Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/12/1972 VB minutes MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES September 12, 1972 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Teichert called the meeting to order at 9:15 P. M. This special meeting was called by Mayor Teichert on Call ye order Friday, September 8, 1972 pursuant to Chapter 2. Sec- tion 2.103 of the Municioal Code of Mount Prospect. The purpose of the meeting was to hold a public hearing on a pre-annexation agreement governing the annexation of the Rob Roy Driving Range, located north of Euclid Avenue. During this hearing, a court reporter was oresent to record word-for-word the discussion between the petitioner, Roy Gottlieb of Kenroy, Inc., the Mayor and Board of Trustees, and interested citizens. A copy of this trans- criat is in the file of the Village Clerk. INVOCATION invocation Trustee Richardson gave the invocation. ROLL CALL ~. , Ro~l call Present upon roll cal'l: Ahern Anderson Link alcnar~son Scholten Teichert Arrived at 9:30 P.M. Furst BUILDING COMMITTEE REPORT While awaiting the arrival of Trustee Furst, the Board considered the petition of DiMucci Home Builders, 1821 Golf Road, Case 72-28A request to move existing non- conforming TV antenna tower from 1407 Golf Road to 1821 case =2-28A Golf Road. The TV antenna is 100' in height, and it waI~iMucci Home determined that it was not hazardous to the neighboring Builders- area. Trustee Anderson, seconded by Trustee Ahern, moved vransfer to concur in the recommendation of the Building Committee TV anvenn~ Chairman and Board of Appeals for transfer of the tower from 1407 Golf Road to 1821 Golf Road. vower Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Link Richardson Scholten Motion carried. ROB RoY DRIVING RANGE At this point in the meeting Trustee Furst arrived. A resolution was submitted, authorizing execution of an annexation agreement in Case No. 72-11P. Representing the Rek Roy- petitioner, Roy Gottlieb, was Attorney Howard Borde, 4849resolution Golf Road, Skokie, Ill. Exhibits submitted to the Plan aubmitted t¢ Commission at the time of the pre-annexation zoning hear~n~.~h__~z~ a ' T s A ' ~ ~ were'displ yea. ru tee neerson expressed concern abou~wecution the traffic intensification at the intersection . Mr. CaYlof an an- Kupfer, Registered Engineer with the Kenroy Corp. showed a nexation diagram of the traffic flow within the complex. agreemen~ - The agreement was read page by page and amendments in%%%%eNdq' 72-11~ Interested citizens were then given an opportunity to be heard. Among those present who voiced opposition to the proposed project were Donald Bostrum, 1600 Ironwood, a mem- ber of the Northwest Community Council and President of River Trails Civic Association, Warren Hanson, 1407 Oedar, J. citizens Hawnessey, llO1 E. Alder Lane, Chris Botus, 1602 Ironwood~eard on Don Rebb, 904 Westgate, Ashby Gibbons, 1615 Dogwood, L. the matte~ Heideman, ll06 Barberry, and Thomas Warden, Superintendent Qf Schools, District 26, .Mary Semridge, 600 Greenwood, George Parlier, 1614 Dogwood, Judy Starkey, 1780 Eastman Drive. Some of the objections concerned the construction of buildings in the flood olain area, overcrowding of schools, traffic hazard, use of the prooosed park for water storage for the complex, and the oroblem of the supply of water. Mayor Teichert polled the Board, and all members indicated they would vote nay, with the exception of Trustee Link, polled the who stated he had represented the River Trails Civic Asso- Bosrd for vove ciation and voting would constitute a confli ~ of interest. Trustee Scholten, seconded by Trustee Ahern, moved to approve the concept as presented by the Kenroy CorD. motion to approvi~ow a multi-family complex orooosed for the Roy Roy the concepv of aDri~ving Range. multi-family complex propose~pon roil c. all: Ayes: None. for Rob Roy Nays: Ahern Anderson Furst Scholten Driving Range. Richardson Pass: Link Motion 'failed RESOLUTION OF FULL COMPLIANCE RE FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRA~ motion for Trustee Richardson, seconded by Trustee Scholten, moved passage of for passage of Resolution 22-72. Resolution 22-72 Trustee Scholten, seconded by Trustee Ahern, moved to amend the above motion to include the following waterways: Feehanvi'lle Ditch, McDonald, Hi.ggins and Weller Creek. Roll call vote on amendments: Ayes: Ahem Anderson Furst Link Richardson Scholten Motion carried. Upon roll call vote on motion as amended: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Richardson Scholten Motion carried. TAX LEVY ORDINANGE Tax Levy Ord. Trustee Fu'rst, seconded by Trustee Richardson, moved to waive the ~ules requiring two readings of an ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Richardson Scholten Motion carried. Trustee Richardson, seconded by Trustee Link, moved for motion for passage of Ordinance No. 2374: passage of Ordinance Mo. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF TAXES 2378 FOR THE CORPORATE AND MUNICIPAL ~URPDSE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING MAY l, 1972 AND ENDING ~RIL 30, 1973 Upon roll call: Ayes: Ahern Anderson Furst Link Richardson Sch¢lten Motion carried. COMMITTEE ANNOUNCEMENTS Public Health and Safety, Judiciary Committee - cancelled Finance Committee - September 18 Agenda: Bon Ton Poultry liquor license and Increase in cabs Building Committee September 27th ITEM TO BE REFERRED Proposed DAMP water use contract refer to Public Works Committee Adjournmen~ ADJOURNMENT Trustee Furst, seconded by Trustee Scholten, moved the meeting be adjourned. Time: 1:15 A. M. Unanimous. MARIE T. HARD, Deputy Clerk SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES CALLED BY MAYOR TEICHERT., PUR- SUANT TO CHAPTER 2, SECTION 2.103 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT STENOGRAPHIC REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS at the Village Hall, 112 East Northwest Highway, Mount Prospect, Illinois, on Tuesday, September 12, 1972, commencing at 9:25 o'clock P.M. PRESENT: MAYOR ROBERT D. TEICHERT JOHN J. ZIMMERMANN, VILLAGE ATTORNEY TRUSTEE AHERN TRUSTEE LINK TRUSTEE ANDERSON TRUSTEE RICHARDSON TRUSTEE FURST TRUSTEE SCHOLTEN Resolution authorizing execution of annexation agreement governing the annexation of the Rob Roy Driving Range. k 2. MAYOR TEICHERT: The next agenda item and I believe the subject of this evening is entitled "Resolution authorizing execution of an annexation agreement governing the annexation of the Rob Roy Driving Range." In the absence of Mr. Furst I will just refer back to the posture of this case that brought it to this point. It was Case 72 -1lP. Messrs. Gottlieb and Babbin appeared before the Judiciary Committee to discuss the zoning phase of possible future annexa- tion of 38 acres to the Village of Mt. Prospect. The request under this case number is to rezone the property upon annexation from R -X to R -4 PUD. The Plan Commission has no recommendation for the Trustees on this matter, in that a motion to grant the requested zoning only passed 4 to 2, one vote shy of the 5 required for a recommendation. The proposed development is for 544 multi- family units to be located on the northeriymost 38 acres commonly known as the Rcb Roy Driving Range. During the course of the discussion Roy Gottlieb and Trustee Link elaborated on the negotiations between the River TRail.s Park District and Kenroy for the 3. acquisition via condemnation of the southerly 19 acres, more or less. Mr. Link indicated that the Park District has not attempted to act as a rezoning board and as far as the present request is concerned the park Board has no interest as to whether the request is granted or denied but only an interest that nothing should be allowed which adversely affects the public. He also indicated that if the rezoning is denied by the Village this factor will not affect the sale of the southerlymost open space to the Park District. Trustee Ahern felt that the discussion on the zoning of the 38 acres before us was premature and that a rezoning of these 38 acres might in fact amount to a rezoning of the remaining golf course 180 acres to the west of the subject property, there- by making a request for multi - family zoning on that parcel a lead -pipe cinch. The Committee was also pleased to have Trustees Anderson, Richardson and Scholten in attendance for their comments. At this point, however, the Judiciary Committee has no recommendation for the entire Board 4 and Mayor, a motion to recommend the granting of the request having failed by reason of the following vote: Chairman Furst: Aye. Trustee Anderson: Nay. Trustee Link: Pass. It is my personal feeling that the matter of this rezoning will not be entirely resolved until our September 12th hearing on the pre-annexation agreement for the annexation and development of this property. At that time the question as to the location of two buildings will be resolved and the site plan for the development of the property solidified. Furthermore, we should have some additional ' information as to the status of the Park District's request for HUD funds, as well as the District's feelings regarding open space. That report was submitted by Donald Furst, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and in that posture the various documents that would accompany such a proposal have been prepared and have been submitted to the Board. And I believe it would be appropriate now for the Petitioner, Mr. Gottlieb c here -- is Mr. Gottlieb here? I know he is here. There. I think it would be appropriate, unless -- would the Board want to have any discussion prior? If not then Mr. Gottlieb, as the Petitioner, I call upon you and your party to present to the Board your case for urging favorable action by the Board. There is an easel up here that can be utilized for any displays, MR. BORNE: Howard Borde, 4849 Golf Road, Skokie Illinois, MAYOR TE J CHERT : Could I make just one comment first, because it would be important for the Board's business and proceeding orderly. This As not going to be unlike other meet- ings, I am sure, where there is a certain amount of emption and reaction that occurs, particularly when people make statements, but everybody who wants to speak will always have a chance to speak and can be heard. But you know discussions going on while someone is speaking detracts from the Board's ability to hear what is going on, and it also promotes floor arguments. And there is nothing going 6. to be gained by one person arguing with someone else across the floor. The purpose is for the Board to become educated, knowledgable and persuaded by whatever arguments there are, either for or against the proposal that is being presented. Everyone will be heard. We would appreciate it if you would withhold your reaction as much as possible, not have disturbances, so that the presenta- tion can be made in an orderly manner. One speaking at a time is the best way to get through the whole evening. Mr. Borde. MR. BORDE: I am the attorney for the Petitioner in this case. I think that you asked for the various exhibits that were presented at the Plan Commission hearing and at the Judiciary hearing of this Village Board, and which are also marked as exhibits to the proposed annexation agreement. MAYOR TEICHERT: We have those. MR. BORDE: One item, the various buildings that had to be relocated, as suggested by the Judiciary Committee, have been relocated and shown in the revised sub-plan. Now where are they? We don't have these in easel form, the 7. easel documents were left with the Plan Commission. MAYOR TEICHERT: Do we have thumbtacks? All right, we can get thumbtacks or scotch tape. They are the same plans, they are just not in Bristol board form, you are saying. MR. BORDE: With the exception of the revised site layout which relocated a building along the eastern boundary back 40 feet. MAYOR TEICHERT: I will have to caution the audience too that the setup is not perfect. I think if the easel were left over by the wall the Village Board could see it and perhaps the majority of the people could see it. It is going to be very difficult to let you see it and we don't, or we see It and you don't, but maybe we can split the difference and all of us see it to some extent. MR. BORDE: I wonder if it might aid the people here, the Village Board and the audience, if I attempted to reiterate some of the background and history of this annexation and zoning, as I under- stand it. Apetition to condemn was filed by River Trails Park District sometime during the year 1971. 8. This petition arose after an earlier hearing on the proposed annexation and zoning of this same parcel was presented to the Village Board and denied. Thereafter, like 1 say, a petition was filed by River Trails Park District, and from sometime early in 1971 through the present time there was a series of negotiations pending and taking place between the Park District and the owners of the property. As a result of these negotiations a tenta- tive agreement was arrived at, the terms of which were incorporated in a letter of understanding and a contemplated judgment order in the condemnation case itself, both of which documents were submitted to the Plan Commission and are exhibits before the Plan Commission hearing. I might add that we are not in a status quo situation right now, we are in slight limbo, because under the terms of both the understanding and the judgment order the time required for performance thereunder by the Park District has expired. Since that time 1 have had conversations with Mr. Bjorvik, the attorney for the Park District, and this evening 1 received revised drafts 9. of both the letter of understanding and the judgment order, which were submitted to me this evening, I haven't had a chance to review them as yet. As I understand it the reason for the failure of the Park District to be in a position to comply totally with its resolution approving the understanding between the parties was their inability to get HUD to act as quickly as they wanted them to act. I am repeating this from conversations with Mr. Bjorvik. I was advised this evening that there again is still a tentative understanding with HUD which has not been formally accommodated. Now, there may be information that I don't have because 1 didn't talk specifically with Mr. Bjorvik this evening, but this is my understanding. So that as of this moment we still have to review the revised letter of understanding and the revised proposed judgment order, MAYOR TEICHERT: Were those revisions subject to your approval? MR. BORDE: Yes, because they go beyond the time limit on the original documents. While those negotiations were being conducted 10. the Petitioner filed -- well, the point I am making, as of this moment the Petitioner is the owner of the whole 38 acres and there is a petition to condemn pending by the River Trails Park District to acquire the property and there was an understanding. Like I say, I just received those other documents and I haven't looked at them. The time on the original understanding has expired. I want to look at these documents. 1 received them this evening. While negotiations were being carried on the Petitioner filed an annexation petition for the entire 38 acres to the Village of Mt. Prospect, and also filed a request for approval of a PUD with an R-4 zon- ing designation covering the entire 38 acres. In the plan that evolved from the negotiations with the Park District and from the planners retained by Kenroy is represented in Exhibit 2, which is shown on that easel over there, which called for the development of a condominium complex composed of I, 2 and 3 bedroom units, for sale units, in a series of 9 buildings set back some -- What is the depth from the edge of Euclid Avenue back to the -- VOICE: 633 feet. MR. BORDE: Set back some 633 feet from the edge 11. of Euclid. The reason for the setback is that this plan accommodated the activities of the River Trails Park District in its desire to acquire the front portion of the property. However, as a part of those negotiations it was necessary, No. I, that means of ingress and egress to the reaminder of the property be provided from Euclid Lake, since that was intended to be our sole means of ingress and egress except for emergency provisions at Alton Road. In order to do this there had to be a reservation, a means of getting in and out, and the primary means of ingress and egress is along the westerlymost boundary on the subject property, which is a reservation of an area of some 66 feet in width, for the most part, except near Euclid Lake, where it is widened out to 100 feet, and a secondary fire lane, emergency lanes, as a means of ingress and egress along the easternmost portion of the subject property, with a curvilinear pattern looping around the perimeters of the property, and also providing for a means of ingress and egress to a contemplated school site to the east and to the north -- to the east and to the north -- well, to the east of the 12. subject property. So this plan came about. It was necessary that we provide for some means of storm water reten- tion onsite, and by "onsite" meant to take the area where the -- the low area that did exist, which falls basically south of the commencement of the structural part of the planned development, and create a retention basin to accept storm drainage from the entire development and then form a way of metering out the water through a relocated and revised creek which ends and enters at the west and east boundary lines, at the same location that it did or that it does now. The judgment order, of necessity, as well as the letter of understanding, contemplated this particular use and set up certain standards and regulations for the development of the lake itself, because in addition to it serving as a storm retention basin for the development of the property, it was intended to provide certain recreation amenities for the area and for the park site, and such things as finding of accommodating fresh water in the lake, so that the dirt from upstream that would normally flow through the parking lots, { 13. and so forth, wouldn't come directly into the lake that has been accommodated, based upon engineering analysis between the Village of Mt. Prospect's engineer and our engineer. In addition provisions were made for providing for certain foot bridges over the relocated creek to the south of the lake, to be put in also by the developer, although it would subsequently fall on lands to be acquired by the Park District. And certain other improvements to the roads, both east and west. The road, for example, to the east, a certain portion of it will have curbs, although it is offsite from the subject property there will be provisions for curbs and improvements thereon, including some type of a bridge or culverted bridge over the existing creek. Although this is offsite from the subject property it also benefits the subject property, t because it serves as an alternative emergency means of ingress and egress to the property. The provisions also call for, if desired by the Village of Mt. Prospect, for the eventual dedication of the access road on the western portion to the Village. This is a determination that would 14. be made by the Village and the request would be forwarded to then owner, whether it be Kenroy or the Park District. There are other items -- I can't remember them all -- but suffice it to say that the negotiations went on for in excess of a year. One or two other things. There is a covenant restricting the use of the southerly portion of property called a major recreation space, a covenant against use of that land for any purpose other than park purposes for 20 years. This is in line with your planned develop- , ment ordinance, which restricts open space for 20 years. Although it is true that the River Trails Park District, as suggested by Mr. Link, in his commentary on the minutes you just read, Mr. Mayor, is not in the zoning business, the total negotiations for the total development of the property necessarily included the planning of the same. The minute you begin talking about planning you are talking about, in essence, zoning, because our request is not simply for an R -4, our request is for a planned unit development, which