HomeMy WebLinkAbout3199_001o,om
MINUTES
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING
SEPTEMBER 8, 1951
I . ROLL' _CALL
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Krause at
7:30 p.m., in the Public Safety Building,
112 East Northwest Highway. Present at the meeting
were: Mayor Krause, Trustees Ralph Arthur, Gerald Farley,
Leo Floros, Edward Miller, Norma Murauskis and Ted
Wattenberg. Also in attendance were: Village Manager
Terrance Burghard, Director of Community -Development
Kenneth Fritz and approximately O persons in the
audience.
II. MINUTES
The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting of
August 25, 1981 were reviewed and accepted.
III. OLD ORCHARD TOWNHOMES
Mayor Krause explained that the developer of the Old
Orchard Joint Venture Townhomes, Mr. Frank DiMaria, is
now experiencing difficulty in finishing some' and
is 'requesting an extension of his building permits.
Mr. DiMaria explained to the Committee of the'Whole that
he cannot complete the units now under construction until
he sells some of the units that have been completed.. These
units are not selling, according to Mr. DiMaria, with the
current economic conditions and interest rates. He has
full intentions to stay with the project and complete the
remaining seuen.units and feels that an extension of the
building permits will allow him to do so. Village Manager
,.reviewed with Mr. DiMaria the need for strict compliance
with our property maintenance standards including continual
policing of the area to make sure the debris and refuse
does not accumulate to the detriment of surrounding
property and,that the structures are properly protected
for the safety of residents in the area, Mr. DiMaria
explained that it was his intention to comply withallof our requirements. Mr. Arnold Segal, of the Colony
Cciuntry Association, -addressed the Committee of the Whole
and suggested that the walls that :are left standing in
the ,seven incomplete units area detriment to their own
property values and ma,possily be a hazard to residents
in the area, Mr. DiMaria explained that the construction
of those masonry walls cast approximately $24,000 and that
they could be removed for $1500, but they would have to be
reins taled, at ;a cost substantially in excess of $24,000.
o ,
-2-
He indicated further that the walls were now braced
and he did not feel that -it would be a hazard. Mr. Lee
Hilfman,,President of the Colony Country Association,
reiterated his position that the walls are a danger and
,
detriment to the surrounding.. property. After some further
general discussion, the Committee of the Whole concluded
that it would not be in anyone's economic interest to
have the walls taken down at this point and that Mr: DiMaria
should pay particular attention to the appearance of that
property. After some further general discussion, Village
Manager was instructed'to.place this item on the next
Village Board Agenda for formal action to extend the
building permits not to exceed one year.
IV. ST.. JOHN'S LUTHERAN CHURCH REZONING RE QST
The petitioner, in this case Mr. and Mrs. Burns, are
seeping to•deve.lop the St. John's property to construct
48 multi -family units on 3.1 acres. The Plan Commission
has met and approved, in principle, the plat of subdivison
and the Zoning Board of Appeals has rejected by 6-0 vote
the application for rezoning. Mayor Krause pointed out
theshin he area pursuant to our local
zoning ordinancead filed a petition and that would
require two-thirds vote of the Trustees to overcome those
objections. Mr. Be nie Lee, attorney for the petit;ioner,.
reviewed the architectural., plana and the site layout for
'The
the proposed rezoning. 48 units will -be contained in
4 masonry structures , approximately 50% of the parking
will unoergroundand., according9,to Mr. Lee, there is
r
density proposed "at; the St,. '`.John,� s property, similar to
doining'ulti-family developmends Mr. Lee stressed
that the petitioner would meet all the requirements of
the R--4 zoning including setbac .s.y ok
�ul�.
