The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3547_001Next Ordinance No. 4128 Next Resolution No. 1-90 VILLAGE CLERK'S OFFICE A G E N D A VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT JANUARY 2, 1990 O R D E R O F B U S I N E S S REGULAR MEETING Meeting Location: Meeting Date and Time: Meeting Room, 1st Floor Tuesday Senior Citizen Center January 2, 1990 50 South Emerson Street 7:30 P. M. Mount Prospect, Illinois 60056 I. CALL TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Mayor Gerald "Skips, Farley Trustee Ralph Arthur Trustee Leo Floros Trustee Mark Busse Trustee George Van Geem Trustee Timothy Corcoran Trustee Theodore Wattenberg III. INVOCATION - Trustee Van Geem IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING, December 19, 1989 V. APPROVAL OF BILLS VI. COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS - CITIZENS TO BE HEARD VII. MAYOR'S REPORT VIII. OLD BUSINESS A. ZBA 69 -SU -89, 1716 Freedom Court 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1716 FREEDOM COURT This Ordinance grants a Special Use to permit a 3 -car garage. The Zoning Board of Appeals recommended denying the request by a vote of 3-2. (Exhibit A) B. ZBA 59-V-89, 1512 Larch Drive 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A VARIATION FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1512 LARCH DRIVE This Ordinance grants a variation to permit an above -ground swimming pool 6 feet from an interior lot line instead of the required. 10 feet and 5 feet from the rear lot line instead of the required 15 feet. (Exhibit B) C. ZBA 77 -SU -89 and ZBA 78-V-89, Courtesy Home Center 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 740 EAST RAND ROAD This Ordinance grants a Special Use in the nature of a Planned Unit Development. (Exhibit C) D. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE VILLAGE CODE This Ordinance establishes regulations governing downspouts. (Exhibit D) E. 2nd reading of AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XV OF CHAPTER 21 OF THE VILLAGE CODE This Ordinance amends the Property Maintenance Cade relative to gutters and downspouts. (Exhibit E) MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT DECEMBER 19, 1989 CALL TO ORDER Mayor Farley called the meeting to order at 7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL Present upon roll call: Mayor Gerald "Skip" Farley Trustee mark Busse Trustee Timothy Corcoran (arrived late) Trustee Leo Floros Trustee George Van Geem Absent: Trustee Ralph Arthur Trustee Theodore Wattenberg INVOCATION The invocation was given by Trustee Busse. INVOCATION APPROVAL OF MINUTES Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, APPROVE MINUIES moved to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of the Mayor and Board of Trustees held December 5, 1989. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Floros, Van Geem, Farley Nays: None Motion carried. APPROVAL OF BILLS Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, APPROVE BILLS moved to approve the following list of bills: General Fund $ 819,672 Motor Fuel Tax Fund 32,834 Community Development Block Grant Fund 10,786 Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund 79,509 Waterworks & Sewerage Fund 696,171 Parking System Revenue Fund 3,089 Risk Management Fund 58,628 P.W. Facility Construction Fund A - P.W. Facility Construction Fund B - Capital Improvement, Repl. or Rep.Fund 2,576 Special Service Area Const. #5 - Special Service Area Const. #6 - Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1985) - Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1987) - Corporate Purpose Improvement 1989 - Debt Service Funds 129,054 Flexcomp Trust Fund 5,418 Escrow Deposit Fund 41,577 Police Pension Fund - Firemen's Pension Fund Benefit Trust Fund $1,879,314 Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Floros, Van Geem, Farley Nays: None Motion carried. WHEREAS, 'BUD' RICHARDSON continued to serve the village of Mount Prospect and was appointed to the Mount Prospect Plan Commission from 1986, where he served until his untimely passing; and WHEREAS, 'BUD' RICHARDSON also served as a member of the Constitution Bicentennial Commission, having served on that Commission from 1987 to his untimely passing; and WHEREAS, 'BUD' RICHARDSON was an active member of the Mount Prospect Lions Club, having contributed a great deal of his time, money, energy and support for the many programs of that civic organization; and WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect benefitted from his many contributions, so will it also suffer from the passing of 'BUD' RICHARDSON. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That the Mayor and Board of Trustees Of the Village of Mount Prospect do hereby acknowledge the many contributions of 'BUD' RICHARDSON to the Village and do hereby express sincere sympathy to his family on his passing. B911ON MQ: That this Resolution be spread upon the minutes of the Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and that a copy hereof, suitably prepared, be presented to the family of 'BUD' RICHARDSON. SECTION THREE: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Floros, Van Geem, Farley Nays: None Motion carried. Mayor Farley and Police Chief Pavlock presented the Police Officer of the Year and the 3 runners up. runners up. Ted Gorski was selected Police Officer of the Year and John Dahlberg, Jim Edwards and John Gross were announced runners-up. OLD BUSINESS These requests to subdivide this parcel into 7 lots of record in order to construct single family homes, and the requests for modifications from the Development Code were continued from the last meeting in order for the petitioner and staff to work out various details relative to the improvement of Wildwood Lane. Those details have not yet been finalized and the petitioner is requesting continuing this matter to the February 6th meeting of the village Board. At the request of the Petitioner, Trustee Floros, seconded by Trustee Busse, moved to grant a Page 3 - December 19, 1989 POLICE OFFICER OF THE YEAR 1000 CARDINAL PATE SUB. The proposal includes storage space for up to 16 RV vehicles at the far northeast section of the tri -angular portion of the self -storage area. The Proposal also provides for an access easement across the Courtesy lot to benefit the lot located on Rand Road that is the former site of a restaurant. At the last meeting residents expressed concern relative to the hazardous condition that may be created by traffic turning right from the Courtesy lot onto Harvest Lane. Upon reviewing the various traffic regulation proposals it was the recommendation of staff that the Safety Commission be assigned the task of reviewing this issue, since prohibiting right -turns could result in a hardship on the residents of Harvest Heights Subdivision. The following residents expressed their concerns: Mr. Walters, 209 Neil Robin Ussery, 222 N. Louis Mike Bridges, 301 Neil Their concerns included a suggestion to install a traffic signal at the eastern access point to Courtesy Home Center; prohibiting traffic from the parking lot onto Harvest Lane; limiting the warehouse facility to one story; and, proposing the creation of a park instead of the warehouse/oil change facilities. Trustee Corcoran expressed his opinion that the proposal may not be the best use for the property. This Ordinance will be presented for 2nd reading on January 2, 1990. An Ordinance was presented for second reading that AMEND CH. 22 would establish specific regulations governing DOWNSPOUTS downspouts and the discharge of water. Due to the fact that this Ordinance was amended since the first reading to include a penalty clause, it was the request of the Village Manager that this item be deferred to the January 2, 1990 meeting. Trustee Busse, seconded by Trustee Corcoran, moved to defer the Ordinance amending Chapter 22 relative to downspouts to the January 2, 1990 Village Board meeting. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem Nays: None Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS An Ordinance was presented for first reading, pursuant AMEND CH. 18 to an agreement with IODT, would establish a 35MPH CENTRAL RD. a speed limit of 35 MPH on Central Road between Rand SPEED LIMIT and Wolf Roads. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, moved to waive the rule requiring two readings of an Ordinance. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem Nays: None Motion carried. Page 5 - December 19, 1989 P-gs Plaines.River Drginage Area Park & Seneca (storm water system only) Leehgnville Ditch Drainacre Arga 4-700 blocks of North Main St (combined sewer) 6-700 blocks of North Prospect Manor (combined sewers) Stevenson Lane & Thayer (storm sewer system only) Fairview Gardens subdivision (sanitary sewer system, including sewage lift station) There was discussion among the members of the Board as to whether the request to authorize RJN Environmental Associates to prepare engineering design services on storm sewer improvements for Wa Pella between Central and Weller Creek at a cost not to exceed $36,800 or whether the entire project relative to flooding should be addressed as one major project. Trustee Floros stated that he favored proceeding with the Wa Pella/Central problem. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, moved to wait until the proposals for design services for the flooding problems throughout the entire Village are available, rather than proceed with the Wa Pella/Central project. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Van Geem, Farley Nays: Floros Motion carried. Trustee Corcoran, seconded by Trustee Van Geem, moved to FLOODING concur with the Village Manager and authorize request STUDY for proposals (RFPs) for engineering studies for the flooding projects as noted above. Upon roll call: Ayes: Busse, Corcoran, Floros, Van Geem. Nays: None Motion carried. It was suggested by Trustee Corcoran that a citizens committee be established to review the flooding area, the problems associated and the Possible solutions. Trustee Floros stated that he would prefer experts in that area, including staff and engineers, to study the problem and make recommendations. VILLAGE MANAGERIS REPORT Village Manager John Fulton Dixon stated that the Mount BUSSE Prospect Park District would be discussing the Busse SCHOOL School parking problem at their next meeting. PARKING Mr. Dixon noted that the lease between the Village and FORMER Francis Cadillac for the Village owned property located P.W. at 11 South Pine Street would expire soon, noting that FACILITY he had asked Francis Cadillac if they would be LEASE interested in renewing the lease at an increased rental amount with an extended lease period with a 30 day cancellation clause. Francis Cadillac has not responded to the proposal. Trustee van Geem stated that while it was his opinion that the Board had been rushed into the original lease Page 7 - December 19, 1989 General & Special Revenue Funds General Fund Motor Fuel Tax Fund Community Development Block Grant Fund Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund Enterprise Funds Waterworks & Sewerage Fund Parking System Revenue Fund Risk Management Fund Capital Projects Capital Improvement, Repl. or Repair Fund Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1985) Downtown Redev. Const. Fund (1987) Corporate Purpose Improvement 1989 Debt Service Funds Trust & Agency Funds Flexcomp Trust Fund Escrow Deposit Fund Police Pension Fund Firemen's Pension Fund Benefit Trust Funds VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT CASH POSITION December 28, 1989 Cash & Invest. Receipts Disbursements Balance 12/15/89 Through Per Attached 12/14/89 12/28/89 List of Bills $ 1,852,662 $ 766,447 403,940 93,318 7,698 1,596 35,021 17,627 2,989,527 83,504 221,623 4,832 1,257,231 4,095 $ 677,263 113,371 1,836 9,026 416,975 1,747 136,834 Cash & Invest. Journal Balance Entry 12/28/89 $ 1,941,d 383,887 7,458 43,622 2,656,056 224,708 1,124,492 98,790 28,642 5,125 122,307 330,500 - - 330,500 5,435 - - 5,4 1,253,637 - 692,985 560,652 6,003 3,123 - 9,126 1,428,646 30,023 54,506 1,404,163 14,041,732 101,134 36,693 14,106,173 15,469,255 118,334 41,567 15,546,022 280,173 - - 280,173 $39,681.873 $1,252,675 2 187 928 -0- $38,746.620 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE i ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAI. REPORT PAYMENT DATE 12/28/89 VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL CLEARING ACCOUNTS ADCO j$YSTEMS, INC. BOND REFUND $500-00 $500.00 APPLE SIGN INDUSTRY BOND REFUND $100.00 $100.00 NATHAN BELLIN BOND REFUND $35.00 $35.00 BEST ENVIRONMENTAL BOND REFUND $100.00 $100-00 BOLASH CONST. CO. BOND REFUND $35.00 $35.00 BUSINESS SERVICES, INC. BOND REFUND $100.00 $100.00 CHICKERNEO & FOSCO REFUND TRANSFER TAX 2471 $95.00 S95 CITIBANK, N.A. PAYMENT OF INSURANCE CLAIMS $23,077.83 $23,077!-j* COLLAR ELECTRIC CORP. BOND REFUND $100.00 $100-00 JIM CURNOW REFUND FINAL WATER BILL $22.80 REFUND FINAL WATER BILL $2-20 $25.00 D & B ENTERPRISES BOND REFUND $100.00 $100.00 DIGANGI MECHANICAL BOND REFUND $100.00 $100.00 DISBURSEMENT ACCOUNT PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 12/28/89 $365,756.61 PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 12/29/89 $455.56 PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 12/28/89 $39,284.95 PAYROLL PERIOD ENDING 12/28/89 $1,165.23 $406,662.35* DO IT RIGHT ROOTER BOND REFUND $25.00 BOND REFUND $50.00 $75.00 PAUL DOWD REIMBURSEMENT 11/30 P/R $169.05 $169.05* BERNARD EILERS BOND REFUND $100.00 $100.00 J. ELMS CONSTRUCTION CO. BOND REFUND $35.00 $35.00 ROGER A. ERBER BOND REFUND $100.00 S100.l" ANTHONY FALDUTO REFUND-FALDUTO $848.35 $848= FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MT. PRO DUE TO FED DEP PAY OF 12/14 $9,026.24 DUE TO FED DEP PAY OF 12/14 $80-19 DUE TO FED DEP PAY OF 12/14 $33.89 DUE TO FED DEP PAY OF 12/14 $2,533.50 DUE TO FED DEP PAY OF 12/14 $821.51 $12,495.33* FLUSH SEWER BOND REFUND $100.00 $100.00 GEISER-BERNER BOND REFUND $100.00 $100.00 PASQUALE GIANNINI BOND REFUND $475.00 BOND REFUND $118.03 $593.03 ILLINOIS FRANCHISE ASSOC. BOND REFUND $450.00 $450.00 JAKE'S PIZZA BOND REFUND $100.00 BOND REFUND $100.00 $200.00 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 3 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT PAYMENT DATE 12/28/89 VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL CLEARING ACCOUNTS REINSPECTION FEE & TREE BOND $125.00 REINSPECTION FEE C4754 $75.00 REINSPECTION FEE C5957 525.00 REINSPECTION FEE C6228 $15.00 REINSPECTION FEE C6286 $50.00 REINSPECTION FEE C6482 $5O.00 REINSPECTION FEE C65OO $25.00 REINSPECTION FEE C6541 $15.00 REINSPECTION FEE C6549 $15.00 REINSPECTION FEE C6552 $15.00 REINSPECTION FEE C6553 $15.00 DEC TRF TO IMRF $590.55 DEC TRF TO GENERAL FUND $39,675.43 DEC TRF TO RISK MANAGEMENT $34,520.00 DEC TRF TO IMRF $12,903.39 DEC TRF TO IMRF $200.66 DEC TRF TO RISK MANAGEMENT $660.00 DEC TRF TO GENERAL FUND $47,439.02 REINSPECTION FEE 1010 $25.00 REINSPECTION FEE 1093 $25.00 $136,564.05 WOLF POINT REALTY BOND REFUND $100.00 BOND REFUND $100.00 BOND REFUND $100.00 BOND REFUND $100.00 BOND REFUND $100.00 $5OO.(" CLEARING ACCOUNTS ***TOTAL** $687,714.51 GENERAL FUND $389,863.26 COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $1,835.97 ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND $9,026.24 WATER & SEWER FUND $129,794.82 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $1,350.11 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $23,077.83 POLICE PENSION FUND $36,693.15 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND $41,566.7.1 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND $54,506.42 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PACE 5 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT PAYMENT DATE 12/28/89 VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL GENERAL FUND $1,081.63 ******,t,kxk***xkk>'s**xk xk,k******,k xk xt is xk xk*****x':*s'cxi:**:t xk is �e xk*is*'cx*xk �e*ic,kk*xt is is x4 xk*xk*xk �s xk xk x4 xk**xki; is xk kiF**:4 st xt ak xt xk xk xk is xk**ie*is**xY FINANCE DEPARTMENT COMPUTERLAND I.B.M. CORPORATION ILLINOIS GFOA KELLY SERVICES, INC. MANPOWER INC. MONROE SYSTEMS FOR BUSINESS, I NEWPORT COLOR INC. POSTMASTER PRIORITY SYSTEMS INCORPORATED PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC. QUICK PRINT PLUS, INC. SENTRY ENVELOPE CO. V & G PRINTERS INC. XEROX CORP. NED V. ZIZZO, INC. FINANCE DEPARTMENT GENERAL FUND COMPUTER SUPPLTES $20.00 COMPUTER SUPPLIES $28.00 COMPUTER SUPPLIES $38.00 PRESTIGE ELITE FONT $225.00 $311.00 MTCE COMPUTERS & PRINTER $189.00 MTCE COMPUTERS & PRINTER $52.00 $241.00 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL $35.00 $35.00 TEMP SERVICES -FOSTER $451.16 TEMP SERVICES -FOSTER $357.53 $808.69 BASIC-SKILLWARE COURSE $600.00 $600.00 CALCULATORS $312.00 $312.00 BUDGET COVERS $1,072.00 $1,072.00 ANNUAL FEES $65.00 ANNUAL FEES $65.00 ANNUAL FEES $120.00 $250.00* PROGRAMMING SERVICES $3,521.25 $3,521.25 OFFICE SUPPLIES $96.13 OFFICE SUPPLIES 513-89 $1.10.02 UPS PARCELS $24.90 VEHICLE INSERTS $271.00 $295. go* ENVELOPES $1,064.85 ENVELOPES S920.64 $1,985-49 NOTE PADS $270.00 $270.00 MONTHLY EQUITY PLAN $201.39 $201.39 PARTS $97.50 $97.50 ***TOTAL** $10,111.24 $10,111.24 it**is ie aF*f;***xY xk xk :t xt xY**x's f. xk xk *xt sk x'sic*xk*it>k*xk*4c is xt:k 9s at xk is xk*xtxtxt':*ak*xk ak xk*ic*fs,t*,k xt xk xk,k xk is ic,i*::x*is t5*x>•s xk 4t 9c xY*xk*'; 4s xk >t xF>k*his ie xk zk**xk** POLICE DEPARTMENT AETNA TRUCK PARTS VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT $9.70 PAGE 7 COMMONWEALTH EDISON ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT $8.66 $8.r6 EGGHEAD DISCOUNT SOFTWARE PAYMENT DATE 12/28%89 $42.00 $42( { VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL INSPECTION SERVICES FIRE EXTINGUISHERS $119.80 $119.80 COURTESY HOME CENTER SPACE HEATERS $34.99 $428.71 ILLINOIS ENVIR. HEALTH ASSOC. SPACE HEATERS MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL KRUPA $32.99 $20.00 $67.98 FRANK KRUPA SEMINAR REIMBURSEMENT-KRUPA $35.00 $20.00 $35-00 NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES $65.40 $65.40 QUALEX, INC. PHOTO SUPPLIES $7.24 $7.24 FREDRIC TENNYSON COMPUTER PROGRAM $175.00 $17 _1 THOMPSON ELEVATOR INSPECTION S ELEVATOR INSPECTIONS $825.00 $8251. 0 TREASURER, STATE OF ILLINOIS MANUAL $5.00 $5.00 XEROX CORP. MONTHLY EQUITY PLAN $201.38 $201.38 INSPECTION SERVICES TRAINING PROGRAM ***TOTAL** $1,422.00 GENERAL FUND $1,422.00 POLICE DEPARTMENT AETNA TRUCK PARTS PARTS $9.70 $9.70 COMMONWEALTH EDISON BH66-JT-5422-A $8.66 $8.r6 EGGHEAD DISCOUNT SOFTWARE CASSETTE $42.00 $42( { JOSEPH FAVIA EXPENSES $150.00 $150.00 FREDRIKSEN & SONS FIRE EXTINGUISHERS $119.80 $119.80 HANSEN ASSOCIATES SERV AGRMTS $428.71 $428.71 HELM, INC. MANUALS $32.00 $32.00 ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO. 708 253-2151 $138.01 9138.01 JOSEPH C. KOLANOWSKI TRAINING $210.00 $210.00 KENNETH LEE EXPENSES $6.00 $6.00 NORTH EAST MULTI REGIONAL TRAI TUITION-BEHUN, LEE $60.00 $60.00 NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES $48.99 OFFICE SUPPLIES $4.74 $53.73 REBEL'S TROPHIES, INC. PLAQUE $51.19 $51.19 RONALD RICHARDSON TRAINING PROGRAM $945.15 $945.15 CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH SYS CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE SERVICES RENDERED -JANUARY $31,385.00 831,385.00 ***TOTAL** $31,385.00 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 9 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT PAYMENT DATE 12/28/89 VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT. CLOTHING $36.95 CLOTHING $7.80 CLOTHING $68.50 CLOTHING $108.20 CLOTHING $15.60 LOKL BUSINESS PRODUCTS & OFFIC CLOTHING LASER PAPER $7.80 $1,672.80 MOTOROLA CELLULAR SERVICE INC CELLULAR SERVICE $100.00 $7.70 $100•"� NATIONAL FIRE PRCT. ASSOC. MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL $75.00 $7� $75.00 NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES $268.60 $268,60 NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES $15.20 PHYSIO -CONTROL OFFICE SUPPLIES MAINT CONTRACT $21.83 $37.03 PUBLIX OFFICE SUPPLIES INC. OFFICE SUPPLIES $867.00 S48.45 $867.00 DALE STEWARD EXPENSES $70.00 $48.45 $70.00 VILLAGE OF HOFFMAN ESTATES FACILITY USE $650.00 $650.00 WARNING LITES OF ILLINOIS VEH MARKING TAPE $121.39 $121.39 RAYMOND YOUNG EXPENSES $50.00 $50.00 FIRE & EMERGENCY PROTECTION DEPT. ***TOTAL** $7,895.41 GENERAL FUND $6,428.96 CAPITAL IMPRV. & REPL. FUND $1,466.45 CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE NORTHWEST CENTRAL DISPATCH SYS CENTRAL DISPATCH SERVICE SERVICES RENDERED -JANUARY $31,385.00 831,385.00 ***TOTAL** $31,385.00 PAGE 11 TOTAL $578.68 $ 128. 