is planning. There were extensive negotiations and at 15. the original hearing before the Plan Commission, which was conducted it seems like several months ago -- I am not sure of the date -- we made, I think, the same representations we are making now, and Mr. Bjorvik was present. And I specifically want to point out that the plan as designed fell within the standards that were set forth in the judgment order, the contemplated judgment order, and the letter of understanding with the Park District, including density. Although they didn't say "This is what we permit ", because they never said that, there was never anything that. What they did say is that we wouldn't have a right to ask for any more than the numbers that are asked for in this particular plan. So thereafter hearings were conducted at the Plan Commission level and an annexation agree- ment was submitted and published, which is, I assume, why we are here this evening. Do you feel it is necessary that we go specifically through these plans? We will be very happy to, if you think it would help. I will ask Roy to do that. MAYOR TEICHERT: I will leave that up to you, as 16. the Petitioner. MR. BORDE: Do you want to review the plans and add or detract or negate what I said? MR. GOTTLIEB: My name is Roy Gottlieb. I am Chairman of the Board of Kenroy, Incorporated, real estate development company, with offices at 484+9 Golf Road, in Skokie, Illinois. Mr. Borde made one comment that I would ' like to clarify. He mentioned that the lake would serve to satisfy, in addition to the proposed primary recreational function of it, a flood control vehicle separate and apart from the creek for the development. The lake is designed to be a flood control area for the entire area tributary, which does include water coming from the north, the Alton Road area that reaches the property. In fact, at past hearings discussion was had where people asked, would we make provisions so that the drainage would go into it positively. We said that we would. And our agreement with the Park District, which is again a further point of clarification, states that the area which may be utilized would have to be in the north 200 feet of the proposed taking, 17. which is an area of about 5 acres, and that the area itself could be up to 3 acres in surface area. The plan as shown and as calculated by our engineer, in conjunction with the Village engineer, is 1 -1/2 acres of surface area, with 3 acre feet of water storage. However, since the provision is involved, assuming that the deal is completed with the Park District, that area could be expanded if in fact current flood determinations, if they are available at the time of building the lake, would indicate that the lake should be somewhat more. Certainly 1 -1/2 acres would cover existing recorded flood waters, which I believe the highest rating was 1957, and if a higher rating occurs we have effectively a two to one safety factor, we could go from 1 -1/2 to 3 acres. The rest of the area within that 5 acres, or the north 200 feet of the proposed park taking, is inclusive of the relocated stream and the berms that are necessary to create the area around the lake, so that the rise of the lake can accommodate the floor waters without effectively developing a larger flood area. 18. Another point that was brought up, before I get into the details of the plan itself, at the meeting of the Judiciary Committee was r , } 1 rus tee A n d r F; () T1 , 1 r t d that t • , T 1 � '1. i. . Dreferno . ,ht 'ir=': zoning be modified so that a portion of the i }ix l7pe.C't„P as largr -! as possible of the front or lake frontage of the property not be zoned R-4 but rather R--1 or R-X, or whatever the known category is that the property comes in, kind of a non -zoned category or a holding category, unless there would be some objection from the Park Board, who of course could accommodate whatever uses they would have of any zoning category, any residential • category. We would certainly have no objection to the change in the zoning request from an R -4 to an R -1 or, as I say, R -X for that area which we could not utilize as part of the planned development, regardless of who owns it. And the area, of course, that we would be utilizing would be the north 200 feet and the west 66 feet, which is an area of approximately 6 acres in total. So that the area of utilization which would be owned if the acquisition is completed by the Park - District would be approximately 6 acres in owner- 19. ship by the Park District in R -4, in utilization, effectively combined utilization in perpetuity, I would assume, as long as flood controls are necessary for a flood area lake, recreation lake area, and a drive, plus the pertinent stream and berms. With respect to the plan itself, it contemplates 544 dwelling units in 9 buildings and includes a swimming pool. MR. ANDERSON: Do you have copies of that? MR. GOTTLIEB: I have got three. MAYOR REICHERT: Is this the same one that is up on the easel? MR. GOTTLIEB: Yes. The only modification from this plan to the one that was presented before the Plan Commission is the movement of the building numbered 9 in the northeast corner, which had been moved westward, to provide a 4o foot setback from the property line, or the equivalent of the height of the building. The development in addition to the 9 build - ings includes a swimming pool and two tennis courts, which is also part of our agreement with the Park Board that we should provide recreational facilities separate and apart from that which might be developed 20. by the River Trails Park District, and I believe also some areas for tot lots, although I don't think it is designated as such. The total proposed development is 544 dwelling units and the total contemplated parking spaces is 941. The composition of units is -- I have to • add these together -- is a proposed total of 132 • one- bedroom units, 194 2- bedroom units. There is an incidence in the plan where some units are over a stairwell which provides for a den accommodation. In this particular plan there would then be 54 units with two bedrooms and den, and • 164 3- bedroom dwelling units. The overall parking of 898 would be in keeping with the 1.65 as required for a planned development. We have 43 parking spaces in excess of that. That, unless there are some questions, completes our presentation as to what the development consists of other than the fact that we have been through -- I can count -- I think six or seven meet - ings in which all of the detail regarding offsite and onsite improvements were detailed. The location 21. of the fire lanes was reviewed and many other technical and staff details, and to the best of my knowledge we have complied with the various requirements and regulations. And where there is any absence of compliance or an indefiniteness of it we would certainly agree that we would comply with all the fire and police and other regulations as required that are not specifically stated to the contrary in the annexation agreement, which is, of course, also part of the topic of this meeting. MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: Two questions regarding that building No. 9. You indicate a 40 foot setback sideyard. In fact it appears to be somewhat less than that. You are measuring to not the extreme east portion of that building but another portion that looks a little bit further west. MR, GOTT LIEB: I believe that is probably an overhand over an entrance, but if not it will be 4o feet. It will be equal to the height of the build- . If it is indicated incorrectly it will be corrected. There is no intent to cut off 2 or 3 feet there. In fact, the height of the building will 22. probably be less than 40 feet, anyway. MR. ANDERSON: With regard to your question, we want to see everything. We want to start, really, on my behalf, with Exhibit 1, which involves the plat of survey and indicates some dedication all the way through each and every item that is proposed to be a part of the pre- annexation agreement. It may take a long time but I want to be satisfied that what we are looking at is what we . are going to get. MR. GOTTLIEB: Exhibit 1. Is Mr. Dillon around? Do you have 4 exhibits, or 3? MAYOR TEICHERT: Have you got another set? MR. GOTTLIEB: No I am sorry, I only have three sets to give. However, I will hold these up ' and bring them over as needed. MAYOR TEICHERT : All right, fine. MR. GOTTLIEB: Exhibit No. 1 is a plat of the prop- erty, is a survey exhibit. It shows the dimensions of the property, which are 1251 feet by approximately 1294 feet on the east line and 1322 feet on the west line. And the amount of the acreage is not shown in here. MR. ANDERSON: It is somewhere around 4o acres, plus or minus. 23. MR. GOTTLIEB: It comprises 38.07 acres. We had presented a survey originally in conjunction with that first hearing, which is an exhibit in your records. I can provide you with a certification. Exhibit No. 2 is the site plan which I previously described. MAYOR TEICHERT: Let's go on the first plat of subdivision. MR. ANDERSON: You indicate the area reserved at somewhere around 66 feet. Is that proposed to be dedicated? MR. GOTTLIEB: At the present time it is proposed as a private road, so no dedication would be on the plan. • MR. ANDERSON: Is the west area included in the overall density that we are looking for at this point? MR. GOTTLIEB: In my viewpoint the proper inter - pretation in determining the density would at least include all those areas which would be utilized, either partially or entirely, by the development, which would include the road, which is the only source of access and which would be continued to be maintained by us, and the lake and stream area which we would have to be developing 24. in providing the facilities, although it would be maintained by the Park District, but would be a joint utilization of both the Park District and ourselves. But again on this particular plat there is no designation as to division lines, because effectively it is a plat of what is to be annexed, which is the entire tract. MR. ANDERSON: Has there been any consideration -- perhaps this is important on Exhibit 2 -- for the ' need for the installation of any traffic signals in that location? MR. GOTTLIEB: We haven't given it any detailed consideration. I believe this would be a function of the State and County, based on traffic counts, after the development is constructed or while it is being constructed. There is a total proposed of 544 units, but they are going to be built over an extended period of time, I would say probably a minimum of three to a maximum of five years, five maybe six years. MR. ANDERSON: I would somewhat disagree, because if there is a problem it is ours. It is not the State Highway Department's problem, it is ours. 25. MR. GOTTLIEB: The problem is no different than in every development. I agree with it, there could be a problem. MAYOR TEICHERT: The problem would be that the stoplights couldn't be installed unless State warrants were granted, and they would have to be based on the traffic count. Perhaps more important would be who would pay for them. MR. ANDERSON: Has there been a traffic analysis of this particular intersection, projected genera- tion? MR. GOTTLIEB: Not as such, but from my own experience I can give you an approximate count from about ten developments we have been involved in, as to the peak hour traffic, somewhere between 60 or 70 per cent of the number of units. So you would have a peak hour count here of 544 units, some- where around 300 to 350 cars. MR. ANDERSON: But every area is unique. We are talking Euclid Avenue. You may be talking some other street. MR. GOTTLIEB: Well, I am saying peak hour, in addition to the existing traffic on Euclid Lake. MR. ANDERSON: There hasn't been a traffic 26, study? Is that what you are saying? MR. GOTTLIEB: Apparently a traffic study was submitted to the Plan Commission. Is that correct? MR. ANDERSON: Yes, we had a traffic exhibit that was part of the Plan Commission record. MAYOR TEICHERT: That is an estimate. MR. ANDERSON: Yes. MAYOR TEICHERT: I think the problem we are running into is it is an estimate of the traffic flow there, but the warrant would be issued in fact when the traffic condition existed, if one existed. MR. ANDERSON: Yet there are facts as far as Euclid is concerned. I can't see how you can develop this, really, without knowing some of the basic facts. As I understand it it is based on traffic generation. MR. GOTTLIEB: We are providing for deceleration lanes. MR. ANDERSON: I see that. MR. GOTTLIEB: And this has been developed very similarly to the way the traffic patterns is developed for Huntington. MR. ANDERSON: You say there is a traffic report 27. on record. Yet you don't know about it. MR. GOTTLIEB: That is what Mr. Borde tells me. And I seem to recall one was submitted to the Plan Commission and should be part of their record. We had a lot of hearings on this case over a long period of time. I apologize that I do not definitely know, although I might look in my file there. MR. ANDERSON: There seems to be some ambiguity on this because you talk about an exhibit; I am talking about a report based on engineering data that has been accumulated out in the field. MR. GOTTLIEB: A report has not been prepared. MAYOR TEICHERT: Are you asking for a traffic report on Euclid as it now stands? Because we have that in our own files. MR. ANDERSON: No, I am referring to an existing report on Euclid, plus the additional generation of traffic created by this particular roadway. MAYOR TEICHERT: That would be an estimate, MR, ANDERSON: It is based on the number of units. MAYOR TEICHERT: Yes, that is what I am getting clear. There would be no report based on facts as they exist, because we have those. 28, MR. ANDERSON: But he is talking about an exhibit against a report. I am sa I would like to see the report. MAYOR TEICHERT: There wouldn't be any exhibit. MR. GOTTLIEB: I believe an exhibit was sub- mitted, my associates advise me, which indicated the amount of traffic anticipated in each direction at the peak hour. There was no report prepared for a development of 54 units on a street which carries the amount of traffic that Euclid Lake does now. The differential would not be significant. (Boos from the audience) MR. GOTTLIEB: Perhaps we can get a traffic report from the experts in the audience. They seem to know better than I. MAYOR TEICHERT: There are no dimensions on the proposed deceleration lane on this particular exhibit here, MR. GOTTLIEB: The deceleration lane will be any length the Village believes is appropriate with proper engineering standards. MR, ANDERSON: You have indicated the Village has looked over this particular proposal? MR. GOTTLIEB: Yes, sir. 29. MR. ANDERSON: Apparently this is the first one we noticed. MAYOR TEICHERT: We have had, in fact, traffic counts on Euclid within our files. On a total survey of the Village we have estimates in on projections for previous proposals and develop- meats. There would be estimates on this. I don't know who has the Plan Commission file. I was trying to get it, myself. MR. FURST: It is here. There is nothing in it. MAYOR TEICHERT: Do you have the documents that were in it? MR. ANDERSON: A series of exhibits that were left with the Plan Commission when hearings were conducted downstairs. MAYOR TEICHERT: I am not speaking in your be- half, I am speaking in behalf of the administration. The administration has had access to exhibits and estimates made, and those were considered by the administration that has met on the various things, such as fire lanes and traffic measurement and what not, with this. I am indicating that to you, so that I would feel it improper that in the heat of discussion on 30. that people start maligning the admi unwarranted) nistratjon y. The documents exist. Mr. Ahern? MR, AHERN: George, I am not quite clear on your question. I assume it isn't your feeling that whatever the present traffic is on Euclid that it is the requirement of the present owner of vacant land to see that a survey is made to see that no stoplights go in there and that they pay for them I assume that, . , and I further assume that what you are looking for is here of an is, either by way exhibit or by way of Mr. Gottlieb 's o now, what would this d evelopment evelopment contribute t present traffic? And I think h I in position to answer that. MR, ANDERSON: Right. I am not demanding th signals be put in there, if this were a would like PProved. I to see a study that indicates projections a what the re. If it is needed now I would like to see it included in the package, if it is in. going to go I feel that st rongly about it For example, the deceleration lane, if I were to scale t I would have s omewhere ha t off around 50 feet. That is not 31. reasonable. With a 50 mile speed limit it doesn't make sense. MR. GOTTLIEB: Mr. Anderson, might I cover ' your point possibly by saying, as I mentioned before, that whatever would be a reasonable standard for a deceleration lane in the opinion of the Village engineer, in consultation with our engineer, would certainly be acceptable to us. There are generally accepted traffic standards, based on the speed of the road and the amount of volume it carries, as to how long a deceleration lane should be I believe that the scaling on this would be somewhat more than 50 feet, but I would agree with you that it is probably less than it should be. Secondarily, in regard to the traffic signal, if it were to be part of the annexation agreement that at such time as the traffic signals were determined by the State warrants, May Teichert stated, we would be certainly willing to pay our proportionate share as to how our development adds to the total overall traffic situation at this intersection. MR. ANDERSON: Are you suggesting that the area 32. south of Euclid be the respOn and sibility of the Village the area north of Euclid be MR y °ur responsibility? GOTTLIEB; No, I am not s I am su uggesting that ggesting that traffic signali intersects nation for the on of Westgate and whatever our be called and E road might uclid Avenue will require signali • it doesnit go on one nation, li side or the other, you know ghts side may go on both ' s, but there is a certa amount of traffic flow in , and by a traffic engineering determination they can say what the dO we Contribute to overall traffic flow and what does contribute to it, Westgate , and:what do other parts o f t Village contribute to he it, And as to what our would be, portion based on engineering analysis we would agree to pay. I would venture to say it is probably a relatively small portion, but if I am wrong we will pay whatever our portion is MR. ANDERSON: If there be any additional work required on Euclid Avenue to provid into the e for a left t urn development going eastbound, ou take this responsibility too, y would MR. GOTTLIEB; O °' is that correct? I d on't know that that determination at this time I can make me take ' because that would place at sometime in the f ut re, after the 33. development was up, and it might entail a whole restructuring of Euclid Avenue for a long distance. It wouldn't be just a small widening for a short distance, and I don't think I could undertake, on ;; behalf of my investors, the repair of a major street, with all that it entails. Signalization, I think, is a different matter, and if signalization were employed perhaps the widening of what is now a 4 -lane road might not be needed. MR. ANDERSON: Although again the problem generated by left turning movements into this development could be hazardous to the community and to the motoring public in that area MR. GOTTLIEB: Depending on how the signals g were set up. MR. ANDERSON: It shouldn't be ruled out cm- : pietely on your part. I think this will be borne out by your traffic study. MR. GOTTLIEB: I hate to be facetious. Well, maybe I don't hate to, maybe I like to. But in being facetious could I say that would the home owners south of there pay for the left turn signalization necessary to turn onto Westgate? MR. ANDERSON: This already exists right now. 34. MR. GOTTLIEB: Left turn now. MR. ANDERSON: 1 am not discussing the merits of what lies south of there. MR. GOTTLIEB: I recognize that, but what you are doing is putting me in a singular position, not applicable to other people, because they are here already. I don't think that is a reasonable position to put me in. I have already stated what we would be willing to do. I don't believe, because I don't know the extent of it, that I could commit any further at this time. MR, ANDERSON: All right. That will come up later. No further questions. MR, GOTTLIEB: This is the chart, this is the proposed flow chart -- wait a minute. This doesn't have any numbers on it. There was, apparently, testimony with regard to traffic. All this is is a flow chart, how traffic would move in and out of the development. I don't know. MAYOR TEIGHERT: Are there other questions from the Board members? MR. ANDERSON: Mr. Mayor, not to belabor the point, butl would like to see a traffic report 35. at this particular intersection, MR. GOTTLIEB: S ha l 1 I exhibit Proceed to the next Mr. Mayor? MAYOR TEICHERT: Yes, MR. GOTTLIEB: Exhibit No discussed . 