, however, by the Board of Appeals, and it should be noted that the Board of Appeals in dealing with the variation, did, for example, indicate that while the developer asked that 30 per cent of the 16 lot area should be allowed to be developed for other than residential uses, rather than the 20 per cent limit which we provide in our ordinance -- which, of course, means that the developer will be using the property for a higher density ratio than allowed in our ordinance. Once, again, con- sidering the property and the situation as a whole, rather than as individual, it was the thought of the members of the Board of Appeals that this variation should be granted by a vote of six to zero. So, as to two items which are interrelated, both the density factor and the increase in commer- cial percentage in property area, the Board of Appeals recommends, a unanimous vote of their Board -- they only have six members at this time -- that both the density should be varied from that required by the Planned Unit Development Ordinance as well as the percentage allowable for commercial development. As to the parking requirements, the specific one dealt with by the Plan Commission, in dealing with the residential, was that the normal requirement of multi - family is 1.5 parking places 17 per dwelling unit, and that with the Planned Unit Development Ordinance having an increase in density of ten per cent, there was also a commensurate ten per cent increase in parking which would bring it to 1.65 -- or 1.56, I am sorry. The Board of Appeals has in this case recommended by a vote of four to two that that variation be granted. In discussions with both the Plan Commission and the Board of Appeals, the petitioners set forth their parking requirements, based on number of bedrooms, rather than dwelling units and made note of the fact that this particular petition has been brought in at the lowest three - bedroom ratio that we have yet had in a planned unit devel- opment. Our basic rule of thumb has been that any planned unit development that provides for less than 30 per cent of units having three bedrooms or more, would not be developed at a density child - wise any greater than if the same property were developed as single family. In the past, some of the planned unit developments have been down in the 20 to 22 per 18 cent range for three - bedroom or more units, and this particular petition, it is only ten per cent, and it was on that basis that they calculated on the bedrooms for their parking spaces. The other item of parking is that the 10 by 20 required -- the Plan Commission last Friday, in fact, discussed that, and I was in attendance while I didn't participate, and their statement is one that we have heard before that eight and one -half by eighteen or nine by nineteen are feasible parking requirements, and that our ordinance is on the broad side as far as spacing. So, there was no problem on the nine by nineteen, although, again, the Plan Commission is not authorized to grant any variations. The other factor which is brought up concerning parking on the commercial has been rectified in my judgment after the Plan Commission hearing Friday. As I say, I attended as a specta- tor, but having heard the various points brought up, I did -- the first part of that week -- get in touch with the Lincoln property people, and, specifically, Mr. Meheady to convey some of the 19 concern of the various Plan Commission members, and the one on the parking was resolved in the commer- cial portion by the withdrawing, if you would, the request for a theatre. Now, coupling that -- the request for the theatre, in other words, that building that shows as the theatre on the site plan would, in fact, be nothing more than just a retail sales building -- and coupled with that, in the text of the annexation agreement is a statement which is a covenant, therefore, within the agree- ment, that the petitioner will meet all the parking requirements as set forth for the commercial. Now, this goes to the heart of what the Plan Commission had brought forth, that if it requires deck parking or multi -story parking, if you will, rather than on the ground spread out, that that is where they will have to go. They cannot in accordance with what we would consider and what the Plan Commission recommended extend on ground parking at the expense of green space. So, therefore, if the parking can't be accommodated within the requirements of the ordinance, it would require decked or stacked parking by the petitioner. 20 That really takes care of the parking, whether it is the hotel or whatever it may be there because it all falls into the ordinance requirements. The street size which was indicated, of course, again, they are correct in that 32 feet is the right width for residential streets that are publicly owned, but in the case where the streets are privately owned, it is just a matter of what we would, in fact, approve, rather than what the ordinance requires, and if I am not mistaken, we have had -- even our ordinance originally required 28 feet which we have many streets of that size in Mount Prospect now, but these are private streets and not public streets. The Plan Commission that evening had indicated that fire lanes -- that they had not seen anything on the fire lanes, and as I checked that out, it turned to be true, that while the staff members had gone over the fire lanes, such an exhibit had not been made available to the Plan Commission, and that is mostly through inadvertance. The fire lane map is available, and, in fact, I believe the Fire Chief is here to 21 comment on the fire lanes if there is questions on that, and I think that pretty much addresses -- those comments are addressed to the Plan Commission report, dovetailed with the Board of Appeals report, and brings us, I believe, to open discussion now by the Board as to any facets of the -- there is probably one other item. The Plan Commission could not properly take into account what we know is a part, and what they were advised is a part of the proposed agreement, and that is a donation by the petitioners of one acre of land. That one acre of land, of course, if it were on site there, obviously, would be taken into account for calcu- lations, and it was, I believe, our intent that whether it was on site or off site, that that one acre of land does constitute a part of this project, and, therefore, should be included inasmuch as the gross area as against the net area discussed by the Plan Commission had a differential of 1.4 acres. The inclusion of this acre diminishes, at least, that disparity to a great degree by, perhaps, two - thirds or three - fourths. With that dissertation, then, as to 22 what those mean related to the site plans and exhibits we have already seen, are there questions now from the Board. Mr. Anderson. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I was hoping that the exhibits would be available tonight because I think -- MR. GOODMAN: They are in the Village Attorney's office. MAYOR TEICHERT: Would you like those exhibits brought out, Mr. Anderson? TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I would like to have them if at all possible. MR. ZIMMERMAN: We have them folded up there. MAYOR TEICHERT: But you would rather have the big -- these are all exhibits here, all folded up. