HomeMy WebLinkAbout1558_001F
Cpl
F
s'
�1
t:M i "m
T,, > n �„ " p ,
;,, s u' M ,m v ;, M M AM I� Gln "', �µ "'�,/
'Ay
N, ".a' `Y', ' p Y "' µ. " p -,'p ' MI VAI IIS',;,;''
Iw
x � ,
T ,r ui, � � �� 1 N
a
, "saW 4 i 'M. JIB'" "F !� I� �
M "111:611 Irl MIIIIJ,'ta�
jtd�t"N7 w" C� wdw., eA,^err
," ;, ,'�`,"n :0 �"yr,, „ „ e „moi , AL ,n
''k rf ,411" bit`d: 'n:
qqppiA"
yyw jq� �'11I � Axi"{py �M{ '�"` ,,won ^�'�n
" '�pw+ �I ' :,rc, , ,,, '.mow '.e.Mw+.; ..MMs ,q",.� MnMi'� M, " �^ihn' , !yP�m 'gym ,m.,.",,
I �
'' A.:
, r,
x ' I ,� �. M ;�'� � ;,�"�� O rdrt. ,'e-* "'4.m N,,"W ," 17 6
AN °,"AN"CP�L, � LI,NJ ,,,,,'[PA:L
'S,
."
n �.
es
-e,,:q-u e,'s-,t or a,:�, ,' P
;, '1V4,G ,,
,
"
H",11 91,117YO1,11Y
,, +fig y� ,Y, y� ,p/�, �^ ,fig
t,;,6`
'�,"'"X�" mow'% � w�" �, .li.d �" ✓_ „ "'�",� to "�" ,c 9N. c..�l "0'��'�k"w' Wm "„ ;
a . ",� „ s.�"' IMS.," Nu ,' INV " � , e s ;,.,
3.)Rg I,
i,
A? 'U" yvl"�mY1',aM ,II "4.r,, ry jw M
" ^'gam'^ �ry s�tm ,
��'w "�; '�;, M'ylyw_' �"- !L;� ,NYI"�i ,�;•"�"''ry"
""w,."
�r'^
^'rye
" ;NLm ,i "" ,'fir j, '� �;„F'°�� ��". ",IF �; ", � ,,II N ,"'� '
"� "� ; '
Z 3 x w8-1
3 A
01,
,tt- ,
"t, � ., A
.,, h'/,e ',`ta, "i In-
�.;
: ,. �, d, ,c* ' 1
!
t t ip'-%�"
_. -
e
", Kri-ca',uls e :,rlljju-,,,ll`-1 e ;� '` ` i'N, 1 '
'';,
' .°;
..........
. .. . .......
T- ust,ee
r 0
m 5l
RIB$ NO' 01
R OLUT Il"01"ll, V"( V EX T RITY,
MIN
;S-TNT`S"S-
-R— l TH R, AN
I Ayve',,�`, k F" rl' T1011"C5,11
r t"I'l a, Flo,
'R�11'i, f Ku r k
(j °O
M! 0, 10,,'`nml El: 117-ru-irWYa, N""G
Ik 1 Ij
6 0 rt i., n n,, w�a s: r, h z! -movn'd
AN 1' D'
i
:g h e "r,a c- tn'r"e ,
V
o:"Iill t h e, s� a I e f, 'V I aa, l qp:d px,pport b,
y
VILLAGE ;P',R():P'E,' Tr�
R Y
I� � �o '�Y� , .ry��y�, yl�� gyp. p� p y{I''_'' y�w
W, f t 1, f
iblit, �4 ti,;t , d itwa
I't
N H,.
'I L.
T Lb,v, ep,
ac,
,e,:e, r,W,,1 u�e�
IV
A,
, 6�1'11 I Ur", iq'�( n T s,, e,,L t zn
by --t' W' ' ", I
ic e r
IMmr' �La XVI 4e i'l til r Wpm„
e e, eq r-J,
i n
n, o,r 0;" j: ,p
rd o,,,n,,, t'b
ar y
F," I
:,M, Ur L' (s
t:
;w 'b
I I
r^ n Y,
py
f a, ,,(, 317
N, ryw
E� RI I,C C
pon y S,
g,
Rib nle�
A I b 101 U, Ni M E N
t1h, d � �ypy� per„ "�ym���w, "
id r tv
AD.J`0IUR`,.,
lb e e
'o
a n e'd
W&$ a d
:C onvrl,ol, A,
n,
ORD I N.ANCE NO
AN 0R.D1N,hN(_,'E ASIC: ENDING THE 'FRAFFIC CODE
0-F,11 rl''[11,1FEE V"I'l LAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF' TRUSTEES OF THE
VILI,,,,A,,G,E OF" MOUNT PR10SP'�',`,(1`d'1`, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS.,,
SECTION ONE: TI -tat Schedule IV of Article XX of Cha. pter 18
F,Yra.ffic Code) of th,e Village Ciode of the Vi.111-age of Mioi.,int Prospect,
be, and the same is hereby i-rumended "by addl.ng to t'he present
Schedule IV' in proper alph,_�ibetica.l. sequence "Maple Street,
North. and Southbound,Isabe]..-Ia Street"', so that said addition
shall hereafter be. and read as follows:
Name of Direction of At Inters(--�iction
Street T a, f f i c 11 ov e m n t Wi t 11
Maple St North & Southbou :t d, I s a. b e 1... 1 a S t
SECTION TWO., That
S c11.edL1,_1,e X I -A o f
Art i c le XX
o f
.a,p
"a.1- f ic Code) of the!
Vil-Lage Code
of the Vi 11
age
of Mount Prospect,
be and t'he same is
fi.ereby amended
by adding
to
the present- .
S c 11 e a e X I . ......... A 1, n p r
(,,,) p e r a 1 p 1-i ab e t i c a
1, s e q u en, c e
V1 i
111 a S t
'Wes t Btw. Prospect
Ave & 1,iri co. -In
S t. so t: h.
a t
s ,a -i dl. a d id J., t i o n
1
s "ha,11. fie reaf t er be
�ji,nd read as f o 1, lows,
Rd. & Main
St."
so ttiat- said ac1dition
Name of
Side o,f
D le, s c r i p .i o n
follows:
Street
Street
Wi 111. ain S t.
We s t
Btw. Pr(,,)ispec
t
Ave . &
L i ri C, p^"3 I [-ISt .
µ
SECTION THREE:
Th a t S
ic h e d e
X V I �o f
A r t i c 1. e
X X c) f Chapter 1.8
(Traffic x. Code) of
tfie,
Vi] I age
Code of
the Village
olf 'Mou,nt Prospec(,
be, .n. d. the, same
is hereby
amended
by,
adding
to the present
Schedule XVI in.
proper
alph,aberical
seqtie
-nce
1'sabell.a St.,
5 -ton load limit
bet,vvec_,!r"i
Rand
Rd. & Main
St."
so ttiat- said ac1dition
shall hereafter
be and
read a,,-,,
follows:
Name of Street Descri qioti,
.... . .......
Isabella St. 5 -ton load limit between Rand
Main St . if
FOUR*- That this Ordinance all .be in full force and
effect Tr -OM and after its passage, approval and publication in
pamphlet form in the manner 'provided by law.
AYES:
PASSED and,APPROVED this
Vi'Llage Clerk.
day of 9 x_982 .
...................... ...............
Vi'tlage Presiderit
�41
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A DRIVEWAY VARIATION
FOR PROPERTY AT 910 WILLOW LANE, MOUliT
PROSPECT I ILLINOIS
NIIEREAS, Jerold Baltrus (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioner)
is the owner of a certain parcel of single family residence property
located at 910 Willow Lane in the the village of Mount Prospect, Illinois
I
(hereinafter referred to as the "Subj
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECTt COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS. -
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated
herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of Mount Prospect do hereby grant to the oroperty hereinabove described
the front yard circular driveway variation requested with respect to
Sections 14.1101.A. and 14.2602.B.- Yard: H. and K, subject to approval
of the final design and of the construction of said driveway (not to
exceed 16 feet in width) by the Community Development Department.