2. As I say, we that, It have is the alternate plan to the one shown, Exhibit No, 3 is marked "Z but it oning Exhibit" is precisely the same exhibit as Exhibit No 1 except that says �rZ the legend on the upper righth • oning Exhibit R-4", corner � which T previo sly scat if it be the will of the Board ed' rd and there be no objection from the Park Distric a 4 33 foot t we would agree to from Euclid Avenue zoning g for an R -1, MR. ANDERSON: Mr, Gottlieb MR. GOTTLIEB: Yes, sir. MR. ANDERSON: What effect on density would that Yield for the northern portion then? MR. GOTTLIEB: Well, assuming that the north S acres -- well it is about 6 acres, ac together with the 18 tually __ acres or 19 acres that -- that hat we are would be 25 acres for 544 units or about -- have T got that right? 22 units per acre MR. ANDERSON: You have no figures • on that? 36. MR. GOTTLIEB: 544 on 25 acres is slightly less than 22 units per acre. MR. ANDERSON: This would include the area where the property is? MR. GOTTLIEB: This would include the north area of proposed park, which would be the area which would be the area which we would be developing for the park for lake area berms and the relocated creek, and also the western 66 feet of the property, which would be the roadway access. MR. ANDERSON: So your proposed density would be within the allowable for the planned unit development, if these facts were -- MR. GOTTLIEB: That rationalization, yes. MR. ANDERSON: -- were considered? MR. GOTTLIEB: Yes, sir. May I go on to the next exhibit? On Exhibit No. 4, which is called the stage plan, and the bottom half of that exhibit indicates the section of the building -- now, that is really not quite an exhibit, it is really just information that is marked Exhibit 4, stage plan. And it indicates on it each stage of development, not necessarily the numerical order but quite likely so. 37. Each stage contains one building, plus the requisite parking or at least minimum parking that would be required for that building. The exhibit below indicates a section through the building, illustrating how the parking and garages would relate to the building itself, and the ramping effect for access in and out of the garage areas. MR, ANDERSON: In other words, you propose below grade parking? MR, GOTTLIEB: Partially below and partially above. The excavation proposed for the garage is 4 feet, so it would only be slightly below grade, and we would terrace up to the buildings, Some of the parking would also be below the tennis court, and we would have some additional parking which would be covered by patios or porchlike areas, MR, ANDERSON: How does your proposed grade comply with the flood plain area? MR, GOTTLIEB: We are not building in the flood plain. MR, ANDERSON: You are not building in the flood plain, at all? MR. GOTTLIEB: No. MR, ANDERSON: How about 4 foot below grade? Is that considered in the flood plain area? 38. MR. KUPFER: :The opening would be above grade. MR. GOTTLIEB: Excuse me. This is Mr, Carl Kupfer, who is president of our engineering sub- sidiary. He is a registered professional engineer, MR. KUPFER: The flood plain ordinance provides the opening, the unobstructed opening, should be a given distance above the flood plain elevation, and this opening -- the opening to the garage will be above grade. MR. ANDERSON: It will be 3 feet above? MR. KUPFER: Yes, 3 feet above. MR. ANDERSON: As far as drainage, that will be mechanically pumped out of the lower area, then? MR. KUPFER: That's correct. Well, that is cor- rect to the extent we can provide gravity drainage, wherever practical. MR. ANDERSON: Pardon me? I say mechanically pumped? MR, KUPFER: No, 1 say the invert of the storm sewer is sufficiently below that elevation that we can drain it by gravity. But it would be mechanically pumped in every other situation. MR. GOTTLIEB: Exhibits No. 5 and 6, which are the onsite and offsite utility plan, I believe would 39. be best explained by Mr. Kupfer. And incidentally I might add, the lake design as shown on the engineering drawing is the correct one The lake size as shown on the site plan exhibit is incorrect. It was drawn previous to the engineering drawing. Excuse me, if I might go out of turn. On Exhibits 7 and 8 we have a fence ex- hibit and sign exhibit and an exhibit for the entrance treatment. We ask in our annexation agreement that we be provided the right to put in some signs, in addition or in opposition to what is now permitted in the sign ordinance. The exhibit shows a proposed sign 4o feet from Euclid Avenue, which is incorrectly stated. It should say 40 feet west of the property line that we would retain after the proposed sale to the park. It would not be on Park District property. MR. KUPFER: Perhaps I could best address myself to specific questions on the engineering plan, rather than going through each and every line, unless that is the wish of the Board. MAYOR TEICHERT: There are questions I have relating to Page 5 and Page 6 with regard to the et 4o, Village participation in paying for some of these utilities, 1 would like to have that clarified, item by item. Quite honestly, as our attorney, you were involved and have reviewed the proposed pre - annexation agreement. MR. ZIMMERMANN: The annexation agreement, of which you have a draft in front of you, was prepared P d by my office, by me, subsequent to the memorandum that went to you in a letter that went to the Kenroy people. There was a meeting, and that meeting took place from 4:30 to 7 :00 o'clock this evening which �� ��.ch was the earliest possible time we could all get together. We had most of the administrative staff there. The meeting was arranged by Mr Eppley, - �PPIey, through me at his request, and the idea was to g et the text worked out from the standpoint of the • administration and the technical aspects, both from a legal standpoint and from the operating functional standpoint of those various departments. It was my understanding -- perhaps Mayor Teichert might say otherwise -- the relative few Qk4nggp ,th -were made pursuant to the discussions 41. that were held this afternoon would not be gone into until after the review, the thorough review, of all the exhibits and the presentation made by Kenroy at this point. MR. ANDERSON: There is one item to me that appears to be policy. That is No. 13. MR. ZIMMERMANN: There is much here that is policy. I don't say that none of it is. MAYOR TEICHERT: The point I think I stressed with John was the original draft came from the Village, based on previous agreements of this nature, such as Huntington Commons, which really developed the whole planned unit development concept, so that has always been the format. This was developed from that. All the changes that have been made have real ly been made on our own draft. MR. ANDERSON: The question with reference to No. 13 appears to be contrary to policy. Generally when a developer builds he puts in the utilities. In this case it is a 50 -50 deal, unless I totally misunderstand this. MAYOR TEICHERT: No, it is very simple. Without this in here they will just tap into Citizens. They are in a Citizens certificated area. 42 . This was discussed away back in 1970, when this first came up. I had discussions that in the event that they were to come into the Village, as far as 1 was concerned we should insist they tie into the Village lines and not become another customer of Citizens Utility, although they are in the certificated area. They can merely tie into the Citizens on the spot with no problem. Therefore there is no inducement for them to extend a line for a quarter of a section to put a line in the street, when in fact they can get it right across the street. Our intention was that should this area become a part of Mt. Prospect that it would benefit the people in the area serviced by Citizens to at some point start getting off of Citizens. The only way the people in that area will get off of Citizens, if that is their desire, would be for them to collec- tively pay to install lines. That is very expensive. MR. ANDERSON: Purchase the utility company in that area? MAYOR TEICHERT: Yes, which as you know is not for sale. So that the alternative would be much as happened in the Fairview Garden area, to start moving 43. into the area ourselves with our lines, leaving the citizens with the right to choose which line they want to deal with, whether they merely want to tap into our lines and pay the Village fee. MR. ANDERSON: Well, as a matter of clarifica- tion -- MAYOR TEICHERT: In other words, if it bothers the Board they would be glad to tie into Citizens and just forget it. But on this basis if the Village would participate with them they would be able to lay a rather large water main for a quarter of a section through the heart, if you will, of the Citizen area, and thereby establish your first main for producing laterals. MR. ANDERSON: A point of clarification. The existing water that is available is south of Euclid, is that correct? MR. KUPFER: No Village water that I know of. MR. ANDERSON: Citizens Utility? MR. KUPFER: Citizens Utility, yes. MR. ANDERSON: All right. Now let me ask another question. Where would you propose to tie into our Village system? 44. MR. KUPFER: In discussions with Mr. Dickey, the best point of connection would be in Foundry Road, at the end of the existing 12 inch main, which I believe is at Wheeling Road. MAYOR TEICHERT: It can go one of two directions. Since it is on a quarter section both of them would end up to be virtually the same. It can either run from Foundry to Wheeling, down Wheeling Road to Euclid and then down to the property. Or it could run straight down Foundry to Westgate and down West- gate to the property. Again because it is on a quarter section they are the same distances. MR. ANDERSON: All right. Let me ask another question. Is this offsite or onsite? MAYOR TEICHERT: This is offsite. MR. ANDERSON: This is offsite? You are going to pay the cost onsite? MR. KUPFER: Yes, whatever the costs are. MR. ANDERSON: Down to Euclid? MR. KUPFER: Yes. MR. ANDERSON: And this is from Euclid where Westgate would be extended to the nearest Village system? 1 45. MR. KUPFER: Yes, that is correct. MR. ANDERSON: And there is a 50 -50 sharing on the cost of this main, and any oversizing would be borne 100 per cent by the Village? MR. KUPFER: Yes. MAYOR TEICHERT: What it really says is 50 -50 up to a maximum of forty thousand. MR. ANDERSON: Fifty thousand. MAYOR TEICHERT: It has been changed to fifty thousand. Then the other one is the oversizing. The Village would pay the additional part for any oversizing. Now, I beg to differ. This has been the policy in establishing water and sewer lines, wherever possible. There is no inducement to run long lines, of course, and this is one way to start installing Village lines in the area. If the lines are not of any interest obviously they can be forsaken. Actually if the annexation were to occur my own theory is that it is a must, if you are ever going to talk about servicing that area up there with Village water. MR. ANDERSON: I take it that there is a plan that the Village has at this time and there is an 46. intention to perhaps supplement Citizens Utility, perhaps give consideration to the purchase of Citizens Utility? MAYOR TEICHERT: No, there is no plan at all to encroach into the area. I think we made it clear at the time of the annexation of that area out there, it is serviced by Citizens. Unless the people out there themselves want to buy that system and have us negotiate in their behalf, because they would end up having to pay the purchase price. We would not go in there unless they want us to go in. Now, if a development occurs in there in which we can encroach into the area without full cost to the Village, it would be appropriate to take advantage of it only because history shows that rates of private utilities just do nothing but keep increasing and eventually people do want the water. We found our best pressure point on private utilities in the past has been to start encroaching their area and start taking away their customers. MR. ANDERSON: We are assuming that there will be additional development in that area then. 47. MAYOR TEICHERT: No, in this case the line would be sufficient to service that property and we would have additional capacity. Then it would merely be up to the citizens in the area who wanted to start utilizing those lines, they could then start financing laterals. MR. ANDERSON: It seems to me this wasn't a part of the comprehensive report prepared by McManamon some time ago. MAYOR TEICHERT: Are you talking about the annexation report? MR. ANDERSON: I am talking about the water distribution report that Bill McManamon worked out. MAYOR TEICHERT: This is not a part of it. MR. ANDERSON: This has no relationship? MAYOR TEICHERT: Absolutelyrmne. This is just a matter of -- frankly, in 1970 when this matter was brought up and it was going to be voted on, I negotiated in behalf of the Village Board on the theory that if an annexation did occur my own feeling is we would want to encroach into the area and put Village water in there, because it could be done at a lesser cost than the citizens themselves out there could do it, should they decide later to put 48. water in. MR. ANDERSON: What you are saying is the economic value to the Village to install this main at this point and recover the monetary revenue that the water supply yields to the Village? MAYOR TEICHERT: I would say what you are putting in is a main right through the Citizens area and you are investing the cost of 50 per cent of that, somebody else is picking up the other cost, and then you are in effect getting a full line either down Wheeling and then down Euclid or down Foundry and then across Westgate. Which means that in effect that anybody along those lines who wants to tap in would only pay half the cost that they would normally be paying if we were putting lines in. It would still be their choice of what they wanted to do. This is not part of any plan to start providing water in the whole area. The point is if you are going to consider annexation of the area you have two choices. Tell them to get their water from Citizens, which is already in there, or work with them to provide village water at their location. 49. MR. ANDERSON: Have we ever been able to obtain a map from Citizens Utility of what exists out there? MAYOR TEICHERT: No. MR. ANDERSON: As to what exists out there, we don't even know. MAYOR TEICHERT: We know their area. We have a map, we know their certificated area. MR. ANDERSON: But not their internal workings. MAYOR TEICHERT: No. If you mean their exact location, their lines run down public streets just like ours do, you know, down the right -of -ways. MR. ANDERSON: And at some point if we were to acquire the Utility Company it may not be of any value to have paralleling lines of such a diameter that they wouldn't really have any effect. MAYOR TEICHERT: I shouldn't get into a big debate. As far as I am concerned I thought that the best interests of the Village was to expand the system. If it is a battle on the Board I don't think it is any problem. They are in Citizens, just let them tie in or dig their own wells and forget it. At some point, though, this Village Board and the people living in this area are going to have to 50. face the existence of Citizens and their increasing rate and decide whether we are going to provide city water or not. MR. ANDERSON: To me to spend up to $25,000 of Village money and not have a plan seems to be ridiculous. I would like to see a plan on that. (Applause) MR. ZIMMERMANN: Trustee Anderson, in the past, in 1970 I was either in the Manager's office or about to be in there, but I was very close to the actual plans that had been made, preliminary as they may be, by our Engineering Department for the extension of this particular water main. In fact, the formula that I used here in this paragraph was a formula that was taken from the original annexation agreement that had been worked up some two years ago, as I indicated, and increased as to the participation on the part of Kenroy to $50,000, from $40,000, after our discussion this afternoon. The increase came through analysis by our engineer as to what he felt were cost increases in labor and materials over the last two years, 51. , basing it on approximately 25 per cent. The original figure of $40,000 was based on an estimate by a former Village engineer, Mr. McManamon, based on a plan that he drew or caused to be drawn, which showed the extension of the main from Well 6 or in close proximity to Well 6, down on Foundry northward to Euclid and then easterly to the subject property. There were alternate plans, as the Mayor has indicated. I believe that this was the plan finally hit upon. And of course as this Board knows, no play for any public improvements will be under- taken until and unless there is approval of that plan by the Board of Trustees and the Mayor. MR. ANDERSON: What is disturbing me -- MR. ZIMMERMANN: If I can just for a second. The plan itself was drawn, as I can recall, because I saw it with a lot of specifics in it, and showed the line of a size, I believe, that was 16 inches. It was either 12 or 16. Maybe someone at Kenroy would know. I don't think you would know, Carl, because you weren't with Kenroy then, but the idea was to have that size diameter main go up north and over east along there, in order 52. to loop the area of the properties now since annexed south of Euclid, so that the citizenry in that area -- the theory being they might possibly have need of that water pressure. And the size of the main that is proposed to be incorporated in this Paragraph 13 was a size that we would have used had we been going anywhere in Mt. Prospect within our own system. I am not an engineer but this is to my best recollection what I do remember, from what went on two years ago. MR. ANDERSON: I understand what you are saying. I disagree with you, and I'll tell you why. You indicate in Paragraph 13 we will share 50 per cent of the cost. Assuming now that is a water main adequate to serve the development, 8hd no more, because on Page 7, the first paragraph, it says oversizing will be paid 100 per cent by the Village. So apparently I can't follow what you are saying, Mr. Zimmermann. MAYOR TEICHERT: I can explain it. I think it is inappropriate. You know people applaud and cheer and I can understand maybe your posture 53. concerning a development. I can say frankly whether the development comes in or not is one issue, but if the development does come in I would then oppose it or veto anything without knowing for sure that this Board, as a matter of policy, the people out in that area are going to forego Village water. This wasn't done just by myself. There were conversations and I have a report from the village engineer of March 18, 1970. The Village Board then knew that we were going to consider Rob Roy. They were also aware of the fact that Citizens Utility is inadequate. That Citizens Utility -- we have constant complaints from people in the area. If they ever want Village water or if they want to sustain the cost of condemning the system, which is extremely high, then of course we won't make any attempt to service that area. But we are the ones who get phone calls when there is no water in the area, even though we have nothing to do with it, any more than we do with your telephone service or your gas service. 