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: If there have been some changes, I would like to probably see what they are. MAYOR TEICHERT: You will probably have to see those in these. 23 TRUSTEE ANDERSON: The brochure? MAYOR TEICHERT: The brochure, of course, is not the revised plans as they have all gone over these things. They will be a little clumsy to handle, but you can open one up. . . . After a brief recess . . . TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I would like to go to the sheet for tying in the buildings with respect to the property line, the site and stage plan. MR. MULDOWNEY: The site and stage plan encompasses several changes that are not shown on the brochure that you were given. These briefly are contained on the six documents on the Village Attorney's desk, but, basically, there was a ques- tion raised that when we changed the minimum dimen- sion between buildings, the drawing did not scale. There has been an additional comment placed on those documents in the area of the scale that says, "Written dimensions govern over scale dimensions," and that specifically was in the area between the buildings. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I would like to have 24 you take a look at the northeastern portion of the tract of Building A. The plat plan indicates a 30 foot set back. The height of the building is pro- posed to be 66 feet or somewhere in that general height. MR. MULDOWNEY: This corner here. (Indicating) TRUSTEE ANDERSON:. Right. MR. MULDOWNEY: That was changed on dimensions on the revision. It has a dimension now of 53 feet from the north property line to the north edge of the building. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: What about the east property line? MR. MULDOWNEY: The east property line, there was a variation requested on Oakton -- I mean, on Elmhurst Road of 15 feet. The dimension shown on the drawings is 30 feet. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Well, the height would be what? Forty -five feet? MR. MULDOWNEY: The height is listed e k at 53 feet, and it is listed as a variation in Exhibit 2. This is contained on the zoning 25 district Exhibit 3, and I believe it says side yards and rear yards not required, and the front yard set backs on Elmhurst Road and on Oakton shall be 15 feet from street right -of -way. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Is that for commer- cial? What about residential? MR. MULDOWNEY: It has no mention of the differentiation between commercial and residen- tial. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Up above there is 30 feet. MR. MULDOWNEY: Excuse me. That was listed under Item 2 which is business and retail. The front yard in Zoning District 1, the multi- family, was 30 feet on Oakton and 30 feet on Elmhurst. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Now, you say that plat has been changed to 45 feet on Elmhurst, the set back? MR. MULDOWNEY: On the Elmhurst, the set back, the distance from the north property line to the north edge of the building has been changed to 53 feet. 26 TRUSTEE ANDERSON: The Elmhurst dimen- sion? MR. MULDOWNEY: The Elmhurst dimension has stayed at the 30. That was requested as shown in Exhibit 3. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Is there any intent at some future date to consider means of ingress and egress to the Carboy - Nordic Road way up on the northwestern corner? MR. MULDOWNEY: At the present time there is no plan to connect the two facilities. There is an existing dedication that touches the northerly property line as shown on our drawings. If required, during the course of the development for a connection between Carboy and that property, we would conform to the Engineering Department and the Fire Department's request. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: There was one other location on the site plan where the overall dimen- sion for double parking was 58 feet. Yet, in the context of the report, you indicate 24 foot for driving lanes. How did this work out? MR. MULDOWNEY: Which area was that? 27 TRUSTEE ANDERSON: That would be up in the northwest corner of the tract. MR. MULDOWNEY: It was the 54 feet. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Fifty -eight feet? MR. MULDOWNEY: Fifty- eight? MAYOR TEICHERT: That is the northwest corner. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: It would appear to be a little bit down, down from that, 58. It appears to be a little tight there. MR. MULDOWNEY: It is listed as 22 with the area north of there if we count 19 feet for parking. Mr. Guest is the site planner. I will let him address himself to that question. MR. GUEST: Okay. I understand your question, and the 58 feet is based on the curb dimension. MAYOR TEICHERT: Have you got your switch on? MR. GUEST: Yes, it is on. Not working? Okay. MAYOR TEICHERT: That's all right. 28 Talk into it. MR. GUEST: The 58 feet is based on the paving dimension which is curb to curb. Parking dimensions always insures space of car bumper over- hang. Therefore, in other words, if you take a 17 foot parking space,, paved, you, then, have a two foot overhang which makes up the 19 feet, and we set all of the parking lots off of the property lines by a minimum of two feet to obtain this. So, although the dimension for paving is only 58 feet, we are still picking up four more feet for the use of the cars. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Another concern would be for the lift station. Right now there is no plan imminently -- within a reasonable period of time for sanitary facilities on Oakton Street. Right now you would be utilizing an existing force main system. What safeguards will be incorporated there so that in the event the MSD doesn't come through with their system, and we have a lot of concentrated population, if we have failure of this system, what happens then? 29 MR. MULDOWNEY: Several years ago, this was installed as a private system to serve the Oakton Industrial Development Unit 1 and Unit 2. Since that time, it has been taken over by Elk Grove Township, and it is publicly owned through the township. The township levied an assessment on the users of the system for maintenance and operation. Since they took it over, they have removed two of the existing pumps and replaced them with two 500 gallon per minute pumps through a cooperative effort with the Department of Public Works at Mount Prospect. Mount Prospect at the present time has a cooperative maintenance agree- ment with the township in that the lift station and auxiliary equipment is maintained by the Village of Mount Prospect. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: In your judgment, it would be capable of handling the total population that tract would develop then? MR. MULDOWNEY: Yes, I met with Mr. Creamer. We went over usage on the particular tract, and he thought that the existing station 30 could handle it, or it could be rebuilt with the addition of a third pump that would give you two on line pumps with an additional standby facility. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: Will this cost be borne by the developer? MR. MULDOWNEY: Yes, it will be borne by the developer of this project if it was necessary to upgrade the lift station. TRUSTEE ANDERSON: I will come back a little bit later. Thank you. MAYOR TEICHERT: Any other questions? Mr. Link. TRUSTEE LINK: I would just like to have the Fire Department comment with regard to the fire lane situation here. FIRE CHIEF PAIRITZ: I think, based on the final drawing on fire lanes that they have up there tonight, that we are satisfied with the fire lane situation. TRUSTEE LINK: Will you have enough turning lane? FIRE CHIEF PAIRITZ: They have included that as part of the presentation in that, I believe. 31 MR. MULDOWNEY: Yes, it is shown on Exhibit 4 if I am not mistaken at the upper right - hand corner. There are two general notes that were added. The first note deals with the radius' on the fire lanes on the parking lots and on the driveways, and it identifies them as being a minimum of 35 feet. The second note identifies the minimum width of the fire lanes as being 18 feet. TRUSTEE LINK: And you are satisfied, Chief, that that is going to meet your requirements? FIRE CHIEF PAIRITZ: Correct, right. MAYOR TEICHERT: Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Furst? TRUSTEE FURST: At the previous hearing, there was a statement, as I understand it -- there was a statement made by, I think, this gentleman (Indicating) that 23.8 per cent of the site would be commercial, is that a correct statement? MR. GUEST: Yes, sir. What I was talk- ing about at that time was that if we actually deducted the area that was used for the 32 recreational facility, and it is zoned within the commercial, I think at the request of the City it is included in the commercial zoning, yet, it is used for recreational facility. So, when you deduct that, you get the 23.8 per cent. TRUSTEE FURST: Then, the actual commercial usage of the property is only 23.8 per cent? MR. GUEST: Yes, sir. MAYOR TEICHERT: Any other comments by members of the Board or questions? TRUSTEE LINK: Mr. Mayor, what is the net effect of the removal of the theatre as far as parking is concerned? I come to a calculation of saving 200 parking spaces, is that about right? MR. GUEST: We were asking for a vari- ance in the original parking in that we would not provide additional parking spaces for the theatre. So, therefore, when you delete the theatre, the parking requirements are the same as those required under the Zoning Ordinance for a planned unit development. TRUSTEE LINK: Okay, but you will, in 33 fact, be meeting in the commercial area our ordi- nance with regard to required parking spaces? MR. GUEST: Yes. TRUSTEE LINK: Whether you have to deduct them or otherwise? MR. GUEST: Yes, sir, no variance. MAYOR TEICHERT: All right. Are there any citizens who would like to be heard on this item? Yes, sir. Would you come forward and get the microphone from this gentleman? Would you identify yourself, please, and your place of residence? MR. CININO: My name is Frank Cinino, C- i- n- i -n -o. May I take this off? MAYOR TEICHERT: Sure. MR. CININO: I won't be able to read my notes if I don't. I am a resident of Mount Prospect. MRS. HARD: Your address? MR. CININO: 115 South Hi Lusi, H -i L- u -s -i. MAYOR TEICHERT: Incidentally, Mr. 34 Cinino, just for your information, the letter you did send to me was copied and sent to the Board members, so they all have copies of your letter. MR. CININO: I want to point out a couple things in addition to my letter I think that the Board ought to take into consideration. The Mayor pointed out earlier that the Zoning Board meeting, they approved the variance six to one. I was in attendance at that Board meeting, and it seemed to me that the Board was primarily motivated by the fact that they didn't want Des Plaines to annex the property. Now, I understand, or at least have been told, that Des Plaines has already refused to annex that property that is underneath your planning development ordinance. MAYOR TEICHERT: I never heard that. MR. CININO: Is that true or not? MR. GUEST: I don't know. MR. MEHEADY: We have had no communi- cation at all with Des Plaines. So, I cannot comment on that. MR. CININO: Let me go further and ask 35 is the net acreage of this property 31.7 acres as indicated in the Paddock publication? MR. MULDOWNEY: The net acreage on the plat of subdivision -- it doesn't indicate on this plat of subdivision. It does indicate on the plat of annexation what the net acreage is. MR. CININO: Does anybody know what that is? I was told in the paper it said 31.7 acres. MR. MULDOWNEY: The acreage listed on the plat of annexation is 31.747 acres. MR. CININO: If we do some calculating -- I have been doing this here tonight, it may be a little bit rough, but if I use the 23.6 units per acre that you all say is allowable for resi- dential multi - family, and I take 20 per cent commercial and subtract that and get 80 per cent total, it leaves me with about 20 -- I believe, 22.2 acres left over for multi - family use. Now, if we multiply 22.2 acres times 23.6 dwelling units per acre, we only come out with 543.9 dwelling units total, which is substan- tially less than what the Planning Commission recommended, and I think Mr. McBride's calculations 36 may have been wrong, and, perhaps, mine are. I don't know, but, certainly, it is quite a variance from what they suggested. If I remember, in the paper it said that 659 -- and I am nearly 100 less than that. So, somewhere our calculations are a little different. MR. MEHEADY: There is a provision in the Zoning Ordinance of Mount Prospect that takes into consideration the amount of street frontage vis a vis the size of the property, and there is another provision in the Zoning Ordinance of Mount Prospect that takes into consideration the product mix specifically, whether it is one bedroom, two bedrooms or three bedroom. When you tie those other two provisions of the ordinance in there, I think that, perhaps, Mr. McBride's calculations would be almost that accurate. I can't cite the thing, but I think it is only 521. MR. CININO: I am a little concerned. I don't think you did that with Huntington Commons. MR. MEHEADY: We did. MR. CININO: Huntington Commons, the site plan indicates the allowable density is only 37 23.1 dwelling units per acre. MAYOR TEICHERT: That would be, I think, correct. My recollection would be about 23.1. MR. CININO: And you all used the streets when you calculated our density for multi- family. MAYOR TEICHERT: 1 can't honestly tell you. Bob McBride is here. Do you recall -- they would use what- ever the ordinance provided. MR. CININO: Okay. Well, if that is the case, I guess I can't argue too much in that because I was unaware that you were allowed to use streets. Normally, I don't think that that is used. You all find that in most cases, most communities you go into, they allow the use of streets in your dimensions. MR. MEHEADY: That, at least, in my experience around the country, and John is far more experienced than I am, but, by and large, the majority do take streets into consideration. There is absolutely no set pattern, as such, but if you want a generalization, I think that would be 38 accurate. Specifically, here in Chicago, I haven't read all of the zoning ordinances