SECTION THREE: Except for the variation granted herein, all other
applicable Village of Mount Prospect Ordinances and Zoning Regulations
shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property.
SECTION FOUR.- This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect
from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form
in the manner provided by law.
PASSED This day of 19
AYES:
APPROVED This day of 19
PUBLISHED: This day of 19
in pamphlet form.
VILLAGE PRESIDENT
VILLAGE CLERK
i$ 3 a� im g gra f§ a
E
0
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE GRANTING SPECIFIED PARKING VARIATIONS
FOR PROPERTY AT BRIARWOOD SHOPPING CENTERy MOUNT
PROSPECT ILLINOIS
WHEREAS, Jimmie T. Giftos (hereinafter referred to as the
Petitioner") is the representative of a certain parcel of commercially
improved property known as the Briarwood Shopping Center located at
1801 to 1843 West Algonquin Road in the Village of Mount Prospect, Illinois
(hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"); and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described on the attached
Exhibit A- and
WHEREAS, the Subject Property is located in the B-1 Shopping Center
District under the provisions of Chapter 14 entitled "Zoning" of the
Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois (hereinafter referred to as the
"Zoning Ordinance"); and
WHEREAS, the Petitioner has hereto filed an application seeking the
following parking variations in the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance;
1. A variation from Section 14.1702.A. B. and C to allow
automobile parking in the front, side and rear yard areas.
2. A variation from Section 14.1705.A. to allow a reduction
of required off-street parking spaces from 147 to 118
spaces.
all in accordance with the Site Plan attache6, hereto as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on Petitioner's request for the
aforesaid variations (designated as case No. ZBA 32-V-81) before the
Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 3rd day
of December, 1981 pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published
in the Mount Prospect Herald; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has recommended to the Board
of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect that the Petitioner's request
for the *aforesaid variations under ZBA 32-V-81 be granted subject to
removal of a Fotomat structure and to approval of the Final parking
and traffic flow design and construction of parking area by the Community
Development Department; and
WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount
Prospect have determined that the Petitoner's variation requests satisfy
the standards set forth in Section 14.605 of Article VI of the the Zoning
Ordinance, and further find that it would be in the best interest of the
Village to grant the Petitioner the requested variations.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTYl ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated
herein as findings of fact by the President and Board of Trustees of the
Village of Mount Prospect.
SECTION TWO: The President and Board of Trustees of the Village
of mount Prospect do hereby grant to the property described the parking
variations requested with respect to Sections 14.1702 A. B. and C. and
14.1705.A. in accordance with said Site Plan and subject to removal of
the Fotomat structure and approval of the final parking and traffic
flow design and the construction thereof by the Community Development
Department.
SECTION THREE,- Except for the variations granted herein, all other
applicable Village of Mount Prospect ordinances and Zoning Regulations
shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property.
SECTION FOUR: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from
and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the
manner provided by law.
PASSED: This day of 'r 19, .
ABSENT:
APPROVED: This day of 19
PUBLICATION: This day of 19
in pamphlet form.
VILLAGE PRESIDENT I
ATTEST:
VILLAGE CLERK
„. �z; ;
bcd 'follow S:
gc
West
p ti
. 1 r ° e f taken for f r I ,1"wood D- iv
Clxce t that aj.rot fr'' l frig in Al ,-o qufn Road) :l ofof rt ij�� .��� ' Division,
� � Qt,�i r�ter� f S do 15 and the Northeast Quarter
of Section Township 41 North,
Range 1. East of the Third Principal
Meridian, as per plat recorded in the r°derY
s Office of Cook County,
Illinois,December 17, 1919, as D ocurnent N''urnber 669621
fres that part the��°�:� e��^r�:�bef',��.��^: r :c� there-
from r�a.g at a llrrt 33 feet
East f the Southwest c o r r-1 f' said Lot
�n. , saidlrrt being t at of Brarwlrira tr�:�r1e rmtl
along the East line of Briarwood
Drive a distancef 164. 04 feet to the place of beginnincr of the
herein
described .r° f said Lot ; thence East, at right angles to the line
f riar ivo Drive, , distance f �
5 � 5 ft� North�, at right
angles, to the last described la , a distance of 119. 76 feet to the South-
westerly
of Algonquin Road; thence Northwesterly,
South-
westerly if fAlgonquin along.the �tl--
distance o f .175 � feet t t of of
intersection ith. the East line f Briarwood Drive,said cif
g 33.0
f t f the �t r of ��1 .,t ; thence ra.t l�rra
South c�° the East line of
Briarwood Drive, a d*
istance of 2100. a feet, to the plaice of beginning , toget.h
er
with the 33. 0 feet taken for 13"ifirwood Drive,w 1 f
� lrr Vz:'
t ofadjoin-
Northerly
r t for esa parry 1 land n als ill f Al r
l r d � h lies
of err joins g the North Northerly line of the aforesaid parcel
1 Cook County, Illinois . land ,
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING MUNICIPAL
AUTOMOBILE RENTING USE TAX
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLIN(SIS
.o
SECTION ONE: A tax is hereby imposed upon the privilege of
using in the Village of Mount Prospect an automobile which is
rented from a rentor outside Illinois and which is titled or
registered with an agency of this State's government in the
Village of Mount Prospect at the rate of one percent (1%) of
the rental price of such automobile while this ordinance is in
effect, in accordance with the provisions of Section 8-11-8 of
the Illinois Municipal Code.
SECTION " TWO: The tax provided for in this Ordinance shall be
collected from the persons whole Illinois address for titling
or registration purposes is given as being in the Village of
Mount Prospect.
SECTION THREE: The tax imposed by this Ordinance shall be
paid to the Illinois Department of Revenue.
SECTION FOUR,-. The Village Clerk is hereby directed to transmit
to the State Department of Ravenue a certified copy of this
Ordinance not later than five days after the effective date
of this Ordinance.
SECTION FIVE.v This Ordinance shall be effective on the first
day of the second calendar month next following publication as
provided in the Municipal Code Section 1-2-4. Cerfified proof
of publication shall be forwarded to the Illinois Department
of Revenue along with the certified copy of this Ordinance
required by Section Four.
SES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 19 8 2
11.111, 111111�,���� ............................................. . .....
Village President
Village Clerk
AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING MUNICIPAL
AUTOMOBILE RENTING OCCUPATION TAX
. ............
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE: A tax is hereby imposed upon all persons engaged
in the business of renting automobiles in the Village of
Mount Prospect at the rate of one percent (1%) of the gross
receipts from such rentals made in the course of such business
while this ordinance is in effect, in accordance with the
provisions of Section 8-11-7 of the Illinois Municipal Code.
SECTION TWO: Every such person engaged in such business in
the Village of Mount Prospect shall file on or before the at
day of each calendar month, the report to the State Department
of Revenue required by Sections Two and Three of "An Act in
Relation to a Tax upon Persons Engaged in the Business of
Selling Tabgible Personal Property to Purchasers for Use or
Consumption" approved June 29, 1933, as amended.
SECTION THREE: At the time such report is filed, there shall
be paid to the State Department of Revenue the amount of tax
hereby imposed on account of the renting of automobiles during
the preceding month.
SECTION FOUR: The Village Clerk is hereby directed to transmit
to the State Department of Revneu a certified copy of this
Ordinance not later than five days after the effective date of
this Ordinance.
SECTION FI VE : This Ordinance shall be effective on the first
day of the calendar month next following publication as
provided in Municipal Code Section 1-2-4. Certified proof of
publication shall be forwarded to the Illinois Department of
Revenue along with the certified copy of this Ordinance as
required by Section Four.