39 $190,909=04 $995, ., $113.19 $145.26 $455.75 $30.00 $330-00 $225.40 $284.25 $1,978.00 $45� $108.81 $556.81 $58.48 $32.00 $270.95 $1,680.12 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT PAYMENT DATE, 12/28/89 VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT STREET DIVISION ALLIED ASPHALT PAVING COMPANY SUPPLIES $225.08 AM= -LIN PRODUCTS, INC. SUPPLIES SUPPLIES $353.60 ARROW ROAD CONSTRUCTION 1989 MFT -GEN MTCE PROGRAM $128.39 $23,538.75 RESURFACING PROGRAM $104,678.67 AUTOMATED TRAINING SYSTEMS RESURFACING PROGRAM COMPUTER SOFTWARE TRNG $62,691.62 $595.00 BEARING DISTRIBUTORS, INC. COMPUTER SOFTWARE TRNG BEARING $400.00 BRISTOL HOSE & FITTING PARKER FITTINGS $113.19 $115.73 CHEM RITE PRODUCTS COMPANY PARKER FITTINGS SUPPLIES $29.53 $307.24 SUPPLIES $57.87 CHICAGO TURF & IRRIGATION SUPPLIES WORKSHOP REGISTRATION $90.64 $30.00 FRANK CLESEN AND SONS, INC. POINSETTIAS $330.00 CLS UNIFORM RENTALS SHOP TOWELS $27.00 UNIFORM RENTAL $77.81 UNIFORM RENTAL $16.78 UNIFORM RENTAL $85-80 ALLAN J. COLEMAN UNIFORM RENTAL DRAIN CLEANING KIT $18.01 DOOR SYSTEMS, INC. SERVICE -DOOR $284.25 EARNIES TIRE REPAIR SERVICE IN TIRE SERVICE $1,978.00 E. D. ETNYRE AND CO. BEARING 5 .00 $4$45.36 $ FINISHMASTER, INC, CREDIT MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES $10 55- $52.31 MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES $16.49 MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES $195.75 MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES $161.80 MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES $111.71 GREAT PLAINS INDUSTRIES, INC. MISC AUTO PAINT SUPPLIES REPAIRS $18.75 HELM, INC. MANUALS $58.48 I.B.M. CORPORATION MTC AGREEMENT $32.00 $270.95 IDEAL WELDING 1990 FLATBED TRLR $1,680.12 PAGE 11 TOTAL $578.68 $ 128. 39 $190,909=04 $995, ., $113.19 $145.26 $455.75 $30.00 $330-00 $225.40 $284.25 $1,978.00 $45� $108.81 $556.81 $58.48 $32.00 $270.95 $1,680.12 VENDOR STREET DIVISION PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIE PROSAFETY RJN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES SECRETARY OF STATE SHEPP PEST CONTROL SOCIETY OF MUNICIPAL ARBORISTS SPRING ALIGN STANDARD PIPE AND SUPPLY STATE TREASURER STANARD & ASSOCIATES, INC. SUN OFFICE EQUIPMENT CO., INC. TRISTAR INDUSTRIESIAAA FASTEN. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WARNING LITES OF ILLINOIS WASHINGTON RUBBER CO. WOOD ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION I STREET DIVISION VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 13 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT PAYMENT DATE 12/28/89 PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL MATERTAL TESTING $417.00 $417.00 SAFETY GLASSES $48.84 $48.84 ENGINEERING SERVICES $1,626.27 $1,626.27 TITLE REGISTRATION $11.00 $11.00* PEST CONTROL NOV 89 $40.00 PEST CONTROL NOV 89 $40.00 PEST CONTROL NOV 89 $40.00 PEST CONTROL NOV 89 $40.00 PEST CONTROL NOV 89 $40.00 PEST CONTROL NOV 89 $40.00 $240.00 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL $40.00 $40.00 PARTS $484.24 PARTS $405-58 $889.82 MISC PLBG SUPPLIES $10.03 MISC PLBG SUPPLIES $23-69 $33.72 WOLF RD SIDEWALK CONTRACT $3,070.40 WOLF RD SIDEWALK CONTRACT $72,141.05 $75,211-45 FOREMAN APPLIC TESTING $250.00 $250-00 OFFICE EQUIPMENT $135.00 $135.00 1/4 GREY LOOM $113.26 $113.26 TREE REPAIRS $491.00 $491.00 LIGHTS $1,173.30 $1,173.30 S SUPPLIES $48.46 SUPPLIES 72 $ -60 $121-1 REPAIRS $677.53 $677-1•- ***TOTAL** $333,609.10 GENERAL FUND $216,579.65 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND CAPITAL IMPRV. & REPL. FUND $3,658.12 $113,371-33 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 15 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT PAYMENT DATE 12128189 VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL WATER AND SEWER DIVISION WATER MTR TESTING $200.12 MATERIALS $98.42 WATER MTR TESTING $2.44.59 WATER MTR TESTING $111.18 WATER MTR SERV $240.66 WATER MTR SERV $309.42 HELM, INC. WATER MTR SERV $275.04 $1,610.=" I.B.M. CORPORATION MANUALS MTCE COMPUTERS & PRINTER $76.00 $76`- $189.00 MTCE COMPUTERS & PRINTER $52.00 ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO. MTC AGREEMENT 708 253-0198 $270.94 $511.94 $15.41 708 956-6910 $17.06 575 9 15 G $16.82 575 9 15 G $16.32 708 253-9377 $19.96 ILLINOIS TELEPHONE SERVICE COM 708 394-5776 PHONE SERVICE $15.33 $100.90 JOEL KENNEDY CONSTRUCTION CO. SEWER REHABILITATION $894.70 S894-70 $12,200.00 LESLIE PAPER CONTRACT "B" SEWER REHAB $103,098.40 $115,298.40 COPY PAPER $623.28 MORAN EQUIPMENT CORP. COPY PAPER EQUIPMENT $490.00 $1 l t3.28 MOTOROLA CELLULAR SERVICE INC. CELLULAR SERVICE NOV 89 $214.76 $214.76 NET MIDWEST, INC. WATER SAMPLES NOV 89 $34.69 $34. NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO. 1818 1/2 BONITA DR $172.50 $172.�T1 $91.77 117 N WAVERLY 473-32 NS KENSINGTON 1 E RAND RD $56.18 NORTHWEST ELECTRICAL SUPPLY 1t2 E HIGHLAND MISC ELEC SUPPLIES $240.39 $461.66 $57.67 MISC ELEC SUPPLIES $65.16 MISC ELEC SUPPLIES $586.40 NORTHWEST STATIONERS INC. MISC ELEC SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES $76.22 $785.45 $175.40 PETTY GASH - PUBLIC WORKS OFFICE SUPPLIES TRAVEL & SUPPLIES $159.46 $334.86 $60.00 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PAGE 17 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL REPORT PAYMENT DATE 12/28/89 VENDOR PURCHASE DESCRIPTION INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION BH68-JT-7498-A $21.40 $297.64 NORTHERN ILLINOIS GAS CO. 19 NORTHWEST HWY $91.43 $91.43 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT WATER & SEWER $7.50 $7.50 PARKING SYSTEM DIVISION ***TOTAL** $396.57 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $396.57 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS JOHN HALLORAN LANDSCAPING TREE MOVING $5,890.00 $5,890.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ***TOTAL** $5,890.00 GENERAL FUND $5,890.00 COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES COMMONWEALTH EDISON BG21 JT -1838-A BH67-JT-3858-B COMMUNITY AND CIVIC SERVICES GENERAL FUND $72.61 $53.51 $19.10 $72.61 ***TOTAL** $72.61 DATE RUN 12/28/89 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT TIME RUN 13.24.11 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE APPROVAL PAGE 19 LISTING ID-APPBAR SUMMARY BY FUND 12/28/89 NO. FUND NAME AMOUNT 1 GENERAL FUND $677,262.48 22 MOTOR FUEL TAX FUND $113,371.33 23 COMMUNITY DEVLPMT BLOCK GRANT $1,835.97 24 ILL. MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT FUND $9,026.24 41 WATER & SEWER FUND $416,975.27 46 PARKING SYSTEM REVENUE FUND $1,746.68 49 RISK MANAGEMENT FUND $136,833.98 51 CAPITAL IMPRV. & REPL. FUND $5,124.57 60 CORPORATE PURPOSES B & 11973 $140,000-00 61 CORPORATE PURPOSES B & I 1974 $241,100.00 62 SSA #1 PROSPECT MEADOWS B & I $16,530.00 69 P W FACILITY B & I 1987B $281,032.50 70 DOWNTOWN REDEVLPMT B & I 1987C $145322.50 71 POLICE PENSION FUND $36,693.1.5 72 FIREMEN'S PENSION FUND $41,566.71 74 ESCROW DEPOSIT FUND $54,506.42 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $2,187,927.80 ILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSL� _'T PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER SUBJECT: ZBA-69-SU-89, KENNETH ELDRUP LOCATION: 1716 FREEDOM COURT DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1989 Mr. Eldrup is requesting a Special Use to allow a three car garage. Mr. Eldrup first appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on October 5, 1.989 to present his case. He stated that he and his sons have a hobby of restoring cars and that an extra storage space was needed for one of the restored cars. Therefore, he removed the wall between the original two -car garage and the recreational room in his new home to provide additional garage space. Mr. Eldrup stated to the Board that he is not operating a body shop out of his garage. The Eldrup family lives in a new single family home in the Brentwood Subdivision. It was altered in the Spring without a permit, to expand the garage space into what used to be a recreational room, A Special Use permit is required for a three -car garage. No external changes have been made on the home, therefore, it appears as a two -car garage from the street. The Building Department has stated that they have serious concerns about allowing this is conversion as garage space, since it does not appear to meet Building Code requirements. Several neighbors of the Eldrups were in attendance at the hearing to voice their objections to this request. Complaints were based upon the excessive noise, bright lights, fumes and late hours of operation during these past summer months. Since only four Zoning Board members were present at this first hearing, Mr. Eldrup requested delaying the vote until the following Zoning Board meeting. On November 9, the Zoning Board continued this hearing and decided to take the vote with the five members present. A motion was made to approve the three -car garage request conditioned upon the Building Department's review and approval. The vote was 3-2 which falls one vote short of approval. Therefore, a super majority of the Village Board would be required to overturn the Zoning Board's recommendation for denial. PB:hg Approved: David M. Clements, Director MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE 69 -SU -89 Hearing Date: November 9, 1089 PETITIONER: Kenneth Eldrup PUBLICATION DATE: September 19, 1989 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1716 Freedom Ct. REQUEST: Special Use per Section 14.1101.C.6 to allow a three -car garage within the structure without any external changes. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gil Basnik, Chairman Len Petrucelli Lois Brothers Ronald Cassidy Marilyn O,May ABSENT: Peter Lannon Robert Brettrager OBJECTORS/INTERESTED: None This case is continued from October 5, 1989. Mr. Kenneth Eldrup,' 1716 Freedom Court, requested a continuance of his case until such time as all members of the Zoning Board of Appeals are present to vote, since four affirmative votes would be necessary to grant his special use request. Chairman Basnik indicated the difficulty in determining when a full Board would be present. Mr. Eldrup questioned whether the members not present could vote in absentee. Mr. Basnik stated that unless a Board member is present a vote could not be recorded. Mr. Dave Clements, Director of Planning, stated that one continuance is a Petitioner's right; the second would be at the Board's discretion. It was noted that other matters within other Village Departments are pending on this case and an expedient conclusion on the special use is requested. It was the consensus of the Board to vote on this case and move it to the Village Board level for the November 22 meeting. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE 69 -SU -89 Hearing Date: October S, 1989 PETITIONER: Kenneth Eldrup PUBLICATION DATE: September 19, 1989 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1716 Freedom Ct. REQUEST: Special Use per on l 6 to allow a three -car garage garagewthin the structure without any external changes. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gil Basnik, Chairman Peter Lannon Lois Brothers Robert Brettrager ABSENT: Len Petrucelli Ronald Cassidy Marilyn O'May OBJECTORS/INTERESTED: Carol Craig Christine Rider Bob Schumacher Per the Petitioner's request for a full Board vote, Chairman Basnik noted that this case will be heard with the four members present and the vote will be held over until a future meeting after the absentee members have been able to review the transcript and can vote accordingly. Mr. Kenneth Eldrup, 1716 Freedom Court, Petitioner, stated that he has lived in this home for one year, but has been a 20 year resident of Mount Prospect. The request is for a Special Use to allow three vehicles within the existing structure. No external changes will occur to this structure. One of the three vehicles will be defueled. The sons of the Petitioner both purchased vehicles about four years ago and have recently completed restoration on these cars. The restored cars are only driven on a limited basis and only in the summer. At all other times they are stored. Mr. Eldrup would like to support this type of activity for his sons. Restoration was being completed during the Spring and more activity, relative to car restoration, was going on than will occur in the future. Mr. Eldrup emphatically denied running an auto body shop and offered the car's titles for Board review. ZBA 69-su-89 Page Three MS- Brothers quoted Code on the definition Of a garage, which states "A private garage is an accessory building or an accessory portion of the principal building which is intended and used to store motor vehicles. Such a garage may be used for the storage of motor vehicles designed to carry not more than 10 'passengers and not more t1han one r storage. -Y it was ezrphasJzad that a garage is fo? a I Mr. Eldrup explained that the activities occurred in the Spring, the cars are restored and will be used normally from now on. Upon a straw vote of the Board members present, Basnik and Brothers would vote no and Lannon and Brettrager would Vote yes to allow. This meeting was continued until November 9 at 8:00 p.m. It was noted that even if the garage is approved, Building Codes must be satisfied and the Building Department will be reviewing all concerns, however, not in a public hearing. Eileen M. Reinhard Recording Secretary DC/caf ORDINANCE No. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1716 FREEDOM COURT WHEREAS, Kenneth N. and Karen R. Eldrup (hereinafter referred to as Petitioners) have filed a Petition for a Special Use with respect to property commonly known as 1716 Freedom Court (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows: Lot 40 in Brentwood, being a subdivision of part of the west half of the southwest quarter of Section 25, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, according to the plat thereof recorded July 20, 1987 as Document 87,399,136 in Cook County, Illinois and WHEREAS, Petitioners seek a Special Use for the Subject Property, pursuant to Section 14.1101.C.6, to permit a 3 -car garage; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for Special Use (designated as ZBA Case No. 69 -SU -89) before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 5th day of October and the 9th day of November, 1989, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Herald on the 19th day of September, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings and recommendations to the President and Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have given further consideration to the requests herein and have determined that the same meets the standards of the Village and that the granting of the proposed Special Use would be in the best interest of the public. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: The recitals set forth hereinabove are incorporated 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 Subject Property a Special Use to permit a 3 -car garage subject to the following conditions: l.. The intent of this Ordinance is to provide indoor storage space for restored automobiles. Any activity other than this storage and related work violates the intent of this Ordinance. 2. The garage addition is in a former family room. Approval of this area as a garage space is subject to compliance with all applicable building codes. 3. The 3 -car garage shall be for personal vehicles of the petitioner and family members. 4. The garage shall not be used for any home occupation or storage of any non-residential items. 5. There shall be no external changes to the building or lot in relation to this Special Use. 009M FI) C21 FAU --LIAGE OF MOUNT PROS.4 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER W1__ FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: ZBA-59.V-89, CHARLES DRESSNER LOCATION: 1512 LARCH DRIVE DATE: NOVEMBER 30, 1989 This application was filed to permit variations to allow an above -ground pool 6 feet from an interior lot line and 5 feet from a rear lot line. Our swimming pool regulations require a 10 foot side yard and a 15 foot rear yard. The Village Board originally considered this request at their meeting of October 17. At that meeting, the Village Board reviewed the Zoning Board's recommendation to deny the request, and heard comments from the petitioner and an adjoining property owner. On October 17, the Village Board deferred action on the request, pending more information from the petitioner about the location of an underground electric line. At this time, petitioner Charles Dressner has stated that he will move the existing pool to a conforming location. This would place the pool approximately 6 feet from the electric service line. Our Building Code requires a '15 foot setback for a pool from an electric service. Moving the pool as proposed by Mr. Dressner, is consistent with the Zoning Board recommendation. The 6 foot setback from the underground electric service is reasonable, and Commonwealth Edison has no objection to this location. DMC:hg ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING VARIATIONS FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 1512 LARCH DRIVE WHEREAS, Charles Dressner (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has filed an application for variations from certain provisions of Chapter 14 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, Illinois, for property commonly known as 1512 Larch Drive (hereinafter referred to as Subject Property), legally described as: Lot 15 in resubdivision of certain lots and vacated Larch Court in Brickman Manor Third Addition, Unit 1, being a subdivision in the Southwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal meridian in Cook County, Illinois and WHEREAS, Petitioners seek a variation from Section 21.902.B to allow a six foot (61) side yard instead of the 10 foot required and to permit a six foot (61) rear yard rather than the required 15 feet, from Section 21.908 to allow a four foot (41) high fence and Section 21.918.B to allow a pool one foot (11) from a utility easement; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the variations requested being the subject of ZBA Case No. 59-V-89 before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 10th day of October, 1989, pursuant to due and proper notice thereof published in the Mount Prospgct Herald on the 19th day of September, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings and recommendation to the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect and the President and Board of Trustees of the Village have given further consideration to the variations requested and have determined that granting certain variations to the Subject Property would be in the best interests of the village. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, 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 hereby grant to the Subject Property a variation from Section 21.918 to allow an above ground pool five feet (51) from an underground electrical service line, instead of fifteen feet (15') as required, subject to: 1. Relocating the existing pool to the required side and rear setbacks by June 1, 1990; and 2. Installation of the required fence by June 1, 1990. SECTION THREE: Except for the variations granted herein, all other applicable Village of Mount Prospect Ordinances and regulations shall remain in full force and effect as to the Subject Property. WA& VILhiGE OF MOUNT PRO—o" ; P E C T PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager V - FROM: David M. Clements, Director of Planning & Zoning DATE: December 28, 1989 SUBJECT: Courtesy Home Center - Planned Unit Development At the December 19 Village Board meeting, there was discussion about a variety of items related to the proposed Planned Unit Development at the Courtesy Home Center. This memo attempts to address these items: Access to Hamt Lant from_Lhp Q2urtg5Y(:,gnivewav: Adjoining property owners are concerned about existing traffic patterns as drivers exit the Courtesy property at Harvest Lane. Automobiles exit the Courtesy drive and travel in the "most direct line" to the intersection at Business Center Drive. This line of travel cuts across both traffic lanes of Harvest Lane. This movement can be dangerous, and lead to congestion and poor traffic flow. As a remedy, it is recommended that curbed median be installed in the Courtesy driveway. With this median, exiting traffic will be required to make a more defined left turn, reducing the chance of drivers traveling in the "most direct line" to Business Center Drive. Also, Harvest Lane should be striped, to better define travel lanes. This alternative has been discussed with the Engineering Department and they concur that it is the best action to take. 2. Blij1ding design -,.Oil Change Facili The P.U.D. ordinance includes a section requiring the quick change oil facility to be finished in face brick. Mr. David Beebe, of Lube Pro, indicates that the company is attempting to build units with a certain identity, that are easily recognizable, and different from their competitors. He is asking that the building be finished in a textured split face block, with blue trim. Please see the attached letter and color picture. 