54. And when the rates go up it will be the Village that the people in that area will call to go to their defense to see that the rates are not in- creased. It will be the same story that it is in any private utility, their rates go up and the service is inadequate, and eventually the thrust is "How do we get Village water ?" This is a proposal. If it is not annexed it means nothing, but if it is annexed we are then giving the opportunity to the people that are in Mt. Prospect to have Village water brought into their area. Now, the original plan had nothing to do with the area that now exists out there. There was no annexation, there were long -time residents living along Wheeling Road, and the residents along Wheeling Road could have had a water main put directly in front of their property. At this point -- and you may be better advised than our attorneys or our engineers, but at that point when only that section existed there was no possibility of condemning that portion of the system. I would submit to you now there is 55. little possibility of condemning it now except at a price the people out there couldn't afford. We had already experienced in Fairview Gardens utility pressure to start taking away customers from the private utility. It was only through the extension of water lines toward the Fairview Gardens area that finally had the owners of that utility come in and agree to sell at a negotiated price which is a benefit to the area. One of the Trustees, in fact, lives in the area and knows the mechanics that went on. And this is no different. And if the people that live in the area in fact want to be serviced for the rest of their lives by Citizens Utility, as long as they live in the Village, and do not want Village water, then it is very appropriate not to spend any money putting mains into that area. If they feel some day they will want to get off Citizens and get Village water, they have to take advantage of the plans as they occur to extend lines into the area. This is a matter, I think, of policy for the Board. I think you are correct. But to malign 56. it on the basis that you are against spending $25,000 has to be coupled with the fact that you are willing that the people out there spend perhaps one hundred thousand or two hundred thousand later. Again, unless you are willing to take the position that you have no interest in vetting water into that area except through C onde1rna ti n of Ci tizf -ns 'J i' i' - -- if that is the policy I don't think it is any matter to fight about Lecau, the Board can silapiy tell them get their water like any developer would, sink your own wells or tie into Citizens. But if you ever expect to deal or negotiate with Citizens, you are not going to do it by adding more customers on and bringing their system into a position where you can't afford to buy it. The one way you d© is -- in fact what we started to do on this -- that is to encroach into the area whenever the possibility permits. I want to caution again that before people applaud -- I remember on the last one one of the t big factors brought up was people on Wheeling Road don't want their parkways ripped up. Well, if they want Village water, at some 57. point they are either going to have to pay the cost of condemning that system or installing lines, and I think when an opportunity presents itself, as Old Orchard did, for the Village to participate in putting in the major main, they should take advantage of it. It means nothing if the annexation doesn't occur. MR. AHERN: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Ahern. MR. AHERN: In order that we all get our fair share of the questions here, while Mr. Gottlieb is resting I would like to ask George a question. George, when the annexation of the new town area was before the Board my recollection is reasonably clear that one of the Trustees made a motion to have a lot of information gathered with regard to the present pipeline, and what have you, of the utility company, because the Trustee at the time, at least, was not too informed. But he subsequently became well educated by other Trustees, including yourself, and that motion failed for want of a second, which of course you could have seconded. So that we took on that annexation without knowing anything, really, in terms of plans, what 58. the utility system was. And I assure you it cost the residents of this village more than $25,000 to take on the annexation out there. Why now do you want to know about those plans? MR. ANDERSON: I won't say that is entirely true. I did get information from Mr. Eppley on the pumping facilities, reservoirs, et cetera. I wasn't able'tO obtain a network system of the water distribution itself. To me there has to be a plan if we are going to spend money. MR. AHERN: We are spending a lot of money and will spend a lot on the new area without a plan, more than twenty -five thousand. That is the point. MR. ANDERSON: This is the plan. I am talking about the water main. I am not concerned at this moment with the building itself. There has to be a plan. If there is a plan I am not aware of it. MR. AHERN: A plan for what? MR. ANDERSON: A plan for expansion of the water system. That is, the existing system we are talking about. MR. AHERN: We weren't concerned with the plan in the new area, which includes a lot more area than just this. 59. MR. ANDERSON: That is an existing system. We are talking about a proposed system at this time. MAYOR TEICHERT: Perhaps this will help you a little: "Attached hereto is an estimate of cost of water main improvements and sewer improvements for the purpose of furnishing sewer and water to the Rob Roy tennis courts. We have selected Wheeling Road for the route of the water main. The water main will extend from Kensington Road north to Euclid Avenue and the west parkway off Wheeling Road, thence east on the north side of Euclid to Westgate Road extending to the north. All as indicated on the attached sketch. "This route will take the water main to the westerly line of the existing driving range. "With respect to the sanitary sewer, we propose to tie the existing interceptor on Wolf Road approximately 200 feet south of Euclid. (Reading) 60. It also says, "If you have any further questions we will be happy to review them." MR. ANDERSON: Apparently there is a firm plan. Let me ask this: If there is a plan there must be a cost. What is the price tag to bring water to this parcel? MAYOR TEICHERT: 1970. Why don't you just read it? You are an engineer. MR. ZIMMERMANN: Mr. Mayor. MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Zimmermann. MR. ZIMMERMANN: There is one thing that should be pointed out in Paragraph 13. Two Trustees have recited $25,000. The formula here is that the participation by the owner now in the construction and installation by the Village would be to the extent of 50 per cent or $50,000, whichever is the lesser. That doesn't mean that the Village would only be expending twenty -five thousand. We would only be expending twenty -five thousand in the event that the cost of the main was fifty thousand, but I think the estimates bear out that it would be more than that. 61. MR. ANDERSON: Is the 50 per cent that the Village would pay, - is that based on the needs of this development or based on the overall plan? MR. ZIMMERMANN: You will see a map that shows the lines, the diameters. I don't know, at this point I am certain that some drawings or sketches could be made part of this agreement. MR. KUPFER: There is an offsite exhibit identi- fied as Exhibit 6. MR. ZIMMERMANN: What are the sizes of the diameters of those? MR. KUPFER: Up in the upper righthand corner. MR. ANDERSON: And the corresponding value would be somewhere -- am I correct -- say $75,000, based on this estimate? MR. ZIMMERMANN: For 12 inch in 1970, seventy - five thousand. He has the lineal feet on the map. He also showed the location along Wheeling Road and Euclid. MR. ANDERSON: You would be going all the way down to Kensington on Wheeling. MR. ZIMMERMANN, Kensington to Euclid. With the recent annexation of the Camelot area we took in all of Euclid to the north side, so that one of 62. the things that was a problem in 1970, or partially a problem, has been overcome. Now, we may have run into a situation where we would have found ourselves condemning right -of -way for the purpose of installing a utility. But now going up Wheeling Road there, if we stay on the east side of Wheeling Road, since that is an old annexation, only half is in the Village and the other half in the County. We would be within our own rights -of -way for the whole route, so there would be less cost now than there would have been in 1970, in that we don't have to pay anything for condemnation. MAYOR TEICHERT: Any further questions? MR. KUPFER: On the engineering exhibit? MAYOR TEICHERT: We will get to you all after the Board is through asking questions. The audience will get the opportunity for questions, once the Board has completed theirs. MR. ANDERSON: The proposed 12 inch main terminates at the west end of the property? MR. ZIMMERMANN: That is correct. M.R. ANDERSON: So it couldn't be extended up from the road in greater than an 8 inch line. 63. MR. KUPFER: Unless the Village sees fit to use its prerogative to oversize that line. MR. ANDERSON: Based on the agreement we would pay for the entire oversize? MR. KUPFER: I believe that is correct. MR. ANDERSON: Also on the sanitary proposal, what is the size that is proposed on that? MR. KUPFER: The sanitary sewer? The last lateral to the east property line, extending approx- imately 350 feet from the point of connection, connection from the outfall, is a 10 inch line. And from that point back into the property the laterals are 8 inch. The offsite is also 10 inch, possibly 12 inch, once we get into the detailed engineering for connecting to existing 15 inch. MR. ANDERSON: Where is the nearest interceptor? Is that on Wolf Road? MR. KUPFER: Wolf Road, yes. MR. ANDERSON: Yet there is another 200 and some acres to the west that lies undeveloped. Is that size adequate to handle that? MR. KUPFER: This plan doesn't contemplate the territory to the west in the sanitary sewer. 64. MR. GOTTLIEB: Maybe Mr. Link would care to answer that. MR. LINK: There is a provision in the agreement that is currently being negotiated with the Park District that there can be no further hook -ons other than this particular property, which would flow to the sewer line of the Park District. So none of the property to the west of it could in fact be used for service to these lines. MR. GOTTLIEB: Is there a reason for it? MR. LINK: We just want to assure ourselves as far as the park facilities are concerned that there be no problems with regard to the capacity at all. MR. ANDERSON: So what you are saying is if the property to the west was ever developed you would have to run another line in? MR. LINK: They would have to do something, that's right, or go to the Old Town Sanitary District. MR. ANDERSON: That doesn't make sense either. You would think it would be designed properly if there is any intention of expanding to the west you propose to increase the water main. It seems to me it makes sense to increase the sanitary too. MAYOR TEICHERT: I think it does, except for 65. the fact that, if I am not mistaken the Park District, - that is their sewer line, isn't it? MR. LINK: Yes, they have their own sewer line. MAYOR TEICHERT: They have their own sewer line. So whether you made his 15 feet wide it would still throttle into a small -- MR. LINK: We have an oversize system on our major park facility, on the swimming pool, and because it is oversize we can accommodate their flow through our line, but to be sure that we would not run into any further problem in the future we limited expressly in our agreement any further development to the west, north, east or south could not be hooked on without our prior approval. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you. MAYOR TEICHERT: Does that conclude the exhibits? MR. KUPFER: Yes, that concludes the exhibits. MR. SCHOLTEN: I have one question. That is regarding the water flow. There are some pictures in the file of the water ponding at the end of Alton Road. Will the terrain be changed so that that water flows toward the retention pond? 66. MR. GOTTLIEB: We are planning a break in the road, in Alton Road, on the north property line in such a way that there is no flow from the property to Alton Road to the north. We have verbally agreed with some of the property owners in previous meetings to accommodate some ponding which presently occurs, although it is not our responsibility. We will do that because it is convenient for us to do so MR SCHOLTEN: What is the estimated excavation of the retention pond? MR. KUPFER: The excavation of the pond? I believe the contract requires or the consent decree requires an overall depth of 4.5 feet, with the deepest portion of the lake being 9 feet. MAYOR TEICHERT: When you say the consent decree, that is in the condemnation proceeding with the park? MR. KUPFER: That's right. MAYOR TEICHERT: Are there any other questions? Mr. Link? MR. LINK: Just a question of clarification on this section or Article 16 in the agreement. tt makes reference to parking spaces as related to townhouses. Is that just a typographical error? 67. MAYOR TEICHERT: I don't see the plan is con- templating townhouses. MR. ZIMMERMANN: The words "2.0 parking spaces for each townhouse" have been stricken. MR. LINK: Thank you. MAYOR TEICHERT: You have your agreements, and this proposed agreement was -- the draft on behalf of the Village, the Village itself, after consultation with the administration made alterations, and those will be pointed out now by the Village Attorney. MR. ZIMMERMANN: On Page 1 the Trust number is 36181, so that can be inserted in the second line, the second last whereas clause on the page, the words in the last line before the indented paragraph, within that clause, each of the said documents being marked as well as the indented paragraph are stricken, so that that whereas clause reads: "Whereas the owner has caused the subject property to be planned for uses set forth in various Exhibits numbers 1 ", and it should be "to 8, inclu- sive, which exhibits incorporated by reference and made a part of this agreement are hereinafter referred to as "The plan ". 68. There are no changes on Page 2. On Page 3, in the middle of Paragraph 3, the sentence begins: "The owner has the further right and without any formal hearing for each stage prior to the issuing of any building permits to vary the apartment mix." There is an add here: "- -shown on Exhibit 2 (Site plan) . 4. Then the next word "of" is stricken, so the sentence now reads: "The owner has the further right, without any formal hearing for each stage, prior to the issuance of any building permits, to vary the apartment mix shown on Exhibit 2 site plan for the proposed residential buildings as be- tween studio one and 2 bedroom units," et cetera. In Paragraph 4 there is an addition in the second last line of the paragraph. After the first word the word is "effectuate ". This is added: "Construction of not more than 544 dwelling units and." Then the sentence goes on "the development of" and instead of "such" -- strike "such" and substitute the word "said". So beginning with the 69. second last line the sentence finishes out: "effectuate construction of not more than 544 dwelling units in the development of said land as herein provided substantially in accordance with the plan as shown on Exhibit 2 site plan. Also No. 3 should be added at the bottom of the page, indicate Page 3. MR. LINK: Mr. Attorney, will you go back to. Article 3, lest there be something lost in the translation would you read that entire last sentence, so that the people understand the mix of apartments? 1 You dropped at one point -- MR. ZIMMERMANN: I will read the whole para- graph. MR. LINK: The last sentence I think is adeauate. MR. ZIMMERMANN: O.K. The last sentence -- this is a 2 sentence paragraph -- "The owner has the further right, without any formal hearing for each stage, prior to the issuance of any building permits, to vary the apartment mix shown on Exhibit 2 site plan, for the proposed residential buildings as between studio one and 2 bedroom units and may reduce the number of 3 and 4 bedroom units in conformity with the requirements of Paragraph "c" standards of 70. Section 5.1 of the Mt. Prospect Zoning Ordinance." MR. ANDERSON: 4 bedroom? MAYOR TEICFIERT: That should be stricken. "And 4 bedroom units should be stricken, there aren't any. MR. ZIMMERMANN: So it is "and 3 bedroom units ". MR. LINK: What you are in essence saying is that the 3 bedrooms can be reduced and in the alternate one and 2 bedrooms increased in number. MR. ZIMMERMANN: Yes. On the next Page 4, in Paragraph 7, the word "future" is added in the first line before "amendments," so that it reads "that future amend- ments to the present building and zoning code in force as of this date, as well as relating to and regulating construction of this planned unit develop- ment shall not apply to the subject property without the consent of the owner and that in the event should stop orders have to be issued, such future amendments shall not be so interpreted that the subject property may not be constructed in general accordance with the plan; provided, however, that if there are changes of said laws and the same are less 71. restrictive in their application to other similarly situated property, the owner shall be entitled to the benefit of the change if it elects. On Page 5, the top paragraph, Paragraph 9, there is an addition after the fourth line. As it is presented to you it would have ended with a period after "hereof." That period should be made into a comma and the following words -- and there are many -- added: "Except for normal increases in such fees approved by the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mt. Prospect, which increases are caused by any increased costs of operating the Department of Building and Zoning." Period. MR. LINK: Are cause by an increase? MR. ZIMMERMANN: I'll read the sentence over. Beginning with Paragraph 9 the sentence now reads: "that the Village agrees not to charge the owner for building permits or other fees necessary for the construction of the planned unit development, or portion thereof, in an amount greater than those fees presently charged under existing ordinances on the date hereof, except for normal increases in such fees approved by the President 72. and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mt. Prospect, which increases are caused by any increased costs of operating the Department of Building and Zoning." The bottom of the page, Paragraph 12, there are two blanks. The first blank in line 3 is to be filled with "1.5 ", the second blank with tl 3 91 Page 6. We have already discussed this partially. There is one addition besides the change from $40,000. This is the top of the page, second line. That should be made $50,000. The addition of the word "Village" should come before "construction" toward the end of that line. Sc that the paragraph reads: "That in the return for the owners participating in the extent of 50 per cent or $50,000 (whichever is less) in the Village con- struction and installation of a water main to the subject planned unit development site, construction of which main shall begin immediately, the parties hereto further agree" -- that is a typo, there should be a separation between the words. Paragraph 14 at the bottom of the page, second line, the word the word "sanitary" should be 73. added before "sewer ". That paragraph would then read, and I can read the thing. It goes on to Page 7: "That the owner will install and the Village will receive the ownership of certain on -site and off -site sewer and water mains, together with the necessary easements for access thereto and maintenance thereof as required to serve the project, as set forth in Exhibit 5 on -site utility plan, and Exhibit 6, off -site utility plan attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof." Paragraph 15 on Page 7. The paragraph has an additional sentence at the end. And Howard, if I goof it up, because it has been changed about six times, let me know. It begins: "Within any given stage, the base of said roads, fire lanes, and parking access drives shall be installed with the equivalent of 6 inch compacted stone base before any combustible building materials are brought on the site." Another sentence: "The westerlymost and northerlymost roads shall be constructed in accordance with Village standards." 