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1982.
Village President
Village Clerk
Village of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
7k
S*N,
INTEROFHCE MEMORANDUM
TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
FROMf: Kenneth H. Fritz, Community Development Director
SUBJECT,- ZBA-24-V-81, PETER PANAGOPOULOS
LOCATION: 2 WEST NORTHWEST HIGHWAY (MAP 7-S)
DATE: December 22, 1981
Petitioner is seeking a variation to locate a free-standing
business sign on the subject property. The Zoning Board of
Appeals considered the petition at their November 19, 1981 and
December 3, 1981 meetings. Staff investigated lines of sight
and found no interference with traffic signals, however, they
did request the maximum size of 61,-' x 81-,'. The Zoning Board of
Appeals recommended approval of the variation for a maximum
size of 6j-2' x 83-2' to be located per Exhibit No. 1 (attached)
and subject to the elimination of any message board attached to
the sign. The Board's vote was 4-2 with Mr, Viger and Mr.
Petrucelli voting against the motion.
Copies of the Zoning Board of Appeals minutes and Community
Development staff report are attached with the site plan.
nt Prospect
MOU11t Prospect, 111iriois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:&
Zoning Board of Appeals
FROM: Community Development Staff
SUBJECT: ZBA-24-V-81
DATE*- December 3, 1981
The Community Development staff has examined the sight distances
0 ity to traffic signals for a proposed 81xl01 pole
in proxim
mounted silgn as located on the petitioner's site plan near
the corner of Northwest Highway (Rte. 14) and Malin Street (Rte.83).
With the cooperation of the Public Works Department, we
simulated a 81xl01 sign at t -he corner and then took pictures
in order to show its potential impact on traffic, signals and
general visibility, With reasonable consideration given to
the chbice of colors and subdued interior illumination, the
sign location would not interfere with signal visibility.
The same photo also shows the sign as 'it would appear to the
eye if reduced approximately 30 -percent (635' by 81-2 The
staff would recommend this as the maximum size 'if the Board
wishes to consider this variation. In addition, we would
recommend no additional signs be permitted on the property
and that landscaping be installed on the site. The base of
the sign could be planted with low shrubbery. Also the two
Northern parking spaces could have planters placed to the
No ' rth and planters -could also be placed on the small island
at the Southwest corner of the parcel.
Village' -CIT, 'cunt Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois L
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TOO- Gil Basnik, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman
FROM. - P Community Development Staff
SUBJECT: ZBA-24-V-81,, Peter Panagopoulos
LOCATION,: 2 West Northwest Highway
DATE,: November 12, 1981
The petitioner 'is requesting variations from the Sign Ordinance
Section 9.303.E.4(A)(1) and E.4.(B)(3); to allow construction
of -a free-standing business sign. The proposed sign would be
18 feet in height, 80 square feet in area (8xlO) and have a
setback of 4 feet from the property line for the support pole.
VILLAGE STAFF COMENTS
No staff cornments were received on this case,
The property is presently being remodeled and renovated with a
revised parking layout and inclusion of landscaping. The
result will be a significant improvement over the previous use
of.the lot. The free-standing sign requested would be located
within. the landscaped area at the corner of the lot.
I
The sign, as proposed, would be centered within the private
landscaped area at the corner. The sign is shown as 10 feet
long, and located approximately 2 to 3 feet from the prop�rty
Line. The proximity of the sign to this major intersection is
a problem in our opinion. The size and height of the sign would
also add to the confusion at this corner and could "overpower"
this small lot.
This request is a major deviation from the requirements of the
Sign Ordinance. One option the Board may wish to consider is
to modify the size, height and setback of the free-st'andinq
sign and also reduce or eliminate the wall signs as a conditiol-i
of any variation granted.
wm�
F
77
i
pp
F
. E
s
sx
g
In
40 CDT
�I
1.
_g
9fmi, £o.Iv.:€ic;tT.f,3i€.P�eT,°`t' ai
qq
w
F � �
F - - ��# � S-'3$ ker � .R4�°.s •St �Fb�ts: �.3 s`t..t�e��t .°'ids i'7 "` - _ �� • � _ _ �� .� ��3
`� � # � �.��—_ ....:'�.� �. F.�-._� �—ate. SFS R-E�-E��� �.— _ a �_ g - . _ _ _ _ t� °- • � ���
t
R
fit
tt;
{_ f by
ll {
E
WAY
yj F
g a
g
m
_
Y
Villag*.,, 1,1-f Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois 11'(.4,11111� Ql-
INTEROFFICEMEMORANDUM
TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ZBA-27-Z-81, HARVEY KOLOMS
LOCATION: 201 E. KENSINGTON ROAD (Map 16-N)
DATE: December 23, 1981
The request is for a rezoning from B-3 to B-4 Business District
for the former Olson Rug property, The petition was heard
at the November 19, 1.981 public hearing of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. At that time the petitioner stated his desire for use
of the property as an amusement center with approximately 125
games,
The Community Development staff raised questions on the ex-
pansion of the B-4 District in this area, the high traffic
volume and traffic safety concerns for the property, and the
increase in intensity of use. These factors are particularly
important because of the limited parking available on site
and the traffic and pedestrian safety concerns at this particular
Location.
The Zoning Board of Appeals, by a unanimous vote, recommended
against approval of the proposed rezoning.
Villager ."f Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Communitv Development Director
SUBJECT: ZBA-27-Z-81F HARVEY KOLOMS
LOCATION: 201 E. KENSINGTON ROAD (Map 16-N)
DATE: December 23, 1981
The request is for a rezoning from B-3 to B-4 Business District
for the former Olson Rug property. -The petition was heard
at the November 19, 1981 public hearing of the Zoning Board of
Appeals. At that time the petitioner stated his desire for use
of the property as an amusement center with approximately 125
games.
The Community Development staff raised questions on the ex-
pansion of the B-4 District in this area, the high traffic
vol.ume and traffic safety concerns for the property, and the
increase in intensity of use. These factors are particularly
important because of the limited parking availa,ble on site
and the traffic and pedestrian safety concerns at this particular
location.
The Zoning -Board of Appeals, by a unanimous vote, recommended
against approval of the proposed rezoning,
WMIM
0*1,Ao, 7,
C'AROLYN H,,KRAUSE
mayor
TRUSTEES
RALPH W. ARTHUR
GERALD L.'FARLEY
LEU FLOROS
EDWARD J. MILLER
THEODORE J. WA?TENSERC
TERRANCE L. SURGHARD 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
village manager
Phone 312 / 392-6000
REPORT .CSF PUBLIC HEARING
Hearing Date: November 19, 1981
Report Date: December 9, 1981
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND THE VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FROM; ZONING G .BOARD OF .APPEALS
REFERENCE: ZBA- 2 7-- Z- 8 l
PETITIONER-. HAR TEY KOLOMS
a
PROPERTY: 201 EAST KENSINGTON ROAD (Map 16-N
�,APPLICATI{ N.- Petitioner is requesting a rezoning from. B-3 to B-4
Businesa:District.
NOTICE PUBLISHED: YES
NEIGHBORS NOTIFIED YES
FINDINGS ON PETITION
Petitioner asked for this rezoning in order to ope3`ate an amusement
center. Petitioner stated
,, in support of his petition, the proximity
to other B-4 uses and the fact that the use was consistent with the
general area. The petitioner,,stated the amusenrent center would have
adult attendants, approximately 125 games would be installed, and that
no smoking, eating or drinking would be permitted on premises..
Petitioner would remodel the structure and felt that: parking would be
sufficient due to a high turn --aver on the premises. The site :has 19
parking spaces and is located South of the Randhur,st Shopping Center,
East of the Goodyear Tire Center.