3. Dpmpstcr logglLqns - elf -storagg facilily: Screened dumpster locations will be located at the east and west ends of the self - storage facility. They will be placed out of the required Fire Department travel aisle. ,-ILAGE OF MOUNT PRosner PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER T FROM: DAVID M. CLEMENTS, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING SUBJECT: ZBA-77-SU-89, ZBA-78-V-89, COURTESY HOME CENTER PROPOSED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT LOCATION: 740 EAST RAND ROAD DATE: NOVEMBER 30 1989 The attached memo summarizes the findings of the Zoning Board of Appeals on a planned unit development application filed by the owners of Courtesy Home Center. The PUD request includes the following land -uses: 1. A 12,000 square foot Aldi's Grocery Store. 2. A 7,000 square foot retail building to be developed at a later date. 3. A self -storage facility and oil change facility on three acres. As you will see, the Zoning Board is recommending approval of a revised PUD to only include the Aldi's building. This amended PUD was approved with conditions, one being that the owners of Courtesy work on granting an access easement to Mr. John Kamysz, owner of the former Honey Bee site on Rand Road, adjacent to the Courtesy property. You might recall that such an easement arrangement was discussed by the Village Board and Mr. Kamysz with his May 1989 Special Use application. The purpose of this memo is to advise you that the owners of Courtesy are offering to enter into an easement agreement with Mr. Kamysz, to provide access from the Courtesy parking lot to his property on Rand Road. Such an easement could help on-site maneuvering with future development on Mr. Kamysz's site. However, the easement offer to Mr. Kamysz is subject to Village Board approval of the original Courtesy PUD, not the amended plan approved by the Zoning Board, DMC:hg ��LLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPE-x5t PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER SUBJECT: ZBA-77-SU-89, ZBA-78-V-89, COURTESY REAL ESTATE PROP. LOCATION: 740 EAST RAND ROAD DATE: NOVEMBER 15 1989 Mr, Michael Shelly, Attorney representing the petitioner, appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on November 9, 1989 to request the following: 1. A Special Use/Planned Unit Development to allow building expansion on the Courtesy Home Center property, including a new grocery store of 12,000 square feet, a 7,000 square foot future building for retail, a 68,742 square foot self -storage facility and a 1,800 square foot quick oil change facility. 2. Variations to the PUD standards as follows: a. Section 14.2503.A.6 to allow a zero foot setback along the north property line instead of 25 feet. b. Section 14.2503.A.8 to allow 502 parking spaces instead of 552 spaces for a PUD. c. Section 14.2503.A.11 to allow 87.5% of the lot to be covered with impervious surfaces instead of 85% total. d. Section 14.2503.B.3 to allow 22% of the gross area of the development to be devoted to uses not normally permitted in the B-3 District, ie. self -storage facility and quick oil change facility, Twenty percent is the normally allowed maximum. Mr. Mike Vdovets, developer for self -storage facilities, indicated that this type of facility would be a benefit to the homeowner and small business owner, while at the same time, being a quiet use, compatible with residential areas. It was his opinion that this type of user would be a good buffer between Rand Road and the Harvest Heights residential area. Approximately, three to four vehicles an hour are anticipated to arrive at this facility, It would consist of 600 units, the largest being the size of a one -car garage, and the smallest being 5' X 5'. It would be open seven days a week from 8:00 a.m, to 7:00 p.m. with a manager on-site at all times. John F. Dixon - Page November 15, 1989 ZBA-77-SU-89, ZBA-78-V.89 Neighbors of this property were present to request clarification of the proposed plans. One neighbor indicated his concern with the Aldi Food Store anticipating increased traffic through the Harvest Heights Subdivision as a result of the grocery store. Board members then discussed the request among themselves. Mr. Cassidy suggested the addition of a deceleration lane off of westbound Rand Road into this site. Staff indicated that the final determination of such would be made by I.D.O.T. Concerning the setback variation along the north property line, the zero foot setback was denied by the Zoning Board by a 4-1 vote. This action would require the design of a conforming 25 foot setback. However, staff points out that a 25 foot setback behind the Courtesy building would interfere with loading and the fire lane. Staff recommends approval of a 10 foot setback along the north line. The Zoning Board of Appeals then made a motion to approve an amended P.U.D. plan which would include a 12,000 square foot Aldi Grocery Store as shown on Exhibit No. 1 with the remainder of this parcel to be developed at a future date as Phase 2 which would be reviewed by the Zoning Board. 'nis recommendation was subject to the conditions itemized by the staff, including landscape perimeters, signs, access easement, outside storage and access drive off of Harvest Lane, By a vote of 5-0 the motion passed. PB:hg MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE 77 -SU, 78-V-89 Hearing Date: November 9, 1989 PETITIONER: Courtesy Real Estate PUBLICATION DATE: October 24, 1989 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 720-740 East Rand Road REQUEST: Special Use Planned Unit Develop- ment to allow building expansion on Courtesy Home Center property to include a new grocery store, a 7,000 sq. ft. future building for retail, a self -storage warehouse and a quick oil change building. Variations to the PUD standards as per Section 14.2503 to vary parking, setbacks, lot coverage and percentage of a non permitted use on the property. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gil Basnik, Chairman Len Petrucelli Lois Brothers Ronald Cassidy Marilyn O'May ABSENT: Lois Brothers Robert Brettrager OBJECTORS/INTERESTED: John Gorn Don Fox Mr. Michael Shelly, 767 South State Street, Chicago, Illinois, attorney for the Petitioner, stated the applicants desire to 1) sell a parcel of property to Aldi Food Stores for a 12,000 square foot building at the northwest corner of the current Courtesy Home Center; 2) build out near Rand Road a 7,000 square foot freestanding retail building; and 3) to build a 68,742 square foot self -storage facility and an 1,800 square foot quick.oil change facility. All plans are proposed as part of a planned unit development. A 01 setback along the north property line was requested, however, staff has recommended 101, since this will be adjacent to a residential district. The PUD requirement for 552 parking spaces cannot be met and the request is to allow 502 parking spaces. Lot coverage will be 87.5% exceeding the allowable 85%. 22% of the area would be used for non -permitted uses, i.e., self -storage facility and ZBA 77 -SU, 78-V-89 Page Three It was staff's determination not to support the self -storage facility or the oil change facility. An amended PUD including Aldi's Grocery Store, a 7,000 square foot freestanding retail building and future expansion of allowed uses for a B-3 District, southeast of the Courtesy building can be supported with conditions stated within the staff memo. Discussion ensued regarding Aldi's as owner of its building within a Planned Unit Development. Mr. Bednar indicated that a cross -easement and cross -maintenance agreement can be made between the parties, to which Aidi has already agreed. Chairman Basnik indicated he would prefer the agreement to be for perpetuity. In discussion of the future retail, it was noted that any use would need to come back before the Board for approval. Mr. Cassidy suggested a de -acceleration lane or right turn lane for the Courtesy property due to the already heavy traffic volume on Rand Road. Staff indicated that final determination of such would be through IDOT. Mr. John Gorn, 301 N. William, requested clarification of building placement and the Kamysz property and suggested that a site plan be included on notices sent to neighbors prior to Zoning meetings. Mr. Don Fox, 223 Autumn Lane, as a new owner in Harvest Heights, indicated his concerns with the Aldi Food Store and the fence height around the storage facility. He also questioned whether owners whose foundations were just being poured were notified of the hearing. Mr. Bednar indicated that a letter was sent to the developer to try to deliver to those not listed on tax rolls. Increased traffic through the Harvest Heights area was a major concern and a stop sign from the Courtesy property to Harvest Lane was requested. Mr. Petrucelli expressed concern that an extensive traffic study was not done for this development. Mr. Dave Clements, Director of Planning, stated that staff reviewed current traffic and since no new curb cuts were being requested, felt the site could handle the additional traffic. Upon motion by Ms. Brothers, seconded by Ms. OlMay, it was moved to grant the Special Use/Planned Unit Development in a B-3 District to allow for additional development on the Courtesy Home Center parcel. Included in the plans is an Aldi Grocery Store of 12,000 square feet, the remainder of said parcel to be developed at a future date as Phase II, subject to the conditions as shown on page two of the staff's report, covering perimeters, signs, access easement, no outside storage and access drive off of Harvest Lane. Upon roll call: Ayes: Petrucelli, Brothers, Cassidy, O'May, Basnik Nayes: None By a vote of 5-0, the motion passed. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIAL USE IN THE NATURE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOWN AS 740 EAST RAND ROAD WHEREAS, Courtesy Real Estate Properties (hereinafter referred to as Petitioner) has filed a petition for a Special Use with respect to property commonly known as 740 East Rand Road (hereinafter referred to as the Subject Property); and WHEREAS, the Subject Property is legally described as follows: Lot A in Reeses' Addition to Mount Prospect, a Subdivision of part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal meridian, in Cook County, Illinois and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the request for Special Use (designated as ZBA Case No. 77 -SU -89) before the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mount Prospect on the 9th day of November, 1989, pursuant to proper legal notice having been published in the Mount Prospect Herald on the 24th day of October, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Appeals has submitted its findings on the proposed Special Use to the President and Board of Trustees; and WHEREAS, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect have determined that the best interests of the Village of Mount Prospect will be attained by the adoption of the following ordinance regarding the Subject Property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That a special use permit be and is hereby granted to allow Courtesy Real Estate Properties to construct a commercial Planned Unit Development, in a B-3 (Business Retail and Service) District upon the following described property; Lot A in Reeses' Addition to Mount Prospect, a Subdivision of part of the Northwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of Section 35, Township 42 North, Range 11, East of the Third Principal Meridian, in Cook County, Illinois SECTION TWO: That the Planned Unit Development hereinabove authorized and permitted shall be constructed pursuant to the site Plan #89-046 prepared by Kirk/Tyler Architects and submitted as evidence and exhibits for ZBA Case No. 77 -SU -89. SECTION THREE: That the Planned Unit Development includes the following variations of the Planned Unit Development standards of Section 14.2503: A. A reduction of the required off-street parking from the requirement of 503 spaces to 488 spaces, subject to final determination on landscape islands and State requirements for handicapped spaces. B. A reduction of the required 251 setback behind the Courtesy . Home Center to 101. 11 ZBA 77 -SU -89 Page 3 of 3 from and after its passage, approval and publication in pamphlet form in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of ATTEST: Carol A. Fields Village Clerk Gerald L. Farley Village President 1 1989. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE I OF CHAPTER 22 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Article I of Chapter 22 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by creating an entirely new Section 22.102.1; so that hereinafter said Section 22.102.1 shall be and read as follows: Section. 22.102.1. Discharge of downspouts into a sanitary or combined sewer prohibited/Penalty. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged any downspout into a sanitary or combined sewer within the Village of Mount Prospect. Any person found guilty of violating this Section shall be fined not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) nor more than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) for each offense." SECTION TWO: That Article I of Chapter 22 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by creating an entirely new Section 22.102.2; so that hereinafter said Section 22.102.2 shall be and read as follows: Section 22.102.2. Discharge of downspouts/Regulations. All downspouts shall have a ninety degree (90 ) fitting at the ground which directs the water either toward the street abutting the property or parallel to or away from the nearest lot line. The point of discharge of any downspout shall not be more than five feet (51) from a foundation or less than five feet (51) from any lot line. Upon approval of the Village Engineer and only if the property owner produces written permission of neighboring property owners within five feet (51) of the discharge, the owner may locate the discharge point contrary to the requirements herein. The Village Engineer may grant such approval only if it is shown that it is a hardship for the owner to comply and that the proposed placement is the most efficient for preventing runoff onto neighboring properties." SECTION THREE: That Article I of Chapter 22 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by creating an entirely new Section 22.102.3; so that hereinafter said SEction 22.102.3 shall be and read as follows: Section 22.102.3. capping or Disconnected Sewer Accesses. All accesses from sanitary or combined systems from which downspouts have been disconnected shall be capped with concrete or other similar permanent water tight substance." SECTION FOUR: That this Ordinance shall be in full force and ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XV OF CHAPTER 21 OF THE VILLAGE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Article XV of Chapter 21 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended by deleting paragraph 8 of Section 21.1505.8. and inserting in lieu thereof an entirely new paragraph 8; so that hereinafter said Section 21.1505.8.8 shall be and read as follows: 8. Gutters, Downspouts and Sump Pumps. All gutters and downspouts shall be maintained free of debris which might prevent their proper functioning and shall not be allowed to discharge in a manner which might create unnecessary erosion. All gutters and downspouts shall be securely fastened to the building which they serve. No sump pumps shall discharge across the surface of public property. All painted gutter and downspout surfaces shall be maintained free of chipping and flaking paint. 11 SECTION FOUR: That 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. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of 1990. ATTEST: Carol A. Fields Village Clerk N Gerald L. Farley Village President 'TALLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: JOHN F. DIXON, VILLAGE MANAGER FROM: MICHAEL E. SIMS, PLANNER DATE: DECEMBER 8, 1989 SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE FAIR HOUSING ORDINANCE FAIR HOUSING POSTER Over the past few months, the Plan Commission has studied how it could implement the Village's Fair Housing Ordinance. After having studied how Arlington Heights, Evanston, and the Northwest Board of Realtors promote their programs, the Plan Commission decided to require all Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen, Lending Institutions, Lessors and owners to display the Village of Mount Prospect Fair Housing Poster in a room where a real estate transaction is to take place. Accompanying this memo is a copy of the Fair Housing Poster. Staff is asking that another category of illegal discrimination be added to the Fair Housing Ordinance. This category, the presence or age of children, is now part of Federal Fair Housing Law and staff would recommend that it be included as part of the Village's Ordinance. All changes from the original Ordinance are underlined in the attached draft. The Plan Commission met on Wednesday, December 6, 1989 and voted 7-0 in favor of recommending that the Village Board approve the above mentioned amendments to the Village's Fair Housing Ordinance and the attached Fair Housing Poster. Staff has no objections to the amendment or the poster. Approved: �A,4� David M. Clements, Director ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE XII ENTITLED "FAIR HOUSING" OF CHAPTER 23 OF THE VIL14,4GE CODE OF MOUNT PROSPECT BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT, COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS: SECTION ONE: That Article XII entitled "Fair Housing" of Chapter 23 of the Village Code of Mount Prospect, as amended, is hereby further amended in its entirety; so that hereinafter said Article XII of Chapter 23 of the village Code of Mount Prospect shall be and read as follows: ARTICLE XII FAIR HOUSING SECTION: 23.1201 Declaration of Policy 23.1202 Definitions 23.1203 Discriminatory Actions by Brokers 23.1204 Discriminatory Actions by Owners, Lessors and Lending Institutions 23.1205 Exemptions 23.1206 Penalty 23.1207 Administration and Enforcement 23.1289 Processing of Complaints 23.1209 Commission Report Section 23.1201. Declaration of Policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the Village of Mount Prospect, for the purpose of providing for the health, morals, safety and welfare of the persons in and residing in the Village and for the maintenance and promotion of commerce, industry and good government in Mount Prospect, that all persons living and/or working or desiring to live in Mount Prospect shall have a fair opportunity to purchase, lease, rent or occupy real estate without discrimination based upon race, color, religion, creed, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital status, or mental or physical handicap, or pLg.5ence Qr age of children. This policy is intended to protect the interest of buyers and sellers, lessors and lessees, landlords and tenants, and the entire community as a whole in accordance with the provisions of this Article. Section 23.1202. Definitions. As used in this Article, the following terms and phrases shall have the following respective meaning: COMMISSION: The Plan Commission of the Village of Mount Prospect. CORPORATE AUTHORITIES: The Mayor and Board of Trustees of the Village of Mount Prospect. DISCRIMINATE: Any difference in terms, conditions or treatment in the sale, lease or financing of real estate because of race, color, creed, sex, ancestry, marital status, age, physical handicap or mental, Qr—prpsence or = of children, religion, national origin DISCRIMINATION: The action(s) used to discriminate. REAL ESTATE BROKER: Any person who customarily, as a business and for consideration, on behalf of himself or others sells or offers for sale, or buys or offers to buy or negotiates the purchase or sale or exchange of