74. So now Paragraph 15 in its entirety reads: "That the owner will install and the Village will permit to be installed private roads per plan marked Exhibit 2 site plan, the same to be maintained by the owner or its successors in interest without expense to the Village. Within any given stage the base of said roads, fire lanes and park- ing access drives shall be installed with the equivalent of 6 inch compacted stone base before any combustible building materials are brought on site. The westerlymost and northerlymost roads shall be constructed in accordance with Village standards." h, Paragraph 16, -- we In the next p ara g ra P have touched upon this already -- there should be in the second line a period after "dwelling unit ". 1.65 in line one. And then the words, in line 2 "and 2.0 parking spaces for each townhouse" should be stricken. That paragraph reads: "That the owner will provide a minimum of 1.65 parking spaces for each apartment dwelling unit." The bottom of the page, an additional 75. sentence to Paragraph 17. And we are almost finished. "Said mounding shall in no way restrict fire access lanes and roads as required by the Fire Department of the Village of Mt. Prospect." That paragraph now reads: "That the owner may mound dirt and the Village will permit same along Euclid Lake Avenue, which shall not exceed 10 feet in height from exist- ing grade and shall not obstruct the view of traffic exiting to Euclid Lake Avenue, as shown on Exhibit 7 attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof. "Mounding within the development at other locations shall not be so restricted in height. Said mounding shall in no way restrict fire access lanes, as required by the Fire Department of the Village of Mt. Prospect." The next page, Page 8, in Paragraph 21, the end of the first line, all of the second line and the beginning of the third line should be stricken, so that the paragraph now reads: "That the owner shall have the right to install signs as per Exhibit 8 sign exhibit attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof." 76. And the last change, the second last change, Paragraph 22, third last line, the word "installa tion" should be stricken and the word "completion" substituted. So that the paragraph now reads: "The building permits shall be issued forthwith upon application and submission of plans drawn in accordance with the Municipal Code of Mt. Prospect, provided, however, that appropriate provisions as herein provided have been met to insure installation of public improvements, even though said public improvements may not exist at the time the application for permit is sought. Issuance of occupancy permits, however, shall await completion of public improvements in that stage in which the subject building is located or as the parties may agree." And finally at the end, under "LaSalle National Bank" the Trust number again, 36181, should be inserted in the blank. And, gentlemen, again I emphasize these changes es are changes that came about through dis- cussion with the other department heads and with Kenroy this afternoon, and they are not in any way 77. meant to indicate that we are forming policy or that we are invading the policy territory that is normally reserved to the Board of Trustees. MAYOR TEICHERT: Any questions from the Board members? Mr. Furst? MR. FURST: I still would like to have a clarification on the density. VOICE: We can't hear him. MR. FURST: On the density it came out that there is 19 acres in the actual parcel. Then you mentioned 6 additional acres, in calculating. MR. GOTTLIEB: Well, basically there is 38 acres in the total parcel, of which approximately 19 are proposed to be retained by us in fee ownership and 19 by the Park District. Of the Park District area one acre, the westernmost part, would be developed by us as a road which would be serviceable for any park activities that would go on, but which would be constructed and maintained and are primary and effectively only means of ingress and egress for normal purposes. And in addition to that there is an area of approximately 5 acres, the northerly 200 feet of the area proposed for the park, which would be 78. just adjoining the 19 we are retaining which is available for development by us for a retention lake not to exceed 3 acres, although the original proposal is now 1 -1/2 acres, but that could change. And in addition to the lake area there is a relocated stream area and an area of berming to provide the retention qualities for the lake. And that pretty well accommodates the whole 200 foot 5 acre strip. There are some other amenities that go in,bridges and the like, but basically what our suggestion was is that a retention of zoning be maintained for that one acre and 5 acre portion, along with the part we are re- taining, and we are asking you in your calculations and in your deliberations to allow the density which would be permitted in those areas in which we are making a substantial monetary investment and in certain cases the road, continuing to maintain it, and where, in the case of the lake area continuing to use it as an integral part of the development, to be included in the calculation for density purposes, so that we would, in fact, with that interpretation comply with the density in the community. 79. MR. FURST: The other question is one that came up before and I don't remember what was said about it. It had to do with Alton Road. As I recall there was some discussion about the amount of traffic that could possibly be generated on Alton Road, and it seems there was a suggestion at that time that that particular area be closed off from access from the property? MR. GOTTLIEB: At previous meetings I believe before the Board of Trustees and certainly before the Plan Commission people living along Alton Road mentioned that the condition of the road is not such that it can afford additional traffic. And we mentioned that with the agreement and concurrence of the Fire Department and the other building staff people here that we would agree that Alton Road would take on, as it relates to our development, the same guise as the extenstion of the River Trails Park District access drive, which would be for emergency vehicles only and what ever closure method would be reasonably suggested by the Village, so that Alton Road would not be an access point for normal traffic, but only available for fire fighting 80. purposes or other emergency vehicles, which would of course benefit the people on Alton road, if the vehicles are coming from the south, as well, but that it would not be used in any regard for traffic, with one possible exception, and that is if a school is con- structed just to the east of our property it was a requirement or let's say a request, which we agreed to, of the Park District that we provide access ,from Alton Road for the school buses, if that can be worked out mechanically, I suppose by giving the bus driver a key to whatever the lack is there, we ,certainly would agree to accommodate them. MAYOR TEICHERT: I appreciate you will have ques- tions back and forth. All right, the citizens now who want to be heard. Well, we will take you one at a time. You can either ask questions or speak in behalf of your- self or groups. But we would like everyone who speaks to do the courtesy of coming up, identifying themselves and then go to it. MR. VOLSTROM: My name is Donald Volstrom. I live at 1600 Ironwood Drive, Mt. Prospect. I come to you as a citizen of Mt. Prospect, as a member of the Northwest Community Council and 81. 4 as President of the River Trails Citizens' Association. Gentlemen: Yours is a serious respon- sibility, not only to the people of Mt. Prospect today, but of even greater importance to the next generation, to our children and to our grandchildren. We are going through tremendous changes. Systems and methods developed 10, 15 or 20 years ago are completely inadequate today. You know the serious flooding that occurred just recently in our area did millions of dollars of damage, because there was no place for that water to go but in basements, back yards, streets, and how about the multifamily development with the underground garage that was completely filled with water? Yet here we are, setting the stage for more damage, more flood- ing, more inconveniences for future generations. Just a couple of days ago in the Mt.- Prospect Herald -- I am sure all of you saw the article on the front page about the proposed moratorium on flood plain construction. I would like to read a couple of state- ments made in that article. The gentleman, Mr. Graham, was saying: 82. "Many of the damaged homes were built in a natural flood plain. Why? Too many local govern- ments were unwilling to use flood plains for recreational purposes but rather allow residential development. Recommendations from planners were irnored as municipal tax revenues were sought at the expense of confronting honestly the difficult issue of flood plain development." If any of you haven't seen this article I would be glad to leave it for you to look at. Gentlemen, your predecessors had our generation in mind when they provided for a beauti- ful park and the Mt. Prospect golf course, ideally situated for the convenience of the single - family community of Mt. Prospect. But what about us, your new addition on the east side? Are we across the track, so to speak? Are we the Johnny- come- latelies to assume the step- child status? Don't we deserve to keep our golf course? You are in the process of taking most of Old Orchard away from us. Rob Roy is all that is left. I beg you to protect it for the use of the next generation to enjoy as much as we are privileged to enjoy it now. 83. Other communities such as the Edgewater Golf Club area have been able to preserve their open air by gaining the support of the state and federal agencies. Where is the leadership to do the same for Mt. Prospect? (Applause) I assure you now you can count on our support in such a move, and you have seen how our people can support action. You know it would be very nice -- I want to make the statement that if the same engineers that worked on other Rob Roy developments are planning this area, I really don't have too much faith in their judgment when I looked at all the damage that was done in some of their other areas. It would be very nice if Mr. Gottlieb could include in his proposal a guarantee from our Heavenly Father to turn off the water, but he hasn't offered such a proposal yet. Therefore I have been commissioned by our group to present to you gentlemen that it was the unanimous opinion of those present that if Kenroy is allowed to proceed with this multi - family development we have been betrayed by the Village of Mt. Prospect. 84. We voted to increase our taxes to provide the funds for the Park District to buy this property to keep it open. We voted for annexation to Mt. Prospect because we expected the Village Board to maintain its opposition to this development. We base our objections upon the following: We object to any planned unit development in this area because it is not compatible with the surround- ing residential single - family concept. 2. The area is already a flood plain and multi- family construction will seriously increase the problem.3.Our schools are already overburdened and there is no provision for the many additional students generated by a development of this magni- tude. 4. Part of the Kenroy plan is to sell the front half of the area to the River Trails Park District, the purchase to be made with money provided from our bond issue. However, part of the land will be used by Kenroy for a retention basin and access roads. We object to the use of public property for the convenience and benefit of private development. (Applause) 85. We object to the tremendous additional load on traffic, water supply and sewer systems, all of which are already overloaded in our area. Thank you. (Applause) MR. HANSEN: My name is Warren Hansen, I live at 1407 Cedar Lane. I just have a couple questions to ask and some points to make out. This is called a lake. Actually it is a catchbasin. They have called it a pond, they have called it a lake. I think it really should be clarified, because a catchbasin, as such, I believe is a hole in the ground. It is not a lake until it floods. It might be kept at a very very low level, but the higher the level it is kept then the less job it does as a retention basin. I also heard Mr. Gottlieb make the comment -- everything, it seems to me, that he has expressed here that is very clear and aboveboard he brings out very clearly. Anything that is against him -- and I don't blame him, he is in business -- anything that is against him is always very quickly rushed over. One of the examples is this tot lots. They are not marked on here. How about marking them? Because we are paying for this park in the front 86. with these tot lots. I think it is going to end up being a parking lot, anyway. But I think first of all the Board must consider only those 19 acres that are actually being used by them. They cannot consider the acres in the front that are going to be condemned or be used by the Park Board for their usage on it. No matter how you look at it only 19 acres belong to them and the usage on it he calls 22 units per acre jumps up to 29 units per acre, and that is a lot of difference. (Applause) Now, the other point I want to bring out is we originally decided that we wanted to have our Park District here expand a little and we put a lot of money into a pool and everything. And all this talk about the usage of the road and everything, the expansion of the traffic, is real nice except it doesn't take into considera tion one big thing, and that is we already have a heavy heavy traffic of children going back and forth there to the park area, to be used during summer and winter, with the hockey rinks and everything there. And one of the heaviest times for that to be used, especially during the summer, at the time when the 87. parents are coming home, when the fathers come home from work, the kids are also coming home from the park, because they have to come home for dinner and everything. There is very heavy usage at the same time they want to increase our traffic on that road. We have to be forced now, the way I look at it after I get all through listening to this thing, another point that was passed over very quickly was the fact that they want to put a nice entranceway right at the beginning of this thing, with signs. So all I can picture in my mind is 19 acres paid for by us under a bond issue, with them in the background with their sign, their entranceway, our area actually being used, let's say 5 acres for the retention basin and the rest of the creek in there, and another 5 acres, roughly, or 3 -1/2 to 4 acres, being used for an access road. What we are actually paying for is about 10 acres or less of land that we can actually use. Now because of their increased area on it we probably are going to have the road expanded in size and maybe it is already called state. So the road has to be taken off the Rob Roy side, because there 88. are homes on the other side. Maybe the expansion goes on the Rob Roy side, but that still means in that area we have to move back tennis courts, or whatever we want to have has to be kept further away from the road, because of the additional ex- pansion and widening of the road there. So it takes back even less than 10 acres. So let's talk 8 acres, maybe, that we can use out of it, and the rest is nothing but a glorified front yard for these guys to have. (Applause) I want to make an issue of the water rate deal, Mr. Teichert, on your comment that if we don't allow the water to come out I think to me, as a personal individual, I couldn't care less. The water rates are basically still controlled. They can't raise their rates without us appealing, if we want to, as a group. We have been appealing here before you people before in cases. We appeal as a group and we stick together as a group very well. Nobody in this state can raise the water rates without it being brought up before the Commission and such. Just because they are adding their area of 544 units, whatever it is, 89. the water rates -- doesn't give Citizens Utility any better argument as to their control to raise their rates any higher, because you brought your water main in. I don't care about the water main. I would like to express my opinion on it that way. The other thing, I think besides expansion and the cost of the lights and everything that would have to be added there, I think also there is going to have to be consideration of a walkway, because we would have to take on as a Park Board, probably we would be forced to do it, a walkway to bring our kids over that road. It would be away too dangerous to bring the kids from the actual area where it is the heaviest residential area and take them into the area across the road, which is a 4 -lane highwaY now and you are talking about increasing it, making it five or six, because of turning lanes. I think that covers what I have got. (Applause) MRS. COLLINS: Jan Collins, 101 East Alder Lane. I know Mr. Link is familiar with this, he lives in the area. But are you aware, in talking about a traffic light, that there is a traffic light at Sycamore right now? Westgate is one block west 90. of that. There is also a traffic light at Wolf Road. So there would be a traffic light one block apart, three traffic lights. Why don't we put one on Hemlock right away? I mean this is silly, really. As far as changing the size of the units later do you realize what that could do to our school district? As it is right now, with the number of units he is proposing we can't afford it, our schools are completely overcrowded. I am here to tell you how strongly my neighbors and I object to this type of development, which Kenroy is proposing to build on the north 19 acres of Rob Roy driving range. Ours is a beautiful residential community and we object to a developer coming into our area and cramming a planned unit development down our throat. (Applause) We have seen these planned unit developments in certain sections of Mt. Prospect and Arlington Heights. The open space they promise is a laugh. j Much of that open space is crammed with hundreds of cars belonging to residents of the development. A planned unit development is not an asset to our section of Mt. Prospect, but an eyesore. 91. Granting annexation and approval for Kenroy's develop- ment on the driving range leaves the door open for more of the same on the whole Rob Roy golf course. Figuring just 2 -1/2 people per unit at the density Kenroy is proposing would put as many people on the golf course as one -third the current population of all of Mt. Prospect. At the same time there would be about 9,000 cars on the whole golf course. Don't stick your head in the sand. Be realistic. Granting Kenroy approval is giving carte blanche for the same type development in the whole 180 acres of the golf course too. Let there be no mistake. The residents of our area did not vote a three - quarter million dollar bond issue because we felt our Park District needed more land. We voted ourselves a tax increase to show you strongly we felt about keeping a develop- ment of this type out of our community. We voted for annexation to Mt. Prospect because we believed that as citizens we would be heard and a preference for our desires would be heard above a developer, who has nothing more at stake than a profit. 92. We have a stake in Mt. Prospect. Help us maintain it as a community which cares about its people. We are people who care about our community. (Applause) MR. BORDIS: My name is Cris Bordis. I live at 1602 Ironwood Drive. I have been in the field of water manage- ment, water resources and water pollution control for the past 25 years. Right now I am chief of water quality standards for the Federal Environ- mental Protection Agency. I would just like to add a few comments. 