The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/13/1970 VB minutes SPECIAL ~I'ING OF THE P~ESIDENT AND THE BOARD OF TRU~i'~S ,OctOber 1~,,! 19,70 , Special meeting called by President RObert D, Teichert c~ the 9th ROB ~OY d~ of October, 1970 for the prinm~y purpose of conducting a public DRIVINC heardng regarding the pre-annexatian agreement regulating the annex- MANGE ation of the Rob Roy Driving Ran~ lyinE north of Euclid-Lake Ave. pre-srnexs~i 8gr~ement CALL TO OEDER President Teichert called the meeting to order at 8:15 F. M. INVOCATION Trustee Furst g~ve the invocaticn, ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Ahem Furst Kilroy Norris Sodermms Teiche~t Absent: Reiter ROB ROY DRIVING RANGE Trustee Ahen~ read the report of the Plan Commtssic~ mad gave a brief history of the pre-annexation zoning petition, There was no recomrsnda- tion f~om the Judiciary Conm~ttee. President Teichert stated the issue: ~ould the Village of Mount Prospect snnex the subject parcels of land~ subject to the zoning petitioned fo~? Mr. Roy Gottlieb~ of Kenroy~ Inc. ~peared before the Board as petitioner. He stated the property was purchased August l0 ~ 1965 and for the entire tract of land the developers paid $16,500 per acre without sewer and water availability. Mr. Harry ~oung~ attorney~ stated there was purportedly a covenant going with the land~ covelYLng the entire flint of the property ~ cora- l:rising ~roximtely 18 acres~ which would rt~ until 1977, The effective- ness o£ this covenant was questioned because it had never been recorded. Mr. John Bickley. attorney representing the petitioner~ introduced Mr. Babbin, architect~ as an expert witness. Slides were sh~n of similar developments ~ the locatic~ of the driving ran~ property, and the property as it apDeare today. M~. Harry Yo~g proposed to develop a 6-coult indoor tennis facility an the fret of the property at a cost of $600~000. Mr. Gottlieb read a sLmma~ of the tax i~act and stated that from an economical sense the annexation would be of benefit to the ccmmtr~ty. Mr. Patrick Link~ an attorney representing the Woodview Civic Association and also appeazdng on behalf of the River Trails Park Distr~ct ~ questioned Mr. Young regar~dng ownership of the pr~oerty, and was advised he was a partner/~ner oT the parcel comprised of apprximately ~8 acres. Mr. Link stated that by Villa~D oEi~_nance it stipulates that there should be tr~ity of ownership of the entire tract. He lhrther stated the Park District has presented an offer to purchase the entire 20 acres and submitted a copy of a lette~ dated October 9~ 1970 ~o LaSalle National Bsnk~ Trust 36181. indicating the district was interested in park development. The following persons requested an opportunity to appear before the Board to voice their opinions regaESing the pre-annexaticn zoning ~etition: Mr. Harold Ross~ member of the Plan Conmdssian~ gave a b~ief resume of the heardng before the Plan Co~,~Lssic~ (Case 70-9P). ~-s, William Bor~tr~m~ 60~ Dogwood, spoke for the Par~ District and Civic Association~ and voiced her opposition. r. Don Barlient~ Camelot Citizens Civic Associatic~ questioned whether it would be mn unl~ful annexation if the covenant were valid. Mrs. Arlene Cassidy, 708 Cedar, a msmber of the PTA~ presented a poster desi~aed by a fifth g~ade child entitled "i{i~n Rises Up - Trees Down." She opposed the proposed annexation and zoning. Mr. Richard Hendricks~ Fsirview Gardens Civic Association~ stated a petition sigaed by 200 residents opposes the PUD, because of over- crcwding of schools ~ problem with the water supply and sanitary sewers, because