Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/17/1967 VB minutes MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF TRUSTEES JANUARY 17~,,1967 CALL TO ORDER President Congreve called the meeting to order at 8:15 P.M. INVOCATION Trustee Teichert gave the invocation. ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittanl Teichert Congreve Roll Call APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 3, 1967 and Pg. 1 - Delete sentence regarding Fire and Police Cormnittee special meeting. Trustee Colfer, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved the ~inut e s minutes of January_ 3, 1967 be approved as amended. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. APPROVAL OF BILLS General $72,127.21 Parking System Revenue 97.40 Bills Library 6,022.78 Fire Equipment Bd. & Int. 1950 5,854.60 Waterworks g Sewerage Dep~.-Impr. g Ext. 125.00 Waterworks g Sewerage Fund 10,662.17 Total $94,889.11 Trustee Grittani, seconded by Trustee Bruhl, moved for approval of the above bills for payment. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Grittani Teichert Nays: E~ren Motion carried. Trustee Grittani, seconded by Trustee Bruhl, moved for approval of the Financial Report, December 31, 1966, as submitted, subject to further audit. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD Mr. Ronald G. Van Oppen and Mr. Ronald Sabel requested an opportunity to address the Board regarding the proposed purchase of the VFW property on Main Street for the purpose of conducting a catering service on the V~I premises. They wished an indication from the Board regarding a Property liquor license. The intention is to rent the hall for banquets, weddings, etc., serving food, and if requested, liquor, to contracted groups only. Mi'. Sabel and Mr. Van Oppen were advised by the Board to bring in specific plans for the proposed operation and documents to suppor~ the proposed purchase of the property. This matter was referred to the Finance Committee and Mr. Sabel was advised to contact the Village Manager for setting up a meeting. Mr. Gus Manos, 1811 Indiana Avenue, Chicago, appeared before the Board to discuss his property at Prospect and Rte. 88. He stated Standard Prospect & Oil Co. proposes to erect a gas station on this property. Mr. Manos Ete. 83 was advised by the Village Attorney that this is presently a matter Standard in litigation and is on trial call in front of Judge Harrington in Oil January 17, 1967 Circuit Court. The question of the legality of our space ordinance has been challenged by Standard Oil. COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN REPORTS FIRE AND POLICE COMMITTEE The Fire and Police Committee recommends that the Village concur with }~ Dist 214 High School District 214 in their request that a Village policeman Policer~n be assigned to serve at Prospect High School as a police counselor, to be reimbursed by the School District for the Village's cost of the policeman, including salary, pension fund, hospitalization insurance and clothing allowance for the time spent on assignment at the High School. Trustee Bergen~ seconded by Trustee Ekren, moved to concur with the above recommendation. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. In view of the above action~ Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved for passage of Resolution 3-67: Res. 3-67 RESOLUTION DESIGNATING TRE NUMBER OP OFPICBRS AND MEMBERS OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittanl Teichert Motion carried. Trustee~Bergen, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved for passage of Resolution 4-67: Res. 4-67 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING JUVENILE COURT DECENTRALIZATION Mrs. Irene Waterhouse, 1425 Birch Drive, spoke before the Board on the matter of whether passage of the above Resolution would be most effective or whether facts and figures furnished to the Juvenile Court Division of the Circuit Court would be of more value. Trustee Teichert stated the Resolution would bear weight and should come from the Village, and perhaps an independent one could be forwarded by the Commission, if they so desired, and if not contrary to Village policy as set forth for the Board's Commission. Facts and figures on juvenile cases are available to the proper authorities if they are requested. Upon roll call on the above motion: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved for passage of Resolution 5-67: Res. 5-67 A RESOLUTION TO PARTICIPATE UNDER THE ILLINOIS POLICE TRAINING ACT Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. The Fire and Police Committee recommended that all day parking on a All day two-hour basis be permitted on Saturdays on the 100 block of South parkirg-Sa~. Main, and that parking will only be permitted until May 31, 1967, 2 hr. at which time the State's "No Parking At Any Time" restriction will S. Main be put into effect. Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Ekren~ moved for approval of the above recommendation, directing the Village Manager to so instruct the Police Department. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. January 17, 1967 Fire and Police Committee recommended that the Village accept the Bids low net bid of $3,053.00 by Mark Motors, Inc. for the purchase of Bids Police Cars two 1967 Plymouth Fury I V-8 Z-door sedans for use as police cars. Police Cars Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved to concur in the above recommendation to accept the bid of Mark Motors, Inc. in the amount of $3~053.00. Upon roll call: Ayes;~. Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittanl Teichert Motion carried. The Fire and Police Committee studied the traffic problem at Central i_ Road and Prospect and feels that a traffic light would alleviate the problem. This has previously been suggested to the State. Traffic Light However, the State insists that in order to install such a light, Central Rd. & the Village would have to upgradethe entire intersection, which Prospect Ave, would be a very costly project. The Committee suggests that the Village Manager arrange a meeting with Mr. G. T. March~ State District Engineer and the Committee to discuss the installation of a single traffic light without upgrading the entire intersection. JUDICIARY COMMITTEE Plan Cormmission Case 65-29P: Approval of amended plat.plan for planneddevelopment at 3012-1~-20 Busse Rd. recommended by Plan Plan Com. Commission and Judiciary Committee. Trustee Teichert, seconded by Case 65-29P Trustee Bergen, moved to concur. However, Trustees questioned the legality of the changes without public notice. Therefore, Trustee Teichert, seconded by Trustee Bergen, moved to table the motion. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Teichert, seconded by Trustee Ekren, moved that the Village, not the Petitioner, will assume the costs of the court reporter but not publication expense and Plan Commission fees involved. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Gritta~i Teichert Motion carried. Mr. William G. Kleiner, 1118 N. Highland~ Arlington Heights, rep- resenting the petitioner, was advised public notice would be advertised for a Plan Commission hearing on February 17. Plan Commission Case 66-2~P: Concerns Plan Commission petition to rezone property on the northwest corner of Golf & Rt. 83 from B-2 Plan Comm. to R-1. Plan Commission recommended approval. Judiciary Committee 66-24P recommended denial. Trustee Teichert read the following letter addressed to the President and Board of Trustees from Robert L. Nelson and requested it be placed as a matter of record in the minutes. January 14, 1967 "Please be advised that I am the owner of the Northwest corner of Routes 83 and 58, Mount Prospect, Illinois. "This is to assure you that I am constructing an office building on said property as reflected in the plans and . specifications submitted to your Building CommiSsioner on December 30, 1966, identified by receipt of the Village of i_ ~ Mount Prospect, bearing No. 7215. "This is to further assure you that we will commence building within ninety (90) days from this date; that we will provide shrubbery on the North and West sides of the property in question and that all our outside lighting will be directed toward the building and not to the adjacent residential development." Trustee Teichert, seconded by Trustee Grittani, moved the Board concur in the recorm~endation of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Phillip Blair, 308 W. Golf Road, appeared as an objector. He is the adjacent property owner and referred to Case 62-29, which rezoned this property as B-2 in 1962, and brought to the attention of the Board the original plan at that time called for a single-story building. Mr. Blair is opposed to a two-story structure, and because this matter had not been listed on a published agenda of the Judiciary Committee on January 13, the matter was referred back to the Judiciary Committee. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Judiciary Committee is February 3, 1967. Trustee Teichert, seoonded by Trustee Bruhl~ moved to table the previous motion. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bergen Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Teichert Motion carried, Mr. Jack Whistler, 1~13 E. Wing, Arlington Heights, representing Robert Nelson, owner of the subject property~ requested to be heard. He displayed plans of the proposed building which have been submitted to the Mount Prospect Building Department. W~rk could not commence until the rezoning case is settled. Judiciary Committee report on Board of Appeals Case 67-1A - Farmer Cooper's~ Inc. request for variations to build and operate a Ed. o£ Appeals restaurant on property facing on Kensington immediately east of the Case 67-1A Holiday Inn Mote~. In essence~ these variations are sought: 1. Land use; 2. Building height; 3. Building or sign height.