544 units, with an average of 4 people per unit, at approximately 150 gallons per day, we are talking about approximately 325,000 gallons per day of sewage added to an already surcharged sewer system. In addition we are talking about 325,000 gallons a day demand for water from a utility that is already inadequate. In spite of what Mr. Gottlieb has said, they plan to build on a flood plain. (Applause) Enlightened planning demands that flood plains should be used for recreation purposes only. 93. Building on flood plains has gone out with the past. I should add that with this development, if it should occur, at least 25 to 30 acres of effective drainage area would be eliminated. In its place would be compounded runoff from 25 or 30 acres of developed area. Growth is not the answer, gentlemen. Growth creates crowding, it creates loss of recreational area and it results in areas that are conducive to crime and problems associated with the central city. This is one of the reasons I moved out of the central city. Let's talk a little bit about the retention basin they talked about. Recreation. What about this recreation? I think it will be slightly filled most of the time, and if they are talking about primary contact recreation are they considering disinfecting this thing, because it is going to be filled at times, especially flood times, with runoff from this specific area. We don't want to aggravate a flood condition just to accommodate a development that will lead to unprecedented environmental conditions and social problems in an area already affected by flooding. 94. Lets talk a little bit about the diverted creek that they are talking about. If this wasn't a flood plain they certainly wouldn't be diverting the creek. (Applause) The aquatic life would be eliminated. I have seen this time and time again. The results are catastrophic with respect to the ecology. (Applause) MR. RAAB: My name is Don Raab. I live at 904 Westgate. I would like to deal a little bit with the proposed mix of apartments. As suggested by Mr. Gottlieb there would be 54 2- bedrooms, plus den units; and 164 3- bedroom units. The way I see it that would be 218 3- bedroom units. If you would divide 544 into 218, that is roughly 40 per cent of the proposed units are going to be 3- bedroom units. Let's figure each of these bedrooms, not master bedrooms, is going to be inhabited by one child. That means there are 436 children that are going to be living in this development. This neglects the fact that there could be children living in the one bedroom units. Let's assume we are going to have 436 children in our school district. That would mean the pre - school 95. children are living in the 2-bedroom units. Let's assume what Mr. Gottlieb would be getting. Mr. Gottlieb is getting Mt. Prospect t fire, water and police protection. Mr. Gottlieb is getting a school in the immediate proximity to his development paid for by us, which will be inhabited largely by children living in his development. Mr. Gottlieb is getting a park right in the front of his development, of which he is retaining 6 acres. We are paying $680,000 for these 19 acres. If you take the 6 acres that Mr. Gottlieb retains control of out of this, Mr. Gottlieb is getting $226,000 from our Park District for free. (Applause) If you divide the remaining 13 acres which we will be allowed by Mr. Gottlieb's consent to use as a park, that means we are paying $52,000 an acre for that land. I thank you. (Applause) MR. GIBBONS: Gentlemen, I am Ashby Gibbons. I live at 1615 Dogwood Lane in Mt. Prospect. I got up out of a sick bed; I got the flu. I wrote a letter to my friend here for 96. him to read in case I didn't make it quite frankly my adrenlin got to flowing, so here I am. I hope this rain will quit in time for me to leave. I have to change this a little bit but I said that if it wasn't for the flu I would be here to speak in opposition to the planned development by Kenroy on the Rob Roy property. I oppose construction of multifamily dwellings in this area of Mt. Prospect. Such construction would change the characteristics of the neighborhood which led me to choose it as a place to live, to raise a family and to make the largest financial commitment of my life. Now, it has been said that Kenroy can build something worse than this in the County. I hope that is not true, but if in your honest opinion that is true and it is in the best interests of us who are citizens of this Village to go ahead and annex and approve his scheme here (applause) -- I use that word advisedly. -- then I'll be disappointed but I will hope that you will do that very honestly, if you do do it. I hope you don't. I hope you don't feel that you have to. However, there are several positions which I think 97. the Board must take if it is to represent the interests of the people of the area. At this point I would like to ask a question about this mix, if I may. I understood that he could change his mix. He supposedly can reduce the number of 3- bedrooms by increasing the number of others. I assume by that that he cannot increase the number of 3- bedrooms. Is that cor- rect? MAYOR "TEICHERT: Correct. MR. GIBBONS: Is there any limitation in there that would keep him from increasing the number of 2- bedrooms at the expense of one- bedroom? MAYOR TEICHERT: No, not that I am aware of. MR. GIBBONS: I think that should be taken care of, because there again he is increasing density within the already overflowing density, and I think that very definitely should be stated, that he cannot increase the number of 2- bedrooms nor the number of 3- bedrooms, unless, of course, he changes 3- bedrooms into 2 and therefore increases the number of 2- bedrooms. But among the things that you must do, my opinion is you must determine the density of the 98. development on the area of land upon which this development will be built. Kenroy has made an agreement to sell about half of the land to the Park District, and the land may be Kenroy's now but it will not be. He will not build on it. To allow Kenroy to include this land in determining density is fraudulent. (Applause) And before you lawyers jump on me, I am using that word in principle, fraudulent in principle. MR. GOTTLIEB: Is that "1 -e" or "a -1 "? MR. GIBBONS: Probably both. I would ask you, will future builders adjacent to parks be allowed to include the park acreage in determining their density? VOICE: No, siree. MR. GIBBONS: I fail to see the difference. The second thing I think you must do is that the part of the land which the Park District is purchasing, and all of it, must be annexed with a single- family residential zoning. And I mean all of it. The future development of the golf course will face us one of these days soon, and the least the Board can do is set a precedent along Euclid 99. Avenue. I don't see how Kenroy can object to this. I think the Board should be reminded that the citizens of this area of Mt. Prospect were so anxious to preserve open land and to keep the population density down that they voted to tax them- e selves to purchase the front half of this property, and we did. It is costing us money. We citizens, through our Park District, will own this land. Zone it and count it for our benefit. (Applause) And not for the benefit of the lame duck owner. I would remind you that the citizens of this area recently voted to annex to Mt. Prospect. One of the principal reasons was that the Village would protect our interests. I personally worked for annexation, in the belief that as voters we would have more influence on Village decisions than we had as neighbors. When we were yet neighbors the Board denied a similar request from Kenroy. Wil the Board do less for us now that we are citizens and voters? (Applause) MAYOR TEICHERT: Are there any other citizens who want to be heard? MR. HEIDEMAN: I am Raymond Heideman. I live 100. at 1106 Barbary Lane, Mt. Prospect. I expected the Superintendent of our local school to get up first. That is why I was a little slow. Now, there are a number of things here to be considered and we have spent quite a bit of time already on them. There are a number of things we won't cover, people just won't have the time. Having lived in this area for ten years, I know some of the past negotiations with the Board and attended several of the meetings that you men had. You also had your Plan Commission. You went over a number of things and I hope you will bear these past things in mind when you make your consideration. I don't see how you can even consider annexing this piece of property to Mt. Prospect. I don't see what value it has to Mt. Prospect. I can only see problems in its annexation and cost to the Village itself. You will not bear the cost, of course, to our School District, to the Sanitary District or to divisions of highways. These will go on our tax bills, and the use of our area, which includes the Forest Preserves and ; other things that we all take so much for granted. And speaking of flooding, we had a heavy 101. rain within a week or so. At that time I would say there was over 100 acres in this general area that was under water to a depth of 3 to 6 inches. Now, the forming of a retention basin of 1 -1/2 or 3 acres to a depth of 4 -1/2 feet certainly isn't going to take care of the flooding. The water was over Euclid and Wolf Roads. The road was closed for a couple of days. I don't see that their provision for the draining of the water from the roofs is going to be taken care of. That may be taken care of by this basin but if it is 4 -1/2 feet, or maintained at that level ordinarily, how deep is it going to be when we have the flood waters? If this is a recreation place the children are going to be there and it presents a problem of drowning. The amount of water isn't going to be affected on the other lands. This would just take care of the property in this particular development. Now, the property itself. I recall that Kenroy paid something like $400,000 for it originally, and our purchasing of the 19 acres is going to amount to something like $750,000, if I am right. So he has got free land to build on at the present time, 102. and he is asking us to underwrite his further development of the property. As a home owner I am restricted to resi- dential development of my property, but I should give him a special case in order that he might put 23 units per acre on his, making his land more valuable. (Applause) Would the Village of Mt. Prospect say to all of us home owners that we could have that same type of development on our property, should we care to tear down our houses? Could we put 23 units on it? Maybe we could do this and make money on it ourselves. As to the amount of water that Citizens Utilities has available for the Kenroy project, I don't believe there is any. I believe that Kenroy went to the County and this was one of their stumbling blocks, they didn't have water. Now, Mt.- Prospect can give them water, but while we are paying $1.15 per thousand gallons for our water from Citizens Utility, if you continue with the rate you charge Mt. Prospect residents you would be giving them water for 50 cents a thousand. So, in other words, the Village of 103. Mt. Prospect would be subsidizing the Kenroy project for water, and as a taxpayer of Mt. Prospect I really don't see this. (Applause) When we talk of traffic, he talks about 300 cars now. In former discussions they talked about the average person who lived in an apartment going in and out of his house once a day. Well, people in my community sure go out of the house a lot oftener. The stores aren't in walking distance; the schools aren't in walking distance. I don't know ' how many times cars go out of my driveway but I'll say it is quite a few, and I imagine that the people ' that live in these apartments would have to go in and out quite a few times too. 540 some apartments and a provision for 800 cars. Ididn't get the size of those cars, maybe they are little Volkswagens or something. I don't know how much space they are providing for cars and I don't know whether they are providing storage space in these buildings for all the other things. You know, a lot of my neighbors have garages but they never get their car in, because there are bicycles and there is other equipment 104. there. This is what happens when the cars get out on the roads. And those roads, what about them? They talked about the main road being up to Mt. Prospect's standards, but what about the other roads and what about sidewalks? I didn't hear a thing about fire plugs. Are they going to supply the water for the fire engines from the lake? It just comes to my mind that a 12 inch line to the property is enough water for them, for drink- ing and so forth, and I hope you have enough pressure to get up to the fourth floor. Otherwise you are going to have some complaining citizens, should you ever go as far as all this. But if they reduce that line as it comes to their property to an 8 inch line or something, then you have got another problem. So all in all I consider all of these things to be big problems in annexation and I can't see why you consider it. I hope that you will turn it down. (Applause) MAYOR;TEICHERT: Yes, sir? MR. NORTON: My name is Tom Norton. I repre- sent District 26, Superintendent of Schools. I 105. really am here tonight in behalf of Lloyd DeMill, our President of the Board. He got hung up in Alabama, like some of you other gentlemen who are having transportation problems. He gave me a call late this evening and asked if I could attend in his behalf. We have two basic considerations that we are dealing with -- three, I should say, -- I would add one more tonight. After listening to the presentation I too am concerned, as Mr. Hansen was, with the 54 units that possibly have the den, with the densith factor here, because of the 2 or the 3- bedroom apartments, which would affect us at the school level. We do have an overcrowded situation at the two schools that would be affected, most likely. Our present site that we own near this property would not be large, so we are not talking about relieving our problems with that site in its present size. It is approximately 3.8 acres and it would be difficult for us to build a large enough school with the proper appropriate size plant and access to it and all, to accommodate the future growth that might take place, as we look at the 106. density factor that has been discussed here this evening. I should add that the other concern that we basically have is on our present budgeting we are running in a deficit of something like $400,000, or over 50 per cent of our tax anticipation warrants. Our building fund is in dire need. So it is this fund that would be most seriously affected. It is this fund we would be going to the taxpayers on almost immediately, within a short time, asking for help, if not even this next levy, asking for some kind of support and increased taxation. So we do have a difficulty here that we as a green and new Board have not had the time to go into depth on the plan or the site. We do not know exactly what it would do to our site with the water development or the water plan or anhthing. We are not engineers in that light, cannot answer those questions, cannot even direct ourselves intelligently to them. But we do have some pretty strong feelings about where we are going with our building programs, as such, the crowded conditions we already have, how would we get the money to build the school. 107. Obviously I am sure the Board is aware that we are working for a State supported school to take the place of Maryville students. But if they remove this site or use this site for that school, we then cause ourselves another problem: Where do we shift the children from this particular unit? Or can they attend that school in conjunction with the Maryville students? So we definitely have a problem here with our building fund and with the building situation. We have a problem with the size of the particular area. And I think we would like to direct your thoughts to that, if we might. I would be most concerned, though, about the number of apartments and the control that you might exercise over the 3- bedroom or the 2- bedroom plus the den. And I would ask that you might consider air request to certainly, if you are to go ahead with this kind of an annexation and a plan for that site that you definitely take into consideration limita- tion of that number. I think it does increase beyond the 30 per cent level that has been your past practice. I think this is of great concern to us as a School Board. 108. MAYOR TEICHERT: Yes, Ma'am? MRS. STAMBRIDGE: My name is Mary Stambridge, 600 Greenwood, a resident. I am not a newly annexed resident. I would like the Mayor and Trustees to take a long hard look at the motivation, if they favor such a plan as Kenroy proposes. I, for one, would like to know what would motivate the Board to feel that this of any other such multifamily development is desirable or beneficial to the Village of Mt.- Prospect. Is it in the name of progress? How is this progress when we tear out the earth and replace it with concrete. Ecologists have warned us that we are destroying ourselves with this type of progress. What progress is there by creating more air and environmental pollution, or are we obliged to accommodate the growing population, the population that is no longer growing at the anticipated rate of only a few years ago. Sure, people need a place to live, but I can look across my street and show you the many vacant apartments that are avilable, and they are available with all the benefits of this area. 109. If these apartments were full and had waiting lists I could understand the possible need. What is a legitimate progress? I can only see progress for the Kenroy organization and the owner of the golf course. Maybe the motivation is entirely in the Kenroy organization. But they took a chance when they purchased this land without the proper zoning. There is no guarantee on this type of speculation, any more than there is any guarantee in the stock market. In fairness, the owner is entitled to only the same type development that surrounds him. How many times has this Board denied rezoning on similar grounds? I have heard the Board turn down similar requests that would be inconsequential, next to this proposal. In fairness the owner is only entitled to the same type development that surrounds him, and that is single- family homes. Anad what about the rest of us home owners? Are we not entitled to the same type of fairness too? We invested our money long before Kenroy came along. I wish you would consider it. 110. Is the motivation control of the area? This is one thing that I have heard suggested. We may control the 19 acres that Kenroy proposes to build on, but by doing that don't we lose control of the 180 acres that are left in the golf course? Once Mt. Prospect approves this project and allows this type of density, which I believe is something like 28 point something per acre, if you consider 19 acres and 544 units. Once Mt. Prospect approves this densith how can they legally object to similar and more dense units from being built, if Kenroy or any other builder decides to buy and build on the golf course? Your arguments would be taken away from you, just as we have seen our Park Board feel they no longer have a legitimate objection. Now you have control over this area, the property is contiguous to Mt. Prospect. Legally you can object to it because it is within your 1 -1/2 mile border. But allow this to go through and you lose control over the rest of the 180 acres of the golf course. (Applause) Perhaps we are to believe it is inevitable and better this than something else. What kind of 111. defeatism is this? Death is the only thing that is inevitable. And how many of us are going to go out and lay ourselves down on the railroad track and wait for the next railroad train, because it is inevitable? We are defeated before we start if we take a fatalistic view of this type of construction. Maybe the motivation for the Village Board is