The Community Development staff cited the issues to be considered in,
deliberation of the case. These included the desirability of expanding
a. B-4 District in this particular area because of the high traffic
volumes and traffic safety problems, .A safety factor ' far pedestrians
and bicyclists is also of concern because of the age group of clients
The number and intensity of uses permitted in the B-4 District may cause
problems of corn-patibil ity and safety.
The principal conte-rns raised by Board mem ►ers were the adequacy of tChe
site in terns of traffic safety -and parking and the desirability of
creating an enlarged B--4 area at: this location. The Board members
raised questions about whether 19 spaces would be sufficient to handle
the potential occupancy of this site and also whether there was adequate
provision for pedestrians or bicyclists crossing Kensington, Rand and.
;Route 83 to approach this particular location. The rezoning to B-4
November 19, 1981 Public Hearing Report
Page Two
would extend the highest intensity commercial uses permitted in the
Village with their related potential problems. A majority of the
zoning in the,area is B-3. The Board of Appeals found that no
evdence was submitted, that ty propervalues were d'minished by the
'i
existing B-3 zoning,,' and that the petitioner's request for B-4 may
cause an increase in safety,hazards in the area, The petitioner did
not submit evidence that a hardship was caused by the existing B-3
zoning nor that there was any significant public gain by the rezoning,
The past uses of the property were consistent with the B-3 zoning.
The existing,, B-3 zoning was felt to be c6tpati ble with the Comprehens live
Plan of the Village and the rezoning was, not, substantiated by evidence
of communitv need
RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Van Geem made a motion, seconded by Mr. Cassidy to recommend
approval of the petition for rezoning* By a vote of 0-6. with
Mr. Vi ger abstaining due to a lack of survey being submitted in
e 'dencet the motion was denied.
vi
ZIA
ClIx
101
k
p
H
Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
1*N
"T'08 Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
Kenneth H. Fritz, Community Development Director
S
T, 'UBaJ];JCT.- ZBA-37-V-81, FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MOUNT PROSPECT
LOCAT 11"', 700 EAST RAND ROAD (MAP 8-N)
DAM: December 22, 1981
Petition is for a variation from the"Sign Code to permit a sign
to be placed on the side wall of the building facing an interior
9
lot line. The interpretation of the Ordinance is that wall signs
itted only on building facades along a street frontage
are permi
not an interior lot line. The s'iqn is to be approximately 15
square feet in area on the Southeast wall of the building. The
Community Development staff report raised questions on the need
for the sign when considering the other permitted signs on the
lot, and the lack of hardship established by the petitioner,
The Zoning Board of Appeals, at their December 17, 1981 public
hearing, recommended approval of the sign by a vote of 6-1.
Copies of the Community Development staff report, the Zoning
Board of Appeals minutes and the site plan are attached.
0
Atta.c1i,
401�
Prospect
NIOUnt Pri 1 l,s
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: G101 Basnik, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman
FRUM: Communlity Development Staff
S is -7
-T v rp
ZB-A-37-V-81, First: Ban1t: of ProsJo en c 41
LOCATION: 700 East Rand Road (Map 8-N)
DATE: December 10, 1981
Petitioner requests a variation f rom Sect 'Ion
Sign Ordiina'nce, The variation would permit a'placement of a
0
sign on the wall of the bank facility which fronts an *Interior
lot line..
VILLAGE STAFF COMMENTS
All VI-Ilage Departments reviewed the petition and no negatl*ve
con"ments were received.
Petitioner is before the Board to seek the variation locating a
sign along an linterior lot 11ine. The citation, Sectl*on,9.303(C)l
states: requirements for signs based upon store frontage or street
frontage. The Staff interpretation of this pa-,ticular regulation,
beqcause of the cletati'on of street frontage for wall sign• s,, is
that. wall signs are permitted only along walls which have street
frontage. This eliminates the problems Of signs along interior
lot: lines interfering with buildings, other pot-ential signs.. or
fac-ing non-commercial arease,
Then:, particular request before the Board is to locate a five foot
i
sIx. inch high sign on a wall of the bank facility which faces
the adjacent restaurant. The total height of the sign i-Muld be
0 A- The property v -ill also
apbro.x,lmauely 22 feet from ground
several other s-igns locaLed on it. One of these is afree-
snte.rsect_:'Lon of Rand Road and P30siness C nter t,-_-indinq sign i
at the 0
Dri-ve. This sign will be approx-imately 18 feet in height and
si-l-nificant ly larger in area than the proposed wall sign.
.0
Gil Basnik - Page Two
December 10, 1981
The staff would submit that this free-standing sign performs the
same function as the sign requested here. Additionally, be-
cause of 'its size and orientation to Rand Road, 'it actually would
'de better vi'sibility for vehicles along Rand Road than that
provi
wbJ_ch 'is proposed to be mounted on the wall. The applicant has
not stated in the petition any hardship as a basis for approval
of thi's sign. If approved, it is the staff's opinion, it would
merely add, needlessly to the proliferation of busines-1-3 signs
along this arterial.
41
For this reason, the staff would recommend against approval of
th iis petition as submitted.
MMMO
t 10
"
(
& r
Gil Basnik - Page Two
December 10, 1981
The staff would submit that this free-standing sign performs the
same function as the sign requested here. Additionally, be-
cause of 'its size and orientation to Rand Road, 'it actually would
'de better vi'sibility for vehicles along Rand Road than that
provi
wbJ_ch 'is proposed to be mounted on the wall. The applicant has
not stated in the petition any hardship as a basis for approval
of thi's sign. If approved, it is the staff's opinion, it would
merely add, needlessly to the proliferation of busines-1-3 signs
along this arterial.
41
For this reason, the staff would recommend against approval of
th iis petition as submitted.
MMMO
jog
COX ``
O y " q�ry^Wru
.•'tea:,.
tb
d ' rs
'Z
ca
IgWNr�
ti
4SO
ru
4
t4-0
4P 0
„41
NFZ�
w'
Cp'
M f
1! rr'
W,
�c. C7„}'J //o"J'+C' +C^i ,/�C' c.�, � 1pt �r� ,�.%�C'.i~./"Gi'.i✓ �7" ` T�7 —��
M&, ,
o
s
e
r
ti
a
P �
s _3
e
t
{
z
3
s
t
�fro
X
� B 4
J
[ ®Y�--i'y.� t +tea F� �vv. •�6` >.-.
Village W.,uont Prnctw
l f ,pint Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
T04-0 Gi
V'111I a of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TOO- Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ZBA-29-A-81F VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
DATE: December 22, 1981
The petition before the Board is to amend the Pence Ordinance
to permit a six foot high fence along the rear lot line when
that lot line abuts an arterial road. The amendment also
suggests clarification of text for fences located on corner
lots and specifies clearly that the Zoning Board of Appeals
has the authority to hear and decide requests for variations
from the Fence Ordinance.
The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended approval of the
amendment by a vote of 6-0.
Copy of the minutes and Community Development staff report
are attached.
KHF.- hq1
A t t C'WL
12/2/8-L,--
114MBIWEM" Won
WON
ENNSAWIM
(e) in Residential Districts, as defined by the Village of
Mount Prospect Zoning Ordinance. A fence up to six (6) feet
in height will be permitted along the rear lot line when
such rear line abuts an arterial road as defined bv the
Com1prehensILve Plan of the Village of Mount Prospect. No
fence may be placed nearer than one (1) foot from the right--
of-way Line
Add New Section 21.705:
Varl'Atlobsl: The Zoning Board of Appeals shall hear and decide
all, requests for variations from the regulations contained
0
in this Article. Said public hearing shall be held in accord-
ance withArticle e cle VI of Chapter 14 of the. Village of Mount
Prospect Zoning Ordinance,
Replace Existing Section 21.701.A.(2) with:
On corner lots, any fence shall be placed entirely behind the
rear building line along the side street.