of which there is over 300, but the ones that I am familiar with, do allow that to be taken into consideration. MR. CININO: Okay. Well, I would only have, maybe, a couple more comments I would want to make, and I seemed to have been answered pretty thoroughly on the ones I have made thus far. I wonder if the Board is familiar with the NIPSI study, dated August '71. MAYOR TEICHERT: Is that the one on O'Hare flight patterns? MR. CININO: Mr. McBride makes mention to in his report, in there, it indicates that this property is in a very critical area, and I would like just to read excerpts from it, and, perhaps, give it to the Board to look at. It says: "In areas where the noise exposure forecast value is more than 40, case studies indicate that most communities will not find this environment suitable for residential living." This piece of property is in that 39 exposure area of 40. It says: "Cities and villages should scrutinize closely every development within the noise impact area and update their zoning ordinances and maps to reflect the better impact of air noise. "As an example, the study recommends that any open space acquisition within the 40 noise exposure forecast area should be limited to golf courses, water related recreation or reservoirs and cemeteries." Okay? Now, that is just, you know, obviously, we want to annex this property because we want to get the property next door, make it available to the Village. I just feel very strongly about it not being suitable for multi - family. I think as a commercial piece of property, it would certainly have a very valid argument. I have been familiar with Lincoln Properties projects throughout the country. They have a very good reputation, although I do say 40 you do build a little dense, but you build very good projects, and I don't have any argument with the developer, but I do think we ought to think very strongly about the multi - family use. MAYOR TEICHERT: Thank you. Mr. Ahern. TRUSTEE LINK: Could I have your report? MR. CININO: Sure can. TRUSTEE AHERN: Mr. Cinino, while you are there, I have a question for you in order that we might be enlightened. Would you prefer as an alternative -- I don't know whether you are for or against this from what you have said, but would you prefer as an alternative that the area simply be developed as it is zoned now in the County, single family? MR. CININO: Well, I don't think that that would even pass the County if enough people got up and talked about the NIPSI study for one thing. TRUSTEE AHERN: What would you say they would do with that property? You mean they could prevent them from building as it is 41 presently zoned? MR. CININO: I think that zoning would be amended, based on the NIPSI study. TRUSTEE AHERN: Amended to what? MR. CININO: To commercial or, else, open space. TRUSTEE AHERN: They would amend it from single family to something else? MR. CININO: They would have to, based on the impact of the studies. I don't see how else they could do it. TRUSTEE AHERN: How would that take place? Who would do that? NIPSI? MR. CININO: Well, you know, it just seems to me that -- I don't know quite how you would argue for that point or against it, and I don't know how the County acts in these cases, okay? It just seems to me that regardless, you know -- I understand you have a valid argument that the County could go ahead and let it be single family. TRUSTEE AHERN: It is single family now. They could draw permits tomorrow. 42 MR. CININO: I would like to see somebody buy a house there. That is another thing I would mention. MAYOR TEICHERT: They have houses right across the street. MR. CININO: I know you do, but they were there before O'Hare. TRUSTEE AHERN: Someone would move out of Bensenville to get a little noise? MR. CININO: Would they? TRUSTEE AHERN: From where I have been in Bensenville, they -- MR. CININO: I have been in Rosemont and gotten a lot of noise. I have lived in the flight path areas of O'Hare, okay? So, I don't know what the County -- how the County's reaction would be, 1 don't think, is relevant in this point in time. I think our reaction has to be based on is it really sound development judgment to build in an area that is recommended not for residential use. It is recommended by the experts -- TRUSTEE AHERN: The point I am trying to get at is that -- 43 MR. CININO: I don't know what the experts say -- TRUSTEE AHERN: The point I am trying to make is if you are opposed to it, do you object to it as a residential -- MR. CININO: Yes. TRUSTEE AHERN: Are you here objecting to it as a residential -- MR. CININO: I don't object to the development as a whole. I just object to part of it. TRUSTEE AHERN: All right. What are you offering to the Board to use as an alternative tonight? We are going to vote on this tonight. MR. CININO: You are. You don't have an alternative either. You vote pro or con, right? TRUSTEE AHERN: Are you recommending I vote no? MR. CININO: I am recommending you vote no, based on what I submitted. TRUSTEE AHERN: What are you suggesting to use as an alternative? MR. CININO: You annex it and keep it 44 commercial. TRUSTEE AHERN: Annex it and keep it commercial? MR. CININO: If that is possible. I don't know if that is possible because I don't know what you are capable of doing, or what you are able to do. MAYOR TEICHERT: That is not possible. MR. CININO: I don't know enough about the inner workings of the Board or how the Village -- MAYOR TEICHERT: The law is quite simple. Let me just get that point. If we annexed it, it comes in single family unless -- MR. CININO: You can't annex it and change the zoning? MAYOR TEICHERT: No, we annex it single family unless we do it under an agreement. MR. CININO: With whom? With the developer? MAYOR TEICHERT: With the petitioner, whoever owns the property. MR. CININO: So, why don't we suggest to the petitioner he change it? 45 MAYOR TEICHERT: He is right over there. MR. CININO: Okay. That is just what I am recommending to the Board. MAYOR TEICHERT: You have to recommend it to him, you know. The commercial would be fine, you know. There is little doubt about that thrust. In fact, from what I have been able to see, that if we had our "druthers ", we would completely ring ourselves with commercial because people seem no longer to want single family because the burden is the schools. We seem to like it for ourselves, but we don't want any more single family around here. MR. CININO: That is not the reason. MAYOR TEICHERT: It is, too. I have not heard a single person come forward in Mount Prospect and urge development of single family for annexation, not a one. MR. CININO: Well, that is true. MAYOR TEICHERT: Every single family -- MR. CININO: That is probably -- if I can interrupt -- that is probably one of the reasons that there were a lot of votes for Mr. Minton as a protest for multi - families. 