~ The FalvneI, proposed building is abarn-like structure with an adjacent silo. Cooper's~ I~c. Two questions appeared to require answers -- first, is t~e concept compatible with the area, and, second, does the concept justify the variations? The Judiciary Committee, by a vote of 1-0, recommended the request for variations be denied. Trustees Teichert and Bergen abstained from voting in this matter because of conflict of interest, and requested at the time of Board vote the Clerk not call their names. Trustee Teichert's statement follows: "A previous meeting of this committee included on its agenda an infor~nal discussion with representatives of Farmer Cooper's concerning the variations to be considered formally tonight. Subsequent to that meeting, public relations material disseminated to the Board of Trustees indicated that the attorney for Farmer Cooper's was Mr. Donald Egan of the firm of Rothschild, Hart, Stevens and Barry. Litigation has been recently commenced in which I have been named a defendant~ and I have retained the firm of Rothschild, Hart, Stevens and Barry to represent me. Under these circumstance, so there can be no misunderstanding in this matter, I wish to disqualify myself from voting on item 67-1A, both in this committee and when the subject is before the Board of Trustees. I should point out that while I will not vote on the variations, I do intend to express my views. Any implication of conflict of interest will be avoided if I refrain from exercising the power to grant or deny the variations .... but the right to discuss the matter and express my feelings is still mine as a citizen of Mount Prospect." Mr. Donald Egan, representing Farmer Cooper's, appeared before the Board. He exhibited a model of the proposed structure. The restaurant area has a roof peak of 32 ft. and an overhead crossbeam height of 10 ff. The silo, which houses air-conditioning equipment and heating facilities, as well as water storage space, would be 45 ft. in height. The Judiciary Committee report stated the silo could be considered an advertising device or a building or a sign height variation. The petitioner stated that this type of structure was both, but at no time would it have printing on it. The restaurant would be one of a chain, operated by Farmers Coop, Ocean Spray Cranberry Co. and Durkee's Foods, and others to serve chicken dinners to a family clientele with no alcoholic beverages. January 17, 1967 Trustee Colfer read the Judiciary Committee Report: ' JUDICIARY COMMITTEE REPORT Subject: Board of Appeals Case 67-1A Bd. of Ap~eal~ Case This is a request by Farmer Cooper's, Inc. for approval of certain variations so that they can build and operate a particular, style ~rmer restaurant on property facing on Kensington immediately east of the Cooper's Holiday Inn Mote~. In essence, these variations are sought: 1. Land use; 2. Building Height~ 3. Building or sign height. 1. As to the land use~ it is presently z6ned R-1 and the contemplated use is B-3. This parcel is surrounded by B-3 and could quite properly be rezoned to B-3. The variation for land use is in conformity with the immediate area and is merely a procedural expediency fo~ the petitioner. The Board of Appeals Unanimously recommends approval~ of the specified use as a variation. 2. The main barn-like structure has a roof peak of 32 ft. and an overhead crossbeam height of 10 ft. It is a matter of argument whether the crossbeams or the roof should be considered the ceiling, and, therefore, whether a variation is needed at all. However, the Board of Appeals chose to consider this matter in conjunction with the third point. 3. A silo structure is adjacent and connected to the main barn-llke structure. The silo stands45 ft. and houses machinery, air-conditioning equipment and water storage. In view of its function and connection to the barn-like structure, the silo can be considered as integral with the barn and we would then be discussing a height variation for a building. The silo can, of course~ also be considered an advertising device and we would then be talking in terms of a height variation.for a sign. The petitioner states it partakes of both functions. Regardless of the theory involved, the contemplated structure cannot be built unless approved by this Board as a variation. The Board of Appeals voted 5-1 to not recommend the variation and suggested consideration of increased setback. It would appear that the variations are interrelated and the petitioner considers them as "one package". He has a set plan and complete program which he wishes to initiate in Mount Prospect. The concept requires variations which this Board can grant or deny. In discussion, two questions appeared to require answers. First, is the concept compatible with the area? Second, does the concept justify the variation? RECOMMENDATION By a vote of 1-0, the Judiciary Committee recommends the request for variations be denied. Note: For reasons they will state to the Board, Trustee Teichert and Trustee Bergen disqualified themselves from voting on this matter. Trustee Ekren~ seconded by Trustee Bruhl, moved to concur with the Board of Appeals recommendation to grant the variation in land use in Case 67-1A, to be used as specified for a national non-drive-in restaurant. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bruhl Colfer Ekren Grittani Abstaining: Bergen Teichert Motion carried. Trustee Ekren, seconded by Trustee Bruhl, moved that the petitioner be granted a variation so that the height of the building would not exceed the height of 32 ft. and the height of the silo would not exceed the height of 45 ft. Upon roll call: Ayes: Bruhl Ekren Nays: Colfer Grittani Abstaining: Bergen Teichert January t7~ 1967 SPECIAL MEETING President Congreve called a special meeting of The Board to be held on Monday, January 23 at 8:00 P.M. ADJOURNMENT Trustee Bergen, seconded by Trustee Ekren~ moved the meeting be adjourned. Unanimous. Time: li:30 P.M. RICHARD H. MONROE~ Village Clerk January 17, 1967