real property, including dwellings, or leases or rents, or offers to lease or rent real property, or who negotiates the lease or rental thereof or who employs any person to act as a real estate salesman to perform any one or more of the foregoing acts. REAL ESTATE SALESMAN: Any person licensed or required to be licensed as a real estate salesman in accordance with the provi- sions of Chapter 114 1/2 of the Illinois Revised Statutes, or any act or acts supplementing, amending or superseding said provisions. REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION: The purchase, sale, exchange, lease or rental of any dwelling, and any legally enforceable option or contract to do any of the foregoing. VILLAGE: The Village of Mount Prospect, an Illinois muni- cipal corporation. (Ord. 2130, 1-7-69) Section 23.1203. Discriminatory Actions by Real Estate Brokers and Salesmen. It shall be unlawful for any real estate broker or real estate salesman: A. To fail or refuse, within a reasonable time after request, to furnish to any party to a real estate transaction a copy of any document signed by such party and in the possession of such broker or salesman. B. To fail or refuse, upon request, to permit any person to examine copies of any listing or descriptive materials respecting any dwelling which has been publicly offered for sale, lease or rental, because of the race, color, creed, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, mental or physical handicap, or presence or ,age of children, religion or national origin of such person. C. It shall be unlawful for any real estate broker to employ or continue to employ any real estate salesman found to have violated the provisions of this Article and Section of this Code, more than twice in any period of six (6) consecutive months, unless such finding or findings shall not be sustained upon further proceedings, if any, pursuant to the provisions of this Article. D. To publish, circulate, issue or display or cause to be published, circulated, issued or displayed, any communication, notice, advertisement, sign or other writing of any kind relating to the sale, rental or leasing of any real estate which will indicate or express any discrimination. E. To exploit or overcharge any person for a real estate transaction and/or offer because of race, color, creed, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, mental or physical handicap, or presence or U& of Children, or national origin of such person. F. To discriminate or participate in discrimination in connection with borrowing or lending money, guaranteeing loans, accepting mortgages or otherwise obtaining or making available funds for the purchase, acquisition, rehabilitation, repairs or maintenance of any real property in the Village. G. To solicit for sale or lease, or ifor listing for sale or lease, any real estate on the ground of loss of value due to the present or prospective entry into any neighbor- hood of any person or persons of any particular race, color, creed, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, mental or physical handicap, or presence or Ug of children, or national origin of such person. -3- a. To act to eliminate unlawful real estate practices; b. To act to assure to persons living, working or desiring to live in Mount Prospect, or in any particular real property, opportunity to purchase, lease or occupy without discrimination because of race, color, creed, ancestry, age, sex, marital status, mental or physical handicap, or.. presengg or age Qf ghildren, or national origin of such person; C. To hold hearings on, and make findings of fact with respect to any such complaint; d. To recommend the issuance of orders and other appropriate enforcement procedures, Subject to approval by the corporate authorities, and to publish its findings of fact to the corporate authorities; e. To submit from time to time, but not less often than annually, a written report to the corporate authorities of the general scope of the Commission's activities and recommendations with respect to fair real estate practices, which written report shall be made public after its submission; such annual report shall be submitted by May 1st of each year, to cover the prior calendar year; f. To create from time to time ad hoc committee(s) consisting of Commissioners to expedite and facilitate the work of the Commission in respect to the Commission's fair housing responsibilities. 9. To take such action, and to make such recommendations to the corporate authorities as maybe necessary or desirable to fulfill and implement the foregoing powers and responsibilities. Section 23.1208. Processing of Complaints. Any person aggrieved in any manner by any violation of any provision of this Article may file with the Village Manager's office a written verified complaint setting forth his grievance within thirty (30) days of the date of the alleged violation. The complaint shall state the name and address of the complainant; the name and address of the person against whom the complaint is brought, if known to the complainant; facts sufficient to allege a violation of this Article; the names and addresses of all persons believed to have knowledge concerning the alleged facts; and such other relevant information as the Commission may deem desirable. The Commission shall provide a printed form of complaint for the use of aggrieved persons. After the filing of any complaint, a Village Manager official shall serve a copy of the complaint on the party or parties charged by registered mail. If the Village Manager official determines, after prompt and appropriate investi- gation, that probable cause exists for the allegations of the complaint, the Village Manager shall set a time and date for a meeting of the complainant and the person or persons against whom the complaint has been directed. The Village Manager's office shall attempt to resolve the complaint by all proper methods of conciliation and persuasion and shall inform the Commission of such conciliation. If the Village Manager's office determines that further attempts at conciliation would not be in furtherance of the objectives of this Chapter, the Commission shall thereupon proceed promptly to a full hearing by the Commission of the complaint as hereinafter provided. If the Village Manager's office determines, after the review of the complaint and facts, that the complaint should be dismissed, the Village Manager's office shall so advise the Commission. If the Commission shall concur with the Village Manager's office, after having reviewed the facts on the complaint, the complaint shall be dismissed, Otherwise, the complaint shall be set for hearing by the Commission as hereinafter provided. -5- SECTION TWO: That 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. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this day of , 1989. Gerald L. Farley ATTEST: village President Carol A. Fields Village Clerk VIL,_AGE OF MOUNT PR` SPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Dixon, Village Manager FROM: Paul Bednar, Planner A SUBJECT: ZBA-83.V-89, Michael and Rosemary Carini LOCATION: 805 South Elmhurst Road DATE: December 27, 1989 The Carinis are requesting a variation to allow a circular driveway and also to allow up I to 52% of their front yard to be covered with impervious surface instead of 35% allowed by code. Mr. & Mrs. Carini appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on December 21, 1989 to present their case, They stated that they have a hardship because the neighbor to the south has installed a wood fence that provides absolutely no vision when pulling out of their driveway. Therefore, they need to exit their property from the north side for traffic safety reasons. They also stated that theirs is the only house on the block facing Elmhurst between Lonnquist and Orchard, This means that there would only be two curb cuts on that one block. The Carinis did not believe that a T-shaped driveway would resolve the major problem of visibility since the fence would still be next to the driveway. Village staff agreed that the Carinis need some type of maneuverability so that they can pull out onto Elmhurst Road rather than back out into the heavy traffic. Normally, circular drives are acceptable when a lot abuts a busy street like Elmhurst Road and when it is located on a wide lot. The Carinis live on a standard width 65' lot and if they were to put in a circular drive, they would have to pave over one-half of the front yard space. The Zoning Board of Appeals commented that the Carinis do have a unique situation since the neighbor to the south was allowed to put up a wood fence which creates visibility problems for pulling out of the driveway. They were somewhat concerned about covering over one-half of the front yard with a circular drive. However, given the alternatives, they decided this was the most appropriate. There was discussion by the Board as to how to reduce the driveway width at the property line. It was decided that the one straight drive from the garage would have to taper to 18' at the property line and the north drive be limited to W wide. The board then recommended approval of these variations, subject to the conditions mentioned above, by a unanimous 6-0 vote. There were no neighbors or objectors present at the hearing to voice their concerns. PB:c1 Approved: David A c ements, Director MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO: ZBA-83-V-89 HEARING DATE: December 21, 1989 PETITIONER: Michael and Rosemary Carini PUBLICATION DATE: December 5, 1989 SUBJECT PROPERTY- 805 South Elmhurst Road REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variation from Section 14.3016 to allow a circular driveway. Also requested is a variation from Section 14.1102A to allow 52% of their front yard to be covered with impervious surface instead of 35% allowed by code. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gil Basnik Robert Brettrager Lois Brothers Ron Cassidy Peter Lannan Marilyn O'May ABSENT: Len Petrucelli OBJECTORS/INTERESTED: None Mr. and Mrs. Carini presented their case to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They presented a letter to the Board responding to the cornments made in the memo sent to Gil Basnik. The first issue they addressed is that they have a hardship that requires a circular drive at this location because of a 5-1/2' fence that borders their driveway. Because of this fence, they have absolutely no vision until they pass the sidewalk and are unable to see any oncoming pedestrians. They stated that chances of injuring somebody are a consideration. Secondly, they stated that they would be the only house on the block facing Elmhurst between Lorinquist and Orchard. This would mean that they would only have two curb cuts on that one block. In response to the staffs suggestion of a T-shaped driveway for turnaround maneuverability, they stated that would not resolve a major problem of visibility next to the fence. Mr. and Mrs. Carini also informed the Board that less than one block away, at 711 Elmhurst and 713 Elmhurst, there are circular driveways. In summary, they stated that because they live on Elmhurst Road, which is a busy four - lane street, they have a hardship that should allow them a circular drive. A circular drive would allow them to see oncortung traffic and pedestrians. VI' "AGE OF MOUNT PF SPECT TANNING AND ZONING DEPAKi HENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gil Basnik, Zoning Board of Appeals Cha' an FROM: Paul Bednar, Planner -- SUBJECT: SUBJECr: ZBA-83-V-89, Michael and Rosemary Carini LOCATION. 805 South Elmhurst Road DATE: December 12, 1989 The applicant is requesting avariation from Section 14.3016 to allow a circular driveway. Also requested is a variation from Section 14.1102.A to allow 52% of their front yard to be covered with impervious surface instead of 35% allowed by code. Both the Engineering Department and Department of Inspection Services note that and 1.D.07* permit will be required for all work done on the Elmhurst Road right-of-way. The Village would prefer not to have two driveway cuts on Route 83, if located on only a 65' wide lot. Asan alternative, the CArinis could put in a "turn around area" in the front yard without requiring a separate curb cut. The Inspection Services Department notes that a permit was issued for single-family construction along with a straight 21' wide driveway. After the Permit was issued, the circular drive was formed up and a gravel base is complete. The Inspectors stopped the job at that point. The applicants have a brand new home located on Elmhurst Road just South of Unnquist Boulevard. At this location, Elmhurst Road is a four -lane busy street.Permits were issued for a two -car garage with a straight driveway at 21' in width. However, a circular drive with gravel base has been installed without revising the permit. A brief inspection of the immediate area indicated no other circular drives on Elmhurst Road. Although there are many other homes that do face Elmhurst Road and have straight drives, VIL'�--AGE OF MOUNT PRC'PECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager 4., FROM: Paul Bednar, Planner" -.,J M. SUBJECT: ZBA-85-SU-89, Christy Prikkel LOCATION. 1731 West Pheasant Trail DATE: December 27, 1989 Mrs, Prikkel is requesting a special use in order to allow a day care home for up to eight children at this location. The Zoning Board of Appeals heard this request at their regular December 21 meeting. Mrs, Prikkel stated to the Board that she wanted to care for up to six children, plus her own two in her house. She has state certification allowing her to operate such a home. Mrs. Prikkel said that she bad been providing child care in her house for the past two years. The Zoning Board of Appeals members supported this request, since it is greatly needed in town. They had questions for staff as to who would be responsible for monitoring the facility. Both the State Health Department and State Fire Marshall will insure compliance with state guidelines. There are approximately four other special use permits for day care homes within the Village. One of those being approximately two blocks away on West Pheasant Trail. The Zoning Board of Appeals voted unanimously 6-0 to recommend approval. There were no neighbors or objectors present at this hearing. PB:cl Approved: David M. Clements, Director MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO: ZBA-85-SU-89 HEARING DATE: December 21, 1989 PETITIONER: Christy Prikkel PUBLICATION DATE: December 5, 1989 SUBJECT PROPERTY. 1731 West Pheasant Trail REQUEST: Special use in order to allow a day care home for up to eight children at this location. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gil Basnik Robert Brettrager Lois Brothers Ron Cassidy Peter Lannan Marilyn O'May ABSENT: Len Petrucelli OBJECTORS/INTERESTED: None Mrs. Prikkel stated to the Board that she wishes to operate a day care home for up to six additional children plus her own two in her house. She has certification from the state allowing her to operate such a home. Mrs. Prikkel stated that she has been watching the kids in her house for about two years. The Zoning Board of Appeals members supported this type of use since it is greatly needed in town. They questioned who will be monitoring Mrs. Prikkel's facility, That question was answered by Paul Bednar, Village Planner, that the State Health Department and State Fire Marshall will insure compliance with state guidelines. They will also have to be licensed by the Village. Paul Bednar, Village Planner, explained that this house is in the middle of a single-family neighborhood and looks the same as any other one. An outline of the guidelines the State of Illinois uses to issue a permit for this type of use was explained to the Board including, but not limited to, a background check of all adults in the home, a physical required for all adults in the home, a thorough inspection of the home, inspection of smoke detectors and fire extinguishers. The Zoning Board of Appeals then voted to recommend approval for the day care home as a special use by a vote of 6-0. Village Board action will be required in this case. This case will be heard on January 2, 1990. Paul Bednar Planner VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Gil Basnik, Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman FROM: Paul Bednar, Plannef� SUBJECT: ZBA-85-SU-89, Christy Prikkel LOCATION: 1731 North Pheasant Trail DATE: December 12, 1989 The applicant is requesting a special use permit in order to allow a day care home for up to eight children (two of which will be the applicant's own) in an R -A Single Family Residential District. The Department of Inspection Services notes that the house may have to be upgraded in order to meet the life safety codes, including exits, lighting, ventilation, fire detection, etc. The petitioner should contact them. The Fire Department notes that day care homes require state approval from the Illinois Department of Health and are inspected regularly by the office of the State Fire Marshall. Parking restrictionsWi 11 apply as per the current Village Ordinance. rr Wronum"I .-IMMM The applicant wishes to operate a day care home for up to six additional children plus two of her own in her own residence. Mrs. Prikkel has a certification from the state allowing her to operate such a day care home. This house is located in the middle of a single-family neighborhood and is well maintained and of the same character as any other home on the block. As You may recall, both the Zoning Board and Village Board approved a special use permit for another day care home at 1815 Pheasant Trail just over three years ago. Although there were some objections from the neighbors to that particular request, the Board reasoned that the community need and the insignificant impact that this type of user would have on the neighborhood warranted approval. There are only four other special use permits for such day care homes within the Village. VIL's__,.GE OF MOUNT PRG_iPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager FROM: Paul Bednar, Planner SUBJECT: ZBA-86-SU-89, Glenkirk LOCATION: 1201 North Ardyce Lane 'DATE: December 27, 1989 Glenkirk is requesting a special use per Section 14.1301.0 to allow one additional resident in the existing family -care home located at this address. Since the total number of developmentally disabled individuals that will live in this house will be six, a special use permit for a group -care home is required. The existing family care home for five individuals is a permitted use. Jill Sahakian and Lisa Hopp, of Glenkirk, presented the case to the board on December 21, 1989. They informed the board that Glenkirk has operated a family -care home at this address for approximately four years. Presently there are five individuals, along with live-in supervisory personnel, living in the house. Glenkirk is licensed by the state for up to six individuals in this house. Supervisory personnel provide round-the-clock and they are awake at every hour of the day. Glenkirk has had a request by one more developmentally disabled individual to live in this house which would make the total six. For that reason, they need the special use permit because they would now be classified as a group -care home. Glenkirk representatives told the board that the five women living in the house have been able to make friends with some of the neighbors and have welcomed the opportunity to live in a normal neighborhood atmosphere. The Village noted to the Zoning Board that they are not aware of any complaints lodged against the Glenkirk facility through either the Police or Fire Departments. The Village would not expect the addition of one more individual in this house to change the operating manner, nor impact the neighborhood. The Zoning Board of Appeals stated they were in total support of this request and asked the Glenkirk representatives many questions out of curiosity, but having no bearing on the request. The Board then recommended approval of this special use request by a unanimous 6-0 vote. There were no neighbors or objectors present at this hearing to voice any concerns. PB:cl Approved: �i David M. Clements, Director— MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS CASE NO: ZBA-86-SU-89 HEARING DATE: December 21, 1989 PETITIONER. Glenkirk PUBLICATION DATE: December 5, 1989 SUBJECT PROPERTY- 1201 North Ardyce Lane REQUEST: The applicants are requesting a special use per Section 14.1301.0 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Glenkirk to have one additional resident in their existing family -care home located at this address. Since the total number of developmentally disabled individuals that will live in this house will be six, a special use for a group care home is required. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT.. Gil Basnik Robert Brettrager Lois Brothers Ron Cassidy Peter Larman Marilyn O'May ABSENT: Len Petrucelli OBJECTORS/INTERESTED: None Jill Sahakian and Lisa Hopp of Glenkirk presented the case to the Board. They informed the Board that Glenkirk currently operates a family -care home at this address for five individuals along with live-in supervisory personnel. They have operated this facility for approximately four years. The supervisory personnel work in, shifts to provide round-the- clock care. There is always a staff member awake at every hour of the day. Glenkirk now proposes to bring in one more developmentally disabled individual to live in this house. This makes the total of six which is their maximum allowed per state license I and also requires a classification of a group -care home in the Village. They told the Board that the five women that live in this house have been able to make friends with the neighbors and have welcomed the opportunity to fit into a normal neighborhood atmosphere. Paul Bednar, Planner for the Village, stated for the record that the Village has not had any complaints lodged against the Glenkirk Family Care, Home through either the police or fire departments. We would not expect the addition of one more individual in this home to change the operating manner of the house. _ALLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPA,�'T PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS f =RAIRMAN FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNER' a:Z,o SUBJECT: ZBA-86-SU-89, GLENKIRK LOCATION: 1201 NORTH ARDYCE LANE DATE: DECEMBER 11, 1989 REQUEST The applicants are requesting a special use per Section 14.1301.0 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow Glenkirk to have one additional resident in their existing family care home located at this address. Since the total number of developmentally disabled individuals that will live in this house will be six, a special use permit for a group care home is required. VILLAGE STAFF COMMENTS The Police Department notes that there are no complaints on record regarding the existing family care home at this address. The Fire Department notes that the structure is in compliance with the BOCA Building Codes and with the State Fire Marshall. It was also noted that this facility is currently licensed by the State for this type of care. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMENTS Glenkirk currently operates a family care home at this address for five developmentally disabled individuals along with five -in supervisory personnel. In an R-2 Duplex District, a family care home is a permitted use. Glenkirk has operated this facility for approximately four years now. Initial meetings with the neighbors and the Glenkirk staff were held in 1985 to discuss the family care home at this address. Glenkirk proposes that one more developmentally disabled individual be allowed to Eve in this four-bedroom house, making the total six, which requires a classification of a group care home. Group care homes are allowed in an R-2 Duplex District only by special use permit. Therefore, this request must meet the requirements outlined in Section 14.114 and should be judged by the special use standards. The most important group home standard is a requirement of one bedroom for every two residents. This application meets this standard. This home is located in the middle of an R-2 Duplex neighborhood. It is well maintained and the same character of all the other homes in the neighborhood. Since Glenkirk has operated a family care home for the last four years, the Village has a good idea as to what to expect if an additional person were to be living in the home. We will rely on the opinions of both the Police and Fire Departments who monitor this facility the closest. They have stated that there have been no reported complaints and that the building meets all applicable codes for this request. We would not expect the nature of this facility to be changed in any manner that would impact the neighborhood. We cannot foresee that traffic, litter, noise, or danger will increase as a result of this group care home. Therefore, we are in support of the request. VII:. AGE OF MOUNT PR�_,SPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager FROM: Paul Bednar, Planned l,:E�(T,,L DATE: December 28, 19892 SUBJECT: Venture Store Parcel Redevelopment LOCATION: 1500 South Elmhurst Road May Properties are requesting approval of a Planned Unit Development for their property at 1500 South Elmhurst Road. The request includes the following: 1. Approval of an outlet for a Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant in the Venture store parking lot, adjacent to Elmhurst Road, 2. Preliminary approval of a second restaurant, South of the Kentucky Fried Chicken site. 3. An addition of 20,000 square feet for future retail development on the north side of the Venture store. May Property representatives appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Plan Commission, and our Sign Review Board with various requests. Zoning Board_of Appeals: May Property representatives appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals on September 28, 1989 to request the following: 1. Amendment to the Special Use/Planned Unit Development in order to allow the addition of two out lots in the under-utilized parking lot. One out lot is for a Kentucky Fried Chicken fast-food restaurant with a drive-through. The remaining out lot also for a fast-food drive-through restaurant yet to be leased. The amendment to the P.U.D. would also include a future addition to the north side of the existing Venture Store of approximately 20,000 square feet. 2. A variation from Section 14.2102.E to allow a 20' parking lot setback instead of 30' along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street and 0' parking lot setback instead of 20' required on both the west and north property lines. In 1972 the site plan was approved as part of a P.U.D. for this property. The property, as it exists now, was developed according to plan. Now that the May Properties wants to intensify the uses on this site, they must both amend the previously approved P.U.D. and also request variations to any zoning requirements not met. ZBA-66-SU-89 December 28, 1989 Page Three Sign Rrvigw Board: At the direction of the Zoning Board of Appeals, May Companies presented a sign package to the Sign Review Board on both October 16 and December 18, 1989. Presently there are two free-standing signs and one wall sign identifying the Venture Store that are non- conforming and would have to conform by 1992. As a condition of the P.U.D. approval by the Zoning Board, they have requested that all signs on this property be reviewed and recommendations made by the Sign Review Board. The Sign Review Board made the following findings for proposed signage in the P.U.D: 1. The two outlets be permitted to have a ground -mounted sign of 7' in height, to be incorporated into the landscaped area. This was approved as a Special Use Equity Option as May Companies are reducing the total signage on-site. 2. The existing free-standing signs shall be removed by January 1991. This is one year earlier than the amortization schedule in our Sign Ordinance. 3. The new free-standing signs shall be a conforming 12' in height, with an approved 20% variation of sign area to allow a 60 square foot sign. F-1ali Commission: On December 20, 1989, a representative of the May Company appeared before the Plan Commission requesting relief from the following Development Code requirements: 1. Street lights along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street. 2. Parkway trees along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street, Susan Connolly, representative of the May Company, explained to the Board that the cost of both the street trees and street lights was a factor in this request and they did not feel with the other improvements being made on site that they could afford to put in these improvements. It was pointed out by the Village staff that parkway trees will cost approximately $275 each. It was also pointed out by staff that street lights have always been required by new developments or redevelopment projects in the Village. As in this case, when I.D.O.T. will not allow the street lights to go in at this time, the Village has required either a deed covenant or a cash escrow amount to cover the cost of installing the street lights. This has become the common practice in the past six years. The Commission members were of the opinion that the parkway trees would not cost the developer a significant amount and, therefore, should be installed as part of the redevelopment. They were also of the opinion that a deed covenant requiring the installation of street lights at the appropriate time would be a good compromise. This would save the developer money at this time. They were not in favor of waiving the requirement entirely. Therefore, the Board recommended to deny the May Companies request to waive parkway tree requirement and street light requirement for both Dempster Street and Dempster Road. The vote was unanimous.. There were no objectors present at the hearing to voice their concerns. MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE MOUNT PROSPECT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ZBA CASE 66 -SU -89, 67-V-89 Hearing Date: September 28, 1989 PETITIONER: The May Properties PUBLICATION DATE: September 12, 1989 SUBJECT PROPERTY: 1500 S. Elmhurst Road Venture Store Parcel REQUEST: Approval of two outlots in parking lot; one for Kentucky Fried Chicken and another for a second drive-thru, fast food restaurant. Approval. -of a future addition on the north side of the Venture store and a variation from Section 14.2102.E to allow a 20 foot parking lot setback and a,zero foot parking lot setback as noted in text below. ZBA MEMBERS PRESENT: Gil Basnik, Chairman Len Petrucelli Peter Lannon Ronald Cassidy Robert Brettrager Marilyn O'May ABSENT: Lois Brothers OBJECTORS/INTERESTED: None MS. Susan Connelly, Attorney for the May Properties, 8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, Illinois 60606, presented the Board with a copy of the site plan indicating the 6.17,acre Venture store property. The request is for two Outlots to be incorporated in the under-utilized parking lot adjacent to Elmhurst Road. One outlot has been leased to Kentucky Fried Chicken, a Class 4, fast-food restaurant with a drive-thru. The remaining outlot has yet to be leased. Landscaping will be improved on the entire Venture parcel and an easement will be provided across this property to supply Village water to the Mount Prospect Park District building. No new curb cuts are proposed to the property and there are adequate utilities. All standards have been met with the exception of the parking lot setbacks. It is requested that a 20 foot parking lot setback be allowed instead of 30 feet along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street, and a zero foot parking lot setback instead of 20 feet on the west and north property lines. ZBA 66 -SU, 67-V-89 Page Three Mr. Rich Salzman, 2 Westbrook Corporate Center, Suite 800, Westchester, Illinois, Construction Engineer for Kentucky Fried Chicken, displayed a rendering of the proposed building noting that it would have a shingle roof, slate in color with a brick veneer. Kentucky Fried Chicken would like to meet with Village staff and work out a plan that the Village would support. It was requested that the dumpster remain as proposed since traffic -wise for trash pickup, it fits the design criteria. Also the dumpster would be built out of the same material as the building, it will not exceed six feet in height, a gate will be placed in front shielding view into the dumpster and a landscape screen will be added. Ms. Connelly indicated that the Petitioner would be happy to work with the Sign Review Board. There were financial reasons for the two phase landscaping plan and discussions will continue with staff. It was noted that a 15 year lease has been secured with Kentucky Fried Chicken. Upon motion by Ms. O'May, seconded by Mr. Brettrager it was moved to grant an amendment to the Planned Unit Development at 1500 South Elmhurst Road for approval of two outlots on a portion of the under-utilized parking lot adjacent to Elmhurst Road. One outiot is for a proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru, fast-food restaurant and preliminary approval for a second drive-thru, fast-food restaurant asyet unnamed for the second outlot as shown on Petitioner's Exhibit #1 subject to the Petitioner agreeing to work with Village staff on a satisfactory landscape plan, a satisfactory site for the dumpster and review of existing signs by the Sign Review Board; and approval of a future addition on the north side of the Venture Store consisting of 20,000 square feet as shown on Petitioner's Exhibit #1 provided that the 20,000 square feet be used for retail merchandising only. Final plans for both the unnamed restaurant site and the retail expansion will come back before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Upon roll call: Ayes: Petrucelli, Lannon, Cassidy, Brettrager Basnik, O'May Nayes: None By a vote of 6-0, the motion passed. Village Board action will be required. Mr. Cassidy, seconded by Ms. O'May, moved to grant a variation from the provision of Section 14.2102.E to allow a 20, parking lot setback instead of 301 along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street, and a zero foot parking lot setback instead of 201 on the west and north property lines as shown on Petitioner's Exhibit #1. VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois TO: GIL BASNIK, ZONING BOARD APPEALS =RMAN FROM: PAUL BEDNAR, PLANNE77� SUBJECT: ZBA-66-SU-89, ZBA-67-V-89, THE MAY PROPERTIES LOCATION: 1500 SOUTH ELMHURST ROAD (VENTURE PARCEL) DATE: SEPTEMBER 20, 1989 REQUEST The May Department Stores are requesting an amendment to the Planned Unit Department for their property at 1500 South Elmhurst Road. The request includes the following: 1. The approval of two outlots on a portion of the under-utilized parking lot adjacent to Elmhurst Road. One oullot is for a proposed Kentucky Fried Chicken drive-thru, fast-food restaurant. PreHminary approval for a second drive-thru, fast- food restaurant is requested for the second outlot. 2. Approval of a future addition on the north side of the Venture Store consisting of 20,000 square feet. 3. A variation from the provisions of Section 14,2102.E to allow a 20 foot parking lot setback instead of 30 feet along both Elmhurst Road and Dempster Street, and a zero foot parking lot setback instead of 20 feet on the west and north property lines. 1. The Police Department doesn't expect a significant increase in traffic accidents on either Elmhurst or Dempster as a result of this proposal, as the proposal does not include any new driveways. However, if traffic problems do occur, they recommend "no left turn" signs be posted on site for autos exiting to Elmhurst. 2. Any -detention, volume -displaced in the parking lot as a result of the proposed construction, will have to be compensated for elsewhere on the site. 3. Storm sewers located on site will have to be re-routed. The Engineering Department should be contacted for locations of all utilities. 4. All Development Code items are required including, but not limited to, street lights and three parkway trees. Gil BaWk - Page 3 September 20, 1989 There is sufficient excess capacity on this Venture parking lot to permit the development of the outlots, the expansion of retail, and the increased landscaping perimeters, and still providing parking for all users exceeding the Village requirements. Once again, as a result of the ring road realignment, all the required parking stalls will be located adjacent to each user. The petitioner is also proposing to increase landscaping on-site, by installing landscape islands in the parking lot, and additional plantings along Dempster. This will be a major improvement to the site. This is to be installed in two phases, which is acceptable to the staff. However, most plantings are to be done in Phase 1, and it seems as if all work could be done at this time. Variation Cancer The proposed 20 foot parking lot setback is reasonable and will provide a sufficient setback from both Dempster Street and Elmhurst Road. However, additional landscaping is recommended. Leaving the existing zero foot setback on both the north property line and west property line will not impact the adjacent property owners as the Commonwealth Edison easement is located on the north and the Dempster Development Center is located to the west. The site plan proposed for the Kentucky Fried Chicken building comes close to addressing all of our concerns. The parking provided meets Code. The parking lot layout is acceptable. The drive-thru lane for Kentucky Fried Chicken has been designed at proper width, has sufficient stacking space, and is separated from the parking lot for better traffic flow. The only remaining concerns are itemized as follows: 1. Landscaping on the property must be increased 2. The architecture of the building should be of good design. 3. The dumpster shown on the plan should be relocated away from the drive-thru lane. It should be moved further north closer to the building with a fence enclosure and a landscape screening surrounding it. The amendment proposal should meet the Special Use standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Final plans for the second restaurant outlot and retail building expansion must be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Appeals, before approval. The variations proposed to the parking lot setback requirements are reasonable and can be supported if landscaping is increased. PB:hg P'7CEIVED DEC 2 0 1989 Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Project Engineer DATE: December 15, 1989 SUBJECT: Resolution - Work in State R.O.W. Attached is a Resolution required by the State of Illinois to authorize the Village to perform construction work on State Right - of -Ways. This Resolution is requested annually by the State in lieu of requiring the Village to supply a surety bond for the construction work. I recommend that the Village Board of Trustees adopt this resolution on Tuesday, January 2, 1990 Broad Meeting. Fred Tennyson I concur with the above recommendation. Charles Bencic FT/m RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION IN LIEU OF A SURETY BOND IN ORDER TO PERFORM SPECIFIED CONSTRUCTION WORK WITHIN STATE OF ILLINOIS RIGHTS-OF-WAY WHEREAS, the Village of Mount Prospect, Cook County, Illinois, desires to undertake, in the year 1990, the location, construction, operation and maintenance of driveways and street returns, watermains, sanitary and storm sewers, street light, traffic signals, sidewalk, landscaping, etc., on State highways, within the Village of Mount Prospect, which by law and/or agreement come under the jurisdiction and control of the Department of Transportation of the State of Illinois; and ' WHEREAS, an individual working permit must be obtained from the Department of Transportation of the State of Illinois prior to any of the aforesaid installations being constructed either by the Village of Mount Prospect or by a private person or firm under contract and supervision of the Village of Mount Prospect. 