46 MAYOR TEICHERT: Not multi- family. I said single family. You are changing the ground rules. MR. CININO: It still affects our schools. MAYOR TEICHERT: We have many annexa- tions of single family, and we have had objections on them. MR. CININO: Yes. MAYOR TEICHERT: So, single family is not the route. We know that. We know it is eco- nomically unsound. We know the school districts don't want them, and, so, the other alternative is quite correctly what you say, either recreational open space which means we buy the land, and the other one, and we can't buy up all of the vacant land around us. We know we don't have that much money, and the other one is commercial. MR. CININO: Correct. MAYOR TEICHERT: And the properties just haven't sold at the price, the market value, for commercial, and the one thing we have learned and that we all know is that the highest and best 47 use means the highest dollar. It is not tied, and the courts are not geared to plan, unfortunately, and we can attest to the many cases we have lost. The multi - family originally on the mushroom farm is a good example. You know, people objected. MR. CININO: But it is inconvenient -- it is just inconceivable to me that an appraiser, any MAI or SRA, whatever, would rate this property's highest and best use to be multi - family. MAYOR TEICHERT: That is what brings the highest dollar. MR. CININO: That's not necessarily the highest and best use. MAYOR TEICHERT: It is in the courts. I happen to agree with your theory, but the judges don't happen to agree with your theory. MR. CININO: Perhaps I am asking you, the Trustees, and the Mayor, then, to use just sound common sense, rather than what the court 3 would say, okay? Maybe, that is the way. MAYOR TEICHERT: I appreciate that. MR. CININO: Maybe, that is why the petitioner -- 48 MAYOR TEICHERT: You have examples around you of just that attitude. Let me point out that at Golf and 83, Mount Prospect took a very strong position that there should not be a shopping center there. There is a shopping center there. Des Plaines came in and built a shopping center that we said was wrong, and, so, it is built there. I think that we took the position there should not be a multi - family down there. There is multi- family solid on Dempster from the County at 29 units an acre. There is solid residential multi- family in Des Plaines from Dempster to Algonquin, three times the area of this piece. MR. CININO: That's right. MAYOR TEICHERT: We took the position, and it should be good planning and development, and, yet, we can all see the east side of 83. MR. CININO: But just because Des Plaines does it, doesn't mean Mount Prospect does it. MAYOR TEICHERT: I think Mr. Ahern asked you a valid question when he said what are 49 the alternatives that we have. The only alternative you are saying is that we should plan idealistically and ignore the fact that there are municipalities around us and ignore the fact there is a county and ignore the fact that property will be developed at its highest use economically regardless of our position. MR. CININO: Okay. I am asking you to take a common sense position, not an ideal position, necessarily, okay? Now, that is idealistic. It sounds like a guy trying to hit the windmill, you know. That's a little bit impossible, but just because Des Plaines on one hand is apt to do this -- if at all they will, I don't know. MAYOR TEICHERT: It has done it. MR. CININO: Okay, but I mean apt to annex this property if we don't, okay? I don't think that is enough excuse for us to do it, and I don't think if we don't, the County will let single family go in there. I still don't think that is enough excuse for us to do it. MAYOR TEICHERT: What you are saying, though -- 50 MR. CININO: Those are the only two arguments you are giving me as valid. MAYOR TEICHERT: What is built on Dempster? MR. CININO: That is all commercial. MAYOR TEICHERT: All multi - family. Now, that is in the County, and it is in your flight path. MR. CININO: Okay. MAYOR TEICHERT: And there is residen- tial right across the street from this all built there. MR. CININO: Most of it prior to O'Hare. MAYOR TEICHERT: Baloney. That was built after O'Hare was in there. MR. CININO: Most of those multi- family, certainly. MAYOR TEICHERT: Sure they are. They are not that old. The multi - families where the Mayor of Des Plaines lives. Now, we are aware of the patterns. I think what we are also aware is that, you know, I remember as little as four years ago, no one from 51 Mount Prospect even came up here, and this Board lost every battle south of Dempster. Nobody cared what was south of Dempster in Mount Prospect. MR. CININO: Why did you lose it? MAYOR TEICHERT: We lost them in the County. We objected, and we lost them, and, then, out in the County, we all said there shouldn't be high rises here, and United Airlines right in the flight path built an eight -story building. Now, we all sit here and look at it and say, "Well, it shouldn't be, and Mount Prospect should be very proud they objected to it," but it is there. The realistic approach is, they are there. They are developed, and I agree whole- heartedly -- MR. CININO: But, again, the United Airlines thing is merely a commercial, more commer- cial than anything else. MAYOR TEICHERT: There is as many people in there during the day as any multi - family you are going to build around here. MR. CININO: I am in an office build- ing underneath a flight path there, and that 52 doesn't really bother you. MAYOR TEICHERT: It doesn't bother the people because they are working. MR. CININO: You don't hear the noise when you are inside so much. You only hear it when you are outside. You have all of this green space. What for? You can't go outside and enjoy it. You certainly can't talk when you are outside. MAYOR TEICHERT: You know, I live in the flight path, too. We use our backyard. MR. CININO: And you talk in between landings, right? MAYOR TEICHERT: Well, we knew the airport was here. I appreciate your argument that we ought to ring all airports with about a five -mile buffer. MR. CININO: Are you this close to a flight path? MAYOR TEICHERT: I am right down on Golf. MR. CININO: Well, that is not so bad. I am just a couple of blocks from Oakton. MAYOR TEICHERT: I don't know the 53 neighbors down there think it is bad. I am closer than you are. You are on Hi Lusi, that is in the center of town. MR. CININO: We are about a mile north. MAYOR TEICHERT: But we are aware of the problems down there. I think the practical approach is still the one we are looking at. We don't get what you think government has. I think somehow you think government actually plans and lays out what is going to happen to property. We no more have the ability to do that than you do. MR. CININO: You have the ability to stop it if you don't approve it. MAYOR TEICHERT: We only have the ability not to annex it. That is all. MR. CININO: Well, fine. MAYOR TEICHERT: The answer has to be what will it be built as, and you are saying that the proof of what we actually see has been built we should deny looking at and say it doesn't exist. MR. CININO: I am not saying that. I am just saying that just because Des Plaines does it, doesn't mean we should. 