Add New Section 21.701.A. (3) -0
Any fence located along a public right-of-way shall be located
a minimum of one (1) foot from the property line.
vi I I g Prospect'
......,'Junt Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM AM'
TO: G-11 Basni'k, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman
FROMI: Community Development Staff
SUBJECT: ZBA-30-A-81, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
DATE: November 24, 1981
REQUEST
Petition for a text amendment to Section 14.2001 of the Zoning
Ordinance. This amendment restructures the permitted and
excluded uses listed in the B-3 District in order to provide
for gasoline sales -and automobile service stations as a special
use in the B-3 District,
Upon review of the proposed amendment by the Village Departments
no negative comments were received.
CC eLMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF RECOOTU4ENDAT IONS
The staff prepared this text amendment after the Zoning Board
of Appeals and Village Board recommended approval of ZBA-20-Z-81,
Schimming Oil Company, as a special use in the B-3 District
rather than a rezoning to the B-4 District. A number of other
similar cases have resulted in recommendations -by the Board for
a special use for gas stations and automobile service stations
rather than a rezoning. A special use would afford "Significantly
more control over the use in the B-3 zoning district as
compared to a B-4 rezoning of the property.
Cormnunity Development staff therefore recommends approval of
this proposed amendment.
W21=01
i pe�
a Of Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Terrance L, Burghard, Village Manager
FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ZBA-30-A-81, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
DATE: December 22, 1981
The text amendment is to identify gasoline sales and automobile
service stations as a special use in the B-3 District. The
amendment was proposed by staff after several cases were heard
by the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Village Board raising
questions about rezoning to B-4.
The Zoning Board of Appeals unanimously recommended approval
of the amendment at their December 3, 1981 meeting,
Copies of the minutes of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the
Community Development staff report are attached.
KHF .- hgl
Att
1VTount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM '71
TO: Cil Basnik, Zoning Board of Appeals 6h,"I'ladirman
FROM: Community Development Staff
SUBJECT.- ZBA-31-A-81F VILLAGE OF MOUINT PROSPECT
DATE.- November 24, 1981
The petition is for a proposed amendment to establish
regulations for general provision and district specific
requirements relating to Residential Care Homes. Residential
Care Homes is the specific definition given for all types
of care for disabled, alcohol dependent, chemical dependent,
handicapped, or mentally disabled individuals.,
VILLAGE STAFF COMMENTS
All Village Departments have reviewed the petition and no
negative comments were received.
COMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REC01-UMENDATIONS
This amendment has been brought forward because of the number
of requests received by staff for foster care homes, homes
for autistic children, homes for the mentally disabled, homes
for the physically disabled or other types of residential
facilities. Rather than address each type as they come forward
for approval, the staff has prepared a comprehensive amendment
on the subject of these facilities.
The basic thrust of this amendment is to require extensive
information on the suitability of each facility at the specific
location and to limit the type of facility based upon the - ',
general area in which it is to be located. Large scale homes
are not permitted in the single family residential districts
and are permitted by special use only in the multiple family
district.
The Community Development staff feels this ordinance provides, a
reasonable protection not only to the rights of the Village and
existing Village residents but also to the rights of the potential
residents living in each of these facilities. The staff would
recommend approval of this petition.
KHF -0 hg
Villa'e Rf Mount Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
RM." A AA"I.y fro4 prf,
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO We Terrance L. Burghard,, Village Manager
FROM: Kenneth H. Fritz, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: ZBA-31-A-81, VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT
DATE: December 22, 1981
The proposed text amendment is a draft prepared by staff to
address regulations for residential care homes. The proposed
amendment sets forth definitions, specific- requirements, and
listing of permitted and special uses in various residential
districts. The Zoning Board of Appeals considered the proposel
amendment at the December 3. and December 17, 1981 public
hearings. I
The questions raised ally by the Zoning Board of Appeals
include the minimum distance between such facilities, the
amount of parking required for each type of facility and its
location on therequirements for licensing, and,the
distinction between the size of facility and the tN7TDe of
client involved. The Board members considered whether the
larger facilities, above that defined by family, should be
permitted or special uses in all districts. Finally, the Board
raised the question of whether this type of facility was a
desirable use in any single family area in the Village.,
The Community Development staff, in preparing the draft, con-
sidered case law existing throughout Illinois and the United
States and information supplied by other authorities in the
health care industry. The text amendment does not reflect thvw
approach used by any other community in the area as no com-
munity has to date addressed the issue.
The Zoning Board of Appeals, after consideration of the specific
questions and concerns recommended denial of the text amendment.
The Board stated that they felt the existing ordinance, in
defining family, adequately addressed the provision of health
care in residential neighborhoods. Copies of the Community
Development staff report and the minutes of the Zoning Board of
Appeals meeting are attached.
CAROLYN H, KRAUSE
mayor
TRUSTEES
RALPH W. ARTHUR
GERALD L FARLEY
LEO FL ROS
EDWARD1 MILLER
NORMA J,, MURAUSKIS
THEODORE J, WATTENBEAG
TERRANCE L RLR GHARD
village manager
wv),
J11
of .�M,,Clunt Prospect
100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 3, 1981
8:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Lois Brothers, Ronald Cassidy, Len Petrucelli,
George VanGeem,, Jim Viger and Chairman Gil
Basnik. Also present: Ken Fritz, Director of
Community Development, Bill Amundsen, Zoning
Officer, and Steve Park, Village Planner
ZBA-24-V-81 Peter Panaqopoulos, 2 W. Northwest Hi2hway_�Man7-S)
The pet ' litioner is seeking a variation to locate a free-standing business
sign on property located at the Northwest corner of Route 83 and
Northwest Highway. The request was continued from the November 19,1981
Board meeting in order to acquire additional information on sight
distances and potential interference with traffic signals.
Ken Fritz, Director of Community Development, presented the staff findings
and recommendations on the case. Exhibits prepared by the staff indicate
that no interference is expected ected between traffic signals and the proposed
sign. The staff recommended that the size of the sign be reduced to
a maximum of 62- feet by 8-1-2 feet with a clearance of 10 feet from ground
to the bottom of sign. Additionally the staff suggested that any in-
terior illumination be maintained at a low level so as not to create too
bright of a background for the traffic lights at this intersection.
Mr. VanGeem questioned the need for a message board attached to this
sign. It was his opinion that the additional information might cause
traffic problems for people driving by the congested intersection.
Several Board members questioned the size of the sign re(Tuested at 80
square feet, 8 feet by 10 feet, and felt that no evidence was given which
supported the need for this size sign,
Mr. Petrucelli made a motion to approve a sign of maximum dimension of
63-2' x 83-2' per petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. The motion died for lack of
a second.
The Board, in considering the standards for granting their variations,
felt that the property would be diminished in value to a certain degree
if a sign could not be installed. The Board also felt that the request
was due to the unique situation on the property, the building being set
back from adjacent structures, and that the hardship was not created by
the current petitioner. The Board considered the question of public
benefit or harm regarding traffic safety at this particular intersection,
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
December 3, 1981
Page Two
Finally, the Board determined that the requested sign would not signifi-
cantly alter the character of the general area. Mr. Cassidy made a
motion, "seconded by Mrs. Brothers to approve a free-standing business
sign cif :a maximum dimension of 6h feet by 8h feet per petitioner's,
Exhibit'No. 1 and subject to the elimination of any message board attached
to the sign. The motion was approved 1by a vote of 4-2 with Mr. Viger
and MrOlPetrucelli voting against the motion.
The * Board questioned whether they had the authority to grant this
variation or would merely be recommending approval to the Village Board,
The staff was requested to seek a legal determination from the Village
Attorney as to whether the Zoning Board of Appeals would be final in
this particular request. Contingent upon the Zoning Board of Appeals
being found to have the authority to grant this variation, Mr. Cassidy
made a motion, seconded by Mrs. Brothers to recommend approval of
Resolution Z-24-81 granting a variation for a maximum size sign of 6h
feet by:81� feet per petitioner's Exhibit No. 1 and subject to -no message
board being provided on the sign. By a vote of 4-2r with Mr. Viger and
Mr, Pettucelli voting against the motion, the Resolution was approved.