it was in opposition to the projection of the prehensive Plan, which designated the Rob Roy property for single- family development. He requested the Board ccncur with the recom- mendation of the Ch~irman of the Judiciary Co~ttee and the Plan Commission to deny the request for the Kenroy PUD. Mr. James Retslaf, Assistant Superintendant of School District 26~ opposed the additional burden of more school children in the District. Mr. Ashby Gibbons, 1615 Dogwood, voiced oppositicn and requested the Board to consider the proposed ~nexation not in the monets~y value to be derived but rather what would be more beneficial for the Village. ~ry Stenbrid~e, 600 Greenwood~ as a member of the PTA and Rive~nuret Civic ~ssoci~tion, pointed to hi~ner taxes~ overcrowding schools and traffic~ Mr~ John Klein, 100~ Bazberry~ inquired about the density of houses in proportion per acre and was advised there would be ten. Mr. Bill Judie~ lll8 Barberry, asked about the 50' strip, and was ad- vised it would come in automatically as RX zoning. Mr. Geor~ Parlier, 161~ Dog~ood~ was advised there would be 22 or 23 units per acre. Judy Starkey, 1718 Eastmsn, stated the schools were so occuDied with ccrmtruction af new buildings and additions, to curr~nt facilities that it coul it could affect the quali~y of education by t~king the educators a~ay frc~ the classroom because of their other administrative duties. Mary Zarken~ 507 E. Highlaud, was concen~ed with the traffic problem. Robert Carlscn, 602 E. Cedar~ discussed traffic c~ ~eeling Road. Dauald Andrews ~ 1005 Brentwood, ta3_ked about the rising costs of living° ~. Gottlteb stated the water line would not be that of Citizens Utility but would be Village water with a 12" line or whatever the Villa~ Engineer felt was required~ and this proposed Planned Unit Development would be a four or l~lve year program. He further stated the Park District offer was not satisfactory and the remmlning Drbp- erty would have no free access. ~ECESS At 10:15 P. M. the Board recessed for five minutes. Roll call upon recanvening: Presen~: Ahem Furst Eilroy Norris Soderman Teichert Absent: Reiter President Telchert invited members of the Board to voice their opini ons. rustee Sodezwm~n felt the annexaticn of the pz~gerty with the ~t~g of ~tip~-f~ z~g wo~d not be b~e~cial to the Vill~. T~tee ~l~ stated ~ his ~ the ~e~ti~ of the R~ R~ p~y is n~ ~si~d by the ~o~ty n0m the ~si~ts of the s~o~g ~a. ~e ~lated se~ces ~ll cost ~ th~ those ~cei~d~ ~d the ~ex~ ti~ with ~t~g of the pr~ed z~g would not be 9~actic~. T~tee ~t ~G~d ~out a p~ed buffer z~ ~d w~ ad~sed the~ ~ ~o or thee h~s ~utt~g the p~y to the no~h ~d that ~e ~a wo~d be ~d ~d ~ ~d ~thin wo~d be a p~inE sp~e for the t~ ho~es. T~tee ~t a~so ~ked ~. ~ what acting ~e P~ Dist~ct wo~d t~e if their offe~ to p~e w~ ~ed. ~. ~ stated the p~sent Dl~ wo~d be to proceed to c~ the pr~e~y. T~e No~s pointed o~ the t~ rate ~d hi~ s~l rate had been ~g ~ ea~ ye~. P~si~nt Tei~e~ st~ed these ~or ~l~ had ~a~ed ~t P~ct. Wo~d a c~t~lled ~l~nt be ~ bene~ci~ th~ if it ~d ~ ~ ~co~orated ~a? ~e Pl~ Co~ssi~ h~ ~ a ~q~st to ~e ~ of the Co~hensi~ Vill~ Pl~, It sh~ld ~ect what is a bal~d co~ty, ~ll the~ be a t~f~c i~act for M~t P~s~ if the Vill~ we~ to ~ex the p~l? Wo~d the P~ ~st~ ha~ t~ p~er to p~e ~e l~d? T~tee ~em~ second by T~t~ So~ ~d the Vi~ ~x the s~Ject pz~y~ s~Je~ to ~tiple-f~ly z~ng. ~ ~ll call: ~es: ~t No~s Tei~e~ N~s: ~em ~l~y ~ Motion f~led. P~si~nt Tei~e~ st~ed this ~i~ will be ~c~si~d at the ne~ ~ ~et~E~ T~s~, Oct~er 20th. ~0~ T~tee So~ second by T~tee ~t~ ~d the ~et~g be a~o~ed. Tt~: ll:00 P. M. ~. DONALD W. GOODMAN, Vtlla~ Cle~x