54 MAYOR TEICHERT: I would agree with you. MR. CININO: Okay, and that is your basic argument. MAYOR TEICHERT: No, not even Des Plaines. I am saying the property will be developed, and I am saying it is nice to talk in terms of that property being a cemetery. You and I know it is not going to be a cemetery. We know it is not going to be a golf course. MR. CININO: Right. MAYOR TEICHERT: That sounds great. NIPSI has put out a report that has been followed by no one. MR. CININO: Isn't it about time? Would it be wrong if somebody did? MAYOR TEICHERT: Absolutely, if they would put some teeth in it. MR. CININO: That's because NIPSI doesn't have any teeth, not that the report doesn't have any teeth. MAYOR TEICHERT: I appreciate that. We have NIPSI reports stacked up in our room that are absolutely useless to us because we do not 55 have the ability to enforce them. MR. CININO: You can enforce them if you make them part of our Zoning Ordinance. MAYOR TEICHERT: We cannot. You have a comprehension of a control of land that is not our power. Land sits there, and we can only react to the petitions made. MR. CININO: That is all I am going to ask you to do, react to the petitions made. MAYOR TEICHERT: That doesn't mean because we deny petitions, that, therefore, something will be built that we want. MR. CININO: Oh, absolutely. MAYOR TEICHERT: I have tried to point out to you that, in fact, life as it exists down in the south end of town is quite clear. The things we didn't want built are built. MR. CININO: They will build it anyway, that's right. MAYOR TEICHERT: And they are built there, and I don't find them satisfactory. MR. CININO: But you didn't have anything to do with them either, did you? MAYOR TEICHERT: Not on the east side, 56 no. MR. CININO: That's right. MAYOR TEICHERT: But I am pretty damn proud of the west side, including Huntington Commons which is one of the finest projects in the area. MR. CININO: 'didn't say a nasty thing about it. MAYOR TEICHERT: I want to make it clear on the record I am, and I am pretty darn sure every member of the Board is proud of what we have been able to control on the west side. MR. CININO: Fine, that is what I am asking you to do on the west side still. MAYOR TEICHERT: That is all we are trying to do is control. MR. CININO: And here they are sitting with a piece of property that is much different than Huntington Commons. MAYOR TEICHERT: I don't know why? TRUSTEE LINK: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Link. TRUSTEE LINK: Possibly, Mr. Cinino's question or concern could be turned around and 57 put to the petitioner. They are going to have -- if this thing is approved -- a substantial invest- ment of many, many dollars. The success of the project, again, if it were approved by the Board, is going to be based on their ability to take that multi- family and to, in fact, rent it on the con- tinuing basis. Now, I ask the petitioner whether they have considered, in fact, this problem that Mr. Cinino has raised, concerning flight patterns and whether or not they think that is going to be a detriment in their ability to make this project a success. MR. MEHEADY: We have had a great deal of experience not only in Chicago, Illinois, but in about nine or ten other cities in this country building apartment projects at extremely close proximity to airports, and I would venture to say that in 75 per cent of those instances -- and I am talking about ten different cities -- they have been in the flight path, and we do have several on the plus side construction techniques that do help to deaden the sound. Relative to the marketplace, 58 specifically, we have found that airport locations - - and we have 25.000 units throughout this country - - and we have found that invariably in almost any city, that locations close to an airport aren't extraordinarily well -- and these are facts that were developed over a ten -year history. It is not "blue sky ". So, we have got a little over $20 million going in this thing. Some of it happens to be mine, and we are quite confident that we can overcome the problem. So, in direct answer to your question, perhaps, that answers it. Now, a couple of supplementary things. We have 837 units in the Chicago area in Arlington Heights that is on that flight path. It is, per- haps, another mile farther from the airport. Now, I am not an airline pilot, but I don't know whether those fellows drop more than a thousand feet in a mile when they are going in to land, I really don't, but the noise is a problem, yes, but we have 100 per cent occupancy with a waiting list, and to this day, I haven't had a tenant complain on the subject. 59 The only personal experience I can offer to you is that I lived two blocks from this site for two years when I first moved to Chicago. In the summertime, there are instances where the airplane noise is quite high. In the wintertime, because of prevailing winds, they use it basically to take off, not to land. Now, there is an FAA regulation -- I am not an attorney, but there is a noise regulation that FAA has when you are taking off, that you have to climb very, very fast. So that, pragmatically -- everybody else that lives in the flight path, I think, will bear me out on this -- when they are using it to take off, it is not a problem. So that, really, it is a function of winds. The wind prevails, fortunately, only in the summertime. There are occasions when it is a problem, but, by and large, it certainly is by no stretch of the imagination insurmountable. TRUSTEE LINK: Will this particular facility have built into the construction additional safeguards to assist the people to overcome this particular problem? 60 MR. MEHEADY: Yes, it will. We will use some of the techniques we have used elsewhere, and, specifically, for both sound reasons and for heat loss reasons, we go to the maximum insulation factor that one can go to. Par for the course is like two inches in the walls, and I think four or five inches in the ceiling. We go to eight inches in the ceiling and four inch batten walls. You get into, probably, the biggest outside noise entrance thing would be through a patio door. We do use insulated glass. Frankly, primarily, because of the heat loss factor, but, also, that is about as good as you can do with a glass area vis a vis noise. The biggest noise problem is not from the airplanes in our experience. The biggest noise problem is that between units, and, for example, we use concrete floors instead of wood floors. Your code allows the use of wood floors. We use that to deaden noise farther. We put all of our plumbing fixtures on seals so that the plumbing isn't as noisy, maybe, even as it is in your own homes. So, we are acutely aware of the noise problem, and we have a lot of experience on it, 61 and it is there. I am not naive enough to say that it is not there, but that has been our experience. MAYOR TEICHERT: Is there anyone else that would like to be heard? Any more questions from the Board members? TRUSTEE FURST: Yes. MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Furst. TRUSTEE FURST: I don't know how perti- nent it is, but two things come to mind in other situations that have occurred, and (1) in the development of land, I don't always believe that it is the developer that can develop, maybe, esthetically, and what he wants. I don't think there is a single person in the development business that would have in this case $20 million or whatever the project happens to be that would be his own money where he could say, "I want to put this on that piece of property, and I have the money to develop it." So, in fact, he has to go to other areas to get his money, and I am sure from