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 pledges its good faith and guarantees that all work shall be performed in accordance with the conditions of the permit to be granted by the Department of Transportation of the State of Illinois and to hold the State of Illinois harmless on account on any damages that may occur to persons or property during the prosecution of such work, and assume all liability for damages to persons or property due to accidents or otherwise by reason of the work which is to be performed under the provision of said permit. SECTION TWO: That the appropriate officials of the Village of Mount Prospect are hereby authorized and directed to sign said working permit on behalf of the Village of Mount Prospect. SECTION THREE: That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval in the manner provided by law. AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this _ day of Gerald L. Farley Mayor ATTEST: Carol A. Fields Village Clerk 1990. VILL—GE OF MOUNT PRO--a/P)ECT PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John F. Dixon, Village Manager FROM: Paul Bednar, Planner DATE: December 28, 1989 SUBJECT: Mann's Resubdivision LOCATION: Near the northwest comer of Maple and Shabonee Mr. Mann has submitted a plat of resubdivision consolidating lots 9, 10, and part of lot 11 of Friedrich Schaefer's addition into two new single-family lots, now known as lots I and 2 of Mann's Resubdivision. Both lots are currently zoned R-1, single-family residential. The applicant had requested a variation from the Zoning Board to permit two 61' wide lots instead of 65' wide as required by code. This case was heard by the Zoning Board on August 24, and approved by resolution Z-56-89. The Plan Commission reviewed the plat of resubdivision on December 20, 1989 and recommended approval of the plat by a unanimous vote. The staff found the plat to be acceptable containing all of the information required. PB:cl Village of -,ounf Prospec) Mount Prospect. Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM I TO: Plan Commission FROM: Engineering Coordinator DEC 18 1989 E DATE: December 14, 1989 H,C FE ' �Ii V ! SUBJECT: Mann's Subdivision I Plarming & Zcni,, - The Engineering Division has reviewed the revised plat of subdivision for N-Un's Resub,division and find it meets all requirements and is acceptable. . I�o L---) r, k- "W Bob Pszanka BP/m L iia cow PROJECT LOCATION — 6"&bOV)W-F- !11 W. LINE OF THF v 225.26 OF THE W. 602.66' OF THE E. 112 ^` THE N. 60 RODS OF THE S.W. 114 OF SEG 122 0' —1- w a 61.0. ,� FT PUBC/C rY E',0VA/IV7 rte. d i � � I 1 i ^{ 3 Y 1 s � A s Z A ' 61.0' 61.0'1 I U'1 N CJ1 122.0' f+EPE%O�OP6 DEL7/C�rEO 4UN6 45, 13?7 ,Of .00C 0966697 �I a a E. LINE OF THE W. 602,65 OF THE E. 112 OF THE N. 60 ROCS OF THE S.W. 114 OF SEC 12-41-II— Mount Prospect Public Works Department artment INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Village Manager FROM: Deputy Director Public Works DATE: December 26, 1989 SUBJECT: Water Main Replacements - Engineering Proposals In the current budget, we have the following funds approved for water main replacements this fiscal year: Route 83 - Lonnquist to Golf Road $265,000 Forest Avenue - Memory to Kensington $155,000 Bids for the Forest Avenue contract came in at $255,000. There- fore, it was necessary to transfer $100,000 from the Route 83 account and defer its replacement until next year. We do, howev- er, maintain an ongoing list of deteriorating water mains and I would propose we use the remaining funds to do two other seg- ments of water main. one is on Council Trail between Elmhurst Road and Hi-Lusi, and the other is on Oak between Forest and Gregory (see attached maps). We have experienced numerous water main breaks on these two sections of main, and I strongly recom- mend their replacement. Both these sections of main would be replaced with eight -inch pipe, at an estimated cost of $125,000. In the past, our Engineering Department has prepared the plans and specifications for our water main replacement program but, due to their new time tables and expanded street resurfac- ing/reconstruction program, they will not have the time to com- plete these drawings and specifications for installations this fiscal year. I have therefore secured proposals from three local engineering firms to provide professional services to prepare the plans and specifications necessary to secure bids and also to provide inspection engineering during construction. All firms have considerable experience in this type of work and are highly recommended. Proposals as follows: Design Inspection Firm Phase Phase Total Beling Consultants $ 5,900 $ 4,900 $10,800 Midwest Consulting Eng. did not break down 13,100 Patrick Engineering, Inc. 11,165 12,750 23,915 I recommend the proposal as submitted by Beling Consultants for $10,800 be accepted. Funding for this proposed contract can be found in the current budget on page 188, Account #41-072-10-8724. Glen R. Andler I concur with the recommendation. ti41S,At � WA -44, Herbert L. Weeks GRA/td attach. rr! ..s KAl + 27 ^ y /G R ri 3 At - ... 11 iY Z - m/r 4«y,,,,,. " /I /i _mil » /9 - •.s t# r d - I/m erm M y7-11 f /3 - «7 # �r� M L ^ mop li - n7 i/ ATE Ot 17, 'Al OIAO x MA& 4 � ;/-mr; a !° ` Z 06 mrm ti /O / n #,3t /Ir -OIL 44 Al '1(Cl { ✓rlWA2dT. AMS rr! ..s KAl + 27 ^ y /G R ri 3 At - ... 11 iY Z - m/r 4«y,,,,,. " /I /i _mil » /9 - •.s t# r d - I/m erm M y7-11 f /3 - «7 # �r� M L ^ mop li - n7 i/ ATE WATS Village of ►-bunt Prospect ,Mourfr,.-rospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR GERALD L. FARLEY AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES FROM: VILLAGE MANAGER DATE: DECEMBER 29, 1989 SUBJECT: TWO ATTACHED MEMOS FROM FINANCE DIRECTOR JEPSON I feel that there is a need for some clarification to assist you in reviewing the information that is being presented. On the first memo dated December 27, Budget Projections for the 1989-1990 Fiscal Year, Dave has again done an outstanding job of putting together information on a very complicated subject. I wish to make sure that certain points are clear for the Board. On page 2 of the memo, Schedule 1, Motor Fuel Tax, we had discussed additional funds being available a couple of months ago when we discussed the Street Program. It was anticipated these funds would be added for additional work in the future. In the Community Development Block Grant Fund, staff has been working with the Boxwood Advocacy Group and will be before the Board, probably in the month of February, to review the reconstruction of Boxwood Drive with CDBG funds which will also increase the number of parking spaces on Boxwood Drive. It is anticipated that these funds will be spent in the next fiscal year. Under Capital Equipment Repair and Replacement Fund, we are recommending the elimination of a $250,000 transfer from the General Fund instead to pay for the $310,000 of Fire Department vehicles since we did not issue the Bond for Target Area F and $310,000 would be too small a sum to justify the legal financial expenses plus it is always better if funds are available to pay the full amount if possible. On page 4, Schedule 3, General Fund, the Board should make sure they understand that the entire State Income Tax funds coming to the Village, $940,000, is fully available for designation by the Board as to how to be utilized in the future. This amount is the reason that the General Fund balance has increased by almost $1 million. Motor Fuel Tax Fund. We have a couple of projects which we would Eke to have the NWMC move up on their program. In order to do so, it is necessary for the engineering phase one to be complete; in particular Seminole Lane. Extra Motor Fuel Tax Funds could be used for this item in particular. Village of ._]cunt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director 06 - DATE: December 27, 1989 SUBJECT: Budget Projections for the 1989/90 Fiscal Year The hudget process in the Village of Mount Prospect includes several distinct stages during its life -cycle. The first stage is a planning phase in which needs are identified, programs evaluated, and services recommended; the second is a priority setting stage during which the Village Board reviews the proposed recommendations and seeks citizen input through public hearings; the third is the legislative stage in which the budget is formally adopted by the Village Board and becomes the authorization to expend funds; and the last stage is implementation. Prior to the implementation stage, the budget process is primarily a planning process; but when the budget is adopted, it becomes the approved fiscal plan for the coming year. During the implementation stage, the budget acts as a control device whereby receipts and expenditures are compared to the approved fiscal plan. Monthly reports are prepared which identify each financial transaction with the budget. These reports, containing varying amounts of detail, are distributed to the Village Board, the Village Manager, department heads, supervisors and other interested parties. Additionally, the Annual Financial Report records as a permanent. record the actual results for the year compared to the budgeted amounts. One additional benefit of the budget process that is realized during the implemen- tation stage is the information obtained in the current budget year that can be used in planning for the next budget cycle. After a sufficient amount of time has elapsed during the current fiscal year, trends are established and these trends can be used for projecting totals for the entire budget year. When reasonably accurate projections of total revenues and expenditures can be made, they can be used to estimate the resources (fund balances) that will be available to start the next budget year. During the past several weeks, each line item in the 1989/90 budget has been reviewed with the goal of developing projections of total revenues and expendi- tures for the budget year. Using this and other available information, estimates have been made of the expected revenues and expenditures by fund and the fund balances that should be available to start the next fiscal year. The results are reported in four attached schedules: 1) Estimated Revenues by Fund; 2) Estimated Expenditures by Fund; 3) Estimated Available Fund Balances and 4) Estimated Revenues and Expenditures of the General Fund. Schedules 1 and 2 are organized by fund and contain the actual 1988/89 fiscal year totals, 1989/90 budget amounts, 12 month estimated amounts for 1989/90, and the expected increase or decrease from the original budget. Schedule 3 contains the actual available fund balances as of April 30, 1989, the estimated revenues and expenditures for the 1989/90 fiscal year from Schedules 1 and 2 and the estimated fund balances as of April 30, 1990. Budget Projections for the 89/90 Fiscal Year Page 3 Schedule 2 Estimated Expenditures By Fund Total Village expenditures, net of interfund transfers, for the fiscal year ending April 30, 1990 are expected to be $33,349,935, some $709,855 more than had been budgeted. Following is an explanation of the more significant increases or decreases by fund: General Fund - The increase of $823,130 is primarily due to additional capital improvements and equipment, but also includes some unexpected increases in operating expenditures. Specific increases are discussed in the Explanatory Notes to Schedule 4. CDBG Fund - The reduction of $134,685 is due to a delay in the Boxwood Street Improvement Project and scaled-back expenditures in the Multi - Family Rehab Program. Water & Sewer Fund - The increase in the Water & Sewer Fund of $313,705 is due to the addition of approximately $560,000 for the SSES Sewer Rehab Projects, a decrease of $145,000 for painting the Elevated Tank and a decrease of $90,000 in payments to JAWA. Corporate Purposes 1989 Improvement Fund - The reduction of $1,060,000 in this specific fund is because a proposed 1989 bond issue was not sold. This is a bond proceeds fund that would only be used if funded by the sale of the bonds. Approximately $400,000 of the proposed expendi- tures from this fund have been shifted to the 1985 and 1987 Downtown Redevelopment Funds and $300,000 to the General Fund. Downtown Redevelopment 1987 Fund - This is a restricted fund that could only be used for a general Village purpose in the Downtown Redevelopment District. The $217,000 expended in 1989/90 was applied toward the purchase of the V & G Property which will be used for parking purposes. The purchase had not been anticipated when the 1989/90 budget was prepared. Downtown Redevelopment 1985 Fund - The increase of $176,750 in this fund is due to the purchase of the property at 17 South Wille and the balance of the amount for the V & G Property. It had been anticipated that the Wille Street Property would have been funded from the Corporate Purposes 1989 Fund. However, when the 1989 bonds were not issued the purchase was made from this fund. Budget Projections for the 1989/90 Fiscal Year Page 5 consideration in determining the appropriate fund balance. For example, the net working capital of the Water Fund includes approximately $600,000 in receivables and inventories that will not be liquidated, and is riot available for current expenditures. Also, it is our intention to increase the balance in the Risk Management Fund to meet future liability and medical claims. The balance in the Water and Sewer Fund is at a level which represents approximately six months cash requirements and this is more than adequate. When the balance reaches this level, it can be used for capital improvements and/or for rate stabilization. Specifically, up to $1,000,000 could be used for these purposes. With the increases that have been experienced in insurance, claims and the level of self-insurance the Village is assuming, I believe we should try to establish a minimum fund balance of $1,500,000 in the Risk Management Fund. This could be accomplished over the next 2 to 3 years by funding $100,000 to $150,000 more per year than is actually needed. It is imperative that this fund balance be reevaluated and our require- ments updated on an annual basis. Capital Projects Funds - The balance in the Capital Equipment, Repair, and Replacement Fund will be used to finance capital equipment and improvements in the Police, Fire and Public Works Departments along with certain general improvements. The fund balance should be maintained in a range of $500,000 to $600,000. The balance in the Downtown Redevelopment Fund represents the proceeds remaining from the initial 1985 bond issue. This amount will be used for capitalized interest on the 1985 and 1987 Redevelopment Bond Issues for 1990 and 1991. Any additional costs in Target Area A and/or costs for property acquisition in Target Area F will require a new bond issue. Debt Service Funds - The balances in the Debt Service Funds are restricted for payment of principal and interest on the various bond issues. Any excess funds will be used to abate subsequent tax levies. Schedule 4 Estimated Revenues and Expenditures - General Fund This report summarizes the revenues by categories and expenditures by function in the General Fund. Total. revenues are expected to be $17,754,000 and total expenditures $17,215,560 for an excess of revenues over expenditures of $538,440. There are a number of significant revenue and expenditure changes when estimated amounts are compared with budgeted amounts. The State Income Tax Surcharge was not expected when the budget was prepared and should total an estimated $940,000. Other revenue increases include higher receipts for Sales Tax, State Income Tax, Schedule 1 ` VILLAGE or MOUNT PROSPECT Estimated Revenues By rvng For the rioce/ Year snumn April Jo' 1990 rincoz Year oa/op ev/eo 89/90 Increase or Actual nut Estimated <Decrease> General Fund $15,279,025 $15,889,700 $17.754,000 $ 1.864,300 Special Revenue Funds: Motor Fuel rax rona $ 1'022,601 $ 990,000 $ /,|oz,000 $ /}z,noo Comm. Development emcx Grant 273.187 525.950 391,265 < 73*,6e5> IL Municipal Retirement r o un 47a 5av ___�� 556,500 __-57\6,100 19\600 Totals $ 1,774,377 $ 2,072,450 $ 2,069,3*5 ${ 3,085> Enterprise runua, *ate, + sower rung $ *,259,527 $ 6,662,400 $ 6,745.470 $ 87,070 Parking System Revenue Fund 172,805 190!,0V00 183,980 _<6,0mo! Totals $ 6,432.332 $ 6,852,400 $ 6,929,450 $ 7/.050 Internal Service Fund: niax Management Fund $ 1,450,658 $ 1,596,950 $ 1,647,330 $ 50,380 Capital pcoJecra Funds: Capital Equip., Repair, nepl, $ 783,351 $ 87*,800 $ 65*,050 $/ 222,750/ corp. Purposes 19e9 zmprv. - 1,540,000 - <1,540,000/ Downtown nourvzpt, 1987 17,523 7.500 4,2*0 / 3,260> Downtown nedev/pt. 1985 e4,734 cp'000 42,500 1/,500 P. W. Facility Construction 477,950 ' - _ ssx #a Const. George/Albert 362,405 -__ - Totals $ 1'735,963 $ 2,453,300 $ 7009790 $/1,752.5/0> Debt Service rvnoo. General Obligation nnooa $ 1,190,443 $ 1,19e.400 $ 1,179,150 $< 17,250/ Special service Area Bonds 98,899 11V0,050 11/3,600 3,5(50 Totals $ 1,289,342 $ 1,306,450 $ 1.292,750 $< /3,700/ p*"ainn r"nua: Police Pension rvnu $ 1,378,804 $ 1,525,000 $ 1.*04.500 $ 79,500 Firemen's Pension pvnu 1,50/,247 1,657,000 1,7o,,15o 48,150 Benefit Trust #z u1za5 �__ o �\m0 28r5,000� roto/n $ 2,e80'112 $ 7,182.800 $ 3,594,650 $ 412,650 rutolo - All Funds $30,84/,809 $33,353,250 $33,988,335 $ 635'085 Loxo znterruno Transfers Totals -Village Funds $3040�� 32 853 �50 �33 790 085� `— VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT --^ scheuv|r 3 ` Estimated Available rmnu Balances April 30, 1989 Actual np/no 89/e0 Estimated Balance Estimated Estimated Balances 4/30/89 Revenues Expenditures 4/30/90 General rvnu $ 2.950,757 $17,75*,000 $17,215,560 $ 3,4oe,5e7 (1) Special Revenue r""oo, Motor Fuel Tax Fund Comm. Development Block Grant $ 72e,850 $ |,,oz.00n $ | 210 400 `)v1'2�� a/a 450 ' IL Municipal Retirement Fund - /50 ----- 391.265 576,100 � ` �,000 - 2,250 Totals $ 727,000 $ 2,069,365 $ 2,175'665 $ 620,700 Enterprise Funds: Water a Sewer r"nu s'otmn Revenue Fund $ 3.461,269 x1> � $ 6,745,*70 $ �,ap"1'olr� $ 3,515,424 *z4racvinq � �� ---��380 ---241 522 Totals $ 3,*75.19/ $ 6,929,450 $ 6,847,695 $ 3,756.946 Internal Service Fund: Risk Management Fund $ 1,067,530 $ 1,647,330 $ 1,533,300 $ 1,181,560 Capitol Projects runue` Capital Equip., Repair, nanl, $ 781,026 $ *54,050 $ 718240 $ 716 Corp. Purposes 1989 [mprv. - - ^ ,836 ` Downtown neue,Irt, 1987 2/2,760 4,240 217 000 - Downtown xagovIpt. 1985 465,965 42,500313',735o r,7n 194730 P. W. Facility Construction _ _ ` sm #a Const. ueorqo/xzo~,t - - - - - Totals $ 1,459,75/ $ 700,790 $ 1'248,975 $ 911,566 Debt Service Fuoue, General Obligation Buvua $ 796,515 $ 1,//9,150 $ /,0e9.525 $ 886 140 Special service Area Bonds 1,5 o77 �� 113 aoU �� Ol 8 ��,862 �� ` �� Totals $ 911,592 $ 1.292,750 $ 1,191,340 $ 1.013,002 Pension Funds: Police Pension Fund $ - $ /.604,500 $ 1,604.500 $ - Firemen's re.umn ronu - 1,705,150 1,705,/50 - Benefit Trust o2 � 883 285,0»00� 26,000 259,8*3 Totals $ 883 $ 3,594,650 $ 3,335,60 $ 259,88; Totals - All Funds $10,792.104 $37,988,335 $33,548,185 $11,232.254 Lvao znt*crunu Transfers roto/n - Village ruoua .4104 U=3,790 85 49,935 (1) Includes $940,000 which can be designated for Capital Improvements VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT General Fund Estimated Revenues and Expenditures For the Fiscal Year Ending April 30, 1990 Explanatory Notes 1. Sales Tax revenues are expected to reach $5,760,000 compared to the budgeted amount of $5,480,000 for an increase of $280,000 over budget. Receipts for the first seven months of the 89/90 fiscal year tot'aled $3,187,358 compared to $2,967,688 for the same period last year.The increase in receipts for the first seven months of 89/90 over 88/89 is $319,670, or 11.1%. If we assume a 7% increase for the balance of the fiscal year, the increase for the year will be approximately $480t000, or 9%. The magnitude of this type of increase had not been anticipated because we had expected a leveling off after the 14% increase from 87/88 to 88/89. The continued growth in sales tax revenues is a very positive indicator of the business climate in Mount Prospect. 2. Based upon the first six months of the fiscal year, we are anticipating an increase of 10.71. in State Income Tax compared to the 51' that had been expected in the budget. State Income Tax is distributed by the State of Illinois on a per capita basis. The level of growth in State Income Tax reflects the overall healthy economy of the State. 3. The $940,000 State Income tax Surcharge is the result of legislation that became effective July 1, 1989 increasing the State Income Tax. The amount estimated is somewhat higher than had been projected by the Illinois Municipal League and is based upon only four months experience. The State Income Tax Surcharge is a temporary revenue that was enacted for the two-year period of July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1991. 4. The increase in Other Taxes of $65,250 is due primarily to estimated receipts of $200,000 in Real Estate Transfer Taxes compared to the budgeted revenues of $150,000. 5. Although the level of building activity within the Village is somewhat lower than the level in fiscal 88/89, the increase in Permit Fees still reflects strong growth. 6. Fine revenue is expected to be down $55,500 from the budgeted amount, but at almost the same level as in 88/89. It has been recently pointed out that new court fees have taken most of the fine money levied and is the reason for the decrease. There has been some indication that the courts will start assessing higher fines in coming months. If higher fines are levied, this would help to increase the Village share in the future. 