additional revenue. We are besieged with statistics that multifamily units produce more income than ex- pense. Yet I have seen my Village taxes suddenly double and continue to rise. How can we pass it, when Mt. Prospect has many more multiple units than it did a few years ago? Statistics can be misleading btit our tax bill is a reality. I question the validity of any such statistics. My tax bill is a reality, and I learn from that that about 7 per cent of my taxes go to the Village of Mt. Prospect, about 70 per cent of that tax bill goes to the schools. I would rather pay a few more dollars to the Village and avoid the high -rises than hundreds to my school district and to the high school district. If additional revenue, and multiple family 112. units produce such revenue, is the motivation then why has the Mt. Prospect Village Board avoided the no man's land that exists between Wheeling Road and Randhurst, which is surrounded on three sides by Mt. Prospect? This area is unincorporated. They are building on every square inch, multifamily units exist in here, and if indeed multifamily units produce revenue this would be ideal for the Village of Mt. Prospect to annex. (Applause) Or if indeed you do want more revenue, then I would like to make another suggestion to this Board. I would suggest they investigate fully and take action on the underassessment of Randhurst, which affects both the Village Board and our local school districts. The residents whom this Board represents oppose this project for a number of valid reasons. So strong is our opposition that we voted a three- quarter million dollar bond referendum tra avoid this construction. And you know, gentlemen, it is very dif- ficult these days to pass that type of referendum. We taxed ourselves to stop construction. Yet here 113. it is again, with Mt. Prospect ready to supply water to the new development but not to us unless we will accept this type of development. (Applause) And there we are left, subject to innumera- ble water supply failures and at times questionable water purity. But the bait is dangled in front of us: accept this development and there are your water mains. (Applause) With Mt. Prospect ready to provide fire protection, when we have watched the Fire Department at the scene of a fire struggle for 10 minutes with a frozen hydrant that has never been flushed in years by Citizens Utility. That fire hydrant, gentlemen, is in my parkway. Is Mt. Prospect ready to provide police protection and yet unable to see to it that such simple things as painting a left turn on the lane at Kensington and Rand so it is visible or enforc- ing the ordinance that says you must turn left right here, or to check for speeders that rush down a residential street, or to help us in reducing the speed limit on the thoroughfares of Euclid, Wolf and Foundry that go by our schools? It would be far better for the Board to 114. see what they can do to improve the conditions that exist in the Village limits. If some areas are not under your jurisdiction, then to prod those agencies who do have control into more positive action. I suggest to you that you consider your motivations carefully. If you still feel that this is a desirable addition, then I respectfully request that each and every one of you who votes Yes on this proposal explain to us his reasons for doing so, so that we may understand clearly. (Applause) VOICE: May I ask one question? Two years ago when this first came up it was brought up that the McDonalds, original owners of the land, I believe it was, had reached a 16 year agreement with the County that that land could not be used for anything else other than a driving range. As a result that meant they had to be annexed by Mt. Prospect. Whatever happened to that? MAYOR TEICHERT: I really can't say I understand what you are saying. VOICE: Do they still have to be annexed in order to build there? MAYOR TEICHERT: You may have to go to a lawyer 115. to find the answer. VOICE: They are right here. MAYOR TEICHERT: What lawyers are you talking about? VOICE: There are lawyers here. MAYOR TEICHERT: Let me explain. The zoning that shows in the County is commercial. Now, I heard assertions that that commercial is invalid but until it is invalidated by a court it is commercial. VOICE: Mr. Gottlieb can answer. MAYOR TEICHERT: Well, all right, he can answer. You asked a question. I am a lawyer. I am telling you it is zoned commercial. VOICE: I am asking you if the Board is following through? MAYOR TEICHERT: You are misunderstanding. We don't pursue and go out in the County and try and ascertain what people have had or haven't had. It shows on the County books as commercial. That is the zoning the County shows. Now, if the County won't issue permits, that is their business, but it shows on the books as commercial. Now, the ramifica tions -- well, Mr. Gottlieb was asked. Let him speak first. MR. GOTTLIEB; There was declarin a court order entered g that covenant invalid and they appeal by the people that it a was no I am not was brought against. a lawyer and I don't know who t was specifically brought e case peo 1 ouht against, I presum P e of the community the y or the Count But in any event y or the Village. the covenant was declared ' by a Circuit C invalid ourt jud I believe it is a two years ago now, and there bout re was no appeal taken from that decision. VOICE: I would be interested that thing came up. in finding out how MAYOR TEICHERT; We are not a side going to get off on issue. VOICE: It isn't a side issue. MAYOR TEICHERT: Well, sir a lawyer and , if Y want to hire determine the statu of Count that is your business. Y property, we look in As far as we are concerne the books and d See how it is zoned. In any event, no matter how it is zoned is invalid or whether it is not the question in front Board. of this The ancillary issues that are brought up 1 117. pertaining to that type of thing are best answered by yourself by hiring a lawyer, if it is of interest, but it is not pertinent to the issue the Board has to decide here. Yes, sir? MR. PARLIER: My name is George Parlier, I live at 1614 Dogwood Lane, the immediate next area. It is a pleasure to be here. Let me say that first. I have a couple of questions, though. What assurances do we have that this will truly become condominium that is owned by the dwellers of the building? Could it be changed to rental units? MAYOR TEICHERT: If you want to know the legal point of view from the Village, it could be either one. It's not consequential to the plan. If you want to know from the developer -- well, we can't avoid, for example -- I think the people ought to stop and realize if you want to rent your house, sir, we can't stop you from renting it. Everyone has that ability to rent the property they own or to sell it. This is an inherent and inalienable right of all citizens. 118. MR. PARLIER: When we were brought into Mt.- Prospect about a year ago I was among many who worked it. One of the things that was done was a study was made, I believe by Mr. Zimmermann. I guess on the bottom line we had to show it was a benefit to the people of Mt. Prospect that we would come in. I believe that would be the case. I am wondering why an investigation of this type was not done on the proposal here. What benefit is it to Mt. Prospect? MAYOR TEICHERT: It was done, sir. In 1970 there were such studies made and they were presented at that time. They are still available. MR. PARLIER: That there is a benefit to having this? MAYOR TEICHERT: That is a vague statement, benefit. Economic benefit, certainly. Emotional benefit? Well, that depends on who is standing where, looking at what, I guess. MR. PARLIER: O.K. That's all I had, the rest were covered. Thank you. MAYOR TEICHERT: Are there any other citizens that would like to speak? 119. MRS. STARKY: I am Judy Starky. I live at 718 Eastman Drive, Mt. Prospect. We have been residents of the Village since November, 1963. Incidentally, we are members of the Mt. Prospect Park District, not River Trails. And that is one of my hangups, is the traffic that we have in our area of Mt. Prospect. We are effectively cut off from Mt. Prospect Park District because of the traffic on Rand Road. It has gotten so the children -- I would never let them walk across it, and I am afraid to turn left to go out into Rand Road to come into Mt. Prospect, to bring them down here. So they go to River Trails as far as school and park district too. But when you think about the traffic patterns that are going to be affected by this development, we may be also cut off on Foundry Road by it. And also the traffic is increased in front of our schools, because people are going to be coming out at Westgate. Some will be going east and coming down Wolf Road and increasing the traffic in front of River Trails Junior High. Some will be going west and coming down 83. Many will come straight across and come 120. down on Westgate and make that a through street, in the same way that it happened on Wilshire in our subdivision. This is going to also increase the traffic on Foundry Road and going to increase the traffic that is already terrible on Wilshire into our subdivision. It is really dangerous for the kids to go out. I send them on their bikes up to the River Trails school and I am scared every time they go. It is the same when they go to visit their friends. And I am getting a little bit scared to drive too. I think you should take a hard look at the increase in traffic, because the way I figure it may be a thousand cars a day coming out of that subdivision into our subdivision, before it can go somewhere else. Thank you very much. (Applause) MAYOR TEICHERT: Are there any other citizens that would like to be heard? (No response) All right. Then I will go back to the Board members and ask if they would like to comment in any particular order. I think it would be appropriate, let me comment to the audience. 121. Very close questions, regardless of how you may feel about the things individually, I would like to say that I have extreme admiration for this Board, in fact every Board I have sat with. They are hard workers. To my knowledge there has been no dis- cussion by Board members of this complex or in fact any complexes or any petitions brought in except in their regular course of committee meetings and other meetings they may have with the administration. And from the comments made, - in fact coming out of the Judiciary Committee, as I noted the Judiciary Committee report, at which I wasn't in attendance, - it came out 1, 1 and 1. One aye, one nay and one pass. I don't expect you could get people divided any more evenly than that. I understand there were other Trustees in attendance, and while they didn't commit themselves to any recommendation, they were about split the same way, so that it came out 2, 2 and 2. I think the comments are all important. I do want to indicate to the people, though, that the Board, regardless of what they may probe them for, and they will all speak, I am sure, none of them 122. make large amounts of money. There are no moneys passing, if anyone learns of it -- I think we enjoy the reputation in Mt.- Prospect of being one of the cleanest communities in the area. And I am talking that way all the way down to the level of tickets in the Police Depart- ment all the way up to liquor licenses. I would hope all the people would keep in mind that regardless of how everything goes that whatever we vote on, there is nothing that is 1 unanimous in the Village. We always, regardless of what we vote for we think -- for example, we gave a reduction to the senior citizens, which the Board was unanimous on. They thought reducing the vehicle tax for senior citizens from ten to $5.00 was a good move. We not only got people who paid their license fee under protest as being discriminatory, we got phone calls, or I know I did, of people who objected to such an outrageous thing as singling out the elderly people for anything. I am trying to lead you to no matter what we ever do we always get phone calls damning us for what we did, whichever way we vote. 123. So with that in mind I would like to ask the Board members to speak, if they would like to speak on motivations or if they know what they are going to do, fine, but I would like to go right around the ring, if I could. Bud? MR. RICHARDSON: I came to this meeting tonight with an open mind. I had given some indication of a favorable vote at the Judiciary meeting. With all the expression from the citizenry here tonight I think in good conscience I would have to vote No on the annexation. (Applause) MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Ahern? MR. AHERN: I am glad you are doing it this way, Mr. Mayor. Hopefully you will reserve your remarks to the end, because I would like to state how I intend to vote before being persuaded, perhaps, to the other point of view, you have always been so persuasive. You are certainly the most articulate member of the Board and I think you deserve a big finish. MAYOR TEICHERT: Thank you, Daniel. MR. AHERN: I would like, if I could, initially to address my remarks to a comment by Mary 124. Stambridge. Mary stated she would like to hear from those the reasons why, if they vote Yes. I would like to tell you if I was to vote Yes, one of the considerations -- and this, perhaps, has nothing to do with zoning but it does have something to do with human nature, which I have learned a great deal about in the last three years. I won't mention anybody's names. Most of you have been exemplary in your conduct, most of you have, I suppose, but others, if you have spoken that I saw two years ago and haven't seen since, are downright overbearing. So I won't mention your names. For example, one remark was made, and you have to consider that those who sit on this Board are humans, just like yourselves. If I was swayed by who had the most tact in this case Roy Gottlieb would get i t handsdown. Of course that is a consideration for people that are human, but I hope I won't be affected and others won't be affected by who put on the best demeanor and the most courtesy. It should really be based on the facts. 125. One remark, for example, was made by some- one that if the Board voted Yes they would be betraying the citizens of Mt. Prospect. That isn't necessarily so. To say that is not looking at the facts, it is based on the person's own emotions. One gentleman said that all he would have for the willingness to have his taxes increased to buy this 19 acres as a park, which would end up mathematically as 8 acres, would be to divide the project a great big front yard for a great deal of money. I would simply say to him if that is the case don't buy it, it is too high. The lady in the pink dress, Jan, -- I didn't get your last name but I have heard it so often with regard to the school districts -- I live in the same School District 26, and I would suggest at least that I have seven children, and there is no way in which my real estate taxes if my seven children end up going to School District 26. Or if you have four children or three children. Frankly in a single - family residence there is just no way that I feel those taxes are going to pay what it costs to educate those children. 126. I think that Mary Stambridge and one or two other people alluded to the bases on which I vote here. I think if it was just a matter of this being the last piece of acreage in the area I would be persuaded that Gottlieb has put on a good case. I think probably on that basis it would be a good development for the people of Mt. Prospect, However, I am mindful of the fact and remarks have been made and was before this hearing that we do have that large golf course immediately to the west of this. I really feel it is the duty of the Board members to consider not only what is immediately before the Board but what the effect would be on the piece before the Board but what effect would that have on the acreage that remains as far as the golf course. And as far as I am concerned it may well be that if the owner of the whole golf course, McDonalds, together with Kenroy or Roy Gottlieb, had come in and asked to have the whole area annexed on the basis of a planned unit development for the entire area, it may well be it would be 127. developed in accordance with the wishes of the people of Mt. Prospect, the Board of Mt. Prospect and McDonald and Gottlieb. In fact, I recall that some two years ago or so it was suggested by Roy Gottlieb to McDonald that that be done, but for certain reasons it hasn't been done, that type of annexation proposal. I agree if we rezone this on the basis as proposed that any voice we would have in the mat- ter, in terms of determining what the golf course will develop as, for all practical purposes we will leave that entirely up to the owner of the golf course, and I think we would be putting aside what our obligation and our duty is as a Board member, even though we might feel the project, in and of itself, on an eyesight basis, might be good for Mt. Prospect, I think we would be giving up a voice we should have in what happens to the other portion of the golf course. So I will vote No, on that basis. (Applause) MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Link? MR. LINK: Mr. President, since there is a problem or a question on which I would like to 128. address the public, as far as a potential conflict of interest on myself in this matter, I would like to request your permission to make my comments after you have had the other members polled, if I could. MAYOR TEICHERT: All right. Mr. Scholten? MR. SCHOLTEN: Although I am not opposed to the concept of the development, the concept itself, I am opposed to the density problem, the 19 acres or 28.6, as opposed to 23 under R -4. And it is for this reason: I can't bring myself in clear conscience to vote for it. I would like to see the water main at that location. I feel it would benefit a lot of citizens. It gives them an opportunity to tie into water when they do not have water in that area, because there have been times when the citizens in that area have been dry and we had water. But I don't feel this outweighs the density problem. With Rob Roy golf course sitting next to it we would be setting a precedent on the 28 acres. It would be awfully hard for us at a later date to make a lower density. So my vote would be No. (Applause) 129. MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Furst? MR. FURST: I think that I have been on this Board for 2 -1/2 years, and as you probably know, or don't know, we all head up committees at sometime or other. When I brought this out in the committee I felt this was a commendible project and this was the one Yes vote that it got in committee. That is some time ago. We have had three No votes so far. Since that time three questions have come to mind. I spent considerable time on the property, whether you people know it or not, because I am particularly mindful of the flooding conditions that could possibly exist, having gone through the '67 flood, seeing what that can do, knowing what is happening in some other areas of the Village and seeing what that has done, I am particularly con- cerned with this. I don't know as the flooding in that area has -een satisfactorily taken care of. I have some problem with the density. Maybe it is from a purely esthetic viewpoint in crowding some 9 buildings with 130. 