past 62 experiences and comments that have been made by developers, that they are governed by what their sources of money will allow them to build, and I think there is a cost factor involved. What it is in this case, I have no idea, but if they get their money from life insurance companies, savings and loans or whatever they happen to be, I am sure that those people that are in the investment business have experts who look at a developer's plans, and based on those plans will determine whether, in fact, they will risk their money in that type of development. I am thinking now -- and I would ask this question of the developer -- the comment was made by Mr. Cinino that this should be all commer- cial. Would this have been a practical development all commercial? I know it is a tough question. MR. MEHEADY: You are into a highly subjective area. Unfortunately, it is not always answers that readily assert themselves, but to attempt to answer your question, we pulled in a commercial consultant that is respected around 63 this country from New York City, we pulled in an apartment consultant that has a national reputation to look at this deal. We have pulled in lenders. This property is financed all of the way, so that in their judgment, the balanced planned unit develop- ment approach obviously made sense to them, or, you know, they wouldn't have committed the money that they have. The only other thing that would lend quite a bit of credence to our suggestions is that my senior partner goes back 25 years in this business. He has built all over the world. We have never reneged on a deal. We have never had a bum deal. We have never had a deal that has lost money. A lot of times they don't make as much money as you would like them to, but we have at the risk of bragging, an extremely blue chip reputation, and we are tremendously aware and conscious of this fact because if you were to ever break that in just one instance, you lose credibility with the lending fraternity. We have a 25 year track record. We don't want to break that record, and we certainly hope that we are not doing that in this instance. 64 We have thoroughly researched it, and we have gotten very deeply involved with the finan- cial institutions that, you know, finance a parti- cular project of this ilk. You have rather inten- sive, and. unfortunately, somewhat ugly commercial development up and down that strip. So, it is somewhat questionable whether you can bring a 30 acre solid commercial situation to that property and hope to effectively market it within a, you ' know, a time spectrum that is economically feasible. So, we think by going with the balanced approach, and our lenders do, also, that, you know, this is the best solution we would come up with. Unfortu- nately, it is subjective. MAYOR TEICHERT: Any other comments? As a matter of background at this point, somewhere way back four or five years ago, about four years ago, Mount Prospect put together a parcel of annexation that was running from Sans Souci Apartmentsdown Algonquin, down 83, and up Oakton. That particular annexation was first objected to by United Airlines who did not want part of their parcels taken without their consent 65 and was enjoined in by Des Plaines, but had all that property been annexed by Mount Prospect as proposed, it would have all come into Mount Prospect as single family residential with the ability to absolutely control what was built in this area. Now, Des Plaines' intervention in the lawsuit was not predicated on any zoning proposed or agreed upon, but, rather, merely that Mount Prospect was annexing that property because it would have been annexed single family subject to legal non - conforming uses, and, in fact Mount Prospect did prevail in the lower court originally and it was on the verge of setting up the next election for the annexation when, again, Des Plaines and United Airlines jointly filed consti- tutional objections which the judge took under advisement and has proceeded to keep under advise- ment for roughly four years. At this point, we did on motion, then, this morning, went into Court, based on the voluntary petitions for annexation of property. We went in to dismiss the lawsuit, and while originally that was the thrust of United Airlines 66 and Des Plaines to knock out the annexation, they now objected to our dismissing it, and, in fact, insisted that the dismissal must be with prejudice, and, again, even though that annexation had no bearing on any planning, but strictly straight annexation -- and the case was dismissed this morning, and we agreed to dismiss it with prejudice which now means that this particular case is brought to a head. While it was in litigation, neither municipality could effectively enter the litigation area because it would be subject to further litigation and dispute. With that case now dismissed, Mount Prospect can choose to either make these annexa- tions or not make these annexations, and Des Plaines is also free to make annexations as they see fit, and I refer, again, to the fact that I don't believe in spite of the assertions made, that the development down south has been compatible with good planning because we have had, in effect, three communities vying for a very lucrative tax base, and each community, in fact, permitting planning that was not in the best interests of 67 the area, and my only feeling is -- and I will say it over and over again -- that the planning that has been developed through the efforts of Mount Prospect is nothing to be ashamed of. In fact, I match it up -- the one to the east side of 83 is not good planning, and I see no reason why we should not stabilize the area as much as possible and control it for planned unit developments, rather than spot zoning or strip zoning. I believe that the density east of 83 is a high impact den - sity without control of three bedroom units. I believe that what has been permitted to develop in the County up and down Dempster has been without control of density impact and which has, in fact, had a high encroachment on three bedroom, multi - bedroom apartments. I think what has happened in the County on Busse Road is exactly the identical thing, high impact, large bedrooms, and have flooded our schools, and I will submit that the high density to the west of that portion of Arlington Heights has also had an impact that in comparison of any of the multi - family developed, Mount Prospect stands singly out, I believe, 68 as in fact, having planned unit developments for a multiple family which has not had an impact on the schools and as a matter of example, some of the items, the Timberlake and St. John's, both up on Busse, developed in the County, subsequently St. John's was annexed, but it was developed in the County, and compare those with Mount Shire or Alpine or Huntington Commons. I think everyone knows that Mount Shire has a total of five school children, and the Alpine has five, and Huntington Commons, at the last count, had 77, and that is projected as a three bedroom of 21 per cent which is far less than any single family development, and I don't see why, in fact, there should be big debates from my point of view as to looking at the development south. Certainly, everything that has