ZBA-32-V-81 and ZBA-33-SU-81 Briarwolod, Sh]Lnq, Center, 1801 1843
a 1,,
Petitioner is requesting variations from Section 14,1702.A.,B,, and C.,
14.703 and 14.1705.A. in order to permit fewer off-street parking spaces
than previously authorized by ordinance No, 2513, dated July 16, 1974,
and to per it said off-street parking spaces in the required yards. The
request'for Special Use, ZBA-33-SU-81, is for approval of a third free-
standing building on the subject property, Mr, Bernard Lee represented
the petitioner, Jimmie T, Giftos, and presented the following background
information. The property was annexed and built, by a previous owner,
in 1974.The lot consists of approximately 95,000 square feet and has
been authorized for two free-standing buildings with a total square
footage of approximately 4, 000. The previous ordinance in 1974
specifiIed 147 parking spaces which were never provided and which could
not be physically placed on the site.
Mr. Lee entered the following exhibits into evidence: a Torrens Certifi-
cate for the property, a Trust Agreement, a letter from Chicago Title
and Trust authorizing Mr. Giftos to apply for these cases, and a survey
of the property.
The Community Development staff report was read which suggested approval
of the variations in order, to maximize the available parking on site.
The report identified that the current parking situation does not
adequately provide for customers and employees; and substantial re-
design and re -construction of the parkinq lot would be necessary in
,order to maximize the parking efficiency and traffic flow on the site.
I
Mr,"Viger, questioned whether the 'property as`described I escribed in the survey is
a, corner lot as identiPied :in the petition or a double -frontage' lot,
Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
December 3, 1981
Page Three
Discussion ensued on the definition of a corner versus a double frontage
lot.
Mr. Basnik raised the question of whether the Fotomat existing on -the
ite was a legal building in light of the past authorization for only
si
two free-standing buildings. Staff advised that no building,permit
was issued for the Fotomat Store. Mr. Louis Craig, 2808 Briarwiii
and Mr. Gordon Dunker, 2715 Elaine Court, both spoke of the problems
associated with the Briarwood Shopping Center. These gentlemen from
the Briarwood Association commented that there was insufficient parking
on the site and that the Fotomat Store took up needed parking. They
also cited the poor maintenance of both the parking lot and the
periphery of the,site.
Mr. Giftos stated that the Fotomat building would be removed and aske(II
that the Special Use request, 33 -SU -81 be withdrawn,
Mrs. Brothers moved, seconded by Mr. Petrucelli to recommend approval
of the variations to permit additional parking and re -design of the
parking facility contingent upon the removal of the Fotomatj provision
of additional Parking in 'its place, and approval of the design and con*-
struction of the new parking lot by the Community Development staff.
By a vote of6-0 the motion recommending approval passed.
ZIBA"29-A-81 Vil2,,a of Mount Prospect 100 South Emers�
40
1W
1W
10 i W
•
011
•
4V W
*�CAROLYN W KRAUSE wvjA jpNo o
mayor
TRUSTEES
RALPH W,,, ARTHUR
GERALD L, FARLEY
LEO FLOROS
EDWARD J, MILLER
NORMA J. MURAUSKIS V "'I I age of Mount 'Prospect
THEODOREJ,WATTENBERG
TERRANCE L. BURGHARD 100 S. Emerson Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056
village manager
Phone 312 l 392-6000
MINUTES OF MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
December 17, 1981
8-000 p. m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Loi' Brothers, Ron Cassidy, George Van Deem,
Jim Viqer, and Chairman it Basnik. Len
Petrucelli arrived at 8:20 and Bob Shipman
arrived at 9:00. Also present: Steven Park,
Village Planner and Bill Amundsen,Zoning Officer,
A 0 0 0
.. ..........
A number of residents in the general area raised questions on the sub-
division. These Included: the potential problem from traffic and con-
gestion on Lincoln because of the subdivision; the size of the lots- the
1 1 1
potential problem with water runoff; and the proposed width of the lots.
Residents appearing were: If -
Dorothy Abenanti, 1341 S. ' Central Avenue
James Thompson, 2112 W. Lincoln
Betty -Cushing, representing the Morin family, 707 E* Lincoln
Dr. Dav*1d Zak and Mrs. Rose Zak, 725 E. Lincoln
T" OT
hon -Lug Boax ki 1-1v a Z> _L I I U t -
December 17,, 1,981 Page Two
Julia Ferrini, 2105 Haven
Paul Robins, 2107 W. Lincoln
David Boldar 2114 W. Haven
f the subdivision
The residents were informed that the proposed drainage o
should be'discussed with the Plan Commission when they consider the
layout of public 'improvements in the subdivision. The lot size is above
the minimum for R-1 Single Pamilyl- consistent with the surrounding area.
The South end of the cul-de-sac, even with smaller widthp contain lots
of significantly greater area.
Mr, Roy Harnish engineer for Mr. Craig, and Mr. Craig ' stated that the
development would not, unduly interfere with drainage in the area and that
oil*
storm sewers were planned. They also stated that they would be wi inq
to eliminate one lot and increase the lot width at the South end of the
cul-de-sac from Lots 4 through 10.
Mr, Cassidy stated that he had no problem with the rezoning but did suggest
0
the increase in lot width on Lots 4 through 10. Mr, Viger stated he felt
the requirements should be made for a minimum 6.5 foot side yard at the
The case was continued
build.-Lng line regardless of the width of the lot.
until their January 28, 1981 regular meeting of the Zoning Board of
kopeals so that Mr. Craig would be able to prepare revised, drawings.
ZBA-36-V-81 Leonard No'ga 109 S. Albert Street LM:21'1E,,,1 10-S)
Mr. Nogaj presented his request for a 6 foot privacy fence extending from
the front building line, 64 feet toward the rear of his property, along
the North lot line. The fence 'is requested as some large hedges and
shrubbery' were removed recently along this lot line eliminating the visual
barrier between the two properties. Mr, Noqaj said that the fence was
requested as a privacy measure to assist in separating his family and his
dog from the neighbor to the North. He stated that an existing fence of
4-5 feet,' approximately 20-25 feet in length 'is 'insufficient for the
purposes desired. In the rear yard also, is a wire fence which would be
removed upon installation of the requested 6 foot fence'. Mrs. Lois,
Noga3 submitted a letter from the prop�erty owner to,the South which
stated they had no objection to the request.
Mr. Waldemar Blela, the neighbor immediately to the North, appeared in
opposition to the request, He had just 'installed a 5 foot high chain
link fence this Fall along that common property line. He stated he saw
no reason for the fence particularly since he planned to 'Install bushes
along that chain link fence when weather permitted* Mrw John Murphyr
owner of 106 S. Albert and Ms. Bernetta Bier, 102 S. Albert stated
objection to the 6 foot fence as they, felt that it would not improve the
aesthetics of the neighborhood and may diminish their property values.
Mr. Len Petrucelli questioned the staff report,; citing the desire to have
comments more relevant to the snecific requesto The report included in -
41
'formation regarding an encroachment inf-,on.e of the yards and stated a re-
subdivision would be necessary prior to i'ssuing permit, as the property
Zoning Board of Appea.,41inutes
December 17, 1981 - Page Three
Mk
zoning Board of ppeals Minutes
December 17, 1981 - Page Four
Both raised concerns about the quantity of signs on the property and
along Rand Road. The Community Development staff :report was read which
questioned thebasis of the hardship of the sign and the existence of
other signs on the property which Prov *de the same function as this
proposed sign.,
Mrs. Brothers moved, seconded by Mr. Vlqer, to approve the request per
petitioner's Exhibit No. 2. The motion was approved by a vote of 6-1
with Mr, Petrucelli voting against the motion, Mrs. Brothers made a
w
motion, seconded by Mr. Cassiody to approve Resolution Z-37-81 per
petitioner's Exhibit No, 2, The motion was approved by a vote of 6-1
4
with Mr. Petrucelli voting aqainst the motion,
ZBA-31-81 Vela geof Mount Prosppct,,, 100 S, Emerson -St. -Residential Care Hcmes,
The proposal 'is to amend the R through R-4 Districts and provide re-
gulations and related definitions for residential care homes. The
proposal was continued from the December 3. 1981 meeting i I n order to
perml regiI
it further ew by Board members.