3 Following is an explanation of the more significant increases listed on the previous page: When the budget is prepared, personnel costs for the Public Works Depart- ment are distributed between the Streets Division and the Water and Sewer Division on an estimated basis. However, during the year the actual costs are distributed based on the work performed and more has been charged to the General Fund than had been anticipated. Costs for heat in the new Public Works Facility are considerably higher than previously anticipated and are expected to be approximately $20,000 higher than budget. The additional $15,000 for the Tree Program will be recovered from developers. The $30,000 for the Stormwater Study represents half of the total expected cost with the balance in the Water and Sewer Fund. It had been expected that the Wolf Road Sidewalk would be included in the 90/91 budget, but the State of Illinois is requiring 901. of the total cost in the current year. Finally, the Street Improvement Projects of $283,000 include the additional cost for Prospect Avenue reconstruction and additional resurfacing costs. 14. It had been expected that the recycling bins would have been purchased in the 88/89 budget. However, the purchase was delayed to be eligible for a grant. A grant of $25,000 has been received to help offset unbudgeted costs of $85,000. 15. Under Capital Improvements, it had been planned that $500,000 would be raised by a bond issue to Finance $310,000 for fire equipment and $190,000 for building improvements. The bonds were not sold, and it is now recom- mended that these amounts be financed directly from the General Fund. By eliminating a proposed transfer of $250,000 to the Capital Improvement Fund and applying this amount to the estimated costs of the fire equipment and building improvements it leaves a balance of $162,690. 16. Total estimated expenditures of $17,215,560 are $823,1,30 higher than the $16,392,430 that. was budgeted. 17. Following is a summary of estimated General Fund results for the 89/90 fiscal year: Total Revenues $17,754,000 Total Expenditures 17,215,560 Excess of Revenues over Expenditures $ 538 440 The effect is that $538,440 will be added to the General Fund balance rather than drawing the balance down by $502,730 as had been budgeted. When these two amounts are added together it results in a net increase of $1,041,170. Village of P� c�ulnt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois A INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, Village Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director DATE: December 28, 1989 SUBJECT: 1989/90 Budget Amendment Ordinance The six-month budget report for the 1989/90 fiscal year identified a number of areas where amendments to the 89/90 budget are needed. A budget amendment is required whenever expenditures are expected to exceed the total amount appro- priated at the fund .level. Additionally, amendments are usually made when priorities change within a fund and/or new projects have been authorized. Also, because the Village has established the practice of controlling the budget at the department level rather than at the broader level of the fund, more amendments are made than are actually required. In keeping with this practice, a Budget Amendment Ordinance has been prepared to reflect the changes discussed with the six-month budget report. A summary of the changes by fund follows: The above changes will revise total budget revenues for 89/90, exclusive of interfund transfers, from $35,616,375 to $37,419,350 and total expenditures from $35,403,205 to $37,220,480. Revenues Expenditures Increase or Increase or Fund <Decrease> <Decrease> General Fund $1,801,700 $ 930,000 MFT Fund - 27,500 IMRF Fund 10,000 15,000 Benefit Trust #2 285,000 26,000 Water & Sewer Fund - 445,000 Capital Improvement Fund < 250,000> - Downtown Redevlp - 1985 - 200,000 Downtown Redevlp - 1987 - 217,000 Public Works Facility 8 & I - 500 Flood loan B & I < 43,725> < 43,725> Total Changes $1,802 $1 817,725 The above changes will revise total budget revenues for 89/90, exclusive of interfund transfers, from $35,616,375 to $37,419,350 and total expenditures from $35,403,205 to $37,220,480. 8Ro{mAwcc NO. AN omowAwoc MAKING CcnnvIm AwcwDMEwrs TO THE ANNUAL euoucr xooprsn FOR THE r,scxL YEAR COMMENCING MAY 1, 1989 TO APRIL 30, 1990 wosncAs, the President and Board or Trustees or the vuza«e of Mount Prospect have paaanu and approved Ordinance No. 2342 which o^ta the finances of the Village under the "Budget Officer System;" and w*cxsxs, pursuant to the aforesaid Ordinance and the Statutes or the State or Illinois an anvvez budget for the fiscal year commencing May l, lvav to April 30, 1990 was adopted through the passage or Ordinance No. 4044, approved by the corporate authorities of the Village or Mount Prospect on April . �o, 1989; and wxsnsos, the President and Board of Trustees of the Village or Mount Prospect have reviewed certain oudaiooa and changes to the aforesaid uuumot for fiscal 1989/90/ and WHEREAS, the pcooiuvnt and Board of Trustees or the vulog° of Mount Prospect believe the changes, as specified on the attached 19e9/90 budget amendment pun,p, to be in the best interest of the Village or Mount Prospect. NOW, rosncrons, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE PRESIDENT AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES Or THE vzuxcs OF xmumr pnospscr, no0x COUNTY, /uzwnzs' sscrzow That the riocoz year 7989/90 budget for the Village of Mount Prospect is hereby amended, as detailed on Schedule "A" attached hereto. sscTmw TWO: That this Ordinance shall he in full force and effect from and after its panaage' approval and publication in pamphlet form as provided by AYES: w*,a: ABSENT: PASSED and APPROVED this _ day of 1990 xTrssT, Carol A. Fields Village Clerk Gerald L. Farley Village President — Schedule p � VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1989/90 Bud not Amendments December n, 1989 Amended Revenues 89/90 vsa 89/90 <Decceas" Bud 35,000 200,000 ) 5alea /ax 'pe payment 150oOu 50,00" 525.000 �^ �aLes \*� - Treoarrr Tax *75"Oon 50`000 325.000 7 n�a1 ��twtn a«* Tax 2c�`OUU 1oo`oo« \,a7n,000 coe�"'8 Food and Bevn�t Frne � R0`OOU �Oo,000 940,000 ~ --~ Building *mcw^ ' ` p^O,u«" 0-4101 State l"oomm l»^ S�acqn --�6�n. o �OO� ---- 5oo, onO '00-4150 income -orc�4"8o0 9�'7Oo �4a'7Oo state30,000 ,-00-4152 Interest lnovme Road 54,6 30,000 jm oO-4�4g Rai�b^ - Centra - 300-00-1,264 *a�n�` - *�� Road 5/N --------$�'aO1`7OO $ 9,896,300 �_000-00*%67 $ n,894`�oo o General Fund cxamn°e �__ -__11 7 795,100 ~___ All Other General r"nu _____ nav�oue� �eq 700 Amended General Fund Revenues ---Illinois Municipal RetirementFund rax $ 45, Oo0 $ \o,000 $-�_s_' u_o o property nepl 511,500 x4-000-00-4164 pacsuna� o __ 411 otx°' Imer Revenues «*onuo« zmRF ne"onvne ------ G I__�---� $-—=--~n—z—,~a1 $ 30.835 ,Be fit T $ 5*.110 1682 prior [mploYee Contrib. �aa,21» 10,8 31-000-00-4241 prior Employer Contrib.10,845 �1-0Oo-OO-4%"2 prior Earnings Credit ��1 On;~OO-u2u3 nt�rnst income �� .'1 t #2 ne"on"°e xmon«=u Benefit Trus $ 250,000 $< 250.000> $ - Capital improvement Repair & Re Ic Fund 626 oo-4�c� Transfer - General s1uoo - - runu Revenues ---�=�—� $ b%1 All Other Capital IwPr* Amended Capital zmpry Fund Revenues nd & interest Fund / uonocml rvnu �~�~�~__ -- 422/ Transfer - p�-000-on- VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1989/90 Budget Amendments December 31, 1989 Summery of Revenue Changes ust �i2 air & Replc. Fund mprovement, Rep Fund aan Bond & Interest Total Changes All Other Funds Amended Budget Totals Amended Budget Totals Less: Interfund Transfers Amended Totals - All Funds $11802,9$37,419,35( $37,419,35( Amended <--543'-,72> 2 0 iapi 89/90 89/90 Increase <DecreasO Budc�elt Bud�.et 91,400 $17'6911400 $15,889,700 $1,B01,70u 10,000 566,500 285,000 556,500 285,000 626,BOO 876,800 43,725 < 250,0007 43,725 . -- �- -- --- $1,802,975 $19,169,700 $17,366,725 18249,650 18,249,650 35 616 375 $1 802,�9�,� $11802,9$37,419,35( $37,419,35( $35,616,375 293,725 <--543'-,72> 2 0 iapi 35 072 650 -2- _ VILLAGE OF MUuwr PROSPECT 1989/90 nvugct Amendments December n, 1989 Expenditures Amended ov/vo Increase op/vo General FundBudget Village Manager's orrice 1-021-01-5850 Salary Adjustments $ 1-021-08-5921 Village Manager's Office 1-021-08-5922 Cable m Operations 1-021-08-5931 Finance Department 1-021-08-5932 Village Clerk's nrricn /-021-08-5937 Inspection Services 1-021-08-5e41 police Department 1-021-08-5942 r/ce Department /-021-08-5952 Human sec"/cea 1-021-08-5852 Planning a Zoning 1-027-08-5971 Streets Division Cable ry operation, 1-022-01-5e45 Salary Adjustments $ rmw^ce Department 1-031-0/-5845 Salary Adjustments $ 1-031-13-9814 rca^arec - Flood Loan a a z Village Clerk's orrice ' 1-032-01-5845 Salary Adjustments $ Inspection socvineo /-037-02-5845 Salary Adjustments $ 1-037-06-045 Salary Adjustments 1-037-06-6617 Forest x.onuo Engineering 1-027-06-6618 Central Road Engineering - $ 9,000 $ 9,000 - < v,oOO> < p,OOO> - < 3,*00> { a'noo/ - < 22,000> < 22,000} - / 3,000> \ J,000> - < 40,000> { 40,000/ - < 100,000> < 100,000> - < 15,000> < 15.000> - < 13,000> < 13,000> - < s,Ooo> { 5,000> - < 39,500> < 39.500/ - $ /,roO $ 3,500 - $ 22,000 $ 22~000 43,725 x 43,725/ - - $ 3,000 $ 3,000 - $ 20,000 $ 20,000 - 20,000 20,000 - 15,000 15,000 - 110,000 110,000 VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1989/90 Budget Amendments December 31, 1989 Expenditures 1-071-08-5845 Salary Adjustments 1-071-08-6242 Tree Program - Cost Recov. 1-071-12-5845 Salary Adjustments 1-075-02-7032 Recyclinq Supplies 1-077-B1-8003 Melas Park Develop. 1-077-81-9818 Transfer - Capital Imprv. 1-077-91-8001 Fire Pumper Replcmnt 1-077-91-8002 Fire Squad Replcmnt 1-077-91-8011 Public Safety Bldg 1-077-91-8012 Other Public Bldgs 1-091-02-9559 Flood Loan Principal 1-091-02-9560 Flood Loan Interest Total General Fund Changes All Other General Fund Amended General Fund Motor Fuel Tax Fund 22-071-04-8540 Central Road Imprv. 22-071-14-8103 Opticon Signalization Total MFT Fund Changes All Other MFT Fund Amended MFT Fund -3- $ 140,000 $ 15,000 $ 155,000 7,500 12,500 20,000 $ 147,500 $ 27,500 $ 175,000 1,043,000 - 1,043,000 11,190,500 27 500 $ 1 » 218 , 0 0 Amended 89/90 Increase 89/90 Budget <Decrease> Budget $ - $ 12,500 $ 12,500 49,200 15,000 64,200 - 5,000 5,000 2,000 80,000 82,000 50,000 65,000 115,000 250,000 < 250,000> - - 200,000 200,000 - 105,000 105,000 - 25,000 25,000 - 20,000 20,000 - 33,172 33,172 10,553 10,553 $ 919,435 $ 930,000 $ 1,849,435 15,472,995 15,472,995 $16,,.392.430 $ 930000 $17.322,430 $ 140,000 $ 15,000 $ 155,000 7,500 12,500 20,000 $ 147,500 $ 27,500 $ 175,000 1,043,000 - 1,043,000 11,190,500 27 500 $ 1 » 218 , 0 0 VILLAGE OF mUUwr PROSPECT 1989/90 nvnuet Amendments December n, 1989 Expenditures Amended 89/90 Increase 89/90 Budget <Decrease> -Budget Downtown Redevelopment 55-072-1/-8045 Capital Expenditures - s $ - 55-072-11-8046 Capital Expenditures - r - Total -0/T ncuvlp. - 1985 $ - All Other n/T ^ - ned�p �pV� | « |36,985 Amended n/T eeov1p. - 1985 $ 90,000 $ vO,080 1.10,000 n!,nou 200,000 $ 200,080 - 36,985 ----- —_��$ 336 985 Downtown 54-077-62-80*5 Capital Expenditures - c - $ 217 000 �_2 17,60 -20 - Public 69-091-02-*5*1 p w Facility Bank cxge' $ unn $ 500 $ 1,100 All nmor p w ruci/ur e a z7o7 o r�6 1 ----�-- ---387,065 Amended p w Facility n a ° 88.,165 Flood 95-091-02-e559 Flood Loan Principal $ 33,172 $( �J 172> $ 95-091-02-9560 Flood Loa" Interest , ^ - ��553_<_l0,5a3' Amended Flood Loan a ^ 1 - -5- VILLAGE OF MOUNT PROSPECT 1989/90 Budget Amendments December 31, 1989 Summary of Expenditure Changes 89/90 Increase Amended 89/90 Budqet <Decrease> 8uadret, General Fund Motor Fuel Tax Fund $16,392,430 $ 930,000 $17,322,430 IMRF Fund 1,190,500 27,500 1,218,000 Benefit Trust #2 560,000 15,000 575 000 Water and Sewer Fund Downtown Redevelopment Const. - 1985 - 6,377,610 26,000 ' 445,000 26+000 6,822,610 Downtown Redevelopment Const. - 1987 136,985 200,000 .336,985 Public Works Facility 8 & I Fund 3$7,665 217,000 500 217,000 Flood Loan B & I Fund 43,725 < 43,725> 388,165 Total Changes $25,088,915 $1,817,275 ---�--.-...� $26,906,190 All Other Funds 10,314,290 - 10,314,290 Amended Budget Totals 35 403205 $1,$17,275 $37,2280 Amended Budget Totals $35,403,205 $1,817,275 $37,220,480 Less: Interfund Transfers < 543,725> 293,725 < 250,000> Amended Totals $34&85.9j480 $2 111 000 $36,970,48@ -6- Village Of ,_,'cunt Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: John Fulton Dixon, vulooe Manager FROM: David C. Jepson, Finance Director �6�^ omc: December rv, 1*89 SUBJECT: 1990 Insurance Proposals One of the basic principles of insurance is that e group of people can *»auru a catastrophic loss better than any individual m=munr- Insurance premiums aro then eatauuoxeu wxvcouy the rink is spread to all members or the group but each member is pay/ng for the level or protection they choose. The higher the level or ,iou assumed by a particular member, the lnoa the potential cost but the greater the potential risk. Whenever we consider purchasing insurance, one of the most difficult questions on individual or an organization is rocuu with is: "How much insurance is enough?" If we could be assured that claims would be low, very little insurance would be requirou- xo°+,or, if meco an: numerous claims or if there is even one serious claim, all the insurance that is available may not be enough. It is clear that the a^ewoc to this question in not a simple right or wrong decision, out a decision that must tex* into consideration the risks involved and the ultimate cost to the Village. The Village established e partial self-insurance program in 1984 wxornur it assumed e much greater level or ciax than it had previously, but it also has experienced greatly reduced costs for ina"omco. The original program provided good protection at u reasonable cont' but the insurance markets went mrvvgo momentous cxemnoa from 19e5 - 1988 and our program has also changed. The initial ap\r-mnvrmnce program included insurance coverage with deductibles or m50,008 for property and bau/utr and $100,000 for workers' compensation claim*. The insurance coverage included several "layers" or protection with total liability coverage or $10,000,000. The picture changed in 1985 when excess liability was reduced to $2 mi/lion and then in 1986 the cvvocavo dropped to $508,000, For 1987 no liability coverage was available and for /poo and 1989 the premiums ,or liability coverage were extremely oigh, To provide some liability protection, the Village joined the HELP pool in 1988 which provides $5,000.000 coverage in excess or a $/,000,non deductible. During this time workers' compen- sation insurance has been available, but the u°^vrtiulo has increased to $250,000 and the cost or excess coverage has increased dramoticxlly, Property insurance has also been available all during the insurance crisis, but again premiums have increased significantly. In npun or the changes that have taken place and the increased costs of the insurance coverage that has been available, the program has been avccaoorvl and u,cmg 1989, the vu/ago has experienced the lowest claims that it has had amc° the ae/r-moucoo program was initiated. ruuuvion is a summary of claims for the period or /984 - 1989' 1990 Insurance Proposals Page a Workers' Liability Property Total Year Comp Claims Claims Claims Claims 1984 $166,799 $ 79,6e4 $935 $207,418 19a5 *4,760 115,162 325 160,247 1986 61,450 79,758 - 141,208 1987 77.351 149,735 174 227,260 mnn 77,351 54,816 - 132,167 1989 (cat) 61,486 m,»ln - 71,996 Average $ 81,534 $ 74,94* $zxn $156.717 (cl*mm for 1989 are uaaau upon eleven months actual experience and pro -rated for twelve months.) From the above information it can be eron that claims experience for l*op is less than half the average for the six-year period and even the worst years are still relatively low. Whenthe initial self-insurance vruncum was ioitiated, the village used Arthur J. Gallagher for brokerage services and Gallagher Bassett Insurance sec,icoa for claims a«mmiotrauo", Each year since 1986, the Village has solicited proposals from vmor insurance brokers. For 1986. no other proposals were received; for 1987. one other proposal was received but the cost was approximately aU% my»ec than the Gallagher proposal; and for 198a, the only proposal received was from Gallagher. For 1989, the Village received pcupoau/e from Gallagher and from Public Entities National Insurance Company (pEmcn) and based upon txnao proposals, property insurance was moved to pswcn. For 1990' the village received proposals from Gallagher and penco as well as from the xuuba ocovn out or Schaumburg. The vcnvoaulu are not for identical coverages but if the proposals are separated into the categories or property coverage, workers' compensation, and liability coverage, t^ama groups can be compared. Following is my evaluation of the various sections of these proposals: Property Coveraqe Each or the proposals covered an m°nocez list or buildings and contents, sop equipment, contractors' equipment, boilers and machinery and other equipment, with an overall total value of $22,000,000. The premium and deductibles are listed below: Gallagher�_pe!coHobbs Group Premium $21,172 $29,/89 $20,500 Deductible $10,000 $10,000 $ 5,000 1990 Insurance prnr"oalo Page 3 The major difference between the pcvpoauza is the deu"otmlo, The Hobbs deducti- ble is at $5,000 whore the other two are at $70,000. The insurance carrier for Gallagher is rated x- and the carriers for Penxn and ovu»a are A+. zhrlieve the property coverage proposal from the ynbue Croup in the best proposal and it is my recommendation that we accept their proposal at $20,500. Workers' Compensation prop"aaze were received from Gallagher and from *oxuo although they were somewhat uirrerent- The Gallagher proposal includes coverage for each claim over $250,000 up to the statutory limit and aggregate cuveceqm or $1,000,000 over $500,000. The xuuum proposal includes the same onvoran* for each claim out uo*o not include the eoqrenazo coverage. rvlz^°inn are the premium amounts: Gallagher ooxua �� Hobbs Group Premium $51,000 $39,*69 The Gallagher proposal in based upon 9% of a conventional premium of $07,000 and the *oxuo proposal is ueaod upon 71. of the conventional premium. naomn upon our experience, z think it is unlikely mut we would exceed the aggregate limit unless one or more individual claims exceeded the $250,000 stop -loss limit. unuoc these circumstances z believe the ovuux proposal is the xaac vcopoaez, Liability Coverage unmui+' coverage includes general and auto liability (bodily injury and property damage but. not physical damage), police I^auizity, public officials errors and omissions (s * n), and paramedic s a Q. Currently, the Village only has publicorriciuza s & n and paramedic s a o and coverage in the *sLp pool for claims in excess or $l million. Over the last six years (19e4-1989), liability claims have totaled $449,665 for an average or $74,944 per year. The highest amount of claims for any one year was $149,735 in 1987. Liability claims are the most difficult to predict and as a result the potential risks and costs are greater. Accordingly, the appropriate amount of coverage and the proposals themselves are difficult to evaluate. This year we received proposals for public officials c a o and paramedic E a n from both Gallagher and Hobbs, and in addition-, we received a proposal for police, evtn, and general liability coverage from oo»oo. We actually reoomvo two public officials c a n quotes from xouuo with one or the quotes conditioned upon purchasing the police ziauility- Following is a summary or the proposals including the alternate from *vuua: 1990 Insurance Proposals Page 4 Each of the above coverages can be purchased separately with the exception of the *nbma Alternate, whereby the p"uuc orrioiezo' s a o is only available for $17,926 if the Police Liability is pvcchoaou along with it, The � t � police e gan�ra , auto, an ro ce cnverage is for $1,000,000 in excess of a $100,000 ue^vctible, The oarewomc errors and omissions (s a o) is for $500,000 with a deductible or $250, and the public orrioiezo' s a o coverage in $1,000,000 in excess or $50,000 for Gallagher and the first *uuue pcnpovol- The alternate Hobbs proposal for public officials coverage is also for $1'000,000 but the deductible is $25.000. I believe the alternate *vxue proposal for Public