been under the jurisdiction or control of Mount Prospect has in my judgment -- and even though it has been done by three or four administrations -- been far superior to development in adjoining municipalities or in the County, and the stabili- zation of the area south is a matter that must be resolved because we have had the same battle with 69 United Airlines, frankly. I have talked to those people several times, and we used to object to everything in the County, and United Airlines really frankly didn't give a damn what was developed in the County, and we didn't get any support from them at all to see that the developments down there were stabilized commensurate with good planning, and I am saying that we are at a crossroads of decision, and we have bled over this stuff for eight, twelve years, and at some point we have to either let that tax base go down there, and let it be developed bodge podge or any darn way they are going to develop it, or we have to get ahold of it and some way develop, at least good projects. If we cannot have every single standard and the like that we would like to impose on the property, I don't think our track record is bad for what has been imposed. It, in fact, has been good, and with that kind of background, I think the Board knows precisely where we sit tonight, and it is a shame that we are at the end of this Board term in reality, but they know that they have lived through this for whatever length of service 70 each one has had on the Board. They have had to wrestle with this problem. We are hoping we are near the end of stabilizing the area down south, and I think, in fact, we are, and I would hope that there is no further litigation and no more pressures brought. I can't say that there will or won't be. It will be my intention to meet with the Mayor of Des Plaines to see if we can't once and for all, perhaps, resolve, perhaps, boundary questions, zoning and planning for the mutual benefit of the whole area. Meanwhile, I think we have to face the practical effect of the cards that have been dealt to us in the community and the area as to what is in front of the Board now, and that is specifically a petition to annex some 30 plus acres of land for the development presented by the Lincoln Property people that does require some variations, that does require density beyond our Planned Unit Development Ordinance which does have commercial. Everyone has seen the tax impact study, the traffic studies, the water improvement, sewer problems and everything that so far as I can tell 71 have not only been resolved, but have been incor- porated in the annexation agreement. I have no compunction at all in advising, encouraging and urging this Board to vote "aye" for this particular project and to, in fact, authorize myself and the Clerk to sign the annexation agree- ment, and, in fact, bring this property into Mount Prospect. And with this, Mr. Clerk, there is a resolution on the floor for a vote, which, I believe, is 19 -73, which is a resolution which would authorize the Mayor and the Clerk to sign the annexation agreement that hass been discussed now in the first meeting, this continued meeting, and which has been published in the paper, and everyone has in front of him. On that basis, Mr. Clerk, I would now ask for a roll call of the members. . . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . MR. GOODMAN: Carried unanimously. MAYOR TEI CHERT : The motion carries on the resolution, and, because, again, the audience 72 will have to stay with us for a second because these, in fact, have to be actually signed before any petition can be accepted. . . After a brief recess . . . MAYOR TEICHERT: All right. The annexa- tion agreement has been signed. Is there now a petition for annexation? MR. NORDENBERG: Yes, there is, Mayor Teichert and Members of the Village Board of Trustees. I would like to present on behalf of the record owner of the subject property, Chicago Title and Trust Company as Trustee under Trust No. 43076, a petition for annexation to the Village of Mount Prospect, the subject real estate which is described in the annexation agreement, and together with those portions of Elmhurst Road and Oakton Street which is described in the subject petition, and I respectfully submit this on behalf of the title holder. MAYOR TEICHERT: Thank you. Again, while the first public hearing, I believe, constituted a first reading of the ordinance, then, circulated, I would, nevertheless, 73 so that the record is clear ask for a waiver of the rules, our own rules, which require two readings of an ordinance. TRUSTEE LINK: So move. TRUSTEE AHERN: Second it. MAYOR TEICHERT: Moved and seconded. Will the Clerk please call the roll? . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . . MR. GOODMAN: Carried unanimously. MAYOR TEICHERT: The motion carried. Ordinance 2418, an ordinance annexing the property generally located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Elmhurst Road and Oakton Streets, the Chair would entertain a motion for the passage of Ordinance 2418. TRUSTEE SCHOLTEN: So move. TRUSTEE FURST: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Comments? Would the Clerk please call the roll? . . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . . 74 MR. GOODMAN: Carried unanimously. MAYOR TEICHERT: The motion carries. Now, the Chair would entertain a motion that would authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign and attest a plat of annexation of the property generally located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Elmhurst Road and Oakton Street. TRUSTEE AHERN: So move. TRUSTEE LINK: Second. MAYOR TEICHERT: Moved and seconded. Discussion? Will the Clerk please call the roll? . . . The motion was put to a vote and carried without dissent . . . MR. GOODMAN: Carried unanimously. MAYOR TEICHERT: The motion carries. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Zimmerman. MR. ZIMMERMAN: Before you officially conclude the preannexation hearing, before going on to the next item on the agenda for the evening, I would at this time, if I have not done so, request that the three exhibits with respect to the Nordic 75 Road annexation hearing that were marked for identification, if they have not been offered, I would like them received as evidence at this time. MAYOR TEICHERT: Are those the three that we have already seen? MR. ZIMMERMAN: Yes. MAYOR TEICHERT: All right. The record can note that they have been received as evidence in the hearing. MR. NORDENBERG: Mr. Zimmerman, the documents that have been marked as exhibits on behalf of the petitioner and Lincoln Property Company No. 40, in the various meetings, as amended by the exhibits attached to the annexation agreement, I respectfully request those be admitted into evidence by the Board. MAYOR TEICHERT: All right, the record can note that they are entered into evidence, and, in fact, the revised have been attached to the agreement proper, and the others are loose, and, with that, then, we will conclude the public hear - ing on the properties and the annexation agreements related to those properties commonly known as the 76 "Nordic Road Properties" and'the Colony Properties': . . . The session adjourned at 10:05 o'clock P M