President of the Bra.len Townhotte Association spoke for
the adjoining .
ningprop,ertyowners and expressed their concerns
in a similar fashion as they did ,at the onngBoard .o:
Appears' hearing. Bral°en�people are concerned aboutthe
additional density, gear setbacks, impact -on traffic 'and°
the- need .to provide buffer zoning "between their.- units. and
%
adjoining single family ,units. After some further general
discussion about',the merits of the 'case and its potential
impact on the .neighborhood, the 'Mayor and Board .of Trustees
d
unanimously expressed their support `for the Zoning Board
'decision.
ofnAppeals' At that point, Mr. Lee requested
�that they �be a'l'lowed .to. go : back, to the, Zoning Board
1
of Appealsto amend the petitionto 'consider reducing the.
density or finding ;some other altern ti.Ve. Mayor Krause
requested that Mr., Lee',s statement be placedin writing
,and submitted to -the Village and further pointed out that,
o w
7
b
a
z
�
-3 -
the amended petition would still fall within the 6 month
coverage of our Zoning Ordinance and require a two-thirds
vote of the Mayor and Board -of. Trustees.This- vote is
required subsequentto the adoption of the Comprehensive
Plan, Mr. Lee objected to that interpretation and the
Village Manager 'explained that that was the position of
the Manager's Office.. Mr. Lee agreed that ,he would
submit his request to return to the Zoning Board for`•
an amended position to the Village.
V. SELF-SERVICE GAS STATIONS
Mayor Krause reviewed with the Committee of the Whole
the recornmendation of the staff regarding, the interpretation
of the Zoning Ordinance as it applies to self-service gas
stations.. Pr'evicusly, the administrative staff had
required that any time a service station contemplated
the addition of self-service gas pumps, they were required
to go through a rezoning, provision. This was necessary
because a number of our service stations are located in
various districts other than the B-4 zone as required by
the current zoning ordinance. The administration considers
the existing service stations to be legal non -conforming
uses, however, the addition of self-service pumps was a
trigger effect to require an updating of the zoning. In
each instance the service stations were rezoned. Village
Manager's Office is suggesting that there is no greater
intensity of use by allowing self-service pumps and that
this is a costly and time -consuming -process to have the
properties rezoned. Additionally, the °Village may gain
land use control in the long run by allowing the legal
the Village will the'
then be in a position to review
uses so that if uses do chap e'i'n the future,, -
view the whole
zoning matter.
After some general discussion, the ,��'�
�w Commit,tee.of•the Whole concurred with the administration's,-
recommendation
dministration'sr'eco endation that the: institutionof self-service pump.
,_:`,-
is ,not' a sufficient change in use or 'intensity in, use a to_,
warrant rezoning process. If other changes are contemplated
at the site, such as building expansion or the addition
of functions that do in.rease the :intensity ,of the use, A
then the matter will hie to go before,the,Zoninig Board
of Appeals.
.
:a l s a ,
a
w
f
a ,
n
7
-4-
VI. MANAGER'S REPORT
Village Manager reviewed with the Committee of the Whole
the status of WELL #17 and that work is continuing there.'
The blasting and plugging efforts have reduced 70% of the
flaw and during the week of September -7, the administration
estimates the completion of this work. We are still within
the earliest $50,000 budget proposal although the Board'has
authorized expenses up to $75,000.
The WELLER CREEK project in all likelihood will be carried
over until the spring of 1982 inasmuch as numerous Federal
and State jurisdictions are now reviewing permit applications
and conflicting interpretation of State and Federal statutes.'
The matter,of the 'LOT DEDICATION from the RAUENHORST-
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT is nowreadyto go to the Mayor
and Board of Trustees for formal action. Rauenhorst had
submitted an alternative lot to the Village but after
evaluation by the staff and at a meeting of September 4,
the Village Manager had sustained the position that the
lot originally earmarked for dedication to the Village
should be the lot so dedicated.
There being no further business to come before the Committee of
the Whole, the meeting was adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
. 'Respectfully submitted,
TERRANCE L. BURGHARD
Village ,Manager
TLB%rcw
Village of Mo,, t Prospect
Mount Prosp, iIlinois
.... ._
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Village Manager/Committee of the Whole
FROM: Public Works Department
SUBJECT: Municipal Forestry Program Review
DATE: September 18, 1981
TRIMMING
Trimming is one of the most important tree maintenance procedures. Regular
trimming helps in disease control, improves the appearance of trees, and
helps keep them safe. Under our current program all areas of the Village
are trimmed on an approximate five-year cycle. All trees in each scheduled
area (over 3" in diameter) are trimmed contractually.