Officials' c a o and Police Liability is the u°ot proposal for m°oe two iteme, ma total cQot is $52,302 with a $25,000 deductible. If Public Officials' c a o would be purchased sepa- rately, the lowest proposal is $31.240 with a $50,000 deductible. For an additional $21,062 we would be receiving Police liability coverage and reducing the deductible to $25,000. This is the first time since 1986 that we have received cnemunebln proposals for liability insurance. The general liability is still somewhat high but the auto and police appear to mo to be good buys. As z mentioned earlier, the most difficult olmuno to predict are liability. The village has potential exposure from many areas, but the potential claims from police activity and from vehicles is very high. p"ziro are in a very visible area and many times involved in activities which could be perceived as the basis for uuoouun' And the vulano has approximately 200 vehicles which are being operated under the worst possible conoitinno, z minx we are all aware of the potential exposure because of emergency responses of uvm police and fire and or public works vehicles. Hobbs Gallagher Hobbs Alternate General Liability $ - $67,500 $ - xvm Liability - 30,000 - Police Liability - 34,376 3*,376 Public orr/cioze' c a o 46,000 31,240 17,*2* Paramedic c & o 5'400 5,400 - Each of the above coverages can be purchased separately with the exception of the *nbma Alternate, whereby the p"uuc orrioiezo' s a o is only available for $17,926 if the Police Liability is pvcchoaou along with it, The � t � police e gan�ra , auto, an ro ce cnverage is for $1,000,000 in excess of a $100,000 ue^vctible, The oarewomc errors and omissions (s a o) is for $500,000 with a deductible or $250, and the public orrioiezo' s a o coverage in $1,000,000 in excess or $50,000 for Gallagher and the first *uuue pcnpovol- The alternate Hobbs proposal for public officials coverage is also for $1'000,000 but the deductible is $25.000. I believe the alternate *vxue proposal for Public Officials' c a o and Police Liability is the u°ot proposal for m°oe two iteme, ma total cQot is $52,302 with a $25,000 deductible. If Public Officials' c a o would be purchased sepa- rately, the lowest proposal is $31.240 with a $50,000 deductible. For an additional $21,062 we would be receiving Police liability coverage and reducing the deductible to $25,000. This is the first time since 1986 that we have received cnemunebln proposals for liability insurance. The general liability is still somewhat high but the auto and police appear to mo to be good buys. As z mentioned earlier, the most difficult olmuno to predict are liability. The village has potential exposure from many areas, but the potential claims from police activity and from vehicles is very high. p"ziro are in a very visible area and many times involved in activities which could be perceived as the basis for uuoouun' And the vulano has approximately 200 vehicles which are being operated under the worst possible conoitinno, z minx we are all aware of the potential exposure because of emergency responses of uvm police and fire and or public works vehicles. 1990 Insurance Proposals Page 5 As z mentioned earlier, these are not simple decisions. Perhaps it would be helpful to compare the lowest quotes this year with actual costs for 1989: In my opinion, the least insurance that we oxvvlu purchase is the Property, Workers' comp and the Paramedic, Public Officials, police, and Auto Liability coverage. The General Liability in an option that { think is desirable but it is not as essential as the other coverages. If we accepted all or the coverage except the General uabu/ty, the total onot for 1990 will be $153,164 compared to $110,280 For 1989. Because our present coverage lapses on January 1, 1990, z tentatively committed coverage for the Village for all or the pc"voneu amounts except auto and general liability. The commitment is subject to Village avacu approval on January 2, 1ppQ, 1 asked for an extension of the proposals for auto and general liability until January 3, 1990 an we do not have this typo or coverage at the present time. Finally, Gallagher Bassett Insurance Services proposed a fee of $22,63e for 19e0 compared to u fee of $22,4/6 for 1pup^ It is my recommendation that we continue with Gallagher Bassett. Low Proposal 19B9 For 1�p9 v0_ Costs Property $ 20,00 $ 27,380 Workers' comp 39,669 49,500 Liability Paramedic E a o 5,400 5,400 pvuuc Officials s & o 17,926 28,000 Police Liability 39.669 - Auto Liability 30,000 - General Liability 67,500 Totals $220j6�4� In my opinion, the least insurance that we oxvvlu purchase is the Property, Workers' comp and the Paramedic, Public Officials, police, and Auto Liability coverage. The General Liability in an option that { think is desirable but it is not as essential as the other coverages. If we accepted all or the coverage except the General uabu/ty, the total onot for 1990 will be $153,164 compared to $110,280 For 1989. Because our present coverage lapses on January 1, 1990, z tentatively committed coverage for the Village for all or the pc"voneu amounts except auto and general liability. The commitment is subject to Village avacu approval on January 2, 1ppQ, 1 asked for an extension of the proposals for auto and general liability until January 3, 1990 an we do not have this typo or coverage at the present time. Finally, Gallagher Bassett Insurance Services proposed a fee of $22,63e for 19e0 compared to u fee of $22,4/6 for 1pup^ It is my recommendation that we continue with Gallagher Bassett. MINUTES VILLAGE BOARD BUSSE SCHOOL PARKING MARCH 10, 1990 The meeting was called to order at 11:10 a.m., at the Senior Center, 50 South Emerson, by Mayor Gerald Farley. Also present at the meeting were: Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran, Leo Floros, George Van Geem, Theodore Wattenberg; Village Manager John Dixon and Safety Commission member Drew Johanson. No members of the Mount Prospect Park District presented themselves. Mayor Farley indicated that this was to be a joint meeting between the Village Board and the Park Board but the Park Board had sent a letter indicating they would not be present for a number of reasons. The reason for this meeting was to resolve the parking issue at Busse School. We were to center our discussion along concerns of safety around Busse School, discuss the options presented in the past as well as the policy changes that were made by parents and staff of both Suzuki School and the Creative Children's Academy. There also should be an awareness of the concern for parking in the neighborhood. Mr. Johanson of the Safety Commission was asked to give their recommendations. He indicated that thr, first recommendation would be an off-street parking lot and if that were not accepted, then angle parking with no parking in the first 30 feet of the Stop sign. This would cause the loss of approximately seven spaces. Also, that the bicycle parking area could be used for people who are parked there for a long period of time. A question was raised by Trustee Floros as to why seven spaces were lost. The answer was that the width of the parking spaces widens by over a foot from perpendicular to angular parking. Trustee Arthur question the need for 30 feet of open space in front of the Stop sign. The answer was for sight obstruction. Trustee Corcoran questioned the street parking with children going in and out and the safety of the children. Off strep parking was the best response to the safety question. Trustee Arthur indicated that he wished to leave parking as it is and not to put in a parking lot. Trustee Wattenberg endorsed Trustee Arthur's recommendation. Mayor Farley indicated that the users of the parcel were vital to the community and the use of the property is different and that the needs of the users of the building and the neighborhood need to be reviewed. A resident indicated that he had a video tape of parking at Busse School and would make it available to anyone wishing to see it. He also indicated it definitely showed a safety problem and reiterated that there has been a business within the last three years right across the street from his property that did not exist prior to that. Trustee Floros asked questions about the parking lot and then asked for a show of hands if the parents would utilize the parking lot and would it be an acceptable solution. A number of hands were raised in the audience where upon Trustee Floros moved that the Village build a parking lot and expand the existing bicycle parking area to the east. It was seconded by Trustee Corcoran. Trustee Arthur then indicated that there was a need for the Park District's permission in order to allow construction on their property. The motion was modified to include contingent on approval of the Park Board. There then was discussion by the audience indicating that they would rather stay with what is known and not put another variable in to create possibly new problems. Residents that lived near the proposed parking area raised other issues. It was also shown that there are only 50 Saturdays over the next 40 months that would be utilized by Suzuki for their concert activities. Trustee Corcoran asked whether or not the Children's Academy and Suzuki Academy would stay in the area if the lease were extended. Both responded they are charged a reasonable price presently and that they wished to stay there as long as possible. Chuck Miller identified himself as a Park Board member, however, he indicated he was only a visitor and did not speak for the Board. He indicated that if consultation with the Park Board first, it would have been a better way of approaching this problem. He added that the Park Board considered the cost of a parking lot and voted against this action. He also indicated that no matter what is done, someone will be distressed. The problem was increased when the adult care facility move out and Suzuki moved in. The Park District has financial concerns. They do not anticipate extending the lease past the June, 1993 date. He also indicated that the Park Board of Mount Prospect did not want him to officially represent the Board in the discussions today. Another parent indicated that the Village Board was being responsible but indicated that the Village should not pay for a temporary lot and that diagonal parking should be used. Mayor Farley then indicated that the Board has reviewed the options to determine what might best work out and that a 50 -car parking space on the east end of the property with the Park District Commission was a motion before them. Trustee Floros asked the Mayor to indicate what his feelings would be. Mayor Farley responded that angled parking with the utilization of the bicycle path was his preference. -3- MINUTES VILLAGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES WORKING SESSION JANUARY 6, 1990 I. The meeting was called to order to 9:00 a.m., in the Trustees' Room, Village Hall, 100 South Emerson Street, Mount Prospect, Illinois. Board members present were: Mayor Gerald L. Farley; Trustees Ralph Arthur, Mark Busse, Timothy Corcoran., Leo Floros and George Van Geern. Absent from the meeting was Trustee Theodore Wattenberg. Staff members present included: Village Manager John Dixon, Assistant Village Manager Mike Janonis, Police Chief Ron Pavlock, Fire Chief Ed Cavello, Planning and Zoning Director David Clements, Economic Development Director Ken Fritz and Finance Director David Jepson. Also present were: Fred Borich and Naras Statkus of Donohue and Associates; Janet Hansen; Hal Predovich; John Eilering; Earl Johnson; Paul Hoefert and three members of the news media. Mayor Farley stated that the first item for discussion was the determination of a need for a new Public Safety Building to house Police and Fire operations. Mayor Farley then asked the Board members for their initial comments: Leo Floros - I agree there is a need for additional facilities, but I do not think it should be a foregone conclusion that we need a new facility. Tim Corcoran - I agree with Trustee Floros. Ralph Arthur - I am thoroughly convinced we need a new facility. Mark Busse - I believe we need to do something, and we should look at the cost versus the benefits of a new facility compared to remodeling the present facility. George Van Geem - I do not believe it makes any sense to renovate the existing building based upon the figures presented in the Donohue Report. I believe we have a window of opportunity to come up with a long-term solution to an ongoing problem and we should build a new facility. Mayor Farley then called on Fred Borich, of Donohue and Associates, to summarize their findings. Mr. Borich stated that they had spent 10-12 weeks reviewing the existing operations and facilities of the Police and Fire Departments and in their opinion, there was a 38% shortfall in the space needs of the two Departments. Additionally, they confirmed there were numerous Building Code violations in the existing facility that should be corrected. After their research, Donohue came up with eight possible alternatives including "gutting" the present facility and rebuilding it with a two-story addition, demolishing the present building and constructing a new building at the present location, and building an entirely new structure on Pine Street. Mr. Borich stated their charge was to come up with a long-term solution to the space needs of the two Departments and to provide preliminary cost estimates of the various alternatives. It was pointed out that this stage of the process only addressed space needs and estimated costs and that detailed financial analysis would be more appropriate after a specific plan and location were determined. Trustee Floros asked Mr. Borich if a possible solution would be to demolish the Annex, build a huge addition and simply renovate the existing building. Mr. Borich stated that this was basically Option D, but it was the most expensive and least cost-efficient solution. He explained that because of the variety of Building Code items that need to be addressed, it would be more efficient to relocate existing operations, "gut" the building and do all the remodeling work at one time. During the discussion that followed, it was determined that it would be helpful if Donohue would submit an addendum to their Report which would include an option for a minimum remodeling project. The new option would address all Priority One deficiencies and as many Priority Two deficiencies as possible and include an itemization of the various cost components such as remodeling costs, building addition costs and parking costs. Mr. Borich stated that the additional work would take them approximately six weeks to complete and that it would be necessary to include a contingency factor of 15-20% in their estimate. Mayor Farley called on other members of the audience to express their views regarding the need for a new or a remodeled Public Safety Facility: Hal Predovich - A previous study indicated that an additional 20,000 square feet of space was needed and things have not changed since then. The larger issue is the location. The need has been expressed, let's take advantage of the window of opportunity that exists. John Eilering - Citizens are very sensitive to increasing costs of government, but I believe the estimated cost is acceptable. It is important to me to have good Police and Fire services and I think we should move forward. Earl Johnson - I support staying at the present location, but I'm not sure what should be done. We should not get entangled in minor details. -2- Paul Hoefert - I believe we can use the present building with some remodeling. Janet Hansen - We need to get all the information we can, but I don't believe we should take a piecemeal approach. There was a consensus of the Board members that it would be worthwhile for Donohue and Associates to proceed with an Addendum to their Report of November 30, 1989. It is expected the additional Report will be completed by February 16, 1990. III. The second item on the Agenda was a consideration of the size and estimated cost of a new and/or remodeled Public Safety Facility. Mayor Farley asked Fred Borich if it would be possible to realize any reductions in the estimates that had been proposed. Specifically, the Mayor asked Mr. Borich if there could be an overall 10% reduction. Mr. Borich stated that reductions could be realized if either the scope or the quality of the project were reduced. He said it was the Engineers' responsibility to make recommendations regarding the various construction options and through discussions with the Village, he thought there could be some economies. He also stated that if the size of the building was reduced, there could be savings. During the discussion that followed, it was pointed out that the proposed options were designed as long-range solutions and included a growth factor of approximately 20% in Police operations but minimal growth for Fire operations. It was explained that increases could be expected in Fire operations but it would be incorporated into satellite facilities. The consensus of the Board was that any specific action regarding the size or cost of a new facility should be deferred until a specific plan and a specific location had been selected. IV. The next item on the Agenda was a review of the possible locations for a new Public Safety Facility. Village Manager John Dixon stated there were two sites which met all the criteria that had been established: The present location on Northwest Highway and the site of the old Public Works Building on Pine Street. Mr. Dixon pointed out that there were advantages and disadvantages for each location, but that it was important to determine a site so that potential developers would know what area would be available. Mr. Dixon then indicated that the Planning and Zoning Department had recommended a strategic planning session where the issues would be put on the table, decisions made and some firm direction established. -3- Ken Fritz then distributed a memo summarizing how the process had been utilized in Pontiac, Michigan. He explained briefly that representatives of the Village Board, staff and the community would meet with a Facilitator to discuss the specific issues and make specific recommendations to the Village Board. It is expected that these recommendations would take the form of a Position Paper which would then be formally adopted by the Village Board. The recommended participants in this work session would be the following: 1. Planning Consultant/Facilitator. 2. Financial Consultant, skilled in investment and packaging of public/commercial/multiple-family development. 3. Developers who may be potentially interested in downtown development and who have a track record in downtown development achievements. 4. Village elected officials. 5. Local bankers and lenders. 6. Business leader or Chamber representative. 7. Business District Development and Redevelopment Commission representative (BDDRC). Mr. Fritz stated that there is every expectation that a work session with the representatives mentioned above, together with a strong Facilitator, would be able to achieve a working paper providing direction for downtown development within a 30 to 45 day period. David Clements added that this is a fast-track process to resolve issues and that a strong Facilitator can bring things to a head. During the discussion that follows, there was a consensus that the Village should proceed with the strategic planning session. Village Manager Dixon suggested that it would be appropriate to have an indication of the Board members regarding the costs associated with a strategic planning session and the additional costs to be incurred by Donohue and Associates. The following actions were taken subject to ratification at a regular Village Board meeting: 1. AUTHORIZATION TO INCUR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION: YES: Trustees Busse, Corcoran, Floros and Van Geem. Mayor Farley. NO: None. -4- 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR DONOHUE AND ASSOCIATES TO PROCEED WITH AN ADDENDUM TO THEIR PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY SPACE UTILIZATION STUDY OF NOVEMBER 30, 1989, ADDING AN OPTION FOR A MINIMAL REMODELING PROJECT AND INCLUDING AN ITEMIZATION OF THE VARIOUS COST COMPONENTS. YES: Trustees Busse, Corcoran, Floras and Van Geem. Mayor Farley. NO: None. V. There being no further business to come before the Mayor and Trustees, the meeting was adjourned at 11:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, )�'rr DAVID C. JEPSON Finance Director DCJ/rcw -5-