544 units on supposedly 19 acres of property. But I think the thing that influenced my thinking in the last two or three weeks the greatest was not this particular site. I don't think that this site in itself would be detrimental to you people. I don't think it would be detrimental to the Village. I think it could be an asset. But I think there is more to consider than just that 19 acre site. We have the rest of the Rob Roy golf course. I don't know how it is going to go. It has zoning in the County now. Whoever is the owner -- I believe it is Mr. McDonald -- could construct a very hideous looking commercial area there that might be com- pletely contrary to what you want. But I think that any influence that we as a Board, as a Village, would have in influencing that zoning would be detrimental to Mt. Prospect. In 3 -1/2 years I don't think, George, I have ever changed my vote, but this is one time I am going to, and I vote No. MAYOR TEICHERT: Mr. Anderson? MR. ANDERSON: That makes mine pretty easy. 131. Going back to my earlier comments, many of them were on the nuts and bolts of the development, on which I felt there was some lack of planning from the long range standpoint. Also, as Trustee Ahern has indicated, a questionable area lies to the west. What will happen there? This is a precedent that will have an effect 1 on that, no question. No question, there is excessive density within the area, more than should be permitted. I am concerned with the traffic projection control. What is to be done? If there is no ordinance how can it be properly designed? Those are details I am concerned with, my- self personally. I feel that this project as it stands right now would not be of any benefit to the community from the standpoint of dollars returned to the Village, because it would be a tremendous outlay, considering the expense of water. It would be many years before this can be recovered. In fact, I don't think it will ever be recovered. I quite honestly feel, as I indicated earlier, I can't in any way support this project. (Applause) 132. MR. LINK: Mr. President, for the edification of the people here who may not know it, there was a prior petition for rezoning which involved this particular property. I at that time did serve as counsel for the residents in the area in opposing that particular rezoning. I represented many of the people that are sitting here tonight. Inasmuch as I did represent those people, I feel that for me to cast a vote either for or against, having served in that prior capacity, would very likely taint the vote of this Board. There is another thing which I want to dis- cuss publicly and that is the role and function of the Park District with regard to the negotiations with Kenroy, Incorporated. I have been and still am President of the River Trails Park District, and in conducting the negotiations with Kenroy, as was indicated before from the Judiciary President, the Park District did not intend to serve in any way as a Zoning Board. Its primary purpose was to carry out the mandate of its residents, which mandate was to acquire the 19 plus acres on the golf driving range. 133. While it did file an eminent domain proceed- ing it continued good faith negotiations with Kenroy, in the hopes of possibly arriving at an acceptable settlement of a court. As an additional and as a necessary test the Park District had to concern itself with the possible effects on its recreational facilities, should the back 20 acres eventually be developed, whether that development would be in the Village or in the County. At the outset, and with all due respect to Kenroy and Mr. Gottlieb personally, they took a very stern position with regard to our concern as to providing recreational facilities on their property, at their expense. After many negotiation sessions they finally did agree to provide their own swimming pool facili- ties, the tennis courts and the tot lots, the major facilities installed by the Park District would not be burdened by this development. It must be clearly understood that the price that was negotiated by the Park District was not in any way made contingent upon the tranting of this rezoning. The rezoning in our mind stands 134. or falls on its own feet. As I indicated before, since I am still the President of that Park Board and that I did particpate in every negotiation involving the acquisition of the 19 acre site, I cannot vote either for or against the annexation and the re- quest for rezoning. I believe that I am required, as far as my vote is concerned, to cast it as a pass. I would like, however, not to rest on that technicality with respect to expressing my own personal view with regard to this particular planned unit development. I guess because of my legal training I view the plan as submitted as counting the entire tract in order to compute density. This to me is incorrect because it does not legally square with the PUD ordinance concerning continuity of ownership. Further, the front portion is the subject of an official condemnation proceeding and I do not believe that we, as a Board, can ignore that fact. Recognizing those facts, as I view them the petitioner is asking here for something that 135. would not comply with our planned unit development ordinance. Until the PUD ordinance is amended I personally will not vote in favor of any plan which exceeds what is permitted under our PUD ordinance. I believe also, as Mr. Ahern has addressed himself to, and some of the other Board members, that we cannot look at this project as in a vacuum. While I do not profess to have the right to decide in advance or without a hearing as to what develop- ment, if any, should go on the Rob Roy golf course, the approval of this rezoning fairly well predicts for me what this Board would be faced with in the not to distant future as far as potential develop- ment and density that would be involved in that rezoning request. For those two basic reasons if I had the right to vote I would vote against the plan as presented. (Applause) MAYOR TEICHERT: Well, it isn't even necessary for me to vote but I will make some comments. At least it ought to be clear to everyone that every Trustee makes up his own determination, speaks his own mind, votes his own conscience. 136. There was a question before asked about motivations. I'll tell you the motivations. The members sitting on the Board always have to remember we represent 47,000 people, not 200 people that happen to be in front of us on a special assess- ment or rezoning, the group that is most vocal. Had we listened to the majority of the people it would never have been annexed. They knew very well the annexation would cost them money. The Board will later tonight be consider- ing a tax levy. That tax levy could stay the same, but if the estimates come out differently in the Committee we will have a tax levy increase. But that will only take care of the percentage increase of the budget to handle the increase in garbage and an increase in pension funds, does not cover an in- crease in services. The Board may be pressed because of your annexation to consider a utility tax to increase revenues. I think it is easy for people who move into an area, and we have mounted maps around the hall that were made for the benefit of your annexa- tion, to show in fact this community grew by annexing single - family residences, each one at a loss. 137. And there is no doubt there is an election coming up in the spring and people will run and there will be opposition running on the very things I am talking about, that your annexation cost this Village money, and they will urge all the people in town to vote against anyone that had a part in that annex- ,, ation. Now, when we consider your group in the annexation, we said there were more things than economics involved in your annexation, that there is more in a community than dollars involved in an annexation. If it were not so this entire community would look like Rosemont. I have said it before and I'll say it again: a community with very few residences but loaded with industrial and commercial, that is a good tax base. You can get those kind of communities, but that isn't our kind of community. The advantages of bringing your area in certainly were not economic. Those members that voted for that will have to answer for that to the rest of the popula- tion, during the campaign period they will have to answer that. They will say we disregarded the 47,000 138. people. For example, the people down in the area of Golf Road would be most interested if this concept up here would bring in more money to keep their taxes down, much as you would hope we would develop the south end of the Village so we could tax the properties to keep your taxes down. The development that occurs will simply be caught in the tide of urbanization. We all would like to have kept this a rural community, but it was more before I came 17 years ago and more rural be- fore you came. But we insisted on coming and urbanizing it, even though those that were here didn't want us to come. We no more have the right to shut the door to others who come. I'll venture to say you people came out of apartments and did not consider your- selves oddities. I think it is clear that the families that live in apartments are not discriminated against. We talk about multifamily, but when you go into courts they merely talk about residential, as opposed to commercial. They don't care, residential is quite compatible. 139. There were some comments made -- I want to keep the record straight. Nothing he says is going to change this, you say, and you are right, but I want you to keep in mind some of these factors, because it isn't really good for us to be mad at each other without understanding what the facts are in determining these factors. Flooding. Don Volstrom is a friend of mine, we work for the same company. We had some chit -chat on this. He really comes out strong, but he points to an article that raised the question. I have listened to Senators Percy, Graham and Schlickman. I have listened to every guy running for office, including the MSD. They say, 3 "The reason you have flooding is you are permitting the people to build in flood plains." We have no choice. You understand what they are saying. We have no more right to stop building, even in a flood plain. A person who owns that piece of property, we can't take his property without due process of law. The only way to keep them from building in a flood plain is to buy the land. You people don't 140. have enough money to buy all the land around Mt.- Prospect. If you think Rob Roy is a flood plain all you have to do is for the Park District to divvy up six or seven million dollars to buy it. It is very expensive. Nobody tells you, and even if the gentle- man from the Pollution Control Board says other - wise -- if he can show me how you can take a flood plain and prohibit building on it, I would like to know. The point is that all the Senators and what not say it should not be developed. I agree ' it should not be developed. We haven't even tried to stop them building in Mt. Prospect. People say 'You have that power," but we couldn't stop them because they didn't have adequate sewer, we can't withhold building permits. So some of these things are not in our control. When there was a tragedy such as the flood we had a quickly drawn plan of the municipalities. This community has spent more of its own money trying to capture all of the flood waters, water getting to you and others in the community, than perhaps any community in the area. We are 141. required to pond water. We tried to widen and deepen the creek. We find resistance from the citizens. They try to stop us from doing the very things they tell us to do. You have spent well over a million dollars in the past five years, our community has, on flood control. Now people say "If you can't buy these things go to the Government." It was indicated we were derelict. You should know three years ago, right after I was in office, I went to Washington, D.C. and talked to the people about their participa- tion in garnering for Mt. Prospect the Country Club, because that was in litigation. We had zoning problems much like we are talking about tonight. The HUD people said there would be no more coming on the Government for open space used as a golf course. Maybe the ground rules have changed. We believe we did a good job. We saved an 18 hole golf course for Mt. Prospect for 50 years. To me that is a darn site better than having 205 acres covered with residential, which would do nothing for this community but increase 142. their tax levy. You have to give up something when you do that. What you give up is density but what , you garner is open space. In spite of assertions made by individuals here about flooding, we have to believe MSD. In their engineering the flooding capacities or runoff capacities are all calculated, and these are accurate. When you see a lake where there was no lake before, that lake is a recreational, esthetic thing. Why high - rise? I have stated over and over to people -- I hope they keep it in mind -- the height limitation is a recation of municipalities. It came about the same way the fence ordinances have. Some guy got the idea to put a limitation on it and have fence ordinances which cause you endless trouble. The same thing occurs, of course in these fields of height. There is no height limitation in the County whatsoever. When they get zoning in the County there is no height limitation, they can go up 20 stories. If they want to flatten it a little to 12 stories, that is their business. The height in itself has no impact on health, safety or morals 143. of the community. That is all we are charged with keeping, we are not charged with keeping the esthetics or how people feel about those things. The density has been talked about. I have to admit two years ago when that planned unit development was planned on that entire parcel I was in favor of it. When it came up I had reserva- tions. The reservations came from the dividing of the land. I talked to that point, to some extent, can you eliminate that land? When we bought West Park Mr. DiMucci made a considerable amount of money, but the Village gained everything. I am not concerned that the developers make money. It is quite normal. Whether they make money or lose money is really irrelevant to us. It is clear to me that the 5 acres where that lake is is solid, the park can never use it for anything except that lake. I am not sure how it works out but from the look I had at the proposed consent decree for the Park District, if they buy it they are going to have to put that lake in, they are going to have to give up that property anyhow. That is why we drew the line. My own feel- ing is they should have drawn the line, the park 144. should have. If they want to pay for 19 acres and only use 15, that is their concern. Whether the sale goes through is not up to me. I think Mr. Ahern made that quite clear. There are no surveys here of the economics, because we have gone over that so many times. I was pleased to see Tom Norton, repre- senting School District 26 here. We have had District 59, 57, 23 and 214, even some further away, and they are noticeable by their absence, because the facts are that per capita multifamily will bring to the School District twice the amount of money that the child coming out of the single - family does. So the fact is that the school district makes more money. And you will notice, yourself, if you go to any hearings in any of the communities, about six years ago all school districts stopped coming to protest. They, in fact, off the record, will encourage multifamily because there is less strain on the schools. The tax base, of course, for single- family is very low. The tax base for multifamily is higher. 145. Some reference was made to apartments that are empty. I know there are apartments that are empty. Years ago the Village defied the contractors, who wanted to go up in the air. We said anything over 28 feet was atrocious. We couldn't stop it in the courts so we got our apartments spread out. To maintain all the additional services that go with it we wiped out the benefit apartments would have brought. The planned unit development was a concept that said if you put it in don't be responsible for anything except the perimeter, the community, render- ing very little service. When people come to zoning hearings they say, "I don't care if my taxes go up, keep it single - family." If the taxes go up why do we receive so many letters from people saying "Why do the taxes go up: Those who seek to run for office, re -run, will really take a beating, I hope not at the polls . but they sure will in debates. Those who are outside shooting in will tell us how expensive everything 146. is, only to find when they get into office you can't undo it, you need those policemen, you need your fire trucks, you need those plows. And when you ask about motivation, they are all wrapped up in the concept, "We represent 47,000 people." And "Yes, there are things in Mt. Prospect such as restaurants, liquor licenses, gasoline stations, grocery stores, shopping centers, all those bad things that you cannot exist without have to be next to somebody, have to be somewhere. I suspect if there is any argument that is persuasive on this one it is the one that there is a large handy golf course, Rob Roy, sitting there next to it, in which you may establish some type of precedent. Since my judgment is it will always go multifamily anyhow, it is just a matter of where and under what control. If it goes multifamily in the County I will be sorry we didn't have it in. As a Board we do believe people ought to determine whether they want to annex or whether it should be unincorporated. But for an area like that, in spite of the statements made in the paper 147. it will be my judgment it is a community which will look very hard and fast to find some property to bring in tax revenue. I submit to you this is a big piece of property that will bring in a lot of revenue. I think these are things we have to be concerned about. I don't think you really speak for the people in your area. I am convinced certainly within 5 years, maybe less, there will be an all -out effort by the Village Board, or a subsequent Village Board, on behalf of the citizens up there, to bring water into that area controlled by the Village. If your telephone doesn't work you call the telephone company. That is normal. As to the fire plugs, the Fire Department has got that, is insisting on operating them, is beginning to flush them and test them. We will insist, even if it takes three years to see they are open, although they are not basically our responsibility. The one last thing -- there was a mistake made. Before I say the last thing, one gentleman indicated 3- bedroom apartments were 40 per cent. My math isn't that bad, it is 30 per cent. The 148. 3- bedroom apartments are an economic benefit to the School Districts. That is a critical factor if it were 40 per cent. We calculated before it is 30 per cent, and that is correct. One last thing I would like to say. People that talk constantly say "You don't know what we have to pay. We don't live in Mt. Prospect, we live here. We pay the same taxes you do." We get constant phone calls telling us what a lousy job we are doing and people tell us how to do it better. We do the best we can in your behalf. We get all the information we can garner and we vote our conscience. I have said enough to let you know a lot of these things in my judgment are more emotional than they are factual. I don't know whether they will be good or bad. I don't know whether the Park District will go through, I don't know if the condemnation will be successful. I don't know about these things. I don't know whether they will be built in the County, I don't know if they will be multifamily or high -rise. We vote and it is done. 149. We are not mad, I hope you are not mad at us. We will do all we can to make your citizenship in Mt. Prospect pleasant, hopefully not too expen- sive, and we will try to do all the things that make a happy life. And when another argument comes up don't run and say "We are against it because it is bring- ing in those kind of people." You didn't say that but I got letters to that effect. When they are in Mt. Prospect they look pretty dandy to me, just like you people did. I hope everyone is happy when it comes out. It has to be fair. (Applause) The Chair will entertain a motion approv- ing the concept presented by Kenroy for a multifamily complex as presented, on the subject property. MR. FURST: I so move. MAYOR TEICHERT: It is moved and seconded. Any further discussion? Will the Clerk please call the roll? MRS. HARD: Trustee Ahern? MR. AHERN: Nay. MRS. HARD: Trustee Anderson? 150. MR. ANDERSON: Nay. MRS. HARD: Trustee Furst? MR. FURST: Nay. MRS. HARD: Trustee Link? MR. LINK: Pass. MRS. HARD: Trustee Richardson? MR. RICHARDSON: Nay. MRS. HARD: Trustee Scholten? MR. SCHOLTEN: Nay. MAYOR TEICHERT: The motion fails. (Applause) Gentlemen, we have to go to the tax levy. (Record closed)