Mr. Cassidy questioned why the regulations cited 12 individuals as the
numerical distinction between hypes of facilities and suggested a lower
number be used. He also -suggested stricter enforcement of the clientele
that would be Permitted in these facilities and that some types of clients
would not be desirable in the Village.
Mr., Va,nGeem questioned why some facilities are permitted uses in the
proposed ordinance in multliple-family dwelling districts and not in single
family dwelling districts, He proposed that they should be special uses
in both single and multiple -family districts,
Mr. Viger stated 'in his opinion,the R-1 District requires two off-street
parking spaces, no more and no less, The ordinance as proposed, may re-
quire more parking than currently required.
Mr. Bani k suggested that one parking space should be required for every
individual with a driver's license so that parking would not be a problem,
particularly in single family areas,
0
Mr, Petrucelll stated his opinion that no single family area should have
e
r idental care homes allowed, si i
The Z6ning Board, in further discussionr recommended that the existing
text, defining family, 'is adequate and that no amendment is desired.,
• Mr, VanGeem made a motion, seconded by Mr, Cassidy to recommend denial of
the proposed petition. The motion recommending denial of the text
amendment was approved by a vote of 6-0 with Mr,, Shipman abstaining
stating that he did not have adequate time to review the request.
The meeting was adjourned at ll. -OO pfame
Ile
thTairman
'd"In
SObro
RAUENHORST „j,1 it
DESiGNERS 0 BUILDERS O DEVELOPERS
Wecember 14, 198k
Mr. Steve Park
Village Planner
Office of Community Development
Village of Mount Prospect
100 South Emerson
roan t
t- Prospec-L-L_ , IL 60056
Confirming our recent conversation by phone concerning the pro-
posed variance submitted by First National Bank of Mount Prospect
(Case #ZBA-37-V-81), I would like to submit the following comments.
The variance in question proposes to allow a 51 x 51 corporate
logo to be attached to the south face of First National Bank of
Mount Prospect's new facility at the corner of Rand and Business
Center Drive. Although I have no objection to the logo per se,
0
I do object to the excess signage on this property. It is my
understanding that the intent of the Sign Ordinance as written
and proposed by your staff is to reduce the amount of unnecessary
signage in Mount Prospect and to produce greater consistency
in the installation of signs. I would appreciate it if you
would consider recommending denial of this variance on the grounds
that this additional signage is redundant and contrary to the
intent of the Village sign standards.
Please feel free to call if you have any questions on this matter.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
RAUENHORST CORPORATION
Daniel C. Cramer
Real Estate Division
DCC/mj a
CC: Joe Clancy
Harold Stone - First National Bank
of INIount Prospect
Robert Chudy
A
1VHL%N' U K E E 1 PHC)E1,HX
CHICAGO OFFPCEKENS!�'IGAT'&N� CEP4 FEF -1 F 0 irl"i B U S � N ESS, 4 11 0 F1 T H B 'U'E; q `,4 - S S C E N� TE A D R 0""E, M C) �� J N T' PA 0,3 P E C T, I L. L � N 0 1 S 50056
I
December 17, 1981
Mr. Gilbert Basnik
Chairman, Zoning Board of Appeals
Villacre of Mount Prospect
61n
100 South Emerson
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 60056
Refer,-, Case No. ZBA-37-V-81
Dear Mr. Basnik.-I
410 N. Business Center Dri've
Mount Prospect, 11knois 60056
Phone 312/635-7330
Telex: 28-2595
From the in -formation we have reviewed on the petition for sign
variation for property at 700 E. Rand Road, we feel the signs
and logos which are planned for the facility and already allowed
by the Mt. Prospect Sign Ordinance are more than adequate for
promotion and identification,
Accordingly, in this instance, we donot feel this variation to the
Mt. Prospect Sign Ordinance is justified.
A 1b,4-r"'t L Ecicker
an a a er
Cc.- Mr. Dan Cramer
Rauenhorst Corp.
wt f
,,
l�
4
7'
V
L
Village of Mount Priospect
100 S. Emerson Mount, Prospect, Illinois 6005E3
Phone 312 / 392-6000
TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
FROM: Edward A. Geick., Assistant Village Manager
SUBJECT: Changes in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
Minimum Hourly Standards
DATE: November 3, 1981
Several years ago, the Village of Mount Prospect sent a
.request to our local legislators for a change in the I.M.R.F.
minimum hourly standard for employee participation in the
pension plan. The Legislature has now passed that new standard
and set the minimum at 1,000 hours for those employers who
wish to participate in the revised program. The Village may
participate in the new 1,000 hour minimum by passing the
attached resolution after January 1, 1982.
,1"he effect of adopting the new minimum hourly standard will
be to pe 'i the Village to �iire hourly employees on a part
'time basin and Y r.pa )nly Social Security pension benefits
re thart hagr to pay socia"I security I and I.M.R.F. together.
This Will help seduce some of the Village' s expenses for
hirig temporary part-tit-iie � part-time employees. The new
law af'fects only en,,iployees hired after January 1, 1982.
Employees presently e�z-nployeed would not be affected by the
chz,ixiges and, wo�uld sY 'under the present plan.
I would recommend that we adopt the new standard at the first
Village Board meeting of 1982', on January 5, 1982.
TF� USTE ES
L H 1m V .4, R 'T H U 119
Y
E RD J M I L I w E R
0 j I P,1,N j %III j JI °, (J's I< 1 7,
THEODORE I VVATTIEN,8�::r:�(;
rERHAACE L QUIRGHARC)
W111age manager
wt f
,,
l�
4
7'
V
L
Village of Mount Priospect
100 S. Emerson Mount, Prospect, Illinois 6005E3
Phone 312 / 392-6000
TO: Terrance L. Burghard, Village Manager
FROM: Edward A. Geick., Assistant Village Manager
SUBJECT: Changes in the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund
Minimum Hourly Standards
DATE: November 3, 1981
Several years ago, the Village of Mount Prospect sent a
.request to our local legislators for a change in the I.M.R.F.
minimum hourly standard for employee participation in the
pension plan. The Legislature has now passed that new standard
and set the minimum at 1,000 hours for those employers who
wish to participate in the revised program. The Village may
participate in the new 1,000 hour minimum by passing the
attached resolution after January 1, 1982.
,1"he effect of adopting the new minimum hourly standard will
be to pe 'i the Village to �iire hourly employees on a part
'time basin and Y r.pa )nly Social Security pension benefits
re thart hagr to pay socia"I security I and I.M.R.F. together.
This Will help seduce some of the Village' s expenses for
hirig temporary part-tit-iie � part-time employees. The new
law af'fects only en,,iployees hired after January 1, 1982.
Employees presently e�z-nployeed would not be affected by the
chz,ixiges and, wo�uld sY 'under the present plan.
I would recommend that we adopt the new standard at the first
Village Board meeting of 1982', on January 5, 1982.