Trimming on an area -wide basis is most cost-efficient. Aside from area -
wide trimming, the only other trimming being done is to correct hazardous
conditions. If an individual tree in an unscheduled area presents a definite
hazard (eg. very low branches or large deadwood) the situation is corrected
by a Village crew as soon as time permits. Though necessary in some cases,
this type of trimming is much less efficient than area -wide trimming. There-
fore, current emphasis is on close monitoring of area -wide trimming to insure
that a minimal number of trees will require individual attention in the five-
year period following trimming.
Requests for dollars needed for area -wide trimming has been declining over
the last several years, mainly because of increased efficiency in the trimm-
ing program. The loss of many of our larger trees due to Dutch Elm Disease
has also been a factor, but less significantly. The Board should be aware
that currently Mount Prospect does not have a large proportion of our trees
in the larger size classes, but as they grow to maturity, dollars spent on
trimming will also have to increase if the five-year cycle is to be maintained.
DUTCH ELM DISEASE
Dutch Elm Disease is still plaguing Mount Prospect's elms, and no cure is
in sight. Current recommendations for control place the greatest emphasis
on -sanitation, which includes prompt removal of diseased and dying elms,
as well as all elm deadwood. Other possible control measures still in use
are spraying, injection, and girdling.
Mount Prospect's program currently focuses mainly on sanitation. Recent
improvements in our trimming program have for the most part eliminated dead-
wood in our remaining elms, thus cutting down the number of possible breeding
sites for the beetle which spreads the disease.
This past year an improvement was made in decreasing the time that diseased
trees remain standing, and attempts will be made to further decrease that
time. This coui"d be accomplished by considering the continuation or expansion
Printed on 10D% Recycled Paper
SUBJECT: Municipal ForestrN7— -ogram Review Page / 2
of an experimental program begun this year, in which removal of some diseased
trees was done contractually.
Other control measures currently being used on a limited basis are injection
and girdling.
The use of spraying has been attempted at various times in the past, by both
Mount Prospect and other c-)mmunities. Results have varied widely, but in
some cases spraying appears to have helped to control the disease. Since
our efforts at sanitation are improving, it might be wise at this time to
consider reimplementing a spraying program for Dutch Elm Disease next year.
OTHER DISEASE AND INSECT CONTROL PROGRAMS
The major problems against which
measures are Cottony Maple Scale
not require spraying of affected
infestation.
Another insect which is not yet
ed in the next few years is the
the potential effects of such an
PLANTING
the Village is currently taking control
and Ash Borer. Each problem may or may
trees, depending on the current extent of
a problem in Mount Prospect but can be expect -
Gypsy Moth. The Board should be aware of
infestation.
A common goal of urban forestry programs is to eventually utilize all suitable
planting sites. To this end, we have been attempting to 1) encourage replace-
ment of all trees which have been removed, whenever there is sufficient room
and adequate growing conditions for a new tree and 2) plant trees in other
suitable sites which have never had trees.
In the last five years the nature of the planting program has changed from
planting at 100% Village expense, to planting on a 50-50 cost -share basis,
to planting on a cost -share basis with resident's paying a flat rate of $35.00
(currently about 40% of the cost).
Planting has not kept up with removals over the last few years. Modifications
in the planting program which should possibly be considered are changing
the resident's share (increasing or decreasing), buying smaller trees, and/or
increasing dollars budgeted for tree planting.
Also, additional emphasis on publicizing the planting program and making
it more visible might help increase participation.
REVIEW OF ORDINANCES
A) The ordinance regulating species allowed for parkway planting includes
some species which have not proven to be desirable in terms of survival
rates and maintenance requirements. Other potentially -desirable species
are not included on the list. The Board should determine whether pro-
posed changes in the ordinance are warranted.
B) Provisions in the Development Code currently requires developers to
plant parkway trees in new developments, or pay the Village to plant
such trees. In the past, the practice of allowing the developer
SUEJECT: Municipal Forestr= -ogram Review Page /
to plant required trees has made it difficult to assure that the right
number and species of trees will be planted in the right locations and
that the quality of stock and planting procedures are adequate. The
Board should determine whether changes should be made to eliminate the
developer's option to plant the trees himself.
C) The ordinance regulating removal of diseased elm trees contains certain
language that is out-of-date. The Board should determine.whether this -
ordinance should be updated.