RF�OLUT ION TO ADOPT THE ANNUAL I 1 000 HOUR STANDARD Ff� TM F PARTICIPni 10.11i
ot to be adopted before January 1, 1982)
WHEREAS, Section 7-137 of the Illinoi's Pension Code proyides that effectiye
Januar 1, 1982, certain employers in the Illinois Municipal
Retirement Fund ma
y y
elect to exclude from participation in the Fund persons in positions norially requiring
performance of duty for less than 1,000 hours per year; and
WHEREAS, the exclusion may be applicable only to persons first employed in
positions under the Fund by any employer in the Fund after the adoption of the
resolutions establishing the exclusion; and
WHEREAS, is authorized by Section 7-137
_TN
ame of Governing . . . . ...... . .... ___`
of the Illinois sion Code to adopt such exclusion and it is desirable that it do
so;
RESOLVED that the of
Governing Body ame of Employer)
does hereby elect to exclude from participation in the Illinois Municipal Retirement
Fund all officials and employees in positions normally requiring perfon-nance of duty
for less than 1,000 hours per year; I
FURTHER RESOLVED that this exclusion shall apply only to officials and
employees who first occupy offices or positions under the Fund after adoption of
this resolution
FURTHER RESOLVED that the authorized and
�ecrJa_ry
directed to file a duly certified copy of this resolution with the Illinois Municipal
Retirement Fund.
M
R1111 F I CAT I ON
the
me�Clerk or Secretary)--
. . . . ......
of the, of the County of
_FN i ime �of 1�p �oy
State of Illinois, do hereby certify that I am the keeper of its books and records
and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution duly adopted by
its
at a meeting duly convened and held on the'
overning
day of 19
NMI
erk or Secr�_t_arj
Cities -City Council
Counties -County Board or Board of County Comiflssiovers
Townships -Board of Town Trustees
Villages -President and Board of Trustees
Others -Name of Governing Body
THIS RESOLUTION CANNOT BE USED BY A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR SPEC. ED. COOPEPATIVE
IMRF Form 6.68 (11-81)
FUND
o
L L
ICIPAL
I I I S M U N R E T I WE M
100 SOUTH WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 Telephone (312) 346-6722
Board of Trustees
Albert J. Glienke, President * James E. Schierhorn, Vice President 46 Jenny F. Birtic, S&cretary o Robert J. Carlson • Marvin J. Lapicola -
Gerald J. Sebesta, Jr. Kenneth E. Taylor Ralph W. Kausch, Executive Director
SPECIAL MEMORANDUM
NUMBER: 153
DATE: November 2, 1981
TO: Authorized Agents - Other Than Schools
SUBJECT: 1000 Hour Standard For Participation in IMRF - Effective 1/1/821
House Bill 786 Approved September 15, 1981 PA. 82-459
Effective Janua,ry 11 198,2Article 7' of' the Illinois Pension Code has been amended to
it
_perml, I,MRF employers (other than school districts and special education cooperatives)
t-o—increaSe the standard for employee participation in IMRF from a position normally
requiring 'Performance of duty for 5600 ihours Or jr,ijore per year 'to one requiring 10010 hours
or, more per year. For employers electing the new 1100jo hour standard, It would be a,p-
pl'icable only to employees prospectively, and would not apply to employees then or
previously employed in positions qualifying for IKRF participation With A a,,, IMRF
emplo,yer.
I . How To Implement
'The governing body must adopt a, resolution pros pecti viely electing the 1000 hour
standard. This reso'j,ution cannot 'be adopted until the law lis, effective on January
1) 1982. A resolution adopted before that date wl 11 be null and v'oid., A ceritified
copy of 'the resolution must be' filed with IMRF. The re,s6Td7fi6 n
revoked. A sample resolution (Form 6.68) is attached.
11. Who Is Covered By The 1000 Hour Standard
The resolution must cover all employees of the employer; i.e. all departments
and instrumentalities whose employees are reported to IMRF by the employer.
Only employees hired after the date of the resolution will be covered by the new
1000 hour test.. Any employee, who has previously worked under a�
# _Lny I t 'R F
_jMj,_ eMl Qy-tr_,
in an IMRF Position will 'remain under the old 600 hour standard.. '''
Any employee �who
should have been enrolled in IMRF before the date of the resolution,, but was not,
will also be covered by the old 600 hour standard.
If an employee is excluded by an employer under the 1000 hour rule, and later
enters full-time employment, he cannot receive pension service credit for the
excluded service., If an employee is excluded by one employer under the 1,000
standard and shifts to an employer which retains the 600 hour test he can begin
pafticipation 'with the second employer if he works in a 600 1000 hourposition,
but may not receive pens , on s%ervice credit for the period with, the first employer.
I perl
III. Administration of 1000 Hour Standard
It should be noted that the administration of IMRF enrollment by employers adopt-
ing the 1000 hour standard will be difficult because they have to determine the
prior work record of employees hired in the 600 to 1000 hour category to determine
whether or not they must be enrolled in IMRF. This is a particularly difficult
problem where an employee has worked for a different 114RF employer and the new
-Over-
employer will not be aware of the fact unless each newemployee i'n the 600 to
1000 hour category is asked. It will be incumbent upon each employer ado,pting
the 1000 hour standard to carefully admin'ster the IMRF
I program. By adopting the
new 1000 hour standard, they are assuming a greater burden in classifying,
new
employees in order to avoid obligations for employees erroneously not enrolled
in IMRF.
IV. Elected Officials
Some elected officials such as village trustees, city council meinbers, county
board members, township officials, etc., who have other full-ti,me employment
participate in IMRF on the basis that their public off*
ices normally require
performance of duty for 600 hours or more per year., If the standard is, raised to
1000 hours, barring unusual circumstances, officials elected in these positions
after the effective daft? of the resolution could not meet the 1000 hour standarid.
y require Few, If' any, public, of positions of this type require an average of 20
hours of service ple�r week or more. Therefore,, governing bodies, aidopt'ing the '1000
i
hour standard should realize that future elected officials in these positions
will also be barred from 'participation.
V. Employer Cost Savings
VI. Reorganizations
Where a new governmental unit is formedsolely to take over the functions of an
existing unit the same standard for IMRF participation is applied to the new
unit. For instance, when a library district is formed to ta,ke over a vel lage
library, the village's standard for IMRF participation 'is applied. Where a
new unit takes over functions of more than one unit of government, then it
must choose either the 600 or 1000 hour standard when entering IMRF.
VII. Qualification For Retirement Annuity - Re-employment
An employee who at any time worked for an employer who was under the 600
hour standard is under that standard for qualification for a pension. The employee
cannot be employed in a 600 hour position and draw a pension. Only employees
who had service only for a 1000 hour employer after adoption of the resolution
may return to work in a 600 to 1000 hour category without having their pension
suspended.
If you have any questions, please contact David Regan, Di reg of Public Relations.
a ph Kausch
Executive Director
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL 1,000 HOUR STANDARD
FOR ILLINOIS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND PARTICIPATION
WHEREAS, Section 7-137 of the Illinois Pension Code provides
that effective January 2, 1982, certain employers in the
Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund may elect to exclude from
participation in the Fund persons in positions normally
requiring performance of duty for less than 1,000 hours
per year; and
WHEREAS, the exclusion may be applicable only to persons
first employed in positions under the Fund by any employer
in the Fund after the adoption of the Resolution establishing
the exclusion; and
WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect is authorized by
Section 7-137 of the Illinois Pension Code to adopt such
exclusion and it is desirable that it do so ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS:
SECTION ONE., That the Village of Mount Prospect does hereby
elect to exclude from participation in the Illinois Municipal
Retirement Fund all officials and employees in positions
normally requiring performance of duty for less than 1,000
hours per year.
SECTION TWO: That the exclusion stated herein shall apply
only to officials and employees who first occupy offices or
positions under the Fund after the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION THREE: That the Village Clerk is hereby authorized
and directed to file a duly certified copy of this Resolution
with the Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund.
SECTION FOUR: That this Resolution shall be in full force
and effect from and after its passage and approval in the
by law.
manner provided
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1982.
.......... . ..........
ATTEST:Mayor
Village Clerk