Village of cent Prospect
Mount Prospect, Illinois
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: VILLAGE MANAGER
FROM: ASSISTANT VILLAGE MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 1981
SUBJECT: HEALTH MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATIONS
The Village was recently contacted by two Health Maintenance
Organizations (HMO) with requests to be included in our
employee health benefits program. Under provisions of
Public Law 93-222 and Federal regulations issued on October
28, 1975 and April 25, 1978, an employer of 25 or more
employees who has received a request from a qualified HMO is
required to offer eligible employees an opportunity to
enroll.
There are two basic HMO model types. The first is the group
practice model and the second is the individual practice
association model. When both Federally qualified model
types operate in an area where at least 25 employees reside,
the employer must offer one HMO of each model type in its
health benefits plan. The employer is not required to
include in its health benefits plan the specific HMO which
petitions it, however, the employer must then select another
Federally qualified HMO of the same model type which serves,
at a minimum, the same area in which the employer's employees
reside. Once petitioned, the employer must contribute the
same amount per employee to indeminity program and the HMO
program. HMO's must petition employers in writing and those
requests must be at least 180 days before an employer/employee
contract or health benefits contract expires or renews; or a
collective bargaining contract expires or renews. The
Village of Mount Prospect meets all of these circumstances
and had to offer HMO benefit plans to its employees.
l
The Village was not petitioned by two different model types
of HMO's, however, it was petitioned by two group practice
model Health Maintenance Organizations. These organizations
were Anchor of Arlington Heights and Prucare of Glenview.
Notice and informational booklets were provided to our
employees the last week of August regarding the Health
Maintenance Organizations and their benefit programs.
During the month of September, meetings were held with the
Health Maintenance Organizations in several locations so
that our employees could inquire about these programs and to
solicit information about comparables with the Village's
health plan. The effective date for joining any of the
Health Maintenance Organizations was established as October
1, 1981. As of this time, only four employees have made a
decision to join.'either of the Health Maintenance Organizations
which have petitioned the Village.
The Village must contribute the same amount for the employees
health insurance under the HMO plan as it presently does for
the Village's own health benefit program. This contribution
is th',e Village's only obligation under the HMO program. As
is presently done with our own plan, the Village will
automatically deduct from the employee's paycheck that
amount of his contribution for the health insurance under
the HMO's. The HMO insurance is more expensive than the
Village's program, but I should also note that the HMO's
have more extensive coverage than what the Village presently
offers under the Connecticut General plan. In reviewing the
HMO programs offered in other municipalities like Arlington
Heights and Des Plaines, I have not found any reason to.
believe that there would be negative effects on our present
health insurance program with Connecticut General because we
have allowed the HMO's to be offered to our employees. The
reduction of the number of employees from our present insurance
program has only a minimal effect on that program because of
the types of employees who join HMO's. Generally speaking,
it is�those employees who have young and/or large families
who join the HMO's. These families are quite costly to
health benefit plans and it is probably to the Village's
advantage to have these employees included in the HMO's.
Although we must offer the HMO programs to our employees by
law, I would suggest that we still obtain the approval of
the Village Board for entrance into this program. Not all
HMO's',require contracts to be signed between their organizations
and the Village, however, if this is taken to the Village
Board', I would also suggest that we obtain authorization for
the Mayor to sign any contracts that would be forthcoming.
I am available to answer any additional questions you may
have on this subject.
EDWA.: GE I
K
ti
1`
w
D
w
Ms
F
II M:
TI
Ai
III. Bl
M
U
f
n
b
ti
M
Ml
B
P`
r
P'
Cl
Si
w
B
P
W
a'
M
i
P'
P`
a
a''
V. MOUNT
Cook Cc
eistz
the Pul
Assist
he had
Manager
D .stri(
t .me fry
Mr. Mat
discus
possib
Village
County'
new coo
A poll`
the ext
it be i
meetinE
VI: VILLAGE
Asista
on the
1,. Wel
Public
been su
to seal
the wo
the sea:
may hav
been es
work is
2_ Cit
Muni c i
gxecut
u4iit
Village,
wil 1 re�i
meeting
3. Rau
that th
Rauenho
Village
area.
the pre.
Village
request(
been sk
over th,a
4. Lin(
cants E
ins tal l
W